[Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

Thu Aug 1 21:10:28 UTC 2013

Your disqualification of Wikipedia from being called an encyclopedia is, of
course, equally (indeed, more) applicable to _all other encyclopedias,
ever_.  It is therefore incumbent on your to either agree that there has
never been "an encyclopedia" yet, or that your bar for what constitutes an
encyclopedia is not a useful one.

We all agree the Khoi, and African topics in general (but also Vietnamese,
and Guatemalan, and Albanian, and...[1]) are underrepresented in the
volunteer-built encyclopedia we all cherish.

What _would_ be useful are realistic ideas about how to address this
underrepresentation.

   A.

[1] Two years ago, I spent 5-minutes preparing a presentation that makes
this point when someone suggested that the English Wikipedia is... kinda
done?  It's at http://prezi.com/szjdvdbtl0j_/is-wikipedia-done/

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Rui Correia <correia.rui at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Colleagues at the Foundation
>
> I just came across an artecle called "White Africans of European ancestry".
> What is that even supposed to mean?  Who would be any other "white people"
> if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a
> definition of "white people" could these be? Especially as it already says
> on the talk page that Arabs don't count.
>
>
> When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about 'white
> people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, then we
> can't call the WP an encyclopaedia. But them the rules do say - somewhere -
> that "just because ...". And those "just because" rules are all over the
> place - you can't use what was done in one case to justify another similar
> case because someone is bound to throw a "just because" rule at you. But
> the "just because ..." rule applies only when it is convenient - the
> corollary of the "just because .." is "I know more rules and tricks than
> you and I will win this/ I will not allow you to have your way even if I
> have to break all the rules and make new ones as I go along".
>
> So, "just because" there isn't an artice about "Khoi people living in
> Denmark" is no reason to not have an article about "White Europens of
> Europen descent livng in Patagonia" or "White Europens of Europen descent
> livng in Timbaktu". We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the digital
> divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans do.
> That is not an encyclopaedia.
>
> Why don't we have a page on "Black Americans of African ancestry"?
> Or "Black Europeans of African ancestry"? Strangely enough, type "Black
> African" and you get redirected to Black people, BUT the redirect actually
> takes you all the way down to Africa - yes, the article on Black people
> does not start with Africa, but with the United States, then Brazil ....
>
> Like I said, When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article
> about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi
> people, ...
>
> The same goes for the so-called "Biographies of Living People". I had my
> first clash on WP on the issue of the "dual nationality" of Nelly Furtado.
> Two hundred million people see her as Portuguese, three - yes, 3 - editors
> disagree and BRAG they will NEVER ALLOW it. The rationale changes, as can
> be seen from the talk pages and archives. They go as far as 'challenging'
> editors that NF sees herself as Portuguese, to then dismiss all the
> evidence as not good enough - even Nelly HERSELF saying she is PORTUGESE
> was thrown out! Why? Obvious! She doesn't count, she is not a NEUTRAL
> source!!!!!!!!!!! We have become a joke!
>
> How about being constructive?
>
> If we can come up with every conceivable script in the world, why has
> nobody come up with a script for controversial articles that would appear
> on the the edit page - like the script that says the article is protected -
> ALERTING unsuspecting editors to the fact that said article is cotroversial
> for xand y reason, and that if the edit the editor is about to do falls
> under that theme, to please first read the talk page, with a direct link
> ALSO to an explanation on BLP and the issue of ethnic background/ present
> nationality. It would save lots of wasted time and effort and the three
> editors who spend sleepless nights reverting the artcile might actually do
> something constructive for a change.
>
> In closing, of the nine people featured in photos on that page, I know
> (have met 5) and correspond with 2 - I can guarantee that all five of them
> (and most likley all 9 [or the descendents of those no longer with us])
> would object to being featured in such a racist article.
>
> I will write to them about this. I know that each one is not a valid source
> about him/ herself and therefore them objecting will probably not count.
> Just as an side, in case you didn't know, the census in Brazil is done on
> the basis of how people see themselves - white, back, green, pink - and
> then we carry those figures here in the WP. Ah, sorry, those figures are
> credible, because they come from the CIA fact book, people speaking for
> themselves are not.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rui
> --
> Rui Correia
> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
>
>
>
>
> --
> _________________________
> Rui Correia
> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
> Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
>
> Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
> Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
> _______________
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- 
    Asaf Bartov
    Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org