Dear all,
It appears that my persistent questioning of the decisions to delete pages related to some networks doing significant work, but which might not be sufficiently visible in cyberspace (or the English-dominated sections of it) seems to have led someone to decide to delete a page referring to me at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Noronha !
The grounds given are "borderline notability". Not that this matters....
It's amusing to see oneself being shifted from being a "notable Wikipedian" to "borderline notability" over a short period of time. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Noronha&diff=1245900...
I would still maintain that those deleting pages need to act with responsibility. Besides, the success of Wikipedia (as the 11th most-visited site in the world, according to alexa.com) should not lead to arrogance or unhelpfulness that discourages those attempting to get heard in cyberspace (mostly with legitimate entries in the Wikipedia, but maybe finding it difficult to cope with the one-size-fits-all criteria that is prescribed, of notability, proper referencing etc.... ).
In one particular example, a page was sought to be deleted (and links removed) because of a strange mix of reasons. From arguments that it had "only" 200+ members in its network, to other points of view that it lacked sufficient references, or was more suited to an official website rather than for Wikipedia. If this was so, would it not help if the page could be improved, rather than deleted. (As one editor once told me, good naturedly, "If I want to give you a reason to block your article, I could give you any one of 31 good reasons for it." Yeah, reasons are easy to come by, once someone's mind is made up.)
Needless to say, I would not bother to make a case for the retention of a page focussing on me. It would be a relief, in fact, if the page went off!
Take a look at its history:
The page was started on 19:07, 4 August 2005 by Nichalp. It was subsequently edited by others.
When I came across it, I realised that my name had initially been spelt wrong. Besides, there were inaccuracies in my description (there is a difference, surely, in being " actively involved in the Indian Free Software Foundation" and writing about it... I am definitely not "a known (sic) for his articles on Christianity" (admittedly am fairly curious about happenings there, though I don't subscribe to the religion I was born in) ... by that time, I had virtually stopped writing (but subsequently resumed, on another theme) for the Indo-Asian News Service in New Delhi... In addition, I'm not "founder" of BytesForAll, as mentioned, but a co-founder.
A number of the websites and blogs mentioned were either outdated or non-functional, and there were new ones not noticed.
After waiting awhile, I realised nobody would probably make these corrections, and did so under my own name.... which is actually not supposed to be the Wikipedia is to work. That was in late Jan-early Feb 2006 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Noronha&action=histo... )
So, what's the point I'm making?
* Rather than handle the message, someone here seems to be intent on shooting the messenger! The speedy deletions of pages of organisations whose work is widely noticed and is certainly relevant to the Third World (or the so-called "developing world") is unfair.
* There should be good reason for deletion of any page (this should not be taken to mean that I'm making even an indirect case for my page... I have no problem if it's deleted), and those exercising the decision should preferably be aware of the subject-matter, and its relevance, even if in niche areas.
* Special care needs to be taken about groups working in non-English languages and those on the so-called "periphery" (i.e. not in the "big cities that matter" or the bigger nations that have so many of their denizens active in cyberspace). Many such groups might not be visible enough in cyberspace, but that hardly means their work is not relevant!
* How will Wikipedia balance its speedy growth in popularity, against the tendency to flood it with irrelevant posts, and also be fair to those who deserve to be on it without unnecessary deletions?
* At the end of the day, I believe an "alternate modelled" encyclopedia also needs to be alternate enough to take a wider view of our world. Wikipedia need not be -- indeed, should not be -- constrained by the top-down hierarchical restricted vision of traditional encyclopedias. Or else, it will come to be dismissed as an initiative that is alternative in its organising structure, but not in its vision.
Lastly, may I add that I will continue to be a supporter of the Wikipedia, and seek help for those with a record of adding to this experiment to continue doing so, rather than getting caught up in page-deletion battles.
Regards,
Frederick "FN" Noronha Goa, India.
Hi,
I have removed the proposed-for-deletion tag -- I guess it is a borderline case (and as an inclusionist, I think that shouldn't stop that page being in Wikipedia), but I also think this should be something that is discussed by the community and not decided via drive-by-tagging.
Regards,
Till
Frederick Noronha schrieb am 25.04.2007 21:44:
Dear all,
It appears that my persistent questioning of the decisions to delete pages related to some networks doing significant work, but which might not be sufficiently visible in cyberspace (or the English-dominated sections of it) seems to have led someone to decide to delete a page referring to me at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Noronha !
The grounds given are "borderline notability". Not that this matters....
It's amusing to see oneself being shifted from being a "notable Wikipedian" to "borderline notability" over a short period of time. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Noronha&diff=1245900...
I would still maintain that those deleting pages need to act with responsibility. Besides, the success of Wikipedia (as the 11th most-visited site in the world, according to alexa.com) should not lead to arrogance or unhelpfulness that discourages those attempting to get heard in cyberspace (mostly with legitimate entries in the Wikipedia, but maybe finding it difficult to cope with the one-size-fits-all criteria that is prescribed, of notability, proper referencing etc.... ).
In one particular example, a page was sought to be deleted (and links removed) because of a strange mix of reasons. From arguments that it had "only" 200+ members in its network, to other points of view that it lacked sufficient references, or was more suited to an official website rather than for Wikipedia. If this was so, would it not help if the page could be improved, rather than deleted. (As one editor once told me, good naturedly, "If I want to give you a reason to block your article, I could give you any one of 31 good reasons for it." Yeah, reasons are easy to come by, once someone's mind is made up.)
Needless to say, I would not bother to make a case for the retention of a page focussing on me. It would be a relief, in fact, if the page went off!
Take a look at its history:
The page was started on 19:07, 4 August 2005 by Nichalp. It was subsequently edited by others.
When I came across it, I realised that my name had initially been spelt wrong. Besides, there were inaccuracies in my description (there is a difference, surely, in being " actively involved in the Indian Free Software Foundation" and writing about it... I am definitely not "a known (sic) for his articles on Christianity" (admittedly am fairly curious about happenings there, though I don't subscribe to the religion I was born in) ... by that time, I had virtually stopped writing (but subsequently resumed, on another theme) for the Indo-Asian News Service in New Delhi... In addition, I'm not "founder" of BytesForAll, as mentioned, but a co-founder.
A number of the websites and blogs mentioned were either outdated or non-functional, and there were new ones not noticed.
After waiting awhile, I realised nobody would probably make these corrections, and did so under my own name.... which is actually not supposed to be the Wikipedia is to work. That was in late Jan-early Feb 2006 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Noronha&action=histo... )
So, what's the point I'm making?
- Rather than handle the message, someone here seems to be intent on
shooting the messenger! The speedy deletions of pages of organisations whose work is widely noticed and is certainly relevant to the Third World (or the so-called "developing world") is unfair.
- There should be good reason for deletion of any page (this should
not be taken to mean that I'm making even an indirect case for my page... I have no problem if it's deleted), and those exercising the decision should preferably be aware of the subject-matter, and its relevance, even if in niche areas.
- Special care needs to be taken about groups working in non-English
languages and those on the so-called "periphery" (i.e. not in the "big cities that matter" or the bigger nations that have so many of their denizens active in cyberspace). Many such groups might not be visible enough in cyberspace, but that hardly means their work is not relevant!
- How will Wikipedia balance its speedy growth in popularity, against
the tendency to flood it with irrelevant posts, and also be fair to those who deserve to be on it without unnecessary deletions?
- At the end of the day, I believe an "alternate modelled"
encyclopedia also needs to be alternate enough to take a wider view of our world. Wikipedia need not be -- indeed, should not be -- constrained by the top-down hierarchical restricted vision of traditional encyclopedias. Or else, it will come to be dismissed as an initiative that is alternative in its organising structure, but not in its vision.
Lastly, may I add that I will continue to be a supporter of the Wikipedia, and seek help for those with a record of adding to this experiment to continue doing so, rather than getting caught up in page-deletion battles.
Regards,
Frederick "FN" Noronha Goa, India.
On Apr 25, 2007, at 2:56 PM, Till Westermayer wrote:
Hi, I have removed the proposed-for-deletion tag -- I guess it is a borderline case
Borderline? Hm... It's WP:COI, the only published "sources" are not only self generated (WP:SPS), they're also blogs loaded with viagra SPAM and forum sites... this is the very reason *why* we have so many guidelines on en, lest folks think that they can just throw up some content and therefore deserve their own wikipedia entry. AfD'ing this and any siblings.
Frederick Noronha schrieb am 25.04.2007 21:44:
Dear all, It appears that my persistent questioning of the decisions to delete pages related to some networks doing significant work, but which might not be sufficiently visible in cyberspace (or the English-dominated sections of it) seems to have led someone to decide to delete a page referring to me at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Noronha ! The grounds given are "borderline notability". Not that this matters.... It's amusing to see oneself being shifted from being a "notable Wikipedian" to "borderline notability" over a short period of time. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Frederick_Noronha&diff=124590095&oldid=23812169
Notable wikipedian does not mean notable to the world. http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BIO#Articles_on_Wikipedians
I would still maintain that those deleting pages need to act with responsibility. Besides, the success of Wikipedia (as the 11th most-visited site in the world, according to alexa.com) should not lead to arrogance or unhelpfulness that discourages those attempting to get heard in cyberspace
Write a blog? WIkipedia is not a place to *establish* notability, it's a place to document things once notability is established. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#SOAP
(As one editor once told me, good naturedly, "If I want to give you a reason to block your article, I could give you any one of 31 good reasons for it." Yeah, reasons are easy to come by, once someone's mind is made up.)
Experienced editors may already be quite familiar with the criteria. So far, I've counted: VAIN/COI, CORP/ORG, SPS, V. It might or might not be SNOW, I'll leave that to others to decide. :)
- ..The speedy deletions of pages of organisations
whose work is widely noticed and is certainly relevant to the Third World (or the so-called "developing world") is unfair.
If it's widely noticed, it will be documented, and thus pass WP:V
- There should be good reason for deletion of any page (this should
not be taken to mean that I'm making even an indirect case for my page.
AfD requires reasons, and consensus.
- Many such groups might not be visible
enough in cyberspace, but that hardly means their work is not relevant!
...If it's widely noticed, it will be documented, and thus pass WP:V... Same answer to all your other questions. You are about to see how the process works. :)
-Bop
Hi all: Please don't discuss me or the page referring to me on Wikipedia. I have no delusions of grandeur, didn't initiate the page myself (just felt the need to correct the info which was incorrect on it, after waiting awhile and seeing nothing change!), and don't claim to be of any level of notability.
Instead, may I request that the page be deleted, so that this discussion takes on less of a personal I'm-protectiing-my-interest kind of tone.
On 26/04/07, Ronald Chmara ron@opus1.com wrote:
On Apr 25, 2007, at 2:56 PM, Till Westermayer wrote:
Hi, I have removed the proposed-for-deletion tag -- I guess it is a borderline case
Borderline? Hm... It's WP:COI, the only published "sources" are not only self generated (WP:SPS), they're also blogs loaded with viagra SPAM and forum sites... this is the very reason *why* we have so many guidelines on en, lest folks think that they can just throw up some content and therefore deserve their own wikipedia entry. AfD'ing this and any siblings.
What I am really concerned about is the manner in which entries -- which really deserve to be included on the Wikipedia (even if needing a rewrite and better sourcing) -- get tagged for speedy deletion. And I'm concerned about the decisions being taken obviously by people who (sorry to be blunt) lack familiarity of the field and probably see it as Latin and Greek, if not Sanskrit and Khmer! My interests lie in the field of ICT-for-D (information and communication technology for development) and the alternative media:
In particular, I refer to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OURMedia/NUESTROSMedios [Even links to it deleted. Reasons given: only 200+ members; not adequately sourced; non notability; etc, etc]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rishab_A._Ghosh He's one of the most prominent persons in the ICT-for-D debate of Indian origin (and also known for his contribution at studying European issues). He was the guy who is credited with having first used the term FLOSS (Free/Libre and Open Source Software), and has undertaken prominent studies at the European level. Recently, he also edited a book 'Code: Collaborative Ownership and the Digital Commons' Rishab Aiyer Ghosh-ed MIT-published (ISBN 0-262-07260-2). So is he non-notable for Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vikalp Vikalp, a serious movement against film-censorship in India, linking a few hundred film-makers, almost gets deleted. Again: "non-notability"!
Didn't have the time or energy to save another deserving case! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_History_of_South_Asia_mail...
The founder of the most influential cyber not-for-profit operation from Goa, a former Portuguese colony on the west coast of India, is a similar victim. Non-notability! And he started what grew into Goa's most influential mailing-list (current readership 8-10,000+ daily) when he was a 17-year-old! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herman_Carneiro&action=edit
Groups in Latin America doing interesting work in the field of ICT4D get questioned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITeM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESLARED Fortunately, just salvaged on time after similar protests! But I can't spend my life just in verbal skirmishes with certainly don't win friends (and sometimes, don't even influence people!)
A friend of mine, who's active in global campaigns on ICT4D, couldn't believe that Ungana Afrika could be threatened by a 'non-notability' tag. But when will our Western friends recognise that the work one does isn't always reflected in cyberspace... in large parts of the globe, there's a total disjunct between the two. And that's what shorthand like the 'digital divide' is all about in the first place! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ungana-Afrika
Another page deleted. Who cares about Free Software and Open Source in the world's most populous planet (even if we have a network of 130+ groups in India alone)? LUGs, FSUGs, GLUGs in India and Asia http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LUGs%2C_FSUGs%2C_GLUGs_in_India_an...
And another one bites the dust: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gobala_Krishnan&action=edit
And finally, what triggered it all off: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OURMedia/NUESTROSMedios
Okay guys, I rest my case. --FN
If it's widely noticed, it will be documented, and thus pass WP:V
PS: Are you so sure? Most of the cultures of this planet are still not even documented, let alone digitised. And, in a Western-defined world, what you're saying is if you aren't digitised, you don't exist! Well... some fundamental differences in perception here.
On Apr 25, 2007, at 11:00 PM, Frederick Noronha wrote:
Hi all: Please don't discuss me or the page referring to me on Wikipedia. I have no delusions of grandeur, didn't initiate the page myself (just felt the need to correct the info which was incorrect on it, after waiting awhile and seeing nothing change!), and don't claim to be of any level of notability.
When AfD'ing it, and notifying editors, I ran into your User:Talk page... looks like a cattle {{prod}} zapped it. Ow.
Instead, may I request that the page be deleted...
You can do just that on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ Frederick_Noronha
... so that this discussion takes on less of a personal I'm-protectiing-my-interest kind of tone.
Okay. :)
What I am really concerned about is the manner in which entries -- which really deserve to be included on the Wikipedia (even if needing a rewrite and better sourcing) -- get tagged for speedy deletion.
I've had a few of those, some admins are pretty quick with the triggers, but our tiered deletion process is designed to sort out the possible problems, to a certain extent...
In particular, I refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OURMedia/NUESTROSMedios [Even links to it deleted. Reasons given: only 200+ members; not adequately sourced; non notability; etc, etc]
Those are standard reasons, with the core problem being sourcing, indicating a lack of notability and verifiability. Verifiability is the primary tool we have to keep people from inventing fictitious entities, or listing their chess club (that has 50 online members, and nothing other than their 100 blogs claiming various things), or an individual writing "THE TRUTH ABOUT MY UFO ABDUCTION" and then posting it to hundreds (or thousands) of websites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rishab_A._Ghosh So is he non-notable for Wikipedia?
73K ghits, member of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Open_Source_Initiative (Passes WP:ORG), but it's a stub that needs more assertions of notability on why he would be, oh..... considered important, as an individual?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vikalp http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Natural_History_of_South_Asia_mailing_list&action=edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herman_Carneiro&action=edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITeM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESLARED http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LUGs%2C_FSUGs% 2C_GLUGs_in_India_and_Asia&action=edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gobala_Krishnan&action=edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OURMedia/NUESTROSMedios
Some of the recurring themes I'm seeing so far, actually, viewed from *my* perspective, are articles about topics (and with text inside the articles about topics) that (to me) are completely *unimportant* in terms of notability.
Managing/having a mailing list is not notable, managing a website is not notable, managing a journal is not notable, nor is being a journalist, nor being a frequent F/OSS contributor, nor starting a regional, national, or international group, to *me*, and let me emphasize the next point quite heavily: "Because all of these things, right now, are done by almost every bored teenager or adult in *highly developed countries* with the slightest of inclinations to do so."
And this, I think, might be where some bias is kicking in.
Some examples: In the developing world, running your own nonprofit ISP might be a major thing, in the United States, I can count at least five personal friends who did so *as a way of passing time*. Sure, taking time away from making a living to work on F/OSS project is very significant, and notable, when one is having to cut down on their food budget to do so, but in the US, it can be "something to do" besides sitting on the couch and watching TV.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BIAS
Okay guys, I rest my case. --FN
If it's widely noticed, it will be documented, and thus pass WP:V
PS: Are you so sure? Most of the cultures of this planet are still not even documented, let alone digitised.
My older brother is a geographic anthropologist. I know that there's a major, ongoing, effort to take the information from cultures that lack written documentation and capture it. I also do know that it is a race against time. Responding directly to your point, though, if "widely" means 600 people of the culture of a hill tribe in some non- developed country, wikipedia likely will not have it, and nor will the rest of the world, unless it is published in a reliable source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS) first.
And, in a Western-defined world, what you're saying is if you aren't digitised, you don't exist! Well... some fundamental differences in perception here.
No, I'm saying that unless the story is told to the others, it cannot be heard by the others. Digitizing makes it easier for things like testing ghits, be we also have articles that one *must* find paper copies of some prior text in order to verify the data.
:)
-Bop
On 26/04/07, Ronald Chmara ron@opus1.com wrote:
Managing/having a mailing list is not notable, managing a website is not notable, managing a journal is not notable, nor is being a journalist, nor being a frequent F/OSS contributor, nor starting a ...
I'm not talking about just about any kid managing a mailing list, but rather the guy who started this (and which today plays a significant role in a media-poor society): http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-news-goanet.org/2003-August/000276....
Why would, for instance, Jimmy Wales' work at a global scale be considered perfectly legitimate (and, of course, it is) but not Herman Carneiro's at a Goa level? How does your above grid fit this comparison? Or, do we accept hierarchies of importance, which are very much defined by the same old traditional concepts that have been dominating encyclopaedias over the centuries (and which the Wikipedia is an alternative to in the first place)?
Yet, Herman Carneiro is considered "non-notable" by Wikipedia's standards!
And who has the energy to fight every single deletion decision?
It's just very discouraging to be a contributor to the Wikipedia these days.... you tend to feel untrusted, with every attempt at volunteering seen as suspect! Okay, growth and fame (of the Wikipedia) comes at a price... so are we being victims of our own (Wikipedia's) success?
Those making the decisions also need to realise that there's no such thing as a "global standard". It's not fair to take a standard from NY and apply it to Goa, India (population 1.3 million, a rustic society till forty years ago!)
It's hard, if not impossible, for us guys to cope with your standards. I've been a professional journalist for 23 years, and yet giving references to my work (in the format Wikipedia expects) doesn't come naturally to me, as it would, say, to some professional librarian or research scholar in the University of Technology, Sydney, for instance!
Just out of curiosity, I wonder how many who decide on deletions grew up in rustic societies in the global South. And I don't mean Australia or New Zealand :-) or appreciate the realities from those parts of the planet... FN/Frederick Noronha.
Hoi!
Why would, for instance, Jimmy Wales' work at a global scale be considered perfectly legitimate (and, of course, it is) but not Herman Carneiro's at a Goa level? How does your above grid fit this comparison? Or, do we accept hierarchies of importance, which are very much defined by the same old traditional concepts that have been dominating encyclopaedias over the centuries (and which the Wikipedia is an alternative to in the first place)?
I don't think any serious old paper-based encyclopedia would have considered serious to publish articles about its own authors, founders, etc. (that applies to Jimbo, too). In those times technology was living much longer then today and you would have expected a person to be (at least) dead before someone made them a monument or an article on an encyclopedia.
The same applies to articles that in a traditional encyclopedia would be better suited for the "news" section than for the "politics/history" section. One of the criteria I remember being taught about history it's that it's impossible to judge a process from within. So you should wait until an historical phase is over before you write about it as an historian. You are welcome to write about it as a journalist and/or an activist, but that's something not everyone will define as encyclopedic.
It's all very nice, but then it means nothing can be written about IT... so probably nowadays encyclopedias need another set of time delimiters. I would not expect such a change to happen without conflicts, though. So what you are experiencing is IMHO absolutely natural. When boundaries get moved you need a war to define their new look.
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
Two or three short remarks:
Ronald Chmara schrieb am 26.04.2007 07:22:
On Apr 25, 2007, at 2:56 PM, Till Westermayer wrote:
Hi, I have removed the proposed-for-deletion tag -- I guess it is a borderline case
Borderline? Hm... It's WP:COI, the only published "sources" are not only self generated (WP:SPS), they're also blogs loaded with viagra SPAM and forum sites... this is the very reason *why* we have so many guidelines on en, lest folks think that they can just throw up some content and therefore deserve their own wikipedia entry. AfD'ing this and any siblings.
About "throwing up content" -- I guess this overestimates Wikipedias notability: most often there is some content, and the Wikipedia entry follows later. That people do it the other way round (or produce content only to get an Wikipedia entry) is highly improbable and definitly not the case with FN.
(As one editor once told me, good naturedly, "If I want to give you a reason to block your article, I could give you any one of 31 good reasons for it." Yeah, reasons are easy to come by, once someone's mind is made up.)
Experienced editors may already be quite familiar with the criteria. So far, I've counted: VAIN/COI, CORP/ORG, SPS, V. It might or might not be SNOW, I'll leave that to others to decide. :)
Argh. "Real life" got me a year ago or so, which lead to a drastical lowering of my Wikipedia-activity. In that short time, somehow lots of acronyms creep out somewhere -- most of them I don't recognize.
- There should be good reason for deletion of any page (this should
not be taken to mean that I'm making even an indirect case for my page.
AfD requires reasons, and consensus.
That's the reason why I deleted the notice (and thus enabled that someone -- you -- brings it to AfD). I don't think the AfD-process works well in all cases, but we will see. And at least I don't think I can judge if an Indian FOSS journalist is notable or not -- my intuition is a sort of notability (not because FN is active here, but I think the structual bias he describes is there).
One Way to help:
One good way that groups (and individuals) in the third world (and anywhere else) can help wikipedia retain and add to the articles on their work is to state explicitly on their web sites that the pages are licensed GFDL (or just public domain). At least the text, and if possible the images. Very often this is the main source for an article, and article are often deleted for contain too much copied text. Many pages and especially images in Europe and elsewhere are licensed for nonprofit use only, and this does not meet the requirements of en WP.
There is of course the mechanism to request permission, but it is usual for organizations and webmasters not to react fast enough.
Many of the eds. at WP can & will quickly take such information and adapt and reduce it to a good article--it takes much longer to rewrite from scratch. I personally try to rewrite one such article a week, but if I could use blocks of web text and photos when appropriate I could do two or three.
On 4/25/07, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org wrote:
Dear all,
...
The speedy deletions of pages of organisations whose work is widely noticed and is certainly relevant to the Third World (or the so-called "developing world") is unfair.
...
Special care needs to be taken about groups working in non-English languages and those on the so-called "periphery" (i.e. not in the "big cities that matter" or the bigger nations that have so many of their denizens active in cyberspace). Many such groups might not be visible enough in cyberspace, but that hardly means their work is not relevant!
...
Frederick "FN" Noronha Goa, India.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. DGG
Prohibition of semi-free media leads to systemic bias.
The American government releases lots of stuff into the public domain. Governments of other countries don't.
The free software movement is also American. Free media is hard to find in other countries.
2007/4/26, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com:
One Way to help:
One good way that groups (and individuals) in the third world (and anywhere else) can help wikipedia retain and add to the articles on their work is to state explicitly on their web sites that the pages are licensed GFDL (or just public domain). At least the text, and if possible the images. Very often this is the main source for an article, and article are often deleted for contain too much copied text. Many pages and especially images in Europe and elsewhere are licensed for nonprofit use only, and this does not meet the requirements of en WP.
There is of course the mechanism to request permission, but it is usual for organizations and webmasters not to react fast enough.
Many of the eds. at WP can & will quickly take such information and adapt and reduce it to a good article--it takes much longer to rewrite from scratch. I personally try to rewrite one such article a week, but if I could use blocks of web text and photos when appropriate I could do two or three.
On 4/25/07, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org wrote:
Dear all,
...
The speedy deletions of pages of organisations whose work is widely noticed and is certainly relevant to the Third World (or the so-called "developing world") is unfair.
...
Special care needs to be taken about groups working in non-English languages and those on the so-called "periphery" (i.e. not in the "big cities that matter" or the bigger nations that have so many of their denizens active in cyberspace). Many such groups might not be visible enough in cyberspace, but that hardly means their work is not relevant!
...
Frederick "FN" Noronha Goa, India.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. DGG
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org