On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Samuel Klein <meta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why do you want categories in the first place? Why not extract > whatever semantic meaning you need (e.g., about genderbread) by > parsing the sentences in each article? Because for most people gender is a private matter which never makes it into their article because being a private matter there are no reliable sources about it? > Coming from a Western, English-language point of view it's very easy to > > create structures that declare groups of people such as fa'afafine > incapable > > of existing. > > ... so many assumptions you just made there :-) > Yes, but I happen to know they're all true; because I was speaking of myself. > Why is this a problem? > The attribute "gender according to DNB" is a) useful historical data, > b) verifiable, and c) easy to add to wikidata. I believe you can have > "DNB-gender" as one of the variations on the global "gender" > attribute. Most articles (unless they are talking about the DNB > specifically) would likely refer to the global attribute. But this > way you can have both datasets globally accessible. Then after the > import is done, people can write bulk data-cleaning scripts to help > humans review those articles where the two differ. And in cases where > there is a years-long edit war about what the global attribute should > be, you can keep track of what the input source-data is from various > sources. I'm primarily an en.wiki editor and frankly don't care about wikidata, except as it affects en.wiki. What I am sure of is that 'gender' on en.wiki defaulting to DNB-gender unless the individual has spoken about their gender in reliable sources is inappropriate. Not only does it breach WP:BLP, but by white-washing minorities it is a travesty of [[Wikipedia:Systemic bias]]. cheers stuart
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
