More thinking out loud :) ...
Following on from Joseph's observations of taxonomy and Web 2.0-ish
tagging (and perhaps echoing larger debates about the sociality of
Wikipedia as a platform), I guess I see it as an issue of top-down vs
bottom-up approaches to organising knowledge. Where top-down sees
knowledge as finite and splits it into categories, and bottom-up sees
knowledge as infinite and for want of a better word "taggable." And thus
making Wikipedia more searchableÅ whatever parameters the user
wantsÅ rather than the prescriptive nature of categories.
I know the amount of times I've gone through obscure categories looking
for females in that category - having to visit every article page to work
out if the subject is male or female. It would be so awesome to be able to
tag 'female,' 'physicist,' 'nuclear physicist,' etc. And bottom-up
seems
more in line with the wiki way of organising too.
On 30/04/13 12:26 PM, "Lady of Shalott" <ladyofshalott.wp(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Thanks for your reply, Joseph - fair enough! :) I
agree with you - I
think there have been some major lapses of assumption of good faith
from both (all?) sides.
(Ouch looking back at my post, I'm wishing I could hit edit. The edit
summary would be something along the lines of "typo fixing".)
On 4/29/13, Joseph Reagle <joseph.2011(a)reagle.org> wrote:
On 04/29/2013 10:03 PM, Lady of Shalott wrote:
Interesting commentary as far as it went. I wish
he'd delved a little
further into what he was saying.
...
Just thinking out loud here...
I'm actually on this list :) and was just thinking out loud as well to
see if I could understand the incident since I was seeing pretty strong
claims (both "Wikipedia is sexist" and "this is journalism run
amok.")
For instance, people continue to report that Filipacchi is a reporter
for NYT when these were op-eds.
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap