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 &lt;romaine.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: 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? This makes a lot of sense to me, but that's just me and attitudes are different for each person. 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 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. 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(a)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 &lt;romaine.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; To: Wikimedia &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Cc: Wikimedia Gendergap mailing list &lt;gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 &lt;amir.aharoni(a)mail.huji.ac.il&gt; To: Wikimedia Mailing List &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; 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 &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 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 &lt;faewik(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- 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> .

On 7 May 2018 at 05:10, Romaine Wiki &lt;romaine.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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

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 &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; wrote:

----- Original Message ----- From: Jane Darnell &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; To: Wikimedia Mailing List &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; 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

"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 &lt;fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net&gt; wrote:

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 &lt;fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com

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 &lt;etestart(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- 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> .

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(a)telkomsa.net&gt; wrote:

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

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 &lt;toddmallen(a)gmail.com&gt; To: Wikimedia Mailing List &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; 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(a)telkomsa.net&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

​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 ​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 &lt;toddmallen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- 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> .

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 ​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 ​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 &lt;toddmallen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- 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(a)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, &lt;toddmallen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 &lt;peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net&gt; To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; 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, &lt;toddmallen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 &lt;n.rault(a)me.com&gt; To: Wikimedia Mailing List &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Sent: Fri, 11 May 2018 04:19:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems 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 &lt;peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net&gt; a écrit : > > 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, &lt;toddmallen(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)telkomsa.net&gt; 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(a)telkomsa.net&gt; 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 &lt;etestart(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)telkomsa.net&gt; >>>>> 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(a)fairpoint.net&gt; >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>> From: Jane Darnell &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>>>>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; >>>>>>> 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>>>>> Unsubscribe: >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>>>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject= >>> unsubscribe> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ >>> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org >> ?subject=unsubscribe> >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ >>> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org >> ?subject=unsubscribe> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >>>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >>>>> wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>>> Unsubscribe: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >>> wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >>> wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 &lt;peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net&gt; To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; 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, &lt;toddmallen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

What are the non-Western methods? בתאריך יום ו׳, 11 במאי 2018, 15:49, מאת Gnangarra ‏&lt;gnangarra(a)gmail.com&gt;om>:

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, &lt;gnangarra(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

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, &lt;cameron(a)cameron11598.net&gt; wrote:

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 &lt;paulosperneta(a)gmail.com&gt;om>:

"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 &lt;paulosperneta(a)gmail.com&gt;om>:

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 &lt;peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net&gt; To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; 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 &lt;cameron(a)cameron11598.net&gt;et>: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

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 &lt;paulosperneta(a)gmail.com&gt; To: Wikimedia Mailing List &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; 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 &lt;peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net&gt;et>: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 &lt;fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net&gt;et>:

Autobiographical writing published by the mainstream press with editors and fact checkers is more reliable. Fred ----- Original Message ----- From: Paulo Santos Perneta &lt;paulosperneta(a)gmail.com&gt; To: Wikimedia Mailing List &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; 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 &lt;fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net&gt;et>: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 &lt;fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net&gt;et>:

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 &lt;paulosperneta(a)gmail.com&gt; To: Wikimedia Mailing List &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; 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 &lt;fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net&gt;et>: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I 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 &lt;wikimedia-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland Sent: 11 May 2018 14:51 To: Wikimedia Mailing List &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; 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, &lt;cameron(a)cameron11598.net&gt; 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. > > 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(a)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, &lt;toddmallen(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)telkomsa.net&gt; 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(a)telkomsa.net&gt; 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 &lt;etestart(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)telkomsa.net&gt; > > > > > 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(a)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(a)fairpoint.net&gt; > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > From: Jane Darnell &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; > > > > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > > > > > > > &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; > > > > > > > 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > > > Unsubscribe: > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject= > > > unsubscribe> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ > > > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org > > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ > > > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org > > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: > > > > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > Unsubscribe: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> -- SLIC: Company Limited by Guarantee/ Registered in Scotland No.129889/Scottish Charity No.SC17886 Email Disclaimer: SLIC The information transmitted is the property of SLIC and is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.  Statements and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not represent those of the company.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination and other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from any computer. SLIC does not accept responsibility for viruses please scan attachments carefully.

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 &lt;romaine.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; To: Wikimedia Mailing List &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; 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 &lt;amir.aharoni(a)mail.huji.ac.il&gt;il>: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>