Wikipedia:Wikipedia has more...: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:51, 18 September 2014

Revision as of 17:20, 18 September 2014

Line 76:

* Reason: There are (at the time of writing) 987 female pornographic actresses,compared with 2,828 female poets, according to [http://tools.wmflabs.org/catscan2/catscan2.php Catscan].

* Commentary: Like the item below, this fails to take into account female poets who were (only) categorised as poets. Moreover it was possibly a throw-away remark by the editor in question, maybe half remembering the "porn actresses/chemists" claim.

** GliekGleick also makes poorly researched (or poorly expressed) statements like: "A typical hidden category is “[[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion]],” containing thousands of pages of logged discussions about the suitabilities of various categories."

** It's amusing to see this from NYROB who had their significant problems with systemic bias pointed out by a 2011 [http://www.vidaweb.org/new-york-review-of-books-2011-count/ study]

{{Block quote|"At the New York Review of Books, a whopping 88 percent--or 133 of 152 articles published in 2011--were written by men. More than 80 percent of the 770 overall pieces published were written by men. (More than three-quarters of the authors reviewed by the publication were male.) In 2010, 85 percent of the articles published by NYROB were written by men, while 84 percent or 306 of 365 authors reviewed were male." {{Cite journal|title=Voices unheard: Female bylines still lacking in male-dominated literary magazines|author=Dylan Stableford|work= Yahoo News|date=1 March 2012}}