[Wikimedia-l] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
20 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

Àlex Hinojo
Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells us how many articles are biographies about women x language/country/culture.

In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is an existing comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias? (Britannica, Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD query about it?

I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki 12% of bios are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous encyclopedia".

We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other databases existing in projects like Mix and match.

Can someone help? thanks in advance


[1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/


Àlex Hinojo
User:Kippelboy
Amical Wikimedia Programme manager
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

Tilman Bayer
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:39 AM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells us how many articles are biographies about women x language/country/culture.
>
> In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is an existing comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias? (Britannica, Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD query about it?
>
> I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki 12% of bios are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous encyclopedia".
>
> We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other databases existing in projects like Mix and match.
>
> Can someone help? thanks in advance
>
>
> [1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/
>
>
> Àlex Hinojo
> User:Kippelboy
> Amical Wikimedia Programme manager

Interesting question. There may be more suitable venues for it, e.g.
the research mailing list (CCed). Anyway, to start with two examples:

http://reagle.org/joseph/pelican/social/gender-bias-in-wikipedia-and-britannica.html

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2015/May#Notable_women_.22slightly_overrepresented.22_.28not_underrepresented.29_on_Wikipedia.2C_but_the_Smurfette_principle_still_holds
Comparison of Wikipedia with, among other sources, "Human
Accomplishment", a 2003 "ranking of geniuses throughout the ages and
around the world based on their prominence in contemporary
encyclopedias" (NYT)


--
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

Andrew Gray-3
In reply to this post by Àlex Hinojo
Hi Alex,

I compiled some numbers for the Oxford DNB a while ago. After the most
recent update, they have 6630 female, 53260 male, so 9% female. (This
omits any group/family entries). I haven't crosschecked this against
the Wikidata figures but they should be broadly comparable.

Britannica (and most other resources we're linking to) can't easily be
done in Wikidata as we don't have comprehensive matching yet. However,
there's an older study which is probably relevant:
http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewArticle/777

Andrew.



On 20 April 2016 at 08:39,  <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells us how many articles are biographies about women x language/country/culture.
>
> In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is an existing comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias? (Britannica, Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD query about it?
>
> I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki 12% of bios are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous encyclopedia".
>
> We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other databases existing in projects like Mix and match.
>
> Can someone help? thanks in advance
>
>
> [1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/
>
>
> Àlex Hinojo
> User:Kippelboy
> Amical Wikimedia Programme manager
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

John Mark Vandenberg
In reply to this post by Àlex Hinojo
A comparison against classical sports biographical works, focused on
Australian sportspeople.

http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:301142
On 20 Apr 2016 14:39, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells us
> how many articles are biographies about women x language/country/culture.
>
> In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is an
> existing comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias?
> (Britannica, Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD query
> about it?
>
> I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki 12% of
> bios are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous encyclopedia".
>
> We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other databases
> existing in projects like Mix and match.
>
> Can someone help? thanks in advance
>
>
> [1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/
>
>
> Àlex Hinojo
> User:Kippelboy
> Amical Wikimedia Programme manager
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wiki-research-l] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

Jane Darnell
In reply to this post by Tilman Bayer
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
languages in the TED translation team. See the overall table of results
here:
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/TED_conferences

As usual, the Swedes score the best of all the European languages, but
cawiki still beats nlwiki by quite a bit.

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Tilman Bayer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:39 AM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells us
> how many articles are biographies about women x language/country/culture.
> >
> > In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is an
> existing comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias?
> (Britannica, Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD query
> about it?
> >
> > I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki 12% of
> bios are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous encyclopedia".
> >
> > We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other databases
> existing in projects like Mix and match.
> >
> > Can someone help? thanks in advance
> >
> >
> > [1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/
> >
> >
> > Àlex Hinojo
> > User:Kippelboy
> > Amical Wikimedia Programme manager
>
> Interesting question. There may be more suitable venues for it, e.g.
> the research mailing list (CCed). Anyway, to start with two examples:
>
>
> http://reagle.org/joseph/pelican/social/gender-bias-in-wikipedia-and-britannica.html
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2015/May#Notable_women_.22slightly_overrepresented.22_.28not_underrepresented.29_on_Wikipedia.2C_but_the_Smurfette_principle_still_holds
> Comparison of Wikipedia with, among other sources, "Human
> Accomplishment", a 2003 "ranking of geniuses throughout the ages and
> around the world based on their prominence in contemporary
> encyclopedias" (NYT)
>
>
> --
> Tilman Bayer
> Senior Analyst
> Wikimedia Foundation
> IRC (Freenode): HaeB
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Àlex Hinojo
Hoi,
Given the existing number of articles and the gender gap in them, it is
unlikely that activities make much of a difference. I think that it makes
more sense to compare the new articles and see if the percentages are
different in those. Did anyone look at it in this way?
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 20 April 2016 at 09:39, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells us
> how many articles are biographies about women x language/country/culture.
>
> In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is an
> existing comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias?
> (Britannica, Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD query
> about it?
>
> I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki 12% of
> bios are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous encyclopedia".
>
> We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other databases
> existing in projects like Mix and match.
>
> Can someone help? thanks in advance
>
>
> [1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/
>
>
> Àlex Hinojo
> User:Kippelboy
> Amical Wikimedia Programme manager
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

John Mark Vandenberg
Yes. That is SOP for studies about biographies and literature in general.
On 20 Apr 2016 18:04, "Gerard Meijssen" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hoi,
> Given the existing number of articles and the gender gap in them, it is
> unlikely that activities make much of a difference. I think that it makes
> more sense to compare the new articles and see if the percentages are
> different in those. Did anyone look at it in this way?
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
> On 20 April 2016 at 09:39, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells us
> > how many articles are biographies about women x language/country/culture.
> >
> > In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is an
> > existing comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias?
> > (Britannica, Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD query
> > about it?
> >
> > I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki 12% of
> > bios are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous
> encyclopedia".
> >
> > We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other databases
> > existing in projects like Mix and match.
> >
> > Can someone help? thanks in advance
> >
> >
> > [1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/
> >
> >
> > Àlex Hinojo
> > User:Kippelboy
> > Amical Wikimedia Programme manager
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

Àlex Hinojo
Thank you all for your considerations, URLs and comments. very useful!

2016-04-20 13:11 GMT+02:00 John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]>:

> Yes. That is SOP for studies about biographies and literature in general.
> On 20 Apr 2016 18:04, "Gerard Meijssen" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Given the existing number of articles and the gender gap in them, it is
> > unlikely that activities make much of a difference. I think that it makes
> > more sense to compare the new articles and see if the percentages are
> > different in those. Did anyone look at it in this way?
> > Thanks,
> >       GerardM
> >
> > On 20 April 2016 at 09:39, <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells
> us
> > > how many articles are biographies about women x
> language/country/culture.
> > >
> > > In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is an
> > > existing comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias?
> > > (Britannica, Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD query
> > > about it?
> > >
> > > I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki 12%
> of
> > > bios are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous
> > encyclopedia".
> > >
> > > We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other databases
> > > existing in projects like Mix and match.
> > >
> > > Can someone help? thanks in advance
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/
> > >
> > >
> > > Àlex Hinojo
> > > User:Kippelboy
> > > Amical Wikimedia Programme manager
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
--
Àlex Hinojo / Kippelboy
Programme Manager / Director de projectes
Amical Wikimedia
www.wikimedia.cat
@kippelboy / @Kippelboy_cat / @AmicalWikimedia
------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by John Mark Vandenberg
Hoi,
When it is "SOP", why is it that you hear so little about the effects of
policies framed in terms of the rates we had or the rates we had in a
previous year.

The argument that there is a gender gap is getting tired when the argument
why it is a problem is only framed in the existence of the gap. It is
necessary that we learn how and what improvements are made and maybe how it
has an impact on the reader numbers. When there is a demand for articles
about women, it could result in more readers for articles about women..

I do welcome a different tack on this issue. The arguments so far are
getting stale.
Thanks,
       GerardM

On 20 April 2016 at 13:11, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Yes. That is SOP for studies about biographies and literature in general.
> On 20 Apr 2016 18:04, "Gerard Meijssen" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Given the existing number of articles and the gender gap in them, it is
> > unlikely that activities make much of a difference. I think that it makes
> > more sense to compare the new articles and see if the percentages are
> > different in those. Did anyone look at it in this way?
> > Thanks,
> >       GerardM
> >
> > On 20 April 2016 at 09:39, <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells
> us
> > > how many articles are biographies about women x
> language/country/culture.
> > >
> > > In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is an
> > > existing comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias?
> > > (Britannica, Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD query
> > > about it?
> > >
> > > I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki 12%
> of
> > > bios are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous
> > encyclopedia".
> > >
> > > We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other databases
> > > existing in projects like Mix and match.
> > >
> > > Can someone help? thanks in advance
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/
> > >
> > >
> > > Àlex Hinojo
> > > User:Kippelboy
> > > Amical Wikimedia Programme manager
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

Magnus Manske-2
In reply to this post by Àlex Hinojo
I wrote about gender coverage on Wikipedia and Wikidata, including ODNB
comparison:
http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=250


On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 8:39 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells us
> how many articles are biographies about women x language/country/culture.
>
> In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is an
> existing comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias?
> (Britannica, Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD query
> about it?
>
> I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki 12% of
> bios are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous encyclopedia".
>
> We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other databases
> existing in projects like Mix and match.
>
> Can someone help? thanks in advance
>
>
> [1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/
>
>
> Àlex Hinojo
> User:Kippelboy
> Amical Wikimedia Programme manager
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

Jane Darnell
I forgot about that one and it is still interesting, so thanks for
reposting! Out of curiosity I also made some queries about the delta factor
caused by the English Wikipedia's "Women-in-Red" initiative as opposed to
our own Gendergap-in-nlwiki initiative in the Netherlands. I wrote some
findings here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_9#Some_results

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Magnus Manske <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I wrote about gender coverage on Wikipedia and Wikidata, including ODNB
> comparison:
> http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=250
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 8:39 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells us
> > how many articles are biographies about women x language/country/culture.
> >
> > In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is an
> > existing comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias?
> > (Britannica, Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD query
> > about it?
> >
> > I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki 12% of
> > bios are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous
> encyclopedia".
> >
> > We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other databases
> > existing in projects like Mix and match.
> >
> > Can someone help? thanks in advance
> >
> >
> > [1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/
> >
> >
> > Àlex Hinojo
> > User:Kippelboy
> > Amical Wikimedia Programme manager
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

Robert Fernandez
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
The argument that there is no demand for such articles is itself a stale
one, used to frequently justify gender disparities in all sorts of fields
and media.  There is a clear demand for such articles.  The media reaction
to Emily Temple-Wood's campaign to write articles about female scientists
is only the most recent and prominent example illustrating that the
audience is there.  Readers want to close the gap, the media wants to close
the gap, academia wants to close the gap, the WMF wants to close the gap,
the only people who don't want to close the gap are stubborn volunteer
encyclopedia editors.

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> When it is "SOP", why is it that you hear so little about the effects of
> policies framed in terms of the rates we had or the rates we had in a
> previous year.
>
> The argument that there is a gender gap is getting tired when the argument
> why it is a problem is only framed in the existence of the gap. It is
> necessary that we learn how and what improvements are made and maybe how it
> has an impact on the reader numbers. When there is a demand for articles
> about women, it could result in more readers for articles about women..
>
> I do welcome a different tack on this issue. The arguments so far are
> getting stale.
> Thanks,
>        GerardM
>
> On 20 April 2016 at 13:11, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Yes. That is SOP for studies about biographies and literature in general.
> > On 20 Apr 2016 18:04, "Gerard Meijssen" <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Given the existing number of articles and the gender gap in them, it is
> > > unlikely that activities make much of a difference. I think that it
> makes
> > > more sense to compare the new articles and see if the percentages are
> > > different in those. Did anyone look at it in this way?
> > > Thanks,
> > >       GerardM
> > >
> > > On 20 April 2016 at 09:39, <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells
> > us
> > > > how many articles are biographies about women x
> > language/country/culture.
> > > >
> > > > In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is an
> > > > existing comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias?
> > > > (Britannica, Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD
> query
> > > > about it?
> > > >
> > > > I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki 12%
> > of
> > > > bios are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous
> > > encyclopedia".
> > > >
> > > > We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other
> databases
> > > > existing in projects like Mix and match.
> > > >
> > > > Can someone help? thanks in advance
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Àlex Hinojo
> > > > User:Kippelboy
> > > > Amical Wikimedia Programme manager
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

Jane Darnell
Actually I would say that is not true. The success of the english
Wikipedia's "Women in Red" project shows that editors are overwhelmingly
willing to close the gap, and only need to be pointed to the proper
resources to do so. When you say "closing the gap" I assume you mean
closing the content gap, because the participation gap is much more tricky
to solve.

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Robert Fernandez <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> The argument that there is no demand for such articles is itself a stale
> one, used to frequently justify gender disparities in all sorts of fields
> and media.  There is a clear demand for such articles.  The media reaction
> to Emily Temple-Wood's campaign to write articles about female scientists
> is only the most recent and prominent example illustrating that the
> audience is there.  Readers want to close the gap, the media wants to close
> the gap, academia wants to close the gap, the WMF wants to close the gap,
> the only people who don't want to close the gap are stubborn volunteer
> encyclopedia editors.
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > When it is "SOP", why is it that you hear so little about the effects of
> > policies framed in terms of the rates we had or the rates we had in a
> > previous year.
> >
> > The argument that there is a gender gap is getting tired when the
> argument
> > why it is a problem is only framed in the existence of the gap. It is
> > necessary that we learn how and what improvements are made and maybe how
> it
> > has an impact on the reader numbers. When there is a demand for articles
> > about women, it could result in more readers for articles about women..
> >
> > I do welcome a different tack on this issue. The arguments so far are
> > getting stale.
> > Thanks,
> >        GerardM
> >
> > On 20 April 2016 at 13:11, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Yes. That is SOP for studies about biographies and literature in
> general.
> > > On 20 Apr 2016 18:04, "Gerard Meijssen" <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > Given the existing number of articles and the gender gap in them, it
> is
> > > > unlikely that activities make much of a difference. I think that it
> > makes
> > > > more sense to compare the new articles and see if the percentages are
> > > > different in those. Did anyone look at it in this way?
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >       GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On 20 April 2016 at 09:39, <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1]
> tells
> > > us
> > > > > how many articles are biographies about women x
> > > language/country/culture.
> > > > >
> > > > > In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is
> an
> > > > > existing comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias?
> > > > > (Britannica, Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD
> > query
> > > > > about it?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki
> 12%
> > > of
> > > > > bios are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous
> > > > encyclopedia".
> > > > >
> > > > > We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other
> > databases
> > > > > existing in projects like Mix and match.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can someone help? thanks in advance
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Àlex Hinojo
> > > > > User:Kippelboy
> > > > > Amical Wikimedia Programme manager
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Africa / Gender gaps (was Re: Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias)

Florence Devouard-6
In reply to this post by Àlex Hinojo
Hello

Sorry for highjacking your thread, but reading your message, I wanted to
share with you a small page I made a few days ago, to quantify the
double gap Gender/Africa.

http://www.wikiloveswomen.org/about-the-project/mind-the-gap/

If anyone has additional links or studies that could be useful to
further illustrate that double gap... I am interested.

Also, if anyone is interested in further exploring this data-wise,
please raise your hand ;)

Florence


Le 20/04/16 09:39, [hidden email] a
écrit :

> Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells us how many articles are biographies about women x language/country/culture.
>
> In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is an existing comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias? (Britannica, Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD query about it?
>
> I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki 12% of bios are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous encyclopedia".
>
> We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other databases existing in projects like Mix and match.
>
> Can someone help? thanks in advance
>
>
> [1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/
>
>
> Àlex Hinojo
> User:Kippelboy
> Amical Wikimedia Programme manager
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

MZMcBride-2
In reply to this post by Robert Fernandez
Robert Fernandez wrote:
>The argument that there is no demand for such articles is itself a stale
>one, used to frequently justify gender disparities in all sorts of fields
>and media.  There is a clear demand for such articles.  The media reaction
>to Emily Temple-Wood's campaign to write articles about female scientists
>is only the most recent and prominent example illustrating that the
>audience is there.

This is somewhat tangential, but
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Temple-Wood> exists now. I personally
find this to be both unfortunate and potentially ominous.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
EEK women EEK ... I think we should accept that our heroes deserve
attention. Calling Emily a hero as in an achiever is not a problem. Emily
is certainly notable and she is more than a figurehead.

I do not have a problem with celebrating our own notable people. When we
do, WE have a problem.

Thanks,
      GerardM

On 21 April 2016 at 05:35, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Robert Fernandez wrote:
> >The argument that there is no demand for such articles is itself a stale
> >one, used to frequently justify gender disparities in all sorts of fields
> >and media.  There is a clear demand for such articles.  The media reaction
> >to Emily Temple-Wood's campaign to write articles about female scientists
> >is only the most recent and prominent example illustrating that the
> >audience is there.
>
> This is somewhat tangential, but
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Temple-Wood> exists now. I personally
> find this to be both unfortunate and potentially ominous.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Africa / Gender gaps (was Re: Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias)

Anders Wennersten-2
In reply to this post by Florence Devouard-6
Our traditional way of creating article is based on the interests of the
contributors. This produces skewed total result, and this becomes more
evident on a smaller version like svwp, then on bigger. We have long
come to the conclusion that we will never be able to fill categories
like towns in Mali and basketballplayer in Brazil, where we have had
something like less then 10% of entries then the same categories on enwp
(or frwp)

Wikidata can be of help evening out, but on svwp we have (also since
long) said we must work and have a more systematic and deliberate
approach to fill out "empty spaces"

We therefore love Lsjbot which now generates several million good and
comprehensive articles on geographical entities all over the world from
the most complete database that exists, and where areas like Africa is
getting exactly the same attention like a Nordic country. It is
completely unrealistic to think that the few contributors on svwp would
ever create the now existing  250000 article on entities on Canada or
16500 entries in Antartica. But the bias in the source means Djibuti
only gets 4000 and Camerun 9000 but it is none the less a huge improvement.

For articles on woman/men project are being run by wmse and it now exist
a group of dedicated contributors generating articles on women. I am all
fascinated of sources being used, specially to get entries of women from
middle of 19-th century. All famous ballet dancers in Copenhagen in
1850. All women who had local fame in Finland around 1860, including
local healers etc. They have now created many thousands articles and
getting the rate of articles up to 20% of total (25% of the number for men)

So I believe skewness is becoming an important issue and that we need
to  adress oit even if it means to let go the "holy rule" only manual
created article are "real" articles, it is the need of our readers who
should have priority.

Anders

[1] list of article generated by country this far:
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategori:Robotskapade_geografiartiklar
[2] latest article generated just now a river in Fiji
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbau_Creek_%28vattendrag,_lat_-16,50,_long_179,08%29

Den 2016-04-20 kl. 23:30, skrev Florence Devouard:

> Hello
>
> Sorry for highjacking your thread, but reading your message, I wanted
> to share with you a small page I made a few days ago, to quantify the
> double gap Gender/Africa.
>
> http://www.wikiloveswomen.org/about-the-project/mind-the-gap/
>
> If anyone has additional links or studies that could be useful to
> further illustrate that double gap... I am interested.
>
> Also, if anyone is interested in further exploring this data-wise,
> please raise your hand ;)
>
> Florence
>
>
> Le 20/04/16 09:39, [hidden email] a écrit :
>> Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells
>> us how many articles are biographies about women x
>> language/country/culture.
>>
>> In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is an
>> existing comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias?
>> (Britannica, Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD
>> query about it?
>>
>> I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki 12%
>> of bios are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous
>> encyclopedia".
>>
>> We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other
>> databases existing in projects like Mix and match.
>>
>> Can someone help? thanks in advance
>>
>>
>> [1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/
>>
>>
>> Àlex Hinojo
>> User:Kippelboy
>> Amical Wikimedia Programme manager
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Africa / Gender gaps (was Re: Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias)

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,

Anders, have you looked into the ArticlePlaceholder? Could it serve you
well instead of adding articles using the bot?
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 21 April 2016 at 07:48, Anders Wennersten <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Our traditional way of creating article is based on the interests of the
> contributors. This produces skewed total result, and this becomes more
> evident on a smaller version like svwp, then on bigger. We have long come
> to the conclusion that we will never be able to fill categories like towns
> in Mali and basketballplayer in Brazil, where we have had something like
> less then 10% of entries then the same categories on enwp (or frwp)
>
> Wikidata can be of help evening out, but on svwp we have (also since long)
> said we must work and have a more systematic and deliberate approach to
> fill out "empty spaces"
>
> We therefore love Lsjbot which now generates several million good and
> comprehensive articles on geographical entities all over the world from the
> most complete database that exists, and where areas like Africa is getting
> exactly the same attention like a Nordic country. It is completely
> unrealistic to think that the few contributors on svwp would ever create
> the now existing  250000 article on entities on Canada or 16500 entries in
> Antartica. But the bias in the source means Djibuti only gets 4000 and
> Camerun 9000 but it is none the less a huge improvement.
>
> For articles on woman/men project are being run by wmse and it now exist a
> group of dedicated contributors generating articles on women. I am all
> fascinated of sources being used, specially to get entries of women from
> middle of 19-th century. All famous ballet dancers in Copenhagen in 1850.
> All women who had local fame in Finland around 1860, including local
> healers etc. They have now created many thousands articles and getting the
> rate of articles up to 20% of total (25% of the number for men)
>
> So I believe skewness is becoming an important issue and that we need to
> adress oit even if it means to let go the "holy rule" only manual created
> article are "real" articles, it is the need of our readers who should have
> priority.
>
> Anders
>
> [1] list of article generated by country this far:
> https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategori:Robotskapade_geografiartiklar
> [2] latest article generated just now a river in Fiji
> https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbau_Creek_%28vattendrag,_lat_-16,50,_long_179,08%29
>
>
> Den 2016-04-20 kl. 23:30, skrev Florence Devouard:
>
>> Hello
>>
>> Sorry for highjacking your thread, but reading your message, I wanted to
>> share with you a small page I made a few days ago, to quantify the double
>> gap Gender/Africa.
>>
>> http://www.wikiloveswomen.org/about-the-project/mind-the-gap/
>>
>> If anyone has additional links or studies that could be useful to further
>> illustrate that double gap... I am interested.
>>
>> Also, if anyone is interested in further exploring this data-wise, please
>> raise your hand ;)
>>
>> Florence
>>
>>
>> Le 20/04/16 09:39, [hidden email] a écrit :
>>
>>> Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells us
>>> how many articles are biographies about women x language/country/culture.
>>>
>>> In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is an
>>> existing comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias?
>>> (Britannica, Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD query
>>> about it?
>>>
>>> I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki 12% of
>>> bios are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous encyclopedia".
>>>
>>> We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other databases
>>> existing in projects like Mix and match.
>>>
>>> Can someone help? thanks in advance
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/
>>>
>>>
>>> Àlex Hinojo
>>> User:Kippelboy
>>> Amical Wikimedia Programme manager
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Africa / Gender gaps (was Re: Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias)

Anders Wennersten-2

Den 2016-04-21 kl. 08:21, skrev Gerard Meijssen:
> Hoi,
>
> Anders, have you looked into the ArticlePlaceholder? Could it serve you
> well instead of adding articles using the bot?
> Thanks,
>        GerardM
I do not know, as  I am not directly involved. What I do know is that
Sverker, Lsjbot creator is one of the most clever persons I ever met,
and that he knows well of Wikidata and that all expertise on Wikidata on
svwp has been involved in the design

I would suggest you ask Sverker directly (and offlist) I think you
clever guys on Wikidata can learn a lot from his insights

Anders






> On 21 April 2016 at 07:48, Anders Wennersten <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Our traditional way of creating article is based on the interests of the
>> contributors. This produces skewed total result, and this becomes more
>> evident on a smaller version like svwp, then on bigger. We have long come
>> to the conclusion that we will never be able to fill categories like towns
>> in Mali and basketballplayer in Brazil, where we have had something like
>> less then 10% of entries then the same categories on enwp (or frwp)
>>
>> Wikidata can be of help evening out, but on svwp we have (also since long)
>> said we must work and have a more systematic and deliberate approach to
>> fill out "empty spaces"
>>
>> We therefore love Lsjbot which now generates several million good and
>> comprehensive articles on geographical entities all over the world from the
>> most complete database that exists, and where areas like Africa is getting
>> exactly the same attention like a Nordic country. It is completely
>> unrealistic to think that the few contributors on svwp would ever create
>> the now existing  250000 article on entities on Canada or 16500 entries in
>> Antartica. But the bias in the source means Djibuti only gets 4000 and
>> Camerun 9000 but it is none the less a huge improvement.
>>
>> For articles on woman/men project are being run by wmse and it now exist a
>> group of dedicated contributors generating articles on women. I am all
>> fascinated of sources being used, specially to get entries of women from
>> middle of 19-th century. All famous ballet dancers in Copenhagen in 1850.
>> All women who had local fame in Finland around 1860, including local
>> healers etc. They have now created many thousands articles and getting the
>> rate of articles up to 20% of total (25% of the number for men)
>>
>> So I believe skewness is becoming an important issue and that we need to
>> adress oit even if it means to let go the "holy rule" only manual created
>> article are "real" articles, it is the need of our readers who should have
>> priority.
>>
>> Anders
>>
>> [1] list of article generated by country this far:
>> https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategori:Robotskapade_geografiartiklar
>> [2] latest article generated just now a river in Fiji
>> https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbau_Creek_%28vattendrag,_lat_-16,50,_long_179,08%29
>>
>>
>> Den 2016-04-20 kl. 23:30, skrev Florence Devouard:
>>
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> Sorry for highjacking your thread, but reading your message, I wanted to
>>> share with you a small page I made a few days ago, to quantify the double
>>> gap Gender/Africa.
>>>
>>> http://www.wikiloveswomen.org/about-the-project/mind-the-gap/
>>>
>>> If anyone has additional links or studies that could be useful to further
>>> illustrate that double gap... I am interested.
>>>
>>> Also, if anyone is interested in further exploring this data-wise, please
>>> raise your hand ;)
>>>
>>> Florence
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 20/04/16 09:39, [hidden email] a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells us
>>>> how many articles are biographies about women x language/country/culture.
>>>>
>>>> In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is an
>>>> existing comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias?
>>>> (Britannica, Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD query
>>>> about it?
>>>>
>>>> I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki 12% of
>>>> bios are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous encyclopedia".
>>>>
>>>> We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other databases
>>>> existing in projects like Mix and match.
>>>>
>>>> Can someone help? thanks in advance
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Àlex Hinojo
>>>> User:Kippelboy
>>>> Amical Wikimedia Programme manager
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Africa / Gender gaps (was Re: Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias)

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
I would very much like an open conversation about Lsjbot and the
ArticlePlaceHolder. In my opinion the use of approaches like bots and
article place holders are a taboo subject for many. This taboo is the
result of strong and loud opinions particularly in big Wikipedias like
German and English.

The result is that much information is not available in many languages.
This is what Lsjbot and potentially ArticlePlaceHolder remedy.

I am strongly in favour on having readable information on any subject in
any language. Having it is well possible as Lsjbot proves. It just needs
sufficient TLC. When we are truly interested in serving our public, we
would know what they are looking for and particularly what they are looking
for that is missing. At this stage we are clueless. When our search
strategy has a way of linking negative results to a workflow where labels
in a language are added to Wikidata it would help. It would be a boon when
new items can easily be created as a result particularly when they aid in
disambiguation. To do that we have to think in terms of what is Wikidata
good for and not have as its primary answer "it is to support Wikipedia"
because that is awful.

PS does anyone know how Mr  Leng Ouch
<https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?&q=23888152> name is written in
Cambodian? He is the recipient of a major award and he should fit in lists
of the award..

Thanks,
      GerardM



On 21 April 2016 at 08:45, Anders Wennersten <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>
> Den 2016-04-21 kl. 08:21, skrev Gerard Meijssen:
>
>> Hoi,
>>
>> Anders, have you looked into the ArticlePlaceholder? Could it serve you
>> well instead of adding articles using the bot?
>> Thanks,
>>        GerardM
>>
> I do not know, as  I am not directly involved. What I do know is that
> Sverker, Lsjbot creator is one of the most clever persons I ever met, and
> that he knows well of Wikidata and that all expertise on Wikidata on svwp
> has been involved in the design
>
> I would suggest you ask Sverker directly (and offlist) I think you clever
> guys on Wikidata can learn a lot from his insights
>
> Anders
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 21 April 2016 at 07:48, Anders Wennersten <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Our traditional way of creating article is based on the interests of the
>>> contributors. This produces skewed total result, and this becomes more
>>> evident on a smaller version like svwp, then on bigger. We have long come
>>> to the conclusion that we will never be able to fill categories like
>>> towns
>>> in Mali and basketballplayer in Brazil, where we have had something like
>>> less then 10% of entries then the same categories on enwp (or frwp)
>>>
>>> Wikidata can be of help evening out, but on svwp we have (also since
>>> long)
>>> said we must work and have a more systematic and deliberate approach to
>>> fill out "empty spaces"
>>>
>>> We therefore love Lsjbot which now generates several million good and
>>> comprehensive articles on geographical entities all over the world from
>>> the
>>> most complete database that exists, and where areas like Africa is
>>> getting
>>> exactly the same attention like a Nordic country. It is completely
>>> unrealistic to think that the few contributors on svwp would ever create
>>> the now existing  250000 article on entities on Canada or 16500 entries
>>> in
>>> Antartica. But the bias in the source means Djibuti only gets 4000 and
>>> Camerun 9000 but it is none the less a huge improvement.
>>>
>>> For articles on woman/men project are being run by wmse and it now exist
>>> a
>>> group of dedicated contributors generating articles on women. I am all
>>> fascinated of sources being used, specially to get entries of women from
>>> middle of 19-th century. All famous ballet dancers in Copenhagen in 1850.
>>> All women who had local fame in Finland around 1860, including local
>>> healers etc. They have now created many thousands articles and getting
>>> the
>>> rate of articles up to 20% of total (25% of the number for men)
>>>
>>> So I believe skewness is becoming an important issue and that we need to
>>> adress oit even if it means to let go the "holy rule" only manual created
>>> article are "real" articles, it is the need of our readers who should
>>> have
>>> priority.
>>>
>>> Anders
>>>
>>> [1] list of article generated by country this far:
>>> https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategori:Robotskapade_geografiartiklar
>>> [2] latest article generated just now a river in Fiji
>>>
>>> https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbau_Creek_%28vattendrag,_lat_-16,50,_long_179,08%29
>>>
>>>
>>> Den 2016-04-20 kl. 23:30, skrev Florence Devouard:
>>>
>>> Hello
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for highjacking your thread, but reading your message, I wanted to
>>>> share with you a small page I made a few days ago, to quantify the
>>>> double
>>>> gap Gender/Africa.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.wikiloveswomen.org/about-the-project/mind-the-gap/
>>>>
>>>> If anyone has additional links or studies that could be useful to
>>>> further
>>>> illustrate that double gap... I am interested.
>>>>
>>>> Also, if anyone is interested in further exploring this data-wise,
>>>> please
>>>> raise your hand ;)
>>>>
>>>> Florence
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le 20/04/16 09:39, [hidden email] a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells us
>>>>> how many articles are biographies about women x
>>>>> language/country/culture.
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is an
>>>>> existing comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias?
>>>>> (Britannica, Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD query
>>>>> about it?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki 12%
>>>>> of
>>>>> bios are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous
>>>>> encyclopedia".
>>>>>
>>>>> We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other databases
>>>>> existing in projects like Mix and match.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can someone help? thanks in advance
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Àlex Hinojo
>>>>> User:Kippelboy
>>>>> Amical Wikimedia Programme manager
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>>>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>