Re: [Wikimedia-l] Women through the glass ceiling: gender asymmetries in Wikipedia

[James Salsman]

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 of English Wikipedia economics articles, instead
of the WP:MEDRS grade sources on the topic which are not well
represented in Wikipedia, such as http://talknicer.com/ehip.pdf or
http://talknicer.com/egma.pdf for example, that can do real harm to
the likelihood that the global financial system will as readily extend
inexpensive credit to the developing world.

As we get more and more information about the causation from Wikipedia
to real world decisions, I hope that there is some concerted effort to
address this specific issue.



On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Jean-Philippe Béland
 wrote:
> "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 cultures of
> people...
>
> JP
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 3:31 PM, James Salsman  wrote:
>
>> 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 25, 2017 at 7:30 PM, Jean-Philippe Béland
>>  wrote:
>> > 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 example, I notice that the Wikipedia with the less overlap from the
>> > above-mentioned table is the Arabic Wikipedia. To me, it seems to
>> indicate
>> > another sort of bias on the English Wikipedia and other "Western"
>> language
>> > Wikipedias in not necessarily including biographies from those parts of
>> the
>> > world. Or maybe there is another "glass ceiling" not based on gender,
>> > meaning that somebody from the Middle East for instance needs to be more
>> > notable in average to be included on the English Wikipedia comparatively
>> of
>> > somebody in North America or Europe. Do we have any analysis of that? Is
>> > that a question that is brought up in reflexions about bias?
>> >
>> > Thank you,
>> >
>> > JP
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 3:55 PM, James Heilman  wrote:
>> >
>> >> 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 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? 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 most likely written for pay. If you look at a
>> >> > random group of new BLPs at WP:NPP you will also get a decent idea.
>> >> >
>> >> > James
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Andy Mabbett
>> >> >  wrote:
>> >> >> 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.org.uk
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ___
>> >> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> >> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> >> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> >> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Women through the glass ceiling: gender asymmetries in Wikipedia

[Jean-Philippe Béland]

"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 cultures of
people...

JP


On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 3:31 PM, James Salsman  wrote:

> 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 25, 2017 at 7:30 PM, Jean-Philippe Béland
>  wrote:
> > 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 example, I notice that the Wikipedia with the less overlap from the
> > above-mentioned table is the Arabic Wikipedia. To me, it seems to
> indicate
> > another sort of bias on the English Wikipedia and other "Western"
> language
> > Wikipedias in not necessarily including biographies from those parts of
> the
> > world. Or maybe there is another "glass ceiling" not based on gender,
> > meaning that somebody from the Middle East for instance needs to be more
> > notable in average to be included on the English Wikipedia comparatively
> of
> > somebody in North America or Europe. Do we have any analysis of that? Is
> > that a question that is brought up in reflexions about bias?
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > JP
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 3:55 PM, James Heilman  wrote:
> >
> >> 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 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? 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 most likely written for pay. If you look at a
> >> > random group of new BLPs at WP:NPP you will also get a decent idea.
> >> >
> >> > James
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Andy Mabbett
> >> >  wrote:
> >> >> 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.org.uk
> >> >>
> >> >> ___
> >> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> > 
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > James Heilman
> >> > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> >> >
> >> > ___
> >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> >> > 
> >> > ___
> >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> >> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Women through the glass ceiling: gender asymmetries in Wikipedia

[Jane Darnell]

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:Gendergap_-_female_percentage_per_occupation_en_nl_ja.png

Because of receiving timeouts I couldn't get all the data on the largest
wikis to do more work on the dataset, but this year I started tracking the
occupations linked to women in Wikidata per sitelinked language wiki using
Magnus's Listeria tool here:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Jane023/Number_of_women_per_occupation

Since I noticed lots of women on Wikidata were either linked to extremely
obscure occupations or mostly just still missing any occupation at all, I
decided to replicate the listeria list in userspace on some Wikipedias in
order to see if that helped, and it did. You can run the same query for any
language (I recommend trying it for Japanese or as you suggest, Arabic)

After looking at the Asian languages individually I noticed there are just
huge differences in the popular womens' occupations.

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:30 PM, Jean-Philippe Béland  wrote:

> 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 example, I notice that the Wikipedia with the less overlap from the
> above-mentioned table is the Arabic Wikipedia. To me, it seems to indicate
> another sort of bias on the English Wikipedia and other "Western" language
> Wikipedias in not necessarily including biographies from those parts of the
> world. Or maybe there is another "glass ceiling" not based on gender,
> meaning that somebody from the Middle East for instance needs to be more
> notable in average to be included on the English Wikipedia comparatively of
> somebody in North America or Europe. Do we have any analysis of that? Is
> that a question that is brought up in reflexions about bias?
>
> Thank you,
>
> JP
>
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 3:55 PM, James Heilman  wrote:
>
> > 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 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? 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 most likely written for pay. If you look at a
> > > random group of new BLPs at WP:NPP you will also get a decent idea.
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Andy Mabbett
> > >  wrote:
> > >> 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.org.uk
> > >>
> > >> ___
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > > 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > James Heilman
> > > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > > ___

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Women through the glass ceiling: gender asymmetries in Wikipedia

[James Salsman]

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 25, 2017 at 7:30 PM, Jean-Philippe Béland
 wrote:
> 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 example, I notice that the Wikipedia with the less overlap from the
> above-mentioned table is the Arabic Wikipedia. To me, it seems to indicate
> another sort of bias on the English Wikipedia and other "Western" language
> Wikipedias in not necessarily including biographies from those parts of the
> world. Or maybe there is another "glass ceiling" not based on gender,
> meaning that somebody from the Middle East for instance needs to be more
> notable in average to be included on the English Wikipedia comparatively of
> somebody in North America or Europe. Do we have any analysis of that? Is
> that a question that is brought up in reflexions about bias?
>
> Thank you,
>
> JP
>
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 3:55 PM, James Heilman  wrote:
>
>> 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 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? 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 most likely written for pay. If you look at a
>> > random group of new BLPs at WP:NPP you will also get a decent idea.
>> >
>> > James
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Andy Mabbett
>> >  wrote:
>> >> 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.org.uk
>> >>
>> >> ___
>> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > 
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > James Heilman
>> > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > 
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> James Heilman
>> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jean-Philippe Béland
>
> [image: Wikimedia Canada] Vice-président — Wikimédia Canada
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Women through the glass ceiling: gender asymmetries in Wikipedia

[Jean-Philippe Béland]

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 example, I notice that the Wikipedia with the less overlap from the
above-mentioned table is the Arabic Wikipedia. To me, it seems to indicate
another sort of bias on the English Wikipedia and other "Western" language
Wikipedias in not necessarily including biographies from those parts of the
world. Or maybe there is another "glass ceiling" not based on gender,
meaning that somebody from the Middle East for instance needs to be more
notable in average to be included on the English Wikipedia comparatively of
somebody in North America or Europe. Do we have any analysis of that? Is
that a question that is brought up in reflexions about bias?

Thank you,

JP

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 3:55 PM, James Heilman  wrote:

> 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 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? 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 most likely written for pay. If you look at a
> > random group of new BLPs at WP:NPP you will also get a decent idea.
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Andy Mabbett
> >  wrote:
> >> 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.org.uk
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > James Heilman
> > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 

Jean-Philippe Béland

[image: Wikimedia Canada] Vice-président — Wikimédia Canada
, chapitre national
soutenant Wikipédia
Vice president — Wikimedia Canada
, national chapter
supporting Wikipedia
535 avenue Viger Est, Montréal (Québec)  H2L 2P3,jpbel...@wikimedia.ca
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Women through the glass ceiling: gender asymmetries in Wikipedia

[Andy Mabbett]

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.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Women through the glass ceiling: gender asymmetries in Wikipedia

[Jane Darnell]

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 local
level for women, but what is "local"? Many women who became notable, did it
from home (e.g. writers, poets, abbesses, noblewomen). The systemic bias in
published pre-1900 sources throughout the world is also a factor, since
many encyclopedias focussed on clergy and military. The page rank is not a
reliable measure because we have no way of knowing what the gender is of
our reader base over time. When you break it down into professions, it is
also worth noting that professions that you would expect to be 99% female
(beauty pageant queen) turn out not to be. In fact, women score
systematically lower across the board, and per profession, need many more
"kudos" before becoming notable enough for an article (lots of abbesses,
but few theologians, etc)

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Eduardo Testart  wrote:

> 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.springeropen.com/articles/10.
> 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
>  1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4>*
>
>
> It was published almost a year and half ago (March 1, 2016), and from an
> internal and informal conversation that occurred yesterday in the Chapter,
> he shared the link to the complete study
>  1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4>
> (in English). Worth to mention is that he presented preliminary results
> 
> (in Spanish) about it in the Wikimedia Chile Conference
>  from 2015.
>
>
> I read the complete article yesterday, and found it extremely interesting,
> so I took the liberty to share it here, in case you haven’t had the chance
> to read it yet.
>
>
> Also, the article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
> Attribution 4.0 International License :)
>
>
> Cheers!
> --
> Eduardo Testart
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Women through the glass ceiling: gender asymmetries in Wikipedia

[James Heilman]

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#Jeremy112233

Of the 104 BLPs they wrote 87 (84%) were for males and 17 (16%) were
for females. The current proportions may partly reflect that males are
more interested / willing to buying articles about themselves than
females.

James


On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Eduardo Testart  wrote:
> 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.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
> *
>
>
> It was published almost a year and half ago (March 1, 2016), and from an
> internal and informal conversation that occurred yesterday in the Chapter,
> he shared the link to the complete study
> 
> (in English). Worth to mention is that he presented preliminary results
> 
> (in Spanish) about it in the Wikimedia Chile Conference
>  from 2015.
>
>
> I read the complete article yesterday, and found it extremely interesting,
> so I took the liberty to share it here, in case you haven’t had the chance
> to read it yet.
>
>
> Also, the article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
> Attribution 4.0 International License :)
>
>
> Cheers!
> --
> Eduardo Testart
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 



-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,