Re: [Gendergap] Re Government-Funded Study: Why Is Wikipedia Sexist?

[Carol Moore dc]

Good points below.

Also, on the academic side I can see it is academics looking for grants. 
On the govt side, I have to wonder.  After all, in Wikipedia people will 
fight to get articles NPOV the govt would like to see biased, like 
against govt surveillance and Iran, Russia, Palestinians and for 
surveillance state, Ukrainian nationalists, Israel, etc.  So if they can 
fund a few studies that make Wikipedia look bad, should they need to 
crack down on alternative voices, they'll have stuff to demonize 
Wikipedia with.


But that's the just the tiny conspiracy theorist part of my brain 
talking :-)


CM

On 8/1/2014 11:31 AM, Kathleen McCook wrote:


It is my perspective that working through the processes on Wikipedia 
are too democratic for most academics. It is easier to get a  grant 
and become the defacto expert  than to be part of the conversation. 
What I went through last week trying to get support for the South 
African novel, October, by Zoe Wicomb is a lot more than most 
professors could bear.


But it seems to me that the group process, while more inclusive, can 
be obscured when experts study us. I have found this to happen to many 
grass roots efforts when studied. (labor union actions, migrant worker 
initiartves, etc.)


--Kathleen


Kathleen de la Peña McCook
Distinguished University Professor of Librarianship
USF/SI: http://si.usf.edu/faculty/kmccook/
Academia.edu: https://usf.academia.edu/KathleendelaPe%C3%B1aMcCook
Library Thing:: 
http://www.librarything.com/catalog/klmccook/allcollections





Zandt argues that Wikipedia is biased because the majority of its 
editors are "young, white, child-free men."


"There's nothing inherently wrong with a young, white, child-free 
man's perspective, of course---it's just that there are tons of other 
perspectives in the world that should influence how a story gets 
told," Zandt wrote 
 in 
an editorial for /Forbes/ last year, entitled, "Yes, Wikipedia Is 
Sexist---That's Why It Needs You."




On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Sarah Stierch 
mailto:sarah.stie...@gmail.com>> wrote:


This is amazing.

That's a lot of money.

Sarah

On Aug 1, 2014 6:04 AM, "Carol Moore dc" mailto:carolmoor...@verizon.net>> wrote:


http://freebeacon.com/issues/government-funded-study-why-is-wikipedia-sexist/
Government-Funded Study: Why Is Wikipedia Sexist?
$202,000 to address 'gender bias' in world's biggest online
encyclopedia
BY: Elizabeth Harrington

Coincidentally(?) even as we're trying to get the Task Force
more together, there have been raging discussions on WP:ANI
and Jimmy Wales talk page about this issue.  Someone posted
this article link on the talk page.




___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] Re Government-Funded Study: Why Is Wikipedia Sexist?

[Kathleen McCook]

It is my perspective that working through the processes on Wikipedia are
too democratic for most academics. It is easier to get a  grant and become
the defacto expert  than to be part of the conversation. What I went
through last week trying to get support for the South African novel,
October, by Zoe Wicomb is a lot more than most professors could bear.

But it seems to me that the group process, while more inclusive, can be
obscured when experts study us. I have found this to happen to many grass
roots efforts when studied. (labor union actions, migrant worker
initiartves, etc.)

--Kathleen


Kathleen de la Peña McCook
Distinguished University Professor of Librarianship
USF/SI: http://si.usf.edu/faculty/kmccook/
Academia.edu: https://usf.academia.edu/KathleendelaPe%C3%B1aMcCook
Library Thing:: http://www.librarything.com/catalog/klmccook/allcollections




Zandt argues that Wikipedia is biased because the majority of its editors
are “young, white, child-free men.”

“There’s nothing inherently wrong with a young, white, child-free man’s
perspective, of course—it’s just that there are tons of other perspectives
in the world that should influence how a story gets told,” Zandt wrote

in
an editorial for *Forbes* last year, entitled, “Yes, Wikipedia Is
Sexist—That’s Why It Needs You.”


On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Sarah Stierch 
wrote:

> This is amazing.
>
> That's a lot of money.
>
> Sarah
> On Aug 1, 2014 6:04 AM, "Carol Moore dc"  wrote:
>
>>
>> http://freebeacon.com/issues/government-funded-study-why-is-wikipedia-sexist/
>> Government-Funded Study: Why Is Wikipedia Sexist?
>> $202,000 to address ‘gender bias’ in world’s biggest online encyclopedia
>> BY: Elizabeth Harrington
>>
>> Coincidentally(?) even as we're trying to get the Task Force more
>> together, there have been raging discussions on WP:ANI and Jimmy Wales talk
>> page about this issue.  Someone posted this article link on the talk page.
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap