Re: [Gendergap] A reason to celebrate
Thank you Christine - very inspiring! On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you Christine for your tireless effort and work. Sarah On Jun 8, 2014 10:16 PM, Christine Meyer christinewme...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Yes, I'm responsible for the Angelou article. I must say, when I saw the view counts in the Signpost, I was overwhelmed and honored that for my part in bringing Dr. Angelou's bio article, as well as all seven of her autobiographies, the list of her works, and articles about her poetry and themes in her autobiographies, all to FA status. I also feel proud that the English WP honored this great artist with high-quality articles when the world most needed them. Like with the other article you mentioned, the Angelou articles all had Adedewit's influence. Early in my WP editing career, way back in 2007, she mentored me. She (along with User:Scartol) basically led me by the hand through the article development process as we worked on [[I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings]], Angelou's first autobiography. She taught me how to do research, gather sources, write scholarly, and find appropriate images. I remember going to her talk page at one point, and freaking out because I felt overwhelmed by the fact that here I was, a middle-aged white woman from the West Coast, trying to write about racism and childhood rape. She was very calm with me and told me, Well, you took this on and now you need to finish it. Which eventually I did. We suffered a terrible loss this year. I'm thankful for being exposed to the life and writings of Dr. Angelou, something I wouldn't have done if it weren't for WP. Millions of people looked at something that I basically wrote, and that's incredible to me. It makes all the gender gap garbage we go through worth it. Christine/Figureskatingfan. On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Yana Welinder ywelin...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi Risker, That is awesome! I was really pleased to see that too. Thanks to everyone who worked on the two articles! On a somewhat related note, I started a twitter account this week (as a minor side project) to tweet about notable women on their birthdays with their Wikipedia articles to raise awareness: https://twitter.com/sis_ninja. If anyone on this list have particular Wikipedia articles that you would like to be included, please shoot me an email. Best, Yana On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Looking at the Signpost today, I was really pleased and pleasantly surprised to discover that the top two most-viewed articles this past week were biographical articles about women. Not only that, they were both featured articles, so our reading public got a really good, informative article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-06-04/Traffic_report A thank you to Christine for the Maya Angelou article, and to Sage Ross (with support from Awadewit) for the Rachel Carson article. Risker/Anne ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- Christine Christine W. Meyer christinewme...@gmail.com 208/310-1549 ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- Alex Wang Program Officer Project Event Grants Wikimedia Foundation http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home +1 415-839-6885 Skype: alexvwang ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] A reason to celebrate
I truly appreciate your work on this and related articles. They stand out as an example of the high quality of work that Wikipedians can produce. Warm regards, Sydney On Jun 9, 2014 1:16 AM, Christine Meyer christinewme...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Yes, I'm responsible for the Angelou article. I must say, when I saw the view counts in the Signpost, I was overwhelmed and honored that for my part in bringing Dr. Angelou's bio article, as well as all seven of her autobiographies, the list of her works, and articles about her poetry and themes in her autobiographies, all to FA status. I also feel proud that the English WP honored this great artist with high-quality articles when the world most needed them. Like with the other article you mentioned, the Angelou articles all had Adedewit's influence. Early in my WP editing career, way back in 2007, she mentored me. She (along with User:Scartol) basically led me by the hand through the article development process as we worked on [[I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings]], Angelou's first autobiography. She taught me how to do research, gather sources, write scholarly, and find appropriate images. I remember going to her talk page at one point, and freaking out because I felt overwhelmed by the fact that here I was, a middle-aged white woman from the West Coast, trying to write about racism and childhood rape. She was very calm with me and told me, Well, you took this on and now you need to finish it. Which eventually I did. We suffered a terrible loss this year. I'm thankful for being exposed to the life and writings of Dr. Angelou, something I wouldn't have done if it weren't for WP. Millions of people looked at something that I basically wrote, and that's incredible to me. It makes all the gender gap garbage we go through worth it. Christine/Figureskatingfan. On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Yana Welinder ywelin...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi Risker, That is awesome! I was really pleased to see that too. Thanks to everyone who worked on the two articles! On a somewhat related note, I started a twitter account this week (as a minor side project) to tweet about notable women on their birthdays with their Wikipedia articles to raise awareness: https://twitter.com/sis_ninja. If anyone on this list have particular Wikipedia articles that you would like to be included, please shoot me an email. Best, Yana On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Looking at the Signpost today, I was really pleased and pleasantly surprised to discover that the top two most-viewed articles this past week were biographical articles about women. Not only that, they were both featured articles, so our reading public got a really good, informative article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-06-04/Traffic_report A thank you to Christine for the Maya Angelou article, and to Sage Ross (with support from Awadewit) for the Rachel Carson article. Risker/Anne ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- Christine Christine W. Meyer christinewme...@gmail.com 208/310-1549 ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Sex Ratios in Wikidata Part III
Hi all, I ran a few quick updates on Max's numbers today. As of 9/6/14: * WIkidata has ~2080k items marked as people * Of these, ~1893k have a gender property (91%) (Magnus's games are doing an amazing job at filling out these numbers, by the way - http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=213 ) Very quick and dirty statistics follow - note that since we have 9% undefined, the stats may change a bit as time goes on :-) * The gender breakdown across all these people is approximately 1603k male, 290k female - 84.7% male and 15.3% female. * enwiki is 15.5% female; arwiki 14.2%; dewiki 14.9% female; frwiki 15.2%; eswiki 15.9%; jawiki 18.2%; hiwiki 18.7%; zhwiki 20.1% * It's interesting to note that these numbers mostly seem a point or two better than the numbers Max got a month ago, which probably represents better data-logging rather than change in the underlying content * There are still very few items with a gender property other than male or female - perhaps 100-200 overall - but I suspect this number will significantly increase as we deal with the remaining items. Andrew. On 22 May 2014 18:16, Maximilian Klein isa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Everyone, I just conducted some new research I though you might be intrigued by. It compares the sex or gender labels in use by Wikidata today - 13 in total. The percentage of articles about females by language. The best are Serbian Wikipedia, or Urdu Wikipedia, depending on the size you count. The Wiki's that have become most sexist in 2014 - English Wikpedia. And the Data Richness per sex value. - 6.2 Wikidata Statement per male, 6.0 per female. See the full blog here, and please ask me questions and suggestions - http://notconfusing.com/sex-ratios-in-wikidata-part-iii/ Max Klein ‽ http://notconfusing.com/ ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Sex Ratios in Wikidata Part III
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: Hi all, I ran a few quick updates on Max's numbers today. As of 9/6/14: * WIkidata has ~2080k items marked as people * Of these, ~1893k have a gender property (91%) (Magnus's games are doing an amazing job at filling out these numbers, by the way - http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=213 ) Very quick and dirty statistics follow - note that since we have 9% undefined, the stats may change a bit as time goes on :-) * The gender breakdown across all these people is approximately 1603k male, 290k female - 84.7% male and 15.3% female. * enwiki is 15.5% female; arwiki 14.2%; dewiki 14.9% female; frwiki 15.2%; eswiki 15.9%; jawiki 18.2%; hiwiki 18.7%; zhwiki 20.1% * It's interesting to note that these numbers mostly seem a point or two better than the numbers Max got a month ago, which probably represents better data-logging rather than change in the underlying content * There are still very few items with a gender property other than male or female - perhaps 100-200 overall - but I suspect this number will significantly increase as we deal with the remaining items. Andrew. Can you define item in this context? Do we have any comparable data points by which to evaluate our progress? Perhaps a similar breakdown of other reference works, or if there is some sort of summary data available about biographies written (using LOC data?), etc. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Sex Ratios in Wikidata Part III
On 9 June 2014 20:21, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: * WIkidata has ~2080k items marked as people * Of these, ~1893k have a gender property (91%) Can you define item in this context? Item here is a single Wikidata entry: http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q320 which may correspond to one Wikipedia article, one hundred Wikipedia articles, etc - but all on the same topic. (Potentially it may correspond to *no* Wikipedia articles - it's not strictly required, and in any case the source article may be deleted - but there's unlikely to be a statistically large number of these just now) Do we have any comparable data points by which to evaluate our progress? Perhaps a similar breakdown of other reference works, or if there is some sort of summary data available about biographies written (using LOC data?), etc. The new Oxford Dictionary of National Biography was about 10% female when published in 2004, though this was skewed by a limitation to include all entries from the original, including a lot of - to modern eyes - very non-notable men. http://oed.hertford.ox.ac.uk/main/images/stories/articles/baigent2005.pdf (It's since crept up to ~11%) Max has done some numbers based on gender assigned in VIAF entries, I think, but I can't immediately find it. Ben Schmidt did something similar based on first names of authors: http://sappingattention.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/women-in-libraries.html -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Sex Ratios in Wikidata Part III
Some language versions of Wikipedia do have gender categorization, such as Swedish and German Wikipedia. (The English categories exist but are not used very much.) Here's a link to the Swedish ones: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategori:M%C3%A4n (men) presently 132 211 articles https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategori:Kvinnor (women) presently 32 693 articles This gives a rough proportion of 1 female for every 4 male. article subject. If my memory serves me, the German Wikipedia numbers are a bit higher (perhaps 1 in 6). The categorization was on Swedish Wikipedia a conscious decision to try and find out where we stood. Best wishes, Lennart Guldbrandsson 070 - 207 80 05 http://www.elementx.se - arbete http://www.mrchapel.wordpress.com - personlig blogg Presentation @aliasHannibal - på Twitter Tänk dig en värld där varje människa på den här planeten får fri tillgång till världens samlade kunskap. Det är vårt mål. Jimmy Wales From: andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 20:44:17 +0100 To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Sex Ratios in Wikidata Part III On 9 June 2014 20:21, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: * WIkidata has ~2080k items marked as people * Of these, ~1893k have a gender property (91%) Can you define item in this context? Item here is a single Wikidata entry: http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q320 which may correspond to one Wikipedia article, one hundred Wikipedia articles, etc - but all on the same topic. (Potentially it may correspond to *no* Wikipedia articles - it's not strictly required, and in any case the source article may be deleted - but there's unlikely to be a statistically large number of these just now) Do we have any comparable data points by which to evaluate our progress? Perhaps a similar breakdown of other reference works, or if there is some sort of summary data available about biographies written (using LOC data?), etc. The new Oxford Dictionary of National Biography was about 10% female when published in 2004, though this was skewed by a limitation to include all entries from the original, including a lot of - to modern eyes - very non-notable men. http://oed.hertford.ox.ac.uk/main/images/stories/articles/baigent2005.pdf (It's since crept up to ~11%) Max has done some numbers based on gender assigned in VIAF entries, I think, but I can't immediately find it. Ben Schmidt did something similar based on first names of authors: http://sappingattention.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/women-in-libraries.html -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
