On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:16 PM, whothis whothith@gmail.com wrote:

Looks like an excellent waste of effort.

Maybe the problem of publishing non-publishable oral sources occurred to someone on the team. Anyway the english wikipedia seems to be the appropriate place for your original research. I can't wait to read all about it.

I still think a research project in emesis in the global south or something would have suited english wikipedia better but that's just me.

Your fan

Elizabeth

This was obviously just a puerile troll posting, and doesn't deserve a response on its own merit, but I still think it's worthwhile to give an ordinary Wikipedian's view of the general uncertainty about oral sources in terms of notability and original research.

One of the most frequent complaints about Wikipedia, which I have seen in contexts such as the Wikipedia overview of World History and on websites that are critical of Wikipedia, is that it has an endemic bias towards Western, English-language information. As long as Wikipedia is completely reliant on paper sources, this is unlikely to change. The Oral Citations project is a brave attempt to light a candle instead of just cursing the darkness.

Lots of ethnographic work is very strongly based on interviews with people who have an oral tradition. This is then published and, quite correctly, cited in Wikipedia: the view is that it is then a secondary source, and hence appropriate. When we directly source oral interviews and host them on a sister project, the complaint is that this is a primary source: prone to small sample sizes, unscientific data gathering, and hidden biases on the part of the interviewers.

The key response to this objection in my opinion is that we have to be clear about the kind of claim that can be supported by these interviews, and the strength of the evidence.

Where there is no written discussion of a specific cultural practice, endemic knowledge, minor language or whatever, an oral citation is better than nothing. As long as it's given in context, I don't see the problem. Something like "Interviews with members of the Sk8r tribe in 2011 indicated that they have a deep animosity towards the neighbouring Emos,<ref name=Interview36 /> <ref name=interview38 /> and have several tribal songs in this regard <ref name=Interview44>."

When the oral citations disagree with written sources, the authority of the interviewee becomes relevant. If a recognized elder of a specific cultural group (whose identity can be verified) is on video making a specific claim, that's notable and verifiable in itself, and can be discussed as such in a Wikipedia article.

An example of such a claim might be "Although Ringo's Ethnography of Eastern River-dwellers mentions their ritual use of torpedoes<ref name="Ringo83" />, Chief Tom of the Wilbury tribe has claimed in an interview that none of the tribes ever had access to such weapons, and believes this belief to be due to a confusion with the local militia.<ref name="Petty2011" />"

This way, no reader can be misled about the source and weight of the claim.

Of course, that's just, like, my opinion, man.{{cn}}

This is a really interesting and thoughtfully complete project.

As an editor I am cautious of how well these could be used as citations without falling afoul of "original research".

The first problem I see is that presentation becomes difficult:

"Interviews with members of the Sk8r tribe in 2011 indicated that they have a deep animosity towards the neighbouring Emos

Clearly marks the source, but does not clarify who made the interviews, where the indication came from (i.e. did they say this outright, or did they just moan about the Emos constantly - the latter, of course, being a problematic conclusion), or who drew the interpretation (if applicable). On top of that it is not a *great* way to write content - better to stick to straight facts where possible ("the Sk8r tribe have a deep animosity toward the Emos").

This can probably be addressed by working out a good way to cite oral material.

The second issue I touched on above; in that editors may have difficulty drawing purely factual material from the source, rather than making interpretations. Whilst I could see an argument for a little leeway on oral material being interpreted, I also think it is a bad idea to encourage too much.

Of course, material from academically qualified people (as much of this particular project seems to be) could happily be treated in the same way as, say, an academic writing a book or an article (with the slight caveat of no independent review). But from unqualified people - who is going to draw it together? I've always been in favour of giving experts in a field some leeway in how they record/report/source/present material in Wikipedia. However shifting that to an oral citation is not necessarily a simple task.

*What I do think is incredibly important though is that this material has huge value in itself - and every effort to encourage more of the same should be taken! *

In fact we should get as much material such as this as possible, host it, translate it, make it accessible - and encourage secondary academic sources to make use of it. This could work both as a "hack" to get around the issues of citing oral material directly as well as contributing to the effort to expand knowledge of these areas of study.

I'm excited to see the next step for this... is there going to be more of this work? Can we get some publicity for this in the relevant academic circles? Is there potential for the foundation to fund efforts to collect more and more material? Can we look at expanding it to other areas (for example - although I appreciate the focus is areas not covered by written material, this would be equally valuable in some parts of the global north; even in the UK I could see advantages to recording interviews with different people).

Long term we could perhaps even consider a new project that is intended specifically to collect oral evidence, host it (through commons), translate it and make it easy to cite/use. Such a project would be horrendously valuable and provide insight into all manner of cultures.

Tom

Dear Tom and David,

On Wednesday 27 July 2011 03:03 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:

This is a really interesting and thoughtfully complete project.

As an editor I am cautious of how well these could be used as citations without falling afoul of "original research".

The first problem I see is that presentation becomes difficult:

...

"Interviews with members of the Sk8r tribe in 2011 indicated that they have a deep animosity towards the neighbouring Emos

Clearly marks the source, but does not clarify who made the interviews, where the indication came from (i.e. did they say this outright, or did they just moan about the Emos constantly - the latter, of course, being a problematic conclusion), or who drew the interpretation (if applicable). On top of that it is not a *great* way to write content - better to stick to straight facts where possible ("the Sk8r tribe have a deep animosity toward the Emos").

In this case, if you scroll down the list on the research page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations) to see the articles created in Hindi and Malayalam, you will see reference links that take you straight to the audio file on Wikimedia Commons, wherein you will find exactly this information - this was part of the protocol. The who is doing it/ who is being talked to bit has been taken care of there.

We're still developing the articles, so more will come; we're also working on English transcripts for the audio interviews, which will happen in time, so stay tuned.

This can probably be addressed by working out a good way to cite oral material.

The second issue I touched on above; in that editors may have difficulty drawing purely factual material from the source, rather than making interpretations. Whilst I could see an argument for a little leeway on oral material being interpreted, I also think it is a bad idea to encourage too much.

Of course, material from academically qualified people (as much of this particular project seems to be) could happily be treated in the same way as, say, an academic writing a book or an article (with the slight caveat of no independent review). But from unqualified people - who is going to draw it together? I've always been in favour of giving experts in a field some leeway in how they record/report/source/present material in Wikipedia. However shifting that to an oral citation is not necessarily a simple task.

If you look at the subjects we focused on (broadly taken: folk games, household recipes, traditional food, religious culture) one thing that becomes really interesting is who the "expert" is. Mokgope, for instance, is a country liquor brewed from marula fruit in one somewhat remote province of South Africa. I'd wager that the people we talked to - women from the village of Ga-Sebotlane - are the world experts on this. (Same goes for the recipe for how to cook Mopani worms). As with the folk games in India; the people who play them, in the places they do, are likely to know more about them than almost anyone else.

So: one nice consequence of this project (and, I would wager, a natural fit with Wikipedia) is that experts are everywhere, depending on what it is we're talking about.

*What I do think is incredibly important though is that this material has huge value in itself - and every effort to encourage more of the same should be taken! *

In fact we should get as much material such as this as possible, host it, translate it, make it accessible - and encourage secondary academic sources to make use of it. This could work both as a "hack" to get around the issues of citing oral material directly as well as contributing to the effort to expand knowledge of these areas of study.

I'm excited to see the next step for this... is there going to be more of this work? Can we get some publicity for this in the relevant academic circles? Is there potential for the foundation to fund efforts to collect more and more material? Can we look at expanding it to other areas (for example - although I appreciate the focus is areas not covered by written material, this would be equally valuable in some parts of the global north; even in the UK I could see advantages to recording interviews with different people).

The universality of this idea is key, and thanks for pointing it out. While the lack of printed material in India and South Africa is symptomatic of the problem with documenting the world's knowledge under a strict (print only) citation system, the fact is, none of us who worked on this project see it merely as a tropical remedy for brown and black folks. It is Anglo-European language Wikipedias who stand to benefit the most; these are - and will be - the places people predominantly go to for some time to come. And currently, they stand to lose out on a vast chunk of the world's knowledge by restricting citations to mainly print sources. A tangential point is that in addition to user-conducted oral interviews as citations, there is probably some benefit in re-looking at the citation base as a whole: by, perhaps, sourcing from other internet-based systems of trust where knowledge is being created, and/or established oral history archives.

In short, the world would benefit from knowing how to cook Mopani worms :)

Long term we could perhaps even consider a new project that is intended specifically to collect oral evidence, host it (through commons), translate it and make it easy to cite/use. Such a project would be horrendously valuable and provide insight into all manner of cultures.

Tom _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

All sources can be cited without falling afoul of "original research" Original research only covers claims without sources at all, or claims made from yourself as the source. Any source, including citing to a video interviews, is never original research.

Ideally of course, yes. However it is quite hard to work with primary

sources of this nature (i.e. ones that are not summarising a subject) and avoid interpretation (which is at the core of OR). It is perfectly possible to cite an iron clad reliable source and still end up doing original research :) It's just that the risk is greater with these forms of sources.

I don't really get by the way, why this is considered revolutionary. These aren't "oral citations" in the standard sense, these are citations to a published video.

Reliability depends on a number of factors; for a video it depends on things like the identity of the person speaking, the publishing body, etc.

Raw footage of this sort is very much primary sourcing with potential reliability problems.

The key thing for reliable sources is the idea of *fact checking or peer review*. This is why the very best sorts of sources are those published in respected scientific journals - because they have been reviewed for mistakes, bias, etc.

Ideally these videos would be published as a primary resource, interested parties would synthesise material and write papers (or give lectures, or publish a book) - secondary sources - which could then be cited by tertiary sources, such as us :)

Currently you would have to treat these videos with a modicum of care, under the usual guidelines for primary source material.

Tom

Hallo, (responses inline)

On Wednesday 27 July 2011 11:57 PM, Wjhonson wrote:

For actual quotations from sources, you should quote the source exactly. Then you will never be using original research.

I don't actually understand what this means. If you look at the articles created: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations#Articles.2F_Discussio...

you can see exactly how the citations are used. In the articles, each statement that can be attributed to a particular audio interview is cited to that audio interview. Do you mean also using quotes for actual words in the text of the article itself?

You are going the next step and summarizing and interpreting. Don't do that.

Actually, no. We are not summarizing or interpreting, merely reporting the content of the cited audio interviews (and the accumulated reports, sometimes conflicting, gathered in the course of several audio interviews) in exactly the same way one would do if the sources were journal articles instead.

But if I haven't understood your questions correctly, please elaborate and explain further.

Thanks, Achal

-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Mortonmorton.thomas@googlemail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 11:19 am Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

All sources can be cited without falling afoul of "original research" Original research only covers claims without sources at all, or claims made from yourself as the source. Any source, including citing to a video interviews, is never original research.

Ideally of course, yes. However it is quite hard to work with primary ources of this nature (i.e. ones that are not summarising a subject) and void interpretation (which is at the core of OR). It is perfectly possible o cite an iron clad reliable source and still end up doing original esearch :) It's just that the risk is greater with these forms of sources.

I don't really get by the way, why this is considered revolutionary. These aren't "oral citations" in the standard sense, these are citations to a published video.

eliability depends on a number of factors; for a video it depends on things ike the identity of the person speaking, the publishing body, etc. Raw footage of this sort is very much primary sourcing ith potential reliability problems. The key thing for reliable sources is the idea of *fact checking or peer eview*. This is why the very best sorts of sources are those published in espected scientific journals - because they have been reviewed for istakes, bias, etc. Ideally these videos would be published as a primary resource, interested arties would synthesise material and write papers (or give lectures, or ublish a book) - secondary sources - which could then be cited by tertiary ources, such as us :) Currently you would have to treat these videos with a modicum of care, under he usual guidelines for primary source material. Tom ______________________________________________ oundation-l mailing list oundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hallo, (responses inline)

On Thursday 28 July 2011 12:27 AM, Wjhonson wrote:

Achal I was responding to Thomas not to you. However yes, if you are quoting what an interviewee is saying, you should use quotation marks to offset their statements. Or even use the blockquote markup for a lengthy quotation.

My own understanding is that this is not a requirement of a print article (say, a journal essay or a NYTimes report).

If you do something like decide that because three people said "King Makambo ruled from 800 to 840" that you can simply state this in an article and cite the video, I would suggest that is a decision not well-founded on our editing principles.

It is therefore not clear why on the oral citations we make (linked to the audio interview source) we should therefore do that. Two quick clarifications again, because I fear that these are causing some confusion:

1) We don't have any video citations, only oral citations, linked to audio interviews.

2) None of the articles created (or in creation) are about things related to fictional Kings & Queens in the 9th century AD. In short: we're not wading into the murky territory of rewriting events that happened 13 centuries ago. I think the distinction is important because there is an underlying feeling one gets here - and from a few other posts - that somehow this experiment with oral citations opens up the opportunity to write fictionalised accounts of the history of the world, which would make for good science fiction, which is in itself a good thing - but also far above our pay grade. :)

Citations to primary sources should, in my opinion, always use quotation marks. And never fail to do so.

While this is a possibility, there is no policy on citation of primary sources on Wikipedia. In academia, field work and interviews are often paraphrased; they definitely do not have to be reported inside quotes, though of course, they may be.

-----Original Message----- From: Achal Prabhalaaprabhala@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 11:53 am Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

Hallo, (responses inline) On Wednesday 27 July 2011 11:57 PM, Wjhonson wrote: For actual quotations from sources, you should quote the source exactly. Then you will never be using original research. I don't actually understand what this means. If you look at the articles reated: ttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations#Articles.2F_Discussions_.28in_development.29 you can see exactly how the citations are used. In the articles, each tatement that can be attributed to a particular audio interview is ited to that audio interview. Do you mean also using quotes for actual ords in the text of the article itself?

...

You are going the next step and summarizing and interpreting. Don't do that.

Actually, no. We are not summarizing or interpreting, merely reporting he content of the cited audio interviews (and the accumulated reports, ometimes conflicting, gathered in the course of several audio nterviews) in exactly the same way one would do if the sources were ournal articles instead. But if I haven't understood your questions correctly, please elaborate nd explain further. Thanks, chal

-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Mortonmorton.thomas@googlemail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 11:19 am Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

All sources can be cited without falling afoul of "original research"
Original research only covers claims without sources at all, or claims made
from yourself as the source.
Any source, including citing to a video interviews, is never original
research.

Ideally of course, yes. However it is quite hard to work with primary

ources of this nature (i.e. ones that are not summarising a subject) and void interpretation (which is at the core of OR). It is perfectly possible o cite an iron clad reliable source and still end up doing original esearch :) It's just that the risk is greater with these forms of sources.

I don't really get by the way, why this is considered revolutionary.
These aren't "oral citations" in the standard sense, these are citations to
a published video.

eliability depends on a number of factors; for a video it depends on things ike the identity of the person speaking, the publishing body, etc. Raw footage of this sort is very much primary sourcing ith potential reliability problems. The key thing for reliable sources is the idea of *fact checking or peer eview*. This is why the very best sorts of sources are those published in espected scientific journals - because they have been reviewed for istakes, bias, etc. Ideally these videos would be published as a primary resource, interested arties would synthesise material and write papers (or give lectures, or ublish a book) - secondary sources - which could then be cited by tertiary ources, such as us :) Currently you would have to treat these videos with a modicum of care, under he usual guidelines for primary source material. Tom ______________________________________________ oundation-l mailing list oundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

---

oundation-l mailing list oundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Wjhonson wjhonson@aol.com wrote:

For actual quotations from sources, you should quote the source exactly. Then you will never be using original research.

You are going the next step and summarizing and interpreting.  Don't do that.

But selecting what quotations to use, what parts of them to use, and in what context one uses them, and the language one uses to present them, is a not a mechanical or necessarily neutral endeavor. It cannot be done without summarizing and interpreting.

Certainly in Wikipedia and everywhere else the world also, unrepresentative of partial quotations are used to propagandistic or controversial effect--sometimes even deliberately, but more often because the particular quotation and manner fits what the editor desires to express. A person in the course of a long career will say many things on their main interests, and some will be at least partially contradictory. Selecting what represents the person's true views, what represents a true change of opinion, what represent erratic misstatements --all of this require decisions which amount to what we call original research and synthesis. It is not possible to write any but the most trivial article without research and synthesis. Preparing a summary of the state of a question intrinsically requires it. Deciding of the balance of an article necessarily involves having a POV--if one approaches a subject where one has none initially, by the time the article has been finished, one or the other position is sure to have been found more appealing, and a non-neural POV is sure to have developed.

The writing of secondary and tertiary works are inevitably associated with bias. The way by which we avoid its worst manifestations in Wikipedia is not by being free from bias, but by having articles written collectively by a diverse group of people. What we lose in elegant prose we gain in objectivity. This is why it is important to continually increase the number of active editors--not just to increase the scope, but to ensure adequate eyes on the articles.

But even so, the different Wikipedias will be inevitably different. (Attention has recently been called on the list to http://manypedia.com/.) We need in particular more people with multiple language ability to incorporate the diversity in the individual encyclopedias. This is one reason why it is critically important to develop Wikipedias in the non-Western languages, so their views too can be represented not just in their own language, but throughout the project.

-- David Goodman

DGG at the enWP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

David how is an exact quote a summary or interpretation? An exact quote, backed up by the actual audio track is... exact. You are not summarizing it, and you are not interpreting it either. You are presenting it.

The point David is making is that you are selecting material to quote and add.

This is a problem that happens a lot anyway; you might have a lengthy piece of audio, video or text that discusses material - picking a few points to quote is in itself interpreting what it important. This is why secondary sources are better - because they do the selection for us :)

Tom

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Wjhonson wjhonson@aol.com wrote:

David how is an exact quote a summary or interpretation? An exact quote, backed up by the actual audio track is... exact. You are not summarizing it, and you are not interpreting it either. You are presenting it.

<light hearted>

We shut down simple quote, right?

</light hearted>

On 07/27/11 12:42 PM, Wjhonson wrote:

David how is an exact quote a summary or interpretation? An exact quote, backed up by the actual audio track is... exact. You are not summarizing it, and you are not interpreting it either. You are presenting it.

If that is to be the case the exact quote MUST be in its original language. All translations require interpretation.

Ray

LOL. If that's the case it would be a good reason for changing the OR policy. It would also make sense to quote non-English sources in their original language unless the translation itself is verifiable.

Ray

On 07/27/11 4:36 PM, M. Williamson wrote:

Well then, Ray, en.wp would not be able to use non-English sources since all translation is interpretation and would therefore be considered OR which is not allowed at Wikipedia.

2011/7/27 Ray Saintonge<saintonge@telus.net

...

On 07/27/11 12:42 PM, Wjhonson wrote:

...

David how is an exact quote a summary or interpretation? An exact quote, backed up by the actual audio track is... exact. You are not summarizing it, and you are not interpreting it either. You are presenting it.

If that is to be the case the exact quote MUST be in its original language. All translations require interpretation.

Ray

On 29 July 2011 17:39, Wjhonson wjhonson@aol.com wrote:

I would agree with Ray that we should quote Latin texts in Latin, Spanish texts in Spanish no matter what language-page we are using.  IF the text is that important to English speakers then there should be or probably will soon be, a verifiable English language translation *not* created in-project, but rather by a reputable author publishing just such a translation.

This would mean that only English-language references are acceptable in en:wp, which is of course false. Your statement takes a useful idea (no original research), extrapolates it until it really obviously breaks, and then puts forward the broken version as a good thing.

You appear to be mixing up policy, guidelines, practice and how you personally think things should be, without distinguishing which you are describing at any given time; this leads only to confusion.

- d.

And what if readers don't understand Spanish? As a translator, I have to say I am strongly against the idea that a translation counts as original research. Translating quotes has been practiced in academia for a very long time, and just in the last month I must've read several papers with quotes in languages I didn't understand well enough to read without the translation by the author (German, Latin, etc). If I want to quote an academic paper in Spanish for an article where there are few or no English-language sources available, I should be able to quote directly from the paper but provide a translation so that English speakers who do not speak Spanish can benefit from the quote. The great thing about the wiki process is that if someone disagrees with my translation, it can be fixed (I have fixed a few translations on en.wp myself). 2011/7/29 Wjhonson wjhonson@aol.com

No that's not what it would mean. It would mean that if a Spanish language source is used on an English language page, we should quote that source in Spanish, and not quote it using our OWN translation. As editors we should not be creating publications, only quoting publications.

-----Original Message----- From: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 10:37 am Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

On 29 July 2011 17:39, Wjhonson wjhonson@aol.com wrote:

...

I would agree with Ray that we should quote Latin texts in Latin, Spanish

exts in Spanish no matter what language-page we are using. IF the text is that mportant to English speakers then there should be or probably will soon be, a erifiable English language translation *not* created in-project, but rather by reputable author publishing just such a translation.

his would mean that only English-language references are acceptable n en:wp, which is of course false. Your statement takes a useful idea no original research), extrapolates it until it really obviously reaks, and then puts forward the broken version as a good thing. You appear to be mixing up policy, guidelines, practice and how you ersonally think things should be, without distinguishing which you re describing at any given time; this leads only to confusion.

d. _______________________________________________ oundation-l mailing list oundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Why can't you do both?

Provide the original text in the original language in the citation, followed by a translation. Any bickering over the quality of the translation can be dealt with through consensus on the talk page, while the original is still there for those who want the original to do their own verification of the translation.

-Dan On Jul 29, 2011, at 9:06 PM, Wjhonson wrote:

Yes of course translating documents "has been practiced in academia for a very long time."

We however are not a first publisher of translations. We are an aggregator of sources. That is the point of RS. We don't publish first.

-----Original Message----- From: M. Williamson node.ue@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 10:59 am Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

And what if readers don't understand Spanish? As a translator, I have to say am strongly against the idea that a translation counts as original esearch. Translating quotes has been practiced in academia for a very long ime, and just in the last month I must've read several papers with quotes n languages I didn't understand well enough to read without the translation y the author (German, Latin, etc). If I want to quote an academic paper in panish for an article where there are few or no English-language sources vailable, I should be able to quote directly from the paper but provide a ranslation so that English speakers who do not speak Spanish can benefit rom the quote. The great thing about the wiki process is that if someone isagrees with my translation, it can be fixed (I have fixed a few ranslations on en.wp myself). 011/7/29 Wjhonson wjhonson@aol.com

...

No that's not what it would mean. It would mean that if a Spanish language source is used on an English language page, we should quote that source in Spanish, and not quote it using our OWN translation. As editors we should not be creating publications, only quoting publications.

-----Original Message----- From: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 10:37 am Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

On 29 July 2011 17:39, Wjhonson wjhonson@aol.com wrote:

...

I would agree with Ray that we should quote Latin texts in Latin, Spanish

exts in Spanish no matter what language-page we are using. IF the text is that mportant to English speakers then there should be or probably will soon be, a erifiable English language translation *not* created in-project, but rather by reputable author publishing just such a translation.

his would mean that only English-language references are acceptable n en:wp, which is of course false. Your statement takes a useful idea no original research), extrapolates it until it really obviously reaks, and then puts forward the broken version as a good thing. You appear to be mixing up policy, guidelines, practice and how you ersonally think things should be, without distinguishing which you re describing at any given time; this leads only to confusion.

d. _______________________________________________ oundation-l mailing list oundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

---

oundation-l mailing list oundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Nope, never said that. I disagree with the idea that this is "usually done" however I have no objections to it's being done. Never did. My point is, and was that the source should be quoted in its original language.

-----Original Message----- From: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 11:26 am Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

On 29 July 2011 19:19, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:

Why can't you do both?

Provide the original text in the original language in the citation, followed y a translation. Any bickering over the quality of the translation can be dealt ith through consensus on the talk page, while the original is still there for hose who want the original to do their own verification of the translation.

his is what is usually done at present. Hence my boggling at Johnson's bizarre suggestion to overuse a rule to break usefuless to he reader.

d. _______________________________________________ oundation-l mailing list oundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

For what it is worth....

I think this approach exists on en.wiki on the premise that by using foreign sources with no independent translation available:

a) It makes it easier to push a POV or miss-interpretation via that source (because other editors are generally not able to understand it) b) There is more potential for mistakes or miscomprehension - for example if editors resort to using Google translate (not at all uncommon)

I for one consider this much akin to cracking a nut with a sledgehammer - but I can see the reasoning behind it. It would be interesting to see a working group dedicated to looking into ways to approach the "foreign language source" issue.

English Wikipedia is pretty bad at considering foreign language sources. But I have seen other language projects which appear worse still at accepting them... and it is worse than just a language issue - often it feels like a case of people thinking "well that culture is not the same as ours, so not likely to be as reliable". (I criticise myself here too for this thinking, even when I try to avoid it!)

I can never help feeling that this is often the core of our cultural centrist bias (for all Wikipedias). Way before I learned my first foreign language, back when young and naive, I believed that most countries were functionally the same as mine, just with different words. My first trip the to US disabused me of this notion. I have never been hot-shot with languages but always make a point, now, of learning at least a little of the native language of wherever I travel - because the difference you see when using that language is insane.

Anyway; the point is that we are in an interesting position to help advocate this amazingly different cultural views to each other. Does anyone have idea to address these issues of centrism and lack of trust in other cultures? I think this would be a really interesting thing to explore!

Tom

On 29 July 2011 19:31, Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.com wrote:

On 7/29/2011 11:06 AM, Wjhonson wrote:

...

Yes of course translating documents "has been practiced in academia for a

very long time."

...

We however are not a first publisher of translations. We are an

aggregator of sources.

...

That is the point of RS. We don't publish first.

Translating a quotation from a foreign-language source in a Wikipedia article is functionally no different from translating the contents of a Wikipedia article in one language to create an equivalent Wikipedia article in a different language. The latter is an utterly routine and fairly common practice (though I'm not suggesting that any Wikipedia article *needs* to be based on translations this way). Obviously translation needs to be done with care, just like synthesizing source material to write an article requires care. And some people may be better at one or the other, so it may be possible to improve on the work as Mark describes, as long as the original also remains available, as it should.

Stretching a guideline about using reliable sources to the point that it conflicts with unobjectionable standard practices suggests that the guideline is being stretched too far. Even the most reliable sources do not need to be treated like some people treat the Quran, as if it's inappropriate to render them in any language but the original. That's a religious belief, and in a religious context I fully respect that people may believe such things, but in the context of writing Wikipedia articles, our beliefs about the sources we use should not be religious, they should be based on analysis and editorial judgment.

--Michael Snow

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 20:31, Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.com wrote:

On 7/29/2011 11:06 AM, Wjhonson wrote:

...

Yes of course translating documents "has been practiced in academia for a very long time."

We however are not a first publisher of translations.  We are an aggregator of sources. That is the point of RS. We don't publish first.

Translating a quotation from a foreign-language source in a Wikipedia article is functionally no different from translating the contents of a Wikipedia article in one language to create an equivalent Wikipedia article in a different language.

That's, actually, different. Encyclopedic text is our work; or, if we talk in the sense of OR, our own OR, no matter if it's been written originally or translated. So, when you translate an article from one language to another, you do that as encyclopedist, not as researcher.

In other words, if you miss something in encyclopedic text, that would affect just encyclopedic text itself. If you claim that you've translated the source, that affects validity of the source itself.

Yes I agree that primary sources should ONLY be cited-quoted, in their original language. A translation can be *published* but that publication cannot be in Wikipedia solely. It must live somewhere else as well, published by a reliable source.

In this case of an audio file, we should have a transcription, than a translation. However having Wikipedians translate primary sources and then citing and quoting those *translations* in-project is a recipe for disaster and fraught with the potential for abuse, as well as being original research. In this case the original research is *your unpublished translation used as the actual source*.

That's no good.

-----Original Message----- From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 4:36 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

On 07/27/11 12:42 PM, Wjhonson wrote: David how is an exact quote a summary or interpretation? An exact quote, backed up by the actual audio track is... exact. You are not summarizing it, and you are not interpreting it either. You are presenting it. If that is to be the case the exact quote MUST be in its original anguage. All translations require interpretation. Ray _______________________________________________ oundation-l mailing list oundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

The great thing about an oral history citations project is that it is a first and active method to remedy one of the big problems with English Wikipedia: the epistemology - how we decide we know what we know - really is completely and utterly broken at the edges.

(I realise this is foundation-l, but en:wp is a third of Wikimedia by most measures, and this discussion shows its ways of doing things getting into everywhere else.)

The trouble is that all through history, turning information into knowledge has required human judgement and nuance. People do four-year humanities degrees to *start* getting *any good at all* at this stuff. But Wikipedia being Wikipedia, the whole thing has to be (a) reduced to a three paragraph guideline (b) which calcifies into policy (c) misinterpreted by socially-inept teenagers (d) with the misinterpretations being perpetuated well past the point of actual failure.

Thus we end up with blithering insanity like the phrase "reliable sources" being used unironically, as if being listed on WP:RS *actually makes a source humanly reliable*. This is particularly hilarious when applied to newspapers - no-one who has *ever* been quoted by the media would think this way.

(For those of you aware of the hip Bayesian way to calculate uncertainty, this is what happens when your network has allowed probabilities of 1 or 0.)

Now, the sourcing method we have almost works. Its successes are important and useful. But there's a lot of denial that it breaks really badly when misapplied, and that the misapplications are even a problem. WJohnson's earnestly put forward this viewpoint in this thread; his argument appears to be that we don't have a perfect solution so therefore this must not be a problem and doing something that doesn't work *harder* must be the right answer.

Somehow we have to get the nuance back. All this stuff is produced by humans, and working assumptions that it isn't are *broken*.

The oral citations project appears to be a first step to even acknowledging that the present methods actually break at the edges. This alone makes it a good and useful thing. And, y'know, we might actually learn something.

- d.

On 29 July 2011 11:25, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:

At times I wonder if some Wikipedians have ever heard of epistemology.

Larry Sanger was no great shakes as a philosopher, but at least he'd heard of the stuff.

Here's essays from Tom Morris (another philosopher):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tom_Morris/The_Reliability_Delusion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tom_Morris/The_Definition_Delusion

Basically, the fact of "Wikipedia's epistemology is broken" is becoming better-known.

I also have taken note that there is a tendency among some editors to truncate probability calculations to the nearest whole number.

This is Wikipedia-induced aspergism, which turns otherwise-socially-able people into annoying doctrinaire nerds, who CANNOT STAND UNCERTAINTY.

This is where Wikipedia's epistemology is broken: the real world is made of uncertainty. And the grey areas are what people are actually interested in.

None of what I'm saying here is new, it's been circulating since 2004. That doesn't mean it isn't in urgent need of being fixed, now that Wikipedia is *the* reference work and we've dodged the Expert Problem by being so big the experts are now coming to us.

- d.

On 29 July 2011 11:58, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:

While some editors do tend to argue binary options over sources, in general this is not the case (and if you are observing it as so, it's probably one of the battlefield areas where such things do occur).

They do tend to be noisiest, and they do tend to poison the epistemology of the project. Look at the remarkable hostility seen in this thread to changing anything whatsoever.

In this case, "mostly okay" means "only slightly poisoned".

- d.

On 29 July 2011 10:50, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:

Thus we end up with blithering insanity like the phrase "reliable sources" being used unironically, as if being listed on WP:RS *actually makes a source humanly reliable*. This is particularly hilarious when applied to newspapers - no-one who has *ever* been quoted by the media would think this way. (For those of you aware of the hip Bayesian way to calculate uncertainty, this is what happens when your network has allowed probabilities of 1 or 0.)

Also, I must note: everything Wikipedia gets right is when it's doing it to be useful to the readers, and everything Wikipedia gets wrong is when it's doing it to appease battling editors. The binary nature of "reliable sources" is largely an attempt to get editors to stop arguing, at the cost of doing increasing disservice to readers.

It gets worse when editors internalise the no-shades-of-grey black-and-white ideal of "reliable sources" and suggest blithering insanity such as that supplying a quote translation is forbidden as "original research".

This is put up with because editors think it's better than editors fighting. While editors fighting is bad (although, as Alex Curran has noted, we drop editors into an arena then we're surprised when they fight), I suggest we really need to consider whether what it's doing to our epistemology is worse.

It's an attempt to solve the problems with people by turning yourself into a robot. Funnily enough, doing this leads to really bad and stupid results.

- d.

And why does the people who speaks Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi need to write in English in order to have those oral citations published? English is not as universal as some people think. I guess we need to find an answer in their own language, so the solution won't be another barrier. Also, the escope of this project is much more important for the projects on these languages, and for speakers of these languages, rather than the English Wikipedia or its readers.

But that's just me.

Castelo

Em 26/07/2011 16:16, whothis escreveu:

Looks like an excellent waste of effort.

Maybe the problem of publishing non-publishable oral sources occurred to someone on the team. Anyway the english wikipedia seems to be the appropriate place for your original research. I can't wait to read all about it.

I still think a research project in emesis in the global south or something would have suited english wikipedia better but that's just me.

Your fan

Elizabeth

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Achal Prabhalaaprabhala@gmail.com wrote:

...

Dear friends,

At the beginning of 2011, a group of us began working on a project to explore alternative methods of citation on Wikipedia. We were motivated by the lack of published resources in much of the non-Anglo-European world, and the very real difficulty of citing everyday aspects of lived reality in India and South Africa.

We are now at a stage where the project is almost complete, and we'd like to share our work with the broader movement, especially within India and South Africa.

There are three languages we worked within: Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi.

The project page documents the process and logistics employed, as well as the findings and results:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations

A film made on the project is available here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:People-are-Knowledge.ogv?withJS=Media... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:People-are-Knowledge.ogv or http://vimeo.com/26469276

There have been discussions on oral citations for some time now within the language communities we worked with for the duration of the project. At this stage, we are really interested in *your* feedback, either on this list, or on the Discussion section of the project page.

There are still some things to come, namely:

• Updates on events, meetings and discussions held around the project

(as they happen)

• Updates on articles created in Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi as a result

of the project (as they happen)

• English transcripts of the interviews and a full English subtitle track

for further translation (we could use some help here).

We would be very grateful to hear your feedback, and begin a broader discussion.

Best wishes, Achal

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hi, Achal

I was sure you would do something special when i translated [1] some note on the launching of this project for Brazilians. And i wasn't wrong. Congrats!

Yes, we are saying the same thing, except perhaps for your last sentences (sorry if i didn't get your point). Despite of its italian origin, pasta is very important for some anglophones countries. How about Brazilian "caldo de sururu", which is missing on en.wiki (and also on pt.wiki)? It's surely a lack for pt.wiki, but maybe not for en.wiki, as some projects are not missing the articles on every Lady Gaga's song. On wikipedias, people doesn't look for other discussions (AfD) on the same article in another language before deleting an article for lack of notability. So you can expect that some valid unit of knowledge in one language is not surely (or automatic) valid in another. Each community makes its own discussions. Unless we create global AfD valid for all languages, this will not happen. And in which language it would be? In which project?

And English is not that 'global lingua franca'. As we talk in English on this list, many people that could have something interesting to say us just can't do that. If 5% of the world speaks English, then English is the most spoken language (in some criteria), but it is still a small part of the whole world. Let us not generalize, 'whole' and 'majority' are not the same thing. Even if 95% of the world could read and write in English (and this is not true), the language barrier would keep existing, and the English wouldn't the a perfect solution. In Brazil, 99% of the people speaks Portuguese, but for some people here, even the Portuguese language is a true barrier.

Castelo

[1] http://br.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:%C3%81gora#Achal_Prabhala

Em 27/07/2011 10:05, Achal Prabhala escreveu:

Hallo (responses inline)

On Wednesday 27 July 2011 06:02 PM, CasteloBranco wrote:

...

And why does the people who speaks Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi need to write in English in order to have those oral citations published?

Yes, we don't. We have Sepedi, Malayalam and Hindi Wikipedias to work on. Which is exactly what we did and are doing.

...

English is not as universal as some people think. I guess we need to find an answer in their own language, so the solution won't be another barrier.

Certainly, which is why the main scope of this project has been to create audio interviews in Sepedi, Malayalam and Hindi for use as oral citations on the Wikipedias that correspond to these languages.

...

Also, the escope of this project is much more important for the projects on these languages, and for speakers of these languages, rather than the English Wikipedia or its readers. But that's just me.

Well, a valid unit of knowledge in one language is surely valid in another? Perhaps not every single unit of knowledge transfers as easily (there was a really funny incident where certain Indian language Wikipedias got hit with a large number of articles on Lady Gaga by misguided machine translation some time ago). But by and large, this holds true: assuming that every culture in the world wants to know about every other culture, and assuming that English is a global lingua franca

• to the extent that we are speaking in it, on this list, now.

en:wiki would be weaker if every article on pasta resided solely on it:wiki - and all we're saying is the same thing, in the context of the oral citations project.

...

Castelo

Em 26/07/2011 16:16, whothis escreveu:

...

Looks like an excellent waste of effort.

Maybe the problem of publishing non-publishable oral sources occurred to someone on the team. Anyway the english wikipedia seems to be the appropriate place for your original research. I can't wait to read all about it.

I still think a research project in emesis in the global south or something would have suited english wikipedia better but that's just me.

Your fan

Elizabeth

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Achal Prabhalaaprabhala@gmail.com wrote:

...

Dear friends,

At the beginning of 2011, a group of us began working on a project to explore alternative methods of citation on Wikipedia. We were motivated by the lack of published resources in much of the non-Anglo-European world, and the very real difficulty of citing everyday aspects of lived reality in India and South Africa.

We are now at a stage where the project is almost complete, and we'd like to share our work with the broader movement, especially within India and South Africa.

There are three languages we worked within: Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi.

The project page documents the process and logistics employed, as well as the findings and results:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations

A film made on the project is available here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:People-are-Knowledge.ogv?withJS=Media... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:People-are-Knowledge.ogv or http://vimeo.com/26469276

There have been discussions on oral citations for some time now within the language communities we worked with for the duration of the project. At this stage, we are really interested in *your* feedback, either on this list, or on the Discussion section of the project page.

There are still some things to come, namely:

• Updates on events, meetings and discussions held around the project

(as they happen)

• Updates on articles created in Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi as a result

of the project (as they happen)

• English transcripts of the interviews and a full English subtitle track

for further translation (we could use some help here).

We would be very grateful to hear your feedback, and begin a broader discussion.

Best wishes, Achal

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Tom,

The fundamental difference in our views is that you talk about translation, and i'm talking about another thing. The projects are not bare translations of another language version (let's say, the English version). Every project (en.wiki, pt.wiki, eo.wiki) has its own community, which is not a group of translators. They produce the articles that are interesting for them, and write in a style which is neutral for its community. Maybe the result wouldn't be the same for another project, and not because i say it, but simply because these things take place in parallel. What i said is that the result of a discussion on an article in a project doesn't apply for the other projects, so the same article can have a version deleted in a project and featured in another. The choice itself of articles which are considered "encyclopedic" enough to be kept may vary a lot from community to community.

About using English as the "transfer language", well... the knowledge already exists in another language, the interviews are recorded in native languages. Why don't we use the original language as a source? Or shall we ask people to make those oral citations in English, just because it "is the predominantly spoken language of Wikimedia"? What if those people can't speak English? Should they learn it first, to have those oral citations published? It doesn't seem very reasonable.

I think this is a very interesting project, in order to improve quality *specially* for other projects than en.wiki, but also - why not? - in en.wiki. "Specially" because the subject of those citations are surely interesting for those people, but maybe not for another ones. For now, this is hard because of the lack of written sources, but with the Oral Citations projects, this can more frequently happen.

One question: with the videos uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, will the transcriptions be made on the respectives Wikisources (in Zulu, Swahili, Malagasy, etc.) with translations to the other versions? Or should we use the Wikinews, once they are interviews?

Castelo

Em 27/07/2011 12:49, Thomas Morton escreveu:

...

How about Brazilian "caldo de sururu", which is missing on en.wiki (and also on pt.wiki)? It's surely a lack for pt.wiki, but maybe not for en.wiki,

Perhaps this is the fundamental difference in our views; because I consider that a lack on *any language Wikipedia* whether pt, en, de, fr etc....

...

On wikipedias, people doesn't look for other discussions (AfD) on the same article in another language before deleting an article for lack of notability. So you can expect that some valid unit of knowledge in one language is not surely (or automatic) valid in another.

This is not so much a problem to be looked at from the perspective of "oh their just not interested in X cultural articles", but from the perspective of how to convince editors to accept a less Y-centric viewpoint and include articles of relevance to X culture. This idea needs directing at en.wiki certainly, and probably at other language Wiki's too (because they also tend to have centric-attitudes needing to be overcome).

...

And English is not that 'global lingua franca'.

It is, though, the predominantly spoken language of *Wikimedia*, at the moment (and that is not likely to change soon). So as a transfer language it is often our best bet.

The point I was trying to make is that to get the material translated into *as many languages* as possible it needs a path of least resistance - whereby you have the maximum amount of translators available to process material. If English is no good as a "common" language from which to work on that then, fine, lets consider other options!

There is no ideal solution yet available where we can all use our own languages and still interact effectively - grumping about translation efforts in light of that doesn't seem very constructive...

Tom _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Yes, Achal, i was listening to them right now. And reading the Meta page. My question is about the transcription. Should we use Wikisource (because it is an authoral work) or Wikinews (because it's an interview) for the written version? Or should we cite the audio file directly?

I'm asking this because Wikinews can maybe be reliable [1] enough. It has a process for original reports [2] and also for accredited contributors. [3] With the transcription in Wikinews, following these policies, we can assume we are using a neutral source, and therefore we can use news citations ({{cite news}}, for instance, or a specific one). This is what we would do if we were using any interview in some news magazine available on internet as a source for Wikipedia, isn't?

We can also develop something similar for Wikisource (which is already used for transcriptions, in general). What do you think?

Well, maybe the better place for that is Meta talk page.[4]

Castelo

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources [2] http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Original_reporting [3] http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Accreditation_policy [4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Oral_Citations

Em 27/07/2011 16:42, Achal Prabhala escreveu:

Dear Castelo,

On Thursday 28 July 2011 12:25 AM, CasteloBranco wrote:

...

Tom,

The fundamental difference in our views is that you talk about translation, and i'm talking about another thing. The projects are not bare translations of another language version (let's say, the English version). Every project (en.wiki, pt.wiki, eo.wiki) has its own community, which is not a group of translators. They produce the articles that are interesting for them, and write in a style which is neutral for its community. Maybe the result wouldn't be the same for another project, and not because i say it, but simply because these things take place in parallel. What i said is that the result of a discussion on an article in a project doesn't apply for the other projects, so the same article can have a version deleted in a project and featured in another. The choice itself of articles which are considered "encyclopedic" enough to be kept may vary a lot from community to community.

About using English as the "transfer language", well... the knowledge already exists in another language, the interviews are recorded in native languages. Why don't we use the original language as a source? Or shall we ask people to make those oral citations in English, just because it "is the predominantly spoken language of Wikimedia"? What if those people can't speak English? Should they learn it first, to have those oral citations published? It doesn't seem very reasonable.

I think this is a very interesting project, in order to improve quality *specially* for other projects than en.wiki, but also - why not? - in en.wiki. "Specially" because the subject of those citations are surely interesting for those people, but maybe not for another ones. For now, this is hard because of the lack of written sources, but with the Oral Citations projects, this can more frequently happen.

One question: with the videos uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, will the transcriptions be made on the respectives Wikisources (in Zulu, Swahili, Malagasy, etc.) with translations to the other versions? Or should we use the Wikinews, once they are interviews?

We currently have several audio interviews up on commons. The Sepedi interviews (from South Africa) are simultaneously translated in the audio to English, so you should be able to understand them. The Malayalam and Hindi interviews are in those languages only, so harder for you to understand.

We are working on transcripts, in each of the three languages + English, for all these audio files, but that will take some time (it is on our to-do list). Once they are done, perhaps you can make more sense of them.

For the moment, here are the files if you wish to check them out:

Sepedi: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Kgati_Interview1.o... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Kgati_Interview2.o... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Kgati_Interview3.o... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Mogkope_Interview1... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Mogkope_Interview2... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Mokgope_Interview3... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Mokgope_Interview4... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Mopani-Worms-Recip... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Tsere_tsere_Interv... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Tsere_tsere_Interv... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Tsere_tsere_Interv...

Malayalam: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Dabba-Kali_Intervi... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Neeliyar-Bhagavath... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Neeliyar-Bhagavath... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Neeliyar-Bhagavath...

Hindi: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Gillidanda_Intervi... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Sur_Interview1.ogg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Sur_Interview2.ogg

Cheers, Achal

...

Castelo

Em 27/07/2011 12:49, Thomas Morton escreveu:

...

...

How about Brazilian "caldo de sururu", which is missing on en.wiki (and also on pt.wiki)? It's surely a lack for pt.wiki, but maybe not for en.wiki,

Perhaps this is the fundamental difference in our views; because I consider that a lack on *any language Wikipedia* whether pt, en, de, fr etc....

...

On wikipedias, people doesn't look for other discussions (AfD) on the same article in another language before deleting an article for lack of notability. So you can expect that some valid unit of knowledge in one language is not surely (or automatic) valid in another.

This is not so much a problem to be looked at from the perspective of "oh their just not interested in X cultural articles", but from the perspective of how to convince editors to accept a less Y-centric viewpoint and include articles of relevance to X culture. This idea needs directing at en.wiki certainly, and probably at other language Wiki's too (because they also tend to have centric-attitudes needing to be overcome).

...

And English is not that 'global lingua franca'.

It is, though, the predominantly spoken language of *Wikimedia*, at the moment (and that is not likely to change soon). So as a transfer language it is often our best bet.

The point I was trying to make is that to get the material translated into *as many languages* as possible it needs a path of least resistance - whereby you have the maximum amount of translators available to process material. If English is no good as a "common" language from which to work on that then, fine, lets consider other options!

There is no ideal solution yet available where we can all use our own languages and still interact effectively - grumping about translation efforts in light of that doesn't seem very constructive...

Tom _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hi Sarah

I just love the narcissism in this email. I really want to comment but I don't want to be called a troll again......maybe later.

Much love

Elizabeth

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:

Hi all -

I came across a lighter version of this conversation on another Wikimedia list, and felt the need to share my similar thoughts and statements that I made previously.

For the past year, I have been examining opportunities involving Indigenous communities of North America and opportunities to utilize Wikipedia and related websites as an affordable, unique and global form of cultural preservation. I have my undergraduate in Native American Studies, and I am obtaining my masters currently. My final paper (not quite a thesis) for graduation will be a strong examination of the opportunities related to Indigenous communities and opportunities/pros/cons related to Wikipedia. I'm actually presenting on my preliminary observations and concerns at Wikimania, you can learn a bit more here:

http://wikimania2011.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Wikimedia_%26_Indigenous...

In the United States, as far as I am aware, I am the only person thinking about this on a higher level. While right now I am quite busy with other matters, come this Fall I will be diving head first into my research. I will be serving as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Museum of the American Indian, where I will be working with staff to examine these concerns. One of our biggest concerns lies with *oral history*. We have had countless conversations about the struggles with "no original research" however, in oral history based societies, we will have a very hard time moving beyond anything else. As stated previously, the majority of content created related to Indigenous communities in North America was often written by (and still is) Anglo anthropologists - some of that data is highly out of date and is still being utilized on Wikipedia as a source today.

This project, Oral Citations, follows closely with the type of work I am seeking to do. I have been planning to examine Wikipedia (English at first) research policies and consider proposals or changes in relation to serious research and Indigenous communities. Of course, it all comes down to funding, and Native people of North American are often the first overlooked group - it will take a lot of work, years of effort, and a lot of buy in that is needed to be gathered from inside the community itself.

I'm babbling right now, but, this is a very passionate topic for me. I see Wikipedia as providing an affordable and unique way for Indigenous communities to not only learn valuable skills - many of the communities here in America are among the poorest in the world, you'd think you were in a developing country, and kids barely receive beyond an elementary school education - but to have a broad arena to share stories (that the community chooses to share of course), beliefs, cosmologies, and traditions so that they are accessible and *vetted* for researchers and community members around the world.

I do hope that some of you are attending Wikimania, I'd like to be able to have a break out session of sorts or an unconference to discuss this topic further. I'm hoping in the next year to have an international conference of sorts that brings together Indigenous people, open source gurus, and Wiki-folks to examine opportunities, processes, and belief systems in regards to opportunities.

Feel free to email me directly, again, right now I am unable to move quickly in any major projects due to my already big work load, but, I'm hoping that this will be large part of my career work as an advocate for Native rights, a scholar, and an open source-lover.

-Sarah [[w:en:User:SarahStierch]]

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 8:32 AM, CasteloBranco < michelcastelobranco@gmail.com> wrote:

...

And why does the people who speaks Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi need to write in English in order to have those oral citations published? English is not as universal as some people think. I guess we need to find an answer in their own language, so the solution won't be another barrier. Also, the escope of this project is much more important for the projects on these languages, and for speakers of these languages, rather than the English Wikipedia or its readers.

But that's just me.

Castelo

Em 26/07/2011 16:16, whothis escreveu:

...

Looks like an excellent waste of effort.

Maybe the problem of publishing non-publishable oral sources occurred

to

...

...

someone on the team. Anyway the english wikipedia seems to be the appropriate place for your original research. I can't wait to read all

about

...

it.

I still think a research project in emesis in the global south or

something

...

would have suited english wikipedia better but that's just me.

Your fan

Elizabeth

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Achal Prabhalaaprabhala@gmail.com

wrote:

...

...

Dear friends,

At the beginning of 2011, a group of us began working on a project to explore alternative methods of citation on Wikipedia. We were

motivated

...

...

...

by the lack of published resources in much of the non-Anglo-European world, and the very real difficulty of citing everyday aspects of

lived

...

...

...

reality in India and South Africa.

We are now at a stage where the project is almost complete, and we'd like to share our work with the broader movement, especially within India and South Africa.

There are three languages we worked within: Malayalam, Hindi and

Sepedi.

...

...

...

The project page documents the process and logistics employed, as well as the findings and results:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations

A film made on the project is available here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:People-are-Knowledge.ogv?withJS=Media...

...

...

...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:People-are-Knowledge.ogv or http://vimeo.com/26469276

There have been discussions on oral citations for some time now within the language communities we worked with for the duration of the

project.

...

...

...

At this stage, we are really interested in *your* feedback, either on this list, or on the Discussion section of the project page.

There are still some things to come, namely:

• Updates on events, meetings and discussions held around the project

(as they happen)

• Updates on articles created in Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi as a

result

...

...

...

of the project (as they happen)

• English transcripts of the interviews and a full English subtitle

track

...

...

for further translation (we could use some help here).

We would be very grateful to hear your feedback, and begin a broader discussion.

Best wishes, Achal

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:

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

...

...

...

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-- GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia Foundationhttp://www.glamwiki.org Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Arthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch and Sarah Stierch Consulting

*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*

http://www.sarahstierch.com/ _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Maria and the rest of the list,

I deeply regret if my words or comments came off "racist" "patronizing" or "isolated". I re-read my writing multiple times before sending it, and just intended on making a general statement about the work I'm interested in exploring, without overwhelming the list. I am sorry if it failed.

I really appreciate hearing your thoughts and ideas about my research. I recently presented my paper at the Indigenous Peoples and Museum conference and had a few responses similar to yours, and a few positive responses on the opposite side of the spectrum.

This is all an exploration, and an ongoing experience. Your words, and the words of others similar, constantly remind me of my place and the interests of some community members. As a Wikipedian, I am devoted to many aspects of the community, including retention and encouraging new editors, and to know that I have stifled that by coming off as "racist" and "isolationist" goes against what I am fighting for.

While I am not here to post my resume, tell you what I do for a living outside of my work and schooling, share my experiences, and give a list of who my friends are and friends aren't - I assure you that my intentions are not meant to be purely selfish (all research is a bit selfish) and I never intended on judging entire communities on a whole. In regards to being "overlooked," I meant that in reference to Wikimedia Foundation being a United States based organization focusing more so on international efforts.

To be honest, your email was a slap in the face. Thank you again for sharing your thoughts, I take your letter very seriously.

-Sarah

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Maria Alameda m-alameda51@hotmail.comwrote:

Hello all I usually don't comment on mailing lists but a colleague of mine referred me here. I wanted to comment on the issues related to Native-american research raised earlier by Ms. Stierch. I found her outlook completely isolated from the realities. I would rather attribute her naivety to her limited view of the world as a fresh graduate. Personally, it reminds me of a somewhat racist outlook common among predominantly white-american graduates and students. While I agree there is a need for more research related to Native american culture, I really can't agree with the implication that Native american culture is as overlooked as some unknown tribe in New Guinea. I should be thankful for her enthusiasm but this is ridiculous. I'm happy for her residency at National museum of American Indian(s) and her thesis or even efforts to change certain policies on Wikipedia, but none of that is connected with the much-larger cultural and race issues she's referring to. While I wish her the best, I would hope she not use her thesis as an excuse to comment on the realities of those cultural issues. Oral citation is just one small aspect of a much larger culture she learnt in school. I might be too sensitive here, but if her comments were to be applied to african-american culture in the United States coming from a female white-undergraduate student pursuing her masters, her comments on the plight and the issues of an entire race would seem rather patronizing. Perhaps, its just me. Maria AlamedaM.A, Ph.d (Native American studies)

...

Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 19:26:16 +0530 From: whothith@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

Hi Sarah

I just love the narcissism in this email. I really want to comment but I don't want to be called a troll again......maybe later.

Much love

Elizabeth

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hi all -

I came across a lighter version of this conversation on another

Wikimedia

...

...

list, and felt the need to share my similar thoughts and statements

that I

...

...

made previously.

For the past year, I have been examining opportunities involving

Indigenous

...

...

communities of North America and opportunities to utilize Wikipedia and related websites as an affordable, unique and global form of cultural preservation. I have my undergraduate in Native American Studies, and I

am

...

...

obtaining my masters currently. My final paper (not quite a thesis) for graduation will be a strong examination of the opportunities related to Indigenous communities and opportunities/pros/cons related to

Wikipedia.

...

...

I'm actually presenting on my preliminary observations and concerns at Wikimania, you can learn a bit more here:

http://wikimania2011.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Wikimedia_%26_Indigenous...

...

...

In the United States, as far as I am aware, I am the only person

thinking

...

...

about this on a higher level. While right now I am quite busy with

other

...

...

matters, come this Fall I will be diving head first into my research. I will be serving as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Museum of the American Indian, where I will be working with staff to examine these concerns.

One

...

...

of our biggest concerns lies with *oral history*. We have had countless conversations about the struggles with "no original research" however,

in

...

...

oral history based societies, we will have a very hard time moving

beyond

...

...

anything else. As stated previously, the majority of content created related to Indigenous communities in North America was often written by (and

still

...

...

is) Anglo anthropologists - some of that data is highly out of date and

is

...

...

still being utilized on Wikipedia as a source today.

I am not certain what higher level you are referring to but I assure you, you are not the only one thinking about this in the entire country or the continent.

...

...

This project, Oral Citations, follows closely with the type of work I

am

...

...

seeking to do. I have been planning to examine Wikipedia (English at

first)

...

...

research policies and consider proposals or changes in relation to

serious

...

...

research and Indigenous communities. Of course, it all comes down to funding, and Native people of North American are often the first

overlooked

...

...

group - it will take a lot of work, years of effort, and a lot of buy

in

...

...

that is needed to be gathered from inside the community itself.

I'm babbling right now, but, this is a very passionate topic for me. I

see

...

...

Wikipedia as providing an affordable and unique way for Indigenous communities to not only learn valuable skills - many of the communities here in America are among the poorest in the world, you'd think you were in

a

...

...

developing country, and kids barely receive beyond an elementary school education - but to have a broad arena to share stories (that the

community

...

...

chooses to share of course), beliefs, cosmologies, and traditions so

that

...

...

they are accessible and *vetted* for researchers and community members around the world.

I do hope that some of you are attending Wikimania, I'd like to be able

to

...

...

have a break out session of sorts or an unconference to discuss this

topic

...

...

further. I'm hoping in the next year to have an international

conference of

...

...

sorts that brings together Indigenous people, open source gurus, and Wiki-folks to examine opportunities, processes, and belief systems in regards to opportunities.

Feel free to email me directly, again, right now I am unable to move quickly in any major projects due to my already big work load, but, I'm hoping

that

...

...

this will be large part of my career work as an advocate for Native

rights,

...

...

a scholar, and an open source-lover.

-Sarah [[w:en:User:SarahStierch]]

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 8:32 AM, CasteloBranco < michelcastelobranco@gmail.com> wrote:

...

And why does the people who speaks Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi need

to

...

...

...

write in English in order to have those oral citations published? English is not as universal as some people think. I guess we need to find an answer in their own language, so the solution won't be

another

...

...

...

barrier. Also, the escope of this project is much more important for

the

...

...

...

projects on these languages, and for speakers of these languages,

rather

...

...

...

than the English Wikipedia or its readers.

But that's just me.

Castelo

Em 26/07/2011 16:16, whothis escreveu:

...

Looks like an excellent waste of effort.

Maybe the problem of publishing non-publishable oral sources

occurred

...

...

to

...

...

someone on the team. Anyway the english wikipedia seems to be the appropriate place for your original research. I can't wait to read

all

...

...

...

about

...

it.

I still think a research project in emesis in the global south or

something

...

would have suited english wikipedia better but that's just me.

Your fan

Elizabeth

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Achal Prabhala<

aprabhala@gmail.com>

...

...

...

wrote:

...

...

Dear friends,

At the beginning of 2011, a group of us began working on a project

to

...

...

...

...

...

explore alternative methods of citation on Wikipedia. We were

motivated

...

...

...

by the lack of published resources in much of the

non-Anglo-European

...

...

...

...

...

world, and the very real difficulty of citing everyday aspects of

lived

...

...

...

reality in India and South Africa.

We are now at a stage where the project is almost complete, and

we'd

...

...

...

...

...

like to share our work with the broader movement, especially

within

...

...

...

...

...

India and South Africa.

There are three languages we worked within: Malayalam, Hindi and

Sepedi.

...

...

...

The project page documents the process and logistics employed, as

well

...

...

...

...

...

as the findings and results:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations

A film made on the project is available here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:People-are-Knowledge.ogv?withJS=Media...

...

...

...

...

...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:People-are-Knowledge.ogv or http://vimeo.com/26469276

There have been discussions on oral citations for some time now

within

...

...

...

...

...

the language communities we worked with for the duration of the

project.

...

...

...

At this stage, we are really interested in *your* feedback, either

on

...

...

...

...

...

this list, or on the Discussion section of the project page.

There are still some things to come, namely:

• Updates on events, meetings and discussions held around the

project

...

...

...

...

...

(as they happen)

• Updates on articles created in Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi as a

result

...

...

...

of the project (as they happen)

• English transcripts of the interviews and a full English

subtitle

...

...

...

track

...

...

for further translation (we could use some help here).

We would be very grateful to hear your feedback, and begin a

broader

...

...

...

...

...

discussion.

Best wishes, Achal

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:

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

...

...

...

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:

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

...

...

...

-- GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia Foundationhttp://www.glamwiki.org Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Arthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch and Sarah Stierch Consulting

*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*

http://www.sarahstierch.com/ _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-- Oops, my karma ran over your dogma. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Maria Alameda m-alameda51@hotmail.com wrote:

Hello all I usually don't comment on mailing lists but a colleague of mine referred me here. I wanted to comment on the issues related to Native-american research raised earlier by Ms. Stierch. I found her outlook completely isolated from the realities. I would rather attribute her naivety to her limited view of the world as a fresh graduate. Personally, it reminds me of a somewhat racist outlook common among predominantly white-american graduates and students. While I agree there is a need for more research related to Native american culture, I really can't agree with the implication that Native american culture is as overlooked as some unknown tribe in New Guinea. I should be thankful for her enthusiasm but this is ridiculous. I'm happy for her residency at National museum of American Indian(s) and her thesis or even efforts to change certain policies on Wikipedia, but none of that is connected with the much-larger cultural and race issues she's referring to. While I wish her the best, I would hope she not use her thesis as an excuse to comment on the realities of those cultural issues. Oral citation is just one small aspect of a much larger culture she learnt in school. I might be too sensitive here, but if her comments were to be applied to african-american culture in the United States coming from a female white-undergraduate student pursuing her masters, her comments on the plight and the issues of an entire race would seem rather patronizing. Perhaps, its just me. Maria AlamedaM.A, Ph.d (Native American studies)

This seems like an over-reaction to me. It doesn't seem horribly unlikely that Sarah is, if not alone, then among a very small group of academics studying the intersection of Native Americans and Wikimedia projects.

Were her descriptions of the challenges facing Native American communities inaccurate?

Are you aware of outreach efforts by the WMF aimed at Native Americans? (There are certainly many aimed at many other groups around the world; the seeming absence of focus on Native Americans would support Sarah's statement that they are "overlooked" in this regard).

Could you explain the specific errors she made that led you to call her e-mail racist, patronizing and naive? I think if you are going to use such strong words, then more substantial criticism is required than simply stating that she is female, young and white.

Nathan

Dear Ziko,

On Wednesday 27 July 2011 09:38 PM, Ziko van Dijk wrote:

Hello,

Today I found the time to read the messages about the "Oral Citations" project and watch the film "People are Knowledge". I hope that we can go on in this discussion without accusations about racism etc. In science, it is the quality of the findings that should matter, not the colour of the researcher's skin (may it be black, white, or green).

== Concerned == I must say that I am deeply concerned about the "Oral Citations". If someone wants to set up a new Wikimedia project for oral traditions or "oral history", I could live with that although I don't think that it fits into the scope of Wikimedia. It certainly does not fit into the scope of Wikipedia.

May I say, firstly, that this is an experiment - an experiment which those of us working on it, and others around us, thought might lead to interesting results. Secondly, may I also say that the project is not on "oral history" - it's on using oral sources as citations.

The film says that recorded "oral history" should be considered to be a reliable souce "when there are some accessible printed sources on a subjet, but the sources are incomplete or misleading by way of being outdated or biased". So, when someone believes that those "accessible printed sources" are "biased", he comes up with the video of his grand uncle telling the truth? == Problems of orality (of the human brain) == The film presents some carefully selected scholars supporting the film makers' opinion, but if you ask the huge majority of historians they will explain to you why they are so reluctant about "oral history".

Obviously, the scholars and intellectuals we talked to were selected. We don't pretend otherwise. I am personally not privy to what the "majority of historians" think. But on that note - this project was about using oral citations as sources, not about re-writing history. If you will please take a look at the subjects we covered through the course of this experiment, you will see that they are: recipes, religious ceremonies, traditional liquor and folk games. All of these things relate to everyday events that are practised by a large number of people and can be observed by anyone....

Take an example described by Johannes Fried, Memorik, p. 215: The Gonja in Northern Ghana told to British colonial officials that there once was the founder of their empire, Ndewura Japka. He had seven sons, each of them mentioned by name, and each of them administered one of the seven provinces of the Gonja empire.

Then the British reformed the administration, and only five provinces remained. Decennias later, when the British rule ended, scholars asked the people again about the history of Ndewura Japka. Now, the founder had only five sons. Those two sons, whose provinces were abolished by the British, were totally erased from memory, if British colonial records had not preseved their names.

....and none of the articles thus created are about rewriting the history of the last few centuries or undoing the work of the academy. We are simply interested in these subjects because they are part of the everyday life of millions of people like us, and because they haven't been recorded in print in a form that is useful to Wikipedia.

I myself have interviewed people who claimed that they did not write a peticular letter (which I found in the archives), that they met a person at a peticular convention (although the person did not participate at all) and so on. These people may not be liars, but memory is flexible and unstable. By nature, man is not created to be a historian, to preserve carefully information in his brain, but to deal with the actual world he lives in.

== The way of historiography ==

• Historians collect primary sources and try to create a sound and

coherent narrative based on them. Those primary sources are written records in archives, or already in printed or online editions, or interviews recorded.

• Then the historians publish their findings in secondary sources.
• Later, text-book and handbook authors read those secondary sources

and create their tertiary sources. Wikipedia is such a tertiary source.

It is not the task of Wikipedians or even readers to be confronted with the mass of primary sources and figure out a good synthesis. That is a work that must be let to scholars (in the largest sence) who have a good overview on the subject.

I don't think that anything in this project suggests otherwise. The system on Wikipedia (including a respect of traditionally published history) works. It doesn't work, however, for large parts of the world, and that is something you seem to agree with. Given the everyday aspects of life that we've run oral citation experiments with here, you might agree that the experts on recipes would be people who cook; that the experts on traditional liquor might be the women who make and drink it. So it isn't clear why "scholars" are necessarily the last word on all subjects of knowledge - currently, on Wikipedia, even we acknowledge various levels of expertise outside the academia, for instance, journalists.

Printed books may not be the answer in poor countries, but maybe e-publishing is, and there are certainly at least some places on the internet that are suitable for new primary and also secondary sources. Wikipedia cannot solve all problems in the world, and even Wikimedia cannot.

I'm simplifying your question here, but I think we must consider what is - to some extent - a fetish with form. If I turned all the audio interviews we recorded into "e-books" (in itself, simply a matter of transcribing them, putting them in a pdf file and uploading them somewhere on the www) - how would that alter the basis of the source?

Kind regards Ziko

Thank you - my response here is in the spirit of discussion, as we believe there is something useful to take away from this project.

Nathan, I think that Raul Gutierrez, Maria Alameda and "Elizabeth" are all the same person, somebody trolling the list. While we occasionally get single-issue new posters starting topics, it's rare to see them pop up in the middle of a topic just to attack one user. Something fishy is definitely going on here.

2011/7/27 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Maria Alameda m-alameda51@hotmail.com wrote:

...

Hello all I usually don't comment on mailing lists but a colleague of mine referred

me here. I wanted to comment on the issues related to Native-american research raised earlier by Ms. Stierch. I found her outlook completely isolated from the realities.

...

I would rather attribute her naivety to her limited view of the world as

a fresh graduate. Personally, it reminds me of a somewhat racist outlook common among predominantly white-american graduates and students. While I agree there is a need for more research related to Native american culture, I really can't agree with the implication that Native american culture is as overlooked as some unknown tribe in New Guinea.

...

I should be thankful for her enthusiasm but this is ridiculous. I'm happy

for her residency at National museum of American Indian(s) and her thesis or even efforts to change certain policies on Wikipedia, but none of that is connected with the much-larger cultural and race issues she's referring to. While I wish her the best, I would hope she not use her thesis as an excuse to comment on the realities of those cultural issues. Oral citation is just one small aspect of a much larger culture she learnt in school.

...

I might be too sensitive here, but if her comments were to be applied to

african-american culture in the United States coming from a female white-undergraduate student pursuing her masters, her comments on the plight and the issues of an entire race would seem rather patronizing. Perhaps, its just me.

...

Maria AlamedaM.A, Ph.d (Native American studies)

This seems like an over-reaction to me. It doesn't seem horribly unlikely that Sarah is, if not alone, then among a very small group of academics studying the intersection of Native Americans and Wikimedia projects.

Were her descriptions of the challenges facing Native American communities inaccurate?

Are you aware of outreach efforts by the WMF aimed at Native Americans? (There are certainly many aimed at many other groups around the world; the seeming absence of focus on Native Americans would support Sarah's statement that they are "overlooked" in this regard).

Could you explain the specific errors she made that led you to call her e-mail racist, patronizing and naive? I think if you are going to use such strong words, then more substantial criticism is required than simply stating that she is female, young and white.

Nathan

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Thank you Sarah. I knew I owed a public apology to other members of this list, but did not want to bring up my conduct again. I found that the discussion had since moved on and I could convey my feelings to Sarah privately. I would like to publicly apologize to other readers for my past comments. I do not edit Wikipedia. I have no idea about the context of discussions on this particular mailing list. An old student referred me to the email this morning, and I signed up instantly to this mailing list for only the purpose of replying to that email. I realized that my knee-jerk reaction at the time was out of place and a complete over-reaction to what was being discussed.  I have since then apologized to Sarah privately, and I do really hope she accepted it. I sincerely hope I didn't affect her enthusiasm and passion with my comments. My comments were clearly an over-sensitive reaction to the perceived content of the last email, I saw them out of context and I sincerely apologize for my conduct to everyone who read them. It has been a while since I have been called a troll, though I am old enough to probably be considered one. I don't feel I have anymore to contribute. There seems to be a much more active discussion here than what I was expecting. As such, this would be my last email to this mailing list, I will be unsubscribe after this email - Troll or not.  I wish everyone the best in their endeavors. I have nothing but good things to say about Wikipedia and what it is doing to change our world. Best wishes Maria Alameda

Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:40:49 -0400 From: sarah.stierch@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

Maria Alameda is not a troll. She apologized to me in a very sincere manner offlist. Culturally this is a very sensitive topic, and I have learned to deal with the criticism, weariness and lack of trust that people have towards the work I do based on my skin color and name. This is not the first time I have experienced sentiments like that, and I take each one very seriously. It's unfortunate, but, plenty of people have paved the way for folks like Maria to have the response she did. :-/

The other two..I'm not so sure.

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:34 PM, M. Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:

...

Nathan, I think that Raul Gutierrez, Maria Alameda and "Elizabeth" are all the same person, somebody trolling the list. While we occasionally get single-issue new posters starting topics, it's rare to see them pop up in the middle of a topic just to attack one user. Something fishy is definitely going on here.

2011/7/27 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com

...

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Maria Alameda <m-alameda51@hotmail.com

wrote:

...

Hello all I usually don't comment on mailing lists but a colleague of mine

referred

...

me here. I wanted to comment on the issues related to Native-american research raised earlier by Ms. Stierch. I found her outlook completely isolated from the realities.

...

I would rather attribute her naivety to her limited view of the world

as

...

a fresh graduate. Personally, it reminds me of a somewhat racist outlook common among predominantly white-american graduates and students. While I agree there is a need for more research related to Native american

culture,

...

I really can't agree with the implication that Native american culture is

as

...

overlooked as some unknown tribe in New Guinea.

...

I should be thankful for her enthusiasm but this is ridiculous. I'm

happy

...

for her residency at National museum of American Indian(s) and her thesis

or

...

even efforts to change certain policies on Wikipedia, but none of that is connected with the much-larger cultural and race issues she's referring

to.

...

While I wish her the best, I would hope she not use her thesis as an

excuse

...

to comment on the realities of those cultural issues. Oral citation is

just

...

one small aspect of a much larger culture she learnt in school.

...

I might be too sensitive here, but if her comments were to be applied

to

...

african-american culture in the United States coming from a female white-undergraduate student pursuing her masters, her comments on the

plight

...

and the issues of an entire race would seem rather patronizing. Perhaps,

its

...

just me.

...

Maria AlamedaM.A, Ph.d (Native American studies)

This seems like an over-reaction to me. It doesn't seem horribly unlikely that Sarah is, if not alone, then among a very small group of academics studying the intersection of Native Americans and Wikimedia projects.

Were her descriptions of the challenges facing Native American communities inaccurate?

Are you aware of outreach efforts by the WMF aimed at Native Americans? (There are certainly many aimed at many other groups around the world; the seeming absence of focus on Native Americans would support Sarah's statement that they are "overlooked" in this regard).

Could you explain the specific errors she made that led you to call her e-mail racist, patronizing and naive? I think if you are going to use such strong words, then more substantial criticism is required than simply stating that she is female, young and white.

Nathan

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-- GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia Foundationhttp://www.glamwiki.org Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Arthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch and Sarah Stierch Consulting

*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*

http://www.sarahstierch.com/ _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Regardless, Elizabeth/Anon/whothis is clearly trolling the list and being disruptive. I would like to request moderation of his/her comments.

Ryan Kaldari

On 7/27/11 2:45 PM, Nathan wrote:

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:34 PM, M. Williamsonnode.ue@gmail.com wrote:

...

Nathan, I think that Raul Gutierrez, Maria Alameda and "Elizabeth" are all the same person, somebody trolling the list. While we occasionally get single-issue new posters starting topics, it's rare to see them pop up in the middle of a topic just to attack one user. Something fishy is definitely going on here.

That would be interesting, but I think whothis is a somewhat regular poster (who uses the name Elizabeth Forrester and has been posting since September) and Raul Gutierrez is using a non-free e-mail account. Makes it unlikely that they are the same person.

~Nathan

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Unless you go by the name Elizabeth or whothis, I don't believe I mentioned you in my email. Apologies if there was any confusion. My request is specifically regarding the email address whothith@gmail.com, and no one else.

Ryan Kaldari

On 7/27/11 4:18 PM, Raul Gutierrez wrote:

Dear Ryan,

So I am not entitled to voice my opinion here!!!!

BTW, I am not attacking anyone, and I am not any of those other people, I would like to request moderation on your comments!

My W user name is GUMR51

Thank you for your consideration

Raul Gutierrez

-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Kaldari Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:52 PM To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

Regardless, Elizabeth/Anon/whothis is clearly trolling the list and being disruptive. I would like to request moderation of his/her comments.

Ryan Kaldari

On 7/27/11 2:45 PM, Nathan wrote:

...

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:34 PM, M. Williamsonnode.ue@gmail.com wrote:

...

Nathan, I think that Raul Gutierrez, Maria Alameda and "Elizabeth" are all the same person, somebody trolling the list. While we occasionally get single-issue new posters starting topics, it's rare to see them pop up in the middle of a topic just to attack one user. Something fishy is definitely going on here.

That would be interesting, but I think whothis is a somewhat regular poster (who uses the name Elizabeth Forrester and has been posting since September) and Raul Gutierrez is using a non-free e-mail account. Makes it unlikely that they are the same person.

~Nathan

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Yes, Elizabeth is clearly not a troll, her suggestion: "I still think a research project in emesis in the global south or something would have suited english wikipedia better but that's just me." was clearly entirely serious and meant to be taken seriously. On that note, I think I will go do a "research project" on emesis in the nearest restroom.

2011/7/27 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net

On 07/27/11 2:34 PM, M. Williamson wrote:

...

Nathan, I think that Raul Gutierrez, Maria Alameda and "Elizabeth" are

all

...

the same person, somebody trolling the list. While we occasionally get single-issue new posters starting topics, it's rare to see them pop up in the middle of a topic just to attack one user. Something fishy is

definitely

...

going on here.

Your failure to assume good faith is excruciatingly apparent.

Ray

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Ryan Kaldari wrote:

So if I post nothing but emails about "the cabal" and random insults to people trying to have legitimate discussions, it's cool as long as I end my emails with a serious sentence???

No, it's not okay. whothis's posts have been largely unacceptable and while I don't generally favor moderation, this is one case where I think it would have been appropriate.

whothis is a "bad hand" account of an otherwise upstanding user. I'm confident that this user now understands the consequences of such socking/trolling behavior and I don't imagine we'll hear from this account again.

(For the record, whothis is not connected to Maria or Raul. I hope both Maria and Raul continue to participate in this list, as I think they both offer interesting and insightful perspectives, but that's obviously their decision to make.)

MZMcBride

Ha, sorry I missed the joke! I had no idea what emesis referred to.

Ryan Kaldari

On 7/28/11 7:41 AM, M. Williamson wrote:

Ryan, perhaps you missed the intention of my e-mail. The sentence about "emesis" was also clearly not serious. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/emesis

2011/7/27 Ryan Kaldarirkaldari@wikimedia.org

...

So if I post nothing but emails about "the cabal" and random insults to people trying to have legitimate discussions, it's cool as long as I end my emails with a serious sentence???

Ryan Kaldari

On 7/27/11 4:53 PM, M. Williamson wrote:

...

Yes, Elizabeth is clearly not a troll, her suggestion: "I still think a research project in emesis in the global south or something would have suited english wikipedia better but that's just me." was clearly entirely serious and meant to be taken seriously. On that note, I think I will go

do

...

a "research project" on emesis in the nearest restroom.

2011/7/27 Ray Saintongesaintonge@telus.net

...

On 07/27/11 2:34 PM, M. Williamson wrote:

...

Nathan, I think that Raul Gutierrez, Maria Alameda and "Elizabeth" are

all

...

the same person, somebody trolling the list. While we occasionally get single-issue new posters starting topics, it's rare to see them pop up

in

...

...

...

the middle of a topic just to attack one user. Something fishy is

definitely

...

going on here.

Your failure to assume good faith is excruciatingly apparent.

Ray

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hallo, (responses inline)

On Wednesday 27 July 2011 11:36 PM, Wjhonson wrote:

You should not create your own videos and then publish them on Wikipedia. You should create videos or audio tracks of oral interviews, and then publish them.

We did not "create our own videos and then publish them on Wikipedia" (though it's not clear to me as to why that would be against the spirit of the movement :)).

What we did is to put out a film that captures the spirit of the research project.

And we did in fact only put out audio interviews as sources of citation, which are recorded in full. As you suggest we should, we did: i.e. the articles created out of the oral citations (posted near the bottom of the page) use the audio files as citations, as you can see here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Projects/Oral_Citations#Audio_Files....

(All of this is documented on the research page, btw).

Then allow others to add that material to Wikipedia where appropriate. That's my two cents.

Once again, the research page is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Projects/Oral_Citations

and a link to the film on the project is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:People-are-Knowledge.ogv

Thanks, Achal

-----Original Message----- From: Sarah Stierchsarah.stierch@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 6:06 am Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

Hi all - I came across a lighter version of this conversation on another Wikimedia ist, and felt the need to share my similar thoughts and statements that I ade previously. For the past year, I have been examining opportunities involving Indigenous ommunities of North America and opportunities to utilize Wikipedia and elated websites as an affordable, unique and global form of cultural reservation. I have my undergraduate in Native American Studies, and I am btaining my masters currently. My final paper (not quite a thesis) for raduation will be a strong examination of the opportunities related to ndigenous communities and opportunities/pros/cons related to Wikipedia. I'm ctually presenting on my preliminary observations and concerns at ikimania, you can learn a bit more here: http://wikimania2011.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Wikimedia_%26_Indigenous... In the United States, as far as I am aware, I am the only person thinking bout this on a higher level. While right now I am quite busy with other atters, come this Fall I will be diving head first into my research. I will e serving as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Museum of the American ndian, where I will be working with staff to examine these concerns. One f our biggest concerns lies with *oral history*. We have had countless onversations about the struggles with "no original research" however, in ral history based societies, we will have a very hard time moving beyond nything else. As stated previously, the majority of content created related o Indigenous communities in North America was often written by (and still s) Anglo anthropologists - some of that data is highly out of date and is till being utilized on Wikipedia as a source today. This project, Oral Citations, follows closely with the type of work I am eeking to do. I have been planning to examine Wikipedia (English at first) esearch policies and consider proposals or changes in relation to serious esearch and Indigenous communities. Of course, it all comes down to unding, and Native people of North American are often the first overlooked roup - it will take a lot of work, years of effort, and a lot of buy in hat is needed to be gathered from inside the community itself. I'm babbling right now, but, this is a very passionate topic for me. I see ikipedia as providing an affordable and unique way for Indigenous ommunities to not only learn valuable skills - many of the communities here n America are among the poorest in the world, you'd think you were in a eveloping country, and kids barely receive beyond an elementary school ducation - but to have a broad arena to share stories (that the community hooses to share of course), beliefs, cosmologies, and traditions so that hey are accessible and *vetted* for researchers and community members round the world. I do hope that some of you are attending Wikimania, I'd like to be able to ave a break out session of sorts or an unconference to discuss this topic urther. I'm hoping in the next year to have an international conference of orts that brings together Indigenous people, open source gurus, and iki-folks to examine opportunities, processes, and belief systems in egards to opportunities. Feel free to email me directly, again, right now I am unable to move quickly n any major projects due to my already big work load, but, I'm hoping that his will be large part of my career work as an advocate for Native rights, scholar, and an open source-lover. -Sarah [w:en:User:SarahStierch]] On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 8:32 AM, CasteloBranco< ichelcastelobranco@gmail.com> wrote:

...

And why does the people who speaks Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi need to

write in English in order to have those oral citations published? English is not as universal as some people think. I guess we need to find an answer in their own language, so the solution won't be another barrier. Also, the escope of this project is much more important for the projects on these languages, and for speakers of these languages, rather than the English Wikipedia or its readers.

But that's just me.

Castelo

Em 26/07/2011 16:16, whothis escreveu:

...

Looks like an excellent waste of effort.

Maybe the problem of publishing non-publishable oral sources occurred to someone on the team. Anyway the english wikipedia seems to be the appropriate place for your original research. I can't wait to read all

about

...

it.

I still think a research project in emesis in the global south or

something

...

would have suited english wikipedia better but that's just me.

Your fan

Elizabeth

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Achal Prabhalaaprabhala@gmail.com

wrote:

...

...

Dear friends,

At the beginning of 2011, a group of us began working on a project to explore alternative methods of citation on Wikipedia. We were motivated by the lack of published resources in much of the non-Anglo-European world, and the very real difficulty of citing everyday aspects of lived reality in India and South Africa.

We are now at a stage where the project is almost complete, and we'd like to share our work with the broader movement, especially within India and South Africa.

There are three languages we worked within: Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi.

The project page documents the process and logistics employed, as well as the findings and results:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations

A film made on the project is available here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:People-are-Knowledge.ogv?withJS=Media...

...

...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:People-are-Knowledge.ogv or http://vimeo.com/26469276

There have been discussions on oral citations for some time now within the language communities we worked with for the duration of the project. At this stage, we are really interested in *your* feedback, either on this list, or on the Discussion section of the project page.

There are still some things to come, namely:

• Updates on events, meetings and discussions held around the project

(as they happen)

• Updates on articles created in Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi as a result

of the project (as they happen)

• English transcripts of the interviews and a full English subtitle

track

...

...

for further translation (we could use some help here).

We would be very grateful to hear your feedback, and begin a broader discussion.

Best wishes, Achal

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Thanks Ray! I actually met with developers from RRN and a few First Nations advocacy groups (regarding cultural preservation) - RRN is really amazing, and I look forward to exploring how opportunities can open from it. We will talk more in Haifa!

(I lived in Van for a year, give my best to Commercial Drive ;-))

-Sarah

Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! :)

On Jul 29, 2011, at 6:08 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:

From the perspective of Wikimedia Canada, this sounds exciting. Many of us believe that work with the First Nations is an important element in Wikimedia Canada's tasks. I look forward to meeting you in Haifa. Thanks for providing the RRN link; since I am in the Greater Vancouver District they should be more accessible to me.

Ray

On 07/27/11 6:06 AM, Sarah Stierch wrote:

...

Hi all -

I came across a lighter version of this conversation on another Wikimedia list, and felt the need to share my similar thoughts and statements that I made previously.

For the past year, I have been examining opportunities involving Indigenous communities of North America and opportunities to utilize Wikipedia and related websites as an affordable, unique and global form of cultural preservation. I have my undergraduate in Native American Studies, and I am obtaining my masters currently. My final paper (not quite a thesis) for graduation will be a strong examination of the opportunities related to Indigenous communities and opportunities/pros/cons related to Wikipedia. I'm actually presenting on my preliminary observations and concerns at Wikimania, you can learn a bit more here:

http://wikimania2011.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Wikimedia_%26_Indigenous...

In the United States, as far as I am aware, I am the only person thinking about this on a higher level. While right now I am quite busy with other matters, come this Fall I will be diving head first into my research. I will be serving as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Museum of the American Indian, where I will be working with staff to examine these concerns. One of our biggest concerns lies with *oral history*. We have had countless conversations about the struggles with "no original research" however, in oral history based societies, we will have a very hard time moving beyond anything else. As stated previously, the majority of content created related to Indigenous communities in North America was often written by (and still is) Anglo anthropologists - some of that data is highly out of date and is still being utilized on Wikipedia as a source today.

This project, Oral Citations, follows closely with the type of work I am seeking to do. I have been planning to examine Wikipedia (English at first) research policies and consider proposals or changes in relation to serious research and Indigenous communities. Of course, it all comes down to funding, and Native people of North American are often the first overlooked group - it will take a lot of work, years of effort, and a lot of buy in that is needed to be gathered from inside the community itself.

I'm babbling right now, but, this is a very passionate topic for me. I see Wikipedia as providing an affordable and unique way for Indigenous communities to not only learn valuable skills - many of the communities here in America are among the poorest in the world, you'd think you were in a developing country, and kids barely receive beyond an elementary school education - but to have a broad arena to share stories (that the community chooses to share of course), beliefs, cosmologies, and traditions so that they are accessible and *vetted* for researchers and community members around the world.

I do hope that some of you are attending Wikimania, I'd like to be able to have a break out session of sorts or an unconference to discuss this topic further. I'm hoping in the next year to have an international conference of sorts that brings together Indigenous people, open source gurus, and Wiki-folks to examine opportunities, processes, and belief systems in regards to opportunities.

Feel free to email me directly, again, right now I am unable to move quickly in any major projects due to my already big work load, but, I'm hoping that this will be large part of my career work as an advocate for Native rights, a scholar, and an open source-lover.

-Sarah

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I partially disagree. Certainly it is very important from the perspective of providing material about the native countries of those languages.

I don't partially, I completely disagree. While these communities might not be English based, and many of the members don't even speak English, we wall want to see every single Wikipedia, regardless of language, grow and flourish with information from cultures universal.

I have often found better articles in German (where "German Indianer" books are some of the best selling books of all time and entire festivals are based around Native American Plains culture) about Indigenous North American communities than in English. Cross-language is a necessity in this global age. And sharing content with other language based Wikis can also help to update resources, break stereotypes about cultures and encourage respect in regards those communities. It also allows people to understand that there are "others" out there. It takes away from the centric-aspects of some language Wikipedias, something that people often accuse English Wikipedia of doing.

Information is the language of Wikipedia as a whole, and we must learn how to make the utmost use of that language in order to continue our mission to disseminate knowledge on a worldwide scale.

-Sarah