No pushback. .. yet. .. ;)
Just a few justified complaints when i made mistakes.
I only categorised women...leaving un-gender-categorised articles as 'men'
and then deduced the percentage of women from that.
I figured that the chances of pushback were higher if I 'touched' lots of
articles and cats about men ;) Those edits would be seen as less useful as
in many cases there are very few women with articles in male dominated
sports. E.g. Rugby, where the female leagues dont attract usable levels of
press coverage, making notability difficult, and limiting the number of
people likely to care enough to write a bio.
I did have a complaint that I wasnt categorising men as well, and i think i
promised to do that, but havent done so.
On Jul 30, 2012 8:15 AM, "Andrew Gray" <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk> wrote:
On 29 July 2012 22:53, John Vandenberg
<jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
And I
don't think the cases where it is
unclear or a matter of privacy (a vanishingly small number) should
preclude the obvious cases being done. It doesn't seem quite right
that the potential for arguments over edge cases and how to handle
them sensitively, would preclude being able to search by gender.
When used in category intersections, its really useful info for gender
studies.
Indeed. I would love to see a chart of gender-in-Wikipedia compared to
birth years, for example, over the last few centuries. Even in the
simplest cases (pure coverage numbers) it's an interesting tool for
understanding our coverage and how that reflects systemic biases.
I'm interested to hear that you categorised for a large set - did it
work smoothly, labour-intensiveness aside, and was there any pushback?
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l