We are very happy to hear that your findings corroborate ours. What's
your take on what we think is rather surprising high percentage of
female bios for the South Asian/Confucian clusters? (i.e. non-Islamic Asia)?
--
Piotr Konieczny, PhD
http://hanyang.academia.edu/PiotrKonieczny
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gdV8_AEAAAAJ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus
On 1/13/2015 22:07, Magnus Manske 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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[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
