Talk:Wikimedia CEE Spring 2015/Structure

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Article lists[edit]

The interactive list of article lists is excellent, Kaarel, tänan. :) Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ліонкінг's proposal[edit]

Ok, dear friends and colleagues, I want to propose to each community provide 11 lists of articles from their language. It will consist 1 list with good and featured articles in home wiki, and 10 lists with articles about each from 10 topics (f.e. 20-30 article proposals about each topic).Of course it's better to create a list in English, as it can be more useful for most of us. Then, representatives from other states will translate this lists in their languages and publish them in their own language. --Ліонкінг (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

An outline of Wikipedia contents, such as this one, might be helpful in devloping this list. Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How this list is currently formatted might make it difficult for less proficient users to add to it. Perhaps a simple bulleted list or outline might be appropriate. Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anna Koval (WMF), thank You for sharing the concern! Is current formatting better? Is there anything else that could be done to increase the usability of the structure page? --Kaarel Vaidla (WM EE) (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO better structure of categories will be categories of Universal Decimal Classification:

  • Science and Knowledge. Organization. Computer Science. Information Science. Documentation. Librarianship. Institutions. Publications
  • Philosophy. Psychology
  • Religion. Theology
  • Social Sciences
  • Mathematics. Natural Sciences
  • Applied Sciences. Medicine, Technology
  • The Arts. Entertainment. Sport
  • Linguistics. Literature
  • Geography. History

If you necessarily want women in this structure, you can put this category in the gap between Social Sciences and Mathematics... Current apportionment contains hiatus and I think that boundary line between science and education is unsupported (because in any case countries can put in each of this categories schools or teachers in various ways). In fact culture cointains society (and women), sports, politics as well as economics, transport, history and science (along with education). So I recommend You use categories of UDC. Marycha80 (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Women topics[edit]

A suggestion was made during the gender gap session that we include and integrate women topics in the topic list for the CEE spring project. The 30+ people in the room voted and it was agreed unanimously that we should do this. Would each country that participates please include in their article list topics that will improve content on CEE Wikimedia projects about women in CEE countries. Thank you. Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+1 I'm fond of football and articles about women football are becoming more popular in the last time. In my POV the flexibility, speed and technique of women football players is even better than in casual mans football. --Ліонкінг (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that idea of "Women topic" is sexist. Marycha80 (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Based on comment by User:Marycha80, what should go under this section? I think all notable women in the list should go under culture/politics/sports sections, not in their own "special" section, it may send a wrong message. Any other opinions? What was the original intent? --Papuass (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Papuass, Marycha80, Anna Koval and everyone else! I have already expressed before the view of some of female community members of Estonia that Wikipedia is a gender neutral project and should stay that way. Having a special list about females is indeed somewhat sexist. On the other hand, I understand the need to deal with gender gap issues in the region and to support further participation and presentation of women in Wikipedias.
I suggest that all notable women should be included under culture/politics/sports sections. Different question is, if we want to double them under a separate "Women" section. We can also be thoughtful and work hard to include all notable women in our lists, as well as to add gender gap related articles to different categories. In this way we will refrain from bluntly insulting possible contributors. But the question is - what are the other solutions for dealing with gender gap issues in Wikipedia? Actually I think that this needs a more thorough discussion. Please, share your thoughts! --Kaarel Vaidla (WM EE) (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm agree with you, Kaarel :) Marycha80 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, according to the current concept, i.e. large and non-binding lists, having a special section for women comes across as rather demeaning - as if women don't even merit inclusion in an expanded list of a country's important topics and have to have a quota to be considered at all. That's why we included all women in the main sections of the list for Slovenia. — Yerpo Eh? 10:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As most structures did not fill the Women section, should we remove it? If it is left empty, it will confuse users. --Papuass (talk) 09:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_CEE_Spring_2015/Structure&oldid=11562568"