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.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic