Re: [Wiki-research-l] New paper - Indigenous knowledge on Wikipedia
I don't think it's impossible. I think the presentation of the material in a box that clearly indicates the nature of the material and its provenance to allow the reader to decide for themselves whether they wish to read it and how much they wish to believe it. We already have the same problem with images; a random person with a pseudonym uploads a photo of a mountain to Commons and says "that's Mt Whatsit". It gets added to related WP articles as Mt Whatsit. So I don't see what I am proposing is any more risky, indeed it's considerably less risky if the sister project dies some real world validation. Whether or not what I am proposing will be what indigenous communities want is a separate question. I suspect what they want will never be acceptable to en.WP. But is there a compromise? Kerry Sent from my iPad > On 5 Jul 2019, at 10:19 am, Stuart A. Yeates wrote: > > At the end of the day, wikipedia is by definition a tertiary source > source and built on concepts of Western print culture. Traditional > knowledge is immiscible with this model. > > This is exactly why I stopped promoting mi.wiki locally here --- as I > understand the needs of mi speakers and activists wikipedias are > incapable of meeting them. > > cheers > stuart > -- > ...let us be heard from red core to black sky > >> On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 11:39, Kerry Raymond wrote: >> >> On en.WP we prohibit shared accounts and accounts that appear to represent >> an organisation so that's a barrier. But assuming there was some special >> case to allow a username to represent a community of knowledge, we would >> still have a practical problem of whether the individual creating such an >> account or doing the edit was authorised to do so by that community, which >> would require some kind of real-world validation. But, let's say local >> chapters or local users could undertake that process using local knowledge >> of how such communities identify and operate. >> >> The problem it still doesn't solve is that whatever information is added by >> that account could then be changed by anyone. We would have to have a way to >> prevent that happening, which would be a technical problem. Also could that >> information ever be deleted by anyone (even for purely innocent purposes, >> e.g. splitting a large article might delete the content from one article to >> re-insert into other article). Or is the positioning of the content within a >> particular article a decision only that group might be allowed to take? >> >> A possible technical/social solution is to have traditional knowledge of >> this nature in a sister project, where rules on user names would be entirely >> different and obviously oral sourced material allowed. The group could then >> produce named units of information as a single unit (similar to a File on >> Commons). These units could then be added to en.WP or others (obviously the >> language the units are written would have be identified, as Commons does >> with descriptions already) so only English content is added to en.WP and so >> on. The content would be presented in en.WP in a way (in a "traditional >> language" box with a link to something explaining that what means) so the >> reader understands what this info is and is free to trust it or not. The >> information itself cannot be modified on en.WP only on the sister project >> (requests on talk pages of the sister project would need to be allowed for >> anyone to make requests eg report misspelling). En.WP would remain in >> control of whether the content was included but could not change the content >> themselves. >> >> It seems to be a sister project similar to the current Commons would be what >> we need to make this work. >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On 4 Jul 2019, at 6:03 pm, Jan Dittrich wrote: >> Maybe not "signed" in the sense of a signature of a Talk page, but each >>> contribution is attributed automatically to its user as seen in the >>> history. As someone who edits under my real name, I absolutely put my name >>> to my contributions. >>> >>> That is what I assumed, too, since it was coherent with some of the >>> problems described in: >>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/PG-Slides-Wikimania18.pdf >>> in this interpretation, Mediawiki (and lots of other software) code-ify >>> knowledge production as done by single people [1]– a person can edit, but >>> not a group (which was one of the challenges in the project described in >>> the slides, if I remember correctly) >>> >>> I would be much interested in more research on what values are "build in" >>> our software (Some Research by Heather Ford and Stuart Geiger goes in this >>> direction). >>> >>> Best, >>> Jan >>> >>> [1] An interesting read on the concept of "transmitting knowledge" (e.g. in >>> articles and via the web) and knowledge as inherently social would be >>> Ingold’s "From the Transmission of Representation to the Education of >>>
Re: [Wiki-research-l] New paper - Indigenous knowledge on Wikipedia
Sorry I meant to say "traditional knowledge" box not "traditional language" box. Kerry Sent from my iPad > On 5 Jul 2019, at 9:38 am, Kerry Raymond wrote: > > On en.WP we prohibit shared accounts and accounts that appear to represent an > organisation so that's a barrier. But assuming there was some special case to > allow a username to represent a community of knowledge, we would still have a > practical problem of whether the individual creating such an account or doing > the edit was authorised to do so by that community, which would require some > kind of real-world validation. But, let's say local chapters or local users > could undertake that process using local knowledge of how such communities > identify and operate. > > The problem it still doesn't solve is that whatever information is added by > that account could then be changed by anyone. We would have to have a way to > prevent that happening, which would be a technical problem. Also could that > information ever be deleted by anyone (even for purely innocent purposes, > e.g. splitting a large article might delete the content from one article to > re-insert into other article). Or is the positioning of the content within a > particular article a decision only that group might be allowed to take? > > A possible technical/social solution is to have traditional knowledge of this > nature in a sister project, where rules on user names would be entirely > different and obviously oral sourced material allowed. The group could then > produce named units of information as a single unit (similar to a File on > Commons). These units could then be added to en.WP or others (obviously the > language the units are written would have be identified, as Commons does with > descriptions already) so only English content is added to en.WP and so on. > The content would be presented in en.WP in a way (in a "traditional language" > box with a link to something explaining that what means) so the reader > understands what this info is and is free to trust it or not. The information > itself cannot be modified on en.WP only on the sister project (requests on > talk pages of the sister project would need to be allowed for anyone to make > requests eg report misspelling). En.WP would remain in control of whether the > content was included but could not change the content themselves. > > It seems to be a sister project similar to the current Commons would be what > we need to make this work. > > Sent from my iPad > > On 4 Jul 2019, at 6:03 pm, Jan Dittrich wrote: > >>> Maybe not "signed" in the sense of a signature of a Talk page, but each >> contribution is attributed automatically to its user as seen in the >> history. As someone who edits under my real name, I absolutely put my name >> to my contributions. >> >> That is what I assumed, too, since it was coherent with some of the >> problems described in: >> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/PG-Slides-Wikimania18.pdf >> in this interpretation, Mediawiki (and lots of other software) code-ify >> knowledge production as done by single people [1]– a person can edit, but >> not a group (which was one of the challenges in the project described in >> the slides, if I remember correctly) >> >> I would be much interested in more research on what values are "build in" >> our software (Some Research by Heather Ford and Stuart Geiger goes in this >> direction). >> >> Best, >> Jan >> >> [1] An interesting read on the concept of "transmitting knowledge" (e.g. in >> articles and via the web) and knowledge as inherently social would be >> Ingold’s "From the Transmission of Representation to the Education of >> Attention" (http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/ingold/ingold1.htm). >> >> Am Do., 4. Juli 2019 um 02:20 Uhr schrieb Kerry Raymond < >> kerry.raym...@gmail.com>: >> >>> Maybe not "signed" in the sense of a signature of a Talk page, but each >>> contribution is attributed automatically to its user as seen in the >>> history. As someone who edits under my real name, I absolutely put my name >>> to my contributions. >>> >>> Or the other possible interpretation of "signed" here may be referring to >>> the citations which are usually sources with one or small number of >>> individual authors, as opposed to a community of shared knowledge >>> custodians which is the case with Aboriginal Australians. >>> >>> Kerry >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> On 4 Jul 2019, at 10:28 am, Todd Allen wrote: I found one error: "Even the idea that contributions to the wiki should be signed by individuals is at odds with many traditional societies where knowledge expression is mainly collective, not individualised..." That's already how it works. Only discussion posts and the like are >>> signed. I don't know of any language Wikipedia in which contributions to the >>> actual encyclopedia articles are signed, and I know several of the
Re: [Wiki-research-l] New paper - Indigenous knowledge on Wikipedia
At the end of the day, wikipedia is by definition a tertiary source source and built on concepts of Western print culture. Traditional knowledge is immiscible with this model. This is exactly why I stopped promoting mi.wiki locally here --- as I understand the needs of mi speakers and activists wikipedias are incapable of meeting them. cheers stuart -- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 11:39, Kerry Raymond wrote: > > On en.WP we prohibit shared accounts and accounts that appear to represent an > organisation so that's a barrier. But assuming there was some special case to > allow a username to represent a community of knowledge, we would still have a > practical problem of whether the individual creating such an account or doing > the edit was authorised to do so by that community, which would require some > kind of real-world validation. But, let's say local chapters or local users > could undertake that process using local knowledge of how such communities > identify and operate. > > The problem it still doesn't solve is that whatever information is added by > that account could then be changed by anyone. We would have to have a way to > prevent that happening, which would be a technical problem. Also could that > information ever be deleted by anyone (even for purely innocent purposes, > e.g. splitting a large article might delete the content from one article to > re-insert into other article). Or is the positioning of the content within a > particular article a decision only that group might be allowed to take? > > A possible technical/social solution is to have traditional knowledge of this > nature in a sister project, where rules on user names would be entirely > different and obviously oral sourced material allowed. The group could then > produce named units of information as a single unit (similar to a File on > Commons). These units could then be added to en.WP or others (obviously the > language the units are written would have be identified, as Commons does with > descriptions already) so only English content is added to en.WP and so on. > The content would be presented in en.WP in a way (in a "traditional language" > box with a link to something explaining that what means) so the reader > understands what this info is and is free to trust it or not. The information > itself cannot be modified on en.WP only on the sister project (requests on > talk pages of the sister project would need to be allowed for anyone to make > requests eg report misspelling). En.WP would remain in control of whether the > content was included but could not change the content themselves. > > It seems to be a sister project similar to the current Commons would be what > we need to make this work. > > Sent from my iPad > > On 4 Jul 2019, at 6:03 pm, Jan Dittrich wrote: > > >> Maybe not "signed" in the sense of a signature of a Talk page, but each > > contribution is attributed automatically to its user as seen in the > > history. As someone who edits under my real name, I absolutely put my name > > to my contributions. > > > > That is what I assumed, too, since it was coherent with some of the > > problems described in: > > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/PG-Slides-Wikimania18.pdf > > in this interpretation, Mediawiki (and lots of other software) code-ify > > knowledge production as done by single people [1]– a person can edit, but > > not a group (which was one of the challenges in the project described in > > the slides, if I remember correctly) > > > > I would be much interested in more research on what values are "build in" > > our software (Some Research by Heather Ford and Stuart Geiger goes in this > > direction). > > > > Best, > > Jan > > > > [1] An interesting read on the concept of "transmitting knowledge" (e.g. in > > articles and via the web) and knowledge as inherently social would be > > Ingold’s "From the Transmission of Representation to the Education of > > Attention" (http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/ingold/ingold1.htm). > > > > Am Do., 4. Juli 2019 um 02:20 Uhr schrieb Kerry Raymond < > > kerry.raym...@gmail.com>: > > > >> Maybe not "signed" in the sense of a signature of a Talk page, but each > >> contribution is attributed automatically to its user as seen in the > >> history. As someone who edits under my real name, I absolutely put my name > >> to my contributions. > >> > >> Or the other possible interpretation of "signed" here may be referring to > >> the citations which are usually sources with one or small number of > >> individual authors, as opposed to a community of shared knowledge > >> custodians which is the case with Aboriginal Australians. > >> > >> Kerry > >> > >> Sent from my iPad > >> > >>> On 4 Jul 2019, at 10:28 am, Todd Allen wrote: > >>> > >>> I found one error: > >>> > >>> "Even the idea that contributions to the wiki should be signed by > >>> individuals is at odds with many traditional
Re: [Wiki-research-l] New paper - Indigenous knowledge on Wikipedia
On en.WP we prohibit shared accounts and accounts that appear to represent an organisation so that's a barrier. But assuming there was some special case to allow a username to represent a community of knowledge, we would still have a practical problem of whether the individual creating such an account or doing the edit was authorised to do so by that community, which would require some kind of real-world validation. But, let's say local chapters or local users could undertake that process using local knowledge of how such communities identify and operate. The problem it still doesn't solve is that whatever information is added by that account could then be changed by anyone. We would have to have a way to prevent that happening, which would be a technical problem. Also could that information ever be deleted by anyone (even for purely innocent purposes, e.g. splitting a large article might delete the content from one article to re-insert into other article). Or is the positioning of the content within a particular article a decision only that group might be allowed to take? A possible technical/social solution is to have traditional knowledge of this nature in a sister project, where rules on user names would be entirely different and obviously oral sourced material allowed. The group could then produce named units of information as a single unit (similar to a File on Commons). These units could then be added to en.WP or others (obviously the language the units are written would have be identified, as Commons does with descriptions already) so only English content is added to en.WP and so on. The content would be presented in en.WP in a way (in a "traditional language" box with a link to something explaining that what means) so the reader understands what this info is and is free to trust it or not. The information itself cannot be modified on en.WP only on the sister project (requests on talk pages of the sister project would need to be allowed for anyone to make requests eg report misspelling). En.WP would remain in control of whether the content was included but could not change the content themselves. It seems to be a sister project similar to the current Commons would be what we need to make this work. Sent from my iPad On 4 Jul 2019, at 6:03 pm, Jan Dittrich wrote: >> Maybe not "signed" in the sense of a signature of a Talk page, but each > contribution is attributed automatically to its user as seen in the > history. As someone who edits under my real name, I absolutely put my name > to my contributions. > > That is what I assumed, too, since it was coherent with some of the > problems described in: > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/PG-Slides-Wikimania18.pdf > in this interpretation, Mediawiki (and lots of other software) code-ify > knowledge production as done by single people [1]– a person can edit, but > not a group (which was one of the challenges in the project described in > the slides, if I remember correctly) > > I would be much interested in more research on what values are "build in" > our software (Some Research by Heather Ford and Stuart Geiger goes in this > direction). > > Best, > Jan > > [1] An interesting read on the concept of "transmitting knowledge" (e.g. in > articles and via the web) and knowledge as inherently social would be > Ingold’s "From the Transmission of Representation to the Education of > Attention" (http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/ingold/ingold1.htm). > > Am Do., 4. Juli 2019 um 02:20 Uhr schrieb Kerry Raymond < > kerry.raym...@gmail.com>: > >> Maybe not "signed" in the sense of a signature of a Talk page, but each >> contribution is attributed automatically to its user as seen in the >> history. As someone who edits under my real name, I absolutely put my name >> to my contributions. >> >> Or the other possible interpretation of "signed" here may be referring to >> the citations which are usually sources with one or small number of >> individual authors, as opposed to a community of shared knowledge >> custodians which is the case with Aboriginal Australians. >> >> Kerry >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >>> On 4 Jul 2019, at 10:28 am, Todd Allen wrote: >>> >>> I found one error: >>> >>> "Even the idea that contributions to the wiki should be signed by >>> individuals is at odds with many traditional societies where knowledge >>> expression is mainly collective, not individualised..." >>> >>> That's already how it works. Only discussion posts and the like are >> signed. >>> I don't know of any language Wikipedia in which contributions to the >> actual >>> encyclopedia articles are signed, and I know several of the largest >>> (German, Spanish, and English) do not have such a practice. (If there is >> a >>> project where individual contributions are signed, please let me know, >> I'd >>> be interested to see how they make that work. What if it gets edited?) >>> >>> Aside from that, the article seems to
[Wiki-research-l] Analytics clients (stat/notebook hosts) and backups of home directories
Hi everybody, as part of https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T201165 the Analytics team thought to reach out to everybody to make it clear that all the home directories on the stat/notebook nodes are not backed up periodically. They run on a software RAID configuration spanning multiple disks of course, so we are resilient on a disk failure, but even if unlikely if might happen that a host could loose all its data. Please keep this in mind when working on important projects and/or handling important data that you care about. I just added a warning to https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Analytics/Data_access#Analytics_clients. If you have really important data that is too big to backup, keep in mind that you can use your home directory (/user/your-username) on HDFS (that replicates data three times across multiple nodes). Please let us know if you have comments/suggestions/etc.. in the aforementioned task. Thanks in advance! Luca (on behalf of the Analytics team) ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] New paper - Indigenous knowledge on Wikipedia
> Maybe not "signed" in the sense of a signature of a Talk page, but each contribution is attributed automatically to its user as seen in the history. As someone who edits under my real name, I absolutely put my name to my contributions. That is what I assumed, too, since it was coherent with some of the problems described in: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/PG-Slides-Wikimania18.pdf in this interpretation, Mediawiki (and lots of other software) code-ify knowledge production as done by single people [1]– a person can edit, but not a group (which was one of the challenges in the project described in the slides, if I remember correctly) I would be much interested in more research on what values are "build in" our software (Some Research by Heather Ford and Stuart Geiger goes in this direction). Best, Jan [1] An interesting read on the concept of "transmitting knowledge" (e.g. in articles and via the web) and knowledge as inherently social would be Ingold’s "From the Transmission of Representation to the Education of Attention" (http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/ingold/ingold1.htm). Am Do., 4. Juli 2019 um 02:20 Uhr schrieb Kerry Raymond < kerry.raym...@gmail.com>: > Maybe not "signed" in the sense of a signature of a Talk page, but each > contribution is attributed automatically to its user as seen in the > history. As someone who edits under my real name, I absolutely put my name > to my contributions. > > Or the other possible interpretation of "signed" here may be referring to > the citations which are usually sources with one or small number of > individual authors, as opposed to a community of shared knowledge > custodians which is the case with Aboriginal Australians. > > Kerry > > Sent from my iPad > > > On 4 Jul 2019, at 10:28 am, Todd Allen wrote: > > > > I found one error: > > > > "Even the idea that contributions to the wiki should be signed by > > individuals is at odds with many traditional societies where knowledge > > expression is mainly collective, not individualised..." > > > > That's already how it works. Only discussion posts and the like are > signed. > > I don't know of any language Wikipedia in which contributions to the > actual > > encyclopedia articles are signed, and I know several of the largest > > (German, Spanish, and English) do not have such a practice. (If there is > a > > project where individual contributions are signed, please let me know, > I'd > > be interested to see how they make that work. What if it gets edited?) > > > > Aside from that, the article seems to state that such a project is > > incompatible with both NPOV and copyleft, so I'm not sure that Wikimedia > > hosting it would be the best fit as those are fundamental requirements. > > (That's not to say it's not worth doing at all, of course.) > > > > Todd > > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 5:52 PM Nathalie Casemajor > > wrote: > > > >> Hello, > >> > >> For those of you who are interested in "small" Wikipedias and Indigenous > >> languages, here's a new academic paper co-signed by yours truly. > >> > >> Published in an open access journal :) > >> > >> Nathalie Casemajor (Seeris) > >> > >> - > >> > >> *Openness, Inclusion and Self-Affirmation: Indigenous knowledge in Open > >> Knowledge Projects > >> < > >> > http://peerproduction.net/editsuite/issues/issue-13-open/peer-reviewed-papers/openness-inclusion-and-self-affirmation/?fbclid=IwAR3YQA3eXXZ7Z3ou6lz38_zxXsU_XZ0fu8AJVHE5EVGDil0SBa2U2q0gCKc > >>> * > >> > >> This paper is based on an action research project (Greenwood and Levin, > >> 1998) conducted in 2016-2017 in partnership with the Atikamekw > Nehirowisiw > >> Nation and Wikimedia Canada. Built into the educational curriculum of a > >> secondary school on the Manawan reserve, the project led to the launch > of a > >> Wikipedia encyclopaedia in the Atikamekw Nehirowisiw language. We > discuss > >> the results of the project by examining the challenges and opportunities > >> raised in the collaborative process of creating Wikimedia content in the > >> Atikamekw Nehirowisiw language. What are the conditions of inclusion of > >> Indigenous and traditional knowledge in open projects? What are the > >> cultural and political dimensions of empowerment in this relationship > >> between openness and inclusion? How do the processes of inclusion and > >> negotiation of openness affect Indigenous skills and worlding processes? > >> Drawing from media studies, indigenous studies and science and > technology > >> studies, we adopt an ecological perspective (Star, 2010) to analyse the > >> complex relationships and interactions between knowledge practices, > >> ecosystems and infrastructures. The material presented in this paper is > the > >> result of the group of participants’ collective reflection digested by > one > >> Atikamekw Nehirowisiw and two settlers. Each co-writer then brings > his/her > >> own expertise and speaks from what he or she knows and has been trained > >> for. > >> > >>
