Thanks, Federico. Do you mean that examining gender bias is more relevant to google than wikipedia? Or necessary before any work can be done here? I'm not sure that I fully understand what you are saying, but I would like to.
In a cursory look at the top 10 wikipedia citations ( https://medium.com/freely-sharing-the-sum-of-all-knowledge/what-are-the-ten-most-cited-sources-on-wikipedia-lets-ask-the-data-34071478785a), I noticed that the bulk of the occurrences of three of the ten (#4-6) appear on bswiki (almost exclusively). From a few observations, it also seems possible that a bot has surfaced these three texts on many (perhaps even thousands) of pages in a "Literatura" section. I do not know what the effect of such a surfacing would be--either through human or tech/search discovery, perhaps it is small--but when I think of Jane's story--that she hand-fixes missing second authors--while these male authors are pounded into pages with such ease, I feel heartbroken. These three books may be wonderful, but I strongly suspect there are other books that are also wonderful, with no bot behind them. In other news, it has been brought to my attention that responding to the digest version of the list is problematic for a number of reasons. My apologies! I did not realize this. I have adjusted my settings. Greg On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:35 PM Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Kerry Raymond, 29/08/19 01:26: > > So I think a specific tag to encourage the expansion of "Bloggs et al" > > citations to full author listings might work. > > But it's easier to fix it yourself, using the citation bot: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UCB > > Greg, 30/08/19 07:48: > > If the Wikipedia > > community is not studying its biases and designing tools and strategies > for > > addressing them, it is not reflecting the world, but lagging behind it. > > However, going back to Kerry: > > > In some ways, I think a better solution might be to try to get Google > > scholar interested in the issue of gender. > > I'm not aware of studies of gender bias in Google Scholar search results > themselves, yet we'd really need such basic information before going > into specifics of how the research is consumed and redistributed. There > is a mention of gender in https://oadoi.org/10.1017/S104909651800094 > which states > > > Moreover, because a GS pro- > > file is a public signal, it can have a disproportionate effect on > > opinions because a person seeing it knows that others also see > > it (Chwe 2016). > > Which seems to me an argument very similar to yours on Wikipedia. > > Federico > _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
