Thank you. But I do not believe these Guidelines are used fairly when it comes to author's gender. Again..why would every novel by Clive Cussler get its own page but there be a notability query about one by Zoë Wicomb??
This seems to me pure gender bias.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Kathleen McCook klmccook@gmail.com wrote:
I took off the scheduled for deletion notice or maybe it was lack of notability he put up. I couldn't bear. I am fearful he will put it back.
This is the issue--how can a male editor decide a woman's novel is not notable. on what basis? On what basis in Clive Cussler notable?
Hi Kathleen, in answer to your question, the notability guideline is the basis by which both male and female editors should assess articles. You can find it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I'm sure you are right. The rules are not applied evenly across articles at all. It's a myth, or common misconception, that Wikipedia is a "system" that functions as we are used to institutional systems functioning. The vast ruleset is just a toolbox, with tools that different people pick up and use in different ways. The innumerable differences in interest and motivation make the deployment of policies against content look random.
also discussed on the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:October_(novel)
-Jeremy
Thank you. But I do not believe these Guidelines are used fairly >when it comes to author's gender. Again..why would every >novel by Clive Cussler get its own page but there be a notability >query about one by Zoë Wicomb??
This seems to me pure gender bias.
Interestingly, in the process of tagging the Cussler book articles for their referential shortcomings, I found that someone else had tagged some of them. You might find this edit particularly interesting in this context:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trojan_Odyssey&diff=572871374...
Daniel Case
I think its new-ness bias and a related content bias and a popularity bias rather than primarily a gender bias. Theres loads of new work published all the time. Lots of it will not merit a Wikipedia article, just as many novels by the male contemporaries of Clive Cussler dont get Wikipedia articles either. Novels that have been around for years will have had lots of opportunity for 3rd parties to talk about them to establish notability. New novels have a harder job to establish notability because they have been around for a shorter period of time for others to write about them.
At the time the notability tag was added to the October article, there wasnt a whole lot of content in the article. There was no mention of any award. There were 2 cited sources, one of which was an interview with the author. The publisher of October (The New Press) doesnt have a Wikipedia article. And the only link to the October article is from the Zoe Wicomb article which probably deserves a notability tag itself (based on the citations, not the authors evident merits). The other Zoe Wicomb novels dont have a Wikipedia article either (they are visibly red-linked on the Zoe Wicomb article) and two of their publishers (Kwela and Umuzi) dont have Wikipedia articles. One work was published by Virago Press which does have a Wikipedia article though. If you look at it from the point of view of someone who has never heard of Zoe Wicomb, it seems a notability tag for the October article was not unreasonable; the evidence of notability of both the author and her works and her publishers (as currently shown on Wikipedia) looks pretty flimsy. I think if the Zoe Wicomb article was better fleshed-out and there were articles about her other novels and her publishers, the notability of her most recent novel would be more self-evident. I suspect this in itself a form of bias; Ill call it related content bias. That is, the presence of related content on Wikipedia provides its own evidence of notability. Personally I often check the What links here as a notability test if lots of other articles have previously had red-links to this topic, it suggests that an article on this topic is indeed needed (noting that needed is not necessarily the same as notable but personally I think its a good reason for any articles existence).
I think comparisons with Clive Cussler are inappropriate. Whatever anyone might think about his works (I am not a fan myself), its hard to deny that hes an extremely popular author. Wikipedia readers would expect to find Wikipedia articles about him and his works. An equally popular (probably more popular) female author is J. K. Rowling; I note her very recent book (under the Robert Galbraith pseudonym) The Silkworm got a Wikipedia article very quickly (without a lot of citations but with obvious notability weve all heard of J K Rowling). Zoe Wicomb isnt in the same league for obvious notability as Cussler and Rowling. Ive never heard of Zoe Wicomb until this thread but, to make it a fair test, I looked in my local public library current collection: 384,380 works in total, 130 works by Clive Cussler, 105 for J K Rowling, none whatsoever for Zoe Wicomb (they did have You cant get lost in Cape Town previously, I guess it has since been de-acquisitioned). (The count of work here include alternate formats: book/e-book/audio-book but not physical copies, if anyone is wondering). So I suspect the different treatment of Clive Cussler and Zoe Wicomb on Wikipedia may reflect a popularity bias too.
I am not denying that we have gender bias issues on Wikipedia but I think in this particular case I think there are definitely a number of other considerations in play.
Kerry
_____
From: gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Kathleen McCook Sent: Tuesday, 22 July 2014 11:34 PM To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participationof women within Wikimedia projects. Subject: [Gendergap] Zoë Wicomb or Clive Cussler?
Thank you. But I do not believe these Guidelines are used fairly when it comes to author's gender. Again..why would every novel by Clive Cussler get its own page but there be a notability query about one by Zoë Wicomb??
This seems to me pure gender bias.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Kathleen McCook klmccook@gmail.com wrote:
I took off the scheduled for deletion notice or maybe it was lack of notability he put up. I couldn't bear. I am fearful he will put it back.
This is the issue--how can a male editor decide a woman's novel is not notable. on what basis? On what basis in Clive Cussler notable?
Hi Kathleen, in answer to your question, the notability guideline is the basis by which both male and female editors should assess articles. You can find it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 7/22/2014 8:00 PM, Kerry Raymond wrote:
I think it's "new-ness" bias and a "related content bias" and a "popularity bias" rather than primarily a gender bias. There's loads of new work published all the time. Lots of it will not merit a Wikipedia article, just as many novels by the male contemporaries of Clive Cussler don't get Wikipedia articles either. Novels that have been around for years will have had lots of opportunity for 3^rd parties to talk about them to establish notability. New novels have a harder job to establish notability because they have been around for a shorter period of time for others to write about them.
There's also the issue of whether you are an inclusionist or an exclusionist. (I'm the former.)
Unfortunately, a lot of guy exclusionists see AfD as some sort of video game and feel like every deletion is a point in the game. A game which probably far more males than females want to play.
CM
On 7/23/2014 11:56 AM, Carol Moore dc wrote:
On 7/22/2014 8:00 PM, Kerry Raymond wrote:
I think it's "new-ness" bias and a "related content bias" and a "popularity bias" rather than primarily a gender bias. There's loads of new work published all the time. Lots of it will not merit a Wikipedia article, just as many novels by the male contemporaries of Clive Cussler don't get Wikipedia articles either. Novels that have been around for years will have had lots of opportunity for 3^rd parties to talk about them to establish notability. New novels have a harder job to establish notability because they have been around for a shorter period of time for others to write about them.
There's also the issue of whether you are an inclusionist or an exclusionist. (I'm the former.)
Unfortunately, a lot of guy exclusionists see AfD as some sort of video game and feel like every deletion is a point in the game. A game which probably far more males than females want to play.
CM
Additionally, we all have topics we dislike and may have a bias for deleting. (I control my urges by tagging articles rather than AfDing them.) It would be interesting to see if there is a pattern of certain individuals AfDing (and/or coming by to support AfDing) articles because of bias against women. If it's found, a few of us could leave them some nice notes on their talk pages about our findings. :-)
Another project for the Gender Gap task force? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias...
It needs a lot of work and I have a number of improvements to main page in mind which will surprise us with soon. Just have a couple personal tasks to finish that as usual take longer than one would expect...