By the way, I started a proposal to change 'sex' to 'gender' back in May: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P21#Rename_.28en.29_label_.27sex.27-.3E.27gender.27 But so far virtually no one has commented on it.
Ryan Kaldari On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Ryan Kaldari <rkald...@wikimedia.org>wrote: > Hey Max, > The sex property at Wikidata definitely needs to be changed. This has > nothing to do with the gender gap. The terminology is simply wrong. Let's > continue this conversation at > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P21. > > Ryan Kaldari > > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Klein,Max <kle...@oclc.org> wrote: > >> Hello Gendergappians, >> >> I was recently chatting on Wikidata-l about the model that exists on >> Wikidata for classifying sex [1]. >> >> If you didn't know of Wikidata, people are supposed to be classified as >> Male, Female, or Intersex. I once did some research on the composition >> Wikidtata given that classification [2] then Markus Kroetzscher >> investigated linking personal names to sex using this data [3]. >> >> Well when Markus released his research on-list, I applauded his >> innovative methods and techniques. I also wanted to remind that forcing >> this binary or trinary classification onto people is not something that the >> software is making us do, but rather the us inflicting our bias onto the >> database. At that point I received a dismissive answer that if I wanted to >> talk about the gendergap that I should this mailing list, and that my >> comments were off topic. Then another user responded saying that my >> comments were very much on topic, and that's where the conversation >> stopped. >> >> I haven't wanted to continue the thread because of the emotional >> investment in what seems to be a fruitless debate. Although recently I was >> chatting to a friend of mine about my dissatisfaction who said something I >> really liked: >> >> "basically since the categories are male, female, intersex, that means >> 1) you are talking about a person's gonads, not their gender identity, >> which means 2) applying that category to most historical figures should >> count as "original research" it's not like anybody's done a major >> interdisciplinary study to confirm the chromosomes of every historical >> figure we aren't even sure shakespeare was a real person. how in the world >> should we guess what medical conditions he had in conclusion, "sex: male >> female intersex" is utter nonsense" >> >> I would like to send the point to the list, but am fearful that it will >> be muddied again in that this is "gendergap issue not a wikidata one" when >> I am really just trying to talk about classification schemes. >> >> Do you have any advice on whether a) I should re-engage the debate, and >> if so b) how to best deliver my sentiments? >> >> [1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P21 >> [2] http://hangingtogether.org/?p=2877 >> [3] http://korrekt.org/page/Note:Sex_Distributions_in_Research >> >> Best, >> >> Maximilian Klein >> Wikipedian in Residence, OCLC >> +17074787023 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
