1. On April 1 Lambert started working alphabetically through all American novelists and moving the women into Category:American women novelists instead. First he did Patricia Aakhus, at 5:44 PM. Two minutes later, Hailey Abbott. Then Megan Abbott—pausing also to add her to Category:University of Michigan alumni. Then Diana Abu-Jaber, Alice Adams, Lorraine Adams, Renata Adler…. He did English women novelists, too; also Australian, German, and Moroccan. At 8:51, he created a new category, Nigerian women novelists, and put Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie there.

    By the end of the day he’d gotten to the D’s: so Daphne du Maurier is now an English woman novelist. Like most people, she falls into multiple categories; she is also a “bisexual writer,” a “British historical novelist,” a “Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire,” an “English person of French descent,” an “English short story writer,” a “writer from London,” and an “LGBT writer from England.” But not (as of this morning) an English novelist.

    — 

    Wikipedia’s Women Problem by James Gleick | NYRblog

    This NYRB post goes on to report:

    For some reason the first two members of Category:American men novelists were Orson Scott Card and P. D. Cacek, who was also categorized in “American science fiction writers” and “American horror writers.” It took about fifteen hours for someone to realize that Cacek, whose full name is Patricia Diana Joy Anne Cacek, didn’t belong. As of this writing, she is back to being an American novelist and an American woman novelist. Ernest Hemingway is now officially an American man novelist—manly indeed. F. Scott Fitzgerald will be relieved to know that he, too, made the cut.

  2. therumpus:

DEAR WIKIPEDIA EDITORS,
BY AMY LETTER AND BRIAN SPEARS
April 24th, 2013
Not all of you, just the ones who decided that it was a good idea to start removing women from the category “American Novelists” and putting them into a new category: “American Women Novelists.” You guys.
What the hell, man? What’s wrong with you?
It would have been bad enough had you decided to replace the one category with two separate categories, one for American Men and one for American Women novelists, since that division would have suggested that the gender of the writer is the most important distinction (as opposed to, oh, genre or era) and since it would leave out genderqueer novelists completely.
But you didn’t even do that. The dudes are going to get the default category “American Novelists,” while women get shunted off into a cozy little ghetto, the easier to ignore, which is pretty much been the case for most of human history. Men are the normal, everyone else is the other. Hey, good news for sexist readers: this way, a person searching for American Novelists on wikipedia won’t accidentally end up reading a woman’s writing. No, no. Now that can only happen if the person is searching specifically for women novelists. What a relief.
But here’s the thing that confuses us. It’s not like you haven’t been called out for sexism before or anything. You’ve had a problem with this for a while, and despite your claims that you want to change the culture among the editors, you really haven’t done much about it. Instead, you do this. You once again diminish women.
And you’re doing this at a time when we’re more conscious than ever, thanks to groups like VIDA, of the huge disparities in attention that books by men receive in terms of reviews in big publications over books by women, as well as the disparities in space that men receive to write reviews as opposed to women reviewers. We’re talking about massive inequalities here, and you’re aiding and abetting that. As Amanda Filipacchi said in the piece linked above, “People who go to Wikipedia to get ideas for whom to hire, or honor, or read, and look at that list of “American Novelists” for inspiration, might not even notice that the first page of it includes far more men than women. They might simply use that list without thinking twice about it. It’s probably small, easily fixable things like this that make it harder and slower for women to gain equality in the literary world.”
So Wikipedia Editors who thought this was a good idea, do us a favor here. Even if there’s something in your brogrammer code that refuses to allow you to undo this, at least stay out of the way of the editors who are cleaning up the mess you made.

Seconded.

    therumpus:

    DEAR WIKIPEDIA EDITORS,

    BY 

    April 24th, 2013

    Not all of you, just the ones who decided that it was a good idea to start removing women from the category “American Novelists” and putting them into a new category: “American Women Novelists.” You guys.

    What the hell, man? What’s wrong with you?

    It would have been bad enough had you decided to replace the one category with two separate categories, one for American Men and one for American Women novelists, since that division would have suggested that the gender of the writer is the most important distinction (as opposed to, oh, genre or era) and since it would leave out genderqueer novelists completely.

    But you didn’t even do that. The dudes are going to get the default category “American Novelists,” while women get shunted off into a cozy little ghetto, the easier to ignore, which is pretty much been the case for most of human history. Men are the normal, everyone else is the other. Hey, good news for sexist readers: this way, a person searching for American Novelists on wikipedia won’t accidentally end up reading a woman’s writing. No, no. Now that can only happen if the person is searching specifically for women novelists. What a relief.

    But here’s the thing that confuses us. It’s not like you haven’t been called out for sexism before or anything. You’ve had a problem with this for a while, and despite your claims that you want to change the culture among the editors, you really haven’t done much about it. Instead, you do this. You once again diminish women.

    And you’re doing this at a time when we’re more conscious than ever, thanks to groups like VIDA, of the huge disparities in attention that books by men receive in terms of reviews in big publications over books by women, as well as the disparities in space that men receive to write reviews as opposed to women reviewers. We’re talking about massive inequalities here, and you’re aiding and abetting that. As Amanda Filipacchi said in the piece linked above, “People who go to Wikipedia to get ideas for whom to hire, or honor, or read, and look at that list of “American Novelists” for inspiration, might not even notice that the first page of it includes far more men than women. They might simply use that list without thinking twice about it. It’s probably small, easily fixable things like this that make it harder and slower for women to gain equality in the literary world.”

    So Wikipedia Editors who thought this was a good idea, do us a favor here. Even if there’s something in your brogrammer code that refuses to allow you to undo this, at least stay out of the way of the editors who are cleaning up the mess you made.

    Seconded.

  3. From Wikipedia to our libraries—John Mark Ockerbloom →

    thelifeguardlibrarian:

    I’ve heard the lament in more than one library discussion over the years.  “People aren’t coming to our library like they should,” librarians have told me.  “We’ve got a rich collection, and we’ve expended lots of resources on an online presence, but lots of our patrons just go to Google and Wikipedia without checking to see what we have.”  The pattern of quick online information-finding using search engines and Wikipedia is well-known enough that it has its own acronym: GWR, for Google -> Wikipedia -> References.  (David White gives a good description of that pattern in the linked article.)

    Some people I’ve talked to think we should break this pattern.  With the right search tool or marketing plan, some say, we can get patrons to start with us first, instead of Google or Wikipedia.  This idea seems to me both futile and beside the point.  Between them, Google and Wikipedia cover a vast array of online information, more than librarians could hope to replicate or index ourselves in that medium.  Also, if we truly have better resources available in our libraries than can be found on the open Web, it’s less important that our researchers start from our libraries’ websites than that they end up finding the knowledge resources our libraries make available to them.

    […]

    So how do we get people from Wikipedia articles to the related offerings of our local libraries?  Essentially we need three things: First, we need ways to embed links in Wikipedia to the libraries that readers use.  (We can’t reasonably add individual links from an article to each library out there, because there are too many of them– there has to be a way that each Wikipedia reader can get to their own favored libraries via the same links.)  Second, we need ways to derive appropriate library concepts and local searches from the subjects of Wikipedia articles, so the links go somewhere useful.  Finally, we need good summaries of the resources a reader’s library makes available on those concepts, so the links end up showing something useful.  With all of these in place, it should be possible for researchers to get from a Wikipedia article on a topic straight to a guide to their local library’s offerings on that topic in a single click.

    I’m in love. Is this what a braingasm feels like?

    This could be beautifully applied in an academic library. This is how students (should) work. I want it to happen.

  4. In a Wikimedia blog post this week, Steven Walling shared news of an exciting partnership. JSTOR, that non-profit consortium-based database, beloved by high school and college students everywhere for its scholarly, authoritative content, will now provide the 100 most active Wikipedia editors with

    free access to the complete archive collections on JSTOR, including more than 1,600 academic journals, primary source documents and other works. The authors who will receive accounts have collectively written more than 100,000 Wikipedia articles to date. Access to JSTOR, which is one of the most popular sources on English Wikipedia, will allow these editors to further fill in the gaps in the sum of all human knowledge.

    — Wikipedia and JSTOR partner (via thelibrarybug)

  5. Libraries and Lemonade: Wikipedia & Libraries →

    Frankly, it feels really weak to me, especially:

    • The hint that wikipedia “caused” EB to stop printing, and that wikipedia is some how worse than EB (studies have shown they have roughly the same number of errors in similar articles, plus wikipedia is constantly updated without needing users to invest over a thousand dollars for new versions).
    • Using textbooks (as opposed to primary sources) as a rubric for accuracy (or, failing to recognize the illusion of accuracy in the first place and accept that there’s a range of accuracy rather than a single point of it).
    • The implication that libraries vs. wikipedia is even a thing, when a) many people use libraries as their primary source of internet, and even those who don’t can and do use the internet there and b) one person might search wikipedia 30 times in the hour they spend on a library computer. They’re not the same resource.
    • The implication that wikipedia is anything BUT an encyclopedia. No, it’s not great for research, but that’s because it’s an encyclopedia, and if you’re doing more than a basic overview of a topic for your own basic knowledge, encyclopedias aren’t good sources.

    (Source: open-site.org)

  6. WIKIPEDIA →

    thelifeguardlibrarian:

    Wikipedia and libraries. NO. No. Wikipedia and librarians. This, to me, has to be the more important issue. Wikipedia is here, it’s staying, it’s fabulous. I use it as often as I need to—just as I use books, or any other gimme-that-information-now tool.

    Just as we cringe as students copy and paste any old “fact” from Wikipedia into their “research” paper, so do we hate to watch them wander aimlessly through the library finding (or not finding) inaccurate or useless information.

    So what do we do? In libraries, we have parked ourselves in behind desks to hopefully intercept students before they fumble through the research process like teenagers after junior prom.

    What’s more important than making libraries better than Wikipedia is making sure we, as librarians, understand how to help other make the best use of Wikipedia—which will likely (or hopefully) mean our directing them to sounder, more specific resources, if their research requires it.

  7. Wikipedia & Libraries

    Wikipedia
    Via: Open-Site.org

    What do you think of this infographic?

  8. The hyperbolic mistruths, presented on the home pages of some of the world’s most popular Web sites, amounted to an abuse of trust and a misuse of power. When Wikipedia and Google purport to be neutral sources of information, but then exploit their stature to present information that is not only not neutral but affirmatively incomplete and misleading, they are duping their users into accepting as truth what are merely self-serving political declarations.

    — 

    What Wikipedia Won’t Tell You - NYTimes.com (via infoneer-pulse)

    No fan of the RIAA, much less SOPA, but this in particular is an interesting point.

  9. From Nieman Journalism Lab, ”The contribution conundrum: Why did Wikipedia succeed while other encyclopedias failed?

    Another intriguing finding: Wikipedia focused on substantive content development instead of technology.Wikipedia was the only project in the entire sample, Hill noted, that didn’t build its own technology. (It was, in fact, generally seen as technologically unsophisticated by other encyclopedias’ founders, who saw themselves more as technologists than as content providers.) GNUpedia, for example, had several people dedicated to building its infrastructure, but none devoted to building its articles. It was all very if you build it, they will come.