Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-09-26/Community view

← Back to Community view

Discuss this story

• It's really interesting to hear about WikiProject Craft! I'm a knitter myself and what I've mostly noticed about craft-related content is that what's on Wikipedia is mostly uncited and written in the early 2000s. But that's from my glances as a reader, I haven't really edited the topic much. Part of it is because I think the best sources for those wouldn't nessecarily be online but in more specialized craft magazines/books (which I don't have many of), especially since a lot of online content is more tutorial/how-to in nature in contrast to what you would be writing about in an encyclopedia. Clovermoss (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• The whole area of the applied or decorative arts, of which "craft" is a particular (rather modern, rather Western) slice, is extremely weak on WP, despite many of the more general articles we have getting rather strong views. I hope this new effort avoids concentrating on individual producers too much - these get far fewer views. Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Will WikiProject Craft also encompass the ~700 articles (according to transclusion count of the banner template) from the now-defunct WikiProject Woodworking, given that woodworking appears to fall into its bounds? eviolite (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• I've been hoovering up Japanese crafts articles for a while now - the issue I've come across, as I have for many of the textile arts articles, is that several haven't been touched since their inception between 2008 and 2012, resulting in a lack of wikilinks, roughshod writing style and tone, and a lack of references (or inappropriate ones). Many articles are complete orphans, and I'd imagine the same is true for several crafts articles and topics covering those from countries that do not speak English - for example, the article Japanese clothing during the Meiji period only just got created (thank you, Jevella!), but the article Victorian fashion, which covers a timespan some 30 years wider than the Meiji period, was created in 2002.
  If any editors are interested in improving our crafts articles, I'd love them to keep in mind that non-Western craft articles often need even more love - the addition of language tags (like {{transl}} and {{lang}}), good referencing, etc. The world is obviously huge, so even focusing on the crafts of one country is enough effort - if everyone did as such, we could have a good run at it. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Though I will note - not every English-language source on the crafts of non-English speaking countries is made equal. I've managed to sift out the worst offenders for Japanese articles and am pretty happy with the sourcing and information we have on, say, kimono, but, having briefly had them on my watchlist, articles like hanfu and qipao need much more work - even for basic things like the definition of and their origins.
    I know where I would go to find the right sources on these - English-language information on foreign clothing online is weirdly spread out, information on Chinese fashion and sources on I can find on Tumblr, but Vietnamese clothing information I think I'd have to go to Facebook for - but you'd really need your wits about you to grapple with those articles, and that isn't something I have the time or necessary existing information to do well. Contributors who know both English and other languages, are familiar with crafts from those countries, and have the time to make some worthwhile, highly-necessary edits are something we are in short supply of at times. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Excellent, @Ineffablebookkeeper: I encourage you to tag articles that need some love with a variant of {{WikiProject Craft |class=Start |importance=Low |needs-image=yes }} so that we can easily find them. And yes, finding sources can be a challenge. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• A great article on a subject area Wikipedia has a systemic bias against. — Bilorv (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • We don't have a "systemic bias", we just don't have many editors interested in the area. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

    I don't think it's just that simple. :) Our description of systemic bias describes it as, "the inherent tendency of a process to support particular outcomes". So if the English Wikipedia community doesn't support editors interested in this area – attracting and sustaining their participation – that's a bias. One where our support systems work against the outcomes we desire. In this case seeing the subject area of crafting present within our collective work. Given that crafting is just one among a long list of challenges we face I argue it's a just description. Ckoerner (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

    And what exactly creates the "inherent tendency" in WP to not have editors interested in this area, and how could our "support systems" remedy this? In fact, as someone who works a lot in the decorative arts area (as I prefer to call it), it is in many ways much easier than other areas, not least because you are normally able to get on with it almost completely undisturbed. Johnbod (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

    Oh, you do work for the WMF - your vocabulary made me suspect as much! Johnbod (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

    And what exactly creates the "inherent tendency" in WP to not have editors interested in this area – Our gender and class systemic biases. It's right there in the article: Craft is often divided from fine art because of its utility and the class status of its practitioners. Objects made in a domestic context have been gendered as women's work. With a project of this size, there's not just coincidentally going to be significantly fewer people interested in a huge topic area for no reason. — Bilorv (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

    And these are Wikipedia's biases? The "bias" towards "fine art" has been ingrained for many centuries. Blame Vasari if you must. Is the huge over-representation of sport Wikipedia's fault, and how can the WMF put people off writing about it? Actually the great majority of the workers/artisans/artists creating the sort of stuff I write about were men. Johnbod (talk) 04:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

    I don't think that a community failing to attract and sustain participation in a given area is the same as its processes tending to support particular outcomes. I think the concept of systemic bias would be spread too thin if it were applied to any area that didn't get enough participation, as all shortfalls in content would then be covered by it. I would agree though that there is a self-selection bias that affects what gets written about, which is related to attracting editors with different areas of interest and ties back to what Johnbod said. What is more of a systemic problem is that appropriate source material for an encyclopedia article is easier to find for some topic areas, such as those with a lot of online media coverage, and thus it's relatively easier to get more volunteers to write about those topics. isaacl (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is a place where random strangers are allowed to tell each other to f off. Fix that first, then you might attract people who are interested in crafts enough to want to learn how to edit Wikipedia articles on craft, and more importantly, how to do it well. Until then, they will always be deserted wastelands where people like Johnbod go for their Wikipedia down time. Cony Island Kook (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Well they are often not deserted by the readers, just the editors. Johnbod (talk) 04:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)