Hoi,

It is trivial when you only consider Wikidata. When you consider that some "humans" do not have a gender classification from a statistics point of view it hardly matters. It will be more problematic to consider all sciences.in

When you are interested in the development in the gender gap, you can use multiple dumps. This is what interests me most; see if the attention to female academics makes a difference compared with the norm.

The category of expatriate academics is most likely to be totally ambiguous. You have to consider the context.. What country is the norm ? Did they go back, do they travel ... The notion IF someone is an expat can only be considered when an academic has an organisation as an employer that is not in the country of birth. This information is far from complete but so are all these categories. Wikidata has more on this than any Wikipedia.

Thanks,

GerardM

On 28 February 2016 at 15:15, Joe Corneli <holtzermann17@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Jane Darnell <jane023@gmail.com> wrote:

> Oddly, there appears to be no solidarity among female Wikipedians that take
> this into account, because I assume we have lots of female academic
> Wikipedians who could easily write about other female academics in academic
> articles (or on Wikipedia) if they wanted to and don't.

I have a very basic question, to do with navigating Wikipedia's
categories. Is there a sensible way to query the category system (or
extracts, e.g. to DBPedia) to produce a side-by-side comparison of how
many pages on♀vs ♂ [might as well add: vs ⚧, i.e. nonbinary] academics
there are in existence on Wikipedia?

I should say that as a user I've often found the category system
confusing, no less in this case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Academics -> 36 persons, 14 subcategories

of which one subcategory is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_academics -> 33 persons,
3 subcategories

of which one subcategory is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_academics_by_nationality

To take an example: Daniela Müller is on the list of Academics, but
not the list of Women Academics; neither is she listed on these
various subcategory pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_historians -> 120 pages,
6 subcategories
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:German_women_academics -> 69 pages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dutch_women_academics -> 6 pages

Nor, coming at this from another angle, is she listed on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Expatriate_academics -> 6
pages, 9 subcategories

... although her bio page says that she is a "German theologian and
church historian, who works in the Netherlands since 2007 and who
holds the chair of Church History/History of Christianity."

narrative: I don't for a moment question that representation is very
unequal (and we could re-do this exercise along other dimensions as
you suggest Jane -- as evidenced by the German women vs Dutch women
comparison, combining dimensions produces revealing results)... but I
wish I knew just HOW unequal things are. At the moment it seems very
difficult to know the answer to that question -- but, again, this may
be because I'm naive about the art of wiki querying.

I know that some researchers have managed to get good data out about
this sort of thing, e.g.

«More information on Wikipedia deals with Europe than all of the
locations outside of Europe.»

GRAHAM , M., HOGAN , B., STRAUMANN , R. K., AND MEDHAT , A. 2014.
Uneven geographies of user-generated information: patterns of
increasing informational poverty. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 104, 4, 746–764.

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l