Re: [Gendergap] Lila Tretikov named to Forbes 100 most powerful women list
I've just wikified this in my userspace if anyone wants to quickly check out our articles on these women. The good news is that we have an article for each of them. The bad news is that article quality is pretty grim if these are truly the 100 most powerful women. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:99of9/100powerwomen Toby/99of9 On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: This is a pretty impressive showing for someone just 4 weeks into the job: being named to the Forbes list of the 100 most powerful women: http://www.forbes.com/profile/lila-tretikov/ Note that increasing diversity is, according to the brief article, a top priority. 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
Re: [Gendergap] Lila Tretikov named to Forbes 100 most powerful women list
Hi Andrew, Absolutely! Please do. Yes, it was nice to see some FA and GAs in the mix. Maybe we should compare a list of 100 most powerful men? Toby On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: Stub tags are notoriously bad for this (I've just rerated half a dozen of these; Toby, are you happy for me to update the list?) On the other hand, we can take away a somewhat positive message from this as well: Two articles are FA and 6 are GA/equivalent. Across enwiki as a whole, approximately 0.6% of articles are FA or GA class. So this subset of articles is perhaps ten times better than the average... Andrew. On 16 June 2014 15:06, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: While I will agree that many of those articles could use significant improvement, I wouldn't take the assessments all that seriously; a lot of those articles have not been assessed in many years, despite intervening improvements. Risker On 16 June 2014 08:58, Toby Hudson tob...@gmail.com wrote: I've just wikified this in my userspace if anyone wants to quickly check out our articles on these women. The good news is that we have an article for each of them. The bad news is that article quality is pretty grim if these are truly the 100 most powerful women. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:99of9/100powerwomen Toby/99of9 On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: This is a pretty impressive showing for someone just 4 weeks into the job: being named to the Forbes list of the 100 most powerful women: http://www.forbes.com/profile/lila-tretikov/ Note that increasing diversity is, according to the brief article, a top priority. 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 ___ 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 ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Lila Tretikov named to Forbes 100 most powerful women list
Hi Risker, Of course you are right, but that is true across the encylopedia, so the relative abundances are probably comparable. Sorting by category is interesting. We're doing particularly poorly for the women in business or technology, not too bad for women in politics, and pretty well for female celebrities. Toby On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: While I will agree that many of those articles could use significant improvement, I wouldn't take the assessments all that seriously; a lot of those articles have not been assessed in many years, despite intervening improvements. Risker On 16 June 2014 08:58, Toby Hudson tob...@gmail.com wrote: I've just wikified this in my userspace if anyone wants to quickly check out our articles on these women. The good news is that we have an article for each of them. The bad news is that article quality is pretty grim if these are truly the 100 most powerful women. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:99of9/100powerwomen Toby/99of9 On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: This is a pretty impressive showing for someone just 4 weeks into the job: being named to the Forbes list of the 100 most powerful women: http://www.forbes.com/profile/lila-tretikov/ Note that increasing diversity is, according to the brief article, a top priority. 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 ___ 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] Oh man, I feel like a woman ...
Awesome article. Sorry to hear about your troubles with the peanut gallery. Ryan On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case danc...@frontiernet.net wrote: It’s one thing to read about the sort of harsh reactions women get while editing that discourages them from continuing. It’s a second thing to experience it yourself. Late last week I was browsing *Slate* when I read their reprint ( http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/06/11/lolly_wolly_doodle_brandi_temple_s_north_carolina_children_s_clothing_startup.html) of this month’s *Inc.* magazine cover story, about a company called Lolly Wolly Doodle, a children’s clothing company started by Brandi Temple a woman in North Carolina with no real prior business experience, who had by her own admission never wanted to be anything more than a trophy wife when she was younger. She apparently figured out how to sell on Facebook, something major retailers have failed to do, and she’s now the CEO of a rapidly-growing company that’s gotten some serious venture-capital funding, doing over half of its $10 million+ annual business on FB and by their own lights the largest retailer on that site. I checked to see if we had an article on this company. We didn’t, so I started one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolly_Wolly_Doodle, complete with an infobox with the company logo and a free image of one of its dresses I found on Flickr. I reflected as I did so that the reason that this company had gotten all the media coverage it had in the tech and business press yet remained off our radar said entirely too much about our gender gap ... if we had just a few more probably regular editors who also are avid Pinterest users, I bet, we’d have had at least a stub a long time ago. But, that was all water under the bridge. Or so I thought. I nominated it for DYK on Friday. Late today, I get these responses: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Lolly_Wolly_Doodlediff=613195333oldid=612812989 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Lolly_Wolly_Doodlediff=613195754oldid=613195333 They were enough to ruin the good mood I was in following the USA’s World Cup win over Ghana and our neighbor coming over to invite my wife and I to her daughter’s graduation party. I have real trouble believing that Eppstein even read it (“whole paragraphs” are sourced to the company’s own history on its webpage? Huh? That it’s not neutral and too promotional? Everything it is sourced and attributed. And that dismissive conclusion about “story-telling mode about the struggles of the founders to find their way in the world” Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think a similarly-written story about a business set up by men would get this level of criticism. Sorry if anyone was bothered by this, but I had to vent. I will be going into greater detail about why this review was so off base when I request that someone else review it instead (something I have very rarely done with all the DYKs I’ve nominated). Daniel Case ___ 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] Lila Tretikov named to Forbes 100 most powerful women list
I didn't find a men only list, but their list of powerful people looks close enough. (!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:99of9/powerpeople I'll leave the ratings until after Andrew re-rates them ;-), but already there's a male redlink at #36 most powerful - interesting gap. Toby On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Toby Hudson tob...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Andrew, Absolutely! Please do. Yes, it was nice to see some FA and GAs in the mix. Maybe we should compare a list of 100 most powerful men? Toby On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: Stub tags are notoriously bad for this (I've just rerated half a dozen of these; Toby, are you happy for me to update the list?) On the other hand, we can take away a somewhat positive message from this as well: Two articles are FA and 6 are GA/equivalent. Across enwiki as a whole, approximately 0.6% of articles are FA or GA class. So this subset of articles is perhaps ten times better than the average... Andrew. On 16 June 2014 15:06, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: While I will agree that many of those articles could use significant improvement, I wouldn't take the assessments all that seriously; a lot of those articles have not been assessed in many years, despite intervening improvements. Risker On 16 June 2014 08:58, Toby Hudson tob...@gmail.com wrote: I've just wikified this in my userspace if anyone wants to quickly check out our articles on these women. The good news is that we have an article for each of them. The bad news is that article quality is pretty grim if these are truly the 100 most powerful women. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:99of9/100powerwomen Toby/99of9 On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: This is a pretty impressive showing for someone just 4 weeks into the job: being named to the Forbes list of the 100 most powerful women: http://www.forbes.com/profile/lila-tretikov/ Note that increasing diversity is, according to the brief article, a top priority. 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 ___ 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 ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Oh man, I feel like a woman ...
Welcome to our lives Daniel :) Good efforts all around. I stopped participating in DYK's (nominating my own stuff) after drama llamas claimed promotional language about long dead subjects and more. Yeah, well, I’ve been nominating DYKSs for almost as long as I’ve been editing, so I have come to expect some occasional obtuseness from reviewers who aren’t acquainted with my other work. But this time it felt like a forearm across the mouth. It is bad enough that, after having composed my reply/request for another reviewer, I still feel like taking a break from Wikipedia for a while and working on another project (or even TV Tropes) for the rest of the evening. Daniel Case ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
