This mailing list is usually positive, but we need to talk about something rotten. I was linked to this Meta RfC by my Russian colleague: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Administrator_abuse_on_...
The author and commentators, with notable evidence, allege that admins and editors on Croatian Wikipedia are biased in favour of far-right denialist talking points, especially in regards to World War II, and use their rights to continue this type of deal. From my further readings, the problems in Croatian Wikipedia exist for a long time with the same participating actors. This RfC exists for 2 years already without any signs of notice from the WMF or Meta stewards, all while nothing is changing and the local press is continuing to report about this (maybe authors should get American coverage to get any support, though). What exactly is the course of action on this and what has already been done in regards to this by Meta stewards or WMF?
Editors have tried to sound their alarms via different means: https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=857974834#2013_controversy_about_right-wing_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_231#On_the_state...
Support of extremist viewpoints should be the most pressing issue for Wikimedians, as we must recognise that our articles have consequences, and unabashed defence of Nazis in Wikipedia in one of the official languages of the EU is a big deal. I personally had to organise with others before to remove genuine jihadist view points from being reported as facts in one of Wikipedias (successfully), in the last year I also had to report to one steward that admin in one Wikipedia was deleting all (seemingly not bad) content in regards to LGBT without any explanation (unsuccessfully).
Every time significant institutional bias towards non-neutral and harmful view points goes unnoticed, we poison our readers, especially students, and discourage other people from constructive contribution in our projects. Perhaps, on the larger point, it is good to talk about some kind of committee akin to CoCC that would safely enforce the founding principles of our projects, if these issues go unnoticed so much.
I hope that something will be done with this eventually.
Oleg
It's a good thing that our thoughts and deeds are so pure that we have become entitled to purify the thoughts and deeds of others.
Since no one is pure we should accept and embrace intolerant and hateful propaganda in Wikimedia projects? Is that the argument you are making, Dennis?
Chico Venancio
Em seg, 26 de nov de 2018 09:55, Dennis During <dcduring@gmail.com escreveu:
It's a good thing that our thoughts and deeds are so pure that we have become entitled to purify the thoughts and deeds of others. _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al as the new press barons?
History does not require a judge. It's the storiography to be judge.
Here the problem is to give relevance to some sources and to neglect (completely) others.
If a single not neutral source is considered as the Holy Bible, the same pillars of Wikipedia are infringed.
Kind regards
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, 14:06 Dennis During <dcduring@gmail.com wrote:
Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al as the new press barons? _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, We have a database with all the citations of all Wikipedias. That database is integrated in wikidata as we speak. What we should do is eat our own medicine and compare sources on the same subject when the subject is controversial. Our overriding policy is for Wikipedia to have a neutral point of view. So while Croation sources are fine, they need to be balanced for a NPOV. When sources with a different viewpoint are available, ignoring them is not an option.
At the same time, there are sources that have been found to be untrustworthy. At some stage, sources, any and all sources can be assessed and even rejected.
Admins and bureaucrats have their authority because they promise to adhere to the universal Wikipedia policies, the other reason is the trust their community gave them at one time. In the end, we have the mechanisms and the methods to assess the NPOV and the quality of articles. We have the mechanisms and methods to assess the functioning of people who are trusted to adhere to our policies. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 19:15, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
History does not require a judge. It's the storiography to be judge.
Here the problem is to give relevance to some sources and to neglect (completely) others.
If a single not neutral source is considered as the Holy Bible, the same pillars of Wikipedia are infringed.
Kind regards
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, 14:06 Dennis During <dcduring@gmail.com wrote:
Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al
as
the new press barons? _______________________________________________ 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly. In this case I think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process applied. I hope that the process that Gerard recommends has been validated in some way that meets with broad, nearly universal approval.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:37 PM Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, We have a database with all the citations of all Wikipedias. That database is integrated in wikidata as we speak. What we should do is eat our own medicine and compare sources on the same subject when the subject is controversial. Our overriding policy is for Wikipedia to have a neutral point of view. So while Croation sources are fine, they need to be balanced for a NPOV. When sources with a different viewpoint are available, ignoring them is not an option.
At the same time, there are sources that have been found to be untrustworthy. At some stage, sources, any and all sources can be assessed and even rejected.
Admins and bureaucrats have their authority because they promise to adhere to the universal Wikipedia policies, the other reason is the trust their community gave them at one time. In the end, we have the mechanisms and the methods to assess the NPOV and the quality of articles. We have the mechanisms and methods to assess the functioning of people who are trusted to adhere to our policies. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 19:15, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
History does not require a judge. It's the storiography to be judge.
Here the problem is to give relevance to some sources and to neglect (completely) others.
If a single not neutral source is considered as the Holy Bible, the same pillars of Wikipedia are infringed.
Kind regards
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, 14:06 Dennis During <dcduring@gmail.com wrote:
Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al
as
the new press barons? _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Forgive me, but this is coming across as hopping from excuse to excuse. On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 18:03, Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com wrote:
It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly. In this case I think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process applied. I hope that the process that Gerard recommends has been validated in some way that meets with broad, nearly universal approval.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:37 PM Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, We have a database with all the citations of all Wikipedias. That database is integrated in wikidata as we speak. What we should do is eat our own medicine and compare sources on the same subject when the subject is controversial. Our overriding policy is for Wikipedia to have a neutral point of view. So while Croation sources are fine, they need to be balanced for a NPOV. When sources with a different viewpoint are available, ignoring them is not an option.
At the same time, there are sources that have been found to be untrustworthy. At some stage, sources, any and all sources can be assessed and even rejected.
Admins and bureaucrats have their authority because they promise to adhere to the universal Wikipedia policies, the other reason is the trust their community gave them at one time. In the end, we have the mechanisms and the methods to assess the NPOV and the quality of articles. We have the mechanisms and methods to assess the functioning of people who are trusted to adhere to our policies. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 19:15, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
History does not require a judge. It's the storiography to be judge.
Here the problem is to give relevance to some sources and to neglect (completely) others.
If a single not neutral source is considered as the Holy Bible, the same pillars of Wikipedia are infringed.
Kind regards
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, 14:06 Dennis During <dcduring@gmail.com wrote:
Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al
as
the new press barons? _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Dennis C. During _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Excuse for what? Whatever process is used needs to have integrity to be accepted. We are supposed to be inclusive and transparent, right?
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 15:15 David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Forgive me, but this is coming across as hopping from excuse to excuse. On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 18:03, Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com wrote:
It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly. In this case I think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process
applied.
I hope that the process that Gerard recommends has been validated in some way that meets with broad, nearly universal approval.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:37 PM Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hoi, We have a database with all the citations of all Wikipedias. That
database
is integrated in wikidata as we speak. What we should do is eat our own medicine and compare sources on the same subject when the subject is controversial. Our overriding policy is for Wikipedia to have a neutral point of view. So while Croation sources are fine, they need to be
balanced
for a NPOV. When sources with a different viewpoint are available,
ignoring
them is not an option.
At the same time, there are sources that have been found to be untrustworthy. At some stage, sources, any and all sources can be
assessed
and even rejected.
Admins and bureaucrats have their authority because they promise to
adhere
to the universal Wikipedia policies, the other reason is the trust
their
community gave them at one time. In the end, we have the mechanisms
and the
methods to assess the NPOV and the quality of articles. We have the mechanisms and methods to assess the functioning of people who are
trusted
to adhere to our policies. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 19:15, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com
wrote:
History does not require a judge. It's the storiography to be judge.
Here the problem is to give relevance to some sources and to neglect (completely) others.
If a single not neutral source is considered as the Holy Bible, the
same
pillars of Wikipedia are infringed.
Kind regards
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, 14:06 Dennis During <dcduring@gmail.com wrote:
Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter,
et al
as
the new press barons? _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Dennis C. During _______________________________________________ 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com wrote:
Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al as the new press barons?
All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making judgments. As a movement we have largely decided that editors on individual projects should be the ones to make those judgments. But in some extreme cases, our judgment may be that we need different judges.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:03 PM Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com wrote:
It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly. In this case I think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process applied.
I don't know whether this is the process we want. But if it is, somebody's gotta go first.
Why not test-run the process on my favorite project - or yours? We should get started.
I am skeptical of the quality of judgment without a foundation of facts. At Wiktionary we have two main definition evaluation processes, one dependent on citations to which interpretative judgment is applies. IMO this process works very well. The other depends on opinion, votes, supported by whatever facts or authority or bluster (my specialty) advocates bring to bear. That process, though adequate, is not as satisfactory.
Gerard Meijssen has suggested a faith-based process. If it is almost ready to go, let it be validated and put to use.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 16:45 Benjamin Lees <emufarmers@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com wrote:
Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al
as
the new press barons?
All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making judgments. As a movement we have largely decided that editors on individual projects should be the ones to make those judgments. But in some extreme cases, our judgment may be that we need different judges.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:03 PM Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com wrote:
It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly. In this case I think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process
applied.
I don't know whether this is the process we want. But if it is, somebody's gotta go first.
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe I
Hoi, I take offence calling it a faith-based process. We have a database with the citations of all Wikipedias. We have overriding principles that include the NPOV and what the role of functionaries is in Wikimedia projects. When they are a faith, they are our faith.
My question to you is, why are you reluctant to start a process that will bring down many hobby horses including yours and the ones in your favourite project. Why not start where we face an urgency? An urgency that undermines Wikipedia as NPOV! Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 00:31, Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com wrote:
Why not test-run the process on my favorite project - or yours? We should get started.
I am skeptical of the quality of judgment without a foundation of facts. At Wiktionary we have two main definition evaluation processes, one dependent on citations to which interpretative judgment is applies. IMO this process works very well. The other depends on opinion, votes, supported by whatever facts or authority or bluster (my specialty) advocates bring to bear. That process, though adequate, is not as satisfactory.
Gerard Meijssen has suggested a faith-based process. If it is almost ready to go, let it be validated and put to use.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 16:45 Benjamin Lees <emufarmers@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com
wrote:
Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al
as
the new press barons?
All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making judgments. As a movement we have largely decided that editors on individual projects should be the ones to make those judgments. But in some extreme cases, our judgment may be that we need different judges.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:03 PM Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com
wrote:
It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly. In this case
I
think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process
applied.
I don't know whether this is the process we want. But if it is, somebody's gotta go first.
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe I
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
My cellphone spellchecker substituted "faith" for "fact". I was trying to encourage the use of your approach.
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018, 06:43 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I take offence calling it a faith-based process. We have a database with the citations of all Wikipedias. We have overriding principles that include the NPOV and what the role of functionaries is in Wikimedia projects. When they are a faith, they are our faith.
My question to you is, why are you reluctant to start a process that will bring down many hobby horses including yours and the ones in your favourite project. Why not start where we face an urgency? An urgency that undermines Wikipedia as NPOV! Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 00:31, Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com wrote:
Why not test-run the process on my favorite project - or yours? We
should
get started.
I am skeptical of the quality of judgment without a foundation of facts. At Wiktionary we have two main definition evaluation processes, one dependent on citations to which interpretative judgment is applies. IMO this process works very well. The other depends on opinion, votes, supported by whatever facts or authority or bluster (my specialty) advocates bring to bear. That process, though adequate, is not as satisfactory.
Gerard Meijssen has suggested a faith-based process. If it is almost
ready
to go, let it be validated and put to use.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 16:45 Benjamin Lees <emufarmers@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com
wrote:
Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et
al
as
the new press barons?
All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making judgments. As a movement we have largely decided that editors on individual projects should be the ones to make those judgments. But in some extreme cases, our judgment may be that we need different judges.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:03 PM Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com
wrote:
It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly. In this
case
I
think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process
applied.
I don't know whether this is the process we want. But if it is, somebody's gotta go first.
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe I
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
A quick comment: there are some sympthoms the process is totally broken there. Reasoning about sources works fine when the process works, it's completely useless otherwise.
See Dalibor Bosits@hrwiki https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Permissions#Dalibor_Bosits@hrwiki for example.
Vito
Il giorno mer 28 nov 2018 alle ore 13:09 Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com ha scritto:
My cellphone spellchecker substituted "faith" for "fact". I was trying to encourage the use of your approach.
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018, 06:43 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I take offence calling it a faith-based process. We have a database with the citations of all Wikipedias. We have overriding principles that
include
the NPOV and what the role of functionaries is in Wikimedia projects.
When
they are a faith, they are our faith.
My question to you is, why are you reluctant to start a process that will bring down many hobby horses including yours and the ones in your
favourite
project. Why not start where we face an urgency? An urgency that
undermines
Wikipedia as NPOV! Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 00:31, Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com wrote:
Why not test-run the process on my favorite project - or yours? We
should
get started.
I am skeptical of the quality of judgment without a foundation of
facts.
At Wiktionary we have two main definition evaluation processes, one dependent on citations to which interpretative judgment is applies. IMO this process works very well. The other depends on opinion, votes, supported by whatever facts or authority or bluster (my specialty) advocates bring to bear. That process, though adequate, is not as satisfactory.
Gerard Meijssen has suggested a faith-based process. If it is almost
ready
to go, let it be validated and put to use.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 16:45 Benjamin Lees <emufarmers@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com
wrote:
Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter,
et
al
as
the new press barons?
All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making
judgments.
As a movement we have largely decided that editors on individual projects should be the ones to make those judgments. But in some extreme cases, our judgment may be that we need different judges.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:03 PM Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com
wrote:
It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly. In this
case
I
think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process
applied.
I don't know whether this is the process we want. But if it is, somebody's gotta go first.
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I
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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I don't clearly understand Gerard what is your idea. Do you want to measure NPOV by calculating how often the sources are used after somehow marking them to belong to one or another group of political, religous or other type of POV? And when you find that one group of them are more often cited than the others, this is a symptom of systematic bias of given Wikimedia project? Well that might be quite misleading because the issue is the honesty and context of using sources.
For example: One can write an article about any controversial topic using equal number of sources supporting opposite POVs, but the text can still be quite biased:
"According to unfaithful bastard X [source X] the true is A. But, according to honourable and widely recognized expert Y [source Y] A it is not true, but the true is B."
I don't believe in any kind of automated method of measuring NPOV. NPOV is very complex issue needed human judgment. You can't avoid it.
śr., 28 lis 2018 o 12:43 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com napisał(a):
Hoi, I take offence calling it a faith-based process. We have a database with the citations of all Wikipedias. We have overriding principles that include the NPOV and what the role of functionaries is in Wikimedia projects. When they are a faith, they are our faith.
My question to you is, why are you reluctant to start a process that will bring down many hobby horses including yours and the ones in your favourite project. Why not start where we face an urgency? An urgency that undermines Wikipedia as NPOV! Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 00:31, Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com wrote:
Why not test-run the process on my favorite project - or yours? We
should
get started.
I am skeptical of the quality of judgment without a foundation of facts. At Wiktionary we have two main definition evaluation processes, one dependent on citations to which interpretative judgment is applies. IMO this process works very well. The other depends on opinion, votes, supported by whatever facts or authority or bluster (my specialty) advocates bring to bear. That process, though adequate, is not as satisfactory.
Gerard Meijssen has suggested a faith-based process. If it is almost
ready
to go, let it be validated and put to use.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 16:45 Benjamin Lees <emufarmers@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com
wrote:
Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et
al
as
the new press barons?
All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making judgments. As a movement we have largely decided that editors on individual projects should be the ones to make those judgments. But in some extreme cases, our judgment may be that we need different judges.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:03 PM Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com
wrote:
It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly. In this
case
I
think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process
applied.
I don't know whether this is the process we want. But if it is, somebody's gotta go first.
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe I
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Yes the method can miss bias. But if the references* used are* biased, it would provide clear, objective (though not irrefutable) evidence of a general bias. The more factual the discussion, the more likely it will be that any conclusions of the process will be accepted, if not by all at Croatia WP, then perhaps by some there and by most other observers.
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:45 PM Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
I don't clearly understand Gerard what is your idea. Do you want to measure NPOV by calculating how often the sources are used after somehow marking them to belong to one or another group of political, religous or other type of POV? And when you find that one group of them are more often cited than the others, this is a symptom of systematic bias of given Wikimedia project? Well that might be quite misleading because the issue is the honesty and context of using sources.
For example: One can write an article about any controversial topic using equal number of sources supporting opposite POVs, but the text can still be quite biased:
"According to unfaithful bastard X [source X] the true is A. But, according to honourable and widely recognized expert Y [source Y] A it is not true, but the true is B."
I don't believe in any kind of automated method of measuring NPOV. NPOV is very complex issue needed human judgment. You can't avoid it.
śr., 28 lis 2018 o 12:43 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com napisał(a):
Hoi, I take offence calling it a faith-based process. We have a database with the citations of all Wikipedias. We have overriding principles that
include
the NPOV and what the role of functionaries is in Wikimedia projects.
When
they are a faith, they are our faith.
My question to you is, why are you reluctant to start a process that will bring down many hobby horses including yours and the ones in your
favourite
project. Why not start where we face an urgency? An urgency that
undermines
Wikipedia as NPOV! Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 00:31, Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com wrote:
Why not test-run the process on my favorite project - or yours? We
should
get started.
I am skeptical of the quality of judgment without a foundation of
facts.
At Wiktionary we have two main definition evaluation processes, one dependent on citations to which interpretative judgment is applies. IMO this process works very well. The other depends on opinion, votes, supported by whatever facts or authority or bluster (my specialty) advocates bring to bear. That process, though adequate, is not as satisfactory.
Gerard Meijssen has suggested a faith-based process. If it is almost
ready
to go, let it be validated and put to use.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 16:45 Benjamin Lees <emufarmers@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com
wrote:
Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter,
et
al
as
the new press barons?
All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making
judgments.
As a movement we have largely decided that editors on individual projects should be the ones to make those judgments. But in some extreme cases, our judgment may be that we need different judges.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:03 PM Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com
wrote:
It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly. In this
case
I
think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process
applied.
I don't know whether this is the process we want. But if it is, somebody's gotta go first.
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Vast majority of sources in controversial topics are usually biased. There are topics where there is in fact no any non-biased sources. And - coming back to my previous example, having knowledge how automatic method o bias measurement works it is very easy to bully it:
"According to unfaithful bastard X [source X1][source X2][source X3] the true is A. But, according to honorable and widely recognized expert Y [source Y] A it is not true, but the true is B."
This sentence is quite obviously biased towards B POV, but automatic measurement of sources will tell you that there is bias towards A POV. And this is very simple, primitive example of bias. People usually tend to do it in much more subtle way. Sometimes one short, completely unsourced sentence at the end of very long article with hundreds of citations can completely ruin NPOV...
Or imagine that you write article about a bishop - quite naturally most sources will be religious POV - which does not necessarily mean that the article is biased as it might contain only basic facts of that person retrieved from official church sources. Then - following this example - in Polish Wikipedia - we have probably articles about all living bishops from major christian denomination. But if you would want to "prove" that Polish Wikipedia has pro-roman-catholic POV you can easily show that we have 162 articles about roman-catholic Polish bishops and only 12 about orthodox bishops. And the numbers of citations is more or less probably of the same proportion. Why? Simply because we have in Poland 162 catholic bishops and 12 orthodox. Wikipedia cannot change it obviously ;-)
czw., 6 gru 2018 o 02:19 Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com napisał(a):
Yes the method can miss bias. But if the references* used are* biased, it would provide clear, objective (though not irrefutable) evidence of a general bias. The more factual the discussion, the more likely it will be that any conclusions of the process will be accepted, if not by all at Croatia WP, then perhaps by some there and by most other observers.
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:45 PM Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
I don't clearly understand Gerard what is your idea. Do you want to
measure
NPOV by calculating how often the sources are used after somehow marking them to belong to one or another group of political, religous or other
type
of POV? And when you find that one group of them are more often cited
than
the others, this is a symptom of systematic bias of given Wikimedia project? Well that might be quite misleading because the issue is the honesty and context of using sources.
For example: One can write an article about any controversial topic using equal number of sources supporting opposite POVs, but the text can still be quite biased:
"According to unfaithful bastard X [source X] the true is A. But,
according
to honourable and widely recognized expert Y [source Y] A it is not true, but the true is B."
I don't believe in any kind of automated method of measuring NPOV. NPOV
is
very complex issue needed human judgment. You can't avoid it.
śr., 28 lis 2018 o 12:43 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com napisał(a):
Hoi, I take offence calling it a faith-based process. We have a database
with
the citations of all Wikipedias. We have overriding principles that
include
the NPOV and what the role of functionaries is in Wikimedia projects.
When
they are a faith, they are our faith.
My question to you is, why are you reluctant to start a process that
will
bring down many hobby horses including yours and the ones in your
favourite
project. Why not start where we face an urgency? An urgency that
undermines
Wikipedia as NPOV! Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 00:31, Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com
wrote:
Why not test-run the process on my favorite project - or yours? We
should
get started.
I am skeptical of the quality of judgment without a foundation of
facts.
At Wiktionary we have two main definition evaluation processes, one dependent on citations to which interpretative judgment is applies.
IMO
this process works very well. The other depends on opinion, votes, supported by whatever facts or authority or bluster (my specialty) advocates bring to bear. That process, though adequate, is not as satisfactory.
Gerard Meijssen has suggested a faith-based process. If it is almost
ready
to go, let it be validated and put to use.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 16:45 Benjamin Lees <emufarmers@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com
wrote:
Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter,
et
al
as
the new press barons?
All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making
judgments.
As a movement we have largely decided that editors on individual projects should be the ones to make those judgments. But in some extreme cases, our judgment may be that we need different judges.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:03 PM Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com
wrote:
It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly. In this
case
I
think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process
applied.
I don't know whether this is the process we want. But if it is, somebody's gotta go first.
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
I
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Dennis C. During _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Tomasz,
whereas you are right in theory, a practical application of this method requires (i) availability and acceptance of all these sources in the community (for example, if one side published in Croatian and another one published in English, Croatian Wikipedia is likely to use only sources produced by one side whereas the English Wikipedia is likely to use sources produced by the other side); (ii) healthy community which is aware of the notions of systemic bias, neutrality, and is willing to apply these notions in their editing (for which it must be big and diverse enough so that all notable topics get sufficiently represented). For the specific situation with the Croatian Wikipedia, I highly doubt that we have (ii) and I am pretty sure we do not have (i),
Cheers Yaroslav
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:42 PM Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
Vast majority of sources in controversial topics are usually biased. There are topics where there is in fact no any non-biased sources. And - coming back to my previous example, having knowledge how automatic method o bias measurement works it is very easy to bully it:
"According to unfaithful bastard X [source X1][source X2][source X3] the true is A. But, according to honorable and widely recognized expert Y [source Y] A it is not true, but the true is B."
This sentence is quite obviously biased towards B POV, but automatic measurement of sources will tell you that there is bias towards A POV. And this is very simple, primitive example of bias. People usually tend to do it in much more subtle way. Sometimes one short, completely unsourced sentence at the end of very long article with hundreds of citations can completely ruin NPOV...
Or imagine that you write article about a bishop - quite naturally most sources will be religious POV - which does not necessarily mean that the article is biased as it might contain only basic facts of that person retrieved from official church sources. Then - following this example - in Polish Wikipedia - we have probably articles about all living bishops from major christian denomination. But if you would want to "prove" that Polish Wikipedia has pro-roman-catholic POV you can easily show that we have 162 articles about roman-catholic Polish bishops and only 12 about orthodox bishops. And the numbers of citations is more or less probably of the same proportion. Why? Simply because we have in Poland 162 catholic bishops and 12 orthodox. Wikipedia cannot change it obviously ;-)
czw., 6 gru 2018 o 02:19 Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com napisał(a):
Yes the method can miss bias. But if the references* used are* biased, it would provide clear, objective (though not irrefutable) evidence of a general bias. The more factual the discussion, the more likely it will
be
that any conclusions of the process will be accepted, if not by all at Croatia WP, then perhaps by some there and by most other observers.
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:45 PM Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't clearly understand Gerard what is your idea. Do you want to
measure
NPOV by calculating how often the sources are used after somehow
marking
them to belong to one or another group of political, religous or other
type
of POV? And when you find that one group of them are more often cited
than
the others, this is a symptom of systematic bias of given Wikimedia project? Well that might be quite misleading because the issue is the honesty and context of using sources.
For example: One can write an article about any controversial topic
using
equal number of sources supporting opposite POVs, but the text can
still
be quite biased:
"According to unfaithful bastard X [source X] the true is A. But,
according
to honourable and widely recognized expert Y [source Y] A it is not
true,
but the true is B."
I don't believe in any kind of automated method of measuring NPOV. NPOV
is
very complex issue needed human judgment. You can't avoid it.
śr., 28 lis 2018 o 12:43 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com napisał(a):
Hoi, I take offence calling it a faith-based process. We have a database
with
the citations of all Wikipedias. We have overriding principles that
include
the NPOV and what the role of functionaries is in Wikimedia projects.
When
they are a faith, they are our faith.
My question to you is, why are you reluctant to start a process that
will
bring down many hobby horses including yours and the ones in your
favourite
project. Why not start where we face an urgency? An urgency that
undermines
Wikipedia as NPOV! Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 00:31, Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com
wrote:
Why not test-run the process on my favorite project - or yours? We
should
get started.
I am skeptical of the quality of judgment without a foundation of
facts.
At Wiktionary we have two main definition evaluation processes, one dependent on citations to which interpretative judgment is applies.
IMO
this process works very well. The other depends on opinion, votes, supported by whatever facts or authority or bluster (my specialty) advocates bring to bear. That process, though adequate, is not as satisfactory.
Gerard Meijssen has suggested a faith-based process. If it is
almost
ready
to go, let it be validated and put to use.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 16:45 Benjamin Lees <emufarmers@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During <
dcduring@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google,
Twitter,
et
al
as > the new press barons?
All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making
judgments.
As a movement we have largely decided that editors on individual projects should be the ones to make those judgments. But in some extreme cases, our judgment may be that we need different judges.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:03 PM Dennis During <
dcduring@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly. In
this
case
I
> think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new
process
applied.
I don't know whether this is the process we want. But if it is, somebody's gotta go first.
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
I
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Dennis C. During _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, No point in automating NPOV, we are not at a point where we can. Where we are is a point where we can collect all sources used to prove a point, any point. We are at a point where we can indicate what sources are used to prove or disprove any given point.
Now a NPOV does not mean that facts can be denied because "a" source says something is a fact. There is plenty of literature where facts are plain untrue and when this is a given, a source cannot be used. This mechanism to validate sources in a bigger context is what I propose.
The facts will fall as they may. However calling the Croations names is only justified when it is justified. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 23:45, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
I don't clearly understand Gerard what is your idea. Do you want to measure NPOV by calculating how often the sources are used after somehow marking them to belong to one or another group of political, religous or other type of POV? And when you find that one group of them are more often cited than the others, this is a symptom of systematic bias of given Wikimedia project? Well that might be quite misleading because the issue is the honesty and context of using sources.
For example: One can write an article about any controversial topic using equal number of sources supporting opposite POVs, but the text can still be quite biased:
"According to unfaithful bastard X [source X] the true is A. But, according to honourable and widely recognized expert Y [source Y] A it is not true, but the true is B."
I don't believe in any kind of automated method of measuring NPOV. NPOV is very complex issue needed human judgment. You can't avoid it.
śr., 28 lis 2018 o 12:43 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com napisał(a):
Hoi, I take offence calling it a faith-based process. We have a database with the citations of all Wikipedias. We have overriding principles that
include
the NPOV and what the role of functionaries is in Wikimedia projects.
When
they are a faith, they are our faith.
My question to you is, why are you reluctant to start a process that will bring down many hobby horses including yours and the ones in your
favourite
project. Why not start where we face an urgency? An urgency that
undermines
Wikipedia as NPOV! Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 00:31, Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com wrote:
Why not test-run the process on my favorite project - or yours? We
should
get started.
I am skeptical of the quality of judgment without a foundation of
facts.
At Wiktionary we have two main definition evaluation processes, one dependent on citations to which interpretative judgment is applies. IMO this process works very well. The other depends on opinion, votes, supported by whatever facts or authority or bluster (my specialty) advocates bring to bear. That process, though adequate, is not as satisfactory.
Gerard Meijssen has suggested a faith-based process. If it is almost
ready
to go, let it be validated and put to use.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 16:45 Benjamin Lees <emufarmers@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com
wrote:
Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter,
et
al
as
the new press barons?
All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making
judgments.
As a movement we have largely decided that editors on individual projects should be the ones to make those judgments. But in some extreme cases, our judgment may be that we need different judges.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:03 PM Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com
wrote:
It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly. In this
case
I
think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process
applied.
I don't know whether this is the process we want. But if it is, somebody's gotta go first.
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I think that this case is so complicated that the admin or the steward sometimes are not prepared to face a big problem like this.
They evaluate two opinions without having a background to define what is true and what is not. In this case the evaluation can be not neutral.
Anyways the bias us present in all several Wikipedias and not only in Croatian mainly if it concerns the history of the area around Croatia.
It's a pity that still now, after long time, someone us reporting the same problem. I would know personally what is the problem.
Kind regards
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, 12:38 stjn <ole.yves@gmail.com wrote:
This mailing list is usually positive, but we need to talk about something rotten. I was linked to this Meta RfC by my Russian colleague:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Administrator_abuse_on_...
The author and commentators, with notable evidence, allege that admins and editors on Croatian Wikipedia are biased in favour of far-right denialist talking points, especially in regards to World War II, and use their rights to continue this type of deal. From my further readings, the problems in Croatian Wikipedia exist for a long time with the same participating actors. This RfC exists for 2 years already without any signs of notice from the WMF or Meta stewards, all while nothing is changing and the local press is continuing to report about this (maybe authors should get American coverage to get any support, though). What exactly is the course of action on this and what has already been done in regards to this by Meta stewards or WMF?
Editors have tried to sound their alarms via different means:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=857974834#2013_controversy_about_right-wing_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_231#On_the_state...
Support of extremist viewpoints should be the most pressing issue for Wikimedians, as we must recognise that our articles have consequences, and unabashed defence of Nazis in Wikipedia in one of the official languages of the EU is a big deal. I personally had to organise with others before to remove genuine jihadist view points from being reported as facts in one of Wikipedias (successfully), in the last year I also had to report to one steward that admin in one Wikipedia was deleting all (seemingly not bad) content in regards to LGBT without any explanation (unsuccessfully).
Every time significant institutional bias towards non-neutral and harmful view points goes unnoticed, we poison our readers, especially students, and discourage other people from constructive contribution in our projects. Perhaps, on the larger point, it is good to talk about some kind of committee akin to CoCC that would safely enforce the founding principles of our projects, if these issues go unnoticed so much.
I hope that something will be done with this eventually.
Oleg
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org