This anonymity issue is one that arises quite a lot with Wikipedia and the
WWW and big data generally. Just because the data is public and can be
aggregated and presented in all sorts of interesting ways, there are those
who would argue that it is OK to identify individuals because none of the
Dear all,
I found an interesting research done by Laura Hale about Communicating on
Wikipedia while female : A discursive analysis of the use of the word cunt
on English Wikipedia user talk pages on meta wiki. The link to the
research page is here:
A very interesting study, and rather depressing. I love that I'm cited as a
radical feminist though :)
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Netha Hussain nethahuss...@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear all,
I found an interesting research done by Laura Hale about Communicating
on Wikipedia while female : A
I also find it very interesting.
I have, however, asked Laura to redact the identifying information of one
of the editors whose actions are incorporated into this research. Research
rarely includes publishing identifying information about specific
individuals, particularly without the direct
Honestly, I don't see a giant problem with identifying the person in
question by name (and also find the research rather interesting.) Eric
hasn't indicated that he regrets using the term, and has pretty robustly
defended using it (going as far back as at least 2012:
Well, then, that speaks more to the quality of the research if an entire
section is devoted to slagging a specific editor, and what you're
suggesting is that the research really should be interpreted as we have
this one guy who keeps using this word, plus a rare occasional other editor
who uses
I don't think it's at all fair to characterize the section as an attempt to
rail on Eric. He just happens to have been at the center of the most
recent high profile controversy about the word - which means that quoting
recent defenses of the use of the word as an insult will naturally mean
mostly
Fair enough. I was aware that Laura isn't on this list so I have been
posting on Meta, which to me is the most appropriate place to critique the
study.
Frankly, most of it has little to do with editing while female since much
of the scatological language being referred to is gender neutral.
Hi all -
I can't tell if Romana's recent message was accidentally allowed to go out
to the whole list or not; apologies if it was, I will be removing him from
the list momentarily.
Best,
Kevin Gorman
___
Gendergap mailing list
