Thank you very much for expanding the ideas I try to share with you.
It is about the need to create more articles and also about the improvement of articles
that do not refer adequately to the women´s contribution.
1. It would be good to take first a look at articles by categories as:
Women artists
Women in
computing
Women in
engineering
Women in
the military
Women
in the workforce
Women
Surrealists
Women and
religion
Women in
geology
Women in journalism and
media professions
Women in
medicine
Women in
philosophy
Women in the Information Age
Women's
rights
Women's
studies
2. To read and improve articles where women contribute, but not good recognised.
3. To start to create more articles.
A symbol (what you consider better, F was from Latin, EN FR SP etc) would qualifies the
article as female-priority or female-friendly or female-sensitive or a better
formulation.
That would be made by the efforts of the different chapters and the various languages.
It would be nice to launch an initiative by the International Women´s Day.
Patricia
--- On Thu, 2/10/11, Monaghan, Patricia <PMONAGHA(a)depaul.edu> wrote:
From: Monaghan, Patricia <PMONAGHA(a)depaul.edu>
Subject: [Gendergap] Expansion on Patricia's ideas
To: gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Thursday, February 10, 2011, 4:50 AM
I very much responded to Patricia's list of the kinds of articles that could become
part of the gendergap initiative. (For example: existing articles on Maria Curie, etc.;
articles with more biographies of women; articles on women's rights; articles on the
role of women in indigenous religions (Pachamama, etc) or concepts (motherland, matria,
etc)).
I would like to expand that by pointing out that within existing articles, there is need
for gender balance too. For instance, there is a whole school of woman-based economics
that appears nowhere in the article on economics. Nor is that main entry linked to
"gift economy," where there are major women theorists. I go to that entry and
am surprised that not a single woman is mentioned (Riane Eisler's "Real Wealth of
Nations" should be there). Finally I look up "motherwork," one of the
primary terms for women's economic contributions, and I find no entry and am referred
to "motherwort."
I am not starting my day off well with finding "motherwort" has an entry, and
"motherwork" does not.
For real equity, we must acknowledge women's contributions in fields where men
predominate. Cheers Patricia M
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap