If men really could "erase women's voices" marriage would be much easier.

Joking.

I bet these women would appreciate being given the opportunity (the car will be here at 11 and you will go to this location) and the 'helpful' wording tips (this is your script and you will read it) that they obviously need before 'volunteering' to do what they should be doing.

After all, it takes a village and their 'elders' to help you.

Once again, we have part of the Left, feminists in this case, feeling the desire to exercise power over an entirely voluntary activity. First of all, how do they determine whether "LSmith4716@yahoo.com" is male or female? Second, there's always the old quip that is often attributed to Darryl Zanuck: "If people don't want to go to the show, you can't stop them!" What are they going to do, enforce quotas over Wikipedia content? I suspect the vast majority of non-trivial Wikipedia articles concern subjects that are not people. Are they going to assign genders to those too, the way that the Romance languages arbitrarily assign genders to nouns? And if it doesn't come out even, how do you decide which articles get deleted to meet the quota?

And actually, considering Wikipedia's arbitrary and capricious editorial standards, if women don't want to participate, I don't blame them. For the most part, it's a waste of time.

Note that women are also missing from oil rigs and sanitation work. Where's the plaintive cry to have women in those arenas?

Silly Amy: All animals are equal. Some are more equal than others.

Much of Wikipedia is historical facts. If women were not rulers of countries in 1500 you may lament this fact but in any history of that period you can not list women as the Queen unless you are going to write fantasy.
Other big swaths of Wikipedia are about things and facts: math, technology, science. People are rarely even mentioned in these articles.

Oi, serious?

Does anyone stop you from writing a wiki?
If the [written] voices aren't there, it's cuz they ain't talkin.

If you want more stuff written about a historical figure that you think should be included in wiki?
Then WRITE THE FRELLING ARTICLE!.

Sheez. What I'm seeing is pure laziness. "Somebody NEEDS to FIX this!!!!111!!1"
'Yeah, and what are you, chopped liver? So go fix it.'

Wiki is mostly written by people with a particular passion for a subject. Often a subject that they either have a lot of knowledge about or are experts in... they wish to share that. Then there are other whole areas of politics and contentious stuff where it can be whack a mole with people telling you your subject or content is B.S. and so they changed or deleted it, and so forth, and that's a struggle if you don't share the same politics as the editors, and power users, but that's still a choice.

I think the people in the article are grousing because the whole thing is too free, and they want more rules...
But I'd wager that women still won't contribute at anywhere near the same volume.

The answer to that will be to allow men to only contribute so much, and then cut them off, until it balances out... thus impoverishing the whole.

Because even in this sort of volunteer arena - equality of outcome is what's important, not equality of opportunity.
Just more asking for an unreasonable thing in a reasonable way.

"Both men and women need to agree that there actually is a problem,"

Um, no we do not. The only "PROBLEM" here lies with the author and men have nothing to do with it.

If you complain that someone offers more of their free time to volunteer for some task than you do the solution is not to whine about it being unfair, but to get off your ass and contribute your free time to volunteer for said task. This "woman" is a child.

I think the people in the article are grousing because the whole thing is too free, and they want more rules... ~ Posted by: SwissArmyD at March 7, 2016 7:53 AM

Welcome to Socialism 101. If the outcome of an entirely voluntary process is not the one desired, regulate the process until the outcome is the one desired.

Socialism 102: have the state hire women authors to write Wikipedia articles, and pay them well.

I suspect there is also a cultural reason. As far as I can tell, only about 1/3d of the world shares Western Values, including the idea that women are entitled to equal legal rights. Half of that is about 16%. So, if you live where women must be covered from head to toe, or risk having acid thrown in her face, or be gang raped or murdered, the opportunities for significant public achievement are limited.

Ms. Hartnell appears to be one of those who believe that what they write from behind a computer screen, while protected by people who Orwell called "Rough Men", is important. Til she actually gets in the fight that's occurring in the unsafe spaces of the real world, it's not.

Note that women are also missing from oil rigs and sanitation work. Where's the plaintive cry to have women in those arenas? ~ Amy Alkon

Those aren't "cool" jobs or culturally-influential jobs. No one that any of the feminists know even want those jobs. People only take those jobs if they can't be screenwriters.

There was a guy on here a while back, a screenwriter, who insisted that no one actually wanted to work for Walmart in any capacity, and the that the only people who worked for Walmart (even the higher-level executives) only did so because they were unqualified to work anywhere else. That the only jobs Walmart, Inc. has are dead-end jobs. He insisted that everyone really wanted to work in the movie industry - an opinion he formed based solely on the people he'd met in his working life, all of whom are in the movie industry.

When told that Walmart (and Walmart.com) is one of the top logistics and supply chain companies in the world and was an employer-of-choice for computer talent to design and maintain its back-office operations, he doubled down on his insistence that everyone at Walmart had a job that was equivalent to stocking shelves and no one worked there by choice. The "cool" kids all got jobs in the movie industry.

'cause the only Walmart employees he'd ever met stocked shelves, so no one employed by Walmart, Inc. does anything else. No marketing, no accounting, no finance, no advertising, no product design, no logistics, no legal, just shelf stocking. Right?

That kind of willful blindness about the world outside one's own interests is what's going on when feminists don't complain that there aren't enough women working for oil rigs and garbage companies. They don't know anyone in fields like that and have never worked in fields like that themselves. They assume no one wants to work in those fields and only work in them if they have have no choice.

"Having men produce the lion's share of content ... perpetuates men's voices dominating the public space and ... continuing to be the authority on issues,

Is she aware that women, excuse me, wymin, are free to contribute anything they want, any time they want? That they can be at home in a nightgown and fuzzy bunny slippers, and write up entries just as well as any white man with a power tie??

If she has a problem here, she should be having a problem with those lazy slacker wymin who are just not doing what she wants.

I have also heard of women who deliberately use a male or neutral nom de internet for their online activities. How much allowance did she make for wymin using unfeminine names?

Good question, kenmce.

Just head on the news cast tonight that the CDC reports that 25% of AIDS infected people are women. Should the CDC start a program to infect women with the AIDS virus to create equal distribution?

"Should the CDC start a program to infect women with the AIDS virus to create equal distribution?"

Not only no, but hell, no - and in fact, treatment for males should be halted so that that number does not drop, because that would result in a higher percentage of women with that disease...

SwissArmy D: "The answer to that will be to allow men to only contribute so much, and then cut them off, until it balances out... thus impoverishing the whole."

That is exactly what they are always asking for. Since we can't/won't do as much; make others do less. I can't earn as much as someone else; make him earn less. If I cannot have it; then make sure others don't. etc.

It is one of the old-fashioned; now considered out of touch; but, in my opinion still truthful; 7 deadly sins - Envy.

People never change.