We're the Collection of Bones; call us Bones :D // plural, therian, queer, disabled, autistic, furry
Often Ash, Sometimes Lillith or Lily, sometimes someone else.
every wikipedia page about a nonbinary person seems to have a footnote on the first time their pronouns are used explaining that they're nonbinary.
I kinda want to edit wikipedia articles on cisgender people to have footnotes saying like "Barack Obama is a cisgender male and uses he/him pronouns" or whatever :v
if i ever get a wikipedia page i want there to be a footnote next to every single time my pronouns are used with a different nonbinary identity each time to really mix it up
I thought wikipedia had a hardline stance against using anything but he/him or she/her
They do not seem to - see for example the wiki article on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Smith which is what prompted me to make this post in the first place.
I found their policy document https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Gender_identity and apparently they don't like neopronouns but are ok with they/them I guess?
Ah, it was the neopronouns I was thinking of. Still sux, but slightly less than I thought?
Yeah they are also kinda sucky about deadnaming in some situations, which is another "this sucks but not as much as it could" situation.
That's not nearly as out-there as it sounds. It has only been a couple of years, for example, that treatment of relationships differed sharply between gender, where only women had a "spouse" (or whatever) listed in their information panel and a section on relationship histories. It took a push through the media to draw attention to the problem while constantly mass-editing pages, but that has grown much more even-handed.
You're saying they used to tend to only mention the relationship history of women in Wikipedia articles? Damn that is wiiiiiiiild :o
Yep. I vaguely remember somebody trying to justify it as it being "notable," in the sense that other media was more likely to mention it, but that's also an obvious selective reading of things.
Ah, here we go, only about ten years ago.
This was the original study, I think, that started the media coverage, which led to the task force and hackathons. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.06307v2
On a lexical level we find that especially romantic relationships and family-related issues are much more frequently discussed on Wikipedia articles about women than men.
This suggests a weird cause-and-effect with the broader misogynistic culture that I don't think bears out (the causation, not condemning the culture), but gets at some aspects of the problem. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/
And this study is more recent, but starts with the Donna Strickland incident, where Wikipedia looked bad for "speedy deleting" an article on someone who soon won a Nobel Prize. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14614448211023772
So, yeah, definitely not a huge ask for things to shift to where they mention when people are cisgender.
