There’s an interesting blog entry on “Battletar Galactica” talks from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, particularly a piece presented by Sarah Toton entitled “Reimagining Fan Culture: The Long Journey of Battlestar Galactica“, which discusses the Battlestar Wiki, in particular it raises the question of why there aren’t more female contributors to the wiki.
While the paper isn’t (yet) available online, I’ve queried Ms. Toton and hope to be receiving a copy of her paper in the future.
More on that and other BSG discussions here.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 1st, 2007 at 4:49 am and is filed under Discussions, Drifiting Thoughts. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Mediawiki for sure it not friendly, however, Wikipedia has shunned us as a “micro wiki” therefore most female contributers tend to not know we exist.
The female population that does exist on other websites — the one I am thinking of that is dedicated to Nicki Clyne — is very large. However, as most people would notice, they are forums.
The Battlestar Wiki per policy is not a forum for discussion and should remain so. We are a source of information — not a message board per say — were most of the female community hangs out.
I doubt Wikipedia’s “shunning” of us as a “micro wiki” has anything to do with it.
In all honestly, Wikipedia articles on BSG do tend to link to us pretty extensively, and a lot of the female fan base does know we exist. I’ve come across female bloggers and the like who know of the Wiki.
They just don’t actively contribute.
Perhaps the above attitude is why they don’t contribute?
I honestly don’t know.
I honestly would like a female viewpoint on this, since a male viewpoint on female web usage is, well, not worth anything to me.
Thus I queried Ms. Toton on her paper. I hope I get a copy so I can better understand this with an open mind.
I think there is maybe something to it that women want to actually talk and speculate more about stuff, especially characters, which is not something that the Wiki, by its nature, encourages or even allows a lot.
They might see that quite a few articles are more about the technical nature of the show and not interested in that,
I agree with Joe that we should ask those women why they don’t contribute. Is it not wanting to learn how a Wiki works (Shane’s been working on a Help: project some time ago, maybe we should expand on that), is it the lack of female contributors (a vicious circle), is it the fact that we’re trying to be an encyclopedia rather than a forum, is it that we appear to prefer technical analysis over character analysis, or something else?
I’d like to know. I think we’d all like to know. Now all we need is someone who’ll tell us.
I think the double whammy of having to learn the wiki markup plus our aggressive citation/anti-speculation conventions are a major factor.
I can think of one female fan that initially claimed that it was the wiki markup that was the barrier, but when she got ahold of her own wiki playground she had a blast playing around with it. Even after becoming (seemingly) comfortable with the wiki markup, though, she never came over to contribute. I think the intimidation factor might still have been high, and there is something of a confrontational/combative element to the consensus shaping that occurs in articles sometimes. Some of the more combative contributors are no longer a factor, but the fact that somebody can just remove what you did might be intimidating. And it’s hard to get their input on-wiki to find out what the problem is.
I was hoping this blog might help as a place where non-wiki female users might be able to have some input, but thus far it’s mostly the “regulars” that comment.
Some female contributors I can immediately recall are Laineylain and Misco (podcast transcribers), Scotchfairy (lineart and costuming stuff), and most recently CC-Mel, I believe.
I don’t want to get TOO shamelessly self-promoting, but maybe a post to Sciffy asking the females at large there what turns them off of contributing might solicit some good feedback.
“I don’t want to get TOO shamelessly self-promoting, but maybe a post to Sciffy asking the females at large there what turns them off of contributing might solicit some good feedback.”
If there’s one good thing we learned from Merv, it’s stressing the Plan R (Recruitment). There’s nothing wrong with getting our name out there and trying to recruit new contributors.
I remember CC-Mel, she may have been somewhat scared off by us deleting her creation (see also Talk:Galaktika), although she seemed to be handling it pretty well. The other women stopped contributing before I joined.
BTW, it would also be good to get our name out there in a more general fashion. BW:OC, to name something, is sparingly visited by Bradley Thompson, but that’s it. Others, like RDM and Mrs Ron, seem to be pretty active in places like the Sci Fi boards. Maybe BW:OC needs to be put a little more into the spotlights so as to get more input from actors/writers/producers/whatever (m/f) there.
Disclaimer: I didn’t come up with (m/f) (male/female). The addition (m/v) is extremely common in Dutch job advertisements due to anti-discrimination legislation. For those who *really* want to know, (m/v) stands for (man/vrouw).
I’ve always been curious at our low level of female contributors, especially since BSG works on many levels of entertainment. There’s romance and ’shipping, and intrigue as one enjoys on other popular shows today. It can’t be a “space geek” stigma; there are plenty of Star Trek and Star Wars female fans to say otherwise. It could be technical acumen, but again there are plenty of codewarriors like myself who are women.
Maybe it’s time to “advertise” and recruit for that female perspective. I need to read the article before going further.
“Maybe it’s time to “advertise” and recruit for that female perspective. I need to read the article before going further.”
I say we advertise generally. Get the online BSG community to discover us. Get the cast&crew to discover us (rather than having to hear it from Brad). If that works out, we should get more male *and* female viewers and contributors.
Of course Joe and Shane will have to make sure the servers can handle it
The servers can handle. Wikipedia does link to us.
Merv was a big factor, I would say and that has left us with a scar.
I’m female and I have a bit of an academic interest in male/female participation in online communities. I do not participate in the Battlestar wiki project (except maybe occasionally if someone missed something?) though I’m definitely a frequent visitor. I believe it’s an extremely valuable resource for the BSG fan community and I admire all the effort that goes in it… but I also have no interest in it beyond that. There’s very little (aka no) room for real character or plot-driven speculation–the kind that happens all the time on Livejournal, for example. There’s no ability to start incorporating spoilers in your speculation without pissing off and ruining a wiki entry for other people.
As I posted in the site referenced in the original post here:
I wonder if it’s more that female BSG fans are taking their input elsewhere, e.g. on Livejournal, there are a number of extremely active BSG communities that have contributers who share their thoughts and analysis of each episode, particular in terms of speculation about characters and future plot points. This might be indicative of some typical trends in female vs male online participation.
The BSG wiki is an encylopedia for the most part–it describes facts and happenings of each episode and then lists a few popular questions that many readers might have post-viewing.
The LJ communities, instead, are communities–with a more personal identity attached to each post (since you post very visibly as a particular LJ user). Readers can respond by directly commenting on a particular user’s thoughts; it is a much more interpersonal-relationship driven interaction, in my opinion. The LJ community posts also very prominently often explore homosexual/alternate-couple-undertones to the episodes, and mention analysis that goes far beyond an event-based listing of what happened in a given episode.
Females also tend to dominate BSG fanfiction (also other fanfiction communities), again a popular outlet for exploring non-standard relationships. Again possibly a more creative outlet (possibly more appealing to females) for fans than the wiki?
I also question whether a wiki is more “advanced” of a technology than an LJ or fanfiction database site considering how LJ is exemplar of the current popular social network community concept, with “friends” “friends of friends” “communities/groups” etc. Fanfiction sites also often run on rather complicated databases (technologically-speaking)–and even though the average writer will never be involved in the technology behind the site, the average BSG wiki contributer will also never be involved in the wiki code either.
Some (not a complete list) of very active female-dominated LJ communities:
http://community.livejournal.com/galacticanews/profile
http://community.livejournal.com/battlestar_blog/profile
http://community.livejournal.com/the_wireless/profile
Thanks for that input, autumnmist. I almost cross posted a link to your post, but I’m glad that you did the honors.
It seems to me that it’s less likely a visibility problem (try Googling a specific BSG term… we’re right there at the top) and more of an issue that it’s not everybody’s cup of tea.
I disagree with the author’s assertion that BSG Wiki needs more female input on themes, etc, exactly because there are places (like the LJ communities autumnmist linked to) that are built precisely for that (and would likely to a much better job at it). (For example wikis are NOT good at the type of personalized posting that can happen at LJ.) That’s not to say that I’m not interested in having female contributors, just that regardless of sex we’re looking for well sourced documentation of the show (just the fact, ma’am).
I think the best thing we can do regarding the type of “real character or plot-driven speculation” would be simply to link to the communities in the community portal and call it good. We can’t be everything to everyone, and we can’t make everybody happy. We’re all part of the large patchwork quilt that is the fan community, so we should concern ourselves primarily with making our patch (the wiki) as good (concise, well cited/sourced, etc.) as possible. I think trying to encompass the whole quilt would be an exercise in futility.
I’ve posted a link to this blog entry on the Snurb blog. Should be visible when the admin’s reviewed it.
I tend to agree with Steelviper’s disagreement (haha) with the idea that the BSG wiki needs more females simply for the sake of having more females. I don’t feel that females are excluded from the wiki.
It’s hard to tell from the Snurb blog post where the Snurb author’s interpretation begins and the academic/MIT forum analyses end. I’m was a bit offended to see the Snurb author attempt to cast the lack of females on the BSG wiki as a sign of “continuing wider gender divides in general online use, as well as especially also in the use of advanced technologies such as wikis” considering that I wouldn’t consider a wiki any more “advanced” in terms of the technical knowledge needed to contribute to it than to a Livejournal or fanfiction community. A number of female-dominated LJ communites have posts that include pictures and basic html markup–not any less advanced that the wiki markup used when contributing to a wiki.
I hope that Sarah Toton (the one who was studying this phenomenon) was not contributing to the continued sex/gender-based stereotype and that it was the Snurb blogger who was responsible. Otherwise it’s another example of the “females don’t play computer games” stereotype. Lots of people love to say that, but females dominate in the audience for games like The Sims, yet you used to and still have some people who will then go, “Oh but The Sims isn’t a reeeeeaaalll computer game” –um, well, if you begin by defining “computer games” to include only game types that typically appeal to males (e.g. FPS-style games), then of course you’re always going to find that “females don’t play computer games.” Similarly, if you say that “wikis are advanced technology but LJ, fanfiction databases, social networks are not advanced” then you have a sort of foregone conclusion about female use of “advanced” technology.
What could be done to emphasize the characters more is to put more about the characters in the analysis of the episodes. That is not to say that the kind of forum-style speculation and fantasizing is allowed, but I often feel that a lot of the analysis is way too technical.
That’s just how it developed, but that’s not to say, that there couldn’t be more analysis on the characters’ behavior and motivations.
A good example on how to do it right is the stuff about Romo Lampkin in “The Son Also Rises” through “Crossroads, Part II”
[...] MiT5 on BSG [Battlestar Wiki Blog] The BSG Wiki blog is blogging about MIT5 talks about the Wiki for BSG … talk about all my worlds colliding!!! (tags: bsg wiki mit5 blog convergence) [...]
I’ve just received Sarah Toton’s paper and will be going over it once I finish downloading/installing the newest version of OpenOffice.
I’ll see if I can get permission to repost her paper, as well as the accompanying PowerPoint presentation.
Also, if anyone was present at this conference, I would definitely like to hear more about the nature of the discussions held after Ms. Toton’s presentation.
Oh, didn’t know that. I was just reading through some archived RFA’s when I read “Plan R (Recruitment)”, and it just popped back into my head when I was reading this blog post. Since I wasn’t around at the time, don’t consider me a reliable source of information on that subject
BTW, would you mind telling me what Plan R *does* stand for?
I’m encouraging for V not to answer as he is banned from the Battlestar Wiki and any further comments will be deleted.
It would help a lot to be able to read the paper that she did.
However, what I can say is that the Battlestar Wiki is the best info source about both Galacticas (the original and the re-imagined). I kinda new on the site but I visited all weeks since then.
I’m sure that there are many female members on the wiki, the rate of contributions is not something to judge a site. Many people (men and women) can jsut read info on the site but not having the time to make contributions.
Thanks a lot for the wikis, I visited a lot the one about Star Trek too.
Alesaenz,
The paper will be online in the next few days, according to Sarah.
I’ve already taken the liberty of reading it, as have a few of the administrators and all the bureaucrats I’ve sent it on to.
When it comes up, I will encourage everyone to read it and reflect on what she mentioned.
Whether or not you agree with what she has to say, I think her talking points will help us to address why we don’t have more active female contributors.
Sarah and I have pretty much established a rapport, since she is pursuing a study on online fan communities.
To be honest, while the paper does raise interesting points, there are arguments that could have been better made had Sarah contacted us. Not to mention the fact there are a few inaccuracies in it about the role of the Battlestar Wiki.
Although I will address these in the coming days myself once the paper is made available for public consumption, as it were, since my comments will make better sense then.
The posts by V were firstly picked up by accident by the Spam Filter but I did not approve them to go through because they included links to copyrighted film clips hosted on YouTube.
The term Plan R originates from the 1964 Kubrick film Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, in which the characters describe as:
Merv/V never confirmed what relation that had to any plan he had in his own mind for the wiki.
I’m the organizer of the BSG panel, and I’m so gratified that Sarah’s panel sparked such discussion. Wanted to let you know that a podcast from her talk (and the rest of ours) is up here.
there’s also a complete (if somewhat out of date) guide to BSG on livejournal here.
Thanks. I will listen to this.
Heya,
Some responses to your comments, speaking as a girl, of course;
-the emphasis on referencing/factuality and lack of speculation and analysis doesn’t worry me. If/when I finally get around to contributing, I’ll be referencing up there with the best of them
-I do primarily use this site for info. As it’s my major source of info, I can’t exactly contribute anything valuable at the moment
-My ability to contribute is also severly hampered by my location (Australia). If I lived in the centre of the universe I would feel more up with the gossip and better qualified to post stuff.
-I must be old fashioned, because I speculate about stuff with my friends, in person
But that has less to do with being a girl than with avoiding internet forums
Cheers!
Interesting discussion - I was at the MIT5 paper, and was an active discussant about this issue. I do think there are some issues that arise between different realms of fan “creation” as to whether the goal is to organize & catalog canon, or contribute to fanon.
An interesting comparison is LostPedia, which I know a lot more intimately than the BSG Wiki - at LostPedia, there seems to be a lot more room for speculation, theorizing, parodies, and interpretation than appears to be here. I don’t think LostPedia is gender equal by any means, but there are/have been female SysOps, and a number of valued participants are women. But I do think ultimately framing a wiki as a fact-gathering mission does work against some of the most common practices in female fan communities, so no matter how inclusive you try to be, the wiki is not going to appeal to everyone.
Good to see people talking through these difficult issues…
Hiya Jason,
While I haven’t watched “Lost”, I find that the nature of the series as more of a mystery / drama lends itself more to speculation, theories, and various interpretations.
Battlestar does have elements of mystery to it, but the gestalt of the series isn’t that it’s a mystery, it’s a fight for survival and a search for Earth while tackling issues of today’s world, such as treatment of POWs, inhumane methods of fighting an enemy (suicide bombers), and, ultimately, “reaping what you sow”, which is a very common theme in the re-imagined series.
I, for One, Welcome Our New Cylon Overlords
Boston (with apologies to Kent Brockman). So, over the last few days I’ve found myself inadvertently in the centre of some degree of controversy in the online Battlestar Galactica fan community. This was sparked by my report from the BSG panel at MiT5…
I’m not surprised at all, nor particularly concerned. BSG has both male and female fans, but they tend to participate in different areas (as fans do in general). Creative endeavors (fanfic, fanvids, etc) tend to be heavily female-dominated. Forums tend to be more evenly used, although still with a definite skew towards the female end. Then we have the technical-oriented stuff like wikis, which tend to be male-dominated. Me, I write fanfic in various fandoms, but I really only use Wikis and such for reference. Because while I find writing and reading fanfic to be a lot of fun, contributing to a wiki is boring to me and would require me to take the time to learn how to do it properly, which I’m not willing to do because it’s just not that interesting to me. I’m very grateful for the people who do it, I’m just not one of them.
For another perspective from female side.
1. I don’t particularly like BSG2003. Particularly because like with this MiT conference panel, the show and it’s fans keep making desparaging remarks about BSG1978 and keep talking about how “meaningful”, “cutting-edge”, “dark and gritty” BSG2003 is.
2. I like the original version and have happily existed on and off within the small fanbase for this version that has existed from 1978 to the present.
3. Apparently there was a “war” between the fans of BSG1978 and BSG2003 which has left a mark in that I’ve been greeted rather nastily by BSG2003 fans.
4. It’s a fictional TV show. I’m not inclined to document it like it was history.
5. I am writing a critical commentary “comparing and contrasting” the two shows, but I can only work on it for so long at any one time because the interviews I’m reading from Moore and Eick infuriate me with their pretentious statements and general ignorance and dislike of genre SF.
6. BSG1978 had a lot of humor. I like humor. I’d rather draw silly cartoons based on the original series than deal with the angst and emo tone of BSG2003. (Although I have gotten some mileage out of that “let’s make Gaius the center of a cult” plot.)
Eugenia,
As I receive more views as a result of Toton’s paper, it has become apparent to me that Toton isn’t speaking for every (or even a particularly large) group of female fans.
There does seem to be a specific niche (or several) she’s addressing: females who like BSG2003, who are active online, and who like to discuss and pick apart relationships that may or may not exist in the series.
As for the “war” in the fan community, I think the “war” has always been there. it is not, however, as big as people have made it out to be… It’s just changed face. For instance, there was always a “war” with fans who supported and who did not support Richard’s efforts… and this is well before Larson did his thing with Todd Moyer, or even when DeSanto/Singer stepped up to the plate.
There will always be a “war” in any community, and I use the “war” term loosely, since I don’t believe that’s the right word to use at all.
And both “sides” are to blame for the “war”; it’s not just the BSG2003 fans who are nasty to BSG1978 fans, but vice versa.
We are fortunate that the BSWiki community has not seen this “war” rear its ugly head… and actually, one of the reasons this hasn’t happened is because the “war” is actually fought by a smaller number of people than most people think. (Also, most fans tend to ignore it or simply laugh at it, since most of them know that it is, after all, a television show.)
[...] long-time visitors to the Wiki know, Toton previously gave a presentation on the Battlestar Wiki at MIT5 which caused a stir, resulting in pretty interesting feedback, at least in my [...]