Notables : gender bias (among others)

Question

This question has been already discussed, but always good to refresh, based this time on WikiTree+ data.

I just get those results with two simple queries :

Notables Gender=female : 10,227
Notables Gender=male : 50,058

The overall gender ratio being far less biased :

Gender=female : 14,252,019
Gender= male : 15,621,354

This is certainly the most visible bias induced by notability, the "mother of all discriminations".

Comments

What would i like? Once upon a time (back in 2020) I had this "circles" idea. Based on mediocrity principle.

#1 Take any obscure profile, with a strong well-sourced family and build all the profiles around him. First circle.

#2 Take all profiles in the first circle. Repeat #1. Second circle.

Rinse and repeat. As you say, Bobbie, persistance (that's French, right? thought it was persistence in English).

Please tell me you did not came to WT after stumbling upon a notable profile.

---

In response to Bobbie's question of what to do: one activity which focuses on notables is the weekly Connection Finder. A way to help reduce the gender bias Bernard has rightly identified is to avoid themes which will result in the nomination of only or mainly men. Instead, themes should be chosen which allow a balance of female and male profiles, or even sometimes exclusively female ones as positive discrimination to redress the legacy of sexism that Ellen, Emma and M have emphasised.

Bernard's question title refers to other biases as well as for gender. Connection Finder themes should also take care not to be exclusively US- or Anglo-centric.

Edited to add link to Connection Finder planning.

---

Bernard, I did NOT come to Wikitree because of coming across a Notable profile.  I have no interest in Notable profiles, same as many other people that I work with on wikitree.  Many people that work on profiles on wikitree do not care about the CC7 or completing their fan charts.

---

Linda, found your message first thing this morning when opening my mail. You made my day.

---

Bernard (and Emma), I came to WikiTree through this profile, Robert Crausaz, a first cousin of my grandmother who migrated to Canada and later Ohio. WikiTree had the US side of the story, I had the French/Swiss one. He's not notable at all. 

Initially I did a lot of work on notables (French ones specifically) not because I love them, but because I thought it would be a good idea to increase the presence of France on WikiTree. I'm moving away from this idea, however. One of the reason being the choice of topics for Profiles of the week and the way it has evolved of yet.

---

Like Bernard and Linda, I certainly didn't come to wikitree to find my relationship to notables.(it was an Australian member; my links to Australia are via transported convicts) I had no knownn notable cousins that I knew of then. I now know of  a sole  fifth cousin who's an American actress . When researching my own family I'm interested in  finding out about their lives as ag labs, weavers and blacksmiths, petty thieves and paupers. I shall be quite upset to find an aristocratic ancestor!

As to the connection finder. I used to try hard to find both  women and also people who came from 'ordinary' backgrounds . Their number on wikipedia are tiny compared with men from elite backgrounds.   Most that I could find didn't have profiles and it was far too late to create them, let alone connect them. Once I suceeded in both my personal criteria  and created the profile of a 19th c  woman, an ag lab who sung folk songs. I've got a 16th C female teacher up my sleeve  but unfortunately it seems that links to the  nobility and recent stage, tv and sports stars  are those that draw  the wanted attention.

---

Interesting (how you came to WikiTree). Actually I tried yesterday to remember how I came myself to WikiTree but I think it was through Wikidata, looking at various identifiers put on people, stumbled upon "wikitreeId". Not looking for any particular profile. I was attracted by the concept of the unique tree, the subtle way to handle several levels of privacy, the economic model (no Premium whtsoever).

My first target was to have my branch connected, then better connected ...

---

@Bernard the "good profiles" concept was brought up a few years ago. We talked about having some sort of sticker or category, or something to signify the profile was well researched, connected, and fairly "complete." The idea was, to my surprise, shot down by most people. I was especially surprised because this is the WikiTree goal: to get all profiles well researched, connected and fairly complete. So why not mark them as such?

USBH has started something like this with our notables, called Platinum Profiles. We have a checklist of items all profiles must meet before being called Platinum. I personally would love if all profiles on WikiTree could have the opportunity for this same gold standard. For now, I think it has to start with projects.

And speaking of projects, USBH features non notable profiles all the time because we want descendants to have an opportunity to be proud of their ancestors.

Also, regarding the Connection Finder, Abby takes suggestions every week from WikiTreers of who to feature, but those profiles have to be connected and have a photo. So it all starts with us. If we want more people featured who aren't white American males, we have to create more profiles for the people we want, improve the profiles, get them connected, then suggest them to Abby for the week's theme (she also takes suggestions for themes). If want things to improve in some way, the burden is (and always has been) on us to make that happen.

USBH checked and we have 2 male notables for every female, so we're feeling very good about our representation of females.

---

Does Genealogically Defined equate to "good profiles'? 

At least one piece of evidence that will lead to the identification of his or her parents, one piece of evidence for each spouse(s), and one piece of evidence for each child." 

On your profiles. Can you check off these as complete?

 A source that will identify the PARENTS?  A source for each SPOUSE?  A source for each CHILD?   

I like to add details about events such as baptisms, engagements, burials, obits and other events in the biography, because it ties the parts of the person's life together. 

I know some profiles have details about the information on each census that is available for the family, in 1851, a and b were living here, with their 3 young children, c, d and e. 

I often add info if available that can be found in old newspapers, like wedding showers, engagement parties, social announcements, they often have information about other family members like Mary and Bob are spending next week with their granddaughter X  in this place etc, 

                                                         

---

The ratio on Wikidata profiles linked to wikitree is

isinwikidata male: 187915

isinwikidata female: 99695

Answer 1

Bernard, I get your point, but I think it would be a shame to get rid of the notables categories for the following reason.

There are many notable people that would never be known about except for the fact that they are notable.

For example, Soup Perkins - Perkins-17380. Take away his notable sticker and far fewer people would ever learn about his amazing story.

I would never have known about if it were not for the fact that the USBH asked for help with certian notables, and his name caught my eye and interest. I ended up not only creating his profile but that of all his siblings. And learned about the entire amazing family and their struggles against racism.

Without the notables category, I never would have even learned about him much less done the research to discover his entire family.

I also would never have known about Henry Ossian Flipper - Flipper-1, another amazing story that captures my heart.

Comments

Remember also, when you work on building the family of a Notable, you are ultimately working on a family just like any other. Building on that family benefits all of WikiTree just like any other family. The thing is, when we ask for help building the family of Brad Smith we don't get nearly the response that we do when we ask for help with the family of Brad Pitt.

Answer 2

Lawd, don't shut down the Notables project. They already did away with the Black Sheep project, if Notables gets scuttled I'll have nothing to do on this site.

Comments

Keep cool, Jessica. The probability of my suggestions being heard by the powers that be is next to zero. Economic reasons, traffic, bla bla.

But just in case it happens, come back to me. I've a to-do list which could keep you entertained for years.

---

I see absolutely no reason why removing notable categories would prevent anyone from working on so-called "notables".

Answer 3

I suppose we're all entitled to an opinion, so I appreciate the idea that there are those who do not appreciate what Notables does for WikiTree, but I for one find the idea of working on trees of Notable persons fascinating. Are there more of this and not enough of that? Sure. No denying that there are unrepresented countries, races, people types, genders, etc. It would be completely disingenuous to believe otherwise. However, we do work with projects that have intentions to improve things, and the fastest way to lose that competition is to abandon the race.

But Notables does much more than simply create Notables. The project is heavily involved in connecting profiles, which generally involves 90%+ profiles who are NOT Notable in order to achieve the connection. It builds and bridges gaps with families as they work to achieve a sometimes nebulous connection with a person they enjoy or respect. Whether we believe they should or should not respect such a person is a completely personal decision, and we should not be discouraging them from doing so. It also encourages those who do have a similar fascination with Notables to join WikiTree, develop their own personal trees, even if it is for no other reason than to build that connection to the global tree.

For the record, I agree completely about the goal of quality profiles, and while there are a number of "living Notables" where there are few workers allowed to work on them due to privacy and legal reasons, there are many many more non-living Notables where anyone is allowed access and is more than capable of performing improvements towards a standard we might call "good". This should not only extend to the Notables themselves, but the families and extended families who are created through the project and others who connect into their lines. It is amazing the stories that are uncovered through the expansion of the families of Notables which are equally amazing to those of my own family. We find treasure where we seek it, and I believe that there is value in all profiles being created, Notable or not.

Comments

All well-thought points, Scott (as usual). And particularly the one about connection.

Answer 4

I have just run across this discussion. I wholeheartedly agree with Ellen, Emma, and M that it is merely a symptom of the gender bias in our society, throughout time. I would guess that 14,252,019 of us have experienced this.

That said, I don't see this as a call to discontinue the Notables project. There are a couple of other themes that do appear in this discussion, however.

One is to make an effort to ensure that we, as WikiTree contributors, create (and improve) more female notables. My own thought would also be that for each notable there may have been a mother or spouse that was a large influence on their life, who should be noted the their profile and have their own profile.

Another is "good profiles". Yes, there have been many discussions of this, with no definitive way of "marking" a good profile. Following the guidance from the Notables project, the profile should have a genealogically relevant biography with relationships and events (BMD) and supporting sources. The guidance from the Profile Improvement Project also says that the biography should be genealogical in nature, and that each fact should be accompanied by a reliable source. There are links from the Profile Improvement Project to a number of great profiles. One place that we might all start is to address the 40878 suggestions found when you search for the 60116 profiles found with the categoryWord Notables

And finally, as Scott noted, there are notables and profiles connected to notables that could use improvement.

Answer 5

I like the notables but they definitely skew white American/European male. Or JK Rowling being featured 10 times, with probably more features still to come. *eyeroll*

They should stop repeating featured profiles to give other notables a chance to shine. We get, what, like 500 featured profiles a year out of thousands? Repeating people is a waste of real estate.

Comments

Or JK Rowling being featured 10 times, with probably more features still to come.

My personal "eyeroll-moment" (being a Project Coordinator of Germany Project) is when for the seemingly 500th time Albert Einstein is suggested as Featured Profile. Even Germany alone has more Nobel Laureates, more mathematicians, more notable emigrants, more physicists than only Albert Einstein. And more of them are also connected to the Big Tree. Yes we still have a bunch of them that are not yet connected, but we have some of them connected.

Edit change physicians to physicists

Answer 6

Scott (our senior Notables leader) and Emma (our amazing USBH leader) have already done a great job defending Wikitree and our Notables program, but as the newest co-leader of the Notables Project, I'd like to submit a few additional points for your consideration...

1) The Notables Project does not create Notable profiles. These profiles are created by individual members. If there is a group of notables you feel is under-represented, please feel free to create more profiles for them.

2) The Notables Project's greatest responsibility is to make sure that the profiles of famous people are properly protected - especially those of living celebrities - as those are the profiles are very often created by non-family members and are the ones most likely to be vandalized or otherwise mishandled. (You'd be surprised what the WikiTree team has do deal with behind the scenes.)

3) The challenges you see posted throughout the year are sponsored by many different Wikitree projects. Until this month, however, the Notables Project was not one of them (at least in recent memory). This month, we did sponsor our very first Notables Project challenge, consisting of 40 notables whose profiles we are working on connecting and improving. It's been a great success and a lot of fun. For the record, all 40 of the notables selected for our premier project are women and several of them are African American women.

4) National diversity is also a long-running issue on WikiTree and steps are continuously being taken to address this. The fact is, however, that Wikitree is an American-based company, founded by an American, run primarily by Americans, the majority of whom are English speakers. The majority of our members are also Americans and those who are not still tend to speak English. Considering this, I think Wikitree has done an amazing job reaching out to the global population and I know further improvements are in the works.

5) Currently, I host the 15 Nations Global Tour. Our mission is specifically to increase the number of profiles on WikiTree for various under-represented nations around the world. In a typical week, out of WikiTree's 1 million members, about 5 actively participate in our tour. Despite that low number, our small but dedicated team has added more that 1,500 new Indian, Argentinian, Ukrainian, Kenyan, Haitian, Malaysian and Egyptian profiles...and we've had an amazing time doing it! With the exception of Argentina, from which we had help from several native Argentinians, we had received help from natives of any of the six other nations we've have visited. If you are interested in helping WikiTree increase its diversity, here's an opportunity for you.  

5) Some people love working with Notables while others apparently despise them. I see nothing wrong with that. If I see a project that doesn't spark my interest, I go find something else to do. I'm not sure what benefit I'd gain by suggesting we shut down a project that so many people find joy in.

6) If there is something missing from WikiTree, don't turn to others to create it for you. Take the initiative and create it yourself. That's what WikiTree is all about. Create more profiles, develop a Free Space page or develop your own project.

7) And finally, WikiTree's notables Project is now stronger than ever and is going nowhere. I appreciate all the comments presented about and will take them to heart. I also appreciate the respectful manner in which they have been delivered and take no offense to anyone with differing views. Criticism can sometimes be hard to take, but that's how we grow become better. Please keep the feedback coming.

Comments

Melanie, you might be interested to know that the New York Times (at least online)  publishes a week set obituaries for important women who who were overlooked by the paper at the time of their deaths. There are some very interesting stories to be found there.

I also want to point that each WikiTree project sets its own rules for notability. The rules being stated here apply only to notable profiles managed by the Notables Project. The Australian Project, for example, may have other criteria as to what makes a Notable Australian, as does the U.S. Black History Project.

---

You are correct Jamie. To qualify as a notable under the Notables Project a person generally must meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. They do not, however, need to have an actual Wikipedia page.

---

Thanks for the hint, David. In fact pantheon dot com is an investment site, but I found pantheon.world, in particular this link which I'll study with interest.

---

David, Scott has stated on more than one occasion that in order to be considered as "Notable" on WikiTree, one must meet the criteria as set out by Wikipedia's standards.  There is no requirement to have an actual Wikipedia page so long as those criteria are met.  This is not just for profiles managed by the Notables Project, but for all Projects, hence why it can be difficult for non-Americans to get recognised especially in areas where records are now few.

---

Yes - there are several ways to get a profile accepted as "Notable", but because the project is set up with utilizing the Wikipedia standards for Notability, having an already approved Wikipedia page is the first and easiest route. We also accept most official "National" Biographies, which are published by a number of countries, that while most of them already have a Wikipedia page, there's a good number that Wikipedia "promises" all the time that they're working on that just never seem to get one.

However, if the person from the profile doesn't have a Wikipedia page and isn't found on an official National Biography, then yes - they must qualify by essentially making their WikiTree page prove the standards for Notability. These involve things like a clear understanding of what makes them Notable, clear sources showing independent confirmation of the facts surrounding their notability, and at least an independent review of the profile so that we're not biasing ourselves by approving our own. I prefer a presentation in a group setting so that others can provide feedback, because sometimes I "like" this one, and "don't like" that one, but others can prove me wrong and I try very hard to not pick sides, but go with as many facts as possible. Now with additional leadership, we will review the process and maybe even come up with a better more fair process, or at the very least have additional opinions on how this can be handled more effectively.

---

Thanks for catching my error, Jim. It is indeed .world and not .com. I didn't even realize ".world" is a thing, but I kind of like it.

---

I dont know either of those shows. Now "Inbestigators", that is quality tv.

---

We actual do get one Australian sitcom here. Sumer Heights High is one of the most intelligent sitcoms on television. Chris Lilley is an amazing talent. I especially love his "Mr. G" and "Ja'mie" characters. It's hard to believe they are the same person. 

We also get quite a bit or British television here (although you have to hunt for it. I love Vicar of Dibley, Keeping Up Appearances, and Miranda.

---

"You" also got Prisoner - even if "you" did rename it.  At least you didn't rip it off the way that happened with Till Death Us Do Part and Steptoe and Son.  

Prisoner, now, would be a good opportunity to add a whole slew of notable women -- if someone was interested enough in doing that.   Problem is, only around 16 of the entire ensemble cast (women - I did not check the males) are deceased.  

For Living Notables, we all of us should be falling over ourselves to create a profile for the actress who portrayed "Marlene 'Rabbit' Warren".  

---

Recently Connected two female Australian Notables, with a third added but not yet Connected (may need US help on that).  Strangely enough, they're all actresses/actors from "Prisoner", even though that's not where I "grabbed" them.

Lois Ramsey, and Sheila Florance being the Connected two — and Betty Bobbitt just added, not yet Connected.