Thank you Risker/Anne
for this statement which I think is true:
(most editors do not gender-identify ...
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2012-June/002876.html
what follows from this is, in my opinion, that any specific-looking numbers the
Wikimedia Foundation (e.g.,
Wikipedia
Thank you, Sarah
Data doesn't equal patriarchy
agree, I was not stipulating this, I am pointing to the philosophy that feeds
into the setup of such an inquiry
in the first place
I trust the survey.
up to you, Sarah
which part of it do you trust? the outcome given the chosen setup?
I have
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:07 PM, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote:
I trust the survey.
up to you, Sarah
which part of it do you trust? the outcome given the chosen setup?
I have to reasons, either, for any doubt about the results
I've had this conversation repeatedly regarding Wikimedia related
Just thought I'd point out -- it's not just this list that is taking a
stronger interest in Anita since she started blogging about her experience.
Check out the number of page views the bio had in May vs. June (so far):
May 2012: 648 views
June 2012: 32,754 views
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holly_Grafoldid=476031995
This article, on a female Navy officer – apparently the first woman to
command a cruiser in the history of the Navy – seems to exemplify some of
the failings of what I call WP:ADAM:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ADAM
Claudia,
I understand where you are coming from. But talking about the demographics
of WMF projects at the level of detail WMF is going now is somewhat newish.
Not talking about the disparity in the past did not fix the problem. So,
drawing attention to the issue seemed like a good idea. :-)
I
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Adam Wight s...@ludd.net wrote:
Maybe I can point to another factoid which demonstrates a generative,
systematic bias: only 20% of notable person biographies on WP are about
women [1].
What should the ratio be?
~Nathan
On 18 June 2012 15:36, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I'll be honest:
I don't really care about detailed research unless it shows our numbers
changing at this point :-) (better or worse)...
I am focusing my energy on taking action versus research investment. So
perhaps
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Seems like another 1E candidate. The over-emphasis on the controversy at
the end of her career can be addressed by wiping out most of the detail, or
by
On Jun 18, 2012 4:38 PM, Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com wrote:
your efforts and the efforts of other men like Andreas are probably
better spent improving the article about her to remove this material.
Are there efforts you would recommend for women that are different, Laura?
Pete
Is that an edit of the article, or a whitewashing of the article?
It turns out that she is most notable for the relief of command, and
the blanket removal of material from the article is not adhering to
WP:UNDUE, but seems more to be a whitewashing of the article.
What you have done is removed
WP:BLP: Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives,
biographies must be balanced and fair to their subjects... regardless
of what the media chooses to focus on. Clearly the article should
mention the relief of command and the circumstances around it
(apparently she had a
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote:
Is that an edit of the article, or a whitewashing of the article?
It turns out that she is most notable for the relief of command, and
the blanket removal of material from the article is not adhering to
WP:UNDUE,
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:52 AM, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote:
fair enough,
the versus reads a little strange to me in this context but never mind
;-)
in my view of the matter, and my thanks to Laura for filling in with a few
concrete examples, taking positive
action in this context would
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Laura is proposing the building of a dataset from publicly accessible
information, and my comment relates to what information she will be able to
derive from the publicly stated genders of the users working in the
research
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Adam Wight s...@ludd.net wrote:
It's obviously too early to dismantle a gender equality project however.
Maybe I can point to another factoid which demonstrates a generative,
systematic bias: only 20% of notable person biographies on WP are about
women [1].
la...@fanhistory.com:
Do you have any data to back up the theory that women will write women's
content?
I would hope not, actually! But a grassroots approach will give more people
the chance to express whatever it is that interests them, maybe join a few
mailing lists and committees, etc.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Adam Wight s...@ludd.net wrote:
la...@fanhistory.com:
Do you have any data to back up the theory that women will write women's
content?
I would hope not, actually!
I would actually HOPE you did. The connection was made by you. Only 20%
of biographies
On 6/18/2012 9:29 AM, Nathan wrote:
Seems like another 1E candidate. The over-emphasis on the controversy
at the end of her career can be addressed by wiping out most of the
detail, or by removing the article entirely (since the notability
argument is somewhat fragile, and all the references
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Carol Moore DC carolmoor...@verizon.netwrote:
If the material is WP:Undue it can be reduced.
If there is evidence that this was a case of males freaking at female
orders, and there's WP:RS evidence of that, include it. If she was in fact
abusive, we should
la...@fanhistory.com:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Adam Wight s...@ludd.net wrote:
la...@fanhistory.com:
Do you have any data to back up the theory that women will write women's
content?
I would hope not, actually!
I would actually HOPE you did. The connection was made by
21 matches
Mail list logo
