Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

12 May 2018

      It's reliable concerning the opinions and vision of the author on the
things he describes, not the facts themselves.
And unless I'm misunderstanding this, fact checkers (critics?) are actually
secondary sources, I believe?
Paulo
2018-05-12 13:48 GMT+01:00 FRED BAUDER fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
...
Autobiographical writing published by the mainstream press with editors
and fact checkers is more reliable.
Fred
----- Original Message -----
From: Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:44:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
There is a difference between the two situations. The king's deed and the
parish books are primary sources, but both are official documents, subject
to peer review. Diaries and autobiographies are primary sources as well,
but generally not subjected to any review. There should be some way to
distinguish between the two types.
Paulo
2018-05-12 13:40 GMT+01:00 FRED BAUDER fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
...
And should be used, just as an image of a headstone can be used, in
preference to some writing about it. Exceptions, don't prove the rule
though. A diary should not be used directly, and an autobiography with
great care, depending on how it was edited and published.
Fred
----- Original Message -----
From: Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:27:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and
reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more
reliable
...
than any secondary sources quoting it.
As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much
sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should
be
...
used instead of a primary source in those situations.
Paulo
2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net
:
...
...
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@cameron11598.net:
...
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@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@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@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@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@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@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@fairpoint.net>
...
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com
> > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@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@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@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@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@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,

...
...
...
> 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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems