[Wikimedia Brasil] people are knowledge
Carolina Rossini
crossini em wikimedia.org
Terça Agosto 9 21:27:54 UTC 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/business/media/a-push-to-redefine-knowledge-at-wikipedia.html?scp=1&sq=wikimania&st=cse
LINK BY LINKWhen Knowledge Isn’t Written, Does It Still Count?By NOAM
COHEN<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/noam_cohen/index.html?inline=nyt-per>Published:
August 7, 2011
- RECOMMEND
- TWITTER
- SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
- PRINT<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/business/media/a-push-to-redefine-knowledge-at-wikipedia.html?sq=wikimania&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=print>
- REPRINTS<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/business/media/a-push-to-redefine-knowledge-at-wikipedia.html?scp=1&sq=wikimania&st=cse#>
- SHARE<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/business/media/a-push-to-redefine-knowledge-at-wikipedia.html?scp=1&sq=wikimania&st=cse#>
<http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/business/media&pos=Frame4A&sn2=66350d29/867aca44&sn1=ea650d0d/22525d0a&camp=foxsearch2011_emailtools_1629904c_nyt5&ad=MMMM_120x60&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Fmarthamarcymaymarlene%2F>
HAIFA, Israel
“MAKING fun of Wikipedia<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/wikipedia/index.html?inline=nyt-org>
is so 2007,” a French journalist said recently to Sue Gardner, the
executive director of the foundation that runs the Wikipedia project.
And so Ms. Gardner, in turn, told an auditorium full of Wikipedia
contributors and supporters on Thursday in Haifa, Israel, the host city for
the seventh annual Wikimania conference, where meetings and presentations
focus on the world’s most used, and perhaps least understood, online
reference work.
Once routinely questioned about its reliability — what do you mean, anyone
can edit it? — the site is now used every month by upwards of 400 million
people worldwide. But with influence and respect come responsibility, and
lately Wikipedia has been criticized from without and
within<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html>
for reflecting a Western, male-dominated mindset similar to the perspective
behind the encyclopedias it has replaced.
Seeing Wikipedia as The Man, in so many words, is so 2011.
And that’s a problem for an encyclopedia that wants to grow. Some critics of
Wikipedia believe that the whole Western tradition of footnotes and sourced
articles needs to be rethought if Wikipedia is going to continue to gather
converts beyond its current borders. And that, in turn, invites an entirely
new debate about what constitutes knowledge in different parts of the world
and how a Western institution like Wikipedia can capitalize on it.
Achal Prabhala, an adviser to Ms. Gardner’s Wikimedia Foundation who lives
and writes in Bangalore, India, has made perhaps the most trenchant
criticism in a video project, “People are
Knowledge<http://vimeo.com/26469276>,”
that he presented in Haifa (along with its clunky subtitle, “Exploring
alternative methods of citation for Wikipedia”).
The film, which was made largely with a $20,000 grant from the Wikimedia
Foundation, spends time showing what has been lost to Wikipedia because of
stickling rules of citation and verification. If Wikipedia purports to
collect the “sum of all human knowledge,” in the words of one of its
founders, Jimmy Wales, that, by definition, means more than printed
knowledge, Mr. Prabhala said.
In the case of dabba kali, a children’s game played in the Kerala state of
India, there was a Wikipedia article in the local language, Malayalam, that
included photos, a drawing and a detailed description of the rules, but no
sources to back up what was written. Other than, of course, the 40 million
people who played it as children.
There is no doubt, he said, that the article would have been deleted from
English Wikipedia if it didn’t have any sources to cite. Those are the rules
of the game, and those are the rules he would like to change, or at least
bend, or, if all else fails, work around.
“There is this desire to grow Wikipedia in parts of the world,” he said,
adding that “if we don’t have a more generous and expansive citation policy,
the current one will prove to be a massive roadblock that you literally
can’t get past. There is a very finite amount of citable material, which
means a very finite number of articles, and there will be no more.”
Mr. Prabhala, 38, who grew up in India and then attended American
universities, has been an activist on issues of intellectual property,
starting with the efforts in South Africa to free up drugs that treat H.I.V.
In the film, he gives other examples of subjects — an alcohol produced in a
village, Ga-Sabotlane, in Limpopo, South Africa, and a popular
hopscotch-type children’s game, tshere-tshere — beyond print documentation
and therefore beyond Wikipedia’s true-and-tried method.
There are whole cultures, he said, that have little to no printed material
to cite as proof about the way life is lived.
“Publishing is a system of power and I mean that in a completely pleasant,
accepting sense,” he said mischievously. “But it leaves out people.”
But Mr. Prabhala offers a solution: he and the video’s directors, Priya Sen
and Zen Marie, spoke with people in African and Indian villages either in
person or over the phone and had them describe basic activities. These
recordings were then uploaded and linked to the article as sources, and
suddenly an article that seems like it could be a personal riff looks a bit
more academic.
For example, in his interview with a South African
villager<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Mogkope_Interview2.ogg>
who explained how to make the alcoholic drink, morula, she repeatedly says
that it is best if she demonstrates the process. When the fruit is ready,
said the villager, Philipine Moremi, according to the project’s transcript
of her phone conversation, “we pry them open. We are going to show you how
it is done. Once they are peeled, we seal them to ferment and then we
drink.” The idea of treating personal testimony as a source for Wikipedia is
still controversial, and reflects the concerns that dominated the
encyclopedia project six years ago, when arguably its very existence was
threatened.
After a series of hoaxes, culminating in a Wikipedia article in 2005 that
maligned the newspaper editor John Seigenthaler for no discernible reason
other than because a Wikipedia contributor could, the site tried to ensure
that every statement could be traced to a source.
Then there is the rule “no original research,” which was meant to say that
Wikipedia doesn’t care if you are writing about the subway station you visit
every day, find someone who has written reliably on the color of the walls
there.
“The natural thing is getting more and more accurate, locking down articles,
raising the bar on sources,” said Andrew Lih, an associate professor of
journalism at the University of Southern California, who was an early
contributor to Wikipedia and has written a history of its rise. “Isn’t it
great we have so many texts online?”
But what works for the most developed societies, he said, won’t necessarily
work for others. “Lots of knowledge is not Googleable,” he said, “and is not
in a digital form.”
Mr. Lih said that he could see the Wikipedia project suddenly becoming
energized by the process of documenting cultural practices around the world,
or down the street.
Perhaps Mr. Prabhala’s most challenging argument is that by being
text-focused, and being locked into the Encyclopedia Britannica model,
Wikipedia risks being behind the times.
An 18-year-old is comfortable using “objects of trust that have been created
on the Internet,” he said, and “Wikipedia isn’t taking advantage of that.”
And, he added, “it is quite possible that for the 18-year-old of today that
Wikipedia looks like his father’s project. Or the kind of thing his father
might be interested in.”
Ouch.
--
*Carolina Rossini*
Brazil Catalyst Project
*Wikimedia Foundation*
+1 415 839 6885 x6747
crossini em wikimedia.org <carolrossiniatwiki em gmail.com>
-------------- Próxima Parte ----------
Um anexo em HTML foi limpo...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/attachments/20110809/c7a6f898/attachment-0001.htm
Mais detalhes sobre a lista de discussão WikimediaBR-l