6 ms·
Can't it just be that since 2007 most of the obvious topics for an encyclopedia to cover have been covered? It's probably less satisfying to change the wording
by gspr 5y ago
Can't it just be that since 2007 most of the obvious topics for an encyclopedia to cover have been covered?
It's probably less satisfying to change the wording in one sentence in an article about an Australian cheese than it is to write that article. So fewer people care.
- zozbot234 5y agoYes, the standards for what counts as "good" Wikipedia editing have gotten a lot higher as well, at least wrt. mainstream topics.
- watwut 5y agoNo it is not. Some areas are perfectly describes, others basically empty. I remember dabbing into sewing a while ago and finding out wiki is basically empty.
- throwaway2037 5y agoYes, I also notice the coverage dedicated to women vs men is extremely imbalanced. I know they have a separate team working on the issue and big advert banners about it... but the issue remains: Much more is written about men (living or dead) than women.
- pfranz 5y agoThis was brought up as a major issue about 10 years ago: https://slate.com/technology/2012/07/kate-middleton-s-wedding-gown-and-wikipedia-s-gender-gap.html https://slate.com/technology/2012/07/kate-middleton-s-weddin...
- exporectomy 5y agoAren't there far more prominent men than women though? Especially when you count the whole of patriarchal history.
- zozbot234 5y agoHistory is always written by the victors, and due to patriarchy most of the victors in recorded history have been men. This has consequences if you want your encyclopedia to rely on existing sources.
- throwaway2037 5y agoI cannot personally agree with the first sentence from a modern context, but the second sentence is reasonable. I'm most bothered with I see articles about important ministers of a country and the women have either just a stub or a few measly paragraphs, and the men have flowing pages. I see the same for business leaders.
- depressedpanda 5y agoThe beauty of Wikipedia is that nothing prevents you (or other people) from writing those missing articles.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- coldacid 5y agoUntil some jackass with more authority than he should ever have had decides your article isn't "notable" enough to deserve existence and has it nuked on those grounds.
- kaba0 5y agoI mean, it may be because the coverage dedicated to women vs men was even more imbalanced in the past, fewer textual sources having been written about women so less to reference.