Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/Categorization

Category list
I started a category list here - I am hoping to put categories here that need to be de-ghettoized, so members of the task force can start chipping away at them if interested. I also added an algorithm for correct categorization without ghettoization that I think will work and is relatively simply to apply - please read and provide feedback. If you think this should all be moved somewhere else, like a sub-page, that is fine too - just let me know. thanks! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting that, and this is a good place for it. I'm not sure I follow what's needed, mind you. Whenever I've tried to work with categories, I've mostly been beaten back. :) SlimVirgin (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok - plz read through the algorithm, and let me know if it makes sense - otherwise, let's fix the description until it does make sense. The only way this ghettoization will stop is if people understand how to categorize without ghettoizing. I realized I'd been doing it the wrong way all along - first putting people in the most-specific-ethnic/gender cats, then trying to de-ghettoize up the tree, but that is a bad approach - it's much easier to basically classify them multiple times, each time adding more and more facets - that way, you start with a fully de-ghettoized/generic person, and then you're just adding facets along the way, so if you screw up, the result is less specific than it should be (which is ok), instead of ghettoizing (which is not). It's just harder, as you have to initially think of the person as not having any of the facets that they have. Also, on another note, I hope you'll consider my randomization solution for the vegetarians page. cheers! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Has there been some sort of more detailed discussion about 'ghettoization' somewhere? Just curious. Sionk (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * check the NY Times, Huffington Post, NY Review of books, etc... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're saying the press have told Wikipedia to 'de-ghettoize'? Sionk (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In effect, yes. (see the top of Category_talk:American_novelists for a representative list of media coverage). Unfortunately, the press has focused mostly on women being moved from to  - now that that's fixed, the press is likely (hopefully?) going to go away. But the problem is not solved, not even by a long-shot. There are probably 10s of thousands of bios of women, men, african americans, LGBT people, or whatever else, that are "ghettozied", eg present in a gendered/ethnic category but not also present in a generic category of the same type. Whether you consider this situation "sexism" or "racism" or not (which, for the record, I don't really, I just see it as laziness and the result of a generally broken category system -read here for more on my views), our guidance says this is wrong, so it's really a question of following that guidance (and, potentially, refining that guidance). The problem is, fixing these bios one by one takes a lot of time, and it's rather hard, as you'll see if you take my quiz.
 * Another (simpler) approach I've been taking is spotting and trying to kill categories which by their nature ghettoize, and which are in violation of WP:EGRS (which says you should never have ethnicity/gender/etc as the last-rung in a category tree), but I've had mixed success so far - there are far fewer participants in CFD than on April 24th, and some people are arguing to keep categories which are clearly on contravention of our guidelines - take a look here and give your thoughts if you like 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, that makes it a lot clearer, thanks! Sionk (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

American women painters
I've made a start on Category:American women painters. Sionk (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Women mayors
Having had a look in Category:Women mayors the 'ghettoization' problem seems to be minimal. Of all the random entries I've looked at in Category:Women mayors of places in the United States and Category:Women mayors of places in England, for example, they seem to be in a general mayoral category too. Minor problem? Sionk (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * When I looked at several other countries they seemed to be ghettoized, but I may not have looked carefully enough. In any case, I think we're now actually close on a category intersection solution that make all of this deghettoization work not worth it anymore, so I'm going to focus on that for now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

English comedians
I've noticed an editor starting to 'ghettoize' Category:English women comedians and Category:English male comedians. I've left a message on their Talk page. Sionk (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * See here for my response. Apologies for any inconvenience. Mathonius (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Deghettoization algorithm
I'm not sure I understand the algorithm. Why should Sue be in Category:American poets but not in Category:American writers? --GRuban (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Because she's in several diffusing subcats of American writers - such as and . American writers right now is a mess, and the general way in which people are diffused out of it, and into which subcats, is not really resolved, so you're also seeing greater confusion in the tree as it stands right now. If you look at  that's a bit of a better example, as that tree has been fully diffused already. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But isn't she similarly in several diffusing subcats of American poets? Specifically Category:American women poets, Category:African-American poets, and, of course, Category:African-American women poets? What makes the difference? --GRuban (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the world of non-diffusing categories. All of those cats, since they are gender/ethnic cats, are non-diffusing - which means, membership in them should not preclude membership in the parent. The trick is, what if the parent is fully diffused?  is again an example - just because you're in  doesn't mean you bubble up to  - or you can think, ok, we do bubble up, but then we get diffused afterwards, say to a state-specific category for example. When you intersect multiple non-diffusing facets, like African-American + women, then you need to bubble up to all of the adjectives individually, in a way - that's why she's in so many poets cats. Tricky, right? What are the chances that your average editor will get this right? OTOH, if these gendered/ethnic/sexuality cats aren't non-diffusing, then NY times articles get written. Quite the catch-22 if you ask me...We Didn't Start the Fire comes to mind... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Where, in Azathoth's name, is this unspeakable nightmare explained? Please link to it prominently in the algorithm section. I can't believe I'm the only one that would be confused by this. --GRuban (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No - in fact, most people are, so what they do is, they just diffuse. It's easier. And then, NY times articles get written. The basics are laid out in WP:EGRS (around non-diffusing, but it's poorly explained), and some in WP:Categorization - but the specifics of the non-sexist/non-racist algorithm I laid out have not, IMHO, been elaborated before in such detail - which is why I developed that in the first place - to illustrate how hard it actually is. But that's an extreme example - I've just been deghettoizing the "women mathematicians" tree, it wasn't that bad, probably took me an hour to do 30 bios or so. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"Merging" (aka Deleting) categories
There is a discussion on merging Category:American women philosophers, Category:Asian American philosophers and Category:African-American philosophers into Category:American philosophers which would, in fact, lead to their deletion. If you would like to weigh in on the conversation (pro or con), go to Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 17. Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Categories again
Obi, I would like to try to revive this project a little, with others, if possible, which is why I'm tidying the main page. The categories issue is a very particular interest, and in addition there are concerns that it may not be the best approach. That's why I removed some of the detail. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * By particular interest, do you mean there was a massive media sh*tstorm the last time we did categorization incorrectly? I hardly think it's minor, and would love this project to continue to be involved in that. What "concerns" are there?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Slim, for taking this on. I agree with your truncated version. jps (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Which 'truncated version' are we talking about? The complete removal of the de-ghettoization information? That's not truncated, but complete removal! Surely it's a perfectly reasonable activity for this Project, to de-ghettoize categories? What has changed that makes de-ghettoization incorrect? Considering neither of the removers are members of the Project, what right do they have to dictate the Project's goals? Mind you, I took my name off the project too earlier this year, for completely different reasons, though I spent many weeks on the de-ghettoization task. Sionk (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * yes, Bobo and jps are involved in a vicious content battle with me about the category which jps wants to delete. The deghettoization instructions being summarily deleted here without discussion or explanation are just collateral damage from that. Id suggest to those removing this information that the ghettoization of categories was the subject of weeks of media coverage about wikipedia's systemic gender bias, indeed if you were to write an article on that bias, the categories story would be story #1. As such removing the instructions used to deghettoize categories and summarily deciding that categories are no longer part of this project is ignoring the wider reality in which we sit and the reason this very project exists.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * For the record, I'm not involved in any content dispute with you at (or anywhere else), so I'd appreciate it if you would retract that. My concern is just that it takes up a lot of the page, it seems to be contentious, and it's unlikely that women coming here will want to focus on it. Perhaps we could link on the page to where it's described elsewhere, though I'm still concerned in case it's not a standard approach. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * fixed, I didn't mean you of course. Slim, how exactly does it take up a lot of the page? The instructions are actually collapsed, so they take up no room at all. Also, this page is not just for women editors, I hope you can adjust your thinking on that point... And which part, exactly and specifically, do you find to be contentious?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Obiwankenobi, I'd describe what is happening more as serious concern regarding one editor making so many unilateral changes to gender related content/categories, absent consensus. To stay on topic here, what's the problem with these categories:


 * Category: American women activists (and various subcategories)
 * Category: American women comedians
 * Category: American women by occupation
 * Category: Male feminists
 * Category: American women painters (and various subcategories)
 * Category: Women mayors


 * They appear to be valid useful categories. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I personally went through much the contents of Category: American women painters and the articles in this category is largely okay. However, I've just dipped into Category: American women comedians and picked a couple of articles in the category at random (Eliza Coupe, Rachel Crow, Chelsea Handler) and none of them are de-ghettoized. In fact they are also in 'Jewish' and 'African-American' categories! So I see no problem in updating the Project's to-do list, but deleting it all in its entirely seems to be simply non-Project members taking out a grievance with Obiwankenobi in the wrong place. Sionk (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how "de-ghettoizing" these categories serves the task force goals. Could someone please explain. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Bobo, if you don't see how it serves the task force goals, then I'd suggest you do some more reading on the Amanda Filipacchi case, all of the articles and accusations of sexism and gender bias at wikipedia as a result of that. And then, you can come back and ask what deghettoization has to do with gender bias here. I have a feeling you don't even know what you were reverting, nor why.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a task force related to the under-representation of female editors on Wikipedia, and the bias that results from that. Seems "deghettoizing" those categories is not the way to start, and in fact, may even be contrary to task force goals. What exactly do you think needs done to those above mentioned categories to reduce the bias resulting from women being under-represented as wiki editors? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Bobo, "The aim of the task force is to identify gender bias on Wikipedia – whether in articles, discussions, policies or implementation of policies – and to take steps to counter it". The lack of female editors is perhaps a cause, and a symptom, it's all intertwined, but this project is most certainly about content and not just getting more women editors. Again, if you haven't done any reading (see Filipacchi story) on the history of the deghettoization mess and all of the negative press wikipedia received around that, I'd suggest you stop commenting until you have. Suggesting that deghettoizing the categories is contrary to task force goals means either you don't know what the goals are or you don't know what deghettoization MEANS. I wouldn't be giving you a hard time if (a) you hadn't gotten involved in an edit war that you clearly didn't even understand and (b) you weren't making declarative opinions about the value of this or that while demonstrating that you don't even know what deghettoization means, nor whether or not it is a good thing. If you undo your revert, it would make me much more willing to engage with you, frankly. When I first added this info a year ago, another editor said: "Thanks for posting that, and this is a good place for it. I'm not sure I follow what's needed, mind you. Whenever I've tried to work with categories, I've mostly been beaten back. :" That editor's name? I'll let y'all guess.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk). 19:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting, are you suggesting systemic bias on wikipedia, as it relates to gender, refers to bias against male editors? More than 90% of edits on WP are made by male editors, so that's a hard argument to follow. Also, I'm familiar with the Amanda Filipacchi case [] and it seems the issue there would be whether or not adding an article to the category "American woman authors" should necessitate removing author from category "American authors". It seems it should not. PS-the off topic discussion is getting distracting, but to be precise, that's not my quote, and as far as I can see, the only edit warrior was you. I only made one revert, while you made three.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No Bobo, Im suggesting this project is about systemic bias IN the wiki. Women being ghettoized in categories is an excellent example of that bias, and that's not just me talking, that's dozens of outside reliable sources who made the same claim. You joined into the middle of an edit war and removed material that you don't even understand. For example, if I told you a category was full of biographies that were ghettoized, should that be fixed? If so, how? You just deleted the instructions. Do you understand what deghettoization means, and how it relates to the Filipacchi case?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If by fixing you mean putting relevant authors into the category "American authors" and in category "American women authors" then yes. However, it is not clear you mean that, and my past experiences with your edits suggests you do not mean that. Also, could you review WP:CIVIL. There's no need to make this personal. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you read the instructions that you so callously deleted? Do you have any idea what those instructions had to say about american authors and American women authors? I frankly don't care about your experiences with my past edits, I'm not judging you based on your obvious inexperience here, I'm asking you to read before you start reverting things. Can you try that? Read the instructions, and then come back and start making claims about what I "mean" when I say deghettoization - otherwise you're just casting vicious aspersions with veiled innuendo.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We could just refer people to the guideline: "For anyone interested in categorization, see Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality and specifically WP:Cat gender." SlimVirgin (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree Slim. This is a project, and the place for a list of things to fix, and instructions for how to fix them, is here. I've also in other conversations pointed people to these deghettoization guidelines, so deleting them without any consensus on talk is overly aggressive and a violation of WP:BRD.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Obi, I set this project up for women to track and discuss whatever bias they saw on Wikipedia, whether in articles, policies, behaviour, etc. It didn't become active, so I decided recently to try to revive or restart it. That's why I edited the page. It's not good to see it overtaken by category talk, which few would want to get deeply involved in, given how aggressive it can become. It's especially not good if a non-mainstream or non-consensus approach is being recommended (and I don't know whether it is).

I was hoping this could become a safe space for quiet, positive collaboration. It would help a lot if the talk about categories could be taken elsewhere. Lots of people watching this are likely to feel discouraged from jumping in. I know I feel discouraged by it (and I am very used to feeling discouraged on WP!). SlimVirgin (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Slim, I'm all for this being a place of collaboration. When new participants who haven't helped here barge in, start making reverts they clearly don't even understand, and refuse to follow WP:BRD instead of calmly discussing, yes, I agree that makes things difficult. Why don't you set the bar, restore the material, and then we can have a measured conversation without disruption. You keep on suggesting that the deghettoization of categories is not mainstream or consensus - I wish you'd indicate why you believe that, or what the problems with that are? Most of the conversations that have taken place on this page have been about categorization, so even if it's not something you care deeply about, others here do. Again, I see no reason for you to unilaterally declare a topic off-topic here, in a real collaborative space we would all have the capacity to put forth things which we think are important.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, but look, if most of the discussion on this page has been about categories (and still is), and the task force never took off, perhaps there's a connection?


 * I don't want to rehash discussions taking place elsewhere, but it seems that your approach to categories is contentious. Whether that's fair, I have no idea. I don't understand the anti-ghettoization principle, because sometimes it's fine to have cats about women artists, etc. I don't understand when it's not fine and who is making those decisions. The women novelists category was never the problem; it was not allowing women novelists in the parent category too that was the problem.


 * But anyway, you seem to be saying that once you add something about it to this page, it has to stay there ... forever? It has been there for over a year, and the only reason I didn't remove it earlier was in case this happened. I was hoping that, after a year, it would be okay to start revamping the page a bit (though I don't yet know how or in which direction), so I hope you'll let that go ahead.


 * I can't see any reason not to refer people to Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, and just leave it there, because whatever it suggests there is what people should be doing. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see, so two of the editors than are repeatedly removing information and instructions about de-ghettoization don't actually understand de-ghettoization. This definitely sounds like you've had an argument with Obiwankenobi elsewhere and are taking out your frustration on this project. I might have to re-join to defend it! Sionk (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, but look, if most of the discussion on this page has been about categories (and still is), and the task force never took off, perhaps there's a connection? Damn, that's a zinger. FWIW, for those playing along, the person who complimented me on putting the categorization instructions here a year ago was none other than SlimVirgin. Oh how times change... In any case, sheesh, suggesting that an area that has attracted the most talk page attention is the CAUSE for the project not taking off is, um, well, interesting. Anyway, Slim, if you want to promote an inclusive atmosphere, let's start by not deleting other editor's contributions to the common good, like the ghettoization algorithm I took a long time to develop - it would be a great sign of your good faith if you reverted your changes pending our discussion here, per WP:BRD. It's amazingly ironic that both you and Bobo deleted that, and then it turns out you don't even understand de-ghettoization! Perhaps it needs even more explanation here, rather than less!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty obvious. I'm surprised that even Slim doesn't understand what de-ghettoization means, so let me make it explicit. Deghettoization is the process of ensuring that a biography is in all relevant non-gendered categories in addition to gendered ones (or ethnic, or sexuality, etc). Thus, the process of deghettoization almost always includes ADDING new categories to an article. Bobo disagrees with me on a few minor categorizations in a rather different domain, and thus they ascribe bad faith to me for my work on deghettoization.
 * A shorter way of putting it is, when the massive shitstorm started by Filipacchi about categorization on wikipedia started, the solution AGREED upon by a vast majority of the editors who participated there was...wait for it... deghettoization. And Slim, no, I'm not saying once something is there it has to stay forever. I am saying, you are not the executive chair of this board, and if you want it to be an inclusive space the first step would be (1) Don't delete another editor's proposals without discussing and (2) Don't violate BRD on a project page - of all places. I'm also a member of this project Slim, so I hope you accept that my voice is just as important as yours.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I set up the task force with women in mind. I hoped that women could use it to discuss the gender gap. When I saw that other issues were being discussed, I stopped watching the page. Recently there was a discussion about needing a place for women to discuss these issues, so I was thinking of trying to revive this, which includes adding something more inviting to women to the main page, or trying to develop it in that direction (I'm not sure yet). Pinging others who might be interested:, , , , , , . SlimVirgin (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Slim, your continued referencing of "women" is unhelpful. You can have off-wiki women-only mailing lists if you like, but especially in a place where many editors don't even declare their gender, attempting to suggest that a space or project or collaboration is primarily for women goes against the aims of the project, and suggests that men can't be part of the solution, it's exclusionary, and I'd suggest you check your language on that point. As to whether "women" are interested in categorization, during the category mess we had women novelists tweeting about it (including famous ones), deep conversations with women academics, librarians, the woman who started the whole thing was, well, a woman, so the suggestion that women wouldn't be interested in fixing the mess of ghettoization is dismissive in the worst way possible, and more importantly, doesn't have any evidence associated with it; I know a number of women who have been active in categorization here. Again, you want to create an inclusive space, but why don't you start by an act of good faith, and restore the content, so we can discuss it, per WP:BRD. You are still not responding on that point, which confuses me. Or do you think we don't need to seek consensus on this page, and it's your way or the highway? As I noted earlier, I've pointed other people in other conversations to those instructions, so by summarily deleting them, you are breaking links elsewhere in the wiki.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Obiwankenobi, “women in mind” doesn't mean women only. The gender gap is a serious issue on Wikipedia, which leads to systematic bias. I suspect it would be of particular interest to female editors, but not exclusive interest.  Male editors may also be interested in the gender gap on wiki, how the gender gap effects female editors, and what can be done to address it. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * the way her wording was phrased sounded exclusionary. Not acceptable. If that wasn't her intent, then great. Gender bias can be caused by more than just not enough female editors, btw. The task force has clear statement of purpose and that's what I signed up for, aggressively deleting my contributions and making me feel unwelcome is a really terrible idea. You notice that Slim Virgin has refused this far to revert and has ignored the inputs of another member here who found the categorization guidelines useful. What kind of welcoming place is this? If you want to remodel, you don't start by demolition, you stRt with agreed plans and scope, which we don't have here. If you want to create a tea house for women then why not create a special woman's room in the tea house - this is a task force focused on work to address gender bias of any stripe.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I restored the algorithm as you requested. I think it should be moved to a subpage, or perhaps the whole section (after the introductory blurb) can be collapsed as a compromise. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I suck at all things categories. I just...do... trust me. SarahStierch (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Sarah, me too. I didn't ping you re: categories, but because I was thinking of trying to revive this space for some of the things discussed on the gender gap. A safe space for collaboration, a kind of gender-gap teahouse, somewhere warm and positive (fat chance, but worth a try!). Some nice design for the page would be good. Not sure what to write on it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Categorization needs own subpage??
It looks like there's been several threaded discussions of categories on this topic, a topic which can get very confusing even for those of us who are into it to some extent. To avoid the kind of misunderstandings, conflicts, etc. above, perhaps it needs it's own subpage as part of the countering systematic bias project. And then that can be linked from the main page of this task force with a short note on its purpose and how to help out.

Also, a quick wiki search of the phrase de-ghettoization/de-ghettozie suggests it only has been used a few times, several related to the increasing the number of women. So it might be nice to ask the gender gap task force (including its women) if they even want that phrase to be used. Women are spread throughout society and not stuck in ghettos like racial and ethnic groups so often have been. The issue is making women important enough that individuals are willing to think about categories for them, willing to look for and recognize women who belong in existing categories, willing to put them there. It's about creating and/or populating categories. A more accurate and less loaded phrase needed. Update: see Ghettoization about removing women categories?? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a good idea to give categories its own countering systemic bias subpage. That would allow people to specialize. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It's also possible to have a dedicated, clearly identified archive page just for all these women categorization threads for those who really want to delve into it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it might have been Filipacchi who first used the word "ghettoize" to refer to women being locked in their own subcategory, but I'm not sure, it may have come from us and one of our policies, but it was widely used in the media. If you have a better set of words to describe "biographies that are in ethnic/gendered versions, but not in their engendered equivalents", and a word to describe the process of fixing it (e.g. de-ghettoize), I'm all ears. I don't have any special attachment to the word itself.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not crazy about the phrase "de-ghettoization/de-ghettozie". Something more along the lines of "appropriately populating the category" seems preferable.  Also, in order to address the category issues, in relation to the gender gap issue,  I think any instructions regarding appropriately populating categories should very clearly stress not removing articles from the parent category, and also should stress not de-populating the sub-category (ie - don’t take women out of “American authors” when they are added to “American women authors” and don’t take women out of “American women authors” when they are added “American authors”). Having that separate subcategory definitely seems to serve purpose of a gender gap task force, with respect to ease of locating articles pertaining to women. Such articles may require extra attn, due to the systematic bias inherent to having so relatively few female editors.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you read through the instructions that have now kindly been restored, you will see I cover this in great detail. If you have specific feedback about how to improve those instructions, I would welcome your feedback. The problem is, it's not just about putting the children in the parent. That's the complexity that people sometimes miss. You'll notice, for example, there are no women in, actually there's no-one at all. The reason is that to deghettoize, you usually put the bio in a diffusing sibling category - not necessarily the parent.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wordwise:
 * De-ghettoization is a hyped up neologism that isn't used in any gender studies, feminist writings, etc. Some media outlets mentioning wiki editors used it at some point doesn't change that.
 * And categorization is not math, so "Algorithm" is not an appropriate word, though it sure would turn off a lot of women who have had math avoidance drummed into their heads most of their lives. Categorization and Help:Category both use simpler language like "function", "feature", "system" and "process".
 * The use of non-standard language makes one wonder about the validity of what is being promoted, though most of us don't have energy or interest to figure it out. If what you are doing is important to countering bias, it occurs to me you should be proposing your "algorithm" in Categorization where editors experienced in the topic can comment.
 * I think the DO list should read something like "Populate categories under Category:Women with more articles about women. (See "Wikiproject counter systematic bias/Women in Categories" for details.) And that page would suggest or organize categories most needing populating, how to find articles about women to do it and also link to your new new section under Categorization and explain its relevance to your suggestions.
 * Spacewise: Maybe someone else thinks the most important "Do" is a rule that administrators must be 51% female, even though only 75% of female editors might agree and 15% want to work on it. And another that the most import "Do" be that all male editors accused at ANI of harassment and incivility by more than one female editor have to undergo a mandatory sensitivity training, even thought only 45% of female editors might agree and 8% want to work on it. But do we overwhelm the "Do" section with details with provacative wording and long outlines of our agenda hidden under green lines? Or, if there is sufficient support, do we create a subpage to work on them so they do not overwhelm the Do List. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Carol. Any word suggestions besides de-ghettoize? As for "Populate categories under women" - this is interesting - during the whole debate, you had a great number of women writers outside wikipedia who were saying, don't call me a woman novelist at all, I'm just a bloody novelist. Wikipedia eventually rejected that view and opted to both call them women novelists and novelists. The problem isn't necessarily that we need to tag more people as women X (this can be done in bulk by people with AWB), the bias problem identified is many of those already tagged as woman-X are in a ghetto. Thus, the instructions were framed less around adding more women to women categories, and rather around fixing women who were in women categories (or african americans, or LGBT people, or ...) and were not in the neutral siblings. I used algorithm in the sense of "series of steps", but I will think of a different word.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Although "ghettoization" may not be a word that is frequently used when discussing gender bias, it is a term used by Wikipedia category experts to describe subdividing of article categories to the point where some articles are not represented in the main categories on a topic and so may never be found in a category search, as explained in WP:GHETTO. Wikipedia editors use many words in a project-specific way ("notability" comes to mind) and I see nothing wrong with using this term as long as there is a link to the explanation.  Also, while the word "algorithm" really does mean a series of steps, it is used mainly by mathematicians and computer programmers, so perhaps a more commonly used term such as process or procedure would be more inclusive. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: Reading Anne's comment above now, I see it did explain the issue a bit better than above. But obviously some of us have been confused, leading to a lot of unnecessary back and forth which could have been cleared up much earlier. As I said way back when, just put the woman's article in both the larger category and the smaller one; same for others. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Ghettoization about removing women categories??

 * Ok, first I think I'm finally figuring out what Ghettoization means: "women shouldn't be in their own category ghetto of being women" NOT "women aren't put in an appropriate category at all and left in a lonely ghetto ignored." DUH!! Just now remembering some of the original discussions last year...  Using ambiguous catch phrases certainly can confuse the conversation. Maybe we have to start all over again!
 * Also, FYI, low and behold Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality exists and has a gender subsection. And there is a requested move to Wikipedia:Categorization of people/Sensitive categories. which I've already signed on to support.
 * I see that "ghettoization" is only a recent entry on that page and doesn't seem to have been adequately discussed on the talk page. Maybe some people are confused about the meaning there, too??
 * A wiki search does show the term used a few times way back and a lot more recently, both to discuss actual policies of putting or keeping real live people in ghettos and in the categories section. Our using it that way does seem to trivialize the real life episodes and, again, women don't tend to get stuck by themselves in actual ghettos anyway. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 13:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ghettoization in this context means (usually) a biography is in a gendered/ethnic/sexuality category, but not in a neutral equivalent. Deghettoization means putting the biography in appropriate neutral equivalents. Because of the structure of the tree doing this correctly can be difficult - feel free to ping my talk if you're interested in learning more. In some cases, these categories due to their structure in the tree are more likely than not to ghettoize, in which case they violate WP:EGRS and the category can be deleted. So the main fix for ghettoization is simply adding new categories to existing bios. Another fix is to change the structure - eg a bunch if work I did to make princesses categories siblings of prince categories vs subcats. Another fix sometimes used is to delete the category - but deleting the category is not considered 'deghettoization' --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Frankly, you still don't answer the question of whether women categories should be removed and how many you think should be removed. Again, a) we need to archive all this stuff immediately into a "categorization" archive page and b) discuss it at either the WP:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality or Categories for discussion pages, with a link to such discussions here for those who care to get involved (with occasional discussions if it is something major like "eliminate all categories with word women.") I don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other; others do. In any case, let them discuss it in a more appropriate forum. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 14:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me Carol, as I proposed to you recently, we could create a special sub-talk page here that is focused on category issues re: gender bias. We have around 6,000 "women" categories, and I think about 99% should remain, if you're wondering where I personally stand.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree it should not be on page in current format and maybe not at all. Maybe it should just be linked elsewhere.  In terms of categories relation to the task force goals, I'm concerned with this instruction currently on our page regarding biographies of women: "in order to be correctly categorized, they do not necessarily need to be in the parent of the gendered subcategory".  While this may be factually true, it does not appear to address the gender concerns brought up by the Filpacchi case [] where women were being removed from "American novelists" and stuck in "American women novelists".  In terms of the task force goals, I believe we'd want to get women into the parent category, and also fill the child category (ie "American women novelists") as much as is reasonable. The current instruction do not stress this and as written appear to counter this so I think this shouldn't be on our page in current format. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a common misconception - the whole notion that bios must be in the PARENT is extremely problematic, and actually dead wrong. If you look at, you will notice there are zero biographies there. Same with . And yet, no-one (or very few) in those trees are ghettoized? Why? It's because they are in gender-neutral siblings/cousins/etc. If you want to discuss this more feel free to ping me on my talk page so I can detail the reasoning further.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I was involved quite a while ago organising and setting up lists and categories for Women architects. It seemed reasonable to highlight them because they are in a distinct minority in the construction industry, there are initiatives and campaigns to increase the ratio and discover why women drop-out/aren't recognised. However, with other areas, such as writers/novelists, I get the feeling women are in the majority so I see less reason to have a Women authors category. I'm still a bit confused about the rule-of-thumb that decides if we need to categorize by gender (or race/sexuality). Generally I get the feeling whatever we do we're fighting against the overwhelming consensus of young male editors who think that women are a curiosity, rather than a legitimate majority of the world's population! Sionk (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sionk, that is probably an issue best worked out elsewhere. It seems beyond the scope of this page. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The question of whether a given category for "Women X" should exist can sometimes be contentious. What I think ISN'T contentious is, provided the category exists, that it should not ghettoize those women. There are very few who disagree with that second point. Some people, esp outside the wiki, think the very existence of such categories is a form of sexism, whereas others think that not having them is a form of erasure of women. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. :)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Specialists in areas can forget that even those who may have been semi-familiar with the top say 8 months ago, may have forgotten and/or not understand a) the jargon; b) the issues; c) why they should spend time figuring it out. Back then my response was - put them in both categories. That's still my response. Both have their uses. And there's lots of space on the servers. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Carol, that is close to correct, but the consensus arrived at was slightly different - I gave already the example of, where the solution agreed upon was actually NOT to put everyone in . I don't want to take up more space here to discuss, but I have a longer exposition in draft I wrote here a while back that may explain a bit better.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Priorities
There's a lot of energy being put into this talk page at the moment. Why aren't we directing that energy towards campaigning for category intersections? I know that won't solve existing problematic categories, but trying to fix those will never, ever be anything more than a sticking plaster on the real problem. —  Scott  •  talk  13:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't that happen in WP:categories for discussion or Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality with a link here for those who are interested? I just realized that the goal was elimination of women categories, not populating them, so am particularly annoyed by the whole thing right now. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If interested you can join the discussions I started a while back Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection. If you want to test a prototype developed by Magnus Manske (with minor assistance from yours truly), check User:Obiwankenobi. Any and all feedback welcome. There is also wikidata which could be promising, but it could also be a ways off - I'm not sure. But yes, I do agree Scott that category intersection will make this problem go away, as we will no longer have the need to have, it will just be + . It's a non-trivial amount of work, however. I had proposed embedding Manske's javascript into the regular javascript that everyone has, so you don't need to do anything special, and then you can have such category intersections. I also piloted a simpler version at , but it calls out to an external tool and the interface isn't amazing, but it could be done today with no additional programming needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to archive categorization threads now
I propose threads or subthreads predominantly about categorization should be archived manually now. If editors start discussions on the appropriate forum (especially WP:Categories for discussion), they can leave a message here. If there is some compelling need to respond here, people will. The project cannot be overwhemled with discussions about Wikipedia techical topics which need informed and interested participation, even if one or two people are strongly interested in them and feel they are relevant to every other discussion. Feel free to write support or oppose.
 * Support as OP. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * just move to a sub-talk-page rather than archive, then people can watch that subpage and participate if interested. Categorization of biographies and correcting bias in said categorization has been on-topic here since the beginning, but if people don't want this talk board filled with such cat discussions moving it to a separate sub-talk page on categories seems reasonable. Archiving active threads (some of which you've started) just seems like a way to shut down discussion; instead why not move them to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_bias_task_force/Categories or something similar, and let anyone interested continue there?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * per IAR, I just moved everything to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_bias_task_force/Categorization. Any interested in continuing this conversation re: the algorithm and its applicability to this project are welcome to join there. Thanks! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Obiwankenobi, I hope you are not carrying this out immediately so others can't as easily find the talk page consensus to remove the disputed content regarding categories, that you appear to be currently edit warring in again. I agree that they should be archived at some point though, but probably not while talk page consensus to remove content is not being respected.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Bobo, can you be clear about which content is disputed? The algorithm? That's now on a separate page, at WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_bias_task_force/Categorization, which was one of the earlier suggestions above by Slim and several others. Or do you mean the list of categories to de-ghettoize? As I mentioned on my talk, if you think that should be moved to WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_bias_task_force/Categorization instead of the main page as a to-do, that is fine with me too, I just figured in it's collapsed state it doesn't take up too much space. I've started a discussion to see if the algorithm itself can be hosted at WP:EGRS within that guideline, but pending that I think WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_bias_task_force/Categorization is as reasonable a place as any, especially given that no-one has stated specifically what is wrong with that algorithm besides the word "deghettoize", and it's been here for over a year already... Or is it perhaps this particular language you object to: "Note: in order to be correctly categorized, they do not necessarily need to be in the parent of the gendered/ethnic/sexuality-based subcategory - they just need to be in the non-gendered/ethnic/sexuality-based equivalent." - if so, can you suggest how to reword that to make it more in line with something you agree with? thanks! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) Just saw your edit - the threads aren't archived, they are simply on a different board now, so we should probably just continue the discussion there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * oppose the info moved relates to current content dispute, so should be available on talk page until that content dispute is resolved. Afterward, I'm happy for it to be moved though --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * restored for now (see above). --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Bobo, there is a large section above where it was proposed to move categorization questions to a sub-discussion board, which I did. The discussions are not archived, they can continue there, without further spamming this board.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I was a bit annoyed this a.m. and thus the "NOW" without further options. However, obviously there are three options and we should have consensus on which: Obviously three is problematic. Two only seems necessary if it is important that this taskforce be the "decider". In either case: What is the point? We should all agree to one system, yours? What positions does WP:Categories for discussion usually take? Keep women in both categories? Keep them only in top one? Move them to bottom one? It depends on the category? Why is it necessary to have detailed discussions on every one here, as opposed to putting a WP:Categories for discussion notice on this page and discussing if it seems particularly critical? All this still is not clear and thus it feels like being steamrolled and one can become annoyed. So I'll stay with my just archive to the archives "now" or "ASAP" after all... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) just part of ongoing archives, and largely ancient history
 * 2) own archive page (new archive box with categorization archive, assuming that that's all ancient history)
 * 3) Obiwankenobi's categorization subpage where these policy decisions are made while most of us blissfully ignore them, at which point it can be claimed that the "task force" Ok'd them. (And this on one also should include posts critical of his position on categorization and critical of links on the main page.)
 * Hi Carol, as I said I'm happy to move the instructions to WP:EGRS, and I've proposed that, so we just need to wait since that's a guideline. That said, the guideline is clear, women (or anyone, really) should always be in a neutral equivalent, as well as a gender/ethnicity - specific version. I'm not proposing that we have detailed discussions on specific categories here, I am proposing that on this wikiproject we could consider and discuss structural changes that will help reduce bias in the categorization of biographies - thus for example, if we embed "deghettoization" as a step in FA/GA process. We could also list categories that are in need of attention to be de-ghettoized, and find better ways to describe the process of properly categorizing people to other editors (I'm not wedded to that algorithm for example, and I welcome suggestions on how to improve it)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I've heard Obi has decided to take a break from gender categorization issues for a while and hopefully can have a clearer perspective when he does. In the interim I'm going to create a new archive box for manual archiving of threads. I've found in other wikiprojects it is sometimes useful to have separate archives for ongoing threads on selected topics, and this would be one of them. So new discussions can happen here and then will be put in that archive. Meanwhile Obi's proposal will be explicitly labeled as one, if it is not already in his existing page.  So let's all give it a rest for a few weeks anyway, study what's in the archive, and come back when all our heads are clearer on the topic! Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 20:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea. Obi's wikibreak does seem to have ended the content dispute, and archiving these conversations would go along way toward cleaning up this talk page and facilitating getting back to productive work of task force. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Tag-team editing and aggressive behavior
Categorization of biographies has always been under the scope of this project, and a number of categorization issues have been brought here in the past. There now seems to be a move to downplay categorization as a key goal, which is fine, but this latest revert war by the tag team of Bobo and Jps has frankly gone too far. A large thread above proposed moving categorization information to a subpage, which I did, and also proposed archiving categorization threads to a subpage, which I did. Now, however, Jps has just erased the last vestiges of categorization (and deghettoization/categorizing w/o bias) from the homepage - without any discussion; also breaking the link to the new subpage in the process. This aggressive use of reverting to erase contributions from good faith members of this project has got to stop. Instead, we should have a reasoned discussion and come to consensus and compromise - not "my way or the highway".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You explicitly said you did it under IAR, when Carolmooredc more reasonably opened a discussion; perhaps that's where the aggressive behavior lies. I really don't think you should attempt unilateral behavior on a page where there are so many questions about your own participation. Take your own advice and respect consensus-building, please. __ E L A Q U E A T E  16:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see any consensus to remove categorization from being considered within the scope of this project. It has been in scope since day 1. It is also one of the main examples that comes up every time someone talks about systemic bias at wikipedia, they give the examples of categorization. Thus, I think it would be rather silly for this project to remove categorization from its scope, and it also demeans the work of editors like myself and others who have participated here and contributed to the goals of this project by helping deghettoize categories of women.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's your take on the content and you've repeated it many times already, but please keep an eye on your overall behavior. Looking at your general patterns, I will say that this is starting to look like the pounding of shoes on desks regarding categorization that got you blocked by User:Bbb23 and warned at ANI. Please play nicer; an editor can still be disruptive, even if when think their campaign is a noble one. __ E L A Q U E A T E  17:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And stop lashing out as you did at my talk page. Play nice means play nice. __ E L A Q U E A T E  18:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * EQ, people here, including yourself, are NOT playing nice. This is supposed to be space for collaboration, and now it's turning into an exclusive club that is trying it's best to kick out a member who has contributed a great deal to the goals and aims of this project w.r.t. deghettoizing women's biographies. If people show themselves willing to compromise as I have, that would go a long way. It was suggested the category stuff be moved to a sub-page, so I did it. But no, that wasn't enough, instead it has become "my way or the highway" - I can't believe we've moved in 1 year from Slim Virgin complimenting me for adding information about categories, and other editors engaging collaboratively here and elsewhere re: how to deghettoize, to just deleting all references to such work entirely and by fiat declaring categories off-limit for this project. It's mind boggling and saddening.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering the sudden influx of members here and their predelictions, I guess the 'de-ghettoizing' of categories has become, oh, so last year's issue. Wikipedia works on concensus so, when outnumbered, we need to back away slowly with a resigned look of disbelief. It will be Wikipedia's shame (not yours or mine) if the issue raises its ugly head in the national media again. We can't take the whole world on our shoulders! Sionk (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Reading the talk page above, it appears multiple editors have expressed concern regarding how “de-ghettoizing” has taken place. There have been concern raised by multiple editors that the past approach has resulted in deleting women’s categories, instead of appropriately populating them. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The instructions here and the list of categories needing work have nothing to do with categories proposed for deletion at WP:CFD, and none of the instructions here had anything to do with advocacy for deletion of more women's categories. Deghettoization means basically only one thing - adding new (neutral) categories to biographies. More broadly, the instructions I provided would ensure that a biography of an African-American woman would be properly placed in (American X), (American women x), (African-American X), and (African-American women X). It can get complex, which is why I proposed that series of steps y'all have been so eager to delete.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The above explanation at least finally makes a bit more sense for those of us who do not focus on the topic. Besides the off putting and confusing language (ghetto and algorithm) editors with more experience of the issue have expressed concerns about your whole regime which others of us don't want to have to study to figure out. And the fact that your extreme interest has led to blocks certainly raises eyebrows. If this is a great procedure/regime/etc. finalize elsewhere and then bring it here. Otherwise it's just disruptive and needs archiving soon.
 * As for the media, if they don't understand how or disagree with the way things are done, that should not panic us into changing them. Why not say to them: Category writers/gender/women is not a ghetto - see Category writers/ethnicity/Jewish. If that was a ghetto, I'm sure Wikiproject Judaism would be having a fit! Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 21:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Carol, I've started that discussion, and hopefully the editors at WP:EGRS will accept adding those instructions to the guideline, at which point we can just point to it. But the broader question remains, as to whether actually DEALING with categorization issues (that overwhelmingly impact women on biographies) is in scope here which I asked below, and your input on same would be welcome.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, the content that Obiwankenobi has previously added to the project page does not appear to address the concerns of the Filpacchi incident well. The objection there was . []  Specifically, removing them from "American novelists" when adding them to "American women novelists". However, Obi's instructions for this project page included this quote:  In order to fix this, articles do not necessarily need to be placed in the parent of the gendered/ethnic/sexuality-based subcategory - they just need to be in the non-gendered/ethnic/sexuality-based equivalent, which is often a sibling category.   While the exact rules of categorization seem best worked out elsewhere, it seems to address the Filipacchi incident, and to address the goals of this task force, instructions should stress keeping women in the parent category whenever possible, and also should stress populating the women subcategories as much as is reasonable.  That is not what was being suggested. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarification. I've suggested Obi make all this perfectly clear on one of his own sub talk pages with non-jargoned and simple language - maybe even a chart or two. Then people could study and figure it out separately and all concerns could be addressed there before he goes around propagating it to all the other wikiprojects he thinks need it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks carol and I apologize to everyone if my language was obscure, and I will try to do better. If anyone wants to discuss with me why we don't always populate the parent category - actually it's somewhat rare, it depends on the structure - I invite you to my talk page where we can discuss without spamming this board further. Of course I agree with Bobo that women's categories should be filled to the brim, and indeed one of the reasons I was blocked was because an editor was attempting to add language to a categorization guideline that could have potentially been interpreted as allowing the depopulation of some gendered/ethnic/sexuality based subcategories, so I've actually served time in defense of filling women's cats, and the series of steps I proposed, if followed, will do exactly that- fill up women's cats (and ethnic, and LGBT, etc) but that's not sufficient, because if you just fill the women cat you've ghettoized everyone within, you also need to populate neutral equivalents. Sometimes those are the parent but often they're not. See for an example, or  for another one where the 'parent' is empty, by consensus.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep categorization in scope for this project
Categorization has been in scope for this project since the very beginning, as a way to correct systemic bias in content around how biographies are classified. It is women who are most likely to be placed into these "Women X" categories, since we don't have that many "Male X" categories, but evidence shows that women continue to be "ghettoized" (e.g. placed only in non-neutral categories) at a huge rate. For example, several of our FA articles posted to the main page have been improperly categorized, Maya Angelou being a notable example -- an important fix 25 days after FA on mainpage. Her absence from the American poets category was noted by several reliable sources (e.g. ,.

When Amanda Filipacchi noticed this happening in the Novelists tree, it led to a media storm which hasn't yet been repeated re: gender bias at Wikipedia. Indeed, "Categorygate" was potentially one of the biggest stories of the 2013 w.r.t. gender and wikipedia.

Some sample articles are ,,,,,. This more recent article points out how the idea of "subcategorizing" women and women's writing especially is a sign of broader sexism in the book industry. Thus, at least the outside world seems to think that the categorization problems, especially of female biographies, are a symptom of the gender bias, both at wikipedia and in the society as a whole. While I personally don't agree that it's caused by gender bias (since, for example, male-oriented categories are just as likely in my research to be "ghettoized", as are ethnic or LGBT categories - it seems rather equal opportunity), the result appears to be a gender bias and has even been called "sexism". The good faith creation of by someone who wanted to highlight the contributions of women ended up sending them to a sub-category, due to a few Wikipedia editors not following our standard guidance at WP:EGRS. Gender-specific categories, when properly filled out and complemented with neutral ones, can highlight the work of women. When improperly filled out, they serve to hide that same work. It's a double edged sword. The problem with gender-specific categories, and what was the cause of much confusion, is they behave differently to all other types of categories - they are "non-diffusing" instead of "diffusing".

Luckily, Wikipedia is not Amazon.com, nor the Library of Congress, and we can categorize things in multiple ways. But fixing a biography is not necessarily easy. The reason is, people are categorized in multiple trees - Maya Angelou is in 30 categories, some of them based on her gender or ethnicity, and some "neutral". In order to fix her categories, it took me several minutes to understand the category tree and figure out how to avoid "ghettoizing" her through the category system.

The potential complexity in properly categorizing biographies is the reason I developed a set of instructions and put them here a year ago, and those instructions were used by myself and other editors to "de-ghettoize" hundreds and possibly thousands of biographies over the past year. However, much work remains to be done.

I realize that people here would like to discuss other things, which is perfectly reasonable. It was proposed above to move the categorization discussions and rules to a sub-page, which was done. However, recent reverts have now disconnected that page from the main project, and now there's no mention of "Properly categorize biographies" as one of the goals of this project. The main people involved in making these reverts are two editors who only joined the project as of a day ago.

Thus, I'm starting this section to get a clear statement from everyone involved in this project, and the broader "Countering systemic bias" project, w.r.t categorization. The questions are as follows:

'''Is categorization of biographies in the scope of this project? Should instructions on how to categorize such bios correctly be included here, or in a linked sub-page? Should we have a separate talk page here devoted to category discussions in this domain for those who are interested? Should we build and place somewhere a list of categories we come across that are in need of work to correctly categorize the contents within?'''


 * support As nominator. Categorization should remain in scope, because whatever the causes of mis-categorization, the result is a systemic under-representation of mostly-female biographies in neutral categories. The categorization section could remain on the homepage as a brief instruction and pointer to the sub-page as in this version, where a list of categories needing work is provided along with a set of steps to follow (the steps could eventually be hosted elsewhere, pending conversation at WP:EGRS as well). A separate talk page can be set up to manage the category discussions to not distract the main page here. Removing categorization from the scope of this project would be removing an important and (unfortunately) highly visible and political area of content. It is not for everyone, so a sub-page serves this purpose accordingly.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I've mainly just been watching this whole dispute, and it's been intriguing me since initially, there have been multiple 'scandals' and 'Wikipedia controversies' regarding categorization. The Amanda_Filipacchi thing especially caught me as one instance of a convoluted and almost sexist process being used against women. Though I really can't blame it all on that, since it's so complicated a process that it takes some careful scalpel-related maneuvering in order to get those cats corrected and 'deghettoized'. Obi is a person with that scalpel and is doing all of the dirty work in that regard. Categories are a convoluted thing on Wikipedia and I think one of the thing that needs a intense discussion on how to change and fix it. We need to be apart of the solution, Rome wasn't built in a day, and this needs to be apart of the scope of the gender task force. Tutelary (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments:
 * The issue is not whether categorization is in scope but a) whether one individual's problematic procedures should be accepted and applied and b) how much time we want to spend discussing that or any other new regime/procedure/etc. on this page as opposed to on pages where it's relevant. In general there seems to be opposition to spending a whole lot of time on either or making it one of the top priorities of the project. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns carol and I'm in the midst of addressing them. I'd still like your input in the questions above - for example you might say 'proposing categories that need to be fixed is in scope but discussing the details of proper categorization algorithms should happen elsewhere and the result linked here once confirmed' or something. Then we need to decide if there will be a separate sub-page for category discussions as you proposed or not.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Asking for one answer to four completely different questions at the same time is not going to get a clear statement from everyone involved in this project. It does seem like a great way to try to attempt to control discussion on a talk page, though. __ E L A Q U E A T E  22:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Why are we taking a vote regarding something which never occurred?
This is confusing. No one has suggested completely removing category discussion/issues from the task force. However, many have argued against Obiwankenobi's specific approach to categories here (see above talk page sections), and many have also objected to the domination of the talk page by this issue. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Bobo, I've been chatting here since you and others have been deleting useful content which has been there for a year with zero disputes. I'm thus using the talk page to understand how to improve that content so it again becomes acceptable. I even moved all the category talk to a subpage since people had proposed keeping discussions off the main page, but you reverted that, effectively forcing the discussion back here. And yes, your deletion for example of the list of cats to be fixed is a great example of you demonstrating that you want to remove such work from the scope of this project. It's clear people think some bits of categoryosity are off topic here so I'm trying to ascertain what exactly so we can move forward productively.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, it seems more like you are engaging in WP:BLUDGEON on this talk page. Objections from multiple editors have been very specific in the above talk page sections. Ongoing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT conduct is disruptive. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BLUDGEON is an essay, and is not policy. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is generally a context related case. Obi is using talk page discussions, attempting to get more input from different editors, and trying all sorts of thing to understand, resolve, and to compromise in the dispute. Before we could possibly even get to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, the dispute needs to be older among other related things. Note that this is also the editor who was crucial in the Bradley/Chelsea Manning dispute, they edit in sensitive areas constantly with often nimble approaches and this is no exception. Why not discuss the content? I feel that categories are within the scope of the gender task force. Tutelary (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking of disruptive (per BoboMeowCat above), looking at Obiwankenobi's contributions I noticed these two ANI threads now closed: Disruptive editing by Obiwankenobi with June 27 close saying it's a content issue and Topic ban for Obiwankenobi on articles relating to gender discrimination, misogyny and misandry which closed on June 27 with "A proposal for a measure this stern needs overwhelming consensus...But, as many editors have noted, Obi is put on notice." I feel like all this will be going to ANI sooner rather than later.
 * Obviously Obi is doing something wrong or SlimVirgin and others' original concerns with Obi's categorization regime being imposed on the project would not have lead to this massive overwhelming of the talk page with that topic.  ;-(  Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 22:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not about Obi's conduct on other pages. Anybody can show up on WP:ANI because anybody can file anything on that page. I've personally been put on WP:AN because I tagged a vandalism page for speedy deletion and the editor just wanted to make things difficult for me so they filed, and was obviously rejected their claims that I was 'destroying the encyclopedia'. I beseech that you stop making it about individual editors and start making it about individual claims and weighing in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tutelary (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Carol has made a good suggestion above, namely that Obi gain consensus for his algorithm at the relevant guideline, Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, and we can then point to it. That guideline is the place to discuss and promote it, not here. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine Slim, that's what I've done. I do wish you'd acknowledge though that a year ago, you said "This is a good place for it", y'all are making me feel bad for ever putting it here as if it was some sort of scheme to push some POV, when in fact it was done in good faith to help the goals of this project and no-one complained for a year, instead I got thanks and compliments. I'd still request the rest of you who've been so opinionated above to weigh in on exactly how the categories stuff should be structured here even pending "approval" of the algorithm - can we have a list of cats to fix? Do we need a separate message board? etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)