Talk:Gender bias

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Distinction

[edit]

Multiple discussions(1, 2) from Gender Bias on Wikipedia highlighted a need to distinguish and disentangle the concepts and studies of Gender Bias from those of Sexism. Furthermore, there are several subtopics within gender bias studies that are deserving of their own subsections within this page. {{u|Jamarr81}}🗣⸎ 18:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios

[edit]

Diannaa, in regards to this copyvio edit, I appreciate the veracity/education, but I think you went too far in deleting the blockquote from the study published on ncbi which has a free-use copyright license; and even tracing the study origin to frontiersin.org shows a CC BY 4.0 license, which is compatible with Wikipedia policy. It wouldn't surprise me if ncbi was the most quoted source on Wikipedia for academic studies.

Regarding the other two quotes, perhaps you can help clarify these policies for me:

  1. From WP:NFCCP: Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline), and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <\blockquote>, {\{Quote}}, or a similar method.
  2. From WP:CFAQ: Quotations are a very well known and widely used form of fair use and fair dealing and are explicitly allowed under the Berne Convention.

Both excerpts appear to explicitly allow short, verbatim quotations from copyrighted material, provided they are accompanied by a proper citation (which these have), so I am confused as to why they needed to be removed. Can you clarify this for me? Thanks. {{u|Jamarr81}}🗣⸎ 14:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I did not notice the compatible licenses, so the non-free content rule does not apply. Regardless, if nearly half the article is quotations, there's too much quotation happening. Wikipedia is not intended to be a collection of quotes; for the most part we are expected to write our own content and use quotations only when necessary. Please see WP:OVERQUOTING for some advice. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the understanding/clarifications. The contents of this article are still relatively fresh, and I have not had the time to flesh it out more, so it's a bit wip compared to more established pages. I do recognize the importance of not overquoting, so I will try to keep this in mind and paraphrase where it is practical to do so. {{u|Jamarr81}}🗣⸎ 18:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damn that was short

[edit]

Very nice article, I'm quite surprised there's not a whole lot on gender bias on Wikipedia. Diridam (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add new empirical research

[edit]

I suggest adding something like In the context of Students' Evaluation of Teaching, new peer-reviewed empirical evidence by Bashirzadeh et al. (2025) shows gender solidarity (i.e., (female) male students preferring (female) male professors), even though the overall gender effect can depend on the professor's age. This is the reference: https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amle.2023.0541 YBZadeh (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any secondary sources that cover this new research? MrOllie (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a peer-reviewed academic article published in a high-ranking journal. It just came out and for the moment no seconday sources have covered it (which is normal). YBZadeh (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Note that YBZadeh has a WP:COI here, being one of the paper's authors. They've been asked to clearly declare this, but haven't, yet, saying that they think their username is clear enough to serve as such a declaration.) Belbury (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that On the Wikipedia:Reliable sources page, it says " Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." YBZadeh (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia also says (at WP:NOT) that it is not a place to promote new research. Since we are copy and pasting responses across multiple pages, I won't respond here any further. But consider me opposed to this without coverage from, a secondary source. MrOllie (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]