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

Revision as of 19:58, 9 November 2015

Revision as of 22:01, 28 March 2016

Line 77:

* 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.

** 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}}

}}