Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
LOL. If that's the case it would be a good reason for changing the OR policy. It would also make sense to quote non-English sources in their original language unless the translation itself is verifiable. Ray On 07/27/11 4:36 PM, M. Williamson wrote: Well then, Ray, en.wp would not be able to use non-English sources since all translation is interpretation and would therefore be considered OR which is not allowed at Wikipedia. 2011/7/27 Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net On 07/27/11 12:42 PM, Wjhonson wrote: David how is an exact quote a summary or interpretation? An exact quote, backed up by the actual audio track is... exact. You are not summarizing it, and you are not interpreting it either. You are presenting it. If that is to be the case the exact quote MUST be in its original language. All translations require interpretation. Ray ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Welcome to the India Team! : Shiju Nitika
Hi Folks, I'm really pleased to send out this email welcoming the first 2 new members of the India Programs team. Just before I introduce them, I thought I'd share with you the background of their selection. Context As you might be aware, the Foundation had decided to undertake a catalyst operation in India to promote the growth of the community and projects here. The team is expected to be a small, nimble 5 person group. We had put out 2 job postings - for Indic Initiatives and for Participation. (Please refer: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaindia-l/2011-May/003007.html) We posted them on linkedin and on the Indian FOSS community list as well as announcing them on various Facebook pages and Twitter feeds. The response was wonderful. 110 applications for Indic Initiatives and nearly 175 applications for Participation. These were short-listed to 10 (3 for Indic Language and 7 for Participation.) These were a mix of existing previous Wikipedians, Wikipedia newbies and open source advocates. In June, the shortlisted 10 were interviewed and further down-selected to 4. These 4 were then further interviewed by a group of other staff members from the Foundation. I am pleased to inform the community of the final selected 2. Shiju Alex - Indic Initiatives Most of you already know Shiju. For those who don't, Shiju is a long-time Wikipedian [User: shijualex] and is active on Malayalam Wikipedia, English wikiprojects and Wikimedia Commons, as well as Wikisource and offline. He has been passionately involved with the establishing and building of Indic language Wikipedias. He's participated in a series of outreach activities and is also (jointly) undertaking a grant from the Foundation for outreach across India. He's a regular member of the Bangalore community. Shiju is from Palakkad, Kerala and is married with a 2 year old baby. He currently works as a Senior Technical Writer with ABB in Bangalore. Even those of you who know him might not know the following 2 things that I was lucky to discover during the selection process. Shiju is an MSc in Physics with a specialisation in Astronomy and Astrophysics - and he retains a deep interest in anything astronomical. Feel free to quiz him vigorously on this! He also enjoys trekking and misses his time in Pune where he could be up close the gorgeous Sahyadri Hills. Shiju is going to lead our work on promoting Indic language projects across India. The challenges are enormous - from technical constraints to low levels of awareness of these projects to vibrant but nascent communities. However, these only point to the massive size of the opportunity for Indic language projects - which is the joint top-2 strategic priority of the movement in India. After he joins, he'll collaboratively put together a plan for Indic language projects and work towards quality execution of high-impact initiatives. Shiju is currently serving out his notice period so will be able to join us only around September - October. Nitika Tandon - Participation Nitika [User:nitika.t] is relatively newer to the community - and has been brushing up her editing. She's been immersing herself in the Wikimedia world and attended community meet-ups as well as reviews of the Wikipedia India Education Program. She is from Delhi - and is currently based in Mumbai - where she works as a Strategic Partnerships Manager with Directi. (If you're not aware, they are one of the most prominent internet domain solutions providers in India.) Nitika has an MBA and has also worked on research analytics. A fascinating detail I discovered about a previous assignment of hers - and you must ask her about it - is how African drums can be used for management coaching! She also reliably informs me that there are 7 Spanish dance forms and she instructs in all of them! Nitika is going to be working on Participation - which is primarily focussed on increasing the contributor base of non-Indic language projects, primarily Wikipedia. One of her first tasks will be to expand the Wikipedia India Education Program from the Pune pilot to a more national footprint. She'll also work on other initiatives to promote participation - and I can foresee Wikimedia Commons being a potential initiative. Nitika will join us on August 1st. Introductions I'm going to be scheduling the August Monthly India Programs IRC on Thursday August 18th @ 9pm IST to introduce them both to the community. Please do join us. Also, needless to say, they'll be attending a series of community meet-ups over the next months. In the meantime, please do join me in welcoming them onboard. I'm really excited because this means that we will now have the capacity and capability to dramatically accelerate our activities in India. Warmest Regards, Hisham Mundol Wikimedia India Programs skype : hisham.wikimedia gtalk : hmun...@wikimedia.org twitter :
Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
On 07/27/11 4:40 PM, Wjhonson wrote: Yes I agree that primary sources should ONLY be cited-quoted, in their original language. A translation can be *published* but that publication cannot be in Wikipedia solely. It must live somewhere else as well, published by a reliable source. In this case of an audio file, we should have a transcription, than a translation. However having Wikipedians translate primary sources and then citing and quoting those *translations* in-project is a recipe for disaster and fraught with the potential for abuse, as well as being original research. In this case the original research is *your unpublished translation used as the actual source*. It's also a mistake to use original research as an excuse for suppressing information, as is often done on Wikipedia. A wiki-translation is fine as long as long as the original is linked and can be checked. The other dangers that you cite are real, but we cannot expect perfection from imperfect sources. Whether a source is reliable or research is original depends on one's POV. Knowledge is best served by expressing our uncertainties instead of blocking uncertain facts. Especially in matters of history it should be up to the reader to decide what weight to give to material. Ray -Original Message- From: Ray Saintonge Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 4:36 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge On 07/27/11 12:42 PM, Wjhonson wrote: David how is an exact quote a summary or interpretation? An exact quote, backed up by the actual audio track is... exact. You are not summarizing it, and you are not interpreting it either. You are presenting it. If that is to be the case the exact quote MUST be in its original anguage. All translations require interpretation. Ray ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
The great thing about an oral history citations project is that it is a first and active method to remedy one of the big problems with English Wikipedia: the epistemology - how we decide we know what we know - really is completely and utterly broken at the edges. (I realise this is foundation-l, but en:wp is a third of Wikimedia by most measures, and this discussion shows its ways of doing things getting into everywhere else.) The trouble is that all through history, turning information into knowledge has required human judgement and nuance. People do four-year humanities degrees to *start* getting *any good at all* at this stuff. But Wikipedia being Wikipedia, the whole thing has to be (a) reduced to a three paragraph guideline (b) which calcifies into policy (c) misinterpreted by socially-inept teenagers (d) with the misinterpretations being perpetuated well past the point of actual failure. Thus we end up with blithering insanity like the phrase reliable sources being used unironically, as if being listed on WP:RS *actually makes a source humanly reliable*. This is particularly hilarious when applied to newspapers - no-one who has *ever* been quoted by the media would think this way. (For those of you aware of the hip Bayesian way to calculate uncertainty, this is what happens when your network has allowed probabilities of 1 or 0.) Now, the sourcing method we have almost works. Its successes are important and useful. But there's a lot of denial that it breaks really badly when misapplied, and that the misapplications are even a problem. WJohnson's earnestly put forward this viewpoint in this thread; his argument appears to be that we don't have a perfect solution so therefore this must not be a problem and doing something that doesn't work *harder* must be the right answer. Somehow we have to get the nuance back. All this stuff is produced by humans, and working assumptions that it isn't are *broken*. The oral citations project appears to be a first step to even acknowledging that the present methods actually break at the edges. This alone makes it a good and useful thing. And, y'know, we might actually learn something. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
From the perspective of Wikimedia Canada, this sounds exciting. Many of us believe that work with the First Nations is an important element in Wikimedia Canada's tasks. I look forward to meeting you in Haifa. Thanks for providing the RRN link; since I am in the Greater Vancouver District they should be more accessible to me. Ray On 07/27/11 6:06 AM, Sarah Stierch wrote: Hi all - I came across a lighter version of this conversation on another Wikimedia list, and felt the need to share my similar thoughts and statements that I made previously. For the past year, I have been examining opportunities involving Indigenous communities of North America and opportunities to utilize Wikipedia and related websites as an affordable, unique and global form of cultural preservation. I have my undergraduate in Native American Studies, and I am obtaining my masters currently. My final paper (not quite a thesis) for graduation will be a strong examination of the opportunities related to Indigenous communities and opportunities/pros/cons related to Wikipedia. I'm actually presenting on my preliminary observations and concerns at Wikimania, you can learn a bit more here: http://wikimania2011.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Wikimedia_%26_Indigenous_Peoples:_Pros,_Cons_and_Community In the United States, as far as I am aware, I am the only person thinking about this on a higher level. While right now I am quite busy with other matters, come this Fall I will be diving head first into my research. I will be serving as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Museum of the American Indian, where I will be working with staff to examine these concerns. One of our biggest concerns lies with *oral history*. We have had countless conversations about the struggles with no original research however, in oral history based societies, we will have a very hard time moving beyond anything else. As stated previously, the majority of content created related to Indigenous communities in North America was often written by (and still is) Anglo anthropologists - some of that data is highly out of date and is still being utilized on Wikipedia as a source today. This project, Oral Citations, follows closely with the type of work I am seeking to do. I have been planning to examine Wikipedia (English at first) research policies and consider proposals or changes in relation to serious research and Indigenous communities. Of course, it all comes down to funding, and Native people of North American are often the first overlooked group - it will take a lot of work, years of effort, and a lot of buy in that is needed to be gathered from inside the community itself. I'm babbling right now, but, this is a very passionate topic for me. I see Wikipedia as providing an affordable and unique way for Indigenous communities to not only learn valuable skills - many of the communities here in America are among the poorest in the world, you'd think you were in a developing country, and kids barely receive beyond an elementary school education - but to have a broad arena to share stories (that the community chooses to share of course), beliefs, cosmologies, and traditions so that they are accessible and *vetted* for researchers and community members around the world. I do hope that some of you are attending Wikimania, I'd like to be able to have a break out session of sorts or an unconference to discuss this topic further. I'm hoping in the next year to have an international conference of sorts that brings together Indigenous people, open source gurus, and Wiki-folks to examine opportunities, processes, and belief systems in regards to opportunities. Feel free to email me directly, again, right now I am unable to move quickly in any major projects due to my already big work load, but, I'm hoping that this will be large part of my career work as an advocate for Native rights, a scholar, and an open source-lover. -Sarah ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
This is spot on. At times I wonder if some Wikipedians have ever heard of epistemology. I also have taken note that there is a tendency among some editors to truncate probability calculations to the nearest whole number. Ray On 07/29/11 2:50 AM, David Gerard wrote: The great thing about an oral history citations project is that it is a first and active method to remedy one of the big problems with English Wikipedia: the epistemology - how we decide we know what we know - really is completely and utterly broken at the edges. (I realise this is foundation-l, but en:wp is a third of Wikimedia by most measures, and this discussion shows its ways of doing things getting into everywhere else.) The trouble is that all through history, turning information into knowledge has required human judgement and nuance. People do four-year humanities degrees to *start* getting *any good at all* at this stuff. But Wikipedia being Wikipedia, the whole thing has to be (a) reduced to a three paragraph guideline (b) which calcifies into policy (c) misinterpreted by socially-inept teenagers (d) with the misinterpretations being perpetuated well past the point of actual failure. Thus we end up with blithering insanity like the phrase reliable sources being used unironically, as if being listed on WP:RS *actually makes a source humanly reliable*. This is particularly hilarious when applied to newspapers - no-one who has *ever* been quoted by the media would think this way. (For those of you aware of the hip Bayesian way to calculate uncertainty, this is what happens when your network has allowed probabilities of 1 or 0.) Now, the sourcing method we have almost works. Its successes are important and useful. But there's a lot of denial that it breaks really badly when misapplied, and that the misapplications are even a problem. WJohnson's earnestly put forward this viewpoint in this thread; his argument appears to be that we don't have a perfect solution so therefore this must not be a problem and doing something that doesn't work *harder* must be the right answer. Somehow we have to get the nuance back. All this stuff is produced by humans, and working assumptions that it isn't are *broken*. The oral citations project appears to be a first step to even acknowledging that the present methods actually break at the edges. This alone makes it a good and useful thing. And, y'know, we might actually learn something. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
On 29 July 2011 11:25, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: At times I wonder if some Wikipedians have ever heard of epistemology. Larry Sanger was no great shakes as a philosopher, but at least he'd heard of the stuff. Here's essays from Tom Morris (another philosopher): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tom_Morris/The_Reliability_Delusion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tom_Morris/The_Definition_Delusion Basically, the fact of Wikipedia's epistemology is broken is becoming better-known. I also have taken note that there is a tendency among some editors to truncate probability calculations to the nearest whole number. This is Wikipedia-induced aspergism, which turns otherwise-socially-able people into annoying doctrinaire nerds, who CANNOT STAND UNCERTAINTY. This is where Wikipedia's epistemology is broken: the real world is made of uncertainty. And the grey areas are what people are actually interested in. None of what I'm saying here is new, it's been circulating since 2004. That doesn't mean it isn't in urgent need of being fixed, now that Wikipedia is *the* reference work and we've dodged the Expert Problem by being so big the experts are now coming to us. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
On 29 July 2011 10:50, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Thus we end up with blithering insanity like the phrase reliable sources being used unironically, as if being listed on WP:RS *actually makes a source humanly reliable*. This is particularly hilarious when applied to newspapers - no-one who has *ever* been quoted by the media would think this way. (For those of you aware of the hip Bayesian way to calculate uncertainty, this is what happens when your network has allowed probabilities of 1 or 0.) Also, I must note: everything Wikipedia gets right is when it's doing it to be useful to the readers, and everything Wikipedia gets wrong is when it's doing it to appease battling editors. The binary nature of reliable sources is largely an attempt to get editors to stop arguing, at the cost of doing increasing disservice to readers. It gets worse when editors internalise the no-shades-of-grey black-and-white ideal of reliable sources and suggest blithering insanity such as that supplying a quote translation is forbidden as original research. This is put up with because editors think it's better than editors fighting. While editors fighting is bad (although, as Alex Curran has noted, we drop editors into an arena then we're surprised when they fight), I suggest we really need to consider whether what it's doing to our epistemology is worse. It's an attempt to solve the problems with people by turning yourself into a robot. Funnily enough, doing this leads to really bad and stupid results. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
Here's essays from Tom Morris (another philosopher): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tom_Morris/The_Reliability_Delusion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tom_Morris/The_Definition_Delusion While some editors do tend to argue binary options over sources, in general this is not the case (and if you are observing it as so, it's probably one of the battlefield areas where such things do occur). WP:RS has always struck me as being quite carefully worded to suggest factors of a source that editors should critically consider in determining reliability (publisher, author, content). Take for example the Daily Mail, which we quite often discuss in relation to BLP articles. This is treated as potentially reliable media source as it is published and edited, on the other hand it has a reputation for tabloid sensationalism so naturally it's not the best of sources to use in biographical articles on its own. There are other examples too. For example Torrent Freak is considered fairly unreliable as a source, but specifically for factual information about the Torrent community (and associated) it is explicitly considered acceptable. TechCrunch is considered fairly reliable for technology news - but has a recognised tendency for sensationalism which requires caution. In the Context sensitivity portion of that essay Morris makes some good suggestions - but I see that approach taken literally all the time... sure in some areas (and for some editors) the idea of a reliable source is very absolute. But largely this is not the case. In contentious areas it is applied much more uncritically, of course, as all policies are - which is why you will see much more binary classification in those areas. :) Tom ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
Thanks Ray! I actually met with developers from RRN and a few First Nations advocacy groups (regarding cultural preservation) - RRN is really amazing, and I look forward to exploring how opportunities can open from it. We will talk more in Haifa! (I lived in Van for a year, give my best to Commercial Drive ;-)) -Sarah Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! :) On Jul 29, 2011, at 6:08 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: From the perspective of Wikimedia Canada, this sounds exciting. Many of us believe that work with the First Nations is an important element in Wikimedia Canada's tasks. I look forward to meeting you in Haifa. Thanks for providing the RRN link; since I am in the Greater Vancouver District they should be more accessible to me. Ray On 07/27/11 6:06 AM, Sarah Stierch wrote: Hi all - I came across a lighter version of this conversation on another Wikimedia list, and felt the need to share my similar thoughts and statements that I made previously. For the past year, I have been examining opportunities involving Indigenous communities of North America and opportunities to utilize Wikipedia and related websites as an affordable, unique and global form of cultural preservation. I have my undergraduate in Native American Studies, and I am obtaining my masters currently. My final paper (not quite a thesis) for graduation will be a strong examination of the opportunities related to Indigenous communities and opportunities/pros/cons related to Wikipedia. I'm actually presenting on my preliminary observations and concerns at Wikimania, you can learn a bit more here: http://wikimania2011.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Wikimedia_%26_Indigenous_Peoples:_Pros,_Cons_and_Community In the United States, as far as I am aware, I am the only person thinking about this on a higher level. While right now I am quite busy with other matters, come this Fall I will be diving head first into my research. I will be serving as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Museum of the American Indian, where I will be working with staff to examine these concerns. One of our biggest concerns lies with *oral history*. We have had countless conversations about the struggles with no original research however, in oral history based societies, we will have a very hard time moving beyond anything else. As stated previously, the majority of content created related to Indigenous communities in North America was often written by (and still is) Anglo anthropologists - some of that data is highly out of date and is still being utilized on Wikipedia as a source today. This project, Oral Citations, follows closely with the type of work I am seeking to do. I have been planning to examine Wikipedia (English at first) research policies and consider proposals or changes in relation to serious research and Indigenous communities. Of course, it all comes down to funding, and Native people of North American are often the first overlooked group - it will take a lot of work, years of effort, and a lot of buy in that is needed to be gathered from inside the community itself. I'm babbling right now, but, this is a very passionate topic for me. I see Wikipedia as providing an affordable and unique way for Indigenous communities to not only learn valuable skills - many of the communities here in America are among the poorest in the world, you'd think you were in a developing country, and kids barely receive beyond an elementary school education - but to have a broad arena to share stories (that the community chooses to share of course), beliefs, cosmologies, and traditions so that they are accessible and *vetted* for researchers and community members around the world. I do hope that some of you are attending Wikimania, I'd like to be able to have a break out session of sorts or an unconference to discuss this topic further. I'm hoping in the next year to have an international conference of sorts that brings together Indigenous people, open source gurus, and Wiki-folks to examine opportunities, processes, and belief systems in regards to opportunities. Feel free to email me directly, again, right now I am unable to move quickly in any major projects due to my already big work load, but, I'm hoping that this will be large part of my career work as an advocate for Native rights, a scholar, and an open source-lover. -Sarah ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
On 29 July 2011 11:58, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: While some editors do tend to argue binary options over sources, in general this is not the case (and if you are observing it as so, it's probably one of the battlefield areas where such things do occur). They do tend to be noisiest, and they do tend to poison the epistemology of the project. Look at the remarkable hostility seen in this thread to changing anything whatsoever. In this case, mostly okay means only slightly poisoned. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Welcome to the India Team! : Shiju Nitika
Welcome Shiju and Nitika. We are thrilled to have the both of you around!!! :) On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Hisham Mundol hmun...@wikimedia.orgwrote: Hi Folks, I'm really pleased to send out this email welcoming the first 2 new members of the India Programs team. Just before I introduce them, I thought I'd share with you the background of their selection. Context As you might be aware, the Foundation had decided to undertake a catalyst operation in India to promote the growth of the community and projects here. The team is expected to be a small, nimble 5 person group. We had put out 2 job postings - for Indic Initiatives and for Participation. (Please refer: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaindia-l/2011-May/003007.html) We posted them on linkedin and on the Indian FOSS community list as well as announcing them on various Facebook pages and Twitter feeds. The response was wonderful. 110 applications for Indic Initiatives and nearly 175 applications for Participation. These were short-listed to 10 (3 for Indic Language and 7 for Participation.) These were a mix of existing previous Wikipedians, Wikipedia newbies and open source advocates. In June, the shortlisted 10 were interviewed and further down-selected to 4. These 4 were then further interviewed by a group of other staff members from the Foundation. I am pleased to inform the community of the final selected 2. Shiju Alex - Indic Initiatives Most of you already know Shiju. For those who don't, Shiju is a long-time Wikipedian [User: shijualex] and is active on Malayalam Wikipedia, English wikiprojects and Wikimedia Commons, as well as Wikisource and offline. He has been passionately involved with the establishing and building of Indic language Wikipedias. He's participated in a series of outreach activities and is also (jointly) undertaking a grant from the Foundation for outreach across India. He's a regular member of the Bangalore community. Shiju is from Palakkad, Kerala and is married with a 2 year old baby. He currently works as a Senior Technical Writer with ABB in Bangalore. Even those of you who know him might not know the following 2 things that I was lucky to discover during the selection process. Shiju is an MSc in Physics with a specialisation in Astronomy and Astrophysics - and he retains a deep interest in anything astronomical. Feel free to quiz him vigorously on this! He also enjoys trekking and misses his time in Pune where he could be up close the gorgeous Sahyadri Hills. Shiju is going to lead our work on promoting Indic language projects across India. The challenges are enormous - from technical constraints to low levels of awareness of these projects to vibrant but nascent communities. However, these only point to the massive size of the opportunity for Indic language projects - which is the joint top-2 strategic priority of the movement in India. After he joins, he'll collaboratively put together a plan for Indic language projects and work towards quality execution of high-impact initiatives. Shiju is currently serving out his notice period so will be able to join us only around September - October. Nitika Tandon - Participation Nitika [User:nitika.t] is relatively newer to the community - and has been brushing up her editing. She's been immersing herself in the Wikimedia world and attended community meet-ups as well as reviews of the Wikipedia India Education Program. She is from Delhi - and is currently based in Mumbai - where she works as a Strategic Partnerships Manager with Directi. (If you're not aware, they are one of the most prominent internet domain solutions providers in India.) Nitika has an MBA and has also worked on research analytics. A fascinating detail I discovered about a previous assignment of hers - and you must ask her about it - is how African drums can be used for management coaching! She also reliably informs me that there are 7 Spanish dance forms and she instructs in all of them! Nitika is going to be working on Participation - which is primarily focussed on increasing the contributor base of non-Indic language projects, primarily Wikipedia. One of her first tasks will be to expand the Wikipedia India Education Program from the Pune pilot to a more national footprint. She'll also work on other initiatives to promote participation - and I can foresee Wikimedia Commons being a potential initiative. Nitika will join us on August 1st. Introductions I'm going to be scheduling the August Monthly India Programs IRC on Thursday August 18th @ 9pm IST to introduce them both to the community. Please do join us. Also, needless to say, they'll be attending a series of community meet-ups over the next months. In the meantime, please do join me in welcoming them onboard. I'm really excited because this means that we will now have the capacity and capability to dramatically
Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
The logical flaw here comes between use and translate. Although Wikipedians may and probably sometimes do, translate Wikipedia pages, from English to French etc, translating a source citation is something quite different. I would agree with Ray that we should quote Latin texts in Latin, Spanish texts in Spanish no matter what language-page we are using. IF the text is that important to English speakers then there should be or probably will soon be, a verifiable English language translation *not* created in-project, but rather by a reputable author publishing just such a translation. -Original Message- From: Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 12:03 am Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge LOL. If that's the case it would be a good reason for changing the OR olicy. It would also make sense to quote non-English sources in their riginal language unless the translation itself is verifiable. Ray On 07/27/11 4:36 PM, M. Williamson wrote: Well then, Ray, en.wp would not be able to use non-English sources since all translation is interpretation and would therefore be considered OR which is not allowed at Wikipedia. 2011/7/27 Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net On 07/27/11 12:42 PM, Wjhonson wrote: David how is an exact quote a summary or interpretation? An exact quote, backed up by the actual audio track is... exact. You are not summarizing it, and you are not interpreting it either. You are presenting it. If that is to be the case the exact quote MUST be in its original language. All translations require interpretation. Ray __ oundation-l mailing list oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
On 29 July 2011 11:25, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: This is spot on. At times I wonder if some Wikipedians have ever heard of epistemology. Some have some haven't. However the field of epistemology tends to have so little relation to what people actually do that it's not particularly critical. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
On 29 July 2011 17:39, Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I would agree with Ray that we should quote Latin texts in Latin, Spanish texts in Spanish no matter what language-page we are using. IF the text is that important to English speakers then there should be or probably will soon be, a verifiable English language translation *not* created in-project, but rather by a reputable author publishing just such a translation. This would mean that only English-language references are acceptable in en:wp, which is of course false. Your statement takes a useful idea (no original research), extrapolates it until it really obviously breaks, and then puts forward the broken version as a good thing. You appear to be mixing up policy, guidelines, practice and how you personally think things should be, without distinguishing which you are describing at any given time; this leads only to confusion. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
And what if readers don't understand Spanish? As a translator, I have to say I am strongly against the idea that a translation counts as original research. Translating quotes has been practiced in academia for a very long time, and just in the last month I must've read several papers with quotes in languages I didn't understand well enough to read without the translation by the author (German, Latin, etc). If I want to quote an academic paper in Spanish for an article where there are few or no English-language sources available, I should be able to quote directly from the paper but provide a translation so that English speakers who do not speak Spanish can benefit from the quote. The great thing about the wiki process is that if someone disagrees with my translation, it can be fixed (I have fixed a few translations on en.wp myself). 2011/7/29 Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com No that's not what it would mean. It would mean that if a Spanish language source is used on an English language page, we should quote that source in Spanish, and not quote it using our OWN translation. As editors we should not be creating publications, only quoting publications. -Original Message- From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 10:37 am Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge On 29 July 2011 17:39, Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I would agree with Ray that we should quote Latin texts in Latin, Spanish exts in Spanish no matter what language-page we are using. IF the text is that mportant to English speakers then there should be or probably will soon be, a erifiable English language translation *not* created in-project, but rather by reputable author publishing just such a translation. his would mean that only English-language references are acceptable n en:wp, which is of course false. Your statement takes a useful idea no original research), extrapolates it until it really obviously reaks, and then puts forward the broken version as a good thing. You appear to be mixing up policy, guidelines, practice and how you ersonally think things should be, without distinguishing which you re describing at any given time; this leads only to confusion. d. ___ oundation-l mailing list oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
Yes of course translating documents has been practiced in academia for a very long time. We however are not a first publisher of translations. We are an aggregator of sources. That is the point of RS. We don't publish first. -Original Message- From: M. Williamson node...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 10:59 am Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge And what if readers don't understand Spanish? As a translator, I have to say am strongly against the idea that a translation counts as original esearch. Translating quotes has been practiced in academia for a very long ime, and just in the last month I must've read several papers with quotes n languages I didn't understand well enough to read without the translation y the author (German, Latin, etc). If I want to quote an academic paper in panish for an article where there are few or no English-language sources vailable, I should be able to quote directly from the paper but provide a ranslation so that English speakers who do not speak Spanish can benefit rom the quote. The great thing about the wiki process is that if someone isagrees with my translation, it can be fixed (I have fixed a few ranslations on en.wp myself). 011/7/29 Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com No that's not what it would mean. It would mean that if a Spanish language source is used on an English language page, we should quote that source in Spanish, and not quote it using our OWN translation. As editors we should not be creating publications, only quoting publications. -Original Message- From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 10:37 am Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge On 29 July 2011 17:39, Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I would agree with Ray that we should quote Latin texts in Latin, Spanish exts in Spanish no matter what language-page we are using. IF the text is that mportant to English speakers then there should be or probably will soon be, a erifiable English language translation *not* created in-project, but rather by reputable author publishing just such a translation. his would mean that only English-language references are acceptable n en:wp, which is of course false. Your statement takes a useful idea no original research), extrapolates it until it really obviously reaks, and then puts forward the broken version as a good thing. You appear to be mixing up policy, guidelines, practice and how you ersonally think things should be, without distinguishing which you re describing at any given time; this leads only to confusion. d. ___ oundation-l mailing list oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l __ oundation-l mailing list oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
Why can't you do both? Provide the original text in the original language in the citation, followed by a translation. Any bickering over the quality of the translation can be dealt with through consensus on the talk page, while the original is still there for those who want the original to do their own verification of the translation. -Dan On Jul 29, 2011, at 9:06 PM, Wjhonson wrote: Yes of course translating documents has been practiced in academia for a very long time. We however are not a first publisher of translations. We are an aggregator of sources. That is the point of RS. We don't publish first. -Original Message- From: M. Williamson node...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 10:59 am Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge And what if readers don't understand Spanish? As a translator, I have to say am strongly against the idea that a translation counts as original esearch. Translating quotes has been practiced in academia for a very long ime, and just in the last month I must've read several papers with quotes n languages I didn't understand well enough to read without the translation y the author (German, Latin, etc). If I want to quote an academic paper in panish for an article where there are few or no English-language sources vailable, I should be able to quote directly from the paper but provide a ranslation so that English speakers who do not speak Spanish can benefit rom the quote. The great thing about the wiki process is that if someone isagrees with my translation, it can be fixed (I have fixed a few ranslations on en.wp myself). 011/7/29 Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com No that's not what it would mean. It would mean that if a Spanish language source is used on an English language page, we should quote that source in Spanish, and not quote it using our OWN translation. As editors we should not be creating publications, only quoting publications. -Original Message- From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 10:37 am Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge On 29 July 2011 17:39, Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I would agree with Ray that we should quote Latin texts in Latin, Spanish exts in Spanish no matter what language-page we are using. IF the text is that mportant to English speakers then there should be or probably will soon be, a erifiable English language translation *not* created in-project, but rather by reputable author publishing just such a translation. his would mean that only English-language references are acceptable n en:wp, which is of course false. Your statement takes a useful idea no original research), extrapolates it until it really obviously reaks, and then puts forward the broken version as a good thing. You appear to be mixing up policy, guidelines, practice and how you ersonally think things should be, without distinguishing which you re describing at any given time; this leads only to confusion. d. ___ oundation-l mailing list oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l __ oundation-l mailing list oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
On 29 July 2011 19:19, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote: Why can't you do both? Provide the original text in the original language in the citation, followed by a translation. Any bickering over the quality of the translation can be dealt with through consensus on the talk page, while the original is still there for those who want the original to do their own verification of the translation. This is what is usually done at present. Hence my boggling at WJohnson's bizarre suggestion to overuse a rule to break usefuless to the reader. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
On 7/29/2011 11:06 AM, Wjhonson wrote: Yes of course translating documents has been practiced in academia for a very long time. We however are not a first publisher of translations. We are an aggregator of sources. That is the point of RS. We don't publish first. Translating a quotation from a foreign-language source in a Wikipedia article is functionally no different from translating the contents of a Wikipedia article in one language to create an equivalent Wikipedia article in a different language. The latter is an utterly routine and fairly common practice (though I'm not suggesting that any Wikipedia article *needs* to be based on translations this way). Obviously translation needs to be done with care, just like synthesizing source material to write an article requires care. And some people may be better at one or the other, so it may be possible to improve on the work as Mark describes, as long as the original also remains available, as it should. Stretching a guideline about using reliable sources to the point that it conflicts with unobjectionable standard practices suggests that the guideline is being stretched too far. Even the most reliable sources do not need to be treated like some people treat the Quran, as if it's inappropriate to render them in any language but the original. That's a religious belief, and in a religious context I fully respect that people may believe such things, but in the context of writing Wikipedia articles, our beliefs about the sources we use should not be religious, they should be based on analysis and editorial judgment. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
Nope, never said that. I disagree with the idea that this is usually done however I have no objections to it's being done. Never did. My point is, and was that the source should be quoted in its original language. -Original Message- From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 11:26 am Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge On 29 July 2011 19:19, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote: Why can't you do both? Provide the original text in the original language in the citation, followed y a translation. Any bickering over the quality of the translation can be dealt ith through consensus on the talk page, while the original is still there for hose who want the original to do their own verification of the translation. his is what is usually done at present. Hence my boggling at Johnson's bizarre suggestion to overuse a rule to break usefuless to he reader. d. ___ oundation-l mailing list oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Oral citations project update: more articles + full English subtitle track
Dear friends, A quick update on the oral citations project. 1) We have now posted sample articles in all 3 project languages, Malayalam, Sepedi and Hindi: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations#Articles.2F_Discussions_.28in_development.29 2) A full English subtitle track for the film is now available on Wikimedia Commons (the previous one only covered non-English speech): http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/TimedText:People-are-Knowledge.ogv.en.srt --- There are a couple of things yet to come, some of which are intrinsically linked to the suggestions and comments coming in from the discussion on the previous thread. These are: a) A few more articles in development, which will be posted when done b) Transcripts of the audio interviews in Hindi, Sepedi and Malayalam, each accompanied by an English transcript (in development) c) An FAQ, where we can begin thinking collaboratively about ways in which an exercise like this could work/be made to work under existing policies within the Wikimedia movement, and Wikipedia specifically; as well as ways in which this project could be extended to think about sources and citations generally. --- Lastly, if you haven't had a chance to see the work of the project, you can do that here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations ...and if you would like to watch the film made during the course of the project, please check it out: on Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:People-are-Knowledge.ogv or on Vimeo: http://vimeo.com/26469276 Cheers, Achal ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
For what it is worth I think this approach exists on en.wiki on the premise that by using foreign sources with no independent translation available: a) It makes it easier to push a POV or miss-interpretation via that source (because other editors are generally not able to understand it) b) There is more potential for mistakes or miscomprehension - for example if editors resort to using Google translate (not at all uncommon) I for one consider this much akin to cracking a nut with a sledgehammer - but I can see the reasoning behind it. It would be interesting to see a working group dedicated to looking into ways to approach the foreign language source issue. English Wikipedia is pretty bad at considering foreign language sources. But I have seen other language projects which appear worse still at accepting them... and it is worse than just a language issue - often it feels like a case of people thinking well that culture is not the same as ours, so not likely to be as reliable. (I criticise myself here too for this thinking, even when I try to avoid it!) I can never help feeling that this is often the core of our cultural centrist bias (for all Wikipedias). Way before I learned my first foreign language, back when young and naive, I believed that most countries were functionally the same as mine, just with different words. My first trip the to US disabused me of this notion. I have never been hot-shot with languages but always make a point, now, of learning at least a little of the native language of wherever I travel - because the difference you see when using that language is insane. Anyway; the point is that we are in an interesting position to help advocate this amazingly different cultural views to each other. Does anyone have idea to address these issues of centrism and lack of trust in other cultures? I think this would be a really interesting thing to explore! Tom On 29 July 2011 19:31, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: On 7/29/2011 11:06 AM, Wjhonson wrote: Yes of course translating documents has been practiced in academia for a very long time. We however are not a first publisher of translations. We are an aggregator of sources. That is the point of RS. We don't publish first. Translating a quotation from a foreign-language source in a Wikipedia article is functionally no different from translating the contents of a Wikipedia article in one language to create an equivalent Wikipedia article in a different language. The latter is an utterly routine and fairly common practice (though I'm not suggesting that any Wikipedia article *needs* to be based on translations this way). Obviously translation needs to be done with care, just like synthesizing source material to write an article requires care. And some people may be better at one or the other, so it may be possible to improve on the work as Mark describes, as long as the original also remains available, as it should. Stretching a guideline about using reliable sources to the point that it conflicts with unobjectionable standard practices suggests that the guideline is being stretched too far. Even the most reliable sources do not need to be treated like some people treat the Quran, as if it's inappropriate to render them in any language but the original. That's a religious belief, and in a religious context I fully respect that people may believe such things, but in the context of writing Wikipedia articles, our beliefs about the sources we use should not be religious, they should be based on analysis and editorial judgment. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
