> From: andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
> Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 20:44:17 +0100
> To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Sex Ratios in Wikidata Part III
>
> On 9 June 2014 20:21, Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> * WIkidata has ~2080k items marked as people
> >> * Of these, ~1893k have a "gender" property (91%)
>
> > Can you define "item" in this context?
>
> "Item" here is a single Wikidata entry:
>
> http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q320
>
> which may correspond to one Wikipedia article, one hundred Wikipedia
> articles, etc - but all on the same topic. (Potentially it may
> correspond to *no* Wikipedia articles - it's not strictly required,
> and in any case the source article may be deleted - but there's
> unlikely to be a statistically large number of these just now)
>
> > Do we have any comparable data points by which to evaluate our progress?
> > Perhaps a similar breakdown of other reference works, or if there is some
> > sort of summary data available about biographies written (using LOC data?),
> > etc.
>
> The new Oxford Dictionary of National Biography was about 10% female
> when published in 2004, though this was skewed by a limitation to
> include all entries from the original, including a lot of - to modern
> eyes - very non-notable men.
> http://oed.hertford.ox.ac.uk/main/images/stories/articles/baigent2005.pdf
> (It's since crept up to ~11%)
>
> Max has done some numbers based on gender assigned in VIAF entries, I
> think, but I can't immediately find it. Ben Schmidt did something
> similar based on first names of authors:
> http://sappingattention.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/women-in-libraries.html
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
> andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap