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
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
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
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
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
> 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
