Thanks, that is an excellent idea and one we should introduce at [[WP:Women in Red]] on a set of "prepbio" subpages. Personally I like to start with a well-filled Wikidata item and then use Magnus' Prepbio tool, but that is very generic: https://tools.wmflabs.org/magnustools/prepbio.php
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Stuart A. Yeates <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
