Much more complicated situation. Really far beyond a Wikipedian's pay grade.
Fred
----- Original Message -----
From: Paulo Santos Perneta <paulosperneta(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:38:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
When we have a document signed by the king saying someone was given a
certain title; and a myriad of secondary and tertiary sources saying the
document says otherwise (without ever quoting the document itself), I would
not have the least doubt in choosing the king's deed. That's a recurrent
situation in History, and as far as I know, the recommendations are always
to ignore the secondary sources when some unexplained conflict between them
and the primary, original sources arises.
Paulo
2018-05-12 13:31 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com>om>:
If a "secondary" source just parrots or
copies a primary source, it's added
nothing. At that point, it doesn't matter which one you use.
However, good, reliable secondary sources will cross-check the claims of
primary sources against one another, evaluate them for reliability, and
come up with what the real truth is actually likely to be. When those
sources are fact-checked and peer reviewed, they are much more reliable
than the primary sources, and we should prefer them to editors evaluating
primary sources themselves, or worse yet, uncritically treating them as
factual.
Todd
On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulosperneta(a)gmail.com> wrote:
A parish book, with all records signed by the
priest (and witnesses), and
reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more
reliable
than any secondary sources quoting it.
As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much
sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should
be
used instead of a primary source in those
situations.
Paulo
2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood <peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net>
:
> Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and
have
similar
problems. You will have to clarify:
In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and
verifiable?
Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary
sources
produced by the subject?
Cheers,
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On
Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are
primary
> sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original
sources,
as
> in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second
> should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they
> generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this
confusion
in
Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results
on the quality of the
articles.
Paulo
2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron <cameron(a)cameron11598.net>et>:
Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral
histories and
traditions
> come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am with an
> encyclopedia using such sources.
>
> Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I
use
> > primary sources quite often for papers, and projects however those
are
> > generally frowned upon for Wikipedia;
mainly because Wikipedia is an
> > encyclopedia not an academic journal. Good encyclopedias are
typically
> > sourced from secondary sources, and
ocassionaly tertiary sources.
> >
> > Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and
> > traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion.
My
> > personal thought on this issue is
keeping our current verifiability
and
>
notability requirements is a good idea. In some areas I think we
include
> > far too much (fan cruft anyone?).
> >
> > - Cameron C.
> > Cameron11598
> >
> > ---- On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:34:15 -0700 peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net
> > wrote ----
> >
> > If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
> > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >
> > You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second
guessing
>
sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we
consider
> > sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not
> > written.
> >
> > JP
> >
> > On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, <toddmallen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for
spammers
> > and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved
> > invitation.
> >
> > If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should
be
> > made
> > > at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than
"disputing"
a
> > > reliable source, if we found
evidence that contradicts them, we'd
ask
>
them
> > to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article
accordingly
> > based on their correction. Wikipedia is
not there to second-guess
what
> > > sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or
"non-western" or
> > > whatever else have you types of information. If our references are
> > flawed,
> > > the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing,
not
> >
"correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources,
we
do
> > not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood <
> > peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >
> > > When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
> wanting
> > > to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times
change.
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
> > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > >
> > > If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have
started
> > > > Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by
anyone
> > > without
> > > > any authority to double check before it is published? It is
doomed
to
> > fail.
> > > Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is
not
> to
> > > remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change
those
> > > requirements to be more inclusive
of different ways of sharing
> > knowledge. I
> > > think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are
ready
> to
> > do
> > > that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of
Wikipedia
> > when
> > > we opened editing to anybody.
> > >
> > > JP
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood <
> > > peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in
spite
> of
> > > > > notability and verifiability requirements, Without the
> verifiability
> > > > > requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith
are
> > > things
> > > > > that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
> > evidence,
> > > > and
> > > > > where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
> > intangible,
> > > > the
> > > > > authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means
> track
> > > > > record and proof of identity.
> > > > > This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not
see
> it
> > as
> > > > > possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as
a
> >
reliable
> > > > source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without
destroying
> the
> > > > credibility we have.
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
> > On
> > > > > Behalf Of Gnangarra
> > > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50
> > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > > >
> > > > > notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
> > > language
> > > > > has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These
culture
> manage
> > > successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the
western
> > > styles
> > > > were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue
is
> > how
> > > > do
> > > > > we bring these sources into the western system, how do we
respect
> > them,
> > > > > how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently
do
is
> not
> > > the only.
> > >
> > > There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our
current
> > > > systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the
citations
> > > from
> > > > > books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider
and
> > value
> > > > > alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the
> question
> > > is
> > > > do
> > > > > we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share
the
sum
of
> > all
> > > knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
knowledge
> > > networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
> > >
> > > Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the
wikipedia
> > but
> > > > rather the creation of new project to bring forth these
alternative
> >
> knowledge streams
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart <etestart(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias
where
a
> > > member
> > > > > of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity
though:
> > > > >
https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.
> > > > > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
> > > > >
> > > > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and
as a
> > > > > movement
> > > > > > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid,
which I
> > > > > personally
> > > > > > do, since they are supported with data and not on our
personal
> > > > > impressions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood <
> > > > > > peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net>
> > > > > > escribió:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow
us
to
> > > produce
> > > > > > > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those
constraints
opens
> > the
> > > > > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to
remain
> > > open
> > > > to
> > > > > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
> alternatives.
> > > > Other
> > > > > > projects may work around this problem, but would then
probably
> not
> > be
> > > > > open
> > > > > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way?
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Peter
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
>
lists.wikimedia.org]
> > > On
> > > > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > > > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01
> > > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a
summary of the
> canon
> > of
> > > > > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted
knowledge."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of
"knowledge"
as
> > > > Wikipedia
> > > > > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to
that
> >
saying
> > > > that
> > > > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be
notable
> > > > enough,
> > > > > > when different cultures use different ways to build their
canon
> of
> > > > > > knowledge.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > JP
> > > > > > User:Amqui
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
> > fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: Jane Darnell <jane023(a)gmail.com>
> > > > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
<wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimediadia.
org>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT)
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach
causing
> problems
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references.
Oddly,
> > > > > > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic
bias, but
will
> > never
> > > > be
> > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > to correct it."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a
summary of the
> canon
> > > of
> > > > > > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted
knowledge.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when
it does,
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if
gender and
> other
> > > > bias
> > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more
modest
than
>
full
> > > > > > correction
> > > > > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fred
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > >
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
> > > > unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> > > > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > > > > > >
http://www.avg.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> > > > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > GN.
> > > Noongarpedia:
https://incubator.wikimedia.
org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> > > > WMAU:
http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > > Photo Gallery:
http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > > > Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never
Again:
> >
> Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP,
2017.
> > > Order
> > > here
> > > <
> > >
https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
> > reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
> > > >
> > > .
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
> >
_______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > >
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > >
> >
_______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > >
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
_______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: