Interesting, thanks for the links! We also now have mix-n-match and Charles Matthews has matched the complete Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, With autolist I could probably look at those male-female ratios per occupation. Might be interesting. I don't know how to get at the "deleted & recreated" data though
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Joseph Reagle joseph.2011@reagle.org wrote:
On 04/13/2015 01:18 PM, Jane Darnell wrote:
Actually I think it would be useful to measure all existing female bios vs all existing male bios for the proportion of those which have been previously deleted and recreated. I have a theory that it is much more difficult to create bios of females in whatever category due to the systemic academic bias aginst including women's biographies in the list of "reliable sources" mostly used in Wikipedia. I would be especially interested in comparison of male-female ration of bios in established dictionaries of biography and how these compare to Wikipedia, and of those, how many such bios were previously deleted on Wikipedia and recreated.
Hi Jane, I've done comparative work on coverage bias in biographies between WP and Britannica [1]. I've also shared my data [2] with an author of [3] who is extending that analysis to include structural, lexical, and visibility bias. I think addressing deletion and recreation wouldn't be too hard...
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap