Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)

2017-10-05 Thread James Heilman 
We do have a somewhat successful journal here on Wikiversity
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_of_Medicine

The journal provides peer review and people are publishing under their
real names. Could such a journal publish oral histories? Sure why not.
We would just need a group of volunteers interested in pushing the
initiative forwards.

With more engagement maybe the WikiJournals could one day become a
full fledged sister site.

James

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oral stories do adapt and change over time to suit the circumstances but
> the under lying fact remain consistent as in the case of Ziko's story that
> a King divided his realm amongst his sons thus forming the basis of the
> regions, whether its 5,7,9 or some other figure its still the same. We were
> once one group until an elder, respected, leader created multiple we are
> separate groups yet we are all the same.  This same thing has occurred
> regularly across europe as well even now borders are still shifting.
>
> When recording intangible sources two things must remain consistent, we
> need to record the voice that the story is being spoken for and recognise
> that different voice will tell different stories because they have
> different perspectives, just like "eyewitness" accounts.  The other thing
> is to recognise that when recording these stories we aren't setting them in
> stone creating or selecting a single definitive narrative.
>
>- example:
>https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Bulyit#Oral_Accounts
>
>
> Whether we deal with oral sources within a stand alone project or within
> the specific language wikipedia becomes irrelevant, if we want to include
> Indigenous knowledge we have accept and work with the ways in which that
> particular Indigenous knowledge is shared.
>
> It will be project anyone can edit, because its just like the written
> knowledge we now share and modify, because you have box doesn't mean it has
> to be a cube.
>
> On 5 October 2017 at 15:19, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I guess for the same reason we never managed to run a successful journal,
>> despite talking about this for about ten years. This project would need to
>> have infrastructure comparable with the infrastructure needed to run an
>> academic publishing house - editors, referees etc, which at this point
>> looks insurmountable. And it will not be a project anyone can edit, which
>> is a new entity in a Wikimedia universe.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Yaroslav
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Peter Southwood <
>> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>
>> > I agree that is the current situation, but why should we not have such a
>> > project (in theory - in practice I could list several obstacles, possibly
>> > surmountable)
>> > Cheers,
>> > Peter
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
>> > Behalf Of Yaroslav Blanter
>> > Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2017 9:54 PM
>> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update -
>> > Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)
>> >
>> > Yes, but if oral tradition is recorded at the academic standard, why
>> > should we be the first publication venue? Usually these people just
>> publish
>> > books in academic publishing houses.
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> > Yaroslav
>> >
>> > On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Peter Southwood <
>> > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > There may be a way to do it on another project designed for the
>> > > purpose, but that cannot be English Wikipedia, and I doubt that any
>> > > project that allows anonymous editing could manage it credibly. Oral
>> > > tradition would at least have to be sourced to the teller, and would
>> > > have to be recorded by a reliable and identified recorder, who can be
>> > > held responsible for their due diligence. This would not be an easy
>> > > thing for a crowdsourced project, but anything less would be like a
>> > magnet for everything we don't want.
>> > > Cheers,
>> > > Peter
>> > >
>> > > -Original Message-
>> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
>> > > Behalf Of Chandres Wikipedia
>> > > Sent: Wednesday, 04 October 2017 9:25 PM
>> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)

2017-10-05 Thread Gnangarra 
Oral stories do adapt and change over time to suit the circumstances but
the under lying fact remain consistent as in the case of Ziko's story that
a King divided his realm amongst his sons thus forming the basis of the
regions, whether its 5,7,9 or some other figure its still the same. We were
once one group until an elder, respected, leader created multiple we are
separate groups yet we are all the same.  This same thing has occurred
regularly across europe as well even now borders are still shifting.

When recording intangible sources two things must remain consistent, we
need to record the voice that the story is being spoken for and recognise
that different voice will tell different stories because they have
different perspectives, just like "eyewitness" accounts.  The other thing
is to recognise that when recording these stories we aren't setting them in
stone creating or selecting a single definitive narrative.

   - example:
   https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Bulyit#Oral_Accounts


Whether we deal with oral sources within a stand alone project or within
the specific language wikipedia becomes irrelevant, if we want to include
Indigenous knowledge we have accept and work with the ways in which that
particular Indigenous knowledge is shared.

It will be project anyone can edit, because its just like the written
knowledge we now share and modify, because you have box doesn't mean it has
to be a cube.

On 5 October 2017 at 15:19, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I guess for the same reason we never managed to run a successful journal,
> despite talking about this for about ten years. This project would need to
> have infrastructure comparable with the infrastructure needed to run an
> academic publishing house - editors, referees etc, which at this point
> looks insurmountable. And it will not be a project anyone can edit, which
> is a new entity in a Wikimedia universe.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > I agree that is the current situation, but why should we not have such a
> > project (in theory - in practice I could list several obstacles, possibly
> > surmountable)
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Yaroslav Blanter
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2017 9:54 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update -
> > Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)
> >
> > Yes, but if oral tradition is recorded at the academic standard, why
> > should we be the first publication venue? Usually these people just
> publish
> > books in academic publishing houses.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Peter Southwood <
> > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >
> > > There may be a way to do it on another project designed for the
> > > purpose, but that cannot be English Wikipedia, and I doubt that any
> > > project that allows anonymous editing could manage it credibly. Oral
> > > tradition would at least have to be sourced to the teller, and would
> > > have to be recorded by a reliable and identified recorder, who can be
> > > held responsible for their due diligence. This would not be an easy
> > > thing for a crowdsourced project, but anything less would be like a
> > magnet for everything we don't want.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Chandres Wikipedia
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 04 October 2017 9:25 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update -
> > > Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)
> > >
> > > I do not have a perfect solution to introduce oral traditions in
> > > Wikipedia today, but I’m convince that we need to find a way to do it.
> > >
> > > Just to give you an illustration:
> > >
> > > Today ,a significative amount of African topics in the Wikipedia in
> > > French rely only on the work of only few French historian. Without
> > > saying they are not honest, I find difficult to consider that there
> > > words have really so more value than the words of the Ancient of the
> > African tribes.
> > >
> > > We know for sure than oral tradition will include bias, but do not
> > &

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)

2017-10-05 Thread Yaroslav Blanter 
I guess for the same reason we never managed to run a successful journal,
despite talking about this for about ten years. This project would need to
have infrastructure comparable with the infrastructure needed to run an
academic publishing house - editors, referees etc, which at this point
looks insurmountable. And it will not be a project anyone can edit, which
is a new entity in a Wikimedia universe.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> I agree that is the current situation, but why should we not have such a
> project (in theory - in practice I could list several obstacles, possibly
> surmountable)
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Yaroslav Blanter
> Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2017 9:54 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update -
> Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)
>
> Yes, but if oral tradition is recorded at the academic standard, why
> should we be the first publication venue? Usually these people just publish
> books in academic publishing houses.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > There may be a way to do it on another project designed for the
> > purpose, but that cannot be English Wikipedia, and I doubt that any
> > project that allows anonymous editing could manage it credibly. Oral
> > tradition would at least have to be sourced to the teller, and would
> > have to be recorded by a reliable and identified recorder, who can be
> > held responsible for their due diligence. This would not be an easy
> > thing for a crowdsourced project, but anything less would be like a
> magnet for everything we don't want.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Chandres Wikipedia
> > Sent: Wednesday, 04 October 2017 9:25 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update -
> > Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)
> >
> > I do not have a perfect solution to introduce oral traditions in
> > Wikipedia today, but I’m convince that we need to find a way to do it.
> >
> > Just to give you an illustration:
> >
> > Today ,a significative amount of African topics in the Wikipedia in
> > French rely only on the work of only few French historian. Without
> > saying they are not honest, I find difficult to consider that there
> > words have really so more value than the words of the Ancient of the
> African tribes.
> >
> > We know for sure than oral tradition will include bias, but do not
> > forget that the «  traditional western historian work » are not exempt
> of bias too.
> >
> > Charles
> >
> > PS: IMHO, I find offensive the way you define oral traditions, but it
> > may be caused by a misconception from my part.
> >
> > These are the definition I use for urban legend and oral tradition,
> > very different each other I think.
> > urban <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/urban#English> legend <
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/legend#English> (plural urban legends <
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/urban_legends#English>)
> > A widely circulated story <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/story> that
> > is untrue <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/untrue> or apocryphal <
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apocryphal>, often having elements of
> > humour <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/humour> or horror <
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/horror>.
> > oral <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/oral#English> tradition <
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tradition#English> (countable <
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#countable> and
> > uncountable
> > <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#uncountable>,
> > plural oral traditions <https://en.wiktionary.org/
> > wiki/oral_traditions#English>)
> > Cultural <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/culture> material transmitted
> > < https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/transmit> orally from one generation
> > < https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/generation> to another.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Le 4 oct. 2017 à 21:11, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> > >
> &g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)

2017-10-05 Thread Peter Southwood 
I agree that is the current situation, but why should we not have such a 
project (in theory - in practice I could list several obstacles, possibly 
surmountable)
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Yaroslav Blanter
Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2017 9:54 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update - Final 
draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)

Yes, but if oral tradition is recorded at the academic standard, why should we 
be the first publication venue? Usually these people just publish books in 
academic publishing houses.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Peter Southwood < peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> 
wrote:

> There may be a way to do it on another project designed for the 
> purpose, but that cannot be English Wikipedia, and I doubt that any 
> project that allows anonymous editing could manage it credibly. Oral 
> tradition would at least have to be sourced to the teller, and would 
> have to be recorded by a reliable and identified recorder, who can be 
> held responsible for their due diligence. This would not be an easy 
> thing for a crowdsourced project, but anything less would be like a magnet 
> for everything we don't want.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
> Behalf Of Chandres Wikipedia
> Sent: Wednesday, 04 October 2017 9:25 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update - 
> Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)
>
> I do not have a perfect solution to introduce oral traditions in 
> Wikipedia today, but I’m convince that we need to find a way to do it.
>
> Just to give you an illustration:
>
> Today ,a significative amount of African topics in the Wikipedia in 
> French rely only on the work of only few French historian. Without 
> saying they are not honest, I find difficult to consider that there 
> words have really so more value than the words of the Ancient of the African 
> tribes.
>
> We know for sure than oral tradition will include bias, but do not 
> forget that the «  traditional western historian work » are not exempt of 
> bias too.
>
> Charles
>
> PS: IMHO, I find offensive the way you define oral traditions, but it 
> may be caused by a misconception from my part.
>
> These are the definition I use for urban legend and oral tradition, 
> very different each other I think.
> urban <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/urban#English> legend < 
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/legend#English> (plural urban legends <
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/urban_legends#English>)
> A widely circulated story <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/story> that 
> is untrue <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/untrue> or apocryphal < 
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apocryphal>, often having elements of 
> humour <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/humour> or horror < 
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/horror>.
> oral <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/oral#English> tradition < 
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tradition#English> (countable < 
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#countable> and 
> uncountable 
> <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#uncountable>,
> plural oral traditions <https://en.wiktionary.org/
> wiki/oral_traditions#English>)
> Cultural <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/culture> material transmitted 
> < https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/transmit> orally from one generation 
> < https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/generation> to another.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Le 4 oct. 2017 à 21:11, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >
> > You might be right, and the goal is indeed to differentiate between 
> > them. I just do not see how it could be implemented in practice. A 
> > legend is a legend, be it urban or not.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:09 PM, Chandres Wikipedia 
> > <chandres...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> to Wikipedia. They might still be a separate WMF project, which is 
> >>> likely to be problematic (since it is really difficult to 
> >>> differentiate between say folk tales and the oral traditions which 
> >>> state that Earth is flat and that all US presidents report to the 
> >>> Zionist Occupational Government),
> >> but
> >>>
> >>
> >> For me, your definition of oral tradition is the one of « u

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)

2017-10-04 Thread Ziko van Dijk 
Hello Lodewijk and Charles,

I am now quickly responding after arriving in my hotel. The question
whether it is about Wikipedia or about knowledge - I am not sure, but I
think that it is a very useful, structuring question.

About „oral traditions“. I don‘t have my books here, but I give you an
example what I mean. I remember the case (I hope correctly) from Johannes
Fried, Der Schleier der Erinnerung.

There was a territory in Africa, occupied by the British in the 19th
century. Shortly after, they wanted to learn more about this territory.
There were no history books, but they asked the inhabitants. For example,
why is this territory divided in seven provinces. The British got the
answer: Once there was a king. He had seven sons. So he divided the
territory into seven provinces, each for every son.

Time went by. The British colonial rule changed the administrative division
of the territory. They reduced the number of provinces from seven to five.
Decades later, in the 20th century, the colonial rule came to an end.
Shortly before that, the British asked the inhabitants about the territory
again. They got to hear: Once there was a king. He had five sons. So he
divided the territory into five provinces.

The human brain and memory, and collective memory, are not unchangeble
unlike paper. They adapt. The human brain is not made to record data for
historians but to deal with life. You cannot remember everything. When
needed, your brain builds up a new story from remembered fragments and
tries to keep the new story coherent with present information.

About an „oral traditions“ project outside of Wikipedia: It has been
proposed. But it will encounter problems like any other platform for „oral
history“. It is a lot of work, it can attract extremists, and you have to
make sure that the content is actually usuable for historians or other
scientists (e.g., the person speaking must be identified correctly). And,
of course, the testimonials have to undergo the same scrutiny as any other
historical source. In my experience most scientists prefer to interview
people by themselves, under their own conditions, and being the first to
use the material.

Kind regards,
Ziko





Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> schrieb am Mi. 4. Okt. 2017 um 22:11:

> And that is where the broader Wikimedia movement could come in, to provide
> that pipeline of rigor and reliability, right? I don't know a solution
> either, but the question for the strategy is not whether we have a solution
> right now. The question would be whether the movement should work towards
> finding a solution through our ecosystem (or even beyond), and support
> that. Maybe at the end of this process, some information may end up on
> Wikipedia - if the process proves to be reliable enough. And maybe not.
>
> I also agree with the nuance by Charles, that we're talking about many
> different types of knowledge - some of which may be more suitable than
> others.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, but if oral tradition is recorded at the academic standard, why
> should
> > we be the first publication venue? Usually these people just publish
> books
> > in academic publishing houses.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Peter Southwood <
> > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >
> > > There may be a way to do it on another project designed for the
> purpose,
> > > but that cannot be English Wikipedia, and I doubt that any project that
> > > allows anonymous editing could manage it credibly. Oral tradition would
> > at
> > > least have to be sourced to the teller, and would have to be recorded
> by
> > a
> > > reliable and identified recorder, who can be held responsible for their
> > due
> > > diligence. This would not be an easy thing for a crowdsourced project,
> > but
> > > anything less would be like a magnet for everything we don't want.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Chandres Wikipedia
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 04 October 2017 9:25 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update -
> > > Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)
> > >
> > > I do not have a perfect solution to introduce oral traditions in
> > Wikipedia
> > > today, but I’m convince that we need to find a way to do it.
> > >
> > > Just to give you an illustration:
> > >
> > > Today ,a signifi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)

2017-10-04 Thread Lodewijk 
And that is where the broader Wikimedia movement could come in, to provide
that pipeline of rigor and reliability, right? I don't know a solution
either, but the question for the strategy is not whether we have a solution
right now. The question would be whether the movement should work towards
finding a solution through our ecosystem (or even beyond), and support
that. Maybe at the end of this process, some information may end up on
Wikipedia - if the process proves to be reliable enough. And maybe not.

I also agree with the nuance by Charles, that we're talking about many
different types of knowledge - some of which may be more suitable than
others.

Lodewijk

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, but if oral tradition is recorded at the academic standard, why should
> we be the first publication venue? Usually these people just publish books
> in academic publishing houses.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > There may be a way to do it on another project designed for the purpose,
> > but that cannot be English Wikipedia, and I doubt that any project that
> > allows anonymous editing could manage it credibly. Oral tradition would
> at
> > least have to be sourced to the teller, and would have to be recorded by
> a
> > reliable and identified recorder, who can be held responsible for their
> due
> > diligence. This would not be an easy thing for a crowdsourced project,
> but
> > anything less would be like a magnet for everything we don't want.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Chandres Wikipedia
> > Sent: Wednesday, 04 October 2017 9:25 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update -
> > Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)
> >
> > I do not have a perfect solution to introduce oral traditions in
> Wikipedia
> > today, but I’m convince that we need to find a way to do it.
> >
> > Just to give you an illustration:
> >
> > Today ,a significative amount of African topics in the Wikipedia in
> French
> > rely only on the work of only few French historian. Without saying they
> are
> > not honest, I find difficult to consider that there words have really so
> > more value than the words of the Ancient of the African tribes.
> >
> > We know for sure than oral tradition will include bias, but do not forget
> > that the «  traditional western historian work » are not exempt of bias
> too.
> >
> > Charles
> >
> > PS: IMHO, I find offensive the way you define oral traditions, but it may
> > be caused by a misconception from my part.
> >
> > These are the definition I use for urban legend and oral tradition, very
> > different each other I think.
> > urban <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/urban#English> legend <
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/legend#English> (plural urban legends <
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/urban_legends#English>)
> > A widely circulated story <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/story> that is
> > untrue <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/untrue> or apocryphal <
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apocryphal>, often having elements of
> > humour <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/humour> or horror <
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/horror>.
> > oral <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/oral#English> tradition <
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tradition#English> (countable <
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#countable> and
> > uncountable <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#
> uncountable>,
> > plural oral traditions <https://en.wiktionary.org/
> > wiki/oral_traditions#English>)
> > Cultural <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/culture> material transmitted <
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/transmit> orally from one generation <
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/generation> to another.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Le 4 oct. 2017 à 21:11, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> > >
> > > You might be right, and the goal is indeed to differentiate between
> > > them. I just do not see how it could be implemented in practice. A
> > > legend is a legend, be it urban or not.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Yaroslav
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 4

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)

2017-10-04 Thread Yaroslav Blanter 
Yes, but if oral tradition is recorded at the academic standard, why should
we be the first publication venue? Usually these people just publish books
in academic publishing houses.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> There may be a way to do it on another project designed for the purpose,
> but that cannot be English Wikipedia, and I doubt that any project that
> allows anonymous editing could manage it credibly. Oral tradition would at
> least have to be sourced to the teller, and would have to be recorded by a
> reliable and identified recorder, who can be held responsible for their due
> diligence. This would not be an easy thing for a crowdsourced project, but
> anything less would be like a magnet for everything we don't want.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Chandres Wikipedia
> Sent: Wednesday, 04 October 2017 9:25 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update -
> Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)
>
> I do not have a perfect solution to introduce oral traditions in Wikipedia
> today, but I’m convince that we need to find a way to do it.
>
> Just to give you an illustration:
>
> Today ,a significative amount of African topics in the Wikipedia in French
> rely only on the work of only few French historian. Without saying they are
> not honest, I find difficult to consider that there words have really so
> more value than the words of the Ancient of the African tribes.
>
> We know for sure than oral tradition will include bias, but do not forget
> that the «  traditional western historian work » are not exempt of bias too.
>
> Charles
>
> PS: IMHO, I find offensive the way you define oral traditions, but it may
> be caused by a misconception from my part.
>
> These are the definition I use for urban legend and oral tradition, very
> different each other I think.
> urban <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/urban#English> legend <
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/legend#English> (plural urban legends <
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/urban_legends#English>)
> A widely circulated story <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/story> that is
> untrue <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/untrue> or apocryphal <
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apocryphal>, often having elements of
> humour <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/humour> or horror <
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/horror>.
> oral <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/oral#English> tradition <
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tradition#English> (countable <
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#countable> and
> uncountable <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#uncountable>,
> plural oral traditions <https://en.wiktionary.org/
> wiki/oral_traditions#English>)
> Cultural <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/culture> material transmitted <
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/transmit> orally from one generation <
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/generation> to another.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Le 4 oct. 2017 à 21:11, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >
> > You might be right, and the goal is indeed to differentiate between
> > them. I just do not see how it could be implemented in practice. A
> > legend is a legend, be it urban or not.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:09 PM, Chandres Wikipedia
> > <chandres...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> to Wikipedia. They might still be a separate WMF project, which is
> >>> likely to be problematic (since it is really difficult to
> >>> differentiate between say folk tales and the oral traditions which
> >>> state that Earth is flat and that all US presidents report to the
> >>> Zionist Occupational Government),
> >> but
> >>>
> >>
> >> For me, your definition of oral tradition is the one of « urban legend
> ».
> >> TO my understanding, oral tradition refer to culture where the
> >> History of the tribes/nation/people is transmit only by a spoken way
> >> and never put on paper.  Am I wrong?
> >>
> >> charles
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and ht

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)

2017-10-04 Thread Peter Southwood 
There may be a way to do it on another project designed for the purpose, but 
that cannot be English Wikipedia, and I doubt that any project that allows 
anonymous editing could manage it credibly. Oral tradition would at least have 
to be sourced to the teller, and would have to be recorded by a reliable and 
identified recorder, who can be held responsible for their due diligence. This 
would not be an easy thing for a crowdsourced project, but anything less would 
be like a magnet for everything we don't want.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Chandres Wikipedia
Sent: Wednesday, 04 October 2017 9:25 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update - Final 
draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)

I do not have a perfect solution to introduce oral traditions in Wikipedia 
today, but I’m convince that we need to find a way to do it.

Just to give you an illustration:

Today ,a significative amount of African topics in the Wikipedia in French rely 
only on the work of only few French historian. Without saying they are not 
honest, I find difficult to consider that there words have really so more value 
than the words of the Ancient of the African tribes.

We know for sure than oral tradition will include bias, but do not forget that 
the «  traditional western historian work » are not exempt of bias too.

Charles

PS: IMHO, I find offensive the way you define oral traditions, but it may be 
caused by a misconception from my part. 

These are the definition I use for urban legend and oral tradition, very 
different each other I think.
urban <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/urban#English> legend 
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/legend#English> (plural urban legends 
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/urban_legends#English>)
A widely circulated story <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/story> that is untrue 
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/untrue> or apocryphal 
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apocryphal>, often having elements of humour 
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/humour> or horror 
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/horror>.
oral <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/oral#English> tradition 
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tradition#English> (countable 
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#countable> and uncountable 
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#uncountable>, plural oral 
traditions <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/oral_traditions#English>)
Cultural <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/culture> material transmitted 
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/transmit> orally from one generation 
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/generation> to another.





> Le 4 oct. 2017 à 21:11, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> 
> You might be right, and the goal is indeed to differentiate between 
> them. I just do not see how it could be implemented in practice. A 
> legend is a legend, be it urban or not.
> 
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
> 
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:09 PM, Chandres Wikipedia 
> <chandres...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> to Wikipedia. They might still be a separate WMF project, which is 
>>> likely to be problematic (since it is really difficult to 
>>> differentiate between say folk tales and the oral traditions which 
>>> state that Earth is flat and that all US presidents report to the 
>>> Zionist Occupational Government),
>> but
>>> 
>> 
>> For me, your definition of oral tradition is the one of « urban legend ».
>> TO my understanding, oral tradition refer to culture where the 
>> History of the tribes/nation/people is transmit only by a spoken way 
>> and never put on paper.  Am I wrong?
>> 
>> charles
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: 
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

__

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)

2017-10-04 Thread Peter Southwood 
I don't think the intention is to allow that sort of source on Wikipedias, 
there is no chance that they would be accepted on English Wikipedia, at least - 
 I don’t know the others well enough to claim to speak for them. This would 
have to be a completely separate project. I do have my reservations on how it 
could be made into anything approaching reliable if it is open to editing by 
anyone, for the reasons mentioned by Yaroslav and Ziko, but there has not been 
a concrete proposal yet that I know of, so I accept the possibility that 
someone might have workable ideas, and reserve judgement on those ideas until I 
see them. Not every project has to be open to everyone to make anonymous edits. 
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Yaroslav Blanter
Sent: Wednesday, 04 October 2017 2:32 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update - Final 
draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)

I fully support Ziko on this point. Making oral tradidions welcome, in 
particular, making them welcome at Wikipedia, will open the door to all king of 
fringe POV theories. We were able to distinguish ourselves exactly because 
these fringe theories had no place on Wikipedia. Allowing them meaning shoot 
our own feet.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Ziko van Dijk <zvand...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Guillaume,
>
> Thank you for making your point of view clear, I appreciate that. 
> Please allow me to make two points clear myself.
>
> (A) It is not my opinion that only active Wikipedians are „community“.
> There are other Wikimedia wikis, and also activities, that have a 
> community character. I do reject the idea to open the term community 
> to literally everybody/anybody „and beyond“. It would be necessary 
> that the draft paper, instead, explains what should be understood by 
> „movement“ or „community“ in order to avoid certain ambiguities.
>
> (B) I also do not deny that there is an overweight of content that is 
> related to Western countries and culture. On (English) Wikipedia, the 
> average Dutch village is certainly much better described than a larger 
> city in, for example, Ethiopia or Guatemala. I am always supportive of 
> initiatives that want to do something about this lack of balance. (And 
> I suppose that most people on the Berlin conference meant that, too).
>
> But the wording in the further strategy process was much different. 
> The concept of „reliable sources“ was called a Western bias, while 
> „oral traditions“ should be considered to be reliable as well.
>
> I know that writing the history of many countries is difficult because 
> of the lack of written material. That makes it also difficult to write 
> a more complete history of, for example, Celtic and Germanic tribes in 
> ancient times.
>
> But „oral traditions“ are just not reliable in the way scholarly 
> literature is. Historians provide us with numerous examples how people 
> fail in remembering what they heard a long time ago, or even recently. 
> The human brain is simply not made by nature to be a historian or a 
> data storage; human memory is fragile and changes. Also, additionally 
> some people have a malicious intent when giving their testimony to a 
> historian or a well meaning platform for „oral history“. A historian‘s 
> work is to collect several testimonies, compare them to each other (= 
> the transcripts of their
> interviews) and corroborate them with other material - and finally 
> write their own account of their research.
>
> Imagine, I would claim that I am a descendant of Charlemagne (source: 
> my father and grandfather told me so). Or that national socialism had 
> a positive impact on Germany and many other lucky countries in Europe
> (source: what someone told me at family meetings). - Wikipedia works 
> because we use „secondary sources“, scholarly literature. That is 
> where (some major aspects of) the quality comes from. That is why 
> people like Wikipedia and donate for it.
>
> It would be necessary to make Wikipedia the great (even greater) 
> encyclopedia it could be. With an integration of Wikidata and Commons, 
> and good interfaces. With the focus on readability, with a well 
> thought through concept of providing content for the general public, 
> for special groups and for scholars. With an understanding of what we 
> do and what we explicitly don’t do, with whom we can partner up (and 
> where are the limits). This more cautious vision makes me not very 
> enthusiast, to say the least, about widening the scope to a degree that we 
> loose recognizability.
>
> Kind regards,
> Ziko
>
>
>
>
> o
>
>
>
>
> Guil

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)

2017-10-04 Thread Chandres Wikipedia 
I do not have a perfect solution to introduce oral traditions in Wikipedia 
today, but I’m convince that we need to find a way to do it.

Just to give you an illustration:

Today ,a significative amount of African topics in the Wikipedia in French rely 
only on the work of only few French historian. Without saying they are not 
honest, I find difficult to consider that there words have really so more value 
than the words of the Ancient of the African tribes.

We know for sure than oral tradition will include bias, but do not forget that 
the «  traditional western historian work » are not exempt of bias too.

Charles

PS: IMHO, I find offensive the way you define oral traditions, but it may be 
caused by a misconception from my part. 

These are the definition I use for urban legend and oral tradition, very 
different each other I think.
urban  legend 
 (plural urban legends 
)
A widely circulated story  that is untrue 
 or apocryphal 
, often having elements of humour 
 or horror 
.
oral  tradition 
 (countable 
 and uncountable 
, plural oral 
traditions )
Cultural  material transmitted 
 orally from one generation 
 to another.





> Le 4 oct. 2017 à 21:11, Yaroslav Blanter  a écrit :
> 
> You might be right, and the goal is indeed to differentiate between them. I
> just do not see how it could be implemented in practice. A legend is a
> legend, be it urban or not.
> 
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
> 
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:09 PM, Chandres Wikipedia 
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> to Wikipedia. They might still be a separate WMF project, which is likely
>>> to be problematic (since it is really difficult to differentiate between
>>> say folk tales and the oral traditions which state that Earth is flat and
>>> that all US presidents report to the Zionist Occupational Government),
>> but
>>> 
>> 
>> For me, your definition of oral tradition is the one of « urban legend ».
>> TO my understanding, oral tradition refer to culture where the History of
>> the tribes/nation/people is transmit only by a spoken way and never put on
>> paper.  Am I wrong?
>> 
>> charles
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)

2017-10-04 Thread Yaroslav Blanter 
You might be right, and the goal is indeed to differentiate between them. I
just do not see how it could be implemented in practice. A legend is a
legend, be it urban or not.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:09 PM, Chandres Wikipedia 
wrote:

>
> > to Wikipedia. They might still be a separate WMF project, which is likely
> > to be problematic (since it is really difficult to differentiate between
> > say folk tales and the oral traditions which state that Earth is flat and
> > that all US presidents report to the Zionist Occupational Government),
> but
> >
>
> For me, your definition of oral tradition is the one of « urban legend ».
> TO my understanding, oral tradition refer to culture where the History of
> the tribes/nation/people is transmit only by a spoken way and never put on
> paper.  Am I wrong?
>
> charles
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)

2017-10-04 Thread Chandres Wikipedia 

> to Wikipedia. They might still be a separate WMF project, which is likely
> to be problematic (since it is really difficult to differentiate between
> say folk tales and the oral traditions which state that Earth is flat and
> that all US presidents report to the Zionist Occupational Government), but
> 

For me, your definition of oral tradition is the one of « urban legend ». TO my 
understanding, oral tradition refer to culture where the History of the 
tribes/nation/people is transmit only by a spoken way and never put on paper.  
Am I wrong?

charles







___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)

2017-10-04 Thread Yaroslav Blanter 
Thanks Lodewijk.

I do not know about Ziko, but my personal position which I also expressed
during the strategy consultations is that oral traditions can not be taken
to Wikipedia. They might still be a separate WMF project, which is likely
to be problematic (since it is really difficult to differentiate between
say folk tales and the oral traditions which state that Earth is flat and
that all US presidents report to the Zionist Occupational Government), but
at least I see how it can exist. We certainly do have WMF projects which
allow original research.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Lodewijk 
wrote:

> (first I'll respond to Ziko/Yaroslav, and then I'll ponder a bit about the
> direction in a more general sense)
>
> Just to check, Ziko and Yaroslav: are you talking about Wikipedia, or the
> sum of all human knowledge? Are you arguing that Wikipedia should only make
> use of secondary sources, or are you arguing that the whole Wikimedia
> movement should limit itself to that?
>
> I can see pathways (although they won't be easy) of how oral knowledge can
> be collected, described, analyzed, compared and turned into a secondary
> source in Wikimedia projects. Maybe Wikipedia is not the most suitable
> project for that - this is something we could discuss. This is a typical
> topic that is super important to a part of our community.
>
> This is probably true for many things: what doesn't work for Wikipedia
> (right now), may well work within other projects. Not each component of the
> strategy is equally applicable to every single person and every single
> situation.
>
> But in general, there are two ways that the strategic direction can be
> improved - and they are in direct contradiction. The first is to make
> everything more acceptable to everyone. That is basically what you're
> arguing here. The second is what was a resonating feedback I heard at
> Wikimania: to make clearer choices. Actually setting a direction.
>
> We are an incredibly diverse community (even if we are underrepresented in
> many groups), and people will want to go in different directions. After
> reading the current direction, I'm acknowledging there's more 'direction',
> but still feel left hanging.
>
> I don't understand what exactly that direction is headed towards, there is
> too much space for a variety of interpretation. The one thing that I take
> away though, is that we won't place ourselves at the center of the free
> knowledge universe (as a brand), but want to become a service. We don't
> expect people to know about 'Wikipedia' in 10 years, but we do want that
> our work is being put to good use. Is this a correct (simplified)
> interpretation?
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>
> > I fully support Ziko on this point. Making oral tradidions welcome, in
> > particular, making them welcome at Wikipedia, will open the door to all
> > king of fringe POV theories. We were able to distinguish ourselves
> exactly
> > because these fringe theories had no place on Wikipedia. Allowing them
> > meaning shoot our own feet.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Ziko van Dijk 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Guillaume,
> > >
> > > Thank you for making your point of view clear, I appreciate that.
> Please
> > > allow me to make two points clear myself.
> > >
> > > (A) It is not my opinion that only active Wikipedians are „community“.
> > > There are other Wikimedia wikis, and also activities, that have a
> > community
> > > character. I do reject the idea to open the term community to literally
> > > everybody/anybody „and beyond“. It would be necessary that the draft
> > paper,
> > > instead, explains what should be understood by „movement“ or
> „community“
> > in
> > > order to avoid certain ambiguities.
> > >
> > > (B) I also do not deny that there is an overweight of content that is
> > > related to Western countries and culture. On (English) Wikipedia, the
> > > average Dutch village is certainly much better described than a larger
> > city
> > > in, for example, Ethiopia or Guatemala. I am always supportive of
> > > initiatives that want to do something about this lack of balance. (And
> I
> > > suppose that most people on the Berlin conference meant that, too).
> > >
> > > But the wording in the further strategy process was much different. The
> > > concept of „reliable sources“ was called a Western bias, while „oral
> > > traditions“ should be considered to be reliable as well.
> > >
> > > I know that writing the history of many countries is difficult because
> of
> > > the lack of written material. That makes it also difficult to write a
> > more
> > > complete history of, for example, Celtic and Germanic tribes in ancient
> > > times.
> > >
> > > But „oral traditions“ are just not reliable in the way scholarly
> > literature
> > > is. Historians provide us with numerous examples

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)

2017-10-04 Thread Lodewijk 
(first I'll respond to Ziko/Yaroslav, and then I'll ponder a bit about the
direction in a more general sense)

Just to check, Ziko and Yaroslav: are you talking about Wikipedia, or the
sum of all human knowledge? Are you arguing that Wikipedia should only make
use of secondary sources, or are you arguing that the whole Wikimedia
movement should limit itself to that?

I can see pathways (although they won't be easy) of how oral knowledge can
be collected, described, analyzed, compared and turned into a secondary
source in Wikimedia projects. Maybe Wikipedia is not the most suitable
project for that - this is something we could discuss. This is a typical
topic that is super important to a part of our community.

This is probably true for many things: what doesn't work for Wikipedia
(right now), may well work within other projects. Not each component of the
strategy is equally applicable to every single person and every single
situation.

But in general, there are two ways that the strategic direction can be
improved - and they are in direct contradiction. The first is to make
everything more acceptable to everyone. That is basically what you're
arguing here. The second is what was a resonating feedback I heard at
Wikimania: to make clearer choices. Actually setting a direction.

We are an incredibly diverse community (even if we are underrepresented in
many groups), and people will want to go in different directions. After
reading the current direction, I'm acknowledging there's more 'direction',
but still feel left hanging.

I don't understand what exactly that direction is headed towards, there is
too much space for a variety of interpretation. The one thing that I take
away though, is that we won't place ourselves at the center of the free
knowledge universe (as a brand), but want to become a service. We don't
expect people to know about 'Wikipedia' in 10 years, but we do want that
our work is being put to good use. Is this a correct (simplified)
interpretation?

Lodewijk

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> I fully support Ziko on this point. Making oral tradidions welcome, in
> particular, making them welcome at Wikipedia, will open the door to all
> king of fringe POV theories. We were able to distinguish ourselves exactly
> because these fringe theories had no place on Wikipedia. Allowing them
> meaning shoot our own feet.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
>
> > Dear Guillaume,
> >
> > Thank you for making your point of view clear, I appreciate that. Please
> > allow me to make two points clear myself.
> >
> > (A) It is not my opinion that only active Wikipedians are „community“.
> > There are other Wikimedia wikis, and also activities, that have a
> community
> > character. I do reject the idea to open the term community to literally
> > everybody/anybody „and beyond“. It would be necessary that the draft
> paper,
> > instead, explains what should be understood by „movement“ or „community“
> in
> > order to avoid certain ambiguities.
> >
> > (B) I also do not deny that there is an overweight of content that is
> > related to Western countries and culture. On (English) Wikipedia, the
> > average Dutch village is certainly much better described than a larger
> city
> > in, for example, Ethiopia or Guatemala. I am always supportive of
> > initiatives that want to do something about this lack of balance. (And I
> > suppose that most people on the Berlin conference meant that, too).
> >
> > But the wording in the further strategy process was much different. The
> > concept of „reliable sources“ was called a Western bias, while „oral
> > traditions“ should be considered to be reliable as well.
> >
> > I know that writing the history of many countries is difficult because of
> > the lack of written material. That makes it also difficult to write a
> more
> > complete history of, for example, Celtic and Germanic tribes in ancient
> > times.
> >
> > But „oral traditions“ are just not reliable in the way scholarly
> literature
> > is. Historians provide us with numerous examples how people fail in
> > remembering what they heard a long time ago, or even recently. The human
> > brain is simply not made by nature to be a historian or a data storage;
> > human memory is fragile and changes. Also, additionally some people have
> a
> > malicious intent when giving their testimony to a historian or a well
> > meaning platform for „oral history“. A historian‘s work is to collect
> > several testimonies, compare them to each other (= the transcripts of
> their
> > interviews) and corroborate them with other material - and finally write
> > their own account of their research.
> >
> > Imagine, I would claim that I am a descendant of Charlemagne (source: my
> > father and grandfather told me so). Or that national socialism had a
> > positive impact on Germany and many other lucky countries in Europe
> > (source:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)

2017-10-04 Thread Yaroslav Blanter 
I fully support Ziko on this point. Making oral tradidions welcome, in
particular, making them welcome at Wikipedia, will open the door to all
king of fringe POV theories. We were able to distinguish ourselves exactly
because these fringe theories had no place on Wikipedia. Allowing them
meaning shoot our own feet.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Dear Guillaume,
>
> Thank you for making your point of view clear, I appreciate that. Please
> allow me to make two points clear myself.
>
> (A) It is not my opinion that only active Wikipedians are „community“.
> There are other Wikimedia wikis, and also activities, that have a community
> character. I do reject the idea to open the term community to literally
> everybody/anybody „and beyond“. It would be necessary that the draft paper,
> instead, explains what should be understood by „movement“ or „community“ in
> order to avoid certain ambiguities.
>
> (B) I also do not deny that there is an overweight of content that is
> related to Western countries and culture. On (English) Wikipedia, the
> average Dutch village is certainly much better described than a larger city
> in, for example, Ethiopia or Guatemala. I am always supportive of
> initiatives that want to do something about this lack of balance. (And I
> suppose that most people on the Berlin conference meant that, too).
>
> But the wording in the further strategy process was much different. The
> concept of „reliable sources“ was called a Western bias, while „oral
> traditions“ should be considered to be reliable as well.
>
> I know that writing the history of many countries is difficult because of
> the lack of written material. That makes it also difficult to write a more
> complete history of, for example, Celtic and Germanic tribes in ancient
> times.
>
> But „oral traditions“ are just not reliable in the way scholarly literature
> is. Historians provide us with numerous examples how people fail in
> remembering what they heard a long time ago, or even recently. The human
> brain is simply not made by nature to be a historian or a data storage;
> human memory is fragile and changes. Also, additionally some people have a
> malicious intent when giving their testimony to a historian or a well
> meaning platform for „oral history“. A historian‘s work is to collect
> several testimonies, compare them to each other (= the transcripts of their
> interviews) and corroborate them with other material - and finally write
> their own account of their research.
>
> Imagine, I would claim that I am a descendant of Charlemagne (source: my
> father and grandfather told me so). Or that national socialism had a
> positive impact on Germany and many other lucky countries in Europe
> (source: what someone told me at family meetings). - Wikipedia works
> because we use „secondary sources“, scholarly literature. That is where
> (some major aspects of) the quality comes from. That is why people like
> Wikipedia and donate for it.
>
> It would be necessary to make Wikipedia the great (even greater)
> encyclopedia it could be. With an integration of Wikidata and Commons, and
> good interfaces. With the focus on readability, with a well thought through
> concept of providing content for the general public, for special groups and
> for scholars. With an understanding of what we do and what we explicitly
> don’t do, with whom we can partner up (and where are the limits). This more
> cautious vision makes me not very enthusiast, to say the least, about
> widening the scope to a degree that we loose recognizability.
>
> Kind regards,
> Ziko
>
>
>
>
> o
>
>
>
>
> Guillaume Paumier  schrieb am Mi. 4. Okt. 2017 um
> 04:37:
>
> > Dear Ziko,
> >
> > For context, I want to preface this by saying that I am speaking as a
> > former member of the strategy team, not as a Foundation employee. My
> > perspective was always that the team leading the movement strategy
> process
> > was working in service of the movement, not of the Foundation.
> >
> > I hear that you are unsatisfied with some of the content of the
> document. I
> > hear that you disagree with particular elements like advocacy or new
> forms
> > of knowledge. I hear that you question the broad definition of
> "community",
> > which in your opinion should only include active Wikipedians.
> >
> > I don't agree with all your points, but I understand them and I relate to
> > some.
> >
> > I appreciate that you hold very strong opinions on some of those topics.
> I
> > would like you to see that other people in the movement can hold
> > dramatically different opinions that are just as valid.
> >
> > Many people (in and outside the movement) pushed for Wikimedia
> > organizations to become much more active politically. Others expressed
> > concerns about becoming too political. In the end, the document gave a
> nod
> > to political advocacy but didn't make it the number-one priority of the
> >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)

2017-10-04 Thread Ziko van Dijk 
Dear Guillaume,

Thank you for making your point of view clear, I appreciate that. Please
allow me to make two points clear myself.

(A) It is not my opinion that only active Wikipedians are „community“.
There are other Wikimedia wikis, and also activities, that have a community
character. I do reject the idea to open the term community to literally
everybody/anybody „and beyond“. It would be necessary that the draft paper,
instead, explains what should be understood by „movement“ or „community“ in
order to avoid certain ambiguities.

(B) I also do not deny that there is an overweight of content that is
related to Western countries and culture. On (English) Wikipedia, the
average Dutch village is certainly much better described than a larger city
in, for example, Ethiopia or Guatemala. I am always supportive of
initiatives that want to do something about this lack of balance. (And I
suppose that most people on the Berlin conference meant that, too).

But the wording in the further strategy process was much different. The
concept of „reliable sources“ was called a Western bias, while „oral
traditions“ should be considered to be reliable as well.

I know that writing the history of many countries is difficult because of
the lack of written material. That makes it also difficult to write a more
complete history of, for example, Celtic and Germanic tribes in ancient
times.

But „oral traditions“ are just not reliable in the way scholarly literature
is. Historians provide us with numerous examples how people fail in
remembering what they heard a long time ago, or even recently. The human
brain is simply not made by nature to be a historian or a data storage;
human memory is fragile and changes. Also, additionally some people have a
malicious intent when giving their testimony to a historian or a well
meaning platform for „oral history“. A historian‘s work is to collect
several testimonies, compare them to each other (= the transcripts of their
interviews) and corroborate them with other material - and finally write
their own account of their research.

Imagine, I would claim that I am a descendant of Charlemagne (source: my
father and grandfather told me so). Or that national socialism had a
positive impact on Germany and many other lucky countries in Europe
(source: what someone told me at family meetings). - Wikipedia works
because we use „secondary sources“, scholarly literature. That is where
(some major aspects of) the quality comes from. That is why people like
Wikipedia and donate for it.

It would be necessary to make Wikipedia the great (even greater)
encyclopedia it could be. With an integration of Wikidata and Commons, and
good interfaces. With the focus on readability, with a well thought through
concept of providing content for the general public, for special groups and
for scholars. With an understanding of what we do and what we explicitly
don’t do, with whom we can partner up (and where are the limits). This more
cautious vision makes me not very enthusiast, to say the least, about
widening the scope to a degree that we loose recognizability.

Kind regards,
Ziko




o




Guillaume Paumier  schrieb am Mi. 4. Okt. 2017 um
04:37:

> Dear Ziko,
>
> For context, I want to preface this by saying that I am speaking as a
> former member of the strategy team, not as a Foundation employee. My
> perspective was always that the team leading the movement strategy process
> was working in service of the movement, not of the Foundation.
>
> I hear that you are unsatisfied with some of the content of the document. I
> hear that you disagree with particular elements like advocacy or new forms
> of knowledge. I hear that you question the broad definition of "community",
> which in your opinion should only include active Wikipedians.
>
> I don't agree with all your points, but I understand them and I relate to
> some.
>
> I appreciate that you hold very strong opinions on some of those topics. I
> would like you to see that other people in the movement can hold
> dramatically different opinions that are just as valid.
>
> Many people (in and outside the movement) pushed for Wikimedia
> organizations to become much more active politically. Others expressed
> concerns about becoming too political. In the end, the document gave a nod
> to political advocacy but didn't make it the number-one priority of the
> movement. There was a balance to strike, and I would like you to understand
> that need.
>
> I would also like you to understand that your approach and language may
> alienate other members of our communities. When you call oral traditions
> one of "the most terrible things from the paper" and disparage experts who
> shared their opinion with us, your words unwittingly cast away communities
> who have been historically left out, and you contribute to perpetuating
> their structural oppression.
>
> You argue that the notions of new forms of knowledge, oral traditions, and
> Western bias

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Strategy] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)

2017-10-03 Thread Guillaume Paumier 
Dear Ziko,

For context, I want to preface this by saying that I am speaking as a
former member of the strategy team, not as a Foundation employee. My
perspective was always that the team leading the movement strategy process
was working in service of the movement, not of the Foundation.

I hear that you are unsatisfied with some of the content of the document. I
hear that you disagree with particular elements like advocacy or new forms
of knowledge. I hear that you question the broad definition of "community",
which in your opinion should only include active Wikipedians.

I don't agree with all your points, but I understand them and I relate to
some.

I appreciate that you hold very strong opinions on some of those topics. I
would like you to see that other people in the movement can hold
dramatically different opinions that are just as valid.

Many people (in and outside the movement) pushed for Wikimedia
organizations to become much more active politically. Others expressed
concerns about becoming too political. In the end, the document gave a nod
to political advocacy but didn't make it the number-one priority of the
movement. There was a balance to strike, and I would like you to understand
that need.

I would also like you to understand that your approach and language may
alienate other members of our communities. When you call oral traditions
one of "the most terrible things from the paper" and disparage experts who
shared their opinion with us, your words unwittingly cast away communities
who have been historically left out, and you contribute to perpetuating
their structural oppression.

You argue that the notions of new forms of knowledge, oral traditions, and
Western bias were pushed by experts and by the Foundation, and didn't come
from the communities. And yet, at the 2017 Wikimedia conference in Berlin,
whose participants were coming from Wikimedia communities, the
most-voted-for statement at the end of the conference was this one:

*Knowledge is global: we must move beyond western written knowledge,
towards multiple and diverse forms of knowledge (including oral and
visual), from multiple and diverse peoples and perspectives, to truly
achieve the sum of all human knowledge.*
[
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2017/Documentation/Movement_Strategy_track/Day_3
]

What I am trying to convey is that for each of your concerns, there are
people within our movement and communities who have fought, like you are
fighting now, for those elements to be part of the movement's strategic
direction. And they have outweighed you. On some other topics, your opinion
is the one that prevailed. On many topics, we all agreed. It is now time to
accept the outcome and focus on what motivates us to contribute
individually to parts of the strategic direction, so that we can advance as
a movement.




2017-10-03 13:38 GMT-07:00 Ziko van Dijk :

> Hello Guillaume,
>
> Thank you for sharing your point of view. But I cannot agree with you that
> this is a case of „negativity bias“ or „tunnel visions“ or „begrudging
> fashion“. I have fundamental concerns about the redefinition of the
> community and the widening of the movement‘s purpose, and I fully join
> Frank Schulenburg‘s statement that the draft paper says hardly anything to
> the average Wikipedian.
>
> As I do not know your prerogatives given from above, I cannot judge about
> your personal role. I don’t want to and I have nothing against you
> personally, on the contrary. Indeed, you took some of the most terrible
> things from the paper - such as the „oral traditions“. But they still
> appear as a residue in the „Appendix“, and how could it happen in the first
> place that they were ever pushed forward by the WMF? Challenge 2 called our
> work with reputable sources a „Western bias“. Where did that come from? Not
> from the communities (my definition), but from „experts“ such as a man who
> runs a company for storytelling and claims that he can trace his ancestry
> to the middle ages via „oral traditions“!
>
> As Andreas pointed out, there is much more in the Appendix such as the
> cooperations with Youtube and Google, „new incentives“ etc. and also the
> opinion that „Wikimedia“ should become more „political“. Certainly, I was
> against SOPA and like to see the WMF fight copyright problems. But what I
> saw at Wikimania made me wonder about the common ground. The WMF is
> partnering up with the ACLU that endorses the freedom of speech for the
> KuKluxKlan. The WMF is already approaching EU laws from an American point
> of view and dismisses the possibility that Europeans may think differently.
>
> If we keep all those things in the draft paper and in the Appendix - the
> WMF will have carte blanche to do literally anything it likes, being a
> social movement fighting whatever technical, political or social inequity.
> But well, the WMF will claim that that is what the „community“ wants -
> given the new definition of