Entirely my fault, I wrote "listed in [[Category:2009 movies]] and [[Category:2010 movies]]". I shouldn't have tried linking them. I don't want to edit it from my cell phone for fear of making another mistake. I'll fix it later today if no one else has. Andrew32714:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A potential problem with this new feminist editing effort is that a significant amount of significant contemporary feminist discourse is carried out online, in sources that, at least at first blush, would not count as reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes, such as blogs. Sure, one could write about feminist blogs as an object of study on Wikipedia to a certain extent, in their own articles, but that would in many cases relegate the views expressed in them to a more obscure part of Wikipedia. For example, if one wanted to write about discussion on feminist blogs about the famous Miley Cyrus twerking thing, it would be much less likely to be read if mentioned in an article about feminism or feminist blogs than if it was mentioned in an article about Miley Cyrus or an article about the VMA event at which this took place - but Wikipedia policies on reliable sources might work against the latter two options. I am sympathetic to this problem, as I myself want to write in unorthodox views on economics and politics into Wikipedia, and a lot of that these days is found online ages before it makes its way into print, and may be far more accessible online - although of course, as with feminism, there is also a wide body of printed literature. I'd like to open up a discussion about this general problem. Any suggestions gratefully appreciated. --greenrd (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most contemporary feminist scholarship takes places in peer-reviewed journals, just like any other discipline. There is definitely a visible public, larger element of feminism that comes through in blogs like Jezebel, but there is lots of high-quality feminist scholarship published in high-quality peer-reviewed journals. There are entire journals dedicated to the topic, such as these. Wadewitz (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first of the two cited Toronto Star articles contains this technically correct, but still misleading sentence: "The Wikipedia article has since been edited and is different now than it was three years ago, but the archived page can be viewed through a website called the Wayback Machine." -- John Broughton(♫♫)17:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first piece in this Signpost is about Wikipedia being praised for using 'Chelsea Manning'; however English Wikipedia had reverted back to the page name 'Bradley Manning' ~24 hrs ago. Im guessing that the change happened before publication of this issue of the Signpost. :/ John Vandenberg(chat)05:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed -- John of Reading (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
← Back to In the media