Wikipedia:Gap Finding Project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

feminist technoscience[edit]

More genealogy of the intersections of feminist technoscience with feminist science studies, and technoscience studies in the science studies tradition. References: Bits of Life.

gender and technology[edit]

There's no Wikipedia page on gender and technology. Has this been considered "too broad" for an encyclopedia entry? What would such a page cover? What other pages would be nested inside? Who are some of the key theorists/contributors and themes in the field of "gender and technology"? There are certainly many books, courses, syllabi on the topic... (This gap was pointed out by ND).


Relates to feminist technoscience but could constitute its own post.

Judy Wajcman[edit]

  • Needs elaboration on her theoretical contributions.
  • Yes! This is basically a list of her books. There is no narrative about her work or where she fits into the larger story of feminist Marxist sociologists who think about technologies as integral to "capitol" (fixed capitol) and "patriarchy" the reproduction of the masculine
  • Her book was also written decades ago -- a story about how her thinking has changed and adapted over time. Link to the FemTechNet interview with Wajcman by Anne Balsamo to reference these updates and the neoliberal/post-fordist structure of the global economy. Shameran81 (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women in STEM fields[edit]

Page exists, needs additional edits as under discussion in talk page; also needs more explicit discussion on and definitions of gender (vs sex) and overarching social structures like patriarchy. Also, arguably, should be noted as US/Canada/Britain focused, unless content is actually expanded, which would make for very different page content.

Chicana and Chicano[edit]

- Underdeveloped article - Talk page // "C class article" - Redirect of Chicana to Chicano not discussed

women of color[edit]

Search for 'women of color' or 'woman of color' points to a page on Person of Color. While this page seems to offer a reasonable overview of the use of the term 'person of color' it fails to capture the unique experience of women of color at the intersection of racial, gender and often economic structural disadvantage.

Materialist vs Material Feminisms[edit]

Currently no disambiguation between the two terms on Wikipedia; both used interchangeably to refer to Marxist feminist analyses. Lagging behind theory (e.g. Alaimo and Hekman 2008, Coole 2010, Bennett 2010 etc.). Rylee001 (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)rylee001Reply[reply]


Add reference Janet Abbate's book Recoding Gender: Women's Changing Participation in Computing both to reference list/citations and to expand on section on programming, female programmers, and perhaps elsewhere throughout.

gender-based violence[edit]

Gender-based violence re-routes to a section of the Domestic Violence page, specifically the 'Violence against Women' section. Gender-based violence warrants a separate page and consideration for the larger scope of gender-based violence encompassing the range of violence and different forms of violence inflicted on individuals and communities across a gender-identity spectrum.

Écriture féminine[edit]

  • As noted on the talk page (last updated, 2011) this is lackluster and underdeveloped.
  • Needs sections - summary of main ideas in this theory and the major contributors (some are hyperlinked in the beginning)
  • Possible sections: History of this theory - how it developed in critique to psychoanalysis and for instance, Jacques Lacan, the intellectual training of the theorists (analysts); How the theory has been taken up to theorize psychic development in culture and subjectivity, the abject Julia Kristeva; how ecriture féminine has been taken up by other disciplines and examples of this (anthropology, literature, cultural geography), major conferences and areas of study, major works in this, critiques and criticisms from different
  • I couldn't help it, I had to make an edit of "literally" into "translates" ( Shameran81 (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indigenous Systems of Knowledge[edit]

no page

Look up Indigenous Information Research Group at UW

Duarte, M., & Belarde-Lewis, M. (2015). Imagining: Creating Spaces for Indigenous Ontologies. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 53(5-6), 677-702.

Critical Media Literacy[edit]

Here's a list of some pages that might be of interest to my Critical Media Literacy class since these topics are covered in the course. Each page in this list is incomplete and/or needs a feminist perspective on the topic:

  • Information and Media Literacy; Media Literacy (needs "critical media literacy" section);
  • Media and Gender;
  • Gender and Videogames;
  • Walter Chapin Simpson Center for the Humanities (Public scholarship section);
  • Circuit of culture;
  • Killing Us Softly Film Series;
  • Feminist Activism in Hip-Hop;
  • Black Twitter;
  • Hashtag Activism;
  • Hacktivism;
  • Geek Girl;

Domestic Violence > gender aspects section[edit]

This section includes some important discussion about violence against men, under-reporting by men and women, and the difficulties of collecting accurate data on domestic violence, gender-based violence, family violence, intimate partner violence, etc. It lacks a complex discussion on gender, and fails to provide a balanced discussion about gender (addressing the stats and realities for women in North America and worldwide, addressing violence against transgender people and against people who are gender non-conforming). Really the section lacks a nuanced discussion about gender, making it imbalanced.

Participatory Culture[edit]

The Participatory Culture article does not explicitly discuss gendered experiences. May need another section on uses of participatory culture in relation to deliberately homoerotic re-readings of popular media. See e.g. Russ 1984, Jones 2002, Hellekson 2009 etc. Rylee001 (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Rylee001Reply[reply]

Chicana Feminism[edit]

Needs citations Overview needs work List of scholars needs updatingXicanaxingona (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alison Adam's work on AI[edit] - brief summary of her contributions - brief bio and list of her two books

She has two studies of two “objective” AI “knowledge” systems which she argues are particular, located, and historically-specific definitions of humanness are inscribed into the design of two pioneering artificial intelligence systems, Cyc and SOAR -- themselves underdeveloped and could use her critique in sections.Shameran81 (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Her work as a scientist is missing Xicanaxingona (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


What's the gap?:

Chicanafuturism does not have it's own page.


Catherine Ramirez has the following articles on Chicanafuturism Ramírez, Catherine. 2004. “Deus Ex Machina: Tradition, Technology, and the Chicanafuturist Art of Marion C. Martinez.” Aztlan: A Journal of Chicano Studies 29 (2): 55–92.

Ramírez, Catherine. 2008. “Afrofuturism/Chicanafuturism: Fictive Kin.” Aztlan: A Journal of Chicano Studies 33 (1): 185–94. Xicanaxingona (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz[edit]

Sor Juana's work as a scientist is missing. Xicanaxingona (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Radio Station KBBF[edit]

Radio Station KBBF

Description of what's there: Radio Station KBBF in Santa Rosa, CA was the first bilingual non-commercial radio station in the United States.

What's the gap: This entry is lacking in an substantive information about the history of the radio station.

Resources: Casillas, Dolores Ines. Sounds of Belonging: U.S. Spanish-Language Radio and Public Advocacy. New York ; London: NYU Press, 2014. Biewen, John, and Alexa Dilworth, eds. Reality Radio: Telling True Stories in Sound. First Printing edition. Chapel Hill : Durham, N.C.: The University of North Carolina Press, 2010.

There are also a number of newspaper articles about the station. Should a student be interested in working on editing this entry, there is an academic consultant would be happy to share more resources by email.

Shameran81 (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Wikipedia Fandom article

Description of what's there: The fandom page is short (which it shouldn’t be!). There’s a “missing citations” tag. There’s debate about “notable” fandoms. According to the talk page, there’s been requests to make the page “semi-protected” perhaps because of controversies about what fandoms are going to be recognized in the article as official fandoms (this is an ongoing debate). Many of the unrecognized fandoms are music fandoms.

The fandoms that have been recognized as “legitimate” on the page include Potterheads, Sherlockians. Stargate is present. Trekkies and Dr. Who – these connect to their own Wikipedia page, so they’re legitimate enough to get their own pages already.

What's the gap:

  • No mention of Buffy fan community. Buffy Studies has its own Wikipedia page as does Unofficial Buffy Productions, but no page for the fans. They are not included in the article on Fandoms. The page that exists on Buffy fans is about their production work (e.g. their fan fiction/products) but not about their community as a form of fandom.

Commentary from expert: “This is one of those moments when I have a major issue with editing Wikipedia. While I agree that the Buffy Fandom is intense and wholly deserving to be recognized fandom. [It has] received a great deal of study from media and cultural studies scholars. But I find myself concerned for fans themselves, fans who may have participated ten years ago, and if their fandom were to receive increased visibility all of a sudden something that someone did under an old avatar could get outed. Not because it is malicious, but because someone was trying to write an A-level encyclopedia article on Buffy fandom. This is a tension between wanting to accurately represent fandom and being concerned about the safety of the community members, who may desire to be unrevealed or remain obscure. [...] There’s also a Buffyverse project on Wikipedia – all of the paratexts to become centralized in a form of legitimizing in popular discussion. I again find it interesting that something like Buffy Studies gets its own unproblematic site but the Buffy fandom does not. The Buffy Studies needs the Buffyverse before you can have the same kind of legitimacy in popular culture.”

  • No mention of the Avenger fandoms.
  • Missing psychological aspects of fandom and how they are constructed.
  • Some critical commentary of “furry fandom” image (does this consequently alienate/pathologize the fan as a deviant?).
  • The literature fandom was also cut at some point, which is an oversight.

Commentary from expert: "The Sherlock fandom is one of the oldest. And it is mentioned in the article -- despite other connections to literature being deleted. And the entire discussion of the Jane Austen fandom is not here. Janeites [...] they are huge. But their page is, like Buffy’s, connected to their fan activity and production, rather than them as a community. It's interesting the avoidance of the word fan, and reluctance to categorize the community as fans in favor of looking at them through their production. What we have here is reception (reactions), and this would include the Lizzy Bennett Diaries, the sequels, Lost in Austen, Jasper Ford’s work, adaptations, it is most famous for interacting in a significant way with Jane Eyre. Clueless, Bridget Jones’s Diaries, a big one."

Resources (annotated):

  • Coppa, Francesca (2006). "A Brief History of Media Fandom". In Hellekson, Karen; Busse, Kristina. Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. pp. 41–59. ISBN 978-0-7864-2640-9.

Commentary from expert: “Coppa is cited, which is good, but she’s cited in a book collection that is an uncommon reference. More could be used from this anthology.

The entry is missing citations or work after 2013. More commonly cited, and thus also missing as key texts in this literature, are:

  • Gray, Jonathan, Cornel Sandvoss, and C. Lee Harrington, eds. 2007. Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World. New York: New York University Press.
  • Hellekson, Karen, and Kristina Busse, eds. 2014. The Fan Fiction Studies Reader. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.

  • Lewis, Lisa A., ed. 1992. The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media. London ; New York: Routledge.

Commentary: “Lisa Lewis's book is a very early text on fans. It is a different story from the one that Henry Jenkins would tell. She writes that they are using their fandoms to escape ordinary life, and tells a story of their weirdness, and has been used to support arguments of pathology or deviance.”

  1. Jenkins, Henry. 2006. Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture. New York: New York University Press.

Commentary from expert: “Jenkins work describes fans as active, creative, critically engaged users – not deviants. He is here, though."

Summarizing thoughts

Commentary from expert: "Fandoms, and fan activity is present on Wikipedia, but there’s reluctance to address some fan communities, while others are developed – those that have been made notable enough to have their own Wikipedia page as fandoms. Others are only listed through their production. Why is this? Is there a pathologization of the fan as not normal? Irrational?"