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 meta.sj@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@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@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.pd...
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@gmail.com>:
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@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@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-paper...
> *
This paper is based on an action research project (Greenwood and
Levin,
- 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/%E2%80%A6/Atikamekw_knowledge,_culture_and%E2%80%A6 <
https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Atikamekw_knowledge,_culture_and_language_in_W...
> _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l