One exacerbating factor maybe worth adding in, which is also relevant for what Wikipedia cites imo, is that more popular or journalistic writing tends not to cite academic writing, even when very relevant, sometimes even when the journalist/author in question actually did read something by the academic in question during the course of their research. Partly this is because journalistic/popular writing has much less emphasis on citations as currency to begin with, and stylstically prefers to avoid citations and footnotes. And partly because they seem to only consider other things on a similar level of popularity worth acknowledging--- other best-sellers, well-known pundits, even high-traffic blogs, but not as much the lowly academic monograph or journal article.
-Mark Heather Ford <[email protected]> writes: > 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/ > > Best, > Heather. > > Dr Heather Ford > University Academic Fellow > School of Media and Communications <http://media.leeds.ac.uk/>, The > University of Leeds > w: hblog.org / EthnographyMatters.net <http://ethnographymatters.net/> / t: > @hfordsa <http://www.twitter.com/hfordsa> > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Mark J. Nelson Anadrome Research http://www.kmjn.org _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
