Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/29

Guys, can we coordinate on this because this workflow is cannibalising content intended to be done on the event on the 8th and the research and work we have been doing is getting wasted. Stuart@WMUK Battleofalma (talk) 12:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I rephase that. WMUK are concerned that WiR's enthusiasm will mean that there are few remaining "easy" biographies in English. Creating Wikidata entries, adding pictures to commons, and creating references is great work. I will expand on this on our talk page for discussion. Victuallers (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright question

Could someone comment please at Talk:100_Women_(BBC)#Is_it_not_a_copyright_violation_to_publish_this_list.3F? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to contribute a biography for 100 women ...?

Hi,

I came across ?notice ad inviting for biographies of women for ?100 women project... Since then I have been searching online. I think I have found a notable personality. I want to contribute an article. I am aware that its acceptance is subject to notability criteria of Wikipedia policy.

Is the project still on? How do I go about contributing for that project? Could someone advice please?

Sincerely

--Kireadsalot (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kireadsalot. I think the best thing to do is go ahead and create it. BBC 100 is several things: the BBC's list; an ediathon held a couple of days ago to encourage uptake at wikipedia & inclusion in wikipedia of the 100 women from 2016 ... right now 100 Women on wikipedia is a clear-up operation after the editathon. Let us know how you go here - we have a slot to place it in on the main page attached to this talk page. But go ahead because the person is notable, not because of 100 Women particularly. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Tagishsimon. Hello!

Thank you for the advise. I shall go about the article.

Regards

--Kireadsalot (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about an article on all this?

As this event has caused considerable interest in women and the gender gap, it might be useful to write a report on how everything went. It could perhaps be included in Signpost or simply posted on Women in Red for anyone interested. I would suggest members of WiR who took part in the physical editathons (i.e. at least Victuallers - London, Rosiestep - New York, Lirazelf - Glasgow) give an account of their experiences. Who was in Cardiff? (There could also be feedback from the coordinators from other locations such as Satdeep Gill, New Dehli, Nabin K. Sapkota, Kathmandu, and Smsarmad, Islamabad.)

We already have a number of details we might include:

Interviewed by the BBC, the WMUK coordinator LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK) reported that before the editathon only half the women included in 100 Women for the first three years had articles on Wikipedia.
As of today, 76 of those for 2016 have articles although several are up for deletion.
On 8 December, around 170 new articles apparently related to "100 Women" were created, of which about 20 might still be deleted. On 9 December, a further 15 were created.
Several editors have spent a considerable amount of time trying to improve these articles or draw up lists with the problems they face. In particular SusunW, Tagishsimon, Victuallers, Carcharoth and I myself have been involved in this work which is far from completed. I'm sure many others have been involved too.

I also think it would be useful to include links to some of the BBC broadcasts on the event, perhaps summarizing some of the most important items. See for example Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Meetup/29#Press_about_the_event]. Jimmy Wales was interviewed at least twice, once for the BBC World Service in English and once for the Spanish version. See for example here.

My own feeling about it all is that while the BBC seems to have done an excellent job on presenting a variety of women deserving recognition and explaining how the gender gap continues to prevent fuller coverage of women on Wikipedia, the outcomes of the editathons themselves were rather disappointing. I have not yet been able to identify any new editors from the BBC meetups on 8 December who have continued to edit since. (Please let me know of any who are still around. I have not had time to look into them all.) This is in sharp contrast to other editathons where at least a few have come on board. Was this because nearly all those who signed up were BBC staff with no further interest in contributing or was it the BBC's streamlined introduction to Wikipedia editing? (Their video on how to edit Wikipedia covered it all in just 90 seconds!)

I would welcome any further comments or suggestions on the event or indeed on the need for an article.--Ipigott (talk) 12:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hai hai. Some sort of debrief / evaluation that could be used for best practice for similar events going forward could be very beneficial, I feel. I'm happy to contribute what I can, however I have extremely limited time between now & mid-January. Tagging in Ewan McAndrew as resident at the University of Edinburgh (he was also at the Glasgow event), and Jason Evans as the resident at the National Library of Wales.

A few reflections:

BBC staff who took part were really enthusiastic. I ran a training session in advance for some of those who were coming along on the day, and it seemed to really help. Whether that would always be possible for these kinds of events I don't know - it's a big ask and a big chunk of time out of folks' days. They're staff doing a bit of editing for a day, to raise profile - not staff who are learning to be editors as part of their role.

In terms of editor retention I think it's best to look at the event as a taster experience, a come-and-try - I wouldn't expect retention to be massively high. I think it's about 5%, normally? Although that was before Visual Editor.

Having experienced editors on hand (remotely and otherwise) to help with the tidy up of articles was BRILLIANT. I put out a message on the thread on the WMUK mailing list asking folk to get involved with helping these articles get their best shot at wiki-life; and I could see that similar things were being done here.

More later, when I can think. Lirazelf (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So London - We came to the party late I think as I'm told the BBC had contacted WMF or WikiUK some time before it became public knowledge. Its a great thrill to work with the BBC - but we have done this before and they have given us cc-by-sa video and sounds before. I say this because we have given a lot and I'm told that its us laying down co-operation for next time. That said London at least was the best training editathon I have ever been to with a conveyor belt of trainees coming through. Nearly all were very bright and a few celebs amongst them. I trained Helen Pankhurst and Harriet Bridgeman who were very interested. Helen was still in "the family business" of women's rights and Harriet is the lady who shaped the law around Wikimedia Commons (by sueing Corel). I also trained a trustee of the NPG but she didn't know that they had once tried to sue a Wikipedian. (Intriguingly it was this event that inspired me to get involved with women's rights but that is a different story.)

I still still bothered that the BBC editathon stole our flag and never correctly credited us. To be fair WMUK acknowledged us as an equal partner in their internal emails but we failed to see equal billing in the press and we were not properly attributed. One main contact was pressure that they applied to WMUK and me to stop our work. I resisted this but eventually gave in to a polite request to slow down our editting before December 8th. Luckily we extended the editathon by a week to allow some tidying up. Pleased that Rosie got to write a piece and especially the Ian has been contacted. The Women in Red lists were ascribed in one write up to be the creation of Art and Feminism!!!. Worst anecdote is that I trained a bright new editor to add two well cited paragraphs to an article and some (now trout slapped) editor failed to see an edit summary of "I'm new here please be gentle" and deleted her work within four minutes of it being posted. I discovered this several days later and I can only imagine the poor message this has given our once keen trainee editor. Do I need to add edit protection to new editors works?

Lessons Learnt (See Ewan's suggestion above) might include.

We require evidence of substantial efforts to release material to us. The BBC got hours of video and we don't even have photos of people who were at the editathon. I'm told that they "tried their best" but they have rules. So do we. We still lack lots of pix.
Its going to be big. Are we ready? We need WMF funds released for volunteers to attend and organise planning sessions. I asked to attend a planning session and was told it was "not necessary". I eventually got the BBC to invite me.
Networking contacts are important. I'm optimistic that we may get more help from those who contacted WiR via our twitter feed.
We make a hell of a difference. When we started the 100 Women article had not been improved in years and looked like the BBC had abandoned the idea. There are now influential people around the world (WiR partners) who think the BBC 100 Women list is important. Sadly I'm not convinced that many editors were aware that anybody but the BBC for 24 hours cared about this issue.
We need to claim our victories. Why is the editathon not mentioned as part of the 100 women article? We do have sources that show that this was our idea. We need some involved editor to note this.

Finally: I have added some moans, niggles and rants above. BUT.... When Rosie and I finished our talk in Mexico in 2015 we never imagined that we would be collaborating with the BBC in 13 countries in 2016. It could be the brilliance of our talk ....... or the hard work that has been put in by several key people and hundreds of donations of time and brains. Thanks on behalf of our grand daughters. My suspicion is that others will try and steal our clothes. They are ours. Victuallers (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These two lengthy accounts certainly provide an excellent basis for an article. But let's wait a day or two and see if there are further reactions. How do others feel about adding something to BBC 100 Women on the Wikipedia involvement? I know Carcharoth was not keen for this to be included. I think at least it could be mentioned that Jimbo was there and was interviewed for broadcasts on the World Service's radio and TV programmes. In any case, if we put together our own article, I think it would be interesting to mention all those from Wikipedia/Wikimedia who played a key role in the event(s), not just WiR members.--Ipigott (talk) 13:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you's

I'm going to give out thank you s to at least the people who signed up for the event. I will miss lots of people so if you see others then feel free to steal my thanks note and spread it around. Victuallers (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"selected as one of the BBC's 100 Women"

@Rosiestep and Victuallers: Mentioning "selected as one of the BBC's 100 Women" on the BLP's of the beneficiary would be considered neutral or not? Because one user think it is not neutral therefore should be removed, therefore would appreciate some input here please Talk:Maryam_Nawaz#BBC_100_Women. --Saqib (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017

Hoi, My list includes the women for 2017 as far as they have been published. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images Available!

Hi Women in Red Meetup! Thank you for working on this amazing initiative! I have uploaded images from the BBC 100 Women 2019: The Female Future London Conference at BBC Radio Theatre Thursday, 17 October 2019 (more about this event at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-49856545) feel free to use these images as you see fit to help depict BBC 100 Women and the awardees. Best Wishes Igbofur (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Igbofur (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please help to identify these 100 women!

Please tag the people in these images if you can identify them:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20191017_BBC_100_Women_2019_img01.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BBC_100_WOMEN_2019.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20191017_BBC_100_Women_2019_img32.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20191017_BBC_100_Women_2019_img31.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20191017_BBC_100_Women_2019_img30.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20191017_BBC_100_Women_2019_img29.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20191017_BBC_100_Women_2019_img28.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20191017_BBC_100_Women_2019_img27.jpg

Thank you, Igbofur (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]