https://sourceable.net/advocates-for-women-architects-battle-wikipedia-troll... .....
According to event organizer Lori A. Brown, one of the event organizers and an associate professor of the Syracuse University School of Architecture https://sourceable.net/womens-architecture-survey-reveals-rise-in-discrimination/, the project was a timely response to online trolls in the Wikipedia community who would seek to diminish the contribution of women to the architecture profession.
“We realized it is time to take action,” said Brown, pointing to “a friend’s experience this summer linguistically wrestling with Wikipedia editing trolls who were doing their utmost to un-write women out of a certain section of activism.” ....
CM DC
here is the list of architects they were working on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_architects
lots of work done on Australians, only one deleted one saved from AfC by Gobonobo
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
https://sourceable.net/advocates-for-women-architects-battle-wikipedia-troll... .....
According to event organizer Lori A. Brown, one of the event organizers and an associate professor of the Syracuse University School of Architecture https://sourceable.net/womens-architecture-survey-reveals-rise-in-discrimination/, the project was a timely response to online trolls in the Wikipedia community who would seek to diminish the contribution of women to the architecture profession.
“We realized it is time to take action,” said Brown, pointing to “a friend’s experience this summer linguistically wrestling with Wikipedia editing trolls who were doing their utmost to un-write women out of a certain section of activism.” ....
CM DC
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
This is the grant proposal referenced at the end of that article (currently under review as part of Inspire): https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/More_Female_Architects_on_Wik...
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 6:31 PM, J Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
here is the list of architects they were working on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_architects
lots of work done on Australians, only one deleted one saved from AfC by Gobonobo
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
https://sourceable.net/advocates-for-women-architects-battle-wikipedia-troll... .....
According to event organizer Lori A. Brown, one of the event organizers and an associate professor of the Syracuse University School of Architecture https://sourceable.net/womens-architecture-survey-reveals-rise-in-discrimination/, the project was a timely response to online trolls in the Wikipedia community who would seek to diminish the contribution of women to the architecture profession.
“We realized it is time to take action,” said Brown, pointing to “a friend’s experience this summer linguistically wrestling with Wikipedia editing trolls who were doing their utmost to un-write women out of a certain section of activism.” ....
CM DC
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
On 4/10/2015 6:33 PM, Siko Bouterse wrote:
This is the grant proposal referenced at the end of that article (currently under review as part of Inspire): https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/More_Female_Architects_on_Wik...
I remember NOT commenting on that one because I figured, who could have a problem with that?
How soon we forget that getting MORE women articles and editors was and remains controversial.
Banging head vs. wall....
CM
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?
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/10/2015 6:33 PM, Siko Bouterse wrote:
This is the grant proposal referenced at the end of that article (currently under review as part of Inspire): https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/More_ Female_Architects_on_Wikipedia
I remember NOT commenting on that one because I figured, who could have
a problem with that?
How soon we forget that getting MORE women articles and editors was and remains controversial.
Banging head vs. wall....
CM
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
t think they were referring to this deletion discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pia_Ednie-Brow...
and this declined AfC https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jennifer_Taylor_%28architect%29&a...
the list shows a lot of positive work done
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com 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?
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/10/2015 6:33 PM, Siko Bouterse wrote:
This is the grant proposal referenced at the end of that article (currently under review as part of Inspire): https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/More_ Female_Architects_on_Wikipedia
I remember NOT commenting on that one because I figured, who could have
a problem with that?
How soon we forget that getting MORE women articles and editors was and remains controversial.
Banging head vs. wall....
CM
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
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?
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Carol Moore dc <carolmooredc@verizon.net mailto:carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote:
On 4/10/2015 6:33 PM, Siko Bouterse wrote: This is the grant proposal referenced at the end of that article (currently under review as part of Inspire): https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/More_Female_Architects_on_Wikipedia I remember NOT commenting on that one because I figured, who could have a problem with that? How soon we forget that getting MORE women articles and editors was and remains controversial. Banging head vs. wall.... CM _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto: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
I agree about the double standard, I've seen it applied all too often on Wikipedia. I was just asking what specific articles were being affected.
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
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?
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/10/2015 6:33 PM, Siko Bouterse wrote:
This is the grant proposal referenced at the end of that article (currently under review as part of Inspire):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/More_Female_Architects_on_Wik...
I remember NOT commenting on that one because I figured, who could
have a problem with that?
How soon we forget that getting MORE women articles and editors was and remains controversial.
Banging head vs. wall....
CM
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 listGendergap@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
Inclusionism and deletionism is a longstanding battleground where the community is awfully inconsistent. I decline a fair few incorrect speedy deletion tags, some of them so egregious it is very hard to assume good faith and not treat the tagger as a vandal.
I don't know whether there is a pattern of articles on women being more likely to be targeted by deletionists, or whether this is a matter of perspective, you know about the articles that you care about that are deleted and you see articles that you don't care about that have survived. What you are less likely to know about are the articles that you don't care about and that have been deleted.
If I'm right then there is a common misperception that ones own particular area is sometimes judged to a higher standard.
But this would be an interesting area for a couple of studies.
Firstly looking at gender ratios of deleted and undeleted bios to see if there is an overall gender skew.
Secondly look at the deleters and deletion taggers to see which ones have gender skews in their deletionism. Of course sometimes there will be clear reasons why there is a gender skew, I'd expect the editor who keeps an eye on the category "mixed martial artists" will mostly be tagging blokes for deletion. I'd also expect that the editor who monitors the model category will disproportionately be tagging women. But if we have deletionists who are disproportionately targeting women for no discernible reason then it would be good to identify them.
Regards
Jonathan
On 12 Apr 2015, at 04:48, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
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?
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/10/2015 6:33 PM, Siko Bouterse wrote: This is the grant proposal referenced at the end of that article (currently under review as part of Inspire): https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/More_Female_Architects_on_Wik...
I remember NOT commenting on that one because I figured, who could have a problem with that?
How soon we forget that getting MORE women articles and editors was and remains controversial.
Banging head vs. wall....
CM
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
2015-04-12 21:18 GMT+02:00 WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com:
Firstly looking at gender ratios of deleted and undeleted bios to see if there is an overall gender skew.
I share here this page of deleted and recreated pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emijrp/Deletionism/2011 just in case someone wants to explore that.
On 12 Apr 2015, at 04:48, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
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?
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/10/2015 6:33 PM, Siko Bouterse wrote:
This is the grant proposal referenced at the end of that article (currently under review as part of Inspire):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/More_Female_Architects_on_Wik...
I remember NOT commenting on that one because I figured, who could
have a problem with that?
How soon we forget that getting MORE women articles and editors was and remains controversial.
Banging head vs. wall....
CM
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 listGendergap@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
On 04/12/2015 03:38 PM, Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada wrote:
2015-04-12 21:18 GMT+02:00 WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers@gmail.com mailto:werespielchequers@gmail.com>:
Firstly looking at gender ratios of deleted and undeleted bios to see if there is an overall gender skew.I share here this page of deleted and recreated pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emijrp/Deletionism/2011 just in case someone wants to explore that.
I have python code that's pretty good at guessing the gender of biographical subjects, but originally it scraped HTML given a list of names. If someone had some code for retrieving the wikitext and determining that it is a biography (neither of which would be hard) it would be very easy to determine. Here's some pseudocode:
``` #!/usr/bin/python2.7
def is_bio(article): '''TRUE if article is not '{{hsdis}}' and has '{{infobox person}}'''
for title in titles: males = females = unknowns = 0 if title_exists: article = get_wiki(title) if is_bio(article): gender = guess_gender(article) print('%s: %s' %(title, gender)) if gender = male: males += 1 else gender = female females += 1 else: unknowns += 1 print('males = %s; females = %s; unknowns = %s' %(males, females , unknowns)) ```
Hi Joseph,
That would be fine for established articles, but in my experience most new bios that get speedy deleted within a day or two of creation don't ever get an infobox added.
Regards
Jonathan Cardy
On 13 Apr 2015, at 13:56, Joseph Reagle joseph.2011@reagle.org wrote:
On 04/12/2015 03:38 PM, Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada wrote: 2015-04-12 21:18 GMT+02:00 WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers@gmail.com mailto:werespielchequers@gmail.com>:
Firstly looking at gender ratios of deleted and undeleted bios to see if there is an overall gender skew.
I share here this page of deleted and recreated pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emijrp/Deletionism/2011 just in case someone wants to explore that.
I have python code that's pretty good at guessing the gender of biographical subjects, but originally it scraped HTML given a list of names. If someone had some code for retrieving the wikitext and determining that it is a biography (neither of which would be hard) it would be very easy to determine. Here's some pseudocode:
#!/usr/bin/python2.7 def is_bio(article): '''TRUE if article is not '{{hsdis}}' and has '{{infobox person}}''' for title in titles: males = females = unknowns = 0 if title_exists: article = get_wiki(title) if is_bio(article): gender = guess_gender(article) print('%s: %s' %(title, gender)) if gender = male: males += 1 else gender = female females += 1 else: unknowns += 1 print('males = %s; females = %s; unknowns = %s' %(males, females , unknowns))
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Actually I think it would be useful to measure all existing female bios vs all existing male bios for the proportion of those which have been previously deleted and recreated. I have a theory that it is much more difficult to create bios of females in whatever category due to the systemic academic bias aginst including women's biographies in the list of "reliable sources" mostly used in Wikipedia. I would be especially interested in comparison of male-female ration of bios in established dictionaries of biography and how these compare to Wikipedia, and of those, how many such bios were previously deleted on Wikipedia and recreated.
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 7:02 PM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Joseph,
That would be fine for established articles, but in my experience most new bios that get speedy deleted within a day or two of creation don't ever get an infobox added.
Regards
Jonathan Cardy
On 13 Apr 2015, at 13:56, Joseph Reagle joseph.2011@reagle.org wrote:
On 04/12/2015 03:38 PM, Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada wrote: 2015-04-12 21:18 GMT+02:00 WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers@gmail.com mailto:werespielchequers@gmail.com>:
Firstly looking at gender ratios of deleted and undeleted bios to see if there is an overall gender skew.
I share here this page of deleted and recreated pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emijrp/Deletionism/2011 just in case someone wants to explore that.
I have python code that's pretty good at guessing the gender of biographical subjects, but originally it scraped HTML given a list of names. If someone had some code for retrieving the wikitext and determining that it is a biography (neither of which would be hard) it would be very easy to determine. Here's some pseudocode:
#!/usr/bin/python2.7 def is_bio(article): '''TRUE if article is not '{{hsdis}}' and has '{{infobox person}}''' for title in titles: males = females = unknowns = 0 if title_exists: article = get_wiki(title) if is_bio(article): gender = guess_gender(article) print('%s: %s' %(title, gender)) if gender = male: males += 1 else gender = female females += 1 else: unknowns += 1 print('males = %s; females = %s; unknowns = %s' %(males, females , unknowns))
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
visit:
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 04/13/2015 01:18 PM, Jane Darnell wrote:
Actually I think it would be useful to measure all existing female bios vs all existing male bios for the proportion of those which have been previously deleted and recreated. I have a theory that it is much more difficult to create bios of females in whatever category due to the systemic academic bias aginst including women's biographies in the list of "reliable sources" mostly used in Wikipedia. I would be especially interested in comparison of male-female ration of bios in established dictionaries of biography and how these compare to Wikipedia, and of those, how many such bios were previously deleted on Wikipedia and recreated.
Hi Jane, I've done comparative work on coverage bias in biographies between WP and Britannica [1]. I've also shared my data [2] with an author of [3] who is extending that analysis to include structural, lexical, and visibility bias. I think addressing deletion and recreation wouldn't be too hard...
[1]: http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/777/631 [2]: http://reagle.org/joseph/2010/06/gender/results [3]: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.06307v1.pdf
Interesting, thanks for the links! We also now have mix-n-match and Charles Matthews has matched the complete Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, With autolist I could probably look at those male-female ratios per occupation. Might be interesting. I don't know how to get at the "deleted & recreated" data though
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Joseph Reagle joseph.2011@reagle.org wrote:
On 04/13/2015 01:18 PM, Jane Darnell wrote:
Actually I think it would be useful to measure all existing female bios vs all existing male bios for the proportion of those which have been previously deleted and recreated. I have a theory that it is much more difficult to create bios of females in whatever category due to the systemic academic bias aginst including women's biographies in the list of "reliable sources" mostly used in Wikipedia. I would be especially interested in comparison of male-female ration of bios in established dictionaries of biography and how these compare to Wikipedia, and of those, how many such bios were previously deleted on Wikipedia and recreated.
Hi Jane, I've done comparative work on coverage bias in biographies between WP and Britannica [1]. I've also shared my data [2] with an author of [3] who is extending that analysis to include structural, lexical, and visibility bias. I think addressing deletion and recreation wouldn't be too hard...
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Does anyone know what's going on with the Spanish Wikipedia? The last two articles I created, of Laxmi_Aggarwal and Maha Al Muneef--women who have been awarded the International Women of Courage Award--have been nominated for speedy deletion as not being encyclopedic. See my talk page http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_discusi%C3%B3n:Neotarf. My article on the award itself http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujer_coraje remains untouched, but you can see the only articles that remain as blue links are of Hispanic women.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting, thanks for the links! We also now have mix-n-match and Charles Matthews has matched the complete Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, With autolist I could probably look at those male-female ratios per occupation. Might be interesting. I don't know how to get at the "deleted & recreated" data though
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Joseph Reagle joseph.2011@reagle.org wrote:
On 04/13/2015 01:18 PM, Jane Darnell wrote:
Actually I think it would be useful to measure all existing female bios vs all existing male bios for the proportion of those which have been previously deleted and recreated. I have a theory that it is much more difficult to create bios of females in whatever category due to the systemic academic bias aginst including women's biographies in the list of "reliable sources" mostly used in Wikipedia. I would be especially interested in comparison of male-female ration of bios in established dictionaries of biography and how these compare to Wikipedia, and of those, how many such bios were previously deleted on Wikipedia and recreated.
Hi Jane, I've done comparative work on coverage bias in biographies between WP and Britannica [1]. I've also shared my data [2] with an author of [3] who is extending that analysis to include structural, lexical, and visibility bias. I think addressing deletion and recreation wouldn't be too hard...
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
maybe a note to leigh themadattar User:Thelmadatter?
who was mentioned in a blog https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/04/13/wiki-learning-edit-a-thon-mexico/
good reason to go to wikimania
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone know what's going on with the Spanish Wikipedia? The last two articles I created, of Laxmi_Aggarwal and Maha Al Muneef--women who have been awarded the International Women of Courage Award--have been nominated for speedy deletion as not being encyclopedic. See my talk page http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_discusi%C3%B3n:Neotarf. My article on the award itself http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujer_coraje remains untouched, but you can see the only articles that remain as blue links are of Hispanic women.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting, thanks for the links! We also now have mix-n-match and Charles Matthews has matched the complete Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, With autolist I could probably look at those male-female ratios per occupation. Might be interesting. I don't know how to get at the "deleted & recreated" data though
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Joseph Reagle joseph.2011@reagle.org wrote:
On 04/13/2015 01:18 PM, Jane Darnell wrote:
Actually I think it would be useful to measure all existing female bios vs all existing male bios for the proportion of those which have been previously deleted and recreated. I have a theory that it is much more difficult to create bios of females in whatever category due to the systemic academic bias aginst including women's biographies in the list of "reliable sources" mostly used in Wikipedia. I would be especially interested in comparison of male-female ration of bios in established dictionaries of biography and how these compare to Wikipedia, and of those, how many such bios were previously deleted on Wikipedia and recreated.
Hi Jane, I've done comparative work on coverage bias in biographies between WP and Britannica [1]. I've also shared my data [2] with an author of [3] who is extending that analysis to include structural, lexical, and visibility bias. I think addressing deletion and recreation wouldn't be too hard...
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
Yes, ask Leigh. I heard previously that Spanish Wikipedia has some eager deletionists, as English.Wikipedia does also.
Pine On Apr 17, 2015 6:20 AM, "J Hayes" slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
maybe a note to leigh themadattar User:Thelmadatter?
who was mentioned in a blog https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/04/13/wiki-learning-edit-a-thon-mexico/
good reason to go to wikimania
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone know what's going on with the Spanish Wikipedia? The last two articles I created, of Laxmi_Aggarwal and Maha Al Muneef--women who have been awarded the International Women of Courage Award--have been nominated for speedy deletion as not being encyclopedic. See my talk page http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_discusi%C3%B3n:Neotarf. My article on the award itself http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujer_coraje remains untouched, but you can see the only articles that remain as blue links are of Hispanic women.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting, thanks for the links! We also now have mix-n-match and Charles Matthews has matched the complete Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, With autolist I could probably look at those male-female ratios per occupation. Might be interesting. I don't know how to get at the "deleted & recreated" data though
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Joseph Reagle joseph.2011@reagle.org wrote:
On 04/13/2015 01:18 PM, Jane Darnell wrote:
Actually I think it would be useful to measure all existing female
bios
vs all existing male bios for the proportion of those which have been previously deleted and recreated. I have a theory that it is much more difficult to create bios of females in whatever category due to the systemic academic bias aginst including women's biographies in the
list
of "reliable sources" mostly used in Wikipedia. I would be especially interested in comparison of male-female ration of bios in established dictionaries of biography and how these compare to Wikipedia, and of those, how many such bios were previously deleted on Wikipedia and recreated.
Hi Jane, I've done comparative work on coverage bias in biographies between WP and Britannica [1]. I've also shared my data [2] with an author of [3] who is extending that analysis to include structural, lexical, and visibility bias. I think addressing deletion and recreation wouldn't be too hard...
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
Emilio - thanks for the reminder of that excellent page!
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
I have a theory that it is much more difficult to create bios of females in whatever category due to the systemic academic bias aginst including women's biographies in the list of "reliable sources" mostly used in Wikipedia. I would be especially interested in comparison of male-female ration of bios in established dictionaries of biography and how these compare to Wikipedia, and of those, how many such bios were previously deleted on Wikipedia and recreated.
Agreed. I think one of the most effective ways to counter this sort of systemic bias is to find dictionaries of biography & encyclopedic histories of women and digitize them / make them available to editors. Those sources often do exist, though they are less commonly known or available online. We have a decent reason for them to relicense those works, especially if we can more actively help with the digitization as a result.
It would be a small but precise blow against systemic bias to say "the following areas have historical & reporting bias; so we make extra effort to find and recognize additional sources, and vary criteria in inverse proportion to that bias".
Sam
i also collected some anecdotal data about deletions and speedy deletions of MacArthur Fellows. you could study differential deletions of them or Fellows of the Royal Society.
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Emilio - thanks for the reminder of that excellent page!
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
I have a theory that it is much more difficult to create bios of females in whatever category due to the systemic academic bias aginst including women's biographies in the list of "reliable sources" mostly used in Wikipedia. I would be especially interested in comparison of male-female ration of bios in established dictionaries of biography and how these compare to Wikipedia, and of those, how many such bios were previously deleted on Wikipedia and recreated.
Agreed. I think one of the most effective ways to counter this sort of systemic bias is to find dictionaries of biography & encyclopedic histories of women and digitize them / make them available to editors. Those sources often do exist, though they are less commonly known or available online. We have a decent reason for them to relicense those works, especially if we can more actively help with the digitization as a result.
It would be a small but precise blow against systemic bias to say "the following areas have historical & reporting bias; so we make extra effort to find and recognize additional sources, and vary criteria in inverse proportion to that bias".
Sam
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I think everyone's idea is good.
You can tackle these problems from a "big data" perspective as Joseph is proposing which has the disadvantage of being possibly imprecise in its assessment of gender but can potentially scan the whole of Wikipedia providing a massive dataset. And you can look at "small data" like existing lists as others are suggesting; with this approach, the assessment of gender will be more accurate but the sample size will be quite small (inviting the question whether a larger sample would reveal something different). There is a lot of benefit of doing both. Big data (a highly quantitative approach) is good at testing for unusual patterns in the data but not so good in explaining them; doing a more qualitative approach with small data analysis is likely to yield explanations. If small data yields a theory on the more precise characterisation of a pattern, then the theory can be tested on the big data to see if appears to hold more widely. The two approaches complement and reinforce one another. Neither approach is better or worse than the other, simply different tools used in research. Studying small samples requires skills that most researchers have, which is why it tends to be more popular. Big data approaches need firstly a large dataset (and Wikipedia is a very large dataset!) and secondly a strong IT skill set to work with that data, which limits the number of researchers who can undertake that kind of investigation. If Joseph has the skills to tackle a big data investigation, I hope he will tackle it. I look forward to hearing the results from any investigation.
Kerry
_____
From: gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of J Hayes Sent: Tuesday, 14 April 2015 5:56 AM To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participationof women within Wikimedia projects. Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Article: Wikipedia trolls now vs. women architects
i also collected some anecdotal data about deletions and speedy deletions of MacArthur Fellows.
you could study differential deletions of them or Fellows of the Royal Society.
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Emilio - thanks for the reminder of that excellent page!
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
I have a theory that it is much more difficult to create bios of females in whatever category due to the systemic academic bias aginst including women's biographies in the list of "reliable sources" mostly used in Wikipedia. I would be especially interested in comparison of male-female ration of bios in established dictionaries of biography and how these compare to Wikipedia, and of those, how many such bios were previously deleted on Wikipedia and recreated.
Agreed. I think one of the most effective ways to counter this sort of systemic bias is to find dictionaries of biography & encyclopedic histories of women and digitize them / make them available to editors. Those sources often do exist, though they are less commonly known or available online. We have a decent reason for them to relicense those works, especially if we can more actively help with the digitization as a result.
It would be a small but precise blow against systemic bias to say "the following areas have historical & reporting bias; so we make extra effort to find and recognize additional sources, and vary criteria in inverse proportion to that bias".
Sam
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 04/13/2015 01:02 PM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
That would be fine for established articles, but in my experience most new bios that get speedy deleted within a day or two of creation don't ever get an infobox added.
There's also the {{Persondata}} and various categories that would also give a clue that it was a biography.