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/Gender_gap_task_force
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...
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
