Hoi,
In Wikidata we import many papers and link authors to these papers. In
order to have sensible gender information, we do add gender info on a big
scale. It is less interesting to look at the absolute numbers
(statistically hard to move) but it is more interesting to know for the
co-authors of an author or to know the gender ratio for a particular
profession eg historians, chemists et al. The great thing of using Wikidata
is that we can query any which way.
While Google Scholar is nice, we have our own environment that we will use
for our citations anyway so why not use it?
Thanks,
GerardM
On Fri, 30 Aug 2019 at 07:35, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Kerry Raymond, 29/08/19 01:26:
So I think a specific tag to encourage the
expansion of "Bloggs et al"
citations to full author listings might work.
But it's easier to fix it yourself, using the citation bot:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UCB
Greg, 30/08/19 07:48:
If the Wikipedia
community is not studying its biases and designing tools and strategies
for
addressing them, it is not reflecting the world,
but lagging behind it.
However, going back to Kerry:
In some ways, I think a better solution might be
to try to get Google
scholar interested in the issue of gender.
I'm not aware of studies of gender bias in Google Scholar search results
themselves, yet we'd really need such basic information before going
into specifics of how the research is consumed and redistributed. There
is a mention of gender in
https://oadoi.org/10.1017/S104909651800094
which states
Moreover, because a GS pro-
file is a public signal, it can have a disproportionate effect on
opinions because a person seeing it knows that others also see
it (Chwe 2016).
Which seems to me an argument very similar to yours on Wikipedia.
Federico
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l