Wikipedia is a story of success, and its long-term contributors are volunteers who have created the most valuable resource for learning we have ever encountered. However, our communities are not yet representative of the diversity of the world. They neither reflect the diversity of people working with knowledge, nor the diversity of knowledge to be shared. We also lack diversity amongst positions of responsibility. Among the common causes for the gender gap and other gaps in diversity in content and contributors is the lack of a safe and inclusive environment. This lack in the current culture of many Wikimedia projects limits the work and participation of existing communities and is a barrier for new people to join, including women, LGBTQ+, indigenous communities, and other underrepresented groups.

We will continually improve the design of our platforms to be inclusive and to enable everyone — irrespective of gender, culture, age, technological background or skills, or physical abilities — to enjoy a positive experience during both consumption and contribution to knowledge throughout the Wikimedia ecosystem.

The current power distribution within communities limits access to power positions for many, including women and other currently underrepresented profiles.

Trayectoria

Referencias

[editar datos en Wikidata]

Remedios Zafra, en el Festival SOS 4.8 2014, en Murcia.

Remedios Zafra Alcaraz (Zuheros, Córdoba, 3 de noviembre de 1973) es una escritora, profesora y ensayista española, especialista en el estudio crítico de la cultura contemporánea, la antropología, el ciberfeminismo y la cultura digital.[1]​

Premios

Remedios Zafra

Wikipedia. La brecha profunda. Parte 1

MANUFACTURING CONSENT The Political Economy of the Mass Media EDWARD S. HERMAN and NOAM CHOMSKY With a new introduction by the authors Pantheon Books, New York

MANUFACTURINGCONSENTThePoliticalEconomyoftheMassMedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Bouman

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Bouman • en.wikipedia.org

Fecha

Wikipedia neutralizes its content by distinguishing(p.152)two layers: a visible layer of consensus backed up by an invisible yet accessible layer of discussion and a heterogeneous interpretation on the History and edit pages

But how separate or “sovereign” is this space? Can a nonprofit enclave of neutrality exist when it is woven into the corporate fabric of connective media? And how does the ideology of neutrality and objectivity relate to the sharing logic and popularity rankings fostered by Facebook and Google? In short, how does Wikipedia hold up in a culture of connectivity where the default is on frictionless sharing and data mining?

Arbitration Committee

Sociologist Christian Pentzold (2011: 718) articulates this very precisely in his ethnographic study of Wikipedia users when he observes that contributors do “not only have to learn to use the software tools, but they also have to acquire the appropriate beliefs, values

The NPoV rule is thus a guiding principle for building a functional apparatus, but that apparatus simultaneously shapes the meaning of neutrality as the “average opinion” or “shared interpretation.”

Third-party apps, like the WikiScanner, make it possible to geo-locate anonymous edits by looking up the IP addresses in an IP-to-Geo database, a listing of IP addresses and the companies and institutions they belong to, and track a potential interest

Third, articles have to be written from a “Neutral Point of View” (NPoV);

A second related rule is called “No Original Research.” Wikipedia simply does not accept new or unpublished research or original thought

First, the rule of verifiability means that readers have to be able to retrace Wikipedia content to reliable sources

over 16 percent of all edits in Wikipedia were made by bots, a number that is still growing (Geiger and Ribes2010: 119).

bots obtain their own user page

we find bots, administrators, bureaucrats, and stewards; developers and system administrators take the highest positions

Did Wikipedia need specialists(p.136)to contribute entries on one specific area, or were generalists who could write about different areas more valuable to the site? As it turned out, researchers proved that the site needs both types of input. Whereas specialists boost the site’s quality level, generalists are crucial to the connective fabric of the encyclopedia, as they tend to make more linksbetweendomains (Halatchliyski et al.2010)

Various researchers noted this dramatic shift in workload, but instead of endorsing the wisdom-of-crowds cliché, Kittur and colleagues (2007) researched “the rise of the bourgeoisie”: a marked growth in the population of low-edit users.

Until 2006, Wikipedia was largely written and maintained by a core of dedicated editors—2 percent doing 73 percent of all edits.

For instance, how does Wikipedia’s consensual apparatus relate to the ideology of sharing, as professed by Facebook and others? How does the platform’s ideology of neutrality compare to the logic of popularity ingrained in Google’s ranking(p.134)mechanisms? And how can Wikipedia hold up its nonprofit status in a network of media conglomerates that are overwhelmingly driven by the profit motive?

To many, Wikipedia is one of the few examples of what Yochai Benkler (2006: 5) has called “nonmarket peer-production” in an otherwise overwhelmingly corporate digital environment

online knowledge construction

hierarchical content management system

Wikipedia and the Neutrality Principle

This suggests that conflictual games’moving-on does not rely on sustainedconversations (because participants disagree anyway) but relies on convincing the auth-ority.

Because ofthis inability to change the rules, debates thus centre on two other areas: the interpretationof these rules and the discovery of evidence to satisfy (e.g., notability) criteria.

The consultation/enforcement mode suggests the pragmatic side of a game in which theactual manifestation as a site of independent yet transparent lobbying efforts, deviatesfrom its original setup as a site of discussion.

Because closing admins are not bound to appeal to the majority, they havethe power to decide regardless of how many deleters or retainers incidentally

In the discussion game, editors par-ticipate in AfD discussions in a way that is similar to other online asynchronous chats(although lonely“discussions”with only one comment are also common)

Thisalso shows a practical side to AfD discussions—the aim is not so much about convincingothers. It is about convincing the authority.

A keydifference here with casual synchronous chats is that AfD is confrontational:

The problem is that WP:AIRCRASH is an“advice on article content,”52not a guideline.

two language games—consultation/enforcement and discussion

Also, some“dis-cussions”are not interactive—in the case when participants are all talking to the closingadmin rather than to each other

frame discussions

cascading arguments,

But manyfirst movers are more aggressive

Based mostly on signals, thisfirst move thus sounds personal rather than analytical.This is in line with Wikipedia’s spirit—consensus—but is also problematic on behalf ofCassidy03’s deletion cause.

A deleter can start with a short comment

inFigure 1.

Here,“institutionalized rules”refers to the citation of Wikipedia rules to establish legiti-macy.

Free style operationalization

1a] PerWP:NEO; this

Thefirst phase revealed four broad categories of discursive resources that editors oftenuse: institutionalized rules (Wikipedia policies/guidelines), external validators, free styleoperationalization, and signals

Data from the AfD discussion pages was collected from June 1, 2013 to June 21, 2013 (thefirst phase)

My analysis will adopt part of this critical orientation by focusingon thepower relationsbetween editors in their choice of utterance during AfD discussions.

My method of choice is discourse analysis

For the purpose of differentiation, I shall call thepersons of the actdeletersandretainers

Previousstudies of Wikipedia’s article deletion processes have shown that the lack of indicationof importance alone is the most important commonly used criterion for speedyCOMMUNICATION AND CRITICAL/CULTURAL STUDIES307

Finally, AfD discussions are conflictual.

Second,none of its participants can be certain as to what the rules of each languagegame are

First, thereisnoclearboundaryastowhoisaninsiderandwhoisanoutsiderand,ifthereisaboundary, there is high mobility between the inside and the outside (and vice versa)

I will conceptualize Wikipedia editors’online exchanges as amovein a“language game,”acentral concept of Wittgenstein’s view on language as social actions

As we shall see, much of the debate centres onthe interpretation of the“notability guideline”(WP:Notability),20which decideswhether topics should be included in this gigantic encyclopedia

We have movedaway from mass reception to a supposed age of microinteractions and reinstitutionaliza-tion of civil space.

Editors of newspapers and magazines constantly engage in the selection and silencing ofinformation in terms of choosing what to publish. This, in effect, sets a boundary betweenknowledge and“nonknowledge

Negotiating boundaries of knowledge: Discourseanalysis of Wikipedia's Articles for Deletion (AfD)discussion

Usuario:Platonides/Encarta/Artículos

Deletion discussions in Wikipedia: decision factors and outcomes

Mercedes del Carmen Guillén Vicente

Wikipedia:Consultas de borrado/Mercedes del Carmen Guillén Vicente

Personas por sexo‎

Mujeres‎ (10 cat, 73348 págs.)

Este es argumento falaz denominado generalización apresurada. La relevancia enciclopédica de cada artículo debe discutirse per se, es decir, por sí mismo. Exceptuando analogías obvias cada hecho, objeto o personaje tiene su propia trascendencia y debe ser analizado por ella, no por la de otro o por la de la del género al que pertenece.

Category:Articles for deletion

Historial

Categoría:Wikipedia:Consultas de borrado

Do not use obviously feminine names, such as SuzyQ or Pam I Am. Do not use feminine titles like Miss, Ms, or Mrs. Do not incorporate hobbies, interests, family status, religious affiliation, etc. For example, Knit Nut, Fairly Feminist, and Lovemykids are not the best usernames if you want to avoid Wikipedia gender-based harassment.

Técnicas y métodos de investigación

UOC Grants for Doctoral Theses for the Doctoral in Information and Knowledge Society

La cuestión de género en el mundo digital. Wikipedia y otras comunidades

Are Women Present, Absent or in Disguise?Analyzing Gender Bias in the Spanish WP

WIKIPEDIA EDITORS STUDYRESULTS FROM THE EDITOR SURVEY, APRIL 2011

WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia’s GenderImbalance