ChatterBank1 min ago
Are The Editors Of Wikipedia Correct To Segregate Authors?
22 Answers
It's quite shocking actually:
"Many female novelists, like Harper Lee, Anne Rice, Amy Tan, Donna Tartt and some 300 others, had been relegated to the ranks of “American Women Novelists” only, and no longer appeared in the category “American Novelists.”"
http://
"It appeared that, gradually, over time, the volunteer editors who create the site had begun moving women, one by one, from the “American Novelists” category to the “American Women Novelists” subcategory."
Is there an inherent bias in Wikipedia's editors which makes it more difficult for female writers to gain acceptance?
What would the Bronte's say?
"Many female novelists, like Harper Lee, Anne Rice, Amy Tan, Donna Tartt and some 300 others, had been relegated to the ranks of “American Women Novelists” only, and no longer appeared in the category “American Novelists.”"
http://
"It appeared that, gradually, over time, the volunteer editors who create the site had begun moving women, one by one, from the “American Novelists” category to the “American Women Novelists” subcategory."
Is there an inherent bias in Wikipedia's editors which makes it more difficult for female writers to gain acceptance?
What would the Bronte's say?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by AB Editor. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
In the article the lady scribbler (she probably has a name, but what's the point of pretending her work is of any merit when she is clearly in the possession of ovaries) goes on to explain how her page was aggressively whittled down after the Op Ed was published:
"But there was more. Much more. As soon as the Op-Ed article appeared, unhappy Wikipedia editors pounced on my Wikipedia page and started making alterations to it, erasing as much as they possibly could without (I assume) technically breaking the rules. They removed the links to outside sources, like interviews of me and reviews of my novels. Not surprisingly, they also removed the link to the Op-Ed article. At the same time, they put up a banner at the top of my page saying the page needed “additional citations for verifications.” Too bad they’d just taken out the useful sources."
This is more or less bullying in my opinion
Does this make you reconsider the validity of Wikipedia at all? I know we all take it with a pinch of salt and accept it mostly as a "gist" - but what about when they create a list of "American Authors" which removes women from the list?
Personally I'm glad I didn't donate when they were begging last time.
"But there was more. Much more. As soon as the Op-Ed article appeared, unhappy Wikipedia editors pounced on my Wikipedia page and started making alterations to it, erasing as much as they possibly could without (I assume) technically breaking the rules. They removed the links to outside sources, like interviews of me and reviews of my novels. Not surprisingly, they also removed the link to the Op-Ed article. At the same time, they put up a banner at the top of my page saying the page needed “additional citations for verifications.” Too bad they’d just taken out the useful sources."
This is more or less bullying in my opinion
Does this make you reconsider the validity of Wikipedia at all? I know we all take it with a pinch of salt and accept it mostly as a "gist" - but what about when they create a list of "American Authors" which removes women from the list?
Personally I'm glad I didn't donate when they were begging last time.
That kind of editorial re-writes of someones wiik page does sound like mysogynistic bullying, and characterises the worst element of the wiki project.
In general though,certainly for those articles i have researched, i think wiki offers a reasonably balanced viewpoint - but it is always worth getting more than one source, especially for matters controversial...
In general though,certainly for those articles i have researched, i think wiki offers a reasonably balanced viewpoint - but it is always worth getting more than one source, especially for matters controversial...
http://
People who are suitably outraged ( like me) can edit and there is also an email to post any grievances to.
People who are suitably outraged ( like me) can edit and there is also an email to post any grievances to.
I think it can depend upon how Wiki considers its users access the information it provides.
On the one hand, creating a sub-section which means that you don't have to munch your way through thousands of names before finding the one you want seems like a sensible idea.
On the other, Wiki could have divided the American Authors list into separate Female and Male sub-sections, giving equal weight to each.
As it is, it seems to have been carried out in a rather dismissive manner, and the subsequent treatment of Amanda Filipacchi seems very shabby indeed.
On the one hand, creating a sub-section which means that you don't have to munch your way through thousands of names before finding the one you want seems like a sensible idea.
On the other, Wiki could have divided the American Authors list into separate Female and Male sub-sections, giving equal weight to each.
As it is, it seems to have been carried out in a rather dismissive manner, and the subsequent treatment of Amanda Filipacchi seems very shabby indeed.
Has anyone actually looked at the pages?
As far as I can see all the people listed on the "American Woman novelists" page is also on the "American Novelists" page.
http://
http://
As far as I can see all the people listed on the "American Woman novelists" page is also on the "American Novelists" page.
http://
http://
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.