UK academic’s Wikipedia project raises profile of women around the world

[rnu]

Guardian: UK academic’s Wikipedia project raises profile of women around the world

A UK academic who has completed a project creating a Wikipedia page for a woman in every country in the world is calling for more women to contribute to the world’s largest encyclopedia.
Lucy Moore, an archaeologist and curator who also works as an unpaid carer, began the mammoth project in 2021 from her sofa in Leeds, completing it last week – “unsurprisingly, perhaps, I got really stuck on Vatican City”.
She has now written biographies of 532 women since 2019, when she first became a Wikipedia editor, including scientists, monarchs, activists, writers and women whose faces are well known but their stories are not, such as Sharbat Gula, the refugee with striking green eyes pictured in the famous Afghan Girl portrait from 1984.

Lajmmoore (T-C-L)

[Kraken]

I'm dying to know if, when she started (presumably at Afghanistan), if she overlooked Fatima Yousufi (T-H-L) because she already technically has a Wikipedia "biography", or she hates football, or she hates men who love football, or she hadn't been on the cover of an international magazine for her looks, or because of Wikipedia sourcing requirements, or media bias, or global south bias, or the Taliban, or she just literally didn't know this woman existed.

Because why would a feminist have ever even heard of her as they hunted around for women of Afghanistan needing their stories told on Wikipedia? That's just crazy talk......

Fatima Yousufi, captain of Afghanistan's women's national football team, spoke exclusively at the Forbes Australia Women's Summit about the huge traumas suffered by her team when the Taliban took over Afghanistan in 2021 and their subsequent rescue and relocation to Australia.

[Midsize Jake]

...or she just literally didn't know this woman existed.

I'm not saying Ms. Moore is a stellar article-writer or anything, nor am I necessarily saying you should stop looking. But if she really was going in alphabetical order and started in 2019, then there's basically no way she would have known of Ms. Yousufi's existence — it looks like there are no sources on her from before 2022, at least in English.

I should add that the most famous Afghan-born female footballer, by far, is Nadia Nadim (T-H-L), someone I and many other guys have been secretly (or maybe not so secretly) in love with for years. But her article was started back in 2012, so she wouldn't have been eligible either.

[Giraffe Stapler]

The reaction to her project has been positive, she said. “No one’s said anything nasty on Twitter, though I expect that will come.”

Moore points to the work of her fellow editor Jess Wade, who wrote a number of Wikipedia pages about female scientists, “and then another editor came along and nominated them all for deletion. It was really nasty.”

she hates men

[Kraken]

...or she just literally didn't know this woman existed.

I'm not saying Ms. Moore is a stellar article-writer or anything, nor am I necessarily saying you should stop looking. But if she really was going in alphabetical order and started in 2019, then there's basically no way she would have known of Ms. Yousufi's existence — it looks like there are no sources on her from before 2022, at least in English.

She obviously existed......

Fatima Yousufi, captain and goalkeeper for the Afghanistan women’s soccer team since 2017

My point was, had Moore considered she exists (and decided not to pick her for Afghanistan because of the lack of sources, for example).

[Midsize Jake]

My point was, had Moore considered she exists (and decided not to pick her for Afghanistan because of the lack of sources, for example).

And I'm not saying it's a bad point, or wouldn't be if the timing didn't make it so. Nor am I accusing you of reflexively denigrating women who write Wikipedia articles about other women, despite a certain amount of evidence to that effect. I'm just saying we shouldn't forget that the Taliban retook control of Afghanistan in August 2021, and although the Afghan Women's National Team was disbanded almost immediately, it took a few months for the players who managed to get out of the country to find other places to play (and most of them didn't).

Hardly anyone outside of Afghanistan itself would have heard of any of those players prior to all that happening, they wouldn't have been even close to "notable" by Wikipedia standards, and they might still not know anything about them if it hadn't been for already-"notable" people like Nadia Nadim pointing out their dire and troubling situation(s) to sports journalists a few months after that, well into 2022. (Note that Nadia is not just a pro soccer player, but also an M.D. who speaks 9 languages and probably writes super-clever historical mystery novels too, for all I know.)

You definitely know that in the past I've tended to agree with you, more than many others here, about Jess Wade's sub-par article-writing skills (especially given her misguided "one-article-per-day" objective) as well as her sometimes dubious choice of subjects. Since this is obviously a similar situation, it seems like you'd look more reasonable and thoughtful if you didn't start out by appearing to immediately assume Ms. Moore is equally bad at those things. Maybe that's not what you're doing, but it does look that way.

[DanMurphy]

Reading the headline and nothing else two words come to mind: Does it?

[Kraken]

My point was, had Moore considered she exists (and decided not to pick her for Afghanistan because of the lack of sources, for example).

I think you're confusing a lot of unrelated things.

My mind immediately went to football precisely because football obsessed men aren't as stupid or sexist, low class or uneducated, as she seems to think we are.

I can't speak to what you people in the US were being told, but over here we knew the Afghan women's team existed before and after the fall. It was a big deal. It ties in directly to the rise of woman's football here.

So I'm just asking the question of Moore, perhaps pointlessly, since she seems to want to force her opinions on me about what I should be doing and thinking.

Did she know they existed, and if so, out of the many possible reasons (and I guarantee I probably know more about that than she does), why did she choose the already internationally recognized NatGeo girl for her candidate for Afghanistan in this project, over a footballer?

Nadim is a refugee. She came to football in Denmark. She represents Denmark. As good as it is, that's not the story of the current Afghan women's team. There's a short window to capture those stories before they too are not coming to football in Afghanistan, but their adopted home in exile.

I offered many possible reasons. The meanest, she "hates men who love football" is a fair reading of the words she has given the Guardian. Love of football by men is literally the only reason why "research from 2022 that found there were more Wikipedia entries about football and footballers than there were about women."

She hates because others love, it's as simple as that. I'll tell her that's not feminism all day long, and I care not if she doesn't want to hear it. It's a fact. She's going to have an absolute fit when she realizes the first thing the rise of women's football is going to do, is add even more football articles to Wikipedia. Those poor overlooked Namibian numismatists and Paraguayan poets.

The whole thing is pretty patronizing to a clear growth opportunity for Wikipedia - girls who are growing up exposed to and loving football because they can empathize with the stories. They read that article, they're going to assume they're not wanted. They lack the required interests. The necessary commitment to what women are interested in, when they can get a spare minute away from the kids or the laundry. Sheesh.

[Giraffe Stapler]

I offered many possible reasons. The meanest, she "hates men who love football" is a fair reading of the words she has given the Guardian. Love of football by men is literally the only reason why "research from 2022 that found there were more Wikipedia entries about football and footballers than there were about women."

Let's recap what Moore said in that Guardian interview about her feelings toward men who like football:

...

Moore said nothing about men who like football, just that there more entries about football and footballers than there were about women. She didn't say there should be fewer articles about football.

She hates because others love, it's as simple as that.

That may be what the voices in your head tell you, but Moore neither said nor implied that.

I'll tell her that's not feminism all day long, and I care not if she doesn't want to hear it.

Yes, that sounds like exactly what you usually do.

[Ron Lybonly]

Kraken, project much?

I read your post then reread the Guardian article twice. I think you're just making stuff up in your head.

So I'm just asking the question of Moore, perhaps pointlessly, since she seems to want to force her opinions on me about what I should be doing and thinking.

Say what? How is she forcing her opinions on you "about what [you] should be doing and thinking"?

Did she know they existed, and if so, out of the many possible reasons (and I guarantee I probably know more about that than she does), why did she choose the already internationally recognized NatGeo girl for her candidate for Afghanistan in this project, over a footballer?

I'm sure you know more about Afghan footballers than she does. So what? Why does she have to write an article about a particular Afghan footballer? Why don't you just go and write it yourself?

You've made some interesting posts recently and now this which seems pretty unhinged. You OK?

[Midsize Jake]

I can't speak to what you people in the US were being told, but over here we knew the Afghan women's team existed before and after the fall. It was a big deal. It ties in directly to the rise of woman's football here.

Trust me, we heard about their situation at the same time you did, and the media covered it to roughly the same extent — it's just that it's not our national sport, and the USA is a bigger country (and therefore media market) to start with. Also, I don't see why Nadia Nadim's playing for Denmark is even all that relevant here, since she'd still be the most famous Afghan-born women's footballer even if she played for Vanuatu, or St. Kitts and Nevis or someplace like that. But to each his own, I guess.

Anyway, all this really boils down to is that you should just find a different example or two, because this one isn't all that great, and I'm pretty sure better examples do exist. I'm not even asking you to admit that this one isn't all that great — heaven knows the last thing you would want to do is admit I'm right about anything! But it's just not worth the effort in this case. So, let's just forget it and try again, eh? And no knock on you, you've been doing fine.

[Kraken]

With people insisting I take her at her literal word and not imply anything from all the wider context and other things known about this area (which ain't a very female oriented way of communicating but whatever) I feel obligated to point out the repeated use of "in" country not "of" country. So she would logically choose a Denmark footballer for Denmark, not Afghanistan. If she were to even consider a footballer at all. That is the question at hand. Considered and rejected, or never considered at all. Yousufi is the captain, and so is the logical choice if you're restricted to one person.

As for implications and such like, the problematic part is this.....

She said there was some general criticism on social media that Wikipedia editors were “making (the gender balance) more of an issue than it actually is”.

“And I find that attitude really annoying, to be honest, because it’s men who say that primarily.”

She pointed to research from 2022 that found there were more Wikipedia entries about football and footballers than there were about women.

However, Moore added: “Some of the most prolific people who work to redress the gender balance on Wikipedia are men and I’m not sure they would all describe it as being a feminist, but that’s what they’re doing.”

You can take it how you wish. I don't think the ordering is the invention of the journalist. I think she linked these things quite deliberately.

As a man who loves football and is a feminist, I take it as her seeking to deligitimise my views because if I was to do anything in this area, it would be to stuff Wikipedia with as many women football articles as I could, while not throttling back one iota on my production of males just to avoid annoying her. I don't think I would even need to visit her social media to know she finds this opinion annoying and so would like me to change it. To that I say niet!

I reject her call to arms and her presumptuous categorization of men she doesn't know by beliefs she probably doesn't even understand. Based on her framing of the issue, I am as uninterested in writing a page for a woman numismatist in every country, as I am in writing about one football team beginning with the letter K in each country of the world. Some things are projects designed solely to make their owner feel good without sparing a second's thought about whether their project was meeting a wider goal with laudable aims that would merit such a media story.

How exactly did this project raise the profile of women around the world indeed. Except, rather amusingly, if we take it at its most lliteral of meaning.

I will end with one last note. Before you speak to what this women is implying to negate my implications of said same words, can you even actually tell me where she gets her facts from?

Because this was certainly news to me.....

Wikipedia required three reliable sources for each biography

[eppur si muove]

Aren't article headers frequently written by sub-editors rather than the authors of the pieces themselves. So the "around the world" may have been chosen by someone who hadn't met Moore or even listened to the interview or looked at a transcript.

[Carcharoth]

Because I am too lazy, if any Wikipedia editor is following this thread and wants to correct an error in the Welsh-language Wikipedia, this is a candidate:

https://cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_B._Archbold

If you click through, you will see that it is sort-of related to the topic.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Because I am too lazy, if any Wikipedia editor is following this thread and wants to correct an error in the Welsh-language Wikipedia, this is a candidate:

https://cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_B._Archbold

If you click through, you will see that it is sort-of related to the topic.

That is embarrassing. Her name is Archbald, not Archbold.

[Carcharoth]

Because I am too lazy, if any Wikipedia editor is following this thread and wants to correct an error in the Welsh-language Wikipedia, this is a candidate:

https://cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_B._Archbold

If you click through, you will see that it is sort-of related to the topic.

That is embarrassing. Her name is Archbald, not Archbold.

His name. But yes, well-spotted, Wikidata also gets this wrong:

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q21338066

Apparently also known as "Andrew Berry Archbald".

Hmm.

[TheWordsmith]

This whole thread seems to be a lot of really weird assumptions made by our resident deep sea creature, completely unfettered by reality.

Making up motivations and opinions just so you can get mad at them is pretty questionable as a hobby, but I guess that's a good way to achieve 200 walls of text within a month of registering. I might recommend crochet instead. It's just as repetitive and time consuming, but you also get a blanket out of it.

[rnu]

This whole thread seems to be a lot of really weird assumptions made by our resident deep sea creature, completely unfettered by reality.

Making up motivations and opinions just so you can get mad at them is pretty questionable as a hobby, but I guess that's a good way to achieve 200 walls of text within a month of registering. I might recommend crochet instead. It's just as repetitive and time consuming, but you also get a blanket out of it.

Probably a bit advanced, but maybe something to work towards?

[Vigilant]

Crowchet.

Nice.

Maybe someone could knit him some mittens where the fingers are woven together?

[Kraken]

This whole thread seems to be a lot of really weird assumptions made by our resident deep sea creature, completely unfettered by reality.

Meh. I find it wierd she can get away with assuming women aren't helping her because they're too busy cleaning, cooking and bringing up kids.

Strange what people will just let go as an apparently reality based assumption where she quoted a study that shock horror doesn't literally back up her opinion but we're meant to read it that way, just because they fear being called names.

I'm happy to think they read articles like that and just don't sea the point of what she's doing even if they could trust everything being said. I'm still waiting for proof of this supposed three sources requirement. Shall I request a correction of this reliable source? The self regulating Guardian.

She's all but admitted it's a personal hobby that just happens to have a noble outcome if you're really, really, generous in your assumptions.

I can see how it wouldn't land with women who have never edited Wikipedia. Especially if they realise unchecked "news" stories like this have been getting pumped out for over a decade, with the same themes and the same claims, with negligible results.

Or maybe they just don't like her. That's allowed, even for women reading other women's thoughts. And long may it continue.

[rnu]

[...]
I'm still waiting for proof of this supposed three sources requirement.
[...]

There is no actual rule, but at AfD and AfC the claim that three reliable, independent, in-depth sources are necessary and sufficient for notability is regularly treated as gospel.

[Alalch Emis]

WP:THREE (T-H-L) got a media mention!

[Giraffe Stapler]

Meh. I find it wierd she can get away with assuming women aren't helping her because they're too busy cleaning, cooking and bringing up kids.

Let's check what was said by whom:

“We do need to get more women to edit, but it’s not just as simple as saying, ‘Hey, women, come and edit’, because we have so much more pressure on our time. There’s all these different studies that show that women have less time to devote to things of interest. And that’s before you even get on to being able to access sources, being able to access particular academic journal articles, which are paywalled.”

Nothing about cleaning, cooking, and bringing up kids, although I'm sure those are factors for some people.

The whole thing is pretty patronizing to a clear growth opportunity for Wikipedia - girls who are growing up exposed to and loving football because they can empathize with the stories. They read that article, they're going to assume they're not wanted. They lack the required interests. The necessary commitment to what women are interested in, when they can get a spare minute away from the kids or the laundry. Sheesh.

Ah. You're arguing with yourself again.

[Sennalen]

"Three" comes out of nowhere, but part of notability is sustained attention, so one is right out, and two is iffy at best.

[C&B]

She came to football in Denmark. She represents Denmark.

Do you use Tor to get to Denmark

[Ron Lybonly]

WP:THREE (T-C-L) is just one editor’s essay. It’s no more binding than someone else’s WP:ONE or WP:SEVEN essay.

It’s bandied about like it’s some sort of policy but it’s not. Throw “WP:” in front of some capital letters and you can con a lot of editors. That all-caps combination just looks so official.

[rnu]

WP:THREE (T-C-L) is just one editor’s essay. It’s no more binding than someone else’s WP:ONE or WP:SEVEN essay.

It’s bandied about like it’s some sort of policy but it’s not. Throw “WP:” in front of some capital letters and you can con a lot of editors. That all-caps combination just looks so official.

What's more it doesn't even say what the people who throw it around think/claim it does. It actually boils down to "people are lazy, so if you want to convince them that something is notable point them to (no more than) the three best sources". It says neither that three sources are necessary nor that they are sufficient.

[Sennalen]

If you post seven sources for a claim, you are likely to get indefinitely site banned.