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

Thu Aug 1 23:53:15 UTC 2013

Rui,

as others are trying to tell you in this thread, I do not consider the
manner you are raising this topic to be helpful or constructive, and I
don't think that your continued defense of your approach will help or get
us anywhere.

Whereas anecdotal war stories as the one you describe can be either
interesting or boring, it does not provide sufficient evidence to act. On
the other hand, there is a growing body of research work that is trying to
understand the topic of diversity and POV in Wikipedia. Telling me that I
am refusing to see that "elephant in the room" is kind of amusing,
considering that I have co-written the proposal for and have been working
on the EU-funded research project "Render - Reflecting Knowledge Diversity"
[1], where Wikimedia is a project partner. And there are many, many others
doing research on the topic as well. All of the things you describe --
analysis of revert-patterns, approaches towards measuring POV, etc. are
being done. Maybe you want to read the papers about this and look through
the findings.

Also, diversity is a major topic at the work at the German Wikimedia
chapter, where I am employed, and it has been a major driver in the
creation of the data model underlying Wikidata, where we are working hard
on creating a truly diversity-enabling knowledge base -- something, that is
rather unique in its scope and ambition.

So, yes, I am shooting down your message. I find it as useful as telling a
smoker to quit smoking because fire is bad, as evidenced in London 1666.
There is no need to be sensationalist and counter-factual in order to get
your point across. So, why not restart the whole thread with an Email where
you make suggestions on how to improve the situation, or provide new
evidence and data that can inform the conversation further, or where you
ask for existing research on the topic to inform yourself, or ask for
initiatives where you can help in order to increase Wikipedia's diversity,
and join us in doing something constructive?

Regards,
Denny

[1] http://www.render-project.eu

2013/8/1 Rui Correia <correia.rui at gmail.com>

> Denny
>
> If you going to shoot me down as a troll, then I can say only that you are
> one of those that refuse to see the elephant in the room. I am a journalist
> (and a journalism trainer), I know that if I want others to read what I
> have to say I need to come up a headline that will attract attention, while
> at the same time abiding by age-old ethic standards - and I have done so.
>
> Who controls what is said has become a big problem on the English and to a
> degree the Portuguese WPs. Be fair to yourself, step back and just look at
> some articles to see how many times a day they get reverted. The rot has
> become endemic - there are so many people who do nothing but revert the
> whole day without EVER contributing anything. Yes, I know that a lot of the
> reverting is to undo the work of vandals with nothing better to do, but
> most of it is done to preserve the view thae a specific article has
> 'acquired' through time.
>
> Can you honesty tell me that you have not come across articles that are
> 'untouchable'? That you know they convey a view that is not entirely right,
> but YOU and I cannot change it? Can you tell me that you have not come
> across editors who are hell-bent on preserving this or that article just as
> it is?
>
> Rui
>
> On 1 August 2013 22:40, Denny Vrandečić <denny.vrandecic at wikimedia.de
> >wrote:
>
> > Rui,
> >
> > if your basic assumption is that Wikipedia will never be a real
> > encyclopedia because of the lack of diversity among its contributors, I
> > would like to know of any other encyclopedia that is anywhere close to
> the
> > diversity among its contributors that Wikipedia has (just a side-note,
> the
> > original Encyclopédie had an even worse bias towards aristocratic, male
> > French than Wikipedias does, as surprising as it sounds). So, which
> > Encyclopedia do you consider a real encyclopedia at all?
> >
> > Also, never mind the fact that we already sport such a diversity -- we
> are
> > actively aiming and striving for even more diversity, and we are not
> > comparing us to the usually abysmal record of other encyclopedias, but
> > merely to our own high, maybe even unreachable ideals.
> >
> > So, whereas I fully agree that there is a lot about Wikipedia that can be
> > improved, I am not sure that a mail that starts with the statement "Why
> the
> > Wikipedia will never be a real encyclopedia" deserves even the
> > consideration that I offered you here, and is to be considered anything
> > beyond trolling.
> >
> > All the best,
> > Denny
> >
> >
> >
> > 2013/8/1 Rui Correia <correia.rui at gmail.com>
> >
> > > Dear Colleagues at the Foundation
> > >
> > > I just came across an artecle called "White Africans of European
> > ancestry".
> > > What is that even supposed to mean?  Who would be any other "white
> > people"
> > > if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a
> > > definition of "white people" could these be? Especially as it already
> > says
> > > on the talk page that Arabs don't count.
> > >
> > >
> > > When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about
> > 'white
> > > people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, then
> we
> > > can't call the WP an encyclopaedia. But them the rules do say -
> > somewhere -
> > > that "just because ...". And those "just because" rules are all over
> the
> > > place - you can't use what was done in one case to justify another
> > similar
> > > case because someone is bound to throw a "just because" rule at you.
> But
> > > the "just because ..." rule applies only when it is convenient - the
> > > corollary of the "just because .." is "I know more rules and tricks
> than
> > > you and I will win this/ I will not allow you to have your way even if
> I
> > > have to break all the rules and make new ones as I go along".
> > >
> > > So, "just because" there isn't an artice about "Khoi people living in
> > > Denmark" is no reason to not have an article about "White Europens of
> > > Europen descent livng in Patagonia" or "White Europens of Europen
> descent
> > > livng in Timbaktu". We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the
> > digital
> > > divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans
> do.
> > > That is not an encyclopaedia.
> > >
> > > Why don't we have a page on "Black Americans of African ancestry"?
> > > Or "Black Europeans of African ancestry"? Strangely enough, type "Black
> > > African" and you get redirected to Black people, BUT the redirect
> > actually
> > > takes you all the way down to Africa - yes, the article on Black people
> > > does not start with Africa, but with the United States, then Brazil
> ....
> > >
> > > Like I said, When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable
> > article
> > > about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi
> > > people, ...
> > >
> > > The same goes for the so-called "Biographies of Living People". I had
> my
> > > first clash on WP on the issue of the "dual nationality" of Nelly
> > Furtado.
> > > Two hundred million people see her as Portuguese, three - yes, 3 -
> > editors
> > > disagree and BRAG they will NEVER ALLOW it. The rationale changes, as
> can
> > > be seen from the talk pages and archives. They go as far as
> 'challenging'
> > > editors that NF sees herself as Portuguese, to then dismiss all the
> > > evidence as not good enough - even Nelly HERSELF saying she is
> PORTUGESE
> > > was thrown out! Why? Obvious! She doesn't count, she is not a NEUTRAL
> > > source!!!!!!!!!!! We have become a joke!
> > >
> > > How about being constructive?
> > >
> > > If we can come up with every conceivable script in the world, why has
> > > nobody come up with a script for controversial articles that would
> appear
> > > on the the edit page - like the script that says the article is
> > protected -
> > > ALERTING unsuspecting editors to the fact that said article is
> > cotroversial
> > > for xand y reason, and that if the edit the editor is about to do falls
> > > under that theme, to please first read the talk page, with a direct
> link
> > > ALSO to an explanation on BLP and the issue of ethnic background/
> present
> > > nationality. It would save lots of wasted time and effort and the three
> > > editors who spend sleepless nights reverting the artcile might actually
> > do
> > > something constructive for a change.
> > >
> > > In closing, of the nine people featured in photos on that page, I know
> > > (have met 5) and correspond with 2 - I can guarantee that all five of
> > them
> > > (and most likley all 9 [or the descendents of those no longer with us])
> > > would object to being featured in such a racist article.
> > >
> > > I will write to them about this. I know that each one is not a valid
> > source
> > > about him/ herself and therefore them objecting will probably not
> count.
> > > Just as an side, in case you didn't know, the census in Brazil is done
> on
> > > the basis of how people see themselves - white, back, green, pink - and
> > > then we carry those figures here in the WP. Ah, sorry, those figures
> are
> > > credible, because they come from the CIA fact book, people speaking for
> > > themselves are not.
> > >
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Rui
> > > --
> > > Rui Correia
> > > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > _________________________
> > > 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>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Project director Wikidata
> > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
> > Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de
> >
> > Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
> > Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
> unter
> > der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> > Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
>

-- 
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.