Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-08-18/Special report

← Back to Special report

Discuss this story

Thanks to all who participated in this effort. You did this the right way and I'm sure others will follow your example. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd echo Smallbones - nicely done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

My congratulations to those who took part in expanding the coverage of this area. All of you are an inspiration to others. MWright96 (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Under-represented?

What's the evidence that female Antarctic scientists were underrepresented on Wikipedia before? (For better or worse, it seems clear that, post-"Wikibomb", female Antarctic scientists are now highly over-represented on the English-language Wikipedia, with 92 entries vs. 40 for men, judging by the categories Antarctic scientists and Women Antarctic scientists.) Yaron K. (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It's tricky to gauge the total number of notable Antarctic scientists. We do know that women make up ~50% of lab heads and ~60% of early-career researchersand that it drops below 50% for research heads. There are certainly notable male Antarcic researchers aren't yet covered.

The category:Antarctic scientists is only a few months old. We did a reasonably thorough search to find the 7 initial biographies of women (<14%, not too far from the encyclopaedia-wide average of ~16%). However, we've probably not found and categorised all the men yet. Nevertheless, even if we have indeed reached >60% women in Antarctic scientists, the number of biographies of women added each month is typically 20-40%. I suspect that the gender balance will slowly swing back, so I think a temporary over-representation of women in this field isn't too problematic. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 09:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

References

So this comment by Yaron K. is EXACTLY why this initiative is so important. Poor men. Feel very bad for them to be so outrageously under-represented. Like women are in most other instances. Not surprised an editor would have the audacity to make this point and not be called out on it. I mean, really?!? With a history of women not even being allowed to go to work on these research stations until the very recent past this question is not even defensible.

Way to go SCAR folks! Please reach out to others if you need any support and assistance. I think beyond the Rapid Grant you got SCAR should consider doing an annual plan grant -- it's obvious you are an organized group of experts in the field who have a lot to contribute to this area which is so scientifically important. Way to go! -- BrillLyle (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, that escalated quickly... anyway, I don't know what the right ratios should be (neither does anyone else, it seems), but count me among those who think Wikipedia should reflect reality, rather than compensate for it. Yaron K. (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, T.Shafee - thanks for your response. Yaron K. (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Yaron K.: I don't think anything escalated. I just called you out on something that I think should be addressed. If that's upsetting to you then that is on you.

And ironically, this "reality" you refer to that should be reflected, whose reality should this be? This seems to be another framing of the gender gap issue using a suspect framing constraint. Baffling. -- BrillLyle (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@BrillLyle: I think Yaron K. is right and making comments like "Poor men. Feel very bad for them to be so outrageously under-represented" aren't helpful. I agree with T.Shafee that the rising tide will eventually lift all boats. My concern is that initiatives like these, while adding useful content, seem to grow out of a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS mentality although I trust proper sourcing on these efforts has been observed. I've written content about women and ethnic-minorities in the US without a triumphal attitude of sticking it to the man. By the way, I think "framing of the gender gap issue using a suspect framing constraint" is Newspeak and ought to be avoided. Those of us educated white men that are way too over-represented on wiki don't deserve to be treated as a heteronormative patriarchal class enemy of yours. We're editing with NPOV as I assume you are. We're all on the same side here. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind over-representation of women thanks to special WP efforts at all, but to continue to use emotive language about the under-representation of women on WP when evidence suggests the balance has in fact gone the other way is rather irritating, here and in some other contexts. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Are we all on the same side? It doesn't sound like it from what you say.

And good job of calling my comments emotive. Emotive=female so therefore bad? #ugh While both yours and Yaron's comments are factual and un-emotive? Yeah, I don't think so.

I continue to weep with pity #QuelleHorreuer that men might feel like the gender balance is not in their favor in this one instance. If there is an imbalance, then fix it. In almost all cases on Wikipedia the gender balance is very clearly weighted on the side of over-representation of white male subjects and white male editors. The fact that this initiative and WiR are so successful must be both threatening and difficult to absorb. So sorry to hear there is disquiet and concern about that. Imagine now that this is how the rest of us feel.

Very sad the responses to such a cool initiative is (a) so stereotypically awful and (b) completely misses the whole point of how great this inititiave is. Also illustrates exactly why events like this are necessary. BrillLyle (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@BrillLyle: This is a great initiative, and by all means disagree with people who you feel haven't grasped why, but please try and be more collegial when you do it. I find it frustrating when people choose to talk to other volunteer editors in this way when there are much politer ways of phrasing. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 17:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Acather96: Wow. Your comment above characterizes _me_ as being un-collegial, yet ironically enough, your comment is in an of itself wildly un-collegial. Huh. -- BrillLyle (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi @BrillLyle:. Apologies if it came across that way; I tried to phrase it as politely as possible. I've never interacted with you before to the best of my knowledge, so I can't say that you are uncollegial - but as an uninvolved user reading these comments I did think the replies you were leaving weren't perhaps the most charitable. Don't take that as a criticism, but more a reminder on trying to assume good faith when engaging with other users: we all forget to do it, but the atmosphere here is much better when we all do! Acather96 (click here to contact me) 22:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

"I don't know what the right ratios should be": there is no "right ratio"; there's only notability. Mathematically, the content will trend toward 100% of available notable subject matter over time, so this fretting over perceived bias is actually a near-term issue. Praemonitus (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)