Gregory's Server@monnier @RonSupportsYou @gleick
Unfortunately #wikipedia doesn't really offer a neutral view of the world. Only about 13 % of the authors are women. There were projects to change it, but many women (including me) were put off quickly because of the behaviour of other authors & especially the admins. When you write an article about a woman odds are high it will be deleted quickly, bc it's not relevant.The idea is good, but the implementation is biased. #ProjectRewrite #feminism #GenderEquality
|
Top-level
19 comments
@f4grx @monnier @RonSupportsYou @gleick  @Konfettispaghetti @monnier @RonSupportsYou @gleick but it's the right thing to address this issue. I also wish wikipedia governance was better. @Konfettispaghetti @monnier @RonSupportsYou @gleick Anyone who isn't a male cishet, really. I remember some years ago NB voice actor Casey Monguillo had their page remove for "irrelevance" despite voicing the main lead in several high profile animes and videogames, just because some fan of Spike Spencer (another VA) was butthurt about Casey's Shinji Ikari and filed the article for irrelevance repeteadly until it got deleted. @Jurarigo_ @Konfettispaghetti @monnier @gleick I understand and sympathize with the Wikipedia decision that Monguillo has not yet reached the level of fame that would justify a Wikipedia entry. These decisions are debatable but I side with Wikipedia on this one. @RonSupportsYou @Konfettispaghetti @monnier @gleick You kidding, right? First of all, the decision was revoked merely days later, because it was exclusively requested and taken on the basis that Casey as Shinji wasn't as notorious as Spike Spencer. Second, not only Casey have quite the impressive body of work, they're being at it since 2006 and the article cite 57 external sources proving it. @Konfettispaghetti @monnier @RonSupportsYou @gleick ...Wikipedia is biased but that's simply because any written document or article has bias in some form. Wikipedia has however managed to create an inter-subjective reality we can agree upon for most parts, ofcourse parts of Wikipedia will stay controversial/contested but that's okay. @ErikJonker @monnier @RonSupportsYou @gleick @Konfettispaghetti @monnier @RonSupportsYou @gleick ...maybe but it's the best we have, without Wikipedia the situation would be worse and everyone can volunteer to become editor ! @ErikJonker @monnier @RonSupportsYou @gleick @Konfettispaghetti @monnier @RonSupportsYou @gleick ..could be true, I don't know frankly, but I do know the management of (partly) volunteer organizations like this is very hard. Wikipedia has it's share of problems for sure. @Konfettispaghetti @monnier @RonSupportsYou @gleick More generally, itโs strongly biased towards folks with strong opinions, lots of spare time and often an oddly skewed / out of date / just wrong view of the subject matter. Notable women are an aspect of that layered on top of the unexamined misogyny. At least, itโs that way for the subjects Iโm an expert in. Maybe others are different. I have better things to do with my life than engage in edit wars with those people. @Konfettispaghetti @monnier @RonSupportsYou @gleick Anything can always become worse. Wikipedia itself, or its competitor. We risk a hard fork of information and science. One for the reactionary right and one for the rest of us. Can see the basic properties of CO2 being contested, for example. And any scientific breakthroughs made by women and non-whites. @Konfettispaghetti there's also a cultural bias especially when comparing different languages. @Konfettispaghetti From an anarchoframe, wikipedia suffers from what all hill orderings suffers from. Those on top cannot possibly govern in the interests of millions. In the long run, we need to find orderings that enables more spread of power on the web. For instance let schools and libraries be the hubs of the web. We also need to design search engines to optimize for this kind of structure, think search.marginalia.nu.  @Konfettispaghetti @monnier @RonSupportsYou I'm not blind to this problem. I wrote about it a decade ago. It still exists. @RonSupportsYou @gleick @Konfettispaghetti @monnier #Wikipedia is great for many non-controversial things. On controversial topics, itโs at least starting point. But the problems are there. The gender imbalance among contributors and subjects of articles is one big problem. Thatโs why I really noticed the work of @PennamitePLR. Sheโs created MANY articles about notable women. I hope others can follow her example. @RonSupportsYou @Konfettispaghetti @PennamitePLR @gleick @monnier I believe this is the latest article by Penny (@PennamitePLR). Thereโs even an #Iowa connection (which, as an Iowan, I am duty-bound to point out๐). |
@Konfettispaghetti @monnier @RonSupportsYou @gleick agreed that it's not ideal and could be better. But not a reason to destroy it either...