The dictionary definition of heroism does not usually extend to people who work anonymously, and for no money, for the reputational benefit of others. However, this is what growing numbers of largely female researchers have been doing, in an attempt to rebalance the historical record on Wikipedia in favor of women. In a relatively rare instance of one breaking cover, the British archeologist and curator Lucy Moore, who has just finished a project to add a woman from every country in the world, has called for more volunteers to roll up their sleeves and contribute.
The challenge is a large one. As of this month, the Web site said that just under 20 percent of nearly 2 million biographies on Wikipedia are of women, though this is a marked improvement on the 15.5 percent reported in an academic paper 10 years ago. That paper led to the creation of Women in Red, which now involves hundreds of volunteers around the world. Their project is to turn “red links” — marking a mention of someone for whom a page does not exist — into blue ones that lead to entries documenting their lives. This means nothing less than transforming women from the objects to the subjects of history.
NEGLECTED
Women in Red’s work has created a fascinating database in its own right of more than 200,000 people, each of whose lives are like small starbursts of light into neglected corners of history, from Dinah Whipple, an emancipated slave who created New England’s first school for black children, to Deolinda Rodrigues, an Angolan revolutionary leader, writer and broadcaster, who corresponded with Martin Luther King Jr and was executed in 1967.
The 2014 paper that inspired Women in Red also said that only 16 percent of contributors at that time were female, leading to an inevitable skew toward the interests of the 84 percent, who were largely Western and male. Hence the preponderance of great men of US and European history. The biography most overloaded with academic references remains that of Joseph Stalin.
Women have long played a part in the creation of dictionaries, though usually in poorly paid clerical roles. One exception was Elizabeth Lee, a biographer and translator, who contributed 100 entries to the Dictionary of National Biography between 1885 and 1900, some of which were waspishly lacking in the enthusiasm that drives today’s Wikipedians. None of the female staff who worked on the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary were invited to attend the dinner celebrating its completion at London’s Goldsmiths’ Hall in 1928, though a select few were allowed to observe from the minstrels’ gallery. Unsurprisingly, Walter Scott was quoted about 15,000 times, while Jane Austen’s wit made a mere 700 appearances.
DEEP POOLS
The great strength of today’s crowdsourcing is that each contributor brings their own perspective, with an impact not just on gender but on cultural and geographical spread. Although this could lead to some eccentric entries (Louis XIV’s elephant is among Women in Red’s additions), it also creates deep pools of knowledge. In science, for instance, the mathematician Gladys West, the viral immunologist Kizzy Corbett and the physicist Prineha Narang are among 2,100 entries added since 2017 by the British academic Jess Wade.
What better phenomenon to honor, in the week of International Women’s Day, than the hive heroism that is filling so many blanks in world history.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
Gogoro Inc was once a rising star and a would-be unicorn in the years prior to its debut on the NASDAQ in 2022, as its environmentally friendly technology and stylish design attracted local young people. The electric scooter and battery swapping services provider is bracing for a major personnel shakeup following the abrupt resignation on Friday of founding chairman Horace Luke (陸學森) as chief executive officer. Luke’s departure indicates that Gogoro is sinking into the trough of unicorn disillusionment, with the company grappling with poor financial performance amid a slowdown in demand at home and setbacks in overseas expansions. About 95