[Wikimedia-l] Nini kinakufanya uwe na furaha wiki hii? / What's making you happy this week? (Week of 13 May 2018)

[Pine W]

From the WMF Blog:

* "The stories behind this year’s award-winning photographs from Wiki Loves
Africa":
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/05/07/wiki-loves-africa-winners/

* "Here’s everything we published from the design, development, and data
process for the page previews feature":
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/05/09/page-previews-documentation/

* "Exploring offline access to Wikipedia: WikiFundi, an editing tool for
remote schools":
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/05/10/offline-access-wikipedia-wikifundi/



From email lists:

* The This Month in GLAM newsletter for April 2018:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2018-May/090225.html

* "AdvancedSearch beta feature available on all wikis":
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2018-May/089950.html, from
the WMDE Technical Wishes team

* Two announcements about maps:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2018-May/089878.html and
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2018-May/089964.html



What's making you happy this week? You are welcome to comment in any
language.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Vi to]

Sorry but historical research is a bit more complex. Primary sources need
to be interpreted. For instance, until late XVIII most of records dealt
with "firesides" meaning "nuclear family" corresponding to a different
population according to time and place.

Some trivial information may be referenced with primary sources but most
cannot at all: forbidding original research is one of the pillars of
Wikipedia. You can allow them, but you'll obtain something which no longer
is Wikipedia.

Vito

2018-05-12 14:27 GMT+02:00 Paulo Santos Perneta :

> 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 :
>
> > 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-boun...@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 :
> >
> > > 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.southw...@telkomsa.net
> > > wrote 
> > >
> > > If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@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,  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 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 170, Issue 41

[Klaus Graf via Wikimedia-l]

There is a German word Vollquottel - try to translate it. Thanks.

Klaus Graf
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

Publishers employ people who check out information in books being published. 
For accuracy and to avoid legal problems.

When I used Angela Davis's autobiography to write her article, there was a 
passage about her encountering racial bias in Germany when she was going to 
school there. Is that just her perception, or a fact? Knowing people, I had no 
problem using it as a fact, but people have objected and it is gone now.

Fred

- Original Message -
From: Paulo Santos Perneta 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:53:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

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 :

> Autobiographical writing published by the mainstream press with editors
> and fact checkers is more reliable.
>
> Fred
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Paulo Santos Perneta 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> 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 :
>
> > 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 
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > 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 
> :
> >
> > > 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-boun...@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 :
> > >
> > > > 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.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

People often misinterpret the rules, occasionally in disingenuous ways. Best to 
not get too excited. Over the years there is a general gradual movement toward 
sane editing and a person who starts editing as a teenager should be a fairly 
good editor by the time they reach 50.

Fred


- Original Message -
From: Paulo Santos Perneta 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:50:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

Yes, it should be as you say. But my experience in Wikipedia is that the
confuse definition of primary source often leads to such egregious
situations as some newspaper saying what the director of an institution is,
is prefered to the very institution correcting the name. I've seen this
over and over.

Paulo

2018-05-12 13:45 GMT+01:00 FRED BAUDER :

> Just as we allow a firm to list their officers or a town to correct the
> name of the mayor, if there are no factual issues, any source is fine. With
> respect to significant disputed issues professional  academic analysis is
> vital, think cold fusion.
>
> Fred
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Todd Allen 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:31:14 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> If a "secondary" source just parrots or copies a primary source, it's added
> nothing. At that point, it doesn't matter which one you use.
>
> However, good, reliable secondary sources will cross-check the claims of
> primary sources against one another, evaluate them for reliability, and
> come up with what the real truth is actually likely to be. When those
> sources are fact-checked and peer reviewed, they are much more reliable
> than the primary sources, and we should prefer them to editors evaluating
> primary sources themselves, or worse yet, uncritically treating them as
> factual.
>
> Todd
>
> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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 
> :
> >
> > > 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-boun...@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 :
> > >
> > > > 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?).
> > > >
> > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

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 :

> Autobiographical writing published by the mainstream press with editors
> and fact checkers is more reliable.
>
> Fred
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Paulo Santos Perneta 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> 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 :
>
> > 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 
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > 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 
> :
> >
> > > 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-boun...@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 :
> > >
> > > > 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.southw...@telkomsa.net
> > > > wrote 
> > > >
> > > > If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> On
> > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > > > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Yes, it should be as you say. But my experience in Wikipedia is that the
confuse definition of primary source often leads to such egregious
situations as some newspaper saying what the director of an institution is,
is prefered to the very institution correcting the name. I've seen this
over and over.

Paulo

2018-05-12 13:45 GMT+01:00 FRED BAUDER :

> Just as we allow a firm to list their officers or a town to correct the
> name of the mayor, if there are no factual issues, any source is fine. With
> respect to significant disputed issues professional  academic analysis is
> vital, think cold fusion.
>
> Fred
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Todd Allen 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:31:14 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> If a "secondary" source just parrots or copies a primary source, it's added
> nothing. At that point, it doesn't matter which one you use.
>
> However, good, reliable secondary sources will cross-check the claims of
> primary sources against one another, evaluate them for reliability, and
> come up with what the real truth is actually likely to be. When those
> sources are fact-checked and peer reviewed, they are much more reliable
> than the primary sources, and we should prefer them to editors evaluating
> primary sources themselves, or worse yet, uncritically treating them as
> factual.
>
> Todd
>
> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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 
> :
> >
> > > 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-boun...@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 :
> > >
> > > > 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.southw...@telkomsa.net
> > > > wrote 
> > > >
> > > > If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@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 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

Autobiographical writing published by the mainstream press with editors and 
fact checkers is more reliable.

Fred

- Original Message -
From: Paulo Santos Perneta 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
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 :

> 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 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> 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 :
>
> > 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-boun...@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 :
> >
> > > 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.southw...@telkomsa.net
> > > wrote 
> > >
> > > If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@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,  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for
> > spammers
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

Just as we allow a firm to list their officers or a town to correct the name of 
the mayor, if there are no factual issues, any source is fine. With respect to 
significant disputed issues professional  academic analysis is vital, think 
cold fusion.

Fred

- Original Message -
From: Todd Allen 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:31:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

If a "secondary" source just parrots or copies a primary source, it's added
nothing. At that point, it doesn't matter which one you use.

However, good, reliable secondary sources will cross-check the claims of
primary sources against one another, evaluate them for reliability, and
come up with what the real truth is actually likely to be. When those
sources are fact-checked and peer reviewed, they are much more reliable
than the primary sources, and we should prefer them to editors evaluating
primary sources themselves, or worse yet, uncritically treating them as
factual.

Todd

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 :
>
> > 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-boun...@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 :
> >
> > > 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.southw...@telkomsa.net
> > > wrote 
> > >
> > > If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@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,  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 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

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 :

> 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 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> 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 :
>
> > 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-boun...@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 :
> >
> > > 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.southw...@telkomsa.net
> > > wrote 
> > >
> > > If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@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,  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
> > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

Much more complicated situation. Really far beyond a Wikipedian's pay grade.

Fred

- Original Message -
From: Paulo Santos Perneta 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:38:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

When we have a document signed by the king saying someone was given a
certain title; and a myriad of secondary and tertiary sources saying the
document says otherwise (without ever quoting the document itself), I would
not have the least doubt in choosing the king's deed. That's a recurrent
situation in History, and as far as I know, the recommendations are always
to ignore the secondary sources when some unexplained conflict between them
and the primary, original sources arises.

Paulo


2018-05-12 13:31 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen :

> If a "secondary" source just parrots or copies a primary source, it's added
> nothing. At that point, it doesn't matter which one you use.
>
> However, good, reliable secondary sources will cross-check the claims of
> primary sources against one another, evaluate them for reliability, and
> come up with what the real truth is actually likely to be. When those
> sources are fact-checked and peer reviewed, they are much more reliable
> than the primary sources, and we should prefer them to editors evaluating
> primary sources themselves, or worse yet, uncritically treating them as
> factual.
>
> Todd
>
> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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 
> :
> >
> > > 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-boun...@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 :
> > >
> > > > 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.southw...@telkomsa.net
> > > > wrote 
> > > >
> > > > If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@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 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

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 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
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 :

> 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-boun...@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 :
>
> > 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.southw...@telkomsa.net
> > wrote 
> >
> > If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@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,  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 <
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

When we have a document signed by the king saying someone was given a
certain title; and a myriad of secondary and tertiary sources saying the
document says otherwise (without ever quoting the document itself), I would
not have the least doubt in choosing the king's deed. That's a recurrent
situation in History, and as far as I know, the recommendations are always
to ignore the secondary sources when some unexplained conflict between them
and the primary, original sources arises.

Paulo


2018-05-12 13:31 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen :

> If a "secondary" source just parrots or copies a primary source, it's added
> nothing. At that point, it doesn't matter which one you use.
>
> However, good, reliable secondary sources will cross-check the claims of
> primary sources against one another, evaluate them for reliability, and
> come up with what the real truth is actually likely to be. When those
> sources are fact-checked and peer reviewed, they are much more reliable
> than the primary sources, and we should prefer them to editors evaluating
> primary sources themselves, or worse yet, uncritically treating them as
> factual.
>
> Todd
>
> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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 
> :
> >
> > > 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-boun...@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 :
> > >
> > > > 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.southw...@telkomsa.net
> > > > wrote 
> > > >
> > > > If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@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 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Todd Allen]

If a "secondary" source just parrots or copies a primary source, it's added
nothing. At that point, it doesn't matter which one you use.

However, good, reliable secondary sources will cross-check the claims of
primary sources against one another, evaluate them for reliability, and
come up with what the real truth is actually likely to be. When those
sources are fact-checked and peer reviewed, they are much more reliable
than the primary sources, and we should prefer them to editors evaluating
primary sources themselves, or worse yet, uncritically treating them as
factual.

Todd

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 :
>
> > 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-boun...@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 :
> >
> > > 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.southw...@telkomsa.net
> > > wrote 
> > >
> > > If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@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,  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 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

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 :

> 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-boun...@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 :
>
> > 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.southw...@telkomsa.net
> > wrote 
> >
> > If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@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,  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.southw...@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-boun...@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
> > > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Odisha Government's Social media accounts are now under CC-BY 4.0

[Tanweer Morshed]

Hi Sailesh,

Thanks for the news. This is really a great initiative from the Odisha
government and this will definitely be marked as a model to be followed by
others around the world for the purpose of making knowledge free and
available. Thanks to the entire Odia community.

Regards,
Tanweer


On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:32 PM, Sailesh Patnaik <
sailesh.patnaik...@gmail.com> wrote:

>  Hi everyone,
> I'm happy to share that, Two more websites by Government of Odisha are now
> under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Both the
> websites were launched by Govt. marking the 70th anniversary of Bhubaneswar
> as the capital city of the state and till date Govt. has made seven of its
> websites under CC.
> Ps: This is the first time we didn't approach the officials for doing it
> and they've done it of their own will.
>
>
>1. http://bhubaneswar.me/
>2. http://www.smartcitybhubaneswar.gov.in/
>
> Thanks
>
> ---
> *Sailesh Patnaik*  "*ଶୈଳେଶ ପଟ୍ଟନାୟକ "*
> *LinkedIn* : https://www.linkedin.com/in/sailesh-patnaik-551a10b4
> *Twitter*: @saileshpat
>
> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 12:06 AM, Sailesh Patnaik <
> sailesh.patnaik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thank you, Ravi and Isaac!|
> >
> > I'm happy to share that, continuing the collaboration with the Odia
> > community, Today, the Government of Odisha has announced to release the
> > content of two major departments;  Information and Public Relations and
> ST
> > & SC Development, Minorities & Backward Classes Welfare Dept.  under
> > Creative Commons license. Both the department has a huge collection of
> > content and will help in improving a lot of Wikipedia articles.
> > It was announced by the I dept. and also by the Chief Minister's
> > Office, https://twitter.com/CMO_Odisha/status/947838684874792960. The
> > required changes will be made in the upcoming week.
> >
> > ---
> > *Sailesh Patnaik*  "*ଶୈଳେଶ ପଟ୍ଟନାୟକ "*
> > Community Advocate, Access To Knowledge Program
> > Centre for Internet and Society
> > Phone: +91-7537097770
> > *LinkedIn* : https://www.linkedin.com/in/sailesh-patnaik-551a10b4
> > *Twitter*: @saileshpat
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Ravishankar Ayyakkannu <
> > rayyakka...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Sailesh and all Odia community members,
> >>
> >> This is an impressive accomplishment! Congrats!
> >>
> >> Especially, the short turn-around time to take the decision is
> remarkable
> >> and it was a smart move to ask the social media account to be freely
> >> licensed.
> >>
> >> Ravi
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Nurunnaby Hasive 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Wow! Congratulations!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Hasive
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 7:03 AM, Zachary McCune <
> zmcc...@wikimedia.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Very exciting news Sailesh! Congrats on this wide-reaching
> >> collaboration.
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Sailesh Patnaik <
> >> > > sailesh.patnaik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Thank you, Katy!!
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 at 12:27 AM, Katy Love 
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Hi Sailesh,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > What great news!! What a remarkable achievement! Thanks for
> >> sharing
> >> > > this
> >> > > > > with us. I really like the blog post, too. Congratulations!!
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Katy
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:09 AM, Sailesh Patnaik <
> >> > > > > sailesh.patnaik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Hello Everyone,
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > I am glad to share a recent collaboration of Odia Wikipedia
> >> > community
> >> > > > > with
> >> > > > > > the Government of Odisha.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > After releasing the content of 2017 Asian Athletics
> >> Championships (
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/07/28/digest-asia-
> >> > > > athletics-championships/
> >> > > > > > ) another initiative by the Government of Odisha to bridge the
> >> > dearth
> >> > > > of
> >> > > > > > Information about Odisha on Wikipedia by releasing its social
> >> media
> >> > > > > > accounts under CC-BY 4.0.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Earlier this week, the community members met the Government
> >> > officials
> >> > > > > > regarding this, and after understanding the value of Open
> >> Content,
> >> > it
> >> > > > > took
> >> > > > > > only 24hrs to release the social media channels under CC-BY
> 4.0
> >> > > > license.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > As a pilot project, 8 social media accounts from Government of
> >> > Odisha
> >> > > > are
> >> > > > > > under CC-BY 4.0,Now, the content is free for everyone to use,
> >> > share,
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > build upon their work.
> >> > > > > > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/09/18/odisha-social-
> >> > > > media-free-license/
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > The community is also planning to take the collaboration
> further
> >> > and
> >> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Chapters] New Wikimedia Italia board and activities

[Tanweer Morshed]

Hi Lorenzo,

Thanks for sharing the news. Congratulations and best wishes to the new
board of Wikimedia Italia! And thanks to the ones who ended their term.

Regards,
Tanweer


On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Lukas Mezger 
wrote:

> Dear Lorenzo,
> Caro Lorenzo,
>
> Thanks for sharing these news. Congratulations to the new members of the
> board of Wikimedia Italia! Also, it's great to hear that so many members
> participated in the general assembly. Good luck all for the work ahead!
> Grazie per queste notizie. Auguri ai nuovi membri del consiglio direttivo
> di Wikimedia Italia! È bello sentire che così tanti soci abbiano
> partecipato all'assemblea generale. In bocca al lupo tutti per il lavoro
> futuro!
>
> Kind regards, and see you in Berlin!
> Tanti saluti, e a presto a Berlino!
>
> Lukas
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Dr. Lukas Mezger
> Mitglied des Präsidiums / member of the Supervisory Board
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23
> -24 |
> 10963 Berlin
> Tel. (030) 219 158 260
> http://wikimedia.de
>
> Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
> Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> http://spenden.wikimedia.de
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
>
>
> 2018-04-17 8:56 GMT+02:00 Lorenzo Losa :
>
> > Dear all,
> > on April 7th, Wikimedia Italia held its general assembly, where a new
> > board has been elected. It is composed as follows:
> > * Lorenzo Losa, President
> > * Valerio Perticone, Vice-president
> > * Carlo Benini, Secretary
> > * Saverio G. Malatesta, Treasurer
> > * Maurizio Napolitano
> >
> > I wish to thank Federico Leva, Giuseppe Profiti and Paola Liliana
> > Buttiglione, who ended their term, for their invaluable work in the
> board.
> >
> > The general assembly drew a very good participation, with 89 voting
> > members (the most participated general assembly in the last ten years!),
> > and unanimously approved the 2017 annual report (currently in Italian
> only;
> > an English version is planned).
> > 
> >
> > A few highlights from the 2017 report:
> > * Two new WIRs have started working at the Ministry of Culture (ICAR and
> > ICBSA). Some portals of the central archives administration have already
> > adopted the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license as well as the public domain charter!
> For
> > more links see:
> > 
> > * We got more than 3.000 researchers to archive their articles in green
> > open access (in just two months!):
> >  > rs-make-over-3000-articles-green-open-access-via-dissemin/>
> > * OpenStreetMap activities are strengthening, reaching more than double
> > the people we expected.
> >
> > From the structural point of view, since July 2017, after almost a year
> of
> > intense discussions with members and staff, we have started implementing
> > changes while going towards a reduced workload for the board. We have
> > mutually agreed to part ways with our former ED. Since then, three new
> > employees have started working with us: Giovanna Ranci, for the education
> > program; Marta Arosio, for GLAM partnerships; Teresa Scorza, for
> > administration and bookkeeping.
> >
> > Looking forward, the 2018 budget and annual plan, written by 37 members
> > and employees together, is increasing the support for Wikimedia
> volunteers
> > (financially and otherwise), while reducing expenses for salaries and
> > administrative services.
> > 
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Lorenzo
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Chapters mailing list
> > chapt...@wikimedia.ch
> > https://intern.wikimedia.ch/lists/listinfo/chapters
> >
> >
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] an observation on economic biases in Wikipedia

[James Salsman]

On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 7:42 PM, Dennis During  wrote:
>
> At the level of generalization of the cited statement in the WP article, it
> is pretty much impossible to approach objectivity in economics articles.

Dennis, for what reason(s) do you believe that? The statement is
easily corrected, but in the form it's existed since it was inserted,
it's easy to show how false it is. I would also like to know your
thoughts on these two stories:

http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-paying-ireland-16-billion-dollars-back-taxes-2018-4

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/may/09/fuck-off-google-the-berlin-neighbourhood-fighting-off-a-tech-giant-kreuzberg

> I doubt that an instance of bias should lead us to include

I was not proposing to include the video in the article. That video
wouldn't really counter the magnitude of the damage bias from the
still barely glowing embers of objectivist-influenced austerian
trickle-down economics have done to society through their prevalence
in Wikipedia, but perhaps sources such as these could:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/16/free-community-college-california_n_6474940.html

https://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Documents/20121212_Economics%20of%20Higher%20Ed_vFINAL.pdf

https://www.docdroid.net/epSjOI2/peracchi2006.pdf

https://www.docdroid.net/joXd2MZ/heckman2006.pdf

Best regards,
Jim

> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:44 PM, James Salsman  wrote:
>
>> The more I survey different language wikipedias, the more I am
>> convinced an effort at the chapters level is needed to address this
>> problem:
>>
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/
>> 2018-April/006256.html
>>
>> It occurred to me that this Max Roser video might help:
>>
>> A Selfish Argument for Making the World a Better Place – Egoistic Altruism
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvskMHn0sqQ
>>
>> I hope in particular that objectivists and former objectivists would
>> share their thoughts on it.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Jim
>>
>> ___
>> 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,
>> 
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dennis C. During
> ___
> 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, 
> 

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

Observations of the death of a king or a president or of Martin Luther King are 
primary sources, but rather solid. Conceptual material, no so much.

Fred

- Original Message -
From: Peter Southwood 
To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' 
Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 01:49:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

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-boun...@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 :

> 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.southw...@telkomsa.net
> wrote 
>
> If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@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,  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.southw...@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-boun...@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
> > 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Board Recruitment: Updates

[Nataliia Tymkiv]

Dear all,

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has two
appointed Board members whose terms will expire during Wikimania 2018 -
Kelly Battles and Alice Wiegand. We have been working to fill those seats
 and our goal is for potential candidates to join us in Cape Town during
Wikimania 2018.

== Finance expert seat ==

This is a very specific profile: we need a person with strong financial
management background and auditing skills. The BCG (Board Governance
Committee) is currently interviewing a short list of candidates prepared by
Kelly Battles and Jaime Villagomez (the CFO of Wikimedia Foundation). Once
interviews are complete, the BCG will send their recommendations  to the
full Board.

== Technology/organizational growth expert seat ==

Over the last few months, we have conducted a series of conversations on
Board  expertise needs. With the support of Katherine Maher (ED) and Josh
Weinberg (Chief of Staff), the BGC developed a candidate profile for the
soon-to-be-vacant seat and gave its recommendation to the Board during
their meeting in Berlin. We need your help to identify potential candidates
for this position who are interested in serving the Wikimedia community as
a member of the Board of Trustees.

We shall begin accepting applications and referrals for these positions
today. A more detailed timeline of the full recruitment process is
available on Meta here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10176203 [1]. You
can find the candidate package here [2].

Applicants may apply online at:
https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/1162305?gh_src=8b8yun5r1#.WvaOKPKMTCv.
We will also accept applications and referrals by email at
board-nominati...@lists.wikimedia.org.

We look forward to hearing from you.

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Governance_Committee/Board_Recruitment
[2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Board_Recruiting_Candidate_Packet_May_2018.pdf

Best regards,
antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv

*NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working
hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
advance!*
___
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,