Observations of the death of a king or a president or of Martin Luther King are primary
sources, but rather solid. Conceptual material, no so much.
Fred
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Southwood <peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net>
To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 01:49:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and have similar
problems. You will have to clarify:
In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and verifiable?
Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary sources
produced by the subject?
Cheers,
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Paulo
Santos Perneta
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are primary
sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original sources, as
in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second
should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they
generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this confusion in
Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the
articles.
Paulo
2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron <cameron(a)cameron11598.net>et>:
Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral
histories and traditions
come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am with an
encyclopedia using such sources.
Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I use
primary sources quite often for papers, and projects however those are
generally frowned upon for Wikipedia; mainly because Wikipedia is an
encyclopedia not an academic journal. Good encyclopedias are typically
sourced from secondary sources, and ocassionaly tertiary sources.
Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and
traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion. My
personal thought on this issue is keeping our current verifiability and
notability requirements is a good idea. In some areas I think we include
far too much (fan cruft anyone?).
- Cameron C.
Cameron11598
---- On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:34:15 -0700 peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net
wrote ----
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
Cheers,
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing
sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we consider
sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not
written.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide
open sign for spammers
and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved
invitation.
If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be
made
at the source (literally) level. Just like rather
than "disputing" a
reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask
them
to correct, and then once they do we'll
update the article accordingly
based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what
sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or
whatever else have you types of information. If our references are
flawed,
the solution lies in getting them to correct what
they're doing, not
"correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do
not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
Todd
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net> wrote:
> When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
wanting
to use it
for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change.
Cheers,
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On
Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started
Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
without
any authority to double check before it is
published? It is doomed to
fail.
> Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not
to
remove
notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those
requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
knowledge. I
> think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready
to
do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the
beginning of Wikipedia
when
we opened editing to anybody.
JP
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood <
peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net> wrote:
> One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of
> notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability
> requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
things
> > that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
evidence,
> and
> > where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
intangible,
> the
> > authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track
> > record and proof of identity.
> > This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it
as
>
possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
reliable
> > source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying
the
> > credibility we have.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On
>
Behalf Of Gnangarra
> Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
language
> has this issue when it comes to sharing
knowledge. These culture
manage
> > successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
> styles
> > were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue is
how
> do
> > we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect
them,
> how
do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
not
> the only.
>
> There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current
> systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
from
> > books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and
value
>
alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
is
> do
> > we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum
of
> all
> > knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
knowledge
>
networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
>
> Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
but
rather
the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative
knowledge streams
On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart <etestart(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
member
> > of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though:
> >
https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.
> > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
> >
> > There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
> movement
> > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
> personally
> > do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
> impressions.
> >
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood <
> > peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net>
> > escribió:
> >
> > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
produce
> > > > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints
opens
> the
> > > > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
> open
> > to
> > > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
alternatives.
> > Other
> > > > projects may work around this problem, but would then probably
not
be
> > > open
> > > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way?
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org]
> On
> > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01
> > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > >
> > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
canon
of
> > > > knowledge, the corpus of
generally accepted knowledge."
> > > >
> > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of
"knowledge" as
> > Wikipedia
> > > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
> saying
> > > that
> > > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
> > enough,
> > > > when different cultures use different ways to build their canon
of
> >
> knowledge.
> > >
> > > JP
> > > User:Amqui
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: Jane Darnell <jane023(a)gmail.com>
> > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
<wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT)
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > > >
> > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly,
> > > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will
never
be
> > able
> > > > to correct it."
> > > >
> > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
of
> > > > knowledge, the corpus of
generally accepted knowledge.
> > > >
> > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
Wikipedia
> > > will
> > > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
> bias
> > > > issues
> > > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than
full
> > correction
> > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
> > >
> > > Fred
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
> >
_______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> >
http://www.avg.com
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > GN.
> > Noongarpedia:
https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> > WMAU:
http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > Photo Gallery:
http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
> > Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.
> > Order
> > here
> > <
> >
https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
> reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
> > >
> > .
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: