Technically these are primary sources when they are first recorded / written down. The first recorded / written theorizing about them is secondary. Reporting on a concensus reached by that theorizing is tertiary. Assuming that the singing, theorizing and reporting is done by different parties.
The model very much assumes a subject and an observer and written / recorded communication.
The model (for better or worse) is very effective is suppressing things like arguing from the Bible or from direct religious experience. Presumably new models would either accept those or deal with them in other ways.
Cheers Stuart
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 2:11 pm Ocean Power oceanpower@protonmail.com wrote:
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 syeates@gmail.com 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 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,
>> 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/%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
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