[Wikimedia-l] Croatian Wikipedia: persisting far-right bias?

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

[Wikimedia-l] Croatian Wikipedia: persisting far-right bias?

Saint Johann
This mailing list is usually positive, but we need to talk about
something rotten. I was linked to this Meta RfC by my Russian colleague:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Administrator_abuse_on_the_Croatian_Wikipedia

The author and commentators, with notable evidence, allege that admins
and editors on Croatian Wikipedia are biased in favour of far-right
denialist talking points, especially in regards to World War II, and use
their rights to continue this type of deal. From my further readings,
the problems in Croatian Wikipedia exist for a long time with the same
participating actors. This RfC exists for 2 years already without any
signs of notice from the WMF or Meta stewards, all while nothing is
changing and the local press is continuing to report about this (maybe
authors should get American coverage to get any support, though). What
exactly is the course of action on this and what has already been done
in regards to this by Meta stewards or WMF?

Editors have tried to sound their alarms via different means:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=857974834#2013_controversy_about_right-wing_bias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_231#On_the_state_of_Croatian_Wikipedia

Support of extremist viewpoints should be the most pressing issue for
Wikimedians, as we must recognise that our articles have consequences,
and unabashed defence of Nazis in Wikipedia in one of the official
languages of the EU is a big deal. I personally had to organise with
others before to remove genuine jihadist view points from being reported
as facts in one of Wikipedias (successfully), in the last year I also
had to report to one steward that admin in one Wikipedia was deleting
all (seemingly not bad) content in regards to LGBT without any
explanation (unsuccessfully).

Every time significant institutional bias towards non-neutral and
harmful view points goes unnoticed, we poison our readers, especially
students, and discourage other people from constructive contribution in
our projects. Perhaps, on the larger point, it is good to talk about
some kind of committee akin to CoCC that would safely enforce the
founding principles of our projects, if these issues go unnoticed so much.

I hope that something will be done with this eventually.

Oleg


_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Croatian Wikipedia: persisting far-right bias?

Dennis During
It's a good thing that our thoughts and deeds are so pure that we have
become entitled to purify the thoughts and deeds of others.
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Croatian Wikipedia: persisting far-right bias?

Chico Venancio
Since no one is pure we should accept and embrace intolerant and hateful
propaganda in Wikimedia projects? Is that the argument you are making,
Dennis?

Chico Venancio

Em seg, 26 de nov de 2018 09:55, Dennis During <[hidden email] escreveu:

> It's a good thing that our thoughts and deeds are so pure that we have
> become entitled to purify the thoughts and deeds of others.
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Croatian Wikipedia: persisting far-right bias?

Dennis During
Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al as
the new press barons?
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Croatian Wikipedia: persisting far-right bias?

Ilario Valdelli
In reply to this post by Saint Johann
I think that this case is so complicated that the admin or the steward
sometimes are not prepared to face a big problem like this.

They evaluate two opinions without having a background to define what is
true and what is not. In this case the evaluation can be not neutral.

Anyways the bias us present in all several Wikipedias and not only in
Croatian mainly if it concerns the history of the area around Croatia.

It's a pity that still now, after long time, someone us reporting the same
problem. I would know personally what is the problem.

Kind regards

On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, 12:38 stjn <[hidden email] wrote:

> This mailing list is usually positive, but we need to talk about
> something rotten. I was linked to this Meta RfC by my Russian colleague:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Administrator_abuse_on_the_Croatian_Wikipedia
>
> The author and commentators, with notable evidence, allege that admins
> and editors on Croatian Wikipedia are biased in favour of far-right
> denialist talking points, especially in regards to World War II, and use
> their rights to continue this type of deal. From my further readings,
> the problems in Croatian Wikipedia exist for a long time with the same
> participating actors. This RfC exists for 2 years already without any
> signs of notice from the WMF or Meta stewards, all while nothing is
> changing and the local press is continuing to report about this (maybe
> authors should get American coverage to get any support, though). What
> exactly is the course of action on this and what has already been done
> in regards to this by Meta stewards or WMF?
>
> Editors have tried to sound their alarms via different means:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=857974834#2013_controversy_about_right-wing_bias
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_231#On_the_state_of_Croatian_Wikipedia
>
> Support of extremist viewpoints should be the most pressing issue for
> Wikimedians, as we must recognise that our articles have consequences,
> and unabashed defence of Nazis in Wikipedia in one of the official
> languages of the EU is a big deal. I personally had to organise with
> others before to remove genuine jihadist view points from being reported
> as facts in one of Wikipedias (successfully), in the last year I also
> had to report to one steward that admin in one Wikipedia was deleting
> all (seemingly not bad) content in regards to LGBT without any
> explanation (unsuccessfully).
>
> Every time significant institutional bias towards non-neutral and
> harmful view points goes unnoticed, we poison our readers, especially
> students, and discourage other people from constructive contribution in
> our projects. Perhaps, on the larger point, it is good to talk about
> some kind of committee akin to CoCC that would safely enforce the
> founding principles of our projects, if these issues go unnoticed so much.
>
> I hope that something will be done with this eventually.
>
> Oleg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Croatian Wikipedia: persisting far-right bias?

Ilario Valdelli
In reply to this post by Dennis During
History does not require a judge. It's the storiography to be judge.

Here the problem is to give relevance to some sources and to neglect
(completely) others.

If a single not neutral source is considered as the Holy Bible, the same
pillars of Wikipedia are infringed.

Kind regards

On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, 14:06 Dennis During <[hidden email] wrote:

> Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al as
> the new press barons?
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Croatian Wikipedia: persisting far-right bias?

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
We have a database with all the citations of all Wikipedias. That database
is integrated in wikidata as we speak. What we should do is eat our own
medicine and compare sources on the same subject when the subject is
controversial. Our overriding policy is for Wikipedia to have a neutral
point of view. So while Croation sources are fine, they need to be balanced
for a NPOV. When sources with a different viewpoint are available, ignoring
them is not an option.

At the same time, there are sources that have been found to be
untrustworthy. At some stage, sources, any and all sources can be assessed
and even rejected.

Admins and bureaucrats have their authority because they promise to  adhere
to the universal Wikipedia policies, the other reason is the trust their
community gave them at one time. In the end, we have the mechanisms and the
methods to assess the NPOV and the quality of articles. We have the
mechanisms and methods to assess the functioning of people who are trusted
to adhere to our policies.
Thanks,
        GerardM

On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 19:15, Ilario Valdelli <[hidden email]> wrote:

> History does not require a judge. It's the storiography to be judge.
>
> Here the problem is to give relevance to some sources and to neglect
> (completely) others.
>
> If a single not neutral source is considered as the Holy Bible, the same
> pillars of Wikipedia are infringed.
>
> Kind regards
>
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, 14:06 Dennis During <[hidden email] wrote:
>
> > Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al
> as
> > the new press barons?
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Croatian Wikipedia: persisting far-right bias?

Dennis During
It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly.  In this case I
think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process applied.
I hope that the process that Gerard recommends has been validated in some
way that meets with broad, nearly universal approval.

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:37 PM Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> We have a database with all the citations of all Wikipedias. That database
> is integrated in wikidata as we speak. What we should do is eat our own
> medicine and compare sources on the same subject when the subject is
> controversial. Our overriding policy is for Wikipedia to have a neutral
> point of view. So while Croation sources are fine, they need to be balanced
> for a NPOV. When sources with a different viewpoint are available, ignoring
> them is not an option.
>
> At the same time, there are sources that have been found to be
> untrustworthy. At some stage, sources, any and all sources can be assessed
> and even rejected.
>
> Admins and bureaucrats have their authority because they promise to  adhere
> to the universal Wikipedia policies, the other reason is the trust their
> community gave them at one time. In the end, we have the mechanisms and the
> methods to assess the NPOV and the quality of articles. We have the
> mechanisms and methods to assess the functioning of people who are trusted
> to adhere to our policies.
> Thanks,
>         GerardM
>
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 19:15, Ilario Valdelli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > History does not require a judge. It's the storiography to be judge.
> >
> > Here the problem is to give relevance to some sources and to neglect
> > (completely) others.
> >
> > If a single not neutral source is considered as the Holy Bible, the same
> > pillars of Wikipedia are infringed.
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, 14:06 Dennis During <[hidden email] wrote:
> >
> > > Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al
> > as
> > > the new press barons?
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Dennis C. During
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Croatian Wikipedia: persisting far-right bias?

David Gerard-2
Forgive me, but this is coming across as hopping from excuse to excuse.
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 18:03, Dennis During <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly.  In this case I
> think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process applied.
> I hope that the process that Gerard recommends has been validated in some
> way that meets with broad, nearly universal approval.
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:37 PM Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > We have a database with all the citations of all Wikipedias. That database
> > is integrated in wikidata as we speak. What we should do is eat our own
> > medicine and compare sources on the same subject when the subject is
> > controversial. Our overriding policy is for Wikipedia to have a neutral
> > point of view. So while Croation sources are fine, they need to be balanced
> > for a NPOV. When sources with a different viewpoint are available, ignoring
> > them is not an option.
> >
> > At the same time, there are sources that have been found to be
> > untrustworthy. At some stage, sources, any and all sources can be assessed
> > and even rejected.
> >
> > Admins and bureaucrats have their authority because they promise to  adhere
> > to the universal Wikipedia policies, the other reason is the trust their
> > community gave them at one time. In the end, we have the mechanisms and the
> > methods to assess the NPOV and the quality of articles. We have the
> > mechanisms and methods to assess the functioning of people who are trusted
> > to adhere to our policies.
> > Thanks,
> >         GerardM
> >
> > On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 19:15, Ilario Valdelli <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > History does not require a judge. It's the storiography to be judge.
> > >
> > > Here the problem is to give relevance to some sources and to neglect
> > > (completely) others.
> > >
> > > If a single not neutral source is considered as the Holy Bible, the same
> > > pillars of Wikipedia are infringed.
> > >
> > > Kind regards
> > >
> > > On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, 14:06 Dennis During <[hidden email] wrote:
> > >
> > > > Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al
> > > as
> > > > the new press barons?
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> Dennis C. During
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Croatian Wikipedia: persisting far-right bias?

Dennis During
Excuse for what? Whatever process is used needs to have integrity to be
accepted.  We are supposed to be inclusive and transparent, right?

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 15:15 David Gerard <[hidden email] wrote:

> Forgive me, but this is coming across as hopping from excuse to excuse.
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 18:03, Dennis During <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly.  In this case I
> > think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process
> applied.
> > I hope that the process that Gerard recommends has been validated in some
> > way that meets with broad, nearly universal approval.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:37 PM Gerard Meijssen <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > We have a database with all the citations of all Wikipedias. That
> database
> > > is integrated in wikidata as we speak. What we should do is eat our own
> > > medicine and compare sources on the same subject when the subject is
> > > controversial. Our overriding policy is for Wikipedia to have a neutral
> > > point of view. So while Croation sources are fine, they need to be
> balanced
> > > for a NPOV. When sources with a different viewpoint are available,
> ignoring
> > > them is not an option.
> > >
> > > At the same time, there are sources that have been found to be
> > > untrustworthy. At some stage, sources, any and all sources can be
> assessed
> > > and even rejected.
> > >
> > > Admins and bureaucrats have their authority because they promise to
> adhere
> > > to the universal Wikipedia policies, the other reason is the trust
> their
> > > community gave them at one time. In the end, we have the mechanisms
> and the
> > > methods to assess the NPOV and the quality of articles. We have the
> > > mechanisms and methods to assess the functioning of people who are
> trusted
> > > to adhere to our policies.
> > > Thanks,
> > >         GerardM
> > >
> > > On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 19:15, Ilario Valdelli <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > History does not require a judge. It's the storiography to be judge.
> > > >
> > > > Here the problem is to give relevance to some sources and to neglect
> > > > (completely) others.
> > > >
> > > > If a single not neutral source is considered as the Holy Bible, the
> same
> > > > pillars of Wikipedia are infringed.
> > > >
> > > > Kind regards
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, 14:06 Dennis During <[hidden email] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter,
> et al
> > > > as
> > > > > the new press barons?
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?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: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dennis C. During
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Croatian Wikipedia: persisting far-right bias?

Benjamin Lees
In reply to this post by Dennis During
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al as
> the new press barons?

All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making judgments.
As a movement we have largely decided that editors on individual
projects should be the ones to make those judgments.  But in some
extreme cases, our judgment may be that we need different judges.

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:03 PM Dennis During <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly.  In this case I
> think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process applied.

I don't know whether this is the process we want.  But if it is,
somebody's gotta go first.

_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Croatian Wikipedia: persisting far-right bias?

Dennis During
Why not test-run the process on my favorite project - or yours?  We should
get started.

I am skeptical of the quality of judgment without a foundation of facts.
At Wiktionary we have two main definition evaluation processes, one
dependent on citations to which interpretative judgment is applies. IMO
this process works very well.  The other depends on opinion, votes,
supported by whatever facts or authority or bluster (my specialty)
advocates bring to bear.  That process, though adequate, is not as
satisfactory.

Gerard Meijssen has suggested a faith-based process. If it is almost ready
to go, let it be validated and put to use.

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 16:45 Benjamin Lees <[hidden email] wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al
> as
> > the new press barons?
>
> All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making judgments.
> As a movement we have largely decided that editors on individual
> projects should be the ones to make those judgments.  But in some
> extreme cases, our judgment may be that we need different judges.
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:03 PM Dennis During <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly.  In this case I
> > think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process
> applied.
>
> I don't know whether this is the process we want.  But if it is,
> somebody's gotta go first.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe> I
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Croatian Wikipedia: persisting far-right bias?

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
I take offence calling it a faith-based process. We have a database with
the citations of all Wikipedias. We have overriding principles that include
the NPOV and what the role of functionaries is in Wikimedia projects. When
they are a faith, they are our faith.

My question to you is, why are you reluctant to start a process that will
bring down many hobby horses including yours and the ones in your favourite
project. Why not start where we face an urgency? An urgency that undermines
Wikipedia as NPOV!
Thanks,
      GerardM

On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 00:31, Dennis During <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Why not test-run the process on my favorite project - or yours?  We should
> get started.
>
> I am skeptical of the quality of judgment without a foundation of facts.
> At Wiktionary we have two main definition evaluation processes, one
> dependent on citations to which interpretative judgment is applies. IMO
> this process works very well.  The other depends on opinion, votes,
> supported by whatever facts or authority or bluster (my specialty)
> advocates bring to bear.  That process, though adequate, is not as
> satisfactory.
>
> Gerard Meijssen has suggested a faith-based process. If it is almost ready
> to go, let it be validated and put to use.
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 16:45 Benjamin Lees <[hidden email] wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al
> > as
> > > the new press barons?
> >
> > All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making judgments.
> > As a movement we have largely decided that editors on individual
> > projects should be the ones to make those judgments.  But in some
> > extreme cases, our judgment may be that we need different judges.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:03 PM Dennis During <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly.  In this case
> I
> > > think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process
> > applied.
> >
> > I don't know whether this is the process we want.  But if it is,
> > somebody's gotta go first.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe> I
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Croatian Wikipedia: persisting far-right bias?

Dennis During
My cellphone spellchecker substituted "faith" for "fact".  I was trying to
encourage the use of your approach.


On Wed, Nov 28, 2018, 06:43 Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]
wrote:

> Hoi,
> I take offence calling it a faith-based process. We have a database with
> the citations of all Wikipedias. We have overriding principles that include
> the NPOV and what the role of functionaries is in Wikimedia projects. When
> they are a faith, they are our faith.
>
> My question to you is, why are you reluctant to start a process that will
> bring down many hobby horses including yours and the ones in your favourite
> project. Why not start where we face an urgency? An urgency that undermines
> Wikipedia as NPOV!
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 00:31, Dennis During <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Why not test-run the process on my favorite project - or yours?  We
> should
> > get started.
> >
> > I am skeptical of the quality of judgment without a foundation of facts.
> > At Wiktionary we have two main definition evaluation processes, one
> > dependent on citations to which interpretative judgment is applies. IMO
> > this process works very well.  The other depends on opinion, votes,
> > supported by whatever facts or authority or bluster (my specialty)
> > advocates bring to bear.  That process, though adequate, is not as
> > satisfactory.
> >
> > Gerard Meijssen has suggested a faith-based process. If it is almost
> ready
> > to go, let it be validated and put to use.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 16:45 Benjamin Lees <[hidden email] wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et
> al
> > > as
> > > > the new press barons?
> > >
> > > All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making judgments.
> > > As a movement we have largely decided that editors on individual
> > > projects should be the ones to make those judgments.  But in some
> > > extreme cases, our judgment may be that we need different judges.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:03 PM Dennis During <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly.  In this
> case
> > I
> > > > think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process
> > > applied.
> > >
> > > I don't know whether this is the process we want.  But if it is,
> > > somebody's gotta go first.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe> I
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Croatian Wikipedia: persisting far-right bias?

Vi to
A quick comment: there are some sympthoms the process is totally broken
there. Reasoning about sources works fine when the process works, it's
completely useless otherwise.

See Dalibor Bosits@hrwiki
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Permissions#Dalibor_Bosits@hrwiki>
for example.

Vito

Il giorno mer 28 nov 2018 alle ore 13:09 Dennis During <[hidden email]>
ha scritto:

> My cellphone spellchecker substituted "faith" for "fact".  I was trying to
> encourage the use of your approach.
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018, 06:43 Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > I take offence calling it a faith-based process. We have a database with
> > the citations of all Wikipedias. We have overriding principles that
> include
> > the NPOV and what the role of functionaries is in Wikimedia projects.
> When
> > they are a faith, they are our faith.
> >
> > My question to you is, why are you reluctant to start a process that will
> > bring down many hobby horses including yours and the ones in your
> favourite
> > project. Why not start where we face an urgency? An urgency that
> undermines
> > Wikipedia as NPOV!
> > Thanks,
> >       GerardM
> >
> > On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 00:31, Dennis During <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Why not test-run the process on my favorite project - or yours?  We
> > should
> > > get started.
> > >
> > > I am skeptical of the quality of judgment without a foundation of
> facts.
> > > At Wiktionary we have two main definition evaluation processes, one
> > > dependent on citations to which interpretative judgment is applies. IMO
> > > this process works very well.  The other depends on opinion, votes,
> > > supported by whatever facts or authority or bluster (my specialty)
> > > advocates bring to bear.  That process, though adequate, is not as
> > > satisfactory.
> > >
> > > Gerard Meijssen has suggested a faith-based process. If it is almost
> > ready
> > > to go, let it be validated and put to use.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 16:45 Benjamin Lees <[hidden email] wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter,
> et
> > al
> > > > as
> > > > > the new press barons?
> > > >
> > > > All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making
> judgments.
> > > > As a movement we have largely decided that editors on individual
> > > > projects should be the ones to make those judgments.  But in some
> > > > extreme cases, our judgment may be that we need different judges.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:03 PM Dennis During <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly.  In this
> > case
> > > I
> > > > > think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process
> > > > applied.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know whether this is the process we want.  But if it is,
> > > > somebody's gotta go first.
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> I
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Croatian Wikipedia: persisting far-right bias?

Tomasz Ganicz
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
I don't clearly understand Gerard what is your idea. Do you want to measure
NPOV by calculating how often the sources are used after somehow marking
them to belong to one or another group of political, religous or other type
of  POV? And when you find that one group of them are more often cited than
the others, this is a symptom of systematic bias of given Wikimedia
project? Well that might be quite misleading because the issue is the
honesty and context of using sources.

For example: One can write an article about any controversial topic using
equal number of  sources supporting opposite POVs, but the text can still
be quite biased:

"According to unfaithful bastard X [source X] the true is A. But, according
to honourable and widely recognized expert Y [source Y] A it is not true,
but the true is B."

I don't believe in any kind of automated method of measuring NPOV. NPOV is
very complex issue needed human judgment. You can't avoid it.


śr., 28 lis 2018 o 12:43 Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
napisał(a):

> Hoi,
> I take offence calling it a faith-based process. We have a database with
> the citations of all Wikipedias. We have overriding principles that include
> the NPOV and what the role of functionaries is in Wikimedia projects. When
> they are a faith, they are our faith.
>
> My question to you is, why are you reluctant to start a process that will
> bring down many hobby horses including yours and the ones in your favourite
> project. Why not start where we face an urgency? An urgency that undermines
> Wikipedia as NPOV!
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 00:31, Dennis During <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Why not test-run the process on my favorite project - or yours?  We
> should
> > get started.
> >
> > I am skeptical of the quality of judgment without a foundation of facts.
> > At Wiktionary we have two main definition evaluation processes, one
> > dependent on citations to which interpretative judgment is applies. IMO
> > this process works very well.  The other depends on opinion, votes,
> > supported by whatever facts or authority or bluster (my specialty)
> > advocates bring to bear.  That process, though adequate, is not as
> > satisfactory.
> >
> > Gerard Meijssen has suggested a faith-based process. If it is almost
> ready
> > to go, let it be validated and put to use.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 16:45 Benjamin Lees <[hidden email] wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et
> al
> > > as
> > > > the new press barons?
> > >
> > > All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making judgments.
> > > As a movement we have largely decided that editors on individual
> > > projects should be the ones to make those judgments.  But in some
> > > extreme cases, our judgment may be that we need different judges.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:03 PM Dennis During <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly.  In this
> case
> > I
> > > > think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process
> > > applied.
> > >
> > > I don't know whether this is the process we want.  But if it is,
> > > somebody's gotta go first.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe> I
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Croatian Wikipedia: persisting far-right bias?

Dennis During
Yes the method can miss bias. But if the references* used are* biased, it
would provide clear, objective (though not irrefutable) evidence of a
general bias.  The more factual the discussion, the more likely it will be
that any conclusions of the process will be accepted, if not by all at
Croatia WP, then perhaps by some there and by most other observers.

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:45 PM Tomasz Ganicz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I don't clearly understand Gerard what is your idea. Do you want to measure
> NPOV by calculating how often the sources are used after somehow marking
> them to belong to one or another group of political, religous or other type
> of  POV? And when you find that one group of them are more often cited than
> the others, this is a symptom of systematic bias of given Wikimedia
> project? Well that might be quite misleading because the issue is the
> honesty and context of using sources.
>
> For example: One can write an article about any controversial topic using
> equal number of  sources supporting opposite POVs, but the text can still
> be quite biased:
>
> "According to unfaithful bastard X [source X] the true is A. But, according
> to honourable and widely recognized expert Y [source Y] A it is not true,
> but the true is B."
>
> I don't believe in any kind of automated method of measuring NPOV. NPOV is
> very complex issue needed human judgment. You can't avoid it.
>
>
> śr., 28 lis 2018 o 12:43 Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> napisał(a):
>
> > Hoi,
> > I take offence calling it a faith-based process. We have a database with
> > the citations of all Wikipedias. We have overriding principles that
> include
> > the NPOV and what the role of functionaries is in Wikimedia projects.
> When
> > they are a faith, they are our faith.
> >
> > My question to you is, why are you reluctant to start a process that will
> > bring down many hobby horses including yours and the ones in your
> favourite
> > project. Why not start where we face an urgency? An urgency that
> undermines
> > Wikipedia as NPOV!
> > Thanks,
> >       GerardM
> >
> > On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 00:31, Dennis During <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Why not test-run the process on my favorite project - or yours?  We
> > should
> > > get started.
> > >
> > > I am skeptical of the quality of judgment without a foundation of
> facts.
> > > At Wiktionary we have two main definition evaluation processes, one
> > > dependent on citations to which interpretative judgment is applies. IMO
> > > this process works very well.  The other depends on opinion, votes,
> > > supported by whatever facts or authority or bluster (my specialty)
> > > advocates bring to bear.  That process, though adequate, is not as
> > > satisfactory.
> > >
> > > Gerard Meijssen has suggested a faith-based process. If it is almost
> > ready
> > > to go, let it be validated and put to use.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 16:45 Benjamin Lees <[hidden email] wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter,
> et
> > al
> > > > as
> > > > > the new press barons?
> > > >
> > > > All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making
> judgments.
> > > > As a movement we have largely decided that editors on individual
> > > > projects should be the ones to make those judgments.  But in some
> > > > extreme cases, our judgment may be that we need different judges.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:03 PM Dennis During <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly.  In this
> > case
> > > I
> > > > > think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process
> > > > applied.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know whether this is the process we want.  But if it is,
> > > > somebody's gotta go first.
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> I
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Dennis C. During
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Croatian Wikipedia: persisting far-right bias?

Tomasz Ganicz
Vast majority of sources in controversial topics are usually biased. There
are topics where there is in fact no any non-biased sources. And - coming
back to my previous example, having knowledge how automatic method o bias
measurement works it is very easy to bully it:

"According to unfaithful bastard X [source X1][source X2][source X3] the
true is A. But, according to honorable and widely recognized expert Y
[source Y] A it is not true, but the true is B."

This sentence is quite obviously biased towards B POV, but  automatic
measurement of sources will tell you that there is bias towards A POV.  And
this is very simple, primitive example of bias. People usually tend to do
it in much more subtle way. Sometimes one short, completely unsourced
sentence at the end of very long article with hundreds of citations can
completely ruin NPOV...

Or imagine that you write article about a bishop - quite naturally most
sources will be religious POV - which does not necessarily mean that the
article is biased as it might contain only basic facts of that person
retrieved from official church sources. Then - following this example  - in
Polish Wikipedia - we have probably articles about all living bishops from
major christian denomination. But if you would want to "prove" that Polish
Wikipedia has pro-roman-catholic POV you can easily show that we have 162
articles about roman-catholic Polish bishops and only 12 about orthodox
bishops. And the numbers of citations is more or less probably of the same
proportion. Why? Simply because we have in Poland 162 catholic bishops and
12 orthodox. Wikipedia cannot change it obviously ;-)





czw., 6 gru 2018 o 02:19 Dennis During <[hidden email]> napisał(a):

> Yes the method can miss bias. But if the references* used are* biased, it
> would provide clear, objective (though not irrefutable) evidence of a
> general bias.  The more factual the discussion, the more likely it will be
> that any conclusions of the process will be accepted, if not by all at
> Croatia WP, then perhaps by some there and by most other observers.
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:45 PM Tomasz Ganicz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I don't clearly understand Gerard what is your idea. Do you want to
> measure
> > NPOV by calculating how often the sources are used after somehow marking
> > them to belong to one or another group of political, religous or other
> type
> > of  POV? And when you find that one group of them are more often cited
> than
> > the others, this is a symptom of systematic bias of given Wikimedia
> > project? Well that might be quite misleading because the issue is the
> > honesty and context of using sources.
> >
> > For example: One can write an article about any controversial topic using
> > equal number of  sources supporting opposite POVs, but the text can still
> > be quite biased:
> >
> > "According to unfaithful bastard X [source X] the true is A. But,
> according
> > to honourable and widely recognized expert Y [source Y] A it is not true,
> > but the true is B."
> >
> > I don't believe in any kind of automated method of measuring NPOV. NPOV
> is
> > very complex issue needed human judgment. You can't avoid it.
> >
> >
> > śr., 28 lis 2018 o 12:43 Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> > napisał(a):
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > I take offence calling it a faith-based process. We have a database
> with
> > > the citations of all Wikipedias. We have overriding principles that
> > include
> > > the NPOV and what the role of functionaries is in Wikimedia projects.
> > When
> > > they are a faith, they are our faith.
> > >
> > > My question to you is, why are you reluctant to start a process that
> will
> > > bring down many hobby horses including yours and the ones in your
> > favourite
> > > project. Why not start where we face an urgency? An urgency that
> > undermines
> > > Wikipedia as NPOV!
> > > Thanks,
> > >       GerardM
> > >
> > > On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 00:31, Dennis During <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why not test-run the process on my favorite project - or yours?  We
> > > should
> > > > get started.
> > > >
> > > > I am skeptical of the quality of judgment without a foundation of
> > facts.
> > > > At Wiktionary we have two main definition evaluation processes, one
> > > > dependent on citations to which interpretative judgment is applies.
> IMO
> > > > this process works very well.  The other depends on opinion, votes,
> > > > supported by whatever facts or authority or bluster (my specialty)
> > > > advocates bring to bear.  That process, though adequate, is not as
> > > > satisfactory.
> > > >
> > > > Gerard Meijssen has suggested a faith-based process. If it is almost
> > > ready
> > > > to go, let it be validated and put to use.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 16:45 Benjamin Lees <[hidden email]
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During <[hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter,
> > et
> > > al
> > > > > as
> > > > > > the new press barons?
> > > > >
> > > > > All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making
> > judgments.
> > > > > As a movement we have largely decided that editors on individual
> > > > > projects should be the ones to make those judgments.  But in some
> > > > > extreme cases, our judgment may be that we need different judges.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:03 PM Dennis During <[hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly.  In this
> > > case
> > > > I
> > > > > > think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process
> > > > > applied.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know whether this is the process we want.  But if it is,
> > > > > somebody's gotta go first.
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > I
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> Dennis C. During
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Croatian Wikipedia: persisting far-right bias?

Yaroslav Blanter
Hi Tomasz,

whereas you are right in theory, a practical application of this method
requires (i) availability and acceptance of all these sources in the
community (for example, if one side published in Croatian and another one
published in English, Croatian Wikipedia is likely to use only sources
produced by one side whereas the English Wikipedia is likely to use sources
produced by the other side); (ii) healthy community which is aware of the
notions of systemic bias, neutrality, and is willing to apply these notions
in their editing (for which it must be big and diverse enough so that all
notable topics get sufficiently represented). For the specific situation
with the Croatian Wikipedia, I highly doubt that we have (ii) and I am
pretty sure we do not have (i),

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:42 PM Tomasz Ganicz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Vast majority of sources in controversial topics are usually biased. There
> are topics where there is in fact no any non-biased sources. And - coming
> back to my previous example, having knowledge how automatic method o bias
> measurement works it is very easy to bully it:
>
> "According to unfaithful bastard X [source X1][source X2][source X3] the
> true is A. But, according to honorable and widely recognized expert Y
> [source Y] A it is not true, but the true is B."
>
> This sentence is quite obviously biased towards B POV, but  automatic
> measurement of sources will tell you that there is bias towards A POV.  And
> this is very simple, primitive example of bias. People usually tend to do
> it in much more subtle way. Sometimes one short, completely unsourced
> sentence at the end of very long article with hundreds of citations can
> completely ruin NPOV...
>
> Or imagine that you write article about a bishop - quite naturally most
> sources will be religious POV - which does not necessarily mean that the
> article is biased as it might contain only basic facts of that person
> retrieved from official church sources. Then - following this example  - in
> Polish Wikipedia - we have probably articles about all living bishops from
> major christian denomination. But if you would want to "prove" that Polish
> Wikipedia has pro-roman-catholic POV you can easily show that we have 162
> articles about roman-catholic Polish bishops and only 12 about orthodox
> bishops. And the numbers of citations is more or less probably of the same
> proportion. Why? Simply because we have in Poland 162 catholic bishops and
> 12 orthodox. Wikipedia cannot change it obviously ;-)
>
>
>
>
>
> czw., 6 gru 2018 o 02:19 Dennis During <[hidden email]> napisał(a):
>
> > Yes the method can miss bias. But if the references* used are* biased, it
> > would provide clear, objective (though not irrefutable) evidence of a
> > general bias.  The more factual the discussion, the more likely it will
> be
> > that any conclusions of the process will be accepted, if not by all at
> > Croatia WP, then perhaps by some there and by most other observers.
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:45 PM Tomasz Ganicz <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't clearly understand Gerard what is your idea. Do you want to
> > measure
> > > NPOV by calculating how often the sources are used after somehow
> marking
> > > them to belong to one or another group of political, religous or other
> > type
> > > of  POV? And when you find that one group of them are more often cited
> > than
> > > the others, this is a symptom of systematic bias of given Wikimedia
> > > project? Well that might be quite misleading because the issue is the
> > > honesty and context of using sources.
> > >
> > > For example: One can write an article about any controversial topic
> using
> > > equal number of  sources supporting opposite POVs, but the text can
> still
> > > be quite biased:
> > >
> > > "According to unfaithful bastard X [source X] the true is A. But,
> > according
> > > to honourable and widely recognized expert Y [source Y] A it is not
> true,
> > > but the true is B."
> > >
> > > I don't believe in any kind of automated method of measuring NPOV. NPOV
> > is
> > > very complex issue needed human judgment. You can't avoid it.
> > >
> > >
> > > śr., 28 lis 2018 o 12:43 Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> > > napisał(a):
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > I take offence calling it a faith-based process. We have a database
> > with
> > > > the citations of all Wikipedias. We have overriding principles that
> > > include
> > > > the NPOV and what the role of functionaries is in Wikimedia projects.
> > > When
> > > > they are a faith, they are our faith.
> > > >
> > > > My question to you is, why are you reluctant to start a process that
> > will
> > > > bring down many hobby horses including yours and the ones in your
> > > favourite
> > > > project. Why not start where we face an urgency? An urgency that
> > > undermines
> > > > Wikipedia as NPOV!
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >       GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 00:31, Dennis During <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Why not test-run the process on my favorite project - or yours?  We
> > > > should
> > > > > get started.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am skeptical of the quality of judgment without a foundation of
> > > facts.
> > > > > At Wiktionary we have two main definition evaluation processes, one
> > > > > dependent on citations to which interpretative judgment is applies.
> > IMO
> > > > > this process works very well.  The other depends on opinion, votes,
> > > > > supported by whatever facts or authority or bluster (my specialty)
> > > > > advocates bring to bear.  That process, though adequate, is not as
> > > > > satisfactory.
> > > > >
> > > > > Gerard Meijssen has suggested a faith-based process. If it is
> almost
> > > > ready
> > > > > to go, let it be validated and put to use.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 16:45 Benjamin Lees <[hidden email]
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google,
> Twitter,
> > > et
> > > > al
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > the new press barons?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making
> > > judgments.
> > > > > > As a movement we have largely decided that editors on individual
> > > > > > projects should be the ones to make those judgments.  But in some
> > > > > > extreme cases, our judgment may be that we need different judges.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:03 PM Dennis During <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly.  In
> this
> > > > case
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new
> process
> > > > > > applied.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't know whether this is the process we want.  But if it is,
> > > > > > somebody's gotta go first.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > I
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?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: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> > > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> > > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dennis C. During
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Croatian Wikipedia: persisting far-right bias?

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Tomasz Ganicz
Hoi,
No point in automating NPOV, we are not at a point where we can. Where we
are is a point where we can collect all sources used to prove a point, any
point. We are at a point where we can indicate what sources are used to
prove or disprove any given point.

Now a NPOV does not mean that facts can be denied because "a" source says
something is a fact. There is plenty of literature where facts are plain
untrue and when this is a given, a source cannot be used. This mechanism to
validate sources in a bigger context is what I propose.

The facts will fall as they may. However calling the Croations names is
only justified when it is justified.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 23:45, Tomasz Ganicz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I don't clearly understand Gerard what is your idea. Do you want to measure
> NPOV by calculating how often the sources are used after somehow marking
> them to belong to one or another group of political, religous or other type
> of  POV? And when you find that one group of them are more often cited than
> the others, this is a symptom of systematic bias of given Wikimedia
> project? Well that might be quite misleading because the issue is the
> honesty and context of using sources.
>
> For example: One can write an article about any controversial topic using
> equal number of  sources supporting opposite POVs, but the text can still
> be quite biased:
>
> "According to unfaithful bastard X [source X] the true is A. But, according
> to honourable and widely recognized expert Y [source Y] A it is not true,
> but the true is B."
>
> I don't believe in any kind of automated method of measuring NPOV. NPOV is
> very complex issue needed human judgment. You can't avoid it.
>
>
> śr., 28 lis 2018 o 12:43 Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> napisał(a):
>
> > Hoi,
> > I take offence calling it a faith-based process. We have a database with
> > the citations of all Wikipedias. We have overriding principles that
> include
> > the NPOV and what the role of functionaries is in Wikimedia projects.
> When
> > they are a faith, they are our faith.
> >
> > My question to you is, why are you reluctant to start a process that will
> > bring down many hobby horses including yours and the ones in your
> favourite
> > project. Why not start where we face an urgency? An urgency that
> undermines
> > Wikipedia as NPOV!
> > Thanks,
> >       GerardM
> >
> > On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 00:31, Dennis During <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Why not test-run the process on my favorite project - or yours?  We
> > should
> > > get started.
> > >
> > > I am skeptical of the quality of judgment without a foundation of
> facts.
> > > At Wiktionary we have two main definition evaluation processes, one
> > > dependent on citations to which interpretative judgment is applies. IMO
> > > this process works very well.  The other depends on opinion, votes,
> > > supported by whatever facts or authority or bluster (my specialty)
> > > advocates bring to bear.  That process, though adequate, is not as
> > > satisfactory.
> > >
> > > Gerard Meijssen has suggested a faith-based process. If it is almost
> > ready
> > > to go, let it be validated and put to use.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 16:45 Benjamin Lees <[hidden email] wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter,
> et
> > al
> > > > as
> > > > > the new press barons?
> > > >
> > > > All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making
> judgments.
> > > > As a movement we have largely decided that editors on individual
> > > > projects should be the ones to make those judgments.  But in some
> > > > extreme cases, our judgment may be that we need different judges.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:03 PM Dennis During <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly.  In this
> > case
> > > I
> > > > > think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process
> > > > applied.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know whether this is the process we want.  But if it is,
> > > > somebody's gotta go first.
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> I
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>