Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion
Sandi Toksvig
Sandi Toksvig is a leading UK broadcaster and politician and here she is talking on UK Channel 4 - The Last Leg. Feel free to review our Twitter feed and give a boost to our new articles. We get 400K views per month and have 6,000 followers .... and growing. We pick new articles from our editathons and tweet them and communicate with our sister projects and followers. Victuallers (talk) 08:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Fairly comprehensively - eg afawk Strickland herself played no part in the unsuccessful pre-Nobel efforts to get her bio up. And the stat she gives is way off - "Wikipedia is 9% about women, and 90% about men" - presumably confusing a low editor estimate with the female bio %. If she is touring presenting this sort of stuff, I hope someone will supply her with key correct stats and talking points. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Sandi Toksvig is a national treasure, and the general thrust of her comments is of course correct - women are indeed under-represented - but virtually all of the specific points she made are false:
[Wikipedia] is 9% about women and 90% about men. - First, biographies are only about 25% of all our articles, and second biographies of women are substantially more than 10% of all biographies. (She appears to be quoting the 90%-9%-1% split from the self-declaration of editors as male-female-other, which could underestimate the percentage of women and indeed other editors by a significant margin).
Women are not just being not put up, they are being taken down. - Given the way the percentage is moving, more articles are being written (and kept) on women than on men at the moment.
Donna Strickland ... kept trying to get a page on Wikipedia but it kept getting taken down. - No she didn't; no it wasn't. See below.
Winning a Nobel prize is apparently what it takes for a woman to get an article on Wikipedia. - Well, of course, notability of any person is enhanced by winning a Nobel prize, but no one doubted her notability before she did.
Look, we know what happened with Donna Strickland because there is a decent post mortem in the Signpost, here and here: one person wrote an article in 2014 which was deleted as a copyvio; another person wrote an article in draft in March 2018, but when it was reviewed a couple of months later the sourcing was thought to be inadequate (and we err on the side of caution with a BLP), and it hung around in draft for some more months. And then she won a Nobel prize and some effort was put into finishing the draft, and a slew of good sources became available, many from places that had never written about her before. (Meanwhile, we don't hear much about the other Nobel winning scientist who also lacked a Wikipedia article until the prizes were announced, or about the one former president of the OSA who is still redlinked - but of course the failure to have an article on George Smith or Tony Heinz can't be attributed to gender bias.)
Yes, Wikipedia is the largest crowd-sourced encyclopedia in the world, and yes there is a serious point to be made about systemic bias (not just on gender, but also on race, geography, and other axes of discrimination and bias). But it does not help to misrepresent the situation. 213.205.240.199 (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
That's a slight whitewash on Strickland! There were strong notability concerns 2nd time round before the Nobel, in particular as she was only an associate professor, and eg wasn't a member of the Canadian Royal Society (who must really be embarassed), which would have given pretty automatic notability. In the post-mortem after the Nobel, it was found that the citation index and presidency of the Optical Societyshould have already have shown notability. But these are points that require relatively good subject-knowledge, and it's not that surprising they were missed. Johnbod (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, she got some of it wrong, but the fact that she's talking about Wikipedia's content gender gap is brilliant! Perhaps someone in the geographic region can get in contact with Ms. Toksvig's PR team and become a point of contact before her next interview? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
July events from Women in Red!
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 5 years ago17 comments8 people in discussion
Birgitte Christine Kaas
Hello WiR friends,
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask about this. I noticed that Birgitte Christine Kaas' page has a painting of her redlinked husband rather than images about her. Is there a policy about this, would it fit with the Women in Red project?
SunnyBoi, I like you find it odd that her husband's image is the only one on her page. Searching the web, I find that she also was painted.[1] Since she died in 1761, it is hardly likely that the artist who depicted her is still living and the work is likely in the PD. That being said, one would need to determine who the artist was and find a photograph of the work which can be used. Perhaps Victuallers, who is far better with images than me can help? SusunW (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
@SusunW and SunnyBoi: The site with the picture would probably not have been listed on a Google search in English. You have to search in Danish or Norwegian. That's one of the recurring problems of writing about "foreign" women. Reviewers of new articles assume there's no information about them and list them for AfD because links do not come up in their English-language searches. I recently came across a reaction which maintained that if there was nothing in English, then a biography should not be included in the EN Wikipedia as we should be mirroring English-language sources! So much for an "international" encyclopaedia.--Ipigott (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
It takes a village SunnyBoi :) That is ridiculous and so shortsighted, Ipigott. In a global community, one cannot put blinders on nor assume that every important topic or person is covered in English. I am sure there are millions of people who meet our notability requirements for whom sources are to be found in their native countries/languages. I appreciate that you help me to include many of these women. SusunW (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Rosiestep, that I kind of understand, especially if it is a small Wiki. I've read numerous studies on how databases/collaborative collections mature. The first stage is to focus on what is culturally significant in one's own language, the second phase is to add information about other globally historically significant people and events, before reaching a stage of project maturity and recognizing that there are knowledge gaps which require strategy to solve. SusunW (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
SusunW, sure, that makes sense. I'm not sure if it's still the case, but at one time, the Dutch Wikipedia -which is pretty mature- didn't allow non-Dutch language references, and I thought that was unusual (cc: @Drmies and Jane023 for verification). On the other hand, the Arabic language Wikipedia does allow other language references, and I'm told that's very helpful for Arabic language Women in Red editors who rely heavily on translating en-wiki language biographies about Arabic women. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Rosiestep, I rarely write for the Dutch wiki these days, mostly because of the toxic nature of the village pump, which I find depressing. I know you shouldn't judge a wiki by its village pump, but still. Anyways, I totally agree with Drmies above that "only Dutch sources" was never a policy there as far as I know, though I have personally received messages like that from Dutch Wikipedians who should have known better (this was years ago btw). Since the Dutch "Biografisch Portaal" is in the authority template, if the BPN numbers are on Wikidata you should be able to pick up sources for most notable dead Dutch people on enwiki. Oddly, the authority control template is still not allowed on Dutch Wikipedia (probably because of its skew towards English sources). Jane (talk) 09:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I fell foul of that English-only policy here on enwiki when I first started editing. When I talk about it with people, they are often surprised by it and have never heard of it, so I tend to bring it up at major Wiki events so more people realize it's happening and those same people can then help stop it dead in its tracks. -Yupik (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that! Good idea to bring it up at events, since this only amplifies the systemic bias common to all Wikipedias in general, not just Dutch & English. Jane (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Forgot to post this image of some unknown Danish art historian, standing in front of a portrait of Kaas in 1954 at Elingaard
It's not a policy, and no-one should remain unchallenged if they say that it is. The only thing we encourage is using an English language source where all else is equal (and adding an English language source if useful where not). This is to assist our readers, who will have some level of competency in English, but may not know any other given language. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 15:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC).
Btw one issue that reoccurs is the preference of using clearly outdated "anthropological" material as reference material just because it's in English over modern material in another language. I would really like to see this one quashed permanently. -Yupik (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Just returning to the subject of this thread, I wanted to point out that there are multiple portraits of Birgitte Christine Kaas, though possibly under her maiden name. This one, on show along with that portrait of her husband (its pendant) is on Commons, but behind an animated speaker who could probably tell us all about it, but of course she is also probably dead, having been taken in 1954... I linked it to the page where it belongs and where it is said (but not on enwiki yet) that the ghost of Birgitte still roams: Elingård. Jane (talk) 09:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Heads up, if anyone is interested. Draft:Beth Holmgren was begun in July 2018 by Ashamsamathew, whose two edits on this draft were their only Wikipedia contribution. I ran across Holgren's name a couple of years ago when considering improving Helena Modjeska to FA (fascinating person, but more extensive than I have time for). Holmgren has contributed to many academic journals, etc. and is worthy of this project if anyone wants to adopt the draft. — Maile (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, just thought I'd ask, is there any initiative for Women in Film, especially with things like the Me Too movement. Could be interesting to have an ongoing initiative more than focus month? Kingsif (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Tagishsimon: I think Ipigott's suggestion is a good one regarding a cinematographers Wikidata list. Thanks in advance if you have time to create it before our August Film+Stage event. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Not a question I thought I'd have to ask, but...
Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I presume we're fine counting intersex people as part of this project, right?
...Now the actual question. There's a photography series by Nadar of an intersex individual. The intersex individual is naked, and the photography focuses on their genitalia. For Pride month, I'd like to restore it as part of celebrating oft-neglected intersex individuals.
...So.... How should I document it? I mean, it's not pornographic, but it is very, very explicit photos of genitalia. Is this, for example, suitable on our showcase? On our images on the Pride page? Should I post it here when discussing FPs? ...On the one hand, we're not censored. On the other, surprise genitalia are still surprise genitalia. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs03:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Definitely intersex are part of this project. Sort of had a discussion about this earlier this month. I wrote a biography about Maria Dorothea Derrier. The only sketches that are extant of them are of the genitalia. Not the whole person, just the genitalia. The consensus was, even though the images were not pornographic, not to use them as an illustration on a biography as it reduced the person to the body parts, instead of depicting the full person. We concluded that the images would be better suited for an article discussing the topic in general or from a medical perspective, not a biography. You seem to be saying that the images by Nadar are of a person, rather than just the body parts. If they do not diminish the dignity of that person, then I wouldn't have a problem including such an image. There is also to my mind a place for such photos if they are just of the genitalia, as I said above on a general article on the topic, but maybe others should weigh in. SusunW (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
If there is already an article and the photos are already on WP, then having the best version we can of the photos seems like a logical goal to me. But, I am only one voice and there may be others who feel differently. SusunW (talk) 05:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I see there was a DYK on this a few years ago and that other Wikipedia language versions use the images. These are of course historic photographs and while enhancements are no doubt justified for presentational purposes, there is something to be said for preserving the originals, given their high quality. I am personally impressed by the original images from 1860 and think they should be preserved as such in the article on Hermaphrodite. If there is good reason for including enhanced versions in other articles or contexts, then that would seem to be in order. But then I think the enhanced versions should be posted on WiR with appropriate explanations. These are my views as someone interested in the history of photography. I'll leave comments on the intersex aspects to others.--Ipigott (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Women in Space question
Latest comment: 5 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion
For the women in space editathon this month, I was wondering if someone who has a crater named after them counts for this theme, despite not working in space science. My thinking is that this woman (a painter) is literally in space. Otherwise, I have someone else in mind. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Good reasoning! I'd count her (I started an article Friday about a woman who had an asteroid named for her, but she was also an astronomer). The themes are just fun ways to organize this work; the real goal is that the work gets done, right? Penny Richards (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@MrLinkinPark333: (after e/c) Sounds a great idea - she's notable enough to have a crater named after her but hasn't yet got an article? Go for it! Well, that's my opinion, anyway. PamD17:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I can start her this week: I’ve found some English language references. I’ll need help on the wikidata side of things. Moira Paul —Preceding undated comment added 07:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Just created Maria Zhilova, another of those honoured by a crater, from one of the redlinks mentioned above. But what a nightmare of alternative spellings/transliterations! French wiki has her as Jilova. 1255 Schilowa is named for her but was first spelled Shilowa. Other transliterations in sources include Silova. Then Maria / Mariia / Mariya / M, and V or W or or Vasilevna Vasil'evna! Even as an acknowledged redirect geek I haven't created them all, but all the ones which I've encountered and a few more. Russian wiki doesn't have her, but has a redlink to "Жилова, Мария Васильевна". Fun. Anyway, I wasn't going to create articles today but seem to have done a second one for "space" now. PamD08:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Twitter guideline
Latest comment: 5 years ago45 comments12 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm pretty sure when the Fram "real crimes" tweet went to press, this project said it would be constructing a guideline for the use of its own "official" Twitter account. That was a week ago. Is this happening? Can we see this please? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Sure, but that doesn't have any guidelines or operating procedures or points of contact for recourse when such tweets are emitted from the official WiR account. That's the point. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Sure. Apart from the guidelines under the heading "Guidelines". And the point of contact. All /specific/ suggestions for improvements welcomed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh, wow, those are "guidelines" in the wake of the gross abuse of the channel in accusing someone of "real crimes"? I thought those were statements of common sense which everyone would naturally abide by. Sorry, mea culpa. Great work, you've done so much to improve things here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
As I implied, if you have any constructive suggestions, please make them. If you're merely bored because the Framfest is quietening down, and you're here to try to make trouble, then I cordially invite you to find some other game to play. It was, I remind you, only you and your chum who were "Oh wow"ing the tweet & seeking to create a drama. The rest of us acknowledged the mistake and moved on. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I clearly misunderstood when WiR said they'd work on some real guidelines on how to run their Twitter channel. "Framfest" isn't quietening down, and I'm not sure why you're bringing that up. I simply was following up on the promise given that this project would never repeat the repellent offwiki harassment that someone engaged in in the name of the official WiR Twitter account. I don't have any "chums" here, and I'll remind you that just "moving on" from accusing someone of "real crimes" is not actually something real. Please wake up and realise that the errors made here go beyond just a simple "we'll be nice" hand-waving exercise. That Fram has been accused of "real crimes" on Twitter is now irreversible. Whoever posted that is lucky that further action hasn't been taken. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, of course, they're not just my concerns, they're concerns that the WiR channel was being used to make legal claims against Fram. As yet we've yet to see any kind of apology or retraction, just a deletion of an errant tweet. Great work. Please don't make such claims again. They aren't just for fun, they impact people in the real world and last forever. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The Rambling Man please try to AGF and drop the sarcasm. It's not constructive to a dialog. A mistake was made and it was corrected and an apology was made on WP:FRAM. In addition, the project involved (us, obviously) is working to make sure that mistakes like that don't happen again. We definitely welcome constructive criticism, like Tagishsimon points out. It helps us be a better project. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
starship.paint - (a) "I" did not write the guideline; a group of people were involved. I added it to the Women in Red social media space. (b) "Honesty about who we are" refers to "we" (Women in Red) as a collective; not "we" as an individual. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
starship.paint you may have noticed we are a collaborative group who work together to solve content issues. It is not our style to throw people under the bus. There is no need to out anyone as we have already collectively apologized numerous times. A mistake was made, it was corrected and a public apology made. End of story. Please drop the stick. SusunW (talk) 12:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@SusunW: - you have misunderstood me. I do not expect retroactive application of the principles. I expect application of the principles to tweets after the principles were written on 23 June. I do not expect that editor to be outed, but I do not see WiR's current tweets from 24 June being attributed to authors. This is what I'm asking (1) will you now attribute future tweets to editors? Also, you say there are multiple collective apologies. I only saw one [2] by Rosiestep at WP:FRAM. (2) Please show me the others. Thank you. starship.paint (talk)12:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
(ec) I've tried to stay out of this, but the attitude displayed by some in this project to people raising concerns is very troubling. It certainly is not collaborative. The tweet was not a "mistake", it was blatantly "throwing somebody under the bus", and in as public a way as possible. Accusing an editor, on wiki, of crimes will rightly get you blocked. Going off-wiki to do so, then hiding behind a cloak of collectivism is pretty damn low. Then you try to drive off those concerned by that behaviour, now that is not conducive to dialogue. Now if this project is a closed shop, then fine, make that clear - put up a "Keep Out" sign at the top, make it invitation only. DuncanHill (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
People raising concerns is very important, DuncanHill. We have no problem with that, at all! We have already admitted the mistake and have publicly (many times) explained we are working on making sure it never happens again. The offensive words were deleted. Beating a dead horse isn't constructive, nor is sarcasm. Not sure where you're getting the "closed shop" idea. We have a lot of diverse members who don't always agree with one another. Anyone can join and we're glad to hear everyone's perspective. If we don't agree, that doesn't mean we didn't listen. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
My perspective is that the apologies do not come across as sincere, and that there is no regret for the comments, only for getting a reaction that wasn't expected. You say the horse is dead - but in reality you've decided you don't want to discuss it, and the rest of us have to bow to your decision. Not collaborative, not welcoming, not open to all. DuncanHill (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I think there's widespread agreement - unanimity - that the tweet was a mistake. There are probably different views on how egregious a mistake it was. Not a hanging matter, though. There are only so many ways we can say that. And we've been saying it for a fortnight now, but still a group of - well, it must be three people now - who have the stick in their hand and are still waving it around. And here we are, bowing you your wish to continue to discuss it, whilst being criticised for not discussing it. Oh wells. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
If you (the project) had discussed instead of platitudinising, I wouldn't be here. And I think it would be great to drop the violent imagery of beating dead horses and waving sticks around. It doesn't help. DuncanHill (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
But we did discuss it on the Fram page. It was even dropped at Arbcom. You're just not happy with the results. And your tone policing is noted. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I had to look up tone policing. Again, the closed shop. You get to tell people that their tone is wrong - all your comments about sarcasm for example - but someone objects to violent imagery and they get dismissed. That's blatant hypocrisy from you. DuncanHill (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Are you seriously comparing the idiom "flogging a dead horse" to "violent imagery"? An editor you like got thrown off the project, somebody made a mild unnecessary remark about it (and I called them out on it), and it was dealt with. But that's not enough, their pound of flesh must be extracted and natural justice delivered. The perpetrator must be put on public display and given a damn good flogging. Good grief, this is like reading the Daily Mail. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
An editor I really knew very little about, and who didn't appear anywhere on my list of likes or dislikes actually, but I don't suppose facts matter much on Wikipedia anymore. And then someone used the name of a valuable Wikiproject to accuse them of crimes - but hasn't got the decency to own up. Another editor or two then complain about the tone of some of the complaints, and then throw a snidey fit when they get the same treatment. I hope nobody ever treats you the way Fram has been treated by certain editors. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemies - and if you knew anything about the editors I like or dislike you'd know just how incredibly unlikely it was for me to crop up in this specific thread in the way I did. I'm not asking for floggings or under the bussification or pounds of flesh anything like that, just some old-fashioned decency. I've got a hell of a lot more respect for someone prepared to say "I did it, it was wrong of me, I'll not to do it again" than for those putting up the wall of silence. Hell, even "I did it and I have no regrets" would be less objectionable than what we've had so far. It'd be nasty, but at least it'd be honest. My problem is the only way you'd apparently understand would be to treat you in the way you allow others to be treated. I couldn't bring myself to do that in a month of Sundays. DuncanHill (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Can we please make an effort to keep the Fram related bludgeoning in one place, so that those of us with better things to do can promptly ignore it? GMGtalk12:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
It would (and should) never have been here in the first place, if the Wiki-project hadn't even commented on it. We don't even know if this Wiki-project is related to Fram's ban. Which other Wiki-project commented? starship.paint (talk)12:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Passionately not caring seems like a paradox. Anyway, I just noticed the Fram tweets were deleted. A thank you to whoever did that since I don't know. starship.paint (talk)12:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I must say I'm not here for vengeance - if the offending editor does not want to own up, so be it, that reflects on them. What I want to see if WiR have learnt from this. If WiR implements signing tweets with names, and if WiR can simply tell me which of the new principles did the old tweets on Fram violate, then that will be satisfactory for me. If WiR decides that signing tweets with names is not for them, then remove Honesty about who we are. starship.paint (talk)13:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
This is a very strange way to approach things, Starship.paint. You are demanding from the outside of a group to dictate the way a project works? Isn't this why so many people are upset at WMF interfering with the Fram ban? If you are concerned about our social media policy, I would get involved with WIR and make some constructive suggestions. We need a diversity of viewpoints so that we are not operating inside of a bubble.
I work for a city government as a librarian. We have a social media presence and a few people post the social media for the whole library. They do not sign their tweets with their names. As far as I know, that's a standard practice. I've only seen signed tweets a few times with politician's Twitter accounts. So I don't really think signing tweets, etc is necessary. It would eat up characters. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
They would identify the perp(s) and deal with them internally. They'd accept corporate responsibility for the damage. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
On one hand, we have Tagishsimon (and you, Megalibrarygirl) asking for constructive suggestions. On the other hand, you object that I shouldn't be dictating, because I'm an outsider - that seems like a very insular attitude. But since you have invited me, okay, I'll take it up, I've clicked join. So, onto the issue at hand. If you are concerned about characters, simple: use code-names of two letters like AZ, RD, 7G, J3. That's a total of 3 characters, including 1 space. Leave the codename identification on Wikipedia. If you refuse to identify authors of tweets, the next time this happens again, when inappropriate tweets are sent out again from your Twitter account, the next offender will again have no public accountability to en.wiki. starship.paint (talk)14:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Being constructive, Starship.paint means getting involved. It means going to the social media page and engaging in a discussion on the talkpage. Make sure you ping people who would be interested in the discussion so we can all work together collaboratively. I've already invited you to get involved. I would ask that you make your contributions on the social media page that SusunW linked above. We can all discuss and !vote. I look forward to you getting more involved with Women in Red. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Well okay, I will take it there, Megalibrarygirl. I discussed it here because this was listed as one appropriate venue by Tagishsimon: Any constructive suggestions can be made here. Now, before a ping a whole bunch of people who were previously involved, would you want me to ping non-members? starship.paint (talk)14:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: I'd ping anyone you think may be able to provide a constructive discussion especially if they have professional social media skills. That would be very cool. But you don't want to spam people either or be seen as canvassing, either I guess. I suggested pinging because that's the only way I notice anything usually. I'm very ADHD. You don't have to ping anyone necessarily. It just helps let people know that a discussion is going on. I'm glad you're getting involved. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I’m a member of this project, and I don’t know who or how many project members manage our social media. I don’t really care, as long as it’s managed responsibly. I’ve worked with the editors most involved with this project and AFAICR found literally all to be well-intentioned, responsible, and competent. I suspect this is being treated as a very important issue, and I think we should give those who are working on it a chance to pound out a detailed proposal. --valereee (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I need to point out that the tweet was taken to arbcom, the highest disciplinary body on wikipedia afaik, and they declined to hear the complaint. Assertions that there has been no public accountability are bogus. What you mean is that you have not been able to hang a named individual out to dry. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Editor X has made a mistake related to en.wiki. Only some people in this project know that Editor X made such a mistake. The public does not know which editor made such a mistake. Were Editor X to make further mistakes, the public does not know that Editor X has a historical mistake. So, there is no public accountability on this point. starship.paint (talk)14:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Is starship.paint still going on and on and on and on, weeks later, about someone expressing an opinion counter to theirs on the Fram controversy on social media? Isn't this the very definition of tendentious editing? Someone make them stop. Hang them out to dry. Block them for not being here to improve the encyclopedia and for (ineffectively) attempting to make this a hostile place for female-centered editing. Make a public example of their bad editing behavior. Anything to make this tedium stop. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry Starship. Public accountability does not mean naming the individual responsible. It means - in this case - that the project takes responsibility for the actions of its twitter account, as it did in this instance. If the project decides it wants to externalise identities, then we'll change the way we operate. There does not seem to be a great appetite for it right now. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
At this point, I think this discussion has reached a conclusion. The issue has been raised, addressed, and the situation that gave rise to the concern has been addressed as much as can be. Further debate is pointless, and I will close this thread. Montanabw(talk)18:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Membership and WiR development
Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion
At present, WiR has 360 active registered members and some 420 inactive members. Strangely, some of those who have recently had the most influence on our activities and web presence are not members. These include Tagishsimon, who is nevertheless on our mailing list, and Ritchie333. Quite a few others remain members but have deleted their names from our mailing lists, either because they are no longer very active or simply because they don't want to receive our monthly messages.
All that may seem quite an achievement, especially if you look at our stats which show a total of 18,837 articles since 2015 have been included in the Category:WikiProject Women in Red. To put this in context, I have however been looking quite carefully at the membership of other active WikiProjects. For example, WP Football (695 members listed) currently has 349,740 articles, WP Video games (members not listed) 79,344 articles, WP Military History (1,477 members, most no longer active) 58,671 articles and WP Medicine (736 members, most no longer active) 45,464 articles. We can of course cite the overaall total of 291,649 biographies of women on the EN encyclopaedia but most of these were created outside WiR.
I bring all this up because for over a week now, we have had no new members. This is quite unusual as we usually have three or four a week, sometimes at least one a day. I'm not too sure why this is the case and am looking for ways and means of improving the situation. After all, if our membership diminishes, we are unlikely to be able to make serious progress on reducing the gender gap. I have therefore been wondering if we can make it easier to monitor lists of new/recent registrations on the EN Wikipedia in order to identify contributors we could encourage to become members of WiR. We could perhaps do more to encourage those organizing editathons, educational initiatives and general presentations on Wikipedia to include a word about Women in Red. They should stress the need for wider participation, especially on the part of women. I look forward to any other suggestions on how to encourage more members. Maybe our sporting priority in July and August could also offer opportunities.--Ipigott (talk) 12:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry too much about this frankly. The project (as shown by this page, social media followers etc) has arguably been the most active on WP for some time. Wikiprojects generally are out of fashion these days, and the supposed "memberships" mean very little indeed for those that have been set up for 10 or 15+ years, like the others you mention. Since there has been a relentless focus on gender gap issues and women's biographies in "editathons, educational initiatives and general presentations on Wikipedia" for many years, and WiR does I think typically get a mention, there may not be much extra that can be done in that direction. The academic timetable and (northern) summer weather often slow things down around this time of year. (non-member) Johnbod (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Johnbod: Thanks for your encouragement but from here you can see that for the same period last year we had at least 11 new members. Without mentioning specific events and press articles, I can assure you that despite our efforts, quite a number of meetups focusing on women have not been very successful in mentioning Women in Red and encouraging membership. This is understandable as it is not easy to organize an event and the top priority often seems to be devoted to introducing newcomers to the basics of Wikipedia editing, although there are of course notable exceptions. Maybe we could put together a brief folder which could be printed out and physically distribubted to those attending editathons and educational sessions. I have a feeling that new recruits are often overwhelmed with all the links they find on their talk pages: the welcome template, the Teahouse, and the educational assignments they are embarking on. Victuallers may be interested in something along these lines.--Ipigott (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I haven't signed up to Women in Red because I don't generally write articles about women - that's it in a nutshell. There's the odd exception like Nickey Barclay and Shubulade Smith, but they're generally one-offs. Of course, I encourage those who do, which is why I've turned up asking for help here a few times. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
If WiR has 360 active members then it should count its blessings. I don't formally join many projects, myself, because I'm not keen on bureaucracy. WiR was one of the few exceptions but I still prefer to focus on content rather than the extra bells and whistles of project activity. But the good news is that there are still lots of new women editors showing up at relevant events. For example, yesterday I attended an event which was well-attended by women and about half of the editors were new. I'm not sure if WiR got a mention but there was lots to cover in just a few hours. Here's a list of accounts FYI. Perhaps someone could send them an invitation...
Thanks Andrew Davidson: You're doing a great job! Several of these appear to be seasoned Wikipedians but I'll check them all out tomorrow and try to contact the newcomers who already have an editing history.--Ipigott (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you, Johnbod. That said, I'll be participating in a wikiproject-centered research symposium in August and I assume recruiting editors will be a topic. If that's the case, I'll report back once I'm home. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
From the above, it certainly does look as if some of our most active participants are not actually members of WiR. So maybe membership is no longer seen to be so important. Let's see how things develop over the next couple of months. I've contacted a few of the users suggested by Andrew Davidson but as usual most of them have not been active since the editathon. I certainly agree with Johnbod that many of the older WikiProjects no longer have as many active members as WiR. They do, nevertheless, continue to create many new articles, especially those covering sports. I look forward to Rosiestep's feedback on the August research symposium. Sounds interesting. Is there an agenda?--Ipigott (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: After some trial and error I got it to work, you can see what I changed/added here: diff. Now I would like to say that this should work for every page, but I think there are quite a few variations of code used on the WIR list so it might not work for all in the same way. But If you find another one that won't work feel free to ask again. May I also suggest that this will increase the page size making page loading times longer, which I raised some issues on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 59#Max page limit/size/entries of redlink list_pages. Redalert2fan (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Redalert2fan. I recognize that adding the number of site links increases page size, but I think its impact outweighs the downside. For example, until you fixed the issue with # of site links, Swiss writer Ilma Rakusa was not on my radar. But now that I can see that she has 9 site links but no en-wiki article, it's like a flashing light that says, "pick me next, pick me next". --Rosiestep (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
It is already on a plurality of the by occupation redlists, all (?) the by country redlists, and assorted others. But not yet 100% done, Redalert2fan. Please, dig in. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Another suggestion: It would be brilliant if the Wikidata-generated redlists included a column showing which other Wikipedias already have articles on the person (and the entries might as well be links to those articles). If there's a French or German article, and to a lesser extent other wikis, I know there are likely to be some sources I can use in creating an English article. PamD08:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Rosiestep: I find the site links very useful too but I am not very sure how they are calculated. If we take Marie-Béatrice de Baye, for example, three site links are listed but there is only one article (in French). As for PamD's point, once a significant number of site links has been found, it's not too difficult to click on the Q number and see which languages have an article. In most cases, with indications of nationality, etc., you can guess which languages are likely to be covered. For our upcoming focus on sports, it would be good to have sitelinks on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Sportswomen as well as on all those listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Redlist_index#Individual_sports. Same for Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Educators. Redalert2fan: Do you think you could take care of these before we lauch our next round of virtual editathons on 1 July? If they all suffer from the same problem, you could perhaps let me know how to alter the Wikidata code and I'll try to take care of things myself. Thanks for your efforts so far.--Ipigott (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
That maybe can be done - here's an example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Archivist linked. Two possible issues are 1) items with tens of sitelinks will have very busy 'linked to' boxes (although we could mitigate that, maybe, by selecting a subset of langauges of interest, albeit at risk of brickbats for so-doing) and 2) the possibility that it causes queries for some of our larger pages to time-out (Rosie's Laureates query, above, is on the cusp of being unrunnable for that reason). And there is also the third issue rightly flagged by Redalert2fan of the increase in page size.
On that last subject, quick anecdote. I'm UK, very rural. Used to have only internet via satellite which was *hugely* expensive & metered. Every byte was precious because so costly. So I have lots of sympathy for others in my position. (Now have fibre to the premises, so yay me!). With that preamble, adding number of sitelinks per Rosie's request added 2.7% to the page size, iirc - neither here nor there. Adding links to articles as I've just done in this example adds ~14% to the size (at least for the set of 500 archivists, which may not be representative.) The main tradeoff will not be the addition of number of links nor links to articles, but number of rows in the report vs. size of the page vs. comprehensiveness of the report.
So, discuss. With the above considerations, can be done. Equally, the point of providing, in WD redlists, the link to the wikidata item, is to allow users to click on it to see what the sitelinks are by examining the wikidata record. Obviously that only works if users are sufficiently familiar to know that that is an option. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ipigott Marie-Béatrice de Baye has 3 sitelinks; 1 to fr wiki, 1 to fr wikisource and 1 to commons. If you look at the wikidata item the sitelinks parameter takes all of the pages in the right column. For the second question I can do that over the week, I already spotted some variations that might need some trial and error but that's no problem for me.
I must mention to everyone that an increasing size list does not only increase page loading time due to internet connection problems, but may also cause increased loading times on: mobile devices, devices with a slower or older CPU and devices with insufficient (low) amounts of RAM. Apart from the fact that wasting bytes in general is not the best practice to do. Overtime the more wikidata gets filled in or people get added there the more list will grow here. Noting Tagishsimon points about how much the page size increases personally I feel like an increase of 5% for adding # of sitelinks is acceptable since it does help achieve the projects goals in a quicker way, but more than that might have a negative result, if page loading times get too long or don't work at all people might just "leave" which does not seem like a thing we want.
There are a few limits working with listeriabot;
A max limit of 8000 entries (pages). Anything above this and your new list will not get populated. If the list had 7999 items before and should have 8001 items now it will no longer get updated, this includes items already present on the page
A variable limit on page loading times; i.e. can a user load the page at all or does it take a long time, this is purely based on page size, last time around I figured out that as a arbitrary rule we probably should not go above 500.000 bytes at all, but anything above 200.000 will cause load times to be noticeable although bearable. This "variable limit" is cause by number of entries and number of parameters. Note that "blank" boxes also take up data.
A set limit, using the LIMIT XXXX parameter in the query. A lower number will not show every item (person) that is available, but will reduce page size by this or allow you to add more parameters.
So with all of this what could we do? It might be an idea to limit the amount of entries on a per page basis which I proposed last time. We could remove parameters from queries but this does not seem preferable.
My suggestion would be to remove the # at the start of the list which apart from saying how many items there are on the list which has no use if it is limited to X amount anyways and does not provide any meaningful info about the person and then add the number of sitelinks as request by Rosiestep. While PamD's proposal would make work easier I think in this case due to the technical limitations we should not add that and instead users should click on the Q item and look on wikidata to as which language wikis already have a page. If this is unclear or difficult to do we can always write a guide/explanation to clear things up.
As a final suggestion if you are fine with long loading times or enormous list you can always create a sub page in your userpace, just copy the WIR list over and change the parameters to your liking! Thanks, Redalert2fan (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
It's probably worth noting, Redalert2fan, that to the extent that there is a state of the art in the sparql & listeria for redlists, it's that found in the more recently edited by occupation lists such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Archivist where such matters as introduction of # of sitelinks and removal of the column 1 # have already been implemented. Other noteworthy features in that model are the listeria parameters thumb=40, autolist=fallback and summary=itemnumber. (And we should remove the optional from around ?item wikibase:sitelinks ?linkcount . since all items have a wikibase:sitelinks.) It would be ideal if we could coalesce on a settled house style for lists - e.g. variable naming, format of the values statement. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea to have a prefered style both from the perspective of what users want, and what to include for technical purposes. Might be an idea to start a new section about what people want on the list. It seems that at bare minimum we need name, wikidata item and number of sitelinks per this request. With highly preferable also image, description and DOB. Occupation and nationality for lists that are not specific towards both of those. What do autolist=fallback and summary=itemnumber do in relation to the load times? Redalert2fan (talk) 11:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
autolist=fallback generates a description from the item's statements if an item lacks an en description, so it increases the page size & presumably the rendering time somewhat, but, equally, provides a basic description. summary=itemnumber provides a count of items at the foot of the table and is of negligible consequence for page size & load time.
I'll mention, too, that the reason that the 'state of the art' sparql hasn't fully been rolled out (apart from lazyness) is that the set of occupation VALUES needs to be revisited on a redlist by redlist basis ... they're often partial and incomplete and worthy of revision. Sadly using wdt:P106/wdt:P279*, even with gearing queryhints, often causes a timeout, so generating a list of the subclasses of an occupation class seems to be the way to go. It all takes time. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I now realise that "Site links" number more or less does what I needed: rather than read the notes at the top of the page I had misinterpreted this to mean "incoming red links on en.wiki" and the one or two women I'd clicked on to check had coincidentally had the right number of "what links here" links! A high number of "site links" makes it likely that there's an existing article with sources to use, and nationality of the subject will hint at which wikis are likely to have articles (though with a pretty low correlation). So, as I now understand it, my request above is a bit of a luxury, though still useful.
As size of the table is important... do we need the places of birth and death? Does anyone use them in deciding who to write about? Could we drop those without inconveniencing anyone? PamD11:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes the higher the number the more pages on other language wikis there are! (note may also include things like commons and wikisource etc.) For what to include it might be a good idea to open a new section to what to include in the list as Tagishsimon and I are thinking about above. --Redalert2fan (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Redalert2fan: Thanks for all your explanations. As Tagishsimon has indeed been improving these redlink lists and has, I think, a good appreciation of what we would like to see, perhaps he could update the ones we are interested in for July, i.e. all those to do with sports and educators. If there is a straightforward way of updating all the others without too much trouble, then I think that would be useful too. Several of us have commented on the usefulness of the sitelink column. (Apologies for the Richmond: must have been confusing you with Ritchie333.)--Ipigott (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I'll add the sitelinks column to July requested pages and do some patch up fixes as suggested above, for the rest I have to also leave it up to Tagishsimon who can indeed provide a more permanent and better improvement. It seems listeriabot is a bit overloaded with the pages requested above at the moment so not sure how long it will take, I can't get the pages to update to check my changes. --Redalert2fan (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
@Redalert2fan and Tagishsimon: I think it's a very good idea to "standardize" the code behind the lists, the order that columns appear, etc. Thank you in advance for efforts to support this. Regarding standardization, I'd favor decreasing the photo size to just 30px. It would take up less space on the page and all we need it for is to ascertain if the Wikidata item has a photo or not. I'm clueless if there would be a side benefit of quicker loading time or some such, but if so, that's an even more important reason for decreasing the image size. I agree with what's been said above regarding removing the column for number of entries on the list. PamD regarding the columns for Place of birth and Place of death, personally, I find them to be helpful. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ipigott: I have finished adding the sitelinks column to all the pages you requested above. If I missed any or there are more to be completed for this month please post them below and I'll try to do them ASAP. @Rosiestep: I changed the image size to 40px, per what Tagishsimon used for his recent lists.
All changes made where: removed the number column, added the sitelinks column, changed image size from none or 120px to 40px, Added a fixed limit of 5000 to all pages and on pages with loading difficulties reduced it to a lower number, removed "OPTIONAL" from ?item wikibase:sitelinks ?linkcount . since it is not needed, added |autolist=fallback and |summary=itemnumber to list that did not have them yet and removed some parameters from the queries that where not needed. I think that should be all, if any of the list do not work any more send me a ping. I hope this will help to make it easier for everyone to find someone to work on next month! Redalert2fan (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
This is exactly what we wanted, Redalert2fan. I've checked a few of them out and they look great. We really appreciate the time and trouble you have spent on getting them all right. Let's hope our participants now make good use of them.--Ipigott (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikidata linking ... and mistaken identity?
I had a quick look at the Malta redlist for next month, was curious about the mononymous Jodie and Mary ... and found that they are Jodie and Mary (existing redirect to Re A (conjoined twins), the law suit about separating them). I've now made new redirects Jodie (conjoined twin) and Mary (conjoined twin) to add to the given name pages. How do we fix the red links Jodie (Q40756932) and Mary (Q40756947) in the Wikidata list? I think this or similar has been explained before but am still baffled, especially here where we're wanting them to be identified with redirects rather than articles!
It's complicated by the fact that, according to our article, Jodie/Gracie is the one who survived (born 2000) and Mary/Rosie died (2000-2000), while Wikidata says the other way round! The Guardiansupports our article: "Jodie - whose real name, Gracie, was disclosed after the operation - is living with her parents on their native island ... Rose - Mary's real name - is buried on the island.", though of course even the Grauniad has been known to get things wrong!
The one existing Wikipedia article, in Finnish, identifies Jodi as Rose and surviving, and Mary as Grace and dying (Google translate seems quite clear on this), though none of their three sources (all English and published before the operation) mentions the names Ros(i)e or Grac(i)e at all. Does that mean that Wikidata picked up the unsourced misinformation from Finnish wikipedia? Can anyone here write Finnish and add an appropriate note to the talk page there, or even edit the article?
Sadly, as I understand it Wikidata does not allow its entries to point to redirects. So if the decision here is that they should be conjoined in a single article (which seems correct to me), then I think there is no way to un-red-link them in the Wikidata listing nor to use Wikidata to make other-language links to Wikipedias that decide to keep them separate. You can still use explicit other-language links within the article (just put [[two-letter-code:Article title]] at the bottom of the article) but that won't help for the WIR redlink lists. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
(EC) I've removed the pair from the redlist (but not touched the wikidata items.) In essence, in such cases, the redlinks need to be removed by hacking the page's SPARQL to identify by number the items that are not wanted. Bar the confusion over which of them lived and which died, the four wikidata items concerning them are all fine (2 items covering the 2 individuals, 1 item for the pair and 1 item for the court case). --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
And agree with David that if we want to link the en.wiki court case article to the Finnish article, that needs to be done by hand in the manner he suggests. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
The Finnish doesn't say one way or another which one is which, though it would likely be inferred by the order that Jodie=Rose and Mary=Grace:
Jodie and Mary were the pseudonyms used for the Maltese Siamese twins Rose and Grace Attard (b. August 8 2000) who were born in Britain. ...but only Jodie had functioning lungs and a heart. ... Jodie and Mary's case ... even though it was understood that this would directly lead to Mary's death. ... Without being separated from each other, both would have died, as Jodie was the stronger of the two and her body (lit. physiological functions) was keeping both of them alive, but keeping Mary alive was putting too much strain on her body. They were separated on November 7, 2000. Mary died almost immediately and Jodie survived.
(sorry for the raw translation of the parts that mention the girls; it's almost 3 a.m. here. The Finnish could be corrected by just swapping the names to make it parallel. -Yupik (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Photos link on the main WiR page
Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion
I'm a bit confused by this link on the main WiR page. Would it not be more useful to link to a Wikipedia page which explains how WiR is supporting the addition of images (not just photos) to the encyclopedia? As Victuallers and SusunW have discovered, we have also needed to be active in adding images not just to Commons but also to Wikipedia itself. I seem to remember we are supporting some other images project but I cannot remember its name. Perhaps Rosiestep can explain our role here and how we are progressing. Any other views on this?--Ipigott (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Ipigott, I'm not the expert with images, but from my point of view, all images within the scope of our project are welcome. Sometimes I write an article and have to search for images, and after finding them, and uploading them to WikiCommons (I've never uploaded a Fair Use image into Wikipedia), I add them to the article. Other times, when I create an article, I luck out as there's already an image of Jane Doe in WikiCommons. As we are an international community, this process applies to all the language wikis where people are writing articles within the scope of WiR. Regarding an essay on "how WiR is supporting the addition of images (not just photos) to the encyclopedia", that would be great if someone has the time and inclination to start it. Regarding the image campaign, it was called #visiblewikiwomen; as it's valid even after the campaign ended, some of us still use that hashtag when tweeting from the WiR account or our personal accounts. I'm adding a few others to this convo who have image expertise: Adam Cuerden (Featured images), Penny Richards (Pinterest images), and @Ser Amantio di Nicolao and Victuallers (Flickr and YouTube images). A friendly reminder that if we upload an image into WikiCommons, and there's no Wikipedia article for that woman, but there's a Wikidata items, please add the image to the Wikidata item, so that it appears in Wir's Wikidata-generated redlists. Too bad we don't currently have a Women in Red "Images Expert in Residence"; any volunteers? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Rosiestep: It would help to include an introduction/explanation to commons category WikiProject_Women_in_Red. It's rather confusing at the moment as the same master category is used for various types of image covered by the subcategories. I think what you are trying to encourage from the main WiR page is the inclusion of images in biographies and other articles about women rather than images to illustrate the WiR project itself. Maybe it would be more logical to link to Category:Media supported by WikiProject Women in Red with an explanation there?--Ipigott (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Ipigott, if you think an explanation page would make for a better link, ok by me. This reminds me of the issue which came up 2 weeks ago in other parts of en-wiki regarding WiR not having a social media guideline, so with the assistance of others, this was created, and I uploaded it. The point is, if you think we need clarification of something, go for it -by yourself or with others- and thanks for noticing that it needs clarification. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Rosiestep: When I create new categories about people on Commons, I always include a short explanation as I have found such summaries very useful when researching similar categories myself. Over the next few days, I'll add something to the various WiR categories and subcategories. If we are to write an essay or a guideline on images, then I certainly think Adam Cuerden and Victuallers should lead the way.--Ipigott (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden is the expert editor and is in my mind the de facto WiR image expert in residence. He has created a sizable number of featured-pictures of women that have featured on the main page and in "our" articles. He has written up his work here which I always find intriguing. I (only) have some experience in finding images and trying to remember the routes that are available for older images to be seen as PD. "My" guides to this are described here. Adam lives near me and we have been trying to get him to give a masterclass at WiR's monthly meets in Edinburgh. I am running a nagging campaign (on Twitter) to try and get organisations like universities to stop using "all rights reserved" and lauding ppl like Harvard Archives and the UK Royal Society who are finding ways to help us. Our biggest problem is Wikimedia Commons who have some very enthusiastic gate keepers who admit that they delete selfies from newbies despite not having any evidence to support their lack of faith. (This requires a lot of effort to change). Getting organisations to change the "all rights reserved" rules seems to me the easiest? but slow route. I'd much rather see a guide here. I'm not a fan of policies but an agreed ambition that WiR will encourage organisations to use cc-by-sa as default policies would be useful. Conversations I have had with Professors at universities is that there is a lot of inertia to changing this. Wikipedia is the only obvious beneficiary as every one else ignores the letter of copyright law. We could do with a lawyer who would tease out the legalities of this IMO and either get the Wiki to be more realistic or start a test case to highlight the illegality that copyright owners turn a blind eye to. Routine copyfraud is used by most orgs to protect their images. A lawyer may find a route. Victuallers (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Victuallers: Thanks for your suggestions and also for all the useful work you have been doing on images. I fully agree that more pressure should be put on universities and libraries to use cc-by-sa as far as possible and at least remove "copyright restrictions" from images that are obviously PD. One other problem I have encountered is that it appears to be increasingly difficult to find pictures of living people which can be transferred to Commons. A few years ago, lots of amateur photographers uploaded their photos on Flickr with a Creative Commons tag but this no longer appears to be the case. Instead millions and millions of new photos are posted on social media and related sites with no indication of copyright. I am pretty certain that most of these photographers would be happy to see their work used on Wikipedia but are simply not aware of the copyright problems they are creating. Is there anything we can do to sort this out?--Ipigott (talk) 09:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd be happy to write a page, but it's somewhat hard to write as someone who's been doing it a while without knowing what questions people would like to know. If people want to tell me what they don't know about images, I'll happily link them to what I know. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs17:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden, here's something I don't know: sometimes I go to commons and my crop tool doesn't appear, like at this image. Is it because it's a tif, and is there anything I can do about it? --valereee (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: I believe yes, TIFFs are kind of harder to deal with than JPEGs or PNGs. The easiest thing - maybe not the BEST option, but easy - do you see right under the image where it says [may vary slightly depending on your settings]: "Size of this JPG preview of this TIF file: 1,280 × 854 pixels. Other resolutions: 320 × 214 pixels | 640 × 427 pixels | 800 × 534 pixels | 1,024 × 683 pixels | 7,360 × 4,912 pixels."?
That last link is the same as the dimensions of the TIFF, but is a JPEG. You can right click on it, download the JPEG, upload it under a suitable file name, noting it's a derivative of that file, but otherwise copying the information template over. Then crop THAT. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs17:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi all
I've started an article on Marshae Jones, I would really appreciate it if people could take a look at it, there's a huge amount to write about her and her case and lots of references. I think it also needs someone with an understanding of the US justice system and reproductive rights to take a look.
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Just knocked this together kind of quickly - I discovered her work in Tbilisi last week and fell in love. There's a lot to expand, and I have a copy of the 2016 monograph in my suitcase, but I leave here tomorrow and will likely be back on wifi for the rest of the trip. Would like another pair of eyes or two to check over it and make sure I didn't miss anything in my haste. (FYI: 1894 seems to be the correct date of her birth, not 1892 as one source has it; the later date is what I get from the museum label that I have photographed on my phone as well.) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa.18:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Invalid time error
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I hazard a guess that's a snafu in Template:WIR-126, in which the date parameter has a value 'July and August 2019' in a situation in which some part of the plumbing can only cope with more regular dates having formats such as 1 August 2019, August 2019 or 2019. But quite how the borked category is generated from the date parameter eludes me, even supposing that that's what is going on. Anyway; good spot. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks MrLinkinPark333. I've got rid of the errors by editing the template to July. I'll change it to August when the time comes. Obviously two months was too much for Wikipedia to swallow in one go!--Ipigott (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
I offered to start off the biography of Wen Shu as part of the Women in Space theme for June. I've got a fair way in my user pages, and have a final source coming from a library. You can see my draft here. So I think, with a bit of extra work on the text itself, it can pass the notability criteria. There are some bits I'm stuck on though, and I've been noting them in the related talk page. For example, I wouldn't dream of attempting the naming conventions for Chinese biographies. And I'm not sure how to safely source images. What do people recommend I focus on next? And should I move it into review now, or can you edit when it is a user page? I'm hoping @Johnbod can help me move this into live space!
Moira Paul (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I think it passes notability as it is, and can just be moved now (I can do it if you prefer). I did look at the sources I have handy, but haven't found anything to add. 2D images are fine to upload from museums etc as she's long out of copyright. I'll add at the talk. Johnbod (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Other than dealing with the tbc in the infobox, the only nice-to-have I spot would be a ref for the legacy section. Johnbod's right - she is notable and the article can be promoted to mainspace now (or, at least, when the infobox stuff is sorted out, and any unused infobox or section headers are removed). Lovely short article, Moira; thank you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
As usual, the Catalan article seems to be just a translation of the French one. As for WD, is "Ming dynasty" a "country of citizenship"? Johnbod (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I spend most of my time nowadays despairing of wikipedia & wikidata. Ming now gone. Today's best doh! was a wikidata claim that the narrative location of the film Casablanca was Paris (diff). Kill me now. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Indeed! For me, I think that makes it over 10 for "last WD items looked at without not finding a mistake" - and counting. Thanks for fixing. Johnbod (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you all! I’ve realised I should add her Venusian moon crater as part of her Legacy too. Will make an edit tonight. Moira Paul (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I'm working on filling in a few redlinks in the para swimming topic, and I'm looking at Irish swimmer Nicole Turner.[1] I just want to check on notability before I start. The SNG for sports under Olympic and Paralympic Games says winning a medal at the Paralympics is enough, but she hasn't done that though she has competed. But under Basic criteria it approves an athlete who has "for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level." Turner won 2 silver medals and one bronze at the 2016 IPC Swimming European Open Championships[2] and has recently won a gold in the Youth section of the World Para Swimming Series.[3] Both of those are competitions at the highest level of para swimming, though the world gold is only at Youth level so won't really count. As for GNG, there's a report on her European medals in the Irish Times[4] and more in-depth articles about her from RTE[5] and the Irish Independent.[6] There's also an earlier article about her in Balls.ie.[7] The Irish Times, RTE and Irish Independent all seem like reliable sources to me (though I confess I'd never heard of Balls.ie). So, notability, what do you think? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for those links, especially the paralympic.org one which is good. There's also a second paywall one at leinsterexpress.ie,[8] and I might just invest 99c for a day's access to get both. I think there's enough for GNG, but I'll wait a short while for any other opinions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Yupik. I was aware Marc was making the presentation, but it's nice to see how it plays out. I played around with the women's lists a little but found it hard to evaluate without the context of their era. It seems that the criteria for inclusion is number of edits and views, which would typically skew toward recentism, i.e. ignoring historic figures in favor of current popular figures. Maybe there is a way to generate lists by era that I don't see to prevent that outcome? I will ask Marc my specific questions, but am very glad to see initiatives that help us address gaps in the coverage in en.WP of notable figures in other wikis. SusunW (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I haven't had a chance to talk with him about that and am not sure I will get the chance before the end of the conference, so please let us know what he says when you do! -Yupik (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
,_Birgitte_C.png)
--Rosiestep (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
