Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 98

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red
Latest comment: 3 years ago by ARoseWolf in topic New Article on Julie Lythcott-Haims
Archive 95Archive 96Archive 97Archive 98Archive 99Archive 100→Archive 105

Joanna Gaines

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

Joanna Gaines seems to be an interesting example of systemic bias in action. She and Chip Gaines now have an entire network built upon their brand, yet their Wikipedia links redirect to a single television series that ceased in 2018. There was a relevant AFD in 2016/7 that reduced the articles to redirects, but from what I can see, only one participant tried to look for sources. With a different set of participants, those articles may have survived.

Anyone involved in the American book world knows that Joanna Gaines is a significant force in publishing (and she has continued to publish popular books for adults and children since that article was published). She's probably in some sort of news article every day. But I know the average Wikipedia editor is not watching her shows or reading her books. Her audience is a demographic that is not highly active on Wikipedia, and doesn't seem to have many advocates around here. Even though all the People magazine articles may be dismissed as "celebrity fluff," she is clearly a powerful figure in the entertainment world.

I kind of wonder if "deletion by redirect" is a bigger barrier to creating a new article than if the article had been deleted outright. Casual editors won't know how to turn a redirect into a full article.

Anyway, I thought this may be an interesting subject to discuss, especially since the Magnolia Network is in the news now. Zagalejo (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It's reasonable to suppose that the redirect might diminish the probability of article recreation, but how much less likely & whether it's at all significant is speculation absent any analysis. Poor AfD outcomes & (often) paucity of sources to validate notability still the dominant factors. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Just here because I got pinged below. The AFD was 4 years ago and she has almost certainly gained in WP:Notability since then. (= has more GNG-suitable sources, and also possiblly under an SNG) Find 2 WP:GNG-suitable sources, get little bit of content written that is cited to them, and then boldly edit the redirect into an article. Chances are 99% it will just stay, no sweat. If you ping me, I'd be happy to answer any questions or stand by there when you do it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Agree, go for it. I probably am not enthusiastic enough to start a draft myself but I’ll pitch in some book reviews (I presume they’re available if she’s so widely published). Innisfree987 (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Zagalejo, yikes, yes, she definitely needs an article. I'm kind of amazed by that 2016/2017 AFD to be honest. Were they really not independently notable then? I'm not a fan, and can't say I'm up on all the latest Chip/Joanna Gaines news, but they are both so ridiculously famous now that I can't imagine that they wouldn't have been then as well... Their line for Target apparently launched in November 2017 if that is any indication. Anyways, yes, just another demonstration of why the demographics of our editing corps matter. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
+1 on editing corps. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Chip and Joanna were bundled together at the 2016/2017 AFD. Anyone can comment there and only 1 person said "keep". Several said to redirect it to their show. That's basically how it happened. Due to lack of GNG typ sources, the article was on weak wiki-ground (the sources were basically only about their show, none on them individually) North8000 (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe not systemic bias, as much as it's an article waiting to be written, and has only in the last year or two become worthy of that. In 2019, I happened to catch Fixer Upper (their TV show) while sitting in a waiting room for an appointment. I thought they were interesting, and started watching now and then. Since that time, Chip and Joanna have ridden a rocket ship to success. They were so successful they bought a network, and now they're on streaming. I think they now own DIY network, and are streaming as Magnolia Network. Just from my own observation, I would call these two a power couple, definitely deserving of a Wikipedia article. Finding the sources might be a challenge for anyone not writing about television, but this couple definitely is significant. — Maile (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Just an additional thought here. If someone wants to write about Joanna Gaines, it would probably be best to either write about their TV accomplishments as a couple, or write a separate article on Chip. They did it together, and it would seem inextricable to just write about one of them. — Maile (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Up-and-coming Wikimedian (UK)

Latest comment: 3 years ago11 comments11 people in discussion
 
Congratulations, and here is some cake to celebrate! --Rosiestep (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello All! At the weekend I got a very pleasant surprise and was awarded Up-and-coming Wikimedian of the Year by Wikimedia UK! One of the things that was cited was how I contribute to challenging gender bias, and really I wouldn't be doing any of that without the infrastructure of this project and the support of the editing community here. A big thank you, and I hope this helps with further recognition of the work we all do! Lajmmoore (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Well done for your impressive record of article creation! Good to see it being recognised. (Not all work on women, of course - there's our friend the Leeds Tiger too). PamD 08:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Congraulations, Lajmmoore, on earning this important award. Your contributions to Women in Red have indeed been impressive, especially all your biographies of women from Africa.--Ipigott (talk) 09:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Congrats Lajmmoore! SusunW (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, Lajmmoore! I'm not sure whether I've previously seen articles you've created, but I'll be sure to look at some of them now. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh fabulous! Well deserved, Lajmmoore—the project is lucky to have you! Innisfree987 (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Well done!! 100% deserved – you're a fabulously sustained and prolific contributor, but also generous and encouraging to others. #SpiritOfWomenInRed :) Dsp13 (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Congrats   DanCherek (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Congrats, Lajmmoore. A very well deserved award for an amazing editor. Thank you for all you continue to do. --ARoseWolf 14:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh how did i miss this. Huge Congratulations Lajmmoore. You do super amazing work. Kudos!--OtuNwachinemere (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Women working in green technology

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi all

I found WIPO (part of the UN) has a series of interviews with women who are researchers and/or started green technology companies, I've created Wikidata items for them all and added the interview as a 'described at URL' statement, its not a long list but some very interesting people. I anyone would like to create any of the articles I would be happy to help with finding references etc.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much Ipigott. John Cummings (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

WIR on Jimbo's user talk page

Latest comment: 3 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

It seems WIR has received some attention on Jimbo's talk page here. I left my thoughts because they are my own and its just what I do. My Papa always said I talked too much, apparently it also applies to my thoughts and texting/typing. Oh well. I just thought it might be good to share with the project. --ARoseWolf 20:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has always a minority of "no, systemic bias that reflects my preconceptions is a good thing" types as long as we've had discussions about improving the coverage of under-covered topics (that would be many, many years). This particular instance doesn't seem any more interesting or creative. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, ARoseWolf, for the useful comments you added to this discussion. One thing that rather bothers me in this connection is the tendency of individual editors to come up with their own estimates of the proportion of male vs female articles when we have a whole set of reliable statistics available through Humaniki, Denelezh and WDCM. It might be useful for those really interested in statistics to spend half an hour looking at the various options in regard to dates, occupations, Wikipedia projects for different languages, etc. And we also have a whole series of academic research papers. As for percentages, I think we might make 20% by the end of next year. Every little helps. In a way, the very fact that less than one out of five biographies are about women increases the incentive to do better. And we actually are doing better thanks to the enthusiastic collaboration of an increasing number of editors, both old and new.--Ipigott (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
The part that bothered me was trying to put a target number or percentage on what would be deemed good enough. I have never seen a subject treated in such a manner. Do they seriously have groups of people sitting around putting target percentages on any subject related to males? We have the figures. We know where we are. We know its not enough. Instead of talking about what would be an acceptable target lets just go create and improve articles. It just came across as demeaning to me. I kind of got put off by the "naïve assumption" remark but I stayed away from that as best I could with only a minor mention. I have too much warrior in me not to say something. Even though I think the discussion was misguided it was good to see WIR and subjects on women being discussed. I just think they need perspective and that comes by us speaking up. We have such a wealth of knowledge and experience in this project. We can't afford to be silent when these subjects are brought up. I'm not perfect with the wording, numbers and I definitely make mistakes but I know what I see and I know what its like to feel marginalized. --ARoseWolf 12:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I was interested to see that Jimbo had created an article on Agnes Richards. He's lucky to have special privileges on Wikipedia. If it had gone through AfC - or even been picked up by a new article reviewer - it would certainly have been tagged as unsuitable for inclusion. I then went into Xtools to see whether Jimbo had written any other articles about women and guess what! - under his original user name his most recently listed creation is Brooke Burke -- which he added on 23 March 2001. Interestingly, that first list also shows that one of Jimbo's very first articles was List of female tennis players. But then I discovered he had changed his user name to Jimbo Wales (i.e. Jimbo space Wales) in March 2001. We can see that he has indeed created another 41 articles since then1. Two of the last three are Agnes Richards (on 13 July 2021) and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex on 19 May 2018. Several other women are listed among his past creations. So no one can blame Jimbo for not helping us to improve our coverage of women.--Ipigott (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
He only "created" Meghan in the sense of moving it to a new name (was that pre-empting a discussion there?); perhaps this true for others. On the wider subject, why don't you post your comment on stats there rather than/as well as here? Although the question of what % of bios "should" be female is unanswerable, as User:ARoseWolf says (over there), that doesn't mean that sensible discussion of it isn't valuable. Apart from the home-made stats aspect, the most striking thing about the discussion there is the (universally hostile) concentration on the impact of sports people figures on the numbers, explored here in the past (but not, afaik, in any academic paper, unfortunately). There are some interesting new figures here, only slightly home-made. Johnbod (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • In answer to Johnbod: I didn't comment on Jimbo's page for two reasons: 1) most of those citing stats of one kind or another were I think generally trying to defend the interests of Women in Red -- so I didn't want to upset them; and 2) I think it is more important for our own participants to be aware of reliable sources of information, both in the form of statistics and academic research. There is much we can do to take these resources into account for our future work.--Ipigott (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I made it very clear to them that my view is that we are on different planets in relation to sports subjects and women. I have never seen the kind of hostility toward women as I have coming from that genre. Its deeper than just women too. Men from smaller nations and those from Southeast Asian and African/Middle Eastern Nations are more likely to be considered non-notable than those from Europe and the Western Hemisphere. That is not debatable. That is a fact. I literally saw them hold an article on a player from a European league in draft and publish it as soon as he played his first professional match where he saw the pitch for 90 seconds. They punish women in the sport because they aren't considered "fully professional" athletes. That has no quantifiable affect on reality. They use NFOOTY to benefit themselves when GNG can't be established but hold EVERY article on women to the GNG standard because their SNG is so biased almost no article on women in the sport can be created from about two years ago back. Only recently have women's leagues become fully professional. The hostility is mind blowing and they even crack jokes about it. --ARoseWolf 12:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
In case it's not clear, by "universally hostile" I meant that all the particants there so far, including me, sound hostile to the high numbers of sports bios we have. Looking at the new figures I linked just above is unlikely to reduce this hostility. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I think it's evident by the number of sports related AfD's that are brought up that the community probably shares in that hostility. Discussion involving sports on Wikipedia, definitely bios on sports people, probably fall into the category of the viciousness that North8000 was talking about. --ARoseWolf 13:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I do share hostility towards the unequally easy treatment that wp:notability standards give sports. But that is not what I was thinking about when I wrote that. I was referring to the general Wikipedia environment that editors experience. At best it is an unintentionally rough-and-tumble, mean and hostile place for a majority of editors. For newer editors who have not yet learned the 1,000,000 plus words of the official guidelines and policies, they will be consistently "violating" those policies and guidelines plus a bunch of other unwritten ones, and will be told that they are. And wikilawyers will use that against them even in mild content debates. And if they venture into any contentious areas, it becomes a vicious place. They will be attacked by vicious warlords and their posses/militias who have learned how to weaponize policies and guidelines to conduct their warfare. Both to win the content dispute but also they see deprecating editors as a way to further their cause. It's probably sexist of me to say that I believe all of the above tends to chase away more women than men editors. :-) North8000 (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
And that's exactly why, North8000, that we try to provide a friendly, welcoming environment on Women in Red. Despite one or two minor upsets, I think that over the years we have managed to do so.--Ipigott (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Cool. One of my own goals is to get the underlying problems fixed. But I also like helping new editors, especially those who may be having trouble with the system.North8000 (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I actually get a lot of joy out of interacting with new editors and welcoming them to the encyclopedia. I'm still learning the "1,000,000 words" but have a general understanding of policy that can bridge the gap between the experienced and inexperienced editors. North8000, I understood you to mean it generally and my comments were based off that general usage. I applied it to the sports genre specifically because I share in the hostility that is any egregiously biased approach to any subject. I understand the desire to follow the sources. I know thats our desire and we should follow sources, no doubt, but this encyclopedia needs to come to grips with reality. I believe I heard about a conversation that Karl Malone and Charles Barkley had one time in which the older Malone chastised the younger Barkley about the kind of example he was being for younger people who looked up to him as an NBA star. Charles said he never asked to be a role model for anyone. Karl responded that it doesn't matter what he wanted, the fact is that they chose him as a role model. The only choice to be made is what kind of a role model he would be. Wikipedia decided it doesn't want to lead the discussion on anything. But it can't choose that. The public, the media and social platforms have decided to look to Wikipedia to find accurate and correct encyclopedic information on the subjects they want to learn about. Wikipedia needs to figure this out. Whether we like it or not, we have been put in the position of leading. --ARoseWolf 15:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Bernette Ford

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hi all

I've just seen the children's author Bernette Ford has died, she worked to increase representation of people of colour in children's publishing. Its likely there are now enough references for an article. I'm not great at writing biographies so if anyone would like to start please do.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Book reviews: First Snow (Kirkus), Little Red Riding Hood (Kirkus), No More Diapers for Ducky! (Publishers Weekly). Beccaynr (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much Isabelle Belato. John Cummings (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
My apologies, John! Had I known about this discussion, I'd had pinged here after creation, but I'm happy to see other editors were also interested in writing about her. More on topic, during my research, I also found some overlapping information on Cheryl Willis Hudson, her friend and co-owner of Just Us Books, including [1] and [2]. She was also important for increasing diversity in children's books during the 80s and 90s. Isabelle 🔔 12:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Isabelle Belato no problem at all :). I've created a Wikidata item for Cheryl so that it gets ingested into the redlists. John Cummings (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Olympic update

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
WiR Olympic & Paralympic Games editation 2021

Simone Biles (the G.O.A.T) got her own emoji AND executed her Yurchenko double pike vault (highest difficulty value vault in the world).[1]

In other Olympic news, Women in Red's Olympic & Paralympic Games edit-a-thon has resulted in 400 new or upgrade articles so far. Head over there to see the results. Truly a fantastic team effort. Amazing redlists! Amazing outcomes! The edit-a-thon runs through September. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "On eve of Opening Ceremonies, Simone Biles looks ready and U.S. softball beats Canada". Washington Post. 21 July 2021. Retrieved 22 July 2021.

Wikibomb

Latest comment: 3 years ago22 comments6 people in discussion

Has anyone seen this? Seems to predate WiR by a few years. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Aussie Article Writer: It's good to see the Aussies started organizing editathons in support of women back in 2014 but in fact we had many activities in support of women before Women in Red was launched in July 2015. Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism goes right back to February 2008, Art+Feminism started in 2014, the first articles for Wikipedia:WikiProject Women artists were created in December 2013 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers started in 2014. Maybe someone should write a history of Wikipedia projects in support of women.--Ipigott (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
That would be a capital idea :-) If only I had the time... gah. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Peculiar name. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I have some vital statistics started on each project/initiative found at User:ARoseWolf/Wikipedia Projects for Women. I am sure this isn't a complete list. Anyone can take that and expand it or do whatever with it. If I can I will get around to adding additional statistics and facts as soon as possible. --ARoseWolf 19:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
ARoseWolf, There's the Wikipedia:WikiProject Archaeology/Women in archaeology task force & Wikipedia:Women's Classical Committee & Wikipedia:WikiProject MedievalWiki too! Lajmmoore (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Lajmmoore, added them. --ARoseWolf 13:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
And there are quite a few more listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women which itself started shortly after Women in Red in July 2015. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History started in February 2011, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport in April 2011, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists in November 2012 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish Women started in February 2014.--Ipigott (talk) 08:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Ipigott, I will continue adding projects if for no other reason than my own purposes. I have added all of those listed. Of course anyone can take this information and utilize it however they want. :) --ARoseWolf 13:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
The listing is coming along very well. Perhaps the projects could be displayed in chronological order.--Ipigott (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  Done --ARoseWolf 14:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
For those interested I changed the title to Wikipedia Projects Supporting Women to indicate these projects support women and women related topics as opposed to just being for women as these projects may have members who identify as male, transgender or non-binary and are supportive of the advancement of women and women related topics on Wikipedia. --ARoseWolf 14:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks ARoseWolf for putting this together. I don't want to put you to any additional trouble if you don't have time but I think it might be useful to include a section on projects addressing women on other language versions of Wikipedia or on Meta. (Many are linked in the LH column on our WiR page.) Perhaps you would like to transform it into a kind of essay which we can include along with our other "Resources related to women's biographies" accessible from the WiR template. It would need an introduction and perhaps additional background information on some of the developments. I know Rosiestep is away on vacation at the moment but she might also have some suggestions.--Ipigott (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
ARoseWolf I would recommend that any which are missing from here Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Nav should be added. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Rosie! I hope your vacation is going well. I believe I have all projects from that list included. I'm branching out to other language Wikipedia's now but if anyone knows of any other we may have missed please let me know. All projects, task forces, campaigns and initiatives will be in chronological order from the date of their creation or when their grant was submitted to the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm working on the lede paragraphs now and I will notify everyone when that is added to the list. Please feel free to make suggestions or correct erroneous information if you see it. This is, after all, a collaboration and it takes all of us. --ARoseWolf 19:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
ARoseWolf, as you are including other language Wikipedias, maybe this should be on Meta rather than on en-wp, which is English-language-specific? Rosiestep (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Rosiestep, a bit more intimidating, Ha! If you feel that's where it belongs then I'm game. I've never put anything outside the very small Cherokee Wiki and then, of course, English Wikipedia. Where would I begin? --ARoseWolf 20:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
ARoseWolf, good question! Maybe we should start a separate section on this talkpage regarding a WiR page on Meta? Rosiestep (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
While I'm still here we have WikiGap, #VisibleWikiWomen and Wiki4Women. There may be others.--Ipigott (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I would need help or perhaps examples of the structure of a particular essay on Wikipedia that I could pattern it after. I know essays are not encyclopedic articles but are similar as I've read a few essays. Today is a good day so I might as well get started. Please offer any suggestions and I would be willing to turn it over to anyone at any point that has experience in writing essays for Wikipedia. --ARoseWolf 15:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about the term "essay". It just needs to be an informative article to help participants who are interested in the history of women projects. If you make a start, we can help you along.--Ipigott (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I left a message on Aadele's talk page from Whose Knowledge? with a small introduction and explanation and asked for any biographical information about the campaign that might be useful for readers. I figured it couldn't hurt to ask. I can do similar with any others. If we are going to do it then we might as well do it right and make it as informative as possible. --ARoseWolf 16:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

August Editathons at Women in Red

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Women in Red | August 2021, Volume 7, Issue 8, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 206, 207


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

  Facebook |   Instagram |   Pinterest |   Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Ms. Categorized: Gender, notability, and inequality on Wikipedia by Francesca Tripodi

Latest comment: 3 years ago23 comments15 people in discussion

Ms. Categorized is another just published article that mentions the Women in Red project. I've shared it on Twitter and it's been retweeted by @WikiWomenInRed. Am wondering, is there somewhere else I should have posted this?--Oronsay (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hmm...
"During an interview with a new editor who was studying to be a fashion designer, they suggested I look at the revision history of Lois K. Alexander Lane—a woman who played an integral role in memorializing the historic contributions of African American fashion designers. Lane founded two museums (the Harlem Institute of Fashion and the Black Fashion Museum), wrote a book, ran two boutiques, and designed her own clothes. Not only did her museums memorialize the contributions of prominent Black stylists (including the work of Ann Lowe), Lane used the spaces to give free courses in writing, English, mathematics, and African-American history. When she died in 2007, The Washington Post ran an obituary detailing her accomplishments and credited Lane as a prominent figure in the history of fashion (Bernstein, 2007). Her fashion archive is now on display at the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture.
Despite her professional accomplishments, Lane did not have a Wikipedia page until eight years after her death. Through data matching, I found that Lane’s biography was created during an edit-a-thon designed to increase coverage of African-American women on Wikipedia. According to edit history, her biography was pushed out of the main space by a Wikipedian who deemed Lane “a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines.”7 Analyzing the state of the original article through the page’s revision history, it is clear the preliminary entry included basic biographical and professional information as well as links to seven credible sources independent of the subject, including The Washington Post and the Smithsonian. Editors can evaluate wiki-notability using what Wikipedians refer to as the “Search engine test” (WP: GTEST). As an act of good faith, editors should search for the topic and attempt to find reliable sources before deciding on whether an article is notable enough for inclusion. Yet most of the information I learned about Lane was through a simple Google search of her name."
Geez, that was a massive failure. And, ack, the person it's referring to is you, @Robert McClenon:, back in 2016. Another AfC issue. SilverserenC 05:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
AfC has been a rough spot for as long as I’ve been an editor... I would absolutely encourage anyone motivated to give it a go, the help is always needed (yikes, more than 4000 drafts in the backlog) and maybe eventually it could be the basis for reform... I used to do it more but the amount of spam just drowned me. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Looking at this more closely, I have to object a little. Personally this case pains me but it isn’t true that the draft Robert declined had seven sources; it had two that were duplicated. Additionally GTEST is, appropriately in my view, not obliged of AfC reviewers—if one couldn’t review a draft without doing research on behalf of its author, the backlog would explode. It’s tough as it is— I just read five women’s bios from the backlog and while a few were suggestive of possible notability, none were so unambiguous that I could accept without my taking on firming up the entry, as a project. But yes, anyone motivated to do that legwork could help fish out some possibly-notable women.
To give some examples, I looked over:
Innisfree987 (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Innisfree, the ones you've marked look good candidates. AfC is a horrible limbo. Some of the pages in the backlog are marked with wikiprojects, using a wikiproject template on the talk page in the usual way. Would the effort of adding Template:WikiProject Women to each relevant page be worth it, to make it easier to prioritize attention for WiR activity? If so, I'd be happy to have a go at that. Dsp13 (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, there's an (imperfect, but pretty good) bot-curated list of AfC drafts about women at Wikipedia:AfC_sorting/Culture/Biography/Women. Spicy (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Dsp13: Adding WP Women may indeed help those interested in WiR to prioritize treatment but it looks to me as if it would require considerable manual effort. If others think this is the right way to go, I believe our friend Ser Amantio di Nicolao may be able to handle the whole thing with a bot. As for the huge backlog at AfC, could it not be reduced by encouraging more editors to move articles into user space themselves, once two or three of their creations have made the grade through AfC. I've noticed some editors go back through AfC up to ten times, even when a considerable proportion of their articles are graded C class or even higher. The use of Google searches in connection with notability may work for those in the major English-speaking countries but the outcome is not reliable for many others. If you are familiar with the local press and biographical dictionaries and data bases, it is often quite easy to turn up a handful of good secondary sources in languages other than English, despite lack of immediate response from the English version of Google.--Ipigott (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I have a few comments. First, I strongly disagree with User:Silver seren that there was a massive AFC failure. On the contrary, AFC worked. Second, I did not push the article out of mainspace. That is, I did not draftify the article. Sometimes journalists or other commentators try to write about Wikipedia processes without knowing enough about the details of Wikipedia processes to be informed, and write things that seem plausibly harsh on their face, but are ignorant. I moved the article from a sandbox to draft space, and declined the article. I stated that a reliable source was needed referring to the subject of the article, as well as to the museum. About ten days later, User:Digitaleffie added the additional source and moved the article into article space. So this was, in my opinion, a case of AFC working well. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
If you need a Smithsonian employee to rescue drafts from AFC, AFC is not working well. Gamaliel (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Nuke AFC from orbit. The editors mean well, but if the process cannot distinguish between non notable and notable, then what is the point? At all events I participate in I encourage people to bypass AFC entirely. Gamaliel (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
@Gamaliel: Wouldn't that make the problem worse, by effectively denying the creation of all of the backlogged articles? Or is there another process you would suggest to replace it? -- Beland (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Just chiming in to say that yes, I can probably do this in talkspace, but I'm not sure when I'll have the bandwidth...probably not for a few weeks at the earliest. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Meanwhile, an editor whose precise handle is escaping me—apologies to ~K.j.cheetham—often adds WikiProjects manually, so IMO the lack is for people who want to fix up other people’s drafts. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea altho Silver seren is exceptionally good at it—not to volunteer them for a project but perhaps it would inspire something like a WiR draft backlog drive. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Innisfree987, I would support some kind of WIR backlog drive, if it can be organised. I feel pretty guilty that I hardly ever help with AfC (although I was looking at the rules and requirements, properly today). Count me for the idea though! Lajmmoore (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Lajmmoore, ask and ye shall receive! We’d want to automate for a full-scale effort, but here’s a couple dozen I just pulled by hand so we can gauge interest, surface any difficulties etc. All AfC reviewers are most welcome. User:Innisfree987/Women's bio drafts at AfC. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Reading the Tripodi paper, I'm seeing lots of issues. I'd write more fully, but I'm travelling & having to use a difficult laptop, which I hate. The paper gets off to a bad start in the "Introduction", where a version of the Donna Strickland affaire is given, but not a correct one. Tripodi links to the earliest version of the article, which was indeed immediately deleted (by a female editor as it happens) but this was because it was all a copyvio, not at all to do with notability as Tripodi suggests. The other Strickland version, discussed at vast length here and elsewhere, was a declined draft. Tripodi's big number-crunching effort finds that 25% of biography AFD's were of females, who were 18% of all biographies. She claims this is temendously significant, but I can't see this at all. We all know AFD's are mostly of new articles, and most biog AFDs are of living people. So bios that get taken to AFD are a significantly different population from the average biog, in these and other ways. I may write more later, but I can't see her conclusions as valid. Of course, she chooses not to emphasize at all that 75% of bio AFDs are of men (which I think we already knew). Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Like Gamaliel, I'm not too keen on the AfC approach either, as far too often I've seen new editors discouraged from making any further contributions. I'm also skeptical about the competence of those who openly call themselves deletionists and measure their success by the number of articles they succeed in having completely removed from the encyclopaedia. The original Wikipedia approach for helping editors with new articles was based on: "If it's wrong, fix it." That unfortunately now seems to have become "If it's wrong, delete it." however deserving the topic of the article appears to be. Nevertheless, I certainly welcome the support Innisfree987 and Lajmmoore are willing to offer. Both have contributed so much to Women in Red that I am confident their involvement will once again pave the way for progress. It seems to me, a first step would be to begin listing AfC articles on women which really appear to be good candidates for inclusion. (There are no doubt many more which simply do not deserve saving but perhaps somehow we could still help their editors along.) We could invite other WiR members to provide support by enhancing and moving a few of them into mainspace each month. The evolving list could be included as a component in #1day1women or might even become an initiative in its own right. Any other offers for support along these lines?--Ipigott (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I support that initiative, Ipigott, fully. I've already begun looking at the list here. We had a few pushed through yesterday but there are many more that could be reviewed. Even more than pushing through a lot of articles I agree that supporting and giving aid and assistance to new or experienced editors who create the articles will only serve to help us in the future. If we are truly about closing gaps and bringing more attention to women then why wouldn't we, being a project all about these two subjects, try to assist editors where our mutual goals come into contact with one another? --ARoseWolf 13:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the vote of confidence Ipigott! I will make no claims of being able to fix AfC as a whole but while that system is in place, I do agree with you and ARoseWolf we could rescue some biographies and help onboard more editors interested in writing about women. The backlog of those is fewer than 300, so I think we could get up to current and then catch editors to offer assistance while they’re still here. A sad thing I’ve noticed is how many editors with stalled drafts have not edited again since their submission (which makes sense, as no one really showed them a path forward.) Innisfree987 (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
That pained me as well, Innisfree987. I have tried to catch some of them from the newer AfC submissions. I had started at the top of the list to work down but found that a lot of those editors have probably been gone for weeks if not months now. If we start at the bottom we may be able to get some to respond and open a dialogue. My heart sank to see so many who never edited again. I am determined to catch as many as I can now before they slip away. --ARoseWolf 17:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I also really like the idea of having a way to record them, to see accomplishments and have a central place to gather those interested. I have added a couple to #1day1woman but I think a dedicated space would be super since that effort includes pages from many other sources as well. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Francesca's interview on NPR's All Things Considered regarding the Ms. Categorized article will be available later today here. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

My criticisms of AfC are on record, but Tripodi's analysis of the history of the Lane biography contains several factual errors, as I commented below the review of her paper, at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-07-25/Recent research. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Ms. Categorized - reviewed

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Francesca Tripodi's recent paper "Ms. Categorized: Gender, notability, and inequality on Wikipedia" is reviewed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-07-25/Recent research. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Tilman Bayer highlights several important aspects of this study which deserve attention. The piece is well worth reading as not only does it provide a point-by-point examination of the claims made but gives links to other commentaries he and other Wikipedians have made in regard to women editors and articles about women. They include:
I'm not too sure to what extent we should include articles by Wikipedians in our main lists of publications and research. It might well be worth compiling a separate list of pertinent links.--Ipigott (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm very glad that Tilman Bayer has expertly pulled apart Tripodi's central claim, far better than I could have done - I voiced initial suspicions in a section above. Tilman also says her first-person accounts of irl women-related events are useful, but I expect the many reading this page who have their own experiences will find few surprises there. Unfortunately this is yet another piece of poor-quality research, which has gained more media attention than it deserves. Johnbod (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, as can be seen from our research page, little coordinated research is being undertaken in relation to women and Wikipedia. Maybe the topic could be put forward by the WMF as an area requiring further attention. Grants could be awarded on the basis of sensible, well defined proposals.--Ipigott (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

WiR page on Meta?

Latest comment: 3 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

As pointed out by Rosiestep above, this is to start discussion about possibly creating a WiR page on Meta. Thoughts? --ARoseWolf 20:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I am personally flummoxed by Meta but ARoseWolf, if you or others are game to take a stab at it, having a presence could make it easier to integrate Meta projects with WiR editathons, such as the upcoming Interwiki Women collaboration. (I am still uncertain if there’s more we are meant to do to facilitate WiR participation at Meta for that—there was something about creating a dashboard that’s beyond me). Innisfree987 (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Innisfree987, I am quite lost myself on Meta. I do see the benefits and I think I will do a little more research on it. If anyone else is familiar with the particulars of Meta please enter the fray. --ARoseWolf 21:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
ARoseWolf: We already have a Meta page on Women.--Ipigott (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC) I realized the page was badly out of date and have started to update it. Perhaps you can continue on the basis of your own findings.--Ipigott (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
And that one has been going since 2016, and has had 181 views since 1 January. There's a lot of Meta pages where nothing happens, & no-one sees. Johnbod (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
And while I remember, we also have a Meta page on the WikiWomen's User Group.--Ipigott (talk) 09:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Rather better - 1935 views this year. The talk page gets lots of announcements, "calls", and invitations, but no responses or discussions. Johnbod (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
The examples given above (the page meta:Women and the page meta:WikiWomen's User Group) are different from the scope of Women in Red in that neither coordinates editathons/campaigns like we do. But check out meta:Wikipedia Asian Month which does. If Women in Red had a page on Meta, it would include a list of and links to each of our en-wp event pages. Other language versions of WiR would include their lists. Theoretically/Eventually, we could coordinate across languages; thus far, en-wp WiR just does its own thing. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Rosiestep: I realize these pages are quite different in scope from Women in Red but I thought it would be useful to have a full overview of activities related to women. I was interested to see that there were a number of editathons in connection with Women in science and Women's History which invited online participants from 2013, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History/The Royal Society 2013, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History/Laboratory of Molecular Biology 2013, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History/The Royal Society of Edinburgh 2013, although very few actually came in on line. Art+Feminism started in early 2014 but from here it does not appear their first event was really for online participants although Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism 2014 does say "We also encourage remote participation." (In subsequent years the emphasis does seem to have been on online participation.) Wikipedia Asia Month started with online participants worldwide in 2015 but it was only later as a result of WiR that there was an increasingly strong focus on women. Perhaps you or Victuallers know of earlier editathons focusing on women which attracted online participants.--Ipigott (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, and that's the thing, Ipigott... There have been lots of activities -before WiR was launched and subsequently- but it's difficult to know who is doing what and when. Having a centralized page/list would be VERY helpful, especially on Meta where all languages congregate (vs. on en-wp for obvs reasons). --Rosiestep (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Glad you think this is a good idea, Rosiestep. We'll keep working on it. It would be great if you or any others could help us along.--Ipigott (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't been here much this weekend. I've been pretty sick but I did get a surprise. Some friends came down and I asked the medical team to allow them to help me Go to water which they reluctantly agreed to with provisions so this morning I was able to follow a tradition I haven't been able to do since becoming sick initially. It has reinvigorated me and I feel I'm going to have a good rest of the week. I am completely for anything that advances the goals of WiR and increases the voices of women on Wikipedia. I'll continue helping out every way and as often as I am able to. Having a Meta page specific for WiR will allow us to coordinate better with projects and groups across other language Wikipedia's. I'll keep reaching out to others and help pull us all together. We, as those who are standing for something both good and right, will see our goals accomplished and the voices, songs and colors of women expand here on the encyclopedia because we will not let it fail. Of that I have no doubt. --ARoseWolf 18:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The list is coming along nicely. Ipigott and I are combing through various language Wikipedia's to try and find as many projects and initiatives supporting women that we possibly can find. Any assistance would be appreciated and welcome. We still need to determine if we agree that having a project page on Meta, where we can target a larger audience across the world with our message, is feasible and something we want. I personally believe Rosiestep is right and this is a step that is needed. --ARoseWolf 17:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Article requests for Charlene Bollinger and Erin Elizabeth (influential COVID conspiracy theorists)

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi all

A report was recently published by a British non profit that found the majority of COVID missinformation was published by just 12 people. Most of these people have a Wikipedia article, the only women on the list which don't are Charlene Bollinger (there is an article for her husband which talks about here) and Erin Elizabeth. Would anyone be interested in working on them? I've started to collate reference sources below:

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, John Cummings. I have started Erin Elizabeth, who it turns out is married to another of the dirty dozen, Joseph Mercola. Just about to add her to his article. Edwardx (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for creation/July 2021 Backlog Drive

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

FYI. There's a drive on for July, to review the drafts in Articles for Creation. I've asked in its talk page if a count could be done of approved Men Biographies vs approved non-Men Biographies. If someone from here could assist with that I think it would be useful. Bogger (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Red Olympic flagbearers

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The article 2020 Summer Olympics Parade of Nations is very interesting. For a start it explains the order in which the countries paraded (eg why GB was between Uruguay and Ecuador - it's "Eikoku" in Japanese apparently). But in WiR terms, it's interesting to look at the list of flag-bearers. Two per country, one man and one woman. And quite a few red links, rather more women than men.

Every Olympian has a profile page like this one for Hend Zaza, which provides the evidence of notability and enough content for a solid little stub, even if you struggle to find sources elsewhere. So if anyone's looking for more ideas for our Olympics editathon... There are women from several under-represented countries like Yemen.

(On Hend Zaza: I had her on my list of "might get round to an article some time" for a few months after reading about her youthful Olympian status, and created the article as a contribution to our editathon: I'm thrilled that it had 16,188 pageviews yesterday - though disappointed that she was defeated in the preliminary round. But she was the Syrian flagbearer and the youngest Olympian at these games.) PamD 08:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Very interesting, Pam. Thanks for sharing! (And I love the Hend Zaza quote you included in that article as well.) -JAnnora2 (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
PamD, this is a great idea! I started a quick contribution for Silina Pha Aphay from Laos. Thanks for the prompt. Lajmmoore (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I've created Shafiqua Maloney (from Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, though a US college student at present), and made a redirect to turn Karma Karma blue (or green if you use the gadget I do!): she already had an article at Karma (archer), and being Bhutanese only has one name, but apparently some bits of the Olympic bureaucracy insist on her having two names! I might look at one or two others ... though should be rehearsing and recording opera choruses with the Self-Isolation Choir and Donald Palumbo. PamD 14:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

On a related note, I think I'm going to try to create a few Olympian articles a day for the duration - if there are any pressing bios, you can leave me a note... anywhere, really. I've done a few flagbearers, and the brother of one, and will probably make work on some Venezuelans, but I'll do anything really. Kingsif (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

19.00%

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

diff. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, Great news! Now for the next goal – one-fifth, i.e. 20%.--Oronsay (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
WOW! Thank you to all of you who have contributed to this milestone! --Rosiestep (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
P.S. I notified WMF's Comms Dept. Rosiestep (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
that's long-awaited and rather nice :) well done all! Dsp13 (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Fabulous! Congratulations for the milestone. SusunW (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Just in time to spread to news at Wikimania.--Ipigott (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Quality Signal Sessions: The Women in Red edition

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello all, I am Srishti. I am a Developer Advocate at WMF. I invite you all to join us in Toolhub's Quality Signal session on July 29th, 19 UTC. This particular session is for the "Women in Red" community.

Toolhub aims to make it easier to find tools in the Wikimedia ecosystem, and its first release is planned around Wikimania. While this is great, tool users and developers still won't have much information on which tools might be reliable and safe to use; or which tools might be a good fit for contribution. The Toolhub team plans to provide more insights into these questions through a number of "quality indicators" in the first half of 2022.

As a tool user, how do you know which tool is reliable, useful, and safe to use? As a tool maintainer, what makes it attractive to you to contribute to an existing tool? What information are you looking for to decide whether to join a tool project?

Your feedback, thoughts, ideas would be valuable. We look forward to your participation. Sign up here for the session. Srishti (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, SSethi (WMF), for bringing this to our attention. I have responded on your Toolhub page here.--Ipigott (talk) 09:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Dsp13, Ipigott, Oby Ezeilo, Rosiestep and all: This is a reminder message that the Toolhub's Quality Signal Sessions: The Women in Red Edition will take place in about 30 minutes. See you all soon! Srishti (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Happy 6 Year Anniversary, Women in Red!

Latest comment: 3 years ago14 comments11 people in discussion
 

Hardly seems possible that 6 years have passed. Thank you @Rosiestep and Victuallers: for creating this platform for us and thanks to every editor who has worked over the years with us to improve content on women. Happy birthday to us! SusunW (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

 
Today's special Woman of the Day
wobbly curtsey (template applied for). Thanks @SusunW: and thanks you to all those who magically? keep this project going! I just looked at all the articles queuing to go on the front page for DYK during the Olympics and one or two of them were blokes but there was a really positive gender bias in the selection available. We are arranging a panel at Wikimania where we plan to discuss where WIR came from and where we are going. Victuallers (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • So Now We Are Six! It's not too often that the founders of a wikiproject stick with it for so long. We're lucky to have such active coordinators, especially as they are always ready to spread the news and strive for more.--Ipigott (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Just for fun!

When did you join and which of your articles would you like to feature?

Tagishsimon, you are one of the most productive and helpful editors here. You may not be an official member but you are so important to this project and I am thankful for everything you do. I greatly admire everyone above and countless more that haven't commented. You all have no way of knowing the full impact of everything you all have accomplished over the years but let me say that it is extensive and the waves of change that were started by what many of you may call small ripples has reverberated a number of times and only grown bigger and stronger as time has passed. From a relatively new editor to all of you, thank you! --ARoseWolf 16:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Joined in 2021 - I would feature Osai Ojigho, The article got declined at first and it was while i wasn't sure what next to do, as the reviewer didn't leave any clear tips on how to improve it, that i found the WiR page. Frankly, i think i may have quit the English Wikipedia entirely if i hadn't met you amazing lot. I can't even begin to explain the huge knowledge leap i have had as a result. WiR is the real definition of what Collaborative project means. Sincerely, Thank you everyone!--OtuNwachinemere (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I joined in June 2021 and would like to promote my article on British adoption pioneer Clara Andrew. When I was researching her I couldn't believe she didn't already have a Wikipedia page. That's what this project is all about, so here's to many more articles on women! Unexpectedlydian (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Mary Morehead Richardson

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Yet another draft for adoption! Dressmaker and fashion columnist. Under-referenced. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I’d be interested in general opinions on this edge case. Examining the finding aids for the archive cited, it seems plenty of print sources exist; they just haven’t been digitized. Per WP:NEXIST, I kind of think notability is established—and it’s not a BLP so it doesn’t require inline citations to move to mainspace. Reactions? Innisfree987 (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Innisfree987, What exactly are you seeing in the finding aids? I didn't look too closely, but the problem is that she was a journalist, so it's not clear whether these are about her vs. by her. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Calliopejen1, well for example here they’re reproduced one that discusses her, rather than being written by her (and indicates that while she had a newspaper column, her career encompassed a lot more, so I don’t assume she was always the author of relevant clippings): https://www.amistadresearchcenter.org/single-post/entrepreneur-mary-richardson-harlem. The finding aids suggest clips from Ebony and Essence in the 1980s, which I would be surprised to learn she had written, but unfortunately I’m having a really hard time finding digital archives of those magazines. Especially in light of funding disparities tho, it’s a real issue to exclude them for not being digitized... That said, to be completely fair yes I don’t know their contents and her papers are an interesting mix so they could be articles about something else entirely. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I have added a couple of extra references, one of the 'Amistad' links was the clipping from Ebony, so I don't see why we can't add that as a secondary source in its own right? Also found this reference to her in 'Jet' magazine, which I have added. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wFsDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=%22Mary+Richardson%22+%22New+york+age%22Z The fact she was going to Paris to study isn't mentioned in the article, I wonder if this might be an interesting lead to get some more info. JeffUK (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

ITNRD candidate: Janet Banana

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

If anyone is looking for a chance to participate in the ongoing quest to improve gender parity at ITN, the former First Lady of Zimbabwe, Janet Banana, died on the 29th and with a bit of expansion (currently her bio is a stub) could be a good candidate. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Success! Featured on Main page within hours; special thanks to Silver seren for leading the charge! Innisfree987 (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Data from the recent AfC backlog drive

Latest comment: 3 years ago22 comments10 people in discussion

The AfC backlog drive (which essentially completely eliminated the backlog) ended yesterday and editor KylieTastic was kind enough to pull data on the gender stats: full discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/July_2021_Backlog_Drive#Final_update. In brief, 267 women’s bios were approved and 800 men’s, for a rate of 25% women.
This was already a considerably involved data project, but in a world of endless resources it would also be interesting to know the same stats for declined bios, to see if there’s a gender difference in the rate of acceptance. Anyway, 25% > 19%, so pushing that number upward! Innisfree987 (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Innisfree987: That certainly looks like a good outcome but it would have been interesting to know what proportion of the original batch were about women. If they represented more than about 19%, then it could well be that articles about women are proportionately more likely to be submitted to AfC than those on men. At a guess, that could be because women editors are less ready than men to create articles in mainspace or because many newbies (both male and female) choose to write about women (covering models, beauty pageant winners, actresses and pop singers). I realize it will be difficult to establish meaningful figures as I suppose many of those not accepted were not processed for male/female. It's nevertheless encouraging that there is real interest in biographies of women at AfC.--Ipigott (talk) 07:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Or because new editors at editathon etc events, probably most of which are female-focused, are instructed to use the AFC route. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Ipigott, I would think that to establish women’s bios were more likely to go through AfC, we would need the figures from NPP as well, to compare how many bios entered mainspace directly? And actually it wouldn’t capture all because of those of us who are autopatrolled... hm yes major research undertakings! Innisfree987 (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Innisfree987: I understand your reasoning but I think it had bee suggested that we could at least try to calculate the number of male vs female bios before any were declined/deleted. Any chance of looking into this further with you colleagues at AfC?--Ipigott (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    Ipigott, very much agree that would be a good next step. Unfortunately just getting this data was a full day’s work for KylieTastic, and the declined bios are even harder to work with because many aren’t project-tagged. We’d need someone with the technical capacity and the time—I’d be glad to help, e.g. perhaps manually checking whatever ORES pulls up (evidently quite a lot of false-positives on bios), but I don’t have the technical capacity to pull such a list myself. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
If someone can point me in the right direction I am sure I can do something to help and I'm willing. Not like I can go anywhere (lol). --ARoseWolf 18:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
All of the above are way above my level! A good place to start is to check out what KylieTastic has done so far. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
It's above my level too! But thanks for the ping, Ipigott. It's great to know of the good work in the backlog drive, and of the efforts to analyse.
It seems to me that it in addition to stats, it would be great to also have some qualitative analysis of the submissions which were declined. My experience of AFC is that it can be quite random: see e.g. thisdeclined submission of Arthur Cox (Law Firm), declined by the highly-experienced editor DGG. I stumbled across the draft, and it took only a few minutes for me to decide to move it to mainspace: it's about one of Ireland's biggest law firms, and it passes WP:GNG and WP:CORP very easily. Whatever was going on there, the usually wonderful DGG made a bad call, and nobody spotted the error for nine months. So I would be concerned that other AFC drafts may declined by editors making over-hasty judgements which turn out to be faulty ... and hasty judgements are likely to draw heavily on that editor's worldview, rather than on the criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
In the version I saw, it would not have passed AfD. In the current version it certainly would. AfC drafts are there to be improved, and the hope in declining a draft is that someone will fix it. Unfortunately we have no general system for bringing them to attention if the original author is not around or not interested. That this wikiproject is trying with those it sees is an excellent start, and I wish others would do the same--I don't know of another that is doing it systematically. . My main activity these days is checking drafts about to be deleted at the 6 month mark, to see how many I can rescue. I look at everything except popular entertainments and sports, fields where I am so ignorant that I would do more harm than good. Out of a batch of 200, I usually find about 2 good enough as they are, and perhaps 10 or 20 that I keep from deletion and mark for improvement . (I can't improve them myself more than occasionally, or I'd have no time to screen them all). AfC is an area which requires predicting the erratic results at afd, and nobody can do that perfectly unless they stick to the obvious. And I know I make mistakes, perhaps even 10% of the time when I work with the borderline drafts--and I'd like to be told. I doubt anyone can do much better than 5% with them, but I want to improve to that level. I want to thank BHG for the ping. DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I noticed they were keeping score. Not that I disagree with incentivizing it but it could lead to higher volumes of deletions (see my discussion on biases we encounter as editors, personal or otherwise) by quick judgement due to the nature of the drive. None of this is to imply any of the editors involved acted irrational in their choices but to point to the speed by which all of them were evaluated and addressed. It doesn't leave much time for investigative analysis of the status of notability of the subjects when you are evaluating tens and hundreds a day. --ARoseWolf 18:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Good points. As far as making a qualitative analysis, I do have a list of ~70 declined women’s drafts selected basically at random, if anyone is interested in perusing: user:Innisfree987/Women's_bio_drafts_at_AfC Innisfree987 (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
ARoseWolf Yes there was some keeping score, but we added a system of re-reviews to attempt to catch anyone making rash calls and we are attempting to review 10% (and if any problem reviewers was identified - a complete re-review). The acceptable rate went up from ~20% from the two previous months to 22% so no indication of people declining just for the easy option. I have also been reviewing all accepted articles for bad accepts - of the 2302 accepts 45 'issues' identified so less than 2%. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Checks_of_accepted_articles for the full reports. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
KylieTastic, as I stated, that wasn't an indictment. A couple of weeks ago we went through several AfC's and were able to get some pushed into main space. It is not an easy task and I commend the ones who took it on. --ARoseWolf 12:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
ARoseWolf no worries I didn't take it as one - it's a fair concern. I just wanted it to be known we did try to mitigate against introducing quality issues. There is a concern that there could be an unconscious increase in the likely-hood to decline, so I think we were happy to see an actual increase in acceptance. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Ipigott unfortunately it is very difficult to get decent data on this. Firstly I didn't do a grab of the articles reviewed from the recentchanges table on the 1st and as that is only a month it can no longer be used to get a full list. Also there was probably around 1500-2000 that are already deleted only admins could check. I found ORES to be much less reliable than expected with very odd false positives classifying non-bios as bios. ORES was also not as good as expected for detecting bios for women. Also from my experience there are quite a few youngsters submitting auto-bios with no notability at all but these seem to be much more male dominated, so skewed male for all submissions masking a higher percentage of womens bio for 'serious' submissions. If ORES had both men and women bio detection we could compare both directly but as it is just 'bio' vs 'womens bios' it is effectively introduces bias as we can only assume all bios not detected as women are men, but this is false so the errors are compounded. So I think their are too many variables that would sway the results to show a much lower rate of submissions being womens bios than is true. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, KylieTastic, for reporting back on this. The information you already provided is interesting but it looks as if there is little point in repeating the effort next time round. As you say, there are too many variables. It is nevertheless good to see that there is real interest in the women's bios at AfC. The problem we encounter most frequently is that for new editors, it often takes several weeks for their work to be reviewed. Many simply never return to editing and sooner or later their drafts are deleted no matter how much effort they put into them. It would help if special attention could be given to new editors rather than just warning them that it will take up to two months to look at their work. As a result, many newbies ask me directly if I can help them to improve their articles so that they can be moved to mainspace. As I have volunteered to help with mentoring, this takes up an increasing amount of my time.--Ipigott (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Ipigott I don't think that 25% of articles in a backlog drive being women compared to 19% overall is particularly surprising. I looked at the increase in articles between the update to the project page in 28 July 2021 and the update a year earlier. Of an increase in biographies of 93,567, 25,970 (27.8%) were about women. Perhaps some AfC members prioritise women's bios, leaving fewer women's bios to be dealt with in a backlog drive. Or the difference between 25% and 27.8% may just be due to errors in the overall data. TSventon (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Just had another bad AfC interaction yesterday with Bronwyn Law-Viljoen. Since this was the state of the article when it was declined. The decline was because birth date and education didn't have a reference. Which is, as far as I'm aware, not how AfC is meant to be run. The measurement of approve or decline is meant to be on whether the reviewer thinks the article as it stands has a greater than 50% chance of passing an AfD nomination. And I don't think lacking a reference for a line about education or birth date is an argument for deletion. I ended up making some more improvements and then moving it to mainspace myself. Not going to waste any more time with trying to resubmit to AfC. A waste of time all around. SilverserenC 18:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Silver seren, for all the work you put into improving this biography and moving it into mainspace. I recognize that it's not just the time and effort of improving the article; there's also the draining emotional labor associated with AfC. What you did is appreciated. Just wanted to make sure you know that. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Silver seren, I echo @Rosiestep here. Your tireless efforts are recognized and appreciated. I've heard it said most often that the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia is create an article that makes it to mainspace. Some may argue adding that it survives an AfD or (eek) two but I digress. You are a valuable member of this project and the encyclopedia. The highest position here is editor and you can wear that badge proudly because you have earned it. Great work! ;) --ARoseWolf 19:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

New Article on Julie Lythcott-Haims

Latest comment: 3 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

Hello:

I have drafted an article on Julie Lythcott-Haims which fits within the July Julies theme of this group. I am interested in getting feedback from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red group before I take it live. The article is currently in my sandbox User:LeepKendall/sandbox. If a few Women in Red editors have time to provide feedback, I'd greatly appreciate it. This is my first new article and feedback would be greatly appreciated. For your info and convenience, she is also listed on the following Wikipedia pages: Helicopter parent, Hood Feminism, Passing (racial identity), and PEN Oakland awards. Thank you! LeepKendall (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

LeepKendall, I’ve just read it, making some edits and marking some places that need a citation. My main suggestion would be to add additional reviews of her books, both to establish notability and to be scrupulous about presenting a neutral point of view—I imagine it’s impossible to write a parenting book everyone agrees with, for instance, so it would be important to include any significant points of view that disagree with her, if they exist. Lastly, I think the suggestion you got earlier about submitting through AfC is a good one to follow when creating an entry with a COI. Cheers, Innisfree987 (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your review and feedback User:Innisfree987. I will address your in-article notes, request another round of reviews, and then proceed to AfC. Best LeepKendall (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi User:Innisfree987. Thank you for your suggestions on this draft article on Draft:Julie Lythcott-Haims. I have finally submitted it for review. Best LeepKendall (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
LeepKendall, ah ok. I see it’s already been accepted. Really it should have had the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template to alert any new reviewers, but, here we are. If you could add it now that would be great. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I think, too, LeepKendall, that if you approach a group of unpaid volunteers looking for help in nailing a COI or paid article, you should probably mention the COI/payment in your request. That's fairly basic etiquette in an environment where COI/paid editing is widely considered harmful. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you User:Innisfree987 and User:Tagishsimon. I will do that. This is my first new page. I usually work on already established pages and declare my COI. I forgot about that. I did declare that on my own user page, but see why I should add that coding. Do I add it to the talk page or the top/bottom of the article? Thank you! LeepKendall (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
{{connected contributor (paid)}} goes on the talk page of the article, @LeepKendall:. Guidance on the various parameters is at Template:Connected contributor (paid). --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you User:Innisfree987 and User:Tagishsimon. I have added the template. I need to add her photo. Should/can I do that myself, or should I request assistance? Best, LeepKendall (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
@LeepKendall: Probably as easy for you to do so; we're well sighted on the page. thx. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
@LeepKendall: Are you the owner of the photograph or the photographer or is the photograph in public domain? --ARoseWolf 19:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi User:ARoseWolf. I am none of those things. This is a publicity photo of Julie's that she shared with me. It is on her website and I'm sure taken by a professional photographer. I was just reading through the instructions and reading Wikipedia:File Copyright tags/Non-free to see what I might need her to do and/or share with me. If you have a suggestion for me, I'm happy to take it. Thank you! LeepKendall (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
LeepKendall, there are two principal options. The easier is for Julie to ask the photographer’s permission to mark on her site that the photo is freely licensed (public domain or Creative Commons with no restriction on commercial reuse or modification). If the website indicates it, Wikipedia will accept that as sufficient. Alternatively, the photographer can make the same declaration directly to WMF using this release generator: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_OTRS_release_generator. That can be a more involved process of proving identity, etc. It’s up to you all. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Innisfree987, thanks.   LeepKendall, one thing, as pointed out by Innisfree987, once permission is given the picture can be used and modified for commercial reuse so its definitely something to just pause and make sure she understands. The image belongs to the public for its use from that moment forward. --ARoseWolf 20:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_98&oldid=1040548494"