Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[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
> > >
> > > 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
> > > remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those
> > > requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
> > knowledge. I
> > > think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready
> to
> > do
> > > that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
> > when
> > > we opened editing to anybody.
> > >
> > > JP
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Looking for an Animation artist for Wikipedia Video

[James Salsman]

You're welcome, Rupika. I'm happy to help, and do hope you will please
make an effort towards answering my question:

What are the most reputable websites like GoFundMe and WeFunder in India?

Best regards,
Jim


On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 12:01 PM, Rupika Sharma  wrote:
> Thank You Jim!! That was fantastic to create a video in such a short
> amount. I will check into those details. We do have budget of around
> $500-600 set for Animation artist. Our script is more like a short feature
> movie. However, the report and the information is very interesting.
>
> Thanks you again,
> Cheers!
> Rupika
>
> On 4 May 2018 at 22:54, James Salsman  wrote:
>
>> Hi Rupika,
>>
>> Here are the artists who did the Accuracy Review fundraising video:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30LvELic624
>>
>> Animator: Steve Lewis, hello at SteveLew dot is.
>>
>> Voiceover: Bryan Pike http://www.bryanpike.com/voicework.html
>>
>> Icons: https://www.flaticon.com/authors/freepik
>>
>> We only raised $85:
>>
>> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/accuracy-review-of-wikipedia
>>
>> but the project got completed, thanks to the Foundation and Google:
>>
>> https://priyankamandikal.github.io/posts/gsoc-2016-project-overview/
>>
>> Steve Lewis also did this diagram:
>>
>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:Accuracy_review.png
>>
>> What are the most reputable Indian versions of Indiegogo, FreeFunder
>> and WeFunder?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Jim
>>
>> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Rupika Sharma  wrote:
>> > Hi everyone,
>> >
>> > Does anyone knows an amazing animation artist? We are hiring someone for
>> a
>> > one-time project for animation video for Punjabi Wikipedia. Although, our
>> > budget is small and the video duration will be around 90 seconds, please
>> > let me know if anyone knows someone who might be right fit for the
>> project.
>> >
>> > Warm Regards
>> > Rupika Sharma
>> > ___
>> > 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,
>> 
> ___
> 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

[Vi to]

 "Mussolini's speech relating Mussolini's speech contents -> best possible
sources"?
Even worse than speech themselves.


Vito

2018-05-12 0:39 GMT+02:00 Paulo Santos Perneta :

>  Mussolini's speech relating WWII -> was produced by the subject: to avoid
> Mussolini's speech relating Mussolini's speech contents -> best possible
> source you can have.
>
> Both kinds are described by the Wikipedias policies as "primary source",
> and yet they have very different, and often opposed values of verifiability
> and fiability.
>
> As I said, there's an endemic confusion with primary sources in Wikipedia.
>
> Paulo
>
> 2018-05-11 22:19 GMT+01:00 Vi to :
>
> > Policies about primary (en.wiki's one for example
> > ) tell a
> > different story and I, for one, concur with them.
> >
> > An extreme example: Mussolini's speech (primary source) will tell you
> WWII
> > was caused by the Allies, any history book (secondary or tertiary) shows
> > that's a blatant lie. To state such a simple truth without doing an
> > original research you need a secondary source.
> >
> > Vito
> >
> > 2018-05-11 22:24 GMT+02:00 Paulo Santos Perneta  >:
> >
> > > 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]

 Mussolini's speech relating WWII -> was produced by the subject: to avoid
Mussolini's speech relating Mussolini's speech contents -> best possible
source you can have.

Both kinds are described by the Wikipedias policies as "primary source",
and yet they have very different, and often opposed values of verifiability
and fiability.

As I said, there's an endemic confusion with primary sources in Wikipedia.

Paulo

2018-05-11 22:19 GMT+01:00 Vi to :

> Policies about primary (en.wiki's one for example
> ) tell a
> different story and I, for one, concur with them.
>
> An extreme example: Mussolini's speech (primary source) will tell you WWII
> was caused by the Allies, any history book (secondary or tertiary) shows
> that's a blatant lie. To state such a simple truth without doing an
> original research you need a secondary source.
>
> Vito
>
> 2018-05-11 22:24 GMT+02:00 Paulo Santos Perneta :
>
> > 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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Vi to]

Policies about primary (en.wiki's one for example
) tell a
different story and I, for one, concur with them.

An extreme example: Mussolini's speech (primary source) will tell you WWII
was caused by the Allies, any history book (secondary or tertiary) shows
that's a blatant lie. To state such a simple truth without doing an
original research you need a secondary source.

Vito

2018-05-11 22:24 GMT+02:00 Paulo Santos Perneta :

> 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
> > > > remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those
> > > > requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
> > > knowledge. I
> > > > think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready
> > to
> > > do
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

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
> > > remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those
> > > requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
> > knowledge. I
> > > think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready
> to
> > do
> > > that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
> > when
> > > we opened editing to anybody.
> > >
> > > JP
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood <
> > > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of
> > > > notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability
> > > > requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
> > things
> > > > that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
> evidence,
> > > and
> > > > where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
> intangible,
> > > the
> > > > authors must take responsibility for their work, and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How to deal with spam subscription to mailing list

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Dozens of subscription attempts at unblock-pt-l

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/admindb/unblock-pt-l

Paulo

2018-05-09 11:23 GMT+01:00 Sam Walton :

> I take it back, we're now having the same issue with the Wikipedia-Library
> mailing list, and the edit filter mailing list spam has resumed. Is this
> happening on every list?
>
> Sam
>
> On 8 May 2018 at 10:57, Sam Walton  wrote:
>
> > A couple of days ago we had exactly the same issue on the edit filter
> > mailing list. It seemed to come through in a single burst and then stop,
> > though. We haven't had any issues since.
> >
> > Sam
> > *In my capacity as a volunteer*
> >
> > On 7 May 2018 at 13:58, Isaac Olatunde  wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> We have been receiving tens of subscription to our mailing list (
> >> wikimedia...@lists.wikimedia.org) from aol.com addresses. Today alone
> we
> >> have received over 30 subscription from that domain addresses and we
> find
> >> this very problematic. I'll need the help of a more experienced list
> >> administrators in dealing with this.
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >>
> >> Isaac
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> >> i/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sam Walton
> > Partnerships Coordinator
> > The Wikipedia Library
> >
> > s...@wikipedialibrary.org / swal...@wikimedia.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sam Walton
> Partnerships Coordinator
> The Wikipedia Library
>
> s...@wikipedialibrary.org / swal...@wikimedia.org
> ___
> 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] Recognition of the Wikitongues User Group

[Jean-Philippe Béland]

Hello,

Does this mean that Wikitongues will work to change it's licence to be
compatible with Wikimedia projects? Because now their content is under CC
BY-SA-NC which is incompatible with Wikimedia projects. Will the future
videos produced by Wikitongues be under CC BY-SA? I assume that if projects
are financed by a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation that we will make
sure that the content is produced under a compatible licence.

Thank you,

JP Béland
Coordinator and Founder, Wikimedians of North American Indigenous Languages
User Group

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 1:13 PM Rupika Sharma  wrote:

> Congratulations! This is indeed a big achievement and would go long way to
> take forward the movement for linguistic diversity!
>
> Best Wishes
> Rupika Sharma
> Co-Founder
> Punjabi Wikimedians
>
> On Fri, May 11, 2018, 10:09 PM Kirill Lokshin 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone!
> >
> > I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized
> > [1] the Wikitongues User Group [2] as a Wikimedia User Group. The group
> is
> > working to promote and preserve linguistic diversity worldwide, and aims
> to
> > increase the scope of language content across the Wikimedia projects and
> to
> > expand their overall linguistic diversity.
> >
> > Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Kirill Lokshin
> > Chair, Affiliations Committee
> >
> > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
> > Resolutions/Recognition_Wikitongues_User_Group
> > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikitongues
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
___
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] Recognition of the Wikitongues User Group

[Rupika Sharma]

Congratulations! This is indeed a big achievement and would go long way to
take forward the movement for linguistic diversity!

Best Wishes
Rupika Sharma
Co-Founder
Punjabi Wikimedians

On Fri, May 11, 2018, 10:09 PM Kirill Lokshin 
wrote:

> Hi everyone!
>
> I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized
> [1] the Wikitongues User Group [2] as a Wikimedia User Group. The group is
> working to promote and preserve linguistic diversity worldwide, and aims to
> increase the scope of language content across the Wikimedia projects and to
> expand their overall linguistic diversity.
>
> Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
>
> Regards,
> Kirill Lokshin
> Chair, Affiliations Committee
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
> Resolutions/Recognition_Wikitongues_User_Group
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikitongues
> ___
> 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] Recognition of the Igbo Wikimedians User Group

[Amir E. Aharoni]

Excellent news!

It was a pleasure to meet Blossom at the Wikimedia Conference a year ago,
and the activities that Blossom, Tochi, and Uzoma advertise on Twitter look
very promising and inspiring, too.

If any of you are coming to Wikimania, I'd love to meet you!

בתאריך יום ו׳, 11 במאי 2018, 19:39, מאת Kirill Lokshin ‏<
kirill.loks...@gmail.com>:

> Hi everyone!
>
> I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized
> [1] the Igbo Wikimedians User Group [2] as a Wikimedia User Group. The
> group aims to support the Igbo Wikimedia community and to encourage people
> that are literate in Igbo language at any level to become involved in the
> Wikimedia movement.
>
> Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!
>
> Regards,
> Kirill Lokshin
> Chair, Affiliations Committee
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/
> Resolutions/Recognition_Igbo_Wikimedians_User_Group
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Igbo_Wikimedians_User_Group
> ___
> 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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Recognition of the Wikiesfera Grupo de Usuarixs

[Kirill Lokshin]

Hi everyone!

I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized
[1] the Wikiesfera Grupo de Usuarixs [2] as a Wikimedia User Group. The
group aims to identify and correct gaps in knowledge representation, and to
increase the number of editors who belong to minorities, underrepresented
groups, and other social groups who have not had access to information
technologies in Spain.

Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!

Regards,
Kirill Lokshin
Chair, Affiliations Committee

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Resolutions/Recognition_Wikiesfera_Grupo_de_Usuarixs
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiesfera
___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] This Month in GLAM: April 2018

[The 'This Month in GLAM' team]

*This Month in GLAM* is a monthly newsletter documenting recent happenings
within the GLAM project, such as content donations, residencies, events and
more. GLAM is an acronym of *G*alleries, *L*ibraries, *A*rchives and *M*useums.
You can find more information on the project at glamwiki.org.

*This Month in GLAM – Issue IV, Volume VIII – April 2018*
--


Australia report: HerStory in Alice Springs and Australasian Open Access
Strategy
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/April_2018/Contents/Australia_report

Belgium report: Everybody WIKI
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/April_2018/Contents/Belgium_report

Brazil report: Labs to introduce Wikidata and its potentialities in Brazil
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/April_2018/Contents/Brazil_report

Catalan areas report: Event: Role of Wikimedia in the era of Open Science
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/April_2018/Contents/Catalan_areas_report

France report: City of Grenoble
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/April_2018/Contents/France_report

Italy report: Libraries in the spotlight
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/April_2018/Contents/Italy_report

Macedonia report: Macedonian Wikiexpeditions exhibition and workshops with
Wiki Clubs members
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/April_2018/Contents/Macedonia_report

Netherlands report: 325,000 images from Dutch photo archives uploaded by
Mr.Nostalgic
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/April_2018/Contents/Netherlands_report

Philippines report: First Wikipedian in Residence in the Philippines
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/April_2018/Contents/Philippines_report

Portugal report: Partnerships, GLAMs & Art+feminism
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/April_2018/Contents/Portugal_report

Serbia report: Strong support from the Ministry of culture and information
of Republic of Serbia: Financing the three WIR programs and realizing GLAM
seminars
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/April_2018/Contents/Serbia_report

Sweden report: National museum of world Culture; Sounds and pronunciations;
Nordic Museum
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/April_2018/Contents/Sweden_report

Tunisia report: Upload Book
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/April_2018/Contents/Tunisia_report

UK report: National Library of Wales and Oxford University
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/April_2018/Contents/UK_report

USA report: April showers
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/April_2018/Contents/USA_report

Wikidata report: April Love
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/April_2018/Contents/Wikidata_report

WMF GLAM report: Wikipedians in Residence and Travel
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/April_2018/Contents/WMF_GLAM_report

Calendar: May's GLAM events
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/April_2018/Contents/Events


--


About *This Month in GLAM*
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/About

Single page view
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/April_2018/Single

Twitter
http://twitter.com/ThisMonthinGLAM

Add your story / Work on the next edition
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/Newsroom


-- 
The *This Month in GLAM* team
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter
___
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed 
to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more 
information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-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

[Jean-Philippe Béland]

When we say we want to keep our current requirements, we need to ask
ourselves if we want to continue to be an encyclopedia written by
Westerners for Westerners. If that's the case, fine. But that's not what we
are claiming to be...

JP

On Fri, May 11, 2018, 09:30 Cameron,  wrote:

> 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
> > > remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those
> > > requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
> > knowledge. I
> > > think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready
> to
> > do
> > > that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
> > when
> > > we opened editing to anybody.
> > >
> > > JP
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood <
> > > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of
> > > > notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability
> > > > requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
> > things
> > > > that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
> evidence,
> > > and
> > > > where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
> intangible,
> > > the
> > > > authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track
> > > > record and proof of identity.
> > > > This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it
> as
> > > > possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Gnangarra]

the speaker of a traditional oral story isnt the primary source there is no
original research in the story they are just retelling with audible pen
rather than a ink pen, the primary source is somewhere back in time.  The
almost identical similarities that traditional oral knowledge have with
that of written knowledge  makes them amazing sources.

When its all distilled own the only difference is that western sources
demand a tree is turned into paper and ink added to the paper before its
accepted knowledge

On 10 May 2018 at 18:03, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

> Hoi,
> "The summary of the canon of knowledge".. Wow.. I just tweeted that thanks
> to the German Wikipedia we know about 20% more members of Parliament from
> Chad. Now we know about 12. My #AfricaGap project will follow developments
> around African national politicians. We suck when Africa is considered.
> What we have in Wikidata reflects this.
>
> It is relatively easy to add information in Wikidata about Africa.
> Importing lists of politicians, I once did after South African national
> elections and it shows, is easy. From our mouths we hear that we want to do
> more about / for Africa but the proof is in what we see. What could be is
> in our hands.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GerardM/Africa
>
> On 10 May 2018 at 11:53, FRED BAUDER  wrote:
>
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: Jane Darnell 
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT)
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >
> > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly,
> > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never be able
> > to correct it."
> >
> > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
> > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
> >
> > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does, Wikipedia will
> > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other bias
> issues
> > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
> correction
> > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
> >
> > Fred
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.  Order
here

.
___
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

[Jean-Philippe Béland]

I confirm that this is not an isolated concept to Australia. I heard the
same thing about being connected to the place, starting the story by
telling who your family is, etc. from Canadian indigenous peoples.

JP

On Fri, May 11, 2018, 09:26 Gnangarra,  wrote:

> speaking solely from experience with Indigenous Australian knowledge where
> knowledge is passed orally across generations. The passing of knowledge is
> connected to place, family, and heritage when an indigenous person speak
> they first speak of their heritage, of their connect to the place, and of
> their family. This all establishes the origins of the story, the authority
> of the person to speak, and whos story they are telling.  much like a bio
> of the author in a book establishes their expertise, version, and
> publication dates sets the when
>
> when we share the oral knowledge we already have established notability and
> verifiability, when write the knowledge we dont damage or fix the knowledge
> we share just what it was at that one point and place in time.  Culturally
> the knowledge will continue to be share via the traditional methods
> regardless. We have 200 years of recordings, oppression, dispossession, and
> usurpation of indigenous knowledge that shows it still continues externally
> to written forms.
>
> If we look at someone like Daisy Bates when we digest her work its
> relatively easy to establish the differences between her work in recording
> Indigenous knowledge,  to the fictional works she sold to newspapers to
> earn a living.   That same process she used a 100 years ago works for what
> we are doing now. We dont need to invent new methods nor do we need to wait
> for western sources to catchup all we need is that leap to accept oral
> source with the traditional authentications.
>
> While this is directly related to Indigenous Australian knowledge, the
> methodology will work where we adapt to the cultural authentications of the
> knowledge source and accept them as if we would a book, or journal and cite
> them appropriately.
>
>
>
> On 11 May 2018 at 20:52, Amir E. Aharoni 
> wrote:
>
> > What are the non-Western methods?
> >
> > בתאריך יום ו׳, 11 במאי 2018, 15:49, מאת Gnangarra ‏ >:
> >
> > > thats the bias we dont accept knowledge as genuine or authorative until
> > its
> > > been established by a westerner using western techniques.  The whole
> > point
> > > of this discussion is that such a process invariably leads to bias, to
> > > solve bias we need to shift our acceptance to alternative cultural
> > methods
> > > of establishing notability and verifiability.
> > >
> > > The point is those non western methods are able to provide the same
> level
> > > of authority as the currently accepted methods, that the to make the
> > change
> > > isnt as disastrous as is being said because we adopt the method
> > appropriate
> > > for the knowledge source rather than ignoring the knowledge until its
> > > adapted to our way
> > >
> > > On 11 May 2018 at 20:32, Peter Southwood  >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes, and we use those books and journal articles as sources. If they
> > are
> > > > written by an acknowledged expert or are peer reviewed, we may
> consider
> > > > them reliable sources. I don’t think this is what this discussion is
> > > about.
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> On
> > > > Behalf Of FRED BAUDER
> > > > Sent: 11 May 2018 07:19
> > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > >
> > > > People write books and journal articles which incorporate oral
> > > traditions.
> > > > The Bible is one example. That doesn't mean we are going to remove
> the
> > > > material about Native Americans migrating through Beringia but that,
> > if a
> > > > tribe's tradition is that it was always in the Americas, that should
> be
> > > > included in its article. Probably not enough to satisfy everyone...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Fred
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - Original Message -
> > > > From: Peter Southwood 
> > > > To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' 
> > > > Sent: Fri, 11 May 2018 00:34:15 -0400 (EDT)
> > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Was macht dich diese Woche glücklich? / What's making you happy this week? (Week of 15 April 2018)

[Isaac Olatunde]

Thank you Sidney. We are happy that folks at WMF takes issues of concerns
very seriously and look for ways to address them.

Regards,

Isaac

On May 9, 2018 10:47 PM, "Sydney Poore"  wrote:

> Hello Mz7,
>
> The Anti-Harassment Tools team who is doing this work really appreciates
> your comment. We're happy, too, to address this issue. I'll be sure to let
> the team's developers, David and Daylann know about your comment.
>
> Sydney Poore
> Wikimedia Foundation
> Anti-Harassment Tools team
>
> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Mz7  wrote:
>
> > > What's making you happy this week? You are welcome to comment in any
> > > language
> >
> >
> > The Community Tech team at the Wikimedia Foundation is pushing a fix to a
> > longstanding issue regarding block notices for users on mobile devices. A
> > year ago, if a blocked user attempted to edit a page from their mobile
> > device, a notice popped up for just a few seconds before automatically
> > disappearing, giving most people insufficient time to read it. Moreover,
> if
> > the reason for a block contained a wikilink or a template, the notice
> would
> > fail to render the link, instead displaying raw HTML. This led to botched
> > notifications that looked as bad as this:  > org/wiki/File:Autoblock_of_usernamekiran.png>.
> >
> > I’m happy to see that a fix is almost ready to be deployed which
> addresses
> > many issues, including rendering links properly. :)  .
> > wikimedia.org/T165535>
> >
> > Mz7
> >
> >
> > > On Apr 15, 2018, at 8:18 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> > >
> > > *Conference*
> > >
> > > The 2018 Wikimedia Conference
> > >  starts
> this
> > > week in Germany. The core conference will occur from the 20th through
> the
> > > 22nd.
> > >
> > >
> > > *WMF Research Showcase*
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, the WMF Research Showcase
> > >  >
> > > will include presentations on two subjects that I think will interest a
> > > number of Wikipedians:
> > >
> > > 1. "The Critical Relationship of Volunteer Created Wikipedia Content to
> > > Large-Scale Online Communities"
> > >
> > > 2. "The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System, a Closer
> Look"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *Photography*
> > > As often happens, Wikimedia Commons contributors have selected some
> great
> > > pictures of the day for this month
> > > . Here are a
> > few
> > > examples:
> > >
> > > 1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lynx_lynx_-_05.jpg
> > > 2.
> > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mezquita_de_Agha_
> > Bozorg,_Kashan,_Ir%C3%A1n,_2016-09-19,_DD_81.jpg
> > > 3. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Soyuz_TMA-13_Edit.jpg
> > > 4. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rho_Ophiucus_Widefield.jpg
> > > 5.
> > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indosylvirana_urbis-
> > Kadavoor-2017-05-05-001.jpg
> > > 6.
> > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Castillo_de_Zafra,_
> > Campillo_de_Due%C3%B1as,_Guadalajara,_Espa%C3%B1a,_
> > 2017-01-04,_DD_41-46_PAN.jpg
> > > 7
> > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cirrus_front_over_
> > Austnesfjorden,_Austv%C3%A5g%C3%B8ya,_Lofoten,_Norway,_2015_April.jpg
> > > 8
> > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fr%C3%BChlingsallee_
> > Tulpenbl%C3%BCte_2010_(1).jpg
> > >
> > >
> > > 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,
> > 
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sydney Poore
> Trust and Safety Specialist,
> Wikimedia Foundation
> Trust and Safety team;
> Anti-harassment tools team
> ___
> 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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
"The summary of the canon of knowledge".. Wow.. I just tweeted that thanks
to the German Wikipedia we know about 20% more members of Parliament from
Chad. Now we know about 12. My #AfricaGap project will follow developments
around African national politicians. We suck when Africa is considered.
What we have in Wikidata reflects this.

It is relatively easy to add information in Wikidata about Africa.
Importing lists of politicians, I once did after South African national
elections and it shows, is easy. From our mouths we hear that we want to do
more about / for Africa but the proof is in what we see. What could be is
in our hands.
Thanks,
   GerardM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GerardM/Africa

On 10 May 2018 at 11:53, FRED BAUDER  wrote:

>
> - Original Message -
> From: Jane Darnell 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly,
> Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never be able
> to correct it."
>
> Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
> knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
>
> The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does, Wikipedia will
> reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other bias issues
> are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full correction
> of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
>
> Fred
>
>
> ___
> 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

[L3X1 en]

I do feel Jane summed it up well: Because of our rules on RS, Wikipedia can 
only reflect society. As long as society continues to overlook women, it will 
be evident in Wikipedia. In my work with WomRed, enough references were the 
prevailing issue. We have a list of women who need articles, but without 
references we cannot prove notability enough to stave off AFD. 
Lex1
> On May 10, 2018, at 11:46 AM, Peter Southwood  
> 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
> remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those
> requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing knowledge. I
> think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to do
> that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia when
> we opened editing to anybody.
> 
> JP
> 
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> 
>> One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of
>> notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability
>> requirement  it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are things
>> that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence, and
>> where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible, the
>> authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track
>> record and proof of identity.
>> This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as
>> possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a reliable
>> source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the
>> credibility we have.
>> Cheers,
>> Peter
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
>> Behalf Of Gnangarra
>> Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>> 
>> notability and verifiability are important,  every culture and language
>> has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge.  These culture manage
>> successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western styles
>> were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives.  The issue is how do
>> we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them,
>> how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is not
>> the only.
>> 
>> There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current
>> systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations from
>> books published but no digital.  Changing the way we consider and value
>> alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question is do
>> we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of all
>> knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge
>> networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
>> 
>> Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia but
>> rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative
>> knowledge streams
>> 
>> 
>> On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a member
>>> of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though:
>>> https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.
>>> 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
>>> 
>>> There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
>> movement
>>> or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
>> personally
>>> do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
>> impressions.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Cheers!
>>> 
>>> El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood <
>>> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
>>> escribió:
>>> 
 Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to produce
 reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens the
 doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain open
>> to
 anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
>> Other
 projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not be
>>> open
 for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[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
> > remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those
> > requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
> knowledge. I
> > think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to
> do
> > that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
> when
> > we opened editing to anybody.
> >
> > JP
> >
> > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood <
> > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >
> > > One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of
> > > notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability
> > > requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
> things
> > > that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence,
> > and
> > > where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
> > the
> > > authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track
> > > record and proof of identity.
> > > This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as
> > > possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
> reliable
> > > source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the
> > > credibility we have.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Gnangarra
> > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > >
> > > notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
> language
> > > has this issue 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Gnangarra]

speaking solely from experience with Indigenous Australian knowledge where
knowledge is passed orally across generations. The passing of knowledge is
connected to place, family, and heritage when an indigenous person speak
they first speak of their heritage, of their connect to the place, and of
their family. This all establishes the origins of the story, the authority
of the person to speak, and whos story they are telling.  much like a bio
of the author in a book establishes their expertise, version, and
publication dates sets the when

when we share the oral knowledge we already have established notability and
verifiability, when write the knowledge we dont damage or fix the knowledge
we share just what it was at that one point and place in time.  Culturally
the knowledge will continue to be share via the traditional methods
regardless. We have 200 years of recordings, oppression, dispossession, and
usurpation of indigenous knowledge that shows it still continues externally
to written forms.

If we look at someone like Daisy Bates when we digest her work its
relatively easy to establish the differences between her work in recording
Indigenous knowledge,  to the fictional works she sold to newspapers to
earn a living.   That same process she used a 100 years ago works for what
we are doing now. We dont need to invent new methods nor do we need to wait
for western sources to catchup all we need is that leap to accept oral
source with the traditional authentications.

While this is directly related to Indigenous Australian knowledge, the
methodology will work where we adapt to the cultural authentications of the
knowledge source and accept them as if we would a book, or journal and cite
them appropriately.



On 11 May 2018 at 20:52, Amir E. Aharoni 
wrote:

> What are the non-Western methods?
>
> בתאריך יום ו׳, 11 במאי 2018, 15:49, מאת Gnangarra ‏:
>
> > thats the bias we dont accept knowledge as genuine or authorative until
> its
> > been established by a westerner using western techniques.  The whole
> point
> > of this discussion is that such a process invariably leads to bias, to
> > solve bias we need to shift our acceptance to alternative cultural
> methods
> > of establishing notability and verifiability.
> >
> > The point is those non western methods are able to provide the same level
> > of authority as the currently accepted methods, that the to make the
> change
> > isnt as disastrous as is being said because we adopt the method
> appropriate
> > for the knowledge source rather than ignoring the knowledge until its
> > adapted to our way
> >
> > On 11 May 2018 at 20:32, Peter Southwood 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, and we use those books and journal articles as sources. If they
> are
> > > written by an acknowledged expert or are peer reviewed, we may consider
> > > them reliable sources. I don’t think this is what this discussion is
> > about.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of FRED BAUDER
> > > Sent: 11 May 2018 07:19
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > >
> > > People write books and journal articles which incorporate oral
> > traditions.
> > > The Bible is one example. That doesn't mean we are going to remove the
> > > material about Native Americans migrating through Beringia but that,
> if a
> > > tribe's tradition is that it was always in the Americas, that should be
> > > included in its article. Probably not enough to satisfy everyone...
> > >
> > >
> > > Fred
> > >
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: Peter Southwood 
> > > To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' 
> > > Sent: Fri, 11 May 2018 00:34:15 -0400 (EDT)
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > >
> > > 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

[Amir E. Aharoni]

What are the non-Western methods?

בתאריך יום ו׳, 11 במאי 2018, 15:49, מאת Gnangarra ‏:

> thats the bias we dont accept knowledge as genuine or authorative until its
> been established by a westerner using western techniques.  The whole point
> of this discussion is that such a process invariably leads to bias, to
> solve bias we need to shift our acceptance to alternative cultural methods
> of establishing notability and verifiability.
>
> The point is those non western methods are able to provide the same level
> of authority as the currently accepted methods, that the to make the change
> isnt as disastrous as is being said because we adopt the method appropriate
> for the knowledge source rather than ignoring the knowledge until its
> adapted to our way
>
> On 11 May 2018 at 20:32, Peter Southwood 
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, and we use those books and journal articles as sources. If they are
> > written by an acknowledged expert or are peer reviewed, we may consider
> > them reliable sources. I don’t think this is what this discussion is
> about.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of FRED BAUDER
> > Sent: 11 May 2018 07:19
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >
> > People write books and journal articles which incorporate oral
> traditions.
> > The Bible is one example. That doesn't mean we are going to remove the
> > material about Native Americans migrating through Beringia but that, if a
> > tribe's tradition is that it was always in the Americas, that should be
> > included in its article. Probably not enough to satisfy everyone...
> >
> >
> > Fred
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: Peter Southwood 
> > To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' 
> > Sent: Fri, 11 May 2018 00:34:15 -0400 (EDT)
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >
> > 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
> > > > remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those
> > > > requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
> > > knowledge. I
> > > > think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready
> > to
> > > do
> > > > that leap of 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Gnangarra]

thats the bias we dont accept knowledge as genuine or authorative until its
been established by a westerner using western techniques.  The whole point
of this discussion is that such a process invariably leads to bias, to
solve bias we need to shift our acceptance to alternative cultural methods
of establishing notability and verifiability.

The point is those non western methods are able to provide the same level
of authority as the currently accepted methods, that the to make the change
isnt as disastrous as is being said because we adopt the method appropriate
for the knowledge source rather than ignoring the knowledge until its
adapted to our way

On 11 May 2018 at 20:32, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Yes, and we use those books and journal articles as sources. If they are
> written by an acknowledged expert or are peer reviewed, we may consider
> them reliable sources. I don’t think this is what this discussion is about.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of FRED BAUDER
> Sent: 11 May 2018 07:19
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> People write books and journal articles which incorporate oral traditions.
> The Bible is one example. That doesn't mean we are going to remove the
> material about Native Americans migrating through Beringia but that, if a
> tribe's tradition is that it was always in the Americas, that should be
> included in its article. Probably not enough to satisfy everyone...
>
>
> Fred
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Peter Southwood 
> To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' 
> Sent: Fri, 11 May 2018 00:34:15 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> 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
> > > remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those
> > > requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
> > knowledge. I
> > > think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready
> to
> > do
> > > that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
> > when
> > > we opened editing to anybody.
> > >
> > > JP
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood <
> > > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of
> > > > notability and verifiability 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How to deal with spam subscription to mailing list

[Rehman Abubakr]

Yep, a lot: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Possible_spambots_targeting_Wikimedia_mailing_lists


Yours truly,

Rehman


From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of 
Gnangarra 
Sent: 09 May 2018 15:58
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] How to deal with spam subscription to mailing list

wikimedfia australia list is getting a lot of aol requests as well

On 9 May 2018 at 18:23, Sam Walton  wrote:

> I take it back, we're now having the same issue with the Wikipedia-Library
> mailing list, and the edit filter mailing list spam has resumed. Is this
> happening on every list?
>
> Sam
>
> On 8 May 2018 at 10:57, Sam Walton  wrote:
>
> > A couple of days ago we had exactly the same issue on the edit filter
> > mailing list. It seemed to come through in a single burst and then stop,
> > though. We haven't had any issues since.
> >
> > Sam
> > *In my capacity as a volunteer*
> >
> > On 7 May 2018 at 13:58, Isaac Olatunde  wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> We have been receiving tens of subscription to our mailing list (
> >> wikimedia...@lists.wikimedia.org) from aol.com addresses. Today alone
> we
> >> have received over 30 subscription from that domain addresses and we
> find
> >> this very problematic. I'll need the help of a more experienced list
> >> administrators in dealing with this.
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >>
> >> Isaac
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> >> i/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sam Walton
> > Partnerships Coordinator
> > The Wikipedia Library
> >
> > s...@wikipedialibrary.org / swal...@wikimedia.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sam Walton
> Partnerships Coordinator
> The Wikipedia Library
>
> s...@wikipedialibrary.org / swal...@wikimedia.org
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



--
GN.
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.  Order
here

.
___
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

[Peter Southwood]

Yes, and we use those books and journal articles as sources. If they are 
written by an acknowledged expert or are peer reviewed, we may consider them 
reliable sources. I don’t think this is what this discussion is about.
Cheers, 
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
FRED BAUDER
Sent: 11 May 2018 07:19
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

People write books and journal articles which incorporate oral traditions. The 
Bible is one example. That doesn't mean we are going to remove the material 
about Native Americans migrating through Beringia but that, if a tribe's 
tradition is that it was always in the Americas, that should be included in its 
article. Probably not enough to satisfy everyone...


Fred


- Original Message -
From: Peter Southwood 
To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' 
Sent: Fri, 11 May 2018 00:34:15 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

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
> > remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those
> > requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
> knowledge. I
> > think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to
> do
> > that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
> when
> > we opened editing to anybody.
> >
> > JP
> >
> > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood <
> > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >
> > > One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of
> > > notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability
> > > requirement  it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
> things
> > > that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence,
> > and
> > > where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
> > the
> > > authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track
> > > record and proof of identity.
> > > This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as
> > > possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
> reliable
> > > source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the
> > > credibility we have.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Gnangarra
> > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Gnangarra]

we can, its rather simple. We quote the information and attribute it to the
source.

Within oral cultures certain people with certain authorities on different
subjects.  When we record the spoken word we record the authority under
which they speak.  As the knowledge is transferred we also know that the
knowledge will stay the same just the authority to speak it changes.
Cultures that rely on oral transfer of knowledge actual have a consistency
with the stories thats how 10's of thousands of years Indigenous Australian
astronomical knowledge has been passed down and then verified by current
western methods.  We also have significant environmental stories that have
been verified by studies including evidence of significant sea level
changes where objects have been recovered.

Once you get past the its just a story that keeps changing, the scientific
knowledge of these cultures are in many ways greater than the knowledge
carried by current western sources.

The leap of faith is one of accepting that the means to establish
notability and verify already exist we just need to put aside our own
knowledge bias and accept the methods from the sources processes are just
as robust. As for knowledge changing I suspect that most of the knowledge
sourced from the 1900 encyclopaedia Britannica have changed considerably
over the last 100 years.



On 11 May 2018 at 16:19, Natacha Rault  wrote:

> > If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
>
>
> Could they possibly be registered in an oral form?
> Could we invent a way of integrating oral sources? We already use radio or
> television sources (also not written...). The only problem with oral
> sources like stories passed on generation to generation is that they are
> not fixed by nature. Fixing them could change the modality of transmission
> too.
> I suppose these sources could stem from a notorious person of a community
> who would give ID (like journalists do when writting a paper).
> Has there been research or projects on this? I suppose Lingua Libre could
> provide information on how to do it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Nattes à chat
>
> > Le 11 mai 2018 à 06:34, Peter Southwood 
> a écrit :
> > 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
> >>> remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those
> >>> requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
> >> knowledge. I
> >>> think practice can show us otherwise in 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

It you are there, it's what they do in the evening. Listen, record, transcribe, 
compare versions from different bands. That comparison is a measure of 
notability and reliability.

Fred

- Original Message -
From: Natacha Rault 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Sent: Fri, 11 May 2018 04:19:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

> If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?


Could they possibly be registered in an oral form? 
Could we invent a way of integrating oral sources? We already use radio or 
television sources (also not written...). The only problem with oral sources 
like stories passed on generation to generation is that they are not fixed by 
nature. Fixing them could change the modality of transmission too. 
I suppose these sources could stem from a notorious person of a community who 
would give ID (like journalists do when writting a paper).
Has there been research or projects on this? I suppose Lingua Libre could 
provide information on how to do it. 

Cheers, 

Nattes à chat

> Le 11 mai 2018 à 06:34, Peter Southwood  a 
> écrit :
> 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
>>> remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those
>>> requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
>> knowledge. I
>>> think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to
>> do
>>> that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
>> when
>>> we opened editing to anybody.
>>> 
>>> JP
>>> 
>>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood <
>>> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>> 
 One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of
 notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability
 requirement  it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
>> things
 that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence,
>>> and
 where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
>>> the
 authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track
 record and proof of identity.
 This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as
 possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
>> reliable
 source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the
 credibility we have.
 Cheers,
 Peter
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Wikimedia-l 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Natacha Rault]

> If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?


Could they possibly be registered in an oral form? 
Could we invent a way of integrating oral sources? We already use radio or 
television sources (also not written...). The only problem with oral sources 
like stories passed on generation to generation is that they are not fixed by 
nature. Fixing them could change the modality of transmission too. 
I suppose these sources could stem from a notorious person of a community who 
would give ID (like journalists do when writting a paper).
Has there been research or projects on this? I suppose Lingua Libre could 
provide information on how to do it. 

Cheers, 

Nattes à chat

> Le 11 mai 2018 à 06:34, Peter Southwood  a 
> écrit :
> 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
>>> remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those
>>> requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
>> knowledge. I
>>> think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to
>> do
>>> that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
>> when
>>> we opened editing to anybody.
>>> 
>>> JP
>>> 
>>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood <
>>> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>> 
 One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of
 notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability
 requirement  it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
>> things
 that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence,
>>> and
 where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
>>> the
 authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track
 record and proof of identity.
 This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as
 possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
>> reliable
 source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the
 credibility we have.
 Cheers,
 Peter
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
 Behalf Of Gnangarra
 Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50
 To: Wikimedia Mailing List
 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
 
 notability and verifiability are important,  every culture and
>> language
 has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge.  These culture
>> manage
 successfully to share knowledge many of them long before