User talk:JGleick

Welcome!

Hello, JGleick, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Racklever (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Contact about American women novelists
The best way to reach me about the whole "American women novelsits" hubbub would be to email. Hmm, I am going to put my email here. If you could please remove it once you see it that would be helpful. I might even be willing to talk with you on the phone, but I really do not want to put that in this public of a place. For the record I think people are misunderstanding a lot of what was done. Some of the women had nver been in Category:American novelists, they were only in Category:Women novelists and in no nationality category at least for novelists. I also find it odd that this one category was picked. Why not attack Category:American women writers which does the same thing? Probably because it is very long-standing, and there is a lot more precedent on its side. This category was formed by other users back in October, but I decided to build it up a few weeks ago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s Women Problem
Great piece in NYR. Thank you. Andreas JN 466 22:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi + a gauntlet
Mr. Gleick, I loved your book on "The Information" and "Chaos". Since you have experience with information theory, I'd like to ask if you'd be willing to take a categorization quiz, and then blog about it? This may help the wider world understand the challenges inherent in categorizing people without "ghettoizing" them - non-diffusing categories are actually very tricky to implement well - and much of this has been terribly glossed over in the media. This issue is just the tip of the iceberg, and a very easy case to boot. The instructions for the quiz are here: Wikipedia_talk:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality - all you have to do is click through the category trees, and provide a corrected set of categories for Winona LaDuke that doesn't ghettoize her (hint: she's currently ghettoized in several ways). So far, 3 people have tried, and no-one has scored above a B, and that was with extra credit. Doing this correctly, as you will find if you just try to categorize a single bio, is rather difficult, but I'd love if it you tried, and reported on the results (I will grade everyone, then we'll discuss the answer key, and come to a conclusion together on the "best" set of cats.) Let me know your thoughts - and I hope you accept the challenge! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Another idea for your consideration
Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection - a prototype of a working, easy to use category intersection approach, which could make most of this problem (esp around gender/ethnic cats) go away. Thoughts/input welcome. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)