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