1020:"In light of the adoption of Wikidata for increasingly complex tasks that rely on similarity, and its unique size, breadth, and crowdsourcing nature, we propose that conceptual similarity should be revisited for the case of Wikidata. In this paper, we study a wide range of representative similarity methods for Wikidata, organized into three categories, and leverage background information for knowledge injection via retrofitting. We measure the impact of retrofitting with different weighted subsets from Wikidata and ProBase. Experiments on three benchmarks show that the best performance is achieved by pairing language models with rich information, whereas the impact of injecting knowledge is most positive on methods that originally do not consider comprehensive information. The performance of retrofitting is conditioned on the selection of high-quality similarity knowledge. A key limitation of this study, similar to prior work lies in the limited size and scope of the similarity benchmarks. While Wikidata provides an unprecedented possibility for a representative evaluation of concept similarity, effectively doing so remains a key challenge."
2409:. Don't forget there are several big issues with women that men don't have that makes data collection (and thus findability for Wikipedians wishing to create articles) very complex and difficult. Obviously the biggest issue is systemic bias by language (no info in English? article ain't happening). Women tend to travel less than men, due to family issues, making their chances of crossing language lines in news articles much less on the whole as a group. Secondly, women get married and change their name, clouding findability by genealogy methods. Thirdly, women hide their birth dates due to ageism in various fields, which again clouds findability for potential Wikipedians. The main issue that could contribute to a higher degree of article deletions for women and minorities is thus a lack of sources, but this does not address "ghost edits" or articles that were started but never happened. Collecting data on articles by Knowledge (XXG) project is definitely useful, but it gets interesting only when you drill down into things like occupation, notable works, and birth country, among other datapoints.
1037:
populating infoboxes. On the other hand, Knowledge (XXG) articles are routinely updated, which in turn keeps
Wikidata fresh and useful for online applications. However, the Knowledge (XXG) editorial guidelines require that an entity be notable or worthy of notice to be added to the encyclopedia, which does not hold for all Wikidata entities. We refer to the remaining entities, which do not have an article in Knowledge (XXG), as orphans. In the absence of a textual counterpart, orphans often suffer from incompleteness and lack of maintenance. Our present effort stems from the observation that a substantial number of orphan entities are indeed represented in Knowledge (XXG), but not at the page level; orphan entities are often described within existing Knowledge (XXG) articles in the form of sections, subsections, and paragraphs of a more generic concept or fact. For example, the English Knowledge (XXG) does not have a dedicated page about âTennis racketâ, it is instead embedded in the âRacketâ page as a section, whereas it can be found as a standalone (orphan) entity on Wikidata (âQ153362â)."
981:" we employ Knowledge (XXG) as a âreflexive toolâ, i.e., an external artefact of self-observation that can help sociologists to notice conventions, biases, and blind spots within their discipline. We analyse the collective patterns of the 500 most notable sociologists on Knowledge (XXG), performing structural, network, and text analyses of their biographies. Our exploration reveals patterns in their historical frequency, gender composition, geographical concentration, birth-death mobility, centrality degree, biographical clustering, and proximity between countries, also stressing institutions, events, places, and relevant dates from a biographical point of view. Linking these patterns in a diachronic way, we distinguish five generations of sociologists recorded on Knowledge (XXG) and emphasise the high historical concentration of the discipline in geographical areas, gender, and schools of thought."
227:" explored how metrics used to assess notability on Knowledge (XXG) (WP:Search Engine Test; âToo Soonâ) are applied across biographies of academics. To do so, we first web-scraped biographies of academics nominated for deletion from 2017 to 2020 (nâ=â843). Next, we created a numerical proxy for each subject's online presence score. This value is meant to emulate Knowledge (XXG)'s âSearch Engine Test,â (WP:Search Engine Test) a convenient and common way editors can determine probable notability before nominating a biography for deletion. We also conducted a qualitative analysis of the discussions surrounding deleted biographies labeled âToo Soon,â (WP:Too soon). Doing so allowed our research team to assess if gender and/or racial discrepancies existed in deciding whether a biography was considered notable enough for Knowledge (XXG). We find that both metrics are implemented idiosyncratically."
715:
TOOSOON, it is not intended to strengthen the case for deletion. Maybe it is the opposite: it is a ray of hope in an otherwise negative opinion. If I think someone is not likely to ever be notable, I am probably just going to say delete, and explain why. If I think an academic does not currently meet our notability standards, but is on a trajectory on which they might well eventually do so, years later, I will say TOOSOON. We often see re-creations of the same articles, years apart, and including this in an opinion is a suggestion that if we discuss the same case again sometime we should check their accomplishments again more carefully instead of relying on past opinions.
994:"This study examines the potentials of Wikidata and Knowledge (XXG) as knowledge graphs for the social sciences. The study demonstrates how social science research may benefit from these knowledge bases by examining what we can learn from Wikidata and Knowledge (XXG) about global billionaires (2010-2022). We show that the English Knowledge (XXG) and, to a lesser extent, Wikidata exhibit gender and nationality biased in the coverage and information about global billionaires. Using the genealogical information that Wikidata provides, we examine the family webs of billionaires and show that at least 15% of all billionaires have a family member also being a billionaire."
506:
bibliographies including citations to the person in question. Furthermore, it will penalize those who are written about in languages other than
English. The various criteria of WP:PROF, which start with citation databases but decidedly do not end there, provide a far less superficial understanding of article-worthiness. It is also the case that the consensus-building in AfD's reliant upon WP:PROF allows for greater discernment and flexibility where differences between specializations are concerned. (Lemieux et al. do not individuate between disciplines, despite the strong likelihood that some fields are more heavily advertised and more
2391:, I am surprised that women represented 30% of your sample; I would have expected it to be lower, given the undue weight that Knowledge (XXG) authors and the results of our notability guidelines give to sports figures, who are predominantly male. I would be interested to see the same percentage breakdown for news coverage or other significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. In a world dominated by patriarchy, would you expect 51% of coverage to be about women? I would not; our societies have more progress to make in ensuring that the potential contributions of all people are valued and available. â
530:. But a large p-value on the KruskalâWallis test is not itself sufficient to conclude that the distributions being compared are the same. (The documentation for the software the authors use says as much.) Indeed, per their figure 2, the difference in sample medians between kept and deleted biographies for BIPOC women was even larger than that for white men. The apparent differences in the statistics across these groups may be due, in whole or in part, to the large variations in sample sizes: 419 white men, but only 185 white women, 171 BIPOC men, and 69 BIPOC women.
2768:, which means "lacking due thought or consideration". I can't see how this stands up, so seems to me more of an unsupported attack on the quality of their work. "Knowledge (XXG) suffers from severe bias problems" is certainly possible, but I would firmly dispute that AfD isn't policy driven. AfD is one of the most policy-backed fora on the entire site. While I'd appreciate a response now, I'd also be interested to see if your views remain unchanged after you've expanded your AfD experience set further, as you appear to be just starting into.
1033:"We present a transformer-based model, ParaGraph, which, given a Wikidata entity as input, retrieves its corresponding Knowledge (XXG) section. To perform this task, ParaGraph first generates an entity summary and compares it to sections to select an initial set of candidates. The candidates are then ranked using additional information from the entityâs textual description and contextual information. Our experimental results show that ParaGraph achieves 87% Hits@10 when ranking Knowledge (XXG) sections given a Wikidata entity as input.
895:
and conspiracy theories also mean that it is a bad place for social change to begin. The encyclopedia can only be as non-sexist as the least sexist institution. The question of which articles should exist and what they should say is a question of content moderation at scale, a task that is "impossible to do well". The failure modes of
Knowledge (XXG)'s written rules and subcultural practices deserve study. But ill-conceived studies can lead to ill-conceived advocacy that makes real problems no easier to solve.
182:
1149:
2180:
citation metrics or other indicators. Emeritus professors are likely to have done more than assistant professors. Adams et al.'s data is from
October 2016 and may be outdated in various aspects, which it is beyond the scope of this comment to determine. Perhaps worth noting in this context, however, is their tentative conclusion that "pages about women were not more likely to be deleted than pages about men" and "the main story is that women are less likely to appear in the first place".
110:
130:
2254:
90:
1007:"The present work aims to assess how well Wikidata (WD) supports the trust decision process implied when using its data. WD provides several mechanisms that can support this trust decision, and our KG Profiling, based on WD claims and schema, elaborates an analysis of how multiple points of view, controversies, and potentially incomplete or incongruent content are presented and represented."
120:
2674:
methodologically flawed beyond repair. Knowledge (XXG)'s coverage of minority populations evidently isn't where it should be if we are to live up to our ideals, but a paper with that premise can still go so far astray from how things actually happen here that it enters the empyrean level of confident wrongness more typically associated with ChatGPT and men at cocktail parties.
36:
140:
820:). At the times of their respective AfD's, Killick had possessed a PhD for roughly six years, and DeYoung had possessed his for roughly thirteen. Without making any suppositions about the worth of their research on some notional absolute scale of intellectual achievement, it is safe to say that these AfD's were not for individuals at "similar" stages of their careers.
100:
696:"non-academics," they score all biographies thereof with a 0 on their career-stage scale, regardless of the subject's actual career stage. For example, a graduate student at a university would be scored the same as a senior research scientist at a major corporation. Upon these meaningless numbers, Lemieux et al. then do bad arithmetic, computing an
150:
303:, Lemieux et al. observe that it was put up for deletion a mere two days after its creation. They write, "Eventually, her page received a âsnow keepâ decision, indicating that her notability might be questionable but that deleting her page would be too much of an uphill battle to pursue (WP:SNOW)." This is not the meaning of
899:
discouraging sign), but pass through they did. The problems are too pervasive to be addressed by an erratum or an expression of concern. The literature on the important subject of systemic bias in
Knowledge (XXG) would be best served by a retraction and a careful re-examination of the editorial process.
3005:
The selective quoting in the paper is so precisely selective in every single instance in order to omit actual statements of substance about notability from those being quoted that I can't help but think it was entirely purposeful by
Lemieux et al. in order to farm quotes that present a viewpoint that
2941:
It really isn't. The errors described are catastrophic, along with a touch of nonsensical fake-math from people who don't know statistics. Your user page says you're interested in
Australian law - imagine reading a paper with a conclusion you agree with, but the argument cites the 19th century Code
2836:
You could absolutely have a really good piece of research talking about whether the !votes people make execute the letter & spirit of the notability policies - but where the paper makes comparisons they do so to clearly incorrect statements of wikipedia policy, rendering them meaningless. I would
1036:
This mapping between
Knowledge (XXG) and Wikidata is beneficial for both projects. On the one hand, it facilitates information extraction and standardization of Knowledge (XXG) articles across languages, which can benefit from the standard structure and values of their Wikidata counterpart, e.g., for
513:
Even if we set aside the concerns about the basic premises, a problem with the analysis remains. Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that we grant that the "Primer Index" measures something of interest. Lemieux et al. write that white males whose biographies were kept rated significantly higher on
2832:
to engage in quote mining (the full quotes would give everything they needed), they wouldn't need to raise the idea that AfDs are biased for occurring and leave out they were closed for sexism in less than a couple of hours, and in particular they wouldn't need to make their own flagrantly incorrect
2763:
this reasoning would seem to indicate that no paper should receive detailed criticism for its failings so long as it raises an overall issue of importance. Do you believe that specific criticisms raised in this article are incorrect? How does their being raised undermine the overall desire to combat
2712:
This blithe and dismissive take on a well-established and important issue is unfortunate. It may be fair to criticise some of the methodology of their study, but the arguments in response to their criticisms presented above are specious. It would be far better to acknowledge that
Knowledge (XXG) has
487:
To confirm the validity of the âPrimer Index,â we also created a "Google Index" to approximate the total number of hits that appear when an academic's full name and occupation are searched on Google. Using a custom Google Sheets code, we extracted an academic's full name and occupation from
Wikidata
432:
merely explains some uses of search engines and some reasons why their results must be treated with caution. It explicitly states, "A raw hit count should never be relied upon to prove notability", and it provides multiple reasons why. Checking the discussions in which it is invoked is illuminating.
276:
can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG). Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not
2964:
some degree of systemic bias in our handling of notability. I think there is absolutely a conversation to be had there. But we cannot reasonably have that conversation when the facts have been so badly muddied that essays are being described as guidelines and the search engine test is being held up
2912:
There's plenty of sources that discuss the problem of systemic bias on Knowledge (XXG). But, this paper is worthless for determining its extent, nature, and causes, because its methodology is wrong. Most people would agree that there are issues of bias in, say, the criminal justice system, but an
2733:
but always note citing any of the above with no explanation can be weighed lower than explanations made. The study seems to really not go into the meat of AfD discussions where discussion is always considered more important than people simply stating essays, policies, or guidelines. There's a tally
894:
Whatever revolutionary claims have been made on its behalf, Knowledge (XXG) has a fundamentally institutionalist character. It layers on top of existing academic and journalistic systems of legitimacy. The same rhetorical fences that keep Knowledge (XXG) from being a toxic waste dump of advertising
473:
was viewed 12,675 times, an order of magnitude more than the page that Lemieux et al. say is commonly used. As of this writing, 8,297 other pages link to the WP:PROF guideline, while only 1,090 link to the search engine test page, though according to Lemieux et al. the latter is what applies to any
2693:
I find it weird for a publication to present views of some importance when they can be manipulated. The Google search is more of a litmus test and never was a set guideline. The publication finding out should have been mentioned as a positive because we don't look at the info that SEO could easily
2479:
Without going into a whole list of pet peeves I have with the gender data on Wikidata, I will say it would be useful to query for the age of the subject at the time of item creation with the same moment recorded for each specific Knowledge (XXG) project with an actual article (minus any redirects)
311:
is a statement that the conclusion of a discussion is already obvious: the chance of its changing direction is the proverbial snowball's chance in hell, and letting it run for a deletion debate's typical period of a full week would be a waste of everyone's time. The conclusion is not that Bouman's
2673:
they look at?). It's the end of the semester for me, so what with the usual obligations I haven't much spare time or energy. And writing about this isn't simple, on account of the tough balancing act: the problem of systemic bias is obviously important, but a specific paper about it can still be
2458:
found that Wikidata editors are likely to over sample male-dominated professions such as American football and baseball, thus contributing to the general predominance of items representing men over items representing women. Our analysis that focused on a set of academic professions show that the
439:
articles are not assessed based on the number of search results that come up after Googling them. For obvious reasons, this is a poor criteri as you may get tens of thousands of results for inconsequential searches, and some noteworthy topics may not receive a particularly large amount of search
714:
ince the article quotes me as invoking TOOSOON, perhaps I should explain what I generally mean by it. It is never the actual reason for a delete opinion, at least from me. In the cases under discussion, my choices are always grounded in notability guidelines and policies, not essays. When I use
2355:
It's always interesting to read about Knowledge (XXG) policies. I myself was unfamiliar with TOOSOON, but it made me chuckle. Just to check, I ran a Wikidata query for the human genders male and female with sitelinks on English Knowledge (XXG) who were born after 01-01-2000. Of a total of 9049
885:
indicates that there is no one-week span that could match. Instead, it was deleted once in February 2019 and twice in April, before being incubated as a draft page and then restored for good in February 2020. The cause of diversity on Knowledge (XXG) is a marathon, not a sprint; the inaccurate
2179:
The Adams et al. paper only studies sociologists, and so whether its conclusions generalize further across academia is an open question. They report (Table 3) a correlation between career stage and the probability of having a Knowledge (XXG) page, but they do not disentangle career stage from
2855:
This discussion is unproductive at this point. Obviously I don't have empirical evidence and am running off anecdotal experience like everyone else here. The article's conclusions ring true to me. Selective enforcement of policy can create bias, even if the policy itself is unbiased. This is
2565:
piece of academic writing. Hopefully Lemieux et al will read it and respond to just how so many flaws made it through. Though if I had to guess, they'll find a single line they can take out of context and use that to suggest the entire thing is clearly flawed. But we will see, and it doesn't
695:
academics and are evaluated as such. They often fall short of notability, not because of the label "student", but because students infrequently stand out by the criteria that are actually relied upon. Because Lemieux et al. erroneously believe that Knowledge (XXG) regards all these people as
2484:
in some Knowledge (XXG) languages. Currently I have no way to measure that. On the whole, I don't think studying AfD data is very useful for gender issues, but possibly it is for occupational issues (controversial (garage bands), new (vloggers) or individual-based (artists) and so forth).
898:
Lemieux et al. misrepresent Knowledge (XXG) policies, guidelines, and essays; the content of deletion debates; news reporting; and the prior academic literature. How these errors could have transpired is, in a word, baffling. How they passed through peer review is likewise a puzzle (and a
505:
The evident limitations of the "Google Index" are, in fact, an excellent indication of why a guideline like WP:PROF is necessary. Any search of the form "full name + occupation" will omit, or at best provide a paucity of hits from within books, the text of paywalled journal articles, and
2218:. The concerns about confounding factors raised there are echoed here. For example, newly-created articles might be scrutinized more closely; articles begun by well-meaning novices might be more likely to be nominated for deletion in good faith, even if they turn out salvageable.
2480:
about the subject. If you could query that data and cross-reference it per Knowledge (XXG) language you could get some more specific information about gender bias on Knowledge (XXG). My gut feeling for women in sports is that we have a large quantity of women thanks only to the
218:
Applying a combination of web-scraping, deep learning, natural language processing, and qualitative analysis to pages of academics nominated for deletion on Knowledge (XXG), we demonstrate how Knowledge (XXG)âs notability guidelines are unequally applied across race and gender.
213:
The March 2023 paper "'Too Soon' to count? How gender and race cloud notability considerations on Knowledge (XXG)", by Lemieux, Zhang, and Tripodi claims to have unearthed quantitative evidence for gender and race biases in English Knowledge (XXG)'s article deletion processes:
2713:
well-established systemic biases and then we can figure out why that is the case. To refer to policy obfuscates from how that policy plays out in practice; and I think that most honest editors would willingly acknowledge that Knowledge (XXG) suffers from severe bias problems.
2066:
For academic biographies on Knowledge (XXG), notability is achieved through the significant impact of one's scholarly work on society, the winning of prestigious academic awards, or the holding of important leadership positions at an academic institution or academic journal
2423:
I revisited that query I ran because I doubted the 30% and indeed the number is less than 30%. It occurred to me that my earlier query ran rather quickly and this was because I queried those born on 2000-01-01 and not after 2000-01-01. When I correct it I get timeouts, but
569:
598:: âMost of the newspaper articles cited in the main article are not directly related to the subject, and apart from this brief article in the Dainik Jagran that borders on being a hagiography of the subject, there's no real coverage for WP:GNG. WP:Too soon perhaps.â
2356:
humans, women represent 30%. Either it's been too soon for their articles to get Wikidata items that include their gender, or it's too soon for them to have an article, but women up to age 23 are still underrepresented on English Knowledge (XXG) by a large margin.
474:
subject, not just the niche domain of academic biographies. If the goal is to determine whether or not Knowledge (XXG)'s self-proclaimed standards are being applied equitably, then the evaluation should consider the standards that are actually being proclaimed.
869:
and found that neither was met; citation counts were low, no other academic notability criteria could be argued for, and the sources about her were unreliably published. This data point appears to be more an indictment of the "Primer Index" than anything else.
655:, with assistant professors being scored as 1, associate professors with 2, and so on. This methodology is flawed from the outset. It confuses correlation with contingency: one cannot neglect citation metrics and the other success indicators described in
2510:, for exposing the shortcomings of the abysmally bad paper by Mackenzie Lemieux, Rebecca Zhang and Francesca Tripodi about Knowledge (XXG) procedures for assessing the notability of scholars and researchers that was recently published in the journal
838:
was not met, but the article was recreated in July 2020 without complaint. Foster did not join San Francisco State University until 2020, at which point she was named one of the George and Judy Marcus Endowed Chairs, so the argument for her passing
231:
However, this is making a manifestly and indefensibly incorrect claim about how Knowledge (XXG) editors judge topics for notability. Also, the paper attempts to back it up with misleading quotations and numbers that are dubious on multiple levels.
2428:(toggle manually for gender) for births between 2000 and 2010 will return 9705 females and 26672 males so 9705/(9705+26672)=27%, not 30%. This query runs towards the time limit for each gender, which is about right for English Knowledge (XXG).
2942:
Napoleon as if it were Australian law, and thinks that Ned Kelly was Prime Minister of Australia. Maybe the conclusion is correct, but the paper is still worthless. The authors clearly never ran their draft past an experienced Wikipedian.
719:
In fairness, this was written in response to Lemieux et al., but it is also a natural implication of the everyday meaning of the phrase "too soon": not now, but maybe later. For an example of this involving David Eppstein and others, see
2461:
Obviously that doesn't speak directly to possible gender biases on Knowledge (XXG) instead of Wikidata, but it is still interesting e.g. because of similarities in the editor populations that people often like to draw quick conclusions
2189:
In the time since that AfD, the book mentioned in it has accumulated additional reviews. In the present circumstances, the biography of the author might be refactored into a page about the book, rather than deleted. Compare, e.g.,
929:), and is organized by members of the Wikimedia Foundation's research team with other collaborators including academics Francesca Tripodi (University of North Carolina) and Robert West (EPFL). Registration is free and subject to a
2913:
analysis paper on such bias that was based around, say, the magazines left in the police station waiting room rather than the briefings & trainings the police chief gave to the officers would be too nonsensical to be useful.
2965:
as an example of How Notability Works. If your factual information is that poor, then just about the only thing you've told us is that there is systemic bias, somewhere, maybe, which I imagine most of us probably already knew. --
2100:. These are each evaluated in different ways, as the guideline details. Of the sources cited for this point, Matei and Dobrescu do not discuss any notability guideline at all. Gauthier and Sawchuk and Luo et al. discuss the page
2533:
Great read. One minor thing I think might discourage people from sharing it outside Knowledge (XXG) is the use of the jargon "!voter" and "!vote". They're probably better replaced with "participant" and "comment" or the like.
881:. While its existence was indeed contentious, that specific claim is not in the cited source, or in the source upon which that website relied. Examining the deletion log for the article and the "article milestones" list at
593:
First, let us illustrate the usage of WP:Too soon per Knowledge (XXG) guidelines. The following excerpt is from the AfD for the biography of a white, male, assistant professor who was nominated for deletion under the tag
247:
This is related to, but more specialized than, the everyday idea of "noteworthiness". Notability is evaluated with the aid of various guidelines that codify community norms and experience, prominent among which is the
2856:
obviously true and those who dispute that as occurring on Knowledge (XXG) just aren't paying close enough attention IMO. I suppose you need to wait for an empirical study to be convinced. You may be waiting a while.
762:
The Irish Times reference is an opinion piece of which Killick's name is only mentioned once among many, many other names. I cannot locate any significant coverage from reliable sources that indicate notability.
675:
is not the means by which notability is evaluated; instead, invoking it is a means of speculating about the background of why the actual notability guideline is not met and noting that the situation may change.
2728:
That's a lot to assume. People will quote essays, policies, and guidelines in AfD discussions to get the ball rolling on discussion. Note that essays and guidelines are not policies. Sometimes people point to
2334:
377:
are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval.
502:. Because the "Primer Index" and "Google Index" are completely unmoored from Knowledge (XXG) practice, there is no reason to equate passing some threshold of them with meeting "Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria".
2298:
2806:
study about the outcomes of said policy. No one claims Knowledge (XXG)âs policies are on their face biased; the core of the piece is what happens in practice with the implementation of said policies.
2303:
635:
Despite the academic being an assistant professor, the moderator focused on media coverage, not the career stage, of the subject which is in accordance with the Knowledge (XXG) guidelines of the tag
2293:
847:
Another example is the late Sudha Shenoy, an economist and professor of economic history at the University of Newcastle, Australia, who had a high Primer Index of 198 yet her page was also deleted.
2592:
that had been started there at the beginning of April. (I myself only read the paper this past weekend, in the context of reviewing XOR'easter's Signpost submission, and subsequently contributed
2454:
observed that the proportion of Wikidata items about women ranges between 0.2 and 0.25 for birth years 1950 to 1990 and has increased steadily since then, reaching 0.4178 for the 2000 birth year.
2241:
2232:
2212:
2118:
2308:
2278:
76:
2195:
824:
For example, Tonya Foster, a professor of creative writing and Black feminist scholar at San Francisco State University had a high Primer Index of 41 yet her Knowledge (XXG) page was deleted.
700:. Career stage is a qualitative or categorical variable, so taking the numerical mean is not likely to be indicative. What job is 0.76 of the way between assistant and associate professor?
2283:
939:
is a newly launched French-language newsletter by Wikimedians-in-residence at French universities, covering research alongside open science and the use of Wikimedia projects in education.
542:
is an essay, not a guideline and certainly not a policy. It is largely a collection of pointers to other documentation pages with some commentary. The gist is given in the first section:
2271:
409:. Despite its supposed convenience and commonality, they provide no examples where it is actually invoked by name. Any attempt to find such examples, or even a cursory inspection of the
434:
663:
judgment is if the subject has attained the named chair/Distinguished Professor level, because these indicate high levels of accomplishment. Lemieux et al. confuse both the status of
2620:
774:
765:
373:
are sets of best practices supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.
3042:
952:
Other recent publications that could not be covered in time for this issue include the items listed below. Contributions, whether reviewing or summarizing newly published research,
1990:"I've Made More Than 1,700 Knowledge (XXG) Entries on Women Scientists and I'm Not Yet Done: British scientist Jessica Wade has made one Knowledge (XXG) entry every day since 2017"
2514:. I hope that we shall see a response by Lemieux, Zhang and Tripodi to the many allegations of inaccuracy and misrepresentation that exist in the paper. The editor of the journal
2265:
55:
44:
721:
783:
explicitly exclude student awards. Merely having written a few review papers is inadequate for notability; the papers need to be heavily cited, and here they appear not to be.
2683:
809:
2588:
the explanatory intro that quotes from the paper). On the other hand, it seems that some credit for identifying issues in the paper should also go to other participants in
2631:
The original was even longer than this version and included more background for people coming to the topic without experience in Knowledge (XXG) behind-the-scenes stuff.
831:
653:
Since perceived notability among academics is highly contingent on their rank (Adams et al., 2019; WP:Notability (academics)), academic careers were scored based on stage
601:
2191:
1174:
1054:
Lemieux, Mackenzie; Zhang, Rebecca; Tripodi, Francesca (March 29, 2023). ""Too Soon" to count? How gender and race cloud notability considerations on Knowledge (XXG)".
554:âToo Soonâ is a technical label developed by Wikipedians indicating that a subject lacks sufficient coverage in independent, high-quality news sources to have a page.
515:
500:
our data indicate that BIPOC biographies who meet Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria (i.e., above the White Male Keep median Primer Index of 12.00) were among those deleted
3094:
2870:
I have looked at some of your AfD comments and you don't even provide Knowledge (XXG) policy for your reasons. It's really a blunder what you're going on about. â
2640:
858:
793:
737:
313:
351:, states that the figure is for the total number. The second, a 2021 paper by Tripodi, makes the incorrect claim in its abstract and provides no citation for it.
1835:
544:
Sometimes, a topic may appear obviously notable to you, but there may not be enough independent coverage of it to confirm that. In such cases, it may simply be
93:
2452:
did something very similar, just without the restriction to Knowledge (XXG) sitelinks (i.e. examined gender gaps on Wikidata instead of Knowledge (XXG)). They
2199:
1154:
21:
691:, for example. And when articles on students appear at AfD, the community files them with the other AfD's on academics and educators. Students and trainees
3070:
1608:
Adams, Julia; BrĂŒckner, Hannah; Naslund, Cambria (2019). "Who Counts as a Notable Sociologist on Knowledge (XXG)? Gender, Race, and the "Professor Test"".
1335:
Luo, Wei; Adams, Julia; Brueckner, Hannah (2018-08-30). "The Ladies Vanish? American Sociology and the Genealogy of its Missing Women on Knowledge (XXG)".
337:
Of the more than 1.5 million biographies about notable writers, inventors, and academics on English-language Knowledge (XXG), less than 20% are about women
3065:
3060:
854:
2666:
2593:
2589:
2016:
659:
when talking about how academic-biography AfD's evaluate career status. The only time that "career stage" as Lemieux et al. think of it factors into a
608:
was not used in the nomination. Instead, the nominator stated that Ranjan failed the GNG. The !voter being quoted began their rationale by saying that
630:
at the end is that the !voter believed Ranjan's situation could change in the future. Further examples of misleading quotation will be noted below.
986:"How can the social sciences benefit from knowledge graphs? A case study on using Wikidata and Knowledge (XXG) to examine the worldâs billionaires"
748:
This is a significant omission, since it removes the actual reason the editor gave for believing the article should be deleted. Moreover, that AfD
3055:
2616:
2371:
From what I recall from research I did on this few years back, the more recent the time range considered, the less women are underprepresented. --
1821:
1773:
1732:
644:
says nothing specifically about academic career stages. Most of it is about movies. The only profession that is specifically discussed is acting.
524:
There was no statistically significant difference in the median Primer Index between kept and deleted pages for white women or for BIPOC academics
1448:
1167:
How can the social sciences benefit from knowledge graphs? A case study on using Wikidata and Knowledge (XXG) to examine the worldâs billionaires
843:
got significantly stronger. The AfD process can hardly be faulted for failing to consider evidence that would not exist for another three years.
1907:
576:
is most likely independent, secondary, and reliable, but they are not news. Not only do Lemieux et al. drastically oversell the importance of
2786:
policy driven. Which I believe is the whole point of this piece. Itâs unsurprising that editors are keen to dismiss these critiques of hand.
2656:
580:, they fail to summarize its contents accurately. It is puzzling how anyone would come to believe that "too soon" means anything other than
348:
2051:
A manual survey of 100 random biographies found only 25 that could meet those criteria, and this casts a net more widely than the remit of
1472:
581:
490:
At this juncture, see again the cautionary words of "Search engine test" itself, and the more popular link for making the same point, the
355:
469:, which includes the actual General Notability Guideline, was viewed 143,574 times over the same period. Even the specialized guideline
344:
886:
timeline and the omission of the eventual success make for a misleading portrayal of the challenge that is of no help in resolving it.
253:
2104:
but do not mention the existence of a guideline specialized to scholars and academics, despite its relevance to their subject matter.
3050:
2253:
556:
It is hardly "technical": the meaning is an example of the everyday sense of the phrase. Moreover, the language of the essay is not
49:
35:
17:
2481:
936:
488:
and automatically searched Google for every instance of âfull nameâ+âoccupationâ for each academic in our dataset on the same day.
354:
Policies, guidelines, and essays are, in Knowledge (XXG) jargon, different types of behind-the-scenes documents. The terms denote
1560:
514:
the Primer Index than those whose biographies were deleted. They compare the median Primer Indices of these two groups using the
2828:
about the actual practice. Otherwise it wouldn't spend large periods of time talking about non-policies/guidelines, it wouldn't
1496:
1584:
462:
455:
451:
441:
429:
418:
410:
402:
382:
1989:
522:. In contrast, the p-values for white women, for BIPOC men, and for BIPOC women were all large. Lemieux et al conclude that
1962:
2978:
591:", the area in which deletion debates about articles occur. Lemieux et al. follow this usage, and so shall this comment.
565:
366:
187:
A monthly overview of recent academic research about Knowledge (XXG) and other Wikimedia projects, also published as the
3026:
2149:
item and the other a webpage at the Smithsonian, and it linked to those two sources a total of seven times. The article
698:
average career stage by calculating the sum of the career stage scores and dividing this by the total number of entries
3030:
3017:
2997:
2985:
2951:
2936:
2922:
2897:
2883:
2865:
2850:
2815:
2795:
2777:
2747:
2722:
2707:
2605:
2575:
2543:
2527:
2494:
2474:
2437:
2418:
2400:
2383:
2365:
304:
2645:
Excellent work. I would encourage you to submit the longer version for publication in a scholarly journal (perhaps in
2459:
gender distribution of Wikidata is no more biased than real world notability judgments in either coverage or quality.
1267:
Matei, S. A.; Dobrescu, C. (2011). "Knowledge (XXG)'s "Neutral Point of View": Settling Conflict through Ambiguity".
816:"similar" to a postdoc who coauthored a respectable but unremarkable number of papers (no more than 10, according to
550:
Lemieux et al. emphasize this page from their title onward, but most of what they have to say about it is misguided.
240:
On English Knowledge (XXG), the status of being significant enough to warrant an article is, in the community lingo,
481:
using a metric they call the "Primer Index", after the software employed to calculate it. This metric is based upon
953:
584:. How, one wonders, would Knowledge (XXG) editors then describe topics that look like they will never be notable?
1216:
2888:
I thought we were discussing this article. Feel free to chime in over on AfD if you have constructive feedback.
909:
407:
a convenient and common way editors can determine probable notability before nominating a biography for deletion
3076:
2406:
260:. This guideline lays out eight criteria, meeting any one of which is sufficient qualification for notability.
2730:
2694:
sway. We look at more specific guidelines from GNG for people in their fields because it should make sense. â
413:
page itself, would reveal the truth: their description of it is completely erroneous. Lemieux et al. claim to
2596:
about the authors' misinterpretation of p-values in one of their central quantitative conclusions.) Regards,
2090:
a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions
3022:
1123:"Towards a Digital Reflexive Sociology: Using Knowledge (XXG)'s Biographical Repository as a Reflexive Tool"
973:"Towards a Digital Reflexive Sociology: Using Knowledge (XXG)'s Biographical Repository as a Reflexive Tool"
498:
This supposed confirmation rests on no foundation at all. Having made this claim, Lemieux et al. write that
2167:
2101:
1091:
Tripodi, Francesca (2021-06-27). "Ms. Categorized: Gender, notability, and inequality on Knowledge (XXG)".
491:
466:
264:
3012:
2518:
is invited to explain how this egregiously erroneous paper got through the journalâs peer review process.
2511:
2150:
2122:
1148:
2993:
2846:
2773:
2679:
2652:
2636:
2571:
2405:
That's funnny! I myself was surprised it was as high as 30% and can only conclude this is thanks to the
1815:
1767:
1726:
507:
2662:
2163:
1301:
Gauthier, Maude; Sawchuk, Kim (2017). "Not notable enough: feminism and expertise in Knowledge (XXG)".
611:
577:
539:
386:
321:
1195:
1122:
681:
Knowledge (XXG) does not count trainees, research scientists, and/or government workers as âacademicsâ
2523:
684:
2841:
evidence of the scale of incorrect !votes due to biased interpretations that you say are occurring.
706:, a computer-science professor, is a longtime participant in academic-bio AfD's and a member of the
672:
668:
641:
625:
605:
2396:
1967:
882:
835:
477:
A central assertion of Lemieux et al. is that they quantified whether the "Search engine test" is
454:
has exactly the opposite meaning as Lemieux et al. make it out to have. This misrepresentation of
2947:
2932:
2918:
2893:
2877:
2861:
2811:
2791:
2741:
2718:
2701:
1804:
1715:
1660:
1625:
1318:
1284:
1236:
1104:
1071:
926:
734:
These examples from AfD discussions all failed to mention the presence or depth of media coverage
2166:
received a median of 106 views per month over the year prior to this writing, versus 11,924 for
2130:
1208:
1187:
1166:
743:
573:
188:
181:
770:
Tiny citations on GS do not pass WP:Prof and lack of independent in-depth sources fails WP:GNG.
671:(guideline versus essay) and the logical roles those pages play in the very !votes they quote.
103:
3007:
2973:
2490:
2433:
2414:
2377:
2361:
2330:
1708:
1138:
123:
2097:
2085:
2074:
2070:
2052:
862:
840:
780:
688:
664:
660:
656:
620:
616:
470:
428:. The page contains no such procedure. As observed above, none exists, or ever should exist.
308:
257:
2842:
2769:
2675:
2632:
2567:
2552:
2539:
2503:
1912:
1796:
1755:
1700:
1652:
1617:
1344:
1310:
1276:
1130:
1096:
1063:
805:
206:
163:
1908:"Knowledge (XXG)'s Refusal to Profile a Black Female Scientist Shows Its Diversity Problem"
866:
710:
project which aims to improve Knowledge (XXG)'s biographical coverage of women. He writes,
588:
445:
278:
249:
133:
2519:
1536:
1424:
1400:
1376:
1232:
930:
925:
on May 11th, 2023. The virtual event is the tenth in this annual series (formerly part of
850:
528:
is not an accurate predictor of Knowledge (XXG) persistence for female and BIPOC academics
483:
the number of times that an individual is mentioned in a news article and in which context
1963:"She's made 1,750 Knowledge (XXG) bios for women scientists who haven't gotten their due"
1886:
619:). Most of the !vote is a point-by-point explanation of why the editor believes that the
153:
30:
Gender, race and notability in deletion discussions: And other new research publications.
2601:
2470:
2392:
2017:"Masnick's Impossibility Theorem: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible To Do Well"
1501:
874:
817:
703:
485:, which evidently is at best an indirect perspective upon any of the WP:PROF criteria.
242:
199:"How gender and race cloud notability considerations on Knowledge (XXG)" â or do they?
3088:
2943:
2928:
2914:
2889:
2871:
2857:
2821:
2807:
2787:
2758:
2735:
2714:
2695:
1891:
1807:
1718:
1628:
1321:
1107:
1074:
283:
Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking)
1287:
494:. Lemieux et al. nominally validated their "Primer Index" based on an argument that
2968:
2764:
bias? I also would like you to expand upon your indication of XOR's response being
2515:
2486:
2429:
2410:
2388:
2373:
2357:
827:
707:
300:
143:
1704:
1314:
1836:"Creative Writing Department announces new George and Judy Marcus Endowed Chairs"
1280:
1207:
Filip Ilievski, Kartik Shenoy, Hans Chalupsky, Nicholas Klein and Pedro Szekely:
1134:
2535:
918:
286:
873:
Lemieux et al. mention the drama surrounding the article about nuclear chemist
461:
As to its commonality, the numbers are stark enough to be indicative. The page
113:
2802:
itâs not a very strong critique to point to ostensible policies to dismiss an
1800:
1641:
For the meaninglessness of applying averages to ordinal variables, see, e.g.,
1348:
1220:
1100:
1067:
458:
also occurs in Tripodi's earlier paper, but it is more prominent in this one.
2990:
And if we didn't know, we sure aren't going to be convinced by reading that.
1711:
1621:
1141:
3006:
supports the claims of the paper itself. Pretty disgraceful, if you ask me.
2597:
2556:
2507:
2466:
1994:
964:
510:
than others. Think of pop psychology versus pure mathematics, for example.)
167:
1860:
1241:
Ostapuk, Natalia; Difallah, Djellel; Cudré-Mauroux, Philippe (2022-11-25),
365:
have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards all users should
2449:
1233:âParaGraph: Mapping Wikidata Tail Entities to Knowledge (XXG) Paragraphs.â
792:
The sentence immediately after the blockquote that includes snippets from
254:
the specialized guideline applicable to scholars, academics, and educators
2624:
2021:
1759:
1678:"Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Women in Red, version of 13 April 2023"
651:, using a pair of research assistants to identify these stages manually.
2665:, we've been contemplating what to do next (and also going further into
2153:
has, contrary to Tripodi's statement, never been nominated for deletion.
2115:
purported significance is easily verifiable using the search engine test
1887:"Knowledge (XXG) just won't let this Black female scientist's page stay"
1663:
519:
326:
Jealous bros should not cry each time a woman is part of an achievement
265:
the documentation page for "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions"
2734:
but it's always been a very rough estimate. The criticism is valid. â
2139:
links to seven credible sources independent of the subject, including
1523:"Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Women in Red, version of 7 May 2023"
649:
collected the career stages of each individual designated WP:Too soon
465:
was viewed 1,190 times over the year prior to this writing. The page
444:. Instead, articles should be assessed based on the criteria such as
295:
Misrepresentation of Knowledge (XXG) policies, guidelines, and essays
273:
1656:
1242:
853:, she was a "lecturer" at Newcastle, and "lecturer" in Australia is
779:
The only form of notability claimed in the article is academic, but
2170:. 1,664,013 pages link to the latter, and 1,393 link to the former.
1235:
In: 2022 IEEE International Conference on Big Data, BigData, 2022.
1025:
Matching non-notable Wikidata "orphans" to Knowledge (XXG) sections
312:
notability was "questionable", but rather that it was obvious. The
777:
also began with a rationale that Lemieux et al. do not reproduce:
568:
guideline. The latter phrasing is more general than the former. A
335:
In their literature review, Lemieux et al. state incorrectly that
263:
Notability is not based on counting raw search-engine results. As
1643:
Wilson, Thomas P. (March 1971). "Critique of ordinal variables".
972:
922:
299:
The problems begin early in the paper. Referring to the article
2627:" means, but that got cut when bringing the column over to the
2137:
the main space. This draft did not contain, as Tripodi writes,
1231:
Natalia Ostapuk, Djellel Difallah, and Philippe Cudré-Mauroux.
54:
2584:
Thanks! Just to clarify though, the text is all XOR'easter's (
2196:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Aaron Fox (musicologist)
2073:
lists separately, in a way that may obscure how they operate.
798:
Our dataset revealed that men at similar early career stages
2252:
2213:
Tilman Bayer's 25 July 2021 "Recent research" column in the
1927:
496:
is literally one of the arguments we tell everyone to avoid.
34:
330:
Shit like this is exactly why en.wp is such a sausage party
1192:
Semantic Web â Interoperability, Usability, Applicability
1171:
Semantic Web â Interoperability, Usability, Applicability
764:) The third quote is also truncated; the original is from
1213:
Semantic Web â Interoperability, Usability, Applicability
788:
Misrepresentation of career status and other AfD aspects
722:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Charles Steinhardt
2585:
2346:
2339:
2319:
1947:
1677:
1522:
1362:
285:. One would not expect to find thousands of hits on an
2425:
736:
are misleadingly presented. Two of the three are from
347:. They provide two sources for this claim. The first,
1186:
Veronica Santos, Daniel Schwabe and SĂ©rgio Lifschitz
2669:, which are ... puzzling: just how many biographies
2192:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Daisy Deomampo
401:
Lemieux et al. write that the "Search Engine Test" (
391:
metrics used to assess notability on Knowledge (XXG)
2344:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
71:
Gender, race and notability in deletion discussions
2566:undermine the quality of this piece. With thanks,
1363:"Lois K. Alexander Lane, version of 19 March 2016"
738:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Kate Killick
3021:Great review article, kudos to the contributors
2200:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Alam Saleh
2113:Tripodi's description of a case where a woman's
1121:BeytĂa, Pablo; MĂŒller, Hans-Peter (2022-09-15).
623:criteria are not met. The plain reading of the
879:was deleted three times in the span of one week
324:found the nomination sexist, either in intent (
1244:Wikidata dump extension (enwiki section links)
318:one hour and seventeen minutes after it began.
252:. Also of relevance for the matter at hand is
1086:
1084:
442:Knowledge (XXG):Search_engine_test#Notability
8:
2590:the discussion at the Women in Red talk page
1948:"Clarice Phelps: version of 7 February 2020"
915:for videos and slides of past presentations.
610:there is no evidence that the subject meets
2094:outside academia in their academic capacity
1497:"Interpreting results: KruskalâWallis test"
1303:Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies
1012:"A Study of Concept Similarity in Wikidata"
740:. One of the !votes quoted actually began,
615:(another pointer to the same guideline as
345:not about writers, inventors, or academics
3095:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost archives 2023-05
2162:To the point about importance, note that
2092:. And influence within society at large,
1209:A Study of Concept Similarity in Wikidata
339:. There are over 1.5 million biographies
2960:Personally, I would be shocked if there
2663:the Women in Red project discussion page
2069:. This conflates multiple criteria that
1449:"Knowledge (XXG):Notability (academics)"
1425:"Knowledge (XXG):Notability (academics)"
826:It is worth mentioning that the article
18:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost
2347:
2323:
2044:
1259:
1046:
754:the presence or depth of media coverage
518:and report that the test gives a small
277:generally sourceable via the internet.
70:
2457:
2453:
2138:
2126:
2114:
2093:
2089:
2078:
2065:
1813:
1765:
1724:
878:
855:a lower academic rank than a professor
846:
823:
797:
778:
769:
761:
756:, insofar as editors noted that there
753:
741:
733:
697:
680:
652:
648:
634:
624:
609:
592:
562:independent secondary reliable sources
561:
557:
553:
543:
527:
523:
499:
492:"Arguments to avoid" page quoted above
486:
482:
478:
438:
422:
414:
406:
390:
336:
329:
325:
314:deletion debate for Bouman's biography
256:, known by various abbreviations like
2833:statements of what various PAGs mean.
2619:, I explained about deletion debates
2374:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
781:our standards for academic notability
687:work in industry and are notable per
423:a numerical proxy for each subject's
281:, for instance, specifically states,
29:
7:
1473:"Knowledge (XXG):Search engine test"
1377:"Knowledge (XXG):Search engine test"
600:The biography in question was for a
272:Although using a search engine like
2927:worthless is overstating the case.
2448:Thanks for contributing some data!
1820:: CS1 maint: untitled periodical (
1772:: CS1 maint: untitled periodical (
1731:: CS1 maint: untitled periodical (
587:The initialism "AfD" is short for "
316:did not end "eventually". It ended
2145:. It contained two sources, one a
250:General Notability Guideline (GNG)
56:
28:
2329:These comments are automatically
2064:Later in the review, they write,
1928:"All public logs: Clarice Phelps"
1746:Sklansky, Jeffrey (Spring 2021).
830:does exist today. At the time of
526:, and thus that the Primer Index
2615:Thanks for the feedback! In the
1906:Jarvis, Claire L. (2019-04-26).
1147:
877:. They state that her biography
849:According to her profile at the
566:Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources
564:, with a clarifying link to the
393:. Neither page is such a thing.
180:
148:
138:
128:
118:
108:
98:
88:
2506:, with editorial guidance from
1789:The Journal of Economic History
1165:Daria Tisch, Franziska Pradel:
647:Lemieux et al. state that they
2340:add the page to your watchlist
1885:Sadeque, Samira (2019-04-29).
1691:Roberts, Justin (2020-07-02).
812:had an h-index of 44. That is
1:
2561:- an excellent rebuttal of a
2081:in their scholarly discipline
1705:10.1080/0144039X.2020.1790769
1315:10.1080/14791420.2017.1386321
1029:From the abstract and paper:
381:Lemieux et al. describe both
189:Wikimedia Research Newsletter
2211:For related commentary, see
2127:pushed out of the main space
2015:Masnick, Mike (2019-11-20).
1561:"Knowledge (XXG):Notability"
1401:"Knowledge (XXG):Notability"
1281:10.1080/01972243.2011.534368
1135:10.1016/j.poetic.2022.101732
683:is flatly untrue. Plenty of
450:In other words, pointing to
1961:Page, Sidney (2022-10-17).
912:Wikimedia Research Showcase
802:present on Knowledge (XXG).
3111:
2824:But the core of the piece
2407:w:WikiProject Women in Red
1988:Khan, Arman (2022-11-18).
1787:Rhode, Paul (March 2020).
1585:"Knowledge (XXG):Too soon"
1537:"Knowledge (XXG):Too soon"
223:Specifically, the authors
1801:10.1017/S0022050720000029
1748:Journal of Social History
1349:10.1163/15691330-12341471
1101:10.1177/14614448211023772
1068:10.1177/20539517231165490
999:"Can you trust Wikidata?"
947:Other recent publications
834:, the consensus was that
3031:01:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
2495:07:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
2215:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost
1622:10.1177/2378023118823946
1255:Supplementary references
775:Another !vote they quote
540:Knowledge (XXG):Too soon
479:being equitably utilized
397:The "Search Engine Test"
3018:16:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
2998:08:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
2986:04:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
2952:12:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
2937:23:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
2923:19:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
2898:13:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
2884:12:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
2866:12:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
2851:12:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
2816:23:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
2796:23:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
2778:16:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
2748:16:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
2723:15:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
2708:13:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
2684:16:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
2657:16:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
2641:12:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
2606:18:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
2576:09:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
2544:09:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
2528:08:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
2482:wp:WikiProject Olympics
2475:17:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
2438:09:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
2419:07:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
2401:17:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
2384:08:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
2366:05:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
1693:Slavery & Abolition
1269:The Information Society
1188:Can you trust Wikidata?
1093:New Media & Society
732:The quotes given after
582:what it says on the tin
437:, a !voter admonished,
3043:looking for new talent
2647:Big Data & Society
2337:. To follow comments,
2257:
2151:Lois K. Alexander Lane
2123:Lois K. Alexander Lane
1056:Big Data & Society
1039:
1022:
1009:
996:
983:
919:Registrations are open
574:medical review article
548:to create the article.
534:The Titular "Too Soon"
292:
229:
221:
39:
2256:
1541:pageviews.wmcloud.org
1429:pageviews.wmcloud.org
1405:pageviews.wmcloud.org
1381:pageviews.wmcloud.org
1337:Comparative Sociology
1031:
1018:
1005:
992:
979:
931:WMF privacy statement
808:, who at the time of
589:Articles for deletion
463:WP:Search engine test
456:WP:Search engine test
452:WP:Search engine test
430:WP:Search engine test
425:online presence score
419:WP:Search engine test
411:WP:Search engine test
403:WP:Search engine test
383:WP:Search engine test
356:a descending sequence
269:
225:
216:
38:
2549:Really good read by
2512:Big data and society
2333:from this article's
2119:factually inaccurate
1016:From the abstract::
937:"Infolettre wikil@b"
910:page of the monthly
604:. Moreover, the tag
570:mathematics textbook
307:. Instead, invoking
287:ancient Estonian god
267:succinctly puts it:
2245:"Recent research" â
2143:and the Smithsonian
2141:The Washington Post
2121:. The biography of
2079:significant impact
1968:The Washington Post
1003:From the abstract:
990:From the abstract:
977:From the abstract:
883:Talk:Clarice Phelps
516:KruskalâWallis test
343:; most of them are
305:the snowball clause
3023:CactiStaccingCrane
2594:these observations
2324:Discuss this story
2299:Arbitration report
2258:
2084:(emphasis added).
1760:10.1093/jsh/shz115
1589:xtools.wmflabs.org
1565:xtools.wmflabs.org
1477:xtools.wmflabs.org
1453:xtools.wmflabs.org
954:are always welcome
927:The Web Conference
923:Wiki Workshop 2023
794:the K. Killick AfD
45:â Back to Contents
40:
2348:purging the cache
2304:News from the WMF
2237:"Recent research"
1861:"Sudha R. Shenoy"
968:
804:Their example is
50:View Latest Issue
3102:
3079:
3015:
3010:
2996:
2994:Compassionate727
2981:
2976:
2971:
2880:
2874:
2762:
2744:
2738:
2704:
2698:
2655:
2653:Compassionate727
2617:original version
2560:
2380:
2351:
2349:
2343:
2322:
2294:Featured content
2276:
2268:
2261:
2244:
2236:
2219:
2209:
2203:
2187:
2181:
2177:
2171:
2160:
2154:
2111:
2105:
2062:
2056:
2049:
2033:
2032:
2030:
2029:
2012:
2006:
2005:
2003:
2002:
1985:
1979:
1978:
1976:
1975:
1958:
1952:
1951:
1944:
1938:
1937:
1935:
1934:
1924:
1918:
1917:
1903:
1897:
1896:
1882:
1876:
1875:
1873:
1872:
1857:
1851:
1850:
1848:
1847:
1832:
1826:
1825:
1819:
1811:
1784:
1778:
1777:
1771:
1763:
1743:
1737:
1736:
1730:
1722:
1688:
1682:
1681:
1674:
1668:
1667:
1639:
1633:
1632:
1605:
1599:
1598:
1596:
1595:
1581:
1575:
1574:
1572:
1571:
1557:
1551:
1550:
1548:
1547:
1533:
1527:
1526:
1519:
1513:
1512:
1510:
1509:
1493:
1487:
1486:
1484:
1483:
1469:
1463:
1462:
1460:
1459:
1445:
1439:
1438:
1436:
1435:
1421:
1415:
1414:
1412:
1411:
1397:
1391:
1390:
1388:
1387:
1373:
1367:
1366:
1359:
1353:
1352:
1332:
1326:
1325:
1298:
1292:
1291:
1264:
1249:
1248:
1229:
1223:
1205:
1199:
1184:
1178:
1163:
1157:
1152:
1151:
1145:
1118:
1112:
1111:
1088:
1079:
1078:
1051:
961:
806:Colin G. DeYoung
433:For example, in
349:a primary source
328:) or in effect (
184:
170:
152:
151:
142:
141:
132:
131:
122:
121:
112:
111:
102:
101:
92:
91:
62:
60:
58:
3110:
3109:
3105:
3104:
3103:
3101:
3100:
3099:
3085:
3084:
3083:
3082:
3081:
3080:
3075:
3073:
3068:
3063:
3058:
3053:
3046:
3035:
3034:
3013:
3008:
2991:
2979:
2974:
2969:
2878:
2872:
2782:In many cases,
2756:
2742:
2736:
2702:
2696:
2650:
2621:not being votes
2550:
2382:
2378:
2353:
2345:
2338:
2327:
2326:
2320:+ Add a comment
2318:
2314:
2313:
2312:
2289:Recent research
2269:
2264:
2262:
2259:
2248:
2247:
2242:
2239:
2234:
2228:
2227:
2223:
2222:
2210:
2206:
2188:
2184:
2178:
2174:
2161:
2157:
2147:Washington Post
2112:
2108:
2063:
2059:
2050:
2046:
2041:
2036:
2027:
2025:
2014:
2013:
2009:
2000:
1998:
1987:
1986:
1982:
1973:
1971:
1960:
1959:
1955:
1946:
1945:
1941:
1932:
1930:
1926:
1925:
1921:
1905:
1904:
1900:
1884:
1883:
1879:
1870:
1868:
1865:Mises Institute
1859:
1858:
1854:
1845:
1843:
1834:
1833:
1829:
1812:
1786:
1785:
1781:
1764:
1745:
1744:
1740:
1723:
1690:
1689:
1685:
1676:
1675:
1671:
1657:10.2307/3005735
1642:
1640:
1636:
1607:
1606:
1602:
1593:
1591:
1583:
1582:
1578:
1569:
1567:
1559:
1558:
1554:
1545:
1543:
1535:
1534:
1530:
1521:
1520:
1516:
1507:
1505:
1495:
1494:
1490:
1481:
1479:
1471:
1470:
1466:
1457:
1455:
1447:
1446:
1442:
1433:
1431:
1423:
1422:
1418:
1409:
1407:
1399:
1398:
1394:
1385:
1383:
1375:
1374:
1370:
1361:
1360:
1356:
1334:
1333:
1329:
1300:
1299:
1295:
1266:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1252:
1240:
1230:
1226:
1211:(submission to
1206:
1202:
1190:(submission to
1185:
1181:
1169:(submission to
1164:
1160:
1146:
1120:
1119:
1115:
1090:
1089:
1082:
1053:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1027:
1014:
1001:
988:
975:
949:
905:
892:
857:. In any case,
851:Mises Institute
832:the AfD in 2017
790:
730:
679:The claim that
602:Shivendu Ranjan
536:
399:
297:
238:
201:
193:
185:
172:
171:
161:
160:
159:
158:
149:
139:
129:
119:
109:
99:
89:
83:
80:
69:
68:Recent research
65:
63:
53:
52:
47:
41:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
3108:
3106:
3098:
3097:
3087:
3086:
3074:
3069:
3064:
3059:
3054:
3049:
3048:
3047:
3037:
3036:
3033:
3003:
3002:
3001:
3000:
2958:
2957:
2956:
2955:
2954:
2910:
2909:
2908:
2907:
2906:
2905:
2904:
2903:
2902:
2901:
2900:
2834:
2800:
2799:
2798:
2751:
2750:
2731:WP:AFDOUTCOMES
2691:
2690:
2689:
2688:
2687:
2686:
2667:the statistics
2612:
2611:
2610:
2609:
2579:
2578:
2500:
2499:
2498:
2497:
2463:
2446:
2445:
2444:
2443:
2442:
2441:
2440:
2372:
2328:
2325:
2317:
2316:
2315:
2311:
2309:Special report
2306:
2301:
2296:
2291:
2286:
2281:
2279:News and notes
2275:
2263:
2251:
2250:
2249:
2240:
2231:
2230:
2229:
2225:
2221:
2220:
2204:
2182:
2172:
2155:
2106:
2057:
2043:
2042:
2040:
2037:
2035:
2034:
2007:
1980:
1953:
1939:
1919:
1898:
1877:
1867:. 20 June 2014
1852:
1827:
1795:(1): 293â294.
1779:
1754:(3): 973â975.
1738:
1699:(3): 686â688.
1683:
1669:
1651:(3): 432â444.
1634:
1600:
1576:
1552:
1528:
1514:
1502:GraphPad Prism
1488:
1464:
1440:
1416:
1392:
1368:
1354:
1343:(5): 519â556.
1327:
1309:(4): 385â402.
1293:
1258:
1256:
1253:
1251:
1250:
1224:
1200:
1179:
1158:
1113:
1080:
1045:
1043:
1040:
1026:
1023:
1013:
1010:
1000:
997:
987:
984:
974:
971:
970:
969:
948:
945:
943:
941:
940:
934:
916:
904:
901:
891:
888:
875:Clarice Phelps
818:Web of Science
789:
786:
768:and concluded
729:
726:
717:
716:
704:David Eppstein
535:
532:
398:
395:
379:
378:
296:
293:
291:
290:
237:
234:
211:
210:
200:
197:
195:
179:
178:
176:
174:
173:
157:
156:
146:
136:
126:
116:
106:
96:
85:
84:
81:
75:
74:
73:
72:
67:
66:
64:
61:
48:
43:
42:
33:
32:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3107:
3096:
3093:
3092:
3090:
3078:
3072:
3067:
3062:
3057:
3052:
3044:
3040:
3032:
3028:
3024:
3020:
3019:
3016:
3011:
2999:
2995:
2989:
2988:
2987:
2984:
2983:
2982:
2977:
2972:
2963:
2959:
2953:
2949:
2945:
2940:
2939:
2938:
2934:
2930:
2926:
2925:
2924:
2920:
2916:
2911:
2899:
2895:
2891:
2887:
2886:
2885:
2881:
2875:
2869:
2868:
2867:
2863:
2859:
2854:
2853:
2852:
2848:
2844:
2840:
2835:
2831:
2827:
2823:
2819:
2818:
2817:
2813:
2809:
2805:
2801:
2797:
2793:
2789:
2785:
2781:
2780:
2779:
2775:
2771:
2767:
2760:
2755:
2754:
2753:
2752:
2749:
2745:
2739:
2732:
2727:
2726:
2725:
2724:
2720:
2716:
2710:
2709:
2705:
2699:
2685:
2681:
2677:
2672:
2668:
2664:
2660:
2659:
2658:
2654:
2648:
2644:
2643:
2642:
2638:
2634:
2630:
2626:
2622:
2618:
2614:
2613:
2607:
2603:
2599:
2595:
2591:
2587:
2583:
2582:
2581:
2580:
2577:
2573:
2569:
2564:
2558:
2554:
2548:
2547:
2546:
2545:
2541:
2537:
2531:
2529:
2525:
2521:
2517:
2513:
2509:
2505:
2496:
2492:
2488:
2483:
2478:
2477:
2476:
2472:
2468:
2464:
2460:
2455:
2451:
2447:
2439:
2435:
2431:
2427:
2422:
2421:
2420:
2416:
2412:
2408:
2404:
2403:
2402:
2398:
2394:
2390:
2387:
2386:
2385:
2381:
2375:
2370:
2369:
2368:
2367:
2363:
2359:
2350:
2341:
2336:
2332:
2321:
2310:
2307:
2305:
2302:
2300:
2297:
2295:
2292:
2290:
2287:
2285:
2282:
2280:
2277:
2273:
2267:
2260:In this issue
2255:
2246:
2238:
2226:
2217:
2216:
2208:
2205:
2201:
2197:
2193:
2186:
2183:
2176:
2173:
2169:
2168:WP:Notability
2165:
2159:
2156:
2152:
2148:
2144:
2142:
2136:
2132:
2131:draft article
2128:
2124:
2120:
2116:
2110:
2107:
2103:
2102:WP:Notability
2099:
2095:
2091:
2087:
2083:
2082:
2076:
2072:
2068:
2061:
2058:
2054:
2048:
2045:
2038:
2024:
2023:
2018:
2011:
2008:
1997:
1996:
1991:
1984:
1981:
1970:
1969:
1964:
1957:
1954:
1949:
1943:
1940:
1929:
1923:
1920:
1915:
1914:
1909:
1902:
1899:
1894:
1893:
1892:The Daily Dot
1888:
1881:
1878:
1866:
1862:
1856:
1853:
1841:
1840:SF State News
1837:
1831:
1828:
1823:
1817:
1809:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1783:
1780:
1775:
1769:
1761:
1757:
1753:
1749:
1742:
1739:
1734:
1728:
1720:
1717:
1713:
1710:
1706:
1702:
1698:
1694:
1687:
1684:
1679:
1673:
1670:
1665:
1662:
1658:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1645:Social Forces
1638:
1635:
1630:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1611:
1604:
1601:
1590:
1586:
1580:
1577:
1566:
1562:
1556:
1553:
1542:
1538:
1532:
1529:
1524:
1518:
1515:
1504:
1503:
1498:
1492:
1489:
1478:
1474:
1468:
1465:
1454:
1450:
1444:
1441:
1430:
1426:
1420:
1417:
1406:
1402:
1396:
1393:
1382:
1378:
1372:
1369:
1364:
1358:
1355:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1331:
1328:
1323:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1297:
1294:
1289:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1263:
1260:
1254:
1246:
1245:
1238:
1234:
1228:
1225:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1204:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1183:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1162:
1159:
1156:
1155:author's link
1150:
1143:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1117:
1114:
1109:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1087:
1085:
1081:
1076:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1050:
1047:
1041:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1024:
1021:
1017:
1011:
1008:
1004:
998:
995:
991:
985:
982:
978:
967:
966:
960:
959:
958:
957:
955:
946:
944:
938:
935:
932:
928:
924:
920:
917:
914:
913:
907:
906:
902:
900:
896:
889:
887:
884:
880:
876:
871:
868:
864:
860:
856:
852:
848:
844:
842:
837:
833:
829:
825:
821:
819:
815:
811:
807:
803:
801:
795:
787:
785:
784:
782:
776:
772:
771:
767:
763:
759:
755:
751:
747:
745:
742:Sadly, fails
739:
735:
727:
725:
723:
713:
712:
711:
709:
705:
701:
699:
694:
690:
686:
682:
677:
674:
670:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
645:
643:
639:
638:
631:
629:
627:
622:
618:
614:
613:
607:
603:
599:
597:
590:
585:
583:
579:
575:
571:
567:
563:
559:
555:
551:
549:
547:
541:
533:
531:
529:
525:
521:
517:
511:
509:
503:
501:
497:
493:
489:
484:
480:
475:
472:
468:
467:WP:Notability
464:
459:
457:
453:
449:
447:
443:
440:results. See
436:
431:
427:
426:
421:by computing
420:
416:
412:
408:
404:
396:
394:
392:
388:
384:
376:
372:
368:
364:
361:
360:
359:
357:
352:
350:
346:
342:
338:
333:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
310:
306:
302:
294:
288:
284:
280:
275:
271:
270:
268:
266:
261:
259:
255:
251:
246:
244:
235:
233:
228:
224:
220:
215:
209:
208:
203:
202:
198:
196:
192:
190:
183:
177:
169:
165:
155:
147:
145:
137:
135:
127:
125:
117:
115:
107:
105:
97:
95:
87:
86:
78:
59:
51:
46:
37:
23:
19:
3039:The Signpost
3038:
3004:
2967:
2966:
2961:
2838:
2829:
2825:
2803:
2783:
2765:
2711:
2692:
2670:
2646:
2628:
2562:
2532:
2516:Matthew Zook
2508:Tilman Bayer
2501:
2456:(Also, they
2354:
2288:
2284:In the media
2272:all comments
2224:
2214:
2207:
2185:
2175:
2158:
2146:
2140:
2134:
2109:
2080:
2060:
2047:
2026:. Retrieved
2020:
2010:
1999:. Retrieved
1993:
1983:
1972:. Retrieved
1966:
1956:
1942:
1931:. Retrieved
1922:
1911:
1901:
1890:
1880:
1869:. Retrieved
1864:
1855:
1844:. Retrieved
1842:. 2020-04-10
1839:
1830:
1816:cite journal
1792:
1788:
1782:
1768:cite journal
1751:
1747:
1741:
1727:cite journal
1696:
1692:
1686:
1672:
1648:
1644:
1637:
1613:
1609:
1603:
1592:. Retrieved
1588:
1579:
1568:. Retrieved
1564:
1555:
1544:. Retrieved
1540:
1531:
1517:
1506:. Retrieved
1500:
1491:
1480:. Retrieved
1476:
1467:
1456:. Retrieved
1452:
1443:
1432:. Retrieved
1428:
1419:
1408:. Retrieved
1404:
1395:
1384:. Retrieved
1380:
1371:
1357:
1340:
1336:
1330:
1306:
1302:
1296:
1275:(1): 40â51.
1272:
1268:
1262:
1243:
1227:
1217:under review
1212:
1203:
1196:under review
1191:
1182:
1175:under review
1170:
1161:
1126:
1116:
1092:
1059:
1055:
1049:
1035:
1032:
1028:
1019:
1015:
1006:
1002:
993:
989:
980:
976:
965:Tilman Bayer
963:Compiled by
962:
951:
950:
942:
911:
897:
893:
872:
845:
828:Tonya Foster
822:
813:
799:
791:
773:
757:
749:
731:
728:Quote mining
718:
708:Women in Red
702:
692:
685:IEEE Fellows
678:
646:
637:WP:Too soon.
636:
633:They go on:
632:
595:
586:
558:news sources
552:
545:
537:
512:
504:
495:
476:
460:
424:
400:
380:
374:
370:
362:
353:
340:
334:
317:
301:Katie Bouman
298:
282:
262:
241:
239:
230:
226:
222:
217:
212:
205:Reviewed by
204:
194:
186:
175:
168:Tilman Bayer
94:PDF download
3077:Suggestions
2843:Nosebagbear
2770:Nosebagbear
2568:Nosebagbear
2331:transcluded
2164:WP:Too soon
2129:; it was a
1239:, Dataset:
758:wasn't any.
612:WP:ACADEMIC
596:WP:Too soon
578:WP:Too soon
508:charismatic
387:WP:Too soon
144:X (Twitter)
2837:also like
2784:ostensibly
2676:XOR'easter
2633:XOR'easter
2623:and what "
2586:apart from
2553:XOR'easter
2520:Xxanthippe
2504:XOR'easter
2502:Thanks to
2450:This paper
2426:this query
2379:reply here
2266:8 May 2023
2098:WP:PROF#C7
2086:WP:PROF#C4
2075:WP:PROF#C1
2028:2023-04-15
2001:2023-04-12
1974:2023-04-12
1933:2023-04-12
1871:2023-04-11
1846:2023-04-12
1594:2023-04-13
1570:2023-04-13
1546:2023-04-13
1508:2023-05-07
1482:2023-04-12
1458:2023-04-12
1434:2023-04-12
1410:2023-04-12
1386:2023-04-12
1129:: 101732.
1042:References
890:Conclusion
861:looked at
689:WP:PROF#C3
673:WP:TOOSOON
669:WP:TOOSOON
642:WP:TOOSOON
640:The essay
626:WP:TOOSOON
606:WP:TOOSOON
435:one debate
371:Guidelines
243:notability
236:Background
207:XOR'easter
164:XOR'easter
82:Share this
77:Contribute
57:8 May 2023
22:2023-05-08
3071:Subscribe
2804:empirical
2649:itself).
2629:Signpost.
2465:Regards,
2393:Jonesey95
2335:talk page
2088:asks for
2077:concerns
1808:214003587
1719:221178536
1712:0144-039X
1629:149857577
1322:149229953
1142:0304-422X
1108:237883867
1075:257861139
836:WP:AUTHOR
538:The page
369:follow.
320:Multiple
3089:Category
3066:Newsroom
3061:Archives
2944:SnowFire
2929:Jack4576
2915:SnowFire
2890:Jack4576
2873:The Grid
2858:Jack4576
2822:Jack4576
2808:Jack4576
2788:Jack4576
2759:Jack4576
2737:The Grid
2715:Jack4576
2697:The Grid
2661:Over at
2608:(Tilman)
2563:terrible
2235:Previous
2133:not yet
2125:was not
2022:Techdirt
1616:: 1â14.
1288:27479715
1247:, Zenodo
908:See the
859:that AfD
752:discuss
744:WP:NPROF
546:too soon
367:normally
363:Policies
134:Facebook
124:LinkedIn
114:Mastodon
20: |
2389:Jane023
2071:WP:PROF
2053:WP:PROF
1664:3005735
1127:Poetics
903:Briefly
863:WP:PROF
841:WP:PROF
810:his AfD
667:versus
665:WP:PROF
661:WP:PROF
657:WP:PROF
628:perhaps
621:WP:PROF
617:WP:PROF
520:p-value
471:WP:PROF
415:emulate
322:!voters
309:WP:SNOW
258:WP:PROF
3009:Silver
2962:wasn't
2766:blithe
2536:Nardog
2462:from.)
2198:, and
1610:Socius
1237:slides
867:WP:GNG
560:, but
446:WP:GNG
375:Essays
279:WP:BIO
274:Google
154:Reddit
104:E-mail
3056:About
3014:seren
2980:Kevin
2826:isn't
2625:!vote
2096:, is
2067:board
2039:Notes
1913:Slate
1805:S2CID
1716:S2CID
1661:JSTOR
1626:S2CID
1319:S2CID
1285:S2CID
1105:S2CID
1072:S2CID
921:for
572:or a
405:) is
341:total
16:<
3051:Home
3027:talk
2948:talk
2933:talk
2919:talk
2894:talk
2879:talk
2862:talk
2847:talk
2839:your
2830:need
2812:talk
2792:talk
2774:talk
2743:talk
2719:talk
2703:talk
2680:talk
2637:talk
2602:talk
2598:HaeB
2572:talk
2557:HaeB
2555:and
2540:talk
2524:talk
2491:talk
2487:Jane
2471:talk
2467:HaeB
2434:talk
2430:Jane
2415:talk
2411:Jane
2397:talk
2362:talk
2358:Jane
2243:Next
1995:Vice
1822:link
1774:link
1733:link
1709:ISSN
1221:Code
1139:ISSN
865:and
800:were
766:here
417:the
385:and
166:and
3041:is
2882:)
2746:)
2706:)
2671:did
2117:is
1797:doi
1756:doi
1701:doi
1653:doi
1618:doi
1345:doi
1311:doi
1277:doi
1219:),
1131:doi
1097:doi
1064:doi
814:not
796:is
750:did
693:are
389:as
332:).
162:By
79:â
3091::
3029:)
2950:)
2935:)
2921:)
2896:)
2864:)
2849:)
2814:)
2794:)
2776:)
2721:)
2682:)
2639:)
2604:)
2574:)
2542:)
2530:.
2526:)
2493:)
2473:)
2436:)
2417:)
2399:)
2364:)
2233:â
2194:,
2135:in
2019:.
1992:.
1965:.
1910:.
1889:.
1863:.
1838:.
1818:}}
1814:{{
1803:.
1793:80
1791:.
1770:}}
1766:{{
1752:54
1750:.
1729:}}
1725:{{
1714:.
1707:.
1697:41
1695:.
1659:.
1649:49
1647:.
1624:.
1612:.
1587:.
1563:.
1539:.
1499:.
1475:.
1451:.
1427:.
1403:.
1379:.
1341:17
1339:.
1317:.
1307:14
1305:.
1283:.
1273:27
1271:.
1215:,
1194:,
1173:,
1137:.
1125:.
1103:.
1095:.
1083:^
1070:.
1062:.
1060:10
1058:.
724:.
358::
3045:.
3025:(
2992:â
2975:Y
2970:N
2946:(
2931:(
2917:(
2892:(
2876:(
2860:(
2845:(
2820:@
2810:(
2790:(
2772:(
2761::
2757:@
2740:(
2717:(
2700:(
2678:(
2651:â
2635:(
2600:(
2570:(
2559::
2551:@
2538:(
2522:(
2489:(
2469:(
2432:(
2413:(
2395:(
2376:|
2360:(
2352:.
2342:.
2274:)
2270:(
2202:.
2055:.
2031:.
2004:.
1977:.
1950:.
1936:.
1916:.
1895:.
1874:.
1849:.
1824:)
1810:.
1799::
1776:)
1762:.
1758::
1735:)
1721:.
1703::
1680:.
1666:.
1655::
1631:.
1620::
1614:5
1597:.
1573:.
1549:.
1525:.
1511:.
1485:.
1461:.
1437:.
1413:.
1389:.
1365:.
1351:.
1347::
1324:.
1313::
1290:.
1279::
1198:)
1177:)
1153:(
1144:.
1133::
1110:.
1099::
1077:.
1066::
956:.
933:.
760:(
746:.
448:.
289:.
245:.
191:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
