Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)
On 06.09.2013, at 01:43, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: My opinion is that it makes sense to continue to host the article at [[Bradley Manning]], and to avoid trying to preempt or influence coverage in favor of using Chelsea Manning's preferred identity. So you're influencing coverage in favor of using “Bradley”. I believe that over time the weight of coverage will change in favor of her preference, and our article can evolve accordingly. Since when is Wikipedia about beliefs? ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)
On Sep 5, 2013, at 11:34 PM, Helga Hansen m...@helgahansen.de wrote: Since when is Wikipedia about beliefs? The question of what policy to follow regarding article names, in general, has no externally valid single right answer. Cat? Felis Silvestrus Catus? Kitties!? Neko? The default standard is the most widely used common (not jargon) name for the thing. The logic is, that's the most likely search start, particularly for non experts. That is intentionally biased; towards a perceived norm, rather than an academic or technically more correct answer, towards internet search results as a proxy for popularity, towards the US as the most likely source of a first consensus on common name, etc. Which of these biases to adopt as default was a value or belief system judgement. We know that, intellectually. But there was no other framework in which to decide. Sent from Kangphone ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)
On Sep 5, 2013 6:55 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Secondly, redirects are expensive - not to those in the Western world with fast computers and high speed internet, but to those who are on dial-up or have comparatively high lag times because of distance (lots of people at Wikimania had difficulty getting good access to Wikipedia during their stay in Hong Kong, for example). A redirect means that the reader must first load up the redirect page and then follow the redirect instruction and wind up on the intended page. I don't think we pay nearly enough attention to the comparatively poor performance from WMF that our Asian, African, and South American colleagues experience; we're terribly spoiled. that's not how redirects work on Wikipedia. (at least for a redirect directly to a page with content… double redirects, i.e. a redirect to a redirect which then points to a real page it is more like how you described. but we have bots and special: pages for fixing double redirects) we serve a 200 with a little hatnote that says it was a redirect and otherwise serve the same content as if they had visited the canonical name directly. i.e. we don't currently send a 30x to the canonical name and the alternative name remains in the URL in the user's location bar. the actual timing difference client-side should be smaller than anything a human could detect. (or too small for a computer to notice? idk if anyone's done a study) -Jeremy ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)
Odd thing about the current Google search results for Bradley Manning. It gives the title Bradley Manning with a link to the Chelsea Manning page, which when followed is a redirect to Bradley Manning. SS attached. attachment: bradley manning google search result 9-6-13.PNG___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
