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 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:

I don't think it's impossible. I think the presentation of the material in a box that clearly indicates the nature of the material and its provenance to allow the reader to decide for themselves whether they wish to read it and how much they wish to believe it. We already have the same problem with images; a random person with a pseudonym uploads a photo of a mountain to Commons and says "that's Mt Whatsit". It gets added to related WP articles as Mt Whatsit. So I don't see what I am proposing is any more risky, indeed it's considerably less risky if the sister project dies some real world validation. Whether or not what I am proposing will be what indigenous communities want is a separate question. I suspect what they want will never be acceptable to en.WP. But is there a compromise? Kerry Sent from my iPad

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: -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266

What about Australian indigenous songs that trace the path of songlines that both document collective history and folk knowledge and also rhythmically document land contours and other landmarks as a map/timeline/travel guide and often compile folkloric and secondary and primary knowledge over generations? I'm curious if you think these function in some ways as tertiary sources which, at least according to the wiki, include "travel guides, field guides, and almanacs." I'm out of my depth but enjoying the back and forth here. On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 5:20 PM, Stuart A. Yeates &lt;syeates(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Hi Samuel > > Can you provide examples of tertiary sources from pure oral cultures? I've > never heard of any. > > Cheers > Stuart > > On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 1:19 am Samuel Klein &lt;meta.sj(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com&gt; >> 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 &lt;jan.dittrich(a)wikimedia.de&gt; >> 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;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 &lt;toddmallen(a)gmail.com&gt; 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&gt; >> > >>> 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… >> > >>>> < >> > >>>> >> > >> >> > >> https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Atikamekw_knowledge,_culture_and_language_in_… >> > >>>>> >> > >>>> _______________________________________________ >> > >>>> 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 >> 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

On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 10:11 PM Ocean Power &lt;oceanpower(a)protonmail.com&gt; wrote: Hello :) Sounds like a tertiary source to me, whatever the format. I would say instructional, historical, and cataloging stories + songs are traditional tertiary sources. As are the maintainers of legal precedent and local data records. There are also a few independent dimensions where oral and written histories tend to differ, which are sometimes confused. Three at play here: * *Format*: Seen (video) vs. Spoken (audio) vs. written (text). Video or audio are sometimes considered more authentic than text for a primary source. * *Verifiability*: Contemporaneously recorded in a lasting medium, vs. remembered + retransmitted through the memory of recipients * *Closeness to observation*: Primary observation / Secondary analysis / Tertiary compilation A town elder remembering the town's history is primary; when I develop my own history based on it (w/o direct experience) and tell it to you, that is secondary; if you catalog different versions of town histories in an epic song, that's tertiary (even as your performance of it is a primary source for your singing style!) S.

Hoi, When people want to register for their own reasons as a group, they can make an item for themselves in Wikidata and identify as "member of" their group. We do have process oriented data for Wikipedia in Wikidata so there is a precedent. Thanks, GerardM On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 01:39, Kerry Raymond &lt;kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: