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(a)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...
[1]:
http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/777/631
[2]:
http://reagle.org/joseph/2010/06/gender/results
[3]:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.06307v1.pdf
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap