Inclusionism and deletionism is a longstanding battleground where the community is awfully inconsistent. I decline a fair few incorrect speedy deletion tags, some of them so egregious it is very hard to assume good faith and not treat the tagger as a vandal.
I don't know whether there is a pattern of articles on women being more likely to be targeted by deletionists, or whether this is a matter of perspective, you know about the articles that you care about that are deleted and you see articles that you don't care about that have survived. What you are less likely to know about are the articles that you don't care about and that have been deleted.
If I'm right then there is a common misperception that ones own particular area is sometimes judged to a higher standard.
But this would be an interesting area for a couple of studies.
Firstly looking at gender ratios of deleted and undeleted bios to see if there is an overall gender skew.
Secondly look at the deleters and deletion taggers to see which ones have gender skews in their deletionism. Of course sometimes there will be clear reasons why there is a gender skew, I'd expect the editor who keeps an eye on the category "mixed martial artists" will mostly be tagging blokes for deletion. I'd also expect that the editor who monitors the model category will disproportionately be tagging women. But if we have deletionists who are disproportionately targeting women for no discernible reason then it would be good to identify them.
Regards
Jonathan
One can always just study the relevant
articles.
But often it's a double standard in application of policies.
So if it's a guy architect with a couple low quality refs,
people won't even bother to notice or respond.
But if it's a woman architect with 7 or 8 solid ones,
it becomes a cause celebre to delete the article.
And none of that "give the women a chance to
beef it up" nonsense either.
It tends to be quite irrational and knee jerk.
I've seen the same thing on articles about writers,
professors, politicians, anyone with even a mild
POV that goes against the alleged mainstream.
Their articles sometimes are ruthlessly attacked
and nitpicked. But if you just put a tag for
better references (or any references at all!) on
articles about individuals with an allegedly more
mainstream view who editors merely claim are
important in their field, you may get a lot of grief.
That's what systemic bias is all about it.
On 4/11/2015 5:55 PM, Rob wrote:
Can anyone point to where this "troll" behavior
happened? There don't seem to be a lot of specifics in this
article, and I'm wondering if it's gender trolls (which are,
alas, plentiful) or a culture clash between old editors and new
ones over unfamiliar policies?
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap