Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/Categorization

Proposals from User:Obiwankenobi

For reactions to the proposals see

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/Categorization
• Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#deghettoization algorithm

List of categories needing attention

1. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:American women activists and various subcategories
2. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:American women comedians catscan showing women potentially ghettoized
3. probably most of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:American women by occupation
4. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Male feminists, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Gay feminists
5. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:American women painters and various subcategories
6. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Women mayors.

How to categorize without bias

Related to: Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality

The following instructions are intended to help categorize biographies without "ghettoizing" them (i.e. putting them in a gendered/ethnic/sexuality category while not being in an equivalent non-gendered/non-ethnic/non-sexuality based category with their peers).

• To illustrate, we will choose a difficult case. Suppose you have a bisexual, African-American woman, who is a journalist, poet, and writer. She hails from Chicago, and is named Sue, and she writes poetry, essays and stories about her identity.
• First, categorize Sue as if she didn't have any of those characteristics - i.e. as if she wasn't bisexual, wasn't African-American, and wasn't a woman. It's not about making her a white male, it's about imagining how she would be categorized in the current tree if she didn't have any defining facets at all - completely generic, with no adjectives at all. Look for categories that have no specifiers - where would you put her, just based on her job, nationality, and location?

1. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Journalists from Illinois
2. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:American poets
3. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Writers from Chicago, Illinois
4. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:21st-century American writers.

But, do remember to get as specific as possible - so ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Writers from Chicago, Illinois instead of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:American writers.

• Next, add another facet - gender is probably best:

1. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:American women journalists
2. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:American women poets

• Now, add another facet - like the fact that she's African-American. Go back to the tree, and add all relevant categories. Take account of the intersection of facets (ex: woman + African-American):

1. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:African-American journalists
2. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:African-American poets
3. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:African-American writers
4. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:African-American women writers

• Then, add the final facet - Sue's identification as bisexual. Go back to the tree, and add categories - again taking into account any intersections/combinations:

1. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:LGBT journalists from the United States
2. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:LGBT writers from the United States
3. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:LGBT African Americans
4. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Bisexual writers
5. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Bisexual women

The end result can be displayed and sorted, for each job type, from generic to specific:

Journalist tree:

1. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Journalists from Illinois
2. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:LGBT journalists from the United States
3. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:African-American journalists
4. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:American women journalists

Poet tree:

1. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:American poets
2. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:American women poets
3. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:African-American poets

Writer tree

1. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:21st-century American writers
2. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Writers from Chicago, Illinois
3. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:African-American writers
4. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:African-American_women_writers
5. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:LGBT writers from the United States
6. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Bisexual writers

Misc tree:

1. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:LGBT African Americans
2. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Bisexual women

By starting at the top (generic) level, we are able to correctly categorize and not ghettoize. If you start instead at the more specific intersection levels, it is much harder to do. This is obviously a complex example - most examples will be somewhat easier.

Another interesting thing you might notice from the example are which categories don't exist at all - the whole tree is lopsided. We don't have ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Bisexual journalists or ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:African-American women journalists or ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:African-American women writers from Chicago or ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:LGBT poets from the United States. This is the odd nature of the current tree, as created by many different editors with many different viewpoints - it is highly heterogeneous and not consistent - which is what makes "correct" categorization rather difficult, as you have to understand the tree, and embed the structure of the tree into the categories assigned to the person in the case of non-diffusing categories, such as those for ethnicity/gender/sexuality/religion.