The recent discussion on this (which never really came to a clear consensus):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_101#Ac...
- Andrew
On 27 April 2013 01:49, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
If people are concerned about sexism in Wikipedia categories they should be drawing attention to edits like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Gillies&curid=19682...
While the rest of the world is moving away from gender-specific job names (like policeman and actress), Wikipedia is moving in the opposite direction. That seems like a much worse problem than categorizing women as women.
Ryan Kaldari
On 4/25/13 11:34 PM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
Hi all,
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:56:39 -0400 Sumana Harihareswara sumanah@wikimedia.org wrote:
Wikimedia community member Liz Henry blogs here: http://bookmaniac.org/journalists-dont-understand-wikipedia-sometimes/ and does a little bit of digging into edit histories.
"Just from these three samples, it does not seem that there is any particular movement among a group of Wikipedia editors to remove women from the “novelists” category and put them in a special women category instead. I would say that the general leaning, rather, is to stop people who would like to label women writers as women writers *in addition* to labeling them as writers, claiming there is no need for Category: American women writers at all and that it is evidence of bias to identify them by gender. ... The sexist thing we should be up in arms about isn’t labelling women as women! It’s the efforts to delete entire categories (like Haitian women writers, for example) because someone has decided that that meta-information is unnecessary “ghettoization”..."
Seems like good write-up and I tend to agree. It's too bad there was so much misunderstanding in the media about it.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap