Denny
If you going to shoot me down as a troll, then I can say only that you are
one of those that refuse to see the elephant in the room. I am a journalist
(and a journalism trainer), I know that if I want others to read what I
have to say I need to come up a headline that will attract attention, while
at the same time abiding by age-old ethic standards - and I have done so.
Who controls what is said has become a big problem on the English and to a
degree the Portuguese WPs. Be fair to yourself, step back and just look at
some articles to see how many times a day they get reverted. The rot has
become endemic - there are so many people who do nothing but revert the
whole day without EVER contributing anything. Yes, I know that a lot of the
reverting is to undo the work of vandals with nothing better to do, but
most of it is done to preserve the view thae a specific article has
'acquired' through time.
Can you honesty tell me that you have not come across articles that are
'untouchable'? That you know they convey a view that is not entirely right,
but YOU and I cannot change it? Can you tell me that you have not come
across editors who are hell-bent on preserving this or that article just as
it is?
Rui
On 1 August 2013 22:40, Denny Vrandečić <denny.vrandecic(a)wikimedia.de>wrote;wrote:
Rui,
if your basic assumption is that Wikipedia will never be a real
encyclopedia because of the lack of diversity among its contributors, I
would like to know of any other encyclopedia that is anywhere close to the
diversity among its contributors that Wikipedia has (just a side-note, the
original Encyclopédie had an even worse bias towards aristocratic, male
French than Wikipedias does, as surprising as it sounds). So, which
Encyclopedia do you consider a real encyclopedia at all?
Also, never mind the fact that we already sport such a diversity -- we are
actively aiming and striving for even more diversity, and we are not
comparing us to the usually abysmal record of other encyclopedias, but
merely to our own high, maybe even unreachable ideals.
So, whereas I fully agree that there is a lot about Wikipedia that can be
improved, I am not sure that a mail that starts with the statement "Why
the
Wikipedia will never be a real encyclopedia" deserves even the
consideration that I offered you here, and is to be considered anything
beyond trolling.
All the best,
Denny
2013/8/1 Rui Correia <correia.rui(a)gmail.com>
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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 |
http://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 27/681/51985.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
_________________________
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
_______________