Re: [Gendergap] possible resolution... article differentials/unnecessary drama
On 12/27/2011 8:23 PM, Ms. Anne Frazer wrote: On Wednesday, December 28, 2011 1:23 AM Carol Moore carolmoor...@verizon.net wrote: No matter what the main language of the Wikimedia foundation - and who knows what it might be 50 years from now - finding ways to more actively get non-main language speakers involved is necessary. Other ways to do that would be to make sure Wikipedia has a number of employees who speak fluently at least 2 or 3 of the top 5 to 10 languages worldwide. It probably has some already. Language is a generic challenge across the global Wikimedia movement in all its facets including of course the cultural aspects that lend themselves to meaning and understanding. However just focusing on the different languages and the challenge that presents is really interesting. I'd like for instance to allocate into my interactive wikimedia life some time to familiarise myself with other languages, and so I'd like to ask if anyone might have a good idea, on how we who sit at the beckoned call of our computers, can use the technology to assist in the familiarisation and take up of any one or other of the those top 5 to 10 languages. For instance, I use for the French language, french.about.com, it is free on line. The 'about.com' language system is from English to French, to German, to Italian, to Japanese, to Mandarin and to Spanish. There may be more. I don't know if it works the other way around, it probably does. That is, Spanish to English, to German, and etc. Does anyone know of a better on line system to use. Also does anybody know of a good 'parsing' software that can be obtained. Cheers, Anne Glad to see someone taking the general topic and possible solutions seriously. Hope the WikiFoundation people and those in heated debate about foundation issues do too :-) ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] He/she vs. she/he
Interesting en.wp discussion started by a new editor, made visible through the new editor feedback dashboard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:FeedbackDashboard/11753 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Gender-neutral_language -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] He/she vs. she/he
Yes, the traditional usage has been predominantly masculine, but in modern usage, they is the dominant form. See my reply at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Gender-neutral_language#She_before_he.3F Ryan Kaldari On 12/28/11 4:50 PM, Theo10011 wrote: On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org mailto:rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: I responded to the inquiry and replaced all the gendered pronouns at issue with singular they. On a related note, I'm very disappointed to learn that the Chicago Manual of Style (which provided the basis for the original Wikipedia Manual of Style) has stopped recommending the use of singular they. As the use of singular they has been steadily increasing since the 1960s (Pauwels 2003), it is curious that the Chicago Manual would be moving backwards. I have to wonder if there was some sort of political pressure involved. On a positive note, the 2011 edition of the New International Version Bible now uses singular they. And I defended the reverting editor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGender-neutral_languageaction=historysubmitdiff=468184170oldid=468179760 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGender-neutral_languageaction=historysubmitdiff=468184170oldid=468179760). It's an interesting topic, but the original editor seems to be taking a political stance, which the reverting editor might not know about. The usage of Generic Antecedents, by definition require the gender to be unknown or irrelevant. The traditional usage has been predominantly masculine. I am not a native English speaker so I might be wrong on this, but the article is using Generic Antecedents. The approach taken in English language has certain usage hard-wired in the brain. There has been a long standing argument about the political undertone about its usage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_antecedents#Political_opinions). What Kaldari did, while ideal to avoid any conflict or debate, is debatable in the grammatical sense. The usage note in Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/they) and other sources (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/magazine/26FOB-onlanguage-t.html?_r=2) dispute usage of singular they as a gender neutral singular pronoun rather than a plural pronoun. The usage note mentions This increased use is at least partly impelled by the desire to avoid the sexist implications of he as a pronoun of general reference. I'm sure Dominic can correct me if I'm wrong on this one. Regards Theo ___ 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
Re: [Gendergap] He/she vs. she/he
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:37 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.orgwrote: ** Yes, the traditional usage has been predominantly masculine, but in modern usage, they is the dominant form. See my reply at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Gender-neutral_language#She_before_he.3F Err...Ok, this might be a cultural thing..but why are you citing the translator notes for the New international version of the Bible for a grammatical choice? The translators notes mention, The gender-neutral pronoun they (them/their) is by far the most common way that English-language speakers and writers today refer back to singular antecedents. The article also goes on to mention, instances of what grammarians are increasingly calling the singular they (them or their) appear three times more frequently than generic masculine forms. The wide-spread modern usage is shifting towards they, again impelled by the desire to avoid sexist implications of HE, which is exactly what this particular case involved. Grammarians apparently dispute the usage. It might even come down to a stylistic choice in the end. My point stands, as does yours. Regards Theo ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] He/she vs. she/he
I think the way grammatical gender and gender inequality relate is an interesting topic, but this debate will get off-topic and technical quite quickly. Nevertheless, I gave it a stab in my inline replies below, along with hopefully a more useful observation. On 12/28/11 8:08 PM, Theo10011 wrote: Incidentally, the person credited for popularizing for this male-centric usage, is Anne fisher[1], an 18th-century British schoolmistress, and one of the first woman to write an English grammar book. [...] This is not entirely relevant (though quite fascinating). There is no single definition of feminism, and its meaning is especially dependent on cultural mores of their time and place. You might call Boudica, Elizabeth I, or Abigail Adams feminists, but that doesn't mean they necessarily even supported most of what we'd call women's rights. I see where you are coming from, but I could just as easily point out that Martin Luther King referred to his own race as Negro if I wanted to defend its modern usage. On 12/28/11 8:07 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote: Yes, the traditional usage has been predominantly masculine, but in modern usage, they is the dominant form. See my reply at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Gender-neutral_language#She_before_he.3F This is also not entirely relevant. Manuals of style *prescribe* usages in formal language, rather than describing common usages. Some of the things you can find in the English Wikipedia's manual of style are actually quite uncommon in everyday writing, but still sound policy. On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org mailto:rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: I responded to the inquiry and replaced all the gendered pronouns at issue with singular they. On a related note, I'm very disappointed to learn that the Chicago Manual of Style (which provided the basis for the original Wikipedia Manual of Style) has stopped recommending the use of singular they. As the use of singular they has been steadily increasing since the 1960s (Pauwels 2003), it is curious that the Chicago Manual would be moving backwards. I have to wonder if there was some sort of political pressure involved. On a positive note, the 2011 edition of the New International Version Bible now uses singular they. I don't think it was political in the sense you are imagining. They have a page in their FAQ about the issue: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/Pronouns/Pronouns15.html. Briefly, the singular they was only ever endorsed in one edition, after which they changed their mind. Chicago does not disapprove of the singular they; rather, they essentially describe the controversy and refrain from taking a strong stance. The reason is pretty obvious: the singular they is justifiable for several reasons, but it can't really be justified on modern grammatical grounds---which is problematic since grammar tends to be somewhat important when it comes to formal writing. On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com mailto:de10...@gmail.com wrote: And I defended the reverting editor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGender-neutral_languageaction=historysubmitdiff=468184170oldid=468179760 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGender-neutral_languageaction=historysubmitdiff=468184170oldid=468179760). [...] I'm sure Dominic can correct me if I'm wrong on this one. Since you asked... I kind of agree more with Theo here. I think the stance which most Wikipedians, including feminists, would agree to would be to adhere to the original author's language---like we do with regional spellings---with respect to singular they or he or she, but to frown upon stylistic changes from one or the other solely due to an editor's preference (and certainly to always frown upon a generic he). Let's step back, though. To me, the more important issue here is that a new, possibly female, editor made an innocuous change in good faith and was reverted and branded a vandal. Whatever we think about the grammatical debate, it was not vandalism, and he or she (or they!) are a potential new editor we may have scared away. Our response should not simply be to forget about that and start a discussion about arcane policy, as if that's the solution. For example, I think you may have even given the impression to the new editor that the revert was justified because she didn't use the singular they (your fix), Ryan(!). Looking at the reverter's talk page history, this seems to be a pattern. We'll do more to make this project a more welcoming place to women and everyone else by addressing such antisocial and unwelcoming behavior than we will by debating between he or she or she and he and the singular they---both of which,
Re: [Gendergap] He/she vs. she/he
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 2:22 AM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:37 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Yes, the traditional usage has been predominantly masculine, but in modern
usage, they is the dominant form. See my reply at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Gender-neutral_language#She_before_he.3F
Err...Ok, this might be a cultural thing..but why are you citing the
translator notes for the New international version of the Bible for a
grammatical choice?
The translators notes mention, The gender-neutral pronoun ‟they”
(‟them”/‟their”) is by far the most common way that English-language
speakers and writers today refer back to singular antecedents. The article
also goes on to mention, instances of what grammarians are increasingly
calling the ‟singular they” (‟them” or ‟their”) appear three times more
frequently than generic masculine forms.
I agree, it would probably make more sense to refer to style manuals
that deal with new texts, and write a Wikipedia article on gender
representation in the Bible. The given translation might or might not
add to the original, I am no expert, but it sure is an interesting
topic to delve into (see e.g.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/gender.html)
The wide-spread modern usage is shifting towards they, again impelled by
the desire to avoid sexist implications of HE, which is exactly what this
particular case involved. Grammarians apparently dispute the usage. It might
even come down to a stylistic choice in the end.
We have a nice article on singular they, the interesting thing is that
even Shakespeare and others before him have used it in its current
meaning, so its not a modern invention (regardless of its current
Renaissance).
From a prescriptive point of view, one might dispute it, from a
descriptivist point of view it is certainly part of the language. It
is up to the English Wikipedia community to decide what its house
style will include.
As we are on this topic, it would be interesting to see (again, in a
nicely collected Wikipedia article) to how pairs of gendered
expressions behave in different languages. Without further proof, I
would probably not read too much politics into any usage. For example,
we have in English he or she but we also use ladies and gentlemen
and probably there is a balance somewhere in the usage of men and
women vs. women and men.[1] In Hungarian we would probably say nők
és férfiak ('women and men') and hölgyek és urak ('ladies and
gentlemen'), while fortunately we only have on pronoun for 'he or
she': ő – so this problem doesn't come up. It is probably different
for various languages.
Also, as Theo notes, it would be interesting to cite some good
cognitive linguistics study on the effects of pronouns on people. I
have read about studies that show that the gender of objects in
different languages affects the speakers way of thinking of them (e.g.
describing a bridge as masculine or feminine based on its gender in
the language), but it would be interesting to see if the order of
pronouns has any measurable effect[2].
Anyhow, an interesting practice that might go against gender
stereotyping – although probably not in a factual encyclopedia article
– is to use simply she where one would have to use he, he or she
or they.
Best regards,
Bence
(also not a native speaker; male)
[1] The balance is in favour of the former, but for example, the UN
uses both with equal frequency, while preferring he or she over she
or he 20:1.
[2] I am not sure about cognitive connotations, but the strange order
of the phrase might be more difficult to read, and possibly cause
problems who have difficulties reading, thus having an effect on
accessibility of the text. (Probably not an issue in the great scheme
of things, but something to consider for Simple Wikipedia if one was
to transfer any agreed change in usage)
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] What are the Poles, Slovenes, Russians and Portuguese doing right in regards to the gender gap?
https://toolserver.org/~robin/?tool=incubatorprefsdb=ruwikiversity is a tool that allows you to check the participation rates of males/females on various wikiprojects based on users who explicitly state this information in their profile. I've been trying to get this data for specific country pages on the http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomenCamp/FAQ/Perspectivesnational perspectives. I've done a sample of about 89 different projects, getting the total number of males/females and the percentage of males/females on a given project. Across these projects, the mean, median and mode was: Females Users % Mean 638.4269663 13.05741573 Median 9 10.88 Mode 0 0 What was surprising was some projects have 20%+ female participation for relatively large projects including Russian and Portuguese Wikipedia. Slovene Wikiquote only has 90 women on it, but they make up 75% of the identified by gender population. Data below. Language Project Gender Users % Slovenian Wikisource Female 90 77.59 Arabic Wikimedia Female 1 50 Polish Wikiquote Female 132 42.31 Slovenian Wikipedia Female 928 35.79 Russian Wikiquote Female 127 31.91 Portuguese Wikibooks Female 223 30.42 Portuguese Wiktionary Female 114 29.61 Portuguese Wikiquote Female 58 29 Russian Wikiversity Female 180 26.63 Portuguese Wikipedia Female 12,264 25.9 Russian Wikibooks Female 195 25.36 Dutch Wikibooks Female 54 24.43 Persian Wikibooks Female 43 23.5 Russian Wikipedia Female 33,275 23.34 French Wikisource Female 100 23.15 French Wikiquote Female 34 22.52 Dutch Wiktionary Female 52 22.51 Portuguese Wikisource Female 36 21.56 Portuguese Wikiversity Female 106 21.54 Russian Wikinews Female 60 21.05 Polish Wikimedia Female 27 20.3 Polish Wiktionary Female 54 20.3 Polish Wikibooks Female 63 20 Arabic Wikiquote Female 29 19.46 Arabic Wikibooks Female 30 19.35 Slovenian Wikiquote Female 2 18.18 Polish Wikisource Female 23 17.69 Russian Wikisource Female 60 16.76 Arabic Wikisource Female 22 16.67 Dutch Wikimedia Female 8 16.33 French Wikibooks Female 49 16.12 Persian Wikiquote Female 17 15.89 French Wikiversity Female 87 15.88 Norwegian (Nynorsk) Wikipedia Female 57 15.83 Vietnamese Wiktionary Female 37 14.92 Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia Female 79 14.77 Arabic Wikipedia Female 3,580 14.73 French Wikipedia Female 4,319 14.65 Vietnamese Wikisource Female 12 13.95 Dutch Wikiquote Female 5 13.51 Korean Wikisource Female 9 12.68 French Wikinews Female 26 12.32 Arabic Wikiversity Female 9 12.16 Polish Wikinews Female 13 11.71 Portuguese Wikinews Female 16 10.88 Vietnamese Wikiquotes Female 8 10.67 Vietnamese Wikibooks Female 14 10.61 Arabic Wikinews Female 12 10.43 Russian Wikimedia Female 5 10.42 Catalan Wiktionary Female 3 10 Persian Wikisource Female 14 9.72 Korean Wiktionary Female 7 9.21 Catalan Wikibooks Female 3 9.09 Persian Wikinews Female 7 8.75 Persian Wiktionary Female 16 8.56 Asturian Wikipedia Female 10 8.55 Korean Wikiquote Female 2 8 Catalan Wikisource Female 1 7.14 Corsican Wikimedia Female 1 7.14 Portuguese Wikimedia Female 1 6.67 Dutch Wikinews Female 1 4.76 Ripuarian Wikipedia Female 3 4.29 Kurdish Wiktionary Female 1 3.57 Dutch Wikisource Female 1 3.45 Furlan Wikipedia Female 1 2 Banjar Wikipedia Female 1 1.75 Corsican Wikipedia Female 1 1.69 Buginese Wikipedia Female 1 1.67 Kurdish Wikipedia Female 1 0.81 Catalan Wikinews Female 0 0 Catalan Wikiquote Female 0 0 Fijian Wikpedia Female 0 0 Fijian Wiktionary Female 0 0 Korean Wikibooks Female 0 0 Korean Wikinews Female 0 0 Kanuri Wikipedia Female 0 0 Kanuri Wikiquote Female 0 0 Kashmiri Wikipedia Female 0 0 Kashmiri Wikibooks Female 0 0 Kashmiri Wikiquote Female 0 0 Kashmiri Wiktionary Female 0 0 Kurdish Wikibooks Female 0 0 Kurdish Wikiquote Female 0 0 Slovenian Wikibooks Female 0 0 Asturian Wikibooks Female 0 0 Asturian Wikiquote Female 0 0 Buryat (Russia) Wikipedia Female 0 0 Corsican Wikibooks Female 0 0 Corsican Wikiquote Female 0 0 What is going on here? What makes the Portuguese, Russians, Poles and Slovenes so good at attracting a larger percentage of female contributors than their English speaking counterparts? -- twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
