Nonbinary Wiki:General discussion/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
m
→Are social networks good for references?: Breaking up my wall of text a little
imported>Cassolotl (→Are social networks good for references?: More on language and tumblr as a source.) |
imported>Cassolotl m (→Are social networks good for references?: Breaking up my wall of text a little) |
||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
:{{ping|Cassolotl}} better late than never! So what exact requisites you used? more than 100 or 200 notes on tumblr? Or just ban tumblr entirely? --[[User:NeoMahler|NeoMahler]] ([[User talk:NeoMahler|talk]]) 14:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC) | :{{ping|Cassolotl}} better late than never! So what exact requisites you used? more than 100 or 200 notes on tumblr? Or just ban tumblr entirely? --[[User:NeoMahler|NeoMahler]] ([[User talk:NeoMahler|talk]]) 14:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC) | ||
::{{ping|NeoMahler}} Notes on Tumblr weren't considered proof, I guess because liking or reposting something isn't proof that a person ''uses'' a label or word. Blog posts that show that a lot of people use a term would be okay though; the reports from the nonbinary stats survey, http://nonbinarystats.tumblr.com/results, were considered acceptable even though they were on Tumblr because that's just where the reports were hosted - the survey reports had information about how many participants used or identified with each word, so the wiki could say "3% of participants in the Nonbinary Stats survey used this label" or "were happy with this pronoun" or whatever. | ::{{ping|NeoMahler}} Notes on Tumblr weren't considered proof, I guess because liking or reposting something isn't proof that a person ''uses'' a label or word. Blog posts that show that a lot of people use a term would be okay though; the reports from the nonbinary stats survey, http://nonbinarystats.tumblr.com/results, were considered acceptable even though they were on Tumblr because that's just where the reports were hosted - the survey reports had information about how many participants used or identified with each word, so the wiki could say "3% of participants in the Nonbinary Stats survey used this label" or "were happy with this pronoun" or whatever. | ||
::There were some pages on the wiki that were just ''swamped'' with lists of genders that were posted (name and description) on Tumblr, and nothing else. They were moved to the talk page just because there was no evidence that people other than the original poster were using the term, and there were dozens of words like this. It was really hard to find the more commonly used words (like nonbinary or bigender) in amongst them! Which is not to say that they were bad, and if they did start to be used more commonly and documented in (for example) the Nonbinary Stats survey they would be added to the mainspace article with a more reliable reference. | ::There were some pages on the wiki that were just ''swamped'' with lists of genders that were posted (name and description) on Tumblr, and nothing else. They were moved to the talk page just because there was no evidence that people other than the original poster were using the term, and there were dozens of words like this. It was really hard to find the more commonly used words (like nonbinary or bigender) in amongst them! Which is not to say that they were bad, and if they did start to be used more commonly and documented in (for example) the Nonbinary Stats survey they would be added to the mainspace article with a more reliable reference. | ||
:: So we would say that to be included in the mainspace article it needs to have a reference showing that more than a handful of people were using it - and in practise that did rule out Tumblr posts as a source if those Tumblr posts were just a word and a definition. But ruling out any Tumblr page as a source would, I think, be unwise - especially since the nonbinary presence there is so strong and well-established. After all, it's just a blogging platform! Saying "no Tumblr" would be like saying "no newspapers" - but saying "no Daily Mail" is fine, and saying "no [specific blog that happens to be on Tumblr]" would also be fine. For this reason I'd say the title of this section is probably badly applied - Tumblr is used as a social network in many ways, but it is designed and used as a blogging platform. A very social one where sharing is encouraged, but still a blogging platform! --'''[[User:Cassolotl|<span style="color:#008000">Cassolotl</span>]]''' ''<small>([[User_Talk:Cassolotl|talk]]) <span style="color:#808080">pronouns: they/them</span></small>'' 13:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC) | :: So we would say that to be included in the mainspace article it needs to have a reference showing that more than a handful of people were using it - and in practise that did rule out Tumblr posts as a source if those Tumblr posts were just a word and a definition. But ruling out any Tumblr page as a source would, I think, be unwise - especially since the nonbinary presence there is so strong and well-established. After all, it's just a blogging platform! Saying "no Tumblr" would be like saying "no newspapers" - but saying "no Daily Mail" is fine, and saying "no [specific blog that happens to be on Tumblr]" would also be fine. For this reason I'd say the title of this section is probably badly applied - Tumblr is used as a social network in many ways, but it is designed and used as a blogging platform. A very social one where sharing is encouraged, but still a blogging platform! --'''[[User:Cassolotl|<span style="color:#008000">Cassolotl</span>]]''' ''<small>([[User_Talk:Cassolotl|talk]]) <span style="color:#808080">pronouns: they/them</span></small>'' 13:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC) | ||