Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender studies/Countering Systemic Gender Bias

message: I think the policy to do with these terms on the project page is over-stated. Ms should be the default term to use if there is no established pattern for how the person is known. If the person is known to have a preference or there is an established method for refering to someoen in reliable sources, then that pattern should be followed. Margaret Thatcher was most certainly Mrs Thatcher until she became Lady/Baroness Thatcher. Carol Thatcher is Ms. Thatcher. Elizabeth Gaskell can be Elizabeth or Gaskell, or Mrs. Gaskell or Elizabeth Cleghorn Stevenson but surely not Ms. Gaskell in a way that complies with Wikipedia policy.--Peter cohen 17:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ms Miss and Mrs 

message: I've notice over the years, that systemic Wikipedia gender bias propagates via edits (deletions and additions). What contributors decide to remove is just as harmful as what they add. Sometimes deletions are nearly vandalism. It can quickly wipe out visibility efforts and go unnoticed for months or years. Seems like this page should offer suggestions on how to counter this (e.g.: "Double-check your editing contributions for omissions that might obscure or patterns that might put negative focus on a gender group."). Anyone like this idea? -- Deebki 14:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add "Avoid Gender Biased Editing" to Page? 

message: I've noticed while lurking that articles about women's issues are far more likely to be brought up for deletion and deleted than articles about issues more commonly associated with men. Articles on million-selling books, pioneer musicians, forms of art, and hobbies that are more popular with women are slammed, while every walk-on in a male-oriented science fiction TV show gets its own 1,000 word article. This seems to stem from two places:
* Most editors are men, and are likely to consider what they don't recognize as non-notable despite the existence of reliable sources;
* Most editors, men and women, unconsciously think anything directed mainly at women must be innately less notable, of lower quality, less valuable, and more easily dismissed as garbage than anything directed at men, because men are the default.
Is anything going to be written or done to address this? --NellieBly (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nellie while the issue you are describing might happen occassionally there is no proof that Most editors, men and women, unconsciously think anything directed mainly at women must be innately less notable, of lower quality, less valuable, and more easily dismissed as garbage than anything directed at men, because men are the default..  Deletion is carried out by systematic process.  The first stage of which is the sometimes problematic XfD format (have a look at WP:AFD).  However oversight exists, it's called the deletion review - where questionable deletions can be investigated.  There is also a noticeboard which editors can watch called Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender.  At this board AFDs relating to the topics of gender and sexuality will be listed as they come-up--Cailil  talk 18:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gender Biased Editing and the deletion process