« | »

NSF Spending $202K To Find Out Why Wikipedia Is Sexist

From the Washington Free Beacon:

Government-Funded Study: Why Is Wikipedia Sexist?

$202,000 to address ‘gender bias’ in world’s biggest online encyclopedia

By Elizabeth Harrington | July 30, 2014

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is spending over $200,000 to find out why Wikipedia is sexist.

The National Science Foundation? The same people who wasted untold millions of  taxpayer dollars us studies of duck penises and ‘shrimp on treadmills’ and a thousand other boondoggles we will never hear about?

The government has awarded two grants for collaborative research to professors at Yale University and New York University to study what the researchers describe as “systematic gender bias” in the online encyclopedia…

“[A]n emerging body of research indicates that Wikipedia suffers from systematic gender bias with respect to both contributors and content,” it continues. “How and why is this bias produced?”

A $132,000 grant was awarded to Julia Adams, a sociology professor at Yale, followed by $70,000 to Hannah Brueckner, the associate dean of social sciences at NYU Abu Dhabi…

And Abu Dhabi knows from sexism.

“Under-representation of female scholars and associated scholarship reduces the quality and completeness of Wikipedia, imposing significant costs on the millions of readers who rely on it,” it said. “The findings from this research should clarify where in the complex chain of knowledge gender disparities arise. The findings should also bolster ongoing efforts to address those disparities, in this case by improving quality and reducing bias on academic—and more general—Wikipedia.” …

But if they do away with the bias in academia and at Wikipedia they won’t have anything left.

Of course, we are talking about the real bias here. Like the bias against conservatism. Not made up ones, like gender bias.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Wednesday, July 30th, 2014. Comments are currently closed.

One Response to “NSF Spending $202K To Find Out Why Wikipedia Is Sexist”

  1. specialed

    I hate to defend big government overspending, but two points:

    1. On the shrimp on a treadmill, I can see that analysis of the behavior of complex multi-leg locomotion may actually influence robot and drone mobility. If we can more effectively kill islamic terrorists with robot shrimp bombs, that is a good thing.

    2. On the duck penis study: Have you ever seen a duck penis? If there ever were a penis to study, it would be the corkscrew duck penis.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »