While the coverage wouldn't have hurt, the bottom line is that people would rather create something of their own than work on something started by someone else. This is a reality, and it's one of the main reasons that people perceive Wikipedia as being "hard". Emily is right, creating new articles *is* hard; I'm pretty sure over the last 10 years I've created fewer than 15 articles. But "improving" an article is also hard, if the one you choose is "monitored" by a die-hard fan or someone who doesn't get the meaning of WP:OWN. I think that experienced editors (with emphasis on the word "editor" here) sometimes don't understand that many people get little pleasure out of improving what they see as someone else's creation; they want to have their own creation, that they can point to and say "I did that". It's exactly why we get people constantly pushing the boundaries of notability - not necessarily because they see a gap, but because they figure it's a way to gain recognition for creating a big pile of articles.We have to bear in mind that we're dealing with multiple agendas in these specific edit-a-thons. There's the "all art is tremendously important" agenda, there's the "women are not given their due" agenda, there's the commercial or self-interest agenda (one that is often ignored in some of these specialized group activities). Plus of course there is the "let's make Wikipedia better" agenda that's common to all edit-a-thons.Risker/AnneOn 12 March 2016 at 19:14, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:I very much agree, Emily. I wonder if this time, perhaps all the (wonderful and timely) media coverage of Emily Temple Wood's efforts to create new articles may have influenced organizers and/or participants? Perhaps it created a bit of a consensus, conscious or unconscious, that *creating new articles* was the main desired result.If so, this might be a bit of a one-time anomaly, may not indicate a need for major changes.-Pete[[User:Peteforsyth]]On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Emily Monroe <emilymonroe03@gmail.com> wrote:In general, creating articles are very difficult. The learning curve is steep, and it may be best to have people expand/improve articles instead of creating them.
From,
EmilyOn Mar 12, 2016 11:48 AM, "Ryan Kaldari" <rkaldari@wikimedia.org> wrote:I find it disappointing that so many of the Art and Feminism editathons end up focusing almost exclusively on creating new articles for artists at the hosting institution. Not only does this lead to a high percentage of the articles being deleted, but it's a waste of a huge opportunity to create and expand articles about artists and artworks with unquestionable notability and high encyclopedic value.I have no doubt that many of the Art and Feminism articles that are nominated for deletion are nominated due to gender bias (as some of them seem rather trivial to find sources for and improve), but many of them are also legitimately on the notability borderline. At all of the Art and Feminism editathons that I've volunteered at, I've discouraged people from creating articles about people they knew personally, and encouraged them to use the lists at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks instead. If you are helping to run an Art and Feminism editathon, I would also suggest doing this, as it provides more value for Wikipedia and leads to fewer deletions. I would also like to encourage everyone to edit the lists at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks and help keep them full of good suggestions. Editathons are a great tool for addressing the gendergap, and I would hate for them to get a reputation for just being self-promotional events.On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Carol Moore dc <carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote:Someone should write a letter to the editor of the those 5 or 6 publications that came in my google alerts on the topic of the edit a thon. (Search news google to find them.) And of course deal with the few legtimate complaints and the trolls with nonsense complaints.
On 3/12/2016 10:17 AM, Neotarf wrote:
_______________________________________________All the articles created at Regina ArtAndFeminism event have been
tagged. Ten of them have been submitted for deletion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism_2016/University_of_Regina
For example, see comments here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Risa_Horowitz
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap