Hi John & Leila,
I recall German Wikipedia made a bid for unesco heritage a while ago (before
Wikidata in any case). Maybe they have some lessons learned?
Here in the Netherlands the oldest museum (Teylers) made a bid for unesco
heritage and stated their mission (of 1784) was the same as
here are fewer female contributors and (b) they write
> more female biographies than male contributors do. I’d be glad to work on
> (1) but I’m not sure where to start.
>
>
> --
> Baptiste Fontaine
>
> > Le 22 mai 2020 à 20:31, Jane Darnell a écrit :
> >
> > Two question
Two questions:
1) Why do you think "contributor genders" write articles about people?
2) Why do you want to explore the relationship between the genders of
articles about people and the genders of the contributors to those
articles?
It's more interesting to discover how well the Wikipedia article
pedia citations (WereSpielChequers)
> >2. Re: gender balance of Wikipedia citations (Greg)
> >3. Re: sockpuppets and how to find them sooner (Federico Leva (Nemo))
> >4. Re: gender balance of Wikipedia citations (Jane Darnell)
> >5. Re: gender balance of
Greg,
Thanks for worrying. This is a known problem and yes, Wikipedia contributes
to the Gendergap in citations and no, it's not an easy fix, since it is the
fault of systemic bias in academia. So fewer women are head author on
scientific publications, and it is generally only the head author that
The Dutch chapter WMNL has budgetted surveys to check %female contributors
and so far I believe we have measured 6%, 10% and 11% female (not all in
that timeline order, sadly). According to WHIGI the dawiki %female
biography ratio is higher than nlwiki by .1%. The nlwiki bio ratio for
women is
they can potentially engage in patent litigation (or other IP litigation)
> downstream. We waste so much IP with this kind of “make a buck” thinking.
>
>
>
>
> Kerry
>
>
>
> *From:* Jane Darnell [mailto:jane...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 26 April 2017 5:51 PM
&
Yes I totally agree that "importance is a relative metric rather than
absolute." I also agree that incoming links and pageviews are not accurate
measurements of "importance" for all of the reasons you mention. However,
we are still a project that is actively exploring the universe of
knowledge,
It should be possible to inform Commons uploaders if their images are used
on Wikipedia, and include the language. This would be especially helpful
for Commons uploading contests such as Wiki Loves Monuments
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Amir E. Aharoni <
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
Which is why we have Wikidata?
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Stuart A. Yeates wrote:
> "closure of the [[Category:Australia]]" is not going to work. In en.wiki
> subcategories are not subsets in any mathematical sense and the category
> tree has many, many loops and no
I think this will be important for us as a baseline to measure all sorts of
things regarding chapter activity as well. Australia is probably worse than
the Netherlands in terms of regional editting activity, and I have said
before that we have a major problem finding US editors in the "fly-over
What's wrong with "return on investment"? And what is a "term of art"
exactly? I agree with Kerry and Pine both about the frustrations, but I
also agree with Asaf in terms of all the improvements WMF has made. The
problem with making a yearly chapter plan is the lack of knowledge on what
"impact"
Interesting thesis on the gendergap in English Wikipedia by a student at
the University of Amsterdam:
http://www.scriptiesonline.uba.uva.nl/document/642528
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
I have often thought we should go through at least one volume of the 1911
Encyclopedia Britannica for this purpose. The cawiki is great though. I
always check the %female factor in all completed lists I have, so I also
checked cawiki in my TED speakers list, even though ca is not one of the
But there have also been lots of corrections. As far as painters go, the
data is really pretty decent now. It helps that it's really easy to check
the state of Wikidata against the contents of Wikipedia categories. As more
people become aware of how to make such checks, I think we start to see a
Well I think it is even more basic than that. People (and myself as
Wikipedian included) tend to google search for info and rarely pick up the
pay-walled stuff if their searches are set to free knowledge. We all know
how google favors Wikipedia, but this particular female academic has no
Wikipedia
?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Kaplan_(journalist)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Stephanie+Ricker+Schulte=Special%3ASearch=Go
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...meanwhile, in daily life on Wikipedia, the effects of non
> so. Thus, even the most dedicated people can reach very few of the people
> who ought to be reached.
>
> i do not mean to suggest that we should not try to do better--we should
> try to do very much better at every step. But there is a limit to what can
> be expected in an
e of the data that you suggest and developing
> recommendations, tools, or systems designed to improve the situations with
> NPP, AFC, and similar queues?
>
> Pine
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 1:59 AM, Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Pine,
>> Tha
1) plus the number of edits to un-templated articles in the same category,
I suppose
2) of those active editors, have they ever posted on Wikiproject talk
pages, and if so, which ones? (we should be able to create Wikiproject
editor profiles based on # edits to WP talk pages)
3) How to measure
maybe this is a place where Wikimedia affiliates can and
> should get more involved. The affiliates can work on content in ways that
> WMF cannot.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Pine
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:19 PM, Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Pi
Gerard,
I think this was always the case. Most Wikidatans are as at home on
Wikipedia as they are on Commons. The issue you describe also happened to
Commons - both communities feel the other is less focussed on quality. Many
Commonists spend hours on high quality images and these are rarely
events "us" from arguing, poking at
>>> the holy cows.
>>>
>>> What if BIG contributors and Jane or me tell you that you are wrong?
>>> Would you listen do you listen?? Yes we have our arguments ready!
>>> Thanks,
>>>GerardM
>>
Most interesting slide from that deck is this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:WikiConference_USA_-_Community_Health.pdf=20
I would say as a Wikipedian, I am firmly a member of the top bar there: COI
(love to edit Haarlem articles b/c I live there), Disruptive editing
(accused
+1 to that! I think in many ways we are our own best enemies when it comes
to cross-project pollination of ideas
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
If I consider a qualitative approach, maybe it might be useful to talk to
Wikipedians what exactly
...the odds that an open access journal is referenced on
the English Wikipedia are 47% higher compared to closed access
Thanks for posting! That's an interesting paper, for all sorts of reasons.
I read it because I highly doubt that the number is as low as that. There
is an increasing preference
OK here's my take on the second presentation here (responding to this mail
because it has the link to the presentation).
At first I was surprised by the huge gap between the number of founders on
enwiki (44,000) and only 2,000 on Wikidata, but then I recalled that many
COI entries on living people
Kerry
To answer your point about basic categorisation of the nature of edits I
have two words for you: Revision Scoring
Aaron's last mail had the link.
As for your (and others') AWB edits, think of it as creating findability.
Creating findability of content is at least as important as creating the
Thanks for posting your feedback. I also watched the video but my takeaways
were so different from yours that I am tempted to rewatch the whole thing
before responding. I do recall thinking that Aaron's presentation was
significantly less boring than the student one, but that the students had a
OK I am replying to this mail, as this one has the link to Youtube in it
with the two presentations. I am only responding to the first presentation
by Aaron here.
In general I like the idea of focussing attention on the New Editor
Activation Funnel. This area is of course the reason why we have a
efficiently.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Snuggle
2.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Revision_scoring_as_a_service
-Aaron
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 7:36 AM, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote:
OK I am replying to this mail, as this one has the link to Youtube
Interesting viewpoint, Emmanuel! I am always fascinated to know what others
think I might be interested in, even if the other is just a bot. Like Sam
I was delighted, and I might even be prompted to do a translation (though
not one of the ones they suggested, but an article which I made myself and
Claudia, thanks! To be clear, I do not think that
gender-stereotyped-female-content has only been created by women. On the
contrary, most of it, just like the rest of the Wikiverse family of
projects, has been created by men. I do feel however, that the probability
of young women contributing to
Thanks for the links Finn! Here is an overview of bot-production by wiki
language prepared by Erik Zachte and you can see that Waray-Waray is 91%
bot-generated (mostly by LSJbot, but also by Dwylobot) and Swedish is now
almost three quarters bot-generated by LSJbot
Yes Heather it was very interesting - thanks for presenting your work. We
need to think carefully about these issues moving forward and your work
helps us frame discussion. Just this morning I received a newsletter from
WMNL with a short interview of one of our more prominent chapter members
who
. However, only the almost-complete Wikipedias come near that line.
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:27 AM Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote:
Magnus,
That is very cool! I also noticed the same trend, which indeed does at
first glance appear to be a male bias in the language wikis. However,
drilling
Exactly! However, I do think this example woman shows a Wikipedia gender
bias towards men in that her husband's article has an image and hers doesn't
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 12:46 PM Jane Darnell jane
there is
no image of her in the article because there is no free image of her? In
that case, it would not be bias of Wikipedia, but again bias of the
interwebs.
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 1:07 PM Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly! However, I do think this example woman shows a Wikipedia gender
nice!
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Updated blog with ODNB (49,419 men, 5,581 women) plot.
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 1:31 PM Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes you have a point there, and it is this systemic interweb gender
bias
AM Jane Darnell
jane...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I am compiling some stats regarding the work done on the
Art Feminism
edit-a-thons for my local chapter and while checking the
state of the wikis
regarding female artists I noticed that there are huge
local differences
per
at the same cross-wiki data for all biographies with
occupation=artist.
Jane
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com
wrote:
http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=278
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 8:48 AM Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I am compiling some
Hi all,
I am compiling some stats regarding the work done on the Art Feminism
edit-a-thons for my local chapter and while checking the state of the wikis
regarding female artists I noticed that there are huge local differences
per language wiki regarding who is notable. One of the things I love
Hi Claudial,
I responded to your questions in the text - hope it's readable.
Jane
WereSpielChequers wrote:
the community is more abrasive towards women
I think he is simply referring to earlier discussions where the conclusion
was the community can be perceived to be abrasive and this
Forwarding here in case anyone has information that could benefit Yana
-- Forwarded message --
From: Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase
Interesting, Magnus, thanks! After working on lots of the female names in
various databases, I can also say that it is pretty difficult to scrape
enough information together to produce a Wikipedia-worthy stub on many of
the women mentioned in those databases. As you point out, we don't have
I believe it would be easier to stick to the group of celebrities, so for
example do a study of articles on films, especially romance categories that
would usually have noteworthy subjects for both the lead man and the lead
woman. It would be interesting to see if the bio coverage of both the male
Thanks for posting this thoughtful contribution!
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:
FYI, I'm wondering if anyone has compared Wikipedia's hyper growth until
2007 and subsequent slower rate of production to the phenomenon of music CD
sales in the
Anders, I have also thought about that aspect and that is why I contribute
to Mix-n-Match. We have at our disposal lots of finite datasets that were
used to populate Wikipedia with in the early days. Most notable on the
English Wikipedia is the out-of-copyright versions of the Encyclopedia
Without digging into the details, my first guess would be that more
non-English research is being conducted as the size of non-English
Wikipedias increase. Those conducting such research are less likely to
publish English summaries of their work, making them less findable and
thus less likely to
Thanks for the link! My worst ever experience on Wikipedia was a run-in
with treinstel, so a very interesting read indeed
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
I've had a number of discussions with our stewards over the years. Many of
them are dedicated, polite,
This thread just made me realize that it hasn't been implemented yet and
that what I have been using is yet another Magnus gadget, which, btw, I can
highly recommend!
When I search in Wikipedia, I see a subsection at the bottom which begins
with Wikidata search results. It's great and I use it
Kerry, the problem with the leave that one until I'm on my laptop edits, is
that by the time I'm on my laptop, the watch list has changed again and
priorities get reshuffled, causing those tablet-unfriendly tasks to get
buried where they become eventually ghost edits, which means they never get
Isn't that what Corenbot does/did? I always found it very confusing though
whenever I ran into it, and the false positives are huge (so many sites
copy Wikimedia content these days)
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
It should be relatively easy to catch a
It's been a while, but as I recall, my problem with the Corenbot is the
text that was inserted on the page (some loud banner with a link to the
original text on some website, which was often not at all related to the
matter at hand). My confusion was the instructional text in the link, and I
) development state of a language version of Wikipedia, but
they do not appear to capture factors that are external to Wikipedia.
Best,
2014-07-08 10:09 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com:
Well as I see it, the state of any language version is a combination of
the state of its content
Gerard,
Actually historically speaking, there will be fewer Harvard alumni as
women because they graduated from Radcliffe, not Harvard, no?
Anyway, how about a trade - I will send you all of my male-female data
with Wikipedia entity names, and you send me back the Q numbers? Or
can you only
Stuart, we also know that there were women in the arts working in the
Renaissance and I wonder how many Master of name artists were
women. In fact, I once spent a long time trying to see if there was
any evidence that Geertgen tot Sint Jans was a man, because certain
aspects of his life seem quite
Stuart,
Yes there are lots of institutions we could work with, given the proper funding
and volunteers to monitor efforts. However, we can also use the GLAM contacts
we already have. I believe the proper channel to propose something like this is
the Wikiproject Women artists. We need to be
...@gmail.com wrote:
Jane Darnell, 22/02/2014 23:23:
[...]he amount of art in the museum is
overwhelmingly Italian, Dutch/Netherlandish, and French [...]
The horror! Those Italians, Dutch and French should really be ashamed of all
the unjust advantage they amassed in centuries of abusive
of the Wikimedia Foundation in
increasing overall participation on the project.
Sincerely,
Laura Hale
On Saturday, February 22, 2014, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com
wrote:
Jane Darnell, 22/02/2014 23:23:
[...]he amount of art in the museum is
overwhelmingly Italian, Dutch
be a good place to start.
Jane
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 23, 2014, at 12:44 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Jane Darnell, 23/02/2014 10:37:
Men, when perceiving anti-male behavior tend to do the
opposite, namely they become aggressive and stand their ground.
True
David,
I think we are both on the same page, but I am a bit farther in my thinking
about HOW you can illustrate the biases. The mobile team coined the phrase
'ghost edits' to mean the edits we don't make while on mobile devices (I am on
my iPad right now and experienced a ghost edit which will
Thanks Kerry! I have been working on lists of painters per museum
collection in order to show how few women artists are represented in
major collections. With all of the work we do for GLAMS, it is
interesting to note that they themselves are highly successful at
perpetuating systemic bias.
I like you idea about vulgarization. This word implies a negative
connotation however, as if you are referring to Wikipedia articles
collectively as the wastebasket of rejected academic journal articles.
I would really like to come up with a positive sounding term for this,
because only through
64 matches
Mail list logo