Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Wikipedia Gap

[Dennis During]

English Wiktionary has made a modest step toward ameliorating the FUll Text
On the Net bias by reducing for "less-attested languages"  the requirement
for three citations of a word in use to just one.  The result is more
coverage at somewhat greater risk of making a mistake in the entry
(misspelling, wrong definition, etc).  Similar tradeoffs must exist for
other wikis.  En.wikt tends to be more tolerant, if not exactly welcoming,
of contributors of entries in underrepresented languages, many of which do
not have their own wikis, than it is of would-be contributors of English
entries.

As I see it, What en.wikt has done seems reasonable within the scope of
what volunteers can do and are willing to do.  A dictionary with trained
linguists contributing has an offsetting bias toward preserving smaller
languages, which serve as data for linguistic theory.

In my opinion, we also have other biases.  We have a subject matter bias
toward computer, mathematics, chemistry, and linguistics jargon and against
jargon from other fields.  Our coverage of Afro-American Vernacular English
lags and is incomplete even for older terms.  Our definitions are often
worded for graduate students or at least college students.  We have an
antiquarian and literary bias as well.  I am certain that I am blind to
many other biases.

We would welcome constructive ideas about further steps or ideas on how
en.wikt could be a better resource.



On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Delirium  wrote:

> In terms of specific articles to create, there is also
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_
> encyclopedic_articles
>
> That project collects articles that exist in wide range of other
> encyclopedias, but don't yet exist on Wikipedia. However that's not
> covering quite the same concerns as the systemic-bias discussion, since
> many of those encyclopedias themselves have similar biases. Nonetheless
> this kind of comparison can be useful to find specific gaps in coverage
> that, equally importantly, are "actionable" in the sense that at least one
> source to base an article on exists.
>
> -Mark
>
>
> On 12/9/13, 9:07 PM, Peter Coombe wrote:
>
>> The English Wikipedia has attempted a (non-exhaustive) list at
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>> On 9 December 2013 07:35, Romaine Wiki  wrote:
>>
>>  In various research and media articles is written that in several subject
>>> groups Wikipedia is missing a lot of articles and those groups are
>>> relatively unrepresented.
>>>
>>> How can we as Wikipedia get clear which subject groups are missing?
>>>
>>> How can we get lists of less represented subject groups and the articles
>>> in those groups?
>>>
>>> Let us get practical, ow can we fill the gap?
>>>
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Romaine
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> 
>>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Dennis C. During

Dropbox is a free online storage service that I use. If you sign
upyou get 2.5 Gb of free online storage and I
get an extra .5 Gb.

1968, Taj Mahal ,
“Good Morning Miss Brown” (song), in *The Natch'l Blues* (album): Good
morning Miss Brown / Mamma how do you do? / I said good morning Miss Brown
/ Mamma how do you do? / She say I'm feelin' fine and lookin' good / Maaan
what about you? /* I say I got the misery and the back ache baby / And my
feets hurtin' me when I walk *
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Wikipedia Gap

[Rand McRanderson]

I wonder if we could do a survey of readers from underrepresented groups.
Even if a group is underrepresented as editors that doesn't mean they ate
underrepresented as readers (for example women) (plus survey results could
be cited in potential deletion discussions)

We may want to think about the WMF giving grants organizations that are
doing research into the history and sociology etc. of these groups, so that
the body of citable evidence becomes greater.
On Dec 10, 2013 8:43 AM, "Delirium"  wrote:

> In terms of specific articles to create, there is also
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_
> encyclopedic_articles
>
> That project collects articles that exist in wide range of other
> encyclopedias, but don't yet exist on Wikipedia. However that's not
> covering quite the same concerns as the systemic-bias discussion, since
> many of those encyclopedias themselves have similar biases. Nonetheless
> this kind of comparison can be useful to find specific gaps in coverage
> that, equally importantly, are "actionable" in the sense that at least one
> source to base an article on exists.
>
> -Mark
>
> On 12/9/13, 9:07 PM, Peter Coombe wrote:
>
>> The English Wikipedia has attempted a (non-exhaustive) list at
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>> On 9 December 2013 07:35, Romaine Wiki  wrote:
>>
>>  In various research and media articles is written that in several subject
>>> groups Wikipedia is missing a lot of articles and those groups are
>>> relatively unrepresented.
>>>
>>> How can we as Wikipedia get clear which subject groups are missing?
>>>
>>> How can we get lists of less represented subject groups and the articles
>>> in those groups?
>>>
>>> Let us get practical, ow can we fill the gap?
>>>
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Romaine
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> 
>>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Wikipedia Gap

[Delirium]

In terms of specific articles to create, there is also 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles


That project collects articles that exist in wide range of other 
encyclopedias, but don't yet exist on Wikipedia. However that's not 
covering quite the same concerns as the systemic-bias discussion, since 
many of those encyclopedias themselves have similar biases. Nonetheless 
this kind of comparison can be useful to find specific gaps in coverage 
that, equally importantly, are "actionable" in the sense that at least 
one source to base an article on exists.


-Mark

On 12/9/13, 9:07 PM, Peter Coombe wrote:

The English Wikipedia has attempted a (non-exhaustive) list at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias

Peter


On 9 December 2013 07:35, Romaine Wiki  wrote:


In various research and media articles is written that in several subject
groups Wikipedia is missing a lot of articles and those groups are
relatively unrepresented.

How can we as Wikipedia get clear which subject groups are missing?

How can we get lists of less represented subject groups and the articles
in those groups?

Let us get practical, ow can we fill the gap?


Greetings,
Romaine

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Wikipedia Gap

[Peter Coombe]

The English Wikipedia has attempted a (non-exhaustive) list at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias

Peter


On 9 December 2013 07:35, Romaine Wiki  wrote:

> In various research and media articles is written that in several subject
> groups Wikipedia is missing a lot of articles and those groups are
> relatively unrepresented.
>
> How can we as Wikipedia get clear which subject groups are missing?
>
> How can we get lists of less represented subject groups and the articles
> in those groups?
>
> Let us get practical, ow can we fill the gap?
>
>
> Greetings,
> Romaine
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Wikipedia Gap

[Anders Wennersten]

There are probably be some common trends over all language version like 
we are stronger in areas like Server software and Skateboard tricks then 
Fashion and Cosmetics. But to really find the weak areas you need to 
find out  this by each language version. And here I believe we will find 
quite different strong and weak subject areas. Sv:wp is weak related to 
medicine articles which are vey strong in en:wp for example.


Anders




Romaine Wiki skrev 2013-12-09 16:35:

In various research and media articles is written that in several subject 
groups Wikipedia is missing a lot of articles and those groups are relatively 
unrepresented.

How can we as Wikipedia get clear which subject groups are missing?

How can we get lists of less represented subject groups and the articles in 
those groups?

Let us get practical, ow can we fill the gap?


Greetings,
Romaine

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,