New York Times | Turks Click Away, but Wikipedia Is Gone New York Times Since late April the Turkish government has blocked one of the world's go-to sources of online information, Wikipedia. After Wikipedia refused to remove unflattering references to Turkey's relationship with Syrian militants and state-sponsored ... |
See the rest here:
Turks Click Away, but Wikipedia Is Gone - New York Times
With more than 5 million articles in English and 30 million registered users, Wikipedia is the largest and most influential source of information in the world.
But the online community-based encyclopedia is not a self-generating mass of neutral and reliable knowledge. It is created by people writing collaboratively all over the world. As a result, it reflects not only what people know but also how they think about it, and what they think is important. Along with facts and figures, these implicit value judgements also get written into Wikipedia, determining what is represented and how.
However, fewer than 15 per cent of English-language Wikipedia editors are women. While there is nothing wrong with the male perspective, the fact that it is mostly men who decide what enters this hugely important repository of knowledge has real consequences. Pages on Star Wars spaceships, video gamesand porn stars are clear and comprehensive; paradigms of Wikipedia scholarship replete with authoritative, detailed information.
When it comes to women, Wikipedias gender bias really bites: only one in six of its 1.5 million biographies were of women. That slant is even more apparent when it comes to classical studies: an estimate in 2016 found that only 7 per cent of biographies of classicists were of women.
When women are included on Wikipedia, their lives and achievements are often articulated in relation to men. Miriam T. Griffin did not have a dedicated Wikipedia page and was only mentioned on the site as the wife of fellow classicist Jasper Griffin. Dr Griffin may have been a tutor in ancient history at the University of Oxford since 1967, the author of 10 books, and 61 entries in The Oxford Classical Dictionary, but she had no Wikipedia page.Leslie Brubaker, an expert on Byzantine art history at the University of Birmingham, is also mentioned only on herhusbandsWikipedia page.
If you are employed as a professor, you automatically meet the notability requirements on Wikipedia; and yet 59 per cent of UK female professors of Classics have no representation on Wikipedia.
Wikipedias gender bias seems like an intractable problem, but this does not need to be true: as in other areas where inequality seems irrevocable, its about willpower. Editing Wikipedia is pretty easy (and getting easier), pretty cheap (free) and pretty quick (instant). The Welsh-language Wikipedia (Cywiki) currently has more biographies of women than men. This has been achieved largely through editathonsthat bring people together to edit Wikipedia collectively, often with training provided.
While reversing Wikipedias gender skew may seem like an insurmountable task, breaking it down makes it much easier to achieve. The online activism of the Womens Classical Committee offers a good example of how real progress can be made by small groups or individuals without specialist knowledge or funds, just desire for change.
Founded two years ago with the purpose of supporting women who teach, research and study classical subjects, it held its first editathonin London in January 2017 to begin improving the visibility of female classical scholars on Wikipedia. Academics, Wikimedia volunteers, librarians, students and publishers participated, both in person and remotely via Skype. Nineteen articles were created or expanded, providing new information on significant female classicists such asDorothy Tarrant, the first female professor of Greek in the UK.
This event alone doubled the representation of female classical scholars on Wikipedia.
Through the WCCs initiative, 39 articles have been created or improved, swinging the pendulum so that roughly one in three biographies of classicists is of a woman. Five of the articles have appeared on Wikipedias front page, in the "Did You Know"section.The WCC now organises monthly remote editing sessions alongside training sessions.
Why is this important? Because accessibility is essential to inclusivity. Through free online tools, the WCC has established a large and informed community, mobilising activism and pooling knowledge and resources.
The WCC aims to continue reversing the gender skew online and mobilising change through digital tools, providing a positive example for others to follow.At least online, rewriting inclusive history has never been so easy and has never had so much potential for change.
Victoria Leonard is a research associate at the Institute of Classical Studies at the University of Londons School of Advanced Study
See the original post:
How we doubled the representation of female classical scholars on Wikipedia - Times Higher Education (THE) (blog)
Somebody with a House of Representatives IP web address decided to put President Trump on Wikipedias online list of people who faced prominent investigations for obstruction of justice.
@Congressedits is a Twitter bot that automatically posts a notice whenever Wikipedia gets anonymously updated by someone using a congressional Internet connection. On Thursday morning, the bot announced a new update:
The only change was that the presidents name was added underneath Wikipedias list of notable examples of obstruction. The addition has since been erased.
Trumps name was mostly likely added to preempt the major news that was bound to come out of James Comeys testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. The former FBI director spoke about his interactions with Trump, though the question of whether Trump tried to interfere with an active investigation is still being debated.
The Daily Caller picked up on several deleted tweets from The Federalists Gabriel Malor, who initially said that the update come from the office of Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO). Coffmans office and House security specialists have insisted that this was not the case, and Malor has put up an update:
[Image via screengrab]
>> Follow Ken Meyer (@KenMeyer91) on Twitter
Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com
See the original post here:
Someone in Congress Put Trump's Name on Wikipedia's 'Obstruction of Justice' Webpage - Mediaite
An unknown person operating from within Congress made edits to the Wikipedia entry on important cases relating to Obstruction of Justice, listing President Donald Trump among the notable examples.
Other notable examples already posted on the Wikipedia page include President Richard Nixon, Scooter Libby and baseball legend Barry Bonds.
Donald Trump was added to the list, along with a link back to his Wikipedia page, on Thursday afternoon, the same time former FBI Director James Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
While its common for Wikipedia pages to be changed, what makes this instance particularly interesting is that it was made byan anonymous posterin a congressional building. Media were alerted to the change by a Twitter account, @Congressedits, which automatically posts a tweet whenever someone using a congressional IP address makes changes on Wikipedia.
Initially, it was believed the change came from Rep. Mike Coffmans (R-Colo.) office, but Gabriel Malor, a writer for the Federalist, said this claim was shot down by a House Security Specialist.
UPDATE: Via Rep. Coffmans office, a House Security Specialist has told them this is an IP address open to the public for wifi use, Malor wrote on Twitter.
Why does this matter? Because speculation has since been flying over whether the change was made as part of some larger media strategy by a congressional office preparing to go on the attack against Trump. This is precisely the theory right-leaning Mediaite promoted on Saturday evening.
Trumps name was mostly likely added to preempt the major news that was bound to come out of James Comeys testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Ken Meyer wrote for Mediaite. The former FBI director spoke about his interactions with Trump, though the question of whether Trump tried to interfere with an active investigation is still being debated.
The change also raises additional questions about the trustworthiness of Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is being actively edited by politicians and their staffs, how reliable could it possibly be?
Originally posted here:
Mysterious person in Congress made Wikipedia edits involving Trump and 'obstruction of justice' - TheBlaze.com
Metro | DUP Wikipedia page locked to stop people pointing out the party doesn't believe in dinosaurs Metro The DUP's Wikipedia page has been locked down after people edited it to point out that the party doesn't believe in dinosaurs. Theresa May just announced that she is forming a minority government supported by the Democratic Unionist Party, an extremely ... |
More:
DUP Wikipedia page locked to stop people pointing out the party doesn't believe in dinosaurs - Metro