This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gender bias on Wikipedia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
All Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest and neutral point of view. |
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
Some of the studies and sources described under this subheading do not attempt to measure gender disparity. Some, such as Maher's comment, could be moved to the Causes section. Others might need a different subheading. -- Jaireeodell ( talk) 18:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Yesterday I added this sentence to the article:
A recent study using Wikidata to measure content has found that Britannica, which covers 50,479 biographies has 5,999 of them about women, a 11.88% [1].
As this is a study trying to measure gender bias in written encyclopedias, and it gives some examples for reference, I think that including here makes sense. Nevertheless, @ NightHeron has reverted it many times (I ping also @ Mx. Granger and @ Johnbod who have participated in this small edit warring).
I would like to know why exactly this referenced and on-topic sentence is out of place here. Thanks. Theklan ( talk) 20:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Encyclopedia | Biographies | Women | Women % | Query |
---|---|---|---|---|
Britannica | 50.479 | 5.999 | 11,88% | https://w.wiki/4dtr |
Great Catalan Encyclopedia | 32.610 | 2.498 | 7,66% | https://w.wiki/4du7 |
Great Russian Encyclopedia | 23.047 | 1.684 | 7,31% | https://w.wiki/4du5 |
Norske | 38.100 | 5.519 | 14,48% | https://w.wiki/4aSK |
De Agostini | 19.118 | 1.195 | 6,25% | https://w.wiki/4gYX |
Lur | 13.069 | 1.115 | 8,53% | https://w.wiki/4fFY |
@
Theklan’s edit added new content, which has been disputed by other editors.
WP:BRD says: Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article or stimulating discussion. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion […]
.
WP:ONUS says: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
@
Johnbod's edit summary accusing me of edit-warring is unwarranted.
The disputed sentence reads as if the point is to suggest that Wikipedia isn’t so bad after all, at least compared to Britannica (which has about 12% representation as opposed to 19%). If that is the intent, the sentence, if it belongs anywhere, belongs in a paragraph defending Wikipedia from the charge of gender bias. In my opinion that would be a rather lame defense. NightHeron ( talk) 21:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Britannica is more balanced in whom it neglects to cover than Wikipedia; that
Wikipedia articles on women were more likely to be missing than articles on men relative to Britannica; and that
Wikipedia dominated Britannica in biographical coverage, but more so when it comes to men. This unexplained contradiction makes the whole paragraph confusing. NightHeron ( talk) 18:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
References
I am currently a PhD student studying gender bias on Wikipedia. I have code that I am happy to open source which validates the claim, but I am unsure whether citing this would constitute "original research" ( WP:OR). I would argue that it could be a "routine calculation" ( WP:CALC) as the methodology is straightforward (links on Wikipedia are unambiguous; there is a norm for classifying the gender of the person a biography is about already cited on this page). Fortunately, if such a citation would be classified as original research, I plan to publish my results in a journal and then there will be a more recent source than 2015 which could then be cited. Willbeason ( talk) 17:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
This article really needs some detail about biographical articles beyond the raw counts that ask for an explanation but don't provide one. Anyone investigating this phenomenon by actual search will immediately notice that the greatest source of the disparity is the vast number of articles about male sports figures, especially American ones. This type of information is absent. I can suggest one source that should be cited: https://doi.org/10.1145/3479986.3479992 . Zero talk 03:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gender bias on Wikipedia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
All Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest and neutral point of view. |
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
Some of the studies and sources described under this subheading do not attempt to measure gender disparity. Some, such as Maher's comment, could be moved to the Causes section. Others might need a different subheading. -- Jaireeodell ( talk) 18:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Yesterday I added this sentence to the article:
A recent study using Wikidata to measure content has found that Britannica, which covers 50,479 biographies has 5,999 of them about women, a 11.88% [1].
As this is a study trying to measure gender bias in written encyclopedias, and it gives some examples for reference, I think that including here makes sense. Nevertheless, @ NightHeron has reverted it many times (I ping also @ Mx. Granger and @ Johnbod who have participated in this small edit warring).
I would like to know why exactly this referenced and on-topic sentence is out of place here. Thanks. Theklan ( talk) 20:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Encyclopedia | Biographies | Women | Women % | Query |
---|---|---|---|---|
Britannica | 50.479 | 5.999 | 11,88% | https://w.wiki/4dtr |
Great Catalan Encyclopedia | 32.610 | 2.498 | 7,66% | https://w.wiki/4du7 |
Great Russian Encyclopedia | 23.047 | 1.684 | 7,31% | https://w.wiki/4du5 |
Norske | 38.100 | 5.519 | 14,48% | https://w.wiki/4aSK |
De Agostini | 19.118 | 1.195 | 6,25% | https://w.wiki/4gYX |
Lur | 13.069 | 1.115 | 8,53% | https://w.wiki/4fFY |
@
Theklan’s edit added new content, which has been disputed by other editors.
WP:BRD says: Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article or stimulating discussion. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion […]
.
WP:ONUS says: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
@
Johnbod's edit summary accusing me of edit-warring is unwarranted.
The disputed sentence reads as if the point is to suggest that Wikipedia isn’t so bad after all, at least compared to Britannica (which has about 12% representation as opposed to 19%). If that is the intent, the sentence, if it belongs anywhere, belongs in a paragraph defending Wikipedia from the charge of gender bias. In my opinion that would be a rather lame defense. NightHeron ( talk) 21:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Britannica is more balanced in whom it neglects to cover than Wikipedia; that
Wikipedia articles on women were more likely to be missing than articles on men relative to Britannica; and that
Wikipedia dominated Britannica in biographical coverage, but more so when it comes to men. This unexplained contradiction makes the whole paragraph confusing. NightHeron ( talk) 18:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
References
I am currently a PhD student studying gender bias on Wikipedia. I have code that I am happy to open source which validates the claim, but I am unsure whether citing this would constitute "original research" ( WP:OR). I would argue that it could be a "routine calculation" ( WP:CALC) as the methodology is straightforward (links on Wikipedia are unambiguous; there is a norm for classifying the gender of the person a biography is about already cited on this page). Fortunately, if such a citation would be classified as original research, I plan to publish my results in a journal and then there will be a more recent source than 2015 which could then be cited. Willbeason ( talk) 17:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
This article really needs some detail about biographical articles beyond the raw counts that ask for an explanation but don't provide one. Anyone investigating this phenomenon by actual search will immediately notice that the greatest source of the disparity is the vast number of articles about male sports figures, especially American ones. This type of information is absent. I can suggest one source that should be cited: https://doi.org/10.1145/3479986.3479992 . Zero talk 03:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)