[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

Paulo Santos Perneta
It's reliable concerning the opinions and vision of the author on the
things he describes, not the facts themselves.

And unless I'm misunderstanding this, fact checkers (critics?) are actually
secondary sources, I believe?

Paulo

2018-05-12 13:48 GMT+01:00 FRED BAUDER <[hidden email]>:

> 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: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>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.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
People often misinterpret the rules, occasionally in disingenuous ways. Best to not get too excited. Over the years there is a general gradual movement toward sane editing and a person who starts editing as a teenager should be a fairly good editor by the time they reach 50.

Fred


----- Original Message -----
From: Paulo Santos Perneta <[hidden email]>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:50:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

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>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.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
Publishers employ people who check out information in books being published. For accuracy and to avoid legal problems.

When I used Angela Davis's autobiography to write her article, there was a passage about her encountering racial bias in Germany when she was going to school there. Is that just her perception, or a fact? Knowing people, I had no problem using it as a fact, but people have objected and it is gone now.

Fred

----- Original Message -----
From: Paulo Santos Perneta <[hidden email]>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:53:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

It's reliable concerning the opinions and vision of the author on the
things he describes, not the facts themselves.

And unless I'm misunderstanding this, fact checkers (critics?) are actually
secondary sources, I believe?

Paulo

2018-05-12 13:48 GMT+01:00 FRED BAUDER <[hidden email]>:

> 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: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>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.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
In reply to this post by Paulo Santos Perneta
Sorry but historical research is a bit more complex. Primary sources need
to be interpreted. For instance, until late XVIII most of records dealt
with "firesides" meaning "nuclear family" corresponding to a different
population according to time and place.

Some trivial information may be referenced with primary sources but most
cannot at all: forbidding original research is one of the pillars of
Wikipedia. You can allow them, but you'll obtain something which no longer
is Wikipedia.

Vito

2018-05-12 14:27 GMT+02:00 Paulo Santos Perneta <[hidden email]>:

> 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

Delphine Dallison
In reply to this post by Jean-Philippe Béland
> Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and
> traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion.

I would suggest that we already have a repository built for purpose to
gather these oral histories and it's Wikimedia Commons. I definitely agree
that finding ways of capturing and uploading those oral histories on a
Creative Commons open license would be a fantastic project, whether that be
in the form of video or oral recordings. There are already many projects of
that type taking place with local history groups or herstory groups, etc, so
maybe we need to find ways to work with those groups to release their
content under the right licenses. Wouldn't it be amazing to have such a
wealth of primary sources available on wiki commons for any researchers to
use and write about so it can then generate secondary sources to be added to
Wikipedia? 😊

Best wishes,

Delphine Dallison
Wikimedian in Residence
Scottish Library and Information Council
Turnberry House
Suite 5:5, Fifth Floor
175 West George Street
Glasgow G2 2LB
Tel: 0141 202 2999
www.scottishlibraries.org


Enriching lives through libraries


-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of
Jean-Philippe Béland
Sent: 11 May 2018 14:51
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

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=unsubscr
> > > > ibe>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscr
> > > > ibe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to:
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscrib
> > > e>
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to:
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscrib
> > > e>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

--




SLIC:
Company Limited by Guarantee/ Registered in Scotland
No.129889/Scottish Charity
No.SC17886



Email
Disclaimer: SLIC



The

information transmitted is the property of SLIC and is intended only for
the
person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
and/or
privileged material.  Statements and opinions expressed in this
e-mail may
not represent those of the company.  Any review, retransmission,

dissemination and other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon,
this
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient
is
prohibited.



If you
received this in error, please contact the sender
immediately and delete the
material from any computer. SLIC does not accept
responsibility for viruses
please scan attachments carefully.


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

Romaine Wiki-2
In reply to this post by Amir E. Aharoni
Was it the first time I noticed this subject in the Wikimedia movement, no.
It happens too many times that people get frustrated because the gender,
color of their skin or native background is the key reason to ask someone,
instead of the qualities that this person has.

There are two main reasons why I do not go into further detail:
1. the privacy of this individual is something I can't ignore
2. My previous email gives an example in a generic topic, and the topic is
not about an individual case.

Also is zooming in on an individual case not a solution, as we need to be
aware as movement how we are perceived by others.

I disagree that it is related to the attitude of an individual. The way how
someone will respond to it is depending on the attitude yes. But I think
that being asked for something just because of the colour of your face is
degrading you from being a person with various qualities and/or the work
you do. The possible demotivation is the result, but the core is in the
approach itself.

But yes, it is a difficult topic. But in this case it is much harder for
that individual who (temporarily?) gave up on editing/contributing.


I think it comes to inclusiveness, being able to include anyone independent
from how a face looks like. being inclusive to anyone, so that all the
knowledge of the world can be collected.
What we should not do is trying to be inclusive by being exclusive. We
should be making it possible for anyone to have a safe and pleasant space
and in that way bridge the gaps, instead of just trying to ask specific
people to come for the colour of their skin, etc. As said, that last thing
is creating gaps instead of closing them.

Romaine



2018-05-07 8:03 GMT+02:00 Amir E. Aharoni <[hidden email]>:

> This is a sensitive topic, and I'm a white man myself, so please slap me if
> I say something dumb.
>
> 2018-05-07 7:10 GMT+03:00 Romaine Wiki <[hidden email]>:
>
> >
> > What has happened?
> >
> > She was invited to participate in a Wikimedia activity, because:
> > 1. she is a woman
> > 2. she is from a minority
> > 3. she is from an area in the world with much less editors (compared to
> > Europe/US)
> >
> > and perhaps also because her colour of her skin is a bit different then
> > mine (Caucasian).
> >
> > At the same time she has the impression that the work she does on the
> > Wikimedia wiki('s) is not valued, nor taken into account.
> >
>
> By whom?
>
> By the people who invited her?
>
> By other participants in the event?
>
> By other editors in the same wiki site?
>
> By the readers?
>
>
>
> > She does not want to be invited because she is a woman, nor because she
> is
> > from a minority, nor ....... etc. This is offensive.
> > She only wants to be invited because of the work she contributes on
> > Wikipedia/etc.
> >
>
> This makes a lot of sense to me, but that's just me and attitudes are
> different for each person.
>
>
> > Besides the many good initiatives and intentions, this kind of approaches
> > to our contributors is demotivating them, please be aware of this.
>
>
> Again, it's probably demotivating to some. Maybe to 98%, maybe to 30%,
> maybe to 5%. I honestly don't know.
>
> I believe demotivation/frustration is the largest problem we face as
> > movement.
> >
>
> I don't know if its the biggest problem. On this mailing list we are a
> small group of meta-active Wikimedians, and we are the minority among
> editors. We don't actually represent all the editors. And of course the
> editors are a tiny minority compared to the readers.
>
> I'd argue that the hard time that some editors are giving newcomers is a
> bigger problem. Gender is certainly a part of that, and there are many
> other parts.
>
> We meta-wikimedians can find a better way to invite people to events, and
> we can change ourselves. That doesn't sound too hard. Changing the wider
> editor culture is harder.
>
> I heard from people that the problem described is called tokenism
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokenism>.
> >
>
> Yes, that's when representation is given to a weakened group, but that
> representation is too weak to be meaningful, and may do more harm than
> good.
>
>
> > I believe the only way to close the gaps related to gender, minorities,
> > etc, is to create an atmosphere in what everyone is appreciated for what
> > she/he is doing, completely unrelated to the gender someone appears to
> > have, the ethnicity, race, area of the world, etc etc etc etc.
> >
>
> So that's where it gets really complicated, because it's always related, in
> ways that are sometimes visible and sometimes invisible.
>
> Let's take school education as a hopefully easy example. People from
> different areas of the world will have very different things to write about
> it. In some areas of the world everybody gets school education—boys and
> girls, rich and poor, rural and urban. In other areas it may be only boys;
> or only people in cities; or only people who know a certain language; or
> only people who belong to a certain religion; or only people who have a
> certain amount of money; or only people who have a certain skin color. I
> want articles about education to have contributions from as many people as
> possible, from different genders, from different skin colors, and from
> different areas, and so on.
>
> An American white woman has different things to say about education from an
> American black man. These differences are important and frequently
> discussed in American media. But the American white woman and the American
> black man *don't even imagine* what people from The Philippines have to say
> about education. What people from the Philippines have to say about
> education probably has little to do with the internal American debates on
> this topic. And of course it breaks down further, because a person who
> lives in the capital of Philippines and knows English has different things
> to say about education from a person who lives in a village in Philippines
> and doesn't know English.
>
> On articles about education I want to hear from all of them. And about
> every other topic. (And yes, I want contributions from people who don't
> know English in the English Wikipedia. By definition they cannot contribute
> directly, but we must do everything we can to make at least an indirect
> contribution possible.)
>
> How do we do it right?
>
> How do we get more different people to even try to contribute to articles?
> How do we get everybody's contributions to be accepted? (Guess whose
> contributions are more likely to be challenged as "non-notable",
> "unencyclopedic", or "unreferenced".)
>
> I don't know. Am I even asking the right questions?
>
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> ‪“We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.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
Very good. If any willing editor runs into trouble or is made to feel unwelcome or subjected to unfair criticism, that is the time to intervene. We are however not in a position to discourage women or minority editors from "recruiting" or encouraging other minority editors or women to edit. Any difficulties with that they will have to learn for themselves though experience with those they have recruited and feedback from them.

I think we can point out areas of knowledge that are poorly covered, as well as those that are overdone.

Fred

----- Original Message -----
From: Romaine Wiki <[hidden email]>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Mon, 14 May 2018 23:39:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

Was it the first time I noticed this subject in the Wikimedia movement, no.
It happens too many times that people get frustrated because the gender,
color of their skin or native background is the key reason to ask someone,
instead of the qualities that this person has.

There are two main reasons why I do not go into further detail:
1. the privacy of this individual is something I can't ignore
2. My previous email gives an example in a generic topic, and the topic is
not about an individual case.

Also is zooming in on an individual case not a solution, as we need to be
aware as movement how we are perceived by others.

I disagree that it is related to the attitude of an individual. The way how
someone will respond to it is depending on the attitude yes. But I think
that being asked for something just because of the colour of your face is
degrading you from being a person with various qualities and/or the work
you do. The possible demotivation is the result, but the core is in the
approach itself.

But yes, it is a difficult topic. But in this case it is much harder for
that individual who (temporarily?) gave up on editing/contributing.


I think it comes to inclusiveness, being able to include anyone independent
from how a face looks like. being inclusive to anyone, so that all the
knowledge of the world can be collected.
What we should not do is trying to be inclusive by being exclusive. We
should be making it possible for anyone to have a safe and pleasant space
and in that way bridge the gaps, instead of just trying to ask specific
people to come for the colour of their skin, etc. As said, that last thing
is creating gaps instead of closing them.

Romaine



2018-05-07 8:03 GMT+02:00 Amir E. Aharoni <[hidden email]>:

> This is a sensitive topic, and I'm a white man myself, so please slap me if
> I say something dumb.
>
> 2018-05-07 7:10 GMT+03:00 Romaine Wiki <[hidden email]>:
>
> >
> > What has happened?
> >
> > She was invited to participate in a Wikimedia activity, because:
> > 1. she is a woman
> > 2. she is from a minority
> > 3. she is from an area in the world with much less editors (compared to
> > Europe/US)
> >
> > and perhaps also because her colour of her skin is a bit different then
> > mine (Caucasian).
> >
> > At the same time she has the impression that the work she does on the
> > Wikimedia wiki('s) is not valued, nor taken into account.
> >
>
> By whom?
>
> By the people who invited her?
>
> By other participants in the event?
>
> By other editors in the same wiki site?
>
> By the readers?
>
>
>
> > She does not want to be invited because she is a woman, nor because she
> is
> > from a minority, nor ....... etc. This is offensive.
> > She only wants to be invited because of the work she contributes on
> > Wikipedia/etc.
> >
>
> This makes a lot of sense to me, but that's just me and attitudes are
> different for each person.
>
>
> > Besides the many good initiatives and intentions, this kind of approaches
> > to our contributors is demotivating them, please be aware of this.
>
>
> Again, it's probably demotivating to some. Maybe to 98%, maybe to 30%,
> maybe to 5%. I honestly don't know.
>
> I believe demotivation/frustration is the largest problem we face as
> > movement.
> >
>
> I don't know if its the biggest problem. On this mailing list we are a
> small group of meta-active Wikimedians, and we are the minority among
> editors. We don't actually represent all the editors. And of course the
> editors are a tiny minority compared to the readers.
>
> I'd argue that the hard time that some editors are giving newcomers is a
> bigger problem. Gender is certainly a part of that, and there are many
> other parts.
>
> We meta-wikimedians can find a better way to invite people to events, and
> we can change ourselves. That doesn't sound too hard. Changing the wider
> editor culture is harder.
>
> I heard from people that the problem described is called tokenism
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokenism>.
> >
>
> Yes, that's when representation is given to a weakened group, but that
> representation is too weak to be meaningful, and may do more harm than
> good.
>
>
> > I believe the only way to close the gaps related to gender, minorities,
> > etc, is to create an atmosphere in what everyone is appreciated for what
> > she/he is doing, completely unrelated to the gender someone appears to
> > have, the ethnicity, race, area of the world, etc etc etc etc.
> >
>
> So that's where it gets really complicated, because it's always related, in
> ways that are sometimes visible and sometimes invisible.
>
> Let's take school education as a hopefully easy example. People from
> different areas of the world will have very different things to write about
> it. In some areas of the world everybody gets school education—boys and
> girls, rich and poor, rural and urban. In other areas it may be only boys;
> or only people in cities; or only people who know a certain language; or
> only people who belong to a certain religion; or only people who have a
> certain amount of money; or only people who have a certain skin color. I
> want articles about education to have contributions from as many people as
> possible, from different genders, from different skin colors, and from
> different areas, and so on.
>
> An American white woman has different things to say about education from an
> American black man. These differences are important and frequently
> discussed in American media. But the American white woman and the American
> black man *don't even imagine* what people from The Philippines have to say
> about education. What people from the Philippines have to say about
> education probably has little to do with the internal American debates on
> this topic. And of course it breaks down further, because a person who
> lives in the capital of Philippines and knows English has different things
> to say about education from a person who lives in a village in Philippines
> and doesn't know English.
>
> On articles about education I want to hear from all of them. And about
> every other topic. (And yes, I want contributions from people who don't
> know English in the English Wikipedia. By definition they cannot contribute
> directly, but we must do everything we can to make at least an indirect
> contribution possible.)
>
> How do we do it right?
>
> How do we get more different people to even try to contribute to articles?
> How do we get everybody's contributions to be accepted? (Guess whose
> contributions are more likely to be challenged as "non-notable",
> "unencyclopedic", or "unreferenced".)
>
> I don't know. Am I even asking the right questions?
>
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> ‪“We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>


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

mathieu lovato stumpf guntz
In reply to this post by Peter Southwood
Hello Peter, and the rest of the rest of the list

(Please let me know if you feel like replying with a few months delay is
perceived as an unwanted behavior, at list on the list. I don't feel
like this issue as been closed in the mid time, so it seems to me that
it is still relevant to provide some feedback.)

I would rather say, "if not recorded". And I think we already have all
the necessary projects to publish the raw audio/video material (Commons)
from which can be transcribed original interviews (Wikinews), before
making researches that cross their informations, analyze them and aim to
produce some syntheses/conclusions (Wikiversity), that might possibly
serve as reference for Wikipedia¹. But even in the case were the
Wikipedia step is not happening, the firsts elements are also worthy
contributions to the sum of all knowledge and we should, to my mind,
encourage, conduct and praise them as such.

Cheers,
mathieu

Le 11/05/2018 à 06:34, Peter Southwood a écrit :

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

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
1234