What I do know is that at Wikidata we harvest information from all

Hoi, Again, what is done is harvest from everywhere. Such actionar are not exclusive to Wikidata, it is also done by DBpedia, they have been longer at it and at this time they are better at it. What I hope is that there is quality data in the research done in the past. Making this available will improved quality now.

Hoi, The problem that I want to solve is that the number of humans that are neither male nor female is currently 419.862 and growing. I am not particularly interested in other sex/gender issues. I know from a conversation with DBpedia people that they have a property for "penis length".. Not especially my cup of tea either. I was told that that property exists because of an application in combination with French data ... The reason for the DBpedia headsup is that their bots run repeatedly. This in contrast to what bots have done so far and, they are interested and willing to report the differences they find. This makes their work superior from a quality point of view. To be blunt, Wikidata gains the quantitative quality I am looking for when only male and female is added where applicable. Transgender issues with respect are edge cases. I am sure somewhere there is a number of the actual number that might represent them all. John indicated that the quality of that data is poor and his example does not provide the current information. As I indicated before I am interested in fixing the quantitative quality problem that Wikidata has. To fix this, I am among other things interested in the male and female sex. It allows for studies like the ration of male vs female painters, male vs female authors etc. I am not interested to involve myself in the issues around the transgender sexes. As far as I am concerned, everything that can be easily queried from sources is openly available. If it makes sense to not include particular information, it needs to be raised at Wikidata. It is outside my scope to have more as an opinion. The one reason why I raise the issue of women on Wikidata is that regularly there are edit-a-thons where people write quality articles about notable females. Wikidata should provide adequate information about what this ratio is for the particular fields that are addressed. It is trivial to query Wikidata to find the number of "profession x" for males and females and calculate a ratio. Thanks, GerardM On 20 April 2014 04:56, John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote: _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 7:10 AM, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com> wrote: data can be I'm surprised that the WMF lawyers signed off on this. Deliberately getting the sex of living people wrong seems like the kind of thing litigation is made of. But then again, I'm not a lawyer. cheers stuart _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: when only male and female cases. Transgender issues are primarily raised because they're vitally important for people today, but they're not the only issues. Far more numerically superior are the issues of people writing under other-gendered pseudonyms; that's a systemic problem, in the GND data for example. "Lord Charles Albert" "Florian Wellesley" and "Currer Bell" were only outed as pseudonyms of Charlotte Brontë once she achieved a certain level of fame. Modern analysis suggests that there are probably thousands if not tens of thousands of other writers who never achieved that level of fame and never had their pseudonyms revealed. GND and similar library data commonly base their gender data on nothing more than the apparent gender of the name on the cover page (librarianship practice, unlike archival practise, takes such things at face value). To take that librarianship practise out of context and assert that that those thousands or tens of thousands of authors were men (rather than just publishing under male or ambiguous names) isn't going to get you sued, but that doesn't mean it's not the white-washing of generations of women writers. cheers stuart _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Gerard, Actually historically speaking, there will be fewer Harvard alumni as women because they graduated from Radcliffe, not Harvard, no? Anyway, how about a trade - I will send you all of my male-female data with Wikipedia entity names, and you send me back the Q numbers? Or can you only accept data with Q numbers as a field? Jane 2014-04-21 7:58 GMT+02:00, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>om>: who the http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/04/wikidata-its-sex-ratio.html _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Gerard, That link you just sent shows the names in the category (I see there are already a few more than 264 - cool). Could it be possible to have the Q numbers shown as well? Now I see the Q number with mouse-over, but if Magnus (cc'ing him now) could let me screen-scrape those then I can first update my data and then send you my m-f data with Q numbers. Jane 2014-04-21 9:03 GMT+02:00, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>om>: job Harvars would experiment humans for data page and

On 20/04/2014 11:05 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: What process does wikidata have when different wikis have different policies about what should appear by default in infoboxes. In particular when a policy calls for discretion or human judgement?