Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #lingwiki
Most recents (2)
Every so often, you end up down a Wikipedia rabbit hole that reminds you how Wikipedia's editorship being 85-90% male creates huge content gaps for certain topics, especially those more typically associated with women
Today's example: Battenberg lace en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battenber…
Today's example: Battenberg lace en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battenber…
How is this article only 5 sentences long?? Where is the exhaustive dive into the history and geography and other sub-topics that I count on from Wikipedia??
(It's not for a lack of material, there are whole books about Battenberg lace:
google.com/search?tbm=bks… )
(It's not for a lack of material, there are whole books about Battenberg lace:
google.com/search?tbm=bks… )
We can tell that this content gap is systematic, because when I click on the internal Wikipedia links within the Battenberg lace article, I also discover very tiny articles about related topics:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissan…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tape_lace
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissan…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tape_lace
OK, I have to dust off my linguist brain for going back to work next week, so let's so how this goes. One like = one opinion about linguistics.
1. Understanding language structures, and how people use them, is relevant to so many fields. Linguistics is useful training for so many careers.
(I know this because I've interviewed lots of people about it superlinguo.com/tagged/linguis…)
(I know this because I've interviewed lots of people about it superlinguo.com/tagged/linguis…)
2. Language changes. This isn't so much an opinion, as a fact.
