I've done a lot of [[WP:NPP]], and I already have a prejudice about at article before I've read the first word based on the layout of the article (bold name? cats? infobox? reference section? reference section in columns?).
I recently did a push to increase the diversity of coverage of local academics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_Zealand/Requested_articles/New_Zealand_academic_biographies and I can't stress enough how useful the 'page furniture' (everything other than the body text) is for the palatability of stabs to the editors at new page patrol and other others dealing with new articles. If you're doing a lot of articles, investment in a good template is time well spent. The one I used for this is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stuartyeates/sandbox/academicbio cheers stuart -- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Jane Darnell <[email protected]> wrote: > Well I think it is even more basic than that. People (and myself as > Wikipedian included) tend to google search for info and rarely pick up the > pay-walled stuff if their searches are set to free knowledge. We all know > how google favors Wikipedia, but this particular female academic has no > Wikipedia page, while the guy who wrote the offending blog post does. I > mean the one who wrote the book (which would probably have been on such a > page) but the woman who wrote the blog about the blog doesn't have one > either. So if the guy just googled the stuff there is a very good chance > that he really didn't pick up the info that the blog is objecting to. In > other words, the problem with systemic bias is even worse than she knows. > > Oddly, there appears to be no solidarity among female Wikipedians that > take this into account, because I assume we have lots of female academic > Wikipedians who could easily write about other female academics in academic > articles (or on Wikipedia) if they wanted to and don't. In fact, on > Wikipedia they just hold them to the same biased standards and are probably > (being detail oriented) even more careful with "the rules" as men are, > which Yaroslav discovered to his distaste this week when I asked him (as > academic) to take a look at an AfC for Nitasha Kaul which he successfully > created after crossing swords with a (self-proclaimed female academic) AfC > volunteer LaMona: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation&oldid=707318059 > (scroll down to Draft:Nitasha Kaul) > > Even though I was annoyed enough to post about this on facebook (which is > where Yaroslav responded) I don't even fault LaMona for her behavior, since > she is "just following AfC rules" and has probably never even realized that > what she did was not only not taking the wider academic community's female > bias into account, but also the "Global South bias" and the "people of > color bias". This is exactly why we organize things like Art&Feminism and > Women's History month, if only to try and get the conversation started. You > only start to understand the problem when you do something like what > Yaroslav did (which I myself was unwilling to do, to my shame). > > For the record, as Yaroslav is a common figure at AfD, his comment that it > would be kept there is what allowed the article in main namespace: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nitasha_Kaul > > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Mark J. Nelson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
