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
On Tue, Feb 23 2016, Heather Ford wrote:
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-...
Heather, from my perspective that discussion looks mostly like people talking past each other.
To recap what I learned: It seems that Fred Kaplan didn't notice a book that might have been relevant to his research and therefor didn't cite it (this is what he claims anyway). When Meryl Alper pointed out the missing citation, he was dismissive rather than appreciative. But she wasn't exactly diplomatic; contact seems to have been initiated from her side as follows:
"how come no mention of this claim made prior by @frauricker: http://nyupress.org/books/9780814708675/ …? shame on @nytimes @fmkaplan" - https://twitter.com/merylalper/status/701027695400976384
So it's perhaps not a total surprise that Kaplan was defensive.
The bigger picture -- women authors (not) being cited proportionately, or even being actively "erased", as well as broader online sexist behaviour[fn1] -- would be well worth discussing but to me the Frek Kaplan / Meryl Alper debate looks like it is only tangentially connected with the deeper issues.
A counterfactual thought experiment: if Stephanie R. Schulte (frauricker) had in fact been male, how would that have changed the situation?
I'd suggest we zoom to the "big picture" to get some more context.
E.g.
«We find that in the most productive countries, all articles with women in dominant author positions receive fewer citations than those with men in the same positions. And this citation disadvantage is accentuated by the fact that women's publication portfolios are more domestic than their male colleagues — they profit less from the extra citations that international collaborations accrue.» http://www.nature.com/news/bibliometrics-global-gender-disparities-in-scienc...
With regards,
Joe
[fn1]: just watched this related lecture yesterday, http://boingboing.net/2016/02/22/sarah-jeongs-harvard-lecture.html
...meanwhile, in daily life on Wikipedia, the effects of non-citation regarding female academics is immediately reflected in the difficulties of reaching Wikipedia notability status for said female academics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nitasha_Kaul
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Joe Corneli holtzermann17@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23 2016, Heather Ford wrote:
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-...
Heather, from my perspective that discussion looks mostly like people talking past each other.
To recap what I learned: It seems that Fred Kaplan didn't notice a book that might have been relevant to his research and therefor didn't cite it (this is what he claims anyway). When Meryl Alper pointed out the missing citation, he was dismissive rather than appreciative. But she wasn't exactly diplomatic; contact seems to have been initiated from her side as follows:
"how come no mention of this claim made prior by @frauricker: http://nyupress.org/books/9780814708675/ …? shame on @nytimes @fmkaplan"
So it's perhaps not a total surprise that Kaplan was defensive.
The bigger picture -- women authors (not) being cited proportionately, or even being actively "erased", as well as broader online sexist behaviour[fn1] -- would be well worth discussing but to me the Frek Kaplan / Meryl Alper debate looks like it is only tangentially connected with the deeper issues.
A counterfactual thought experiment: if Stephanie R. Schulte (frauricker) had in fact been male, how would that have changed the situation?
I'd suggest we zoom to the "big picture" to get some more context.
E.g.
«We find that in the most productive countries, all articles with women in dominant author positions receive fewer citations than those with men in the same positions. And this citation disadvantage is accentuated by the fact that women's publication portfolios are more domestic than their male colleagues — they profit less from the extra citations that international collaborations accrue.»
http://www.nature.com/news/bibliometrics-global-gender-disparities-in-scienc...
With regards,
Joe
[fn1]: just watched this related lecture yesterday, http://boingboing.net/2016/02/22/sarah-jeongs-harvard-lecture.html
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Thanks to Gerard Meissen who just updated her Wikidata item with a bunch of references, so who knows that may help. Getting back on topic, the Kaplan fellow has a Wikipedia article while the Schulte woman doesn't. Can we blame him then for feeling irritated that she wasn't notable enough to cite? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Kaplan_(journalist) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Stephanie+Ricker+Schulte&tit...
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
...meanwhile, in daily life on Wikipedia, the effects of non-citation regarding female academics is immediately reflected in the difficulties of reaching Wikipedia notability status for said female academics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nitasha_Kaul
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Joe Corneli holtzermann17@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23 2016, Heather Ford wrote:
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-...
Heather, from my perspective that discussion looks mostly like people talking past each other.
To recap what I learned: It seems that Fred Kaplan didn't notice a book that might have been relevant to his research and therefor didn't cite it (this is what he claims anyway). When Meryl Alper pointed out the missing citation, he was dismissive rather than appreciative. But she wasn't exactly diplomatic; contact seems to have been initiated from her side as follows:
"how come no mention of this claim made prior by @frauricker: http://nyupress.org/books/9780814708675/ …? shame on @nytimes @fmkaplan"
So it's perhaps not a total surprise that Kaplan was defensive.
The bigger picture -- women authors (not) being cited proportionately, or even being actively "erased", as well as broader online sexist behaviour[fn1] -- would be well worth discussing but to me the Frek Kaplan / Meryl Alper debate looks like it is only tangentially connected with the deeper issues.
A counterfactual thought experiment: if Stephanie R. Schulte (frauricker) had in fact been male, how would that have changed the situation?
I'd suggest we zoom to the "big picture" to get some more context.
E.g.
«We find that in the most productive countries, all articles with women in dominant author positions receive fewer citations than those with men in the same positions. And this citation disadvantage is accentuated by the fact that women's publication portfolios are more domestic than their male colleagues — they profit less from the extra citations that international collaborations accrue.»
http://www.nature.com/news/bibliometrics-global-gender-disparities-in-scienc...
With regards,
Joe
[fn1]: just watched this related lecture yesterday, http://boingboing.net/2016/02/22/sarah-jeongs-harvard-lecture.html
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Well I think it is even more basic than that. People (and myself as Wikipedian included) tend to google search for info and rarely pick up the pay-walled stuff if their searches are set to free knowledge. We all know how google favors Wikipedia, but this particular female academic has no Wikipedia page, while the guy who wrote the offending blog post does. I mean the one who wrote the book (which would probably have been on such a page) but the woman who wrote the blog about the blog doesn't have one either. So if the guy just googled the stuff there is a very good chance that he really didn't pick up the info that the blog is objecting to. In other words, the problem with systemic bias is even worse than she knows.
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. In fact, on Wikipedia they just hold them to the same biased standards and are probably (being detail oriented) even more careful with "the rules" as men are, which Yaroslav discovered to his distaste this week when I asked him (as academic) to take a look at an AfC for Nitasha Kaul which he successfully created after crossing swords with a (self-proclaimed female academic) AfC volunteer LaMona: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articl... (scroll down to Draft:Nitasha Kaul)
Even though I was annoyed enough to post about this on facebook (which is where Yaroslav responded) I don't even fault LaMona for her behavior, since she is "just following AfC rules" and has probably never even realized that what she did was not only not taking the wider academic community's female bias into account, but also the "Global South bias" and the "people of color bias". This is exactly why we organize things like Art&Feminism and Women's History month, if only to try and get the conversation started. You only start to understand the problem when you do something like what Yaroslav did (which I myself was unwilling to do, to my shame).
For the record, as Yaroslav is a common figure at AfD, his comment that it would be kept there is what allowed the article in main namespace: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nitasha_Kaul
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Mark J. Nelson mjn@anadrome.org wrote:
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Mark J. Nelson Anadrome Research http://www.kmjn.org
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
I've done a lot of [[WP:NPP]], and I already have a prejudice about at article before I've read the first word based on the layout of the article (bold name? cats? infobox? reference section? reference section in columns?).
I recently did a push to increase the diversity of coverage of local academics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_Zealand/Requested_ar... and I can't stress enough how useful the 'page furniture' (everything other than the body text) is for the palatability of stabs to the editors at new page patrol and other others dealing with new articles. If you're doing a lot of articles, investment in a good template is time well spent. The one I used for this is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stuartyeates/sandbox/academicbio
cheers stuart
-- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Well I think it is even more basic than that. People (and myself as Wikipedian included) tend to google search for info and rarely pick up the pay-walled stuff if their searches are set to free knowledge. We all know how google favors Wikipedia, but this particular female academic has no Wikipedia page, while the guy who wrote the offending blog post does. I mean the one who wrote the book (which would probably have been on such a page) but the woman who wrote the blog about the blog doesn't have one either. So if the guy just googled the stuff there is a very good chance that he really didn't pick up the info that the blog is objecting to. In other words, the problem with systemic bias is even worse than she knows.
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. In fact, on Wikipedia they just hold them to the same biased standards and are probably (being detail oriented) even more careful with "the rules" as men are, which Yaroslav discovered to his distaste this week when I asked him (as academic) to take a look at an AfC for Nitasha Kaul which he successfully created after crossing swords with a (self-proclaimed female academic) AfC volunteer LaMona:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articl... (scroll down to Draft:Nitasha Kaul)
Even though I was annoyed enough to post about this on facebook (which is where Yaroslav responded) I don't even fault LaMona for her behavior, since she is "just following AfC rules" and has probably never even realized that what she did was not only not taking the wider academic community's female bias into account, but also the "Global South bias" and the "people of color bias". This is exactly why we organize things like Art&Feminism and Women's History month, if only to try and get the conversation started. You only start to understand the problem when you do something like what Yaroslav did (which I myself was unwilling to do, to my shame).
For the record, as Yaroslav is a common figure at AfD, his comment that it would be kept there is what allowed the article in main namespace: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nitasha_Kaul
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Mark J. Nelson mjn@anadrome.org wrote:
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Mark J. Nelson Anadrome Research http://www.kmjn.org
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Thanks, that is an excellent idea and one we should introduce at [[WP:Women in Red]] on a set of "prepbio" subpages. Personally I like to start with a well-filled Wikidata item and then use Magnus' Prepbio tool, but that is very generic: https://tools.wmflabs.org/magnustools/prepbio.php
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Stuart A. Yeates syeates@gmail.com wrote:
I've done a lot of [[WP:NPP]], and I already have a prejudice about at article before I've read the first word based on the layout of the article (bold name? cats? infobox? reference section? reference section in columns?).
I recently did a push to increase the diversity of coverage of local academics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_Zealand/Requested_ar... and I can't stress enough how useful the 'page furniture' (everything other than the body text) is for the palatability of stabs to the editors at new page patrol and other others dealing with new articles. If you're doing a lot of articles, investment in a good template is time well spent. The one I used for this is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stuartyeates/sandbox/academicbio
cheers stuart
-- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Well I think it is even more basic than that. People (and myself as Wikipedian included) tend to google search for info and rarely pick up the pay-walled stuff if their searches are set to free knowledge. We all know how google favors Wikipedia, but this particular female academic has no Wikipedia page, while the guy who wrote the offending blog post does. I mean the one who wrote the book (which would probably have been on such a page) but the woman who wrote the blog about the blog doesn't have one either. So if the guy just googled the stuff there is a very good chance that he really didn't pick up the info that the blog is objecting to. In other words, the problem with systemic bias is even worse than she knows.
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. In fact, on Wikipedia they just hold them to the same biased standards and are probably (being detail oriented) even more careful with "the rules" as men are, which Yaroslav discovered to his distaste this week when I asked him (as academic) to take a look at an AfC for Nitasha Kaul which he successfully created after crossing swords with a (self-proclaimed female academic) AfC volunteer LaMona:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articl... (scroll down to Draft:Nitasha Kaul)
Even though I was annoyed enough to post about this on facebook (which is where Yaroslav responded) I don't even fault LaMona for her behavior, since she is "just following AfC rules" and has probably never even realized that what she did was not only not taking the wider academic community's female bias into account, but also the "Global South bias" and the "people of color bias". This is exactly why we organize things like Art&Feminism and Women's History month, if only to try and get the conversation started. You only start to understand the problem when you do something like what Yaroslav did (which I myself was unwilling to do, to my shame).
For the record, as Yaroslav is a common figure at AfD, his comment that it would be kept there is what allowed the article in main namespace: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nitasha_Kaul
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Mark J. Nelson mjn@anadrome.org wrote:
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Mark J. Nelson Anadrome Research http://www.kmjn.org
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
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.
Welcome to my world! I am always puzzling about how to better gather stats from Wikipedia in order to compare to Commons or other language-pedias. The category system is hopelessly muddled (and sometimes even circular) and doesn't match up across languages. The Dutch Wikipedia looks down on the English categorization system and doesn't like over categorization. They take this so far that they now have thousands of painters in the non-diffusable category "Dutch painters" and are one of the few language-pedias without a category for "Dutch Golden Age painters".
That said, you have hit the nail on the head as far as the mission of Wikidata goes. I have been an enthusiastic contributor there, mostly to the paintings project called "Sum of all Paintings" (SoaP). Thanks to the work of lots of GLAM enthusiasts there who work on artists in various collection databases, slowly artist Wikidata items are being filled with useful data, such as gender, place and date of birth, field of work, occupation, awards, degrees, and so on. We have a ways to go, but thanks to the Wikidata gender game we have lots of gendered data available now. I first started to keep track of this for artist matches to the RKD database, which includes gendered data, as a way to see if Wikipedia was at all on target. I assumed that of the artists in the RKD database Wikidata has the "most famous" and that of these matches, Wikidata would have a higher percentage of women than the RKD percentage, because Wikipedians have been working on gendergap in content for several years now.
It is sort of hard to tell, because Wikidata is still so young, but I have compiled some information here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Jane023/Gendergap_report
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 3:15 PM, 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
On Monday, 29 February 2016, Joe Corneli holtzermann17@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Jane Darnell <jane023@gmail.com javascript:;> 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 have written biographies of third gender academics as well as those who appear not to have published gender info. Finding relable sources on this facet of private people is very, very hard and likely to be a stumbling block to actually writing articles.
Cheers Stuart
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
-- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, It is trivial when you only consider Wikidata.
I've previous blogged about the issues with sex / gender in wikidata at http://opensourceexile.blogspot.co.nz/2014/07/adrian-pohl-wrote-some-excelle... has the sitaution moved on?
cheers stuart
Hoi, The blog states that a lot of data was sucked into Wikidata from GND. As far as I am aware that never happened. So its assertion is wrong. Thanks, GerardM
On 28 February 2016 at 19:43, Stuart A. Yeates syeates@gmail.com wrote:
-- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, It is trivial when you only consider Wikidata.
I've previous blogged about the issues with sex / gender in wikidata at http://opensourceexile.blogspot.co.nz/2014/07/adrian-pohl-wrote-some-excelle... has the sitaution moved on?
cheers stuart
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Data has been sucked from GND to wikidata via a number of routes, principally VIAF. See Wikidata:Bot_requests#Import_GND_identifiers_from_VIAF_dump for example for a discussion of an instance of this.
cheers stuart
-- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The blog states that a lot of data was sucked into Wikidata from GND. As far as I am aware that never happened. So its assertion is wrong. Thanks, GerardM
On 28 February 2016 at 19:43, Stuart A. Yeates syeates@gmail.com wrote:
-- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, It is trivial when you only consider Wikidata.
I've previous blogged about the issues with sex / gender in wikidata at http://opensourceexile.blogspot.co.nz/2014/07/adrian-pohl-wrote-some-excelle... has the sitaution moved on?
cheers stuart
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
But there have also been lots of corrections. As far as painters go, the data is really pretty decent now. It helps that it's really easy to check the state of Wikidata against the contents of Wikipedia categories. As more people become aware of how to make such checks, I think we start to see a cleanup of categories and (I hope) a better categorization system starting to form that is more in line with Wikidata property class trees.
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Stuart A. Yeates syeates@gmail.com wrote:
Data has been sucked from GND to wikidata via a number of routes, principally VIAF. See Wikidata:Bot_requests#Import_GND_identifiers_from_VIAF_dump for example for a discussion of an instance of this.
cheers stuart
-- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, The blog states that a lot of data was sucked into Wikidata from GND. As far as I am aware that never happened. So its assertion is wrong. Thanks, GerardM
On 28 February 2016 at 19:43, Stuart A. Yeates syeates@gmail.com wrote:
-- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, It is trivial when you only consider Wikidata.
I've previous blogged about the issues with sex / gender in wikidata at http://opensourceexile.blogspot.co.nz/2014/07/adrian-pohl-wrote-some-excelle... has the sitaution moved on?
cheers stuart
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wikidata appears to allow original research and the inference of gender from the name or photo of the subject. It will be a cold day in hell before en.wiki allows this, see [[WP:RS]] and .[[WP:OR]].
cheers stuart -- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
But there have also been lots of corrections. As far as painters go, the data is really pretty decent now. It helps that it's really easy to check the state of Wikidata against the contents of Wikipedia categories. As more people become aware of how to make such checks, I think we start to see a cleanup of categories and (I hope) a better categorization system starting to form that is more in line with Wikidata property class trees.
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Stuart A. Yeates syeates@gmail.com wrote:
Data has been sucked from GND to wikidata via a number of routes, principally VIAF. See Wikidata:Bot_requests#Import_GND_identifiers_from_VIAF_dump for example for a discussion of an instance of this.
cheers stuart
-- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, The blog states that a lot of data was sucked into Wikidata from GND. As far as I am aware that never happened. So its assertion is wrong. Thanks, GerardM
On 28 February 2016 at 19:43, Stuart A. Yeates syeates@gmail.com wrote:
-- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, It is trivial when you only consider Wikidata.
I've previous blogged about the issues with sex / gender in wikidata at http://opensourceexile.blogspot.co.nz/2014/07/adrian-pohl-wrote-some-excelle... has the sitaution moved on?
cheers stuart
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Hoi, I am truly happy that Wikidata is its own master. When a Wikipedia has certain policies it is welcome to it. As long as they do not use Wikidata to improve the quality of its content [1] and by the same token improve the data at Wikidata, I am not interested what a Wikipedia does. Thanks, GerardM
[1] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2016/01/wikipedia-lowest-hanging-fruit-f...
On 28 February 2016 at 20:31, Stuart A. Yeates syeates@gmail.com wrote:
Wikidata appears to allow original research and the inference of gender from the name or photo of the subject. It will be a cold day in hell before en.wiki allows this, see [[WP:RS]] and .[[WP:OR]].
cheers stuart -- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
But there have also been lots of corrections. As far as painters go, the data is really pretty decent now. It helps that it's really easy to check the state of Wikidata against the contents of Wikipedia categories. As more people become aware of how to make such checks, I think we start to see a cleanup of categories and (I hope) a better categorization system starting to form that is more in line with Wikidata property class trees.
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Stuart A. Yeates syeates@gmail.com wrote:
Data has been sucked from GND to wikidata via a number of routes, principally VIAF. See Wikidata:Bot_requests#Import_GND_identifiers_from_VIAF_dump for example for a discussion of an instance of this.
cheers stuart
-- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, The blog states that a lot of data was sucked into Wikidata from GND. As far as I am aware that never happened. So its assertion is wrong. Thanks, GerardM
On 28 February 2016 at 19:43, Stuart A. Yeates syeates@gmail.com wrote:
-- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, It is trivial when you only consider Wikidata.
I've previous blogged about the issues with sex / gender in wikidata at http://opensourceexile.blogspot.co.nz/2014/07/adrian-pohl-wrote-some-excelle... has the sitaution moved on?
cheers stuart
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Let me comment on the original question. The correct citation is typically the oldest one known to the researcher, not the most popular.
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I am truly happy that Wikidata is its own master. When a Wikipedia has certain policies it is welcome to it. As long as they do not use Wikidata to improve the quality of its content [1] and by the same token improve the data at Wikidata, I am not interested what a Wikipedia does. Thanks, GerardM
[1] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2016/01/wikipedia-lowest-hanging-fruit-f...
On 28 February 2016 at 20:31, Stuart A. Yeates syeates@gmail.com wrote:
Wikidata appears to allow original research and the inference of gender from the name or photo of the subject. It will be a cold day in hell before en.wiki allows this, see [[WP:RS]] and .[[WP:OR]].
cheers stuart -- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
But there have also been lots of corrections. As far as painters go, the data is really pretty decent now. It helps that it's really easy to check the state of Wikidata against the contents of Wikipedia categories. As more people become aware of how to make such checks, I think we start to see a cleanup of categories and (I hope) a better categorization system starting to form that is more in line with Wikidata property class trees.
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Stuart A. Yeates syeates@gmail.com wrote:
Data has been sucked from GND to wikidata via a number of routes, principally VIAF. See Wikidata:Bot_requests#Import_GND_identifiers_from_VIAF_dump for example for a discussion of an instance of this.
cheers stuart
-- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, The blog states that a lot of data was sucked into Wikidata from GND. As far as I am aware that never happened. So its assertion is wrong. Thanks, GerardM
On 28 February 2016 at 19:43, Stuart A. Yeates syeates@gmail.com wrote:
-- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi, > It is trivial when you only consider Wikidata. >
I've previous blogged about the issues with sex / gender in wikidata at http://opensourceexile.blogspot.co.nz/2014/07/adrian-pohl-wrote-some-excelle... has the sitaution moved on?
cheers stuart
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Thanks for your thoughtful comments here. What I was meant but probably didn't clearly state was that it might be useful for us to reflect as wiki researchers on the extent to which we cite the work of female academics. We are quite good at criticising others, I find, but less on reflecting on our own practice. No need to comment publicly - just some food for thought perhaps :)
Best, Heather.
Sent from my iPhone
On 29 Feb 2016, at 01:41, Sam Katz smkatz@gmail.com wrote:
Let me comment on the original question. The correct citation is typically the oldest one known to the researcher, not the most popular.
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, I am truly happy that Wikidata is its own master. When a Wikipedia has certain policies it is welcome to it. As long as they do not use Wikidata to improve the quality of its content [1] and by the same token improve the data at Wikidata, I am not interested what a Wikipedia does. Thanks, GerardM
[1] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2016/01/wikipedia-lowest-hanging-fruit-f...
On 28 February 2016 at 20:31, Stuart A. Yeates syeates@gmail.com wrote: Wikidata appears to allow original research and the inference of gender from the name or photo of the subject. It will be a cold day in hell before en.wiki allows this, see [[WP:RS]] and .[[WP:OR]].
cheers stuart -- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote: But there have also been lots of corrections. As far as painters go, the data is really pretty decent now. It helps that it's really easy to check the state of Wikidata against the contents of Wikipedia categories. As more people become aware of how to make such checks, I think we start to see a cleanup of categories and (I hope) a better categorization system starting to form that is more in line with Wikidata property class trees.
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Stuart A. Yeates syeates@gmail.com wrote: Data has been sucked from GND to wikidata via a number of routes, principally VIAF. See Wikidata:Bot_requests#Import_GND_identifiers_from_VIAF_dump for example for a discussion of an instance of this.
cheers stuart
-- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, The blog states that a lot of data was sucked into Wikidata from GND. As far as I am aware that never happened. So its assertion is wrong. Thanks, GerardM
> On 28 February 2016 at 19:43, Stuart A. Yeates syeates@gmail.com wrote: > > > -- > ...let us be heard from red core to black sky > >> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote: >> Hoi, >> It is trivial when you only consider Wikidata. > > I've previous blogged about the issues with sex / gender in wikidata at http://opensourceexile.blogspot.co.nz/2014/07/adrian-pohl-wrote-some-excelle... has the sitaution moved on? > > cheers > stuart > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Sam Katz smkatz@gmail.com writes:
Let me comment on the original question. The correct citation is typically the oldest one known to the researcher, not the most popular.
This is the bit I think we often get wrong on Wikipedia: there's a tendency to cite popular expositions even when they're only a gloss on existing work. Perhaps unsurprising, since the popular expositions are known to more people (including to more Wikipedians). But something to look for. When I can, I try to replace or supplement citations to more "popular" works, like newspaper or magazine articles, trade-press books, etc., with older work from historians, researchers, scientists, etc., that those works are often popularizing. But it's a lot of work to make a significant dent in the tide of Wikipedia citations overall, since we have so many of them.
-Mark
good point, Sam, imo actually the best so far :-)
---------- Original Message ----------- From:Sam Katz smkatz@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent:Sun, 28 Feb 2016 15:41:12 -0600 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] citing female academics
Let me comment on the original question. The correct citation is typically the oldest one known to the researcher, not the most popular.
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
Hoi, I am truly happy that Wikidata is its own master. When a Wikipedia has certain policies it is welcome to it. As long as they do not use Wikidata to improve the quality of its content [1] and by the same token improve
the
data at Wikidata, I am not interested what a Wikipedia does. Thanks, GerardM
[1] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2016/01/wikipedia-lowest-
hanging-fruit-from.html
On 28 February 2016 at 20:31, Stuart A. Yeates syeates@gmail.com
wrote:
Wikidata appears to allow original research and the inference of gender from the name or photo of the subject. It will be a cold day in hell
before
en.wiki allows this, see [[WP:RS]] and .[[WP:OR]].
cheers stuart -- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com
wrote:
But there have also been lots of corrections. As far as painters go, the data is really pretty decent now. It helps that it's really easy to check the state of Wikidata against the contents of Wikipedia categories. As
more
people become aware of how to make such checks, I think we start to
see a
cleanup of categories and (I hope) a better categorization system
starting
to form that is more in line with Wikidata property class trees.
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Stuart A. Yeates
wrote:
Data has been sucked from GND to wikidata via a number of routes, principally VIAF. See
Wikidata:Bot_requests#Import_GND_identifiers_from_VIAF_dump for example
for a discussion of an instance of this.
cheers stuart
-- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, The blog states that a lot of data was sucked into Wikidata from
GND.
As far as I am aware that never happened. So its assertion is wrong. Thanks, GerardM
On 28 February 2016 at 19:43, Stuart A. Yeates
wrote:
> > > -- > ...let us be heard from red core to black sky > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen < > gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hoi, >> It is trivial when you only consider Wikidata. >> > > I've previous blogged about the issues with sex / gender in
wikidata
> at > http://opensourceexile.blogspot.co.nz/2014/07/adrian-pohl-
wrote-some-excellent.html
> has the sitaution moved on? > > cheers > stuart > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > >
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
------- End of Original Message -------
Stuart A. Yeates, 28/02/2016 20:04:
Data has been sucked from GND to wikidata via a number of routes, principally VIAF. See Wikidata:Bot_requests#Import_GND_identifiers_from_VIAF_dump for example for a discussion of an instance of this.
In https://www.wikidata.org/?oldid=308216259#Import_GND_identifiers_from_VIAF_d... I don't see any mention of data being imported, only external identifiers.
Nemo
Hoi, Wikidata has always had way more people than VIAF or GND. Gender information has been imported from Wikipedias like sv and de where gender is in a category. This information is relatively good. All these categories have been imported several times to Wikidata.
There are mismatches between Wikidata and categories.. More and more it is the categories where the problem lies. Thanks, GerardM
On 28 February 2016 at 20:22, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Stuart A. Yeates, 28/02/2016 20:04:
Data has been sucked from GND to wikidata via a number of routes, principally VIAF. See Wikidata:Bot_requests#Import_GND_identifiers_from_VIAF_dump for example for a discussion of an instance of this.
In https://www.wikidata.org/?oldid=308216259#Import_GND_identifiers_from_VIAF_d... I don't see any mention of data being imported, only external identifiers.
Nemo
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Heather Ford hfordsa@gmail.com wrote:
I'd be curious to learn more about how we as a Wikipedia research community fare here too...
Somewhat related article in the Guardian today:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/19/women-in-science-on-wikipe...
"Whereas most Wikipedia contributors can source at least parts of their articles from the web, Temple-Wood said her work often calls for her to trawl rare journals or library basements."
-Joe
Also,
"Stephenson-Goodknight says she often notices that thinly-sourced articles about women get singled out for deletion when the same articles could easily be expanded and substantiated."
(sorry for noise)
wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org