Articles like this make me angry. Wikipedia is one of the most important, if not the most important, example of digital commons, created by an enourmous amount of volunteer work. 91% of those doing this work are male, according to the article. Now a group that has contributed only a small fraction of the work for a decade complains about being underrepresented? This is not the military, which had actual barriers of entry for women, this is Wikipedia, which you could edit without an account only a few years ago. At that time it was a true, anonymous meritocracy, as opposed to a mailing list where your name gives away your gender and may subject you to gender discrimination.
"Meritocracy" doesn't exist as long as human judgement is involved, and organizations that claim to be such actually encourage biased-based behavior: http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/65884
The problem is not contribution, it is deletion and some of the strange "we don't care if it's actually right if more sources think it" policies. They make it frustrating for anyone who doesn't think like existing editors to contribute, as your hard work gets erased and ignored. Because these people believe they are operating in a meritocracy, the editors feel no pressure to acknowledge that other people may be interested in things they themselves are not.
Which would have been a gender-neutral barrier had women contributed a similar share of work and dedication in the early days and thus achieved similar influence.
Influence has a way of perpetuating itself, especially when its protected by nerdy little enclaves. So you are saying that because women (or mexicans or furries) did not contribute in the past, they now deserve to be excluded in the future?
No, I would hope to see more work from (and proportionately more influence for) women on Wikipedia. But the article presents what seems to be the result of past inaction, back when Wikipedia was a meritocracy, as a Women's Rights issue. Yes, there is a gender bias on Wikipedia now, and even chauvinistic behavior. We should get rid of both, if possible, which may be difficult as such an environment is not inviting to women.
