On 5/15/12 6:35 PM, Laura Hale wrote:
From a gender gap perspective of bringing in new female contributors,  I would argue that Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga are much more important than Imlay because Gaga and Bieber are of interest to and more accessible to a greater audience than Imlay's article is. I would further argue that it is a bit elitist to dismiss the importance of improving such articles like Bieber and issues around such articles like Bieber while focusing on narrowly scoped articles that are of limited interest and limited ability to attract a large female audience. We might have issues of educational privilege and class amongst participants here that mean we do not adequately address those outside our own backgrounds.


Hi everyone. I don't think anyone is arguing the importance of Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga and the attraction that primarily young women have towards them. Those articles are also protected, meaning that young women who are new to editing most likely wouldn't be able to edit them. I also could argue that Lady Gaga could be used to also attract young gay boys into editing too. :D  (And Gaga is a good article, needing little improvement it seems!)

I believe it's the Twitter account focus that people are a bit confused by. I have a feeling a lot of young women aren't going to be interested in editing articles about the Twitter habits of their favorite celebrities, but more so the life story of those people. Alas, I don't have any specific research to back that theory though. I just am saying it from my own experience as being having my own celebrity obsessions when I was a young kid. I wouldn't quite go as far to say we have systemtic bias towards Bieber or Gaga content, either. I think we all struggle with trying to maintain articles about lesser known figures - whether scientists or sports figures.

But, in the spirit of "can o' worms" perhaps Twitter articles for celebrities are a slippery slope. I have a feeling that if we get Bieber Twitter then we get a Bieber's hair article too =)  (technically his hair is notable.)

-Sarah


On Wednesday, May 16, 2012, Lady of Shalott wrote:
I have to say that I think a topic such as Imlay, with literally centuries of scholarship is not really comparable to the recentism that is an article on a Twitter account, whether Bieber's or Gaga's.

LadyofShalott/ Aleta Turner

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> wrote:


On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Laura Hale <laura@fanhistory.com> wrote:

Been there.  Done that.  It isn't only women's topics. Because Justin Bieber is unpopular and actively disliked by some people,  (Though I guess you could argue this example relates to a topic of interest to many young girls) there was an attempt to merge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber_on_Twitter in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber , with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Justin_Bieber#Merger_proposal making it clear the reason is "I don't like this."  The article had about 100 sources around the time the article was nominated for merge.  Lady Gaga, the most followed person on Twitter and woo hoo female to boot! has had other people ask why the article isn't deleted.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lady_Gaga_on_Twitter#Request_for_deletion:_Is_this_page_really_relevant.3F . I have another topic I wrote on where the regional women's stuff should be generic to all women playing the sport or to the region. If neither article currently exist, [[WP:SOFIXIT]] by creating the new and relevant articles.

Information is power and what is on Wikipedia has the potential to shape greater understanding around issues.  Thus, a battle for what should and should not be there.

Wow, YMMV, but I think it's really odd to have whole long articles devoted to a Twitter account. What is and isn't broken out from "main topic" articles is often controversial, whether criticism sections or detailed information on specifically consequential periods, but an article on a Twitter account is an outlier in my reading experience.

One of the arguments on the talk page for Fanny Imlay was that the sources cited included information about her only incidentally in the course of covering other people, as opposed to being primarily about her (presumably with the exception of the biography). I don't know enough about the subject or the sources to know if this is the case, but it's an argument that might apply to "Justin Bieber on Twitter." The articles discussing his Twitter usage are really about Justin Bieber and his behavior, not his Twitter account. See for example[1], a short mention in Ashton Kutcher's bio about his Twitter use. Kutcher is also among the most prominent users of that service in its history, but there is no article devoted to it. Rather than seeing the merge proposal as an example of "I don't like it," I think the fact that it failed demonstrates the power of a gigantic fanbase to distort normal practice on a wiki.


~Nathan

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashton_Kutcher#Twitter_presence

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap




--
"Sometimes a tree is actually a deer with twelve horns, standing on a hillock that houses a bird's nest."

from _The Night Life of Trees_, by Bhajju Shyam, Durga Bai, and Ram Singh Urveti, Tara Publishing, 2006



--
mobile: 0412183663
twitter: purplepopple
blog: ozziesport.com



_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap


--
Sarah Stierch
Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow
>>Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate today<<