Dear Achal, I don't have a form fetishism :-) although I highly prefer written to oral sources for many practical reasons. You know that in oral history projects the transcription is an essential part of the work, by the way.
What I am pointing to is the difference between primary sources and secondary sources. It is the utmost important distinction in history science. I am sure that any introduction to historiography will agree with me on that. Kind regards Ziko 2011/7/27 Achal Prabhala <[email protected]>: > Dear Ziko, > > On Wednesday 27 July 2011 09:38 PM, Ziko van Dijk wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Today I found the time to read the messages about the "Oral Citations" >> project and watch the film "People are Knowledge". I hope that we can >> go on in this discussion without accusations about racism etc. In >> science, it is the quality of the findings that should matter, not the >> colour of the researcher's skin (may it be black, white, or green). >> >> == Concerned == >> I must say that I am deeply concerned about the "Oral Citations". If >> someone wants to set up a new Wikimedia project for oral traditions or >> "oral history", I could live with that although I don't think that it >> fits into the scope of Wikimedia. It certainly does not fit into the >> scope of Wikipedia. > May I say, firstly, that this is an experiment - an experiment which > those of us working on it, and others around us, thought might lead to > interesting results. Secondly, may I also say that the project is not on > "oral history" - it's on using oral sources as citations. >> The film says that recorded "oral history" should be considered to be >> a reliable souce "when there are some accessible printed sources on a >> subjet, but the sources are incomplete or misleading by way of being >> outdated or biased". So, when someone believes that those "accessible >> printed sources" are "biased", he comes up with the video of his grand >> uncle telling the truth? >> == Problems of orality (of the human brain) == >> The film presents some carefully selected scholars supporting the film >> makers' opinion, but if you ask the huge majority of historians they >> will explain to you why they are so reluctant about "oral history". > Obviously, the scholars and intellectuals we talked to were selected. We > don't pretend otherwise. I am personally not privy to what the "majority > of historians" think. But on that note - this project was about using > oral citations as sources, not about re-writing history. If you will > please take a look at the subjects we covered through the course of this > experiment, you will see that they are: recipes, religious ceremonies, > traditional liquor and folk games. All of these things relate to > everyday events that are practised by a large number of people and can > be observed by anyone.... >> Take an example described by Johannes Fried, Memorik, p. 215: The >> Gonja in Northern Ghana told to British colonial officials that there >> once was the founder of their empire, Ndewura Japka. He had seven >> sons, each of them mentioned by name, and each of them administered >> one of the seven provinces of the Gonja empire. >> >> Then the British reformed the administration, and only five provinces >> remained. Decennias later, when the British rule ended, scholars asked >> the people again about the history of Ndewura Japka. Now, the founder >> had only five sons. Those two sons, whose provinces were abolished by >> the British, were totally erased from memory, if British colonial >> records had not preseved their names. > ....and none of the articles thus created are about rewriting the > history of the last few centuries or undoing the work of the academy. We > are simply interested in these subjects because they are part of the > everyday life of millions of people like us, and because they haven't > been recorded in print in a form that is useful to Wikipedia. >> I myself have interviewed people who claimed that they did not write a >> peticular letter (which I found in the archives), that they met a >> person at a peticular convention (although the person did not >> participate at all) and so on. These people may not be liars, but >> memory is flexible and unstable. By nature, man is not created to be a >> historian, to preserve carefully information in his brain, but to deal >> with the actual world he lives in. >> >> == The way of historiography == >> * Historians collect primary sources and try to create a sound and >> coherent narrative based on them. Those primary sources are written >> records in archives, or already in printed or online editions, or >> interviews recorded. >> * Then the historians publish their findings in secondary sources. >> * Later, text-book and handbook authors read those secondary sources >> and create their tertiary sources. Wikipedia is such a tertiary >> source. >> >> It is not the task of Wikipedians or even readers to be confronted >> with the mass of primary sources and figure out a good synthesis. That >> is a work that must be let to scholars (in the largest sence) who have >> a good overview on the subject. > I don't think that anything in this project suggests otherwise. The > system on Wikipedia (including a respect of traditionally published > history) works. It doesn't work, however, for large parts of the world, > and that is something you seem to agree with. Given the everyday aspects > of life that we've run oral citation experiments with here, you might > agree that the experts on recipes would be people who cook; that the > experts on traditional liquor might be the women who make and drink it. > So it isn't clear why "scholars" are necessarily the last word on all > subjects of knowledge - currently, on Wikipedia, even we acknowledge > various levels of expertise outside the academia, for instance, journalists. >> Printed books may not be the answer in poor countries, but maybe >> e-publishing is, and there are certainly at least some places on the >> internet that are suitable for new primary and also secondary sources. >> Wikipedia cannot solve all problems in the world, and even Wikimedia >> cannot. > I'm simplifying your question here, but I think we must consider what is > - to some extent - a fetish with form. If I turned all the audio > interviews we recorded into "e-books" (in itself, simply a matter of > transcribing them, putting them in a pdf file and uploading them > somewhere on the www) - how would that alter the basis of the source? >> Kind regards >> Ziko > Thank you - my response here is in the spirit of discussion, as we > believe there is something useful to take away from this project. > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- Ziko van Dijk The Netherlands http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/ _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
