For example, whether or not a notable town in in the global south, for
instance, has an article is unlikely to affect the quality of life of
its residents as much as whether infrastructure businesses in that
town have access to credit. If global finance policy makers believe
the typical positions o
"As biases go, omitting notable subjects in the global south doesn't
have the deleterious real-world consequences that reenforcing
erroneous economic hegemony does."
How so? I don't want to go into politics topics, but with what we see
recently we clearly see the danger of thinking "less" of those
I don't think so, but this has interested me. The problem is how to look at
the data in such a way that it is meaningful. I tried to break it down a
bit and I have presented about the differences in women's occupations
across language wikis and gender here:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:G
Jean-Philippe, yes, absolutely:
http://blogs.oii.ox.ac.uk/policy/how-well-represented-is-the-mena-region-in-wikipedia/
As biases go, omitting notable subjects in the global south doesn't
have the deleterious real-world consequences that reenforcing
erroneous economic hegemony does.
On Mon, Sep
Good day,
This is not related to gender bias, but an observation I made from reading
this paper. Table 1 shows the different percentage of overlap between
different languistic versions of Wikipedia with the English Wikipedia. Do
anybody know if there are studies or reports focussed on that?
For e
The article was discussing the proportion of articles about specific
gender and possible reasons why this situation exists. What I
mentioned was simply one among many potential explanation.
James
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Eduardo Testart wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> I think the article is not
Hi again,
I think the article is not related to paid editing, if you wish to discuss
that subject, you should probably open another thread.
It would be nice if the discussion and comments can be kept on topic :)
Cheers,
El sept. 22, 2017 3:49 PM, "James Heilman" escribió:
How do we know? Th
How do we know? Those who work extensively in this topic area and are
good at picking up paid editing make an educated guess. There are well
known patterns that represent paid editing. We could likely build a
tool that could look at all BLPs and give a numerical value to the
percentage that are mos
On 22 September 2017 at 18:24, James Heilman wrote:
> We know that a sizable proportion of articles
> about people are paid for by the individual themselves or their
> representative.
We do? How? And what size is that "sizable proportion"?
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.or
Yes very interesting, if only to illustrate how difficult it is to get this
information reliably. It is also interesting to see those charts dating to
the days before Wikidata. One problem with using these stats is that pretty
much everything is a moving target. Yes there is a larger gap at the loc
An interesting paper. We know that a sizable proportion of articles
about people are paid for by the individual themselves or their
representative.
I just looked at the gender of all articles created by this sock
involved in undisclosed paid editing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bri/COIbox61#
Hi all,
One of the members from Wikimedia Chile, independently from the chapter and
before he became a member, was directly involved in the development of the
following article, that adress the gender inequality (or gender bias), and
which gives the title to the email:
*https://epjdatascience.s
12 matches
Mail list logo
