More thinking out loud :) ...
Following on from Joseph's observations of taxonomy and Web 2.0-ish tagging (and perhaps echoing larger debates about the sociality of Wikipedia as a platform), I guess I see it as an issue of top-down vs bottom-up approaches to organising knowledge. Where top-down sees knowledge as finite and splits it into categories, and bottom-up sees knowledge as infinite and for want of a better word "taggable." And thus making Wikipedia more searchableŠ whatever parameters the user wantsŠrather than the prescriptive nature of categories.
I know the amount of times I've gone through obscure categories looking for females in that category - having to visit every article page to work out if the subject is male or female. It would be so awesome to be able to tag 'female,' 'physicist,' 'nuclear physicist,' etc. And bottom-up seems more in line with the wiki way of organising too.
On 30/04/13 12:26 PM, "Lady of Shalott" ladyofshalott.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for your reply, Joseph - fair enough! :) I agree with you - I think there have been some major lapses of assumption of good faith from both (all?) sides.
(Ouch looking back at my post, I'm wishing I could hit edit. The edit summary would be something along the lines of "typo fixing".)
On 4/29/13, Joseph Reagle joseph.2011@reagle.org wrote:
On 04/29/2013 10:03 PM, Lady of Shalott wrote:
Interesting commentary as far as it went. I wish he'd delved a little further into what he was saying. ... Just thinking out loud here...
I'm actually on this list :) and was just thinking out loud as well to see if I could understand the incident since I was seeing pretty strong claims (both "Wikipedia is sexist" and "this is journalism run amok.") For instance, people continue to report that Filipacchi is a reporter for NYT when these were op-eds.
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap