Wikipedia changes my gender more than I do
Updated at 12 p.m. PDT with news that the entry is now up for deletion.
(Credit:
Wikipedia/CNET News)
WASHINGTON, D.C.--In the real world, I changed my gender from male to female a few years back and haven't looked back. But on Wikipedia, my pronouns seem to be changing all the time.
In the last few weeks, there's been a debate as to whether "he" or "she" should be used on my page with different volunteer editors taking opposite positions on whether I am entitled to use female pronouns.
After several days of being "he" on Wikipedia, I was pleased Thursday to see that my pronouns had reverted back to the gender with which I identify.
Unlike in the journalism world, where the Associated Press Stylebook has a concrete answer on how to handle these sorts of things, there is no official "style" on gender matters or many other issues on Wikipedia. (Until a few years ago, one's anatomy or legal status dictated AP's assignment of pronouns. In recent years, though, the AP and other news organizations have adopted policies that transgender individuals should be referred to with the pronouns with which they themselves identify.)
In the unique world of Wikipedia, an article's contents can be changed repeatedly. That means that on matters that are in contention (and apparently my gender is one of those), things don't get settled but remain in flux. There's only one person who absolutely can't weigh in--the subject themselves.
While I find it somewhat confusing to have to log in each day to see what gender I am supposed to be, I have found the debate interesting.
And given that I am here in the nation's capital this week for the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association annual conference, I thought it a fitting subject for this page as well.
Update at 12 p.m. PDT: Well, now the entry has had pronouns removed alltogether--a reasonable compromise in my opinion. However, the post is now up for deletion. If it's being deleted because I am not important enough for Wikipedia, that's something I can deal with. But I'd hate to think it's a matter of having a complicated gender.
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
Best of luck getting them to recognize that on Wikipedia!
The absence of editorial standards on Wikipedia was covered by cnet two years ago:
http://news.cnet.com/Growing-pains-for-Wikipedia/2100-1025_3-5981119.html
http://news.cnet.com/Wikipedia-and-the-nature-of-truth/2010-1025_3-5979331.html
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-6108495.html
Clearly, if she really wanted to cover this topic there are far better examples of the challenges created by user-generated content.
The Wikipedia "incident" referenced in this article merely served as another excuse for Ina to write about herself.
Your personal life is just that... personal. Would you mind checking your ego at the door and focusing your attention on technology news?
If you want to share your thoughts on gender topics and other things not directly related to technology then get yourself a personal blog.
For years the personal blog has been communication vehicle of choice for people who assume that the rest of the world at large has a deep and insatiable interest in their lives. Personally, I couldn't care less about what gender you are, why you have decided to be that gender, how other people perceive you and how you feel about it.
I read cnet for technology news, not for personal information about the cnet journalists. Since Charles Cooper isn't writing about what he had for breakfast and Dan Farber is not sharing whether he prefers boxers or briefs, I see no reason why you should write about your personal life.
Yes, it may be uncomfortable for you. But this is an interesting tech story, for those who can look past their biases and see the story.
Hope this helps.
Personally, I don't mind. This is interesting stuff, especially considering the hate and violence that's been emanating from Knoxville lately.
With all seriousness, I couldn't care less.
Besides, the negative comments are mostly in the theme of: how is this relevant?
Here's an example. Suppose Dan Farber receives a spam email message on the topic of ***** enlargement. Then he blogs about it on cnet, including some personal information about his endowment that has absolutely nothing to do with email or spam. Would that be relevant? Of course not. The same principle applies here.
The issue here is one of maintaining a separation between one's personal life and one's journalism.
By telling Ina, "you go girl" you are holder her to a lower standard, which (ironically) isn't fair to her. I think she's a better journalist that this particular column would suggest, but perhaps I am mistaken.
Exploring how gender and other social issues are handled by technology is completely relevant and Ina has a unique perspective from which to observe and comment. Once I got past my initial prejudice and discomfort, I have found her writing to be well considered and immensely interesting.
This is not a technology issue, it is a policy issue.
The one thing I don't get is why Ina can't weigh in on the discussion or even change the pronouns in her own article. Is there a rule that people can't change articles about themselves?
Think of it this way, would you like to see your least favorite national politician editing his/her own article? The word "is" could take on a whole new meaning.
The page I linked to includes a link to a dispute resolution page and to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard "Biographical Articles Noticeboard", where "all queries and concerns about biographies can be posted".
The gist of all of this is that you are not helpless if there's a biographical article about yourself that you feel misrepresents you in some way.
Just a thought: its fine and "cute" for David Pogue (NYT) to clown around with his children in a so-called "tech product review" - but when Ina Fried talks about gender reassignation, suddenly some commenters are all upset. Can you say: "double standard"? Some "personal lives" are fine and OK, others really shouldn't be discussed?
The fact Fried's writing makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean the subject is inappropriate - it just means you need to add a new word to your self-knowledge vocabulary: transphobia. Welcome to the XXIst century, folks... There's something called the "internets" out there. And people change their gender.
When journalism don't put a wall between their personal lives and their reporting, it dilutes the power of what their message. Imagine a political reporter who asked brought his sick child into a story about children's healthcare.
It sounds like some of you don't think that tech reporters are "real" journalist so you are happy holding them to a different (and much lower) standard than you would apply to someone covering politics or the economy.
Do I find your choice offensive? Admittedly I do on some non-verbal level even though my brain realizes that your just a normal person getting by as best you can. Your choice at best is only shared by a small number of people and it's completely understandable that many have trouble getting their minds around it. All this said I really don't think that C|Net is the proper forum for you to push your life style choices, but at the same time it has given me the opportunity to express my feelings on the subject. So, here's to reading more great and on topic stuff from you!
It almost seems like they did so just so they could complain.
Besides, it is not like a 'real' encyclopedia would even consider any CNET writer(you guys don't qualify as journalists) for inclusion, which points to the real strength of wikipedia.
- by The_Decider August 22, 2008 2:32 PM PDT
- Why do people consider what is strictly a policy issue to be a technology issue?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by Jack K1 August 22, 2008 3:33 PM PDT
- Probably because Wikipedia makes policies in a way that pretty much no other organization does. Wikipedia has re-written the rules of collaborative technologies, and this is but one interesting example.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (58 Comments)