Dear all,
I found an interesting research done by Laura Hale about "Communicating on Wikipedia while female : A discursive analysis of the use of the word cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages" on meta wiki. The link to the research page is here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_fe...
Regards Netha
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com Date: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:57 PM Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Communicating on Wikipedia while female To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities < wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Hey,
I posted some new research to meta at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_fe... . It is titled: Communicating on Wikipedia while female A discursive analysis of the use of the word cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages. Thought it might be of some interest to people on this list.
Sincerely, Laura Hale
A very interesting study, and rather depressing. I love that I'm cited as a "radical feminist" though :)
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Netha Hussain nethahussain@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all,
I found an interesting research done by Laura Hale about "Communicating on Wikipedia while female : A discursive analysis of the use of the word cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages" on meta wiki. The link to the research page is here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_fe...
Regards Netha
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com Date: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:57 PM Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Communicating on Wikipedia while female To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities < wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Hey,
I posted some new research to meta at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_fe... . It is titled: Communicating on Wikipedia while female A discursive analysis of the use of the word cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages. Thought it might be of some interest to people on this list.
Sincerely, Laura Hale
-- twitter: purplepopple
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Netha Hussain Student of Medicine and Surgery Govt. Medical College, Kozhikode Blogs : *nethahussain.blogspot.com http://nethahussain.blogspot.comswethaambari.wordpress.com http://swethaambari.wordpress.com*
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I also find it very interesting.
I have, however, asked Laura to redact the identifying information of one of the editors whose actions are incorporated into this research. Research rarely includes publishing identifying information about specific individuals, particularly without the direct permission of those individuals. Regardless of what any of us think of the specific editor who is named, it behooves us all to act as we would expect to be treated - and I'd be pretty ticked if someone published research that included examples that identified me by name.
Risker/Anne
On 21 November 2014 14:55, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
A very interesting study, and rather depressing. I love that I'm cited as a "radical feminist" though :)
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Netha Hussain nethahussain@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all,
I found an interesting research done by Laura Hale about "Communicating on Wikipedia while female : A discursive analysis of the use of the word cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages" on meta wiki. The link to the research page is here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_fe...
Regards Netha
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com Date: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:57 PM Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Communicating on Wikipedia while female To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities < wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Hey,
I posted some new research to meta at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_fe... . It is titled: Communicating on Wikipedia while female A discursive analysis of the use of the word cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages. Thought it might be of some interest to people on this list.
Sincerely, Laura Hale
-- twitter: purplepopple
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Netha Hussain Student of Medicine and Surgery Govt. Medical College, Kozhikode Blogs : *nethahussain.blogspot.com http://nethahussain.blogspot.comswethaambari.wordpress.com http://swethaambari.wordpress.com*
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Honestly, I don't see a giant problem with identifying the person in question by name (and also find the research rather interesting.) Eric hasn't indicated that he regrets using the term, and has pretty robustly defended using it (going as far back as at least 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eric_Corbett/Statement - and he is very easily linked via Google to his statements and general use of the word. Realistically any research posted on meta will be primarily consumed by Wikimedians, and the current GGTF arb case is quite high profile. Although it's not incredibly common to name people in research without their explicit consent, it's quite common in journalism - I've had full comments of mine quoted by name in prominent media outlets going back years, with me often only finding out after someone pointed them out to me (and happening way before I did any voluntary media outreach.)
----- Kevin Gorman
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I also find it very interesting.
I have, however, asked Laura to redact the identifying information of one of the editors whose actions are incorporated into this research. Research rarely includes publishing identifying information about specific individuals, particularly without the direct permission of those individuals. Regardless of what any of us think of the specific editor who is named, it behooves us all to act as we would expect to be treated - and I'd be pretty ticked if someone published research that included examples that identified me by name.
Risker/Anne
On 21 November 2014 14:55, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
A very interesting study, and rather depressing. I love that I'm cited as a "radical feminist" though :)
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Netha Hussain nethahussain@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all,
I found an interesting research done by Laura Hale about "Communicating on Wikipedia while female : A discursive analysis of the use of the word cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages" on meta wiki. The link to the research page is here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_fe...
Regards Netha
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com Date: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:57 PM Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Communicating on Wikipedia while female To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities < wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Hey,
I posted some new research to meta at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_fe... . It is titled: Communicating on Wikipedia while female A discursive analysis of the use of the word cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages. Thought it might be of some interest to people on this list.
Sincerely, Laura Hale
-- twitter: purplepopple
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Netha Hussain Student of Medicine and Surgery Govt. Medical College, Kozhikode Blogs : *nethahussain.blogspot.com http://nethahussain.blogspot.comswethaambari.wordpress.com http://swethaambari.wordpress.com*
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Well, then, that speaks more to the quality of the research if an entire section is devoted to slagging a specific editor, and what you're suggesting is that the research really should be interpreted as "we have this one guy who keeps using this word, plus a rare occasional other editor who uses it, and we're going to group all obscenities together and use it to slag off the guy we're ticked off with".
This isn't claimed to be journalism, it's claimed to be research, and it needs to be held to a higher standard. The more I'm reading this, the more I'm finding it problematic.
Risker/Anne
On 21 November 2014 15:59, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
Honestly, I don't see a giant problem with identifying the person in question by name (and also find the research rather interesting.) Eric hasn't indicated that he regrets using the term, and has pretty robustly defended using it (going as far back as at least 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eric_Corbett/Statement - and he is very easily linked via Google to his statements and general use of the word. Realistically any research posted on meta will be primarily consumed by Wikimedians, and the current GGTF arb case is quite high profile. Although it's not incredibly common to name people in research without their explicit consent, it's quite common in journalism - I've had full comments of mine quoted by name in prominent media outlets going back years, with me often only finding out after someone pointed them out to me (and happening way before I did any voluntary media outreach.)
Kevin Gorman
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I also find it very interesting.
I have, however, asked Laura to redact the identifying information of one of the editors whose actions are incorporated into this research. Research rarely includes publishing identifying information about specific individuals, particularly without the direct permission of those individuals. Regardless of what any of us think of the specific editor who is named, it behooves us all to act as we would expect to be treated - and I'd be pretty ticked if someone published research that included examples that identified me by name.
Risker/Anne
On 21 November 2014 14:55, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
A very interesting study, and rather depressing. I love that I'm cited as a "radical feminist" though :)
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Netha Hussain nethahussain@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all,
I found an interesting research done by Laura Hale about "Communicating on Wikipedia while female : A discursive analysis of the use of the word cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages" on meta wiki. The link to the research page is here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_fe...
Regards Netha
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com Date: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:57 PM Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Communicating on Wikipedia while female To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities < wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Hey,
I posted some new research to meta at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_fe... . It is titled: Communicating on Wikipedia while female A discursive analysis of the use of the word cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages. Thought it might be of some interest to people on this list.
Sincerely, Laura Hale
-- twitter: purplepopple
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Netha Hussain Student of Medicine and Surgery Govt. Medical College, Kozhikode Blogs : *nethahussain.blogspot.com http://nethahussain.blogspot.comswethaambari.wordpress.com http://swethaambari.wordpress.com*
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I don't think it's at all fair to characterize the section as an attempt to rail on Eric. He just happens to have been at the center of the most recent high profile controversy about the word - which means that quoting recent defenses of the use of the word as an insult will naturally mean mostly quoting defenses of him. I've gone ahead and CC'ed Laura on this thread, since she's not on gendergap-l.
---- Kevin Gorman
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Well, then, that speaks more to the quality of the research if an entire section is devoted to slagging a specific editor, and what you're suggesting is that the research really should be interpreted as "we have this one guy who keeps using this word, plus a rare occasional other editor who uses it, and we're going to group all obscenities together and use it to slag off the guy we're ticked off with".
This isn't claimed to be journalism, it's claimed to be research, and it needs to be held to a higher standard. The more I'm reading this, the more I'm finding it problematic.
Risker/Anne
On 21 November 2014 15:59, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
Honestly, I don't see a giant problem with identifying the person in question by name (and also find the research rather interesting.) Eric hasn't indicated that he regrets using the term, and has pretty robustly defended using it (going as far back as at least 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eric_Corbett/Statement - and he is very easily linked via Google to his statements and general use of the word. Realistically any research posted on meta will be primarily consumed by Wikimedians, and the current GGTF arb case is quite high profile. Although it's not incredibly common to name people in research without their explicit consent, it's quite common in journalism - I've had full comments of mine quoted by name in prominent media outlets going back years, with me often only finding out after someone pointed them out to me (and happening way before I did any voluntary media outreach.)
Kevin Gorman
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I also find it very interesting.
I have, however, asked Laura to redact the identifying information of one of the editors whose actions are incorporated into this research. Research rarely includes publishing identifying information about specific individuals, particularly without the direct permission of those individuals. Regardless of what any of us think of the specific editor who is named, it behooves us all to act as we would expect to be treated - and I'd be pretty ticked if someone published research that included examples that identified me by name.
Risker/Anne
On 21 November 2014 14:55, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
A very interesting study, and rather depressing. I love that I'm cited as a "radical feminist" though :)
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Netha Hussain nethahussain@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all,
I found an interesting research done by Laura Hale about "Communicating on Wikipedia while female : A discursive analysis of the use of the word cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages" on meta wiki. The link to the research page is here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_fe...
Regards Netha
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com Date: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:57 PM Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Communicating on Wikipedia while female To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities < wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Hey,
I posted some new research to meta at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_fe... . It is titled: Communicating on Wikipedia while female A discursive analysis of the use of the word cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages. Thought it might be of some interest to people on this list.
Sincerely, Laura Hale
-- twitter: purplepopple
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Netha Hussain Student of Medicine and Surgery Govt. Medical College, Kozhikode Blogs : *nethahussain.blogspot.com http://nethahussain.blogspot.comswethaambari.wordpress.com http://swethaambari.wordpress.com*
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Fair enough. I was aware that Laura isn't on this list so I have been posting on Meta, which to me is the most appropriate place to critique the study.
Frankly, most of it has little to do with "editing while female" since much of the scatological language being referred to is gender neutral.
Risker/Anne
On 21 November 2014 16:41, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think it's at all fair to characterize the section as an attempt to rail on Eric. He just happens to have been at the center of the most recent high profile controversy about the word - which means that quoting recent defenses of the use of the word as an insult will naturally mean mostly quoting defenses of him. I've gone ahead and CC'ed Laura on this thread, since she's not on gendergap-l.
Kevin Gorman
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Well, then, that speaks more to the quality of the research if an entire section is devoted to slagging a specific editor, and what you're suggesting is that the research really should be interpreted as "we have this one guy who keeps using this word, plus a rare occasional other editor who uses it, and we're going to group all obscenities together and use it to slag off the guy we're ticked off with".
This isn't claimed to be journalism, it's claimed to be research, and it needs to be held to a higher standard. The more I'm reading this, the more I'm finding it problematic.
Risker/Anne
On 21 November 2014 15:59, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
Honestly, I don't see a giant problem with identifying the person in question by name (and also find the research rather interesting.) Eric hasn't indicated that he regrets using the term, and has pretty robustly defended using it (going as far back as at least 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eric_Corbett/Statement - and he is very easily linked via Google to his statements and general use of the word. Realistically any research posted on meta will be primarily consumed by Wikimedians, and the current GGTF arb case is quite high profile. Although it's not incredibly common to name people in research without their explicit consent, it's quite common in journalism - I've had full comments of mine quoted by name in prominent media outlets going back years, with me often only finding out after someone pointed them out to me (and happening way before I did any voluntary media outreach.)
Kevin Gorman
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I also find it very interesting.
I have, however, asked Laura to redact the identifying information of one of the editors whose actions are incorporated into this research. Research rarely includes publishing identifying information about specific individuals, particularly without the direct permission of those individuals. Regardless of what any of us think of the specific editor who is named, it behooves us all to act as we would expect to be treated - and I'd be pretty ticked if someone published research that included examples that identified me by name.
Risker/Anne
On 21 November 2014 14:55, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
A very interesting study, and rather depressing. I love that I'm cited as a "radical feminist" though :)
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Netha Hussain <nethahussain@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear all,
I found an interesting research done by Laura Hale about "Communicating on Wikipedia while female : A discursive analysis of the use of the word cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages" on meta wiki. The link to the research page is here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_fe...
Regards Netha
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com Date: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:57 PM Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Communicating on Wikipedia while female To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities < wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Hey,
I posted some new research to meta at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_fe... . It is titled: Communicating on Wikipedia while female A discursive analysis of the use of the word cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages. Thought it might be of some interest to people on this list.
Sincerely, Laura Hale
-- twitter: purplepopple
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Netha Hussain Student of Medicine and Surgery Govt. Medical College, Kozhikode Blogs : *nethahussain.blogspot.com http://nethahussain.blogspot.comswethaambari.wordpress.com http://swethaambari.wordpress.com*
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
This anonymity issue is one that arises quite a lot with Wikipedia and the WWW and big data generally. Just because the data is public and can be aggregated and presented in all sorts of interesting ways, there are those who would argue that it is OK to identify individuals because none of the information was "secret". But nonetheless many people live a quiet life, do not run for public office or engage in activities that would legitimately be a matter "in the public interest" even from a journalist's perspective. And even journalists don't always report everything they could; there are codes of practice in most countries in relation to coverage of certain kinds of events (e.g. in Australia, the suicide of an ordinary person will not be reported). Traditionally in research we expect research subjects to be accorded the right to their privacy and hence anonymity in the reporting of data. Personally I don't see any reason to deviate from that in relation to research findings, no matter what the source of the data, and I think that practice would be expected in most research publishing.
I think the old-fashioned principle "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" applies.
Kerry