4 ms·

There are many things that are not statistically significant, but still interesting when it seems likely* that a larger sample would give a similar result. Onl

There are many things that are not statistically significant, but still interesting when it seems likely* that a larger sample would give a similar result. Only 17.47% (as of 26 February 2018) of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in... EDIT: I rechecked the quote from the article about the likelihood of deletion and found it to be "in this cohort of Erdős Ones, the pages for women were over four times more likely than men’s to be nominated for speedy deletion." (my italics). FYI.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Only 17.47% (as of 26 February 2018) of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women: Wikipedia being a tertiary source may, through unbiased processes, simply be reflecting bias in the secondary sources. Biographies of pre-modern women are far less common than of their male contemporaries, IME; that's less true of my modern and especially extremely current figures, but Wikipedia isn't exclusively focused on current figures.
- posterboy 9y ago
  There is no such thing as a tertiary source. Either you have a primary source, or you have hear say.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    You may not like secondary and tertiary sources, but they absolutely are well-defined categories, and Wikipedia's overtly declared mission is to be a tertiary source, which why original research and most direct citation of primary, rather than secondary, sources is restricted by policy.
dahdum 9y ago
That % isn't really surprising considering the patriarchal history of the world. You couldn't possibly get to 50% unless you over-represented women in the near present or adjusted notability standards. However if it were 17.47% for current times, that would be a significant bias that needs to be addressed. It still might not hit 50/50 given reduced opportunities for women still today, but it should be moving ever closer.
- shele 9y ago
  The fraction of women with Erdos number one is already very small, no reason to assume that they are less important than corresponding man with the same Erdos number.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Only 17.47% (as of 26 February 2018) of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women: Wikipedia being a tertiary source may, through unbiased processes, simply be reflecting bias in the secondary sources. Biographies of pre-modern women are far less common than of their male contemporaries, IME; that's less true of my modern and especially extremely current figures, but Wikipedia isn't exclusively focused on current figures.

posterboy 9y ago
There is no such thing as a tertiary source. Either you have a primary source, or you have hear say.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  You may not like secondary and tertiary sources, but they absolutely are well-defined categories, and Wikipedia's overtly declared mission is to be a tertiary source, which why original research and most direct citation of primary, rather than secondary, sources is restricted by policy.

dahdum 9y ago

That % isn't really surprising considering the patriarchal history of the world. You couldn't possibly get to 50% unless you over-represented women in the near present or adjusted notability standards. However if it were 17.47% for current times, that would be a significant bias that needs to be addressed. It still might not hit 50/50 given reduced opportunities for women still today, but it should be moving ever closer.

shele 9y ago
The fraction of women with Erdos number one is already very small, no reason to assume that they are less important than corresponding man with the same Erdos number.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]