Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

2013-08-03 Thread Richard Farmbrough
Rui (and list) there is a myth about articles that are sacrosanct - 
which is not to say that there aren't such articles, though the examples 
you gave don't stand up to much scrutiny.  It would be useful to conduct 
some research on the whole corpus to evaluate this hypothesis and give 
some upper and lower bounds for  the populaiton, and to establish some 
sample lists for qualitative examination.


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

2013-08-02 Thread Peter Southwood
Rui, His point is valid. You have a valid point but use an invalid argument 
to support it.

Cheers,
Peter
- Original Message - 
From: Rui Correia correia@gmail.com

To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia



Asaf

So you mostly agree with m, but prefer to come out knee-jerking first and
only after that showing that you somehow agree.

The elephant in the room is so big that we there isn't even enough room to
breathe properly to get enough oxygen to our brains.

Rui

On 1 August 2013 23:10, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote:

Your disqualification of Wikipedia from being called an encyclopedia is, 
of

course, equally (indeed, more) applicable to _all other encyclopedias,
ever_.  It is therefore incumbent on your to either agree that there has
never been an encyclopedia yet, or that your bar for what constitutes 
an

encyclopedia is not a useful one.

We all agree the Khoi, and African topics in general (but also 
Vietnamese,

and Guatemalan, and Albanian, and...[1]) are underrepresented in the
volunteer-built encyclopedia we all cherish.

What _would_ be useful are realistic ideas about how to address this
underrepresentation.

   A.

[1] Two years ago, I spent 5-minutes preparing a presentation that makes
this point when someone suggested that the English Wikipedia is... kinda
done?  It's at http://prezi.com/szjdvdbtl0j_/is-wikipedia-done/


On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com 
wrote:


 Dear Colleagues at the Foundation

 I just came across an artecle called White Africans of European
ancestry.
 What is that even supposed to mean?  Who would be any other white
people
 if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a
 definition of white people could these be? Especially as it already
says
 on the talk page that Arabs don't count.


 When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about
'white
 people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, then 
 we

 can't call the WP an encyclopaedia. But them the rules do say -
somewhere -
 that just because  And those just because rules are all over 
 the

 place - you can't use what was done in one case to justify another
similar
 case because someone is bound to throw a just because rule at you. 
 But

 the just because ... rule applies only when it is convenient - the
 corollary of the just because .. is I know more rules and tricks 
 than
 you and I will win this/ I will not allow you to have your way even if 
 I

 have to break all the rules and make new ones as I go along.

 So, just because there isn't an artice about Khoi people living in
 Denmark is no reason to not have an article about White Europens of
 Europen descent livng in Patagonia or White Europens of Europen 
 descent

 livng in Timbaktu. We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the
digital
 divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans 
 do.

 That is not an encyclopaedia.

 Why don't we have a page on Black Americans of African ancestry?
 Or Black Europeans of African ancestry? Strangely enough, type Black
 African and you get redirected to Black people, BUT the redirect
actually
 takes you all the way down to Africa - yes, the article on Black people
 does not start with Africa, but with the United States, then Brazil 
 


 Like I said, When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable
article
 about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi
 people, ...

 The same goes for the so-called Biographies of Living People. I had 
 my

 first clash on WP on the issue of the dual nationality of Nelly
Furtado.
 Two hundred million people see her as Portuguese, three - yes, 3 -
editors
 disagree and BRAG they will NEVER ALLOW it. The rationale changes, as 
 can
 be seen from the talk pages and archives. They go as far as 
 'challenging'

 editors that NF sees herself as Portuguese, to then dismiss all the
 evidence as not good enough - even Nelly HERSELF saying she is 
 PORTUGESE

 was thrown out! Why? Obvious! She doesn't count, she is not a NEUTRAL
 source!!! We have become a joke!

 How about being constructive?

 If we can come up with every conceivable script in the world, why has
 nobody come up with a script for controversial articles that would 
 appear

 on the the edit page - like the script that says the article is
protected -
 ALERTING unsuspecting editors to the fact that said article is
cotroversial
 for xand y reason, and that if the edit the editor is about to do falls
 under that theme, to please first read the talk page, with a direct 
 link
 ALSO to an explanation on BLP and the issue of ethnic background/ 
 present

 nationality. It would save lots of wasted time and effort and the three
 editors who spend sleepless nights reverting the artcile might actually
do
 something constructive 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

2013-08-02 Thread Peter Southwood

Journalist = professional troll
Explains but does not justify.
Peter
- Original Message - 
From: Rui Correia correia@gmail.com

To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia



Denny

If you going to shoot me down as a troll, then I can say only that you are
one of those that refuse to see the elephant in the room. I am a 
journalist

(and a journalism trainer), I know that if I want others to read what I
have to say I need to come up a headline that will attract attention, 
while

at the same time abiding by age-old ethic standards - and I have done so.

Who controls what is said has become a big problem on the English and to a
degree the Portuguese WPs. Be fair to yourself, step back and just look at
some articles to see how many times a day they get reverted. The rot has
become endemic - there are so many people who do nothing but revert the
whole day without EVER contributing anything. Yes, I know that a lot of 
the

reverting is to undo the work of vandals with nothing better to do, but
most of it is done to preserve the view thae a specific article has
'acquired' through time.

Can you honesty tell me that you have not come across articles that are
'untouchable'? That you know they convey a view that is not entirely 
right,

but YOU and I cannot change it? Can you tell me that you have not come
across editors who are hell-bent on preserving this or that article just 
as

it is?

Rui

On 1 August 2013 22:40, Denny Vrandečić 
denny.vrande...@wikimedia.dewrote:



Rui,

if your basic assumption is that Wikipedia will never be a real
encyclopedia because of the lack of diversity among its contributors, I
would like to know of any other encyclopedia that is anywhere close to 
the
diversity among its contributors that Wikipedia has (just a side-note, 
the

original Encyclopédie had an even worse bias towards aristocratic, male
French than Wikipedias does, as surprising as it sounds). So, which
Encyclopedia do you consider a real encyclopedia at all?

Also, never mind the fact that we already sport such a diversity -- we 
are

actively aiming and striving for even more diversity, and we are not
comparing us to the usually abysmal record of other encyclopedias, but
merely to our own high, maybe even unreachable ideals.

So, whereas I fully agree that there is a lot about Wikipedia that can be
improved, I am not sure that a mail that starts with the statement Why 
the

Wikipedia will never be a real encyclopedia deserves even the
consideration that I offered you here, and is to be considered anything
beyond trolling.

All the best,
Denny



2013/8/1 Rui Correia correia@gmail.com

 Dear Colleagues at the Foundation

 I just came across an artecle called White Africans of European
ancestry.
 What is that even supposed to mean?  Who would be any other white
people
 if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a
 definition of white people could these be? Especially as it already
says
 on the talk page that Arabs don't count.


 When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about
'white
 people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, then 
 we

 can't call the WP an encyclopaedia. But them the rules do say -
somewhere -
 that just because  And those just because rules are all over 
 the

 place - you can't use what was done in one case to justify another
similar
 case because someone is bound to throw a just because rule at you. 
 But

 the just because ... rule applies only when it is convenient - the
 corollary of the just because .. is I know more rules and tricks 
 than
 you and I will win this/ I will not allow you to have your way even if 
 I

 have to break all the rules and make new ones as I go along.

 So, just because there isn't an artice about Khoi people living in
 Denmark is no reason to not have an article about White Europens of
 Europen descent livng in Patagonia or White Europens of Europen 
 descent

 livng in Timbaktu. We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the
digital
 divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans 
 do.

 That is not an encyclopaedia.

 Why don't we have a page on Black Americans of African ancestry?
 Or Black Europeans of African ancestry? Strangely enough, type Black
 African and you get redirected to Black people, BUT the redirect
actually
 takes you all the way down to Africa - yes, the article on Black people
 does not start with Africa, but with the United States, then Brazil 
 


 Like I said, When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable
article
 about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi
 people, ...

 The same goes for the so-called Biographies of Living People. I had 
 my

 first clash on WP on the issue of the dual nationality of Nelly
Furtado.
 Two hundred million people see her as Portuguese, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

2013-08-02 Thread Mathieu Stumpf
Hey, what about writing the White people self-centered writings 
article? ;P


Le 2013-08-01 22:22, Rui Correia a écrit :

Dear Colleagues at the Foundation

I just came across an artecle called White Africans of European 
ancestry.
What is that even supposed to mean?  Who would be any other white 
people

if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a
definition of white people could these be? Especially as it already 
says

on the talk page that Arabs don't count.


When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about 
'white
people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, 
then we
can't call the WP an encyclopaedia. But them the rules do say - 
somewhere -
that just because  And those just because rules are all over 
the
place - you can't use what was done in one case to justify another 
similar
case because someone is bound to throw a just because rule at you. 
But

the just because ... rule applies only when it is convenient - the
corollary of the just because .. is I know more rules and tricks 
than
you and I will win this/ I will not allow you to have your way even 
if I

have to break all the rules and make new ones as I go along.

So, just because there isn't an artice about Khoi people living in
Denmark is no reason to not have an article about White Europens of
Europen descent livng in Patagonia or White Europens of Europen 
descent
livng in Timbaktu. We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the 
digital
divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans 
do.

That is not an encyclopaedia.

Why don't we have a page on Black Americans of African ancestry?
Or Black Europeans of African ancestry? Strangely enough, type 
Black
African and you get redirected to Black people, BUT the redirect 
actually
takes you all the way down to Africa - yes, the article on Black 
people
does not start with Africa, but with the United States, then Brazil 



Like I said, When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable 
article
about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 
'Khoi

people, ...

The same goes for the so-called Biographies of Living People. I had 
my
first clash on WP on the issue of the dual nationality of Nelly 
Furtado.
Two hundred million people see her as Portuguese, three - yes, 3 - 
editors
disagree and BRAG they will NEVER ALLOW it. The rationale changes, as 
can
be seen from the talk pages and archives. They go as far as 
'challenging'

editors that NF sees herself as Portuguese, to then dismiss all the
evidence as not good enough - even Nelly HERSELF saying she is 
PORTUGESE

was thrown out! Why? Obvious! She doesn't count, she is not a NEUTRAL
source!!! We have become a joke!

How about being constructive?

If we can come up with every conceivable script in the world, why has
nobody come up with a script for controversial articles that would 
appear
on the the edit page - like the script that says the article is 
protected -
ALERTING unsuspecting editors to the fact that said article is 
cotroversial
for xand y reason, and that if the edit the editor is about to do 
falls
under that theme, to please first read the talk page, with a direct 
link
ALSO to an explanation on BLP and the issue of ethnic background/ 
present
nationality. It would save lots of wasted time and effort and the 
three
editors who spend sleepless nights reverting the artcile might 
actually do

something constructive for a change.

In closing, of the nine people featured in photos on that page, I 
know
(have met 5) and correspond with 2 - I can guarantee that all five of 
them
(and most likley all 9 [or the descendents of those no longer with 
us])

would object to being featured in such a racist article.

I will write to them about this. I know that each one is not a valid 
source
about him/ herself and therefore them objecting will probably not 
count.
Just as an side, in case you didn't know, the census in Brazil is 
done on
the basis of how people see themselves - white, back, green, pink - 
and
then we carry those figures here in the WP. Ah, sorry, those figures 
are
credible, because they come from the CIA fact book, people speaking 
for

themselves are not.


Best regards,

Rui
--
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant


--
Association Culture-Libre
http://www.culture-libre.org/

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

2013-08-01 Thread Rui Correia
Dear Colleagues at the Foundation

I just came across an artecle called White Africans of European ancestry.
What is that even supposed to mean?  Who would be any other white people
if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a
definition of white people could these be? Especially as it already says
on the talk page that Arabs don't count.


When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about 'white
people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, then we
can't call the WP an encyclopaedia. But them the rules do say - somewhere -
that just because  And those just because rules are all over the
place - you can't use what was done in one case to justify another similar
case because someone is bound to throw a just because rule at you. But
the just because ... rule applies only when it is convenient - the
corollary of the just because .. is I know more rules and tricks than
you and I will win this/ I will not allow you to have your way even if I
have to break all the rules and make new ones as I go along.

So, just because there isn't an artice about Khoi people living in
Denmark is no reason to not have an article about White Europens of
Europen descent livng in Patagonia or White Europens of Europen descent
livng in Timbaktu. We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the digital
divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans do.
That is not an encyclopaedia.

Why don't we have a page on Black Americans of African ancestry?
Or Black Europeans of African ancestry? Strangely enough, type Black
African and you get redirected to Black people, BUT the redirect actually
takes you all the way down to Africa - yes, the article on Black people
does not start with Africa, but with the United States, then Brazil 

Like I said, When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article
about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi
people, ...

The same goes for the so-called Biographies of Living People. I had my
first clash on WP on the issue of the dual nationality of Nelly Furtado.
Two hundred million people see her as Portuguese, three - yes, 3 - editors
disagree and BRAG they will NEVER ALLOW it. The rationale changes, as can
be seen from the talk pages and archives. They go as far as 'challenging'
editors that NF sees herself as Portuguese, to then dismiss all the
evidence as not good enough - even Nelly HERSELF saying she is PORTUGESE
was thrown out! Why? Obvious! She doesn't count, she is not a NEUTRAL
source!!! We have become a joke!

How about being constructive?

If we can come up with every conceivable script in the world, why has
nobody come up with a script for controversial articles that would appear
on the the edit page - like the script that says the article is protected -
ALERTING unsuspecting editors to the fact that said article is cotroversial
for xand y reason, and that if the edit the editor is about to do falls
under that theme, to please first read the talk page, with a direct link
ALSO to an explanation on BLP and the issue of ethnic background/ present
nationality. It would save lots of wasted time and effort and the three
editors who spend sleepless nights reverting the artcile might actually do
something constructive for a change.

In closing, of the nine people featured in photos on that page, I know
(have met 5) and correspond with 2 - I can guarantee that all five of them
(and most likley all 9 [or the descendents of those no longer with us])
would object to being featured in such a racist article.

I will write to them about this. I know that each one is not a valid source
about him/ herself and therefore them objecting will probably not count.
Just as an side, in case you didn't know, the census in Brazil is done on
the basis of how people see themselves - white, back, green, pink - and
then we carry those figures here in the WP. Ah, sorry, those figures are
credible, because they come from the CIA fact book, people speaking for
themselves are not.


Best regards,

Rui
-- 
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant




-- 
_
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
___
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

2013-08-01 Thread Fred Bauder
 Dear Colleagues at the Foundation

 I just came across an artecle called White Africans of European
 ancestry.
 What is that even supposed to mean?  Who would be any other white
 people
 if not of Europen ancestry?

The Ainu people, not that it matters.

Fred


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

2013-08-01 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Rui,

if your basic assumption is that Wikipedia will never be a real
encyclopedia because of the lack of diversity among its contributors, I
would like to know of any other encyclopedia that is anywhere close to the
diversity among its contributors that Wikipedia has (just a side-note, the
original Encyclopédie had an even worse bias towards aristocratic, male
French than Wikipedias does, as surprising as it sounds). So, which
Encyclopedia do you consider a real encyclopedia at all?

Also, never mind the fact that we already sport such a diversity -- we are
actively aiming and striving for even more diversity, and we are not
comparing us to the usually abysmal record of other encyclopedias, but
merely to our own high, maybe even unreachable ideals.

So, whereas I fully agree that there is a lot about Wikipedia that can be
improved, I am not sure that a mail that starts with the statement Why the
Wikipedia will never be a real encyclopedia deserves even the
consideration that I offered you here, and is to be considered anything
beyond trolling.

All the best,
Denny



2013/8/1 Rui Correia correia@gmail.com

 Dear Colleagues at the Foundation

 I just came across an artecle called White Africans of European ancestry.
 What is that even supposed to mean?  Who would be any other white people
 if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a
 definition of white people could these be? Especially as it already says
 on the talk page that Arabs don't count.


 When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about 'white
 people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, then we
 can't call the WP an encyclopaedia. But them the rules do say - somewhere -
 that just because  And those just because rules are all over the
 place - you can't use what was done in one case to justify another similar
 case because someone is bound to throw a just because rule at you. But
 the just because ... rule applies only when it is convenient - the
 corollary of the just because .. is I know more rules and tricks than
 you and I will win this/ I will not allow you to have your way even if I
 have to break all the rules and make new ones as I go along.

 So, just because there isn't an artice about Khoi people living in
 Denmark is no reason to not have an article about White Europens of
 Europen descent livng in Patagonia or White Europens of Europen descent
 livng in Timbaktu. We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the digital
 divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans do.
 That is not an encyclopaedia.

 Why don't we have a page on Black Americans of African ancestry?
 Or Black Europeans of African ancestry? Strangely enough, type Black
 African and you get redirected to Black people, BUT the redirect actually
 takes you all the way down to Africa - yes, the article on Black people
 does not start with Africa, but with the United States, then Brazil 

 Like I said, When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article
 about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi
 people, ...

 The same goes for the so-called Biographies of Living People. I had my
 first clash on WP on the issue of the dual nationality of Nelly Furtado.
 Two hundred million people see her as Portuguese, three - yes, 3 - editors
 disagree and BRAG they will NEVER ALLOW it. The rationale changes, as can
 be seen from the talk pages and archives. They go as far as 'challenging'
 editors that NF sees herself as Portuguese, to then dismiss all the
 evidence as not good enough - even Nelly HERSELF saying she is PORTUGESE
 was thrown out! Why? Obvious! She doesn't count, she is not a NEUTRAL
 source!!! We have become a joke!

 How about being constructive?

 If we can come up with every conceivable script in the world, why has
 nobody come up with a script for controversial articles that would appear
 on the the edit page - like the script that says the article is protected -
 ALERTING unsuspecting editors to the fact that said article is cotroversial
 for xand y reason, and that if the edit the editor is about to do falls
 under that theme, to please first read the talk page, with a direct link
 ALSO to an explanation on BLP and the issue of ethnic background/ present
 nationality. It would save lots of wasted time and effort and the three
 editors who spend sleepless nights reverting the artcile might actually do
 something constructive for a change.

 In closing, of the nine people featured in photos on that page, I know
 (have met 5) and correspond with 2 - I can guarantee that all five of them
 (and most likley all 9 [or the descendents of those no longer with us])
 would object to being featured in such a racist article.

 I will write to them about this. I know that each one is not a valid source
 about him/ herself and therefore them objecting will probably not count.
 Just as an side, in case you didn't know, the census in 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

2013-08-01 Thread Mark

On 8/1/13 10:22 PM, Rui Correia wrote:

So, just because there isn't an artice about Khoi people living in
Denmark is no reason to not have an article about White Europens of
Europen descent livng in Patagonia or White Europens of Europen descent
livng in Timbaktu. We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the digital
divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans do.



There are a surprising number of such articles, though not specifically 
on Khoi people living in Denmark (yet). One can, however, read about 
[[Chinese people in Denmark]], [[Pakistanis in Denmark]], [[Somalis in 
Sweden]], and likewise for many pairs of X-in-Y.


I agree there is systemic bias in which subset of such X-in-Y pairs have 
articles, especially good ones. I suspect systemic bias in the 
availability of English-language sources is one contributing factor (and 
likewise the availability of German-language sources for the analogous 
de.wiki articles, etc.).


-Mark


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

2013-08-01 Thread Rui Correia
Denny

If you going to shoot me down as a troll, then I can say only that you are
one of those that refuse to see the elephant in the room. I am a journalist
(and a journalism trainer), I know that if I want others to read what I
have to say I need to come up a headline that will attract attention, while
at the same time abiding by age-old ethic standards - and I have done so.

Who controls what is said has become a big problem on the English and to a
degree the Portuguese WPs. Be fair to yourself, step back and just look at
some articles to see how many times a day they get reverted. The rot has
become endemic - there are so many people who do nothing but revert the
whole day without EVER contributing anything. Yes, I know that a lot of the
reverting is to undo the work of vandals with nothing better to do, but
most of it is done to preserve the view thae a specific article has
'acquired' through time.

Can you honesty tell me that you have not come across articles that are
'untouchable'? That you know they convey a view that is not entirely right,
but YOU and I cannot change it? Can you tell me that you have not come
across editors who are hell-bent on preserving this or that article just as
it is?

Rui

On 1 August 2013 22:40, Denny Vrandečić denny.vrande...@wikimedia.dewrote:

 Rui,

 if your basic assumption is that Wikipedia will never be a real
 encyclopedia because of the lack of diversity among its contributors, I
 would like to know of any other encyclopedia that is anywhere close to the
 diversity among its contributors that Wikipedia has (just a side-note, the
 original Encyclopédie had an even worse bias towards aristocratic, male
 French than Wikipedias does, as surprising as it sounds). So, which
 Encyclopedia do you consider a real encyclopedia at all?

 Also, never mind the fact that we already sport such a diversity -- we are
 actively aiming and striving for even more diversity, and we are not
 comparing us to the usually abysmal record of other encyclopedias, but
 merely to our own high, maybe even unreachable ideals.

 So, whereas I fully agree that there is a lot about Wikipedia that can be
 improved, I am not sure that a mail that starts with the statement Why the
 Wikipedia will never be a real encyclopedia deserves even the
 consideration that I offered you here, and is to be considered anything
 beyond trolling.

 All the best,
 Denny



 2013/8/1 Rui Correia correia@gmail.com

  Dear Colleagues at the Foundation
 
  I just came across an artecle called White Africans of European
 ancestry.
  What is that even supposed to mean?  Who would be any other white
 people
  if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a
  definition of white people could these be? Especially as it already
 says
  on the talk page that Arabs don't count.
 
 
  When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about
 'white
  people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, then we
  can't call the WP an encyclopaedia. But them the rules do say -
 somewhere -
  that just because  And those just because rules are all over the
  place - you can't use what was done in one case to justify another
 similar
  case because someone is bound to throw a just because rule at you. But
  the just because ... rule applies only when it is convenient - the
  corollary of the just because .. is I know more rules and tricks than
  you and I will win this/ I will not allow you to have your way even if I
  have to break all the rules and make new ones as I go along.
 
  So, just because there isn't an artice about Khoi people living in
  Denmark is no reason to not have an article about White Europens of
  Europen descent livng in Patagonia or White Europens of Europen descent
  livng in Timbaktu. We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the
 digital
  divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans do.
  That is not an encyclopaedia.
 
  Why don't we have a page on Black Americans of African ancestry?
  Or Black Europeans of African ancestry? Strangely enough, type Black
  African and you get redirected to Black people, BUT the redirect
 actually
  takes you all the way down to Africa - yes, the article on Black people
  does not start with Africa, but with the United States, then Brazil 
 
  Like I said, When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable
 article
  about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi
  people, ...
 
  The same goes for the so-called Biographies of Living People. I had my
  first clash on WP on the issue of the dual nationality of Nelly
 Furtado.
  Two hundred million people see her as Portuguese, three - yes, 3 -
 editors
  disagree and BRAG they will NEVER ALLOW it. The rationale changes, as can
  be seen from the talk pages and archives. They go as far as 'challenging'
  editors that NF sees herself as Portuguese, to then dismiss all the
  evidence as not good enough - even Nelly 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

2013-08-01 Thread Rui Correia
Denny

PS: Your email is a typical case of shooting the messenger. I have seen
far too often that we seem to prefer that we don;t see the elephant in the
room.

What happens to emails such as mine? Nothing. They get flushed down the
gutter of electronic waste. There are so many bodies within the Foundation,
is there a a body that specifically listens to people to be abe to gauge
the mood of the masses of editors? And I don't mean that internal/ built-in
dispute resolution mechanisms because you know just as I do that those are
dominated by the same kind of people who want to preserve a specific point
of view.

Rui

On 1 August 2013 22:55, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote:

 Denny

 If you going to shoot me down as a troll, then I can say only that you are
 one of those that refuse to see the elephant in the room. I am a journalist
 (and a journalism trainer), I know that if I want others to read what I
 have to say I need to come up a headline that will attract attention, while
 at the same time abiding by age-old ethic standards - and I have done so.

 Who controls what is said has become a big problem on the English and to a
 degree the Portuguese WPs. Be fair to yourself, step back and just look at
 some articles to see how many times a day they get reverted. The rot has
 become endemic - there are so many people who do nothing but revert the
 whole day without EVER contributing anything. Yes, I know that a lot of the
 reverting is to undo the work of vandals with nothing better to do, but
 most of it is done to preserve the view thae a specific article has
 'acquired' through time.

 Can you honesty tell me that you have not come across articles that are
 'untouchable'? That you know they convey a view that is not entirely right,
 but YOU and I cannot change it? Can you tell me that you have not come
 across editors who are hell-bent on preserving this or that article just as
 it is?

 Rui

 On 1 August 2013 22:40, Denny Vrandečić denny.vrande...@wikimedia.dewrote:

 Rui,

 if your basic assumption is that Wikipedia will never be a real
 encyclopedia because of the lack of diversity among its contributors, I
 would like to know of any other encyclopedia that is anywhere close to the
 diversity among its contributors that Wikipedia has (just a side-note, the
 original Encyclopédie had an even worse bias towards aristocratic, male
 French than Wikipedias does, as surprising as it sounds). So, which
 Encyclopedia do you consider a real encyclopedia at all?

 Also, never mind the fact that we already sport such a diversity -- we are
 actively aiming and striving for even more diversity, and we are not
 comparing us to the usually abysmal record of other encyclopedias, but
 merely to our own high, maybe even unreachable ideals.

 So, whereas I fully agree that there is a lot about Wikipedia that can be
 improved, I am not sure that a mail that starts with the statement Why
 the
 Wikipedia will never be a real encyclopedia deserves even the
 consideration that I offered you here, and is to be considered anything
 beyond trolling.

 All the best,
 Denny



 2013/8/1 Rui Correia correia@gmail.com

  Dear Colleagues at the Foundation
 
  I just came across an artecle called White Africans of European
 ancestry.
  What is that even supposed to mean?  Who would be any other white
 people
  if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a
  definition of white people could these be? Especially as it already
 says
  on the talk page that Arabs don't count.
 
 
  When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about
 'white
  people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, then
 we
  can't call the WP an encyclopaedia. But them the rules do say -
 somewhere -
  that just because  And those just because rules are all over the
  place - you can't use what was done in one case to justify another
 similar
  case because someone is bound to throw a just because rule at you. But
  the just because ... rule applies only when it is convenient - the
  corollary of the just because .. is I know more rules and tricks than
  you and I will win this/ I will not allow you to have your way even if I
  have to break all the rules and make new ones as I go along.
 
  So, just because there isn't an artice about Khoi people living in
  Denmark is no reason to not have an article about White Europens of
  Europen descent livng in Patagonia or White Europens of Europen
 descent
  livng in Timbaktu. We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the
 digital
  divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans do.
  That is not an encyclopaedia.
 
  Why don't we have a page on Black Americans of African ancestry?
  Or Black Europeans of African ancestry? Strangely enough, type Black
  African and you get redirected to Black people, BUT the redirect
 actually
  takes you all the way down to Africa - yes, the article on Black people
  does not start with 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

2013-08-01 Thread Asaf Bartov
Your disqualification of Wikipedia from being called an encyclopedia is, of
course, equally (indeed, more) applicable to _all other encyclopedias,
ever_.  It is therefore incumbent on your to either agree that there has
never been an encyclopedia yet, or that your bar for what constitutes an
encyclopedia is not a useful one.

We all agree the Khoi, and African topics in general (but also Vietnamese,
and Guatemalan, and Albanian, and...[1]) are underrepresented in the
volunteer-built encyclopedia we all cherish.

What _would_ be useful are realistic ideas about how to address this
underrepresentation.

   A.

[1] Two years ago, I spent 5-minutes preparing a presentation that makes
this point when someone suggested that the English Wikipedia is... kinda
done?  It's at http://prezi.com/szjdvdbtl0j_/is-wikipedia-done/


On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote:

 Dear Colleagues at the Foundation

 I just came across an artecle called White Africans of European ancestry.
 What is that even supposed to mean?  Who would be any other white people
 if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a
 definition of white people could these be? Especially as it already says
 on the talk page that Arabs don't count.


 When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about 'white
 people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, then we
 can't call the WP an encyclopaedia. But them the rules do say - somewhere -
 that just because  And those just because rules are all over the
 place - you can't use what was done in one case to justify another similar
 case because someone is bound to throw a just because rule at you. But
 the just because ... rule applies only when it is convenient - the
 corollary of the just because .. is I know more rules and tricks than
 you and I will win this/ I will not allow you to have your way even if I
 have to break all the rules and make new ones as I go along.

 So, just because there isn't an artice about Khoi people living in
 Denmark is no reason to not have an article about White Europens of
 Europen descent livng in Patagonia or White Europens of Europen descent
 livng in Timbaktu. We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the digital
 divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans do.
 That is not an encyclopaedia.

 Why don't we have a page on Black Americans of African ancestry?
 Or Black Europeans of African ancestry? Strangely enough, type Black
 African and you get redirected to Black people, BUT the redirect actually
 takes you all the way down to Africa - yes, the article on Black people
 does not start with Africa, but with the United States, then Brazil 

 Like I said, When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article
 about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi
 people, ...

 The same goes for the so-called Biographies of Living People. I had my
 first clash on WP on the issue of the dual nationality of Nelly Furtado.
 Two hundred million people see her as Portuguese, three - yes, 3 - editors
 disagree and BRAG they will NEVER ALLOW it. The rationale changes, as can
 be seen from the talk pages and archives. They go as far as 'challenging'
 editors that NF sees herself as Portuguese, to then dismiss all the
 evidence as not good enough - even Nelly HERSELF saying she is PORTUGESE
 was thrown out! Why? Obvious! She doesn't count, she is not a NEUTRAL
 source!!! We have become a joke!

 How about being constructive?

 If we can come up with every conceivable script in the world, why has
 nobody come up with a script for controversial articles that would appear
 on the the edit page - like the script that says the article is protected -
 ALERTING unsuspecting editors to the fact that said article is cotroversial
 for xand y reason, and that if the edit the editor is about to do falls
 under that theme, to please first read the talk page, with a direct link
 ALSO to an explanation on BLP and the issue of ethnic background/ present
 nationality. It would save lots of wasted time and effort and the three
 editors who spend sleepless nights reverting the artcile might actually do
 something constructive for a change.

 In closing, of the nine people featured in photos on that page, I know
 (have met 5) and correspond with 2 - I can guarantee that all five of them
 (and most likley all 9 [or the descendents of those no longer with us])
 would object to being featured in such a racist article.

 I will write to them about this. I know that each one is not a valid source
 about him/ herself and therefore them objecting will probably not count.
 Just as an side, in case you didn't know, the census in Brazil is done on
 the basis of how people see themselves - white, back, green, pink - and
 then we carry those figures here in the WP. Ah, sorry, those figures are
 credible, because they come from the CIA fact book, people 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

2013-08-01 Thread Laura Hale
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote:



 Can you honesty tell me that you have not come across articles that are
 'untouchable'? That you know they convey a view that is not entirely right,
 but YOU and I cannot change it? Can you tell me that you have not come
 across editors who are hell-bent on preserving this or that article just as
 it is?


I too am a journalist with my work published on two different continents in
print.   I am also a social media metrics lover.  As a journalist, I value
verifiable, fact based, neutral reporting.

If you are making the claim that English and Portuguese Wikipedia are
doomed, I would love to see some verifiable, fact based, neutral oriented
data sets to support the claim, especially as this would imply systematic
bias on a large scale.  You have pulled one article and non-neutrally
labeled it as a representative article for all projects.  Yes, I know of a
number of articles and topics that are pretty much untouchable but this is
far from 99% of all articles on the project.  (I would put the number at
probably 0.1% and that feels generous.)  This feels like a sensationalist
claim (which I would normally say is trumped up by the media in order to
spin a story, but this is not a media story) based on one or two articles.

Bad research.  Bad reporting. There are ways to get attention to this VERY,
VERY important topic without resorting to sensationalist calls that have
little thoughtful documentation.

-- 
twitter: purplepopple
blog: ozziesport.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

2013-08-01 Thread Rui Correia
Asaf

So you mostly agree with m, but prefer to come out knee-jerking first and
only after that showing that you somehow agree.

The elephant in the room is so big that we there isn't even enough room to
breathe properly to get enough oxygen to our brains.

Rui

On 1 August 2013 23:10, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Your disqualification of Wikipedia from being called an encyclopedia is, of
 course, equally (indeed, more) applicable to _all other encyclopedias,
 ever_.  It is therefore incumbent on your to either agree that there has
 never been an encyclopedia yet, or that your bar for what constitutes an
 encyclopedia is not a useful one.

 We all agree the Khoi, and African topics in general (but also Vietnamese,
 and Guatemalan, and Albanian, and...[1]) are underrepresented in the
 volunteer-built encyclopedia we all cherish.

 What _would_ be useful are realistic ideas about how to address this
 underrepresentation.

A.

 [1] Two years ago, I spent 5-minutes preparing a presentation that makes
 this point when someone suggested that the English Wikipedia is... kinda
 done?  It's at http://prezi.com/szjdvdbtl0j_/is-wikipedia-done/


 On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote:

  Dear Colleagues at the Foundation
 
  I just came across an artecle called White Africans of European
 ancestry.
  What is that even supposed to mean?  Who would be any other white
 people
  if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a
  definition of white people could these be? Especially as it already
 says
  on the talk page that Arabs don't count.
 
 
  When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about
 'white
  people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, then we
  can't call the WP an encyclopaedia. But them the rules do say -
 somewhere -
  that just because  And those just because rules are all over the
  place - you can't use what was done in one case to justify another
 similar
  case because someone is bound to throw a just because rule at you. But
  the just because ... rule applies only when it is convenient - the
  corollary of the just because .. is I know more rules and tricks than
  you and I will win this/ I will not allow you to have your way even if I
  have to break all the rules and make new ones as I go along.
 
  So, just because there isn't an artice about Khoi people living in
  Denmark is no reason to not have an article about White Europens of
  Europen descent livng in Patagonia or White Europens of Europen descent
  livng in Timbaktu. We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the
 digital
  divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans do.
  That is not an encyclopaedia.
 
  Why don't we have a page on Black Americans of African ancestry?
  Or Black Europeans of African ancestry? Strangely enough, type Black
  African and you get redirected to Black people, BUT the redirect
 actually
  takes you all the way down to Africa - yes, the article on Black people
  does not start with Africa, but with the United States, then Brazil 
 
  Like I said, When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable
 article
  about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi
  people, ...
 
  The same goes for the so-called Biographies of Living People. I had my
  first clash on WP on the issue of the dual nationality of Nelly
 Furtado.
  Two hundred million people see her as Portuguese, three - yes, 3 -
 editors
  disagree and BRAG they will NEVER ALLOW it. The rationale changes, as can
  be seen from the talk pages and archives. They go as far as 'challenging'
  editors that NF sees herself as Portuguese, to then dismiss all the
  evidence as not good enough - even Nelly HERSELF saying she is PORTUGESE
  was thrown out! Why? Obvious! She doesn't count, she is not a NEUTRAL
  source!!! We have become a joke!
 
  How about being constructive?
 
  If we can come up with every conceivable script in the world, why has
  nobody come up with a script for controversial articles that would appear
  on the the edit page - like the script that says the article is
 protected -
  ALERTING unsuspecting editors to the fact that said article is
 cotroversial
  for xand y reason, and that if the edit the editor is about to do falls
  under that theme, to please first read the talk page, with a direct link
  ALSO to an explanation on BLP and the issue of ethnic background/ present
  nationality. It would save lots of wasted time and effort and the three
  editors who spend sleepless nights reverting the artcile might actually
 do
  something constructive for a change.
 
  In closing, of the nine people featured in photos on that page, I know
  (have met 5) and correspond with 2 - I can guarantee that all five of
 them
  (and most likley all 9 [or the descendents of those no longer with us])
  would object to being featured in such a racist article.
 
  I will 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

2013-08-01 Thread David Gerard
On 1 August 2013 22:19, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote:

 So you mostly agree with m, but prefer to come out knee-jerking first and
 only after that showing that you somehow agree.


No, he's saying you're full of it, because you are. Under your
definition, there has never been an encyclopedia in human history.
This is not a useful definition.

Systemic bias is a serious problem, but writing complete rubbish isn't
going to solve it.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

2013-08-01 Thread Rui Correia
Laura

If this is a VERY VERY important topiic, as you put it, then why don't
YOU help, instead of joingng the knee-jerking squad? If you agree that it
is a very important topic and you are apparenly a better journalist that
me, why don't you do a better job rather than attacking the messenger?

Answer the folowing questions:
Do we have problems?
Are we tackling them seriously?
Are we attacking the problems or attacking those who raise them?

Rui


On 1 August 2013 23:18, Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com wrote:

 On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com
 wrote:

 
 
  Can you honesty tell me that you have not come across articles that are
  'untouchable'? That you know they convey a view that is not entirely
 right,
  but YOU and I cannot change it? Can you tell me that you have not come
  across editors who are hell-bent on preserving this or that article just
 as
  it is?
 
 
 I too am a journalist with my work published on two different continents in
 print.   I am also a social media metrics lover.  As a journalist, I value
 verifiable, fact based, neutral reporting.

 If you are making the claim that English and Portuguese Wikipedia are
 doomed, I would love to see some verifiable, fact based, neutral oriented
 data sets to support the claim, especially as this would imply systematic
 bias on a large scale.  You have pulled one article and non-neutrally
 labeled it as a representative article for all projects.  Yes, I know of a
 number of articles and topics that are pretty much untouchable but this is
 far from 99% of all articles on the project.  (I would put the number at
 probably 0.1% and that feels generous.)  This feels like a sensationalist
 claim (which I would normally say is trumped up by the media in order to
 spin a story, but this is not a media story) based on one or two articles.

 Bad research.  Bad reporting. There are ways to get attention to this VERY,
 VERY important topic without resorting to sensationalist calls that have
 little thoughtful documentation.

 --
 twitter: purplepopple
 blog: ozziesport.com
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe




-- 
_
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
___
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

2013-08-01 Thread Rui Correia
David

I am glad to see to see that so far everybody agrees with me, just nobody
can see the forest for the trees and most prefer to demonstrate how
offended they feel at my pointing out how naked the emperor is.

So, whereas I write complete rubbish, what do you do to fight systemic
bias [which] is a serious problem?

Rui

On 1 August 2013 23:23, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 1 August 2013 22:19, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote:

  So you mostly agree with m, but prefer to come out knee-jerking first and
  only after that showing that you somehow agree.


 No, he's saying you're full of it, because you are. Under your
 definition, there has never been an encyclopedia in human history.
 This is not a useful definition.

 Systemic bias is a serious problem, but writing complete rubbish isn't
 going to solve it.


 - d.

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe




-- 
_
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
___
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

2013-08-01 Thread George Herbert
Let me pose a set of questions -

1; Do you feel this is systemic bias in people not wanting some articles?

2; and/or, do you feel this is systemic bias in people not having yet reached 
creating some articles?

3; and/or,!do you feel this is systemic bias in lack of depth of coverage in 
accessible reliable sources of some article topics?

If more than one of the above, what do you feel the relative weights of cause 
are for that aspect of systemic bias?


George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 1, 2013, at 2:29 PM, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote:

 David
 
 I am glad to see to see that so far everybody agrees with me, just nobody
 can see the forest for the trees and most prefer to demonstrate how
 offended they feel at my pointing out how naked the emperor is.
 
 So, whereas I write complete rubbish, what do you do to fight systemic
 bias [which] is a serious problem?
 
 Rui
 
 On 1 August 2013 23:23, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 On 1 August 2013 22:19, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote:
 
 So you mostly agree with m, but prefer to come out knee-jerking first and
 only after that showing that you somehow agree.
 
 
 No, he's saying you're full of it, because you are. Under your
 definition, there has never been an encyclopedia in human history.
 This is not a useful definition.
 
 Systemic bias is a serious problem, but writing complete rubbish isn't
 going to solve it.
 
 
 - d.
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 _
 Rui Correia
 Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
 Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
 
 Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
 Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
 ___
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 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
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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

2013-08-01 Thread Rui Correia
George

Thank you for your interest.

It is a systematic bias in not wanting some POVs. Which is why we got to
the point that we have a whole encyclopaedia governing the issue of POV.

I think a better answer to your question would be provided by doing an
analysis of articles with a high rate of reversals, undoings, 3Rs etc and
what the POV are that lead to that behavour.

Rui

On 1 August 2013 23:38, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:

 Let me pose a set of questions -

 1; Do you feel this is systemic bias in people not wanting some articles?

 2; and/or, do you feel this is systemic bias in people not having yet
 reached creating some articles?

 3; and/or,!do you feel this is systemic bias in lack of depth of coverage
 in accessible reliable sources of some article topics?

 If more than one of the above, what do you feel the relative weights of
 cause are for that aspect of systemic bias?


 George William Herbert
 Sent from my iPhone

 On Aug 1, 2013, at 2:29 PM, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote:

  David
 
  I am glad to see to see that so far everybody agrees with me, just nobody
  can see the forest for the trees and most prefer to demonstrate how
  offended they feel at my pointing out how naked the emperor is.
 
  So, whereas I write complete rubbish, what do you do to fight systemic
  bias [which] is a serious problem?
 
  Rui
 
  On 1 August 2013 23:23, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  On 1 August 2013 22:19, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote:
 
  So you mostly agree with m, but prefer to come out knee-jerking first
 and
  only after that showing that you somehow agree.
 
 
  No, he's saying you're full of it, because you are. Under your
  definition, there has never been an encyclopedia in human history.
  This is not a useful definition.
 
  Systemic bias is a serious problem, but writing complete rubbish isn't
  going to solve it.
 
 
  - d.
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
 
 
 
  --
  _
  Rui Correia
  Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
  Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
 
  Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
  Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
  ___
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  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
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe




-- 
_
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
___
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

2013-08-01 Thread George Herbert

The specific examples you started with are not to my knowledge problem POVs - 
unless one of the White Power groups showed up while I wasn't paying attention. 
 It would seem much more of the not gotten there yet or not (yet) well 
covered in reliable sources for the specific ones.

Am I misunderstanding?

Unless I did miss something, it seems to me that the specific examples were 
poorly chosen and did not either clearly identify or illustrate the problem you 
are now getting at.

Which is a real but very complicated problem.


George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 1, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote:

 George
 
 Thank you for your interest.
 
 It is a systematic bias in not wanting some POVs. Which is why we got to
 the point that we have a whole encyclopaedia governing the issue of POV.
 
 I think a better answer to your question would be provided by doing an
 analysis of articles with a high rate of reversals, undoings, 3Rs etc and
 what the POV are that lead to that behavour.
 
 Rui
 
 On 1 August 2013 23:38, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Let me pose a set of questions -
 
 1; Do you feel this is systemic bias in people not wanting some articles?
 
 2; and/or, do you feel this is systemic bias in people not having yet
 reached creating some articles?
 
 3; and/or,!do you feel this is systemic bias in lack of depth of coverage
 in accessible reliable sources of some article topics?
 
 If more than one of the above, what do you feel the relative weights of
 cause are for that aspect of systemic bias?
 
 
 George William Herbert
 Sent from my iPhone
 
 On Aug 1, 2013, at 2:29 PM, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote:
 
 David
 
 I am glad to see to see that so far everybody agrees with me, just nobody
 can see the forest for the trees and most prefer to demonstrate how
 offended they feel at my pointing out how naked the emperor is.
 
 So, whereas I write complete rubbish, what do you do to fight systemic
 bias [which] is a serious problem?
 
 Rui
 
 On 1 August 2013 23:23, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 On 1 August 2013 22:19, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote:
 
 So you mostly agree with m, but prefer to come out knee-jerking first
 and
 only after that showing that you somehow agree.
 
 
 No, he's saying you're full of it, because you are. Under your
 definition, there has never been an encyclopedia in human history.
 This is not a useful definition.
 
 Systemic bias is a serious problem, but writing complete rubbish isn't
 going to solve it.
 
 
 - d.
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
 
 
 
 --
 _
 Rui Correia
 Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
 Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
 
 Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
 Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
 ___
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 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
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 _
 Rui Correia
 Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
 Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
 
 Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
 Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
 ___
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 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
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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

2013-08-01 Thread Oona Castro
I rarely jump in controversial topics here in Wikimedia-l, but I've decided
to share my 2 cents today.

I sign up for what Laura Hale said on facts  data based support for such a
claim, but would like just to add a question:
* what does a real encyclopedia look like?

While I do see Rui Correia's points on diversity (of content, perspectives
and editors), and while I do agree that's important to call attention to
what could be a (even if unintentional) biased frame to whole set of
subjects, I do not see how this valuable concern and criticism might take
us to the assumption that it's not a real encyclopedia. At least in
Wikipedia we (I mean anyone) can fight for more diverse approaches on that.

Perhaps changing the framework of such criticism (how can we pursue less
intentional or unintentional biased perspectives in WP?) might lead us to a
more interesting conversation, with more potential to succeed in terms of
real change.

Oona




On 1 August 2013 18:38, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:

 Let me pose a set of questions -

 1; Do you feel this is systemic bias in people not wanting some articles?

 2; and/or, do you feel this is systemic bias in people not having yet
 reached creating some articles?

 3; and/or,!do you feel this is systemic bias in lack of depth of coverage
 in accessible reliable sources of some article topics?

 If more than one of the above, what do you feel the relative weights of
 cause are for that aspect of systemic bias?


 George William Herbert
 Sent from my iPhone

 On Aug 1, 2013, at 2:29 PM, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote:

  David
 
  I am glad to see to see that so far everybody agrees with me, just nobody
  can see the forest for the trees and most prefer to demonstrate how
  offended they feel at my pointing out how naked the emperor is.
 
  So, whereas I write complete rubbish, what do you do to fight systemic
  bias [which] is a serious problem?
 
  Rui
 
  On 1 August 2013 23:23, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  On 1 August 2013 22:19, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote:
 
  So you mostly agree with m, but prefer to come out knee-jerking first
 and
  only after that showing that you somehow agree.
 
 
  No, he's saying you're full of it, because you are. Under your
  definition, there has never been an encyclopedia in human history.
  This is not a useful definition.
 
  Systemic bias is a serious problem, but writing complete rubbish isn't
  going to solve it.
 
 
  - d.
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
 
 
 
  --
  _
  Rui Correia
  Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
  Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
 
  Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
  Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
  ___
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  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
 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
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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

2013-08-01 Thread Denny Vrandečić
Rui,

as others are trying to tell you in this thread, I do not consider the
manner you are raising this topic to be helpful or constructive, and I
don't think that your continued defense of your approach will help or get
us anywhere.

Whereas anecdotal war stories as the one you describe can be either
interesting or boring, it does not provide sufficient evidence to act. On
the other hand, there is a growing body of research work that is trying to
understand the topic of diversity and POV in Wikipedia. Telling me that I
am refusing to see that elephant in the room is kind of amusing,
considering that I have co-written the proposal for and have been working
on the EU-funded research project Render - Reflecting Knowledge Diversity
[1], where Wikimedia is a project partner. And there are many, many others
doing research on the topic as well. All of the things you describe --
analysis of revert-patterns, approaches towards measuring POV, etc. are
being done. Maybe you want to read the papers about this and look through
the findings.

Also, diversity is a major topic at the work at the German Wikimedia
chapter, where I am employed, and it has been a major driver in the
creation of the data model underlying Wikidata, where we are working hard
on creating a truly diversity-enabling knowledge base -- something, that is
rather unique in its scope and ambition.

So, yes, I am shooting down your message. I find it as useful as telling a
smoker to quit smoking because fire is bad, as evidenced in London 1666.
There is no need to be sensationalist and counter-factual in order to get
your point across. So, why not restart the whole thread with an Email where
you make suggestions on how to improve the situation, or provide new
evidence and data that can inform the conversation further, or where you
ask for existing research on the topic to inform yourself, or ask for
initiatives where you can help in order to increase Wikipedia's diversity,
and join us in doing something constructive?

Regards,
Denny


[1] http://www.render-project.eu





2013/8/1 Rui Correia correia@gmail.com

 Denny

 If you going to shoot me down as a troll, then I can say only that you are
 one of those that refuse to see the elephant in the room. I am a journalist
 (and a journalism trainer), I know that if I want others to read what I
 have to say I need to come up a headline that will attract attention, while
 at the same time abiding by age-old ethic standards - and I have done so.

 Who controls what is said has become a big problem on the English and to a
 degree the Portuguese WPs. Be fair to yourself, step back and just look at
 some articles to see how many times a day they get reverted. The rot has
 become endemic - there are so many people who do nothing but revert the
 whole day without EVER contributing anything. Yes, I know that a lot of the
 reverting is to undo the work of vandals with nothing better to do, but
 most of it is done to preserve the view thae a specific article has
 'acquired' through time.

 Can you honesty tell me that you have not come across articles that are
 'untouchable'? That you know they convey a view that is not entirely right,
 but YOU and I cannot change it? Can you tell me that you have not come
 across editors who are hell-bent on preserving this or that article just as
 it is?

 Rui

 On 1 August 2013 22:40, Denny Vrandečić denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de
 wrote:

  Rui,
 
  if your basic assumption is that Wikipedia will never be a real
  encyclopedia because of the lack of diversity among its contributors, I
  would like to know of any other encyclopedia that is anywhere close to
 the
  diversity among its contributors that Wikipedia has (just a side-note,
 the
  original Encyclopédie had an even worse bias towards aristocratic, male
  French than Wikipedias does, as surprising as it sounds). So, which
  Encyclopedia do you consider a real encyclopedia at all?
 
  Also, never mind the fact that we already sport such a diversity -- we
 are
  actively aiming and striving for even more diversity, and we are not
  comparing us to the usually abysmal record of other encyclopedias, but
  merely to our own high, maybe even unreachable ideals.
 
  So, whereas I fully agree that there is a lot about Wikipedia that can be
  improved, I am not sure that a mail that starts with the statement Why
 the
  Wikipedia will never be a real encyclopedia deserves even the
  consideration that I offered you here, and is to be considered anything
  beyond trolling.
 
  All the best,
  Denny
 
 
 
  2013/8/1 Rui Correia correia@gmail.com
 
   Dear Colleagues at the Foundation
  
   I just came across an artecle called White Africans of European
  ancestry.
   What is that even supposed to mean?  Who would be any other white
  people
   if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a
   definition of white people could these be? Especially as it already
  says
   on the talk page that Arabs don't