Re: [Wiki-research-l] citing female academics

[Joe Corneli]

Also,

"Stephenson-Goodknight says she often notices that thinly-sourced
articles about women get singled out for deletion when the same
articles could easily be expanded and substantiated."

(sorry for noise)

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] citing female academics

[Joe Corneli]

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Heather Ford  wrote:
> I'd be curious to learn more about how we as a Wikipedia research
> community fare here too...

Somewhat related article in the Guardian today:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/19/women-in-science-on-wikipedia-will-we-ever-fill-the-information-gap

"Whereas most Wikipedia contributors can source at least parts of
their articles from the web, Temple-Wood said her work often calls for
her to trawl rare journals or library basements."

-Joe

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] citing female academics

[koltzenburg]

good point, Sam, imo actually the best so far :-)

-- Original Message ---
From:Sam Katz <smk...@gmail.com>
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities 
Sent:Sun, 28 Feb 2016 15:41:12 -0600
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] citing female academics

> Let me comment on the original question. The 
> correct citation is typically the oldest one known 
> to the researcher, not the most popular.
> 
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Gerard Meijssen 
<gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Hoi,
> > I am truly happy that Wikidata is its own master. When a Wikipedia has
> > certain policies it is welcome to it. As long as they do not use Wikidata
> > to improve the quality of its content [1] and by the same token improve 
the
> > data at Wikidata, I am not interested what a Wikipedia does.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > [1]
> > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2016/01/wikipedia-lowest-
hanging-fruit-from.html
> >
> > On 28 February 2016 at 20:31, Stuart A. Yeates <syea...@gmail.com> 
wrote:
> >
> >> Wikidata appears to allow original research and the inference of gender
> >> from the name or photo of the subject. It will be a cold day in hell 
before
> >> en.wiki allows this, see [[WP:RS]] and .[[WP:OR]].
> >>
> >> cheers
> >> stuart
> >> --
> >> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com> 
wrote:
> >>
> >>> But there have also been lots of corrections. As far as painters go, the
> >>> data is really pretty decent now. It helps that it's really easy to check
> >>> the state of Wikidata against the contents of Wikipedia categories. As 
more
> >>> people become aware of how to make such checks, I think we start to 
see a
> >>> cleanup of categories and (I hope) a better categorization system 
starting
> >>> to form that is more  in line with Wikidata property class trees.
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Stuart A. Yeates 
<syea...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Data has been sucked from GND to wikidata via a number of routes,
> >>>> principally VIAF.
> >>>> See 
Wikidata:Bot_requests#Import_GND_identifiers_from_VIAF_dump for 
example
> >>>> for a discussion of an instance of this.
> >>>>
> >>>> cheers
> >>>> stuart
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> >>>> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hoi,
> >>>>> The blog states that a lot of data was sucked into Wikidata from 
GND.
> >>>>> As far as I am aware that never happened. So its assertion is wrong.
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>   GerardM
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 28 February 2016 at 19:43, Stuart A. Yeates 
<syea...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> >>>>>> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hoi,
> >>>>>>> It is trivial when you only consider Wikidata.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I've previous blogged about the issues with sex / gender in 
wikidata
> >>>>>> at
> >>>>>> http://opensourceexile.blogspot.co.nz/2014/07/adrian-pohl-
wrote-some-excellent.html
> >>>>>> has the sitaution moved on?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> cheers
> >>>>>> stuart
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ___
> >>>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>>>>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ___
> >>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>>>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ___
> >>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ___
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> >
--- End of Original Message ---


___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] citing female academics

[Heather Ford]

Thanks for your thoughtful comments here. What I was meant but probably didn't 
clearly state was that it might be useful for us to reflect as wiki researchers 
on the extent to which we cite the work of female academics. We are quite good 
at criticising others, I find, but less on reflecting on our own practice. No 
need to comment publicly - just some food for thought perhaps :)

Best,
Heather.

Sent from my iPhone

> On 29 Feb 2016, at 01:41, Sam Katz  wrote:
> 
> Let me comment on the original question. The correct citation is typically 
> the oldest one known to the researcher, not the most popular.
> 
>> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Gerard Meijssen  
>> wrote:
>> Hoi,
>> I am truly happy that Wikidata is its own master. When a Wikipedia has 
>> certain policies it is welcome to it. As long as they do not use Wikidata to 
>> improve the quality of its content [1] and by the same token improve the 
>> data at Wikidata, I am not interested what a Wikipedia does.
>> Thanks,
>>   GerardM
>> 
>> [1] 
>> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2016/01/wikipedia-lowest-hanging-fruit-from.html
>> 
>>> On 28 February 2016 at 20:31, Stuart A. Yeates  wrote:
>>> Wikidata appears to allow original research and the inference of gender 
>>> from the name or photo of the subject. It will be a cold day in hell before 
>>> en.wiki allows this, see [[WP:RS]] and .[[WP:OR]].
>>> 
>>> cheers
>>> stuart
>>> --
>>> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
>>> 
 On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:
 But there have also been lots of corrections. As far as painters go, the 
 data is really pretty decent now. It helps that it's really easy to check 
 the state of Wikidata against the contents of Wikipedia categories. As 
 more people become aware of how to make such checks, I think we start to 
 see a cleanup of categories and (I hope) a better categorization system 
 starting to form that is more  in line with Wikidata property class trees.
 
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Stuart A. Yeates  
> wrote:
> Data has been sucked from GND to wikidata via a number of routes, 
> principally VIAF. See 
> Wikidata:Bot_requests#Import_GND_identifiers_from_VIAF_dump for example 
> for a discussion of an instance of this.
> 
> cheers
> stuart
> 
> --
> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
> 
>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
>>  wrote:
>> Hoi,
>> The blog states that a lot of data was sucked into Wikidata from GND. As 
>> far as I am aware that never happened. So its assertion is wrong.
>> Thanks,
>>   GerardM
>> 
>>> On 28 February 2016 at 19:43, Stuart A. Yeates  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
>>> 
 On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
  wrote:
 Hoi,
 It is trivial when you only consider Wikidata.
>>> 
>>> I've previous blogged about the issues with sex / gender in wikidata at 
>>> http://opensourceexile.blogspot.co.nz/2014/07/adrian-pohl-wrote-some-excellent.html
>>>  has the sitaution moved on?
>>> 
>>> cheers
>>> stuart
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> 
> 
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
 
 
 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> 
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wiki-research-l] citing female academics

[Sam Katz]

Let me comment on the original question. The correct citation is typically
the oldest one known to the researcher, not the most popular.

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> I am truly happy that Wikidata is its own master. When a Wikipedia has
> certain policies it is welcome to it. As long as they do not use Wikidata
> to improve the quality of its content [1] and by the same token improve the
> data at Wikidata, I am not interested what a Wikipedia does.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> [1]
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2016/01/wikipedia-lowest-hanging-fruit-from.html
>
> On 28 February 2016 at 20:31, Stuart A. Yeates  wrote:
>
>> Wikidata appears to allow original research and the inference of gender
>> from the name or photo of the subject. It will be a cold day in hell before
>> en.wiki allows this, see [[WP:RS]] and .[[WP:OR]].
>>
>> cheers
>> stuart
>> --
>> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:
>>
>>> But there have also been lots of corrections. As far as painters go, the
>>> data is really pretty decent now. It helps that it's really easy to check
>>> the state of Wikidata against the contents of Wikipedia categories. As more
>>> people become aware of how to make such checks, I think we start to see a
>>> cleanup of categories and (I hope) a better categorization system starting
>>> to form that is more  in line with Wikidata property class trees.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Stuart A. Yeates 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Data has been sucked from GND to wikidata via a number of routes,
 principally VIAF.
 See Wikidata:Bot_requests#Import_GND_identifiers_from_VIAF_dump for example
 for a discussion of an instance of this.

 cheers
 stuart

 --
 ...let us be heard from red core to black sky

 On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
 gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hoi,
> The blog states that a lot of data was sucked into Wikidata from GND.
> As far as I am aware that never happened. So its assertion is wrong.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 28 February 2016 at 19:43, Stuart A. Yeates 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
>> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> It is trivial when you only consider Wikidata.
>>>
>>
>> I've previous blogged about the issues with sex / gender in wikidata
>> at
>> http://opensourceexile.blogspot.co.nz/2014/07/adrian-pohl-wrote-some-excellent.html
>> has the sitaution moved on?
>>
>> cheers
>> stuart
>>
>> ___
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>

 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] citing female academics

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I am truly happy that Wikidata is its own master. When a Wikipedia has
certain policies it is welcome to it. As long as they do not use Wikidata
to improve the quality of its content [1] and by the same token improve the
data at Wikidata, I am not interested what a Wikipedia does.
Thanks,
  GerardM

[1]
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2016/01/wikipedia-lowest-hanging-fruit-from.html

On 28 February 2016 at 20:31, Stuart A. Yeates  wrote:

> Wikidata appears to allow original research and the inference of gender
> from the name or photo of the subject. It will be a cold day in hell before
> en.wiki allows this, see [[WP:RS]] and .[[WP:OR]].
>
> cheers
> stuart
> --
> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:
>
>> But there have also been lots of corrections. As far as painters go, the
>> data is really pretty decent now. It helps that it's really easy to check
>> the state of Wikidata against the contents of Wikipedia categories. As more
>> people become aware of how to make such checks, I think we start to see a
>> cleanup of categories and (I hope) a better categorization system starting
>> to form that is more  in line with Wikidata property class trees.
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Stuart A. Yeates 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Data has been sucked from GND to wikidata via a number of routes,
>>> principally VIAF.
>>> See Wikidata:Bot_requests#Import_GND_identifiers_from_VIAF_dump for example
>>> for a discussion of an instance of this.
>>>
>>> cheers
>>> stuart
>>>
>>> --
>>> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
>>> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Hoi,
 The blog states that a lot of data was sucked into Wikidata from GND.
 As far as I am aware that never happened. So its assertion is wrong.
 Thanks,
   GerardM

 On 28 February 2016 at 19:43, Stuart A. Yeates 
 wrote:

>
>
> --
> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> It is trivial when you only consider Wikidata.
>>
>
> I've previous blogged about the issues with sex / gender in wikidata
> at
> http://opensourceexile.blogspot.co.nz/2014/07/adrian-pohl-wrote-some-excellent.html
> has the sitaution moved on?
>
> cheers
> stuart
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>

 ___
 Wiki-research-l mailing list
 Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] citing female academics

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Stuart A. Yeates, 28/02/2016 20:04:

Data has been sucked from GND to wikidata via a number of routes,
principally VIAF.
See Wikidata:Bot_requests#Import_GND_identifiers_from_VIAF_dump for
example for a discussion of an instance of this.


In 
https://www.wikidata.org/?oldid=308216259#Import_GND_identifiers_from_VIAF_dump 
I don't see any mention of data being imported, only external identifiers.


Nemo

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] citing female academics

[Jane Darnell]

But there have also been lots of corrections. As far as painters go, the
data is really pretty decent now. It helps that it's really easy to check
the state of Wikidata against the contents of Wikipedia categories. As more
people become aware of how to make such checks, I think we start to see a
cleanup of categories and (I hope) a better categorization system starting
to form that is more  in line with Wikidata property class trees.

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Stuart A. Yeates  wrote:

> Data has been sucked from GND to wikidata via a number of routes,
> principally VIAF.
> See Wikidata:Bot_requests#Import_GND_identifiers_from_VIAF_dump for example
> for a discussion of an instance of this.
>
> cheers
> stuart
>
> --
> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> The blog states that a lot of data was sucked into Wikidata from GND. As
>> far as I am aware that never happened. So its assertion is wrong.
>> Thanks,
>>   GerardM
>>
>> On 28 February 2016 at 19:43, Stuart A. Yeates  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
>>> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Hoi,
 It is trivial when you only consider Wikidata.

>>>
>>> I've previous blogged about the issues with sex / gender in wikidata at
>>> http://opensourceexile.blogspot.co.nz/2014/07/adrian-pohl-wrote-some-excellent.html
>>> has the sitaution moved on?
>>>
>>> cheers
>>> stuart
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] citing female academics

[Stuart A. Yeates]

Data has been sucked from GND to wikidata via a number of routes,
principally VIAF.
See Wikidata:Bot_requests#Import_GND_identifiers_from_VIAF_dump for example
for a discussion of an instance of this.

cheers
stuart

--
...let us be heard from red core to black sky

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> The blog states that a lot of data was sucked into Wikidata from GND. As
> far as I am aware that never happened. So its assertion is wrong.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 28 February 2016 at 19:43, Stuart A. Yeates  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
>> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> It is trivial when you only consider Wikidata.
>>>
>>
>> I've previous blogged about the issues with sex / gender in wikidata at
>> http://opensourceexile.blogspot.co.nz/2014/07/adrian-pohl-wrote-some-excellent.html
>> has the sitaution moved on?
>>
>> cheers
>> stuart
>>
>> ___
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] citing female academics

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The blog states that a lot of data was sucked into Wikidata from GND. As
far as I am aware that never happened. So its assertion is wrong.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 28 February 2016 at 19:43, Stuart A. Yeates  wrote:

>
>
> --
> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> It is trivial when you only consider Wikidata.
>>
>
> I've previous blogged about the issues with sex / gender in wikidata at
> http://opensourceexile.blogspot.co.nz/2014/07/adrian-pohl-wrote-some-excellent.html
> has the sitaution moved on?
>
> cheers
> stuart
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] citing female academics

[Stuart A. Yeates]

--
...let us be heard from red core to black sky

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> It is trivial when you only consider Wikidata.
>

I've previous blogged about the issues with sex / gender in wikidata at
http://opensourceexile.blogspot.co.nz/2014/07/adrian-pohl-wrote-some-excellent.html
has the sitaution moved on?

cheers
stuart
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] citing female academics

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
It is trivial when you only consider Wikidata. When you consider that some
"humans" do not have a gender classification from a statistics point of
view it hardly matters. It will be more problematic to consider all
sciences.in

When you are interested in the development in the gender gap, you can use
multiple dumps. This is what interests me most; see if the attention to
female academics makes a difference compared with the norm.

The category of expatriate academics is most likely to be totally
ambiguous. You have to consider the context.. What country is the norm ?
Did they go back, do they travel ... The notion IF someone is an expat can
only be considered when an academic has an organisation as an employer that
is not in the country of birth. This information is far from complete but
so are all these categories. Wikidata has more on this than any Wikipedia.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 28 February 2016 at 15:15, Joe Corneli  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:
>
> > Oddly, there appears to be no solidarity among female Wikipedians that
> take
> > this into account, because I assume we have lots of female academic
> > Wikipedians who could easily write about other female academics in
> academic
> > articles (or on Wikipedia) if they wanted to and don't.
>
> I have a very basic question, to do with navigating Wikipedia's
> categories.  Is there a sensible way to query the category system (or
> extracts, e.g. to DBPedia) to produce a side-by-side comparison of how
> many pages on♀vs ♂ [might as well add: vs ⚧, i.e. nonbinary] academics
> there are in existence on Wikipedia?
>
> I should say that as a user I've often found the category system
> confusing, no less in this case.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Academics -> 36 persons, 14
> subcategories
>
> of which one subcategory is:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_academics -> 33 persons,
> 3 subcategories
>
> of which one subcategory is:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_academics_by_nationality
>
> To take an example: Daniela Müller is on the list of Academics, but
> not the list of Women Academics; neither is she listed on these
> various subcategory pages:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_historians -> 120 pages,
> 6 subcategories
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:German_women_academics -> 69 pages
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dutch_women_academics -> 6 pages
>
> Nor, coming at this from another angle, is she listed on:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Expatriate_academics -> 6
> pages, 9 subcategories
>
> ... although her bio page says that she is a "German theologian and
> church historian, who works in the Netherlands since 2007 and who
> holds the chair of Church History/History of Christianity."
>
> narrative: I don't for a moment question that representation is very
> unequal (and we could re-do this exercise along other dimensions as
> you suggest Jane -- as evidenced by the German women vs Dutch women
> comparison, combining dimensions produces revealing results)... but I
> wish I knew just HOW unequal things are.  At the moment it seems very
> difficult to know the answer to that question -- but, again, this may
> be because I'm naive about the art of wiki querying.
>
> I know that some researchers have managed to get good data out about
> this sort of thing, e.g.
>
>   «More information on Wikipedia deals with Europe than all of the
> locations outside of Europe.»
>
> GRAHAM , M., HOGAN , B., STRAUMANN , R. K., AND MEDHAT , A. 2014.
> Uneven geographies of user-generated information: patterns of
> increasing informational poverty. Annals of the Association of
> American Geographers 104, 4, 746–764.
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] citing female academics

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Stuart A. Yeates, 28/02/2016 18:10:

Finding relable sources on this facet of private people is very, very hard


Why even bother publishing original research?

Nemo

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] citing female academics

[Stuart A. Yeates]

On Monday, 29 February 2016, Joe Corneli  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Jane Darnell  > wrote:
>
> > Oddly, there appears to be no solidarity among female Wikipedians that
> take
> > this into account, because I assume we have lots of female academic
> > Wikipedians who could easily write about other female academics in
> academic
> > articles (or on Wikipedia) if they wanted to and don't.
>
> I have a very basic question, to do with navigating Wikipedia's
> categories.  Is there a sensible way to query the category system (or
> extracts, e.g. to DBPedia) to produce a side-by-side comparison of how
> many pages on♀vs ♂ [might as well add: vs ⚧, i.e. nonbinary] academics
> there are in existence on Wikipedia?


I have written biographies of third gender academics as well as those who
appear not to have published gender info.  Finding relable sources on this
facet of private people is very, very hard and likely to be a stumbling
block to actually writing articles.

Cheers
Stuart



-- 
--
...let us be heard from red core to black sky
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] citing female academics

[Joe Corneli]

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> Oddly, there appears to be no solidarity among female Wikipedians that take
> this into account, because I assume we have lots of female academic
> Wikipedians who could easily write about other female academics in academic
> articles (or on Wikipedia) if they wanted to and don't.

I have a very basic question, to do with navigating Wikipedia's
categories.  Is there a sensible way to query the category system (or
extracts, e.g. to DBPedia) to produce a side-by-side comparison of how
many pages on♀vs ♂ [might as well add: vs ⚧, i.e. nonbinary] academics
there are in existence on Wikipedia?

I should say that as a user I've often found the category system
confusing, no less in this case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Academics -> 36 persons, 14 subcategories

of which one subcategory is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_academics -> 33 persons,
3 subcategories

of which one subcategory is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_academics_by_nationality

To take an example: Daniela Müller is on the list of Academics, but
not the list of Women Academics; neither is she listed on these
various subcategory pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_historians -> 120 pages,
6 subcategories
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:German_women_academics -> 69 pages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dutch_women_academics -> 6 pages

Nor, coming at this from another angle, is she listed on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Expatriate_academics -> 6
pages, 9 subcategories

... although her bio page says that she is a "German theologian and
church historian, who works in the Netherlands since 2007 and who
holds the chair of Church History/History of Christianity."

narrative: I don't for a moment question that representation is very
unequal (and we could re-do this exercise along other dimensions as
you suggest Jane -- as evidenced by the German women vs Dutch women
comparison, combining dimensions produces revealing results)... but I
wish I knew just HOW unequal things are.  At the moment it seems very
difficult to know the answer to that question -- but, again, this may
be because I'm naive about the art of wiki querying.

I know that some researchers have managed to get good data out about
this sort of thing, e.g.

  «More information on Wikipedia deals with Europe than all of the
locations outside of Europe.»

GRAHAM , M., HOGAN , B., STRAUMANN , R. K., AND MEDHAT , A. 2014.
Uneven geographies of user-generated information: patterns of
increasing informational poverty. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 104, 4, 746–764.

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] citing female academics

[Stuart A. Yeates]

I've done a lot of [[WP:NPP]], and I already have a prejudice about at
article before I've read the first word based on the layout of the article
(bold name? cats? infobox? reference section? reference section in
columns?).

I recently did a push to increase the diversity of coverage of local
academics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_Zealand/Requested_articles/New_Zealand_academic_biographies
and I can't stress enough how useful the 'page furniture' (everything other
than the body text) is for the palatability of stabs to the editors at new
page patrol and other others dealing with new articles. If you're doing a
lot of articles, investment in a good template is time well spent. The one
I used for this is at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stuartyeates/sandbox/academicbio

cheers
stuart


--
...let us be heard from red core to black sky

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> Well I think it is even more basic than that. People (and myself as
> Wikipedian included) tend to google search for info and rarely pick up the
> pay-walled stuff if their searches are set to free knowledge. We all know
> how google favors Wikipedia, but this particular female academic has no
> Wikipedia page, while the guy who wrote the offending blog post does. I
> mean the one who wrote the book (which would probably have been on such a
> page) but the woman who wrote the blog about the blog doesn't have one
> either. So if the guy just googled the stuff there is a very good chance
> that he really didn't pick up the info that the blog is objecting to. In
> other words, the problem with systemic bias is even worse than she knows.
>
> Oddly, there appears to be no solidarity among female Wikipedians that
> take this into account, because I assume we have lots of female academic
> Wikipedians who could easily write about other female academics in academic
> articles (or on Wikipedia) if they wanted to and don't. In fact, on
> Wikipedia they just hold them to the same biased standards and are probably
> (being detail oriented) even more careful with "the rules" as men are,
> which Yaroslav discovered to his distaste this week when I asked him (as
> academic) to take a look at an AfC for Nitasha Kaul which he successfully
> created after crossing swords with a (self-proclaimed female academic) AfC
> volunteer LaMona:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation=707318059
> (scroll down to Draft:Nitasha Kaul)
>
> Even though I was annoyed enough to post about this on facebook (which is
> where Yaroslav responded) I don't even fault LaMona for her behavior, since
> she is "just following AfC rules" and has probably never even realized that
> what she did was not only not taking the wider academic community's female
> bias into account, but also the "Global South bias" and the "people of
> color bias". This is exactly why we organize things like Art and
> Women's History month, if only to try and get the conversation started. You
> only start to understand the problem when you do something like what
> Yaroslav did (which I myself was unwilling to do, to my shame).
>
> For the record, as Yaroslav is a common figure at AfD, his comment that it
> would be kept there is what allowed the article in main namespace:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nitasha_Kaul
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Mark J. Nelson  wrote:
>
>> One exacerbating factor maybe worth adding in, which is also relevant
>> for what Wikipedia cites imo, is that more popular or journalistic
>> writing tends not to cite academic writing, even when very relevant,
>> sometimes even when the journalist/author in question actually did read
>> something by the academic in question during the course of their
>> research. Partly this is because journalistic/popular writing has much
>> less emphasis on citations as currency to begin with, and stylstically
>> prefers to avoid citations and footnotes. And partly because they seem
>> to only consider other things on a similar level of popularity worth
>> acknowledging--- other best-sellers, well-known pundits, even
>> high-traffic blogs, but not as much the lowly academic monograph or
>> journal article.
>>
>> -Mark
>>
>> Heather Ford  writes:
>>
>> > There's an interesting discussion going on right now on the Association
>> of
>> > Internet Researchers mailing list about the citing of women (and women
>> of
>> > colour) in academia that I thought might be interesting. The comments
>> are
>> > also really (as Gabriella Coleman noted) 'lively' so they're worth a
>> read
>> > too. I'd be curious to learn more about how we as a Wikipedia research
>> > community fare here too...
>> >
>> >
>> https://merylalper.com/2016/02/22/please-read-the-article-please-cite-women-academics/
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Heather.
>> >
>> > Dr Heather Ford
>> > University Academic Fellow
>> > School of 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] citing female academics

[Jane Darnell]

Well I think it is even more basic than that. People (and myself as
Wikipedian included) tend to google search for info and rarely pick up the
pay-walled stuff if their searches are set to free knowledge. We all know
how google favors Wikipedia, but this particular female academic has no
Wikipedia page, while the guy who wrote the offending blog post does. I
mean the one who wrote the book (which would probably have been on such a
page) but the woman who wrote the blog about the blog doesn't have one
either. So if the guy just googled the stuff there is a very good chance
that he really didn't pick up the info that the blog is objecting to. In
other words, the problem with systemic bias is even worse than she knows.

Oddly, there appears to be no solidarity among female Wikipedians that take
this into account, because I assume we have lots of female academic
Wikipedians who could easily write about other female academics in academic
articles (or on Wikipedia) if they wanted to and don't. In fact, on
Wikipedia they just hold them to the same biased standards and are probably
(being detail oriented) even more careful with "the rules" as men are,
which Yaroslav discovered to his distaste this week when I asked him (as
academic) to take a look at an AfC for Nitasha Kaul which he successfully
created after crossing swords with a (self-proclaimed female academic) AfC
volunteer LaMona:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation=707318059
(scroll down to Draft:Nitasha Kaul)

Even though I was annoyed enough to post about this on facebook (which is
where Yaroslav responded) I don't even fault LaMona for her behavior, since
she is "just following AfC rules" and has probably never even realized that
what she did was not only not taking the wider academic community's female
bias into account, but also the "Global South bias" and the "people of
color bias". This is exactly why we organize things like Art and
Women's History month, if only to try and get the conversation started. You
only start to understand the problem when you do something like what
Yaroslav did (which I myself was unwilling to do, to my shame).

For the record, as Yaroslav is a common figure at AfD, his comment that it
would be kept there is what allowed the article in main namespace:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nitasha_Kaul


On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Mark J. Nelson  wrote:

> One exacerbating factor maybe worth adding in, which is also relevant
> for what Wikipedia cites imo, is that more popular or journalistic
> writing tends not to cite academic writing, even when very relevant,
> sometimes even when the journalist/author in question actually did read
> something by the academic in question during the course of their
> research. Partly this is because journalistic/popular writing has much
> less emphasis on citations as currency to begin with, and stylstically
> prefers to avoid citations and footnotes. And partly because they seem
> to only consider other things on a similar level of popularity worth
> acknowledging--- other best-sellers, well-known pundits, even
> high-traffic blogs, but not as much the lowly academic monograph or
> journal article.
>
> -Mark
>
> Heather Ford  writes:
>
> > There's an interesting discussion going on right now on the Association
> of
> > Internet Researchers mailing list about the citing of women (and women of
> > colour) in academia that I thought might be interesting. The comments are
> > also really (as Gabriella Coleman noted) 'lively' so they're worth a read
> > too. I'd be curious to learn more about how we as a Wikipedia research
> > community fare here too...
> >
> >
> https://merylalper.com/2016/02/22/please-read-the-article-please-cite-women-academics/
> >
> > Best,
> > Heather.
> >
> > Dr Heather Ford
> > University Academic Fellow
> > School of Media and Communications , The
> > University of Leeds
> > w: hblog.org / EthnographyMatters.net 
> / t:
> > @hfordsa 
> > ___
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
> --
> Mark J. Nelson
> Anadrome Research
> http://www.kmjn.org
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] citing female academics

[Mark J . Nelson]

One exacerbating factor maybe worth adding in, which is also relevant
for what Wikipedia cites imo, is that more popular or journalistic
writing tends not to cite academic writing, even when very relevant,
sometimes even when the journalist/author in question actually did read
something by the academic in question during the course of their
research. Partly this is because journalistic/popular writing has much
less emphasis on citations as currency to begin with, and stylstically
prefers to avoid citations and footnotes. And partly because they seem
to only consider other things on a similar level of popularity worth
acknowledging--- other best-sellers, well-known pundits, even
high-traffic blogs, but not as much the lowly academic monograph or
journal article.

-Mark

Heather Ford  writes:

> There's an interesting discussion going on right now on the Association of
> Internet Researchers mailing list about the citing of women (and women of
> colour) in academia that I thought might be interesting. The comments are
> also really (as Gabriella Coleman noted) 'lively' so they're worth a read
> too. I'd be curious to learn more about how we as a Wikipedia research
> community fare here too...
>
> https://merylalper.com/2016/02/22/please-read-the-article-please-cite-women-academics/
>
> Best,
> Heather.
>
> Dr Heather Ford
> University Academic Fellow
> School of Media and Communications , The
> University of Leeds
> w: hblog.org / EthnographyMatters.net  / t:
> @hfordsa 
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

-- 
Mark J. Nelson
Anadrome Research
http://www.kmjn.org

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] citing female academics

[Jane Darnell]

Thanks to Gerard Meissen who just updated her Wikidata item with a bunch of
references, so who knows that may help.
Getting back on topic, the Kaplan fellow has a Wikipedia article while the
Schulte woman doesn't. Can we blame him then for feeling irritated that she
wasn't notable enough to cite?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Kaplan_(journalist)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Stephanie+Ricker+Schulte=Special%3ASearch=Go

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> ...meanwhile, in daily life on Wikipedia, the effects of non-citation
> regarding female academics is immediately reflected in the difficulties of
> reaching Wikipedia notability status for said female academics:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nitasha_Kaul
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Joe Corneli 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 23 2016, Heather Ford wrote:
>>
>> > There's an interesting discussion going on right now on the Association
>> of
>> > Internet Researchers mailing list about the citing of women (and women
>> of
>> > colour) in academia that I thought might be interesting. The comments
>> are
>> > also really (as Gabriella Coleman noted) 'lively' so they're worth a
>> read
>> > too. I'd be curious to learn more about how we as a Wikipedia research
>> > community fare here too...
>> >
>> >
>> https://merylalper.com/2016/02/22/please-read-the-article-please-cite-women-academics/
>>
>> Heather, from my perspective that discussion looks mostly like people
>> talking past each other.
>>
>> To recap what I learned: It seems that Fred Kaplan didn't notice a book
>> that might have been relevant to his research and therefor didn't cite
>> it (this is what he claims anyway).  When Meryl Alper pointed out the
>> missing citation, he was dismissive rather than appreciative.  But she
>> wasn't exactly diplomatic; contact seems to have been initiated from her
>> side as follows:
>>
>> "how come no mention of this claim made prior by @frauricker:
>> http://nyupress.org/books/9780814708675/ …? shame on @nytimes @fmkaplan"
>>   - https://twitter.com/merylalper/status/701027695400976384
>>
>> So it's perhaps not a total surprise that Kaplan was defensive.
>>
>> The bigger picture -- women authors (not) being cited proportionately,
>> or even being actively "erased", as well as broader online sexist
>> behaviour[fn1] -- would be well worth discussing but to me the Frek
>> Kaplan / Meryl Alper debate looks like it is only tangentially connected
>> with the deeper issues.
>>
>> A counterfactual thought experiment: if Stephanie R. Schulte
>> (frauricker) had in fact been male, how would that have changed the
>> situation?
>>
>> I'd suggest we zoom to the "big picture" to get some more context.
>>
>> E.g.
>>
>> «We find that in the most productive countries, all articles with women
>> in dominant author positions receive fewer citations than those with men
>> in the same positions. And this citation disadvantage is accentuated by
>> the fact that women's publication portfolios are more domestic than
>> their male colleagues — they profit less from the extra citations that
>> international collaborations accrue.»
>>
>> http://www.nature.com/news/bibliometrics-global-gender-disparities-in-science-1.14321
>>
>> With regards,
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> [fn1]: just watched this related lecture yesterday,
>> http://boingboing.net/2016/02/22/sarah-jeongs-harvard-lecture.html
>>
>> ___
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] citing female academics

[Joe Corneli]

On Tue, Feb 23 2016, Heather Ford wrote:

> There's an interesting discussion going on right now on the Association of
> Internet Researchers mailing list about the citing of women (and women of
> colour) in academia that I thought might be interesting. The comments are
> also really (as Gabriella Coleman noted) 'lively' so they're worth a read
> too. I'd be curious to learn more about how we as a Wikipedia research
> community fare here too...
>
> https://merylalper.com/2016/02/22/please-read-the-article-please-cite-women-academics/

Heather, from my perspective that discussion looks mostly like people
talking past each other.

To recap what I learned: It seems that Fred Kaplan didn't notice a book
that might have been relevant to his research and therefor didn't cite
it (this is what he claims anyway).  When Meryl Alper pointed out the
missing citation, he was dismissive rather than appreciative.  But she
wasn't exactly diplomatic; contact seems to have been initiated from her
side as follows:

"how come no mention of this claim made prior by @frauricker:
http://nyupress.org/books/9780814708675/ …? shame on @nytimes @fmkaplan"
  - https://twitter.com/merylalper/status/701027695400976384

So it's perhaps not a total surprise that Kaplan was defensive.

The bigger picture -- women authors (not) being cited proportionately,
or even being actively "erased", as well as broader online sexist
behaviour[fn1] -- would be well worth discussing but to me the Frek
Kaplan / Meryl Alper debate looks like it is only tangentially connected
with the deeper issues.

A counterfactual thought experiment: if Stephanie R. Schulte
(frauricker) had in fact been male, how would that have changed the
situation?

I'd suggest we zoom to the "big picture" to get some more context.

E.g. 

«We find that in the most productive countries, all articles with women
in dominant author positions receive fewer citations than those with men
in the same positions. And this citation disadvantage is accentuated by
the fact that women's publication portfolios are more domestic than
their male colleagues — they profit less from the extra citations that
international collaborations accrue.»
  
http://www.nature.com/news/bibliometrics-global-gender-disparities-in-science-1.14321

With regards,

Joe

[fn1]: just watched this related lecture yesterday,
http://boingboing.net/2016/02/22/sarah-jeongs-harvard-lecture.html

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] citing female academics

[Heather Ford]

There's an interesting discussion going on right now on the Association of
Internet Researchers mailing list about the citing of women (and women of
colour) in academia that I thought might be interesting. The comments are
also really (as Gabriella Coleman noted) 'lively' so they're worth a read
too. I'd be curious to learn more about how we as a Wikipedia research
community fare here too...

https://merylalper.com/2016/02/22/please-read-the-article-please-cite-women-academics/

Best,
Heather.

Dr Heather Ford
University Academic Fellow
School of Media and Communications , The
University of Leeds
w: hblog.org / EthnographyMatters.net  / t:
@hfordsa 
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l