Women in the Free/Libre Open Source Software Development
Abstract
Free/libre open source software (FLOSS) has become a prominent phenomenon in the ICT field and the wider public domain for the past years. However, according to a FLOSS survey on FLOSS developers in 2002, “women do not play a role in the [FLOSS] development; only 1.1% of the FLOSS sample is female.” (Ghosh, Glott, Krieger, & Robles, 2002). In the mainstream research on FLOSS communities, many researchers also overlook different processes of community-building and diverse experiences of members, and presume a stereotyped male-dominated “hacker community” (e.g., Levy, 1984; Raymond, 2001; Himanen, 2001; Thomas, 2002). Moreover, issues around gender inequality are often ignored and/or muted in the pile of FLOSS studies. Female programmers often are rejected ex/implicitly from the software labour market (Levesque & Wilson 2004). The requirements of female users are not respected and consulted either (European Commission, 2001). This feature is opposite to the FLOSS ideal world where users should be equally treated and embraced (op. cit.). While many researchers endeavour to understand the FLOSS development, few found a gender-biased situation problematic. In short, women are almost invisible in current FLOSS-related literature. Most policies targeting at advocating FLOSS are also gender blind. Thus, this essay highlights the need for increased action to address imbalances between women’s and men’s access to and participation in the FLOSS development in cultural (e.g., chauvinisti…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Los estudios sobre la conformación masculinizada del software libre han puesto de relieve un conjunto de prácticas sedimentadas que, supuestamente fundamentadas en las premisas de la libertad, la igualdad de oportunidades y la autonomía, responden a patrones androcéntricos.
“Los estudios que indagan los mecanismos que abonan a la conformación masculinizada del software libre, han puesto de relieve un conjunto de prácticas sedimentadas que, supuestamente fundamentadas en las premisas de la libertad, la igualdad de oportunidades y la autonomía, responden a patrones androcéntricos.”
From Tensiones desde la perspectiva de género en torno al potencial democratizador del software libre (2022) · cites this paper as Lin, 2006
La mayoría de los problemas de género existentes en la industria del software se han duplicado en el ámbito FLOSS.
“la mayoría de los problemas de género existentes en la industria del software se han duplicado en el ámbito FLOSS.”
From Tensiones desde la perspectiva de género en torno al potencial democratizador del software libre (2022) · cites this paper as Lin, 2006
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Tensiones desde la perspectiva de género en torno al potencial democratizador del software libre
Ortmann, C. (2022) · Comunicación y Género · doi:10.5209/cgen.84342
- Authors
- Lin, Y.
- Affiliations
- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Lin, Yuwei
- ORCID
- Lin, Yuwei
- Venue
- Encyclopedia of Gender and Information Technology
- Publisher
- IGI Global
- Published
- 2006
- Pages
- 1286-1291
- OpenAlex
- W393787551
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2012: 2
- Type
- reference entry
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IGI Global eBooks (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Keywords
- free and open source software, gender inequality, gender digital divide, open source communities, community building, hacker culture, women programmers, gender pay gap
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review