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

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

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

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.

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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The WMAR's ad about Wikipedia

Thanks for sharing, Anna! Where/how does WMAR plan on distributing this ad? Cheers, Alex On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Pine W wrote: > Hola Anna, > > Me gusta el video! Además de la conciencia pública, ¿cuáles son sus > objetivos para la campaña de publicidad? > >

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

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

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

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

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

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 wrote: > Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells us > how many articles are

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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Wikimedia Foundation ED search steering group created

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Pine W wrote: > I think that I've said enough in this thread, so I'll pause my involvement > here for the time being. Fortunately for you, I actually read all the way through this thread and got to this part. Austin

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

Thank you all for your considerations, URLs and comments. very useful! 2016-04-20 13:11 GMT+02:00 John Mark Vandenberg : > Yes. That is SOP for studies about biographies and literature in general. > On 20 Apr 2016 18:04, "Gerard Meijssen" wrote: > >

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

Yes. That is SOP for studies about biographies and literature in general. On 20 Apr 2016 18:04, "Gerard Meijssen" 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

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

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

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

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

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

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, wrote: > Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells us > how many articles are

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

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

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

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:39 AM, 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

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

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?

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Wikimedia Foundation ED search steering group created

Just a few comments more broadly about what I hope WMF will look for in an ED: (1) Realistically, I don't think that we're going to find a single human being who can do everything that the WMF ED should do. With that in mind, I'd like to suggest placing a lot of emphasis on this recommendation

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Wikimedia Foundation ED search steering group created

I realize that Oliver has departed from this conversation, but since this is a public discussion I wanted to respond to one point in particular, which is "If we informed the candidates about everything that had ever been discussed on the mailing lists, they'd die of old age before we'd finished."