The Association of Internet Researchers has an amazingly useful mailing list where scholars discuss topics and often compile wonderful lists of resources and papers on particular topics. The archives are online, and subscription is free. Currently there’s a discussion of resources for tracking the history of Wikipedia page edits, and there are many interesting options mentioned. I really like this visualization of the gender and location of editors, posted to the list by creator Paolo Massa.

You don’t have to disclose your gender on Wikipedia, in fact, according to Paolo Massa, only about 10% do (I just checked my account and realized I hadn’t disclosed my gender). The location is only for anonymous edits (which show an IP address) and the gender is only for edits by that 10% of registered users who have stated a gender. And this tracks the edits, not the group of individuals editing a page. So there are several levels of inaccuracy or at least incompleteness, but it’s still an interesting starting point for a discussion or further investigation.

For instance, the article on feminism is almost entirely edited by males, and has a high proportion of anonymous edits.


The article on sexual intercourse is interesting: at first it was heavily dominated by males, but then around 2008 women took over. Presumably women worked together to target that particular entry, probably in the WikiProject Feminism project. It would be interesting to analyze this further by looking at how this was organized, looking at the talk pages for the entries, and analyzing whether the tone and content of the entry changed with the gender shift.

Other studies have shown how dominated the Wikipedia is by young, single men, and questions of how that affects our collective idea of knowledge should definitely be studied more closely.

If you’re interested in research about the Wikipedia and wikis in general, WikiPapers is a pretty impressive database (well, or wiki, really) with over a thousand papers about the topic and links to datasets, events and more as well.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

1 Comment

  1. Paolo

    Glad you liked Wikitrip! 😉

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

AI STORIES

AI-generated stories have longer endings than human stories

My colleague Jessica Witte has just shared a preprint where she compared the emotional arcs of the stories we generated using gpt-4o-mini to those of human-authored (pre-2022) stories from the subreddit r/WritingPrompts, conveniently gathered in this dataset. She found a distinct difference in the endings of the LLM-generated stories: both […]

How to peer review a paper in 2026

Dorothy Bishop, a psychologist, wrote a useful list of what reviewers need to look out now that so many papers are bad science that looks good thanks to LLMs. Read her whole blog post, she explains it well, but here’s a brief version because I’m pretty sure we’ll be needing […]

“So what if it was ChatGPT? It *could* have been true!”

I recently read a good article on the different kinds of truth a language model operates with by Luke Mann, Liam Magee and Vanicka Arora, Truth Machines: Synthesizing Veracity in AI Language Models, but despite its lovely typology of truths (consensus, correspondence, coherence and pragmatic) it doesn’t help me with […]

AI STORIES

AI shimmer and sparkle

I have this hunch that sparkles and glow and shimmer are somehow a point in the latent spaces of LLMs that have more connections than you would expect. Perhaps their connotation to magic and to the unknown matches some of the mystique of genAI? Or perhaps these words are used […]

Don’t do a systematic review if you’re in the humanities

This paper is a great example of why you probably shouldn’t use a systematic literature review for a theoretical and conceptual research question like “How does artificial intelligence affect the perception of authenticity and aura in art?” However, if you’re looking for an annotated list of 48 recent articles about […]