What happens when you use "global" standards for regional writing?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

What happens when you use "global" standards for regional writing?

Frederick Noronha
This debate is relevant to us, because we have been discussing lit fests,
the profile of writers being invited/privileged etc... Not only on the
basis of content, but also on the basis of age, looks, etc [
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/mar/28/books.booksnews]

Sometime in 2013, I started a Wikipedia page on *Goa Today*. As everyone
reading this knows, this is Goa's oldest monthly, started way back in the
1960s, and has played an influential role in the literary life of the
State. The discussions earlier today between Ben and Peter Nazareth only
underline this point. And this is truth both when it was owned by Lambert
Mascarenhas (jointly, if not mistaken, with Printwell owner FD Dantas, the
father of our late much-respected journo colleague Norman Dantas; and
ex-Speaker Machado) and also when owned by the Salgaocars.

As most would know, *Goa Today *has a significant expat audience, but
hasn't been very active with its own web presence online. The logic
probably being that if they had a website, people would prefer to read
their magazine online and not subscribe to it. I know of a number of expats
who subscribe to the monthly and read it eagerly each month.

What happens is that its lack of online visibility today gets translated
(almost) into non-notability:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goa_Today

See the debate above, which is telling! I've earlier disagreed with
Wikipedians and pointed out that as long as their definition of notability
is based on someone's (or some institution's) web presence, in English...
this is going to be an unfair world for perhaps the majority on the planet!
FN
--
P +91-832-2409490 M 9822122436 Twitter: @fn Facebook: fredericknoronha
Latest from Goa,1556: http://goa1556.in/book/goa-in-sepia-tinted-postcards/
<http://goa1556.in>
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What happens when you use "global" standards for regional writing?

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
One way to raise the profile of this magazine is to make sure that it is
well connected in Wikidata. I connected it to its founder, made it a
magazine and noted when it was founded. Many more things can be added. It
is certainly a way to raise available information on the magazine. It is
one way to establish information on the subject.

I added some information to its founder and in this way I added surrounding
information. The point is very much that never mind the English Wikipedia
information, it should not be left to the vagaries of its notability
criteria. Wikidata is much more about data and interrelating data. As such
the Goa Today is easily notable.

<grin> there is more that can be done </grin>
Thanks,
     GerardM

On 12 December 2014 at 17:31, Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या
*فريدريك نورونيا <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This debate is relevant to us, because we have been discussing lit fests,
> the profile of writers being invited/privileged etc... Not only on the
> basis of content, but also on the basis of age, looks, etc [
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/mar/28/books.booksnews]
>
> Sometime in 2013, I started a Wikipedia page on *Goa Today*. As everyone
> reading this knows, this is Goa's oldest monthly, started way back in the
> 1960s, and has played an influential role in the literary life of the
> State. The discussions earlier today between Ben and Peter Nazareth only
> underline this point. And this is truth both when it was owned by Lambert
> Mascarenhas (jointly, if not mistaken, with Printwell owner FD Dantas, the
> father of our late much-respected journo colleague Norman Dantas; and
> ex-Speaker Machado) and also when owned by the Salgaocars.
>
> As most would know, *Goa Today *has a significant expat audience, but
> hasn't been very active with its own web presence online. The logic
> probably being that if they had a website, people would prefer to read
> their magazine online and not subscribe to it. I know of a number of expats
> who subscribe to the monthly and read it eagerly each month.
>
> What happens is that its lack of online visibility today gets translated
> (almost) into non-notability:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goa_Today
>
> See the debate above, which is telling! I've earlier disagreed with
> Wikipedians and pointed out that as long as their definition of notability
> is based on someone's (or some institution's) web presence, in English...
> this is going to be an unfair world for perhaps the majority on the planet!
> FN
> --
> P +91-832-2409490 M 9822122436 Twitter: @fn Facebook: fredericknoronha
> Latest from Goa,1556:
> http://goa1556.in/book/goa-in-sepia-tinted-postcards/
> <http://goa1556.in>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What happens when you use "global" standards for regional writing?

Andre Engels
Do you really need to put wikidata into EVERY discussion? I  think
your comment is RIDICULOUS. At least I HOPE it is. I really hope that
when a subject's notability is discussed, it is discussed based on
INDEPENDENT sources, not on "oh, the guy has been putting this info
all over Wikimedia, then it's probably important."

André

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hoi,
> One way to raise the profile of this magazine is to make sure that it is
> well connected in Wikidata. I connected it to its founder, made it a
> magazine and noted when it was founded. Many more things can be added. It
> is certainly a way to raise available information on the magazine. It is
> one way to establish information on the subject.
>
> I added some information to its founder and in this way I added surrounding
> information. The point is very much that never mind the English Wikipedia
> information, it should not be left to the vagaries of its notability
> criteria. Wikidata is much more about data and interrelating data. As such
> the Goa Today is easily notable.
>
> <grin> there is more that can be done </grin>
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
> On 12 December 2014 at 17:31, Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या
> *فريدريك نورونيا <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> This debate is relevant to us, because we have been discussing lit fests,
>> the profile of writers being invited/privileged etc... Not only on the
>> basis of content, but also on the basis of age, looks, etc [
>> http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/mar/28/books.booksnews]
>>
>> Sometime in 2013, I started a Wikipedia page on *Goa Today*. As everyone
>> reading this knows, this is Goa's oldest monthly, started way back in the
>> 1960s, and has played an influential role in the literary life of the
>> State. The discussions earlier today between Ben and Peter Nazareth only
>> underline this point. And this is truth both when it was owned by Lambert
>> Mascarenhas (jointly, if not mistaken, with Printwell owner FD Dantas, the
>> father of our late much-respected journo colleague Norman Dantas; and
>> ex-Speaker Machado) and also when owned by the Salgaocars.
>>
>> As most would know, *Goa Today *has a significant expat audience, but
>> hasn't been very active with its own web presence online. The logic
>> probably being that if they had a website, people would prefer to read
>> their magazine online and not subscribe to it. I know of a number of expats
>> who subscribe to the monthly and read it eagerly each month.
>>
>> What happens is that its lack of online visibility today gets translated
>> (almost) into non-notability:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goa_Today
>>
>> See the debate above, which is telling! I've earlier disagreed with
>> Wikipedians and pointed out that as long as their definition of notability
>> is based on someone's (or some institution's) web presence, in English...
>> this is going to be an unfair world for perhaps the majority on the planet!
>> FN
>> --
>> P +91-832-2409490 M 9822122436 Twitter: @fn Facebook: fredericknoronha
>> Latest from Goa,1556:
>> http://goa1556.in/book/goa-in-sepia-tinted-postcards/
>> <http://goa1556.in>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l



--
André Engels, [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What happens when you use "global" standards for regional writing?

Andre Engels
In reply to this post by Frederick Noronha
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक
नोरोन्या *فريدريك نورونيا <[hidden email]> wrote:

> What happens is that its lack of online visibility today gets translated
> (almost) into non-notability:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goa_Today
>
> See the debate above, which is telling! I've earlier disagreed with
> Wikipedians and pointed out that as long as their definition of notability
> is based on someone's (or some institution's) web presence, in English...
> this is going to be an unfair world for perhaps the majority on the planet!
> FN

How is it telling? I see one person showing doubts, then another
person swamping the discussion with arguments in favour, after which
everyone seems to consider the issue resolved. Maybe if Bejnar had not
put this material forward or had not been as eloquent, there would
have been more baseless discussion, but then again, maybe not.

To be honest, and I hope that you don't take this as criticism of you
as the writer, because that's not how it's meant, I don't think losing
the article in the way it was would be that bad. It was a two-line
stub, with one of the two lines not really relevant to the subject
(what Macarenhas was when he founded the magazine is relevant, what he
is now, is not) . The worst thing about it might be that a deletion
for being non-notable would have harmed the chances of re-creation.

In the end, I don't see how you would like to see this changed, except
by dropping any notability criterion we have. As the nominator writes
"I couldn't establish that [this] meets WP:NOTABILITY". There is no
requirement that notability must be established online, just that it
must be established (although he might be blamed for not trying harder
- when I do a Google search for '"Goa Today" magazine', the sheer
diversity of links would be enough for me to consider it notable). If
notability is an issue at all, there is a necessity to establish it
when it is in doubt. And yes, that might mean that for some subjects
it's easier to do than for others. But to me, the way to handle that
kind of 'hard cases' is exactly the way it is done here: Write a
message "I could not establish notability of this subject, can one of
you?" Perhaps another procedure might be better than the current AfD.
But that would just be shaving at the margins.

--
André Engels, [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What happens when you use "global" standards for regional writing?

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Andre Engels
Hoi.
The subject IS notable. The problem indicated is that notabiliy is stacked
against subjects that are not in the west. You will find that such subjects
are woefully underdevelloped. When you notive the people involved in this
magazine, you have to agree that the magazine is notable.

When subjects like this are well covered in Wikidata, they can be found in
many Wikipedias. Now this is Wikipedia-l not English Wikipedia-l and
consequently many Wikipedias that are centred in India WILL find this
information never mind what the English Wikipedia in its infinite wisdom
chooses to do.

Yes, Wikidata is relevant and I am not afraid to bang its drums.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On 13 December 2014 at 09:39, Andre Engels <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Do you really need to put wikidata into EVERY discussion? I  think
> your comment is RIDICULOUS. At least I HOPE it is. I really hope that
> when a subject's notability is discussed, it is discussed based on
> INDEPENDENT sources, not on "oh, the guy has been putting this info
> all over Wikimedia, then it's probably important."
>
> André
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > One way to raise the profile of this magazine is to make sure that it is
> > well connected in Wikidata. I connected it to its founder, made it a
> > magazine and noted when it was founded. Many more things can be added. It
> > is certainly a way to raise available information on the magazine. It is
> > one way to establish information on the subject.
> >
> > I added some information to its founder and in this way I added
> surrounding
> > information. The point is very much that never mind the English Wikipedia
> > information, it should not be left to the vagaries of its notability
> > criteria. Wikidata is much more about data and interrelating data. As
> such
> > the Goa Today is easily notable.
> >
> > <grin> there is more that can be done </grin>
> > Thanks,
> >      GerardM
> >
> > On 12 December 2014 at 17:31, Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या
> > *فريدريك نورونيا <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> This debate is relevant to us, because we have been discussing lit
> fests,
> >> the profile of writers being invited/privileged etc... Not only on the
> >> basis of content, but also on the basis of age, looks, etc [
> >> http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/mar/28/books.booksnews]
> >>
> >> Sometime in 2013, I started a Wikipedia page on *Goa Today*. As everyone
> >> reading this knows, this is Goa's oldest monthly, started way back in
> the
> >> 1960s, and has played an influential role in the literary life of the
> >> State. The discussions earlier today between Ben and Peter Nazareth only
> >> underline this point. And this is truth both when it was owned by
> Lambert
> >> Mascarenhas (jointly, if not mistaken, with Printwell owner FD Dantas,
> the
> >> father of our late much-respected journo colleague Norman Dantas; and
> >> ex-Speaker Machado) and also when owned by the Salgaocars.
> >>
> >> As most would know, *Goa Today *has a significant expat audience, but
> >> hasn't been very active with its own web presence online. The logic
> >> probably being that if they had a website, people would prefer to read
> >> their magazine online and not subscribe to it. I know of a number of
> expats
> >> who subscribe to the monthly and read it eagerly each month.
> >>
> >> What happens is that its lack of online visibility today gets translated
> >> (almost) into non-notability:
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goa_Today
> >>
> >> See the debate above, which is telling! I've earlier disagreed with
> >> Wikipedians and pointed out that as long as their definition of
> notability
> >> is based on someone's (or some institution's) web presence, in
> English...
> >> this is going to be an unfair world for perhaps the majority on the
> planet!
> >> FN
> >> --
> >> P +91-832-2409490 M 9822122436 Twitter: @fn Facebook: fredericknoronha
> >> Latest from Goa,1556:
> >> http://goa1556.in/book/goa-in-sepia-tinted-postcards/
> >> <http://goa1556.in>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>
> --
> André Engels, [hidden email]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What happens when you use "global" standards for regional writing?

Frederick Noronha
Let's put it this way: Wikipedia sees no flaw in accepting the unquestioned
logic that
if-you-don't-have-a-cyber-presence-or-aren't-mentioned-there-you-don't-exist-or-are-anyway-non-notable.

This stacks the cards strongly against those from non-English backgrounds,
those from the less digitised parts of the world, and those who may be
working in non-print/non-textual media (e.g. people who have worked for the
Urdu service of the BBC, for instance, as it struck me when a page on
journalist Reba Shahid came up for deletion recently).

I'm attempting to do two things here:

* Question the logic of such a position, and the impact it has on large
parts of the planet.

* Ask whether issues like 'non-notability' need to be such a big issue,
considering both the diversity of the planet, and also the fact that in the
case of the Wikipedia, space isn't a huge problem as in the printed text.
Those interested will refer to any entry they want; "non-notable" entries
would automatically get less traction. Let the 'market' of
information-seekers decide what is 'non-notable'.

Take an example of a prominent person from the world of Konkani literature
in Goa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhavi_Sardesai who also edits the
only literary joural in that language here. Her work is all in the Konkani
language (Devanagari script) and thus not visible to those on Wikipedia who
raise questions of notability.

This is a serious flaw if not systemic bias.

FN

On 13 December 2014 at 16:15, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>
> Hoi.
> The subject IS notable. The problem indicated is that notabiliy is stacked
> against subjects that are not in the west. You will find that such subjects
> are woefully underdevelloped. When you notive the people involved in this
> magazine, you have to agree that the magazine is notable.
>
> When subjects like this are well covered in Wikidata, they can be found in
> many Wikipedias. Now this is Wikipedia-l not English Wikipedia-l and
> consequently many Wikipedias that are centred in India WILL find this
> information never mind what the English Wikipedia in its infinite wisdom
> chooses to do.
>
> Yes, Wikidata is relevant and I am not afraid to bang its drums.
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
> On 13 December 2014 at 09:39, Andre Engels <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Do you really need to put wikidata into EVERY discussion? I  think
> > your comment is RIDICULOUS. At least I HOPE it is. I really hope that
> > when a subject's notability is discussed, it is discussed based on
> > INDEPENDENT sources, not on "oh, the guy has been putting this info
> > all over Wikimedia, then it's probably important."
> >
> > André
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Hoi,
> > > One way to raise the profile of this magazine is to make sure that it
> is
> > > well connected in Wikidata. I connected it to its founder, made it a
> > > magazine and noted when it was founded. Many more things can be added.
> It
> > > is certainly a way to raise available information on the magazine. It
> is
> > > one way to establish information on the subject.
> > >
> > > I added some information to its founder and in this way I added
> > surrounding
> > > information. The point is very much that never mind the English
> Wikipedia
> > > information, it should not be left to the vagaries of its notability
> > > criteria. Wikidata is much more about data and interrelating data. As
> > such
> > > the Goa Today is easily notable.
> > >
> > > <grin> there is more that can be done </grin>
> > > Thanks,
> > >      GerardM
> > >
> > > On 12 December 2014 at 17:31, Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या
> > > *فريدريك نورونيا <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> This debate is relevant to us, because we have been discussing lit
> > fests,
> > >> the profile of writers being invited/privileged etc... Not only on the
> > >> basis of content, but also on the basis of age, looks, etc [
> > >> http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/mar/28/books.booksnews]
> > >>
> > >> Sometime in 2013, I started a Wikipedia page on *Goa Today*. As
> everyone
> > >> reading this knows, this is Goa's oldest monthly, started way back in
> > the
> > >> 1960s, and has played an influential role in the literary life of the
> > >> State. The discussions earlier today between Ben and Peter Nazareth
> only
> > >> underline this point. And this is truth both when it was owned by
> > Lambert
> > >> Mascarenhas (jointly, if not mistaken, with Printwell owner FD Dantas,
> > the
> > >> father of our late much-respected journo colleague Norman Dantas; and
> > >> ex-Speaker Machado) and also when owned by the Salgaocars.
> > >>
> > >> As most would know, *Goa Today *has a significant expat audience, but
> > >> hasn't been very active with its own web presence online. The logic
> > >> probably being that if they had a website, people would prefer to read
> > >> their magazine online and not subscribe to it. I know of a number of
> > expats
> > >> who subscribe to the monthly and read it eagerly each month.
> > >>
> > >> What happens is that its lack of online visibility today gets
> translated
> > >> (almost) into non-notability:
> > >>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goa_Today
> > >>
> > >> See the debate above, which is telling! I've earlier disagreed with
> > >> Wikipedians and pointed out that as long as their definition of
> > notability
> > >> is based on someone's (or some institution's) web presence, in
> > English...
> > >> this is going to be an unfair world for perhaps the majority on the
> > planet!
> > >> FN
> > >> --
> > >> P +91-832-2409490 M 9822122436 Twitter: @fn Facebook: fredericknoronha
> > >> Latest from Goa,1556:
> > >> http://goa1556.in/book/goa-in-sepia-tinted-postcards/
> > >> <http://goa1556.in>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > >> [hidden email]
> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > André Engels, [hidden email]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


--
--
P +91-832-2409490 M 9822122436 Twitter: @fn Facebook: fredericknoronha
Latest from Goa,1556: http://goa1556.in/book/goa-in-sepia-tinted-postcards/
<http://goa1556.in>
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What happens when you use "global" standards for regional writing?

Marco Chiesa
Il giorno 14/dic/2014 01:32, "Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या
*فريدريك نورونيا" <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>
> Let's put it this way: Wikipedia sees no flaw in accepting the
unquestioned
> logic that
>
if-you-don't-have-a-cyber-presence-or-aren't-mentioned-there-you-don't-exist-or-are-anyway-non-notable.

I'd say the official position is "if you have a strong cyber position
you're very likely to be notable"

>
> This stacks the cards strongly against those from non-English backgrounds,
> those from the less digitised parts of the world, and those who may be
> working in non-print/non-textual media (e.g. people who have worked for
the
> Urdu service of the BBC, for instance, as it struck me when a page on
> journalist Reba Shahid came up for deletion recently).

Coming up for deletion doesn't mean getting deleted. I understand the
problem, it takes more effort to show that something with an apparently low
google count is indeed notable, you may have to keep explaining the contest
every time, and it's very likely that something gets deleted because people
who may have been able to demonstrate it was notable didn't show up.
>

>
> * Ask whether issues like 'non-notability' need to be such a big issue,
> considering both the diversity of the planet, and also the fact that in
the
> case of the Wikipedia, space isn't a huge problem as in the printed text.

> Those interested will refer to any entry they want; "non-notable" entries
> would automatically get less traction. Let the 'market' of
> information-seekers decide what is 'non-notable'.

Non-notability is an important criterium to fight against people using
Wikipedia for self-promotion, which is nowadays a huge problem. To answer
your concerns, the problem is the way you measure notability. Google
results work well in many cases: if something as a lot of hits from
reliable external websites, than notability is very likely. However, this
is a sufficient condition, not a necessary one (although people are often
unaware of the difference).

>
> Take an example of a prominent person from the world of Konkani literature
> in Goa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhavi_Sardesai who also edits the
> only literary joural in that language here. Her work is all in the Konkani
> language (Devanagari script) and thus not visible to those on Wikipedia
who
> raise questions of notability.
>

I'm just speculating here, but it probably applies to some case. If someone
has only written a short story which got published on some obscure journal,
he/she is very unlikely to be notable. Now, if all you apparently find in
google is this short story, then it's fair to raise a question about
notability. In an ideal world, reliable sources that the person's
production in language X is notable have been provided, so the doubt is
solved and we all learn about another culture.

Of course in real world you may only get someone whose first language is
not English, and not very familiar with Wikipedia policies, who will just
say: I very like this writer; maybe another couple of persons will do the
same (and get accused of sockpuppetry), and the article will be deleted,
also thanks to the comment of a lazy native speaker guy who spent one
minute on google and only found a few hits on a forum.

So, the problem is not notability, but the way it is measured. I'm sure
that even in Goa someone tries to be in Wikipedia to get visibility, and
even in the US someone who should be on Wikipedia gets deleted because no
one is able to demonstrate the notability. Efforts to fill the gap are
important, but controls must exist.

Cruccone
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What happens when you use "global" standards for regional writing?

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
There are so many people in Wikipedia who are hardly notable but who have a
large base on Google. They just happen to be in the USA and they have been
noted for instance as a councilor of a small USA village. How in hell does
this mean notability ?

Google in English is not in and of itself reliable as an indicator when the
lack of information from Google particularly from countries and other
languages is considered as an argument of insisting on the lack of
notability. The issue with self promoting is in a different domain;it is in
 the language and the culture where Google may indicate relevance.
Thanks,
       GerardM

On 14 December 2014 at 08:59, Marco Chiesa <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Il giorno 14/dic/2014 01:32, "Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या
> *فريدريك نورونيا" <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
> >
> > Let's put it this way: Wikipedia sees no flaw in accepting the
> unquestioned
> > logic that
> >
>
> if-you-don't-have-a-cyber-presence-or-aren't-mentioned-there-you-don't-exist-or-are-anyway-non-notable.
>
> I'd say the official position is "if you have a strong cyber position
> you're very likely to be notable"
>
> >
> > This stacks the cards strongly against those from non-English
> backgrounds,
> > those from the less digitised parts of the world, and those who may be
> > working in non-print/non-textual media (e.g. people who have worked for
> the
> > Urdu service of the BBC, for instance, as it struck me when a page on
> > journalist Reba Shahid came up for deletion recently).
>
> Coming up for deletion doesn't mean getting deleted. I understand the
> problem, it takes more effort to show that something with an apparently low
> google count is indeed notable, you may have to keep explaining the contest
> every time, and it's very likely that something gets deleted because people
> who may have been able to demonstrate it was notable didn't show up.
> >
>
> >
> > * Ask whether issues like 'non-notability' need to be such a big issue,
> > considering both the diversity of the planet, and also the fact that in
> the
> > case of the Wikipedia, space isn't a huge problem as in the printed text.
>
> > Those interested will refer to any entry they want; "non-notable" entries
> > would automatically get less traction. Let the 'market' of
> > information-seekers decide what is 'non-notable'.
>
> Non-notability is an important criterium to fight against people using
> Wikipedia for self-promotion, which is nowadays a huge problem. To answer
> your concerns, the problem is the way you measure notability. Google
> results work well in many cases: if something as a lot of hits from
> reliable external websites, than notability is very likely. However, this
> is a sufficient condition, not a necessary one (although people are often
> unaware of the difference).
>
> >
> > Take an example of a prominent person from the world of Konkani
> literature
> > in Goa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhavi_Sardesai who also edits
> the
> > only literary joural in that language here. Her work is all in the
> Konkani
> > language (Devanagari script) and thus not visible to those on Wikipedia
> who
> > raise questions of notability.
> >
>
> I'm just speculating here, but it probably applies to some case. If someone
> has only written a short story which got published on some obscure journal,
> he/she is very unlikely to be notable. Now, if all you apparently find in
> google is this short story, then it's fair to raise a question about
> notability. In an ideal world, reliable sources that the person's
> production in language X is notable have been provided, so the doubt is
> solved and we all learn about another culture.
>
> Of course in real world you may only get someone whose first language is
> not English, and not very familiar with Wikipedia policies, who will just
> say: I very like this writer; maybe another couple of persons will do the
> same (and get accused of sockpuppetry), and the article will be deleted,
> also thanks to the comment of a lazy native speaker guy who spent one
> minute on google and only found a few hits on a forum.
>
> So, the problem is not notability, but the way it is measured. I'm sure
> that even in Goa someone tries to be in Wikipedia to get visibility, and
> even in the US someone who should be on Wikipedia gets deleted because no
> one is able to demonstrate the notability. Efforts to fill the gap are
> important, but controls must exist.
>
> Cruccone
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What happens when you use "global" standards for regional writing?

Andre Engels
Those arguments only hold water if you go by a raw Google count.
That's indeed a much too rough measure. At the very least one should
compare this number with the number to be expected from the given type
of subject if notable - I have accepted subjects with only a few dozen
links (although really in those cases the check was more about
realness than about notability), and rejected subjects with thousands
(that's really too little for a web-based software tool). But the real
correct way would be to not look at the number at all, and instead see
if you can find a handful of links that by their nature can establish
notability.

André


On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hoi,
> There are so many people in Wikipedia who are hardly notable but who have a
> large base on Google. They just happen to be in the USA and they have been
> noted for instance as a councilor of a small USA village. How in hell does
> this mean notability ?
>
> Google in English is not in and of itself reliable as an indicator when the
> lack of information from Google particularly from countries and other
> languages is considered as an argument of insisting on the lack of
> notability. The issue with self promoting is in a different domain;it is in
>  the language and the culture where Google may indicate relevance.
> Thanks,
>        GerardM
>
> On 14 December 2014 at 08:59, Marco Chiesa <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Il giorno 14/dic/2014 01:32, "Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या
>> *فريدريك نورونيا" <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>> >
>> > Let's put it this way: Wikipedia sees no flaw in accepting the
>> unquestioned
>> > logic that
>> >
>>
>> if-you-don't-have-a-cyber-presence-or-aren't-mentioned-there-you-don't-exist-or-are-anyway-non-notable.
>>
>> I'd say the official position is "if you have a strong cyber position
>> you're very likely to be notable"
>>
>> >
>> > This stacks the cards strongly against those from non-English
>> backgrounds,
>> > those from the less digitised parts of the world, and those who may be
>> > working in non-print/non-textual media (e.g. people who have worked for
>> the
>> > Urdu service of the BBC, for instance, as it struck me when a page on
>> > journalist Reba Shahid came up for deletion recently).
>>
>> Coming up for deletion doesn't mean getting deleted. I understand the
>> problem, it takes more effort to show that something with an apparently low
>> google count is indeed notable, you may have to keep explaining the contest
>> every time, and it's very likely that something gets deleted because people
>> who may have been able to demonstrate it was notable didn't show up.
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > * Ask whether issues like 'non-notability' need to be such a big issue,
>> > considering both the diversity of the planet, and also the fact that in
>> the
>> > case of the Wikipedia, space isn't a huge problem as in the printed text.
>>
>> > Those interested will refer to any entry they want; "non-notable" entries
>> > would automatically get less traction. Let the 'market' of
>> > information-seekers decide what is 'non-notable'.
>>
>> Non-notability is an important criterium to fight against people using
>> Wikipedia for self-promotion, which is nowadays a huge problem. To answer
>> your concerns, the problem is the way you measure notability. Google
>> results work well in many cases: if something as a lot of hits from
>> reliable external websites, than notability is very likely. However, this
>> is a sufficient condition, not a necessary one (although people are often
>> unaware of the difference).
>>
>> >
>> > Take an example of a prominent person from the world of Konkani
>> literature
>> > in Goa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhavi_Sardesai who also edits
>> the
>> > only literary joural in that language here. Her work is all in the
>> Konkani
>> > language (Devanagari script) and thus not visible to those on Wikipedia
>> who
>> > raise questions of notability.
>> >
>>
>> I'm just speculating here, but it probably applies to some case. If someone
>> has only written a short story which got published on some obscure journal,
>> he/she is very unlikely to be notable. Now, if all you apparently find in
>> google is this short story, then it's fair to raise a question about
>> notability. In an ideal world, reliable sources that the person's
>> production in language X is notable have been provided, so the doubt is
>> solved and we all learn about another culture.
>>
>> Of course in real world you may only get someone whose first language is
>> not English, and not very familiar with Wikipedia policies, who will just
>> say: I very like this writer; maybe another couple of persons will do the
>> same (and get accused of sockpuppetry), and the article will be deleted,
>> also thanks to the comment of a lazy native speaker guy who spent one
>> minute on google and only found a few hits on a forum.
>>
>> So, the problem is not notability, but the way it is measured. I'm sure
>> that even in Goa someone tries to be in Wikipedia to get visibility, and
>> even in the US someone who should be on Wikipedia gets deleted because no
>> one is able to demonstrate the notability. Efforts to fill the gap are
>> important, but controls must exist.
>>
>> Cruccone
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l



--
André Engels, [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What happens when you use "global" standards for regional writing?

Maury Markowitz
In reply to this post by Frederick Noronha
> On Dec 13, 2014, at 7:31 PM, Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या *فريدريك نورونيا <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Let's put it this way: Wikipedia sees no flaw in accepting the unquestioned
> logic that
> if-you-don't-have-a-cyber-presence-or-aren't-mentioned-there-you-don't-exist-or-are-anyway-non-notable.

The Wiki is far less demanding in this respect than the world in general. Do you think US media overruns the planet because it's *good*?

> This stacks the cards strongly against those from non-English backgrounds,

What is the *real problem* here? Is it that a web site has a policy that favours material on the web? Or is it that there are still people in the world who don't have easy access to the web?

It's a problem, surely, just the Wiki's.

Maury
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What happens when you use "global" standards for regional writing?

M. Williamson
In reply to this post by Frederick Noronha
Frederick, I agree that this is a problem, particularly for subjects
relating to the global South. There are millions of topics that are worth
having in Wikipedia, but which may have few or no internet sources, and
whose print sources may all be in non-English languages.

I would like to see us stop having back and forth about whether this is a
bug or a feature and put our collective mental energy towards brainstorming
creative solutions that could lead to greater inclusion of topics and
narratives from the global South that may not have any web presence.

In particular, Frederick, I am curious to hear any ideas you may have on
solutions to this systemic problem.

- Mark Williamson
On Dec 13, 2014 5:32 PM, "Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या *فريدريك
نورونيا" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Let's put it this way: Wikipedia sees no flaw in accepting the unquestioned
> logic that
>
> if-you-don't-have-a-cyber-presence-or-aren't-mentioned-there-you-don't-exist-or-are-anyway-non-notable.
>
> This stacks the cards strongly against those from non-English backgrounds,
> those from the less digitised parts of the world, and those who may be
> working in non-print/non-textual media (e.g. people who have worked for the
> Urdu service of the BBC, for instance, as it struck me when a page on
> journalist Reba Shahid came up for deletion recently).
>
> I'm attempting to do two things here:
>
> * Question the logic of such a position, and the impact it has on large
> parts of the planet.
>
> * Ask whether issues like 'non-notability' need to be such a big issue,
> considering both the diversity of the planet, and also the fact that in the
> case of the Wikipedia, space isn't a huge problem as in the printed text.
> Those interested will refer to any entry they want; "non-notable" entries
> would automatically get less traction. Let the 'market' of
> information-seekers decide what is 'non-notable'.
>
> Take an example of a prominent person from the world of Konkani literature
> in Goa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhavi_Sardesai who also edits the
> only literary joural in that language here. Her work is all in the Konkani
> language (Devanagari script) and thus not visible to those on Wikipedia who
> raise questions of notability.
>
> This is a serious flaw if not systemic bias.
>
> FN
>
> On 13 December 2014 at 16:15, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hoi.
> > The subject IS notable. The problem indicated is that notabiliy is
> stacked
> > against subjects that are not in the west. You will find that such
> subjects
> > are woefully underdevelloped. When you notive the people involved in this
> > magazine, you have to agree that the magazine is notable.
> >
> > When subjects like this are well covered in Wikidata, they can be found
> in
> > many Wikipedias. Now this is Wikipedia-l not English Wikipedia-l and
> > consequently many Wikipedias that are centred in India WILL find this
> > information never mind what the English Wikipedia in its infinite wisdom
> > chooses to do.
> >
> > Yes, Wikidata is relevant and I am not afraid to bang its drums.
> > Thanks,
> >      GerardM
> >
> > On 13 December 2014 at 09:39, Andre Engels <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Do you really need to put wikidata into EVERY discussion? I  think
> > > your comment is RIDICULOUS. At least I HOPE it is. I really hope that
> > > when a subject's notability is discussed, it is discussed based on
> > > INDEPENDENT sources, not on "oh, the guy has been putting this info
> > > all over Wikimedia, then it's probably important."
> > >
> > > André
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> > > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > One way to raise the profile of this magazine is to make sure that it
> > is
> > > > well connected in Wikidata. I connected it to its founder, made it a
> > > > magazine and noted when it was founded. Many more things can be
> added.
> > It
> > > > is certainly a way to raise available information on the magazine. It
> > is
> > > > one way to establish information on the subject.
> > > >
> > > > I added some information to its founder and in this way I added
> > > surrounding
> > > > information. The point is very much that never mind the English
> > Wikipedia
> > > > information, it should not be left to the vagaries of its notability
> > > > criteria. Wikidata is much more about data and interrelating data. As
> > > such
> > > > the Goa Today is easily notable.
> > > >
> > > > <grin> there is more that can be done </grin>
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >      GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On 12 December 2014 at 17:31, Frederick FN Noronha फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या
> > > > *فريدريك نورونيا <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> This debate is relevant to us, because we have been discussing lit
> > > fests,
> > > >> the profile of writers being invited/privileged etc... Not only on
> the
> > > >> basis of content, but also on the basis of age, looks, etc [
> > > >> http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/mar/28/books.booksnews]
> > > >>
> > > >> Sometime in 2013, I started a Wikipedia page on *Goa Today*. As
> > everyone
> > > >> reading this knows, this is Goa's oldest monthly, started way back
> in
> > > the
> > > >> 1960s, and has played an influential role in the literary life of
> the
> > > >> State. The discussions earlier today between Ben and Peter Nazareth
> > only
> > > >> underline this point. And this is truth both when it was owned by
> > > Lambert
> > > >> Mascarenhas (jointly, if not mistaken, with Printwell owner FD
> Dantas,
> > > the
> > > >> father of our late much-respected journo colleague Norman Dantas;
> and
> > > >> ex-Speaker Machado) and also when owned by the Salgaocars.
> > > >>
> > > >> As most would know, *Goa Today *has a significant expat audience,
> but
> > > >> hasn't been very active with its own web presence online. The logic
> > > >> probably being that if they had a website, people would prefer to
> read
> > > >> their magazine online and not subscribe to it. I know of a number of
> > > expats
> > > >> who subscribe to the monthly and read it eagerly each month.
> > > >>
> > > >> What happens is that its lack of online visibility today gets
> > translated
> > > >> (almost) into non-notability:
> > > >>
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goa_Today
> > > >>
> > > >> See the debate above, which is telling! I've earlier disagreed with
> > > >> Wikipedians and pointed out that as long as their definition of
> > > notability
> > > >> is based on someone's (or some institution's) web presence, in
> > > English...
> > > >> this is going to be an unfair world for perhaps the majority on the
> > > planet!
> > > >> FN
> > > >> --
> > > >> P +91-832-2409490 M 9822122436 Twitter: @fn Facebook:
> fredericknoronha
> > > >> Latest from Goa,1556:
> > > >> http://goa1556.in/book/goa-in-sepia-tinted-postcards/
> > > >> <http://goa1556.in>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > >> [hidden email]
> > > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > >>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > André Engels, [hidden email]
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> --
> P +91-832-2409490 M 9822122436 Twitter: @fn Facebook: fredericknoronha
> Latest from Goa,1556:
> http://goa1556.in/book/goa-in-sepia-tinted-postcards/
> <http://goa1556.in>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l