Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Mathieu Lovato Stumpf Guntz]

Hello Peter, and the rest of the rest of the list

(Please let me know if you feel like replying with a few months delay is 
perceived as an unwanted behavior, at list on the list. I don't feel 
like this issue as been closed in the mid time, so it seems to me that 
it is still relevant to provide some feedback.)


I would rather say, "if not recorded". And I think we already have all 
the necessary projects to publish the raw audio/video material (Commons) 
from which can be transcribed original interviews (Wikinews), before 
making researches that cross their informations, analyze them and aim to 
produce some syntheses/conclusions (Wikiversity), that might possibly 
serve as reference for Wikipedia¹. But even in the case were the 
Wikipedia step is not happening, the firsts elements are also worthy 
contributions to the sum of all knowledge and we should, to my mind, 
encourage, conduct and praise them as such.


Cheers,
mathieu

Le 11/05/2018 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 the western

styles

were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives.  The is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Delphine Dallison]

> Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and
> traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion.

I would suggest that we already have a repository built for purpose to
gather these oral histories and it's Wikimedia Commons. I definitely agree
that finding ways of capturing and uploading those oral histories on a
Creative Commons open license would be a fantastic project, whether that be
in the form of video or oral recordings. There are already many projects of
that type taking place with local history groups or herstory groups, etc, so
maybe we need to find ways to work with those groups to release their
content under the right licenses. Wouldn't it be amazing to have such a
wealth of primary sources available on wiki commons for any researchers to
use and write about so it can then generate secondary sources to be added to
Wikipedia? 

Best wishes,

Delphine Dallison
Wikimedian in Residence
Scottish Library and Information Council
Turnberry House
Suite 5:5, Fifth Floor
175 West George Street
Glasgow G2 2LB
Tel: 0141 202 2999
www.scottishlibraries.org


Enriching lives through libraries


-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org> On Behalf Of
Jean-Philippe Béland
Sent: 11 May 2018 14:51
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

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, <came...@cameron11598.net> 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, <toddmal...@gmail.com> 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,
> > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

Very good. If any willing editor runs into trouble or is made to feel unwelcome 
or subjected to unfair criticism, that is the time to intervene. We are however 
not in a position to discourage women or minority editors from "recruiting" or 
encouraging other minority editors or women to edit. Any difficulties with that 
they will have to learn for themselves though experience with those they have 
recruited and feedback from them.

I think we can point out areas of knowledge that are poorly covered, as well as 
those that are overdone.

Fred

- Original Message -
From: Romaine Wiki <romaine.w...@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Mon, 14 May 2018 23:39:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

Was it the first time I noticed this subject in the Wikimedia movement, no.
It happens too many times that people get frustrated because the gender,
color of their skin or native background is the key reason to ask someone,
instead of the qualities that this person has.

There are two main reasons why I do not go into further detail:
1. the privacy of this individual is something I can't ignore
2. My previous email gives an example in a generic topic, and the topic is
not about an individual case.

Also is zooming in on an individual case not a solution, as we need to be
aware as movement how we are perceived by others.

I disagree that it is related to the attitude of an individual. The way how
someone will respond to it is depending on the attitude yes. But I think
that being asked for something just because of the colour of your face is
degrading you from being a person with various qualities and/or the work
you do. The possible demotivation is the result, but the core is in the
approach itself.

But yes, it is a difficult topic. But in this case it is much harder for
that individual who (temporarily?) gave up on editing/contributing.


I think it comes to inclusiveness, being able to include anyone independent
from how a face looks like. being inclusive to anyone, so that all the
knowledge of the world can be collected.
What we should not do is trying to be inclusive by being exclusive. We
should be making it possible for anyone to have a safe and pleasant space
and in that way bridge the gaps, instead of just trying to ask specific
people to come for the colour of their skin, etc. As said, that last thing
is creating gaps instead of closing them.

Romaine



2018-05-07 8:03 GMT+02:00 Amir E. Aharoni <amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il>:

> This is a sensitive topic, and I'm a white man myself, so please slap me if
> I say something dumb.
>
> 2018-05-07 7:10 GMT+03:00 Romaine Wiki <romaine.w...@gmail.com>:
>
> >
> > What has happened?
> >
> > She was invited to participate in a Wikimedia activity, because:
> > 1. she is a woman
> > 2. she is from a minority
> > 3. she is from an area in the world with much less editors (compared to
> > Europe/US)
> >
> > and perhaps also because her colour of her skin is a bit different then
> > mine (Caucasian).
> >
> > At the same time she has the impression that the work she does on the
> > Wikimedia wiki('s) is not valued, nor taken into account.
> >
>
> By whom?
>
> By the people who invited her?
>
> By other participants in the event?
>
> By other editors in the same wiki site?
>
> By the readers?
>
>
>
> > She does not want to be invited because she is a woman, nor because she
> is
> > from a minority, nor ... etc. This is offensive.
> > She only wants to be invited because of the work she contributes on
> > Wikipedia/etc.
> >
>
> This makes a lot of sense to me, but that's just me and attitudes are
> different for each person.
>
>
> > Besides the many good initiatives and intentions, this kind of approaches
> > to our contributors is demotivating them, please be aware of this.
>
>
> Again, it's probably demotivating to some. Maybe to 98%, maybe to 30%,
> maybe to 5%. I honestly don't know.
>
> I believe demotivation/frustration is the largest problem we face as
> > movement.
> >
>
> I don't know if its the biggest problem. On this mailing list we are a
> small group of meta-active Wikimedians, and we are the minority among
> editors. We don't actually represent all the editors. And of course the
> editors are a tiny minority compared to the readers.
>
> I'd argue that the hard time that some editors are giving newcomers is a
> bigger problem. Gender is certainly a part of that, and there are many
> other parts.
>
> We meta-wikimedians can find a better way to invite people to events, and
> we can change ourselves. That doesn't sound too hard. Changing the wider
> editor culture is har

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Romaine Wiki]

Was it the first time I noticed this subject in the Wikimedia movement, no.
It happens too many times that people get frustrated because the gender,
color of their skin or native background is the key reason to ask someone,
instead of the qualities that this person has.

There are two main reasons why I do not go into further detail:
1. the privacy of this individual is something I can't ignore
2. My previous email gives an example in a generic topic, and the topic is
not about an individual case.

Also is zooming in on an individual case not a solution, as we need to be
aware as movement how we are perceived by others.

I disagree that it is related to the attitude of an individual. The way how
someone will respond to it is depending on the attitude yes. But I think
that being asked for something just because of the colour of your face is
degrading you from being a person with various qualities and/or the work
you do. The possible demotivation is the result, but the core is in the
approach itself.

But yes, it is a difficult topic. But in this case it is much harder for
that individual who (temporarily?) gave up on editing/contributing.


I think it comes to inclusiveness, being able to include anyone independent
from how a face looks like. being inclusive to anyone, so that all the
knowledge of the world can be collected.
What we should not do is trying to be inclusive by being exclusive. We
should be making it possible for anyone to have a safe and pleasant space
and in that way bridge the gaps, instead of just trying to ask specific
people to come for the colour of their skin, etc. As said, that last thing
is creating gaps instead of closing them.

Romaine



2018-05-07 8:03 GMT+02:00 Amir E. Aharoni :

> This is a sensitive topic, and I'm a white man myself, so please slap me if
> I say something dumb.
>
> 2018-05-07 7:10 GMT+03:00 Romaine Wiki :
>
> >
> > What has happened?
> >
> > She was invited to participate in a Wikimedia activity, because:
> > 1. she is a woman
> > 2. she is from a minority
> > 3. she is from an area in the world with much less editors (compared to
> > Europe/US)
> >
> > and perhaps also because her colour of her skin is a bit different then
> > mine (Caucasian).
> >
> > At the same time she has the impression that the work she does on the
> > Wikimedia wiki('s) is not valued, nor taken into account.
> >
>
> By whom?
>
> By the people who invited her?
>
> By other participants in the event?
>
> By other editors in the same wiki site?
>
> By the readers?
>
>
>
> > She does not want to be invited because she is a woman, nor because she
> is
> > from a minority, nor ... etc. This is offensive.
> > She only wants to be invited because of the work she contributes on
> > Wikipedia/etc.
> >
>
> This makes a lot of sense to me, but that's just me and attitudes are
> different for each person.
>
>
> > Besides the many good initiatives and intentions, this kind of approaches
> > to our contributors is demotivating them, please be aware of this.
>
>
> Again, it's probably demotivating to some. Maybe to 98%, maybe to 30%,
> maybe to 5%. I honestly don't know.
>
> I believe demotivation/frustration is the largest problem we face as
> > movement.
> >
>
> I don't know if its the biggest problem. On this mailing list we are a
> small group of meta-active Wikimedians, and we are the minority among
> editors. We don't actually represent all the editors. And of course the
> editors are a tiny minority compared to the readers.
>
> I'd argue that the hard time that some editors are giving newcomers is a
> bigger problem. Gender is certainly a part of that, and there are many
> other parts.
>
> We meta-wikimedians can find a better way to invite people to events, and
> we can change ourselves. That doesn't sound too hard. Changing the wider
> editor culture is harder.
>
> I heard from people that the problem described is called tokenism
> > .
> >
>
> Yes, that's when representation is given to a weakened group, but that
> representation is too weak to be meaningful, and may do more harm than
> good.
>
>
> > I believe the only way to close the gaps related to gender, minorities,
> > etc, is to create an atmosphere in what everyone is appreciated for what
> > she/he is doing, completely unrelated to the gender someone appears to
> > have, the ethnicity, race, area of the world, etc etc etc etc.
> >
>
> So that's where it gets really complicated, because it's always related, in
> ways that are sometimes visible and sometimes invisible.
>
> Let's take school education as a hopefully easy example. People from
> different areas of the world will have very different things to write about
> it. In some areas of the world everybody gets school education—boys and
> girls, rich and poor, rural and urban. In other areas it may be only boys;
> or only people in cities; or only people who know a certain language; or

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Vi to]

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

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

Vito

2018-05-12 14:27 GMT+02:00 Paulo Santos Perneta <paulospern...@gmail.com>:

> A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and
> reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more reliable
> than any secondary sources quoting it.
>
> As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much
> sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
>
> There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should be
> used instead of a primary source in those situations.
>
> Paulo
>
> 2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>:
>
> > 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 <came...@cameron11598.net>:
> >
> > > 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, <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for
> > spammers
> > > > and hoaxers. We have en

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

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

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

Fred

- Original Message -
From: Paulo Santos Perneta <paulospern...@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:53:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

It's reliable concerning the opinions and vision of the author on the
things he describes, not the facts themselves.

And unless I'm misunderstanding this, fact checkers (critics?) are actually
secondary sources, I believe?

Paulo

2018-05-12 13:48 GMT+01:00 FRED BAUDER <fredb...@fairpoint.net>:

> Autobiographical writing published by the mainstream press with editors
> and fact checkers is more reliable.
>
> Fred
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Paulo Santos Perneta <paulospern...@gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:44:07 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> There is a difference between the two situations. The king's deed and the
> parish books are primary sources, but both are official documents, subject
> to peer review. Diaries and autobiographies are primary sources as well,
> but generally not subjected to any review. There should be some way to
> distinguish between the two types.
>
> Paulo
>
> 2018-05-12 13:40 GMT+01:00 FRED BAUDER <fredb...@fairpoint.net>:
>
> > And should be used, just as an image of a headstone can be used, in
> > preference to some writing about it. Exceptions, don't prove the rule
> > though. A diary should not be used directly, and an autobiography with
> > great care, depending on how it was edited and published.
> >
> > Fred
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: Paulo Santos Perneta <paulospern...@gmail.com>
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:27:06 -0400 (EDT)
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >
> > A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and
> > reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more
> reliable
> > than any secondary sources quoting it.
> >
> > As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much
> > sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
> >
> > There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should
> be
> > used instead of a primary source in those situations.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> > 2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> :
> >
> > > 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 <came...@cameron11598.net>:
> > >
> > > > Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral histories and
> > > traditions
> > > > come to mind. However I'

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

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

Fred


- Original Message -
From: Paulo Santos Perneta <paulospern...@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:50:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

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

Paulo

2018-05-12 13:45 GMT+01:00 FRED BAUDER <fredb...@fairpoint.net>:

> Just as we allow a firm to list their officers or a town to correct the
> name of the mayor, if there are no factual issues, any source is fine. With
> respect to significant disputed issues professional  academic analysis is
> vital, think cold fusion.
>
> Fred
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:31:14 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> If a "secondary" source just parrots or copies a primary source, it's added
> nothing. At that point, it doesn't matter which one you use.
>
> However, good, reliable secondary sources will cross-check the claims of
> primary sources against one another, evaluate them for reliability, and
> come up with what the real truth is actually likely to be. When those
> sources are fact-checked and peer reviewed, they are much more reliable
> than the primary sources, and we should prefer them to editors evaluating
> primary sources themselves, or worse yet, uncritically treating them as
> factual.
>
> Todd
>
> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and
> > reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more
> reliable
> > than any secondary sources quoting it.
> >
> > As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much
> > sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
> >
> > There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should
> be
> > used instead of a primary source in those situations.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> > 2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> :
> >
> > > 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 <came...@cameron11598.net>:
> > >
> > > > 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 paper

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

It's reliable concerning the opinions and vision of the author on the
things he describes, not the facts themselves.

And unless I'm misunderstanding this, fact checkers (critics?) are actually
secondary sources, I believe?

Paulo

2018-05-12 13:48 GMT+01:00 FRED BAUDER <fredb...@fairpoint.net>:

> Autobiographical writing published by the mainstream press with editors
> and fact checkers is more reliable.
>
> Fred
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Paulo Santos Perneta <paulospern...@gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:44:07 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> There is a difference between the two situations. The king's deed and the
> parish books are primary sources, but both are official documents, subject
> to peer review. Diaries and autobiographies are primary sources as well,
> but generally not subjected to any review. There should be some way to
> distinguish between the two types.
>
> Paulo
>
> 2018-05-12 13:40 GMT+01:00 FRED BAUDER <fredb...@fairpoint.net>:
>
> > And should be used, just as an image of a headstone can be used, in
> > preference to some writing about it. Exceptions, don't prove the rule
> > though. A diary should not be used directly, and an autobiography with
> > great care, depending on how it was edited and published.
> >
> > Fred
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: Paulo Santos Perneta <paulospern...@gmail.com>
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:27:06 -0400 (EDT)
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >
> > A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and
> > reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more
> reliable
> > than any secondary sources quoting it.
> >
> > As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much
> > sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
> >
> > There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should
> be
> > used instead of a primary source in those situations.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> > 2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> :
> >
> > > 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 <came...@cameron11598.net>:
> > >
> > > > 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

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

Paulo

2018-05-12 13:45 GMT+01:00 FRED BAUDER <fredb...@fairpoint.net>:

> Just as we allow a firm to list their officers or a town to correct the
> name of the mayor, if there are no factual issues, any source is fine. With
> respect to significant disputed issues professional  academic analysis is
> vital, think cold fusion.
>
> Fred
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:31:14 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> If a "secondary" source just parrots or copies a primary source, it's added
> nothing. At that point, it doesn't matter which one you use.
>
> However, good, reliable secondary sources will cross-check the claims of
> primary sources against one another, evaluate them for reliability, and
> come up with what the real truth is actually likely to be. When those
> sources are fact-checked and peer reviewed, they are much more reliable
> than the primary sources, and we should prefer them to editors evaluating
> primary sources themselves, or worse yet, uncritically treating them as
> factual.
>
> Todd
>
> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and
> > reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more
> reliable
> > than any secondary sources quoting it.
> >
> > As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much
> > sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
> >
> > There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should
> be
> > used instead of a primary source in those situations.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> > 2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> :
> >
> > > 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 <came...@cameron11598.net>:
> > >
> > > > 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

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

Fred

- Original Message -
From: Paulo Santos Perneta <paulospern...@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:44:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

There is a difference between the two situations. The king's deed and the
parish books are primary sources, but both are official documents, subject
to peer review. Diaries and autobiographies are primary sources as well,
but generally not subjected to any review. There should be some way to
distinguish between the two types.

Paulo

2018-05-12 13:40 GMT+01:00 FRED BAUDER <fredb...@fairpoint.net>:

> And should be used, just as an image of a headstone can be used, in
> preference to some writing about it. Exceptions, don't prove the rule
> though. A diary should not be used directly, and an autobiography with
> great care, depending on how it was edited and published.
>
> Fred
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Paulo Santos Perneta <paulospern...@gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:27:06 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and
> reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more reliable
> than any secondary sources quoting it.
>
> As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much
> sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
>
> There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should be
> used instead of a primary source in those situations.
>
> Paulo
>
> 2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>:
>
> > 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 <came...@cameron11598.net>:
> >
> > > 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 Je

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

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

Fred

- Original Message -
From: Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:31:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

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

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

Todd

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

> A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and
> reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more reliable
> than any secondary sources quoting it.
>
> As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much
> sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
>
> There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should be
> used instead of a primary source in those situations.
>
> Paulo
>
> 2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>:
>
> > 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 <came...@cameron11598.net>:
> >
> > > 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

There is a difference between the two situations. The king's deed and the
parish books are primary sources, but both are official documents, subject
to peer review. Diaries and autobiographies are primary sources as well,
but generally not subjected to any review. There should be some way to
distinguish between the two types.

Paulo

2018-05-12 13:40 GMT+01:00 FRED BAUDER <fredb...@fairpoint.net>:

> And should be used, just as an image of a headstone can be used, in
> preference to some writing about it. Exceptions, don't prove the rule
> though. A diary should not be used directly, and an autobiography with
> great care, depending on how it was edited and published.
>
> Fred
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Paulo Santos Perneta <paulospern...@gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:27:06 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and
> reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more reliable
> than any secondary sources quoting it.
>
> As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much
> sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
>
> There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should be
> used instead of a primary source in those situations.
>
> Paulo
>
> 2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>:
>
> > 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 <came...@cameron11598.net>:
> >
> > > 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
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

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

Fred

- Original Message -
From: Paulo Santos Perneta <paulospern...@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:38:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

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

Paulo


2018-05-12 13:31 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com>:

> If a "secondary" source just parrots or copies a primary source, it's added
> nothing. At that point, it doesn't matter which one you use.
>
> However, good, reliable secondary sources will cross-check the claims of
> primary sources against one another, evaluate them for reliability, and
> come up with what the real truth is actually likely to be. When those
> sources are fact-checked and peer reviewed, they are much more reliable
> than the primary sources, and we should prefer them to editors evaluating
> primary sources themselves, or worse yet, uncritically treating them as
> factual.
>
> Todd
>
> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and
> > reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more
> reliable
> > than any secondary sources quoting it.
> >
> > As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much
> > sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
> >
> > There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should
> be
> > used instead of a primary source in those situations.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> > 2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> :
> >
> > > 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 <came...@cameron11598.net>:
> > >
> > > > 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
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

And should be used, just as an image of a headstone can be used, in preference 
to some writing about it. Exceptions, don't prove the rule though. A diary 
should not be used directly, and an autobiography with great care, depending on 
how it was edited and published.

Fred


- Original Message -
From: Paulo Santos Perneta <paulospern...@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:27:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and
reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more reliable
than any secondary sources quoting it.

As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much
sure there is a similar saying in English as well.

There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should be
used instead of a primary source in those situations.

Paulo

2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>:

> 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 <came...@cameron11598.net>:
>
> > 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, <toddmal...@gmail.com> 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 s

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

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

Paulo


2018-05-12 13:31 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com>:

> If a "secondary" source just parrots or copies a primary source, it's added
> nothing. At that point, it doesn't matter which one you use.
>
> However, good, reliable secondary sources will cross-check the claims of
> primary sources against one another, evaluate them for reliability, and
> come up with what the real truth is actually likely to be. When those
> sources are fact-checked and peer reviewed, they are much more reliable
> than the primary sources, and we should prefer them to editors evaluating
> primary sources themselves, or worse yet, uncritically treating them as
> factual.
>
> Todd
>
> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and
> > reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more
> reliable
> > than any secondary sources quoting it.
> >
> > As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much
> > sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
> >
> > There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should
> be
> > used instead of a primary source in those situations.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> > 2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> :
> >
> > > 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 <came...@cameron11598.net>:
> > >
> > > > 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...@telko

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Todd Allen]

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

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

Todd

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

> A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and
> reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more reliable
> than any secondary sources quoting it.
>
> As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much
> sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
>
> There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should be
> used instead of a primary source in those situations.
>
> Paulo
>
> 2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>:
>
> > 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 <came...@cameron11598.net>:
> >
> > > 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, <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Abandoning notability and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and
reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more reliable
than any secondary sources quoting it.

As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much
sure there is a similar saying in English as well.

There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should be
used instead of a primary source in those situations.

Paulo

2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>:

> 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 <came...@cameron11598.net>:
>
> > 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, <toddmal...@gmail.com> 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
> > >
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

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

Fred

- Original Message -
From: Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 01:49:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and have 
similar problems. You will have to clarify:
In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and verifiable? 
Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary sources 
produced by the subject?
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Paulo Santos Perneta
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are primary
sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original sources, as
in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second
should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they
generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this confusion in
Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the
articles.

Paulo


2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron <came...@cameron11598.net>:

> 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, <toddmal...@gmail.com> 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

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 <came...@cameron11598.net>:

> 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, <toddmal...@gmail.com> 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.
> > 

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 <paulospern...@gmail.com>:

>  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 <vituzzu.w...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Policies about primary (en.wiki's one for example
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:PRIMARY>) 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 <paulospern...@gmail.com
> >:
> >
> > > 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 <came...@cameron11598.net>:
> > >
> > > > 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, <toddmal...@gmail.com>
> 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.
> > > > >
> > 

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 <vituzzu.w...@gmail.com>:

> Policies about primary (en.wiki's one for example
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:PRIMARY>) 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 <paulospern...@gmail.com>:
>
> > 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 <came...@cameron11598.net>:
> >
> > > 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, <toddmal...@gmail.com> 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,
> > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Vi to]

Policies about primary (en.wiki's one for example
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:PRIMARY>) 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 <paulospern...@gmail.com>:

> 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 <came...@cameron11598.net>:
>
> > 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, <toddmal...@gmail.com> 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: Wikimed

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 <came...@cameron11598.net>:

> 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, <toddmal...@gmail.com> 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
> > >
> > > 

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, <came...@cameron11598.net> 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, <toddmal...@gmail.com> 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

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 <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> 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 <fredb...@fairpoint.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com>
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > 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,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>



-- 
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
<https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8>
.
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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, <gnanga...@gmail.com> 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 <amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il>
> wrote:
>
> > What are the non-Western methods?
> >
> > בתאריך יום ו׳, 11 במאי 2018, 15:49, מאת Gnangarra ‏<gnanga...@gmail.com
> >:
> >
> > > 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 <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net
> >
> > > 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 <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> > > > To:

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 <fredb...@fairpoint.net> wrote:

>
> - Original Message -
> From: Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 <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 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 <etest...@gmail.com> 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 1

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, <toddmal...@gmail.com> 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 w

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 <amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il>
wrote:

> What are the non-Western methods?
>
> בתאריך יום ו׳, 11 במאי 2018, 15:49, מאת Gnangarra ‏<gnanga...@gmail.com>:
>
> > 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 <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> > 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 <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> > > To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > 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 

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 ‏<gnanga...@gmail.com>:

> 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 <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> 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 <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> > To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > 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, <toddmal...@gmail.com> 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 

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 <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
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 <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> 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, <toddmal...@gmail.com> 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
> > > requ

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 <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
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, <toddmal...@gmail.com> 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 proj

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 <n.ra...@me.com> 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 <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> 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, <toddmal...@gmail.com> 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: [Wik

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 <n.ra...@me.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
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 <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> 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, <toddmal...@gmail.com> 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 gene

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 <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> 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, <toddmal...@gmail.com> 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 n

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

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 <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
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, <toddmal...@gmail.com> 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
> > &

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Peter Southwood]

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, <toddmal...@gmail.com> 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 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
&

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Jean-Philippe Béland]

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, <toddmal...@gmail.com> 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 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
> > > alter

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Peter Southwood]

OK, then. How do they do it? How could this be extended to the Wikipedia 
environment?Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gnangarra
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 2:09 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

>
> ​ Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers
> and hoaxers.
>

​no one is saying we should abandon notability or verifiability, what we
are saying is we need to consider how other cultures and communities
​establish authoritative knowledge sources and incorporate those with the
the scope of notability and verifiability



> ​ 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.
>

​This is our problem when it comes knowledge gaps and bias, if we wait it
means we are accepting that what we are doing and the considerable resource
we are expending at the moment is nothing more than tokenism.
​

On 11 May 2018 at 04:41, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> 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:wikime

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Gnangarra]

>
> ​ Going back to nurses...
>

​Yep you are right Fred in that the field a person works in is also one in
which they might carry more than a passing interest and are likely to know
more about its history.   We must also recognise that a person working
nursing may also be interested in medicine, palliative care​, emergency
care, and many other areas related to the field in which they work.  The
tokenism here is in our expectation that because nurses are female they
will want to write about females in nursing, we need a broader base of
contributors the subject itself.


What has developed is we have two streams on tokenism developing,

   - one is on source issues
   - one is on expectations of contributors

Romaine original thread was about the second point, the tokenism is in
expecting women to fix topics about women (call it womens work if you want)
though you can substitute that with any under represented group.  The other
part is about how we adapt to the bias inherent what we acknowledge as
notable and verifiable.   The more we evolve  and expand our knowledge base
the greater the challenges ahead and yes that will take leaps of faith to
incorporate other form of notability and verifiability to into areas we may
never encountered

​
>
>
On 11 May 2018 at 06:41, FRED BAUDER <fredb...@fairpoint.net> wrote:

> Going back to nurses... The reason I used them as an example of a group
> that might edit is that I had been reading the biography of a nurse,
> written by her grand-niece, also a nurse, someone my mother knew in our
> local San Luis Valley community, M. Elizabeth Shellabarger. She was
> significant locally and in nursing at the time she was active. Whoever
> wrote the article seems to have had little trouble finding 3 reliable
> sources, including the biography. Not someone to compare to Mother Theresa,
> but certainly as notable a person as the average Baroness.
>
> The thing is, there are similar notable women in every community on earth,
> people who form the backbone of the communities they live in and serve. If
> there is a way to include them we should. That doesn't mean that no basis
> of notability be required, but that something somewhat less or different
> than what might be required for someone who lived in a literate society. M.
> Elizabeth Shellabarger was a diarist... In an indigenous community the
> equivalent would be the many stories people tell about notable members of
> the community. Big Spotted Horse of the Pawnee is an example of such a
> character. He was the source of many stories, and not even a chief.
>
> Fred
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 16:41:49 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> 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 th

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Gnangarra]

>
> ​ Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers
> and hoaxers.
>

​no one is saying we should abandon notability or verifiability, what we
are saying is we need to consider how other cultures and communities
​establish authoritative knowledge sources and incorporate those with the
the scope of notability and verifiability



> ​ 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.
>

​This is our problem when it comes knowledge gaps and bias, if we wait it
means we are accepting that what we are doing and the considerable resource
we are expending at the moment is nothing more than tokenism.
​

On 11 May 2018 at 04:41, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> 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
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

Lucille B. Buchanan might make an article: 
http://www.blackpast.org/aaw/jones-lucy-lucile-berkeley-buchanan-1884-1989

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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

Going back to nurses... The reason I used them as an example of a group that 
might edit is that I had been reading the biography of a nurse, written by her 
grand-niece, also a nurse, someone my mother knew in our local San Luis Valley 
community, M. Elizabeth Shellabarger. She was significant locally and in 
nursing at the time she was active. Whoever wrote the article seems to have had 
little trouble finding 3 reliable sources, including the biography. Not someone 
to compare to Mother Theresa, but certainly as notable a person as the average 
Baroness.

The thing is, there are similar notable women in every community on earth, 
people who form the backbone of the communities they live in and serve. If 
there is a way to include them we should. That doesn't mean that no basis of 
notability be required, but that something somewhat less or different than what 
might be required for someone who lived in a literate society. M. Elizabeth 
Shellabarger was a diarist... In an indigenous community the equivalent would 
be the many stories people tell about notable members of the community. Big 
Spotted Horse of the Pawnee is an example of such a character. He was the 
source of many stories, and not even a chief.

Fred


- Original Message -
From: Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 16:41:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

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
> &g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Todd Allen]

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 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 <etest...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
> member
> > > of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Peter Southwood]

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 <etest...@gmail.com> 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 way?
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> &g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Jean-Philippe Béland]

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 <etest...@gmail.com> 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 way?
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > >
> > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
> > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
> > >
> > > But it is what we accept as part of the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Peter Southwood]

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 <etest...@gmail.com> 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 way?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >
> > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
> > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
> >
> > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as Wikipedia
> > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that saying
> that
> > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable enough,
> > when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of
> > knowledge.
> >
> > JP
> > User:Amqui
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <fredb...@fairpoint.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com>
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Gnangarra]

 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 <etest...@gmail.com> 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 way?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >
> > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
> > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
> >
> > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as Wikipedia
> > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that saying
> that
> > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable enough,
> > when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of
> > knowledge.
> >
> > JP
> > User:Amqui
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <fredb...@fairpoint.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com>
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > 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/wikimedi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Eduardo Testart]

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 way?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
> knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
>
> But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as Wikipedia
> that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that saying that
> it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable enough,
> when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of
> knowledge.
>
> JP
> User:Amqui
>
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <fredb...@fairpoint.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com>
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > 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,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Jean-Philippe Béland]

"Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."

But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as Wikipedia
that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that saying that
it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable enough,
when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of
knowledge.

JP
User:Amqui


On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <fredb...@fairpoint.net> wrote:

>
> - Original Message -
> From: Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Jane Darnell]

Fae,
No, I have come to disagree that "The Wikipedia community has the most
success at correcting gender bias by encouraging interested volunteers of
any gender to create articles which help correct that bias, in all
subjects." This is simply because of our rules regarding references. Oddly,
Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never be able
to correct it. To see what I mean, have a look at the percentage female per
occupation over at the dicare project. Traditional female professions such
as "nurse" or even "nun" have lower percentages female than traditional
male professions such as football players have percentages male. Wikipedia
currently amplifies systemic bias, and that is not Wikipedia's fault. If
you pick up any newspaper and count the gender per obituary you will never
approach 50% female (at least not in my lifetime). Of course if you mean by
"correct it" to increase efforts like "Women in Red" to inch our percentage
of 17% overal to 18% then yes, I do believe that is feasible.

Yesterday I attended a Pieter Pourbus painting exhibition in Gouda and the
booklet states in the opening paragraph "He married the daughter of the
famous painter Lancelot Blondeel". My companion drily remarked "Didn't she
have a name?". I think you will find that such sentences are all over
Wikipedia, in all sorts of biography leads. The women are mentioned
implicitly more often for their wombs than anything else. Almost like
fauna! Here in the Netherlands, the Dutch Wikipedia chased off an editor
who was trying to correct systemic bias in the country's archives
databases. She ended up publishing a book of female biographies called
"1001 Vrouwen" that resurrected the overlooked biographies of notable Dutch
women up to 1900. The next one for women of the 20th-century  is coming out
this year. Now we have references, so we have those 1001 women in Wikidata
and lots of new articles about Dutch women in various language Wikipedias.
To really help "correct" the gender bias, we need to do much more outreach,
because we will never get there with the academic aggregate databases
available to us today.
Jane

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 11:31 AM, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7 May 2018 at 10:01, FRED BAUDER <fredb...@fairpoint.net> wrote:
> > Women editors might have something to add about nursing and the history
> of nursing that adds gender-specific value, increasing our coverage of the
> subject. So a workshop at a nursing convention might be valuable.
> >
> > Fred
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: Amir E. Aharoni <amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il>
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Sent: Mon, 07 May 2018 04:52:31 -0400 (EDT)
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >
> > 2018-05-07 9:55 GMT+03:00 Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> Amir,
> >> It's funny - after reading your mail I wondered if I had read Romaine's
> >> mail correctly.
> >
> >
> > You had probably read it correctly.
> >
> > Generally, I'm wondering whether direct invitations to women or people of
> > color (or women of color, etc.) work as they should. Many people say that
> > they work. They may be right, at least in part. If I understand
> correctly,
> > Romaine says that he has doubts about it, and he's probably right, too,
> at
> > least for some people.
> >
> > I'm just trying to say that diversity is important. How do we reach it? I
> > don't have very good answers. Probably not "one size fits all".
> >
> > I mean, I want that woman about whom Romaine was speaking to contribute
> her
> > knowledge. I want everybody to contribute their knowledge. Unless I
> missed
> > it, Romaine didn't write what is her expertise, but just for the sake of
> > the example, let's make something up and say that it's Astronomy.
> >
> > Do I want her to contribute her knowledge about Astronomy? Of course I
> do.
> > Should I tell her that I hope that she contributes her knowledge about
> > Astronomy? I probably should. (Do correct me if I'm wrong.)
> >
> > Do I think that she has something to say about Astronomy that men don't?
> > Yes, it's quite possible. Should I tell her that? Hmm, I don't know.
> Maybe,
> > maybe not. I think that this is the question that Romaine is trying to
> > raise. And again, please correct me if I'm wrong.
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New m

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Robert Fernandez]

The whole framing of this question is misguided.   There are lots of
people whose work is undervalued on Wikipedia for a lot of reasons.
If there is an effort to reach out to a particular group of volunteers
that is underrepresented then that should be celebrated as a positive
contribution to our projects and movement.   What we should not do is
say "how can I make this about my own personal situation?"   This is
about the movement and the mission, but too many volunteers think it
should be about catering to their own personal whims and needs.  If
there are legitimate grievances then we should address those problems
and not try to tear down efforts to address different problems.

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l
 wrote:
> Hi,
> I usually push diversity in any situation but only after I got a core quality 
> group of volunteer. the first degree of diversity is the diversity based on 
> wiki activity, IMHO.. I care about the rest and I try to be honest if I go in 
> that direction and why I do that. If anyone is offended for something, that 
> happens even if you do your best, in my experience being clear helps on the 
> long term.
> This a real documented example, if you want to read: 
> http://www.wikisciencecompetition.org/people/ . For WSC2017 it was mostly my 
> job to find these profiles, 90% of them. I did my best to find motivated jury 
> members and, as a first step, I searched for expert wikimedians based on 
> their CV on the profiles and their activities. My goal was to be balanced per 
> topic, than per geographical area (language mostly, some description in 
> English are poor), than maybe per gender, in that order. The evaluation of 
> scientific images require expertise, that's the core business. I shared my 
> experience here: 
> http://www.wikisciencecompetition.org/2017/11/16/how-was-the-jury-for-wiki-science-competition-2017-formed/
> In any case, I couldn't know who these people really were sometimes, I didn't 
> care at the first step. You know where they work, but they could be 
> foreigners. You know their enwikipedia activity (I need people with some 
> decent English fluency, so I started there and in any case I found what I 
> needed) but sometimes that does not reveal a lot, and English descriptions 
> are gender-neutral. So even if it wasn't planned I got some unbalance, and I 
> only discovered during the set up of the page that a certain nickname was a 
> blond guy and not a Arab or Chinese girl. I did my best to "fix it" at that 
> point but mostly because when you miss some positions and you look for 
> additional 3-4 names it's no big difference to look here or there. But still, 
> the first search was based on their expertise. And they all kew that.
>
> I think it was quite balanced in the end, taking care of the issue but not 
> ranking it more critical than the scientific quality of the profiles. Plus. I 
> told some of the female jurors that they could be "promoted" to the main jury 
> for next edition but that's because they deserve it.
> So, in the end  I look also for "girls" and "exotic profiles", I admit that, 
> but this was not my main goal, and it was never more important that the 
> quality. So at least these people knew that they were part of a team, that 
> they were there to share their expertise, not being displayed as a "token".
> I think it's more easy and relaxed if you always stick to the content and the 
> quality as a first step, IMHO. if you want the movement to grow roots you 
> need real people, motivated people, and real sharing. I really hope they will 
> set up real national challenges next time, thanks to the expertise we shared.
> Alessandro
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Il Lunedì 7 Maggio 2018 14:33, Andy Mabbett  
> ha scritto:
>
>
>  On 7 May 2018 at 05:10, Romaine Wiki  wrote:
>
>> I recently received an e-mail
>> from a user in the Wikimedia movement who has (temporarily?) stopped
>> contributing as she is not happy with a specific aspect of the atmosphere
>> in Wikimedia.
>
>> She was invited to participate in a Wikimedia activity, because:
>> 1. she is a woman
>> 2. she is from a minority
>> 3. she is from an area in the world with much less editors (compared to
>> Europe/US)
>>
>> and perhaps also because her colour of her skin is a bit different then
>> mine (Caucasian).
>
> I'm sorry to hear that a contributor feels unable to continue because of this.
>
> In order to examine what improvements we can make, can you tell us -
> without breeching confidentiality - how this approach was made, and
> what exactly was said?
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> 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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l]

Hi,
I usually push diversity in any situation but only after I got a core quality 
group of volunteer. the first degree of diversity is the diversity based on 
wiki activity, IMHO.. I care about the rest and I try to be honest if I go in 
that direction and why I do that. If anyone is offended for something, that 
happens even if you do your best, in my experience being clear helps on the 
long term.
This a real documented example, if you want to read: 
http://www.wikisciencecompetition.org/people/ . For WSC2017 it was mostly my 
job to find these profiles, 90% of them. I did my best to find motivated jury 
members and, as a first step, I searched for expert wikimedians based on their 
CV on the profiles and their activities. My goal was to be balanced per topic, 
than per geographical area (language mostly, some description in English are 
poor), than maybe per gender, in that order. The evaluation of scientific 
images require expertise, that's the core business. I shared my experience 
here: 
http://www.wikisciencecompetition.org/2017/11/16/how-was-the-jury-for-wiki-science-competition-2017-formed/
In any case, I couldn't know who these people really were sometimes, I didn't 
care at the first step. You know where they work, but they could be foreigners. 
You know their enwikipedia activity (I need people with some decent English 
fluency, so I started there and in any case I found what I needed) but 
sometimes that does not reveal a lot, and English descriptions are 
gender-neutral. So even if it wasn't planned I got some unbalance, and I only 
discovered during the set up of the page that a certain nickname was a blond 
guy and not a Arab or Chinese girl. I did my best to "fix it" at that point but 
mostly because when you miss some positions and you look for additional 3-4 
names it's no big difference to look here or there. But still, the first search 
was based on their expertise. And they all kew that. 

I think it was quite balanced in the end, taking care of the issue but not 
ranking it more critical than the scientific quality of the profiles. Plus. I 
told some of the female jurors that they could be "promoted" to the main jury 
for next edition but that's because they deserve it.
So, in the end  I look also for "girls" and "exotic profiles", I admit that, 
but this was not my main goal, and it was never more important that the 
quality. So at least these people knew that they were part of a team, that they 
were there to share their expertise, not being displayed as a "token".
I think it's more easy and relaxed if you always stick to the content and the 
quality as a first step, IMHO. if you want the movement to grow roots you need 
real people, motivated people, and real sharing. I really hope they will set up 
real national challenges next time, thanks to the expertise we shared.
Alessandro







Il Lunedì 7 Maggio 2018 14:33, Andy Mabbett  ha 
scritto:
 

 On 7 May 2018 at 05:10, Romaine Wiki  wrote:

> I recently received an e-mail
> from a user in the Wikimedia movement who has (temporarily?) stopped
> contributing as she is not happy with a specific aspect of the atmosphere
> in Wikimedia.

> She was invited to participate in a Wikimedia activity, because:
> 1. she is a woman
> 2. she is from a minority
> 3. she is from an area in the world with much less editors (compared to
> Europe/US)
>
> and perhaps also because her colour of her skin is a bit different then
> mine (Caucasian).

I'm sorry to hear that a contributor feels unable to continue because of this.

In order to examine what improvements we can make, can you tell us -
without breeching confidentiality - how this approach was made, and
what exactly was said?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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

[Andy Mabbett]

On 7 May 2018 at 05:10, Romaine Wiki  wrote:

> I recently received an e-mail
> from a user in the Wikimedia movement who has (temporarily?) stopped
> contributing as she is not happy with a specific aspect of the atmosphere
> in Wikimedia.

> She was invited to participate in a Wikimedia activity, because:
> 1. she is a woman
> 2. she is from a minority
> 3. she is from an area in the world with much less editors (compared to
> Europe/US)
>
> and perhaps also because her colour of her skin is a bit different then
> mine (Caucasian).

I'm sorry to hear that a contributor feels unable to continue because of this.

In order to examine what improvements we can make, can you tell us -
without breeching confidentiality - how this approach was made, and
what exactly was said?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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

[Jane Darnell]

ntly bias system that
> favours those of colonial heritage with colonial records over those who
> dont have that historical privilege, we encourage this as Romaine put its
> with a tokenism of participation and expectation of contributions
> conforming to maintain that bias.  While we do that we dont actually value
> the contributor or the contributions nor what else can be brought to the
> community.
>
>
> On 7 May 2018 at 17:31, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 7 May 2018 at 10:01, FRED BAUDER <fredb...@fairpoint.net> wrote:
> > > Women editors might have something to add about nursing and the history
> > of nursing that adds gender-specific value, increasing our coverage of
> the
> > subject. So a workshop at a nursing convention might be valuable.
> > >
> > > Fred
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: Amir E. Aharoni <amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il>
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > Sent: Mon, 07 May 2018 04:52:31 -0400 (EDT)
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > >
> > > 2018-05-07 9:55 GMT+03:00 Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > >> Amir,
> > >> It's funny - after reading your mail I wondered if I had read
> Romaine's
> > >> mail correctly.
> > >
> > >
> > > You had probably read it correctly.
> > >
> > > Generally, I'm wondering whether direct invitations to women or people
> of
> > > color (or women of color, etc.) work as they should. Many people say
> that
> > > they work. They may be right, at least in part. If I understand
> > correctly,
> > > Romaine says that he has doubts about it, and he's probably right, too,
> > at
> > > least for some people.
> > >
> > > I'm just trying to say that diversity is important. How do we reach
> it? I
> > > don't have very good answers. Probably not "one size fits all".
> > >
> > > I mean, I want that woman about whom Romaine was speaking to contribute
> > her
> > > knowledge. I want everybody to contribute their knowledge. Unless I
> > missed
> > > it, Romaine didn't write what is her expertise, but just for the sake
> of
> > > the example, let's make something up and say that it's Astronomy.
> > >
> > > Do I want her to contribute her knowledge about Astronomy? Of course I
> > do.
> > > Should I tell her that I hope that she contributes her knowledge about
> > > Astronomy? I probably should. (Do correct me if I'm wrong.)
> > >
> > > Do I think that she has something to say about Astronomy that men
> don't?
> > > Yes, it's quite possible. Should I tell her that? Hmm, I don't know.
> > Maybe,
> > > maybe not. I think that this is the question that Romaine is trying to
> > > raise. And again, please correct me if I'm wrong.
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > Thanks for reminding everyone that we live in the 21st Century, where
> > there are plenty of women role models at the top of previously male
> > dominated professions, not just nursing.
> >
> > The Wikipedia community has the most success at correcting gender bias
> > by encouraging interested volunteers of any gender to create articles
> > which help correct that bias, in all subjects.
> >
> > Fae
> > --
> > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikime

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Gnangarra]

I think the problems not in trying to fix the imbalance in knowledge,
something for which history has big role in what and how information was
even still is recorded.  I think the presumption that when we ask women to
edit about women we predispose the assumption that women are only
interested in women and only women can or want to write about them.  We
have had a lot of concepts that have improved content about women and they
have focused on getting women to do the contributions.

sorry Fred to quote as an example

​ Women editors might have something to add about nursing and the history
> of nursing that adds gender-specific value, increasing our coverage of the
> subject. So a workshop at a nursing convention might be valuable. ​
>


What we need to do is shift our train of thought from women can contribute
to subjects about women to providing environments that let and encourage
women to contribute to topics that interest them​ not us.  The same applies
to other "minorities" where the subject being written is less important
than enabling participation. For that we need to consider in broader terms
what is notable, what defines notability, how do we draw in those
intangible knowledge sources to broaden the base for both contributors and
contributions.

We have the ridiculous case of Indigenous people in Australia being
considered as fauna until the 1960's, so that when an Indigenous person was
written about historically(even now its still applies) that in itself is
significant but we measure the notability of a person based not on the
uniqueness of such  but on whether there is sufficient volume of other
works about the person.  We have created an inherently bias system that
favours those of colonial heritage with colonial records over those who
dont have that historical privilege, we encourage this as Romaine put its
with a tokenism of participation and expectation of contributions
conforming to maintain that bias.  While we do that we dont actually value
the contributor or the contributions nor what else can be brought to the
community.


On 7 May 2018 at 17:31, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7 May 2018 at 10:01, FRED BAUDER <fredb...@fairpoint.net> wrote:
> > Women editors might have something to add about nursing and the history
> of nursing that adds gender-specific value, increasing our coverage of the
> subject. So a workshop at a nursing convention might be valuable.
> >
> > Fred
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: Amir E. Aharoni <amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il>
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Sent: Mon, 07 May 2018 04:52:31 -0400 (EDT)
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >
> > 2018-05-07 9:55 GMT+03:00 Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> Amir,
> >> It's funny - after reading your mail I wondered if I had read Romaine's
> >> mail correctly.
> >
> >
> > You had probably read it correctly.
> >
> > Generally, I'm wondering whether direct invitations to women or people of
> > color (or women of color, etc.) work as they should. Many people say that
> > they work. They may be right, at least in part. If I understand
> correctly,
> > Romaine says that he has doubts about it, and he's probably right, too,
> at
> > least for some people.
> >
> > I'm just trying to say that diversity is important. How do we reach it? I
> > don't have very good answers. Probably not "one size fits all".
> >
> > I mean, I want that woman about whom Romaine was speaking to contribute
> her
> > knowledge. I want everybody to contribute their knowledge. Unless I
> missed
> > it, Romaine didn't write what is her expertise, but just for the sake of
> > the example, let's make something up and say that it's Astronomy.
> >
> > Do I want her to contribute her knowledge about Astronomy? Of course I
> do.
> > Should I tell her that I hope that she contributes her knowledge about
> > Astronomy? I probably should. (Do correct me if I'm wrong.)
> >
> > Do I think that she has something to say about Astronomy that men don't?
> > Yes, it's quite possible. Should I tell her that? Hmm, I don't know.
> Maybe,
> > maybe not. I think that this is the question that Romaine is trying to
> > raise. And again, please correct me if I'm wrong.
> > ___
> > 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,
> <mailto:wikim

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Fæ]

On 7 May 2018 at 10:01, FRED BAUDER <fredb...@fairpoint.net> wrote:
> Women editors might have something to add about nursing and the history of 
> nursing that adds gender-specific value, increasing our coverage of the 
> subject. So a workshop at a nursing convention might be valuable.
>
> Fred
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Amir E. Aharoni <amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Mon, 07 May 2018 04:52:31 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> 2018-05-07 9:55 GMT+03:00 Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Amir,
>> It's funny - after reading your mail I wondered if I had read Romaine's
>> mail correctly.
>
>
> You had probably read it correctly.
>
> Generally, I'm wondering whether direct invitations to women or people of
> color (or women of color, etc.) work as they should. Many people say that
> they work. They may be right, at least in part. If I understand correctly,
> Romaine says that he has doubts about it, and he's probably right, too, at
> least for some people.
>
> I'm just trying to say that diversity is important. How do we reach it? I
> don't have very good answers. Probably not "one size fits all".
>
> I mean, I want that woman about whom Romaine was speaking to contribute her
> knowledge. I want everybody to contribute their knowledge. Unless I missed
> it, Romaine didn't write what is her expertise, but just for the sake of
> the example, let's make something up and say that it's Astronomy.
>
> Do I want her to contribute her knowledge about Astronomy? Of course I do.
> Should I tell her that I hope that she contributes her knowledge about
> Astronomy? I probably should. (Do correct me if I'm wrong.)
>
> Do I think that she has something to say about Astronomy that men don't?
> Yes, it's quite possible. Should I tell her that? Hmm, I don't know. Maybe,
> maybe not. I think that this is the question that Romaine is trying to
> raise. And again, please correct me if I'm wrong.
> ___
> 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, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> ___
> 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, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Thanks for reminding everyone that we live in the 21st Century, where
there are plenty of women role models at the top of previously male
dominated professions, not just nursing.

The Wikipedia community has the most success at correcting gender bias
by encouraging interested volunteers of any gender to create articles
which help correct that bias, in all subjects.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

Women editors might have something to add about nursing and the history of 
nursing that adds gender-specific value, increasing our coverage of the 
subject. So a workshop at a nursing convention might be valuable.

Fred

- Original Message -
From: Amir E. Aharoni <amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Mon, 07 May 2018 04:52:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

2018-05-07 9:55 GMT+03:00 Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com>:

> Amir,
> It's funny - after reading your mail I wondered if I had read Romaine's
> mail correctly.


You had probably read it correctly.

Generally, I'm wondering whether direct invitations to women or people of
color (or women of color, etc.) work as they should. Many people say that
they work. They may be right, at least in part. If I understand correctly,
Romaine says that he has doubts about it, and he's probably right, too, at
least for some people.

I'm just trying to say that diversity is important. How do we reach it? I
don't have very good answers. Probably not "one size fits all".

I mean, I want that woman about whom Romaine was speaking to contribute her
knowledge. I want everybody to contribute their knowledge. Unless I missed
it, Romaine didn't write what is her expertise, but just for the sake of
the example, let's make something up and say that it's Astronomy.

Do I want her to contribute her knowledge about Astronomy? Of course I do.
Should I tell her that I hope that she contributes her knowledge about
Astronomy? I probably should. (Do correct me if I'm wrong.)

Do I think that she has something to say about Astronomy that men don't?
Yes, it's quite possible. Should I tell her that? Hmm, I don't know. Maybe,
maybe not. I think that this is the question that Romaine is trying to
raise. And again, please correct me if I'm wrong.
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Amir E. Aharoni]

2018-05-07 9:55 GMT+03:00 Jane Darnell :

> Amir,
> It's funny - after reading your mail I wondered if I had read Romaine's
> mail correctly.


You had probably read it correctly.

Generally, I'm wondering whether direct invitations to women or people of
color (or women of color, etc.) work as they should. Many people say that
they work. They may be right, at least in part. If I understand correctly,
Romaine says that he has doubts about it, and he's probably right, too, at
least for some people.

I'm just trying to say that diversity is important. How do we reach it? I
don't have very good answers. Probably not "one size fits all".

I mean, I want that woman about whom Romaine was speaking to contribute her
knowledge. I want everybody to contribute their knowledge. Unless I missed
it, Romaine didn't write what is her expertise, but just for the sake of
the example, let's make something up and say that it's Astronomy.

Do I want her to contribute her knowledge about Astronomy? Of course I do.
Should I tell her that I hope that she contributes her knowledge about
Astronomy? I probably should. (Do correct me if I'm wrong.)

Do I think that she has something to say about Astronomy that men don't?
Yes, it's quite possible. Should I tell her that? Hmm, I don't know. Maybe,
maybe not. I think that this is the question that Romaine is trying to
raise. And again, please correct me if I'm wrong.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[FRED BAUDER]

Women and other unrepresented people are invited to edit, to become skilled in 
editing (lots of practice and experience needed), and get well-deserved credit 
for excellence, but it is a process. Everyone stumbles at first, the point is 
not run anyone off or blame the difficulties associated with getting up to 
speed on gender or whatever.

Fred Bauder

- Original Message -
From: Romaine Wiki <romaine.w...@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc: Wikimedia Gendergap mailing list <gender...@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Mon, 07 May 2018 00:10:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

Hi all,

On Wikipedia and in our movement we are aware of the gendergap that exists
and all kinds of activities are organised to make the gap smaller. I think
this is great as no single gap should exist in collecting all the knowledge
in the world, as well as our movement should be diverse as the world's
population is diverse.

The statistics are clear on this matter, this is something to take care of.
However, a part of the approach is causing problems, because general
statistics should not be applied on individuals as that reduces humans to
numbers only.

The reason why I bring this up is because I recently received an e-mail
from a user in the Wikimedia movement who has (temporarily?) stopped
contributing as she is not happy with a specific aspect of the atmosphere
in Wikimedia.

She does not speak out at loud, but I think we must be aware as movement of
the silent cry, therefore this e-mail to bring awareness (but with respect
for the privacy of this individual).


What has happened?

She was invited to participate in a Wikimedia activity, because:
1. she is a woman
2. she is from a minority
3. she is from an area in the world with much less editors (compared to
Europe/US)

and perhaps also because her colour of her skin is a bit different then
mine (Caucasian).

At the same time she has the impression that the work she does on the
Wikimedia wiki('s) is not valued, nor taken into account.

She does not want to be invited because she is a woman, nor because she is
from a minority, nor ... etc. This is offensive.
She only wants to be invited because of the work she contributes on
Wikipedia/etc.



Besides the many good initiatives and intentions, this kind of approaches
to our contributors is demotivating them, please be aware of this. I
believe demotivation/frustration is the largest problem we face as movement.


I heard from people that the problem described is called tokenism
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokenism>.


I believe the only way to close the gaps related to gender, minorities,
etc, is to create an atmosphere in what everyone is appreciated for what
she/he is doing, completely unrelated to the gender someone appears to
have, the ethnicity, race, area of the world, etc etc etc etc.

Thank you!

Romaine
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Jane Darnell]

Amir,
It's funny - after reading your mail I wondered if I had read Romaine's
mail correctly. Rereading both it seems that is exactly what you were
trying to say - we all carry our own little bundle of biases with us
whereever we go and whatever we read. When I read Romaine's mail I stopped
cold at "tokenism" - for me tokenism is when you count the paintings by
women in any museum and you find none of the women have more than one
painting in the collection, though they have lots and lots of male artists
with more than 20 works in the collection.

When it comes to Wiki meetups, everyone has their own reasons for wanting
to come or not. I have a feeling at edit-a-thons open to the general public
that it's a bit like being in a cage or aquarium where you yourself are the
attraction. Instead of meeting people who want to contribute I tend to get
questioned about my own motivations. I agree that as a member of this list
I am already a hard-core insider of this movement and can no longer think
about these things in a "normal" way (i.e. as a reader). What I do know
from talking to lots of family and friends is that most people have
absolutely no clue about our gaps in knowledge or have even heard of the
gendergap at all. When I say gendergap, they think gender pay gap and I
have to start explaining that no one is paid for their edits (which always
leads the conversation into a whole new tangent).

When it comes to the women, thankfully the word "nonbinary" is relatively
new and we can easily measure the binary gender with Wikidata queries to
see how we are doing. This is still sketchy and problematic, because lots
of historical women and men still do not have their gender assigned at all
on Wikidata - binary or not. We still can't measure gendergap per
occupation, language, or citizenship however, because those statements are
also still mostly lacking for most historical people. Citizenship is
actually quite comical when you start drilling into the data on Wikidata.
Some people want to be extremely specific about borders, which makes some
towns flip all around in terms of citizenship for people who don't have
precise birthdates - did I mention that women don't like to disclose their
birthdates? I would LOVE to be able to count brown and black women, but
this is of course completely off limits to us due to ethical concerns.

Here in the Netherlands we are going to hold a hackathon for women. I will
talk about Wikidata and hope to recruit a few women to help out with the
maintenance lists on women, such as this one:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Women/Wiki_monitor/lawiki

My hopes based on previous events, are not high.
Best,
Jane

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 8:03 AM, Amir E. Aharoni <
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:

> This is a sensitive topic, and I'm a white man myself, so please slap me if
> I say something dumb.
>
> 2018-05-07 7:10 GMT+03:00 Romaine Wiki :
>
> >
> > What has happened?
> >
> > She was invited to participate in a Wikimedia activity, because:
> > 1. she is a woman
> > 2. she is from a minority
> > 3. she is from an area in the world with much less editors (compared to
> > Europe/US)
> >
> > and perhaps also because her colour of her skin is a bit different then
> > mine (Caucasian).
> >
> > At the same time she has the impression that the work she does on the
> > Wikimedia wiki('s) is not valued, nor taken into account.
> >
>
> By whom?
>
> By the people who invited her?
>
> By other participants in the event?
>
> By other editors in the same wiki site?
>
> By the readers?
>
>
>
> > She does not want to be invited because she is a woman, nor because she
> is
> > from a minority, nor ... etc. This is offensive.
> > She only wants to be invited because of the work she contributes on
> > Wikipedia/etc.
> >
>
> This makes a lot of sense to me, but that's just me and attitudes are
> different for each person.
>
>
> > Besides the many good initiatives and intentions, this kind of approaches
> > to our contributors is demotivating them, please be aware of this.
>
>
> Again, it's probably demotivating to some. Maybe to 98%, maybe to 30%,
> maybe to 5%. I honestly don't know.
>
> I believe demotivation/frustration is the largest problem we face as
> > movement.
> >
>
> I don't know if its the biggest problem. On this mailing list we are a
> small group of meta-active Wikimedians, and we are the minority among
> editors. We don't actually represent all the editors. And of course the
> editors are a tiny minority compared to the readers.
>
> I'd argue that the hard time that some editors are giving newcomers is a
> bigger problem. Gender is certainly a part of that, and there are many
> other parts.
>
> We meta-wikimedians can find a better way to invite people to events, and
> we can change ourselves. That doesn't sound too hard. Changing the wider
> editor culture is harder.
>
> I heard from people that the problem described is called tokenism
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Peter Southwood]

I think you ask good questions, but some answers are not easy to find.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Amir E. Aharoni
Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 8:03 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

This is a sensitive topic, and I'm a white man myself, so please slap me if
I say something dumb.

2018-05-07 7:10 GMT+03:00 Romaine Wiki <romaine.w...@gmail.com>:

>
> What has happened?
>
> She was invited to participate in a Wikimedia activity, because:
> 1. she is a woman
> 2. she is from a minority
> 3. she is from an area in the world with much less editors (compared to
> Europe/US)
>
> and perhaps also because her colour of her skin is a bit different then
> mine (Caucasian).
>
> At the same time she has the impression that the work she does on the
> Wikimedia wiki('s) is not valued, nor taken into account.
>

By whom?

By the people who invited her?

By other participants in the event?

By other editors in the same wiki site?

By the readers?



> She does not want to be invited because she is a woman, nor because she is
> from a minority, nor ... etc. This is offensive.
> She only wants to be invited because of the work she contributes on
> Wikipedia/etc.
>

This makes a lot of sense to me, but that's just me and attitudes are
different for each person.


> Besides the many good initiatives and intentions, this kind of approaches
> to our contributors is demotivating them, please be aware of this.


Again, it's probably demotivating to some. Maybe to 98%, maybe to 30%,
maybe to 5%. I honestly don't know.

I believe demotivation/frustration is the largest problem we face as
> movement.
>

I don't know if its the biggest problem. On this mailing list we are a
small group of meta-active Wikimedians, and we are the minority among
editors. We don't actually represent all the editors. And of course the
editors are a tiny minority compared to the readers.

I'd argue that the hard time that some editors are giving newcomers is a
bigger problem. Gender is certainly a part of that, and there are many
other parts.

We meta-wikimedians can find a better way to invite people to events, and
we can change ourselves. That doesn't sound too hard. Changing the wider
editor culture is harder.

I heard from people that the problem described is called tokenism
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokenism>.
>

Yes, that's when representation is given to a weakened group, but that
representation is too weak to be meaningful, and may do more harm than good.


> I believe the only way to close the gaps related to gender, minorities,
> etc, is to create an atmosphere in what everyone is appreciated for what
> she/he is doing, completely unrelated to the gender someone appears to
> have, the ethnicity, race, area of the world, etc etc etc etc.
>

So that's where it gets really complicated, because it's always related, in
ways that are sometimes visible and sometimes invisible.

Let's take school education as a hopefully easy example. People from
different areas of the world will have very different things to write about
it. In some areas of the world everybody gets school education—boys and
girls, rich and poor, rural and urban. In other areas it may be only boys;
or only people in cities; or only people who know a certain language; or
only people who belong to a certain religion; or only people who have a
certain amount of money; or only people who have a certain skin color. I
want articles about education to have contributions from as many people as
possible, from different genders, from different skin colors, and from
different areas, and so on.

An American white woman has different things to say about education from an
American black man. These differences are important and frequently
discussed in American media. But the American white woman and the American
black man *don't even imagine* what people from The Philippines have to say
about education. What people from the Philippines have to say about
education probably has little to do with the internal American debates on
this topic. And of course it breaks down further, because a person who
lives in the capital of Philippines and knows English has different things
to say about education from a person who lives in a village in Philippines
and doesn't know English.

On articles about education I want to hear from all of them. And about
every other topic. (And yes, I want contributions from people who don't
know English in the English Wikipedia. By definition they cannot contribute
directly, but we must do everything we can to make at least an indirect
contribution possible.)

How do we do it right?

How do we get more different people to even try to contribute to articles?
How do we get everybody's contributions to be accepted? (Guess 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Amir E. Aharoni]

This is a sensitive topic, and I'm a white man myself, so please slap me if
I say something dumb.

2018-05-07 7:10 GMT+03:00 Romaine Wiki :

>
> What has happened?
>
> She was invited to participate in a Wikimedia activity, because:
> 1. she is a woman
> 2. she is from a minority
> 3. she is from an area in the world with much less editors (compared to
> Europe/US)
>
> and perhaps also because her colour of her skin is a bit different then
> mine (Caucasian).
>
> At the same time she has the impression that the work she does on the
> Wikimedia wiki('s) is not valued, nor taken into account.
>

By whom?

By the people who invited her?

By other participants in the event?

By other editors in the same wiki site?

By the readers?



> She does not want to be invited because she is a woman, nor because she is
> from a minority, nor ... etc. This is offensive.
> She only wants to be invited because of the work she contributes on
> Wikipedia/etc.
>

This makes a lot of sense to me, but that's just me and attitudes are
different for each person.


> Besides the many good initiatives and intentions, this kind of approaches
> to our contributors is demotivating them, please be aware of this.


Again, it's probably demotivating to some. Maybe to 98%, maybe to 30%,
maybe to 5%. I honestly don't know.

I believe demotivation/frustration is the largest problem we face as
> movement.
>

I don't know if its the biggest problem. On this mailing list we are a
small group of meta-active Wikimedians, and we are the minority among
editors. We don't actually represent all the editors. And of course the
editors are a tiny minority compared to the readers.

I'd argue that the hard time that some editors are giving newcomers is a
bigger problem. Gender is certainly a part of that, and there are many
other parts.

We meta-wikimedians can find a better way to invite people to events, and
we can change ourselves. That doesn't sound too hard. Changing the wider
editor culture is harder.

I heard from people that the problem described is called tokenism
> .
>

Yes, that's when representation is given to a weakened group, but that
representation is too weak to be meaningful, and may do more harm than good.


> I believe the only way to close the gaps related to gender, minorities,
> etc, is to create an atmosphere in what everyone is appreciated for what
> she/he is doing, completely unrelated to the gender someone appears to
> have, the ethnicity, race, area of the world, etc etc etc etc.
>

So that's where it gets really complicated, because it's always related, in
ways that are sometimes visible and sometimes invisible.

Let's take school education as a hopefully easy example. People from
different areas of the world will have very different things to write about
it. In some areas of the world everybody gets school education—boys and
girls, rich and poor, rural and urban. In other areas it may be only boys;
or only people in cities; or only people who know a certain language; or
only people who belong to a certain religion; or only people who have a
certain amount of money; or only people who have a certain skin color. I
want articles about education to have contributions from as many people as
possible, from different genders, from different skin colors, and from
different areas, and so on.

An American white woman has different things to say about education from an
American black man. These differences are important and frequently
discussed in American media. But the American white woman and the American
black man *don't even imagine* what people from The Philippines have to say
about education. What people from the Philippines have to say about
education probably has little to do with the internal American debates on
this topic. And of course it breaks down further, because a person who
lives in the capital of Philippines and knows English has different things
to say about education from a person who lives in a village in Philippines
and doesn't know English.

On articles about education I want to hear from all of them. And about
every other topic. (And yes, I want contributions from people who don't
know English in the English Wikipedia. By definition they cannot contribute
directly, but we must do everything we can to make at least an indirect
contribution possible.)

How do we do it right?

How do we get more different people to even try to contribute to articles?
How do we get everybody's contributions to be accepted? (Guess whose
contributions are more likely to be challenged as "non-notable",
"unencyclopedic", or "unreferenced".)

I don't know. Am I even asking the right questions?

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 

[Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

[Romaine Wiki]

Hi all,

On Wikipedia and in our movement we are aware of the gendergap that exists
and all kinds of activities are organised to make the gap smaller. I think
this is great as no single gap should exist in collecting all the knowledge
in the world, as well as our movement should be diverse as the world's
population is diverse.

The statistics are clear on this matter, this is something to take care of.
However, a part of the approach is causing problems, because general
statistics should not be applied on individuals as that reduces humans to
numbers only.

The reason why I bring this up is because I recently received an e-mail
from a user in the Wikimedia movement who has (temporarily?) stopped
contributing as she is not happy with a specific aspect of the atmosphere
in Wikimedia.

She does not speak out at loud, but I think we must be aware as movement of
the silent cry, therefore this e-mail to bring awareness (but with respect
for the privacy of this individual).


What has happened?

She was invited to participate in a Wikimedia activity, because:
1. she is a woman
2. she is from a minority
3. she is from an area in the world with much less editors (compared to
Europe/US)

and perhaps also because her colour of her skin is a bit different then
mine (Caucasian).

At the same time she has the impression that the work she does on the
Wikimedia wiki('s) is not valued, nor taken into account.

She does not want to be invited because she is a woman, nor because she is
from a minority, nor ... etc. This is offensive.
She only wants to be invited because of the work she contributes on
Wikipedia/etc.



Besides the many good initiatives and intentions, this kind of approaches
to our contributors is demotivating them, please be aware of this. I
believe demotivation/frustration is the largest problem we face as movement.


I heard from people that the problem described is called tokenism
.


I believe the only way to close the gaps related to gender, minorities,
etc, is to create an atmosphere in what everyone is appreciated for what
she/he is doing, completely unrelated to the gender someone appears to
have, the ethnicity, race, area of the world, etc etc etc etc.

Thank you!

Romaine
___
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,