Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Our World Contest continues throughout November


"Komm rein, mach mit", meaning "Come, join us".

Scope

  • The problems we’re trying to solve:
  • Systemic bias towards women’s biographies;
  • … and their works -- broadly construed -- such as books, paintings, etc.
  • … across all languages
  • Off-topic:
  • Editor gender gap

What is it?

  • WikiProject Women in Red, a community-led project, was launched this week.
  • It is intended as a parent project for other projects in all languages whose scope covers women and their works, such as WikiProject Women Writers.
  • WikiProject Women in Red is a collaborative space across languages to track all things related to content gender gap.
  • creation of new articles, Featured Articles, Good Articles, DYK articles
  • events
  • news articles
  • scholarly publications
  • metrics
  • hackathon challenges
  • WikiProject Women in Red is a container project with links for blogs, conferences, contests, discussions (Wikipedia; Wikimedia), editathons, Inspire grantees’ projects, mailing-lists, meet-ups, newspaper articles, scholarly articles, social media campaigns, workshops, etc.

Wikidata will be used to manage the project because of its size and scope.

  • We hope to collaborate with international festival organizers (example: Litquake).
  • A global community-run project:
  • In addition to needing editors to write the articles, several key volunteer positions have been identified: Data Coordinator; Promotions/Events Coordinator; Lead Coordinators for each language.
  • We hope to establish a teaming arrangement with the Wiki Education Foundation as we believe university students are important to this endeavor. We would like to build on the education outreach efforts described by user:Kruusamägi (Wikimania submission: Possibilities for university cooperation: Estonian example) “Every academic year more than 500 articles on Estonian Wikipedia are created as part of local cooperation with universities.”
  • We will seek out the expertise of WikiProject X, a project dedicated to improving WikiProjects, in order to create an appealing work space.
  • Work together with the Chapters
  • Build on Wikimedia’s “Address the gender gap/FAQ“
  • Consider the creation of a Wikimedia User Group

April 7: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#12)

From: Katherine Maher

I apologize that we have not had a formal update the last couple of weeks — with Wikimedia Conference, the associated Board meeting, and our regular annual planning, I dropped the ball. The good news is that — as you have probably seen and heard — a lot of discussions are taking place!

This week, I’m experimenting with a different type of update: now that the conversations have launched, I will be sharing fewer bullet points about the process, and more paragraphs about the overall work that is going on around the movement. As more conversations happen, I hope future updates will continue to be substantive, sharing key themes and discussions as we see them emerge.

Last week, more than 350 Wikimedia community leaders from 70 countries and many different stakeholder groups converged on Berlin, during the annual meeting of movement affiliates, the Wikimedia Conference. This year, leaders from movement affiliates were joined by an additional 200 leaders from across the Wikimedia movement to participate in a program track focused on movement strategy. In addition to participating in some in-person discussions about our shared future direction, volunteers also discussed ways to help spread this effort across their activities and groups.

You may be wondering — where are the minutes from our meetings in Berlin? Great question. Unusually for our community, the Berlin strategy track was almost entirely analog, with markers and paper and sticky notes. The facilitation team is in the process of digitalizing all of these materials, from session notes to summaries and final statements. You can keep an eye (or watch) on the Sources page[1] to keep track as additional materials are posted - and jump in to respond and discuss as appropriate!

The discussions in Berlin are just one of the many ways people across the movement have been able to engage in the strategy process since my last update. Approximately 50 volunteers and groups are helping coordinate discussions and several on-wiki discussions are already underway. This cycle (the first of three) will run until April 15th, so there’s still a week to share your thoughts - please do!

All of these are opportunities for you to contribute your thoughts on the question, "What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?" For example, if you think we should go to deep space (after all, we've gone to the Moon[2]), tell us more! Have a quick thought you want to contribute? We want to hear it! Check out the participation page on Meta-Wiki's movement strategy portal for more information on where and how you can engage in this global conversation: https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10152617

As conversations continue, we are busy following along. Summaries of the on-wiki discussions are being posted on Meta-Wiki,[3] along notes from 64 recent discussions (and counting!)[1] We are thrilled to see the many different ways and places our community are finding to have this important discussion about our future. As key themes emerge across communities, I hope to share them here.

About communications: recently, Nicole provided an overview of the progress and plans for Track A during our monthly activities and metrics meeting.[4] We are also working on a blog post announcing the official start of the movement strategy process. In addition to these communications, we’ll keep updating these weekly updates. We appreciate all the positive and constructive feedback we have received on these updates so far, and invite you to send us more on-wiki.[5] As we know, the more communications about what is going on, the better.

Thank you for your continued engagement in this process. I have to confess that while I’ve been excited about these conversations, I wasn’t fully certain how everything would go once we launched. There is a big difference between having a lot of notes on a whiteboard, and actually starting a free-wheeling, global, multilingual community conversation with such a wide and diverse group of people. Three weeks into the launch of the first discussion, I’m genuinely humbled by what everyone is bringing to the conversation. This community is brilliant, our vision is inspiring, our challenges are great (and exciting), and we have so much opportunity ahead. I’m grateful to be able to work alongside you.

Schönes Wochenende! (German translation: “Have a good weekend!”)

Cheers, Katherine

PS. A version of this message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.[6]

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_to_the_Moon [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Summary_14th_to_28th [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_metrics_and_activities_meetings/2017-03 [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Updates [6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Updates/7_April_2017_-_Update_12_on_Wikimedia_movement_strategy_process


Recruit new editors for the project?

Hi,

Sorry it took a bit long. I created a list for editors who created articles on the metrics. There are 1731 articles created in total by 572 editors who are not a member of WIR (not on the outreach list, international list, member list, and opt-out list). However, only 161 editors created more than 1 articles. So please take a look, and let me how it looks to you! Also, I'd suggest not to reach those candidates now. Please do so after I integrate all your feedback into the system. Thanks you! Here is the link to the list. Thank you. Bobo.03 (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Bobo.03. This is very interesting and, potentially, quite useful. I really appreciate what you've been able to accomplish. As you request, we won't reach out to the potential recruits until you integrate our feedback into the system. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
All, what do you think about creating a new outreach list, e.g. "Outreach to July 2017 Editors", and MassMessaging a September invite to them, with a friendly note that includes a link to our "Members" page? Then add their names to our regular Outreach List for October's invite (whether or not they become members). We could repeat this process monthly if Bobo.03 could continue to provide us a list each month of editors new to us, e.g. not on any of our 4 lists. If it's simple enough to do, it would be useful for Bobo to also create an August list. Thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
This is indeed a far more useful list than the one produced by Bobo.03 on 4 August. It certainly looks, Rosie, as if your meeting with Bobo at Wikimedia put him on the right track. Analyzing our "metrics" is an excellent approach to identifying candidates for recruitment. That said, I think we need to tread carefully as I am certain most of those at the top of the list are well aware of our project but have chosen for one reason or another not to become members of WiR. I also think there may be more interest in our project from the relative few who do not create short stubs on women in sports. It might be sensible to look at their user pages before inviting them to join. Rather than simply adding them to our mass mailing list, I think we should explain how they have been identified and invite comments from them. Over the next few days, I'll look more carefully at the users listed and may have more comments later. In the meantime, congratulations to Bobo and his advisor, Haiyi Zhu, for advancing so quickly in the right direction.--Ipigott (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Ian that several of these are aware of our project and have chosen not to join, but there are quite a few that I've never heard of. Though it will take time, I think a personal approach is better than just adding them to our mailing list. If I can help you with that, let me know. SusunW (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I would be happy to help with this too. I've been looking a bit more carefully at the list. The ones I think we could initially contact include Muhammad Abul-Futooh, Vycl1994, Gtrbolivar, CrisBalboa, Tigerman2612, Njr65984, Crosstemplejay, Bill McKenna and Oberhof. Although some of these seem to have a special interest in women, I have a feeling that most of them simply cover people in their own area of interest (usually sports) whether men or women. It would be interesting to ask them whether membership of WiR would encourage their creation of more articles about women. We could then use their feedback to improve contacts with those lower on the list. It has also occurred to me that all the editors on the July list must have been pinged when it was published on 2 September. There have been two new WiR members since, but neither was on the list.--Ipigott (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Bobo.03: Any comments?--Ipigott (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
It's good to know that the list looks helpful to you! The list can be easily generated for the future months if needed. So here is the candidate editors for August (I need to remove those who have been recommended before in the future version). Some ideas regard to your comments above.
  • As for the candidates, I can add another filter, for instance, to remove editors who have edited any project page or project talk pages. Maybe this can rule out editors who looked familiar but decided not to join as you mentioned.
  • I think that it is definitely important to let the editors know how they are identified and why they are invited, and this can be done simply in the invitation message you send to them. Many WikiProjects have their own templates to invite new editors, so I guess it would be helpful to have a WiR invitation template as well.
  • I am not sure if it would be necessary to ask those editors for comments. I think the problem would be that if you think the editor looks like a good fit for WiR and potentially can make more contribution, then you could go ahead and invite them (explain to them why you reach out to them). It is great if they join. If they don't, it's fine (it happens). Unless they provide strong negative feedback again this, I don't think we need to worry too much about it.
  • I wonder if you want the list to be posted to individual coordinators' talk page, or to a public page like this. So here is an example where I post the recommendations to a project organizer of MILHIST. Please also take a look at the invite tag (click it). That's how the template can be integrated and make it easier for you. In this way, I can split the long list, and only post a subset to the signed-up WiR coordinators.
  • The candidate editors in the list do not receive any notification, because I am using a different template which doesn't ping them. So don't worry about it.
Bobo.03 (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Bobo.03 for these detailed comments and also for preparing a list for August. I think it could indeed be useful to exclude those who have who have edited project pages or project talk pages, especially all the WikiProjects dealing with women. (These are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women). That would leave us with a more manageable subset. It would be interesting in the first instance to see how well that works. For the time being, I think it would be useful to provide access to your monthly lists on this talk page as we have many active members who might like to become involved in liaising with potential participants.
What is evident from both lists (July and August) is that the majority of those who are not members of WiR are primarily interested in sports. Indeed, most of the new articles each month are about women in sports too. In my opinion, most of these articles would have been created anyway, with or without the existence of WiR. That is why I think it would be particularly useful for the project if we could identify editors who create articles which are not about sports, especially those dealing with writers, artists, feminists, scientists, actors and politicians, and possibly the other occupations listed under "By occupation" on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Worklists/Index (but excluding those under "Sports"). If your system could pinpoint the main two or three occupations addressed by each editor, this would also help us to invite editors to participate in editathons with an appropriate focus. Up to now, I have been trying to identify them manually which is an extremely time-consuming process. But these are my personal concerns and others might think we should include those interested in sports along with all the others. Perhaps others including Rosiestep and Victuallers would like to comment here too.--Ipigott (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Bobo.03 I want to make some comments regarding the words "join" and "member". What we learned during Phase 1 of the WMF m:Gender Diversity Mapping project this year is that people want to participate in wiki work in various ways, and they don't want their participation to be ranked (e.g. membership in a project vs. community organizer vs. edit count vs. tweeting, etc.). I say this to bring home the point that editors may have a variety of reasons why they don't want to formally join Women in Red or edit its talkpage that may be different than other WikiProjects you're working with (e.g. worries about being harassed), but they still feel they are "part of Women in Red". So if we develop a recruitment template, it should include lots of links in addition to a link for the Members list, such as current editathons, Ideas Cafe (the page where we discuss future editathons), Opt-In/Opt-Out lists, this talkpage, our Twitter/Pinterest/FB pages, etc. We should let them know about all the ways they can participate. Do you have ideas regarding what a good recruitment template might look like? Historically, the preference has been for simplicity as we heard from our members about a year ago that they like that. But times change, so if you have multiple examples, would you please share them on this page so that folks can comment?
Adding all/most of the editors from the July and August new recruits lists to our Opt-in list seems like a good idea to me for the purposes of branding and marketing. IMHO, our monthly invite is as much "promotion" to an editor's talkpage stalkers as it is notification of coming events to the particular editor. Providing a link to the Opt-Out list gives an editor a way of saying 'no thanks'.
I like Ian's idea about the new recruits table having additional columns of information. He mentioned the occupation column and I'm hopeful you can also add a country column. This will assist us in deciding which country/geographic region to cover in upcoming editathons. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeh, looks like they are sports dominated articles. I think the way I can provide more info about these articles is by parsing the article pages. It might be hard to do so by looking at the worklist index you shared (tho its structure is very clear). I look at couple articles, and observe that there is an Infobox on the page but with a kinda messy categorization hierarchy. For instance, this one is basketball biography, this one is officeholder, and this one is simply sportsperson. So I wonder if there is a place that I can find the categorization all these infoboxes? That way, I can try to provide more detailed occupation info/categories.
Unfortunately, I don't have examples of good invitation templates. We simply looked at the templates from other projects to build on (generally they are all pretty similar), and sort of make it clear the benefits of participating a project (find a group of editors who share similar interest; find lots of useful resources related to the topic; and see a list of articles that need most improvement). Sorry that I cannot provide much help on this. Bobo.03 (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Rather than just including them on our main massmessaging invitation list, I would suggest sending out a separate invitation to those who have created two or more articles on women in July and August. I can prepare the list and a draft invitation in the next day or two. I will not include those who are already aware of WiR. I can also try to indicate main area(s) of interest for each editor.--Ipigott (talk) 07:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed recruitment list and invitation

On the basis of Bobo.03's lists for July and August, I've put together a draft editor recruitment list which includes an invitation. If Rosiestep agrees, perhaps Megalibrarygirl can send the invitation our by massmessaging. It might of course be necessary to delete some of the names from the list if editors are aware of our work or don't want to be bothered. If I can help further with this, please let me know.--Ipigott (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Rosiestep, Ipigott, and Bobo.03: Happy to help. Just let me know if you're ready. I can work up an invite, too. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Ipigott, nicely done; I've added a bit to the invite and copied it here (September recruitment).
Megalibrarygirl, before MassMessaging, I would recommend:
  1. Look over the invite and make any changes you wish.
  2. Copy User:Ipigott/WiR editor recruitment#To be invited to a new page such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/Recruitment/September 2017 and add a link to it here (September recruitment) so we keep the recruitment invite and its list together.
  3. But, per agreement, don't MassMessage till Bobo.03 gives the thumbs up (as this is part of his PhD research and there's an advisor who looks over things). --Rosiestep (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks :) I feel sorry to have you manually go through the list.. Please give me one or two more days. Let me see if I can generate the topic info for the editors. Bobo.03 (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
No need to feel sorry. I think it was important to look carefully at the user pages and recent edits of those listed. And there's certainly no rush. We could even wait until we firm up on the October priorities.--Ipigott (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

A new iteration is ready

Hi, I make a new iteration of the system. Here is the recommendations for July's list. As you can see, in the first sentence of each candidate, I add a mouseover feature (leave your mouse at the sentence for a second) that summarizes the occupations of the persons in the articles they created. I parsed the infobox on each article that indicates that category of the person in the article. Here is the complete list of the infoboxes. It's not perfect, as some articles might use a different or a more specific template that I didn't count, and I don't think this list is comprehensive enough (but this might be the best list I can find so far). But I think this would give you a better sense of the candidate's editing category. If you don't like this way of presenting the occupations, let me know how it would look better to you (maybe adding an extra column next to articles?).

Also, as you might have noticed, the list is shorter which should be more manageable - I didn't include any editors who edited the project page or project talk page of WikiProject Women as suggested. In the future lists, I won't recommend editors who have been shown in the previous months either. Bobo.03 (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ipigott, Megalibrarygirl, SusunW, and Victuallers: Are you comfortable with this latest list or do you want Bobo.03 to add an additional filter/parameter? I'm ready to use this list for our first group of invitations, with the understanding that we may want to add an additional parameter based on what we learn after inviting this group. In the end, it's just an invitation to take a look at Women in Red. What do you think? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Ipigott, Rosiestep, SusunW, and Victuallers: that list is awesome. I wonder though, if we may want to target certain users based on preferences. There's a lot of sports articles being created by the first two users, for example. Awesome work, Bobo.03! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I think the list is great! If Bobo.03 thinks we're ready to roll with it, let's do it! SusunW (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
That's my vote, too! :) --Rosiestep (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, please go ahead! I just added the invitation template that Rosiestep mentioned above. Once you click the invite bottom, it will direct you to create the template on editor's talk page directly (don't forget to add a title). Couple more things to remind:
(1) Please sign your signature in the last column for each editor to indicate the invitation status of the candidates, so that both other project members and me can know who have been approached.
(2) Please fill the survey for the candidate editors if you can. That would be part of our evaluation on our system.
(3) There is no ping on those candidate editors. So they don't know they are on this list yet.
Please let me know if you want to have any other features that might help you. I will try to make improvements in the future iterations! Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Bobo.03 I'm glad to see things are evolving in the right direction. As far as I can see, the current list allows us to invite those we select one by one. I'm not too sure what the effect of clicking on invite is. I hardly dare to try it out before receiving further explanations. I like the feature showing the principal areas of interest of each editor but I must say, at the moment there seems to be an extremely strong emphasis on sports while the other areas are less well developed. The question now is who decides which editors should be invited and how. As far as I can see, SusunW and Rosiestep think we should invite them all. That might be OK for a one-time experiment if the invitation is worded appropriately but I see the list as being most useful as it evolves down the line. I also still wonder whether or not we should give some priority to the names in the draft suggestions I made earlier. Perhaps the best way of going forward would be to compile a list of who is to be invited, possibly managed by Megalibrarygirl who could then send it out by mass messaging.--Ipigott (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • About clicking invite. Yeh, I think I should explain more about it earlier. When you click it, nothing will be triggered to notify the candidate editor. It is equivalent to the following steps: (1) go the editor talk page, (2) click create a new section, and (3) copy and paste the template into the editing area.
  • Yes, it does look like the current candidates have heavier weight in the sports area, but this is the nature of the editors on the metrics list. I don't think I can do anything about it. Since the purpose of WiR is about creating related articles. Given the poll of candidates (from metrics), those might be the most relevant targets for WiR I guess.
  • Regarding whom to recruit, I think I have to leave this question to you. The system would only provide the relevant candidates which is our initial goal :) Bobo.03 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
May I suggest that Megalibrarygirl put together a list of those to be invited. She could leave it open for a few days so that we could all add to it. It could then be sent out as a separate list in parallel with our October editathon invitation.--Ipigott (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi All, Just a quick follow up - if there is any progress on this:) Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bobo.03: Megalibrarygirl has agreed to coordinate the invitations. As you will see from her talk page, she has suggested an initial emphasis on sports in connection with our current focus on the Olympics.--Ipigott (talk) 06:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@Ipigott and Bobo.03: so I'm going to be putting the names on a list like this one, correct? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: Another suggestion is instead putting up a new page of editors, you can also edit the recommendation table directly, like in the invitation column, add "to invite" if the editor looks like a good candidate to you. Just a suggestion. Bobo.03 (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@Bobo.03 and Ipigott: I've started inviting. I'm starting with folks who seem to have interests matching our current editathons. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl: Good to see you are sending invitations but how can we see whom you have invited? Bobo.03: How can we avoid sending invitations to the same person more than once?--Ipigott (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd suggested to leave a mark in the last column of the editors who received invitation. The column is named invitation status in the table. Bobo.03 (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@Bobo.03 and Ipigott: facepalm! I forgot to change that. Will do now. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Recommendation for August is ready!

Hi @Ipigott, Megalibrarygirl, and Rosiestep:! It's great to know that some editors have joined WiR. Here is the list for August. Should be 92 editors there.. Still a pretty long list (I think the latest one for July was 92 editors).. I will think about how to integrate the suggestions you made on my talk page! Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Bobo.03: Thanks for the August list. I hope to begin sending out invitations later today or tomorrow, once we have firmed up our priorities for October. You'll also be pleased to hear we have one more new member from the July list: Bill McKenna, an American who is interested in women's ice hockey. It's good to see we also have someone from the world of sports. That makes a total of five, showing that your initiative is proving effective.--Ipigott (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Ipigott: That's great to know! Thank you for your work. Also wonder, for other editors, do they just not response at all, or some of them might say not interested? Bobo.03 (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Bobo.03: I think most of our members are more concerned with creating new articles themselves than with recruiting new participants. I usually create one new article each day but the time I have spent on your development and related administrative matters has prevented me from doing so. I hope I will have time to create some new articles over the next few days. But I'm glad to see we've been able to recruit some new members. Now we need to monitor how they perform.--Ipigott (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Happy to see we have one more from July: Zakhx150.--Ipigott (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
13 new members in September! Yay! --Rosiestep (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Preliminary analytic results

Hi @Rosiestep, Ipigott, and Megalibrarygirl:, I did some preliminary analysis on the recruited editors of other WikiProjects that participated our study. The effect of recruiting is very promising! I compare the number of edits those editors made before the recruitment in two weeks and the edits after the recruitment in two weeks, and find that their edits increased by 73% on articles within the project on average, while the number of edits of editors who were in the control group (editors who were also recommended by our system, but were not shown to any organizer nor recruited) decreased by 42%. Though we only have 40 editors that were recruited so far (small sample size), the results have shown significant and positive sign! So please keep up your great work! I will analyze the impacts on editors of WiR next weekend (we use two weeks as time window), and will update you the latest result! Bobo.03 (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bobo.03: That is really encouraging! Wow. :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
@Bobo.03, Ipigott, Megalibrarygirl, and SusunW: Agree; this is really encouraging! Bobo, Have you noticed any negative feedback prompted by inviting an editor to participate? I ask as I continue to be of the persuasion that we should invite "more" rather than "less", and that the invite should be highly-automated, e.g. MassMessage, but I won't push this until you provide information about negative responses to recruitment invites. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Bobo.03: I'm very happy to see your efforts are producing such positive results. Rosiestep: As you probably know, in connection with our monthly editathons, I send out additional invitations to some 20 or 30 editors and WikiProjects each month. There are invariably two or three reverts, sometimes followed by complaints which can be quite violent on occasion. Several of the names on Bobo's list for July were familiar to me for these reasons. That is why I wanted to tread rather carefully. I'm not too sure but I think one of the invitations I sent out from Bobo's list was either reverted or deleted but there were certainly no complaints. I should also mention that some of those we have contacted might well have participated in our editathons without becoming members of WiR. I have not carried out any detailed checks on this.
You may be interested to see that September was a particularly good month for recruitment. Thanks to the invitations we sent out on the basis of Bobo.03's July list, we can welcome six new members: Bill McKenna, CAWylie, Marquardtika, Vejlenser, Warofdreams and Zakhx150, while the following eight joined in the normal way: Abishe, A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver, Slafayette, Dodger67, Lcsrns, Miyagawa, Nick Moyes and Seth Whales. (I have a feeling some of these may have resulted from contacts and/or publicity in connection with Dr. Blofeld's Women World Contest in November.) Fourteen new members in one month is not bad. Surprisingly, as far as I can see, there have not yet been any responses to the invitations based on Bobo's August list. I hope Bobo will be able to prepare a list for September fairly soon. It will be interesting to see how the list has evolved and whether there are new potential recruits. It might be suitable for Rosie to experiment with mass messaging of all those listed but I'm not sure how the list should be prepared.--Ipigott (talk) 07:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't really observe much negative feedback yet. One complain from a recruited editor is that he thought there should be an opt-out option for those editors who are not willing to receive these kinds of recruiting or welcome messages from any projects. I don't think we can do anything about it, but provide a template or something that they can use to indicate non interest in WikiProjects as a filter in the system. Other than that, I think editors who are not interested just simply do not respond. Bobo.03 (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I've only invited the British challengers to date, after inviting the others and a central noticeboard I'm sure more will join. If we run a productive contest and WMF is happy, with greater numbers it might be worth launching that 100000 challenge but no point unless we have the contests to regularly fuel it. I think we should also focus on core and quality.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Being one of those named new recruits, I'm not sure if this link to my recent blog post might be of interest, or if this is an appropriate place to mention it. It relates back to participating in last March's Editathon at Newnham College, Cambridge, and contains a few suggestions for right naming future events. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Nick Moyes: Thanks for chipping in here. As you know, I followed with interest the development of your well-produced video for Montreal. I found your blog account of the Newnham event very interesting. In particular, I like your recommendation that new editors should be given a leaflet "What do I do next?" Perhaps WiR members including Rosiestep, Victuallers, Megalibrarygirl and SusunW would be interested in collaborating with you on putting something together.--Ipigott (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Ipigott I joined due to the "Women and disability" project, I'm one of the founders of WikiProject Disability, several WiR members are also members of WP:DISAB. I think such direct collaborations between intersecting Wikiprojects are potentially productive for both involved projects and could be a model to pursue in future. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Dodger67 Yes, I remember sending you an invitation. I fully agree with you that collaborations of this kind are really useful for all concerned.--Ipigott (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Nick Moyes: Thank you again for the marvelous video, which was a big hit during Wikimania Montreal, and for your blogpost, which I just read with interest. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, I thought I'd already joined! :) I went to have a look at my bio, saw that I hadn't and duly signed up. Miyagawa (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: The links you are looking for are on User:ClemRutter/training- and particularly Commons:Category:Wikimedia UK training booklets. The Nottingham booklet and the Women in Red are the more useful. I was trained into booklet production for 11-16 year olds in the offset litho days at the Abraham Moss Centre in Manchester 8. (A no-text-book school!), and the habit has stuck. I still run them off on a Lasejet 3. I would be very happy to join a publications team and recast text to any style sheet.
Booklets do need to be targetted, and generic glossy just gets recycled- we have strong images and a strong message so a tight editorial team should be able to specify a WIR and a Disability twelve side A5 that is specific but also usable at functions as yet unplanned. If you are using them as a parting reminder-then they should contain enough tecky-stuff, so the participant can say to their partner- this is what we did, its easy I'll show you how. I suggest also an A5 template flyer that can be inserted with hand written suggestions on articles the participant (and their partner) may like to try next and the Username of the tutor so they can keep in touch!! Though based in Kent, my grandchildren are in Carrington, NG5 so I can to do a meet up north of Trent. ClemRutter (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Online "What do I do next?" leaflet as part of virtual recruitment

Nick Moyes: The "What do I do next?" leaflet idea is spot-on. We should have one! Did you or Roger create one for the Newnham event?" If so, is there a link for it on Commons? If not, we should create that. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Looks like I might have talked myself into a job! No, we didn't create one, but it was the one thing I felt I wanted to give to editathon visitors as they were leaving. Effectively - a nice pat on the back, "thanks for coming" and "here's what you can do next" guide, plus what to do if you get stuck. Whether you'd want this to have a purely WomenInRed slant, a more general editathon-based leaflet/info sheet is, I guess, open for discussion. I would comment that attendee @ClemRutter: has put some great help sheets online already, but maybe this could be more of a glossy, slick affair than just another instruction sheet. Of course, it's content, not looks, that's most important - though the latter always helps, I think. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes and Rosiestep: I too just watched the video and read the blog. Very cool. I think pulling info from our Creating women's biographies primer would be a good place to start for a what to do next guide. As was pointed out in the video, colleges' own histories have their "male" history and omit the women's participation. Last month, working on Women in Peace, I discovered that the article on the League of Nations mentioned none of the contributions of women. Megalibrarygirl and I realized during our Food and Beverage editathon that while in most cultures women were responsible for brewing until the industrial age, there was no mention of women in the article on Brewing, so we collaborated on one. Writing women's history back into existing articles is a great way to learn the WP system and put balance back into our history. SusunW (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@SusunW: I'm thinking that the leaflet should be suitable for newbies, with links to the essays, etc.; and for seasoned editors, e.g. info on our Ideas Cafe, our work on redlists, and so forth; and for techie people, too. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes Rosiestep, kind of target areas...If you are new to WP, If you are more experienced, If you can provide technical help, If you have photos, etc. Don't want it to be too complex, but these 4 bullets should certainly help. SusunW (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Target areas, yes. this is sounding very cool. Starting a list:
  • If you are new to WP
  • If you are more experienced
  • If you can provide technical help
  • If you have photos
  • If you like organizing online events
  • If you are interested in social media
  • What else? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I have added a comment in the section above.ClemRutter (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Mentioning that there will be differences/similarities between an online leaflet as part of online recruiting through Bobo's project vs. a handout during an in-person event. There might be some good models on Commons for both of these but unclear how to find them, though I did find this. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Recommendation for September is ready

Here is the list for September. Cannot believe it's October already.. The list is much shorter this month, only containing 46 editors. Hope it's more manageable now! Sorry that I cannot add the subject in the invitation template due to the technical limitation. You might have to add it yourself. Bobo.03 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Bobo.03. Once again, they nearly all seem to be covering sports. I'll look at it in more detail tomorrow unless Rosiestep simply wants to send an invitation out to them all.--Ipigott (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl:: What do you think... MassMessage all of them, or review each individually and invite one by one? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@Bobo.03, Rosiestep, and Ipigott: I'm not sure which would be best, but I don't mind doing it either way. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl: It's not too easy to prepare a mass messaging list. If you need assistance, I could put it together and you could send it out to keep Rosie happy. But in my opinion it would be much quicker and easier to use the "invite" on Bobo's list to invite all those he has picked up, one by one. A mass messaging list is only useful if it is going to be used again and again. That is not the case here.--Ipigott (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Ipigott: I was hoping to save steps, not create more work. If you think individual invites are easier, that should be the method used. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Bobo.03, Rosiestep, Megalibrarygirl: I've invited all 46 without any checks. It took me only 30 minutes. It will be interesting to see how many join and whether we have any other responses. Sorry Bobo, I really don't have time to contribute to the survey but I've ticked them off as invited.--Ipigott (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Glad to see four from the list have already joined: Abanda bride, Hasive, Jonny Nixon and Sphilbrick. And we also have one more this month: Rohini. That brings us up to 148 registered members. I also see Fsmatovu (from the August list) has joined our mass messaging list.--Ipigott (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
This is wonderful. Thank you, Ipigott. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Ipigott, you rule! And how awesome is it that people are joining????! :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
CeeGee, a highly experienced editor from Turkey, has just joined. We also have two additions to our mailing list: AusLondonder and Jdforrester.--Ipigott (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It's really great to see so many successful recruitment :) @Rosiestep: I am writing a post for the Signpost to publicize our study. I wonder if I can get a quote from you as a support? Please see the draft I wrote here. Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bobo.03: done! --Rosiestep (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: That's sweet. Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Bobo.03: That's a nice little piece you've put together for Signpost. I'm pleased to report that I received no negative reactions from the invitations I sent to all 46 on the September list. Interestingly, despite the fact that the large majority of editors on your list were primarily interested in sports, only one of these, Sphilbrick, joined WiR. The other four who joined and the two who added their names to our mailing list were interested in areas ranging from culture to politics. If you continue to publish lists for the coming months we should pay special attention to these. The list for November will be particularly interesting as it should contain many new editors who take part in the Women in Red World Contest.--Ipigott (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Ipigott: Thank you for letting me know. Yeh, that's very interesting. Are there any activities going on in WikiProject Women's Sports (I don't see any at a quick peek)? It's definitely worth further attention. Yes, I definitely could keep posting the list for the coming months! Bobo.03 (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ipigott: What is this mailing list and can I join if I am not already on it? Dysklyver 10:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver: Our main mailing list is Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/List. It is the basis for our monthly editathon announcements and other important communications. I add the names of all new members if they do not do so themselves - so you are already on the list. The list (together with our Opt Out list) is mentioned at the foot of all our invitations.--Ipigott (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Bobo.03: O.celebi, with a special interest in Egypt, has also joined (from the September list). Maybe you could include something on your lists to indicate "joined". Perhaps "joined" could just be substituted for the checkmark. It would then be easier to see which profiles have provided the most positive results.
DaddyCell has just joined too. That brings active membership of WiR up to 200--Ipigott (talk) 12:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and added "joined" or "mail list" on the September list to the nine who responded.--Ipigott (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Ipigott Great, thank you! I think that's the appropriate way to do it as well. We might have to do it manually, whenever an editor joins. Bobo.03 (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Bobo.03: That figure was not correct: the active membership of WiR is now 150. See also foot of this page.--Ipigott (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

October recruitment list

Hi Bobo.03. We'd like to get a jump start on our next recruitment cycle as we have an important event occurring during the month of November: the Women in Red World Contest. It would be helpful if the October recommendation list is available on November 1st so that we can contact the potential editors soon. Is this be possible? @Megalibrarygirl and Ipigott:, besides the two of you, are there any other editors who are assisting with the recruitment invitation process and/or do you need any additional volunteers? Note, I created a November recruitment invite but please do tweak it if you wish. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Rosiestep: We can perhaps have a preliminary list on November 1st but there will be additions on that date. By November 2nd U.S. time it should be more or less complete. If you are really keen to see if there are any interesting new editors, Bobo could perhaps produce a preliminary list in the next day or two. As for additional volunteers, I can easily send out invitations to everyone on Bobo's list as I did last time.--Ipigott (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: Yeh, I can create a list using the new template on Nov 1st:) Bobo.03 (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Bobo.03 - Nov 2nd will be fine per comment by Ipigott. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Rosiestep and Ipigott: It's ready here! There is still a survey link. Feel free to ignore it. Bobo.03 (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Bobo.03: Thanks for the list. I've sent out invitations to all 45. The large majority are once again interested in sports. We'll now have to see how many become involved in our World Contest.--Ipigott (talk) 11:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Ipigott Great, thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Bobo.03, {(u|Rosiestep}}: We already have Alsoriano97 (from Catalonia), Catemcc (women in the arts), Knuand (music), and Sugardating (handball). And we have Rosalina523 (business and history) on the mailing list. A good start to the month.--Ipigott (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
@Bobo.03 and Ipigott:, a great start to the month. Thank you so much. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep: Thanks, Rosie, but we now have a problem with metrics as you'll see from my ping to you from the metrics talk page. Never a dull day. Enjoy your stay in Stockholm and make sure you visit the Gamla stan.--Ipigott (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I've have indicated those who have become new members (joined) or or added their names to our mailing list (mailing).--Ipigott (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Ping Bobo.03--Ipigott (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

False bluelinks on Wikidata lists

I've just made a redirect from Harriet Austin to Harriet Bunker Austin. But then I find that "Harriet Austin" is a current NZ rower and appears in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Missing_articles_by_occupation/Rowing and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/New Zealand. If she was actually listed or mentioned in a WP article I could legitmately create a dab page, but if I tried to create one now it would get deleted because the rower's entry would be invalid. If the rower was appearing in a list in an article I could disambiguate her as "(rower)". But I can't see what to do in this case. Harriet Bunker Austin ought to have a redirect (or dab entry, or hatnote) from the most Wiki-natural form of her name. One solution would be to create a stub for the rower but I'm not really into sportspeople and there must be some better solution?? Ideas? @Ipigott: in particular? PamD 17:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

From the wikidata link I find she has a Polish wikipedia article, and from the one source I'm not sure whether she's notable. No wins, but I suppose she did represent her country so perhaps yes. What's WP:NROWING? PamD 17:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
@PamD: Assuming she meets the notability requirement, I'd create the stub, along with a disambiguation page and a hatnote. Like I did with Rose Pauly, though in that case I created both articles and the disambiguation page. I was interested in the singer, but slapped together something quick for Rose Pauly (politician). --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah, Google finds rather a lot more - https://poetsandquants.com/2017/04/19/mbas-compete-oxford-cambridge-boat-race/, http://www.chch.ox.ac.uk/news/current-students/harriet-austin-rows-mediterranean-raise-awareness-hpv, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11899599 ! Just not got time right now, stuff to do in real life. PamD 17:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Stub and dab page now created - but it doesn' solve the problem of Wikidata pages having blue links which aren't for the right person, in general. Now really must stop editing and start house-tidying. PamD 20:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Since the issue of incorrect blue links in these lists has been raised - has anyone raised the issue of incorrect red links? For instance, the Australian list has a piped link for Azaria Chamberlain at the nonsense title of Azaria Chamberlain (Q20200821). I've noticed quite a few of these for people with articles, and they're not obvious from the list because they're all piped to just present the name. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Though I appreciate the fact that for you, the list seems to be created by Wikidata, this is in fact not the case. The list is auto-generated by Listeria Bot, which pulls its information from the Wikidata item and creates a redlink based on the item label. Sometimes, these redlinks will show up blue (or green) because they end up being a redirect to something else. Probably the list should be changed to always include the q number so you can check first to see if someone hasn't already created an English Wikipedia article with a title like "Common name (dancer)" or something like that. The label will sometimes be different from the English Wikipedia title and that's OK. When you select a red link to work on, you can name the article whatever you want and when you add it to Wikidata as a sitelink, this item will disappear from the red link list on the next iteration (though Listeria does not update as fast as Wikidata does, so you need to give it some time before updating the list). Jane (talk) 06:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Jane, none of this actually has anything to do with my comment. To reiterate: Azaria Chamberlain (Q20200821) is a red link in the Australian list, despite the fact that Azaria Chamberlain has an article already, at the correct title. There are plenty of false redlinks at nonsense titles like the one I just referred to, for people who already have articles at the correct titles, at least in the Australian list. Again, the (Q20200821) is in the actual link so that a link that should appear blue incorrectly shows up as red. I was suggesting that maybe these could be removed. This is the second time in a week I've made a specific comment about Wikidata and had someone reply with a random speech about how to use Wikidata (and its information) that ignored anything whatsoever that I had actually said and assumed that I was totally ignorant of the subject. I've gotta say that this is a bit discouraging when one tries to engage with otherwise-promising Wikidata-related projects. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah, sorry I didn't have the other q number so I couldn't check. This is a known problem and there is nothing you can do about it. The enwiki article is about a death, and the cawiki article is about a baby. You can't merge a baby into a death, so these q numbers will never be merged and thus the baby article will continue to show up as a red link (unless you would rather link the enwiki article to the baby rather than the "death". Next time you can better include the link to the list in question, as I don't easily see where you are getting the red links from. Jane (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I've noticed the same as The Drover's Wife for Gersuinda. She was on the redlist for 'Women before 1850', so I created an article for her, but the list link is still red and redirects to Gersuinda (Q1515128), giving the false impression that there is still no article. Educationhousejavert (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Diversity Conference live stream

Logo Diversity Conference Stockholm 2017.svg

The Wikimedia Diversity Conference in Stockholm starts tonight (Nov 3rd) and runs through the weekend. Some of the sessions will be live streamed. I'll be speaking during Saturday morning's plenary on the Gender Diversity Mapping project. With 2,069 data points, this "snapshot in time" honors our previous work; gives us insight into our present-day activities/culture/successes/challenges; and opens the door to addressing our future: how can we become transformative. --Rosiestep (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like an interesting initiative. The conference programme is here.--Ipigott (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Percentage contests

I'm currently pondering over an idea which would be a contest to get WIR up by 1 per cent, we'd need to work out roughly how many articles would be needed to achieve it given current male growth. We'd then split the figure into a series of sub percentages for different world regions and topics and give a number of articles needed. Once 100% is reached for one area we give out prizes to whoever created the most articles towards achieving it. That way we control growth and strongly tackle systematic bias but directly give an incentive to try to reach the target asap. It would have to be part of a long term challenge though, like the 100000 challenge. Perhaps Women in Red/The 20% Project and we find a way to hit percentage target each month on given topics like we've been doing but with prizes to max out content. An idea anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld: A rough calculation shows that we would need to add about 1,700 women's biographies a week between now and the end of the year to reach 18% of the total. At the moment, with the contest and the other additions we're probably adding about 700 a week. (Without the contest, there are less than 150 a week.) If we could maintain that increase, we might reach 18% by next May. We could make the 20% in about two years' time. The problem with the EN wiki is that there are already close to 1.5 million biographies. Other languages can increase the percentages much faster as there are not so many. For example, Norwegian has already been able to reach 22% women's biographies as there are only 145,000 in total. It is also easier for the other languages to base their developments on the wealth of English biographies which can be translated or adapted. I hope this does not sound too pessimistic. The proportion of women's biographies could be increased much faster if there were not so many restrictions on notability, especially in connection with academic teaching staff and researchers or with 18th and 19th century women who rarely have references which are easily accessible on the interest.--Ipigott (talk) 11:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. So you think maybe around 13,000 articles needed to get to even just 18%? It's a heck of as lot. If we get the support for more women contests I would like to trial something where we use the percentage bar to get us to the next percent and an ongoing contest/editathon. I think that sort of mechanism might get us there quicker.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is a lot. That's why we've been progressing so slowly. It's taken from March 2016 to move from 16% to 17.14%, or 18 months for one percent. When we were at 16.14% in April 2016, we had 217,442 women's biographies out of 1,347,281. Today we have 256,346 out of 1,495,334. So we've actually added 38,906 women's biographies over the past 18 months. That averages out at around 500 a week but we're now going faster than before.--Ipigott (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
That works out at an average of about 26.5%. It will be interesting to see what percentage we reach this month.--Ipigott (talk) 12:1s0, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The contest I don't think is going to up the percentage much over normal, but I think the global coverage and sheer diversity is very promising. I think if we're going to seriously up the percentage we need a contest designed specifically to up it by 1 %. Work out roughly what we need and then run a long editathon until we get there. If it was say 15,000 article, we set that in a percentage bar and split into a weekly target. Give prizes for most articles produced every week. One thing I'd like to try is a daily incentive system and see if it increases output and motivation. $4000 prize grant for instance, you could stretch it for 100 days and give $40 every day. That might work, some food for thought. Let's remain positive about what is being produced anyway, nearly 600 is very good so far.♦ Dr. Blofeld

FWIW, I like these ideas a lot. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your input in various places!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Helen Morningstar

Helen Morningstar was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Morningstar. Helen Morningstar (September 23, 1891–July 31, 1951) was a geologist who worked "worked from 1917 to 1923 as a Instructor of Geology and Paleontology at Ohio State University and in 1920 was elected as a Fellow of the Ohio Academy of Science". Can anyone find more sources about her? Cunard (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cunard:, I didn't see this notice earlier, but I did see the AfD. I couldn't find any other RS to help improve the article, unfortunately. :( Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look Megalibrarygirl (talk · contribs). I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources about her either. :( Cunard (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

New Prize: The Asian Month Writer's Book Prize

In celebration of Asian Month, a prize is being put up by Ser Amantio di Nicalao for the editors who manage to create articles on women from as many Asian countries as possible and as many women's occupations as well, though with an obvious emphasis on writers, but articles on any Asian women may count towards it and simultaneously count towards the others prizes for Asian articles and different occupations. Two prizes will be awarded for prolific, diverse and quality editing, the top prize is Japanese Women Writers: A Bio-Critical Sourcebook and the second prize is Arab Women Writers: A Critical Reference Guide, 1873-1999. Each book is 500 and something pages long and I believe crammed full of women's biographies which would both have a big impact on improving Wikipedia if used. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Publicity for British women bios

There is £250 in Amazon vouchers being put up by Wikimedia UK for whoever produces the most quality work on women biographies in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and Welsh Dictionary in the Women World Contest. So far only 29 articles have been submitted on British women to the main part of the contest and there's masses missing from the ODNB . I was wondering if Charles Matthews and Pigsonthewing, Andrew Davidson and Victuallers could help with publicizing this more and getting more British editors on board to participate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm tweeting the contest about 4 or 5 times a day. I reckon I've written 3 or 5 based on the ODNB .... but surely best to post them later??? Could be just gamesmanship. It is called the World championship. Surely if all the UK editors decide to do small countries in Asia/ Africa then that is a win for the wiki? I've been feeling guilty for doing UK ones. If you look at the flags then there are a good pile of union jacks. The contest is going VERY WELL Victuallers (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Oh and the list you quoted is misreporting. For some reason it thinks some the articles have a Qnumber after them. You can get a warmer feeling looking here Victuallers (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Sex differences in Schizophrenia

Could aby of you review this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_schizophrenia? One francophone contributor was concernaned that it might be stigmatizing to women. --Nattes à chat (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Nattes à chat, At a first glance, it seems OK, but it also seems like it doesn't need its own article. The information it contains seems as though it would be better merged into the main article about Schizophrenia. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Megalibrarygirl for your feedback.--Nattes à chat (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Biographies and works only?

Hi, I'm thinking of writing an article about a Mexican journalist who was murdered this year. I haven't looked up a lot of info about her early life, education, and profession, but most of the info will probably come from articles that covered her murder, too. The article will have a lot of info about the murder and ongoing investigation, so I'm thinking the appropriate title will be "Murder of X". Would that count for the Women in Red project, or is it strictly for biographies/works by women? I don't mean to promote a particularly gruesome murder, but I want to bring awareness to this since it received significant coverage in the media. MX () 17:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi MX, The scope of WiR is: women's biographies, women's works (broadly construed), and women's issues (broadly construed). Hope this helps. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi there I'm jumping in this conversation because I am interested in the subject. I think it is important to mention feminicides too. What is also more important is to make sure the article is centered on the victim IMO, and not describing only in details what the murderer did to her. I have had an example on the francophone Wikipedia where the victim Laetitia Perrais was redirected to her murderer's name Tony Meillhon: he had an article and she did not. A writer Ivan Jablonka wrote a whole book on this (Laëtitia ou la fin des hommes, Ivan Jablonka, Seuil) shocked by the disappearance of her own story. I also personnally prefer to give titles to section describing the prosecution and the legal procedure, the arrestation, and putting the gore details of the murder inside these subsections and not directly in the titles. Some muderers are known to appreciate the publicity made around their deeds, and putting the focus on how the murder was done can contribute to this. In some other affairs I choose to name the murderer well after his victim. Anyway these are my owm personnal reflections after writing a few articles on women murders (but in on the francophone wiki). I would therefore be interested to know how others handle this. Sometimes I give the article the name of the affair, like the Drame de la Pâquerette, when sources do so. I should now translate in English, but there so many things to write on! --Nattes à chat (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Nattes à chat yes, yes, yes. Totally agree with your perspective on this. The focus should not be on the perpetrator, but rather the victims. Femicide in Mexico is a huge problem and is specifically a separate crime from simply murder. Feminists worked really hard to pass that legislation and I would hope that redirects, rather than *ever* being made to the perpetrator, if they are deemed necessary would go to an article on femicide. SusunW (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Nattes à chat, I agree with SusunW. I also think a lot of people who conduct violence often do it to get notoriety. If we write articles about them, rather than the crime itself or the victims, it fuels that attitude. I'm not saying that people, like say, Manson aren't notable, but there needs to be balance. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

After 16 months

Hi.
I realised Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Spies wasn't edited since almost 16 months now. I made some appropriate changes (moved blue links to "needs work" from "red links"). I thought I should post the link here in case old editors forgot about it, and new ones dont know. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 21:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks, Usernamekiran! I have trouble finding spies and intelligence folks, so I'm glad you are taking the time to add to the redlist. It's better if we all work on these, for sure. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

World Contest AfD

This article, Pauline Irene Batebe, which is part of the Women in the World contest, is up for deletion. If any of our members have good access to African newspapers, they may better be able to assess her notability. I'm only finding mentions right now. Take a look and see what you think. You'll find more about her by searching "Irene Batebe." Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

December 2017 at the Ideas Cafe

Did you know that we discuss upcoming events at the "Women in Red Ideas Cafe"? All are welcome to join the conversation. Also, if you'd like to be involved in any of the follow-up tasks, e.g. creating the event page, creating the invite, choosing the image to accompany the event page, or etc., an extra set of hands is always nice. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Rosie, for triggering further discussion before we get to the stage where we have to produce editathon page, etc. I've made an additional suggestion for December which might interest some of you.--Ipigott (talk) 11:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Alliance for Women in Media awards

Does anyone have an insight for the Gracie Allen Award from the Alliance for Women in Media? It's a national award, but does that mean that all recipients are considered notable enough for an article? I'm asking as the article created this week for Heather Unruh, a journalist and TV anchor, has been put up for deletion. Sadly just 4 days after creation.

The list of past Gracie winners is at http://allwomeninmedia.org/gracies/award-winners/. Thanks -- (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Recruiting for the contest

What would be useful is if people keep an eye on new pages and invite anybody creating a women article not signed up to add their article to the contest list and participate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld: I've looked carefully at those who created women's biographies yesterday and have invited six to contribute: Eddie891, Giuliano Verducci, igwatala, Menemenetekelufarsim, Amandadoyle543 and Bruno Meireles. Bobo.03 has a tool for this sort of thing but he usually runs it at the end of the month. As I have invited the ones he picked up for September and October, there can't be very many who have not received notice of the contest.--Ipigott (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Really appreciate it, thanks for that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Ellen Susman

I just approved the AfC Ellen Susman, and saw that her late sister, Carol Spencer Mitchell, was a woman of courage and determination. I redlinked her and the book she authored, Danger Pay: Memoir of a Photojournalist in the Middle East. I'm working to expand and polish Ellen's BLP, so if any of you want to perform your magic on a worthy endeavor, Carol Spencer Mitchell is one you might consider. You can see her obit here. Atsme📞📧 23:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Radhika Jones, new Vanity Fair editor

Sounds like a good candidate for a Wikipedia page! See the NY times article.198.58.171.47 (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

See also
  • Adweek, some Bio material
  • Columbia U Society of Fellows Bio info
  • Guardian article
  • More bio information here
  • Politico article on her moving from Time to the NYT. 198.58.171.47 (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Record week for new women's biographies

Thanks to the impetus of Dr. Blofeld's World Contest and to some 275 new sports biographies by Lugnuts, the week ending 13 November was a record for WiR with 798 new female biographies on Wikidata. This represented 51.55% of all the new biographies on the EN wiki. It is the first time that more than half the new biographies in a given week have been on women. The increase also resulted in a jump from 17.15% to 17.18% for the "female" proportion of all the biographies on the EN wiki. All these efforts are helping to give more prominence to women on Wikipedia. (For more details, see the WHGI figures here.)--Ipigott (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks Ipigott. A lot of the more recent ones I recall doing are Olympians from recent games (1980 onwards), and I know from doing inter-wiki work, plenty of them have decent biographies in other languages, so hopefully they are a good starting point. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Aint my contest, it's WIR's contest! I thought we produced about 600 articles with the contest in a week, so with Lugnut's articles as well as others created I would have thought the figure would have been closer to 1000?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

From Monday 6th to Sunday 12th the contest produced 615 articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I will second that wow, no matter how you count them, if indeed it is over 50%. Great news, and terrific that these sports articles are finding their way back online (weren't some of these in the "Great Sander Deletion"? Sorry I forgot the particulars) because we definitely need all of those Olympians. It would be wonderful to have the complete set some day. Jane (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld: It was your initiative. As I said above, the figures are based on Wikidata. Some articles are added to Wikidata automatically on the basis of their categories but many have to be handled by human editors. This can take from a few hours to several weeks. Those familiar with Wikidata can help by adding key details, including "human" and "female" and if possible dates of birth/death and profession. Last week's figures probably also include quite a few from the previous week. By and large, Wikidata is a pretty good measure of progress on biographies. I can try to help by identifying article creators who do not add "women" categories, making sure their articles are properly covered on Wikidata. But if I do so, I'll have to stop contributing articles to the contest.--Ipigott (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
More important creating articles I think, :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
OK. I'll have a quick at the more prolific new article creators and then I'll get back to creating more articles myself.--Ipigott (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I found a few which had not been entered on Wikidata but the large majority are already there with human and female. Most of those that were missing this time should be included in next week's statistics.--Ipigott (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the update on the stats Ipigott. I really love that you keep up on this for us. I found two this past week that already had Wikidata entries but were coded as male. Dr. Blofeld, any way you go about it, you coordinated the event, so I am really thankful to you and that we are adding so many biographies. I really like the minimum text requirements so that we start with more comprehensive articles. SusunW (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
17.15 to 17.18% in 1 week? Statistically amazing. Thank you, Dr. Blofeld for making it happen. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
And thankyou to you both for your keen interest, participation and support!! :-) ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Prostitutes

The Category:Prostitutes in general, and Category:American prostitutes in particular could use a few more eyes and/or cleanup per this convo. Maybe we need an essay on categories. If interested, take a look through: WP:CATDEF, WP:CATEGRS, and WP:CATV. Also, I thought about creating a Wikidata-redlist for prostitutes or sex workers. What do you think? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

"Necessity is the mother of invention". There must be a huge number of editors interested in all the categories related to prostitution, sex workers, porno, and the like, for so many categories to have evolved on the EN-wiki over the years. Although I share Montanabw's concerns, I should point out that unfortunately there is far more interest on Wikipedia in models, "Misses", porno and apparently prostitutes. I'm not sure it's WiR's job to clean it all up. I think we should maintain our focus on creating articles. We don't have unlimited resources and we are becoming more and more stretched. In any case, I don't think my wife would be too happy about my casting my eyes on American prostitutes, as you suggest Rosie. Is all this a result of the sex scandals in Hollywood and beyond? Perhaps the youthful Roger might like to participate? But seriously speaking, the only member of WiR who could take a rational approach to all this is Ser Amantio di Nicolao once he has completed his contributions to the contest and if he not afraid of attacks by one of the more proactive, category-addicted women reviewers.--~~ Resinging--Ipigott (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm with User:Ipigott on this. There are a number of groups where editors can get help dealing with cats such as this; Wikipedia:WikiProject Women is perhaps the most appropriate. Let's keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red focused on article creation. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest and for participating in this discussion Stuart. In view of your recent new articles on New Zealand women, you might like tp become an "official" member of WiR. Feel free to sign up whenever you wish.--Ipigott (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the invite Ipigott; I was actually here for the current competition, until I realised that almost none of my articles is long enough to meet the criteria. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
The issue raised at my talkpage was more about historic women mis-categorized or over-categorized as prostitutes, the examples given included Maya Angelou and Calamity Jane. I think the post here was to draw eyes to the issue, which is twofold: 1) Whether categorization for a given individual is appropriate (particularly when they may not have actually been prostitutes, only accused of such; but also if they were coerced into the sex trade for some involuntary reason), and 2) If the content of the article that indicates the person was a prostitute is actually properly sourced and interpreted. I otherwise concur with the general grumbles about the over-emphasis on, well, topics of interest to a certain majority demographic on WP. Montanabw(talk) 21:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I find on the net an Encyclopedia of Prostitution and Sex Work and also an Encyclopedia of Women and Gender which apparently has a fair amount of coverage of the topic. There are also a rather large number of biographical dictionaries and encyclopedias and such for specific areas which might be useful to identify prostitutes in those locations. If there were to be one or more List of prostitutes type articles which limited inclusion to those who are clearly identified as prostitutes, and maybe Category:People in the sex industry for porn performers and such, that might help a little. John Carter (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Editathon on women scientists in Nashville on 14 November

Just came across this but could not find anything on the U.S. meetups pages. Does anyone know Alice White or her Wikipedia user name? It would be interesting to see whether there are any new contributors.--Ipigott (talk) 12:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Zeromonk: - Dumelow (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Dumelow. Sorry for not adding to US Meetups page, that's not something that I've done for UK events so I didn't think to. Will keep you posted on what comes of the event - will be pointing people towards the World Contest today! Zeromonk (talk) 13:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, Alice. I watched your great video this morning. You have a very pleasant voice and present things very clearly. You should get Rosiestep to invite you to some conferences. I found lots of information about you but there was no indication anywhere of your user name. If you could let us know the names of those who attended your session, we can perhaps help them along if they decide to stick with Wikipedia. You might also like to write a few articles for the contest yourself.--Ipigott (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ipigott, thanks so much for the kind words and suggestions! Hosts here at Vanderbilt did create a meetup page - I'll do my best to keep track of usernames, etc, and doing some articles myself is definitely the plan too! Zeromonk (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Zeromonk: I looked at what the listed participants have been doing. The most interesting item was this attempt: a new article by Bunjolah. Most of the other participants seem to have been involved in the organization of the meetup. But please keep in touch and let us know of anything we can do to encourage any new editors who are interested in contributing articles on women. You are doing a good job yourself with Mary Elizabeth Hickox Mandels. It's just the kind of article we need for the World Contest. Why not participate and add it?--Ipigott (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Diversity Group

Some of you may be interested in taking a look at a newly-forming group centered on diversity, created as a follow-up to WikiDivCon, which occurred earlier this month. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of "Authority control"

There is a discussion here on the proposed deletion of the template Authority control. I hope many of you, like me, find the collection of data the template turns up on our biographies extremely useful and will argue for its survival. I think Rosiestep, SusunW and Megalibrarygirl will be among many who will contribute.--Ipigott (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Some of you may be interested in the following comment from here: "I had and have plenty of reasons to reject all Wikidata data anyway (up to and including the Authority Control probably)." In the light of this comment, the deletion proposal cannot be considered as a serious attempt to improve our resources.--Ipigott (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
What is unserious about a proposal to use only sources that meet our standards for reliability, especially on BLPs? Wikidata has different standards and has explicitly rejected proposals to bring their standards in line with WP:RS and WP:BLP ([1]). So it's a matter of drawing the line for what types of Wikidata can be accepted despite their loose sourcing policy and what must be rejected. This one sets the line fairly strictly, but it comes from a well-motivated position of only allowing Wikipedia content that is actually subject to Wikipedia policies (which Wikidata is not subject to). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
If I am understanding you correctly David Eppstein and I allow that I may not be, the standards of Wikidata have nothing to do with Authority Control being used on WP articles. In and of themselves, as Megalibrarygirl pointed out, the authorities are created by experts. Thus, they clearly meet WP standards and add weight to the notability of an article. Moving them to Wikidata, on the other hand, does a disservice to readers of WP, regardless of whether they are editors, by removing expert information in favor of information created by editors and diminishing the usefulness of the material to scholars. SusunW (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
(adding after edit conflict) David Eppstein: Thanks, David, for your comments but I am a bit confused. Are you saying that some of the items covered by Authority control are not suitable for justifying items listed on Wikidata? If so, it would be useful to know which particular items you have in mind and what shortcomings they exhibit. As you may know, most of the items covered by Authority control are the result of many decades of research on biographical and bibliographical listings by the world library community. Wikipedia and Wikidata can hardly pretend to have achieved more reliability than that!--Ipigott (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I am saying that Wikidata has very loose standards for what it accepts as a fact and for how it sources its facts, as is its right as a separate project. But because of those loose standards, we should be very careful about wholesale import of facts from Wikidata into Wikipedia. In the case of authority control, this issue is mitigated because the facts in question are largely uncontroversial, but it is still part of a problematic bigger picture. A secondary but important issue is that Wikidata also has much less effort put into vandalism control than here. It would be very easy to vandalize an authority control link (e.g. by replacing the number by a different number that points to a sex offender) and very hard for anyone to notice and correct the vandalism. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
David Eppstein: Then I conclude that you are in fact in favour of maintaining Authority control on the EN wiki?--Ipigott (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Ipigott per his comment on the template thread, only if Authority Control has not been contaminated by Wikidata unverified information. SusunW (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Now I understand what he was talking about. I had not realized that data from Wikidata was to be included in Authority control. That would indeed be a disaster. As far as I can see, most of the information on Wikidata is no more reliable than that on Wikipedia. There seems to be little or no requirement for reliable sourcing on Wikidata although there is a vague recommendation that new entries should have at least one source. In any case, now that the discussion on Authority control has been concluded, we can all continue to use the template unimpeded.--Ipigott (talk) 10:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean by the hypothetical statements "data from Wikidata was to be included in Authority control" and "only if Authority Control has not been contaminated by Wikidata unverified information"? Where do you think these numbers come from at the moment? All that is added in the WP article is the template code {{Authority control}} and the links to all the different external identifiers associated with the subject are imported from Wikidata. That's how the template works. Furthermore, to claims about Wikidata being unreliable - an external identifier to, say, VIAF is a "self-referencing" statement: you cannot provide a third-party footnote to the fact that a given person's VIAF number is 123456789 any better than a link to that exact VIAF record. Regardless of where you store that information - in wikipedia as a plain external link, in Wikipedia as a template, in Wikidata as a structured statement, it is the same level of reliability and performs the same function. The specific benefit of it being in Wikidata is that OTHER Wikipedias can take advantage of the same work without having to manually copy and paste VIAF numbers (etc.) into each separate language WP biography. This is the same reason we created Commons: so we didn't have to upload the same photo 50 times to use it in the same article across 50 languages (and update the metadata/caption/license 50 times if something changed). Wittylama 16:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Wittylama, you took the words out of my mouth... except your probably said it more clearly than my attempt. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Glad to see this issue solved. In spite of the systemic bias in most of the databases currently linked in that template, this project has benefitted from it in so many ways! Jane (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Speaking of issues with Wikidata, is anyone else having the problem that it will not accept information? I have attempted 5 times to input the data for Ann-Marie Williams and it keeps giving me an error "object not found" and saves nothing. I finally stopped trying to "complete" her entry adding only female and Belizean journalist and public policy advisor, but it still will not update or save the data. SusunW (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
SusunW, I tried creating the item for Ann-Marie Williams and also encountered an error message. Jane023, any idea if others are experiencing problems creating new items? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep Thank you. I don't know how to fix the problem, but glad to have someone confirm that it isn't just me. SusunW (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
SusunW, According to a note posted on the FB Wikidata Group 2 hours ago, the database was locked, with an explanation: "the database master is running in read-only mode". But in the meantime, it appears to be functioning as, a few minutes ago, I could add info on new article Corinne Stubbs Brown. When you have a chance, can you see if you're able to add Ann-Marie Williams? --Rosiestep (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Rosiestep finally able to add her. Thank you! SusunW (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I also have had a serious problem with Wikidata for the past 24 hours or so. In the end I begged Jane to sort it out on her talk page.
But to get back to the more serious problem of Authority control, let's not pretend, Rosiestep and Wittylama, that the items it covers are a result of work on Wikidata. I've been closely involved in the international library world for some 40 years and can confirm that much of the research and development which has gone into these biographical and bibliographical items is a result of collaboration across the worldwide library community, supported by the world's most respected national libraries and with the support and coordination of OCLC. While the occasional error can be found in the data, I would guess that well over 99% of the information presented is fully reliable and can indeed by used to authenticate information on names, dates of birth, lists of written works, etc. I think what some of us are afraid of is that unsourced or unsufficiently sourced Wikidata entries could be substituted for the items now included in Authority control. (It was for this reason that I brought the proposal under discussion to the attention of WiR participants.) That of course would be disastrous. Please correct me if I am wrong, Megalibrarygirl.--Ipigott (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm unclear why you think I would pretend to make a claim about something like "a result of work on Wikidata", or, frankly, anything, Ipigott. This is not a kind comment.
  • The identifiers, e.g. VIAF, are stored on Wikidata; they are not stored on any language Wikipedia. Similarly, images are stored on Commons; they are not stored on any language Wikipedia.
  • While an editor might add VIAF or another identifier to a Wikipedia article, a bot will remove the identifier from Wikipedia, and move it to Wikidata. Similarly, while an editor might add an image to a Wikipedia article, it will be removed at some point and moved to Commons (or deleted).
  • The Templates for Deletion discussion was whether to retain the Authority Control template on Wikipedia pages to allow for easy access to the identifiers, or force people to click the Wikidata link to view the identifiers. A similar discussion could be made with images: allow images to stay in Wikipedia articles, or include a Commons category link for the topic in a Wikipedia article, forcing a reader to click the link to see any images associated with the article. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
The big difference between commons and wikidata is that commons' image licensing standards are generally more strict than the standards here (so importing their images is safe here) while wikidata's quality and sourcing standards are less strict than the standards here (so importing their data is not safe). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep: My comments are never intended to be "unkind" to anyone, certainly not to you. I would have thought that after the many years we have been working closely together, you would know how much I appreciate your expertise and your contributions. But I do like to sort out misunderstandings. It may well be that the Authority control items are "stored" on Wikidata, but that is not the point. If you go carefully through this entire thread, you'll see that there was a proposal to delete the template Authority control from the English wiki on the basis that the information on Wikidata could replace what we were presently able to access through the template. (As a result of this discussion, David Eppstein commented on the Wikidata position vs the EN wiki.) I have a feeling Wittylama may not have followed the story from the start as his comments seem rather out of place given his own experience in the national library community. I certainly agree with everything you set out immediately above, Rosie, but that is not what I was commenting on. I just wanted to stress that the items covered by Authority control are in general far, far, more reliable than the data on individuals stored on Wikidata itself. In other words, it was not about the mechanics of access to Authority control but rather the huge information sources accessed by the various items included in the Authority control template. Please accept my sincere apologies for any misunderstanding, Rosie. I hope these explanations will help to sort things out.--Ipigott (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah I see. So basically you are just objecting to having the links under acronyms like "VIAF" disappear from the page itself? As I understand it, the feeling was that many WP readers are unaware of these acronyms and find them simply confusing. It may be that the template should be made into a user preference, so that librarians and others can turn it on, but we won't force it on not-logged-in readers. I can also imagine that one would like to trim every possible extraneous thing from the reader's screen on mobile (though as others have stated, the authority control template is pretty compact). Since we have so many biography pages using the template, then it is also possible that we should split it into a "biographies-only" version, and maybe we need our own "women-biographies-only-version" where we can stuff various women's databases in there on top of the huge "VIAF" ones. Jane (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Jane023: Yes, exactly. I'm glad to see you understand my concern. Maybe Authority control should indeed be subject to user preferences, especially for the mobile environment as you suggest, although I would strongly recommend that it be displayed whenever a registered Wikipedia editor is viewing pages on which it is active. Apart from anything else, the information it reveals can help to trigger interest in the works people have created. It also often provides authenticated information on a person's date and place of birth and/or death which can then be included in the article (and by extension in the Wikidata entry). The links to the national library files are particularly useful for the Europeans we so often write about. I often find that when I am creating a biography, I am helped along by looking at the information provided under the various links on Authority control. For those who are confused by Authority control and the items it includes, it might be useful to create a simpler, less technical introduction than this page which turns up when you click on Authority control at the foot of an article.--Ipigott (talk) 10:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Interesting! That Help page gets vandalized a lot! I also don't think it is as helpful as the article Authority control, so maybe the link should just be redirected there. The data identifiers per article are all on Wikidata, so it probably is better to tune the data per infobox (e.g. build the VIAF and a few others into the infobox for person, etc). Now we just have a template including every single external identifier for everything. As far as metadata on women goes, we still need to add lots of sources by hand that are not in the authority control template, so I guess I don't see losing this template as a huge loss to this project. Rather I am interested in talking about a "infobox Woman" that could be tailored to common RS for WiR articles. Jane (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
At Wikidatacon, several of us spoke again about Infoboxes (and by extension AC) becoming Preferences on Wikipedias, including that eventually, readers should be able to choose which Infoboxes (+ ACs) they'd like to see, e.g. "I want to see Opera Infoboxes on opera article pages, but I don't want to see Biography Infoboxes on biography articles. Again, by extension, Preferences could -eventually- be used for AC, e.g. "I want to see a link for VIAF if it exists, but I don't want to see the Worldcat link if it exists". I don't remember if you were part of those conversations, Jane023? This will take time but I think it's the way forward, though I'm doubtful that ENWP will be the first to embrace the idea. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Whatever happens with Infoboxes (which in many cases I find superfluous) I must really make the case for maintaining Authority control on the EN wiki, at least for the time being. As I've tried to explain above, it provides access to a wide range of well-researched information from the libraries community and can also be used to enhance Wikidata itself. I hope any action taken will be a result of deep discussion.--Ipigott (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So, I have another Wikidata dilemma. I have two sisters Adela and Celsa Speratti whose lives really just paralleled, but I did not want to leave one of them out so combined them as they had done on Spanish WP. (I actually looked at Siegfried & Roy to figure out how to input the duplicate sets of info.) I think I have it in properly in the article and on Wikidata, BUT my issue is that they both have Authority Control data and I have no idea how to input that. I loaded Adela's info on my article page {{Authority control|VIAF=177321923|ISNI=0000 0003 5611 9177|LCCN=no2011137198}}, but it won't let me add Celsa's {{Authority Control|VIAF=187226503|ISNI=0000 0003 5784 0425|LCCN=no2011137201}}. What do I do?

SusunW, I think each woman will need her own item on Wikidata and the corresponding identifiers should be added to that item, e.g. Sonny Bono and Cher. But if Adela and Celsa Speratti are an instance of a couple, like Sonny & Cher and Siegfried & Roy, the couple will have unique identifiers and those are the ones which should be on the "Adela and Celsa Speratti" page. I'm trying to find an example of a couple where it doesn't have unique identifiers, but the two individuals do, which would be the best example to follow, but am not finding an example at the moment. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep yes, you have totally nailed my problem. There isn't enough information on Celsa to create more than a tiny stub and since her data so much overlaps, Adelas, I felt it best to include her as Spanish WP did. But when I got to Wikidata, I was totally confused as to how to proceed. Hopefully someone with more technical expertise can figure out how to do it. I created separate redirects for WP, but how that would work with Wikidata, I have no idea. SusunW (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
SusunW, let's wait to hear from others (cc: @Wittylama, Jane023, and Megalibrarygirl) for additional opinions, but I think the answer involves: remove the identifiers from d:Adela and Celsa Speratti; create a Wikidata item for Adela and add her identifiers to her item; create a Wikidata item for Celsa and add the identifiers you've found for her. After creating items for Adela and for Chelsa, add properties ("instance of"→"sibling duo"; "has part"→Adela Speratti; "has part"→Celsa Speratti) to d:Q5657480 to link them (see: Brothers Grimm d:Q2793). In the end, the Wikipedia article for Adela and Celsa Speratti won't display any identifiers in Authority Control, unless some can be found for them as a "couple" (see: Sonny & Cher, Siegfried & Roy, Brothers Grimm). --Rosiestep (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes Rosie you are quite correct. On Wikidata an item can only be one person and never more than that. For established concepts involving more people you can also have an item for a duo, quartet, band, team etc. That is one of the main differences between Wikipedia and Wikidata: the simple fact that on Wikipedia you have this "merge culture" that stuffs concepts together in order to fit the story, while on Wikidata you ave this "precision culture" that can only ever offer a certain precision to a concept (so founder-organization, husband-wife or father-son pairs are always two separate items, etc). There is even a whole set of help pages to explain the "Bonnie and Clyde" problem as it is known, which is only something that Wikipedians complain about. Librarians, who have been cataloguing people and organizations for years, love to link to Wikidata for this reason, as it is much less ambiguous than Wikipedia projects are. Jane (talk) 08:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
This also means, btw, that had you chosen to make separate articles on the two Sperattis, there would be no way to use Wikidata to link to the Spanish article on both of them, and vice versa. Making links through Wikidata forces both sides to partition knowledge into the same pieces, and that's not always possible for differing languages. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Jeannette H. Lee

Survived AfD and I've expanded it a bit with the sources dug up in the AfD discussion. However, one source that provides various additional info (education, more awards and board memberships, etc.) is clearly a primary source (a self-authored bio regurgitated by a state body [2]). I'll leave it to others' judgement what should or should not be pulled from that. At a guess, probably education and position but not awards and accolades – unless additional sources can verify them. I mentioned this on the article's talk page as well.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  23:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI Making the most of DYK

Hi friends, I have just noticed the DYK project (whereby new articles can get listed on the main page) discussing the increase in new biographies of women. Too many firsts They are gently suggesting that hooks focusing on a cool accomplishment, rather on a person being the first woman to do something, will be more effective at attracting clicks, especially when several appear in close succession. Click link to participate in discussion there.-2607:FEA8:D5DF:FE14:2019:2DD9:616B:CAF (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've commented here.--Ipigott (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Yasmin Sooka

Yasmin Sooka was a member of leading human rights lawyera dn transnational justice in United Nations commissions both in Africa and the World and being a member of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission,Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission and United Nations 's Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka amongst others article can be significantly expanded.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

List of female UK honours recipients without articles

I have been working on a list of UK women who have achieved top-tier state honours (like damehoods) and I was thinking it might make a helpful redlist for Women in Red; there are dozens (maybe hundreds) of women who are clearly notable as a result of receiving these awards but who lack articles – a central list could be really helpful for editors especially in light of the current competition. Does this sound useful? If so, how can I best create such a sub-page for the project? Many thanks, –Noswall59 (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC).

Pinging our Librarian in Residence, Megalibrarygirl, who may have some thoughts on this. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Note that an MBE by itself is usually not considered enough for notability, but may be a hint that the subject is notable for something else. So we should include those too, but not as "these people are notable and missing", only as "take a look at whether they're notable". —David Eppstein (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep, thanks ever so much! David Eppstein, yeah, as it stands my list (currently offline) has missing DBEs and I plan to add equivalent ranks from other honours too; they should all be notable and I imagine it's a lot easier for everyone if we identify them all and have the redlinks in one place. There have been so many MBEs etc (many of which are non-notable) that it would be easier to direct people towards the honours list articles. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC).
Noswall59, Do you know if they've been bulk-uploaded to Wikidata (d:Q14420) and/or if any of their (suitably-licensed) images have been uploaded to WikiCommons (c:Category:Order of the British Empire)? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@Rosiestep, Noswall59, and David Eppstein: I can go through the list at some point and see if there are any good sources for them. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl, Rosiestep I am not familiar with Wikidata, but they don't appear to have been bulk-uploaded (do check though). I have dumped my offline list here for now, so feel free to take a look. They all need linking, but the list is complete for DBEs and I've put in subheadings for other honours. I wondered whether something along these lines could form a project page. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC).
Noswall59: Thanks for your list with all the red links. Perhaps we could promote it as one of the resources to be included for next March when once again we'll be participating in Women's History Month. Alternatively, we could provide geo-focus on the British Isles, perhaps in February. Maybe we should discuss this on our Ideas and future planning page.--Ipigott (talk) 11:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Mary Van Stevens

Mary Van Stevens was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Van Stevens. She was "elected and served as Heppner's first female mayor in 1954 and assumed office on 3 January 1955". Can anyone find more sources about her? Cunard (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Heppner is a very small town, perhaps even a village. In this case I don't really think we can provide support despite numerous articles in the local newspaper.--Ipigott (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Brenda Jones-Matthews

Brenda Jones-Matthews was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenda Jones-Matthews. According to https://www.newspapers.com/image/127411288/, "Franklin's new major (Brenda Jones-Matthews) is the first woman ever to hold that office." Can anyone find more sources about her? Cunard (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Just as above, small town mayor with minimal local-only press coverage, unlikely to survive AFD. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I've added some sourcing, and there's more to be found on her actions as mayor, but unless we can find in-depth non-local press I think the article is doomed. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Metrics and the World Contest, a comparison of Nov 2016 and Nov 2017

November will be the second month in 2017 where the number of articles produced in a particular month exceed the same period in 2016. See our metrics page here. IMO, this has to be attributed to the contest. I think the delta between November 2016 and November 2017 will be staggering, as the total for November 2016 was 2,257 articles, and, as of this moment on November 20th, our bot lists 2,271 articles. With 10.5 days still to go, these numbers are impressive. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Rosiestep It's certainly the contest. As you may have seen on the main page, we jumped from 17.18% last week to 17.22% this week. That's a record.--Ipigott (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Dr. Blofeld with an FYI, as I'm assuming you are tracking these records for your grant report. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks for letting me know. I'm wondering why the extra 700 odd article produced outside the contest can't become a part of our list though, is there anyway a bot can alert all of the reasonably decent extra article creators and ask them to put their articles on our list? So we've gone from 17.15 to 17.22 in 20 days? Good but given the amount of articles so much effort needed to gain half a percent let alone one. We'll have to devise a new mechanism for the new year to max out production and really try to directly work with getting that percentage up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
A pity there's nothing to measure diversity and global distribution though as this month would be off the charts!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld; (a) regarding "measure diversity and global distribution", you could do by country on a spreadsheet and then create graphs. (b) As for "a bot can alert all of the reasonably decent extra article creators and ask them to put their articles on our list", don't know that there's a bot that can do that function, so maybe on a wishlist for the next contest? You could also put the two lists on a spreadsheet, sort out the ones which aren't on the contest page, and ask the editor on their talkpage if they would donate their article to the contest. Hard to say how many editors created the 700 articles which don't appear on the contest page but are listed on the metrics page. Maybe Bobo.03 has some thoughts regarding an alternate use of his recruitment bot (for the contest vs. to become a member of WiR). --Rosiestep (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: Trying to follow the thread. I'd think that most contest related articles would show on the metrics page? Otherwise, it might be hard to identify those articles in the first place IMO. The step to alert editors would be relatively simple, as Rosiestep said, just leaving an invitation message to them on their talk page. Bobo.03 (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Cheers Rosie. If we can get WMF support for contests long term for WIR then perhaps then we can also have something to measure diversity and scope progress long term. It would be a legit thing to document as systematic bias is a serious thing still.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I've been watching this quite carefully. One of the most productive creators of women's biographies this month has been David Eppstein who joined WiR at the end of October. He does not want to bother with statistics, preferring simply to concentrate on article creation, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. In an exchange on his talk page, he has however invited me to take care of the stats - so I'll simply add his new women's biographies to Article achievements.--Ipigott (talk) 08:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I've now added 74 of his articles. That should make quite a difference.--Ipigott (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
A couple were duplicates - I took the liberty of removing them. (Hope that's not an issue.) Still an impressive number, though. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for double checking, Ser Amantio. The duplicates were a result of slipshod cutting and pasting. And thanks also for covering San Marino. I think we now have at least one article for each of the European countries.--Ipigott (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Indeed - thank you for covering Monaco. I think we do have coverage, now, for every European country. Furthermore, I think we have coverage for every country in the world at this point...I see we're working on some of the unrecognized/less-recognized territories. (No need to apologize, by the by - we've already made up the ground, numbers-wise. :-) ) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I was actually wondering why we have not covered the British crown dependencies of the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey, all of which are proud not to be part of the United Kingdom. With populations of 84,000, 100,000 and 66,000 respectively, they are all much more populous than San Marino. Perhaps I'll start looking for notable women from each of them and add them to the main contest list. They all have flags!--Ipigott (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft discussion

I've started a discussion here about a draft. As the subject is female, it falls into your purview. Input is requested and appreciated. Primefac (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Primefac: I've looked at the article and have to agree that your Hispanic sergeant is really not notable enough for inclusion. Her main claim to fame seems simply to be that she was Hispanic. If she had been decorated or widely reported for bravery or whatever, then it would have been OK. After all your lists, it's good to see you are starting to create biographies about women. You should look through some of our red lists (accessible from our main WiR page) and pick someone who is already sufficiently sourced. If you need further help, don't hesitate to ask again.--Ipigott (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red&oldid=811847440"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA