I have a question about the P21. Has any of the GND author sex information leaked into P21? because that's known-bad data.
It's bad because the GND in all it's wisdom decided to assign sex to authors based on a apparent gender of the name published under, even for periods when many women were known to publish using male pseudonyms. I believe that VIAF takes this data at face value, effectively poisoning pretty much every conceivable use of library authority data for gender analysis for the foreseeable future. cheers stuart -- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Magnus Manske <[email protected]> wrote: > To spam this list as well as Twitter :-) > > http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=250 > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Maximilian Klein <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Thank you all for the feedback. I will have taken away quite a few good >> ideas for further investigation, to summarize: >> >> Gerard - look at the ratios of those bios of a language, which exist only >> in that language. >> Han Teng - "male gaze" hypothesis, create a by-profession crosstabular >> analysis. >> Jane - look at the ratios of leading actors by language, and "fictional >> humans" more closely. >> Jonathan - perform a filter step, or perhaps a weighting by page-views. >> >> Thanks so much for the advice, what a great list. >> >> Make a great day, >> Max Klein ‽ http://notconfusing.com/ >> >> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 5:57 AM, WereSpielChequers >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I have spent quite a bit of time at new page patrol over the years. My >>> suspicion is that many if not most of the people who create articles on >>> newly signed pop stars and actors are from their management agency rather >>> than fans, especially if they seem too early in their career to have fans. >>> Sportspeople I suggest are more likely to be written about by fans, >>> especially if they have been signed by a major team, or more importantly for >>> Wikipedia a team with an actively editing fan. >>> >>> On this theory the quality of articles, the number of edits, and when we >>> had the Article Feedback Tool the number of "is hot" type comments would be >>> a good indication of interest from the volunteer editing community. But >>> article creation is in part a matter of the policy of the relevant talent >>> agencies. >>> >>> Sorry if that sounds overly cynical, perhaps if it were possible one >>> would filter out the articles that get scarcely any views and then look at >>> the gender balance of articles that are of interest to our audience as well >>> as our editors. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Jonathan Cardy >>> >>> >>> On 11 Jan 2015, at 22:23, h <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hello Piotr and Gerard, >>> >>> I think a competing hypothesis would be "male gaze". That is to say, >>> the more female representation is not about a culture (defined as national, >>> ethnic, linguistic or regional, not macho/feminine), but rather a >>> gender-interest bias. Thus the more female representation could mean more >>> male dominant culture, which is against the theoretical assumption of >>> Piotr's research. >>> >>> Note that East Asian Wikipedians that I know, especially those who >>> edit Chinese Wikipedia, are predominantly very young. Some of them can be >>> highly interested in opposite sex. >>> >>> Check the following category pages as examples: >>> (1a) Female actresses of every countries in the world >>> >>> http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:%E5%90%84%E5%9C%8B%E5%A5%B3%E6%BC%94%E5%93%A1 >>> (1b) Male actresses of every countries in the world >>> >>> http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:%E5%90%84%E5%9B%BD%E7%94%B7%E6%BC%94%E5%91%98 >>> >>> (2a) Female Japanese AV (i.e. porn) actresses >>> >>> http://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%ACAV%E5%A5%B3%E5%84%AA >>> (2b) Male Japanese AV (i.e. porn) actresses >>> >>> http://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%ACAV%E7%94%B7%E5%84%AA >>> >>> It is quiet clear that the male gaze hypothesis seems to apply here. >>> More female presentation simply because they are there to be consumed by men >>> or boys. >>> >>> So one of my suggestions for research is to select a few professional >>> categories that are of interest (say, politicians, poets, entertainers, >>> etc.) to do some cross-tab analysis. >>> >>> Thus, I will be extremely cautious against using the current >>> metrics/methods as viable "gender inequality index". >>> >>> As a proponent of "data normalization" and "geographic normalization" >>> method myself, I would distinguish two sets of comparisons: one is >>> cross-country or cross-language version absolute value comparison, another >>> is cross-country or cross-language version "normalized" value comparison. By >>> geographic normalization, I mean that researchers must gather another set of >>> cross-country or cross-language datasets that captures some aspects of >>> realities "external" to Wikipedia. In this case, I would say the Wikipedia >>> represented politicians' gender ratio against the offline gender ratio of >>> politicians. In other words, "data normalization" allows researchers to >>> compare which language version are more or less (and how much) equal than >>> the corresponding offline societies. >>> >>> BTW, the methods you develop to extract gender from biography >>> articles for large-scale analysis may also be re-purpose to study other >>> dimensions. One dimension that will interest me would be nationality. It >>> will be interesting to see the coverage, focus or bias of a language version >>> on people based on nationalities. Age might be another one. >>> >>> Best, >>> han-teng liao >>> >>> >>> >>> 2015-01-11 19:01 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>> Hoi, >>>> Having read it, I find it is still very much a Wikipedia oriented.It >>>> makes use of the toolset by Markus. That is fine. the notion of diversity >>>> and notability is also very much culturally defined. It would be nice to >>>> know how the different wikipedias accept notability of people from other >>>> cultures and if it impacts the diversity of their own articles. >>>> >>>> I have found that many people do not have an article in the languages of >>>> their own cultures. Often it has to do with an interest in a domain that is >>>> more of relevance to the other culture. >>>> >>>> Diversity is very much part of a domain; in Roman Catholicism male >>>> dominance is obvious. I am curious if diversity in gender is affected by >>>> such considerations and if items with a single article are more in line >>>> with >>>> what is the norm for a culture, a domain. >>>> Thanks, >>>> GerardM >>>> >>>> On 10 January 2015 at 11:51, Piotr Konieczny <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Here >>>>> (http://notconfusing.com/preliminary-results-from-wigi-the-wikipedia-gender-inequality-index/) >>>>> are some early findings from a research project I am involved in (together >>>>> with Maximilian Klein). (To find out more about the project, see >>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Gender_Inequality_Index >>>>> and it's talk page). We are very curious what you think (don't hesitate to >>>>> be critical). What we would really appreciate would be any alternative >>>>> hypotheses (to the one presented) that could try to explain why post-1950s >>>>> Confucian and South Asian clusters seem so much more inclusive of female >>>>> biographies than others (including the "Western" clusters). Are we seeing >>>>> a >>>>> data error, or something else - and if so, what? >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Piotr Konieczny, PhD >>>>> http://hanyang.academia.edu/PiotrKonieczny >>>>> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEAAAAJ >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wiki-research-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
