Croatian Wikipedia: persisting far-right bias?

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

New Wikimedia password policy and...

Wikimedia Summit 2019 -...

stjn

23 Nov 2018 23 Nov '18

4:30 p.m.

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_stat… 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

Show replies by date

Dennis During

26 Nov 26 Nov

12:54 p.m.

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.

Chico Venancio

12:58 p.m.

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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Dennis During

1:06 p.m.

Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al as the new press barons?

Ilario Valdelli

6:14 p.m.

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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Gerard Meijssen

27 Nov 27 Nov

8:52 a.m.

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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al

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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Dennis During

6:02 p.m.

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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al

-- Dennis C. During

David Gerard

8:14 p.m.

Forgive me, but this is coming across as hopping from excuse to excuse. On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 18:03, Dennis During <dcduring(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al

-- 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Dennis During

8:47 p.m.

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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Benjamin Lees

9:45 p.m.

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During <dcduring(a)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(a)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.

Dennis During

11:30 p.m.

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(a)gmail.com wrote:

...

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During <dcduring(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al

the new press barons?

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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> I

Gerard Meijssen

28 Nov 28 Nov

7:13 a.m.

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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During <dcduring(a)gmail.com>

wrote:

Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al

the new press barons?

wrote:

> > It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly. In this case

think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process

Dennis During

12:09 p.m.

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(a)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(a)gmail.com wrote:

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During <dcduring(a)gmail.com>

wrote: > > > > Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et

the new press barons?

wrote: > > > > It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly. In this

case

think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process

Vi to

5:53 p.m.

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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During <dcduring(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter,

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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Tomasz Ganicz

5 Dec 5 Dec

10:45 p.m.

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(a)gmail.com> napisał(a):

...

Why not test-run the process on my favorite project - or yours? We

should

ready

to go, let it be validated and put to use. On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 16:45 Benjamin Lees <emufarmers(a)gmail.com wrote:

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During <dcduring(a)gmail.com>

wrote: > > > > Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et

the new press barons?

wrote: > > > > It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly. In this

case

think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process

-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/

Dennis During

6 Dec 6 Dec

1:18 a.m.

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(a)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(a)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.

al > > as > > > the new press barons? > > > > All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making

judgments.

wrote: > > > > It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly. In this

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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- Dennis C. During

Tomasz Ganicz

12:41 p.m.

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(a)gmail.com> napisał(a):

...

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

very complex issue needed human judgment. You can't avoid it. śr., 28 lis 2018 o 12:43 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)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(a)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(a)gmail.com

wrote:

> > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During <dcduring(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter,

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(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly. In this

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(a)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/

Yaroslav Blanter

12:58 p.m.

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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

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(a)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

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(a)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(a)gmail.com

wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During <

dcduring(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org

?subject=unsubscribe>

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org

?subject=unsubscribe>

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Gerard Meijssen

2:25 p.m.

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(a)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(a)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.

al > > as > > > the new press barons? > > > > All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making

judgments.

wrote: > > > > It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly. In this

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Ilario Valdelli

26 Nov 26 Nov

1:06 p.m.

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(a)gmail.com wrote:

...

1968

days inactive

1981

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

19 comments

10 participants

tags (0)

participants (10)

Benjamin Lees
Chico Venancio
David Gerard
Dennis During
Gerard Meijssen
Ilario Valdelli
stjn
Tomasz Ganicz
Vi to
Yaroslav Blanter