Writing Women Back into the History of Science
1–10 of 13 posts
Re: Writing Women Back into the History of Science
#2Love how she admits that she started everything after being a troll herself. Awesome, kind of speaks volumes I think.
In any regards, if she knows of scientists that should have wiki articles but don't or are otherwise faulty, and she spends time correcting those issues, great. No need to make it into a gendered issue though, that is just sexist.
Re: Writing Women Back into the History of Science
#3Love how she admits that she started everything after being a troll herself. Awesome, kind of speaks volumes I think. In any regards, if she knows of scientists that should have wiki articles but don't or are otherwise faulty, and she spends time correcting those issues, great. No need to make it into a gendered issue though, that is just sexist.
Why do you think it's sexist for a woman counter the intense, entrenched anti-woman sexism on Wikipedia?
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wi...
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wik...
http://www.fastcompany.com/3041871/strong-female-lead/more-l...
Re: Writing Women Back into the History of Science
#4Love how she admits that she started everything after being a troll herself. Awesome, kind of speaks volumes I think. In any regards, if she knows of scientists that should have wiki articles but don't or are otherwise faulty, and she spends time correcting those issues, great. No need to make it into a gendered issue though, that is just sexist.
> Love how she admits that she started everything after being a troll herself
Are you referring to the entry she wrote about her sister, because personally I'm seeing a bit of daylight between "literal twelve year old child makes a fake wiki article" and "Throwaway email addresses frequently send her requests for dates, condescendingly discuss her body, insinuate that she got to where she is through sexual favors, ask her to reserve those favors for themselves, and when she doesn’t reply, they spew profanities." (from: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/03/08/alchemy-turning-harassm...)
Re: Writing Women Back into the History of Science
#5Love how she admits that she started everything after being a troll herself. Awesome, kind of speaks volumes I think. In any regards, if she knows of scientists that should have wiki articles but don't or are otherwise faulty, and she spends time correcting those issues, great. No need to make it into a gendered issue though, that is just sexist.
That's absurd to say its sexist, the woman is a volunteer contributing to the vast store of human knowledge.
Documenting female scientists may be her agenda due to the intense amount of vitriol online, but from the article content's its pretty clear that her aim isnt sexist, just one that says that women werent written into the history books as often and as readily as men.
Also the troll thing is her very first article as a child, hardly relevant.
Re: Writing Women Back into the History of Science
#6Love how she admits that she started everything after being a troll herself. Awesome, kind of speaks volumes I think. In any regards, if she knows of scientists that should have wiki articles but don't or are otherwise faulty, and she spends time correcting those issues, great. No need to make it into a gendered issue though, that is just sexist.
Why do you think it's sexist for a woman counter the intense, entrenched anti-woman sexism on Wikipedia? http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wi... http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wik... http://www.fastcompany.com/3041871/strong-female-lead/more-l...
You only need to go to Wikipedia to learn if it is hostile to women or not. Article like these are intentionally planted by vested interests to pump-up support for the movement and have absolutely no basis in reality.
Re: Writing Women Back into the History of Science
#7Love how she admits that she started everything after being a troll herself. Awesome, kind of speaks volumes I think. In any regards, if she knows of scientists that should have wiki articles but don't or are otherwise faulty, and she spends time correcting those issues, great. No need to make it into a gendered issue though, that is just sexist.
That's absurd to say its sexist, the woman is a volunteer contributing to the vast store of human knowledge. Documenting female scientists may be her agenda due to the intense amount of vitriol online, but from the article content's its pretty clear that her aim isnt sexist, just one that says that women werent written into the history books as often and as readily as men. Also the troll thing is her very first artic…
It is sexist by definition if she favors one sex over the other. If it produces something good (accurate knowledge), then I don't really see the problem...
The thing I would like to know is why she is getting so much hate. I could write articles about men scientists all year and nobody would notice.
EDIT: Went to see her handle on twitter and got my answer. She is on the left politically and is very open about it. Makes more sense now.
Re: Writing Women Back into the History of Science
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's absurd to say its sexist, the woman is a volunteer contributing to the vast store of human knowledge. Documenting female scientists may be her agenda due to the intense amount of vitriol online, but from the article content's its pretty clear that her aim isnt sexist, just one that says that women werent written into the history books as often and as readily as men. Also the troll thing is her very first artic…
It is sexist by definition if she favors one sex over the other. If it produces something good (accurate knowledge), then I don't really see the problem... The thing I would like to know is why she is getting so much hate. I could write articles about men scientists all year and nobody would notice. EDIT: Went to see her handle on twitter and got my answer. She is on the left politically and is very open about it. Ma…
Nobody would notice because male scientists already get enough credit, the reason there is an article about this is because lots of women in science aren't given enough credit.
Re: Writing Women Back into the History of Science
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is sexist by definition if she favors one sex over the other. If it produces something good (accurate knowledge), then I don't really see the problem... The thing I would like to know is why she is getting so much hate. I could write articles about men scientists all year and nobody would notice. EDIT: Went to see her handle on twitter and got my answer. She is on the left politically and is very open about it. Ma…
Nobody would notice because male scientists already get enough credit, the reason there is an article about this is because lots of women in science aren't given enough credit.
I could write about women scientists all year and nobody would notice either. That wasn't my point.
Re: Writing Women Back into the History of Science
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is sexist by definition if she favors one sex over the other. If it produces something good (accurate knowledge), then I don't really see the problem... The thing I would like to know is why she is getting so much hate. I could write articles about men scientists all year and nobody would notice. EDIT: Went to see her handle on twitter and got my answer. She is on the left politically and is very open about it. Ma…
Nobody would notice because male scientists already get enough credit, the reason there is an article about this is because lots of women in science aren't given enough credit.
[deleted]