Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:12, 10 August 2014

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet culture Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Feminism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Gender studies Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Misplaced Pages High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Misplaced Pages.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Countering systemic bias This article is supported by the Countering systemic bias WikiProject, which provides a central location to counter systemic bias on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.Countering systemic biasWikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic biasTemplate:WikiProject Countering systemic biasCountering systemic bias ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

For a start

I see that this article has many maintenance templates, but no talk page comments. For a start, the bias contained in this article could be reduced by moving it to "Gender gap/imbalance on Misplaced Pages", as the current one implies that the Wikimedia Foundation has a policy that has led to the current state of affairs in this matter. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Either one of those would work. G S Palmer (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree. First, I cannot see where "the current one implies that the Wikimedia Foundation has a policy that has led to the current state of affairs in this matter". Second, "Gender gap/imbalance on Misplaced Pages" does not cover things like "claims to an air of misogyny or hyper-sexualism". Sophia-ka (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to move it to Gender imbalance on Misplaced Pages. If you have any strong objections, then have it moved back. G S Palmer (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I've moved it back, because "bias" can mean both "discrimination" and "imbalance", and is therefore a better title. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Men’s Rights Agency, not a WP:RS

This source is not reliable. Please read about us : it is not an academic source, just an activists web site, claiming that "men and boys relegated to second class citizen status". This does not seem very trustworthy. Sophia-ka (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I might agree, if it was used to back up anything else. However, it is not being used to support any point other than that some people (in this case the Men's Rights Agency) have a different opinion. G S Palmer (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Neither the Men's Rights Agency or Dean Esmay are notable - wouldn't this inclusion be WP:UNDUE? PearlSt82 (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• What Pearl said. Random men's rights blogs don't warrant inclusion in the lede (or for that matter, probably anywhere else in, unless we get some secondary reliable sources talking about it) of this article.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of Reagle and Rhue

Howdy, the statement about word length from R&R2010 is not accurate approriate as it says "the median analysis does not imply a consistent relationship between article length and gender." Also, better summaries of the article include:

1. Misplaced Pages dominates Britannica in biographical coverage, but more so when it comes to men.
2. Britannica is more balanced in whom it neglects to cover than Misplaced Pages. --Reagle (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The problem in measuring the gendergap is how do you show how much Misplaced Pages is negecting subjects? I was looking at the categories for male vs female headgear on Commons and I think the lack of pictures sort of says it all. We should try to set up a yearly measurement for such examples. They need to be uncontroversial (no question that the subject is encyclopedic, and also not something that is the subject of any current disputes). Jane (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Potential source

I don't know if this might be useful in any way, either to support existing content or to add some new stuff. G S Palmer (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's another one, and a few of the articles linked from it might be of use also. G S Palmer (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Such as this. G S Palmer (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• ‘Wikipedian’ editor took on website’s gender gap May 18, 2014 PBS NewsHour regarding Adrianne Wadewitz

I just removed this from the external links - if someone could find a way to work it into the article as a ref, that would be great. G S Palmer (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• The most influential person on Misplaced Pages is someone you’ve probably never heard of - the latter part of the article touches briefly on something that might have bearing on the section Gender bias in articles. May be able to work it in there somewhere. (Sad that they presume that their readers have never heard of Linnaeus.) G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• And another covering the same topic: The Most Influential Figures On Misplaced Pages Are White, Western Males. Now you can take your pick. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I just removed these from the external links too. Collapsing for convenience:

G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"Policies" section

I have removed, twice, a section of text entitled "policies". Magsmacaulay (talk · contribs) makes the sometimes-correct point that they are independent and reliable; for the most part I don't contest this fact (though a wikipedia talk page isn't "independent", but that's an inappropriate citation for other reasons as well). The issue is that the entire section was substantially original research. Many if not most of the sources didn't mention wikipedia at all. One in particular couldn't, as it was a book published in 1986. The myriad disparate sources were synthesized by Magsmacaulay to create a new idea about wikipedia's policies that isn't made anywhere else; wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. I looked at most of the sources and couldn't find any that actually verified the text they were appended to; instead most cited examples of the behaviour alleged in the section. This isn't appropriate. If any reliable sources explicitly make the point that wikipedia's policies systematically discourage participation by women, include and summarize them. Don't make the case for them. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 13:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I have already told WLU that I find his editing practices hostile and unwelcoming to me as a newcomer. It's clear to me he doesn't see the irony in policing a section I added about how certain policies of Misplaced Pages make it an uneven playing field for women. Further it is untrue that my sources do not talk about Misplaced Pages, as a few are actually critical of policies like "neutrality", "notability" and "reliable sources". These ideas are being explored by academics who write about it online (I have cited them). Our field is changing, and as academics we often feel that we should be public intellectuals and make our ideas accessible (read: free of charge) for people. Probably most of you would agree that pay-walled sources aren't your faves. Anyway, I ask that the section stay because the primary readers of this page would likely be people who are interested in knowing more about the issue. I think some contextual assessment is important in this case. Maybe there are situations where following the rules to a tee are useful but I don't think it is as important, given the subject matter. If Misplaced Pages is actually serious about including more women, then you have to change things to make it seem to us like contributing is worth our time. That certainly hasn't been my experience and the same has been true for a number of my female friends. Though I suppose what I'm saying is somehow less credible since it's not published in a journal article or book :)femmebot 17:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Magsmacaulay (talk • contribs)

I have explained why I removed the text, citing policy and guideline to justify. My alleged hostility is beside the point and illusory as my above explanation is perfectly civil. The few sources you cited that actually mentioned wikipedia either did not address this specific point, or were not reliable (blog posts for instance). Feel free to rebuild the section using reliable sources that explicitly discuss wikipedia's policies and how they enact a gender bias, please omit the rest. Blog posts, bar the rare exception of a notable academic or minor clarifications of facts, aren't suitable. Pay wall sources are perfectly acceptable; sources don't need to be convenient to be used.

The standard for including text isn't whether a reader would be interested, it is the neutral summary of reliable sources in line with what wikipedia is. You appear to be asking for us to ignore all rules; that can be done, if a local consensus establishes that this improves the wiki. I don't feel it does. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 23:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Washington Free Beacon title is POV

I've neutralized POV language which was sourced to a (biased) headline in the Washington Free Beacon: "Government-Funded Study: Why Is Misplaced Pages Sexist?" This is obviously an unscientific phrasing for an academic study, a point which seems to have escaped certain polemicists...

Here is the way the National Science Foundation grant is described on the academic home page of Yale Sociology professor Dr. Julia Adams:

"In 2013, Adams was awarded a two-year National Science Foundation grant for collaborative research with Hannah Brueckner (Associate Dean of Social Science, NYU-Abu Dhabi) on “Misplaced Pages and the Democratization of Academic Knowledge.” The investigators are exploring gender-specific patterns of representation of scholars and scholarship. One of the project’s goals is to contribute to improving quality and reducing bias on academic – and more general – Misplaced Pages." LINK.

Awwww, that's not nearly as much fun, is it? Carrite (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Reverted change. Even the website you linked above, says, as you note above: "one of the project’s goals is to contribute to improving quality and reducing bias on academic – and more general – Misplaced Pages." They are studying bias not simply the disparity, so your change of "bias against women" to "gender disparity" doesn't seem accurate.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• BoboMeowCat - Annnnnnnd..... a POV flag is now up. This study began in 2013, not 2014. The Washington Free Beacon is not a reliable source. The phrasing is tendentious, assuming "sexism" — which the statement "one of the project’s goals is to contribute to improving quality and reducing bias on academic – and more general – Misplaced Pages." does not. Please restore my NPOV phrasing immediately. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

"Sexism" is not the same as "bias resulting from gender disparity," by the way. Carrite (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. The source might have used the word "sexism" but the edit in question didn't use the word "sexism", it uses phrase "bias against women". I"m confused why you find the phrase "bias against women" non-NPOV with respect to the National Science Foundation study.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Your favored source (which misdates the study, it being a 2013-, not a 2014-launched project, by the way) not only explicitly charges "sexism," it trumpets the fact in a sensational headline. I'll tweak the wording and sourcing of the paragraph in the next day or two and we'll see if we can come up with a couple NPOV lines we all can live with... Carrite (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. It's not "my favored source". I didn't originally add it. My objection was your change of text "bias against women" to "gender disparity" because "bias against women" was supported by both the Washington Free Beacon article and by the website you linked to, so your change did not seem accurate with respect to the sources cited. You've yet to address this and seem to keep shifting issues. If you've uncovered an error with the date, by all means fix it. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Systematic removal of Washington Post source

Reference to a tangential issue, expressed in the following source, has been tag-team removed from the article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/08/04/mens-rights-activists-think-a-hateful-feminist-conspiracy-is-ruining-wikipedia/

The irony of the charge of ideological bias in Misplaced Pages being redacted away for apparently POV reasons seems self-evident.

This also needs to be discussed and remedied before the POV flag is removed. Carrite (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Caitlin Dewey does a good job of pointing out the disparity between their claims and their actual behavior on Misplaced Pages. I agree with other editors that the MRA position on this issue falls under WP:FRINGE and doesn't belong here. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Where was it stated that this is an MRA position of them? Additionally, you can't just qualify or state something is WP:FRINGE without demonstrating why as if to dismiss the entire thing. Else, I could just state that your position is WP:FRINGE and not respond anymore, while continually and incessantly saying that it is. Tutelary (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The initial article was written by Dean Esmay of A Voice For Men - the Dewey article identifies it as MRA (in the title) and notes that their claims regarding this issue are groundless. If issues are groundless, does that not make the assertions of them to be fringe? PearlSt82 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It does not make them out to be fringe, and it's kind of a sketchy area on where we define WP:FRINGE. The most common example is flat earth people, but it gets rather muddy when you do it to other groups. For example, how do we define it? Just that with we disagree with much? That a ton of people hate? Who defines it? What's the exact percentage who are pro/con? It's just a muddy one. To me, it's not a fringe position, but a minority one that I can see, yes. Though what was being done for this specific article is that it would attribute opinions of the minority group to its WP:DUE weight, maybe a sentence or so. Whether that's undue weight or not can be questioned, but I think as long as it's short enough and is in the right spot, it's encyclopedic to mention imho. If you look at the edit which was reverted, it's actually pretty tame, but it does need more attribution to get it out of Wiki's voice. I'm guessing you're still opposed? Tutelary (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have re-written the para to address some of these issues, and, joined it with the previous para. Certainly The Washington Post is a RS. Memills (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the current state of the article gives undue weight to the idea that Misplaced Pages is biased against men. It seems to me that the Washington Post article does not take Esmay's views very seriously at all. It points out that Esmay "sees feminist conspiracies in many unassuming places", uses "inflammatory phrasings", and is "controversial" (x2), and also disputes Esmay's claims with respect to Misplaced Pages, saying that "the talk pages tell a slightly different story" and calling many of Esmay's claims "groundless".

I would support the removal of this information from the article altogether. If it must be kept, I would rephrase it as something like "It has been argued that men's rights related articles on Misplaced Pages have been subject to censorship by feminist editors, but there is little evidence to support this claim." (a statement which is supported by the Washington Post article) —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure this even belongs, the bias being claimed is towards a particular Socio-political ideology, and not specifically a gender. In essence, a bias for or against feminism is not necessarily a bias for or against women. And the article is more about a perceived pro-feminist bias. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that is a bit of a stretch. Certainly, a claim of anti-feminist bias in articles about feminism would certainly deserve mention in this article on the grounds it is related to gender. The Washington Post article is essentially an opinion/editorial piece. As such, it should be mentioned that the "author of the article believes" that many of the claims made in the Voice for Men article are groundless. Memills (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The tone of the WP article is clearly one of ridicule and this viewpoint is treated as fringe by Dewey. The structure of the article and the sensationalist headline empathise this. Regardless, this is not "censorship" against men or even "censorship by feminists", it's a viewpoint that doesn't really hold any weight. There is a similar article on Wikipediocracy analysing these claims and again, they seem to be groundless. Desmay himself is not banned and none of his edits relating to men's rights articles were undone, if there is any censorship by feminists then it certainly didn't happen to him. It's likely that this is just further antifeminist propaganda. Either way, both are opinion pieces, and neither state sources saying that there is or isn't such censorship, they just assert it. Are we going to start citing personal blog entries next? --80.193.191.143 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, you state that "The Washington Post article is essentially an opinion/editorial piece. As such, it should be mentioned that the author of the article believes that many of the claims made in the Voice for Men article are groundless.", but this is the only source that supports even including it in article. Why bother? --80.193.191.143 (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

...because the article was published by The Washington Post and it was written by one of its editors. Such articles are both notable and a RS. Memills (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that they're notable... G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Well yes, but the inclusion, if made, has to cover what it said by the source. Structuring it around the original complaint by Esmay is strange as this is treated as a fringe complaint within the source in the first place --80.193.191.143 (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the treatment of men's rights articles has to do with the high amount of male editors anyway. The article states: "The gender bias of Misplaced Pages is connected with the fact that the majority of editors are male, and coverage of articles about men and male-related subjects is generally more extensive than coverage of articles about women and female-related subjects." What does the opinion a fringe antifeminist group have to do with the bias against women on website in this context? --80.193.191.143 (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

This WP article is about gender bias, not just bias against women.

You removed the the brief sentence that basically covered what The Washtington Post article was about: the claims that were made, and the author's opinion that most of the claims were groundless. The fringe criteria is pretty stringent (e.g., flat earthers). While the MRM may be and unpopular and a minority perspective, it isn't fringe. Memills (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The idea that there is a feminist conspiracy running Misplaced Pages isn't too different from flat earthers when you think of it. Either way, I don't think it has WP:DUE weight to be included here, the reference itself is an opinion piece and doesn't include any statistics for or against the idea that there is such a feminist conspiracy --80.193.191.143 (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

No one suggested that "there is a feminist conspiracy running Misplaced Pages." The claim is that articles related to the MRM and men's issues are censored by feminists. These claims are not new -- they have been repeatedly made on Talk pages by many WP editors, most of whom do not self-identify as MRAs. And, believe me, if we required that articles, even scholarly ones, that did not include statistics be jettisoned, many of the citations to journals of feminist theory and scholarship would have to be jettisoned. Shouldn't be a double standard here, even if I just WP:DONTLIKE it. Again, the fact that the article was published by The Washington Post by one of its editors makes it both notable and a RS. Memills (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

What exactly gives it WP:DUE weight as an example of gender bias though? The focus of this article is, primarily, the gender gap. I don't think we should equate bias of editors against the men's rights movement and that against men either. It's the actions of the movement that are controversial, not its aims. Oh, and drop the WP:DONTLIKE, it doesn't help anybody, and your own personal bias is clear --80.193.191.143 (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The title of the subsection of the article is "Gender bias in articles."

However, at this point, I think we need to accept that we disagree. Time to let others to weigh in, and, perhaps request a peer review WP:PR. Memills (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a little early for a peer review (and that seems a little extravagant for one source) so yeah, best to let others weigh in --80.193.191.143 (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought the general rule was that we do not use op-eds from newspapers for anything? News stories, yes; op-eds, no. - Sitush (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

From WP:NEWSORG: " "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. ...Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." (italics added) Memills (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for quoting that passage. I don't think the Washington Post article provides evidence that Esmay's opinion is a significant viewpoint—Esmay is not a recognized expert on the subject of Misplaced Pages, and his opinion doesn't even match the opinion of the author of the Washington Post article. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

That's what I mean - in practice, we don't use them. - Sitush (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages"

The article needs to make clear when it and its sources are referring to English-language Misplaced Pages and when they're referring to other language variants and/or the entirety of WMF-hosted Wikipedias. As it stands, it looks like an article about gender bias is in fact massively biassed in other ways. Have there even been any studies covering all of the various languages? - Sitush (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor

VisualEditor effectively did not go live until mid-July 2013. The source for "including the introduction of VisualEditor, which have as yet been unable to effectively bridge the gender imbalance." was published on 11 August 2013. I find it hard to believe that in that short interval anyone even ran any meaningful gender bias metrics analysing its impact, let alone ones that could meaningfully affect the other stats that Gardner was making. It looks like a big dollop of journalistic license to me, or else a complete misuse of the source in the article. - Sitush (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Visual Editor has never even been tried as a solution, since they still haven't rolled out a completed product. There seems no doubt that VE is seen as part of the initiative to close the gender gap. See the newly released Wikimedia Deutschland report which is now up in Further Reading. Carrite (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. So it shouldn't be in the lead in its present form. The inference at present is that even VE hasn't made a difference. VE might be part of the strategy for fixing the problem but that is another section and, I notice, it is a section that we conspicuously lack. - Sitush (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

This amazes me. Was Visual Editor seen as a remedy to gender bias because "girls get confused by markup text" or something like that? This is obviously false, but it would surprise me to learn that it was advanced in support of a new interface. Can somebody fill us in on the facts concerning this? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The idea was that it will/would make editing easier because you wouldn't need to know the markup etc. Since, allegedly, women are more likely to be put off by the markup then men, one effect of it would be to potentially encourage women to edit. I don'rt know whether that outcome was explicitly stated or not but it would be valid in the context of the gender gap studies, assuming of course that the gender gap studies are actually valid in the first place. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Among the men and women with whom I am familiar, there is no gender-related difference with respect to their comfort with markup text. If there was no identified empirical basis for this conclusion, it appears to be a prima facie example of gender bias and an example of how such bias can misdirect efforts to find effective solutions to the real underlying problem. SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Definitely needs to be tossed from the lede. I remember at the time hearing the "let's make it easier for women because they are intimidated by the technology" argument - and that concept was generally considered offensive. So unless you want to add "ill-formed, unsubstantiated decision by the male editors causing the problem that somehow wp needed to be dumbed-down to attract women editors..." OK, I'm ranting. Off soapbox now. But toss the VE bit from the lead. Montanabw 18:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Gender bias in articles

The Reagle/Rhue source is not even mentioned in the Lam et al study. Therefore, "Misplaced Pages has been claimed to have more detail in articles about men, with the rate of coverage of females on average, around 100 words less than males on selected articles. It has been suggested that this may be because Misplaced Pages possesses "... a culture that may be resistant to female participation."" is likely synthesis. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this whole equation of length = quality and the making of sweeping claims about wikipedia content based on extremely small, non-randomly selected sample populations is fairly silly. I don't doubt that biographies of women, etc., are not as well covered as those of men. But, really, the truly massive disparity on WP isn't a male/female content divide, it is towards deep coverage of contemporary topics and poor coverage of historical ones. And we haven't even scratched the issue of Global North v. Global South content disparity or racial content disparity — which are also more serious problems than the gender content disparity, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. But I'm trying to operate within the constraints of this article. And those two statements don't really connect in a policy-compliant manner. - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I rambled. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Date format

MOS:DATEUNIFY and WP:DATERET say to use the style adopted by the article. It does not require that accessdate be in yyyy-mm-dd format, does it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia&diff=620590333&oldid=620590117

--Lightbreather (talk) 05:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this recently somewhere and the outcome was yyyymmdd. FWIW, I'm not too happy about you adding entirely unnecessary ref names either but I'm not going to alter it. There are enough long-winded discussions knocking around at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe your reference to a recent discussion "somewhere" trumps the MOS. Also, I'm here to improve articles, not to make others happy. Ref names make it easier to use sources multiple times, which comes in handy when developing content. You don't need to chastise others' good-faith contributions. Lightbreather (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Internet culture articles
• Mid-importance Internet culture articles
• Internet culture articles needing attention
• WikiProject Internet culture articles
• Start-Class Feminism articles
• Low-importance Feminism articles
• WikiProject Feminism articles
• Start-Class Gender studies articles
• Low-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles
• Start-Class Misplaced Pages articles
• High-importance Misplaced Pages articles
• WikiProject Misplaced Pages articles
• Unassessed Countering systemic bias articles
• Unknown-importance Countering systemic bias articles
• WikiProject Countering systemic bias articles