Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:47, 30 June 2014

• WT:GBTF

Discussions about categorization as applied to the goals of this project should be placed in the sub-board devoted to that purpose at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_bias_task_force/Categorization

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Deletion discussion in progress

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic gender bias XOttawahitech (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

"Merging" (aka Deleting) categories

There is a discussion on merging Category:American women philosophers, Category:Asian American philosophers and Category:African-American philosophers into Category:American philosophers which would, in fact, lead to their deletion. If you would like to weigh in on the conversation (pro or con), go to Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 17#Category:American (x) philosophers. Liz 21:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Categories again

Obi, I would like to try to revive this project a little, with others, if possible, which is why I'm tidying the main page. The categories issue is a very particular interest, and in addition there are concerns that it may not be the best approach. That's why I removed some of the detail. SlimVirgin 06:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

By particular interest, do you mean there was a massive media sh*tstorm the last time we did categorization incorrectly? I hardly think it's minor, and would love this project to continue to be involved in that. What "concerns" are there?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Slim, for taking this on. I agree with your truncated version. jps (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Which 'truncated version' are we talking about? The complete removal of the de-ghettoization information? That's not truncated, but complete removal! Surely it's a perfectly reasonable activity for this Project, to de-ghettoize categories? What has changed that makes de-ghettoization incorrect? Considering neither of the removers are members of the Project, what right do they have to dictate the Project's goals? Mind you, I took my name off the project too earlier this year, for completely different reasons, though I spent many weeks on the de-ghettoization task. Sionk (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

yes, Bobo and jps are involved in a vicious content battle with me about the Category:Violence against men category which jps wants to delete. The deghettoization instructions being summarily deleted here without discussion or explanation are just collateral damage from that. Id suggest to those removing this information that the ghettoization of categories was the subject of weeks of media coverage about wikipedia's systemic gender bias, indeed if you were to write an article on that bias, the categories story would be story #1. As such removing the instructions used to deghettoize categories and summarily deciding that categories are no longer part of this project is ignoring the wider reality in which we sit and the reason this very project exists.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not involved in any content dispute with you at Category:Violence against men (or anywhere else), so I'd appreciate it if you would retract that. My concern is just that it takes up a lot of the page, it seems to be contentious, and it's unlikely that women coming here will want to focus on it. Perhaps we could link on the page to where it's described elsewhere, though I'm still concerned in case it's not a standard approach. SlimVirgin 18:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

fixed, I didn't mean you of course. Slim, how exactly does it take up a lot of the page? The instructions are actually collapsed, so they take up no room at all. Also, this page is not just for women editors, I hope you can adjust your thinking on that point... And which part, exactly and specifically, do you find to be contentious?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Obiwankenobi, I'd describe what is happening more as serious concern regarding one editor making so many unilateral changes to gender related content/categories, absent consensus. To stay on topic here, what's the problem with these categories:

Category: American women activists (and various subcategories)

Category: American women comedians

Category: American women by occupation

Category: Male feminists

Category: American women painters (and various subcategories)

Category: Women mayors

They appear to be valid useful categories. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I personally went through much the contents of Category: American women painters and the articles in this category is largely okay. However, I've just dipped into Category: American women comedians and picked a couple of articles in the category at random (Eliza Coupe, Rachel Crow, Chelsea Handler) and none of them are de-ghettoized. In fact they are also in 'Jewish' and 'African-American' categories! So I see no problem in updating the Project's to-do list, but deleting it all in its entirely seems to be simply non-Project members taking out a grievance with Obiwankenobi in the wrong place. Sionk (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how "de-ghettoizing" these categories serves the task force goals. Could someone please explain. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Bobo, if you don't see how it serves the task force goals, then I'd suggest you do some more reading on the Amanda Filipacchi case, all of the articles and accusations of sexism and gender bias at wikipedia as a result of that. And then, you can come back and ask what deghettoization has to do with gender bias here. I have a feeling you don't even know what you were reverting, nor why.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a task force related to the under-representation of female editors on Misplaced Pages, and the bias that results from that. Seems "deghettoizing" those categories is not the way to start, and in fact, may even be contrary to task force goals. What exactly do you think needs done to those above mentioned categories to reduce the bias resulting from women being under-represented as wiki editors? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

No, Bobo, "The aim of the task force is to identify gender bias on Misplaced Pages – whether in articles, discussions, policies or implementation of policies – and to take steps to counter it". The lack of female editors is perhaps a cause, and a symptom, it's all intertwined, but this project is most certainly about content and not just getting more women editors. Again, if you haven't done any reading (see Filipacchi story) on the history of the deghettoization mess and all of the negative press wikipedia received around that, I'd suggest you stop commenting until you have. Suggesting that deghettoizing the categories is contrary to task force goals means either you don't know what the goals are or you don't know what deghettoization MEANS. I wouldn't be giving you a hard time if (a) you hadn't gotten involved in an edit war that you clearly didn't even understand and (b) you weren't making declarative opinions about the value of this or that while demonstrating that you don't even know what deghettoization means, nor whether or not it is a good thing. If you undo your revert, it would make me much more willing to engage with you, frankly. When I first added this info a year ago, another editor said: "Thanks for posting that, and this is a good place for it. I'm not sure I follow what's needed, mind you. Whenever I've tried to work with categories, I've mostly been beaten back. :" That editor's name? I'll let y'all guess.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk). 19:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, are you suggesting systemic bias on wikipedia, as it relates to gender, refers to bias against male editors? More than 90% of edits on WP are made by male editors, so that's a hard argument to follow. Also, I'm familiar with the Amanda Filipacchi case ] and it seems the issue there would be whether or not adding an article to the category "American woman authors" should necessitate removing author from category "American authors". It seems it should not. PS-the off topic discussion is getting distracting, but to be precise, that's not my quote, and as far as I can see, the only edit warrior was you. I only made one revert, while you made three.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

No Bobo, Im suggesting this project is about systemic bias IN the wiki. Women being ghettoized in categories is an excellent example of that bias, and that's not just me talking, that's dozens of outside reliable sources who made the same claim. You joined into the middle of an edit war and removed material that you don't even understand. For example, if I told you a category was full of biographies that were ghettoized, should that be fixed? If so, how? You just deleted the instructions. Do you understand what deghettoization means, and how it relates to the Filipacchi case?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

If by fixing you mean putting relevant authors into the category "American authors" and in category "American women authors" then yes. However, it is not clear you mean that, and my past experiences with your edits suggests you do not mean that. Also, could you review WP:CIVIL. There's no need to make this personal. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the instructions that you so callously deleted? Do you have any idea what those instructions had to say about american authors and American women authors? I frankly don't care about your experiences with my past edits, I'm not judging you based on your obvious inexperience here, I'm asking you to read before you start reverting things. Can you try that? Read the instructions, and then come back and start making claims about what I "mean" when I say deghettoization - otherwise you're just casting vicious aspersions with veiled innuendo.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

We could just refer people to the guideline: "For anyone interested in categorization, see Misplaced Pages:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality and specifically WP:Cat gender." SlimVirgin 19:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree Slim. This is a project, and the place for a list of things to fix, and instructions for how to fix them, is here. I've also in other conversations pointed people to these deghettoization guidelines, so deleting them without any consensus on talk is overly aggressive and a violation of WP:BRD.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Obi, I set this project up for women to track and discuss whatever bias they saw on Misplaced Pages, whether in articles, policies, behaviour, etc. It didn't become active, so I decided recently to try to revive or restart it. That's why I edited the page. It's not good to see it overtaken by category talk, which few would want to get deeply involved in, given how aggressive it can become. It's especially not good if a non-mainstream or non-consensus approach is being recommended (and I don't know whether it is).

I was hoping this could become a safe space for quiet, positive collaboration. It would help a lot if the talk about categories could be taken elsewhere. Lots of people watching this are likely to feel discouraged from jumping in. I know I feel discouraged by it (and I am very used to feeling discouraged on WP!). SlimVirgin 19:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Slim, I'm all for this being a place of collaboration. When new participants who haven't helped here barge in, start making reverts they clearly don't even understand, and refuse to follow WP:BRD instead of calmly discussing, yes, I agree that makes things difficult. Why don't you set the bar, restore the material, and then we can have a measured conversation without disruption. You keep on suggesting that the deghettoization of categories is not mainstream or consensus - I wish you'd indicate why you believe that, or what the problems with that are? Most of the conversations that have taken place on this page have been about categorization, so even if it's not something you care deeply about, others here do. Again, I see no reason for you to unilaterally declare a topic off-topic here, in a real collaborative space we would all have the capacity to put forth things which we think are important.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but look, if most of the discussion on this page has been about categories (and still is), and the task force never took off, perhaps there's a connection?

I don't want to rehash discussions taking place elsewhere, but it seems that your approach to categories is contentious. Whether that's fair, I have no idea. I don't understand the anti-ghettoization principle, because sometimes it's fine to have cats about women artists, etc. I don't understand when it's not fine and who is making those decisions. The women novelists category was never the problem; it was not allowing women novelists in the parent category too that was the problem.

But anyway, you seem to be saying that once you add something about it to this page, it has to stay there ... forever? It has been there for over a year, and the only reason I didn't remove it earlier was in case this happened. I was hoping that, after a year, it would be okay to start revamping the page a bit (though I don't yet know how or in which direction), so I hope you'll let that go ahead.

I can't see any reason not to refer people to Misplaced Pages:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, and just leave it there, because whatever it suggests there is what people should be doing. SlimVirgin 20:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I see, so two of the editors than are repeatedly removing information and instructions about de-ghettoization don't actually understand de-ghettoization. This definitely sounds like you've had an argument with Obiwankenobi elsewhere and are taking out your frustration on this project. I might have to re-join to defend it! Sionk (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but look, if most of the discussion on this page has been about categories (and still is), and the task force never took off, perhaps there's a connection? Damn, that's a zinger. FWIW, for those playing along, the person who complimented me on putting the categorization instructions here a year ago was none other than SlimVirgin. Oh how times change... In any case, sheesh, suggesting that an area that has attracted the most talk page attention is the CAUSE for the project not taking off is, um, well, interesting. Anyway, Slim, if you want to promote an inclusive atmosphere, let's start by not deleting other editor's contributions to the common good, like the ghettoization algorithm I took a long time to develop - it would be a great sign of your good faith if you reverted your changes pending our discussion here, per WP:BRD. It's amazingly ironic that both you and Bobo deleted that, and then it turns out you don't even understand de-ghettoization! Perhaps it needs even more explanation here, rather than less!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty obvious. I'm surprised that even Slim doesn't understand what de-ghettoization means, so let me make it explicit. Deghettoization is the process of ensuring that a biography is in all relevant non-gendered categories in addition to gendered ones (or ethnic, or sexuality, etc). Thus, the process of deghettoization almost always includes ADDING new categories to an article. Bobo disagrees with me on a few minor categorizations in a rather different domain, and thus they ascribe bad faith to me for my work on deghettoization.

A shorter way of putting it is, when the massive shitstorm started by Filipacchi about categorization on wikipedia started, the solution AGREED upon by a vast majority of the editors who participated there was...wait for it... deghettoization. And Slim, no, I'm not saying once something is there it has to stay forever. I am saying, you are not the executive chair of this board, and if you want it to be an inclusive space the first step would be (1) Don't delete another editor's proposals without discussing and (2) Don't violate BRD on a project page - of all places. I'm also a member of this project Slim, so I hope you accept that my voice is just as important as yours.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I set up the task force with women in mind. I hoped that women could use it to discuss the gender gap. When I saw that other issues were being discussed, I stopped watching the page. Recently there was a discussion about needing a place for women to discuss these issues, so I was thinking of trying to revive this, which includes adding something more inviting to women to the main page, or trying to develop it in that direction (I'm not sure yet). Pinging others who might be interested: SarahStierch, Kaldari, Carolmooredc, The Vintage Feminist, Gobonobo, Kevin Gorman, Jayen466. SlimVirgin 21:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Slim, your continued referencing of "women" is unhelpful. You can have off-wiki women-only mailing lists if you like, but especially in a place where many editors don't even declare their gender, attempting to suggest that a space or project or collaboration is primarily for women goes against the aims of the project, and suggests that men can't be part of the solution, it's exclusionary, and I'd suggest you check your language on that point. As to whether "women" are interested in categorization, during the category mess we had women novelists tweeting about it (including famous ones), deep conversations with women academics, librarians, the woman who started the whole thing was, well, a woman, so the suggestion that women wouldn't be interested in fixing the mess of ghettoization is dismissive in the worst way possible, and more importantly, doesn't have any evidence associated with it; I know a number of women who have been active in categorization here. Again, you want to create an inclusive space, but why don't you start by an act of good faith, and restore the content, so we can discuss it, per WP:BRD. You are still not responding on that point, which confuses me. Or do you think we don't need to seek consensus on this page, and it's your way or the highway? As I noted earlier, I've pointed other people in other conversations to those instructions, so by summarily deleting them, you are breaking links elsewhere in the wiki.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Obiwankenobi, “women in mind” doesn't mean women only. The gender gap is a serious issue on Misplaced Pages, which leads to systematic bias. I suspect it would be of particular interest to female editors, but not exclusive interest. Male editors may also be interested in the gender gap on wiki, how the gender gap effects female editors, and what can be done to address it. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

the way her wording was phrased sounded exclusionary. Not acceptable. If that wasn't her intent, then great. Gender bias can be caused by more than just not enough female editors, btw. The task force has clear statement of purpose and that's what I signed up for, aggressively deleting my contributions and making me feel unwelcome is a really terrible idea. You notice that Slim Virgin has refused this far to revert and has ignored the inputs of another member here who found the categorization guidelines useful. What kind of welcoming place is this? If you want to remodel, you don't start by demolition, you stRt with agreed plans and scope, which we don't have here. If you want to create a tea house for women then why not create a special woman's room in the tea house - this is a task force focused on work to address gender bias of any stripe.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I restored the algorithm as you requested. I think it should be moved to a subpage, or perhaps the whole section (after the introductory blurb) can be collapsed as a compromise. SlimVirgin 00:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I suck at all things categories. I just...do... trust me. SarahStierch (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, me too. I didn't ping you re: categories, but because I was thinking of trying to revive this space for some of the things discussed on the gender gap. A safe space for collaboration, a kind of gender-gap teahouse, somewhere warm and positive (fat chance, but worth a try!). Some nice design for the page would be good. Not sure what to write on it. SlimVirgin 22:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Categorization needs own subpage??

It looks like there's been several threaded discussions of categories on this topic, a topic which can get very confusing even for those of us who are into it to some extent. To avoid the kind of misunderstandings, conflicts, etc. above, perhaps it needs it's own subpage as part of the countering systematic bias project. And then that can be linked from the main page of this task force with a short note on its purpose and how to help out.

Also, a quick wiki search of the phrase de-ghettoization/de-ghettozie suggests it only has been used a few times, several related to the increasing the number of women. So it might be nice to ask the gender gap task force (including its women) if they even want that phrase to be used. Women are spread throughout society and not stuck in ghettos like racial and ethnic groups so often have been. The issue is making women important enough that individuals are willing to think about categories for them, willing to look for and recognize women who belong in existing categories, willing to put them there. It's about creating and/or populating categories. A more accurate and less loaded phrase needed. Update: see Ghettoization about removing women categories?? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a good idea to give categories its own countering systemic bias subpage. That would allow people to specialize. SlimVirgin 01:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It's also possible to have a dedicated, clearly identified archive page just for all these women categorization threads for those who really want to delve into it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it might have been Filipacchi who first used the word "ghettoize" to refer to women being locked in their own subcategory, but I'm not sure, it may have come from us and one of our policies, but it was widely used in the media. If you have a better set of words to describe "biographies that are in ethnic/gendered versions, but not in their engendered equivalents", and a word to describe the process of fixing it (e.g. de-ghettoize), I'm all ears. I don't have any special attachment to the word itself.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about the phrase "de-ghettoization/de-ghettozie". Something more along the lines of "appropriately populating the category" seems preferable. Also, in order to address the category issues, in relation to the gender gap issue, I think any instructions regarding appropriately populating categories should very clearly stress not removing articles from the parent category, and also should stress not de-populating the sub-category (ie - don’t take women out of “American authors” when they are added to “American women authors” and don’t take women out of “American women authors” when they are added “American authors”). Having that separate subcategory definitely seems to serve purpose of a gender gap task force, with respect to ease of locating articles pertaining to women. Such articles may require extra attn, due to the systematic bias inherent to having so relatively few female editors.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

If you read through the instructions that have now kindly been restored, you will see I cover this in great detail. If you have specific feedback about how to improve those instructions, I would welcome your feedback. The problem is, it's not just about putting the children in the parent. That's the complexity that people sometimes miss. You'll notice, for example, there are no women in Category:American novelists, actually there's no-one at all. The reason is that to deghettoize, you usually put the bio in a diffusing sibling category - not necessarily the parent.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Wordwise:

De-ghettoization is a hyped up neologism that isn't used in any gender studies, feminist writings, etc. Some media outlets mentioning wiki editors used it at some point doesn't change that.

And categorization is not math, so "Algorithm" is not an appropriate word, though it sure would turn off a lot of women who have had math avoidance drummed into their heads most of their lives. Misplaced Pages:Categorization and Help:Category both use simpler language like "function", "feature", "system" and "process".

The use of non-standard language makes one wonder about the validity of what is being promoted, though most of us don't have energy or interest to figure it out. If what you are doing is important to countering bias, it occurs to me you should be proposing your "algorithm" in Misplaced Pages:Categorization where editors experienced in the topic can comment.

I think the DO list should read something like "Populate categories under Category:Women with more articles about women. (See "Wikiproject counter systematic bias/Women in Categories" for details.) And that page would suggest or organize categories most needing populating, how to find articles about women to do it and also link to your new new section under Misplaced Pages:Categorization and explain its relevance to your suggestions.

• Spacewise: Maybe someone else thinks the most important "Do" is a rule that administrators must be 51% female, even though only 75% of female editors might agree and 15% want to work on it. And another that the most import "Do" be that all male editors accused at ANI of harassment and incivility by more than one female editor have to undergo a mandatory sensitivity training, even thought only 45% of female editors might agree and 8% want to work on it. But do we overwhelm the "Do" section with details with provacative wording and long outlines of our agenda hidden under green lines? Or, if there is sufficient support, do we create a subpage to work on them so they do not overwhelm the Do List. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Carol. Any word suggestions besides de-ghettoize? As for "Populate categories under women" - this is interesting - during the whole debate, you had a great number of women writers outside wikipedia who were saying, don't call me a woman novelist at all, I'm just a bloody novelist. Misplaced Pages eventually rejected that view and opted to both call them women novelists and novelists. The problem isn't necessarily that we need to tag more people as women X (this can be done in bulk by people with AWB), the bias problem identified is many of those already tagged as woman-X are in a ghetto. Thus, the instructions were framed less around adding more women to women categories, and rather around fixing women who were in women categories (or african americans, or LGBT people, or ...) and were not in the neutral siblings. I used algorithm in the sense of "series of steps", but I will think of a different word.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Although "ghettoization" may not be a word that is frequently used when discussing gender bias, it is a term used by Misplaced Pages category experts to describe subdividing of article categories to the point where some articles are not represented in the main categories on a topic and so may never be found in a category search, as explained in WP:GHETTO. Misplaced Pages editors use many words in a project-specific way ("notability" comes to mind) and I see nothing wrong with using this term as long as there is a link to the explanation. Also, while the word "algorithm" really does mean a series of steps, it is used mainly by mathematicians and computer programmers, so perhaps a more commonly used term such as process or procedure would be more inclusive. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: Reading Anne's comment above now, I see it did explain the issue a bit better than above. But obviously some of us have been confused, leading to a lot of unnecessary back and forth which could have been cleared up much earlier. As I said way back when, just put the woman's article in both the larger category and the smaller one; same for others. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Ghettoization about removing women categories??

Ok, first I think I'm finally figuring out what Ghettoization means: "women shouldn't be in their own category ghetto of being women" NOT "women aren't put in an appropriate category at all and left in a lonely ghetto ignored." DUH!! Just now remembering some of the original discussions last year... Using ambiguous catch phrases certainly can confuse the conversation. Maybe we have to start all over again!

Also, FYI, low and behold Misplaced Pages:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality exists and has a gender subsection. And there is a requested move to Misplaced Pages:Categorization of people/Sensitive categories. which I've already signed on to support.

I see that "ghettoization" is only a recent entry on that page and doesn't seem to have been adequately discussed on the talk page. Maybe some people are confused about the meaning there, too??

A wiki search does show the term used a few times way back and a lot more recently, both to discuss actual policies of putting or keeping real live people in ghettos and in the categories section. Our using it that way does seem to trivialize the real life episodes and, again, women don't tend to get stuck by themselves in actual ghettos anyway. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

ghettoization in this context means (usually) a biography is in a gendered/ethnic/sexuality category, but not in a neutral equivalent. Deghettoization means putting the biography in appropriate neutral equivalents. Because of the structure of the tree doing this correctly can be difficult - feel free to ping my talk if you're interested in learning more. In some cases, these categories due to their structure in the tree are more likely than not to ghettoize, in which case they violate WP:EGRS and the category can be deleted. So the main fix for ghettoization is simply adding new categories to existing bios. Another fix is to change the structure - eg a bunch if work I did to make princesses categories siblings of prince categories vs subcats. Another fix sometimes used is to delete the category - but deleting the category is not considered 'deghettoization' --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, you still don't answer the question of whether women categories should be removed and how many you think should be removed. Again, a) we need to archive all this stuff immediately into a "categorization" archive page and b) discuss it at either the WP:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality or Categories for discussion pages, with a link to such discussions here for those who care to get involved (with occasional discussions if it is something major like "eliminate all categories with word women.") I don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other; others do. In any case, let them discuss it in a more appropriate forum. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

That's fine with me Carol, as I proposed to you recently, we could create a special sub-talk page here that is focused on category issues re: gender bias. We have around 6,000 "women" categories, and I think about 99% should remain, if you're wondering where I personally stand.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree it should not be on page in current format and maybe not at all. Maybe it should just be linked elsewhere. In terms of categories relation to the task force goals, I'm concerned with this instruction currently on our page regarding biographies of women: "in order to be correctly categorized, they do not necessarily need to be in the parent of the gendered subcategory". While this may be factually true, it does not appear to address the gender concerns brought up by the Filpacchi case ] where women were being removed from "American novelists" and stuck in "American women novelists". In terms of the task force goals, I believe we'd want to get women into the parent category as much as possible, and also fill the child category (ie "American women novelists") as much as is reasonable. The current instruction do not stress this and as written appear to counter this so I think this shouldn't be on our page in current format. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is a common misconception - the whole notion that bios must be in the PARENT is extremely problematic, and actually dead wrong. If you look at Category:American novelists, you will notice there are zero biographies there. Same with Category:American politicians. And yet, no-one (or very few) in those trees are ghettoized? Why? It's because they are in gender-neutral siblings/cousins/etc. If you want to discuss this more feel free to ping me on my talk page so I can detail the reasoning further.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I was involved quite a while ago organising and setting up lists and categories for Women architects. It seemed reasonable to highlight them because they are in a distinct minority in the construction industry, there are initiatives and campaigns to increase the ratio and discover why women drop-out/aren't recognised. However, with other areas, such as writers/novelists, I get the feeling women are in the majority so I see less reason to have a Women authors category. I'm still a bit confused about the rule-of-thumb that decides if we need to categorize by gender (or race/sexuality). Generally I get the feeling whatever we do we're fighting against the overwhelming consensus of young male editors who think that women are a curiosity, rather than a legitimate majority of the world's population! Sionk (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Sionk, that is probably an issue best worked out elsewhere. It seems beyond the scope of this page. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The question of whether a given category for "Women X" should exist can sometimes be contentious. What I think ISN'T contentious is, provided the category exists, that it should not ghettoize those women. There are very few who disagree with that second point. Some people, esp outside the wiki, think the very existence of such categories is a form of sexism, whereas others think that not having them is a form of erasure of women. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. :)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Specialists in areas can forget that even those who may have been semi-familiar with the top say 8 months ago, may have forgotten and/or not understand a) the jargon; b) the issues; c) why they should spend time figuring it out. Back then my response was - put them in both categories. That's still my response. Both have their uses. And there's lots of space on the servers. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Carol, that is close to correct, but the consensus arrived at was slightly different - I gave already the example of Category:American women novelists, where the solution agreed upon was actually NOT to put everyone in Category:American novelists. I don't want to take up more space here to discuss, but I have a longer exposition in draft I wrote here a while back that may explain a bit better.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Expanding use of the project

While there's always potential for warm and positive, in the interim this task force can and should be used for problem solving the problem of not enough female participation in en.Misplaced Pages. It's not just a place to link to techno-solutions.

So per the scope statement on the main page, in order to identify gender bias on Misplaced Pages – whether in articles, discussions, policies or implementation of policies – and to take steps to counter it, as well as to raise awareness of how it can affect editorial and other decisions we should consider:

• linking to various relevant articles/essays/projects within en.wikipedia and wikimedia regarding the topic.
• writing an essay prominently advertised here on the problems women face and solutions to those problems through wiki dispute resolution processes, existing "support" type pages, etc.; writing another essay on how men and women can work together more successfully in community, etc., considering some concepts in this geekfeminism article.
• thinking up policy tweaks and changes, like regarding WP:Civility and WP:Harassment, to make Misplaced Pages more comfortable for women.
• posting at the very least links to a variety of topical behavior/policy/etc. issues - including relevant ANIs and Arbitrations and noticeboard postings - that directly affect the gender gap and at least discussing them here and/o getting involved on an individual basis if it seems relevant.
• learning what other projects are doing right. (I heard on gender gap email list the Serb women are the most active. I know the ones I've met are very smart and forthright.)
• promoting the various women-related projects to women editors. I was a member of this task force for a year or so, unwatched it in a moment of general frustration, and completely forgot it existed! So it pays to advertise!
• Other ideas?

So there's lots that can be done here without it becoming a touchy feeling consciousness raising group, as much fun as that would be Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

That's brilliant stuff, Carol, thanks for writing it up. I have to go offline shortly, so I can't respond more now, but I will tomorrow. The essay is a really good idea. SlimVirgin 01:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Scope

"gender bias" doesn't mean "under participation of women" and, obviously, the project scope doesn't explicitly mention under-participation of women editors anywhere. It will definitely need to be re-worded. I for one completely misunderstood the purpose of the project. Sionk (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The project scope does mention specifically that only 8.5% of WP editors are female. But you bring up a good point about clarity. I think maybe this task force should be renamed to something along the lines of "the gender gap task force". --BoboMeowCat (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

the initial version is pretty clear: - identify gender bias in articles and policies. Given that dozens of reliable sources considered our ghettoization of female biographies to be an indication of exactly such gender bias and indeed that the categorization issue has gotten more sustained press out of any other gender bias issue that I've seen, I think this task force should not be repurposed away from that initial goal - it could have ancillary goals added such as making WP more welcoming for women editors; but I dont think as a task force of countering systemic bias, with an existing editor base, we should throw away that first goal - meaning identify gender bias in articles and policies, and correct it. Categorization into gendered categories is one manifestation of that and I think it should remain as a task covered by this group.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

note early conversation and proposal about this:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Archive_14#Gender_bias_task_force, which imagined creating a place where everyone was welcome and where problematic articles could be identified. I have no problems with expanding the goals of this task force to also address the gender gap, but would oppose renaming it or removing the original goal of identifying and addressing gender bias.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you believe there is any systematic gender bias against men in Misplaced Pages? jps (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The Meta/Gender Gap/Research section cites several studies on "gender differences" in editing on Misplaced Pages. (Needs updating and a compare and contrast article; another project we could do here.) Obviously if males predominate number-wise, there will be topic biases and behavior biases towards preferred modes of operating. And if males put up a fight towards those biases being changed in order to make editing more comfortable for women, you have an entrenched and institutionalized bias issue. Therefore the gender gap is a bias issue that this wikiproject should address. It never occurred to me that that it wouldn't be clear that bias leads to the gap. It did occur to me that bias may make some males dig in their heels to resist any challenge from women to change the modus operandi. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

well, given that you are stridently trying to erase 'violence against men' as a concept of study here,Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_24#Category:Violence_against_men and have personally declared study of sexual and gender-based violence against men to be a fringe point of view, in spite of dozens of reliable sources discussing this (see list of sources, if these categories end up being deleted that would be a good indication of bias against men that is not supported by reliable sources but rather by personal dislike of the topic area or a feeling that such a topic area somehow weakens the study of violence against women. I think it's an over correction - Misplaced Pages is acknowledged to have a gender bias against women, but sometimes we over correct too far in the other direction. Completely Erasing any concept of gender-based violence against men as a cogent and serious area of academic study would be an excellent illustration that the pendulum has swung too far to one side, and I hope corrective action could be taken to address that. More importantly, when a good faith contributor is slurred and demeaned by the likes of you for daring to expand coverage of Misplaced Pages in this domain which is attested to by significant literature, it creates an unwelcome space for editors of any gender who feel attacked for supporting a view which goes against the view of people like yourself but is nonetheless a part of mainstream academic discourse - I've yet to find any academic papers anywhere that dispute that gender based violence against men exists and you've been unable to produce any literature which supports your views, but a small subset of Misplaced Pages editors seems to nonetheless believe it's all a fantasy. I don't know if I'd call that systemic but it's there.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Obiwankenobi wrote "well, given that you are stridently trying to erase 'violence against men'..." Please identify who "you" is since it's not me. I'm not familiar enough with what the related-Wiki issues are to opine. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The objection to that category does not appear related to systemic bias. If I remember correctly, that category was nominated for deletion by a male editor, on the ground that the category was being misused to promote men's rights propaganda. However, whether or not that is a fair assessment of the category is currently being debated at length elsewhere and honestly seems off-topic here. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Carol I was talking about jps, not you. a number of academy and scholarly studies have noted the systemic undercoverage of gender-based violence against men both as a topic of advocacy and as a topic of investment/funding/programming, etc. So, people outside of wikiland believe that there is systemic bias that mitigates against taking gender-based violence against men seriously - happily people have been studying this so there are plenty of reliable sources. unfortunately some here at wikipedia think it's not worthy of our consideration.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree the task force should make clear that everyone is welcome to participate and discuss issues related to systemic bias on Misplaced Pages, as it relates to gender. However, unfortunately, it seems some misunderstand what systemic bias is, causing them to misunderstand the task force. That's why the name change of "gender gap task force" was suggested, because apparently, the "Countering systemic bias" part is not making this clear enough. If you read the section on systemic bias linked above, you'll see systemic bias is related to the demographics of the contributors, so while it's completely true that there can be bias against male editors/male issues, systemic bias on Misplaced Pages is about the gender gap. Currently, only approximately 10% of edits are being made by female editors, leading to systemic bias against female editors/women's issues on Misplaced Pages. Please note that I said systemic bias, not bias in general. Also please note that systemic bias could very well be a male gender issue in other venues (such as male students in predominately female nursing program), but on Misplaced Pages the under-represented demographic is female editors. To avoid having to continually go through such a lengthy explanation, I think a name change would be very helpful. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Bobo, I think the original goals of the group were clearly laid out in the initial edits and announcements by SlimVirgin. that some want to now change those goals doesn't mean we "misunderstand the task force" - I've been here since the beginning, and you just showed up, so please don't tell me what it's for.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Obiwankenobi, "systemic bias" was always part of the title. All I'm asking is you familiarize yourself with meaning of systemic bias and please not turn this into a huge off topic debate regarding some other sort of bias, which may or may not be affecting the vote for the "violence against men" category. That is currently being debated at great length elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, and while I agree it may be related to a bias issue of some sort, it's not a systemic bias issue (ie bias specifically related to the gender demographics of the participants). Also, if you check the list for this task force, I actually joined this task force prior to your joining, but that's not even really relevant. Please stop making this personal and criticizing my participation. I've already requested this above when it was getting out of hand and I linked to WP:Civil.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

At least we need to make this point perfectly clear in the lead and scope sections of the project; scope mentions gender gap but doesn't make the connection or state that part of the purpose is to close the gap.

FYI, I do think articles about violence against men are relevant. I'd like to see extensive content on the statistic that more males are raped by other males in the US military than females are raped; or that older males through history have supported war as a way to get rid of a certain percentage of young males who might revolt against their rule (or in polygamous societies, try to get some of their wives). On the other hand, evidently there are concerns by males about POV pushing on the topic, but others seem to have it all well in hand and I don't have the energy to investigate it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Carol. To everyone here, your input at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_24#Category:Violence_against_men would be most welcome, as it seems to be an issue of gender bias, just pointing the other way this time.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Responding to Obi's response to my insert. There still is a big difference between the biases that lead wikipedia to become 90% male and keep it that way as compared to bias against a narrow topic area, like violence against males. The point is if there is a real problem I'm not going to lobby against it. But it feels like the latter issue is being promoted by those who don't want the project to deal with the larger bias against women editing problem. Dealing with such arguments certainly has used up energy that I might otherwise have had to look at the category for discussion thread. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

systemic bias on Misplaced Pages is about the gender gap. Really? So the reason that Brittanica has more biographies of men than women is due to... fewer female wikipedia editors? Misplaced Pages as a tertiary source reflects the biases of the broader society, there are lots of write-ups about this. Certainly undercoverage and unwelcoming environment might exacerbate systemic bias against women's topics here and there's a symbiotic relationship, but asserting that gender bias = gender gap is a terrible oversimplification and misses out on the real point - since we are driven by reliable sources, we simply have fewer reliable sources about female X, and since we have notability standards, there are fewer female X who pass those notability standards. That doesn't have to do anything with editor population and much more with systemic bias against women's achievements in the broader society at large. Like other forms of systemic bias - e.g. western centrism, northern-centrism, white-european centrism, etc, the corrective action is not simply getting greater diversity of the editor population - there are also policy changes needed, notability and reliable source standards that could be updated, other sorts of outreach efforts, etc. Simplifying it down to "fix the gender gap" is missing a very big part of the story.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this the "Countering systemic bias" project or the "Countering all this business about systematic bias" project? Is it really necessary for us to have to debate ad nauseum everyone who doubts that bias has any impact on wikipedia editing?

I do see it would help to have an essay describing the effects of not having enough women, with talking points in the scope article, for those who aren't already convinced bias is minimal and the efforts to bring in more women are useless, at best, and who knows what at worst. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Carol, you may have misunderstood my points. I don't think efforts to bring in more women are useless, and I do think such efforts fit within the scope of this task force. I just think there are OTHER important things as well, that this group has focused on previously and should continue to study.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This project was set up to address the gender gap on Misplaced Pages, i.e. systemic gender bias, which is clearly about women. It's disturbing that that is being questioned! Also, this discussion is turning the page into the opposite of a safe space, so Obi please reconsider what you're doing. A lot of people watching this will not want to become involved when they see it. SlimVirgin 16:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

My point is simple. Systemic gender bias exists, and this task force was set up to "The aim of the task force is to identify gender bias on Misplaced Pages – whether in articles, discussions, policies or implementation of policies – and to take steps to counter it, as well as to raise awareness of how it can affect editorial and other decisions." Part of the scope of that project includes bridging the gender gap, but assertions that that is the sole goal of this task force are misrepresenting the stated goals. i think we should have a real open discussion about how to address this gender bias. I have focused on categorization, and ways to make it easier to deghettoize categories. One thing we could do, for example, is ensure in the GA and FA criteria that articles aren't ghettoized. Those rules would apply to male and female editors, and the result would be we wouldn't have Maya Angelou being pasted all over the front page when her categories are ghettoized (true story - it was even covered in the media). That's one example of things this project could do beyond increasing the # of female editors, which I have no problem with and welcome, by the way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The gender gap isn't part of the scope. It is the scope: systemic gender bias. The word systemic is the key word. Also, you're turning another thread into one about categories. That's a minority interest, so it really needs its own subpage/subsection of the project, but we should at least keep the recent category posts on this page together. SlimVirgin 16:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Allow me, then, to respectfully disagree Slim. If you are suggesting that gender gap in female editors is equivalent to systemic gender bias in wikipedia's coverage of, say, biographies of women, and that the two are one and the same - and that therefore fixing one would fix the other - can you point to anything suggesting this to be the case? I'm not saying it won't make a difference - it will - but addressing systemic gender bias, against either gender, will require more than just changing the # of editors of the female persuasion. This essay Misplaced Pages:Systemic_bias#The_nature_of_Wikipedia.27s_bias covers some of the other causes of systemic bias - all of which can lead to an undercoverage of issues related to women, or women's biographies, etc. Coverage in sources is one of the biggies. Since categories are used for navigation amongst articles, they have also taken on an incredibly political dimension, a dimension you can see in arguments to delete the "Violence against men" category which is seen as a threat to "Violence against women". The political dimension of categorization was also clear during the Category-Gate mess, where the fact that wikipedians had neglected to properly categorize certain biographies was seen as a sign of unbridled sexism (even if the reality was more complex). When I first joined this project (sorry to rain on your parade Bobo, but even if I signed my name recently, I've been a participant since the beginning), I added the category instructions and list of categories I'd identified as problematic, and I worked with other editors here on those categories. SlimVirgin at the time said "Thanks for posting that, and this is a good place for it". My reasoning was, since the category problem was so strongly identified in the media, this project was the logical place to work on the solution. Unfortunately, in spite of all of the energy (and outrage) during category-gate, not very many editors have stepped up to actually do the hard work of deghettoization, etc, but I still think until we get category intersection that it's important as a content area under the auspices of this project - since the issues that lead to ghettoization of biographies through categories are not driven by individual sexism, or even actually by reliable sources, but by the very structure of our category system, a misunderstanding of how non-diffusing categories work, and confusion by editors over how to fix this. Thus it is systemic in that it (a) generally tends to bias against women/minorities - not on purpose, but just because they actually are the ones who have the "special" categories in the first place! and (b) is embedded in the structure of how categories work here, and how they're interpreted by the outside world. What I propose is that we could create a separate talk page hierarchy to deal with categorization issues, but keep the instructions and a link to that discussion board on the main page and retain categories as part of the scope of this project under "content" or "articles" + "policies", etc..--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. The WikiProject here was created in response to the gender gap on Misplaced Pages. That is to say, the fact that the vast majority of editors were male (more than 90%), something that led to a gender bias against women in editing. Now we have a male editor trying to re-purpose the group because editors of both genders tried to delete a category about "Violence against men", a topic that is actually very under-researched (I guarantee, if you tried to find articles on "Violence against women", you would find many hundreds in the place of a dozen or so listed, as well as a few books). Furthermore, this is the editor who largely inspired the category deletion in the first place by misusing it to push an agenda, including repeatedly adding it to the article for a Feminist text , and WikiHounding anybody who dares to remove an article from the category (you can probably find that in the edit history of any article within it or in its history). The recent stewardship of PUA articles , the Sarah Brown naming dispute and your claims that the Isla Vista shootings were misandrist really don't help matters. From this, it looks like you are pushing a personal agenda on a single issue, not trying to change website wide issues of gender bias. You have to realise how bad this looks Obi, especially after numerous editors have displayed concerns with your actions, this WikiProject was created to identify gender bias based on the gender gap . If people are disagreeing with you on this subject, it is statistically very likely that they are largely themselves male, and indeed, reading the thread this seems to be the case. This is due to your viewpoint being unpopular, not misandry. I'm going to go back on my previous stance as good faith and try to convince myself that you are wildly naive rather than actively sexist and have no idea exactly how things like this come across but you should probably take some time to really think about how your actions appear to others. You can't use Misplaced Pages to change the way that gender issues are treated in critical theory --80.193.191.143 (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Not trying to use wikipedia to change the world 80. Just defending that categorization of biographies is valid under this project. I've been working on the deghettoization issue for a while now, and it's important to me, and it has nothing to do with VAM. Note Slim's quote: "Thanks for posting that, and this is a good place for it". I've only brought up the VAM category dispute since someone asked me whether systemic bias against males might exist, and I pointed to that as a potential example of same. We don't have to discuss it further here. I do find it incredibly ironic that on a message board about systemic gender bias, that you suggest that we should eliminate entirely from wikipedia a topic category about one gender because it's actually very under-researched compared to a similar topic for another gender. Nice reversal! Why don't we try that here, i.e. "We should not have articles about women chemists, because the contributions of male chemists have at least 100x the sourcing." It has become kafkaesque...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I was linked here and thought I'd share my opinion. In the context of your other edits I still find this quite sketchy --80.193.191.143 (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's actually a pretty good sign. If you think I'm actively pushing a POV on one side, and then you see me actively pushing to retain deghettoization of female biographies on the other side as a topic of value and interest, it confuses the hell out of people. Bobo was confused and began to think that maybe deghettoization might be a bad idea after all - since Obi was supporting it!! Whose side is Obi on?? click here for an answer.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

What bald-faced hooey. Obi has made the "this category is under-researched" argument countless times, especially when the category is related to women. He did not find it a Kafkaesque argument when he repeatedly made it. I can not see how this project would benefit from him continuing to disrupting it. From my experience, I've only seen Obi use categorization rules where it would increase the effects of systemic bias. This seems like a scorched earth policy with regard to minimizing bias. Basically "if we eliminate material about women, then we can't be accused of saying anything discriminatory in that material". I think User:Liz might have an opinion on whether Obi is an effective champion against systemic bias.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. I have never made that argument in comparison to a male-centered category - e.g. "Male chemists has tons of research, but not women chemists, therefore we should keep male chemists but delete women chemists" - you're misrepresenting and making a false equivalency. At the same time, I've also populated/deghettoized lots of categories full of women. So, again, which side am I on? If I wanted to diminish women's contributions, why would I spend hours deghettoizing their categories (and thus highlighting their contributions, and ensuring they aren't ghettoized?). When I have nominated categories for deletion, it is because their structure was likely to lead to systemic ghettoization. But maybe EQ you'd rather turn this discussion into an RFC on me?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Never? You make it often to eliminate women-related categories, regardless of whether there's a specific male-related category. You keep pointing to all the "work" you've done, when most of that work has been to further eliminate the word "Women" from the project. Your approach seems to be to burn down a house when people complain it's unpainted, then crow about how much work you did to reduce unpainted houses. Mass elimination of navigation to women's history is not anti-systemic-bias work. Maybe there's something fatally wrong with your approach to categorization, as I can't see someone who has nominated the following for deletion/merging into non-existence, as being somehow dedicated to overcoming systemic bias. Category:Women in space, Category:Woman bishops, Category:Women in literature, Category:Women textile artists, Category:Women textile artists by nationality, Category:Indigenous women, Category:Misplaced Pages categories named after women, Category:First Nations women, Category:Women from Ontario, Category:Women from Brampton, Category:Women from British Columbia, Category:Women by province or territory in Canada, Category:Women from Quebec, Category:Women from Karachi, Category:Canadian women by province or territory in Canada, Category:Women who committed suicide, Category:Microsoft women, Category:Yahoo! women, Category:Women by organization, Category:Internet woman personalities, Category:Women designers, Category:Woman innovators, Category:Women collectors, Category:Women with nautical occupations, sports or hobbies, Category:Woman librarians, Category:Woman animal breeders, Category:Women in food and agriculture occupations, Category:Women in international development, Category:Women in health professions, Category:Woman medical examiners, Category:Indigenous women, Category:Maritime woman writers, Category:Women in the games industry, Category:Woman entertainers, Category:Women in the food industry, Category:Woman bartenders, Category:Women researchers, Category:Women bioethicists, Category:Canadian women newspaper editors, Category:Woman natural philosophers, etc. and so on, and others. I understand that you want to be a part of influencing the advice given by this project, but it seems unlikely you would use that advice for anything more than erasing more women's categories. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This seems rather off-topic EQ. I actually posted here a long list of discussions of categories I had nominated for deletion, over a year ago, and there was no uproar or controversy, and there has been little controversy about most of those nominated above. I've also nominated and !voted to delete a number of "men" categories, as well as other subsets (e.g. LGBT X or Catholic Y, etc). You can disagree with some of those, that's fine, it's an editing dispute, my goal has been to reduce ghettoization, which is sometimes through fixing the category structure and recategorizing things (I spent a number of hours making sure "Princesses" and "duchesses" were not subsets but rather siblings of "Princes" and "Dukes", as one example; sometimes it's through deghettoizing (per the algorithm provided above), and sometimes it's through deleting such categories that structurally are just more likely to ghettoize going forward and are in violation of our guidance on same. If you give me a male-category that violates those same rules I will be the first one to put it on the chopping block, and have in the past done exactly that. Anyway, I feel like you're putting me on trial, which isn't needed here and is rather off topic, so why don't you take your grievances against me elsewhere. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Pointing out that you delete LGBT categories as evidence that you're not just deleting women's categories? There are no words... __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I sympathize with you. It might be confusing, since I don't fit into the box you'd love to put me in. I've probably proposed a few LGBT categories for deletion, I admit it (ask Bearcat, he's nominated tons for the chopping block!). I've also created some! And populated several!! And defended others at CFD! And deghettoized a number of them! I've even created from scratch a few bios of LGBT people... And restructured several categories so they were less likely to ghettoize! I even recently spent a great number of hours, quite recently, arguing with someone who wanted to change the categorization guidelines to a version which would have, in my opinion, resulted in thousands of LGBT people potentially being removed from the LGBT tree, and was actually blocked for 36 hours for my troubles. I argued fervently (along with LGBT people) that Jodie Foster should not be tagged as a lesbian, but finally agreed that it was ok to tag her as LGBT, and argued to enforce this consensus. Who's ****** side am I on after all? Do I love LGBT categories or hate them? ARGGGH it's so hard to tell. Oh, right. I'm not at all comparing myself to this man, but I love this quote: "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." (Walt, of course).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not really off-topic, Obi. My concern about hosting the category advice on this page is that it doesn't seem to have consensus, and it does seem to lead to categories about women disappearing. So I think we shouldn't display it as though the Gender bias task force recommends it until there's consensus. SlimVirgin 03:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hear. Hear! As have become more informed on the topic, I withdraw any suggestion it should be hosted here. The larger project is the place to discuss and approve it and only if passed by a group of non-involved experts on the topic. Update: see Ghettoization about removing women categories?? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Slim, let's start a new section just to talk about the category stuff, this is getting too confusing. re: deletion of categories about women, that is completely orthogonal to the advice about how to deghettoize categories, fwiw, and none of the instructions I provided suggest taking that course of action, do they?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Obi, please don't keep quoting me from over a year ago when I thanked you for an edit. That was before I was familiar with the categorization controversy. (Even ignoring that, something being helpful on a page in 2013 doesn't mean we're never allowed to remove it.)

Again, there is no systemic gender bias against men on Misplaced Pages, not in terms of editorial practices, number of editors, coverage, policies, nothing. Efforts to hijack this page along those lines would be disturbing. The task force didn't take off, but I'd like to see whether we can change that. To do that, we need a fresh start along the lines Carol suggested above, so I hope we can try to focus on her excellent suggestions. SlimVirgin 18:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

no systemic gender bias against men on Misplaced Pages, not in terms of editorial practices, number of editors, coverage, policies, nothing. . I'm not suggesting hijacking the page, and I agree with the overall priority on addressing the gender bias against women. I'm just suggesting we all remain open to the fact that gender does not mean "women". I'm sorry for quoting you Slim, but until you started deleting things, I had no idea you had problems with it... Anyway, it's water under the bridge.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

We're open to it, it's just very unlikely. I haven't really seen any evidence that it does exist, the one example that you made is quantifiably not gender bias against men, and if true it would suggest that a large percentage of male editors are misandrist, something that, of course, is possible, but not especially likely considering just how stacked the gender percentages are towards men --80.193.191.143 (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Obiwankenobi, please review WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This has been explained to you multiple times already, systemic gender bias on Misplaced Pages is bias against women. This is because of the definition of systemic bias (which is based on the demographics of the contributors) and because currently about 90% of wiki editors are male. Again, this isn't about bias in general, but rather systemic bias --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I heard you. I don't have to agree, but I heard you, and I will drop this. My final thought is this: this world is never going to move forward so long as we perpetuate binary thinking - e.g. gender bias can only go one way, etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Obiwankenobi, you're still responding as if you haven't heard. No one is saying "gender bias can only go one way". No one. We're saying the way systemic bias goes on Misplaced Pages, is against female editors. Again, this is because systemic bias refers to a specific form of bias. A bias that results when one group is over-represented as contributors (here that's male editors) while another group is under-represented (here that's female editors). --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I am stating, which maybe you haven't heard, that the scope of this project, and the descriptions OF systemic bias on wikipedia w.r.t. gender have not ONLY to do with our editor base but ALSO with our content - ultimately content is the only thing that matters, it's what we're here for. I don't think there is systemic bias against male editors, but the recent example is to me an example of bias against male issues that has caused an incredibly violent response from a certain subset of editors here and created an unwelcoming environment. Such a bias can come about from the way issues are framed in the literature, and as has been pointed out, that same literature has pointed out this bias. As a very simple example, search on wikipedia for killed including women. How often do we write here "Today in Kenya, a village was attacked, and 100 people were killed, including 20 children and 6 men." That would be shocking if we saw it. Now, is this sort of framing wikipedia's fault? No, that is how such events are covered, and we are just cribbing. But, is it an example of systemic bias translated from sources INTO our coverage of such murderous actions here? Absolutely. A neutral encyclopedia would say "Today, 100 people were killed including 30 men, 35 women, and 35 children." It's just a small example, and again I'm not proposing that this project shift directions. I'm just again pointing out that gender != women.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, so much for your assurance only a few comments up where you wrote, "I heard you, and I will drop this". For the last time (hopefully), please refer to the title of this wiki project. This is a wiki project for Countering systemic bias on Misplaced Pages. With respect to gender, the systemic bias on Misplaced Pages is against female editors, because they make up only about 10% of the editors here. If you are interested in something else, and you appear to be, perhaps you could channel your energy into starting a separate wiki project that suits your interest area.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

A complaint I have voiced a number of times is that there is this arbitration - Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology - that allows discretionary sanctions for problematic editing in transgender editing problems, but none for women-related ones. I really am fed up with wasting time on Misplaced Pages with people who don't hear it. (This is first time on a Wikiproject; usually it's BLPs.) So I do hope that Obi has heard it and will let people get on with it without being disruptive. Fruitful collaboration can be so much fun. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

You could ask for an Amendment to the sexology case (or another case, e.g. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute) asking for discretionary sanctions be applied to a broader category of topics. It's not necessary to start a whole new case, I'd imagine. There's probably some sympathetic arbitrators to that as well. jps (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Per my proposal below, a good airing of a number of examples on WP:ANI with a request for community sanctions would be a great way for ANI-watching editors to start getting used to the idea we're serious. Nothing to rush into, but something to keep in the back of our minds. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure. However, I think WP:AN would be a more appropriate venue since it isn't likely to be a single "incident" but more of a pattern. jps (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Looking at instructions on WP:AN you must mean "request for bans" be it from pages, topics, etc. Learn something every day. It would be nice to never have to contemplate going there at all on any topic anywhere... sigh... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Though the front text of WP:AN reads rather officiously, in practice the commentators on that noticeboard are often a bit less histrionic than the commentators on WP:ANI, in my experience. jps (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Another place where somewhat more explicit language would help. ie "to request article, topic or site ban of an editor" instead of just "ban". Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Great suggestions Carolmooredc and jps and seems increasingly needed in light of continued WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior of one editor, Obiwankenobi. Notice he opened a vote to "keep categories in scope of project" when no one has suggested removing categories from the scope, but rather many have objected to his specific approach to categorization. This "I didn't hear that" conduct is getting exhausting. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not at all clear anymore Bobo, which is why I opened that section so we could really get a sense of where people lie. Some have seemingly suggested that categorization should be removed entirely from the scope; if you recall, those were the original set of deletes that you and Slim and jps edit-warred out of existence, and now they've been edit-warred out of existence again. I've tried to compromise but it now seems some believe it should just be entirely out of scope, so I started that section as a good-faith effort to really capture where people are.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for strategies to address the gender gap

We had some great suggestions above from Carolmooredc such as:

:*linking to various relevant articles/essays/projects within en.wikipedia and wikimedia regarding the topic.

• writing an essay prominently advertised here on the problems women face and solutions to those problems through wiki dispute resolution processes, existing "support" type pages, etc.; writing another essay on how men and women can work together more successfully in community, etc., considering some concepts in this geekfeminism article.
• thinking up policy tweaks and changes, like regarding WP:Civility and WP:Harassment, to make Misplaced Pages more comfortable for women.
• posting at the very least links to a variety of topical behavior/policy/etc. issues - including relevant ANIs and Arbitrations and noticeboard postings - that directly affect the gender gap and at least discussing them here and/o getting involved on an individual basis if it seems relevant.
• learning what other projects are doing right. (I heard on gender gap email list the Serb women are the most active. I know the ones I've met are very smart and forthright.)
• promoting the various women-related projects to women editors. I was a member of this task force for a year or so, unwatched it in a moment of general frustration, and completely forgot it existed! So it pays to advertise!

Since we are thinking about sub-pages, I'd like to add the suggestion of:

• creating a sub-page for discussion of specific issues and/or specific concerns that seem related to the gender gap. Sort of discussion forum for specific instances which seem related to the gap. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd add, gathering evidence of systemic actions vs. women editors that might lead to a) Community sanctions; and if not effective b) arbitration with discretionary sanctions. (Collection done in a wiki-proper way, off wiki if necessary.) Perhaps just the knowledge this project (or members thereof) was gathering such info might be helpful. If issues continued and various evidences from talk page/noticeboard/other sources reached a critical mass, then some women with immediate concerns could be complainant(s) with their specific issues, and project members could add diffs of the various collected evidences and their requestions for Community Sanctions for such behaviors. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Women and Misplaced Pages Study - Request for interviews, focus groups, etc.

Hi. I've been working on an interview-based research project about women and Misplaced Pages since January (initial project proposal) and recently received a WMF Individual Engagement Grant to continue the work (IEG proposal). If you're willing to participate in an interview or will be at Wikimania and would like to chat and/or take part in a focus group, please let me know. Also, if you'd just like to share your thoughts and opinions via email, I'd love to hear them.--Mssemantics (talk) 05:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Priorities

There's a lot of energy being put into this talk page at the moment. Why aren't we directing that energy towards campaigning for category intersections? I know that won't solve existing problematic categories, but trying to fix those will never, ever be anything more than a sticking plaster on the real problem. — Scott • talk 13:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Why doesn't that happen in WP:categories for discussion or Misplaced Pages:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality with a link here for those who are interested? I just realized that the goal was elimination of women categories, not populating them, so am particularly annoyed by the whole thing right now. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

If interested you can join the discussions I started a while back Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection. If you want to test a prototype developed by Magnus Manske (with minor assistance from yours truly), check User:Obiwankenobi#Category_intersection_prototype_version_2. Any and all feedback welcome. There is also wikidata which could be promising, but it could also be a ways off - I'm not sure. But yes, I do agree Scott that category intersection will make this problem go away, as we will no longer have the need to have Category:Women novelists, it will just be Category:Women + Category:Novelists. It's a non-trivial amount of work, however. I had proposed embedding Manske's javascript into the regular javascript that everyone has, so you don't need to do anything special, and then you can have such category intersections. I also piloted a simpler version at Category:Singaporean poets, but it calls out to an external tool and the interface isn't amazing, but it could be done today with no additional programming needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to archive categorization threads now

I propose threads or subthreads predominantly about categorization should be archived manually now. If editors start discussions on the appropriate forum (especially WP:Categories for discussion), they can leave a message here. If there is some compelling need to respond here, people will. The project cannot be overwhemled with discussions about Misplaced Pages techical topics which need informed and interested participation, even if one or two people are strongly interested in them and feel they are relevant to every other discussion. Feel free to write support or oppose.

• Support as OP. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• just move to a sub-talk-page rather than archive, then people can watch that subpage and participate if interested. Categorization of biographies and correcting bias in said categorization has been on-topic here since the beginning, but if people don't want this talk board filled with such cat discussions moving it to a separate sub-talk page on categories seems reasonable. Archiving active threads (some of which you've started) just seems like a way to shut down discussion; instead why not move them to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_bias_task_force/Categories or something similar, and let anyone interested continue there?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

per IAR, I just moved everything to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_bias_task_force/Categorization. Any interested in continuing this conversation re: the algorithm and its applicability to this project are welcome to join there. Thanks! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Obiwankenobi, I hope you are not carrying this out immediately so others can't as easily find the talk page consensus to remove the disputed content regarding categories, that you appear to be currently edit warring in again. I agree that they should be archived at some point though, but probably not while talk page consensus to remove content is not being respected.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Bobo, can you be clear about which content is disputed? The algorithm? That's now on a separate page, at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_bias_task_force/Categorization, which was one of the earlier suggestions above by Slim and several others. Or do you mean the list of categories to de-ghettoize? As I mentioned on my talk, if you think that should be moved to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_bias_task_force/Categorization instead of the main page as a to-do, that is fine with me too, I just figured in it's collapsed state it doesn't take up too much space. I've started a discussion to see if the algorithm itself can be hosted at WP:EGRS within that guideline, but pending that I think Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_bias_task_force/Categorization is as reasonable a place as any, especially given that no-one has stated specifically what is wrong with that algorithm besides the word "deghettoize", and it's been here for over a year already... Or is it perhaps this particular language you object to: "Note: in order to be correctly categorized, they do not necessarily need to be in the parent of the gendered/ethnic/sexuality-based subcategory - they just need to be in the non-gendered/ethnic/sexuality-based equivalent." - if so, can you suggest how to reword that to make it more in line with something you agree with? thanks! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Just saw your edit - the threads aren't archived, they are simply on a different board now, so we should probably just continue the discussion there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

oppose the info moved relates to current content dispute, so should be available on talk page until that content dispute is resolved. Afterward, I'm happy for it to be moved though --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

restored for now (see above). --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Bobo, there is a large section above where it was proposed to move categorization questions to a sub-discussion board, which I did. The discussions are not archived, they can continue there, without further spamming this board.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I was a bit annoyed this a.m. and thus the "NOW" without further options. However, obviously there are three options and we should have consensus on which:

1. just part of ongoing archives, and largely ancient history
2. own archive page (new archive box with categorization archive, assuming that that's all ancient history)
3. Obiwankenobi's categorization subpage where these policy decisions are made while most of us blissfully ignore them, at which point it can be claimed that the "task force" Ok'd them. (And this on one also should include posts critical of his position on categorization and critical of links on the main page.)
   

Obviously three is problematic. Two only seems necessary if it is important that this taskforce be the "decider".
In either case: What is the point? We should all agree to one system, yours?
What positions does WP:Categories for discussion usually take? Keep women in both categories? Keep them only in top one? Move them to bottom one? It depends on the category? Why is it necessary to have detailed discussions on every one here, as opposed to putting a WP:Categories for discussion notice on this page and discussing if it seems particularly critical? All this still is not clear and thus it feels like being steamrolled and one can become annoyed.
So I'll stay with my just archive to the archives "now" or "ASAP" after all... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Carol, as I said I'm happy to move the instructions to WP:EGRS, and I've proposed that, so we just need to wait since that's a guideline. That said, the guideline is clear, women (or anyone, really) should always be in a neutral equivalent, as well as a gender/ethnicity - specific version. I'm not proposing that we have detailed discussions on specific categories here, I am proposing that on this wikiproject we could consider and discuss structural changes that will help reduce bias in the categorization of biographies - thus for example, if we embed "deghettoization" as a step in FA/GA process. We could also list categories that are in need of attention to be de-ghettoized, and find better ways to describe the process of properly categorizing people to other editors (I'm not wedded to that algorithm for example, and I welcome suggestions on how to improve it)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Tag-team editing and aggressive behavior

Categorization of biographies has always been under the scope of this project, and a number of categorization issues have been brought here in the past. There now seems to be a move to downplay categorization as a key goal, which is fine, but this latest revert war by the tag team of Bobo and Jps has frankly gone too far. A large thread above proposed moving categorization information to a subpage, which I did, and also proposed archiving categorization threads to a subpage, which I did. Now, however, Jps has just erased the last vestiges of categorization (and deghettoization/categorizing w/o bias) from the homepage - without any discussion; also breaking the link to the new subpage in the process. This aggressive use of reverting to erase contributions from good faith members of this project has got to stop. Instead, we should have a reasoned discussion and come to consensus and compromise - not "my way or the highway".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You explicitly said you did it under IAR, when Carolmooredc more reasonably opened a discussion; perhaps that's where the aggressive behavior lies. I really don't think you should attempt unilateral behavior on a page where there are so many questions about your own participation. Take your own advice and respect consensus-building, please. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus to remove categorization from being considered within the scope of this project. It has been in scope since day 1. It is also one of the main examples that comes up every time someone talks about systemic bias at wikipedia, they give the examples of categorization. Thus, I think it would be rather silly for this project to remove categorization from its scope, and it also demeans the work of editors like myself and others who have participated here and contributed to the goals of this project by helping deghettoize categories of women.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

That's your take on the content and you've repeated it many times already, but please keep an eye on your overall behavior. Looking at your general patterns, I will say that this is starting to look like the pounding of shoes on desks regarding categorization that got you blocked by User:Bbb23 and warned at ANI. Please play nicer; an editor can still be disruptive, even if when think their campaign is a noble one. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

And stop lashing out as you did at my talk page. Play nice means play nice. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

EQ, people here, including yourself, are NOT playing nice. This is supposed to be space for collaboration, and now it's turning into an exclusive club that is trying it's best to kick out a member who has contributed a great deal to the goals and aims of this project w.r.t. deghettoizing women's biographies. If people show themselves willing to compromise as I have, that would go a long way. It was suggested the category stuff be moved to a sub-page, so I did it. But no, that wasn't enough, instead it has become "my way or the highway" - I can't believe we've moved in 1 year from Slim Virgin complimenting me for adding information about categories, and other editors engaging collaboratively here and elsewhere re: how to deghettoize, to just deleting all references to such work entirely and by fiat declaring categories off-limit for this project. It's mind boggling and saddening.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Considering the sudden influx of members here and their predelictions, I guess the 'de-ghettoizing' of categories has become, oh, so last year's issue. Misplaced Pages works on concensus so, when outnumbered, we need to back away slowly with a resigned look of disbelief. It will be Misplaced Pages's shame (not yours or mine) if the issue raises its ugly head in the national media again. We can't take the whole world on our shoulders! Sionk (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Reading the talk page above, it appears multiple editors have expressed concern regarding how “de-ghettoizing” has taken place. There have been concern raised by multiple editors that the past approach has resulted in deleting women’s categories, instead of appropriately populating them. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The instructions here and the list of categories needing work have nothing to do with categories proposed for deletion at WP:CFD, and none of the instructions here had anything to do with advocacy for deletion of more women's categories. Deghettoization means basically only one thing - adding new (neutral) categories to biographies. More broadly, the instructions I provided would ensure that a biography of an African-American woman would be properly placed in (American X), (American women x), (African-American X), and (African-American women X). It can get complex, which is why I proposed that series of steps y'all have been so eager to delete.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The above explanation at least finally makes a bit more sense for those of us who do not focus on the topic. Besides the off putting and confusing language (ghetto and algorithm) editors with more experience of the issue have expressed concerns about your whole regime which others of us don't want to have to study to figure out. And the fact that your extreme interest has led to blocks certainly raises eyebrows. If this is a great procedure/regime/etc. finalize elsewhere and then bring it here. Otherwise it's just disruptive and needs archiving soon.

As for the media, if they don't understand how or disagree with the way things are done, that should not panic us into changing them. Why not say to them: Category writers/gender/women is not a ghetto - see Category writers/ethnicity/Jewish. If that was a ghetto, I'm sure Wikiproject Judaism would be having a fit! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Carol, I've started that discussion, and hopefully the editors at WP:EGRS will accept adding those instructions to the guideline, at which point we can just point to it. But the broader question remains, as to whether actually DEALING with categorization issues (that overwhelmingly impact women on biographies) is in scope here which I asked below, and your input on same would be welcome.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, the content that Obiwankenobi has previously added to the project page does not appear to address the concerns of the Filpacchi incident well. The objection there was removing women from the parent category. ] Specifically, removing them from "American novelists" when adding them to "American women novelists". However, Obi's instructions for this project page included this quote: In order to fix this, articles do not necessarily need to be placed in the parent of the gendered/ethnic/sexuality-based subcategory - they just need to be in the non-gendered/ethnic/sexuality-based equivalent, which is often a sibling category. While the exact rules of categorization seem best worked out elsewhere, it seems to address the Filipacchi incident, and to address the goals of this task force, instructions should stress keeping women in the parent category whenever possible, and also should stress populating the women subcategories as much as is reasonable. That is not what was being suggested. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep categorization in scope for this project

Categorization has been in scope for this project since the very beginning, as a way to correct systemic bias in content around how biographies are classified. It is women who are most likely to be placed into these "Women X" categories, since we don't have that many "Male X" categories, but evidence shows that women continue to be "ghettoized" (e.g. placed only in non-neutral categories) at a huge rate. For example, several of our FA articles posted to the main page have been improperly categorized, Maya Angelou being a notable example -- an important fix 25 days after FA on mainpage. Her absence from the American poets category was noted by several reliable sources (e.g. ,.

When Amanda Filipacchi noticed this happening in the Novelists tree, it led to a media storm which hasn't yet been repeated re: gender bias at Misplaced Pages. Indeed, "Categorygate" was potentially one of the biggest stories of the 2013 w.r.t. gender and wikipedia.

Some sample articles are ,,,,,. This more recent article points out how the idea of "subcategorizing" women and women's writing especially is a sign of broader sexism in the book industry .

Thus, at least the outside world seems to think that the categorization problems, especially of female biographies, are a symptom of the gender bias, both at wikipedia and in the society as a whole. While I personally don't agree that it's caused by gender bias (since, for example, male-oriented categories are just as likely in my research to be "ghettoized", as are ethnic or LGBT categories - it seems rather equal opportunity), the result appears to be a gender bias and has even been called "sexism". The good faith creation of Category:American women novelists by someone who wanted to highlight the contributions of women ended up sending them to a sub-category, due to a few Misplaced Pages editors not following our standard guidance at WP:EGRS. Gender-specific categories, when properly filled out and complemented with neutral ones, can highlight the work of women. When improperly filled out, they serve to hide that same work. It's a double edged sword. The problem with gender-specific categories, and what was the cause of much confusion, is they behave differently to all other types of categories - they are "non-diffusing" instead of "diffusing".

Luckily, Misplaced Pages is not Amazon.com, nor the Library of Congress, and we can categorize things in multiple ways. But fixing a biography is not necessarily easy. The reason is, people are categorized in multiple trees - Maya Angelou is in 30 categories, some of them based on her gender or ethnicity, and some "neutral". In order to fix her categories, it took me several minutes to understand the category tree and figure out how to avoid "ghettoizing" her through the category system.

The potential complexity in properly categorizing biographies is the reason I developed a set of instructions and put them here a year ago, and those instructions were used by myself and other editors to "de-ghettoize" hundreds and possibly thousands of biographies over the past year. However, much work remains to be done.

I realize that people here would like to discuss other things, which is perfectly reasonable. It was proposed above to move the categorization discussions and rules to a sub-page, which was done. However, recent reverts have now disconnected that page from the main project, and now there's no mention of "Properly categorize biographies" as one of the goals of this project. The main people involved in making these reverts are two editors who only joined the project as of a day ago.

Thus, I'm starting this section to get a clear statement from everyone involved in this project, and the broader "Countering systemic bias" project, w.r.t categorization. The questions are as follows:

Is categorization of biographies in the scope of this project? Should instructions on how to categorize such bios correctly be included here, or in a linked sub-page? Should we have a separate talk page here devoted to category discussions in this domain for those who are interested? Should we build and place somewhere a list of categories we come across that are in need of work to correctly categorize the contents within?

• support As nominator. Categorization should remain in scope, because whatever the causes of mis-categorization, the result is a systemic under-representation of mostly-female biographies in neutral categories. The categorization section could remain on the homepage as a brief instruction and pointer to the sub-page as in this version, where a list of categories needing work is provided along with a set of steps to follow (the steps could eventually be hosted elsewhere, pending conversation at WP:EGRS as well). A separate talk page can be set up to manage the category discussions to not distract the main page here. Removing categorization from the scope of this project would be removing an important and (unfortunately) highly visible and political area of content. It is not for everyone, so a sub-page serves this purpose accordingly.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)