...meanwhile, in daily life on Wikipedia, the effects of non-citation regarding female academics is immediately reflected in the difficulties of reaching Wikipedia notability status for said female academics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nitasha_Kaul
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Joe Corneli <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 23 2016, Heather Ford wrote: > > > There's an interesting discussion going on right now on the Association > of > > Internet Researchers mailing list about the citing of women (and women of > > colour) in academia that I thought might be interesting. The comments are > > also really (as Gabriella Coleman noted) 'lively' so they're worth a read > > too. I'd be curious to learn more about how we as a Wikipedia research > > community fare here too... > > > > > https://merylalper.com/2016/02/22/please-read-the-article-please-cite-women-academics/ > > Heather, from my perspective that discussion looks mostly like people > talking past each other. > > To recap what I learned: It seems that Fred Kaplan didn't notice a book > that might have been relevant to his research and therefor didn't cite > it (this is what he claims anyway). When Meryl Alper pointed out the > missing citation, he was dismissive rather than appreciative. But she > wasn't exactly diplomatic; contact seems to have been initiated from her > side as follows: > > "how come no mention of this claim made prior by @frauricker: > http://nyupress.org/books/9780814708675/ …? shame on @nytimes @fmkaplan" > - https://twitter.com/merylalper/status/701027695400976384 > > So it's perhaps not a total surprise that Kaplan was defensive. > > The bigger picture -- women authors (not) being cited proportionately, > or even being actively "erased", as well as broader online sexist > behaviour[fn1] -- would be well worth discussing but to me the Frek > Kaplan / Meryl Alper debate looks like it is only tangentially connected > with the deeper issues. > > A counterfactual thought experiment: if Stephanie R. Schulte > (frauricker) had in fact been male, how would that have changed the > situation? > > I'd suggest we zoom to the "big picture" to get some more context. > > E.g. > > «We find that in the most productive countries, all articles with women > in dominant author positions receive fewer citations than those with men > in the same positions. And this citation disadvantage is accentuated by > the fact that women's publication portfolios are more domestic than > their male colleagues — they profit less from the extra citations that > international collaborations accrue.» > > http://www.nature.com/news/bibliometrics-global-gender-disparities-in-science-1.14321 > > With regards, > > Joe > > [fn1]: just watched this related lecture yesterday, > http://boingboing.net/2016/02/22/sarah-jeongs-harvard-lecture.html > > _______________________________________________ > 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
