Makes sense. A more useful test would be a two-parter; for a male to expand on the current (biased) information, and for a clearly female editor to insert new, female-perspective information. That way we can see not only if there's a noticeable difference in how people treat the schools of thought, but if there's a noticeable difference in how they treat editors.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Frances Kissling <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:fkissling@gmail.com">fkissling@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div><p class="MsoNormal">Good point, Oliver. I actually have no idea why there is no mention of the gender dimensions of Liberation Theology or if my women colleagues have tried to put any in. Perhaps this would be a good first test for me- to add a section on Women and Liberation Theology and see what happens. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Frances Kissling, visiting scholar</p><p class="MsoNormal">Center for Bioethics, UPenn</p><p class="MsoNormal">202 368 3954</p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Gendergap mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org">Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap" target="_blank">https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>