The New York Times also has an article about this: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/wikipedias-sexism-toward-female-novelists.html
Kind regards, María Enviado desde mi dispositivo móvil El 25/04/2013, a las 01:21, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stie...@gmail.com> escribió: > > From The Huffington Post > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/24/women-novelists-wikipedia-female-authors-american_n_3149345.html > > Attention female authors: you may be being segregated from your male peers on > Wikipedia. On the online encyclopedia's "American Novelists" page, women > authors are hard to find. Instead they have been filed primarily under > "American Women Novelists." > > Vanity Fair contributing editor Elissa Schappell made this observation and > posted on Facebook Wednesday: > Women Writers take heed, you are being erased on Wikipedia. It would appear > that in order to make room for male writers, women novelists (such as Amy > Tan, Harper Lee, Donna Tartt and 300 others) have been moved off the > "American Novelists" page and into the "American Women Novelists" category. > Not the back of the bus, or the kiddie table exactly--except of course--when > you google "American Novelists" the list that appears is almost exclusively > men (3,387 men). The explanation on the pages is that the list of American > Novelists is too long, therefore sub-categories are necessary. > Idea: What about, "American Novelists with Penises" "American Novelists Who > Are Vastly Over-Rated and Over-Paid" or "American Novelists Who Aren't Being > Read But Should Be" (Here you'd find a lot of women, people of color...) > Want to see where you're sitting for eternity? Take a peek. > > A disclaimer at the top of the American Novelists page reads, "This category > may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should > directly contain very few, if any, articles and should mainly contain > subcategories." Schappell suggests that Wikipedia dealt with this space issue > by moving the female authors off the page. > > The Huffington Post reached out to Wikipedia for a response to Schappell's > claims but so far has not heard back. > > This is far from the first time that someone has expressed ire over the > "second-class" treatment of female authors. VIDA, an organization dedicated > to women in literary arts, pointed out that in 2011 the New York Times Book > Review printed reviews of 520 male authors' books and only 273 books written > by women. > > In a recent blog post on The Huffington Post, author Liza Palmer wrote about > thedouble standard that exists in the literary world: > All too often, when a woman writes a book about family and relationships the > reader will sigh that she felt the narrator's inner monologues were "whiny" > whereas when a male writer contemplates these same topics he is being > "introspective." If a female writer uses humor in her dialogue she will be > dismissed as "snarky", whereas if a male writer uses humor, he has a "biting > wit." So called chick-lit writers get pinned with "predictable" endings, > while male writers writing about the same topics have endings that are > "satisfying." > Perhaps it's time that Wikipedia realized that both men and women are great > American novelists and should show up when you search for them. > > > -- > Sarah Stierch > Wikimedia Foundation Program Evaluation Community Coordinator > Donate today and keep it free! > > Visit me on Wikipedia! > > > <Attached Message Part> > _______________________________________________ > 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
