Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/St. Boniface Cemetery, Wrought-Iron Cross Site

[Copy from AfD page/...
 * As I see it, the principal reason for redirecting all of these articles instead of deleting them has to do with the way that all of the individual titles are assiduously tracked by the NRHP Wikiproject and listed as links in National Register of Historic Places listings in North Dakota. (BTW, I believe that the obsessive way that many Wikpedians focus on systematically creating articles to correspond to every entry on some list or in some database is one of the Wikipedia behaviors that cause so few women to be active in Wikipedia. I see this as a form of male behavior that is off-putting to women. But that's not relevant here.) Keeping the titles as redirects is far simpler and more straightforwrad than piping every link that points to one of these titles. --Orlady (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly understand the point you are making, but I think it's a stretch to take one type of editing behavior out of the many types that exist and turn it into a causal factor for why women do or do not edit here, imho. dm (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

...end copy/paste] I agree that the basic reason why relatively few women participate as editors is the male behaviours that women find off-putting. I also think it explains why a of the women who do edit Wikipedia, a relatively substantial proportion are either accustomed to a disproportionately-masculine environment (e.g. geek girls or women in the military), or else high-functioning autistics who find social behaviour bewildering in any case. Orlady's right to say that Wikipedia absolutely does appeal to people who want to complete the set, or systematically fill out the list. She's wrong to use the word "obsessive", because most editors aren't:- it's just that they have a knowledge area that they don't feel is yet fully covered, and they work to a plan. Personally, I have a more chaotic work style. When I'm in the mood to add content (which isn't often any more), I'll usually find something to translate, either off User:T. Anthony/Women in Red or off one of the lists of things awaiting translation. When I'm in the mood to write something longer, i.e. research an article as well as writing it, it'll be about the world around me (I live in rural Hertfordshire, so History of Hertfordshire, Agriculture in the United Kingdom, Forestry in the United Kingdom, etc.) or about my stereotypically-masculine interests (hence Battle of Bilin River, etc.) I wish I could persuade my wife to edit Wikipedia. She sneers at our encyclopaedia because she doesn't see our excellent and thorough coverage of everything that interests men between the ages of 18 and 35; our military history articles, or our coverage of science and science fiction (and what is obsessive is our coverage of Star Trek). She sees what she gets when she googles things that interest her. (She's a self-employed dressmaker who likes gardening, and while our coverage of botany's quite tolerable, our coverage of textiles, fashion and design is as embarrassingly bad as our coverage of the saints—generally "whatever was in the Catholic Encyclopaedia 100 years ago".) It's a problem, but the problem isn't the people who make a plan and work to it. The problem is that we annoy these content creators by trying to delete their stuff. If someone wants to spend 100 years writing articles about different kinds of cross, or individual episodes of a 500-episode TV series, then why the hell won't we just let them? Maybe once they've finished every single episode of their series, they'll come on to write Flora of Germany. If we keep the Article Police from destroying all their work, that is.— S Marshall T/C 10:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe your wife would have something to add to the article Garden club that I created a little while back because I was consternated to see that this entire topic was a redlink. --Orlady (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I wish I could get her to participate in any way at all, actually! That's certainly a good example of a subject she would understand and be able to write about.  But I'm afraid it's not going to happen.  By plying her with flattery I might persuade her to write an essay about something she knows about.  I would never be able to persuade her to learn Wikipedia's idiosyncratic wikimarkup syntax, she'd have no patience with being asked to cite sources for stuff she thinks is obvious, and she'd find our social structure byzantine and kafkaesque.  I've asked her to participate and the answer's a clear no.— S Marshall  T/C 23:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Shucks! Articles like that one cry out for attention from someone with independent knowledge of -- and, ideally, a passion for -- the subject matter. --Orlady (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As a woman who used to edit in Wikipedia, I beg to differ with Orlady's statement that "the obsessive way that many Wikpedians focus on systematically creating articles to correspond to every entry on some list or in some database is one of the Wikipedia behaviors that cause so few women to be active in Wikipedia." What drove me out was exactly what .— S Marshall  said. "The problem is that we annoy these content creators by trying to delete their stuff."  Orlady and others, in my experience, want to insist that every editor complete every aspect of an article before moving it to mainspace, thus going against the very heart of what a "wiki" is supposed to do, which I believe is to allow each person to contribute with their strengths.  I liked to take pictures and add them to Wikipedia, especially of NRHP listed places.  And yes, I absolutely enjoyed adding pictures until every item in a list had a picture,  But, I also enjoyed creating separate, very minimal stubs where I could add more than one picture of these places.  I don't usually want to go do a bunch of research and write a bunch of text about things that come from other than the NRHP information I had easy access to, unless I was particularly interested in a place.  I would create a very short paragraph of text, mostly re-stating what was in the infobox, which I also added.  I made sure there was an appropriate reference to whatever NRHP info I used, even if it was minimal.  I added pictures, which in my view might very well be what someone wants to see when searching for some particular item on the NRHP.  I usually added a text caption about the picture, with as much info as I had.  Often, I would have more information, but it would be in the form of some difficult to cite brochure or informational sign.  In the course of my time as an active editor, it became more and more unacceptable to use this information in an article. I couldn't add a picture of the sign, for example, because maybe the state or historic society that published the sign would have a problem with my use of their possibly "copyrighted" material.  Really?  I can't imagine anyone or any organization that went to the trouble to put up an informational sign would be averse to having that information disseminated more widely.  Then, the stub articles were insufficient, and I was advised to add just one picture (sometimes of a place I drove hours to see) to the list.  Then I witnessed the brow-beating of more than one content type editor until they blew with frustration or just quit.  I've definitely witnessed multiple editors argue one way in one conflict and another way in a later conflict, which made it very hard for me to assume good intentions.  It looked to me like the brow-beating editors were like some people I've known.  They just like a good argument, or they enjoy a bit of drama.  Then, when they find someone who won't just cave and bow to their whims, they go back over and over again to argue, because that seems to really be their aim, to find someone to argue with.  If the arguing is not something their target enjoys, eventually the target engages in some behavior that can be pointed to as universally inappropriate and gets banned or they leave Wikipedia in frustration.  I was one of those who quit in frustration, and everytime I come back thinking maybe I'll give it another try, I see the same old stuff going on.


 * And, just for the record, I am neither a geek girl nor in the military. I'm just an everyday accountant, who like to FINISH things in my hobbies, because heaven knows I never seem to get to completeley FINISH anything at work.   :)  Lvklock (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * [EC; written before reading Lvklock's comments]. My comment reflected my own perceptions, as a Wikipedia contributor who has been a woman for my whole life (more decades than I want to acknowledge) and is non-autistic. Having spent most of my adult life in male-dominated professions, I am not easily discouraged by off-putting male behaviors. I do, however, frequently see behavior and content patterns at Wikipedia that I perceive as (1) characteristically male (although I hasten to acknowledge that not all males are alike) and (2) generally off-putting to women. Articles about National Register of Historic Places properties are just one of several situations -- but a prime example of the type of situation -- where I see behavior that I believe is systematically reducing participation by female contributors. The vast majority of National Register properties are primarily significant in contexts that typically interest women more than men, including local history and the decorative arts, but one sees very little female involvement in editing these articles. I believe that the insistence on a one-to-one correspondence between National Register database entries and Wikipedia articles (which insistence I do perceive as obsessive, at least on the part of some contributors, and which on multiple occasions has been expressed to me in words along the lines of "you'd better stay away from these articles") systematically discourages contributions from people with characteristic female interests in these topics. The topic of wrought iron crosses in North Dakota is an example of one likely to interest women (it incorporates decorative arts, religion, and social history), but a new contributor who encounters a batch of uninformative stub articles about individual sites with crosses is likely to perceive that the Wikipedia Powers That Be have determined that the topic must necessarily be covered in this fashion and may not be covered in a more holistic context. Not only does the NRHP data structure split topics (in this case because the topic is exemplified by numerous discrete locations) but occasionally it marries seemingly disconnected topics in a single listing (such as William Aiken House and Associated Railroad Structures, which consists of a gracious home used as a venue for weddings plus a collection of old railroad depots, shops, and warehouses "in various stages of deterioration") that Wikipedians have painstakingly treated in a single stubby article (to match the scope of the Register entry, notwithstanding arguments that this constitutes "official nonsense") that is unlikely to invite anyone to expand it (ever) because it lacks thematic unity. As a card-carrying woman, I submit that this kind of thing is profoundly off-putting to women in general -- and I do not see that the occasional AfD has discouraged the contributors who create this stuff and enforce their visions of how content should be organized. --Orlady (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ahhh, but "a new contributor who encounters an article about" the subject, rather than the "individual sites with crosses is likely to perceive that the Wikipedia Powers That Be have determined that the topic must necessarily be covered in this fashion and may not be covered in a more" individual "context."


 * Orlady further asserts that a site that combines "seemingly disconnected topics in a single listing" that "Wikipedians have painstakingly treated in a single stubby article" being "unlikely to invite anyone to expand it (ever) because it lacks thematic unity." The unity of such the article she points to is readily apparent if you read the first line of the combined article.  "William Aiken House and Associated Railroad Structures is a historic district in Charleston, South Carolina, that contains structures of South Carolina Canal and Rail Road Company and the home of the company's founder, William Aiken." Obviously, the unifying feature is the separate pieces collective relationship to the railroad company. Should the article grow to such size that it needed splitting, then splitting it in two based on the house/railroad structures split might well be the most logical way to do it.  BUT, Orlady argues on one hand to combine all the iron cross articles but to split an article that she isn't interested in the relation between.  This historic district may well consist "of a gracious home used as a venue for weddings plus a collection of old railroad depots, shops, and warehouses "in various stages of deterioration")" NOW, but historically the gracious house was the home of someone associated with the railroad, and that is WHY it's NRHP listed.  So, to arbitrarily decide they don't belong in the same article because their current uses are different seems ludicrous.


 * Finally, I'm not talking about the occaisional AfD. I'm talking about systemic, organized attacks that leave the editor being attacked with the choice of engaging in the unpleasant, time-consuming chore of defending her/his work in place of real contribution or of letting others follow them around and "enforce their visions of how content should be organized."  I've seen editors follow another editor from topic area to topic area LOOKING for something to criticize.


 * Obviously, Orlady and I, I believe, agreed to disagree long ago. But in light of the fact that we are both women, and we clearly have very different viewpoints, perhaps she should refrain from commenting on what might or might not be "profoundly off-putting to women in general..."  Especially since she asserts that "having spent most of my adult life in male-dominated professions, I am not easily discouraged by off-putting male behaviors."  Perhaps it is the circumstances of her life, rather than her membership in our gender, that forms her perceptions.  I wonder how she would feels if she were included in a class of people whose behaviors were said to be "(1) characteristically" female and "(2) generally off-putting to" men. I certainly know women who would be offended by such a statement, even if the person making it saw fit "to acknowledge" (rather patronizingly in my perception) "that not all" females "are alike)".  But, I wouldn't generalize that all women would be offended.  I myself don't get worked up over things like that as long as it isn't directed at me in the workplace.  But I certainly see the potential for the statement to be offensive to others. Lvklock (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * IMO, article scopes should be determined by what makes a coherent and workable topic, not by how a particular historic district or other "property" has been defined in the National Register of Historic Places (which often is determined not by topical unity, but rather by political and legal factors such as who owns the land, whether the landowners are willing to have their property listed on the National Register, and expediency considerations for some government agency). The fact that the William Aiken house and the "Associated Railroad Structures" are united in the boundaries of one historic district does not mean that they collectively form a workable topic for an encyclopedia article. The house is a worthwhile and workable topic by itself. The history of the railroad that Mr. Aiken started is another worthwhile and workable topic, and one that is symbolized by the industrial artifacts contained in the historic district. It's possible that some or all of the railroad "structures" (most of which didn't even exist during Mr. Aiken's lifetime) are a worthy topic independent of the story of the railroad (particularly if some of them have been preserved or restored), but there isn't much that can be said about these disparate elements as a group other than "these properties are collectively identified as a historic district".
 * Similarly, the notability of these wrought iron crosses seems to lie in the history of their creation and the thematic commonalities found among them; the individual sites seem to be, in effect, nothing more than a directory of addresses where examples are found. The fact that the different addresses are discrete locations that must (for practical and legal reasons) be separately recorded in a database should not be misinterpreted to indicate that each separate address is a distinct encyclopedic topic.
 * Given the oft-cited statistic that less than 10 percent of Wikipedia contributors are female, there's no purpose in speculating or generalizing here about stereotypical female behaviors that men might consider off-putting. It's clear that women are, in general, systematically discouraged or "put off" from contributing. I submit that this particular disagreement is a prime example of what puts women off. --Orlady (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, but I wasn't speculating "about stereotypical female behaviors that men might consider off-putting." I was speculating about the response of many women if a man was as condescending and belittling as to refer to female behaviors vs. male behaviors.  Sorry I wasn't more clear about that.  In truth, my educated guess is that women don't contribute more to Wikipedia because they have better things to do.  Young women are getting an education, raising children and/or building careers.  In my experience, older women have a lower degree of technical savvy, and find it off-putting to figure out the technical ins and outs of editing before they can contribute.  I truly doubt that anyone ever quit Wikipedia because men were being systematic about working from a list to create some series of articles.  It seems excessive to me to be so hell-bent on excluding an article topic because you don't like the way someone writing an application for listing on the NRHP chose to combine places into a district.  There's a geographic reason for the combination if nothing else, and lots of things are included in one article just because they are geographically close.  Every town, county or state in the country combines things that are related by little but geography.  I mean, heck, Central and Western New York State have about as much in common with New York City as I have in common with Orlady, but they still do an article about the state as a whole.  They also do articles about the towns, cities and counties individually. Lvklock (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this is basically about how we decide to carve up large topic areas into manageable-sized articles, which is an important question that's often a little fraught because it touches on NPOV and OR. I think there are several ways. First, there's the taxonomic approach, where we have broad-scale articles and then increasingly narrow ones.  This is how we have plant, woody plant, tree, deciduous, oak, Quercus robur and Stelmužė Oak which is an article about an individual tree: each article is at an increasingly close level of focus.  The taxonomic approach isn't restricted to biology, so we can have law, civil law, property law, land law, English land law, Law of Property Act 1925, and Harris v Goddard.  This approach means we don't need to decide which kind of article carves up a topic at the joints, because we can have several layers of article co-existing with different, er, levels of zoom, if you understand that.  Hence Orlady's combined articles covering the general topic of wrought iron cross sites and Lvklock's individual articles that support her photographic activities can both exist at the same time in perfect harmony.  The either-or choice is a false dichotomy. That doesn't always apply and there are levels of "zoom" which are inappropriate and unencyclopaedic.  In these cases we should decide based on how the sources carve up a topic.  (We'd be rather leery of someone who tried to write women in English land law, because that's not a good way to do it and it definitely smacks of OR.) In my experience, someone who carves up a topic the same way a source carves up a topic is very likely to be in the right, so in this sense I agree with Lvklock.— S Marshall  T/C 00:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)