Hi all,
On Wikipedia and in our movement we are aware of the gendergap that exists and all kinds of activities are organised to make the gap smaller. I think this is great as no single gap should exist in collecting all the knowledge in the world, as well as our movement should be diverse as the world's population is diverse.
The statistics are clear on this matter, this is something to take care of. However, a part of the approach is causing problems, because general statistics should not be applied on individuals as that reduces humans to numbers only.
The reason why I bring this up is because I recently received an e-mail from a user in the Wikimedia movement who has (temporarily?) stopped contributing as she is not happy with a specific aspect of the atmosphere in Wikimedia.
She does not speak out at loud, but I think we must be aware as movement of the silent cry, therefore this e-mail to bring awareness (but with respect for the privacy of this individual).
What has happened?
She was invited to participate in a Wikimedia activity, because: 1. she is a woman 2. she is from a minority 3. she is from an area in the world with much less editors (compared to Europe/US)
and perhaps also because her colour of her skin is a bit different then mine (Caucasian).
At the same time she has the impression that the work she does on the Wikimedia wiki('s) is not valued, nor taken into account.
She does not want to be invited because she is a woman, nor because she is from a minority, nor ....... etc. This is offensive. She only wants to be invited because of the work she contributes on Wikipedia/etc.
Besides the many good initiatives and intentions, this kind of approaches to our contributors is demotivating them, please be aware of this. I believe demotivation/frustration is the largest problem we face as movement.
I heard from people that the problem described is called tokenism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokenism.
I believe the only way to close the gaps related to gender, minorities, etc, is to create an atmosphere in what everyone is appreciated for what she/he is doing, completely unrelated to the gender someone appears to have, the ethnicity, race, area of the world, etc etc etc etc.
Thank you!
Romaine
This is a sensitive topic, and I'm a white man myself, so please slap me if I say something dumb.
2018-05-07 7:10 GMT+03:00 Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com:
What has happened?
She was invited to participate in a Wikimedia activity, because:
- she is a woman
- she is from a minority
- she is from an area in the world with much less editors (compared to
Europe/US)
and perhaps also because her colour of her skin is a bit different then mine (Caucasian).
At the same time she has the impression that the work she does on the Wikimedia wiki('s) is not valued, nor taken into account.
By whom?
By the people who invited her?
By other participants in the event?
By other editors in the same wiki site?
By the readers?
She does not want to be invited because she is a woman, nor because she is from a minority, nor ....... etc. This is offensive. She only wants to be invited because of the work she contributes on Wikipedia/etc.
This makes a lot of sense to me, but that's just me and attitudes are different for each person.
Besides the many good initiatives and intentions, this kind of approaches to our contributors is demotivating them, please be aware of this.
Again, it's probably demotivating to some. Maybe to 98%, maybe to 30%, maybe to 5%. I honestly don't know.
I believe demotivation/frustration is the largest problem we face as
movement.
I don't know if its the biggest problem. On this mailing list we are a small group of meta-active Wikimedians, and we are the minority among editors. We don't actually represent all the editors. And of course the editors are a tiny minority compared to the readers.
I'd argue that the hard time that some editors are giving newcomers is a bigger problem. Gender is certainly a part of that, and there are many other parts.
We meta-wikimedians can find a better way to invite people to events, and we can change ourselves. That doesn't sound too hard. Changing the wider editor culture is harder.
I heard from people that the problem described is called tokenism
Yes, that's when representation is given to a weakened group, but that representation is too weak to be meaningful, and may do more harm than good.
I believe the only way to close the gaps related to gender, minorities, etc, is to create an atmosphere in what everyone is appreciated for what she/he is doing, completely unrelated to the gender someone appears to have, the ethnicity, race, area of the world, etc etc etc etc.
So that's where it gets really complicated, because it's always related, in ways that are sometimes visible and sometimes invisible.
Let's take school education as a hopefully easy example. People from different areas of the world will have very different things to write about it. In some areas of the world everybody gets school education—boys and girls, rich and poor, rural and urban. In other areas it may be only boys; or only people in cities; or only people who know a certain language; or only people who belong to a certain religion; or only people who have a certain amount of money; or only people who have a certain skin color. I want articles about education to have contributions from as many people as possible, from different genders, from different skin colors, and from different areas, and so on.
An American white woman has different things to say about education from an American black man. These differences are important and frequently discussed in American media. But the American white woman and the American black man *don't even imagine* what people from The Philippines have to say about education. What people from the Philippines have to say about education probably has little to do with the internal American debates on this topic. And of course it breaks down further, because a person who lives in the capital of Philippines and knows English has different things to say about education from a person who lives in a village in Philippines and doesn't know English.
On articles about education I want to hear from all of them. And about every other topic. (And yes, I want contributions from people who don't know English in the English Wikipedia. By definition they cannot contribute directly, but we must do everything we can to make at least an indirect contribution possible.)
How do we do it right?
How do we get more different people to even try to contribute to articles? How do we get everybody's contributions to be accepted? (Guess whose contributions are more likely to be challenged as "non-notable", "unencyclopedic", or "unreferenced".)
I don't know. Am I even asking the right questions?
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
I think you ask good questions, but some answers are not easy to find. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Amir E. Aharoni Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 8:03 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
This is a sensitive topic, and I'm a white man myself, so please slap me if I say something dumb.
2018-05-07 7:10 GMT+03:00 Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com:
What has happened?
She was invited to participate in a Wikimedia activity, because:
- she is a woman
- she is from a minority
- she is from an area in the world with much less editors (compared to
Europe/US)
and perhaps also because her colour of her skin is a bit different then mine (Caucasian).
At the same time she has the impression that the work she does on the Wikimedia wiki('s) is not valued, nor taken into account.
By whom?
By the people who invited her?
By other participants in the event?
By other editors in the same wiki site?
By the readers?
She does not want to be invited because she is a woman, nor because she is from a minority, nor ....... etc. This is offensive. She only wants to be invited because of the work she contributes on Wikipedia/etc.
This makes a lot of sense to me, but that's just me and attitudes are different for each person.
Besides the many good initiatives and intentions, this kind of approaches to our contributors is demotivating them, please be aware of this.
Again, it's probably demotivating to some. Maybe to 98%, maybe to 30%, maybe to 5%. I honestly don't know.
I believe demotivation/frustration is the largest problem we face as
movement.
I don't know if its the biggest problem. On this mailing list we are a small group of meta-active Wikimedians, and we are the minority among editors. We don't actually represent all the editors. And of course the editors are a tiny minority compared to the readers.
I'd argue that the hard time that some editors are giving newcomers is a bigger problem. Gender is certainly a part of that, and there are many other parts.
We meta-wikimedians can find a better way to invite people to events, and we can change ourselves. That doesn't sound too hard. Changing the wider editor culture is harder.
I heard from people that the problem described is called tokenism
Yes, that's when representation is given to a weakened group, but that representation is too weak to be meaningful, and may do more harm than good.
I believe the only way to close the gaps related to gender, minorities, etc, is to create an atmosphere in what everyone is appreciated for what she/he is doing, completely unrelated to the gender someone appears to have, the ethnicity, race, area of the world, etc etc etc etc.
So that's where it gets really complicated, because it's always related, in ways that are sometimes visible and sometimes invisible.
Let's take school education as a hopefully easy example. People from different areas of the world will have very different things to write about it. In some areas of the world everybody gets school education—boys and girls, rich and poor, rural and urban. In other areas it may be only boys; or only people in cities; or only people who know a certain language; or only people who belong to a certain religion; or only people who have a certain amount of money; or only people who have a certain skin color. I want articles about education to have contributions from as many people as possible, from different genders, from different skin colors, and from different areas, and so on.
An American white woman has different things to say about education from an American black man. These differences are important and frequently discussed in American media. But the American white woman and the American black man *don't even imagine* what people from The Philippines have to say about education. What people from the Philippines have to say about education probably has little to do with the internal American debates on this topic. And of course it breaks down further, because a person who lives in the capital of Philippines and knows English has different things to say about education from a person who lives in a village in Philippines and doesn't know English.
On articles about education I want to hear from all of them. And about every other topic. (And yes, I want contributions from people who don't know English in the English Wikipedia. By definition they cannot contribute directly, but we must do everything we can to make at least an indirect contribution possible.)
How do we do it right?
How do we get more different people to even try to contribute to articles? How do we get everybody's contributions to be accepted? (Guess whose contributions are more likely to be challenged as "non-notable", "unencyclopedic", or "unreferenced".)
I don't know. Am I even asking the right questions?
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore _______________________________________________ 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
Amir, It's funny - after reading your mail I wondered if I had read Romaine's mail correctly. Rereading both it seems that is exactly what you were trying to say - we all carry our own little bundle of biases with us whereever we go and whatever we read. When I read Romaine's mail I stopped cold at "tokenism" - for me tokenism is when you count the paintings by women in any museum and you find none of the women have more than one painting in the collection, though they have lots and lots of male artists with more than 20 works in the collection.
When it comes to Wiki meetups, everyone has their own reasons for wanting to come or not. I have a feeling at edit-a-thons open to the general public that it's a bit like being in a cage or aquarium where you yourself are the attraction. Instead of meeting people who want to contribute I tend to get questioned about my own motivations. I agree that as a member of this list I am already a hard-core insider of this movement and can no longer think about these things in a "normal" way (i.e. as a reader). What I do know from talking to lots of family and friends is that most people have absolutely no clue about our gaps in knowledge or have even heard of the gendergap at all. When I say gendergap, they think gender pay gap and I have to start explaining that no one is paid for their edits (which always leads the conversation into a whole new tangent).
When it comes to the women, thankfully the word "nonbinary" is relatively new and we can easily measure the binary gender with Wikidata queries to see how we are doing. This is still sketchy and problematic, because lots of historical women and men still do not have their gender assigned at all on Wikidata - binary or not. We still can't measure gendergap per occupation, language, or citizenship however, because those statements are also still mostly lacking for most historical people. Citizenship is actually quite comical when you start drilling into the data on Wikidata. Some people want to be extremely specific about borders, which makes some towns flip all around in terms of citizenship for people who don't have precise birthdates - did I mention that women don't like to disclose their birthdates? I would LOVE to be able to count brown and black women, but this is of course completely off limits to us due to ethical concerns.
Here in the Netherlands we are going to hold a hackathon for women. I will talk about Wikidata and hope to recruit a few women to help out with the maintenance lists on women, such as this one: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Women/Wiki_monitor/lawiki
My hopes based on previous events, are not high. Best, Jane
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 8:03 AM, Amir E. Aharoni < amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
This is a sensitive topic, and I'm a white man myself, so please slap me if I say something dumb.
2018-05-07 7:10 GMT+03:00 Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com:
What has happened?
She was invited to participate in a Wikimedia activity, because:
- she is a woman
- she is from a minority
- she is from an area in the world with much less editors (compared to
Europe/US)
and perhaps also because her colour of her skin is a bit different then mine (Caucasian).
At the same time she has the impression that the work she does on the Wikimedia wiki('s) is not valued, nor taken into account.
By whom?
By the people who invited her?
By other participants in the event?
By other editors in the same wiki site?
By the readers?
She does not want to be invited because she is a woman, nor because she
is
from a minority, nor ....... etc. This is offensive. She only wants to be invited because of the work she contributes on Wikipedia/etc.
This makes a lot of sense to me, but that's just me and attitudes are different for each person.
Besides the many good initiatives and intentions, this kind of approaches to our contributors is demotivating them, please be aware of this.
Again, it's probably demotivating to some. Maybe to 98%, maybe to 30%, maybe to 5%. I honestly don't know.
I believe demotivation/frustration is the largest problem we face as
movement.
I don't know if its the biggest problem. On this mailing list we are a small group of meta-active Wikimedians, and we are the minority among editors. We don't actually represent all the editors. And of course the editors are a tiny minority compared to the readers.
I'd argue that the hard time that some editors are giving newcomers is a bigger problem. Gender is certainly a part of that, and there are many other parts.
We meta-wikimedians can find a better way to invite people to events, and we can change ourselves. That doesn't sound too hard. Changing the wider editor culture is harder.
I heard from people that the problem described is called tokenism
Yes, that's when representation is given to a weakened group, but that representation is too weak to be meaningful, and may do more harm than good.
I believe the only way to close the gaps related to gender, minorities, etc, is to create an atmosphere in what everyone is appreciated for what she/he is doing, completely unrelated to the gender someone appears to have, the ethnicity, race, area of the world, etc etc etc etc.
So that's where it gets really complicated, because it's always related, in ways that are sometimes visible and sometimes invisible.
Let's take school education as a hopefully easy example. People from different areas of the world will have very different things to write about it. In some areas of the world everybody gets school education—boys and girls, rich and poor, rural and urban. In other areas it may be only boys; or only people in cities; or only people who know a certain language; or only people who belong to a certain religion; or only people who have a certain amount of money; or only people who have a certain skin color. I want articles about education to have contributions from as many people as possible, from different genders, from different skin colors, and from different areas, and so on.
An American white woman has different things to say about education from an American black man. These differences are important and frequently discussed in American media. But the American white woman and the American black man *don't even imagine* what people from The Philippines have to say about education. What people from the Philippines have to say about education probably has little to do with the internal American debates on this topic. And of course it breaks down further, because a person who lives in the capital of Philippines and knows English has different things to say about education from a person who lives in a village in Philippines and doesn't know English.
On articles about education I want to hear from all of them. And about every other topic. (And yes, I want contributions from people who don't know English in the English Wikipedia. By definition they cannot contribute directly, but we must do everything we can to make at least an indirect contribution possible.)
How do we do it right?
How do we get more different people to even try to contribute to articles? How do we get everybody's contributions to be accepted? (Guess whose contributions are more likely to be challenged as "non-notable", "unencyclopedic", or "unreferenced".)
I don't know. Am I even asking the right questions?
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore _______________________________________________ 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
2018-05-07 9:55 GMT+03:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
Amir, It's funny - after reading your mail I wondered if I had read Romaine's mail correctly.
You had probably read it correctly.
Generally, I'm wondering whether direct invitations to women or people of color (or women of color, etc.) work as they should. Many people say that they work. They may be right, at least in part. If I understand correctly, Romaine says that he has doubts about it, and he's probably right, too, at least for some people.
I'm just trying to say that diversity is important. How do we reach it? I don't have very good answers. Probably not "one size fits all".
I mean, I want that woman about whom Romaine was speaking to contribute her knowledge. I want everybody to contribute their knowledge. Unless I missed it, Romaine didn't write what is her expertise, but just for the sake of the example, let's make something up and say that it's Astronomy.
Do I want her to contribute her knowledge about Astronomy? Of course I do. Should I tell her that I hope that she contributes her knowledge about Astronomy? I probably should. (Do correct me if I'm wrong.)
Do I think that she has something to say about Astronomy that men don't? Yes, it's quite possible. Should I tell her that? Hmm, I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. I think that this is the question that Romaine is trying to raise. And again, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Women editors might have something to add about nursing and the history of nursing that adds gender-specific value, increasing our coverage of the subject. So a workshop at a nursing convention might be valuable.
Fred
----- Original Message ----- From: Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, 07 May 2018 04:52:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
2018-05-07 9:55 GMT+03:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
Amir, It's funny - after reading your mail I wondered if I had read Romaine's mail correctly.
You had probably read it correctly.
Generally, I'm wondering whether direct invitations to women or people of color (or women of color, etc.) work as they should. Many people say that they work. They may be right, at least in part. If I understand correctly, Romaine says that he has doubts about it, and he's probably right, too, at least for some people.
I'm just trying to say that diversity is important. How do we reach it? I don't have very good answers. Probably not "one size fits all".
I mean, I want that woman about whom Romaine was speaking to contribute her knowledge. I want everybody to contribute their knowledge. Unless I missed it, Romaine didn't write what is her expertise, but just for the sake of the example, let's make something up and say that it's Astronomy.
Do I want her to contribute her knowledge about Astronomy? Of course I do. Should I tell her that I hope that she contributes her knowledge about Astronomy? I probably should. (Do correct me if I'm wrong.)
Do I think that she has something to say about Astronomy that men don't? Yes, it's quite possible. Should I tell her that? Hmm, I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. I think that this is the question that Romaine is trying to raise. And again, please correct me if I'm wrong. _______________________________________________ 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 7 May 2018 at 10:01, FRED BAUDER fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Women editors might have something to add about nursing and the history of nursing that adds gender-specific value, increasing our coverage of the subject. So a workshop at a nursing convention might be valuable.
Fred
----- Original Message ----- From: Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, 07 May 2018 04:52:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
2018-05-07 9:55 GMT+03:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
Amir, It's funny - after reading your mail I wondered if I had read Romaine's mail correctly.
You had probably read it correctly.
Generally, I'm wondering whether direct invitations to women or people of color (or women of color, etc.) work as they should. Many people say that they work. They may be right, at least in part. If I understand correctly, Romaine says that he has doubts about it, and he's probably right, too, at least for some people.
I'm just trying to say that diversity is important. How do we reach it? I don't have very good answers. Probably not "one size fits all".
I mean, I want that woman about whom Romaine was speaking to contribute her knowledge. I want everybody to contribute their knowledge. Unless I missed it, Romaine didn't write what is her expertise, but just for the sake of the example, let's make something up and say that it's Astronomy.
Do I want her to contribute her knowledge about Astronomy? Of course I do. Should I tell her that I hope that she contributes her knowledge about Astronomy? I probably should. (Do correct me if I'm wrong.)
Do I think that she has something to say about Astronomy that men don't? Yes, it's quite possible. Should I tell her that? Hmm, I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. I think that this is the question that Romaine is trying to raise. And again, please correct me if I'm wrong. _______________________________________________ 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
Thanks for reminding everyone that we live in the 21st Century, where there are plenty of women role models at the top of previously male dominated professions, not just nursing.
The Wikipedia community has the most success at correcting gender bias by encouraging interested volunteers of any gender to create articles which help correct that bias, in all subjects.
Fae
I think the problems not in trying to fix the imbalance in knowledge, something for which history has big role in what and how information was even still is recorded. I think the presumption that when we ask women to edit about women we predispose the assumption that women are only interested in women and only women can or want to write about them. We have had a lot of concepts that have improved content about women and they have focused on getting women to do the contributions.
sorry Fred to quote as an example
Women editors might have something to add about nursing and the history
of nursing that adds gender-specific value, increasing our coverage of the subject. So a workshop at a nursing convention might be valuable.
What we need to do is shift our train of thought from women can contribute to subjects about women to providing environments that let and encourage women to contribute to topics that interest them not us. The same applies to other "minorities" where the subject being written is less important than enabling participation. For that we need to consider in broader terms what is notable, what defines notability, how do we draw in those intangible knowledge sources to broaden the base for both contributors and contributions.
We have the ridiculous case of Indigenous people in Australia being considered as fauna until the 1960's, so that when an Indigenous person was written about historically(even now its still applies) that in itself is significant but we measure the notability of a person based not on the uniqueness of such but on whether there is sufficient volume of other works about the person. We have created an inherently bias system that favours those of colonial heritage with colonial records over those who dont have that historical privilege, we encourage this as Romaine put its with a tokenism of participation and expectation of contributions conforming to maintain that bias. While we do that we dont actually value the contributor or the contributions nor what else can be brought to the community.
On 7 May 2018 at 17:31, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 May 2018 at 10:01, FRED BAUDER fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Women editors might have something to add about nursing and the history
of nursing that adds gender-specific value, increasing our coverage of the subject. So a workshop at a nursing convention might be valuable.
Fred
----- Original Message ----- From: Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, 07 May 2018 04:52:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
2018-05-07 9:55 GMT+03:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
Amir, It's funny - after reading your mail I wondered if I had read Romaine's mail correctly.
You had probably read it correctly.
Generally, I'm wondering whether direct invitations to women or people of color (or women of color, etc.) work as they should. Many people say that they work. They may be right, at least in part. If I understand
correctly,
Romaine says that he has doubts about it, and he's probably right, too,
at
least for some people.
I'm just trying to say that diversity is important. How do we reach it? I don't have very good answers. Probably not "one size fits all".
I mean, I want that woman about whom Romaine was speaking to contribute
her
knowledge. I want everybody to contribute their knowledge. Unless I
missed
it, Romaine didn't write what is her expertise, but just for the sake of the example, let's make something up and say that it's Astronomy.
Do I want her to contribute her knowledge about Astronomy? Of course I
do.
Should I tell her that I hope that she contributes her knowledge about Astronomy? I probably should. (Do correct me if I'm wrong.)
Do I think that she has something to say about Astronomy that men don't? Yes, it's quite possible. Should I tell her that? Hmm, I don't know.
Maybe,
maybe not. I think that this is the question that Romaine is trying to raise. And again, please correct me if I'm wrong. _______________________________________________ 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
Thanks for reminding everyone that we live in the 21st Century, where there are plenty of women role models at the top of previously male dominated professions, not just nursing.
The Wikipedia community has the most success at correcting gender bias by encouraging interested volunteers of any gender to create articles which help correct that bias, in all subjects.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
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 I totally agree with this. The problem is actually two-fold; we lack the women contributors, and the current notability rules cause us to talk in circles about how to protect new female contributors from being put off by the systemic bias inherent in our internal processes. You don't have to go back that far in time to find women listed as property and not people, even in Western society. "Fauna" is a new one for me though! Writing as a woman is of course different than writing about women. Everyone is welcome to write about whatever they like. We miss the "female gaze" however - it really doesn't matter what the women want to write about, as long as they write. Massively as a large international group they choose to write elsewhere and not on Wikipedia or any of the Wikimedia projects. The question of why not may be simply technical or it could be the off-putting challenge of learning to navigate our notability standards for things that have historically only been academically documented by young white men. Diving into things like the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica shows huge gaps in knowledge as well as amazing detail for things that don't interest us so much today, such as geological survey data. Back when people grew their own vegetables or made their own asphalt that may have been very useful to know, but increasingly the stuff we eat and build with comes from places very far away from us. Sadly, the information we use to build articles about local stuff also comes from farther and farther away.
I was originally coaxed into my first local WLM meetup by a direct invitation on my user talk page. Whether this direct approach that has proven so successful with WLM helps for the gendergap specifically is an unknown, because our group of female contributors to invite is so small. The trick is to make the invitation as informal as possible and as easy as possible to accept. I guess it is easier to think about the concept of local heritage than it is to think about "female living", whatever that may be. The point about diversity is you need to get people's attention so they just add that extra little bit of focus when they are doing their thing. In my case, I like to work on paintings and it takes me much more time, sometimes years, to track down paintings by women, or portraits of women, or paintings that have been in collections located in Africa and other places not in the usual museum or art world circuit. I used to just ignore the hard cases, but now I know I should pay extra attention and make that extra bit of effort. In my small corner of the wikiverse I am slowly tilting the scales from "paintings of women always show nudity" to "paintings of women are mostly portraits". The point is to apply an extra filter to the gaze we all have, to alert us to the female angle or the non-Western angle.
The women who do contribute to our projects tend to have other interests than just biographies or anything else gender-related. I think that's normal.
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
I think the problems not in trying to fix the imbalance in knowledge, something for which history has big role in what and how information was even still is recorded. I think the presumption that when we ask women to edit about women we predispose the assumption that women are only interested in women and only women can or want to write about them. We have had a lot of concepts that have improved content about women and they have focused on getting women to do the contributions.
sorry Fred to quote as an example
Women editors might have something to add about nursing and the history
of nursing that adds gender-specific value, increasing our coverage of
the
subject. So a workshop at a nursing convention might be valuable.
What we need to do is shift our train of thought from women can contribute to subjects about women to providing environments that let and encourage women to contribute to topics that interest them not us. The same applies to other "minorities" where the subject being written is less important than enabling participation. For that we need to consider in broader terms what is notable, what defines notability, how do we draw in those intangible knowledge sources to broaden the base for both contributors and contributions.
We have the ridiculous case of Indigenous people in Australia being considered as fauna until the 1960's, so that when an Indigenous person was written about historically(even now its still applies) that in itself is significant but we measure the notability of a person based not on the uniqueness of such but on whether there is sufficient volume of other works about the person. We have created an inherently bias system that favours those of colonial heritage with colonial records over those who dont have that historical privilege, we encourage this as Romaine put its with a tokenism of participation and expectation of contributions conforming to maintain that bias. While we do that we dont actually value the contributor or the contributions nor what else can be brought to the community.
On 7 May 2018 at 17:31, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 May 2018 at 10:01, FRED BAUDER fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Women editors might have something to add about nursing and the history
of nursing that adds gender-specific value, increasing our coverage of
the
subject. So a workshop at a nursing convention might be valuable.
Fred
----- Original Message ----- From: Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, 07 May 2018 04:52:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
2018-05-07 9:55 GMT+03:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
Amir, It's funny - after reading your mail I wondered if I had read
Romaine's
mail correctly.
You had probably read it correctly.
Generally, I'm wondering whether direct invitations to women or people
of
color (or women of color, etc.) work as they should. Many people say
that
they work. They may be right, at least in part. If I understand
correctly,
Romaine says that he has doubts about it, and he's probably right, too,
at
least for some people.
I'm just trying to say that diversity is important. How do we reach
it? I
don't have very good answers. Probably not "one size fits all".
I mean, I want that woman about whom Romaine was speaking to contribute
her
knowledge. I want everybody to contribute their knowledge. Unless I
missed
it, Romaine didn't write what is her expertise, but just for the sake
of
the example, let's make something up and say that it's Astronomy.
Do I want her to contribute her knowledge about Astronomy? Of course I
do.
Should I tell her that I hope that she contributes her knowledge about Astronomy? I probably should. (Do correct me if I'm wrong.)
Do I think that she has something to say about Astronomy that men
don't?
Yes, it's quite possible. Should I tell her that? Hmm, I don't know.
Maybe,
maybe not. I think that this is the question that Romaine is trying to raise. And again, please correct me if I'm wrong. _______________________________________________ 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
Thanks for reminding everyone that we live in the 21st Century, where there are plenty of women role models at the top of previously male dominated professions, not just nursing.
The Wikipedia community has the most success at correcting gender bias by encouraging interested volunteers of any gender to create articles which help correct that bias, in all subjects.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
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
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again- reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8 . _______________________________________________ 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
Fae, No, I have come to disagree that "The Wikipedia community has the most success at correcting gender bias by encouraging interested volunteers of any gender to create articles which help correct that bias, in all subjects." This is simply because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never be able to correct it. To see what I mean, have a look at the percentage female per occupation over at the dicare project. Traditional female professions such as "nurse" or even "nun" have lower percentages female than traditional male professions such as football players have percentages male. Wikipedia currently amplifies systemic bias, and that is not Wikipedia's fault. If you pick up any newspaper and count the gender per obituary you will never approach 50% female (at least not in my lifetime). Of course if you mean by "correct it" to increase efforts like "Women in Red" to inch our percentage of 17% overal to 18% then yes, I do believe that is feasible.
Yesterday I attended a Pieter Pourbus painting exhibition in Gouda and the booklet states in the opening paragraph "He married the daughter of the famous painter Lancelot Blondeel". My companion drily remarked "Didn't she have a name?". I think you will find that such sentences are all over Wikipedia, in all sorts of biography leads. The women are mentioned implicitly more often for their wombs than anything else. Almost like fauna! Here in the Netherlands, the Dutch Wikipedia chased off an editor who was trying to correct systemic bias in the country's archives databases. She ended up publishing a book of female biographies called "1001 Vrouwen" that resurrected the overlooked biographies of notable Dutch women up to 1900. The next one for women of the 20th-century is coming out this year. Now we have references, so we have those 1001 women in Wikidata and lots of new articles about Dutch women in various language Wikipedias. To really help "correct" the gender bias, we need to do much more outreach, because we will never get there with the academic aggregate databases available to us today. Jane
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 11:31 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 May 2018 at 10:01, FRED BAUDER fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Women editors might have something to add about nursing and the history
of nursing that adds gender-specific value, increasing our coverage of the subject. So a workshop at a nursing convention might be valuable.
Fred
----- Original Message ----- From: Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, 07 May 2018 04:52:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
2018-05-07 9:55 GMT+03:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
Amir, It's funny - after reading your mail I wondered if I had read Romaine's mail correctly.
You had probably read it correctly.
Generally, I'm wondering whether direct invitations to women or people of color (or women of color, etc.) work as they should. Many people say that they work. They may be right, at least in part. If I understand
correctly,
Romaine says that he has doubts about it, and he's probably right, too,
at
least for some people.
I'm just trying to say that diversity is important. How do we reach it? I don't have very good answers. Probably not "one size fits all".
I mean, I want that woman about whom Romaine was speaking to contribute
her
knowledge. I want everybody to contribute their knowledge. Unless I
missed
it, Romaine didn't write what is her expertise, but just for the sake of the example, let's make something up and say that it's Astronomy.
Do I want her to contribute her knowledge about Astronomy? Of course I
do.
Should I tell her that I hope that she contributes her knowledge about Astronomy? I probably should. (Do correct me if I'm wrong.)
Do I think that she has something to say about Astronomy that men don't? Yes, it's quite possible. Should I tell her that? Hmm, I don't know.
Maybe,
maybe not. I think that this is the question that Romaine is trying to raise. And again, please correct me if I'm wrong. _______________________________________________ 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
Thanks for reminding everyone that we live in the 21st Century, where there are plenty of women role models at the top of previously male dominated professions, not just nursing.
The Wikipedia community has the most success at correcting gender bias by encouraging interested volunteers of any gender to create articles which help correct that bias, in all subjects.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
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
----- Original Message ----- From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never be able to correct it."
Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does, Wikipedia will reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other bias issues are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full correction of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
Fred
Hoi, "The summary of the canon of knowledge".. Wow.. I just tweeted that thanks to the German Wikipedia we know about 20% more members of Parliament from Chad. Now we know about 12. My #AfricaGap project will follow developments around African national politicians. We suck when Africa is considered. What we have in Wikidata reflects this.
It is relatively easy to add information in Wikidata about Africa. Importing lists of politicians, I once did after South African national elections and it shows, is easy. From our mouths we hear that we want to do more about / for Africa but the proof is in what we see. What could be is in our hands. Thanks, GerardM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GerardM/Africa
On 10 May 2018 at 11:53, FRED BAUDER fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never be able to correct it."
Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does, Wikipedia will reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other bias issues are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full correction of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
Fred
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
the speaker of a traditional oral story isnt the primary source there is no original research in the story they are just retelling with audible pen rather than a ink pen, the primary source is somewhere back in time. The almost identical similarities that traditional oral knowledge have with that of written knowledge makes them amazing sources.
When its all distilled own the only difference is that western sources demand a tree is turned into paper and ink added to the paper before its accepted knowledge
On 10 May 2018 at 18:03, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, "The summary of the canon of knowledge".. Wow.. I just tweeted that thanks to the German Wikipedia we know about 20% more members of Parliament from Chad. Now we know about 12. My #AfricaGap project will follow developments around African national politicians. We suck when Africa is considered. What we have in Wikidata reflects this.
It is relatively easy to add information in Wikidata about Africa. Importing lists of politicians, I once did after South African national elections and it shows, is easy. From our mouths we hear that we want to do more about / for Africa but the proof is in what we see. What could be is in our hands. Thanks, GerardM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GerardM/Africa
On 10 May 2018 at 11:53, FRED BAUDER fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never be able to correct it."
Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does, Wikipedia will reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other bias
issues
are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
correction
of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
Fred
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
"Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as Wikipedia that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that saying that it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable enough, when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of knowledge.
JP User:Amqui
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never be able to correct it."
Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does, Wikipedia will reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other bias issues are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full correction of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
Fred
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
Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to produce reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens the doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain open to anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives. Other projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not be open for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
"Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as Wikipedia that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that saying that it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable enough, when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of knowledge.
JP User:Amqui
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never be able to correct it."
Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does, Wikipedia will reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other bias issues are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full correction of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
Fred
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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
Hi,
I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a member of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though: https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epjds/s13688-016-00...
There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a movement or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I personally do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal impressions.
Cheers!
El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net escribió:
Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to produce reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens the doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain open to anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives. Other projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not be open for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
"Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as Wikipedia that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that saying that it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable enough, when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of knowledge.
JP User:Amqui
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never be able to correct it."
Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does, Wikipedia will reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other bias
issues
are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
correction
of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
Fred
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
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
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
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and language has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture manage successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western styles were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue is how do we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them, how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is not the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations from books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and value alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question is do we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of all knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia but rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a member of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though: https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a movement or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I personally do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal impressions.
Cheers!
El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> escribió:
Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to produce reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens the doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain open to anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives. Other projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not be
open
for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
"Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as Wikipedia that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that saying
that
it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable enough, when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of knowledge.
JP User:Amqui
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never be
able
to correct it."
Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does, Wikipedia
will
reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other bias
issues
are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
correction
of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
Fred
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
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
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
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are things that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence, and where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible, the authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a reliable source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and language has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture manage successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western styles were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue is how do we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them, how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is not the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations from books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and value alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question is do we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of all knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia but rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a member of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though: https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a movement or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I personally do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal impressions.
Cheers!
El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> escribió:
Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to produce reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens the doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain open to anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives. Other projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not be
open
for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
"Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as Wikipedia that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that saying
that
it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable enough, when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of knowledge.
JP User:Amqui
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never be
able
to correct it."
Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does, Wikipedia
will
reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other bias
issues
are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
correction
of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
Fred
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
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
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
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone without any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to fail. Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not to remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing knowledge. I think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to do that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia when we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are things that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence, and where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible, the authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a reliable source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and language has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture manage successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western styles were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue is how do we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them, how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is not the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations from books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and value alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question is do we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of all knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia but rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a member of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though: https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
movement
or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
personally
do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
impressions.
Cheers!
El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> escribió:
Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to produce reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens the doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain open
to
anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
Other
projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not be
open
for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
"Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
Wikipedia
that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that saying
that
it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
enough,
when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of knowledge.
JP User:Amqui
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never be
able
to correct it."
Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does, Wikipedia
will
reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other bias
issues
are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
correction
of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
Fred
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
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
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
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-reflections-on-environmental-re...
. _______________________________________________ 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
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people wanting to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone without any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to fail. Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not to remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing knowledge. I think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to do that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia when we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are things that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence, and where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible, the authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a reliable source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and language has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture manage successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western styles were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue is how do we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them, how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is not the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations from books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and value alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question is do we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of all knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia but rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a member of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though: https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
movement
or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
personally
do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
impressions.
Cheers!
El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> escribió:
Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to produce reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens the doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain open
to
anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
Other
projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not be
open
for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
"Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
Wikipedia
that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that saying
that
it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
enough,
when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of knowledge.
JP User:Amqui
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never be
able
to correct it."
Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does, Wikipedia
will
reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other bias
issues
are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
correction
of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
Fred
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
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
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
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-reflections-on-environmental-re...
. _______________________________________________ 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 do feel Jane summed it up well: Because of our rules on RS, Wikipedia can only reflect society. As long as society continues to overlook women, it will be evident in Wikipedia. In my work with WomRed, enough references were the prevailing issue. We have a list of women who need articles, but without references we cannot prove notability enough to stave off AFD. Lex1
On May 10, 2018, at 11:46 AM, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people wanting to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone without any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to fail. Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not to remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing knowledge. I think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to do that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia when we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are things that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence, and where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible, the authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a reliable source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and language has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture manage successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western styles were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue is how do we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them, how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is not the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations from books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and value alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question is do we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of all knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia but rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a member of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though: https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
movement
or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
personally
do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
impressions.
Cheers!
El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> escribió:
Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to produce reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens the doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain open
to
anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
Other
projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not be
open
for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
"Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
Wikipedia
that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that saying
that
it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
enough,
when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of knowledge.
JP User:Amqui
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never be
able
to correct it."
Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does, Wikipedia
will
reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other bias
issues
are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
correction
of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
Fred
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
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
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
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-reflections-on-environmental-re...
. _______________________________________________ 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
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
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be made at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask them to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are flawed, the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people wanting to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone without any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to fail. Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not to remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing knowledge. I think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to do that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia when we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are things that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence,
and
where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
the
authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a reliable source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and language has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture manage successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue is how
do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them, how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is not the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations from books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and value alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question is
do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of
all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia but rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
member
of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though: https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
movement
or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
personally
do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
impressions.
Cheers!
El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> escribió:
Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to produce reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens
the
doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
open
to
anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
Other
projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not be
open
for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
"Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
Wikipedia
that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
saying
that
it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
enough,
when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of knowledge.
JP User:Amqui
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never
be
able
to correct it."
Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does, Wikipedia
will
reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
bias
issues
are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
correction
of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
Fred
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
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
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
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
. _______________________________________________ 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
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
Going back to nurses... The reason I used them as an example of a group that might edit is that I had been reading the biography of a nurse, written by her grand-niece, also a nurse, someone my mother knew in our local San Luis Valley community, M. Elizabeth Shellabarger. She was significant locally and in nursing at the time she was active. Whoever wrote the article seems to have had little trouble finding 3 reliable sources, including the biography. Not someone to compare to Mother Theresa, but certainly as notable a person as the average Baroness.
The thing is, there are similar notable women in every community on earth, people who form the backbone of the communities they live in and serve. If there is a way to include them we should. That doesn't mean that no basis of notability be required, but that something somewhat less or different than what might be required for someone who lived in a literate society. M. Elizabeth Shellabarger was a diarist... In an indigenous community the equivalent would be the many stories people tell about notable members of the community. Big Spotted Horse of the Pawnee is an example of such a character. He was the source of many stories, and not even a chief.
Fred
----- Original Message ----- From: Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 16:41:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be made at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask them to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are flawed, the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people wanting to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone without any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to fail. Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not to remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing knowledge. I think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to do that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia when we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are things that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence,
and
where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
the
authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a reliable source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and language has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture manage successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue is how
do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them, how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is not the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations from books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and value alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question is
do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of
all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia but rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
member
of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though: https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
movement
or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
personally
do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
impressions.
Cheers!
El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> escribió:
Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to produce reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens
the
doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
open
to
anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
Other
projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not be
open
for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
"Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
Wikipedia
that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
saying
that
it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
enough,
when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of knowledge.
JP User:Amqui
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never
be
able
to correct it."
Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does, Wikipedia
will
reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
bias
issues
are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
correction
of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
Fred
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
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
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
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
. _______________________________________________ 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
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
Going back to nurses...
Yep you are right Fred in that the field a person works in is also one in which they might carry more than a passing interest and are likely to know more about its history. We must also recognise that a person working nursing may also be interested in medicine, palliative care, emergency care, and many other areas related to the field in which they work. The tokenism here is in our expectation that because nurses are female they will want to write about females in nursing, we need a broader base of contributors the subject itself.
What has developed is we have two streams on tokenism developing,
- one is on source issues - one is on expectations of contributors
Romaine original thread was about the second point, the tokenism is in expecting women to fix topics about women (call it womens work if you want) though you can substitute that with any under represented group. The other part is about how we adapt to the bias inherent what we acknowledge as notable and verifiable. The more we evolve and expand our knowledge base the greater the challenges ahead and yes that will take leaps of faith to incorporate other form of notability and verifiability to into areas we may never encountered
On 11 May 2018 at 06:41, FRED BAUDER fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Going back to nurses... The reason I used them as an example of a group that might edit is that I had been reading the biography of a nurse, written by her grand-niece, also a nurse, someone my mother knew in our local San Luis Valley community, M. Elizabeth Shellabarger. She was significant locally and in nursing at the time she was active. Whoever wrote the article seems to have had little trouble finding 3 reliable sources, including the biography. Not someone to compare to Mother Theresa, but certainly as notable a person as the average Baroness.
The thing is, there are similar notable women in every community on earth, people who form the backbone of the communities they live in and serve. If there is a way to include them we should. That doesn't mean that no basis of notability be required, but that something somewhat less or different than what might be required for someone who lived in a literate society. M. Elizabeth Shellabarger was a diarist... In an indigenous community the equivalent would be the many stories people tell about notable members of the community. Big Spotted Horse of the Pawnee is an example of such a character. He was the source of many stories, and not even a chief.
Fred
----- Original Message ----- From: Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 16:41:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be made at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask them to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are flawed, the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people wanting to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not to remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
things
that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence,
and
where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
the
authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
reliable
source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture
manage
successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue is how
do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them, how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
not
the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
from
books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and value alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
is
do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of
all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
but
rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
member
of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though: https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
movement
or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
personally
do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
impressions.
Cheers!
El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> escribió:
Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
produce
reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens
the
doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
open
to
anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
Other
projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not
be
open
for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
"Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
Wikipedia
that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
saying
that
it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
enough,
when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of knowledge.
JP User:Amqui
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never
be
able
to correct it."
Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
of
knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
will
reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
bias
issues
are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
correction
of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
Fred
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>
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
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
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
. _______________________________________________ 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
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
Lucille B. Buchanan might make an article: http://www.blackpast.org/aaw/jones-lucy-lucile-berkeley-buchanan-1884-1989
Fred
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers and hoaxers.
no one is saying we should abandon notability or verifiability, what we are saying is we need to consider how other cultures and communities establish authoritative knowledge sources and incorporate those with the the scope of notability and verifiability
Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are flawed, the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
This is our problem when it comes knowledge gaps and bias, if we wait it means we are accepting that what we are doing and the considerable resource we are expending at the moment is nothing more than tokenism.
On 11 May 2018 at 04:41, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be made at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask them to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are flawed, the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people wanting to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not to remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
things
that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence,
and
where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
the
authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
reliable
source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture
manage
successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue is how
do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them, how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
not
the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
from
books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and value alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
is
do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of
all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
but
rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
member
of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though: https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
movement
or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
personally
do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
impressions.
Cheers!
El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> escribió:
Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
produce
reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens
the
doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
open
to
anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
Other
projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not
be
open
for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
"Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
Wikipedia
that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
saying
that
it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
enough,
when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of knowledge.
JP User:Amqui
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never
be
able
to correct it."
Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
of
knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
will
reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
bias
issues
are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
correction
of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
Fred
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>
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
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
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
. _______________________________________________ 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
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
OK, then. How do they do it? How could this be extended to the Wikipedia environment?Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 2:09 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers and hoaxers.
no one is saying we should abandon notability or verifiability, what we are saying is we need to consider how other cultures and communities establish authoritative knowledge sources and incorporate those with the the scope of notability and verifiability
Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are flawed, the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
This is our problem when it comes knowledge gaps and bias, if we wait it means we are accepting that what we are doing and the considerable resource we are expending at the moment is nothing more than tokenism.
On 11 May 2018 at 04:41, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be made at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask them to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are flawed, the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people wanting to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not to remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
things
that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence,
and
where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
the
authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
reliable
source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture
manage
successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue is how
do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them, how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
not
the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
from
books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and value alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
is
do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of
all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
but
rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
member
of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though: https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
movement
or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
personally
do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
impressions.
Cheers!
El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> escribió:
Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
produce
reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens
the
doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
open
to
anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
Other
projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not
be
open
for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
"Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
Wikipedia
that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
saying
that
it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
enough,
when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of knowledge.
JP User:Amqui
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never
be
able
to correct it."
Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
of
knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
will
reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
bias
issues
are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
correction
of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
Fred
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>
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
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
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
. _______________________________________________ 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
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
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we consider sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be made at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask them to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are flawed, the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people wanting to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not to remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
things
that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence,
and
where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
the
authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
reliable
source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture
manage
successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue is how
do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them, how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
not
the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
from
books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and value alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
is
do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of
all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
but
rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
member
of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though: https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
movement
or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
personally
do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
impressions.
Cheers!
El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> escribió:
Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
produce
reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens
the
doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
open
to
anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
Other
projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not
be
open
for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
"Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
Wikipedia
that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
saying
that
it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
enough,
when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of knowledge.
JP User:Amqui
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never
be
able
to correct it."
Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
of
knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
will
reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
bias
issues
are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
correction
of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
Fred
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>
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
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
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
. _______________________________________________ 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
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
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we consider sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be made at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask them to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are flawed, the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people wanting to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not to remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
things
that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence,
and
where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
the
authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
reliable
source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture
manage
successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue is how
do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them, how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
not
the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
from
books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and value alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
is
do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of
all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
but
rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
member
of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though: https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
movement
or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
personally
do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
impressions.
Cheers!
El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> escribió:
Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
produce
reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens
the
doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
open
to
anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
Other
projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not
be
open
for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
"Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
Wikipedia
that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
saying
that
it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
enough,
when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of knowledge.
JP User:Amqui
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never
be
able
to correct it."
Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
of
knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
will
reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
bias
issues
are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
correction
of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
Fred
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>
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
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
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
. _______________________________________________ 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
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
Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral histories and traditions come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am with an encyclopedia using such sources.
Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I use primary sources quite often for papers, and projects however those are generally frowned upon for Wikipedia; mainly because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an academic journal. Good encyclopedias are typically sourced from secondary sources, and ocassionaly tertiary sources.
Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion. My personal thought on this issue is keeping our current verifiability and notability requirements is a good idea. In some areas I think we include far too much (fan cruft anyone?).
- Cameron C. Cameron11598
---- On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:34:15 -0700 peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote ----
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we consider sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be made at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask them to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are flawed, the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people wanting to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not to remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
things
that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence,
and
where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
the
authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
reliable
source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture
manage
successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue is how
do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them, how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
not
the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
from
books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and value alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
is
do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of
all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
but
rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
member
of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though: https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
movement
or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
personally
do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
impressions.
Cheers!
El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> escribió:
Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
produce
reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens
the
doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
open
to
anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
Other
projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not
be
open
for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
"Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
Wikipedia
that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
saying
that
it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
enough,
when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of knowledge.
JP User:Amqui
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never
be
able
to correct it."
Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
of
knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
will
reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
bias
issues
are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
correction
of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
Fred
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>
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
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
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
. _______________________________________________ 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
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
_______________________________________________ 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
When we say we want to keep our current requirements, we need to ask ourselves if we want to continue to be an encyclopedia written by Westerners for Westerners. If that's the case, fine. But that's not what we are claiming to be...
JP
On Fri, May 11, 2018, 09:30 Cameron, cameron@cameron11598.net wrote:
Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral histories and traditions come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am with an encyclopedia using such sources.
Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I use primary sources quite often for papers, and projects however those are generally frowned upon for Wikipedia; mainly because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an academic journal. Good encyclopedias are typically sourced from secondary sources, and ocassionaly tertiary sources.
Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion. My personal thought on this issue is keeping our current verifiability and notability requirements is a good idea. In some areas I think we include far too much (fan cruft anyone?).
- Cameron C.
Cameron11598
---- On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:34:15 -0700 peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote ----
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we consider sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be
made
at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask
them
to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are
flawed,
the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
wanting
to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not
to
remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready
to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
things
that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
evidence,
and
where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
intangible,
the
authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it
as
possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
reliable
source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying
the
credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture
manage
successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue is
how
do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect
them,
how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
not
the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
from
books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and
value
alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
is
do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum
of
all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
knowledge
networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
but
rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
member
of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though: https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
movement
or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
personally
do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
impressions.
Cheers!
El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> escribió:
Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
produce
reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints
opens
the
doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
open
to
anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
alternatives.
Other
projects may work around this problem, but would then probably
not
be
open
for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:
wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
"Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
of
knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
Wikipedia
that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
saying
that
it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
enough,
when different cultures use different ways to build their canon
of
knowledge.
JP User:Amqui
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com > To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will
never
be
able
> to correct it." > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
of
> knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge. > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
will
> reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
bias
issues > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than
full
correction > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead. > > Fred > > > _______________________________________________ > 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>
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
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:
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>
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
. _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion.
I would suggest that we already have a repository built for purpose to gather these oral histories and it's Wikimedia Commons. I definitely agree that finding ways of capturing and uploading those oral histories on a Creative Commons open license would be a fantastic project, whether that be in the form of video or oral recordings. There are already many projects of that type taking place with local history groups or herstory groups, etc, so maybe we need to find ways to work with those groups to release their content under the right licenses. Wouldn't it be amazing to have such a wealth of primary sources available on wiki commons for any researchers to use and write about so it can then generate secondary sources to be added to Wikipedia? 😊
Best wishes,
Delphine Dallison Wikimedian in Residence Scottish Library and Information Council Turnberry House Suite 5:5, Fifth Floor 175 West George Street Glasgow G2 2LB Tel: 0141 202 2999 www.scottishlibraries.org
Enriching lives through libraries
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: 11 May 2018 14:51 To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
When we say we want to keep our current requirements, we need to ask ourselves if we want to continue to be an encyclopedia written by Westerners for Westerners. If that's the case, fine. But that's not what we are claiming to be...
JP
On Fri, May 11, 2018, 09:30 Cameron, cameron@cameron11598.net wrote:
Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral histories and traditions come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am with an encyclopedia using such sources.
Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I use primary sources quite often for papers, and projects however those are generally frowned upon for Wikipedia; mainly because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an academic journal. Good encyclopedias are typically sourced from secondary sources, and ocassionaly tertiary sources.
Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion. My personal thought on this issue is keeping our current verifiability and notability requirements is a good idea. In some areas I think we include far too much (fan cruft anyone?).
- Cameron C.
Cameron11598
---- On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:34:15 -0700 peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote ----
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we consider sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be
made
at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask
them
to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are
flawed,
the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
wanting
to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not
to
remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready
to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
things
that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
evidence,
and
where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
intangible,
the
authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it
as
possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
reliable
source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying
the
credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture
manage
successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue is
how
do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect
them,
how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
not
the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
from
books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and
value
alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
is
do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum
of
all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
knowledge
networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
but
rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
member
of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though: https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
movement
or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
personally
do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
impressions.
Cheers!
El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> escribió:
Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
produce
reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints
opens
the
doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
open
to
anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
alternatives.
Other
projects may work around this problem, but would then probably
not
be
open
for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:
wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
"Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
of
knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
Wikipedia
that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
saying
that
it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
enough,
when different cultures use different ways to build their canon
of
knowledge.
JP User:Amqui
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing > problems > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but > will
never
be
able
> to correct it." > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the > canon
of
> knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge. > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
will
> reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and > other
bias
issues > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest > than
full
correction > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead. > > Fred > > > _______________________________________________ > 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>
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
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:
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>
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
. _______________________________________________ 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=unsubscr ibe
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=unsubscr ibe
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=unsubscrib e
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=unsubscrib e
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 _______________________________________________ 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
Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are primary sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original sources, as in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this confusion in Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the articles.
Paulo
2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron cameron@cameron11598.net:
Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral histories and traditions come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am with an encyclopedia using such sources.
Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I use primary sources quite often for papers, and projects however those are generally frowned upon for Wikipedia; mainly because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an academic journal. Good encyclopedias are typically sourced from secondary sources, and ocassionaly tertiary sources.
Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion. My personal thought on this issue is keeping our current verifiability and notability requirements is a good idea. In some areas I think we include far too much (fan cruft anyone?).
- Cameron C.
Cameron11598
---- On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:34:15 -0700 peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote ----
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we consider sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be
made
at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask
them
to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are
flawed,
the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
wanting
to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not
to
remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready
to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
things
that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
evidence,
and
where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
intangible,
the
authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it
as
possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
reliable
source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying
the
credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture
manage
successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue is
how
do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect
them,
how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
not
the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
from
books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and
value
alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
is
do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum
of
all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
knowledge
networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
but
rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
member
of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though: https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
movement
or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
personally
do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
impressions.
Cheers!
El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> escribió:
Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
produce
reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints
opens
the
doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
open
to
anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
alternatives.
Other
projects may work around this problem, but would then probably
not
be
open
for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
"Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
of
knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
Wikipedia
that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
saying
that
it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
enough,
when different cultures use different ways to build their canon
of
knowledge.
JP User:Amqui
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com > To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will
never
be
able
> to correct it." > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
of
> knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge. > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
will
> reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
bias
issues > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than
full
correction > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead. > > Fred > > > _______________________________________________ > 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>
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
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:
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>
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
. _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
Policies about primary (en.wiki's one for example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:PRIMARY) tell a different story and I, for one, concur with them.
An extreme example: Mussolini's speech (primary source) will tell you WWII was caused by the Allies, any history book (secondary or tertiary) shows that's a blatant lie. To state such a simple truth without doing an original research you need a secondary source.
Vito
2018-05-11 22:24 GMT+02:00 Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com:
Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are primary sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original sources, as in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this confusion in Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the articles.
Paulo
2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron cameron@cameron11598.net:
Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral histories and
traditions
come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am with an encyclopedia using such sources.
Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I use primary sources quite often for papers, and projects however those are generally frowned upon for Wikipedia; mainly because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an academic journal. Good encyclopedias are typically sourced from secondary sources, and ocassionaly tertiary sources.
Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion. My personal thought on this issue is keeping our current verifiability and notability requirements is a good idea. In some areas I think we include far too much (fan cruft anyone?).
- Cameron C.
Cameron11598
---- On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:34:15 -0700 peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote ----
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we consider sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for
spammers
and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be
made
at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask
them
to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are
flawed,
the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we
do
not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
wanting
to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not
to
remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready
to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite
of
notability and verifiability requirements, Without the
verifiability
requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
things
that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
evidence,
and
where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
intangible,
the
authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means
track
record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see
it
as
possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
reliable
source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying
the
credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture
manage
successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the
western
styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue is
how
do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect
them,
how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do
is
not
the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our
current
systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
from
books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and
value
alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the
question
is
do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the
sum
of
all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
knowledge
networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the
wikipedia
but
rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where
a
member
of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though: https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
movement
or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
personally
do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
impressions.
Cheers!
El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> escribió:
> Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
produce
> reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints
opens
the
> doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to
remain
open
to
> anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
alternatives.
Other
> projects may work around this problem, but would then probably
not
be
open > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? > Cheers, > Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
> Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge." > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
Wikipedia
> that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
saying
that > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be
notable
enough,
> when different cultures use different ways to build their canon
of
> knowledge. > > JP > User:Amqui > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
> wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will
never
be
able > > to correct it." > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge. > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
will > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and
other
bias
> issues > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than
full
> correction > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead. > > > > Fred > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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>
> > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > http://www.avg.com > > > _______________________________________________ > 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:
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>
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.
org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP,
Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
. _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
Mussolini's speech relating WWII -> was produced by the subject: to avoid Mussolini's speech relating Mussolini's speech contents -> best possible source you can have.
Both kinds are described by the Wikipedias policies as "primary source", and yet they have very different, and often opposed values of verifiability and fiability.
As I said, there's an endemic confusion with primary sources in Wikipedia.
Paulo
2018-05-11 22:19 GMT+01:00 Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com:
Policies about primary (en.wiki's one for example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:PRIMARY) tell a different story and I, for one, concur with them.
An extreme example: Mussolini's speech (primary source) will tell you WWII was caused by the Allies, any history book (secondary or tertiary) shows that's a blatant lie. To state such a simple truth without doing an original research you need a secondary source.
Vito
2018-05-11 22:24 GMT+02:00 Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com:
Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are
primary
sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original sources,
as
in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this confusion
in
Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the articles.
Paulo
2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron cameron@cameron11598.net:
Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral histories and
traditions
come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am with an encyclopedia using such sources.
Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I
use
primary sources quite often for papers, and projects however those are generally frowned upon for Wikipedia; mainly because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an academic journal. Good encyclopedias are typically sourced from secondary sources, and ocassionaly tertiary sources.
Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion. My personal thought on this issue is keeping our current verifiability and notability requirements is a good idea. In some areas I think we
include
far too much (fan cruft anyone?).
- Cameron C.
Cameron11598
---- On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:34:15 -0700 peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote ----
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we
consider
sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for
spammers
and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should
be
made
at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask
them
to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article
accordingly
based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess
what
sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are
flawed,
the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources,
we
do
not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
wanting
to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times
change.
Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have
started
Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed
to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is
not
to
remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change
those
requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are
ready
to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of
Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in
spite
of
notability and verifiability requirements, Without the
verifiability
requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
things
that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
evidence,
and
where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
intangible,
the
authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means
track
record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see
it
as
possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
reliable
source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without
destroying
the
credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture
manage
successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the
western
styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue
is
how
do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect
them,
how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do
is
not
the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our
current
systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the
citations
from
books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and
value
alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the
question
is
do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the
sum
of
all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
knowledge
networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the
wikipedia
but
rather the creation of new project to bring forth these
alternative
knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com
wrote:
> Hi, > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias
where
a
member
> of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity
though:
> https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4 > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and
as a
movement > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I personally > do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal impressions. > > > Cheers! > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < > peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> > escribió: > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
produce
> > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints
opens
the
> > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to
remain
open
to > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
alternatives.
Other > > projects may work around this problem, but would then
probably
not
be
> open > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? > > Cheers, > > Peter > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
> > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge." > > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge"
as
Wikipedia > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to
that
saying
> that > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be
notable
enough, > > when different cultures use different ways to build their
canon
of
> > knowledge. > > > > JP > > User:Amqui > > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
> > wrote: > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.
org>
> > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will
never
be
> able > > > to correct it." > > > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge. > > > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
> will > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and
other
bias
> > issues > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than
full
> > correction > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead. > > > > > > Fred > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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>
> > > > --- > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > > http://www.avg.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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:
> 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>
>
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.
org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never
Again:
Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP,
Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
> . _______________________________________________ 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:
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:
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
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
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
"Mussolini's speech relating Mussolini's speech contents -> best possible sources"? Even worse than speech themselves.
Vito
2018-05-12 0:39 GMT+02:00 Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com:
Mussolini's speech relating WWII -> was produced by the subject: to avoid Mussolini's speech relating Mussolini's speech contents -> best possible source you can have.
Both kinds are described by the Wikipedias policies as "primary source", and yet they have very different, and often opposed values of verifiability and fiability.
As I said, there's an endemic confusion with primary sources in Wikipedia.
Paulo
2018-05-11 22:19 GMT+01:00 Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com:
Policies about primary (en.wiki's one for example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:PRIMARY) tell a different story and I, for one, concur with them.
An extreme example: Mussolini's speech (primary source) will tell you
WWII
was caused by the Allies, any history book (secondary or tertiary) shows that's a blatant lie. To state such a simple truth without doing an original research you need a secondary source.
Vito
2018-05-11 22:24 GMT+02:00 Paulo Santos Perneta <paulosperneta@gmail.com :
Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are
primary
sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original
sources,
as
in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this
confusion
in
Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the articles.
Paulo
2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron cameron@cameron11598.net:
Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral histories and
traditions
come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am with an encyclopedia using such sources.
Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I
use
primary sources quite often for papers, and projects however those
are
generally frowned upon for Wikipedia; mainly because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an academic journal. Good encyclopedias are
typically
sourced from secondary sources, and ocassionaly tertiary sources.
Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion.
My
personal thought on this issue is keeping our current verifiability
and
notability requirements is a good idea. In some areas I think we
include
far too much (fan cruft anyone?).
- Cameron C.
Cameron11598
---- On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:34:15 -0700 peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote ----
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second
guessing
sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we
consider
sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for
spammers
and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should
be
made
at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing"
a
reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd
ask
them
to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article
accordingly
based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess
what
sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are
flawed,
the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing,
not
"correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources,
we
do
not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
wanting
to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times
change.
Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have
started
Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by
anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is
doomed
to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is
not
to
remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change
those
requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are
ready
to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of
Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in
spite
of
> notability and verifiability requirements, Without the
verifiability
> requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith
are
things
> that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
evidence,
and > where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
intangible,
the > authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means
track
> record and proof of identity. > This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not
see
it
as
> possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as
a
reliable
> source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without
destroying
the
> credibility we have. > Cheers, > Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
> Behalf Of Gnangarra > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems > > notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
> has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These
culture
manage
> successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the
western
styles > were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue
is
how
do > we bring these sources into the western system, how do we
respect
them,
> how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently
do
is
not
> the only. > > There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our
current
> systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the
citations
from
> books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider
and
value
> alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the
question
is
do > we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share
the
sum
of
all > knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
knowledge
> networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts. > > Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the
wikipedia
but
> rather the creation of new project to bring forth these
alternative
> knowledge streams > > > On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > Hi, > > > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias
where
a
member > > of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity
though:
> > https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. > > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4 > > > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and
as a
> movement > > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid,
which I
> personally > > do, since they are supported with data and not on our
personal
> impressions. > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < > > peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> > > escribió: > > > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us
to
produce
> > > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those
constraints
opens
the > > > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to
remain
open > to > > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
alternatives.
> Other > > > projects may work around this problem, but would then
probably
not
be
> > open > > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? > > > Cheers, > > > Peter > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge." > > > > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of
"knowledge"
as
> Wikipedia > > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to
that
saying > > that > > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be
notable
> enough, > > > when different cultures use different ways to build their
canon
of
> > > knowledge. > > > > > > JP > > > User:Amqui > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.
org>
> > > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, > > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but
will
never
be > > able > > > > to correct it." > > > > > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge. > > > > > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
> > will > > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and
other
bias > > > issues > > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest
than
full
> > > correction > > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead. > > > > > > > > Fred > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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>
> > > > > > --- > > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > > > http://www.avg.com > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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:
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > 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>
> > > > > > -- > GN. > Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.
org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never
Again:
> Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP,
> Order > here > < > https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again- reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8 > > > . > _______________________________________________ > 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:
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:
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
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
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
Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and have similar problems. You will have to clarify: In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and verifiable? Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary sources produced by the subject? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are primary sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original sources, as in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this confusion in Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the articles.
Paulo
2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron cameron@cameron11598.net:
Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral histories and traditions come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am with an encyclopedia using such sources.
Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I use primary sources quite often for papers, and projects however those are generally frowned upon for Wikipedia; mainly because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an academic journal. Good encyclopedias are typically sourced from secondary sources, and ocassionaly tertiary sources.
Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion. My personal thought on this issue is keeping our current verifiability and notability requirements is a good idea. In some areas I think we include far too much (fan cruft anyone?).
- Cameron C.
Cameron11598
---- On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:34:15 -0700 peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote ----
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we consider sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be
made
at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask
them
to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are
flawed,
the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
wanting
to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not
to
remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready
to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
things
that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
evidence,
and
where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
intangible,
the
authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it
as
possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
reliable
source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying
the
credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture
manage
successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue is
how
do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect
them,
how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
not
the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
from
books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and
value
alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
is
do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum
of
all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
knowledge
networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
but
rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
member
of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though: https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
movement
or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
personally
do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
impressions.
Cheers!
El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> escribió:
Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
produce
reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints
opens
the
doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
open
to
anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
alternatives.
Other
projects may work around this problem, but would then probably
not
be
open
for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
"Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
of
knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
Wikipedia
that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
saying
that
it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
enough,
when different cultures use different ways to build their canon
of
knowledge.
JP User:Amqui
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com > To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will
never
be
able
> to correct it." > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
of
> knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge. > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
will
> reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
bias
issues > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than
full
correction > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead. > > Fred > > > _______________________________________________ > 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>
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
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:
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>
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
. _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
Observations of the death of a king or a president or of Martin Luther King are primary sources, but rather solid. Conceptual material, no so much.
Fred
----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 01:49:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and have similar problems. You will have to clarify: In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and verifiable? Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary sources produced by the subject? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are primary sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original sources, as in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this confusion in Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the articles.
Paulo
2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron cameron@cameron11598.net:
Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral histories and traditions come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am with an encyclopedia using such sources.
Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I use primary sources quite often for papers, and projects however those are generally frowned upon for Wikipedia; mainly because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an academic journal. Good encyclopedias are typically sourced from secondary sources, and ocassionaly tertiary sources.
Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion. My personal thought on this issue is keeping our current verifiability and notability requirements is a good idea. In some areas I think we include far too much (fan cruft anyone?).
- Cameron C.
Cameron11598
---- On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:34:15 -0700 peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote ----
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we consider sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be
made
at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask
them
to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are
flawed,
the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
wanting
to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not
to
remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready
to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
things
that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
evidence,
and
where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
intangible,
the
authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it
as
possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
reliable
source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying
the
credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture
manage
successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue is
how
do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect
them,
how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
not
the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
from
books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and
value
alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
is
do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum
of
all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
knowledge
networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
but
rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
member
of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though: https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
movement
or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
personally
do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
impressions.
Cheers!
El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> escribió:
Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
produce
reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints
opens
the
doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
open
to
anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
alternatives.
Other
projects may work around this problem, but would then probably
not
be
open
for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
"Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
of
knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
Wikipedia
that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
saying
that
it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
enough,
when different cultures use different ways to build their canon
of
knowledge.
JP User:Amqui
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com > To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will
never
be
able
> to correct it." > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
of
> knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge. > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
will
> reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
bias
issues > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than
full
correction > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead. > > Fred > > > _______________________________________________ > 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>
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
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:
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>
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
. _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
_______________________________________________ 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 parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more reliable than any secondary sources quoting it.
As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should be used instead of a primary source in those situations.
Paulo
2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net:
Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and have similar problems. You will have to clarify: In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and verifiable? Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary sources produced by the subject? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are primary sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original sources, as in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this confusion in Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the articles.
Paulo
2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron cameron@cameron11598.net:
Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral histories and
traditions
come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am with an encyclopedia using such sources.
Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I use primary sources quite often for papers, and projects however those are generally frowned upon for Wikipedia; mainly because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an academic journal. Good encyclopedias are typically sourced from secondary sources, and ocassionaly tertiary sources.
Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion. My personal thought on this issue is keeping our current verifiability and notability requirements is a good idea. In some areas I think we include far too much (fan cruft anyone?).
- Cameron C.
Cameron11598
---- On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:34:15 -0700 peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote ----
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we consider sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for
spammers
and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be
made
at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask
them
to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are
flawed,
the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we
do
not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
wanting
to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not
to
remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready
to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite
of
notability and verifiability requirements, Without the
verifiability
requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
things
that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
evidence,
and
where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
intangible,
the
authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means
track
record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see
it
as
possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
reliable
source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying
the
credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture
manage
successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the
western
styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue is
how
do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect
them,
how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do
is
not
the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our
current
systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
from
books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and
value
alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the
question
is
do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the
sum
of
all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
knowledge
networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the
wikipedia
but
rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where
a
member
of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though: https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
movement
or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
personally
do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
impressions.
Cheers!
El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> escribió:
> Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
produce
> reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints
opens
the
> doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to
remain
open
to
> anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
alternatives.
Other
> projects may work around this problem, but would then probably
not
be
open > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? > Cheers, > Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
> Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge." > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
Wikipedia
> that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
saying
that > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be
notable
enough,
> when different cultures use different ways to build their canon
of
> knowledge. > > JP > User:Amqui > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
> wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will
never
be
able > > to correct it." > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge. > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
will > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and
other
bias
> issues > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than
full
> correction > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead. > > > > Fred > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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>
> > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > http://www.avg.com > > > _______________________________________________ > 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:
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>
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.
org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP,
Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
. _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
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
If a "secondary" source just parrots or copies a primary source, it's added nothing. At that point, it doesn't matter which one you use.
However, good, reliable secondary sources will cross-check the claims of primary sources against one another, evaluate them for reliability, and come up with what the real truth is actually likely to be. When those sources are fact-checked and peer reviewed, they are much more reliable than the primary sources, and we should prefer them to editors evaluating primary sources themselves, or worse yet, uncritically treating them as factual.
Todd
On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more reliable than any secondary sources quoting it.
As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should be used instead of a primary source in those situations.
Paulo
2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net:
Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and have similar problems. You will have to clarify: In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and verifiable? Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary
sources
produced by the subject? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are
primary
sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original sources,
as
in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this confusion
in
Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the articles.
Paulo
2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron cameron@cameron11598.net:
Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral histories and
traditions
come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am with an encyclopedia using such sources.
Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I
use
primary sources quite often for papers, and projects however those are generally frowned upon for Wikipedia; mainly because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an academic journal. Good encyclopedias are typically sourced from secondary sources, and ocassionaly tertiary sources.
Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion. My personal thought on this issue is keeping our current verifiability and notability requirements is a good idea. In some areas I think we
include
far too much (fan cruft anyone?).
- Cameron C.
Cameron11598
---- On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:34:15 -0700 peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote ----
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we
consider
sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for
spammers
and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should
be
made
at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask
them
to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article
accordingly
based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess
what
sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are
flawed,
the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources,
we
do
not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
wanting
to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times
change.
Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have
started
Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed
to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is
not
to
remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change
those
requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are
ready
to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of
Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in
spite
of
notability and verifiability requirements, Without the
verifiability
requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
things
that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
evidence,
and
where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
intangible,
the
authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means
track
record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see
it
as
possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
reliable
source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without
destroying
the
credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture
manage
successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the
western
styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue
is
how
do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect
them,
how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do
is
not
the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our
current
systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the
citations
from
books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and
value
alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the
question
is
do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the
sum
of
all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
knowledge
networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the
wikipedia
but
rather the creation of new project to bring forth these
alternative
knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com
wrote:
> Hi, > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias
where
a
member
> of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity
though:
> https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4 > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and
as a
movement > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I personally > do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal impressions. > > > Cheers! > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < > peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> > escribió: > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
produce
> > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints
opens
the
> > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to
remain
open
to > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
alternatives.
Other > > projects may work around this problem, but would then
probably
not
be
> open > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? > > Cheers, > > Peter > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
> > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge." > > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge"
as
Wikipedia > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to
that
saying
> that > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be
notable
enough, > > when different cultures use different ways to build their
canon
of
> > knowledge. > > > > JP > > User:Amqui > > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
> > wrote: > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.
org>
> > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will
never
be
> able > > > to correct it." > > > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge. > > > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
> will > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and
other
bias
> > issues > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than
full
> > correction > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead. > > > > > > Fred > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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>
> > > > --- > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > > http://www.avg.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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:
> 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>
>
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.
org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never
Again:
Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP,
Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
> . _______________________________________________ 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:
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:
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
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
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
When we have a document signed by the king saying someone was given a certain title; and a myriad of secondary and tertiary sources saying the document says otherwise (without ever quoting the document itself), I would not have the least doubt in choosing the king's deed. That's a recurrent situation in History, and as far as I know, the recommendations are always to ignore the secondary sources when some unexplained conflict between them and the primary, original sources arises.
Paulo
2018-05-12 13:31 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com:
If a "secondary" source just parrots or copies a primary source, it's added nothing. At that point, it doesn't matter which one you use.
However, good, reliable secondary sources will cross-check the claims of primary sources against one another, evaluate them for reliability, and come up with what the real truth is actually likely to be. When those sources are fact-checked and peer reviewed, they are much more reliable than the primary sources, and we should prefer them to editors evaluating primary sources themselves, or worse yet, uncritically treating them as factual.
Todd
On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more
reliable
than any secondary sources quoting it.
As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should
be
used instead of a primary source in those situations.
Paulo
2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net
:
Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and
have
similar problems. You will have to clarify: In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and verifiable? Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary
sources
produced by the subject? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are
primary
sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original
sources,
as
in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this
confusion
in
Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the articles.
Paulo
2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron cameron@cameron11598.net:
Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral histories and
traditions
come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am with an encyclopedia using such sources.
Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I
use
primary sources quite often for papers, and projects however those
are
generally frowned upon for Wikipedia; mainly because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an academic journal. Good encyclopedias are
typically
sourced from secondary sources, and ocassionaly tertiary sources.
Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion.
My
personal thought on this issue is keeping our current verifiability
and
notability requirements is a good idea. In some areas I think we
include
far too much (fan cruft anyone?).
- Cameron C.
Cameron11598
---- On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:34:15 -0700 peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote ----
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second
guessing
sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we
consider
sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for
spammers
and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should
be
made
at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing"
a
reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd
ask
them
to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article
accordingly
based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess
what
sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are
flawed,
the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing,
not
"correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources,
we
do
not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
wanting
to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times
change.
Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have
started
Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by
anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is
doomed
to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is
not
to
remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change
those
requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are
ready
to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of
Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in
spite
of
> notability and verifiability requirements, Without the
verifiability
> requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith
are
things
> that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
evidence,
and > where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
intangible,
the > authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means
track
> record and proof of identity. > This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not
see
it
as
> possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as
a
reliable
> source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without
destroying
the
> credibility we have. > Cheers, > Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
> Behalf Of Gnangarra > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems > > notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
> has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These
culture
manage
> successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the
western
styles > were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue
is
how
do > we bring these sources into the western system, how do we
respect
them,
> how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently
do
is
not
> the only. > > There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our
current
> systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the
citations
from
> books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider
and
value
> alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the
question
is
do > we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share
the
sum
of
all > knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
knowledge
> networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts. > > Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the
wikipedia
but
> rather the creation of new project to bring forth these
alternative
> knowledge streams > > > On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > Hi, > > > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias
where
a
member > > of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity
though:
> > https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. > > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4 > > > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and
as a
> movement > > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid,
which I
> personally > > do, since they are supported with data and not on our
personal
> impressions. > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < > > peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> > > escribió: > > > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us
to
produce
> > > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those
constraints
opens
the > > > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to
remain
open > to > > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
alternatives.
> Other > > > projects may work around this problem, but would then
probably
not
be
> > open > > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? > > > Cheers, > > > Peter > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge." > > > > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of
"knowledge"
as
> Wikipedia > > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to
that
saying > > that > > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be
notable
> enough, > > > when different cultures use different ways to build their
canon
of
> > > knowledge. > > > > > > JP > > > User:Amqui > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.
org>
> > > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, > > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but
will
never
be > > able > > > > to correct it." > > > > > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge. > > > > > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
> > will > > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and
other
bias > > > issues > > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest
than
full
> > > correction > > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead. > > > > > > > > Fred > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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>
> > > > > > --- > > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > > > http://www.avg.com > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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:
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > 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>
> > > > > > -- > GN. > Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.
org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never
Again:
> Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP,
> Order > here > < > https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again- reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8 > > > . > _______________________________________________ > 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:
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:
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
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
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
Much more complicated situation. Really far beyond a Wikipedian's pay grade.
Fred
----- Original Message ----- From: Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:38:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
When we have a document signed by the king saying someone was given a certain title; and a myriad of secondary and tertiary sources saying the document says otherwise (without ever quoting the document itself), I would not have the least doubt in choosing the king's deed. That's a recurrent situation in History, and as far as I know, the recommendations are always to ignore the secondary sources when some unexplained conflict between them and the primary, original sources arises.
Paulo
2018-05-12 13:31 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com:
If a "secondary" source just parrots or copies a primary source, it's added nothing. At that point, it doesn't matter which one you use.
However, good, reliable secondary sources will cross-check the claims of primary sources against one another, evaluate them for reliability, and come up with what the real truth is actually likely to be. When those sources are fact-checked and peer reviewed, they are much more reliable than the primary sources, and we should prefer them to editors evaluating primary sources themselves, or worse yet, uncritically treating them as factual.
Todd
On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more
reliable
than any secondary sources quoting it.
As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should
be
used instead of a primary source in those situations.
Paulo
2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net
:
Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and
have
similar problems. You will have to clarify: In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and verifiable? Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary
sources
produced by the subject? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are
primary
sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original
sources,
as
in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this
confusion
in
Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the articles.
Paulo
2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron cameron@cameron11598.net:
Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral histories and
traditions
come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am with an encyclopedia using such sources.
Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I
use
primary sources quite often for papers, and projects however those
are
generally frowned upon for Wikipedia; mainly because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an academic journal. Good encyclopedias are
typically
sourced from secondary sources, and ocassionaly tertiary sources.
Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion.
My
personal thought on this issue is keeping our current verifiability
and
notability requirements is a good idea. In some areas I think we
include
far too much (fan cruft anyone?).
- Cameron C.
Cameron11598
---- On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:34:15 -0700 peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote ----
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second
guessing
sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we
consider
sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for
spammers
and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should
be
made
at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing"
a
reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd
ask
them
to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article
accordingly
based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess
what
sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are
flawed,
the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing,
not
"correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources,
we
do
not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
wanting
to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times
change.
Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have
started
Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by
anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is
doomed
to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is
not
to
remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change
those
requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are
ready
to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of
Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in
spite
of
> notability and verifiability requirements, Without the
verifiability
> requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith
are
things
> that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
evidence,
and > where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
intangible,
the > authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means
track
> record and proof of identity. > This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not
see
it
as
> possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as
a
reliable
> source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without
destroying
the
> credibility we have. > Cheers, > Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
> Behalf Of Gnangarra > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems > > notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
> has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These
culture
manage
> successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the
western
styles > were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue
is
how
do > we bring these sources into the western system, how do we
respect
them,
> how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently
do
is
not
> the only. > > There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our
current
> systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the
citations
from
> books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider
and
value
> alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the
question
is
do > we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share
the
sum
of
all > knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
knowledge
> networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts. > > Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the
wikipedia
but
> rather the creation of new project to bring forth these
alternative
> knowledge streams > > > On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > Hi, > > > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias
where
a
member > > of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity
though:
> > https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. > > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4 > > > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and
as a
> movement > > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid,
which I
> personally > > do, since they are supported with data and not on our
personal
> impressions. > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < > > peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> > > escribió: > > > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us
to
produce
> > > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those
constraints
opens
the > > > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to
remain
open > to > > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
alternatives.
> Other > > > projects may work around this problem, but would then
probably
not
be
> > open > > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? > > > Cheers, > > > Peter > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge." > > > > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of
"knowledge"
as
> Wikipedia > > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to
that
saying > > that > > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be
notable
> enough, > > > when different cultures use different ways to build their
canon
of
> > > knowledge. > > > > > > JP > > > User:Amqui > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.
org>
> > > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, > > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but
will
never
be > > able > > > > to correct it." > > > > > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge. > > > > > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
> > will > > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and
other
bias > > > issues > > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest
than
full
> > > correction > > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead. > > > > > > > > Fred > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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>
> > > > > > --- > > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > > > http://www.avg.com > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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:
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > 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>
> > > > > > -- > GN. > Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.
org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never
Again:
> Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP,
> Order > here > < > https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again- reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8 > > > . > _______________________________________________ > 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:
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:
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
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
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
_______________________________________________ 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
Just as we allow a firm to list their officers or a town to correct the name of the mayor, if there are no factual issues, any source is fine. With respect to significant disputed issues professional academic analysis is vital, think cold fusion.
Fred
----- Original Message ----- From: Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:31:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If a "secondary" source just parrots or copies a primary source, it's added nothing. At that point, it doesn't matter which one you use.
However, good, reliable secondary sources will cross-check the claims of primary sources against one another, evaluate them for reliability, and come up with what the real truth is actually likely to be. When those sources are fact-checked and peer reviewed, they are much more reliable than the primary sources, and we should prefer them to editors evaluating primary sources themselves, or worse yet, uncritically treating them as factual.
Todd
On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more reliable than any secondary sources quoting it.
As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should be used instead of a primary source in those situations.
Paulo
2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net:
Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and have similar problems. You will have to clarify: In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and verifiable? Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary
sources
produced by the subject? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are
primary
sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original sources,
as
in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this confusion
in
Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the articles.
Paulo
2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron cameron@cameron11598.net:
Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral histories and
traditions
come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am with an encyclopedia using such sources.
Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I
use
primary sources quite often for papers, and projects however those are generally frowned upon for Wikipedia; mainly because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an academic journal. Good encyclopedias are typically sourced from secondary sources, and ocassionaly tertiary sources.
Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion. My personal thought on this issue is keeping our current verifiability and notability requirements is a good idea. In some areas I think we
include
far too much (fan cruft anyone?).
- Cameron C.
Cameron11598
---- On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:34:15 -0700 peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote ----
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we
consider
sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for
spammers
and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should
be
made
at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask
them
to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article
accordingly
based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess
what
sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are
flawed,
the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources,
we
do
not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
wanting
to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times
change.
Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have
started
Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed
to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is
not
to
remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change
those
requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are
ready
to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of
Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in
spite
of
notability and verifiability requirements, Without the
verifiability
requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
things
that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
evidence,
and
where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
intangible,
the
authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means
track
record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see
it
as
possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
reliable
source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without
destroying
the
credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture
manage
successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the
western
styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue
is
how
do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect
them,
how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do
is
not
the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our
current
systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the
citations
from
books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and
value
alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the
question
is
do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the
sum
of
all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
knowledge
networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the
wikipedia
but
rather the creation of new project to bring forth these
alternative
knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com
wrote:
> Hi, > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias
where
a
member
> of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity
though:
> https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4 > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and
as a
movement > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I personally > do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal impressions. > > > Cheers! > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < > peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> > escribió: > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
produce
> > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints
opens
the
> > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to
remain
open
to > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
alternatives.
Other > > projects may work around this problem, but would then
probably
not
be
> open > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? > > Cheers, > > Peter > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
> > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge." > > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge"
as
Wikipedia > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to
that
saying
> that > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be
notable
enough, > > when different cultures use different ways to build their
canon
of
> > knowledge. > > > > JP > > User:Amqui > > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
> > wrote: > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.
org>
> > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will
never
be
> able > > > to correct it." > > > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge. > > > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
> will > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and
other
bias
> > issues > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than
full
> > correction > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead. > > > > > > Fred > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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>
> > > > --- > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > > http://www.avg.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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:
> 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>
>
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.
org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never
Again:
Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP,
Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
> . _______________________________________________ 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:
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:
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
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
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
Yes, it should be as you say. But my experience in Wikipedia is that the confuse definition of primary source often leads to such egregious situations as some newspaper saying what the director of an institution is, is prefered to the very institution correcting the name. I've seen this over and over.
Paulo
2018-05-12 13:45 GMT+01:00 FRED BAUDER fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Just as we allow a firm to list their officers or a town to correct the name of the mayor, if there are no factual issues, any source is fine. With respect to significant disputed issues professional academic analysis is vital, think cold fusion.
Fred
----- Original Message ----- From: Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:31:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If a "secondary" source just parrots or copies a primary source, it's added nothing. At that point, it doesn't matter which one you use.
However, good, reliable secondary sources will cross-check the claims of primary sources against one another, evaluate them for reliability, and come up with what the real truth is actually likely to be. When those sources are fact-checked and peer reviewed, they are much more reliable than the primary sources, and we should prefer them to editors evaluating primary sources themselves, or worse yet, uncritically treating them as factual.
Todd
On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more
reliable
than any secondary sources quoting it.
As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should
be
used instead of a primary source in those situations.
Paulo
2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net
:
Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and
have
similar problems. You will have to clarify: In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and verifiable? Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary
sources
produced by the subject? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are
primary
sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original
sources,
as
in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this
confusion
in
Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the articles.
Paulo
2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron cameron@cameron11598.net:
Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral histories and
traditions
come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am with an encyclopedia using such sources.
Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I
use
primary sources quite often for papers, and projects however those
are
generally frowned upon for Wikipedia; mainly because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an academic journal. Good encyclopedias are
typically
sourced from secondary sources, and ocassionaly tertiary sources.
Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion.
My
personal thought on this issue is keeping our current verifiability
and
notability requirements is a good idea. In some areas I think we
include
far too much (fan cruft anyone?).
- Cameron C.
Cameron11598
---- On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:34:15 -0700 peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote ----
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second
guessing
sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we
consider
sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for
spammers
and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should
be
made
at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing"
a
reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd
ask
them
to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article
accordingly
based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess
what
sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are
flawed,
the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing,
not
"correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources,
we
do
not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
wanting
to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times
change.
Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have
started
Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by
anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is
doomed
to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is
not
to
remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change
those
requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are
ready
to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of
Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in
spite
of
> notability and verifiability requirements, Without the
verifiability
> requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith
are
things
> that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
evidence,
and > where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
intangible,
the > authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means
track
> record and proof of identity. > This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not
see
it
as
> possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as
a
reliable
> source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without
destroying
the
> credibility we have. > Cheers, > Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
> Behalf Of Gnangarra > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems > > notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
> has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These
culture
manage
> successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the
western
styles > were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue
is
how
do > we bring these sources into the western system, how do we
respect
them,
> how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently
do
is
not
> the only. > > There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our
current
> systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the
citations
from
> books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider
and
value
> alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the
question
is
do > we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share
the
sum
of
all > knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
knowledge
> networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts. > > Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the
wikipedia
but
> rather the creation of new project to bring forth these
alternative
> knowledge streams > > > On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > Hi, > > > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias
where
a
member > > of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity
though:
> > https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. > > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4 > > > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and
as a
> movement > > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid,
which I
> personally > > do, since they are supported with data and not on our
personal
> impressions. > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < > > peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> > > escribió: > > > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us
to
produce
> > > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those
constraints
opens
the > > > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to
remain
open > to > > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
alternatives.
> Other > > > projects may work around this problem, but would then
probably
not
be
> > open > > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? > > > Cheers, > > > Peter > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge." > > > > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of
"knowledge"
as
> Wikipedia > > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to
that
saying > > that > > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be
notable
> enough, > > > when different cultures use different ways to build their
canon
of
> > > knowledge. > > > > > > JP > > > User:Amqui > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.
org>
> > > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, > > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but
will
never
be > > able > > > > to correct it." > > > > > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge. > > > > > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
> > will > > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and
other
bias > > > issues > > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest
than
full
> > > correction > > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead. > > > > > > > > Fred > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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>
> > > > > > --- > > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > > > http://www.avg.com > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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:
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > 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>
> > > > > > -- > GN. > Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.
org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never
Again:
> Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP,
> Order > here > < > https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again- reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8 > > > . > _______________________________________________ > 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:
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:
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
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
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
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
People often misinterpret the rules, occasionally in disingenuous ways. Best to not get too excited. Over the years there is a general gradual movement toward sane editing and a person who starts editing as a teenager should be a fairly good editor by the time they reach 50.
Fred
----- Original Message ----- From: Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:50:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
Yes, it should be as you say. But my experience in Wikipedia is that the confuse definition of primary source often leads to such egregious situations as some newspaper saying what the director of an institution is, is prefered to the very institution correcting the name. I've seen this over and over.
Paulo
2018-05-12 13:45 GMT+01:00 FRED BAUDER fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Just as we allow a firm to list their officers or a town to correct the name of the mayor, if there are no factual issues, any source is fine. With respect to significant disputed issues professional academic analysis is vital, think cold fusion.
Fred
----- Original Message ----- From: Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:31:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If a "secondary" source just parrots or copies a primary source, it's added nothing. At that point, it doesn't matter which one you use.
However, good, reliable secondary sources will cross-check the claims of primary sources against one another, evaluate them for reliability, and come up with what the real truth is actually likely to be. When those sources are fact-checked and peer reviewed, they are much more reliable than the primary sources, and we should prefer them to editors evaluating primary sources themselves, or worse yet, uncritically treating them as factual.
Todd
On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more
reliable
than any secondary sources quoting it.
As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should
be
used instead of a primary source in those situations.
Paulo
2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net
:
Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and
have
similar problems. You will have to clarify: In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and verifiable? Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary
sources
produced by the subject? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are
primary
sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original
sources,
as
in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this
confusion
in
Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the articles.
Paulo
2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron cameron@cameron11598.net:
Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral histories and
traditions
come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am with an encyclopedia using such sources.
Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I
use
primary sources quite often for papers, and projects however those
are
generally frowned upon for Wikipedia; mainly because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an academic journal. Good encyclopedias are
typically
sourced from secondary sources, and ocassionaly tertiary sources.
Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion.
My
personal thought on this issue is keeping our current verifiability
and
notability requirements is a good idea. In some areas I think we
include
far too much (fan cruft anyone?).
- Cameron C.
Cameron11598
---- On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:34:15 -0700 peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote ----
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second
guessing
sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we
consider
sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for
spammers
and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should
be
made
at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing"
a
reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd
ask
them
to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article
accordingly
based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess
what
sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are
flawed,
the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing,
not
"correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources,
we
do
not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
wanting
to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times
change.
Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have
started
Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by
anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is
doomed
to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is
not
to
remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change
those
requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are
ready
to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of
Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in
spite
of
> notability and verifiability requirements, Without the
verifiability
> requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith
are
things
> that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
evidence,
and > where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
intangible,
the > authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means
track
> record and proof of identity. > This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not
see
it
as
> possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as
a
reliable
> source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without
destroying
the
> credibility we have. > Cheers, > Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
> Behalf Of Gnangarra > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems > > notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
> has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These
culture
manage
> successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the
western
styles > were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue
is
how
do > we bring these sources into the western system, how do we
respect
them,
> how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently
do
is
not
> the only. > > There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our
current
> systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the
citations
from
> books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider
and
value
> alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the
question
is
do > we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share
the
sum
of
all > knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
knowledge
> networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts. > > Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the
wikipedia
but
> rather the creation of new project to bring forth these
alternative
> knowledge streams > > > On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > Hi, > > > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias
where
a
member > > of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity
though:
> > https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. > > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4 > > > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and
as a
> movement > > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid,
which I
> personally > > do, since they are supported with data and not on our
personal
> impressions. > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < > > peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> > > escribió: > > > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us
to
produce
> > > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those
constraints
opens
the > > > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to
remain
open > to > > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
alternatives.
> Other > > > projects may work around this problem, but would then
probably
not
be
> > open > > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? > > > Cheers, > > > Peter > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge." > > > > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of
"knowledge"
as
> Wikipedia > > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to
that
saying > > that > > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be
notable
> enough, > > > when different cultures use different ways to build their
canon
of
> > > knowledge. > > > > > > JP > > > User:Amqui > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.
org>
> > > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, > > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but
will
never
be > > able > > > > to correct it." > > > > > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge. > > > > > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
> > will > > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and
other
bias > > > issues > > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest
than
full
> > > correction > > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead. > > > > > > > > Fred > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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>
> > > > > > --- > > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > > > http://www.avg.com > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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:
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > 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>
> > > > > > -- > GN. > Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.
org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never
Again:
> Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP,
> Order > here > < > https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again- reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8 > > > . > _______________________________________________ > 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:
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:
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
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
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
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
And should be used, just as an image of a headstone can be used, in preference to some writing about it. Exceptions, don't prove the rule though. A diary should not be used directly, and an autobiography with great care, depending on how it was edited and published.
Fred
----- Original Message ----- From: Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:27:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more reliable than any secondary sources quoting it.
As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should be used instead of a primary source in those situations.
Paulo
2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net:
Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and have similar problems. You will have to clarify: In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and verifiable? Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary sources produced by the subject? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are primary sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original sources, as in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this confusion in Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the articles.
Paulo
2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron cameron@cameron11598.net:
Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral histories and
traditions
come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am with an encyclopedia using such sources.
Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I use primary sources quite often for papers, and projects however those are generally frowned upon for Wikipedia; mainly because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an academic journal. Good encyclopedias are typically sourced from secondary sources, and ocassionaly tertiary sources.
Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion. My personal thought on this issue is keeping our current verifiability and notability requirements is a good idea. In some areas I think we include far too much (fan cruft anyone?).
- Cameron C.
Cameron11598
---- On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:34:15 -0700 peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote ----
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we consider sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for
spammers
and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be
made
at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask
them
to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are
flawed,
the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we
do
not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
wanting
to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not
to
remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready
to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite
of
notability and verifiability requirements, Without the
verifiability
requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
things
that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
evidence,
and
where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
intangible,
the
authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means
track
record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see
it
as
possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
reliable
source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying
the
credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture
manage
successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the
western
styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue is
how
do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect
them,
how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do
is
not
the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our
current
systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
from
books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and
value
alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the
question
is
do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the
sum
of
all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
knowledge
networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the
wikipedia
but
rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where
a
member
of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though: https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
movement
or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
personally
do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
impressions.
Cheers!
El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> escribió:
> Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
produce
> reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints
opens
the
> doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to
remain
open
to
> anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
alternatives.
Other
> projects may work around this problem, but would then probably
not
be
open > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? > Cheers, > Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
> Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge." > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
Wikipedia
> that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
saying
that > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be
notable
enough,
> when different cultures use different ways to build their canon
of
> knowledge. > > JP > User:Amqui > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
> wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will
never
be
able > > to correct it." > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge. > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
will > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and
other
bias
> issues > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than
full
> correction > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead. > > > > Fred > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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>
> > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > http://www.avg.com > > > _______________________________________________ > 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:
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>
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.
org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP,
Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
. _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
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
There is a difference between the two situations. The king's deed and the parish books are primary sources, but both are official documents, subject to peer review. Diaries and autobiographies are primary sources as well, but generally not subjected to any review. There should be some way to distinguish between the two types.
Paulo
2018-05-12 13:40 GMT+01:00 FRED BAUDER fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
And should be used, just as an image of a headstone can be used, in preference to some writing about it. Exceptions, don't prove the rule though. A diary should not be used directly, and an autobiography with great care, depending on how it was edited and published.
Fred
----- Original Message ----- From: Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:27:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more reliable than any secondary sources quoting it.
As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should be used instead of a primary source in those situations.
Paulo
2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net:
Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and have similar problems. You will have to clarify: In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and verifiable? Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary
sources
produced by the subject? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are
primary
sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original sources,
as
in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this confusion
in
Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the articles.
Paulo
2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron cameron@cameron11598.net:
Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral histories and
traditions
come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am with an encyclopedia using such sources.
Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I
use
primary sources quite often for papers, and projects however those are generally frowned upon for Wikipedia; mainly because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an academic journal. Good encyclopedias are typically sourced from secondary sources, and ocassionaly tertiary sources.
Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion. My personal thought on this issue is keeping our current verifiability and notability requirements is a good idea. In some areas I think we
include
far too much (fan cruft anyone?).
- Cameron C.
Cameron11598
---- On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:34:15 -0700 peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote ----
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we
consider
sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for
spammers
and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should
be
made
at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask
them
to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article
accordingly
based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess
what
sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are
flawed,
the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources,
we
do
not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
wanting
to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times
change.
Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have
started
Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed
to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is
not
to
remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change
those
requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are
ready
to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of
Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in
spite
of
notability and verifiability requirements, Without the
verifiability
requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
things
that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
evidence,
and
where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
intangible,
the
authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means
track
record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see
it
as
possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
reliable
source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without
destroying
the
credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture
manage
successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the
western
styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue
is
how
do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect
them,
how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do
is
not
the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our
current
systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the
citations
from
books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and
value
alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the
question
is
do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the
sum
of
all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
knowledge
networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the
wikipedia
but
rather the creation of new project to bring forth these
alternative
knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com
wrote:
> Hi, > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias
where
a
member
> of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity
though:
> https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4 > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and
as a
movement > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I personally > do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal impressions. > > > Cheers! > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < > peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> > escribió: > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
produce
> > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints
opens
the
> > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to
remain
open
to > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
alternatives.
Other > > projects may work around this problem, but would then
probably
not
be
> open > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? > > Cheers, > > Peter > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
> > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge." > > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge"
as
Wikipedia > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to
that
saying
> that > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be
notable
enough, > > when different cultures use different ways to build their
canon
of
> > knowledge. > > > > JP > > User:Amqui > > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
> > wrote: > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.
org>
> > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will
never
be
> able > > > to correct it." > > > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge. > > > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
> will > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and
other
bias
> > issues > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than
full
> > correction > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead. > > > > > > Fred > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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>
> > > > --- > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > > http://www.avg.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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:
> 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>
>
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.
org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never
Again:
Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP,
Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
> . _______________________________________________ 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:
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:
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
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
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
Autobiographical writing published by the mainstream press with editors and fact checkers is more reliable.
Fred
----- Original Message ----- From: Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:44:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
There is a difference between the two situations. The king's deed and the parish books are primary sources, but both are official documents, subject to peer review. Diaries and autobiographies are primary sources as well, but generally not subjected to any review. There should be some way to distinguish between the two types.
Paulo
2018-05-12 13:40 GMT+01:00 FRED BAUDER fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
And should be used, just as an image of a headstone can be used, in preference to some writing about it. Exceptions, don't prove the rule though. A diary should not be used directly, and an autobiography with great care, depending on how it was edited and published.
Fred
----- Original Message ----- From: Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:27:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more reliable than any secondary sources quoting it.
As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should be used instead of a primary source in those situations.
Paulo
2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net:
Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and have similar problems. You will have to clarify: In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and verifiable? Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary
sources
produced by the subject? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are
primary
sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original sources,
as
in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this confusion
in
Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the articles.
Paulo
2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron cameron@cameron11598.net:
Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral histories and
traditions
come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am with an encyclopedia using such sources.
Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I
use
primary sources quite often for papers, and projects however those are generally frowned upon for Wikipedia; mainly because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an academic journal. Good encyclopedias are typically sourced from secondary sources, and ocassionaly tertiary sources.
Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion. My personal thought on this issue is keeping our current verifiability and notability requirements is a good idea. In some areas I think we
include
far too much (fan cruft anyone?).
- Cameron C.
Cameron11598
---- On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:34:15 -0700 peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote ----
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we
consider
sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for
spammers
and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should
be
made
at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask
them
to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article
accordingly
based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess
what
sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are
flawed,
the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources,
we
do
not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
wanting
to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times
change.
Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have
started
Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed
to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is
not
to
remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change
those
requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are
ready
to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of
Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in
spite
of
notability and verifiability requirements, Without the
verifiability
requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
things
that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
evidence,
and
where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
intangible,
the
authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means
track
record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see
it
as
possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
reliable
source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without
destroying
the
credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture
manage
successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the
western
styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue
is
how
do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect
them,
how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do
is
not
the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our
current
systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the
citations
from
books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and
value
alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the
question
is
do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the
sum
of
all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
knowledge
networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the
wikipedia
but
rather the creation of new project to bring forth these
alternative
knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com
wrote:
> Hi, > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias
where
a
member
> of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity
though:
> https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4 > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and
as a
movement > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I personally > do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal impressions. > > > Cheers! > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < > peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> > escribió: > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
produce
> > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints
opens
the
> > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to
remain
open
to > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
alternatives.
Other > > projects may work around this problem, but would then
probably
not
be
> open > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? > > Cheers, > > Peter > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
> > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge." > > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge"
as
Wikipedia > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to
that
saying
> that > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be
notable
enough, > > when different cultures use different ways to build their
canon
of
> > knowledge. > > > > JP > > User:Amqui > > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
> > wrote: > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.
org>
> > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will
never
be
> able > > > to correct it." > > > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge. > > > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
> will > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and
other
bias
> > issues > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than
full
> > correction > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead. > > > > > > Fred > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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>
> > > > --- > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > > http://www.avg.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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:
> 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>
>
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.
org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never
Again:
Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP,
Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
> . _______________________________________________ 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:
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:
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
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
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
_______________________________________________ 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's reliable concerning the opinions and vision of the author on the things he describes, not the facts themselves.
And unless I'm misunderstanding this, fact checkers (critics?) are actually secondary sources, I believe?
Paulo
2018-05-12 13:48 GMT+01:00 FRED BAUDER fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Autobiographical writing published by the mainstream press with editors and fact checkers is more reliable.
Fred
----- Original Message ----- From: Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:44:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
There is a difference between the two situations. The king's deed and the parish books are primary sources, but both are official documents, subject to peer review. Diaries and autobiographies are primary sources as well, but generally not subjected to any review. There should be some way to distinguish between the two types.
Paulo
2018-05-12 13:40 GMT+01:00 FRED BAUDER fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
And should be used, just as an image of a headstone can be used, in preference to some writing about it. Exceptions, don't prove the rule though. A diary should not be used directly, and an autobiography with great care, depending on how it was edited and published.
Fred
----- Original Message ----- From: Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:27:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more
reliable
than any secondary sources quoting it.
As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should
be
used instead of a primary source in those situations.
Paulo
2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net
:
Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and
have
similar problems. You will have to clarify: In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and verifiable? Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary
sources
produced by the subject? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are
primary
sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original
sources,
as
in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this
confusion
in
Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the articles.
Paulo
2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron cameron@cameron11598.net:
Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral histories and
traditions
come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am with an encyclopedia using such sources.
Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I
use
primary sources quite often for papers, and projects however those
are
generally frowned upon for Wikipedia; mainly because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an academic journal. Good encyclopedias are
typically
sourced from secondary sources, and ocassionaly tertiary sources.
Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion.
My
personal thought on this issue is keeping our current verifiability
and
notability requirements is a good idea. In some areas I think we
include
far too much (fan cruft anyone?).
- Cameron C.
Cameron11598
---- On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:34:15 -0700 peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote ----
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second
guessing
sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we
consider
sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for
spammers
and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should
be
made
at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing"
a
reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd
ask
them
to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article
accordingly
based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess
what
sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are
flawed,
the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing,
not
"correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources,
we
do
not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
wanting
to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times
change.
Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have
started
Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by
anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is
doomed
to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is
not
to
remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change
those
requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are
ready
to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of
Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in
spite
of
> notability and verifiability requirements, Without the
verifiability
> requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith
are
things
> that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
evidence,
and > where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
intangible,
the > authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means
track
> record and proof of identity. > This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not
see
it
as
> possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as
a
reliable
> source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without
destroying
the
> credibility we have. > Cheers, > Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
> Behalf Of Gnangarra > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems > > notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
> has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These
culture
manage
> successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the
western
styles > were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue
is
how
do > we bring these sources into the western system, how do we
respect
them,
> how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently
do
is
not
> the only. > > There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our
current
> systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the
citations
from
> books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider
and
value
> alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the
question
is
do > we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share
the
sum
of
all > knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
knowledge
> networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts. > > Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the
wikipedia
but
> rather the creation of new project to bring forth these
alternative
> knowledge streams > > > On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > Hi, > > > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias
where
a
member > > of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity
though:
> > https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. > > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4 > > > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and
as a
> movement > > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid,
which I
> personally > > do, since they are supported with data and not on our
personal
> impressions. > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < > > peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> > > escribió: > > > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us
to
produce
> > > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those
constraints
opens
the > > > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to
remain
open > to > > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
alternatives.
> Other > > > projects may work around this problem, but would then
probably
not
be
> > open > > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? > > > Cheers, > > > Peter > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge." > > > > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of
"knowledge"
as
> Wikipedia > > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to
that
saying > > that > > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be
notable
> enough, > > > when different cultures use different ways to build their
canon
of
> > > knowledge. > > > > > > JP > > > User:Amqui > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.
org>
> > > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, > > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but
will
never
be > > able > > > > to correct it." > > > > > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge. > > > > > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
> > will > > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and
other
bias > > > issues > > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest
than
full
> > > correction > > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead. > > > > > > > > Fred > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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>
> > > > > > --- > > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > > > http://www.avg.com > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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:
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > 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>
> > > > > > -- > GN. > Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.
org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never
Again:
> Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP,
> Order > here > < > https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again- reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8 > > > . > _______________________________________________ > 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:
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:
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
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
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
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
Publishers employ people who check out information in books being published. For accuracy and to avoid legal problems.
When I used Angela Davis's autobiography to write her article, there was a passage about her encountering racial bias in Germany when she was going to school there. Is that just her perception, or a fact? Knowing people, I had no problem using it as a fact, but people have objected and it is gone now.
Fred
----- Original Message ----- From: Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:53:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
It's reliable concerning the opinions and vision of the author on the things he describes, not the facts themselves.
And unless I'm misunderstanding this, fact checkers (critics?) are actually secondary sources, I believe?
Paulo
2018-05-12 13:48 GMT+01:00 FRED BAUDER fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Autobiographical writing published by the mainstream press with editors and fact checkers is more reliable.
Fred
----- Original Message ----- From: Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:44:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
There is a difference between the two situations. The king's deed and the parish books are primary sources, but both are official documents, subject to peer review. Diaries and autobiographies are primary sources as well, but generally not subjected to any review. There should be some way to distinguish between the two types.
Paulo
2018-05-12 13:40 GMT+01:00 FRED BAUDER fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
And should be used, just as an image of a headstone can be used, in preference to some writing about it. Exceptions, don't prove the rule though. A diary should not be used directly, and an autobiography with great care, depending on how it was edited and published.
Fred
----- Original Message ----- From: Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:27:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more
reliable
than any secondary sources quoting it.
As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should
be
used instead of a primary source in those situations.
Paulo
2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net
:
Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and
have
similar problems. You will have to clarify: In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and verifiable? Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary
sources
produced by the subject? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are
primary
sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original
sources,
as
in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this
confusion
in
Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the articles.
Paulo
2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron cameron@cameron11598.net:
Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral histories and
traditions
come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am with an encyclopedia using such sources.
Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I
use
primary sources quite often for papers, and projects however those
are
generally frowned upon for Wikipedia; mainly because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an academic journal. Good encyclopedias are
typically
sourced from secondary sources, and ocassionaly tertiary sources.
Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion.
My
personal thought on this issue is keeping our current verifiability
and
notability requirements is a good idea. In some areas I think we
include
far too much (fan cruft anyone?).
- Cameron C.
Cameron11598
---- On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:34:15 -0700 peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote ----
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second
guessing
sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we
consider
sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for
spammers
and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should
be
made
at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing"
a
reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd
ask
them
to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article
accordingly
based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess
what
sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are
flawed,
the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing,
not
"correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources,
we
do
not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
wanting
to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times
change.
Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have
started
Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by
anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is
doomed
to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is
not
to
remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change
those
requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are
ready
to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of
Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in
spite
of
> notability and verifiability requirements, Without the
verifiability
> requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith
are
things
> that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
evidence,
and > where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
intangible,
the > authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means
track
> record and proof of identity. > This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not
see
it
as
> possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as
a
reliable
> source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without
destroying
the
> credibility we have. > Cheers, > Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
> Behalf Of Gnangarra > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems > > notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
> has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These
culture
manage
> successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the
western
styles > were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue
is
how
do > we bring these sources into the western system, how do we
respect
them,
> how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently
do
is
not
> the only. > > There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our
current
> systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the
citations
from
> books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider
and
value
> alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the
question
is
do > we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share
the
sum
of
all > knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
knowledge
> networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts. > > Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the
wikipedia
but
> rather the creation of new project to bring forth these
alternative
> knowledge streams > > > On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > Hi, > > > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias
where
a
member > > of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity
though:
> > https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. > > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4 > > > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and
as a
> movement > > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid,
which I
> personally > > do, since they are supported with data and not on our
personal
> impressions. > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < > > peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> > > escribió: > > > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us
to
produce
> > > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those
constraints
opens
the > > > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to
remain
open > to > > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
alternatives.
> Other > > > projects may work around this problem, but would then
probably
not
be
> > open > > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? > > > Cheers, > > > Peter > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge." > > > > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of
"knowledge"
as
> Wikipedia > > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to
that
saying > > that > > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be
notable
> enough, > > > when different cultures use different ways to build their
canon
of
> > > knowledge. > > > > > > JP > > > User:Amqui > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.
org>
> > > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, > > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but
will
never
be > > able > > > > to correct it." > > > > > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge. > > > > > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
> > will > > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and
other
bias > > > issues > > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest
than
full
> > > correction > > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead. > > > > > > > > Fred > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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>
> > > > > > --- > > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > > > http://www.avg.com > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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:
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > 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>
> > > > > > -- > GN. > Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.
org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never
Again:
> Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP,
> Order > here > < > https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again- reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8 > > > . > _______________________________________________ > 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:
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:
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
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
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
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
Sorry but historical research is a bit more complex. Primary sources need to be interpreted. For instance, until late XVIII most of records dealt with "firesides" meaning "nuclear family" corresponding to a different population according to time and place.
Some trivial information may be referenced with primary sources but most cannot at all: forbidding original research is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. You can allow them, but you'll obtain something which no longer is Wikipedia.
Vito
2018-05-12 14:27 GMT+02:00 Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com:
A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more reliable than any secondary sources quoting it.
As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should be used instead of a primary source in those situations.
Paulo
2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net:
Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and have similar problems. You will have to clarify: In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and verifiable? Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary
sources
produced by the subject? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are
primary
sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original sources,
as
in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this confusion
in
Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the articles.
Paulo
2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron cameron@cameron11598.net:
Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral histories and
traditions
come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am with an encyclopedia using such sources.
Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I
use
primary sources quite often for papers, and projects however those are generally frowned upon for Wikipedia; mainly because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an academic journal. Good encyclopedias are typically sourced from secondary sources, and ocassionaly tertiary sources.
Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion. My personal thought on this issue is keeping our current verifiability and notability requirements is a good idea. In some areas I think we
include
far too much (fan cruft anyone?).
- Cameron C.
Cameron11598
---- On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:34:15 -0700 peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote ----
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we
consider
sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for
spammers
and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should
be
made
at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask
them
to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article
accordingly
based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess
what
sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are
flawed,
the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources,
we
do
not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
wanting
to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times
change.
Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have
started
Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed
to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is
not
to
remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change
those
requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are
ready
to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of
Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in
spite
of
notability and verifiability requirements, Without the
verifiability
requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
things
that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
evidence,
and
where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
intangible,
the
authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means
track
record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see
it
as
possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
reliable
source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without
destroying
the
credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture
manage
successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the
western
styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue
is
how
do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect
them,
how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do
is
not
the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our
current
systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the
citations
from
books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and
value
alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the
question
is
do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the
sum
of
all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
knowledge
networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the
wikipedia
but
rather the creation of new project to bring forth these
alternative
knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com
wrote:
> Hi, > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias
where
a
member
> of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity
though:
> https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4 > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and
as a
movement > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I personally > do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal impressions. > > > Cheers! > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < > peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> > escribió: > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
produce
> > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints
opens
the
> > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to
remain
open
to > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
alternatives.
Other > > projects may work around this problem, but would then
probably
not
be
> open > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? > > Cheers, > > Peter > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
> > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge." > > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge"
as
Wikipedia > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to
that
saying
> that > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be
notable
enough, > > when different cultures use different ways to build their
canon
of
> > knowledge. > > > > JP > > User:Amqui > > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
> > wrote: > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.
org>
> > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will
never
be
> able > > > to correct it." > > > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge. > > > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
> will > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and
other
bias
> > issues > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than
full
> > correction > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead. > > > > > > Fred > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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>
> > > > --- > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > > http://www.avg.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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:
> 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>
>
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.
org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never
Again:
Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP,
Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
> . _______________________________________________ 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:
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:
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
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
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
People write books and journal articles which incorporate oral traditions. The Bible is one example. That doesn't mean we are going to remove the material about Native Americans migrating through Beringia but that, if a tribe's tradition is that it was always in the Americas, that should be included in its article. Probably not enough to satisfy everyone...
Fred
----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 11 May 2018 00:34:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we consider sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be made at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask them to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are flawed, the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people wanting to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not to remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
things
that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence,
and
where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
the
authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
reliable
source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture
manage
successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue is how
do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them, how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
not
the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
from
books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and value alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
is
do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of
all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
but
rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
member
of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though: https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
movement
or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
personally
do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
impressions.
Cheers!
El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> escribió:
Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
produce
reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens
the
doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
open
to
anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
Other
projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not
be
open
for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
"Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
Wikipedia
that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
saying
that
it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
enough,
when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of knowledge.
JP User:Amqui
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never
be
able
to correct it."
Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
of
knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
will
reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
bias
issues
are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
correction
of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
Fred
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>
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
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
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
. _______________________________________________ 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
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
_______________________________________________ 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, and we use those books and journal articles as sources. If they are written by an acknowledged expert or are peer reviewed, we may consider them reliable sources. I don’t think this is what this discussion is about. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of FRED BAUDER Sent: 11 May 2018 07:19 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
People write books and journal articles which incorporate oral traditions. The Bible is one example. That doesn't mean we are going to remove the material about Native Americans migrating through Beringia but that, if a tribe's tradition is that it was always in the Americas, that should be included in its article. Probably not enough to satisfy everyone...
Fred
----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 11 May 2018 00:34:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we consider sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be made at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask them to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are flawed, the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people wanting to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not to remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
things
that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence,
and
where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
the
authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
reliable
source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture
manage
successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue is how
do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them, how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
not
the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
from
books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and value alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
is
do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of
all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
but
rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
member
of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though: https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
movement
or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
personally
do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
impressions.
Cheers!
El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> escribió:
Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
produce
reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens
the
doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
open
to
anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
Other
projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not
be
open
for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
"Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
Wikipedia
that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
saying
that
it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
enough,
when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of knowledge.
JP User:Amqui
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never
be
able
to correct it."
Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
of
knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
will
reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
bias
issues
are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
correction
of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
Fred
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>
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
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
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
. _______________________________________________ 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
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
_______________________________________________ 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
thats the bias we dont accept knowledge as genuine or authorative until its been established by a westerner using western techniques. The whole point of this discussion is that such a process invariably leads to bias, to solve bias we need to shift our acceptance to alternative cultural methods of establishing notability and verifiability.
The point is those non western methods are able to provide the same level of authority as the currently accepted methods, that the to make the change isnt as disastrous as is being said because we adopt the method appropriate for the knowledge source rather than ignoring the knowledge until its adapted to our way
On 11 May 2018 at 20:32, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Yes, and we use those books and journal articles as sources. If they are written by an acknowledged expert or are peer reviewed, we may consider them reliable sources. I don’t think this is what this discussion is about. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of FRED BAUDER Sent: 11 May 2018 07:19 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
People write books and journal articles which incorporate oral traditions. The Bible is one example. That doesn't mean we are going to remove the material about Native Americans migrating through Beringia but that, if a tribe's tradition is that it was always in the Americas, that should be included in its article. Probably not enough to satisfy everyone...
Fred
----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 11 May 2018 00:34:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we consider sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be
made
at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask
them
to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are
flawed,
the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
wanting
to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not
to
remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready
to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
things
that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
evidence,
and
where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
intangible,
the
authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it
as
possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
reliable
source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying
the
credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture
manage
successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue is
how
do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect
them,
how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
not
the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
from
books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and
value
alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
is
do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum
of
all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
knowledge
networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
but
rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
member
of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though: https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
movement
or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
personally
do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
impressions.
Cheers!
El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> escribió:
Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
produce
reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints
opens
the
doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
open
to
anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
alternatives.
Other
projects may work around this problem, but would then probably
not
be
open
for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
"Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
of
knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
Wikipedia
that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
saying
that
it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
enough,
when different cultures use different ways to build their canon
of
knowledge.
JP User:Amqui
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com > To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will
never
be
able
> to correct it." > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
of
> knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge. > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
will
> reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
bias
issues > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than
full
correction > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead. > > Fred > > > _______________________________________________ > 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>
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
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:
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>
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
. _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
What are the non-Western methods?
בתאריך יום ו׳, 11 במאי 2018, 15:49, מאת Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com:
thats the bias we dont accept knowledge as genuine or authorative until its been established by a westerner using western techniques. The whole point of this discussion is that such a process invariably leads to bias, to solve bias we need to shift our acceptance to alternative cultural methods of establishing notability and verifiability.
The point is those non western methods are able to provide the same level of authority as the currently accepted methods, that the to make the change isnt as disastrous as is being said because we adopt the method appropriate for the knowledge source rather than ignoring the knowledge until its adapted to our way
On 11 May 2018 at 20:32, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Yes, and we use those books and journal articles as sources. If they are written by an acknowledged expert or are peer reviewed, we may consider them reliable sources. I don’t think this is what this discussion is
about.
Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of FRED BAUDER Sent: 11 May 2018 07:19 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
People write books and journal articles which incorporate oral
traditions.
The Bible is one example. That doesn't mean we are going to remove the material about Native Americans migrating through Beringia but that, if a tribe's tradition is that it was always in the Americas, that should be included in its article. Probably not enough to satisfy everyone...
Fred
----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 11 May 2018 00:34:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we consider sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for
spammers
and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be
made
at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask
them
to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are
flawed,
the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we
do
not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
wanting
to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not
to
remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready
to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite
of
notability and verifiability requirements, Without the
verifiability
requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
things
that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
evidence,
and
where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
intangible,
the
authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means
track
record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see
it
as
possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
reliable
source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying
the
credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture
manage
successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the
western
styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue is
how
do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect
them,
how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do
is
not
the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our
current
systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
from
books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and
value
alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the
question
is
do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the
sum
of
all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
knowledge
networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the
wikipedia
but
rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where
a
member
of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though: https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
movement
or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
personally
do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
impressions.
Cheers!
El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> escribió:
> Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
produce
> reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints
opens
the
> doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to
remain
open
to
> anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
alternatives.
Other
> projects may work around this problem, but would then probably
not
be
open > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? > Cheers, > Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
> Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge." > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
Wikipedia
> that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
saying
that > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be
notable
enough,
> when different cultures use different ways to build their canon
of
> knowledge. > > JP > User:Amqui > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
> wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will
never
be
able > > to correct it." > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge. > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
will > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and
other
bias
> issues > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than
full
> correction > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead. > > > > Fred > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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>
> > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > http://www.avg.com > > > _______________________________________________ > 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:
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>
-- GN. Noongarpedia:
https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP,
Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
. _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-reflections-on-environmental-re...
. _______________________________________________ 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
speaking solely from experience with Indigenous Australian knowledge where knowledge is passed orally across generations. The passing of knowledge is connected to place, family, and heritage when an indigenous person speak they first speak of their heritage, of their connect to the place, and of their family. This all establishes the origins of the story, the authority of the person to speak, and whos story they are telling. much like a bio of the author in a book establishes their expertise, version, and publication dates sets the when
when we share the oral knowledge we already have established notability and verifiability, when write the knowledge we dont damage or fix the knowledge we share just what it was at that one point and place in time. Culturally the knowledge will continue to be share via the traditional methods regardless. We have 200 years of recordings, oppression, dispossession, and usurpation of indigenous knowledge that shows it still continues externally to written forms.
If we look at someone like Daisy Bates when we digest her work its relatively easy to establish the differences between her work in recording Indigenous knowledge, to the fictional works she sold to newspapers to earn a living. That same process she used a 100 years ago works for what we are doing now. We dont need to invent new methods nor do we need to wait for western sources to catchup all we need is that leap to accept oral source with the traditional authentications.
While this is directly related to Indigenous Australian knowledge, the methodology will work where we adapt to the cultural authentications of the knowledge source and accept them as if we would a book, or journal and cite them appropriately.
On 11 May 2018 at 20:52, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
What are the non-Western methods?
בתאריך יום ו׳, 11 במאי 2018, 15:49, מאת Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com:
thats the bias we dont accept knowledge as genuine or authorative until
its
been established by a westerner using western techniques. The whole
point
of this discussion is that such a process invariably leads to bias, to solve bias we need to shift our acceptance to alternative cultural
methods
of establishing notability and verifiability.
The point is those non western methods are able to provide the same level of authority as the currently accepted methods, that the to make the
change
isnt as disastrous as is being said because we adopt the method
appropriate
for the knowledge source rather than ignoring the knowledge until its adapted to our way
On 11 May 2018 at 20:32, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Yes, and we use those books and journal articles as sources. If they
are
written by an acknowledged expert or are peer reviewed, we may consider them reliable sources. I don’t think this is what this discussion is
about.
Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of FRED BAUDER Sent: 11 May 2018 07:19 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
People write books and journal articles which incorporate oral
traditions.
The Bible is one example. That doesn't mean we are going to remove the material about Native Americans migrating through Beringia but that,
if a
tribe's tradition is that it was always in the Americas, that should be included in its article. Probably not enough to satisfy everyone...
Fred
----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 11 May 2018 00:34:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we
consider
sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for
spammers
and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should
be
made
at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask
them
to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article
accordingly
based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess
what
sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are
flawed,
the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources,
we
do
not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
wanting
to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times
change.
Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have
started
Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed
to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is
not
to
remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change
those
requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are
ready
to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of
Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in
spite
of
notability and verifiability requirements, Without the
verifiability
requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
things
that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
evidence,
and
where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
intangible,
the
authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means
track
record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see
it
as
possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
reliable
source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without
destroying
the
credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture
manage
successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the
western
styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue
is
how
do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect
them,
how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do
is
not
the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our
current
systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the
citations
from
books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and
value
alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the
question
is
do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the
sum
of
all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
knowledge
networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the
wikipedia
but
rather the creation of new project to bring forth these
alternative
knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com
wrote:
> Hi, > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias
where
a
member
> of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity
though:
> https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4 > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and
as a
movement > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I personally > do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal impressions. > > > Cheers! > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < > peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> > escribió: > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
produce
> > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints
opens
the
> > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to
remain
open
to > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
alternatives.
Other > > projects may work around this problem, but would then
probably
not
be
> open > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? > > Cheers, > > Peter > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
> > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge." > > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge"
as
Wikipedia > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to
that
saying
> that > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be
notable
enough, > > when different cultures use different ways to build their
canon
of
> > knowledge. > > > > JP > > User:Amqui > > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
> > wrote: > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.
org>
> > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will
never
be
> able > > > to correct it." > > > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge. > > > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
> will > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and
other
bias
> > issues > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than
full
> > correction > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead. > > > > > > Fred > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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>
> > > > --- > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > > http://www.avg.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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:
> 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>
>
-- GN. Noongarpedia:
https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never
Again:
Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP,
Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
> . _______________________________________________ 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:
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:
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
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
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
. _______________________________________________ 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 confirm that this is not an isolated concept to Australia. I heard the same thing about being connected to the place, starting the story by telling who your family is, etc. from Canadian indigenous peoples.
JP
On Fri, May 11, 2018, 09:26 Gnangarra, gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
speaking solely from experience with Indigenous Australian knowledge where knowledge is passed orally across generations. The passing of knowledge is connected to place, family, and heritage when an indigenous person speak they first speak of their heritage, of their connect to the place, and of their family. This all establishes the origins of the story, the authority of the person to speak, and whos story they are telling. much like a bio of the author in a book establishes their expertise, version, and publication dates sets the when
when we share the oral knowledge we already have established notability and verifiability, when write the knowledge we dont damage or fix the knowledge we share just what it was at that one point and place in time. Culturally the knowledge will continue to be share via the traditional methods regardless. We have 200 years of recordings, oppression, dispossession, and usurpation of indigenous knowledge that shows it still continues externally to written forms.
If we look at someone like Daisy Bates when we digest her work its relatively easy to establish the differences between her work in recording Indigenous knowledge, to the fictional works she sold to newspapers to earn a living. That same process she used a 100 years ago works for what we are doing now. We dont need to invent new methods nor do we need to wait for western sources to catchup all we need is that leap to accept oral source with the traditional authentications.
While this is directly related to Indigenous Australian knowledge, the methodology will work where we adapt to the cultural authentications of the knowledge source and accept them as if we would a book, or journal and cite them appropriately.
On 11 May 2018 at 20:52, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
What are the non-Western methods?
בתאריך יום ו׳, 11 במאי 2018, 15:49, מאת Gnangarra <gnangarra@gmail.com :
thats the bias we dont accept knowledge as genuine or authorative until
its
been established by a westerner using western techniques. The whole
point
of this discussion is that such a process invariably leads to bias, to solve bias we need to shift our acceptance to alternative cultural
methods
of establishing notability and verifiability.
The point is those non western methods are able to provide the same
level
of authority as the currently accepted methods, that the to make the
change
isnt as disastrous as is being said because we adopt the method
appropriate
for the knowledge source rather than ignoring the knowledge until its adapted to our way
On 11 May 2018 at 20:32, Peter Southwood <peter.southwood@telkomsa.net
wrote:
Yes, and we use those books and journal articles as sources. If they
are
written by an acknowledged expert or are peer reviewed, we may
consider
them reliable sources. I don’t think this is what this discussion is
about.
Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of FRED BAUDER Sent: 11 May 2018 07:19 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
People write books and journal articles which incorporate oral
traditions.
The Bible is one example. That doesn't mean we are going to remove
the
material about Native Americans migrating through Beringia but that,
if a
tribe's tradition is that it was always in the Americas, that should
be
included in its article. Probably not enough to satisfy everyone...
Fred
----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 11 May 2018 00:34:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second
guessing
sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we
consider
sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for
spammers
and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should
be
made
at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing"
a
reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd
ask
them
to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article
accordingly
based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess
what
sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are
flawed,
the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing,
not
"correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources,
we
do
not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
wanting
to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times
change.
Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:
wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have
started
Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by
anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is
doomed
to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is
not
to
remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change
those
requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are
ready
to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of
Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in
spite
of
> notability and verifiability requirements, Without the
verifiability
> requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith
are
things
> that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
evidence,
and > where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
intangible,
the > authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means
track
> record and proof of identity. > This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not
see
it
as
> possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as
a
reliable
> source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without
destroying
the
> credibility we have. > Cheers, > Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On
> Behalf Of Gnangarra > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems > > notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
> has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These
culture
manage
> successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the
western
styles > were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The
issue
is
how
do > we bring these sources into the western system, how do we
respect
them,
> how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently
do
is
not
> the only. > > There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our
current
> systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the
citations
from
> books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider
and
value
> alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the
question
is
do > we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share
the
sum
of
all > knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
knowledge
> networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts. > > Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the
wikipedia
but
> rather the creation of new project to bring forth these
alternative
> knowledge streams > > > On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > Hi, > > > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias
where
a
member > > of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity
though:
> > https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. > > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4 > > > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and
as a
> movement > > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid,
which I
> personally > > do, since they are supported with data and not on our
personal
> impressions. > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < > > peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> > > escribió: > > > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us
to
produce
> > > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those
constraints
opens
the > > > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to
remain
open > to > > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
alternatives.
> Other > > > projects may work around this problem, but would then
probably
not
be
> > open > > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? > > > Cheers, > > > Peter > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
On > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge." > > > > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of
"knowledge"
as
> Wikipedia > > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to
that
saying > > that > > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be
notable
> enough, > > > when different cultures use different ways to build their
canon
of
> > > knowledge. > > > > > > JP > > > User:Amqui > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.
org>
> > > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
problems
> > > > > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, > > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but
will
never
be > > able > > > > to correct it." > > > > > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge. > > > > > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
> > will > > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and
other
bias > > > issues > > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest
than
full
> > > correction > > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead. > > > > > > > > Fred > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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>
> > > > > > --- > > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > > > http://www.avg.com > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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:
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > 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>
> > > > > > -- > GN. > Noongarpedia:
https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never
Again:
> Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP,
> Order > here > < > https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again- reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8 > > > . > _______________________________________________ > 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:
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:
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
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
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
. _______________________________________________ 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
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-reflections-on-environmental-re...
. _______________________________________________ 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
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
Could they possibly be registered in an oral form? Could we invent a way of integrating oral sources? We already use radio or television sources (also not written...). The only problem with oral sources like stories passed on generation to generation is that they are not fixed by nature. Fixing them could change the modality of transmission too. I suppose these sources could stem from a notorious person of a community who would give ID (like journalists do when writting a paper). Has there been research or projects on this? I suppose Lingua Libre could provide information on how to do it.
Cheers,
Nattes à chat
Le 11 mai 2018 à 06:34, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net a écrit : If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we consider sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be made at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask them to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are flawed, the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people wanting to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not to remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
things
that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence,
and
where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
the
authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
reliable
source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture
manage
successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue is how
do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them, how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
not
the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
from
books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and value alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
is
do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of
all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
but
rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
member
of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though: https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
movement
or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
personally
do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
impressions.
Cheers!
El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> escribió:
Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
produce
reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens
the
doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
open
to
anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
Other
projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not
be
open
for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
"Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
Wikipedia
that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
saying
that
it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
enough,
when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of knowledge.
JP User:Amqui
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com > To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never
be
able
> to correct it." > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
of
> knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge. > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
will
> reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
bias
issues > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full correction > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead. > > Fred > > > _______________________________________________ > 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>
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
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
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
. _______________________________________________ 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
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
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 you are there, it's what they do in the evening. Listen, record, transcribe, compare versions from different bands. That comparison is a measure of notability and reliability.
Fred
----- Original Message ----- From: Natacha Rault n.rault@me.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 11 May 2018 04:19:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
Could they possibly be registered in an oral form? Could we invent a way of integrating oral sources? We already use radio or television sources (also not written...). The only problem with oral sources like stories passed on generation to generation is that they are not fixed by nature. Fixing them could change the modality of transmission too. I suppose these sources could stem from a notorious person of a community who would give ID (like journalists do when writting a paper). Has there been research or projects on this? I suppose Lingua Libre could provide information on how to do it.
Cheers,
Nattes à chat
Le 11 mai 2018 à 06:34, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net a écrit : If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we consider sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be made at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask them to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are flawed, the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people wanting to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not to remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
things
that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence,
and
where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
the
authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
reliable
source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture
manage
successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue is how
do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them, how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
not
the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
from
books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and value alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
is
do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of
all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
but
rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
member
of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though: https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
movement
or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
personally
do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
impressions.
Cheers!
El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> escribió:
Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
produce
reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens
the
doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
open
to
anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
Other
projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not
be
open
for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
"Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
Wikipedia
that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
saying
that
it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
enough,
when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of knowledge.
JP User:Amqui
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com > To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never
be
able
> to correct it." > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
of
> knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge. > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
will
> reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
bias
issues > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full correction > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead. > > Fred > > > _______________________________________________ > 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>
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
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
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
. _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
we can, its rather simple. We quote the information and attribute it to the source.
Within oral cultures certain people with certain authorities on different subjects. When we record the spoken word we record the authority under which they speak. As the knowledge is transferred we also know that the knowledge will stay the same just the authority to speak it changes. Cultures that rely on oral transfer of knowledge actual have a consistency with the stories thats how 10's of thousands of years Indigenous Australian astronomical knowledge has been passed down and then verified by current western methods. We also have significant environmental stories that have been verified by studies including evidence of significant sea level changes where objects have been recovered.
Once you get past the its just a story that keeps changing, the scientific knowledge of these cultures are in many ways greater than the knowledge carried by current western sources.
The leap of faith is one of accepting that the means to establish notability and verify already exist we just need to put aside our own knowledge bias and accept the methods from the sources processes are just as robust. As for knowledge changing I suspect that most of the knowledge sourced from the 1900 encyclopaedia Britannica have changed considerably over the last 100 years.
On 11 May 2018 at 16:19, Natacha Rault n.rault@me.com wrote:
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
Could they possibly be registered in an oral form? Could we invent a way of integrating oral sources? We already use radio or television sources (also not written...). The only problem with oral sources like stories passed on generation to generation is that they are not fixed by nature. Fixing them could change the modality of transmission too. I suppose these sources could stem from a notorious person of a community who would give ID (like journalists do when writting a paper). Has there been research or projects on this? I suppose Lingua Libre could provide information on how to do it.
Cheers,
Nattes à chat
Le 11 mai 2018 à 06:34, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net
a écrit :
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we consider sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be
made
at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask
them
to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are
flawed,
the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we
do
not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
wanting
to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not
to
remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready
to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
things
that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
evidence,
and
where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
the
authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it
as
possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
reliable
source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture
manage
successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue is
how
do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect
them,
how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
not
the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
from
books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and
value
alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
is
do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum
of
all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
knowledge
networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
but
rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
member
of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though: https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
movement
or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
personally
do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
impressions.
Cheers!
El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> escribió:
> Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
produce
> reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens
the
> doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
open
to
> anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
Other
> projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not
be
open > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? > Cheers, > Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
> Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge." > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
Wikipedia
> that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
saying
that > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
enough,
> when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of > knowledge. > > JP > User:Amqui > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
> wrote: > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com >> To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) >> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems >> >> ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, >> Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never
be
able >> to correct it." >> >> Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
of
>> knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge. >> >> The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
will >> reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
bias
> issues >> are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full > correction >> of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead. >> >> Fred >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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>
> > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > http://www.avg.com > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
. _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
Hello Peter, and the rest of the rest of the list
(Please let me know if you feel like replying with a few months delay is perceived as an unwanted behavior, at list on the list. I don't feel like this issue as been closed in the mid time, so it seems to me that it is still relevant to provide some feedback.)
I would rather say, "if not recorded". And I think we already have all the necessary projects to publish the raw audio/video material (Commons) from which can be transcribed original interviews (Wikinews), before making researches that cross their informations, analyze them and aim to produce some syntheses/conclusions (Wikiversity), that might possibly serve as reference for Wikipedia¹. But even in the case were the Wikipedia step is not happening, the firsts elements are also worthy contributions to the sum of all knowledge and we should, to my mind, encourage, conduct and praise them as such.
Cheers, mathieu
Le 11/05/2018 à 06:34, Peter Southwood a écrit :
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we consider sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be made at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask them to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or whatever else have you types of information. If our references are flawed, the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people wanting to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not to remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
things
that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence,
and
where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
the
authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track record and proof of identity. This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
reliable
source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the credibility we have. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture
manage
successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue is how
do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them, how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
not
the only.
There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
from
books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and value alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
is
do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of
all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
but
rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart etestart@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
member
of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though: https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
movement
or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
personally
do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
impressions.
Cheers!
El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> escribió:
Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
produce
reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens
the
doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
open
to
anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
Other
projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not
be
open
for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
"Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
Wikipedia
that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
saying
that
it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
enough,
when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of knowledge.
JP User:Amqui
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud@fairpoint.net>
wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com > To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never
be
able
> to correct it." > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
of
> knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge. > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
will
> reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
bias
issues > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full correction > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead. > > Fred > > > _______________________________________________ > 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>
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
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
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here < https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
. _______________________________________________ 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
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
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 Thu, May 10, 2018 at 4:02 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Traditional female professions such as "nurse" or even "nun" have lower percentages female than traditional male professions such as football players have percentages male.
Nun doesn't have 100% female? Hmm, yes, http://tinyurl.com/y9vx6ckl currently shows 5 entries with that having gender "male". Although at a quick glance three seem to have an incorrect occupation, perhaps picked up from a family member mentioned in their Wikipedia article, and two seem to have the wrong gender specified in Wikidata.
I don't know where https://denelezh.dicare.org/gender-gap.php?kpi=humans&year=any&year_... finds the other 51 entries it classifies as "male", unless maybe they've all been fixed since the last dump.
Yesterday I attended a Pieter Pourbus painting exhibition in Gouda and the booklet states in the opening paragraph "He married the daughter of the famous painter Lancelot Blondeel". My companion drily remarked "Didn't she have a name?". I think you will find that such sentences are all over Wikipedia, in all sorts of biography leads.
On the other hand, enwiki's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privac... specifically suggests caution in naming family members of the article's topic in favor of privacy.
[...] Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.
The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. I don't know whether the wife/daughter in your specific example is/was a "otherwise low-profile person", but it does apply "all over Wikipedia", at least the English-language version. I also don't know whether other languages have a similar rule.
Was it the first time I noticed this subject in the Wikimedia movement, no. It happens too many times that people get frustrated because the gender, color of their skin or native background is the key reason to ask someone, instead of the qualities that this person has.
There are two main reasons why I do not go into further detail: 1. the privacy of this individual is something I can't ignore 2. My previous email gives an example in a generic topic, and the topic is not about an individual case.
Also is zooming in on an individual case not a solution, as we need to be aware as movement how we are perceived by others.
I disagree that it is related to the attitude of an individual. The way how someone will respond to it is depending on the attitude yes. But I think that being asked for something just because of the colour of your face is degrading you from being a person with various qualities and/or the work you do. The possible demotivation is the result, but the core is in the approach itself.
But yes, it is a difficult topic. But in this case it is much harder for that individual who (temporarily?) gave up on editing/contributing.
I think it comes to inclusiveness, being able to include anyone independent from how a face looks like. being inclusive to anyone, so that all the knowledge of the world can be collected. What we should not do is trying to be inclusive by being exclusive. We should be making it possible for anyone to have a safe and pleasant space and in that way bridge the gaps, instead of just trying to ask specific people to come for the colour of their skin, etc. As said, that last thing is creating gaps instead of closing them.
Romaine
2018-05-07 8:03 GMT+02:00 Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il:
This is a sensitive topic, and I'm a white man myself, so please slap me if I say something dumb.
2018-05-07 7:10 GMT+03:00 Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com:
What has happened?
She was invited to participate in a Wikimedia activity, because:
- she is a woman
- she is from a minority
- she is from an area in the world with much less editors (compared to
Europe/US)
and perhaps also because her colour of her skin is a bit different then mine (Caucasian).
At the same time she has the impression that the work she does on the Wikimedia wiki('s) is not valued, nor taken into account.
By whom?
By the people who invited her?
By other participants in the event?
By other editors in the same wiki site?
By the readers?
She does not want to be invited because she is a woman, nor because she
is
from a minority, nor ....... etc. This is offensive. She only wants to be invited because of the work she contributes on Wikipedia/etc.
This makes a lot of sense to me, but that's just me and attitudes are different for each person.
Besides the many good initiatives and intentions, this kind of approaches to our contributors is demotivating them, please be aware of this.
Again, it's probably demotivating to some. Maybe to 98%, maybe to 30%, maybe to 5%. I honestly don't know.
I believe demotivation/frustration is the largest problem we face as
movement.
I don't know if its the biggest problem. On this mailing list we are a small group of meta-active Wikimedians, and we are the minority among editors. We don't actually represent all the editors. And of course the editors are a tiny minority compared to the readers.
I'd argue that the hard time that some editors are giving newcomers is a bigger problem. Gender is certainly a part of that, and there are many other parts.
We meta-wikimedians can find a better way to invite people to events, and we can change ourselves. That doesn't sound too hard. Changing the wider editor culture is harder.
I heard from people that the problem described is called tokenism
Yes, that's when representation is given to a weakened group, but that representation is too weak to be meaningful, and may do more harm than good.
I believe the only way to close the gaps related to gender, minorities, etc, is to create an atmosphere in what everyone is appreciated for what she/he is doing, completely unrelated to the gender someone appears to have, the ethnicity, race, area of the world, etc etc etc etc.
So that's where it gets really complicated, because it's always related, in ways that are sometimes visible and sometimes invisible.
Let's take school education as a hopefully easy example. People from different areas of the world will have very different things to write about it. In some areas of the world everybody gets school education—boys and girls, rich and poor, rural and urban. In other areas it may be only boys; or only people in cities; or only people who know a certain language; or only people who belong to a certain religion; or only people who have a certain amount of money; or only people who have a certain skin color. I want articles about education to have contributions from as many people as possible, from different genders, from different skin colors, and from different areas, and so on.
An American white woman has different things to say about education from an American black man. These differences are important and frequently discussed in American media. But the American white woman and the American black man *don't even imagine* what people from The Philippines have to say about education. What people from the Philippines have to say about education probably has little to do with the internal American debates on this topic. And of course it breaks down further, because a person who lives in the capital of Philippines and knows English has different things to say about education from a person who lives in a village in Philippines and doesn't know English.
On articles about education I want to hear from all of them. And about every other topic. (And yes, I want contributions from people who don't know English in the English Wikipedia. By definition they cannot contribute directly, but we must do everything we can to make at least an indirect contribution possible.)
How do we do it right?
How do we get more different people to even try to contribute to articles? How do we get everybody's contributions to be accepted? (Guess whose contributions are more likely to be challenged as "non-notable", "unencyclopedic", or "unreferenced".)
I don't know. Am I even asking the right questions?
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore _______________________________________________ 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
Very good. If any willing editor runs into trouble or is made to feel unwelcome or subjected to unfair criticism, that is the time to intervene. We are however not in a position to discourage women or minority editors from "recruiting" or encouraging other minority editors or women to edit. Any difficulties with that they will have to learn for themselves though experience with those they have recruited and feedback from them.
I think we can point out areas of knowledge that are poorly covered, as well as those that are overdone.
Fred
----- Original Message ----- From: Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, 14 May 2018 23:39:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
Was it the first time I noticed this subject in the Wikimedia movement, no. It happens too many times that people get frustrated because the gender, color of their skin or native background is the key reason to ask someone, instead of the qualities that this person has.
There are two main reasons why I do not go into further detail: 1. the privacy of this individual is something I can't ignore 2. My previous email gives an example in a generic topic, and the topic is not about an individual case.
Also is zooming in on an individual case not a solution, as we need to be aware as movement how we are perceived by others.
I disagree that it is related to the attitude of an individual. The way how someone will respond to it is depending on the attitude yes. But I think that being asked for something just because of the colour of your face is degrading you from being a person with various qualities and/or the work you do. The possible demotivation is the result, but the core is in the approach itself.
But yes, it is a difficult topic. But in this case it is much harder for that individual who (temporarily?) gave up on editing/contributing.
I think it comes to inclusiveness, being able to include anyone independent from how a face looks like. being inclusive to anyone, so that all the knowledge of the world can be collected. What we should not do is trying to be inclusive by being exclusive. We should be making it possible for anyone to have a safe and pleasant space and in that way bridge the gaps, instead of just trying to ask specific people to come for the colour of their skin, etc. As said, that last thing is creating gaps instead of closing them.
Romaine
2018-05-07 8:03 GMT+02:00 Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il:
This is a sensitive topic, and I'm a white man myself, so please slap me if I say something dumb.
2018-05-07 7:10 GMT+03:00 Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com:
What has happened?
She was invited to participate in a Wikimedia activity, because:
- she is a woman
- she is from a minority
- she is from an area in the world with much less editors (compared to
Europe/US)
and perhaps also because her colour of her skin is a bit different then mine (Caucasian).
At the same time she has the impression that the work she does on the Wikimedia wiki('s) is not valued, nor taken into account.
By whom?
By the people who invited her?
By other participants in the event?
By other editors in the same wiki site?
By the readers?
She does not want to be invited because she is a woman, nor because she
is
from a minority, nor ....... etc. This is offensive. She only wants to be invited because of the work she contributes on Wikipedia/etc.
This makes a lot of sense to me, but that's just me and attitudes are different for each person.
Besides the many good initiatives and intentions, this kind of approaches to our contributors is demotivating them, please be aware of this.
Again, it's probably demotivating to some. Maybe to 98%, maybe to 30%, maybe to 5%. I honestly don't know.
I believe demotivation/frustration is the largest problem we face as
movement.
I don't know if its the biggest problem. On this mailing list we are a small group of meta-active Wikimedians, and we are the minority among editors. We don't actually represent all the editors. And of course the editors are a tiny minority compared to the readers.
I'd argue that the hard time that some editors are giving newcomers is a bigger problem. Gender is certainly a part of that, and there are many other parts.
We meta-wikimedians can find a better way to invite people to events, and we can change ourselves. That doesn't sound too hard. Changing the wider editor culture is harder.
I heard from people that the problem described is called tokenism
Yes, that's when representation is given to a weakened group, but that representation is too weak to be meaningful, and may do more harm than good.
I believe the only way to close the gaps related to gender, minorities, etc, is to create an atmosphere in what everyone is appreciated for what she/he is doing, completely unrelated to the gender someone appears to have, the ethnicity, race, area of the world, etc etc etc etc.
So that's where it gets really complicated, because it's always related, in ways that are sometimes visible and sometimes invisible.
Let's take school education as a hopefully easy example. People from different areas of the world will have very different things to write about it. In some areas of the world everybody gets school education—boys and girls, rich and poor, rural and urban. In other areas it may be only boys; or only people in cities; or only people who know a certain language; or only people who belong to a certain religion; or only people who have a certain amount of money; or only people who have a certain skin color. I want articles about education to have contributions from as many people as possible, from different genders, from different skin colors, and from different areas, and so on.
An American white woman has different things to say about education from an American black man. These differences are important and frequently discussed in American media. But the American white woman and the American black man *don't even imagine* what people from The Philippines have to say about education. What people from the Philippines have to say about education probably has little to do with the internal American debates on this topic. And of course it breaks down further, because a person who lives in the capital of Philippines and knows English has different things to say about education from a person who lives in a village in Philippines and doesn't know English.
On articles about education I want to hear from all of them. And about every other topic. (And yes, I want contributions from people who don't know English in the English Wikipedia. By definition they cannot contribute directly, but we must do everything we can to make at least an indirect contribution possible.)
How do we do it right?
How do we get more different people to even try to contribute to articles? How do we get everybody's contributions to be accepted? (Guess whose contributions are more likely to be challenged as "non-notable", "unencyclopedic", or "unreferenced".)
I don't know. Am I even asking the right questions?
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore _______________________________________________ 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
Women and other unrepresented people are invited to edit, to become skilled in editing (lots of practice and experience needed), and get well-deserved credit for excellence, but it is a process. Everyone stumbles at first, the point is not run anyone off or blame the difficulties associated with getting up to speed on gender or whatever.
Fred Bauder
----- Original Message ----- From: Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com To: Wikimedia wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Wikimedia Gendergap mailing list gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, 07 May 2018 00:10:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
Hi all,
On Wikipedia and in our movement we are aware of the gendergap that exists and all kinds of activities are organised to make the gap smaller. I think this is great as no single gap should exist in collecting all the knowledge in the world, as well as our movement should be diverse as the world's population is diverse.
The statistics are clear on this matter, this is something to take care of. However, a part of the approach is causing problems, because general statistics should not be applied on individuals as that reduces humans to numbers only.
The reason why I bring this up is because I recently received an e-mail from a user in the Wikimedia movement who has (temporarily?) stopped contributing as she is not happy with a specific aspect of the atmosphere in Wikimedia.
She does not speak out at loud, but I think we must be aware as movement of the silent cry, therefore this e-mail to bring awareness (but with respect for the privacy of this individual).
What has happened?
She was invited to participate in a Wikimedia activity, because: 1. she is a woman 2. she is from a minority 3. she is from an area in the world with much less editors (compared to Europe/US)
and perhaps also because her colour of her skin is a bit different then mine (Caucasian).
At the same time she has the impression that the work she does on the Wikimedia wiki('s) is not valued, nor taken into account.
She does not want to be invited because she is a woman, nor because she is from a minority, nor ....... etc. This is offensive. She only wants to be invited because of the work she contributes on Wikipedia/etc.
Besides the many good initiatives and intentions, this kind of approaches to our contributors is demotivating them, please be aware of this. I believe demotivation/frustration is the largest problem we face as movement.
I heard from people that the problem described is called tokenism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokenism.
I believe the only way to close the gaps related to gender, minorities, etc, is to create an atmosphere in what everyone is appreciated for what she/he is doing, completely unrelated to the gender someone appears to have, the ethnicity, race, area of the world, etc etc etc etc.
Thank you!
Romaine _______________________________________________ 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 7 May 2018 at 05:10, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I recently received an e-mail from a user in the Wikimedia movement who has (temporarily?) stopped contributing as she is not happy with a specific aspect of the atmosphere in Wikimedia.
She was invited to participate in a Wikimedia activity, because:
- she is a woman
- she is from a minority
- she is from an area in the world with much less editors (compared to
Europe/US)
and perhaps also because her colour of her skin is a bit different then mine (Caucasian).
I'm sorry to hear that a contributor feels unable to continue because of this.
In order to examine what improvements we can make, can you tell us - without breeching confidentiality - how this approach was made, and what exactly was said?
Hi, I usually push diversity in any situation but only after I got a core quality group of volunteer. the first degree of diversity is the diversity based on wiki activity, IMHO.. I care about the rest and I try to be honest if I go in that direction and why I do that. If anyone is offended for something, that happens even if you do your best, in my experience being clear helps on the long term. This a real documented example, if you want to read: http://www.wikisciencecompetition.org/people/%C2%A0. For WSC2017 it was mostly my job to find these profiles, 90% of them. I did my best to find motivated jury members and, as a first step, I searched for expert wikimedians based on their CV on the profiles and their activities. My goal was to be balanced per topic, than per geographical area (language mostly, some description in English are poor), than maybe per gender, in that order. The evaluation of scientific images require expertise, that's the core business. I shared my experience here: http://www.wikisciencecompetition.org/2017/11/16/how-was-the-jury-for-wiki-s... In any case, I couldn't know who these people really were sometimes, I didn't care at the first step. You know where they work, but they could be foreigners. You know their enwikipedia activity (I need people with some decent English fluency, so I started there and in any case I found what I needed) but sometimes that does not reveal a lot, and English descriptions are gender-neutral. So even if it wasn't planned I got some unbalance, and I only discovered during the set up of the page that a certain nickname was a blond guy and not a Arab or Chinese girl. I did my best to "fix it" at that point but mostly because when you miss some positions and you look for additional 3-4 names it's no big difference to look here or there. But still, the first search was based on their expertise. And they all kew that.
I think it was quite balanced in the end, taking care of the issue but not ranking it more critical than the scientific quality of the profiles. Plus. I told some of the female jurors that they could be "promoted" to the main jury for next edition but that's because they deserve it. So, in the end I look also for "girls" and "exotic profiles", I admit that, but this was not my main goal, and it was never more important that the quality. So at least these people knew that they were part of a team, that they were there to share their expertise, not being displayed as a "token". I think it's more easy and relaxed if you always stick to the content and the quality as a first step, IMHO. if you want the movement to grow roots you need real people, motivated people, and real sharing. I really hope they will set up real national challenges next time, thanks to the expertise we shared. Alessandro
Il Lunedì 7 Maggio 2018 14:33, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk ha scritto:
On 7 May 2018 at 05:10, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I recently received an e-mail from a user in the Wikimedia movement who has (temporarily?) stopped contributing as she is not happy with a specific aspect of the atmosphere in Wikimedia.
She was invited to participate in a Wikimedia activity, because:
- she is a woman
- she is from a minority
- she is from an area in the world with much less editors (compared to
Europe/US)
and perhaps also because her colour of her skin is a bit different then mine (Caucasian).
I'm sorry to hear that a contributor feels unable to continue because of this.
In order to examine what improvements we can make, can you tell us - without breeching confidentiality - how this approach was made, and what exactly was said?
The whole framing of this question is misguided. There are lots of people whose work is undervalued on Wikipedia for a lot of reasons. If there is an effort to reach out to a particular group of volunteers that is underrepresented then that should be celebrated as a positive contribution to our projects and movement. What we should not do is say "how can I make this about my own personal situation?" This is about the movement and the mission, but too many volunteers think it should be about catering to their own personal whims and needs. If there are legitimate grievances then we should address those problems and not try to tear down efforts to address different problems.
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi, I usually push diversity in any situation but only after I got a core quality group of volunteer. the first degree of diversity is the diversity based on wiki activity, IMHO.. I care about the rest and I try to be honest if I go in that direction and why I do that. If anyone is offended for something, that happens even if you do your best, in my experience being clear helps on the long term. This a real documented example, if you want to read: http://www.wikisciencecompetition.org/people/ . For WSC2017 it was mostly my job to find these profiles, 90% of them. I did my best to find motivated jury members and, as a first step, I searched for expert wikimedians based on their CV on the profiles and their activities. My goal was to be balanced per topic, than per geographical area (language mostly, some description in English are poor), than maybe per gender, in that order. The evaluation of scientific images require expertise, that's the core business. I shared my experience here: http://www.wikisciencecompetition.org/2017/11/16/how-was-the-jury-for-wiki-s... In any case, I couldn't know who these people really were sometimes, I didn't care at the first step. You know where they work, but they could be foreigners. You know their enwikipedia activity (I need people with some decent English fluency, so I started there and in any case I found what I needed) but sometimes that does not reveal a lot, and English descriptions are gender-neutral. So even if it wasn't planned I got some unbalance, and I only discovered during the set up of the page that a certain nickname was a blond guy and not a Arab or Chinese girl. I did my best to "fix it" at that point but mostly because when you miss some positions and you look for additional 3-4 names it's no big difference to look here or there. But still, the first search was based on their expertise. And they all kew that.
I think it was quite balanced in the end, taking care of the issue but not ranking it more critical than the scientific quality of the profiles. Plus. I told some of the female jurors that they could be "promoted" to the main jury for next edition but that's because they deserve it. So, in the end I look also for "girls" and "exotic profiles", I admit that, but this was not my main goal, and it was never more important that the quality. So at least these people knew that they were part of a team, that they were there to share their expertise, not being displayed as a "token". I think it's more easy and relaxed if you always stick to the content and the quality as a first step, IMHO. if you want the movement to grow roots you need real people, motivated people, and real sharing. I really hope they will set up real national challenges next time, thanks to the expertise we shared. Alessandro
Il Lunedì 7 Maggio 2018 14:33, Andy Mabbett <andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> ha scritto:On 7 May 2018 at 05:10, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I recently received an e-mail from a user in the Wikimedia movement who has (temporarily?) stopped contributing as she is not happy with a specific aspect of the atmosphere in Wikimedia.
She was invited to participate in a Wikimedia activity, because:
- she is a woman
- she is from a minority
- she is from an area in the world with much less editors (compared to
Europe/US)
and perhaps also because her colour of her skin is a bit different then mine (Caucasian).
I'm sorry to hear that a contributor feels unable to continue because of this.
In order to examine what improvements we can make, can you tell us - without breeching confidentiality - how this approach was made, and what exactly was said?
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
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@lists.wikimedia.org