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

Revision as of 15:54, 1 August 2018

Revision as of 15:58, 1 August 2018

Line 72:

==More articles on female porn actresses than female poets==

"[T]hat there are less Wikipedia articles on women poets than pornographic actresses, a depressing statistic."

* Source: [[James Gleick]], "Wikipedia’s Women Problem", ''New York Review of booksBooks'', attributed to a Wikipedia editor.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_24&diff=prev&oldid=552203555]

* Verdict: False then and false now

* 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].

Line 78:

** Gleick 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 claim was 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]:

{{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}}

}}