As more people have noticed on this list since this incident, the
problem is not with sexism, but with the way categories are managed on
Wikipedia. For example the German painter Caspar David Friedrich, who
many would argue is in a category all his own, is in both categories
German romantic
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 5:43 AM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case
danc...@frontiernet.net wrote:
This system keeps the categories more straightforward, and pretty well
avoids the sort of subtle bias Wikipedia has been caught with here.
Defining the precise intersection of interest is up to the
On the issue of using tags instead of categories (which is mentioned in
Joseph Reagle's article), I've been involved in some discussions on this
issue. The two major hurdles for this are how do you make tagging work
across languages (for projects like Commons and Meta), and figuring out
On 04/30/2013 12:03 AM, Risker wrote:
Michael, you miss my point entirely. This is exactly the kind of
nastiness - trashing someone who takes umbrage at the way Wikipedia does
something that directly relates to her own real life - that brings the
project into disrepute, and that women in
Indeed Mike, how dare you accuse the august NYT of being influenced by
so-called class privilege. That's ridiculous. The New York Times is not
biased and publishes op-eds solely based on their individual merits. The
opinions contained within have nothing to do with the privileges their
authors may
Compare it to the weaknesses of the current category system. 98% of editors
don't know what they are doing. Categories and subcategories are applied
inconsistently all the time. Nobody has an overview of the entire tree
structure, or even a major branch of it.
And would this be any less truer
Sparked by the recent...situation..
http://reagle.org/joseph/pelican/social/wikipedia-and-gendered-categories.html
Sar
--
*Sarah Stierch*
*/Museumist and open culture advocate/*
Visit sarahstierch.com http://sarahstierch.com
___
Gendergap mailing
Interesting commentary as far as it went. I wish he'd delved a little
further into what he was saying.
Perception is important. I think people can act in good faith (for
instance to reduce the size of a massive category) without realizing
the effect of how the result looks. It may not be meant in
On 04/29/2013 10:03 PM, Lady of Shalott wrote:
Interesting commentary as far as it went. I wish he'd delved a little
further into what he was saying.
...
Just thinking out loud here...
I'm actually on this list :) and was just thinking out loud as well to
see if I could understand the
Thanks for your reply, Joseph - fair enough! :) I agree with you - I
think there have been some major lapses of assumption of good faith
from both (all?) sides.
(Ouch looking back at my post, I'm wishing I could hit edit. The edit
summary would be something along the lines of typo fixing.)
On
Michael, I have to say that I find your comment offensive. NOBODY expects
to be denigrated on Wikipedia, and being privileged is no excuse for
doing so. This is EXACTLY the kind of behaviour this list was created to
try to modify.
Risker/Anne
On 29 April 2013 22:35, Michael J. Lowrey
I agree with Risker. O_o - it's the whole asking for it mentality.
-Sarah
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Michael, I have to say that I find your comment offensive. NOBODY expects
to be denigrated on Wikipedia, and being privileged is no excuse for
doing
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Michael, I have to say that I find your comment offensive. NOBODY expects
to be denigrated on Wikipedia, and being privileged is no excuse for
doing so. This is EXACTLY the kind of behaviour this list was created to
try to
On 29 April 2013 23:34, Michael J. Lowrey orangem...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Michael, I have to say that I find your comment offensive. NOBODY
expects to be denigrated on Wikipedia, and being privileged is no excuse
for doing so.
This system keeps the categories more straightforward, and pretty well avoids
the sort of subtle bias Wikipedia has been caught with here. Defining the
precise intersection of interest is up to the user.
But the corresponding weakness is that it depends on the editors hitting all
the right
15 matches
Mail list logo
