Did anyone see this? A popular blogger on Science (with more than 4 million followers) is a woman. The woman herself, Elise Andrew, had no idea it was a secret, and she was "outed" when she announced her twitter account featuring a picture of herself. Apparently the bias occurred because of the swear word on her facebook page which made readers assume she was a man. Interesting conclusion! This is a facebook hype that deserves a WP page, no?
article is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/us-news-blog/2013/mar/20/i-love-science-wo... facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/IFeakingLoveScience The TV interview with Dr. Michio Kaku on CBS morning show is here: http://cbsn.ws/109mAEL
Interesting, this reminds me of the ignorant tweeps who believed (despite the text) that the character Rue in *Hunger Games* was white and asked "Why is Rue Black?" in the movie.
Do folks know of other examples of this?
On 03/30/2013 03:52 AM, Jane Darnell wrote:
Did anyone see this? A popular blogger on Science (with more than 4 million followers) is a woman. The woman herself, Elise Andrew, had no idea it was a secret, and she was "outed" when she announced her twitter account featuring a picture of herself. Apparently the bias occurred because of the swear word on her facebook page which made readers assume she was a man. Interesting conclusion! This is a facebook hype that deserves a WP page, no?
article is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/us-news-blog/2013/mar/20/i-love-science-wo... facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/IFeakingLoveScience The TV interview with Dr. Michio Kaku on CBS morning show is here: http://cbsn.ws/109mAEL
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 06:29:11 -0400 Joseph Reagle joseph.2011@reagle.org wrote:
Interesting, this reminds me of the ignorant tweeps who believed (despite the text) that the character Rue in *Hunger Games* was white and asked "Why is Rue Black?" in the movie.
Do folks know of other examples of this?
Well, admittedly, I find it hard to visualise characters based on their descriptions in the text. For example, I didn't picture http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Cho_Chang as belonging to Asian descent necessarily, even though I presumed she may have been. Then I saw her as Asian in one of the Harry Potter films.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
On 03/30/2013 03:52 AM, Jane Darnell wrote:
Did anyone see this? A popular blogger on Science (with more than 4 million followers) is a woman. The woman herself, Elise Andrew, had no idea it was a secret, and she was "outed" when she announced her twitter account featuring a picture of herself. Apparently the bias occurred because of the swear word on her facebook page which made readers assume she was a man. Interesting conclusion! This is a facebook hype that deserves a WP page, no?
article is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/us-news-blog/2013/mar/20/i-love-science-wo... facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/IFeakingLoveScience The TV interview with Dr. Michio Kaku on CBS morning show is here: http://cbsn.ws/109mAEL
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
The important difference being, that Rue is explicitly described as black in the books :) (rather than it being implicit in the name, as with Cho Chang).
Tom
On 30 March 2013 17:24, Shlomi Fish shlomif@shlomifish.org wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 06:29:11 -0400 Joseph Reagle joseph.2011@reagle.org wrote:
Interesting, this reminds me of the ignorant tweeps who believed (despite the text) that the character Rue in *Hunger Games* was white and asked "Why is Rue Black?" in the movie.
Do folks know of other examples of this?
Well, admittedly, I find it hard to visualise characters based on their descriptions in the text. For example, I didn't picture http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Cho_Chang as belonging to Asian descent necessarily, even though I presumed she may have been. Then I saw her as Asian in one of the Harry Potter films.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
On 03/30/2013 03:52 AM, Jane Darnell wrote:
Did anyone see this? A popular blogger on Science (with more than 4 million followers) is a woman. The woman herself, Elise Andrew, had no idea it was a secret, and she was "outed" when she announced her twitter account featuring a picture of herself. Apparently the bias occurred because of the swear word on her facebook page which made readers assume she was a man. Interesting conclusion! This is a facebook hype that deserves a WP page, no?
article is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/us-news-blog/2013/mar/20/i-love-science-wo...
facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/IFeakingLoveScience The TV interview with Dr. Michio Kaku on CBS morning show is here: http://cbsn.ws/109mAEL
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
--
Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ Original Riddles - http://www.shlomifish.org/puzzles/
<ew73> VB.NET is all of the fun of enforced privacy OO with all of the power of BASIC. — Freenode’s #perl
Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 6:29 AM, Joseph Reagle joseph.2011@reagle.orgwrote:
Do folks know of other examples of this?
It was widely assumed that the prominent political blogger Digby was male until she showed up to accept an award in 2007. When meeting another blogger for the first time, prior to that, she joked that she was "less James Bond and more Judi Dench".
In science fiction fandom, the legendary example was Lee Hoffman, active fanzine fan and writer of Westerns as well as S.F. Here's part of Wilson Tucker's classic account of learning the truth, in Room 770 of the hotel where the 1951 World Science Fiction Convention was being held. He has just stepped out of the shower:
I wrapped a towel around my middle, began searching my luggage for a deck of cards, and yelled a bored invitation to enter.
Three strangers trooped in wearing abashed grins, a girl and two men. The girl looked as if she were desperately searching for better company than the characters trailing her. I silently sympathized, and stared at the trio, the meanwhile dripping soap and water on the rug. The two gentlemen stared at the towel and giggled, while the girl looked at the puddle on the rug.
"Hello," one character said. "Hello," another character said. "Hello," the girl echoed.
Sadly, I shook my head. The same old wornout greetings.
"We're faaaaaaans" the tallest character announced proudly.
"The hell you say!" I shot back, astounded.
"Yep." He was wearing a white T-shirt on which had been printed, I AM SHELBY VICK. Turning to face me, he asked: "Know who I am?"
I gazed at the T-shirt. "Bela Lugosi?"
He waggled his head, vaguely disappointed.
"Richard Shaver," I guessed again, "Claude Degler, Ray Palmer?"
"I an Shelby Vick!" he exclaimed then in clear, ringing tones.
"The hell you say!" I shot back, astounded.
I-am-Shelby-Vick then flicked a finger at his two conspirators. "You know Lee Hoffman, of course?"
Of course. I threw a bored glance at the remaining character and yawned, "Hello, Lee."
"No, no!" contradicted I-am-Shelby-Vick. "Not him ... HER!"
Mustering what dignity I retained, I picked up my towel from the floor and stalked into the bathroom, flanging shut the door.
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Joseph Reagle joseph.2011@reagle.orgwrote:
Interesting, this reminds me of the ignorant tweeps who believed (despite the text) that the character Rue in *Hunger Games* was white and asked "Why is Rue Black?" in the movie.
Do folks know of other examples of this?
On 03/30/2013 03:52 AM, Jane Darnell wrote:
Did anyone see this? A popular blogger on Science (with more than 4 million followers) is a woman. The woman herself, Elise Andrew, had no idea it was a secret, and she was "outed" when she announced her twitter account featuring a picture of herself. Apparently the bias occurred because of the swear word on her facebook page which made readers assume she was a man. Interesting conclusion! This is a facebook hype that deserves a WP page, no?
article is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/**science/us-news-blog/2013/mar/** 20/i-love-science-woman-**facbookhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/us-news-blog/2013/mar/20/i-love-science-woman-facbook facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/**IFeakingLoveSciencehttp://www.facebook.com/IFeakingLoveScience The TV interview with Dr. Michio Kaku on CBS morning show is here: http://cbsn.ws/109mAEL
______________________________**_________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/gendergaphttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Thank you for sharing this Jane. It's amazing that it's still such an issue but yeah, a great example of how deeply rooted our presumptions are.
Am 3/30/13 8:52 AM, schrieb Jane Darnell:
Did anyone see this? A popular blogger on Science (with more than 4 million followers) is a woman. The woman herself, Elise Andrew, had no idea it was a secret, and she was "outed" when she announced her twitter account featuring a picture of herself. Apparently the bias occurred because of the swear word on her facebook page which made readers assume she was a man. Interesting conclusion! This is a facebook hype that deserves a WP page, no?
article is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/us-news-blog/2013/mar/20/i-love-science-wo... facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/IFeakingLoveScience The TV interview with Dr. Michio Kaku on CBS morning show is here: http://cbsn.ws/109mAEL
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Thank you for sharing this Jane. It's amazing that it's still such an issue but yeah, a great example of how deeply >rooted our presumptions are.
This actually happened to me, in a way, with one now long-departed Wikipedia editor. Despite a female-suffixed username*, I assumed this editor was a male because she was a flagrant asshole in some AfDs in a way that (in my experience) only men ever are. I was actually stunned to find out she was indeed a she. Daniel Case *As most of us know, username-based gender assumptions cut both ways. Users Hersfold and Nancy (see the explanation on his userpage) are both men, yet regularly deal with new editors assuming based on their names that they’re female. And I know they’re not the only ones.
On 30 March 2013 22:39, Daniel and Elizabeth Case dancase@frontiernet.netwrote:
Thank you for sharing this Jane. It's amazing that it's still such an
issue but yeah, a great example of how deeply >rooted our presumptions are.
This actually happened to me, in a way, with one now long-departed Wikipedia editor. Despite a female-suffixed username*, I assumed this editor was a male because she was a flagrant asshole in some AfDs in a way that (in my experience) only men ever are. I was actually stunned to find out she was indeed a she.
Daniel Case
*As most of us know, username-based gender assumptions cut both ways. Users Hersfold and Nancy (see the explanation on his userpage) are both men, yet regularly deal with new editors assuming based on their names that they’re female. And I know they’re not the only ones.
Hersfold and Nancy aren't the only ones. I've almost come to assume that if a username "sounds" feminine, it's probably attached to a man. Almost every editor I know whose username ends in an "a" is male. And many female editors have "male" sounding usernames.
If Wikipedia has taught me one thing, it is never to assume anything about the identity of the person on the other side of a username: not age, not gender, not orientation, not geographical location, or a million other things that we tend to use to categorize people.
Risker/Anne
That is interesting! Of course according to the latest stats, chances are 87% that any Wikipedian on the English Wikipedia is male (and we just found out this month that in the Dutch Wikipedia, 94% are male). It would be definitely interesting to fund some research on this specific issue (how people react in AfD discussions to girlish-named-Wikipedians based on female gender assumptions). This week similar research was published on the use of the Wikipedia "Ignore all rules" policy in AfD's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-03-25/Recent_...
2013/3/31, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com:
On 30 March 2013 22:39, Daniel and Elizabeth Case dancase@frontiernet.netwrote:
Thank you for sharing this Jane. It's amazing that it's still such an
issue but yeah, a great example of how deeply >rooted our presumptions are.
This actually happened to me, in a way, with one now long-departed Wikipedia editor. Despite a female-suffixed username*, I assumed this editor was a male because she was a flagrant asshole in some AfDs in a way that (in my experience) only men ever are. I was actually stunned to find out she was indeed a she.
Daniel Case
*As most of us know, username-based gender assumptions cut both ways. Users Hersfold and Nancy (see the explanation on his userpage) are both men, yet regularly deal with new editors assuming based on their names that they’re female. And I know they’re not the only ones.
Hersfold and Nancy aren't the only ones. I've almost come to assume that if a username "sounds" feminine, it's probably attached to a man. Almost every editor I know whose username ends in an "a" is male. And many female editors have "male" sounding usernames.
If Wikipedia has taught me one thing, it is never to assume anything about the identity of the person on the other side of a username: not age, not gender, not orientation, not geographical location, or a million other things that we tend to use to categorize people.
Risker/Anne
Having an ungendered username gets me some interesting interactions when people assume that because I'm not explicitly female, I must be male. Had a fun experience on IRC last night where I asked someone to stop making jokes about women's "boobs" because it sounded pretty creepy toward all women, and got the reply "well, it's not like there's any women active in here, but sure I guess [...]" When I kind of went "uh...ahem" in reply, they were aghast that they'd been talking to a woman all this time and not realized it.
Which sort of neatly encapsulates two sides of the problem - when people assume the a female name is female, their actions change to suit that (whether "suiting" it in their mind is being kinder, making boob jokes, being more dominant, whatever). When they assume that everyone is the "default" gender unless otherwise specified, though, or that women aren't and couldn't be present for whatever reason, it doesn't even cross their minds to change their actions.
-Fluffernutter
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 5:00 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
That is interesting! Of course according to the latest stats, chances are 87% that any Wikipedian on the English Wikipedia is male (and we just found out this month that in the Dutch Wikipedia, 94% are male). It would be definitely interesting to fund some research on this specific issue (how people react in AfD discussions to girlish-named-Wikipedians based on female gender assumptions). This week similar research was published on the use of the Wikipedia "Ignore all rules" policy in AfD's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-03-25/Recent_...
2013/3/31, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com:
On 30 March 2013 22:39, Daniel and Elizabeth Case dancase@frontiernet.netwrote:
Thank you for sharing this Jane. It's amazing that it's still such an
issue but yeah, a great example of how deeply >rooted our presumptions are.
This actually happened to me, in a way, with one now long-departed Wikipedia editor. Despite a female-suffixed username*, I assumed this editor was a male because she was a flagrant asshole in some AfDs in a way that (in my experience) only men ever are. I was actually stunned to
find
out she was indeed a she.
Daniel Case
*As most of us know, username-based gender assumptions cut both ways. Users Hersfold and Nancy (see the explanation on his userpage) are both men, yet regularly deal with new editors assuming based on their names that they’re female. And I know they’re not the only ones.
Hersfold and Nancy aren't the only ones. I've almost come to assume that if a username "sounds" feminine, it's probably attached to a man. Almost every editor I know whose username ends in an "a" is male. And many female editors have "male" sounding usernames.
If Wikipedia has taught me one thing, it is never to assume anything
about
the identity of the person on the other side of a username: not age, not gender, not orientation, not geographical location, or a million other things that we tend to use to categorize people.
Risker/Anne
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
It's appalling and depressing; but if somebody were to write a Wikipedia article about it, at this point, I'd say it fails WP:NOTNEWS.
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:52 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Did anyone see this? A popular blogger on Science (with more than 4 million followers) is a woman. The woman herself, Elise Andrew, had no idea it was a secret, and she was "outed" when she announced her twitter account featuring a picture of herself. Apparently the bias occurred because of the swear word on her facebook page which made readers assume she was a man. Interesting conclusion! This is a facebook hype that deserves a WP page, no?
article is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/us-news-blog/2013/mar/20/i-love-science-wo... facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/IFeakingLoveScience The TV interview with Dr. Michio Kaku on CBS morning show is here: http://cbsn.ws/109mAEL
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Oh Michael, the bearer of bad news about people who generally want to write new articles on this mailing list.
Is there another article where we think this type of coverage or content could be placed? I think we could even build an article about I Fucking Love Science instead.
I still question if it's officially not worth an article, I haven't researched it yet. But, at this point I'm a "pro" at making people most declare non-notable rather notable based on research. (Oh the curator in me!)
-Sarah
On 3/30/13 6:08 AM, Michael J. Lowrey wrote:
It's appalling and depressing; but if somebody were to write a Wikipedia article about it, at this point, I'd say it fails WP:NOTNEWS.
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:52 AM, Jane Darnell <jane023@gmail.com mailto:jane023@gmail.com> wrote:
Did anyone see this? A popular blogger on Science (with more than 4 million followers) is a woman. The woman herself, Elise Andrew, had no idea it was a secret, and she was "outed" when she announced her twitter account featuring a picture of herself. Apparently the bias occurred because of the swear word on her facebook page which made readers assume she was a man. Interesting conclusion! This is a facebook hype that deserves a WP page, no? article is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/us-news-blog/2013/mar/20/i-love-science-woman-facbook facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/IFeakingLoveScience The TV interview with Dr. Michio Kaku on CBS morning show is here: http://cbsn.ws/109mAEL _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
"When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes." -- Desiderius Erasmus
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I'd say we need to use the usual resources to figure out whether she or her blog gets the most coverage, and craft an article for whichever subject it is.
(I know I'm a meanie, Sarah; but I'm an equal-opportunity wet blanket, quashing ideas about things I love as well as those I don't care about and those I despise, if I think they don't qualify.)
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:
Oh Michael, the bearer of bad news about people who generally want to write new articles on this mailing list.
Is there another article where we think this type of coverage or content could be placed? I think we could even build an article about I Fucking Love Science instead.
I still question if it's officially not worth an article, I haven't researched it yet. But, at this point I'm a "pro" at making people most declare non-notable rather notable based on research. (Oh the curator in me!)
-Sarah
On 3/30/13 6:08 AM, Michael J. Lowrey wrote:
It's appalling and depressing; but if somebody were to write a Wikipedia article about it, at this point, I'd say it fails WP:NOTNEWS.
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:52 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Did anyone see this? A popular blogger on Science (with more than 4 million followers) is a woman. The woman herself, Elise Andrew, had no idea it was a secret, and she was "outed" when she announced her twitter account featuring a picture of herself. Apparently the bias occurred because of the swear word on her facebook page which made readers assume she was a man. Interesting conclusion! This is a facebook hype that deserves a WP page, no?
article is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/us-news-blog/2013/mar/20/i-love-science-wo... facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/IFeakingLoveScience The TV interview with Dr. Michio Kaku on CBS morning show is here: http://cbsn.ws/109mAEL
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
"When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes." -- Desiderius Erasmus
Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Museumist and open culture advocate*
Visit sarahstierch.com http://sarahstierch.com<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Hi Sarah,
I am following this discussion and it's interesting to see that deciding about an entry is not straight-forward even to "core insiders". I wonder what criteria help decide if something or someone is "worth" an article in WP. How do you decide? Or: What makes it worth it or nor?
-Ilona
Am 3/30/13 5:17 PM, schrieb Sarah Stierch:
Oh Michael, the bearer of bad news about people who generally want to write new articles on this mailing list.
Is there another article where we think this type of coverage or content could be placed? I think we could even build an article about I Fucking Love Science instead.
I still question if it's officially not worth an article, I haven't researched it yet. But, at this point I'm a "pro" at making people most declare non-notable rather notable based on research. (Oh the curator in me!)
-Sarah
On 3/30/13 6:08 AM, Michael J. Lowrey wrote:
It's appalling and depressing; but if somebody were to write a Wikipedia article about it, at this point, I'd say it fails WP:NOTNEWS.
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:52 AM, Jane Darnell <jane023@gmail.com mailto:jane023@gmail.com> wrote:
Did anyone see this? A popular blogger on Science (with more than 4 million followers) is a woman. The woman herself, Elise Andrew, had no idea it was a secret, and she was "outed" when she announced her twitter account featuring a picture of herself. Apparently the bias occurred because of the swear word on her facebook page which made readers assume she was a man. Interesting conclusion! This is a facebook hype that deserves a WP page, no? article is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/us-news-blog/2013/mar/20/i-love-science-woman-facbook facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/IFeakingLoveScience The TV interview with Dr. Michio Kaku on CBS morning show is here: http://cbsn.ws/109mAEL _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
"When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes." -- Desiderius Erasmus
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- *Sarah Stierch* */Museumist and open culture advocate/*
Visit sarahstierch.com http://sarahstierch.com<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Awesome! Nice article. I think she is OK on the notability front. Anyone who manages to accumulate more than 4 million *science* followers on facebook without posting regularly on sexual subjects is definitely noteworthy enough for Wikipedia. Add to that this strange development on the swear-word gender miscommunication and you pass on the basis of "most bizarre gendergap content to be published in 2013".
2013/3/30, Ilona Buchem buchem@beuth-hochschule.de:
Hi Sarah,
I am following this discussion and it's interesting to see that deciding about an entry is not straight-forward even to "core insiders". I wonder what criteria help decide if something or someone is "worth" an article in WP. How do you decide? Or: What makes it worth it or nor?
-Ilona
Am 3/30/13 5:17 PM, schrieb Sarah Stierch:
Oh Michael, the bearer of bad news about people who generally want to write new articles on this mailing list.
Is there another article where we think this type of coverage or content could be placed? I think we could even build an article about I Fucking Love Science instead.
I still question if it's officially not worth an article, I haven't researched it yet. But, at this point I'm a "pro" at making people most declare non-notable rather notable based on research. (Oh the curator in me!)
-Sarah
On 3/30/13 6:08 AM, Michael J. Lowrey wrote:
It's appalling and depressing; but if somebody were to write a Wikipedia article about it, at this point, I'd say it fails WP:NOTNEWS.
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:52 AM, Jane Darnell <jane023@gmail.com mailto:jane023@gmail.com> wrote:
Did anyone see this? A popular blogger on Science (with more than 4 million followers) is a woman. The woman herself, Elise Andrew, had no idea it was a secret, and she was "outed" when she announced her twitter account featuring a picture of herself. Apparently the bias occurred because of the swear word on her facebook page which made readers assume she was a man. Interesting conclusion! This is a facebook hype that deserves a WP page, no? article is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/us-news-blog/2013/mar/20/i-love-science-wo... facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/IFeakingLoveScience The TV interview with Dr. Michio Kaku on CBS morning show is here: http://cbsn.ws/109mAEL
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
"When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes." -- Desiderius Erasmus
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- *Sarah Stierch* */Museumist and open culture advocate/*
Visit sarahstierch.com http://sarahstierch.com<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On the other hand, we need a secondary source that is more reliable than Facebook or Twitter.
From, Emily
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Awesome! Nice article. I think she is OK on the notability front. Anyone who manages to accumulate more than 4 million *science* followers on facebook without posting regularly on sexual subjects is definitely noteworthy enough for Wikipedia. Add to that this strange development on the swear-word gender miscommunication and you pass on the basis of "most bizarre gendergap content to be published in 2013".
2013/3/30, Ilona Buchem buchem@beuth-hochschule.de:
Hi Sarah,
I am following this discussion and it's interesting to see that deciding about an entry is not straight-forward even to "core insiders". I wonder what criteria help decide if something or someone is "worth" an article in WP. How do you decide? Or: What makes it worth it or nor?
-Ilona
Am 3/30/13 5:17 PM, schrieb Sarah Stierch:
Oh Michael, the bearer of bad news about people who generally want to write new articles on this mailing list.
Is there another article where we think this type of coverage or content could be placed? I think we could even build an article about I Fucking Love Science instead.
I still question if it's officially not worth an article, I haven't researched it yet. But, at this point I'm a "pro" at making people most declare non-notable rather notable based on research. (Oh the curator in me!)
-Sarah
On 3/30/13 6:08 AM, Michael J. Lowrey wrote:
It's appalling and depressing; but if somebody were to write a Wikipedia article about it, at this point, I'd say it fails WP:NOTNEWS.
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:52 AM, Jane Darnell <jane023@gmail.com mailto:jane023@gmail.com> wrote:
Did anyone see this? A popular blogger on Science (with more than 4 million followers) is a woman. The woman herself, Elise Andrew, had no idea it was a secret, and she was "outed" when she announced her twitter account featuring a picture of herself. Apparently the bias occurred because of the swear word on her facebook page which made readers assume she was a man. Interesting conclusion! This is a facebook hype that deserves a WP page, no? article is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/us-news-blog/2013/mar/20/i-love-science-wo...
facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/IFeakingLoveScience The TV interview with Dr. Michio Kaku on CBS morning show is here: http://cbsn.ws/109mAEL _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
"When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes." -- Desiderius Erasmus
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- *Sarah Stierch* */Museumist and open culture advocate/*
Visit sarahstierch.com http://sarahstierch.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
There are plenty! She was notable before this incident happened. She's been covered/interviewed in /multiple secondary reliable sources/.
-Sarah /who always likes a challenge.
On 3/30/13 12:58 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
On the other hand, we need a secondary source that is more reliable than Facebook or Twitter.
From, Emily
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Jane Darnell <jane023@gmail.com mailto:jane023@gmail.com> wrote:
Awesome! Nice article. I think she is OK on the notability front. Anyone who manages to accumulate more than 4 million *science* followers on facebook without posting regularly on sexual subjects is definitely noteworthy enough for Wikipedia. Add to that this strange development on the swear-word gender miscommunication and you pass on the basis of "most bizarre gendergap content to be published in 2013". 2013/3/30, Ilona Buchem <buchem@beuth-hochschule.de <mailto:buchem@beuth-hochschule.de>>: > Hi Sarah, > > I am following this discussion and it's interesting to see that deciding > about an entry is not straight-forward even to "core insiders". I wonder > what criteria help decide if something or someone is "worth" an article > in WP. How do you decide? Or: What makes it worth it or nor? > > -Ilona > > Am 3/30/13 5:17 PM, schrieb Sarah Stierch: >> Oh Michael, the bearer of bad news about people who generally want to >> write new articles on this mailing list. >> >> Is there another article where we think this type of coverage or >> content could be placed? I think we could even build an article about >> I Fucking Love Science instead. >> >> I still question if it's officially not worth an article, I haven't >> researched it yet. But, at this point I'm a "pro" at making people >> most declare non-notable rather notable based on research. (Oh the >> curator in me!) >> >> -Sarah >> >> On 3/30/13 6:08 AM, Michael J. Lowrey wrote: >>> It's appalling and depressing; but if somebody were to write a >>> Wikipedia article about it, at this point, I'd say it fails WP:NOTNEWS. >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:52 AM, Jane Darnell <jane023@gmail.com <mailto:jane023@gmail.com> >>> <mailto:jane023@gmail.com <mailto:jane023@gmail.com>>> wrote: >>> >>> Did anyone see this? A popular blogger on Science (with more than 4 >>> million followers) is a woman. The woman herself, Elise Andrew, >>> had no >>> idea it was a secret, and she was "outed" when she announced her >>> twitter account featuring a picture of herself. Apparently the bias >>> occurred because of the swear word on her facebook page which made >>> readers assume she was a man. Interesting conclusion! This is a >>> facebook hype that deserves a WP page, no? >>> >>> article is here: >>> >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/us-news-blog/2013/mar/20/i-love-science-woman-facbook >>> facebook page here: >>> http://www.facebook.com/IFeakingLoveScience >>> The TV interview with Dr. Michio Kaku on CBS morning show is here: >>> http://cbsn.ws/109mAEL >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org>> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey >>> >>> "When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left, I buy >>> food and clothes." >>> -- Desiderius Erasmus >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> >> >> -- >> *Sarah Stierch* >> */Museumist and open culture advocate/* >> >>Visit sarahstierch.com <http://sarahstierch.com> <http://sarahstierch.com><< >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > > _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto: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
Good enough for this new page patroller!
From, Emily
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:
There are plenty! She was notable before this incident happened. She's been covered/interviewed in *multiple secondary reliable sources*.
-Sarah /who always likes a challenge.
On 3/30/13 12:58 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
On the other hand, we need a secondary source that is more reliable than Facebook or Twitter.
From, Emily
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Awesome! Nice article. I think she is OK on the notability front. Anyone who manages to accumulate more than 4 million *science* followers on facebook without posting regularly on sexual subjects is definitely noteworthy enough for Wikipedia. Add to that this strange development on the swear-word gender miscommunication and you pass on the basis of "most bizarre gendergap content to be published in 2013".
2013/3/30, Ilona Buchem buchem@beuth-hochschule.de:
Hi Sarah,
I am following this discussion and it's interesting to see that deciding about an entry is not straight-forward even to "core insiders". I wonder what criteria help decide if something or someone is "worth" an article in WP. How do you decide? Or: What makes it worth it or nor?
-Ilona
Am 3/30/13 5:17 PM, schrieb Sarah Stierch:
Oh Michael, the bearer of bad news about people who generally want to write new articles on this mailing list.
Is there another article where we think this type of coverage or content could be placed? I think we could even build an article about I Fucking Love Science instead.
I still question if it's officially not worth an article, I haven't researched it yet. But, at this point I'm a "pro" at making people most declare non-notable rather notable based on research. (Oh the curator in me!)
-Sarah
On 3/30/13 6:08 AM, Michael J. Lowrey wrote:
It's appalling and depressing; but if somebody were to write a Wikipedia article about it, at this point, I'd say it fails
WP:NOTNEWS.
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:52 AM, Jane Darnell <jane023@gmail.com mailto:jane023@gmail.com> wrote:
Did anyone see this? A popular blogger on Science (with more than
4
million followers) is a woman. The woman herself, Elise Andrew, had no idea it was a secret, and she was "outed" when she announced her twitter account featuring a picture of herself. Apparently the
bias
occurred because of the swear word on her facebook page which made readers assume she was a man. Interesting conclusion! This is a facebook hype that deserves a WP page, no? article is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/us-news-blog/2013/mar/20/i-love-science-wo...
facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/IFeakingLoveScience The TV interview with Dr. Michio Kaku on CBS morning show is here: http://cbsn.ws/109mAEL _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
"When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes." -- Desiderius Erasmus
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- *Sarah Stierch* */Museumist and open culture advocate/*
Visit sarahstierch.com http://sarahstierch.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 listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Museumist and open culture advocate*
Visit sarahstierch.com http://sarahstierch.com<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Jane -
I saw her interview on CBS and said to myself "I need to write a Wikipedia article for her."
I just haven't been able to get to it! Let's do this :)
I fucking love Wikipedia! <3 <3
-Sarah
On 3/30/13 12:52 AM, Jane Darnell wrote:
Did anyone see this? A popular blogger on Science (with more than 4 million followers) is a woman. The woman herself, Elise Andrew, had no idea it was a secret, and she was "outed" when she announced her twitter account featuring a picture of herself. Apparently the bias occurred because of the swear word on her facebook page which made readers assume she was a man. Interesting conclusion! This is a facebook hype that deserves a WP page, no?
article is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/us-news-blog/2013/mar/20/i-love-science-wo... facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/IFeakingLoveScience The TV interview with Dr. Michio Kaku on CBS morning show is here: http://cbsn.ws/109mAEL
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap