[Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
68 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

Gnangarra
 notability and verifiability are important,  every culture and language
has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge.  These culture manage
successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives.  The issue is how do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them,
how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is not
the only.

There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current
systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations from
books published but no digital.  Changing the way we consider and value
alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question is do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge
networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.

Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia but
rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative
knowledge streams


On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a member
> of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though:
> https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.
> 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
>
> There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a movement
> or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I personally
> do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal impressions.
>
>
> Cheers!
>
> El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood <
> [hidden email]>
> escribió:
>
> > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to produce
> > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens the
> > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain open to
> > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives. Other
> > projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not be
> open
> > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >
> > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
> > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
> >
> > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as Wikipedia
> > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that saying
> that
> > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable enough,
> > when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of
> > knowledge.
> >
> > JP
> > User:Amqui
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT)
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > >
> > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly,
> > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never be
> able
> > > to correct it."
> > >
> > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
> > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
> > >
> > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does, Wikipedia
> will
> > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other bias
> > issues
> > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
> > correction
> > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
> > >
> > > Fred
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > http://www.avg.com
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
>



--
GN.
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.  Order
here
<https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8>
.
_______________________________________________
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] Gendergap approach causing problems

Peter Southwood
One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability requirement  it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are things that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence, and where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible, the authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track record and proof of identity.
This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a reliable source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the credibility we have.
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Gnangarra
Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

 notability and verifiability are important,  every culture and language
has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge.  These culture manage
successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western styles
were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives.  The issue is how do
we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them,
how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is not
the only.

There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current
systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations from
books published but no digital.  Changing the way we consider and value
alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question is do
we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of all
knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge
networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.

Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia but
rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative
knowledge streams


On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a member
> of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though:
> https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.
> 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
>
> There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a movement
> or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I personally
> do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal impressions.
>
>
> Cheers!
>
> El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood <
> [hidden email]>
> escribió:
>
> > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to produce
> > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens the
> > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain open to
> > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives. Other
> > projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not be
> open
> > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >
> > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
> > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
> >
> > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as Wikipedia
> > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that saying
> that
> > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable enough,
> > when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of
> > knowledge.
> >
> > JP
> > User:Amqui
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT)
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > >
> > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly,
> > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never be
> able
> > > to correct it."
> > >
> > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
> > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
> > >
> > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does, Wikipedia
> will
> > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other bias
> > issues
> > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
> > correction
> > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
> > >
> > > Fred
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > http://www.avg.com
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
>



--
GN.
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.  Order
here
<https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8>
.
_______________________________________________
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] Gendergap approach causing problems

Jean-Philippe Béland
If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started
Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not to
remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those
requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia when
we opened editing to anybody.

JP

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of
> notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability
> requirement  it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are things
> that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence, and
> where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible, the
> authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track
> record and proof of identity.
> This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as
> possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a reliable
> source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the
> credibility we have.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Gnangarra
> Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
>  notability and verifiability are important,  every culture and language
> has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge.  These culture manage
> successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western styles
> were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives.  The issue is how do
> we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them,
> how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is not
> the only.
>
> There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current
> systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations from
> books published but no digital.  Changing the way we consider and value
> alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question is do
> we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of all
> knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge
> networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
>
> Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia but
> rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative
> knowledge streams
>
>
> On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a member
> > of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though:
> > https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.
> > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
> >
> > There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
> movement
> > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
> personally
> > do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
> impressions.
> >
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood <
> > [hidden email]>
> > escribió:
> >
> > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to produce
> > > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens the
> > > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain open
> to
> > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
> Other
> > > projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not be
> > open
> > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way?
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > >
> > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
> > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
> > >
> > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
> Wikipedia
> > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that saying
> > that
> > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
> enough,
> > > when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of
> > > knowledge.
> > >
> > > JP
> > > User:Amqui
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>
> > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> > > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT)
> > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > >
> > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly,
> > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never be
> > able
> > > > to correct it."
> > > >
> > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
> > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
> > > >
> > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does, Wikipedia
> > will
> > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other bias
> > > issues
> > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
> > > correction
> > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
> > > >
> > > > Fred
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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>
> > >
> > > ---
> > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > > http://www.avg.com
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
> Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.
> Order
> here
> <
> https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
> >
> .
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Gendergap approach causing problems

Peter Southwood
When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people wanting to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change.
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started
Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone without
any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to fail.
Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not to
remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those
requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing knowledge. I
think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to do
that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia when
we opened editing to anybody.

JP

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of
> notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability
> requirement  it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are things
> that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence, and
> where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible, the
> authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track
> record and proof of identity.
> This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as
> possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a reliable
> source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the
> credibility we have.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Gnangarra
> Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
>  notability and verifiability are important,  every culture and language
> has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge.  These culture manage
> successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western styles
> were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives.  The issue is how do
> we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them,
> how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is not
> the only.
>
> There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current
> systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations from
> books published but no digital.  Changing the way we consider and value
> alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question is do
> we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of all
> knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge
> networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
>
> Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia but
> rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative
> knowledge streams
>
>
> On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a member
> > of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though:
> > https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.
> > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
> >
> > There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
> movement
> > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
> personally
> > do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
> impressions.
> >
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood <
> > [hidden email]>
> > escribió:
> >
> > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to produce
> > > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens the
> > > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain open
> to
> > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
> Other
> > > projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not be
> > open
> > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way?
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > >
> > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
> > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
> > >
> > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
> Wikipedia
> > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that saying
> > that
> > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
> enough,
> > > when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of
> > > knowledge.
> > >
> > > JP
> > > User:Amqui
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>
> > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> > > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT)
> > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > >
> > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly,
> > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never be
> > able
> > > > to correct it."
> > > >
> > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
> > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
> > > >
> > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does, Wikipedia
> > will
> > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other bias
> > > issues
> > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
> > > correction
> > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
> > > >
> > > > Fred
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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>
> > >
> > > ---
> > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > > http://www.avg.com
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
> Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.
> Order
> here
> <
> https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
> >
> .
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Gendergap approach causing problems

L3X1 en
I do feel Jane summed it up well: Because of our rules on RS, Wikipedia can only reflect society. As long as society continues to overlook women, it will be evident in Wikipedia. In my work with WomRed, enough references were the prevailing issue. We have a list of women who need articles, but without references we cannot prove notability enough to stave off AFD.
Lex1

> On May 10, 2018, at 11:46 AM, Peter Southwood <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people wanting to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started
> Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone without
> any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to fail.
> Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not to
> remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those
> requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing knowledge. I
> think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to do
> that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia when
> we opened editing to anybody.
>
> JP
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of
>> notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability
>> requirement  it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are things
>> that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence, and
>> where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible, the
>> authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track
>> record and proof of identity.
>> This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as
>> possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a reliable
>> source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the
>> credibility we have.
>> Cheers,
>> Peter
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
>> Behalf Of Gnangarra
>> Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>>
>> notability and verifiability are important,  every culture and language
>> has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge.  These culture manage
>> successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western styles
>> were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives.  The issue is how do
>> we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them,
>> how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is not
>> the only.
>>
>> There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current
>> systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations from
>> books published but no digital.  Changing the way we consider and value
>> alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question is do
>> we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of all
>> knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge
>> networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
>>
>> Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia but
>> rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative
>> knowledge streams
>>
>>
>> On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a member
>>> of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though:
>>> https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.
>>> 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
>>>
>>> There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
>> movement
>>> or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
>> personally
>>> do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
>> impressions.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>>
>>> El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood <
>>> [hidden email]>
>>> escribió:
>>>
>>>> Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to produce
>>>> reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens the
>>>> doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain open
>> to
>>>> anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
>> Other
>>>> projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not be
>>> open
>>>> for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way?
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
>>>> Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
>>>> Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01
>>>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>>>>
>>>> "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
>>>> knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
>>>>
>>>> But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
>> Wikipedia
>>>> that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that saying
>>> that
>>>> it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
>> enough,
>>>> when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of
>>>> knowledge.
>>>>
>>>> JP
>>>> User:Amqui
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>
>>>>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
>>>>> Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT)
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>>>>>
>>>>> ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly,
>>>>> Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never be
>>> able
>>>>> to correct it."
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
>>>>> knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
>>>>>
>>>>> The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does, Wikipedia
>>> will
>>>>> reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other bias
>>>> issues
>>>>> are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
>>>> correction
>>>>> of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fred
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>>>> http://www.avg.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> GN.
>> Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
>> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
>> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
>> Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
>> Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.
>> Order
>> here
>> <
>> https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
>>>
>> .
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>


_______________________________________________
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] Gendergap approach causing problems

Todd Allen
In reply to this post by Peter Southwood
Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers
and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved
invitation.

If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be made
at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a
reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask them
to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly
based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what
sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or
whatever else have you types of information. If our references are flawed,
the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not
"correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do
not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.

Todd

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people wanting
> to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started
> Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone without
> any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to fail.
> Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not to
> remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those
> requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing knowledge. I
> think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to do
> that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia when
> we opened editing to anybody.
>
> JP
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of
> > notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability
> > requirement  it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are things
> > that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence,
> and
> > where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
> the
> > authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track
> > record and proof of identity.
> > This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as
> > possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a reliable
> > source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the
> > credibility we have.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > Behalf Of Gnangarra
> > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >
> >  notability and verifiability are important,  every culture and language
> > has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge.  These culture manage
> > successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
> styles
> > were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives.  The issue is how
> do
> > we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them,
> > how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is not
> > the only.
> >
> > There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current
> > systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations from
> > books published but no digital.  Changing the way we consider and value
> > alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question is
> do
> > we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of
> all
> > knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge
> > networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
> >
> > Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia but
> > rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative
> > knowledge streams
> >
> >
> > On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
> member
> > > of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though:
> > > https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.
> > > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
> > >
> > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
> > movement
> > > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
> > personally
> > > do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
> > impressions.
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers!
> > >
> > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > escribió:
> > >
> > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to produce
> > > > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens
> the
> > > > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
> open
> > to
> > > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
> > Other
> > > > projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not be
> > > open
> > > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way?
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]]
> On
> > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01
> > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > >
> > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
> > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
> > > >
> > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
> > Wikipedia
> > > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
> saying
> > > that
> > > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
> > enough,
> > > > when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of
> > > > knowledge.
> > > >
> > > > JP
> > > > User:Amqui
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <[hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>
> > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> > > > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT)
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > > >
> > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly,
> > > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never
> be
> > > able
> > > > > to correct it."
> > > > >
> > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
> > > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
> > > > >
> > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does, Wikipedia
> > > will
> > > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
> bias
> > > > issues
> > > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
> > > > correction
> > > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fred
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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>
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > > > http://www.avg.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > GN.
> > Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
> > Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.
> > Order
> > here
> > <
> > https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
> reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
> > >
> > .
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
>
_______________________________________________
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] Gendergap approach causing problems

Fred Bauder-2
Going back to nurses... The reason I used them as an example of a group that might edit is that I had been reading the biography of a nurse, written by her grand-niece, also a nurse, someone my mother knew in our local San Luis Valley community, M. Elizabeth Shellabarger. She was significant locally and in nursing at the time she was active. Whoever wrote the article seems to have had little trouble finding 3 reliable sources, including the biography. Not someone to compare to Mother Theresa, but certainly as notable a person as the average Baroness.

The thing is, there are similar notable women in every community on earth, people who form the backbone of the communities they live in and serve. If there is a way to include them we should. That doesn't mean that no basis of notability be required, but that something somewhat less or different than what might be required for someone who lived in a literate society. M. Elizabeth Shellabarger was a diarist... In an indigenous community the equivalent would be the many stories people tell about notable members of the community. Big Spotted Horse of the Pawnee is an example of such a character. He was the source of many stories, and not even a chief.

Fred


----- Original Message -----
From: Todd Allen <[hidden email]>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 16:41:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers
and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved
invitation.

If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be made
at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a
reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask them
to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly
based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what
sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or
whatever else have you types of information. If our references are flawed,
the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not
"correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do
not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.

Todd

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people wanting
> to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started
> Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone without
> any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to fail.
> Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not to
> remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those
> requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing knowledge. I
> think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to do
> that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia when
> we opened editing to anybody.
>
> JP
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of
> > notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability
> > requirement  it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are things
> > that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence,
> and
> > where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
> the
> > authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track
> > record and proof of identity.
> > This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as
> > possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a reliable
> > source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the
> > credibility we have.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > Behalf Of Gnangarra
> > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >
> >  notability and verifiability are important,  every culture and language
> > has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge.  These culture manage
> > successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
> styles
> > were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives.  The issue is how
> do
> > we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them,
> > how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is not
> > the only.
> >
> > There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current
> > systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations from
> > books published but no digital.  Changing the way we consider and value
> > alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question is
> do
> > we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of
> all
> > knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge
> > networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
> >
> > Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia but
> > rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative
> > knowledge streams
> >
> >
> > On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
> member
> > > of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though:
> > > https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.
> > > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
> > >
> > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
> > movement
> > > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
> > personally
> > > do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
> > impressions.
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers!
> > >
> > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > escribió:
> > >
> > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to produce
> > > > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens
> the
> > > > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
> open
> > to
> > > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
> > Other
> > > > projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not be
> > > open
> > > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way?
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]]
> On
> > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01
> > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > >
> > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
> > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
> > > >
> > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
> > Wikipedia
> > > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
> saying
> > > that
> > > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
> > enough,
> > > > when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of
> > > > knowledge.
> > > >
> > > > JP
> > > > User:Amqui
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <[hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>
> > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> > > > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT)
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > > >
> > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly,
> > > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never
> be
> > > able
> > > > > to correct it."
> > > > >
> > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
> > > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
> > > > >
> > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does, Wikipedia
> > > will
> > > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
> bias
> > > > issues
> > > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
> > > > correction
> > > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fred
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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>
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > > > http://www.avg.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > GN.
> > Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
> > Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.
> > Order
> > here
> > <
> > https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
> reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
> > >
> > .
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
>
_______________________________________________
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] Gendergap approach causing problems

Fred Bauder-2
In reply to this post by Todd Allen
Lucille B. Buchanan might make an article: http://www.blackpast.org/aaw/jones-lucy-lucile-berkeley-buchanan-1884-1989

Fred


_______________________________________________
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] Gendergap approach causing problems

Gnangarra
In reply to this post by Todd Allen
>
> ​ Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers
> and hoaxers.
>

​no one is saying we should abandon notability or verifiability, what we
are saying is we need to consider how other cultures and communities
​establish authoritative knowledge sources and incorporate those with the
the scope of notability and verifiability



> ​ Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what
> sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or
> whatever else have you types of information. If our references are flawed,
> the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not
> "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do
> not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
>

​This is our problem when it comes knowledge gaps and bias, if we wait it
means we are accepting that what we are doing and the considerable resource
we are expending at the moment is nothing more than tokenism.


On 11 May 2018 at 04:41, Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers
> and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved
> invitation.
>
> If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be made
> at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a
> reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask them
> to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly
> based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what
> sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or
> whatever else have you types of information. If our references are flawed,
> the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not
> "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do
> not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
>
> Todd
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people wanting
> > to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >
> > If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started
> > Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
> without
> > any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
> fail.
> > Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not to
> > remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those
> > requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
> knowledge. I
> > think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to
> do
> > that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
> when
> > we opened editing to anybody.
> >
> > JP
> >
> > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of
> > > notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability
> > > requirement  it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
> things
> > > that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence,
> > and
> > > where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
> > the
> > > authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track
> > > record and proof of identity.
> > > This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as
> > > possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
> reliable
> > > source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the
> > > credibility we have.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > > Behalf Of Gnangarra
> > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > >
> > >  notability and verifiability are important,  every culture and
> language
> > > has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge.  These culture
> manage
> > > successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
> > styles
> > > were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives.  The issue is how
> > do
> > > we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them,
> > > how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
> not
> > > the only.
> > >
> > > There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current
> > > systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
> from
> > > books published but no digital.  Changing the way we consider and value
> > > alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
> is
> > do
> > > we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of
> > all
> > > knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge
> > > networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
> > >
> > > Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
> but
> > > rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative
> > > knowledge streams
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
> > member
> > > > of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though:
> > > > https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.
> > > > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
> > > >
> > > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
> > > movement
> > > > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
> > > personally
> > > > do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
> > > impressions.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers!
> > > >
> > > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood <
> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > escribió:
> > > >
> > > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
> produce
> > > > > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens
> > the
> > > > > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
> > open
> > > to
> > > > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
> > > Other
> > > > > projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not
> be
> > > > open
> > > > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way?
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Peter
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > On
> > > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01
> > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > > >
> > > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
> > > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
> > > > >
> > > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
> > saying
> > > > that
> > > > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
> > > enough,
> > > > > when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of
> > > > > knowledge.
> > > > >
> > > > > JP
> > > > > User:Amqui
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT)
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly,
> > > > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never
> > be
> > > > able
> > > > > > to correct it."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
> of
> > > > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
> Wikipedia
> > > > will
> > > > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
> > bias
> > > > > issues
> > > > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
> > > > > correction
> > > > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fred
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > 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>
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > > > > http://www.avg.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > GN.
> > > Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > > Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
> > > Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.
> > > Order
> > > here
> > > <
> > > https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
> > reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
> > > >
> > > .
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>



--
GN.
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.  Order
here
<https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8>
.
_______________________________________________
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] Gendergap approach causing problems

Gnangarra
In reply to this post by Fred Bauder-2
>
> ​ Going back to nurses...
>

​Yep you are right Fred in that the field a person works in is also one in
which they might carry more than a passing interest and are likely to know
more about its history.   We must also recognise that a person working
nursing may also be interested in medicine, palliative care​, emergency
care, and many other areas related to the field in which they work.  The
tokenism here is in our expectation that because nurses are female they
will want to write about females in nursing, we need a broader base of
contributors the subject itself.


What has developed is we have two streams on tokenism developing,

   - one is on source issues
   - one is on expectations of contributors

Romaine original thread was about the second point, the tokenism is in
expecting women to fix topics about women (call it womens work if you want)
though you can substitute that with any under represented group.  The other
part is about how we adapt to the bias inherent what we acknowledge as
notable and verifiable.   The more we evolve  and expand our knowledge base
the greater the challenges ahead and yes that will take leaps of faith to
incorporate other form of notability and verifiability to into areas we may
never encountered


>
>
On 11 May 2018 at 06:41, FRED BAUDER <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Going back to nurses... The reason I used them as an example of a group
> that might edit is that I had been reading the biography of a nurse,
> written by her grand-niece, also a nurse, someone my mother knew in our
> local San Luis Valley community, M. Elizabeth Shellabarger. She was
> significant locally and in nursing at the time she was active. Whoever
> wrote the article seems to have had little trouble finding 3 reliable
> sources, including the biography. Not someone to compare to Mother Theresa,
> but certainly as notable a person as the average Baroness.
>
> The thing is, there are similar notable women in every community on earth,
> people who form the backbone of the communities they live in and serve. If
> there is a way to include them we should. That doesn't mean that no basis
> of notability be required, but that something somewhat less or different
> than what might be required for someone who lived in a literate society. M.
> Elizabeth Shellabarger was a diarist... In an indigenous community the
> equivalent would be the many stories people tell about notable members of
> the community. Big Spotted Horse of the Pawnee is an example of such a
> character. He was the source of many stories, and not even a chief.
>
> Fred
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Todd Allen <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 16:41:49 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers
> and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved
> invitation.
>
> If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be made
> at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a
> reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask them
> to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly
> based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what
> sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or
> whatever else have you types of information. If our references are flawed,
> the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not
> "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do
> not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
>
> Todd
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people wanting
> > to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >
> > If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started
> > Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
> without
> > any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
> fail.
> > Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not to
> > remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those
> > requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
> knowledge. I
> > think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to
> do
> > that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
> when
> > we opened editing to anybody.
> >
> > JP
> >
> > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of
> > > notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability
> > > requirement  it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
> things
> > > that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence,
> > and
> > > where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
> > the
> > > authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track
> > > record and proof of identity.
> > > This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as
> > > possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
> reliable
> > > source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the
> > > credibility we have.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > > Behalf Of Gnangarra
> > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > >
> > >  notability and verifiability are important,  every culture and
> language
> > > has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge.  These culture
> manage
> > > successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
> > styles
> > > were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives.  The issue is how
> > do
> > > we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them,
> > > how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
> not
> > > the only.
> > >
> > > There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current
> > > systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
> from
> > > books published but no digital.  Changing the way we consider and value
> > > alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
> is
> > do
> > > we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of
> > all
> > > knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge
> > > networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
> > >
> > > Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
> but
> > > rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative
> > > knowledge streams
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
> > member
> > > > of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though:
> > > > https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.
> > > > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
> > > >
> > > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
> > > movement
> > > > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
> > > personally
> > > > do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
> > > impressions.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers!
> > > >
> > > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood <
> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > escribió:
> > > >
> > > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
> produce
> > > > > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens
> > the
> > > > > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
> > open
> > > to
> > > > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
> > > Other
> > > > > projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not
> be
> > > > open
> > > > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way?
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Peter
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > On
> > > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01
> > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > > >
> > > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
> > > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
> > > > >
> > > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
> > saying
> > > > that
> > > > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
> > > enough,
> > > > > when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of
> > > > > knowledge.
> > > > >
> > > > > JP
> > > > > User:Amqui
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT)
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly,
> > > > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never
> > be
> > > > able
> > > > > > to correct it."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
> of
> > > > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
> Wikipedia
> > > > will
> > > > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
> > bias
> > > > > issues
> > > > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
> > > > > correction
> > > > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fred
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > 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>
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > > > > http://www.avg.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > GN.
> > > Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > > Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
> > > Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.
> > > Order
> > > here
> > > <
> > > https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
> > reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
> > > >
> > > .
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>



--
GN.
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.  Order
here
<https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8>
.
_______________________________________________
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] Gendergap approach causing problems

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Gnangarra
OK, then. How do they do it? How could this be extended to the Wikipedia environment?Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Gnangarra
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 2:09 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

>
> ​ Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers
> and hoaxers.
>

​no one is saying we should abandon notability or verifiability, what we
are saying is we need to consider how other cultures and communities
​establish authoritative knowledge sources and incorporate those with the
the scope of notability and verifiability



> ​ Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what
> sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or
> whatever else have you types of information. If our references are flawed,
> the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not
> "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do
> not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
>

​This is our problem when it comes knowledge gaps and bias, if we wait it
means we are accepting that what we are doing and the considerable resource
we are expending at the moment is nothing more than tokenism.


On 11 May 2018 at 04:41, Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers
> and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved
> invitation.
>
> If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be made
> at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a
> reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask them
> to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly
> based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what
> sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or
> whatever else have you types of information. If our references are flawed,
> the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not
> "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do
> not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
>
> Todd
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people wanting
> > to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >
> > If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started
> > Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
> without
> > any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
> fail.
> > Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not to
> > remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those
> > requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
> knowledge. I
> > think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to
> do
> > that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
> when
> > we opened editing to anybody.
> >
> > JP
> >
> > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of
> > > notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability
> > > requirement  it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
> things
> > > that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence,
> > and
> > > where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
> > the
> > > authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track
> > > record and proof of identity.
> > > This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as
> > > possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
> reliable
> > > source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the
> > > credibility we have.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > > Behalf Of Gnangarra
> > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > >
> > >  notability and verifiability are important,  every culture and
> language
> > > has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge.  These culture
> manage
> > > successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
> > styles
> > > were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives.  The issue is how
> > do
> > > we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them,
> > > how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
> not
> > > the only.
> > >
> > > There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current
> > > systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
> from
> > > books published but no digital.  Changing the way we consider and value
> > > alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
> is
> > do
> > > we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of
> > all
> > > knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge
> > > networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
> > >
> > > Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
> but
> > > rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative
> > > knowledge streams
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
> > member
> > > > of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though:
> > > > https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.
> > > > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
> > > >
> > > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
> > > movement
> > > > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
> > > personally
> > > > do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
> > > impressions.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers!
> > > >
> > > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood <
> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > escribió:
> > > >
> > > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
> produce
> > > > > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens
> > the
> > > > > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
> > open
> > > to
> > > > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
> > > Other
> > > > > projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not
> be
> > > > open
> > > > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way?
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Peter
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > On
> > > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01
> > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > > >
> > > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
> > > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
> > > > >
> > > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
> > saying
> > > > that
> > > > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
> > > enough,
> > > > > when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of
> > > > > knowledge.
> > > > >
> > > > > JP
> > > > > User:Amqui
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT)
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly,
> > > > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never
> > be
> > > > able
> > > > > > to correct it."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
> of
> > > > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
> Wikipedia
> > > > will
> > > > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
> > bias
> > > > > issues
> > > > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
> > > > > correction
> > > > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fred
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > 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>
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > > > > http://www.avg.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > GN.
> > > Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > > Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
> > > Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.
> > > Order
> > > here
> > > <
> > > https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
> > reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
> > > >
> > > .
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>



--
GN.
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.  Order
here
<https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8>
.
_______________________________________________
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] Gendergap approach causing problems

Jean-Philippe Béland
In reply to this post by Todd Allen
You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing
sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we consider
sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not
written.

JP

On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers
> and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved
> invitation.
>
> If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be made
> at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a
> reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask them
> to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly
> based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what
> sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or
> whatever else have you types of information. If our references are flawed,
> the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not
> "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do
> not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
>
> Todd
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people wanting
> > to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >
> > If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started
> > Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
> without
> > any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
> fail.
> > Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not to
> > remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those
> > requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
> knowledge. I
> > think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to
> do
> > that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
> when
> > we opened editing to anybody.
> >
> > JP
> >
> > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of
> > > notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability
> > > requirement  it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
> things
> > > that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence,
> > and
> > > where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
> > the
> > > authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track
> > > record and proof of identity.
> > > This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as
> > > possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
> reliable
> > > source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the
> > > credibility we have.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > > Behalf Of Gnangarra
> > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > >
> > >  notability and verifiability are important,  every culture and
> language
> > > has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge.  These culture
> manage
> > > successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
> > styles
> > > were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives.  The issue is how
> > do
> > > we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them,
> > > how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
> not
> > > the only.
> > >
> > > There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current
> > > systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
> from
> > > books published but no digital.  Changing the way we consider and value
> > > alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
> is
> > do
> > > we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of
> > all
> > > knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge
> > > networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
> > >
> > > Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
> but
> > > rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative
> > > knowledge streams
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
> > member
> > > > of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though:
> > > > https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.
> > > > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
> > > >
> > > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
> > > movement
> > > > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
> > > personally
> > > > do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
> > > impressions.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers!
> > > >
> > > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood <
> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > escribió:
> > > >
> > > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
> produce
> > > > > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens
> > the
> > > > > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
> > open
> > > to
> > > > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
> > > Other
> > > > > projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not
> be
> > > > open
> > > > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way?
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Peter
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > On
> > > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01
> > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > > >
> > > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
> > > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
> > > > >
> > > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
> > saying
> > > > that
> > > > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
> > > enough,
> > > > > when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of
> > > > > knowledge.
> > > > >
> > > > > JP
> > > > > User:Amqui
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT)
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly,
> > > > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never
> > be
> > > > able
> > > > > > to correct it."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
> of
> > > > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
> Wikipedia
> > > > will
> > > > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
> > bias
> > > > > issues
> > > > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
> > > > > correction
> > > > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fred
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > 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>
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > > > > http://www.avg.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > GN.
> > > Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > > Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
> > > Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.
> > > Order
> > > here
> > > <
> > > https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
> > reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
> > > >
> > > .
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Gendergap approach causing problems

Peter Southwood
If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing
sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we consider
sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not
written.

JP

On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers
> and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved
> invitation.
>
> If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be made
> at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a
> reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask them
> to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly
> based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what
> sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or
> whatever else have you types of information. If our references are flawed,
> the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not
> "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do
> not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
>
> Todd
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people wanting
> > to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >
> > If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started
> > Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
> without
> > any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
> fail.
> > Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not to
> > remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those
> > requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
> knowledge. I
> > think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to
> do
> > that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
> when
> > we opened editing to anybody.
> >
> > JP
> >
> > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of
> > > notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability
> > > requirement  it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
> things
> > > that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence,
> > and
> > > where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
> > the
> > > authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track
> > > record and proof of identity.
> > > This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as
> > > possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
> reliable
> > > source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the
> > > credibility we have.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > > Behalf Of Gnangarra
> > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > >
> > >  notability and verifiability are important,  every culture and
> language
> > > has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge.  These culture
> manage
> > > successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
> > styles
> > > were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives.  The issue is how
> > do
> > > we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them,
> > > how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
> not
> > > the only.
> > >
> > > There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current
> > > systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
> from
> > > books published but no digital.  Changing the way we consider and value
> > > alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
> is
> > do
> > > we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of
> > all
> > > knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge
> > > networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
> > >
> > > Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
> but
> > > rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative
> > > knowledge streams
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
> > member
> > > > of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though:
> > > > https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.
> > > > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
> > > >
> > > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
> > > movement
> > > > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
> > > personally
> > > > do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
> > > impressions.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers!
> > > >
> > > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood <
> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > escribió:
> > > >
> > > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
> produce
> > > > > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens
> > the
> > > > > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
> > open
> > > to
> > > > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
> > > Other
> > > > > projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not
> be
> > > > open
> > > > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way?
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Peter
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > On
> > > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01
> > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > > >
> > > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
> > > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
> > > > >
> > > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
> > saying
> > > > that
> > > > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
> > > enough,
> > > > > when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of
> > > > > knowledge.
> > > > >
> > > > > JP
> > > > > User:Amqui
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT)
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly,
> > > > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never
> > be
> > > > able
> > > > > > to correct it."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
> of
> > > > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
> Wikipedia
> > > > will
> > > > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
> > bias
> > > > > issues
> > > > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
> > > > > correction
> > > > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fred
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > 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>
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > > > > http://www.avg.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > GN.
> > > Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > > Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
> > > Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.
> > > Order
> > > here
> > > <
> > > https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
> > reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
> > > >
> > > .
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Gendergap approach causing problems

Cameron
Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral histories and traditions come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am with an encyclopedia using such sources.

Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I use primary sources quite often for papers, and projects however those are generally frowned upon for Wikipedia; mainly because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an academic journal. Good encyclopedias are typically sourced from secondary sources, and ocassionaly tertiary sources.

Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion. My personal thought on this issue is keeping our current verifiability and notability requirements is a good idea. In some areas I think we include far too much (fan cruft anyone?).

- Cameron C.
Cameron11598

---- On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:34:15 -0700 [hidden email] wrote ----

If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing
sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we consider
sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not
written.

JP

On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers
> and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved
> invitation.
>
> If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be made
> at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a
> reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask them
> to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly
> based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what
> sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or
> whatever else have you types of information. If our references are flawed,
> the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not
> "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do
> not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
>
> Todd
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people wanting
> > to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >
> > If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started
> > Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
> without
> > any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
> fail.
> > Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not to
> > remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those
> > requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
> knowledge. I
> > think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to
> do
> > that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
> when
> > we opened editing to anybody.
> >
> > JP
> >
> > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of
> > > notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability
> > > requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
> things
> > > that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence,
> > and
> > > where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
> > the
> > > authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track
> > > record and proof of identity.
> > > This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as
> > > possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
> reliable
> > > source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the
> > > credibility we have.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > > Behalf Of Gnangarra
> > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > >
> > > notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
> language
> > > has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These culture
> manage
> > > successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
> > styles
> > > were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue is how
> > do
> > > we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them,
> > > how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
> not
> > > the only.
> > >
> > > There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current
> > > systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
> from
> > > books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider and value
> > > alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
> is
> > do
> > > we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of
> > all
> > > knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge
> > > networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
> > >
> > > Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
> but
> > > rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative
> > > knowledge streams
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
> > member
> > > > of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though:
> > > > https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.
> > > > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
> > > >
> > > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
> > > movement
> > > > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
> > > personally
> > > > do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
> > > impressions.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers!
> > > >
> > > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood <
> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > escribió:
> > > >
> > > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
> produce
> > > > > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens
> > the
> > > > > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
> > open
> > > to
> > > > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
> > > Other
> > > > > projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not
> be
> > > > open
> > > > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way?
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Peter
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > On
> > > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01
> > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > > >
> > > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
> > > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
> > > > >
> > > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
> > saying
> > > > that
> > > > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
> > > enough,
> > > > > when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of
> > > > > knowledge.
> > > > >
> > > > > JP
> > > > > User:Amqui
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT)
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly,
> > > > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never
> > be
> > > > able
> > > > > > to correct it."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
> of
> > > > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
> Wikipedia
> > > > will
> > > > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
> > bias
> > > > > issues
> > > > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
> > > > > correction
> > > > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fred
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > 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>
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > > > > http://www.avg.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > GN.
> > > Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > > Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
> > > Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.
> > > Order
> > > here
> > > <
> > > https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
> > reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
> > > >
> > > .
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Gendergap approach causing problems

Fred Bauder-2
In reply to this post by Peter Southwood
People write books and journal articles which incorporate oral traditions. The Bible is one example. That doesn't mean we are going to remove the material about Native Americans migrating through Beringia but that, if a tribe's tradition is that it was always in the Americas, that should be included in its article. Probably not enough to satisfy everyone...


Fred


----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Southwood <[hidden email]>
To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' <[hidden email]>
Sent: Fri, 11 May 2018 00:34:15 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing
sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we consider
sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not
written.

JP

On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers
> and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved
> invitation.
>
> If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be made
> at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a
> reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask them
> to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly
> based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what
> sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or
> whatever else have you types of information. If our references are flawed,
> the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not
> "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do
> not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
>
> Todd
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people wanting
> > to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >
> > If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started
> > Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
> without
> > any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
> fail.
> > Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not to
> > remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those
> > requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
> knowledge. I
> > think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to
> do
> > that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
> when
> > we opened editing to anybody.
> >
> > JP
> >
> > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of
> > > notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability
> > > requirement  it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
> things
> > > that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence,
> > and
> > > where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
> > the
> > > authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track
> > > record and proof of identity.
> > > This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as
> > > possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
> reliable
> > > source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the
> > > credibility we have.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > > Behalf Of Gnangarra
> > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > >
> > >  notability and verifiability are important,  every culture and
> language
> > > has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge.  These culture
> manage
> > > successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
> > styles
> > > were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives.  The issue is how
> > do
> > > we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them,
> > > how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
> not
> > > the only.
> > >
> > > There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current
> > > systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
> from
> > > books published but no digital.  Changing the way we consider and value
> > > alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
> is
> > do
> > > we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of
> > all
> > > knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge
> > > networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
> > >
> > > Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
> but
> > > rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative
> > > knowledge streams
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
> > member
> > > > of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though:
> > > > https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.
> > > > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
> > > >
> > > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
> > > movement
> > > > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
> > > personally
> > > > do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
> > > impressions.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers!
> > > >
> > > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood <
> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > escribió:
> > > >
> > > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
> produce
> > > > > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens
> > the
> > > > > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
> > open
> > > to
> > > > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
> > > Other
> > > > > projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not
> be
> > > > open
> > > > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way?
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Peter
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > On
> > > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01
> > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > > >
> > > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
> > > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
> > > > >
> > > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
> > saying
> > > > that
> > > > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
> > > enough,
> > > > > when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of
> > > > > knowledge.
> > > > >
> > > > > JP
> > > > > User:Amqui
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT)
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly,
> > > > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never
> > be
> > > > able
> > > > > > to correct it."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
> of
> > > > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
> Wikipedia
> > > > will
> > > > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
> > bias
> > > > > issues
> > > > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
> > > > > correction
> > > > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fred
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > 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>
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > > > > http://www.avg.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > GN.
> > > Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > > Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
> > > Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.
> > > Order
> > > here
> > > <
> > > https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
> > reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
> > > >
> > > .
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Gendergap approach causing problems

Natacha Rault
In reply to this post by Peter Southwood
> If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?


Could they possibly be registered in an oral form?
Could we invent a way of integrating oral sources? We already use radio or television sources (also not written...). The only problem with oral sources like stories passed on generation to generation is that they are not fixed by nature. Fixing them could change the modality of transmission too.
I suppose these sources could stem from a notorious person of a community who would give ID (like journalists do when writting a paper).
Has there been research or projects on this? I suppose Lingua Libre could provide information on how to do it.

Cheers,

Nattes à chat

> Le 11 mai 2018 à 06:34, Peter Southwood <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing
> sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we consider
> sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not
> written.
>
> JP
>
>> On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers
>> and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved
>> invitation.
>>
>> If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be made
>> at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a
>> reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask them
>> to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly
>> based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what
>> sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or
>> whatever else have you types of information. If our references are flawed,
>> the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not
>> "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do
>> not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
>>
>> Todd
>>
>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people wanting
>>> to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
>>> Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM
>>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>>>
>>> If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started
>>> Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
>> without
>>> any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
>> fail.
>>> Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not to
>>> remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those
>>> requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
>> knowledge. I
>>> think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to
>> do
>>> that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
>> when
>>> we opened editing to anybody.
>>>
>>> JP
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood <
>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of
>>>> notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability
>>>> requirement  it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
>> things
>>>> that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence,
>>> and
>>>> where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
>>> the
>>>> authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track
>>>> record and proof of identity.
>>>> This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as
>>>> possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
>> reliable
>>>> source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the
>>>> credibility we have.
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
>>>> Behalf Of Gnangarra
>>>> Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50
>>>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>>>>
>>>> notability and verifiability are important,  every culture and
>> language
>>>> has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge.  These culture
>> manage
>>>> successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
>>> styles
>>>> were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives.  The issue is how
>>> do
>>>> we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them,
>>>> how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
>> not
>>>> the only.
>>>>
>>>> There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current
>>>> systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
>> from
>>>> books published but no digital.  Changing the way we consider and value
>>>> alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
>> is
>>> do
>>>> we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of
>>> all
>>>> knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge
>>>> networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
>> but
>>>> rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative
>>>> knowledge streams
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
>>> member
>>>>> of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though:
>>>>> https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.
>>>>> 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
>>>>>
>>>>> There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
>>>> movement
>>>>> or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
>>>> personally
>>>>> do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
>>>> impressions.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers!
>>>>>
>>>>> El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood <
>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>> escribió:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
>> produce
>>>>>> reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens
>>> the
>>>>>> doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
>>> open
>>>> to
>>>>>> anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
>>>> Other
>>>>>> projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not
>> be
>>>>> open
>>>>>> for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way?
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]]
>>> On
>>>>>> Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
>>>>>> Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01
>>>>>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
>>>>>> knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
>>>> Wikipedia
>>>>>> that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
>>> saying
>>>>> that
>>>>>> it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
>>>> enough,
>>>>>> when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of
>>>>>> knowledge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JP
>>>>>> User:Amqui
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>> From: Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT)
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly,
>>>>>>> Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never
>>> be
>>>>> able
>>>>>>> to correct it."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
>> of
>>>>>>> knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
>> Wikipedia
>>>>> will
>>>>>>> reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
>>> bias
>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>> are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
>>>>>> correction
>>>>>>> of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fred
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>>>>>> http://www.avg.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> GN.
>>>> Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
>>>> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
>>>> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
>>>> Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
>>>> Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.
>>>> Order
>>>> here
>>>> <
>>>> https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
>>> reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
>>>> .
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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] Gendergap approach causing problems

Fred Bauder-2
It you are there, it's what they do in the evening. Listen, record, transcribe, compare versions from different bands. That comparison is a measure of notability and reliability.

Fred

----- Original Message -----
From: Natacha Rault <[hidden email]>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Fri, 11 May 2018 04:19:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

> If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?


Could they possibly be registered in an oral form?
Could we invent a way of integrating oral sources? We already use radio or television sources (also not written...). The only problem with oral sources like stories passed on generation to generation is that they are not fixed by nature. Fixing them could change the modality of transmission too.
I suppose these sources could stem from a notorious person of a community who would give ID (like journalists do when writting a paper).
Has there been research or projects on this? I suppose Lingua Libre could provide information on how to do it.

Cheers,

Nattes à chat

> Le 11 mai 2018 à 06:34, Peter Southwood <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing
> sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we consider
> sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not
> written.
>
> JP
>
>> On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers
>> and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved
>> invitation.
>>
>> If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be made
>> at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a
>> reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask them
>> to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly
>> based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what
>> sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or
>> whatever else have you types of information. If our references are flawed,
>> the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not
>> "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do
>> not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
>>
>> Todd
>>
>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people wanting
>>> to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
>>> Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM
>>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>>>
>>> If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started
>>> Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
>> without
>>> any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
>> fail.
>>> Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not to
>>> remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those
>>> requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
>> knowledge. I
>>> think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to
>> do
>>> that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
>> when
>>> we opened editing to anybody.
>>>
>>> JP
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood <
>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of
>>>> notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability
>>>> requirement  it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
>> things
>>>> that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence,
>>> and
>>>> where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
>>> the
>>>> authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track
>>>> record and proof of identity.
>>>> This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as
>>>> possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
>> reliable
>>>> source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the
>>>> credibility we have.
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
>>>> Behalf Of Gnangarra
>>>> Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50
>>>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>>>>
>>>> notability and verifiability are important,  every culture and
>> language
>>>> has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge.  These culture
>> manage
>>>> successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
>>> styles
>>>> were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives.  The issue is how
>>> do
>>>> we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them,
>>>> how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
>> not
>>>> the only.
>>>>
>>>> There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current
>>>> systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
>> from
>>>> books published but no digital.  Changing the way we consider and value
>>>> alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
>> is
>>> do
>>>> we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of
>>> all
>>>> knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge
>>>> networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
>> but
>>>> rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative
>>>> knowledge streams
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
>>> member
>>>>> of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though:
>>>>> https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.
>>>>> 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
>>>>>
>>>>> There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
>>>> movement
>>>>> or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
>>>> personally
>>>>> do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
>>>> impressions.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers!
>>>>>
>>>>> El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood <
>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>> escribió:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
>> produce
>>>>>> reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens
>>> the
>>>>>> doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
>>> open
>>>> to
>>>>>> anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
>>>> Other
>>>>>> projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not
>> be
>>>>> open
>>>>>> for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way?
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]]
>>> On
>>>>>> Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
>>>>>> Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01
>>>>>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
>>>>>> knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
>>>> Wikipedia
>>>>>> that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
>>> saying
>>>>> that
>>>>>> it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
>>>> enough,
>>>>>> when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of
>>>>>> knowledge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JP
>>>>>> User:Amqui
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>> From: Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT)
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly,
>>>>>>> Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never
>>> be
>>>>> able
>>>>>>> to correct it."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
>> of
>>>>>>> knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
>> Wikipedia
>>>>> will
>>>>>>> reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
>>> bias
>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>> are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
>>>>>> correction
>>>>>>> of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fred
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>>>>>> http://www.avg.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> GN.
>>>> Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
>>>> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
>>>> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
>>>> Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
>>>> Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.
>>>> Order
>>>> here
>>>> <
>>>> https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
>>> reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
>>>> .
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>


_______________________________________________
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] Gendergap approach causing problems

Gnangarra
In reply to this post by Natacha Rault
we can, its rather simple. We quote the information and attribute it to the
source.

Within oral cultures certain people with certain authorities on different
subjects.  When we record the spoken word we record the authority under
which they speak.  As the knowledge is transferred we also know that the
knowledge will stay the same just the authority to speak it changes.
Cultures that rely on oral transfer of knowledge actual have a consistency
with the stories thats how 10's of thousands of years Indigenous Australian
astronomical knowledge has been passed down and then verified by current
western methods.  We also have significant environmental stories that have
been verified by studies including evidence of significant sea level
changes where objects have been recovered.

Once you get past the its just a story that keeps changing, the scientific
knowledge of these cultures are in many ways greater than the knowledge
carried by current western sources.

The leap of faith is one of accepting that the means to establish
notability and verify already exist we just need to put aside our own
knowledge bias and accept the methods from the sources processes are just
as robust. As for knowledge changing I suspect that most of the knowledge
sourced from the 1900 encyclopaedia Britannica have changed considerably
over the last 100 years.



On 11 May 2018 at 16:19, Natacha Rault <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
>
>
> Could they possibly be registered in an oral form?
> Could we invent a way of integrating oral sources? We already use radio or
> television sources (also not written...). The only problem with oral
> sources like stories passed on generation to generation is that they are
> not fixed by nature. Fixing them could change the modality of transmission
> too.
> I suppose these sources could stem from a notorious person of a community
> who would give ID (like journalists do when writting a paper).
> Has there been research or projects on this? I suppose Lingua Libre could
> provide information on how to do it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Nattes à chat
>
> > Le 11 mai 2018 à 06:34, Peter Southwood <[hidden email]>
> a écrit :
> > If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >
> > You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing
> > sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we consider
> > sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not
> > written.
> >
> > JP
> >
> >> On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers
> >> and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved
> >> invitation.
> >>
> >> If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be
> made
> >> at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a
> >> reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask
> them
> >> to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly
> >> based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what
> >> sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or
> >> whatever else have you types of information. If our references are
> flawed,
> >> the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not
> >> "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we
> do
> >> not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
> >>
> >> Todd
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood <
> >> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
> wanting
> >>> to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change.
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Peter
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> >>> Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> >>> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM
> >>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> >>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >>>
> >>> If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started
> >>> Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
> >> without
> >>> any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
> >> fail.
> >>> Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not
> to
> >>> remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those
> >>> requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
> >> knowledge. I
> >>> think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready
> to
> >> do
> >>> that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
> >> when
> >>> we opened editing to anybody.
> >>>
> >>> JP
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood <
> >>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of
> >>>> notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability
> >>>> requirement  it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
> >> things
> >>>> that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
> evidence,
> >>> and
> >>>> where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
> >>> the
> >>>> authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track
> >>>> record and proof of identity.
> >>>> This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it
> as
> >>>> possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
> >> reliable
> >>>> source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the
> >>>> credibility we have.
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> Peter
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> >>>> Behalf Of Gnangarra
> >>>> Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50
> >>>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> >>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >>>>
> >>>> notability and verifiability are important,  every culture and
> >> language
> >>>> has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge.  These culture
> >> manage
> >>>> successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
> >>> styles
> >>>> were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives.  The issue is
> how
> >>> do
> >>>> we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect
> them,
> >>>> how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
> >> not
> >>>> the only.
> >>>>
> >>>> There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current
> >>>> systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
> >> from
> >>>> books published but no digital.  Changing the way we consider and
> value
> >>>> alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
> >> is
> >>> do
> >>>> we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum
> of
> >>> all
> >>>> knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
> knowledge
> >>>> networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
> >> but
> >>>> rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative
> >>>> knowledge streams
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
> >>> member
> >>>>> of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though:
> >>>>> https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.
> >>>>> 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
> >>>> movement
> >>>>> or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
> >>>> personally
> >>>>> do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
> >>>> impressions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood <
> >>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>> escribió:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
> >> produce
> >>>>>> reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens
> >>> the
> >>>>>> doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
> >>> open
> >>>> to
> >>>>>> anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
> >>>> Other
> >>>>>> projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not
> >> be
> >>>>> open
> >>>>>> for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way?
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>> Peter
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]]
> >>> On
> >>>>>> Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> >>>>>> Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01
> >>>>>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
> >>>>>> knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
> >>>> Wikipedia
> >>>>>> that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
> >>> saying
> >>>>> that
> >>>>>> it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
> >>>> enough,
> >>>>>> when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of
> >>>>>> knowledge.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> JP
> >>>>>> User:Amqui
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>>>> From: Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>>> Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT)
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly,
> >>>>>>> Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never
> >>> be
> >>>>> able
> >>>>>>> to correct it."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
> >> of
> >>>>>>> knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
> >> Wikipedia
> >>>>> will
> >>>>>>> reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
> >>> bias
> >>>>>> issues
> >>>>>>> are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
> >>>>>> correction
> >>>>>>> of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Fred
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> 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>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> >>>>>> http://www.avg.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> GN.
> >>>> Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> >>>> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> >>>> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> >>>> Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
> >>>> Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.
> >>>> Order
> >>>> here
> >>>> <
> >>>> https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
> >>> reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
> >>>> .
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> 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>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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>
>



--
GN.
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.  Order
here
<https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8>
.
_______________________________________________
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] Gendergap approach causing problems

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Fred Bauder-2
Yes, and we use those books and journal articles as sources. If they are written by an acknowledged expert or are peer reviewed, we may consider them reliable sources. I don’t think this is what this discussion is about.
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of FRED BAUDER
Sent: 11 May 2018 07:19
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

People write books and journal articles which incorporate oral traditions. The Bible is one example. That doesn't mean we are going to remove the material about Native Americans migrating through Beringia but that, if a tribe's tradition is that it was always in the Americas, that should be included in its article. Probably not enough to satisfy everyone...


Fred


----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Southwood <[hidden email]>
To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' <[hidden email]>
Sent: Fri, 11 May 2018 00:34:15 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing
sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we consider
sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not
written.

JP

On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers
> and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved
> invitation.
>
> If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be made
> at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a
> reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask them
> to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly
> based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what
> sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or
> whatever else have you types of information. If our references are flawed,
> the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not
> "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do
> not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
>
> Todd
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people wanting
> > to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >
> > If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started
> > Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
> without
> > any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
> fail.
> > Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not to
> > remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those
> > requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
> knowledge. I
> > think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready to
> do
> > that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
> when
> > we opened editing to anybody.
> >
> > JP
> >
> > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of
> > > notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability
> > > requirement  it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
> things
> > > that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer evidence,
> > and
> > > where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is intangible,
> > the
> > > authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track
> > > record and proof of identity.
> > > This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it as
> > > possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
> reliable
> > > source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying the
> > > credibility we have.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > > Behalf Of Gnangarra
> > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > >
> > >  notability and verifiability are important,  every culture and
> language
> > > has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge.  These culture
> manage
> > > successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
> > styles
> > > were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives.  The issue is how
> > do
> > > we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect them,
> > > how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
> not
> > > the only.
> > >
> > > There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current
> > > systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
> from
> > > books published but no digital.  Changing the way we consider and value
> > > alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
> is
> > do
> > > we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum of
> > all
> > > knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current knowledge
> > > networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
> > >
> > > Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
> but
> > > rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative
> > > knowledge streams
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
> > member
> > > > of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though:
> > > > https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.
> > > > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
> > > >
> > > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
> > > movement
> > > > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
> > > personally
> > > > do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
> > > impressions.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers!
> > > >
> > > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood <
> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > escribió:
> > > >
> > > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
> produce
> > > > > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints opens
> > the
> > > > > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
> > open
> > > to
> > > > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust alternatives.
> > > Other
> > > > > projects may work around this problem, but would then probably not
> be
> > > > open
> > > > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way?
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Peter
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > On
> > > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01
> > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > > >
> > > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of
> > > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
> > > > >
> > > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
> > saying
> > > > that
> > > > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
> > > enough,
> > > > > when different cultures use different ways to build their canon of
> > > > > knowledge.
> > > > >
> > > > > JP
> > > > > User:Amqui
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT)
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly,
> > > > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will never
> > be
> > > > able
> > > > > > to correct it."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
> of
> > > > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
> Wikipedia
> > > > will
> > > > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
> > bias
> > > > > issues
> > > > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than full
> > > > > correction
> > > > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fred
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > 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>
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > > > > http://www.avg.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > GN.
> > > Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > > Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
> > > Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.
> > > Order
> > > here
> > > <
> > > https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
> > reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
> > > >
> > > .
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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>


_______________________________________________
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] Gendergap approach causing problems

Gnangarra
thats the bias we dont accept knowledge as genuine or authorative until its
been established by a westerner using western techniques.  The whole point
of this discussion is that such a process invariably leads to bias, to
solve bias we need to shift our acceptance to alternative cultural methods
of establishing notability and verifiability.

The point is those non western methods are able to provide the same level
of authority as the currently accepted methods, that the to make the change
isnt as disastrous as is being said because we adopt the method appropriate
for the knowledge source rather than ignoring the knowledge until its
adapted to our way

On 11 May 2018 at 20:32, Peter Southwood <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Yes, and we use those books and journal articles as sources. If they are
> written by an acknowledged expert or are peer reviewed, we may consider
> them reliable sources. I don’t think this is what this discussion is about.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of FRED BAUDER
> Sent: 11 May 2018 07:19
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> People write books and journal articles which incorporate oral traditions.
> The Bible is one example. That doesn't mean we are going to remove the
> material about Native Americans migrating through Beringia but that, if a
> tribe's tradition is that it was always in the Americas, that should be
> included in its article. Probably not enough to satisfy everyone...
>
>
> Fred
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Peter Southwood <[hidden email]>
> To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Fri, 11 May 2018 00:34:15 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second guessing
> sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we consider
> sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not
> written.
>
> JP
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for spammers
> > and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved
> > invitation.
> >
> > If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should be
> made
> > at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" a
> > reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd ask
> them
> > to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article accordingly
> > based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess what
> > sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or
> > whatever else have you types of information. If our references are
> flawed,
> > the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, not
> > "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, we do
> > not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
> wanting
> > > to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times change.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > >
> > > If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have started
> > > Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by anyone
> > without
> > > any authority to double check before it is published? It is doomed to
> > fail.
> > > Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is not
> to
> > > remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change those
> > > requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
> > knowledge. I
> > > think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are ready
> to
> > do
> > > that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of Wikipedia
> > when
> > > we opened editing to anybody.
> > >
> > > JP
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in spite of
> > > > notability and verifiability requirements, Without the verifiability
> > > > requirement  it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith are
> > things
> > > > that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
> evidence,
> > > and
> > > > where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
> intangible,
> > > the
> > > > authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means track
> > > > record and proof of identity.
> > > > This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not see it
> as
> > > > possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as a
> > reliable
> > > > source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without destroying
> the
> > > > credibility we have.
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]]
> On
> > > > Behalf Of Gnangarra
> > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50
> > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > >
> > > >  notability and verifiability are important,  every culture and
> > language
> > > > has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge.  These culture
> > manage
> > > > successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the western
> > > styles
> > > > were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives.  The issue is
> how
> > > do
> > > > we bring these sources into the western system, how do we respect
> them,
> > > > how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently do is
> > not
> > > > the only.
> > > >
> > > > There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our current
> > > > systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the citations
> > from
> > > > books published but no digital.  Changing the way we consider and
> value
> > > > alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the question
> > is
> > > do
> > > > we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share the sum
> of
> > > all
> > > > knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
> knowledge
> > > > networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the wikipedia
> > but
> > > > rather the creation of new project to bring forth these alternative
> > > > knowledge streams
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias where a
> > > member
> > > > > of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity though:
> > > > > https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.
> > > > > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
> > > > >
> > > > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and as a
> > > > movement
> > > > > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, which I
> > > > personally
> > > > > do, since they are supported with data and not on our personal
> > > > impressions.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers!
> > > > >
> > > > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood <
> > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > escribió:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us to
> > produce
> > > > > > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those constraints
> opens
> > > the
> > > > > > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to remain
> > > open
> > > > to
> > > > > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
> alternatives.
> > > > Other
> > > > > > projects may work around this problem, but would then probably
> not
> > be
> > > > > open
> > > > > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way?
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Peter
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
> lists.wikimedia.org]
> > > On
> > > > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > > > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01
> > > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
> of
> > > > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of "knowledge" as
> > > > Wikipedia
> > > > > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to that
> > > saying
> > > > > that
> > > > > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be notable
> > > > enough,
> > > > > > when different cultures use different ways to build their canon
> of
> > > > > > knowledge.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > JP
> > > > > > User:Amqui
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT)
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly,
> > > > > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but will
> never
> > > be
> > > > > able
> > > > > > > to correct it."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the canon
> > of
> > > > > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
> > Wikipedia
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and other
> > > bias
> > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest than
> full
> > > > > > correction
> > > > > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fred
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > 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>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > > > > > http://www.avg.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > 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>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > GN.
> > > > Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> > > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > > > Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
> > > > Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.
> > > > Order
> > > > here
> > > > <
> > > > https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
> > > reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
> > > > >
> > > > .
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>



--
GN.
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again:
Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017.  Order
here
<https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8>
.
_______________________________________________
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>
1234