Wikimedia Diversity Conference 2013/Documentation/temple-wood

Session: Emily Temple-Wood // Women scientists and philosophers on English Wikipedia

Abstract

The session will cover efforts to correct systemic bias on the English Wikipedia in two critical biographical areas: scientists and philosophers. Kevin is working with a group of academics to address the lack of coverage of women philosophers on ENWP, a gap generated by the compounding gender imbalances of Wikimedia and philosophy. He will cover the details of this discrepancy and how collaboration between academia and ENWP might mitigate it. WikiProject Women Scientists is an important initiative to increase the abysmal coverage of female scientists on English Wikipedia. Of an estimated 3000+ notable women scientists, only 1500 have articles, and only 5 of those are Featured Articles. This session will cover reasons behind this and efforts to expand the project.

Handout located on Commons at Women scientists and philosophers.pdf

Starting point / Insights

best practices for countering systematic bias

women scientists and women philosophers

Women philosophers

Heavy bias against them, feminist philosophers are ignored (no artitcles)
Online component: list of missing women philosopher biographies
Go through specialist sources and compare list of biographies with wikipedia
Working with American Philosophical (org), they can help assess notability
Working with specialist academic organizations can be helpful, can at least provide resources and be good partner
Working with classes at UC Berkeley to have students help write articles

Women scientists

Poor coverage of women scientists
1664 out of 3000-4000 notable women scientists have articles
Fill in coverage gaps and then focus on quality
Articles featured in "Did you know" on Wikipedia main page
Project started year ago, 30 members, doubled content
Typical WikiProject model
Use new tools like Wikidata to find topics covered in other Wikipedias
Offline events, Ada Lovelace day but only once a day

Challenges

Sources are biased

work with editors from other language wikipedias, they can access different sources

Problem with edit-a-thons

not great retention, not frequent enough

Ideas

Create safe space that is regular, can be incorporated in people's schedules, can work better Work with university, have bi-weekly edit-a-thons (teaching to edit, collaborating, teaching eachother) Advertising via posters and flyers is effective Not excluding men (anyone welcome, as long as they are not a troll)

Questions / Next steps recommendations

Develop best practices