Read on Twitter
Every so often, you end up down a Wikipedia rabbit hole that reminds you how Wikipedia's editorship being 85-90% male creates huge content gaps for certain topics, especially those more typically associated with women
Today's example: Battenberg lace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battenberg_lace
Today's example: Battenberg lace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battenberg_lace
How is this article only 5 sentences long?? Where is the exhaustive dive into the history and geography and other sub-topics that I count on from Wikipedia??
(It's not for a lack of material, there are whole books about Battenberg lace:
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=battenberg+lace )
(It's not for a lack of material, there are whole books about Battenberg lace:
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=battenberg+lace )
We can tell that this content gap is systematic, because when I click on the internal Wikipedia links within the Battenberg lace article, I also discover very tiny articles about related topics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_lace
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_lace
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tape_lace
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_lace
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_lace
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tape_lace
It's not until I get to bobbin lace, which is a whole other category of lace (as I learned 2 minutes ago), that I begin to get the exhaustive level of detail I expect from a typical Wikipedia article
Though frankly even this article is on the short side
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobbin_lace
Though frankly even this article is on the short side
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobbin_lace
Can I solve this problem by going to another language's Wikipedia articles about these various lace subtopics?
No I cannot.
Because again only the Bobbin lace article has been developed enough for links to versions in other languages https://twitter.com/amylauder/status/1227062354942164992
No I cannot.
Because again only the Bobbin lace article has been developed enough for links to versions in other languages https://twitter.com/amylauder/status/1227062354942164992
Historical clothing stuff is super interesting!
And this youtube video I was just watching definitely talked about Battenberg lace as if it was a common thing that people would know about, which is why I expected more from Wikipedia https://twitter.com/Laogeodritt/status/1227063265353596928
And this youtube video I was just watching definitely talked about Battenberg lace as if it was a common thing that people would know about, which is why I expected more from Wikipedia https://twitter.com/Laogeodritt/status/1227063265353596928
Right, like, all I've learned is that there are several names here but definitely not enough to tell the difference... https://twitter.com/the_spiderwife/status/1227063635991760896
Wikipedia is a website that includes EXHAUSTIVE detail about various ships in Star Wars or the different Pokemon
Which I'm fine with!
But ~somehow~ the historical lace fandom (and I guarantee you that there is a historical lace fandom) doesn't feel equally welcome to edit
Which I'm fine with!
But ~somehow~ the historical lace fandom (and I guarantee you that there is a historical lace fandom) doesn't feel equally welcome to edit
The previous time I noticed a content gap like this on Wikipedia was for articles related to braiding, especially hair braiding and hairstyles
Again, hundreds if not thousands of years of human history and culture -> a few sentences https://twitter.com/snowgall/status/1227065221539344386
Again, hundreds if not thousands of years of human history and culture -> a few sentences https://twitter.com/snowgall/status/1227065221539344386
I had several conversations at #SocSciFoo this weekend about the future of the internet, and there was a lot of idealism around Wikipedia
But we can't think of Wikipedia as a model without a thorough reckoning on its very real flaws as well
But we can't think of Wikipedia as a model without a thorough reckoning on its very real flaws as well
So many content gaps!
I've been doing #lingwiki editathons for 5 or 6 years at linguistics conferences to encourage linguists to improve areas related to their expertise (many of the smaller language articles are also very tiny) https://twitter.com/RosemaryMosco/status/1227066543026167809
I've been doing #lingwiki editathons for 5 or 6 years at linguistics conferences to encourage linguists to improve areas related to their expertise (many of the smaller language articles are also very tiny) https://twitter.com/RosemaryMosco/status/1227066543026167809
As I said to someone at a conference this weekend, I *WANT* to like Wikipedia, it's just really hard to do so when Wikipedia so clearly doesn't like me or people like me https://twitter.com/AvenSarah/status/1227068557835538432
There are several really great efforts to address aspects of this content gap, including Women in Red and Art+Feminism!
I guess I'm also wishing for Wikipedia + Fibre Arts (which I don't know enough about to do myself, that's why I was on Wikipedia!) https://twitter.com/artbyailbhe/status/1227067743440113664
I guess I'm also wishing for Wikipedia + Fibre Arts (which I don't know enough about to do myself, that's why I was on Wikipedia!) https://twitter.com/artbyailbhe/status/1227067743440113664
Anyway, I now know 5 sentences about what Battenberg lace is
If the article had been longer, then maybe I could have just stayed there and learned things rather than coming on twitter to rant into the void
If you know things about lace, feel free to add to the article, I guess?
If the article had been longer, then maybe I could have just stayed there and learned things rather than coming on twitter to rant into the void
If you know things about lace, feel free to add to the article, I guess?
I mean I honestly figured the best chance for this article that has not had a substantive addition since it was created in 2014 was to do a thread like this
Which is to say, PLEASE, us fibre arts amateurs would appreciate it!! https://twitter.com/rose_alibi/status/1227074027627274241
Which is to say, PLEASE, us fibre arts amateurs would appreciate it!! https://twitter.com/rose_alibi/status/1227074027627274241
hahaha I will keep it in mind!
the thing is, and why it's often kinda weird to do threads about content gaps like this, is that I'm not even really a lace fanne, merely a personne who was curiouse for a seconde https://twitter.com/relsqui/status/1227075431452434432
the thing is, and why it's often kinda weird to do threads about content gaps like this, is that I'm not even really a lace fanne, merely a personne who was curiouse for a seconde https://twitter.com/relsqui/status/1227075431452434432
Just fyi, I'd like to stay away from criticising the existing lace articles too much, as they were all pretty much added by one person best I can tell, and without that person they wouldn't exist at all
The bigger issue is that there was only one person working on lace articles
The bigger issue is that there was only one person working on lace articles
Yup, people have been aware of and working on Wikipedia content gaps for years and years now, and yet there's still further content gaps https://twitter.com/jessamyn/status/1227078422125580290
Anyway, I was recently told (I believe by @eszter?) about a study finding women were less likely to know that literally anyone can edit Wikipedia, so check that upper right part of the menu bar for the "edit" button
(and make sure to switch to the Visual Editor at the popup!)
(and make sure to switch to the Visual Editor at the popup!)
Aha, thanks for the citation! https://twitter.com/eszter/status/1227084231639281665
Once you switch your mindset from "this Wikipedia article is pretty short, guess it must not be very important" to "this Wikipedia article is pretty short, BUT THAT CAN CHANGE" you never go back :D https://twitter.com/samieluc/status/1227080224296271874
Thread update, in a very literal manner: someone is now working on lace articles! Thank you! https://twitter.com/mem_somerville/status/1318214383189839877?s=19
Edit a Wikipedia article yourself, learn for a day
Gently nudge an entire subcommunity into taking responsibility for the Wikipedia coverage of a topic they're passionate about, learn for a lifetime
Gently nudge an entire subcommunity into taking responsibility for the Wikipedia coverage of a topic they're passionate about, learn for a lifetime
(The day/lifetime aphorism is a response to the people on the original thread who were telling me to just fix it myself, look, I guarantee you my interest would have run dry within the same evening, what I needed to do was find the actual lace fandom, which is what happened! 
)
)
