[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

Amir E. Aharoni
What are the non-Western methods?

בתאריך יום ו׳, 11 במאי 2018, 15:49, מאת Gnangarra ‏<[hidden email]>:

> 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>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.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
speaking solely from experience with Indigenous Australian knowledge where
knowledge is passed orally across generations. The passing of knowledge is
connected to place, family, and heritage when an indigenous person speak
they first speak of their heritage, of their connect to the place, and of
their family. This all establishes the origins of the story, the authority
of the person to speak, and whos story they are telling.  much like a bio
of the author in a book establishes their expertise, version, and
publication dates sets the when

when we share the oral knowledge we already have established notability and
verifiability, when write the knowledge we dont damage or fix the knowledge
we share just what it was at that one point and place in time.  Culturally
the knowledge will continue to be share via the traditional methods
regardless. We have 200 years of recordings, oppression, dispossession, and
usurpation of indigenous knowledge that shows it still continues externally
to written forms.

If we look at someone like Daisy Bates when we digest her work its
relatively easy to establish the differences between her work in recording
Indigenous knowledge,  to the fictional works she sold to newspapers to
earn a living.   That same process she used a 100 years ago works for what
we are doing now. We dont need to invent new methods nor do we need to wait
for western sources to catchup all we need is that leap to accept oral
source with the traditional authentications.

While this is directly related to Indigenous Australian knowledge, the
methodology will work where we adapt to the cultural authentications of the
knowledge source and accept them as if we would a book, or journal and cite
them appropriately.



On 11 May 2018 at 20:52, Amir E. Aharoni <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> What are the non-Western methods?
>
> בתאריך יום ו׳, 11 במאי 2018, 15:49, מאת Gnangarra ‏<[hidden email]>:
>
> > 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:wikimedia-l-bounces@
> lists.wikimedia.org]
> > > 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].
> org>
> > > > > > > > > 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>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.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

Jean-Philippe Béland
I confirm that this is not an isolated concept to Australia. I heard the
same thing about being connected to the place, starting the story by
telling who your family is, etc. from Canadian indigenous peoples.

JP

On Fri, May 11, 2018, 09:26 Gnangarra, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> speaking solely from experience with Indigenous Australian knowledge where
> knowledge is passed orally across generations. The passing of knowledge is
> connected to place, family, and heritage when an indigenous person speak
> they first speak of their heritage, of their connect to the place, and of
> their family. This all establishes the origins of the story, the authority
> of the person to speak, and whos story they are telling.  much like a bio
> of the author in a book establishes their expertise, version, and
> publication dates sets the when
>
> when we share the oral knowledge we already have established notability and
> verifiability, when write the knowledge we dont damage or fix the knowledge
> we share just what it was at that one point and place in time.  Culturally
> the knowledge will continue to be share via the traditional methods
> regardless. We have 200 years of recordings, oppression, dispossession, and
> usurpation of indigenous knowledge that shows it still continues externally
> to written forms.
>
> If we look at someone like Daisy Bates when we digest her work its
> relatively easy to establish the differences between her work in recording
> Indigenous knowledge,  to the fictional works she sold to newspapers to
> earn a living.   That same process she used a 100 years ago works for what
> we are doing now. We dont need to invent new methods nor do we need to wait
> for western sources to catchup all we need is that leap to accept oral
> source with the traditional authentications.
>
> While this is directly related to Indigenous Australian knowledge, the
> methodology will work where we adapt to the cultural authentications of the
> knowledge source and accept them as if we would a book, or journal and cite
> them appropriately.
>
>
>
> On 11 May 2018 at 20:52, Amir E. Aharoni <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > What are the non-Western methods?
> >
> > בתאריך יום ו׳, 11 במאי 2018, 15:49, מאת Gnangarra ‏<[hidden email]
> >:
> >
> > > 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:wikimedia-l-bounces@
> > lists.wikimedia.org]
> > > > 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].
> > org>
> > > > > > > > > > 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>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.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

Gnangarra
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
the speaker of a traditional oral story isnt the primary source there is no
original research in the story they are just retelling with audible pen
rather than a ink pen, the primary source is somewhere back in time.  The
almost identical similarities that traditional oral knowledge have with
that of written knowledge  makes them amazing sources.

When its all distilled own the only difference is that western sources
demand a tree is turned into paper and ink added to the paper before its
accepted knowledge

On 10 May 2018 at 18:03, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hoi,
> "The summary of the canon of knowledge".. Wow.. I just tweeted that thanks
> to the German Wikipedia we know about 20% more members of Parliament from
> Chad. Now we know about 12. My #AfricaGap project will follow developments
> around African national politicians. We suck when Africa is considered.
> What we have in Wikidata reflects this.
>
> It is relatively easy to add information in Wikidata about Africa.
> Importing lists of politicians, I once did after South African national
> elections and it shows, is easy. From our mouths we hear that we want to do
> more about / for Africa but the proof is in what we see. What could be is
> in our hands.
> Thanks,
>        GerardM
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GerardM/Africa
>
> On 10 May 2018 at 11:53, 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>
>



--
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

Jean-Philippe Béland
In reply to this post by Cameron
When we say we want to keep our current requirements, we need to ask
ourselves if we want to continue to be an encyclopedia written by
Westerners for Westerners. If that's the case, fine. But that's not what we
are claiming to be...

JP

On Fri, May 11, 2018, 09:30 Cameron, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.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

Paulo Santos Perneta
In reply to this post by Cameron
Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are primary
sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original sources, as
in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second
should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they
generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this confusion in
Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the
articles.

Paulo


2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron <[hidden email]>:

> 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: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>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

Vi to
Policies about primary (en.wiki's one for example
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:PRIMARY>) tell a
different story and I, for one, concur with them.

An extreme example: Mussolini's speech (primary source) will tell you WWII
was caused by the Allies, any history book (secondary or tertiary) shows
that's a blatant lie. To state such a simple truth without doing an
original research you need a secondary source.

Vito

2018-05-11 22:24 GMT+02:00 Paulo Santos Perneta <[hidden email]>:

> Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are primary
> sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original sources, as
> in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second
> should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they
> generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this confusion in
> Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the
> articles.
>
> Paulo
>
>
> 2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron <[hidden email]>:
>
> > 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: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>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.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

Paulo Santos Perneta
 Mussolini's speech relating WWII -> was produced by the subject: to avoid
Mussolini's speech relating Mussolini's speech contents -> best possible
source you can have.

Both kinds are described by the Wikipedias policies as "primary source",
and yet they have very different, and often opposed values of verifiability
and fiability.

As I said, there's an endemic confusion with primary sources in Wikipedia.

Paulo

2018-05-11 22:19 GMT+01:00 Vi to <[hidden email]>:

> Policies about primary (en.wiki's one for example
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:PRIMARY>) tell a
> different story and I, for one, concur with them.
>
> An extreme example: Mussolini's speech (primary source) will tell you WWII
> was caused by the Allies, any history book (secondary or tertiary) shows
> that's a blatant lie. To state such a simple truth without doing an
> original research you need a secondary source.
>
> Vito
>
> 2018-05-11 22:24 GMT+02:00 Paulo Santos Perneta <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are
> primary
> > sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original sources,
> as
> > in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second
> > should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they
> > generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this confusion
> in
> > Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the
> > articles.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> >
> > 2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > 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:wikimedia-l-bounces@
> lists.wikimedia.org]
> > > 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].
> org>
> > > > > > > > > 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>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.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

Vi to
 "Mussolini's speech relating Mussolini's speech contents -> best possible
sources"?
Even worse than speech themselves.


Vito

2018-05-12 0:39 GMT+02:00 Paulo Santos Perneta <[hidden email]>:

>  Mussolini's speech relating WWII -> was produced by the subject: to avoid
> Mussolini's speech relating Mussolini's speech contents -> best possible
> source you can have.
>
> Both kinds are described by the Wikipedias policies as "primary source",
> and yet they have very different, and often opposed values of verifiability
> and fiability.
>
> As I said, there's an endemic confusion with primary sources in Wikipedia.
>
> Paulo
>
> 2018-05-11 22:19 GMT+01:00 Vi to <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Policies about primary (en.wiki's one for example
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:PRIMARY>) tell a
> > different story and I, for one, concur with them.
> >
> > An extreme example: Mussolini's speech (primary source) will tell you
> WWII
> > was caused by the Allies, any history book (secondary or tertiary) shows
> > that's a blatant lie. To state such a simple truth without doing an
> > original research you need a secondary source.
> >
> > Vito
> >
> > 2018-05-11 22:24 GMT+02:00 Paulo Santos Perneta <[hidden email]
> >:
> >
> > > Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are
> > primary
> > > sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original
> sources,
> > as
> > > in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second
> > > should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they
> > > generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this
> confusion
> > in
> > > Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the
> > > articles.
> > >
> > > Paulo
> > >
> > >
> > > 2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > 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:wikimedia-l-bounces@
> lists.wikimedia.org]
> > > 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:wikimedia-l-bounces@
> > lists.wikimedia.org]
> > > > 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].
> > org>
> > > > > > > > > > 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>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.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
In reply to this post by Paulo Santos Perneta
Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and have similar problems. You will have to clarify:
In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and verifiable?
Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary sources produced by the subject?
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are primary
sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original sources, as
in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second
should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they
generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this confusion in
Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the
articles.

Paulo


2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron <[hidden email]>:

> 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: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>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.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
Observations of the death of a king or a president or of Martin Luther King are primary sources, but rather solid. Conceptual material, no so much.

Fred

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Southwood <[hidden email]>
To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 01:49:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and have similar problems. You will have to clarify:
In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and verifiable?
Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary sources produced by the subject?
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are primary
sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original sources, as
in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second
should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they
generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this confusion in
Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the
articles.

Paulo


2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron <[hidden email]>:

> 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: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>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.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

Paulo Santos Perneta
In reply to this post by Peter Southwood
A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and
reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more reliable
than any secondary sources quoting it.

As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much
sure there is a similar saying in English as well.

There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should be
used instead of a primary source in those situations.

Paulo

2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood <[hidden email]>:

> Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and have
> similar problems. You will have to clarify:
> In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and
> verifiable?
> Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary sources
> produced by the subject?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are primary
> sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original sources, as
> in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second
> should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they
> generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this confusion in
> Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the
> articles.
>
> Paulo
>
>
> 2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron <[hidden email]>:
>
> > 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: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>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.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
If a "secondary" source just parrots or copies a primary source, it's added
nothing. At that point, it doesn't matter which one you use.

However, good, reliable secondary sources will cross-check the claims of
primary sources against one another, evaluate them for reliability, and
come up with what the real truth is actually likely to be. When those
sources are fact-checked and peer reviewed, they are much more reliable
than the primary sources, and we should prefer them to editors evaluating
primary sources themselves, or worse yet, uncritically treating them as
factual.

Todd

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and
> reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more reliable
> than any secondary sources quoting it.
>
> As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much
> sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
>
> There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should be
> used instead of a primary source in those situations.
>
> Paulo
>
> 2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and have
> > similar problems. You will have to clarify:
> > In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and
> > verifiable?
> > Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary
> sources
> > produced by the subject?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta
> > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >
> > Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are
> primary
> > sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original sources,
> as
> > in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second
> > should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they
> > generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this confusion
> in
> > Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the
> > articles.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> >
> > 2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > 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:wikimedia-l-bounces@
> lists.wikimedia.org]
> > > 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].
> org>
> > > > > > > > > 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>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.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

Paulo Santos Perneta
When we have a document signed by the king saying someone was given a
certain title; and a myriad of secondary and tertiary sources saying the
document says otherwise (without ever quoting the document itself), I would
not have the least doubt in choosing the king's deed. That's a recurrent
situation in History, and as far as I know, the recommendations are always
to ignore the secondary sources when some unexplained conflict between them
and the primary, original sources arises.

Paulo


2018-05-12 13:31 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen <[hidden email]>:

> If a "secondary" source just parrots or copies a primary source, it's added
> nothing. At that point, it doesn't matter which one you use.
>
> However, good, reliable secondary sources will cross-check the claims of
> primary sources against one another, evaluate them for reliability, and
> come up with what the real truth is actually likely to be. When those
> sources are fact-checked and peer reviewed, they are much more reliable
> than the primary sources, and we should prefer them to editors evaluating
> primary sources themselves, or worse yet, uncritically treating them as
> factual.
>
> Todd
>
> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and
> > reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more
> reliable
> > than any secondary sources quoting it.
> >
> > As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much
> > sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
> >
> > There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should
> be
> > used instead of a primary source in those situations.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> > 2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood <[hidden email]>
> :
> >
> > > Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and
> have
> > > similar problems. You will have to clarify:
> > > In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and
> > > verifiable?
> > > Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary
> > sources
> > > produced by the subject?
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > > Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta
> > > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > >
> > > Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are
> > primary
> > > sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original
> sources,
> > as
> > > in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second
> > > should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they
> > > generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this
> confusion
> > in
> > > Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the
> > > articles.
> > >
> > > Paulo
> > >
> > >
> > > 2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > 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:wikimedia-l-bounces@
> lists.wikimedia.org]
> > > 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:wikimedia-l-bounces@
> > lists.wikimedia.org]
> > > > 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].
> > org>
> > > > > > > > > > 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>
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.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 Paulo Santos Perneta
And should be used, just as an image of a headstone can be used, in preference to some writing about it. Exceptions, don't prove the rule though. A diary should not be used directly, and an autobiography with great care, depending on how it was edited and published.

Fred


----- Original Message -----
From: Paulo Santos Perneta <[hidden email]>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:27:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and
reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more reliable
than any secondary sources quoting it.

As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much
sure there is a similar saying in English as well.

There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should be
used instead of a primary source in those situations.

Paulo

2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood <[hidden email]>:

> Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and have
> similar problems. You will have to clarify:
> In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and
> verifiable?
> Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary sources
> produced by the subject?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are primary
> sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original sources, as
> in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second
> should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they
> generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this confusion in
> Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the
> articles.
>
> Paulo
>
>
> 2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron <[hidden email]>:
>
> > 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: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>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.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 Paulo Santos Perneta
Much more complicated situation. Really far beyond a Wikipedian's pay grade.

Fred

----- Original Message -----
From: Paulo Santos Perneta <[hidden email]>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:38:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

When we have a document signed by the king saying someone was given a
certain title; and a myriad of secondary and tertiary sources saying the
document says otherwise (without ever quoting the document itself), I would
not have the least doubt in choosing the king's deed. That's a recurrent
situation in History, and as far as I know, the recommendations are always
to ignore the secondary sources when some unexplained conflict between them
and the primary, original sources arises.

Paulo


2018-05-12 13:31 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen <[hidden email]>:

> If a "secondary" source just parrots or copies a primary source, it's added
> nothing. At that point, it doesn't matter which one you use.
>
> However, good, reliable secondary sources will cross-check the claims of
> primary sources against one another, evaluate them for reliability, and
> come up with what the real truth is actually likely to be. When those
> sources are fact-checked and peer reviewed, they are much more reliable
> than the primary sources, and we should prefer them to editors evaluating
> primary sources themselves, or worse yet, uncritically treating them as
> factual.
>
> Todd
>
> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and
> > reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more
> reliable
> > than any secondary sources quoting it.
> >
> > As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much
> > sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
> >
> > There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should
> be
> > used instead of a primary source in those situations.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> > 2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood <[hidden email]>
> :
> >
> > > Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and
> have
> > > similar problems. You will have to clarify:
> > > In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and
> > > verifiable?
> > > Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary
> > sources
> > > produced by the subject?
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > > Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta
> > > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > >
> > > Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are
> > primary
> > > sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original
> sources,
> > as
> > > in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second
> > > should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they
> > > generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this
> confusion
> > in
> > > Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the
> > > articles.
> > >
> > > Paulo
> > >
> > >
> > > 2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > 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:wikimedia-l-bounces@
> lists.wikimedia.org]
> > > 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:wikimedia-l-bounces@
> > lists.wikimedia.org]
> > > > 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].
> > org>
> > > > > > > > > > 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>
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.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

Paulo Santos Perneta
In reply to this post by Fred Bauder-2
There is a difference between the two situations. The king's deed and the
parish books are primary sources, but both are official documents, subject
to peer review. Diaries and autobiographies are primary sources as well,
but generally not subjected to any review. There should be some way to
distinguish between the two types.

Paulo

2018-05-12 13:40 GMT+01:00 FRED BAUDER <[hidden email]>:

> And should be used, just as an image of a headstone can be used, in
> preference to some writing about it. Exceptions, don't prove the rule
> though. A diary should not be used directly, and an autobiography with
> great care, depending on how it was edited and published.
>
> Fred
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paulo Santos Perneta <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:27:06 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and
> reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more reliable
> than any secondary sources quoting it.
>
> As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much
> sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
>
> There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should be
> used instead of a primary source in those situations.
>
> Paulo
>
> 2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and have
> > similar problems. You will have to clarify:
> > In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and
> > verifiable?
> > Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary
> sources
> > produced by the subject?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta
> > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >
> > Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are
> primary
> > sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original sources,
> as
> > in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second
> > should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they
> > generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this confusion
> in
> > Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the
> > articles.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> >
> > 2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > 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:wikimedia-l-bounces@
> lists.wikimedia.org]
> > > 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].
> org>
> > > > > > > > > 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>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.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
Just as we allow a firm to list their officers or a town to correct the name of the mayor, if there are no factual issues, any source is fine. With respect to significant disputed issues professional  academic analysis is vital, think cold fusion.

Fred

----- Original Message -----
From: Todd Allen <[hidden email]>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:31:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

If a "secondary" source just parrots or copies a primary source, it's added
nothing. At that point, it doesn't matter which one you use.

However, good, reliable secondary sources will cross-check the claims of
primary sources against one another, evaluate them for reliability, and
come up with what the real truth is actually likely to be. When those
sources are fact-checked and peer reviewed, they are much more reliable
than the primary sources, and we should prefer them to editors evaluating
primary sources themselves, or worse yet, uncritically treating them as
factual.

Todd

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and
> reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more reliable
> than any secondary sources quoting it.
>
> As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much
> sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
>
> There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should be
> used instead of a primary source in those situations.
>
> Paulo
>
> 2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and have
> > similar problems. You will have to clarify:
> > In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and
> > verifiable?
> > Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary
> sources
> > produced by the subject?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta
> > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >
> > Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are
> primary
> > sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original sources,
> as
> > in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second
> > should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they
> > generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this confusion
> in
> > Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the
> > articles.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> >
> > 2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > 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:wikimedia-l-bounces@
> lists.wikimedia.org]
> > > 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].
> org>
> > > > > > > > > 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>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.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 Paulo Santos Perneta
Autobiographical writing published by the mainstream press with editors and fact checkers is more reliable.

Fred

----- Original Message -----
From: Paulo Santos Perneta <[hidden email]>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:44:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

There is a difference between the two situations. The king's deed and the
parish books are primary sources, but both are official documents, subject
to peer review. Diaries and autobiographies are primary sources as well,
but generally not subjected to any review. There should be some way to
distinguish between the two types.

Paulo

2018-05-12 13:40 GMT+01:00 FRED BAUDER <[hidden email]>:

> And should be used, just as an image of a headstone can be used, in
> preference to some writing about it. Exceptions, don't prove the rule
> though. A diary should not be used directly, and an autobiography with
> great care, depending on how it was edited and published.
>
> Fred
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paulo Santos Perneta <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:27:06 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and
> reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more reliable
> than any secondary sources quoting it.
>
> As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much
> sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
>
> There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should be
> used instead of a primary source in those situations.
>
> Paulo
>
> 2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and have
> > similar problems. You will have to clarify:
> > In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and
> > verifiable?
> > Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary
> sources
> > produced by the subject?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta
> > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >
> > Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are
> primary
> > sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original sources,
> as
> > in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second
> > should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they
> > generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this confusion
> in
> > Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the
> > articles.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> >
> > 2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > 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:wikimedia-l-bounces@
> lists.wikimedia.org]
> > > 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].
> org>
> > > > > > > > > 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>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.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

Paulo Santos Perneta
In reply to this post by Fred Bauder-2
Yes, it should be as you say. But my experience in Wikipedia is that the
confuse definition of primary source often leads to such egregious
situations as some newspaper saying what the director of an institution is,
is prefered to the very institution correcting the name. I've seen this
over and over.

Paulo

2018-05-12 13:45 GMT+01:00 FRED BAUDER <[hidden email]>:

> Just as we allow a firm to list their officers or a town to correct the
> name of the mayor, if there are no factual issues, any source is fine. With
> respect to significant disputed issues professional  academic analysis is
> vital, think cold fusion.
>
> Fred
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Todd Allen <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:31:14 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> If a "secondary" source just parrots or copies a primary source, it's added
> nothing. At that point, it doesn't matter which one you use.
>
> However, good, reliable secondary sources will cross-check the claims of
> primary sources against one another, evaluate them for reliability, and
> come up with what the real truth is actually likely to be. When those
> sources are fact-checked and peer reviewed, they are much more reliable
> than the primary sources, and we should prefer them to editors evaluating
> primary sources themselves, or worse yet, uncritically treating them as
> factual.
>
> Todd
>
> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and
> > reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more
> reliable
> > than any secondary sources quoting it.
> >
> > As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much
> > sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
> >
> > There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should
> be
> > used instead of a primary source in those situations.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> > 2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood <[hidden email]>
> :
> >
> > > Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and
> have
> > > similar problems. You will have to clarify:
> > > In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and
> > > verifiable?
> > > Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary
> > sources
> > > produced by the subject?
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > > Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta
> > > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > >
> > > Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are
> > primary
> > > sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original
> sources,
> > as
> > > in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second
> > > should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they
> > > generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this
> confusion
> > in
> > > Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the
> > > articles.
> > >
> > > Paulo
> > >
> > >
> > > 2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > 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:wikimedia-l-bounces@
> lists.wikimedia.org]
> > > 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:wikimedia-l-bounces@
> > lists.wikimedia.org]
> > > > 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].
> > org>
> > > > > > > > > > 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>
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.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>
1234