Pois é, é exatamente esse o ponto atual da discussão: criar uma forma de legitimar as entrevistas a ponto de que elas sejam consideradas fontes fiáveis. E um dos pontos (não o único) é saber se as gravações são verdadeiras. Em uma sugestão meio brainstorming, sugeri a partir das políticas atuais (ou seja, sem ter que criar ou modificar nenhuma política atual) o uso do Wikinews para as entrevistas, usando a política da reportagem original. Conteúdo original é atualmente proibido na Wikipedia, mas não no Wikinews. Seguiria aquela linha do trabalho que você vem fazendo aqui no Planalto. Além disso, podia-se utilizar o conceito de proofreading, como fazemos no Wikisource, em que um outro editor confere se a transcrição corresponde à gravação original, carregada lá no Commons. Se isso não for o bastante, tem a política de credenciamento, pela qual somente editores já experientes, com notícias publicadas e avaliadas pela comunidade, poderiam ter esse caráter de reportagem original como fonte fiável. O Achal, que é um pesquisador experiente, foi contratado para fazer as tais entrevistas, e esse papel seria feito pelo tal repórter credenciado.
Estão achando que eu estou querendo dar "enganar" a [[:w:pt:WP:NPI|Nada de pesquisa inédita]], mas francamente estava apenas pensando de maneira geral, sem me restringir à Wikipedia. O problema é suportar conteúdo não publicado, e enciclopédia não é o que vem à minha cabeça para essa finalidade. Tive a oportunidade de ver o vídeo, de assistir à apresentação do Achal e trocar umas ideias com ele. E mantenho minha opinião. Acho que o mais apropriado é publicar o áudio no Commons, com a transcrição no Wikinews, adotar todas as providências necessárias para tornar a entrevista fiável e então usá-la como fonte para a Wikipedia. Se a Folha faz a mesma entrevista e publica (vejam só: sem alterar o conteúdo, trazendo apenas a transcrição da entrevista - fonte primária), nós aceitamos como fonte. Por que com o Wikinews não pode? E também não defendo que todo o conteúdo do Wikinews sirva, mas apenas aquele que cumprir todas as exigências atuais (WP:FF, WP:V), que pode ser identificado por uma categoria (transcluída de predef ou não), do tipo "Reportagens fiáveis" ou algo que o valha.
Bem, opiniões são bem vindas, e inclusive podem ser lançadas diretamente na página do projeto: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Oral_Citations
CB
Em 09/08/2011 19:44, nevio carlos de alarcão escreveu:
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.Desculpe, mas o fato de ser usado por mais de 400 milhões de pessoas não significa ser menos questionado sobre sua confiabilidade.
...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.E considero os argumentos do Achal bastante questionáveis. O filme já foi divulgado aqui na lista - Gostei do trabalho. Mas seria preciso uma forma de garantir a veracidade de gravações. Se elas fossem provenientes de broadcast seriam mais aceitáveis. Cairíamos na questão do poder que ele levanta - e aceita.
Att
Em 9 de gosto de 2011 18:27, Carolina Rossini <crossini@wikimedia.org mailto:crossini@wikimedia.org> escreveu:
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/2011/08/08/business/media/a-push-to-redefine-knowledge-at-wikipedia.html?scp=1&sq=wikimania&st=cse> LINK BY LINK When Knowledge Isn't Written, Does It Still Count? ByNOAM 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 ofWikipedia <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 beencriticized 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 hisinterview 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@wikimedia.org <mailto:carolrossiniatwiki@gmail.com> _______________________________________________ WikimediaBR-l mailing list WikimediaBR-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:WikimediaBR-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediabr-l-- {+}Nevinho Venha para o Movimento Colaborativo http://sextapoetica.com.br !!
WikimediaBR-l mailing list WikimediaBR-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediabr-l