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