And they say we, Poles, have a dry sense of humour. Let me guess Milos, you are on purpouse mixing up two definitions of the "White Sea" (Бело море / Belo More) in Serbian. :P
Coming back to the question of Yaroslav: this issue comes up regularily and I find it perfectly valid.
Two years ago in Milan we had a quite heated discussion on this topic. The problem is that "the global south" is a yet another widespread and well-intended but inherently lame euphemism for "poor countries" also known as "the third world", a.k.a. "developing countries" a.k.a. something different whatever comes handy. Unfortunately, euphemisms bring big problems on their own.
One huge problem with this division is its heroic simplicity, mixing up economic differences with social and cultural issues and splitting the world into white and black, no grey.
Second thing is its mix of geography with socioeconomic issues which leads to confusions, even in classification by e.g. ITU.
Third thing is: it is arbitrary as no firm metric or threshold is given. Contrary to the claim, the Wikimedia list is *not* solely based on ITU list and UN list (what can be actually better, because according to ITU and UN M49 Bosnia and Hercegovina is "North", when Hongkong, Macau and South Korea are.. South!).
Certainly, everything can be managable when you remember about the questionable definitions and build your strategies upon a more refined thinking. It would be _bad_ if this tag was used as a "support more / less" flag and financial decisions on particular projects and people were heavily based upon this underexplained and arbitrary list.
// Side note: even in case of Wikimania 2015 I am aware of at least one example of a "global northerner" refused a visa to Mexico, which is allegedly in the Global South.
Personally, I would drop this "global south / north" thinking altogether and in financial decisions move to some more refined analysis, taking into account multiple benchmarks like personal income (which is often distributed far less equal in the developing world).
In the global perspective, I would be happy if the Board considered an official change of the strategy to some more detailed perspective, openly communicating which cultural and socioeconomic areas they find particularly interesting and what are their plans to each of them. E.g.: "why do we think the Arab world is important and how do we want to build a thriving community sharing our basic values there?") However whatever approach will be taken, if would be great if this topic is even better communicated (I know many people try already, kudos to Theo10011 and others for https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_South ) and discussed.
Otherwise people will keep on asking why UAE or Kuwait people are considered "poor" while Kosovars are labeled "rich".
Best Regards, michał buczyński
Dnia 11 czerwca 2015 22:14 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com napisał(a):
I think the reason is more than obvious: Belarus is south of Moldova and
Ukraine is in between, so it went south. As Russia is basically on the east
of all of three countries, it's logical to put it among the northern countries.Not that I object the general reasoning, but Belarus is north of
Moldova (Ukraine is either way).
Besides it's not nice to write spoilers on the public list, I would remind you that according to the 6th century
naming rules, every White Sea has to be south of every Black Sea. As Moldova is closer to the Black Sea than
Belarus, Belarus is closer to the White Sea, it's logical that Belarus is on the south of Moldova.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Michał Buczyński sandbox@o2.pl wrote:
It would be _bad_ if this tag was used as a "support more / less" flag and financial decisions on particular projects and people were heavily based upon this underexplained and arbitrary list.
Well...
Based on the applicant's home country, each applicant will be categorized as either a Global North or Global South applicant, with the total number of scholarships distributed between the Global North and Global South being set at 25% and 75% respectively. https://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships
I agree with everything Michał said. It's a very flawed distinction, and it is often misleading. We at WMF have certainly been paying much closer attention to contexts at the level of countries and regions than to the binary divide.
Conceivably, some time investment could result in a better and more defensible distinction (for example, it would probably not be binary, and it would probably be tied less tightly to socioeconomics, and take into account the actual state of the editing community in a country). It has so far not been deemed enough of a priority to ever be done.
A.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Michał Buczyński sandbox@o2.pl wrote:
And they say we, Poles, have a dry sense of humour. Let me guess Milos, you are on purpouse mixing up two definitions of the "White Sea" (Бело море / Belo More) in Serbian. :P
Coming back to the question of Yaroslav: this issue comes up regularily and I find it perfectly valid.
Two years ago in Milan we had a quite heated discussion on this topic. The problem is that "the global south" is a yet another widespread and well-intended but inherently lame euphemism for "poor countries" also known as "the third world", a.k.a. "developing countries" a.k.a. something different whatever comes handy. Unfortunately, euphemisms bring big problems on their own.
One huge problem with this division is its heroic simplicity, mixing up economic differences with social and cultural issues and splitting the world into white and black, no grey.
Second thing is its mix of geography with socioeconomic issues which leads to confusions, even in classification by e.g. ITU.
Third thing is: it is arbitrary as no firm metric or threshold is given. Contrary to the claim, the Wikimedia list is *not* solely based on ITU list and UN list (what can be actually better, because according to ITU and UN M49 Bosnia and Hercegovina is "North", when Hongkong, Macau and South Korea are.. South!).
Certainly, everything can be managable when you remember about the questionable definitions and build your strategies upon a more refined thinking. It would be _bad_ if this tag was used as a "support more / less" flag and financial decisions on particular projects and people were heavily based upon this underexplained and arbitrary list.
// Side note: even in case of Wikimania 2015 I am aware of at least one example of a "global northerner" refused a visa to Mexico, which is allegedly in the Global South.
Personally, I would drop this "global south / north" thinking altogether and in financial decisions move to some more refined analysis, taking into account multiple benchmarks like personal income (which is often distributed far less equal in the developing world).
In the global perspective, I would be happy if the Board considered an official change of the strategy to some more detailed perspective, openly communicating which cultural and socioeconomic areas they find particularly interesting and what are their plans to each of them. E.g.: "why do we think the Arab world is important and how do we want to build a thriving community sharing our basic values there?") However whatever approach will be taken, if would be great if this topic is even better communicated (I know many people try already, kudos to Theo10011 and others for https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_South ) and discussed.
Otherwise people will keep on asking why UAE or Kuwait people are considered "poor" while Kosovars are labeled "rich".
Best Regards, michał buczyński
Dnia 11 czerwca 2015 22:14 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com napisał(a):
I think the reason is more than obvious: Belarus is south of Moldova and
Ukraine is in between, so it went south. As Russia is basically on the east
of all of three countries, it's logical to put it among the northern countries.Not that I object the general reasoning, but Belarus is
north of
Moldova (Ukraine is either way).
Besides it's not nice to write spoilers on the public list, I would remind you that according to the 6th century
naming rules, every White Sea has to be south of every Black Sea. As Moldova is closer to the Black Sea than
Belarus, Belarus is closer to the White Sea, it's logical that Belarus is on the south of Moldova.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I recently discovered an article on the subject from Norwegian sociocultural anthropologist Thomas Hylland Eriksen that might be of interest here.[1][2] (As a full disclosure about how I came upon it, it was mentioned in the "Around the Web Digest" of my favorite anthro blog, Savage Minds.[3] :)
It explores briefly the history of such terms and how they tend to reduce the diversity of world communities to black and white according to the enculturated values of those in internationally powerful positions—those at the moment being highly nationalistic and neoliberal.
"The post-Cold War world is not mainly divided into societies that follow different political ideologies such as socialism or liberalism, but by degrees of benefits in a globalized neoliberal capitalist economy. [...] The Global South and the Global North represent an updated perspective on the post-1991 world, which distinguishes not between political systems or degrees of poverty, but between the victims and the benefactors of global capitalism." [2]
"[...] what is needed are more fine-grained instruments to gauge the quality of life and the economic circumstances of a community, since most of the world's population live mainly in communities and not in states." [2]
I would love to see us seek terminology that is more reflective of knowledge accessibility and cultural representation than of global economics but, as Amir mentioned, I find those at WMF to already operate with such mindfulness and distinction.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hylland_Eriksen [2] http://gssc.uni-koeln.de/node/454 [3] http://savageminds.org/2015/05/09/around-the-web-digest-week-of-may-3/
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
I agree with everything Michał said. It's a very flawed distinction, and it is often misleading. We at WMF have certainly been paying much closer attention to contexts at the level of countries and regions than to the binary divide.
Conceivably, some time investment could result in a better and more defensible distinction (for example, it would probably not be binary, and it would probably be tied less tightly to socioeconomics, and take into account the actual state of the editing community in a country). It has so far not been deemed enough of a priority to ever be done.
A.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Michał Buczyński sandbox@o2.pl wrote:
And they say we, Poles, have a dry sense of humour. Let me guess Milos,
you
are on purpouse mixing up two definitions of the "White Sea" (Бело море / Belo More) in Serbian. :P
Coming back to the question of Yaroslav: this issue comes up regularily
and
I find it perfectly valid.
Two years ago in Milan we had a quite heated discussion on this topic.
The
problem is that "the global south" is a yet another widespread and well-intended but inherently lame euphemism for "poor countries" also
known
as "the third world", a.k.a. "developing countries" a.k.a. something different whatever comes handy. Unfortunately, euphemisms bring big problems on their own.
One huge problem with this division is its heroic simplicity, mixing up economic differences with social and cultural issues and splitting the world into white and black, no grey.
Second thing is its mix of geography with socioeconomic issues which
leads
to confusions, even in classification by e.g. ITU.
Third thing is: it is arbitrary as no firm metric or threshold is given. Contrary to the claim, the Wikimedia list is *not* solely based on ITU
list
and UN list (what can be actually better, because according to ITU and UN M49 Bosnia and Hercegovina is "North", when Hongkong, Macau and South
Korea
are.. South!).
Certainly, everything can be managable when you remember about the questionable definitions and build your strategies upon a more refined thinking. It would be _bad_ if this tag was used as a "support more /
less"
flag and financial decisions on particular projects and people were
heavily
based upon this underexplained and arbitrary list.
// Side note: even in case of Wikimania 2015 I am aware of at least one example of a "global northerner" refused a visa to Mexico, which is allegedly in the Global South.
Personally, I would drop this "global south / north" thinking altogether and in financial decisions move to some more refined analysis, taking
into
account multiple benchmarks like personal income (which is often distributed far less equal in the developing world).
In the global perspective, I would be happy if the Board considered an official change of the strategy to some more detailed perspective, openly communicating which cultural and socioeconomic areas they find
particularly
interesting and what are their plans to each of them. E.g.: "why do we think the Arab world is important and how do we want to build a thriving community sharing our basic values there?") However whatever approach will be taken, if would be great if this topic
is
even better communicated (I know many people try already, kudos to Theo10011 and others for https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_South ) and discussed.
Otherwise people will keep on asking why UAE or Kuwait people are considered "poor" while Kosovars are labeled "rich".
Best Regards, michał buczyński
Dnia 11 czerwca 2015 22:14 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com napisał(a):
I think the reason is more than obvious: Belarus is south of
Moldova
and
Ukraine is in between, so it went south. As Russia is basically on the east
of all of three countries, it's logical to put it among the
northern
countries.Not that I object the general reasoning, but Belarus is
north of
Moldova (Ukraine is either way).
Besides it's not nice to write spoilers on the public list, I would remind you that according to the 6th century
naming rules, every White Sea has to be south of every Black Sea. As Moldova is closer to the Black Sea than
Belarus, Belarus is closer to the White Sea, it's logical that Belarus
is
on the south of Moldova.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org