Science Is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial

Re:Science Is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomize... by oxfordmale on Monday June 07, 2021 @03:34AM (#27420019)

Apparently editors identifying as a woman get rolled back far more often then men. This issue also effects some pages more than others. Corporate pages are often maintained by marketing companies that will monitor for changes that they perceive to be negative for their client. On the other hand changes to more technical topic tend to go unchallenged.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Science Is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomize... by dataviz1000 on Monday June 07, 2021 @03:47AM (#27420105)

> Apparently editors identifying as a woman get rolled back far more often then men.

I'm not a scientist, however, this sounds like it could be a legitimate study. If it is, what is the control group? 50 men doing the same?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Science Is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomize... by oxfordmale on Monday June 07, 2021 @03:54AM (#27420134)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Science Is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomize... by belorn on Monday June 07, 2021 @04:38AM (#27420359)

Don't be lazy.

The actually data, as given in the study, is that the first 1 edit has a 2% higher rate of reverting than males, with each further edit a decreased revert rate to the point where female users are less likely to be reverted than male users once they hit their 16th edit.

The statement that "Apparently editors identifying as a woman get rolled back far more often then men" and the actually research result is quite far from each other.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Science Is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomize... by stickyricky on Monday June 07, 2021 @11:32AM (#27423753)

I don't trust this source. The article is on a website with a well-known gender bias[1].

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia

[ Parent | on HN ]