One exacerbating factor maybe worth adding in, which is also relevant
for what Wikipedia cites imo, is that more popular or journalistic
writing tends not to cite academic writing, even when very relevant,
sometimes even when the journalist/author in question actually did read
something by the academic in question during the course of their
research. Partly this is because journalistic/popular writing has much
less emphasis on citations as currency to begin with, and stylstically
prefers to avoid citations and footnotes. And partly because they seem
to only consider other things on a similar level of popularity worth
acknowledging--- other best-sellers, well-known pundits, even
high-traffic blogs, but not as much the lowly academic monograph or
journal article.
-Mark
Heather Ford <hfordsa(a)gmail.com> writes:
There's an interesting discussion going on right
now on the Association of
Internet Researchers mailing list about the citing of women (and women of
colour) in academia that I thought might be interesting. The comments are
also really (as Gabriella Coleman noted) 'lively' so they're worth a read
too. I'd be curious to learn more about how we as a Wikipedia research
community fare here too...
https://merylalper.com/2016/02/22/please-read-the-article-please-cite-women…
Best,
Heather.
Dr Heather Ford
University Academic Fellow
School of Media and Communications <http://media.leeds.ac.uk/>, The
University of Leeds
w:
hblog.org /
EthnographyMatters.net <http://ethnographymatters.net/> / t:
@hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
Mark J. Nelson
Anadrome Research
http://www.kmjn.org