yes, i believe we have discussed this before-
there is a systemic bias in article subjects (including a sub-set of bios) based on editor interest; there is a systemic bias in the "reliable sources" which makes it harder to address bias, by adding sources alone; there is systemic bias with cultural push back when "feminist" topics are edited
the research newsletter would have more information: i.e. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2015/February#.22First_W...
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2013/July#Survey_partici...
i don't see studies of subject matter quality bias
jim
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Natacha Rault n.rault@me.com wrote:
Hi everyone,
I am running currently a project in Switzerland dedicated to the gender gap. More information here (in French) https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Suisse/Biographies_des_femmes_en_Suisse and here on the website of the University of Geneva: http://www.unige.ch/rectorat/egalite/evenement/actualites/wikipedia/
I had an interesting encounter on Twitter with an established Wikipedian who suggested that women bios and bios in general were not well received by the wikipedian community because of admissibility issues.
This person also suggested that addressing gender gap could not be fulfilled by just having women write bios, because this is addressing only the gender bias. He said writing bios did not help women address more complicated and technical subjects.
He wrote that limiting the gender gap to the gender bias is not enough.
Does anyone have a clue on this subject and/or informations, discussion feeds and papers of academic research?
I had the idea that gender gap had two aspects: contributor gap and subject gap. To me gender bias had more to do with the way sexist stereotypes introduces differences in the way an article is written: for e.g. women bios tend to be more focused on the marital life and less on the work achieved, less linked to other articles. Therefore the two concepts cannot so easily be separated and have a two way causality.
So I would really appreciate an exchange on this subject (sorry if it has been addressed before), and of the ways we can address the problem in effect, and not just in theory (especially when running an editing workshop or edit-a-thon). Do we have somme sort of best practices somewhere? A group devoted to this?
Kind regards,
Nattes à chat
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap