Re: C'est quoi la proportion dans d'autres encyclopédies ?

Un article de 2017 sur la question : Heather Ford and Judy Wajcman
‘Anyone can edit’, not everyone does:
Wikipedia and the gender gap

At one level, this bias is surprising as, compared to a conventional encyclopedia,
Ǯanyone can editǯ. The obvious comparator is the conventionally produced
Encyclopedia Britannica, whose 11th edition had very few women contributors
(2%) and no women listed among the 49 editorial advisors (Thomas, 1992:18).
How then does Wikipedia's coverage of women's biographies, for example,
compare to the iconic Britannica? It turns out that Wikipedia does have
significantly greater coverage than Britannica. In absolute terms, Wikipedia has
more biographies of women. However, the authors of this study (Reagle and
Rhue, 2011) conclude that there still is gender bias. This is because Wikipedia's
missing articles are disproportionally about females relative to those of
Britannica, as evidenced in the ratio of female to male biographies in each work.
Given Wikipedia's position as a central reference source, the invisibility of these
missing entries means that women are being written out of history once again

Il y a des chances que la situation sur Wikipédia se soit améliorée depuis par le travail effectué sur la question depuis que ces questions se sont posées.

Sinon Wikipédia a aussi un certain nombre d'informations sur la question, et oui, ça a été étudié : section sur Biais de genre dans les article sur Wikipédia