[Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

[Oona Castro]

I rarely jump in controversial topics here in Wikimedia-l, but I've decided
to share my 2 cents today.

I sign up for what Laura Hale said on facts & data based support for such a
claim, but would like just to add a question:
* what does a "real encyclopedia" look like?

While I do see Rui Correia's points on diversity (of content, perspectives
and editors), and while I do agree that's important to call attention to
what could be a (even if unintentional) biased frame to whole set of
subjects, I do not see how this valuable concern and criticism might take
us to the assumption that it's not a "real encyclopedia". At least in
Wikipedia we (I mean anyone) can fight for more diverse approaches on that.

Perhaps changing the framework of such criticism (how can we pursue less
intentional or unintentional biased perspectives in WP?) might lead us to a
more interesting conversation, with more potential to succeed in terms of
real change.

Oona




On 1 August 2013 18:38, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:

> Let me pose a set of questions -
>
> 1; Do you feel this is systemic bias in people not wanting some articles?
>
> 2; and/or, do you feel this is systemic bias in people not having yet
> reached creating some articles?
>
> 3; and/or,!do you feel this is systemic bias in lack of depth of coverage
> in accessible reliable sources of some article topics?
>
> If more than one of the above, what do you feel the relative weights of
> cause are for that aspect of systemic bias?
>
>
> George William Herbert
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 1, 2013, at 2:29 PM, Rui Correia <correia.rui at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > David
> >
> > I am glad to see to see that so far everybody agrees with me, just nobody
> > can see the forest for the trees and most prefer to demonstrate how
> > offended they feel at my pointing out how naked the emperor is.
> >
> > So, whereas I write "complete rubbish", what do you do to fight "systemic
> > bias [which] is a serious problem"?
> >
> > Rui
> >
> > On 1 August 2013 23:23, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 1 August 2013 22:19, Rui Correia <correia.rui at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> So you mostly agree with m, but prefer to come out knee-jerking first
> and
> >>> only after that showing that you somehow agree.
> >>
> >>
> >> No, he's saying you're full of it, because you are. Under your
> >> definition, there has never been an encyclopedia in human history.
> >> This is not a useful definition.
> >>
> >> Systemic bias is a serious problem, but writing complete rubbish isn't
> >> going to solve it.
> >>
> >>
> >> - d.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > _________________________
> > Rui Correia
> > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
> > Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
> >
> > Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
> > Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
> > _______________
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>