On 5 Jul 2019, at 11:18 pm, Samuel Klein
<meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think we have all the mechanics needed for this.
- Individual revisions aren't editable, once posted, and stay around
forever (unless revdeleted).
- Each wiki can have its own guidelines for how accounts can be shared.
- Rather than limiting who can edit, you could have a whitelist of
contributors considered by the local community to represent their
knowledge; and have a lens that only looks at those contributions. (like
flagged revs)
(@stuart - tertiary sourcing can apply to any source; it does not privilege
print culture. only particular standards of notability and verifiability
start to limit which sources are preferred.)
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 7:39 PM Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On en.WP we prohibit shared accounts and accounts
that appear to represent
an organisation so that's a barrier. But assuming there was some special
case to allow a username to represent a community of knowledge, we would
still have a practical problem of whether the individual creating such an
account or doing the edit was authorised to do so by that community, which
would require some kind of real-world validation. But, let's say local
chapters or local users could undertake that process using local knowledge
of how such communities identify and operate.
The problem it still doesn't solve is that whatever information is added
by that account could then be changed by anyone. We would have to have a
way to prevent that happening, which would be a technical problem. Also
could that information ever be deleted by anyone (even for purely innocent
purposes, e.g. splitting a large article might delete the content from one
article to re-insert into other article). Or is the positioning of the
content within a particular article a decision only that group might be
allowed to take?
A possible technical/social solution is to have traditional knowledge of
this nature in a sister project, where rules on user names would be
entirely different and obviously oral sourced material allowed. The group
could then produce named units of information as a single unit (similar to
a File on Commons). These units could then be added to en.WP or others
(obviously the language the units are written would have be identified, as
Commons does with descriptions already) so only English content is added to
en.WP and so on. The content would be presented in en.WP in a way (in a
"traditional language" box with a link to something explaining that what
means) so the reader understands what this info is and is free to trust it
or not. The information itself cannot be modified on en.WP only on the
sister project (requests on talk pages of the sister project would need to
be allowed for anyone to make requests eg report misspelling). En.WP would
remain in control of whether the content was included but could not change
the content themselves.
It seems to be a sister project similar to the current Commons would be
what we need to make this work.
Sent from my iPad
On 4 Jul 2019, at 6:03 pm, Jan Dittrich <jan.dittrich(a)wikimedia.de> wrote:
Maybe not
"signed" in the sense of a signature of a Talk page, but each
contribution is attributed automatically to its user as seen in the
history. As someone who edits under my real name, I absolutely put my
name
to my contributions.
That is what I assumed, too, since it was coherent with some of the
problems described in:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/PG-Slides-Wikimania18.p…
in this interpretation, Mediawiki (and lots of
other software) code-ify
knowledge production as done by single people [1]– a person can edit,
but
not a group (which was one of the challenges in
the project described in
the slides, if I remember correctly)
I would be much interested in more research on what values are "build in"
our software (Some Research by Heather Ford and Stuart Geiger goes in
this
direction).
Best,
Jan
[1] An interesting read on the concept of "transmitting knowledge" (e.g.
in
articles and via the web) and knowledge as
inherently social would be
Ingold’s "From the Transmission of Representation to the Education of
Attention" (
http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/ingold/ingold1.htm).
Am Do., 4. Juli 2019 um 02:20 Uhr schrieb Kerry Raymond <
kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com>gt;:
> Maybe not "signed" in the sense of a signature of a Talk page, but each
> contribution is attributed automatically to its user as seen in the
> history. As someone who edits under my real name, I absolutely put my
name
> to my contributions.
>
> Or the other possible interpretation of "signed" here may be referring
to
> the citations which are usually sources with
one or small number of
> individual authors, as opposed to a community of shared knowledge
> custodians which is the case with Aboriginal Australians.
>
> Kerry
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On 4 Jul 2019, at 10:28 am, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I found one error:
>>
>> "Even the idea that contributions to the wiki should be signed by
>> individuals is at odds with many traditional societies where knowledge
>> expression is mainly collective, not individualised..."
>>
>> That's already how it works. Only discussion posts and the like are
> signed.
>> I don't know of any language Wikipedia in which contributions to the
> actual
>> encyclopedia articles are signed, and I know several of the largest
>> (German, Spanish, and English) do not have such a practice. (If there
is
> a
>> project where individual contributions are signed, please let me know,
> I'd
>> be interested to see how they make that work. What if it gets edited?)
>>
>> Aside from that, the article seems to state that such a project is
>> incompatible with both NPOV and copyleft, so I'm not sure that
Wikimedia
>> hosting it would be the best fit as those
are fundamental requirements.
>> (That's not to say it's not worth doing at all, of course.)
>>
>> Todd
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 5:52 PM Nathalie Casemajor <
ncasemajor(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> For those of you who are interested in "small" Wikipedias and
Indigenous
>>> languages, here's a new academic
paper co-signed by yours truly.
>>>
>>> Published in an open access journal :)
>>>
>>> Nathalie Casemajor (Seeris)
>>>
>>> -
>>>
>>> *Openness, Inclusion and Self-Affirmation: Indigenous knowledge in
Open
>>> Knowledge Projects
>>> <
>>>
>
http://peerproduction.net/editsuite/issues/issue-13-open/peer-reviewed-pape…
>>>> *
>>>
>>> This paper is based on an action research project (Greenwood and
Levin,
>>> 1998) conducted in 2016-2017 in
partnership with the Atikamekw
> Nehirowisiw
>>> Nation and Wikimedia Canada. Built into the educational curriculum of
a
>>> secondary school on the Manawan
reserve, the project led to the launch
> of a
>>> Wikipedia encyclopaedia in the Atikamekw Nehirowisiw language. We
> discuss
>>> the results of the project by examining the challenges and
opportunities
>>> raised in the collaborative process
of creating Wikimedia content in
the
>>> Atikamekw Nehirowisiw language. What
are the conditions of inclusion
of
>>> Indigenous and traditional knowledge
in open projects? What are the
>>> cultural and political dimensions of empowerment in this relationship
>>> between openness and inclusion? How do the processes of inclusion and
>>> negotiation of openness affect Indigenous skills and worlding
processes?
>>> Drawing from media studies,
indigenous studies and science and
> technology
>>> studies, we adopt an ecological perspective (Star, 2010) to analyse
the
>>> complex relationships and
interactions between knowledge practices,
>>> ecosystems and infrastructures. The material presented in this paper
is
> the
>>> result of the group of participants’ collective reflection digested by
> one
>>> Atikamekw Nehirowisiw and two settlers. Each co-writer then brings
> his/her
>>> own expertise and speaks from what he or she knows and has been
trained
>>> for.
>>>
>>> Casemajor N., Gentelet K., Coocoo C. (2019), « Openness, Inclusion and
>>> Self-Affirmation: Indigenous knowledge in Open Knowledge Projects »,
>>> *Journal
>>> of Peer Production*, no13, pp. 1-20.
>>>
>>>
>>> More info about the Atikamekw Wikipetcia project and the involvement
>>> of Wikimedia Canada:
>>>
>>>
https://ca.wikimedia.org/…/Atikamekw_knowledge,_culture_and…
>>> <
>>>
>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
Jan Dittrich
UX Design/ Research
Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
https://wikimedia.de
Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
Menschheit
teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen
Sie uns dabei!
https://spenden.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt
durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org