[Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

Rui Correia-2
Dear Colleagues at the Foundation

I just came across an artecle called "White Africans of European ancestry".
What is that even supposed to mean?  Who would be any other "white people"
if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a
definition of "white people" could these be? Especially as it already says
on the talk page that Arabs don't count.


When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about 'white
people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, then we
can't call the WP an encyclopaedia. But them the rules do say - somewhere -
that "just because ...". And those "just because" rules are all over the
place - you can't use what was done in one case to justify another similar
case because someone is bound to throw a "just because" rule at you. But
the "just because ..." rule applies only when it is convenient - the
corollary of the "just because .." is "I know more rules and tricks than
you and I will win this/ I will not allow you to have your way even if I
have to break all the rules and make new ones as I go along".

So, "just because" there isn't an artice about "Khoi people living in
Denmark" is no reason to not have an article about "White Europens of
Europen descent livng in Patagonia" or "White Europens of Europen descent
livng in Timbaktu". We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the digital
divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans do.
That is not an encyclopaedia.

Why don't we have a page on "Black Americans of African ancestry"?
Or "Black Europeans of African ancestry"? Strangely enough, type "Black
African" and you get redirected to Black people, BUT the redirect actually
takes you all the way down to Africa - yes, the article on Black people
does not start with Africa, but with the United States, then Brazil ....

Like I said, When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article
about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi
people, ...

The same goes for the so-called "Biographies of Living People". I had my
first clash on WP on the issue of the "dual nationality" of Nelly Furtado.
Two hundred million people see her as Portuguese, three - yes, 3 - editors
disagree and BRAG they will NEVER ALLOW it. The rationale changes, as can
be seen from the talk pages and archives. They go as far as 'challenging'
editors that NF sees herself as Portuguese, to then dismiss all the
evidence as not good enough - even Nelly HERSELF saying she is PORTUGESE
was thrown out! Why? Obvious! She doesn't count, she is not a NEUTRAL
source!!!!!!!!!!! We have become a joke!

How about being constructive?

If we can come up with every conceivable script in the world, why has
nobody come up with a script for controversial articles that would appear
on the the edit page - like the script that says the article is protected -
ALERTING unsuspecting editors to the fact that said article is cotroversial
for xand y reason, and that if the edit the editor is about to do falls
under that theme, to please first read the talk page, with a direct link
ALSO to an explanation on BLP and the issue of ethnic background/ present
nationality. It would save lots of wasted time and effort and the three
editors who spend sleepless nights reverting the artcile might actually do
something constructive for a change.

In closing, of the nine people featured in photos on that page, I know
(have met 5) and correspond with 2 - I can guarantee that all five of them
(and most likley all 9 [or the descendents of those no longer with us])
would object to being featured in such a racist article.

I will write to them about this. I know that each one is not a valid source
about him/ herself and therefore them objecting will probably not count.
Just as an side, in case you didn't know, the census in Brazil is done on
the basis of how people see themselves - white, back, green, pink - and
then we carry those figures here in the WP. Ah, sorry, those figures are
credible, because they come from the CIA fact book, people speaking for
themselves are not.


Best regards,

Rui
--
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant




--
_________________________
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
_______________
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

Fred Bauder-2
> Dear Colleagues at the Foundation
>
> I just came across an artecle called "White Africans of European
> ancestry".
> What is that even supposed to mean?  Who would be any other "white
> people"
> if not of Europen ancestry?

The Ainu people, not that it matters.

Fred


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

Denny Vrandečić
In reply to this post by Rui Correia-2
Rui,

if your basic assumption is that Wikipedia will never be a real
encyclopedia because of the lack of diversity among its contributors, I
would like to know of any other encyclopedia that is anywhere close to the
diversity among its contributors that Wikipedia has (just a side-note, the
original Encyclopédie had an even worse bias towards aristocratic, male
French than Wikipedias does, as surprising as it sounds). So, which
Encyclopedia do you consider a real encyclopedia at all?

Also, never mind the fact that we already sport such a diversity -- we are
actively aiming and striving for even more diversity, and we are not
comparing us to the usually abysmal record of other encyclopedias, but
merely to our own high, maybe even unreachable ideals.

So, whereas I fully agree that there is a lot about Wikipedia that can be
improved, I am not sure that a mail that starts with the statement "Why the
Wikipedia will never be a real encyclopedia" deserves even the
consideration that I offered you here, and is to be considered anything
beyond trolling.

All the best,
Denny



2013/8/1 Rui Correia <[hidden email]>

> Dear Colleagues at the Foundation
>
> I just came across an artecle called "White Africans of European ancestry".
> What is that even supposed to mean?  Who would be any other "white people"
> if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a
> definition of "white people" could these be? Especially as it already says
> on the talk page that Arabs don't count.
>
>
> When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about 'white
> people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, then we
> can't call the WP an encyclopaedia. But them the rules do say - somewhere -
> that "just because ...". And those "just because" rules are all over the
> place - you can't use what was done in one case to justify another similar
> case because someone is bound to throw a "just because" rule at you. But
> the "just because ..." rule applies only when it is convenient - the
> corollary of the "just because .." is "I know more rules and tricks than
> you and I will win this/ I will not allow you to have your way even if I
> have to break all the rules and make new ones as I go along".
>
> So, "just because" there isn't an artice about "Khoi people living in
> Denmark" is no reason to not have an article about "White Europens of
> Europen descent livng in Patagonia" or "White Europens of Europen descent
> livng in Timbaktu". We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the digital
> divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans do.
> That is not an encyclopaedia.
>
> Why don't we have a page on "Black Americans of African ancestry"?
> Or "Black Europeans of African ancestry"? Strangely enough, type "Black
> African" and you get redirected to Black people, BUT the redirect actually
> takes you all the way down to Africa - yes, the article on Black people
> does not start with Africa, but with the United States, then Brazil ....
>
> Like I said, When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article
> about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi
> people, ...
>
> The same goes for the so-called "Biographies of Living People". I had my
> first clash on WP on the issue of the "dual nationality" of Nelly Furtado.
> Two hundred million people see her as Portuguese, three - yes, 3 - editors
> disagree and BRAG they will NEVER ALLOW it. The rationale changes, as can
> be seen from the talk pages and archives. They go as far as 'challenging'
> editors that NF sees herself as Portuguese, to then dismiss all the
> evidence as not good enough - even Nelly HERSELF saying she is PORTUGESE
> was thrown out! Why? Obvious! She doesn't count, she is not a NEUTRAL
> source!!!!!!!!!!! We have become a joke!
>
> How about being constructive?
>
> If we can come up with every conceivable script in the world, why has
> nobody come up with a script for controversial articles that would appear
> on the the edit page - like the script that says the article is protected -
> ALERTING unsuspecting editors to the fact that said article is cotroversial
> for xand y reason, and that if the edit the editor is about to do falls
> under that theme, to please first read the talk page, with a direct link
> ALSO to an explanation on BLP and the issue of ethnic background/ present
> nationality. It would save lots of wasted time and effort and the three
> editors who spend sleepless nights reverting the artcile might actually do
> something constructive for a change.
>
> In closing, of the nine people featured in photos on that page, I know
> (have met 5) and correspond with 2 - I can guarantee that all five of them
> (and most likley all 9 [or the descendents of those no longer with us])
> would object to being featured in such a racist article.
>
> I will write to them about this. I know that each one is not a valid source
> about him/ herself and therefore them objecting will probably not count.
> Just as an side, in case you didn't know, the census in Brazil is done on
> the basis of how people see themselves - white, back, green, pink - and
> then we carry those figures here in the WP. Ah, sorry, those figures are
> credible, because they come from the CIA fact book, people speaking for
> themselves are not.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rui
> --
> Rui Correia
> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
>
>
>
>
> --
> _________________________
> Rui Correia
> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
> Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
>
> Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
> Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
> _______________
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>




--
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

Mark
In reply to this post by Rui Correia-2
On 8/1/13 10:22 PM, Rui Correia wrote:
> So, "just because" there isn't an artice about "Khoi people living in
> Denmark" is no reason to not have an article about "White Europens of
> Europen descent livng in Patagonia" or "White Europens of Europen descent
> livng in Timbaktu". We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the digital
> divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans do.
>

There are a surprising number of such articles, though not specifically
on Khoi people living in Denmark (yet). One can, however, read about
[[Chinese people in Denmark]], [[Pakistanis in Denmark]], [[Somalis in
Sweden]], and likewise for many pairs of X-in-Y.

I agree there is systemic bias in which subset of such X-in-Y pairs have
articles, especially good ones. I suspect systemic bias in the
availability of English-language sources is one contributing factor (and
likewise the availability of German-language sources for the analogous
de.wiki articles, etc.).

-Mark


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

Rui Correia-2
In reply to this post by Denny Vrandečić
Denny

If you going to shoot me down as a troll, then I can say only that you are
one of those that refuse to see the elephant in the room. I am a journalist
(and a journalism trainer), I know that if I want others to read what I
have to say I need to come up a headline that will attract attention, while
at the same time abiding by age-old ethic standards - and I have done so.

Who controls what is said has become a big problem on the English and to a
degree the Portuguese WPs. Be fair to yourself, step back and just look at
some articles to see how many times a day they get reverted. The rot has
become endemic - there are so many people who do nothing but revert the
whole day without EVER contributing anything. Yes, I know that a lot of the
reverting is to undo the work of vandals with nothing better to do, but
most of it is done to preserve the view thae a specific article has
'acquired' through time.

Can you honesty tell me that you have not come across articles that are
'untouchable'? That you know they convey a view that is not entirely right,
but YOU and I cannot change it? Can you tell me that you have not come
across editors who are hell-bent on preserving this or that article just as
it is?

Rui

On 1 August 2013 22:40, Denny Vrandečić <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Rui,
>
> if your basic assumption is that Wikipedia will never be a real
> encyclopedia because of the lack of diversity among its contributors, I
> would like to know of any other encyclopedia that is anywhere close to the
> diversity among its contributors that Wikipedia has (just a side-note, the
> original Encyclopédie had an even worse bias towards aristocratic, male
> French than Wikipedias does, as surprising as it sounds). So, which
> Encyclopedia do you consider a real encyclopedia at all?
>
> Also, never mind the fact that we already sport such a diversity -- we are
> actively aiming and striving for even more diversity, and we are not
> comparing us to the usually abysmal record of other encyclopedias, but
> merely to our own high, maybe even unreachable ideals.
>
> So, whereas I fully agree that there is a lot about Wikipedia that can be
> improved, I am not sure that a mail that starts with the statement "Why the
> Wikipedia will never be a real encyclopedia" deserves even the
> consideration that I offered you here, and is to be considered anything
> beyond trolling.
>
> All the best,
> Denny
>
>
>
> 2013/8/1 Rui Correia <[hidden email]>
>
> > Dear Colleagues at the Foundation
> >
> > I just came across an artecle called "White Africans of European
> ancestry".
> > What is that even supposed to mean?  Who would be any other "white
> people"
> > if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a
> > definition of "white people" could these be? Especially as it already
> says
> > on the talk page that Arabs don't count.
> >
> >
> > When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about
> 'white
> > people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, then we
> > can't call the WP an encyclopaedia. But them the rules do say -
> somewhere -
> > that "just because ...". And those "just because" rules are all over the
> > place - you can't use what was done in one case to justify another
> similar
> > case because someone is bound to throw a "just because" rule at you. But
> > the "just because ..." rule applies only when it is convenient - the
> > corollary of the "just because .." is "I know more rules and tricks than
> > you and I will win this/ I will not allow you to have your way even if I
> > have to break all the rules and make new ones as I go along".
> >
> > So, "just because" there isn't an artice about "Khoi people living in
> > Denmark" is no reason to not have an article about "White Europens of
> > Europen descent livng in Patagonia" or "White Europens of Europen descent
> > livng in Timbaktu". We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the
> digital
> > divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans do.
> > That is not an encyclopaedia.
> >
> > Why don't we have a page on "Black Americans of African ancestry"?
> > Or "Black Europeans of African ancestry"? Strangely enough, type "Black
> > African" and you get redirected to Black people, BUT the redirect
> actually
> > takes you all the way down to Africa - yes, the article on Black people
> > does not start with Africa, but with the United States, then Brazil ....
> >
> > Like I said, When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable
> article
> > about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi
> > people, ...
> >
> > The same goes for the so-called "Biographies of Living People". I had my
> > first clash on WP on the issue of the "dual nationality" of Nelly
> Furtado.
> > Two hundred million people see her as Portuguese, three - yes, 3 -
> editors
> > disagree and BRAG they will NEVER ALLOW it. The rationale changes, as can
> > be seen from the talk pages and archives. They go as far as 'challenging'
> > editors that NF sees herself as Portuguese, to then dismiss all the
> > evidence as not good enough - even Nelly HERSELF saying she is PORTUGESE
> > was thrown out! Why? Obvious! She doesn't count, she is not a NEUTRAL
> > source!!!!!!!!!!! We have become a joke!
> >
> > How about being constructive?
> >
> > If we can come up with every conceivable script in the world, why has
> > nobody come up with a script for controversial articles that would appear
> > on the the edit page - like the script that says the article is
> protected -
> > ALERTING unsuspecting editors to the fact that said article is
> cotroversial
> > for xand y reason, and that if the edit the editor is about to do falls
> > under that theme, to please first read the talk page, with a direct link
> > ALSO to an explanation on BLP and the issue of ethnic background/ present
> > nationality. It would save lots of wasted time and effort and the three
> > editors who spend sleepless nights reverting the artcile might actually
> do
> > something constructive for a change.
> >
> > In closing, of the nine people featured in photos on that page, I know
> > (have met 5) and correspond with 2 - I can guarantee that all five of
> them
> > (and most likley all 9 [or the descendents of those no longer with us])
> > would object to being featured in such a racist article.
> >
> > I will write to them about this. I know that each one is not a valid
> source
> > about him/ herself and therefore them objecting will probably not count.
> > Just as an side, in case you didn't know, the census in Brazil is done on
> > the basis of how people see themselves - white, back, green, pink - and
> > then we carry those figures here in the WP. Ah, sorry, those figures are
> > credible, because they come from the CIA fact book, people speaking for
> > themselves are not.
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Rui
> > --
> > Rui Correia
> > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > _________________________
> > Rui Correia
> > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
> > Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
> >
> > Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
> > Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
> > _______________
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Project director Wikidata
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
_________________________
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
_______________
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

Rui Correia-2
Denny

PS: Your email is a typical case of "shooting the messenger". I have seen
far too often that we seem to prefer that we don;t see the elephant in the
room.

What happens to emails such as mine? Nothing. They get flushed down the
gutter of electronic waste. There are so many bodies within the Foundation,
is there a a body that specifically listens to people to be abe to gauge
the mood of the masses of editors? And I don't mean that internal/ built-in
dispute resolution mechanisms because you know just as I do that those are
dominated by the same kind of people who want to preserve a specific point
of view.

Rui

On 1 August 2013 22:55, Rui Correia <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Denny
>
> If you going to shoot me down as a troll, then I can say only that you are
> one of those that refuse to see the elephant in the room. I am a journalist
> (and a journalism trainer), I know that if I want others to read what I
> have to say I need to come up a headline that will attract attention, while
> at the same time abiding by age-old ethic standards - and I have done so.
>
> Who controls what is said has become a big problem on the English and to a
> degree the Portuguese WPs. Be fair to yourself, step back and just look at
> some articles to see how many times a day they get reverted. The rot has
> become endemic - there are so many people who do nothing but revert the
> whole day without EVER contributing anything. Yes, I know that a lot of the
> reverting is to undo the work of vandals with nothing better to do, but
> most of it is done to preserve the view thae a specific article has
> 'acquired' through time.
>
> Can you honesty tell me that you have not come across articles that are
> 'untouchable'? That you know they convey a view that is not entirely right,
> but YOU and I cannot change it? Can you tell me that you have not come
> across editors who are hell-bent on preserving this or that article just as
> it is?
>
> Rui
>
> On 1 August 2013 22:40, Denny Vrandečić <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> Rui,
>>
>> if your basic assumption is that Wikipedia will never be a real
>> encyclopedia because of the lack of diversity among its contributors, I
>> would like to know of any other encyclopedia that is anywhere close to the
>> diversity among its contributors that Wikipedia has (just a side-note, the
>> original Encyclopédie had an even worse bias towards aristocratic, male
>> French than Wikipedias does, as surprising as it sounds). So, which
>> Encyclopedia do you consider a real encyclopedia at all?
>>
>> Also, never mind the fact that we already sport such a diversity -- we are
>> actively aiming and striving for even more diversity, and we are not
>> comparing us to the usually abysmal record of other encyclopedias, but
>> merely to our own high, maybe even unreachable ideals.
>>
>> So, whereas I fully agree that there is a lot about Wikipedia that can be
>> improved, I am not sure that a mail that starts with the statement "Why
>> the
>> Wikipedia will never be a real encyclopedia" deserves even the
>> consideration that I offered you here, and is to be considered anything
>> beyond trolling.
>>
>> All the best,
>> Denny
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/8/1 Rui Correia <[hidden email]>
>>
>> > Dear Colleagues at the Foundation
>> >
>> > I just came across an artecle called "White Africans of European
>> ancestry".
>> > What is that even supposed to mean?  Who would be any other "white
>> people"
>> > if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a
>> > definition of "white people" could these be? Especially as it already
>> says
>> > on the talk page that Arabs don't count.
>> >
>> >
>> > When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about
>> 'white
>> > people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, then
>> we
>> > can't call the WP an encyclopaedia. But them the rules do say -
>> somewhere -
>> > that "just because ...". And those "just because" rules are all over the
>> > place - you can't use what was done in one case to justify another
>> similar
>> > case because someone is bound to throw a "just because" rule at you. But
>> > the "just because ..." rule applies only when it is convenient - the
>> > corollary of the "just because .." is "I know more rules and tricks than
>> > you and I will win this/ I will not allow you to have your way even if I
>> > have to break all the rules and make new ones as I go along".
>> >
>> > So, "just because" there isn't an artice about "Khoi people living in
>> > Denmark" is no reason to not have an article about "White Europens of
>> > Europen descent livng in Patagonia" or "White Europens of Europen
>> descent
>> > livng in Timbaktu". We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the
>> digital
>> > divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans do.
>> > That is not an encyclopaedia.
>> >
>> > Why don't we have a page on "Black Americans of African ancestry"?
>> > Or "Black Europeans of African ancestry"? Strangely enough, type "Black
>> > African" and you get redirected to Black people, BUT the redirect
>> actually
>> > takes you all the way down to Africa - yes, the article on Black people
>> > does not start with Africa, but with the United States, then Brazil ....
>> >
>> > Like I said, When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable
>> article
>> > about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi
>> > people, ...
>> >
>> > The same goes for the so-called "Biographies of Living People". I had my
>> > first clash on WP on the issue of the "dual nationality" of Nelly
>> Furtado.
>> > Two hundred million people see her as Portuguese, three - yes, 3 -
>> editors
>> > disagree and BRAG they will NEVER ALLOW it. The rationale changes, as
>> can
>> > be seen from the talk pages and archives. They go as far as
>> 'challenging'
>> > editors that NF sees herself as Portuguese, to then dismiss all the
>> > evidence as not good enough - even Nelly HERSELF saying she is PORTUGESE
>> > was thrown out! Why? Obvious! She doesn't count, she is not a NEUTRAL
>> > source!!!!!!!!!!! We have become a joke!
>> >
>> > How about being constructive?
>> >
>> > If we can come up with every conceivable script in the world, why has
>> > nobody come up with a script for controversial articles that would
>> appear
>> > on the the edit page - like the script that says the article is
>> protected -
>> > ALERTING unsuspecting editors to the fact that said article is
>> cotroversial
>> > for xand y reason, and that if the edit the editor is about to do falls
>> > under that theme, to please first read the talk page, with a direct link
>> > ALSO to an explanation on BLP and the issue of ethnic background/
>> present
>> > nationality. It would save lots of wasted time and effort and the three
>> > editors who spend sleepless nights reverting the artcile might actually
>> do
>> > something constructive for a change.
>> >
>> > In closing, of the nine people featured in photos on that page, I know
>> > (have met 5) and correspond with 2 - I can guarantee that all five of
>> them
>> > (and most likley all 9 [or the descendents of those no longer with us])
>> > would object to being featured in such a racist article.
>> >
>> > I will write to them about this. I know that each one is not a valid
>> source
>> > about him/ herself and therefore them objecting will probably not count.
>> > Just as an side, in case you didn't know, the census in Brazil is done
>> on
>> > the basis of how people see themselves - white, back, green, pink - and
>> > then we carry those figures here in the WP. Ah, sorry, those figures are
>> > credible, because they come from the CIA fact book, people speaking for
>> > themselves are not.
>> >
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > Rui
>> > --
>> > Rui Correia
>> > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > _________________________
>> > Rui Correia
>> > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
>> > Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
>> >
>> > Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
>> > Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
>> > _______________
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Project director Wikidata
>> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
>> Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de
>>
>> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
>> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
>> unter
>> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
>> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> _________________________
> Rui Correia
> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
> Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
>
> Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
> Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
> _______________
>
>



--
_________________________
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
_______________
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

Asaf Bartov-2
In reply to this post by Rui Correia-2
Your disqualification of Wikipedia from being called an encyclopedia is, of
course, equally (indeed, more) applicable to _all other encyclopedias,
ever_.  It is therefore incumbent on your to either agree that there has
never been "an encyclopedia" yet, or that your bar for what constitutes an
encyclopedia is not a useful one.

We all agree the Khoi, and African topics in general (but also Vietnamese,
and Guatemalan, and Albanian, and...[1]) are underrepresented in the
volunteer-built encyclopedia we all cherish.

What _would_ be useful are realistic ideas about how to address this
underrepresentation.

   A.

[1] Two years ago, I spent 5-minutes preparing a presentation that makes
this point when someone suggested that the English Wikipedia is... kinda
done?  It's at http://prezi.com/szjdvdbtl0j_/is-wikipedia-done/


On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Rui Correia <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear Colleagues at the Foundation
>
> I just came across an artecle called "White Africans of European ancestry".
> What is that even supposed to mean?  Who would be any other "white people"
> if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a
> definition of "white people" could these be? Especially as it already says
> on the talk page that Arabs don't count.
>
>
> When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about 'white
> people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, then we
> can't call the WP an encyclopaedia. But them the rules do say - somewhere -
> that "just because ...". And those "just because" rules are all over the
> place - you can't use what was done in one case to justify another similar
> case because someone is bound to throw a "just because" rule at you. But
> the "just because ..." rule applies only when it is convenient - the
> corollary of the "just because .." is "I know more rules and tricks than
> you and I will win this/ I will not allow you to have your way even if I
> have to break all the rules and make new ones as I go along".
>
> So, "just because" there isn't an artice about "Khoi people living in
> Denmark" is no reason to not have an article about "White Europens of
> Europen descent livng in Patagonia" or "White Europens of Europen descent
> livng in Timbaktu". We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the digital
> divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans do.
> That is not an encyclopaedia.
>
> Why don't we have a page on "Black Americans of African ancestry"?
> Or "Black Europeans of African ancestry"? Strangely enough, type "Black
> African" and you get redirected to Black people, BUT the redirect actually
> takes you all the way down to Africa - yes, the article on Black people
> does not start with Africa, but with the United States, then Brazil ....
>
> Like I said, When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article
> about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi
> people, ...
>
> The same goes for the so-called "Biographies of Living People". I had my
> first clash on WP on the issue of the "dual nationality" of Nelly Furtado.
> Two hundred million people see her as Portuguese, three - yes, 3 - editors
> disagree and BRAG they will NEVER ALLOW it. The rationale changes, as can
> be seen from the talk pages and archives. They go as far as 'challenging'
> editors that NF sees herself as Portuguese, to then dismiss all the
> evidence as not good enough - even Nelly HERSELF saying she is PORTUGESE
> was thrown out! Why? Obvious! She doesn't count, she is not a NEUTRAL
> source!!!!!!!!!!! We have become a joke!
>
> How about being constructive?
>
> If we can come up with every conceivable script in the world, why has
> nobody come up with a script for controversial articles that would appear
> on the the edit page - like the script that says the article is protected -
> ALERTING unsuspecting editors to the fact that said article is cotroversial
> for xand y reason, and that if the edit the editor is about to do falls
> under that theme, to please first read the talk page, with a direct link
> ALSO to an explanation on BLP and the issue of ethnic background/ present
> nationality. It would save lots of wasted time and effort and the three
> editors who spend sleepless nights reverting the artcile might actually do
> something constructive for a change.
>
> In closing, of the nine people featured in photos on that page, I know
> (have met 5) and correspond with 2 - I can guarantee that all five of them
> (and most likley all 9 [or the descendents of those no longer with us])
> would object to being featured in such a racist article.
>
> I will write to them about this. I know that each one is not a valid source
> about him/ herself and therefore them objecting will probably not count.
> Just as an side, in case you didn't know, the census in Brazil is done on
> the basis of how people see themselves - white, back, green, pink - and
> then we carry those figures here in the WP. Ah, sorry, those figures are
> credible, because they come from the CIA fact book, people speaking for
> themselves are not.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rui
> --
> Rui Correia
> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
>
>
>
>
> --
> _________________________
> Rui Correia
> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
> Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
>
> Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
> Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
> _______________
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>




--
    Asaf Bartov
    Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

Laura Hale
In reply to this post by Rui Correia-2
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Rui Correia <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> Can you honesty tell me that you have not come across articles that are
> 'untouchable'? That you know they convey a view that is not entirely right,
> but YOU and I cannot change it? Can you tell me that you have not come
> across editors who are hell-bent on preserving this or that article just as
> it is?
>
>
I too am a journalist with my work published on two different continents in
print.   I am also a social media metrics lover.  As a journalist, I value
verifiable, fact based, neutral reporting.

If you are making the claim that English and Portuguese Wikipedia are
doomed, I would love to see some verifiable, fact based, neutral oriented
data sets to support the claim, especially as this would imply systematic
bias on a large scale.  You have pulled one article and non-neutrally
labeled it as a representative article for all projects.  Yes, I know of a
number of articles and topics that are pretty much untouchable but this is
far from 99% of all articles on the project.  (I would put the number at
probably 0.1% and that feels generous.)  This feels like a sensationalist
claim (which I would normally say is trumped up by the media in order to
spin a story, but this is not a media story) based on one or two articles.

Bad research.  Bad reporting. There are ways to get attention to this VERY,
VERY important topic without resorting to sensationalist calls that have
little thoughtful documentation.

--
twitter: purplepopple
blog: ozziesport.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

Rui Correia-2
In reply to this post by Asaf Bartov-2
Asaf

So you mostly agree with m, but prefer to come out knee-jerking first and
only after that showing that you somehow agree.

The elephant in the room is so big that we there isn't even enough room to
breathe properly to get enough oxygen to our brains.

Rui

On 1 August 2013 23:10, Asaf Bartov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Your disqualification of Wikipedia from being called an encyclopedia is, of
> course, equally (indeed, more) applicable to _all other encyclopedias,
> ever_.  It is therefore incumbent on your to either agree that there has
> never been "an encyclopedia" yet, or that your bar for what constitutes an
> encyclopedia is not a useful one.
>
> We all agree the Khoi, and African topics in general (but also Vietnamese,
> and Guatemalan, and Albanian, and...[1]) are underrepresented in the
> volunteer-built encyclopedia we all cherish.
>
> What _would_ be useful are realistic ideas about how to address this
> underrepresentation.
>
>    A.
>
> [1] Two years ago, I spent 5-minutes preparing a presentation that makes
> this point when someone suggested that the English Wikipedia is... kinda
> done?  It's at http://prezi.com/szjdvdbtl0j_/is-wikipedia-done/
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Rui Correia <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Dear Colleagues at the Foundation
> >
> > I just came across an artecle called "White Africans of European
> ancestry".
> > What is that even supposed to mean?  Who would be any other "white
> people"
> > if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a
> > definition of "white people" could these be? Especially as it already
> says
> > on the talk page that Arabs don't count.
> >
> >
> > When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about
> 'white
> > people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, then we
> > can't call the WP an encyclopaedia. But them the rules do say -
> somewhere -
> > that "just because ...". And those "just because" rules are all over the
> > place - you can't use what was done in one case to justify another
> similar
> > case because someone is bound to throw a "just because" rule at you. But
> > the "just because ..." rule applies only when it is convenient - the
> > corollary of the "just because .." is "I know more rules and tricks than
> > you and I will win this/ I will not allow you to have your way even if I
> > have to break all the rules and make new ones as I go along".
> >
> > So, "just because" there isn't an artice about "Khoi people living in
> > Denmark" is no reason to not have an article about "White Europens of
> > Europen descent livng in Patagonia" or "White Europens of Europen descent
> > livng in Timbaktu". We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the
> digital
> > divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans do.
> > That is not an encyclopaedia.
> >
> > Why don't we have a page on "Black Americans of African ancestry"?
> > Or "Black Europeans of African ancestry"? Strangely enough, type "Black
> > African" and you get redirected to Black people, BUT the redirect
> actually
> > takes you all the way down to Africa - yes, the article on Black people
> > does not start with Africa, but with the United States, then Brazil ....
> >
> > Like I said, When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable
> article
> > about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi
> > people, ...
> >
> > The same goes for the so-called "Biographies of Living People". I had my
> > first clash on WP on the issue of the "dual nationality" of Nelly
> Furtado.
> > Two hundred million people see her as Portuguese, three - yes, 3 -
> editors
> > disagree and BRAG they will NEVER ALLOW it. The rationale changes, as can
> > be seen from the talk pages and archives. They go as far as 'challenging'
> > editors that NF sees herself as Portuguese, to then dismiss all the
> > evidence as not good enough - even Nelly HERSELF saying she is PORTUGESE
> > was thrown out! Why? Obvious! She doesn't count, she is not a NEUTRAL
> > source!!!!!!!!!!! We have become a joke!
> >
> > How about being constructive?
> >
> > If we can come up with every conceivable script in the world, why has
> > nobody come up with a script for controversial articles that would appear
> > on the the edit page - like the script that says the article is
> protected -
> > ALERTING unsuspecting editors to the fact that said article is
> cotroversial
> > for xand y reason, and that if the edit the editor is about to do falls
> > under that theme, to please first read the talk page, with a direct link
> > ALSO to an explanation on BLP and the issue of ethnic background/ present
> > nationality. It would save lots of wasted time and effort and the three
> > editors who spend sleepless nights reverting the artcile might actually
> do
> > something constructive for a change.
> >
> > In closing, of the nine people featured in photos on that page, I know
> > (have met 5) and correspond with 2 - I can guarantee that all five of
> them
> > (and most likley all 9 [or the descendents of those no longer with us])
> > would object to being featured in such a racist article.
> >
> > I will write to them about this. I know that each one is not a valid
> source
> > about him/ herself and therefore them objecting will probably not count.
> > Just as an side, in case you didn't know, the census in Brazil is done on
> > the basis of how people see themselves - white, back, green, pink - and
> > then we carry those figures here in the WP. Ah, sorry, those figures are
> > credible, because they come from the CIA fact book, people speaking for
> > themselves are not.
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Rui
> > --
> > Rui Correia
> > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > _________________________
> > Rui Correia
> > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
> > Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
> >
> > Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
> > Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
> > _______________
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
>
> --
>     Asaf Bartov
>     Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
>
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> https://donate.wikimedia.org
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
_________________________
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
_______________
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

David Gerard-2
On 1 August 2013 22:19, Rui Correia <[hidden email]> wrote:

> So you mostly agree with m, but prefer to come out knee-jerking first and
> only after that showing that you somehow agree.


No, he's saying you're full of it, because you are. Under your
definition, there has never been an encyclopedia in human history.
This is not a useful definition.

Systemic bias is a serious problem, but writing complete rubbish isn't
going to solve it.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

Rui Correia-2
In reply to this post by Laura Hale
Laura

If this is a "VERY VERY important topiic", as you put it, then why don't
YOU help, instead of joingng the knee-jerking squad? If you agree that it
is a very important topic and you are apparenly a better journalist that
me, why don't you do a better job rather than attacking the messenger?

Answer the folowing questions:
Do we have problems?
Are we tackling them seriously?
Are we attacking the problems or attacking those who raise them?

Rui


On 1 August 2013 23:18, Laura Hale <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Rui Correia <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Can you honesty tell me that you have not come across articles that are
> > 'untouchable'? That you know they convey a view that is not entirely
> right,
> > but YOU and I cannot change it? Can you tell me that you have not come
> > across editors who are hell-bent on preserving this or that article just
> as
> > it is?
> >
> >
> I too am a journalist with my work published on two different continents in
> print.   I am also a social media metrics lover.  As a journalist, I value
> verifiable, fact based, neutral reporting.
>
> If you are making the claim that English and Portuguese Wikipedia are
> doomed, I would love to see some verifiable, fact based, neutral oriented
> data sets to support the claim, especially as this would imply systematic
> bias on a large scale.  You have pulled one article and non-neutrally
> labeled it as a representative article for all projects.  Yes, I know of a
> number of articles and topics that are pretty much untouchable but this is
> far from 99% of all articles on the project.  (I would put the number at
> probably 0.1% and that feels generous.)  This feels like a sensationalist
> claim (which I would normally say is trumped up by the media in order to
> spin a story, but this is not a media story) based on one or two articles.
>
> Bad research.  Bad reporting. There are ways to get attention to this VERY,
> VERY important topic without resorting to sensationalist calls that have
> little thoughtful documentation.
>
> --
> twitter: purplepopple
> blog: ozziesport.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
_________________________
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
_______________
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

Rui Correia-2
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
David

I am glad to see to see that so far everybody agrees with me, just nobody
can see the forest for the trees and most prefer to demonstrate how
offended they feel at my pointing out how naked the emperor is.

So, whereas I write "complete rubbish", what do you do to fight "systemic
bias [which] is a serious problem"?

Rui

On 1 August 2013 23:23, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 1 August 2013 22:19, Rui Correia <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > So you mostly agree with m, but prefer to come out knee-jerking first and
> > only after that showing that you somehow agree.
>
>
> No, he's saying you're full of it, because you are. Under your
> definition, there has never been an encyclopedia in human history.
> This is not a useful definition.
>
> Systemic bias is a serious problem, but writing complete rubbish isn't
> going to solve it.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
_________________________
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
_______________
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

George William Herbert
Let me pose a set of questions -

1; Do you feel this is systemic bias in people not wanting some articles?

2; and/or, do you feel this is systemic bias in people not having yet reached creating some articles?

3; and/or,!do you feel this is systemic bias in lack of depth of coverage in accessible reliable sources of some article topics?

If more than one of the above, what do you feel the relative weights of cause are for that aspect of systemic bias?


George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 1, 2013, at 2:29 PM, Rui Correia <[hidden email]> wrote:

> David
>
> I am glad to see to see that so far everybody agrees with me, just nobody
> can see the forest for the trees and most prefer to demonstrate how
> offended they feel at my pointing out how naked the emperor is.
>
> So, whereas I write "complete rubbish", what do you do to fight "systemic
> bias [which] is a serious problem"?
>
> Rui
>
> On 1 August 2013 23:23, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 1 August 2013 22:19, Rui Correia <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> So you mostly agree with m, but prefer to come out knee-jerking first and
>>> only after that showing that you somehow agree.
>>
>>
>> No, he's saying you're full of it, because you are. Under your
>> definition, there has never been an encyclopedia in human history.
>> This is not a useful definition.
>>
>> Systemic bias is a serious problem, but writing complete rubbish isn't
>> going to solve it.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> _________________________
> Rui Correia
> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
> Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
>
> Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
> Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
> _______________
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

Rui Correia-2
George

Thank you for your interest.

It is a systematic bias in not wanting some POVs. Which is why we got to
the point that we have a whole encyclopaedia governing the issue of POV.

I think a better answer to your question would be provided by doing an
analysis of articles with a high rate of reversals, undoings, 3Rs etc and
what the POV are that lead to that behavour.

Rui

On 1 August 2013 23:38, George Herbert <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Let me pose a set of questions -
>
> 1; Do you feel this is systemic bias in people not wanting some articles?
>
> 2; and/or, do you feel this is systemic bias in people not having yet
> reached creating some articles?
>
> 3; and/or,!do you feel this is systemic bias in lack of depth of coverage
> in accessible reliable sources of some article topics?
>
> If more than one of the above, what do you feel the relative weights of
> cause are for that aspect of systemic bias?
>
>
> George William Herbert
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 1, 2013, at 2:29 PM, Rui Correia <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > David
> >
> > I am glad to see to see that so far everybody agrees with me, just nobody
> > can see the forest for the trees and most prefer to demonstrate how
> > offended they feel at my pointing out how naked the emperor is.
> >
> > So, whereas I write "complete rubbish", what do you do to fight "systemic
> > bias [which] is a serious problem"?
> >
> > Rui
> >
> > On 1 August 2013 23:23, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> On 1 August 2013 22:19, Rui Correia <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> So you mostly agree with m, but prefer to come out knee-jerking first
> and
> >>> only after that showing that you somehow agree.
> >>
> >>
> >> No, he's saying you're full of it, because you are. Under your
> >> definition, there has never been an encyclopedia in human history.
> >> This is not a useful definition.
> >>
> >> Systemic bias is a serious problem, but writing complete rubbish isn't
> >> going to solve it.
> >>
> >>
> >> - d.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > _________________________
> > Rui Correia
> > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
> > Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
> >
> > Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
> > Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
> > _______________
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
_________________________
Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant

Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
_______________
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

George William Herbert

The specific examples you started with are not to my knowledge "problem POVs" - unless one of the White Power groups showed up while I wasn't paying attention.  It would seem much more of the "not gotten there yet" or "not (yet) well covered in reliable sources" for the specific ones.

Am I misunderstanding?

Unless I did miss something, it seems to me that the specific examples were poorly chosen and did not either clearly identify or illustrate the problem you are now getting at.

Which is a real but very complicated problem.


George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 1, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Rui Correia <[hidden email]> wrote:

> George
>
> Thank you for your interest.
>
> It is a systematic bias in not wanting some POVs. Which is why we got to
> the point that we have a whole encyclopaedia governing the issue of POV.
>
> I think a better answer to your question would be provided by doing an
> analysis of articles with a high rate of reversals, undoings, 3Rs etc and
> what the POV are that lead to that behavour.
>
> Rui
>
> On 1 August 2013 23:38, George Herbert <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Let me pose a set of questions -
>>
>> 1; Do you feel this is systemic bias in people not wanting some articles?
>>
>> 2; and/or, do you feel this is systemic bias in people not having yet
>> reached creating some articles?
>>
>> 3; and/or,!do you feel this is systemic bias in lack of depth of coverage
>> in accessible reliable sources of some article topics?
>>
>> If more than one of the above, what do you feel the relative weights of
>> cause are for that aspect of systemic bias?
>>
>>
>> George William Herbert
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Aug 1, 2013, at 2:29 PM, Rui Correia <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> I am glad to see to see that so far everybody agrees with me, just nobody
>>> can see the forest for the trees and most prefer to demonstrate how
>>> offended they feel at my pointing out how naked the emperor is.
>>>
>>> So, whereas I write "complete rubbish", what do you do to fight "systemic
>>> bias [which] is a serious problem"?
>>>
>>> Rui
>>>
>>> On 1 August 2013 23:23, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1 August 2013 22:19, Rui Correia <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So you mostly agree with m, but prefer to come out knee-jerking first
>> and
>>>>> only after that showing that you somehow agree.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, he's saying you're full of it, because you are. Under your
>>>> definition, there has never been an encyclopedia in human history.
>>>> This is not a useful definition.
>>>>
>>>> Systemic bias is a serious problem, but writing complete rubbish isn't
>>>> going to solve it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - d.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> _________________________
>>> Rui Correia
>>> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
>>> Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
>>>
>>> Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
>>> Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
>>> _______________
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> _________________________
> Rui Correia
> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
> Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
>
> Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
> Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
> _______________
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

Oona Castro
In reply to this post by George William Herbert
I rarely jump in controversial topics here in Wikimedia-l, but I've decided
to share my 2 cents today.

I sign up for what Laura Hale said on facts & data based support for such a
claim, but would like just to add a question:
* what does a "real encyclopedia" look like?

While I do see Rui Correia's points on diversity (of content, perspectives
and editors), and while I do agree that's important to call attention to
what could be a (even if unintentional) biased frame to whole set of
subjects, I do not see how this valuable concern and criticism might take
us to the assumption that it's not a "real encyclopedia". At least in
Wikipedia we (I mean anyone) can fight for more diverse approaches on that.

Perhaps changing the framework of such criticism (how can we pursue less
intentional or unintentional biased perspectives in WP?) might lead us to a
more interesting conversation, with more potential to succeed in terms of
real change.

Oona




On 1 August 2013 18:38, George Herbert <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Let me pose a set of questions -
>
> 1; Do you feel this is systemic bias in people not wanting some articles?
>
> 2; and/or, do you feel this is systemic bias in people not having yet
> reached creating some articles?
>
> 3; and/or,!do you feel this is systemic bias in lack of depth of coverage
> in accessible reliable sources of some article topics?
>
> If more than one of the above, what do you feel the relative weights of
> cause are for that aspect of systemic bias?
>
>
> George William Herbert
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 1, 2013, at 2:29 PM, Rui Correia <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > David
> >
> > I am glad to see to see that so far everybody agrees with me, just nobody
> > can see the forest for the trees and most prefer to demonstrate how
> > offended they feel at my pointing out how naked the emperor is.
> >
> > So, whereas I write "complete rubbish", what do you do to fight "systemic
> > bias [which] is a serious problem"?
> >
> > Rui
> >
> > On 1 August 2013 23:23, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> On 1 August 2013 22:19, Rui Correia <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> So you mostly agree with m, but prefer to come out knee-jerking first
> and
> >>> only after that showing that you somehow agree.
> >>
> >>
> >> No, he's saying you're full of it, because you are. Under your
> >> definition, there has never been an encyclopedia in human history.
> >> This is not a useful definition.
> >>
> >> Systemic bias is a serious problem, but writing complete rubbish isn't
> >> going to solve it.
> >>
> >>
> >> - d.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > _________________________
> > Rui Correia
> > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
> > Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
> >
> > Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
> > Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
> > _______________
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

Denny Vrandečić
In reply to this post by Rui Correia-2
Rui,

as others are trying to tell you in this thread, I do not consider the
manner you are raising this topic to be helpful or constructive, and I
don't think that your continued defense of your approach will help or get
us anywhere.

Whereas anecdotal war stories as the one you describe can be either
interesting or boring, it does not provide sufficient evidence to act. On
the other hand, there is a growing body of research work that is trying to
understand the topic of diversity and POV in Wikipedia. Telling me that I
am refusing to see that "elephant in the room" is kind of amusing,
considering that I have co-written the proposal for and have been working
on the EU-funded research project "Render - Reflecting Knowledge Diversity"
[1], where Wikimedia is a project partner. And there are many, many others
doing research on the topic as well. All of the things you describe --
analysis of revert-patterns, approaches towards measuring POV, etc. are
being done. Maybe you want to read the papers about this and look through
the findings.

Also, diversity is a major topic at the work at the German Wikimedia
chapter, where I am employed, and it has been a major driver in the
creation of the data model underlying Wikidata, where we are working hard
on creating a truly diversity-enabling knowledge base -- something, that is
rather unique in its scope and ambition.

So, yes, I am shooting down your message. I find it as useful as telling a
smoker to quit smoking because fire is bad, as evidenced in London 1666.
There is no need to be sensationalist and counter-factual in order to get
your point across. So, why not restart the whole thread with an Email where
you make suggestions on how to improve the situation, or provide new
evidence and data that can inform the conversation further, or where you
ask for existing research on the topic to inform yourself, or ask for
initiatives where you can help in order to increase Wikipedia's diversity,
and join us in doing something constructive?

Regards,
Denny


[1] http://www.render-project.eu





2013/8/1 Rui Correia <[hidden email]>

> Denny
>
> If you going to shoot me down as a troll, then I can say only that you are
> one of those that refuse to see the elephant in the room. I am a journalist
> (and a journalism trainer), I know that if I want others to read what I
> have to say I need to come up a headline that will attract attention, while
> at the same time abiding by age-old ethic standards - and I have done so.
>
> Who controls what is said has become a big problem on the English and to a
> degree the Portuguese WPs. Be fair to yourself, step back and just look at
> some articles to see how many times a day they get reverted. The rot has
> become endemic - there are so many people who do nothing but revert the
> whole day without EVER contributing anything. Yes, I know that a lot of the
> reverting is to undo the work of vandals with nothing better to do, but
> most of it is done to preserve the view thae a specific article has
> 'acquired' through time.
>
> Can you honesty tell me that you have not come across articles that are
> 'untouchable'? That you know they convey a view that is not entirely right,
> but YOU and I cannot change it? Can you tell me that you have not come
> across editors who are hell-bent on preserving this or that article just as
> it is?
>
> Rui
>
> On 1 August 2013 22:40, Denny Vrandečić <[hidden email]
> >wrote:
>
> > Rui,
> >
> > if your basic assumption is that Wikipedia will never be a real
> > encyclopedia because of the lack of diversity among its contributors, I
> > would like to know of any other encyclopedia that is anywhere close to
> the
> > diversity among its contributors that Wikipedia has (just a side-note,
> the
> > original Encyclopédie had an even worse bias towards aristocratic, male
> > French than Wikipedias does, as surprising as it sounds). So, which
> > Encyclopedia do you consider a real encyclopedia at all?
> >
> > Also, never mind the fact that we already sport such a diversity -- we
> are
> > actively aiming and striving for even more diversity, and we are not
> > comparing us to the usually abysmal record of other encyclopedias, but
> > merely to our own high, maybe even unreachable ideals.
> >
> > So, whereas I fully agree that there is a lot about Wikipedia that can be
> > improved, I am not sure that a mail that starts with the statement "Why
> the
> > Wikipedia will never be a real encyclopedia" deserves even the
> > consideration that I offered you here, and is to be considered anything
> > beyond trolling.
> >
> > All the best,
> > Denny
> >
> >
> >
> > 2013/8/1 Rui Correia <[hidden email]>
> >
> > > Dear Colleagues at the Foundation
> > >
> > > I just came across an artecle called "White Africans of European
> > ancestry".
> > > What is that even supposed to mean?  Who would be any other "white
> > people"
> > > if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a
> > > definition of "white people" could these be? Especially as it already
> > says
> > > on the talk page that Arabs don't count.
> > >
> > >
> > > When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about
> > 'white
> > > people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, then
> we
> > > can't call the WP an encyclopaedia. But them the rules do say -
> > somewhere -
> > > that "just because ...". And those "just because" rules are all over
> the
> > > place - you can't use what was done in one case to justify another
> > similar
> > > case because someone is bound to throw a "just because" rule at you.
> But
> > > the "just because ..." rule applies only when it is convenient - the
> > > corollary of the "just because .." is "I know more rules and tricks
> than
> > > you and I will win this/ I will not allow you to have your way even if
> I
> > > have to break all the rules and make new ones as I go along".
> > >
> > > So, "just because" there isn't an artice about "Khoi people living in
> > > Denmark" is no reason to not have an article about "White Europens of
> > > Europen descent livng in Patagonia" or "White Europens of Europen
> descent
> > > livng in Timbaktu". We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the
> > digital
> > > divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans
> do.
> > > That is not an encyclopaedia.
> > >
> > > Why don't we have a page on "Black Americans of African ancestry"?
> > > Or "Black Europeans of African ancestry"? Strangely enough, type "Black
> > > African" and you get redirected to Black people, BUT the redirect
> > actually
> > > takes you all the way down to Africa - yes, the article on Black people
> > > does not start with Africa, but with the United States, then Brazil
> ....
> > >
> > > Like I said, When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable
> > article
> > > about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi
> > > people, ...
> > >
> > > The same goes for the so-called "Biographies of Living People". I had
> my
> > > first clash on WP on the issue of the "dual nationality" of Nelly
> > Furtado.
> > > Two hundred million people see her as Portuguese, three - yes, 3 -
> > editors
> > > disagree and BRAG they will NEVER ALLOW it. The rationale changes, as
> can
> > > be seen from the talk pages and archives. They go as far as
> 'challenging'
> > > editors that NF sees herself as Portuguese, to then dismiss all the
> > > evidence as not good enough - even Nelly HERSELF saying she is
> PORTUGESE
> > > was thrown out! Why? Obvious! She doesn't count, she is not a NEUTRAL
> > > source!!!!!!!!!!! We have become a joke!
> > >
> > > How about being constructive?
> > >
> > > If we can come up with every conceivable script in the world, why has
> > > nobody come up with a script for controversial articles that would
> appear
> > > on the the edit page - like the script that says the article is
> > protected -
> > > ALERTING unsuspecting editors to the fact that said article is
> > cotroversial
> > > for xand y reason, and that if the edit the editor is about to do falls
> > > under that theme, to please first read the talk page, with a direct
> link
> > > ALSO to an explanation on BLP and the issue of ethnic background/
> present
> > > nationality. It would save lots of wasted time and effort and the three
> > > editors who spend sleepless nights reverting the artcile might actually
> > do
> > > something constructive for a change.
> > >
> > > In closing, of the nine people featured in photos on that page, I know
> > > (have met 5) and correspond with 2 - I can guarantee that all five of
> > them
> > > (and most likley all 9 [or the descendents of those no longer with us])
> > > would object to being featured in such a racist article.
> > >
> > > I will write to them about this. I know that each one is not a valid
> > source
> > > about him/ herself and therefore them objecting will probably not
> count.
> > > Just as an side, in case you didn't know, the census in Brazil is done
> on
> > > the basis of how people see themselves - white, back, green, pink - and
> > > then we carry those figures here in the WP. Ah, sorry, those figures
> are
> > > credible, because they come from the CIA fact book, people speaking for
> > > themselves are not.
> > >
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Rui
> > > --
> > > Rui Correia
> > > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > _________________________
> > > Rui Correia
> > > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
> > > Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
> > >
> > > Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
> > > Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
> > > _______________
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Project director Wikidata
> > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
> > Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de
> >
> > Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
> > Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
> unter
> > der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> > Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> _________________________
> Rui Correia
> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
> Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
>
> Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
> Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
> _______________
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Rui Correia-2
Rui, His point is valid. You have a valid point but use an invalid argument
to support it.
Cheers,
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rui Correia" <[hidden email]>
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia


> Asaf
>
> So you mostly agree with m, but prefer to come out knee-jerking first and
> only after that showing that you somehow agree.
>
> The elephant in the room is so big that we there isn't even enough room to
> breathe properly to get enough oxygen to our brains.
>
> Rui
>
> On 1 August 2013 23:10, Asaf Bartov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Your disqualification of Wikipedia from being called an encyclopedia is,
>> of
>> course, equally (indeed, more) applicable to _all other encyclopedias,
>> ever_.  It is therefore incumbent on your to either agree that there has
>> never been "an encyclopedia" yet, or that your bar for what constitutes
>> an
>> encyclopedia is not a useful one.
>>
>> We all agree the Khoi, and African topics in general (but also
>> Vietnamese,
>> and Guatemalan, and Albanian, and...[1]) are underrepresented in the
>> volunteer-built encyclopedia we all cherish.
>>
>> What _would_ be useful are realistic ideas about how to address this
>> underrepresentation.
>>
>>    A.
>>
>> [1] Two years ago, I spent 5-minutes preparing a presentation that makes
>> this point when someone suggested that the English Wikipedia is... kinda
>> done?  It's at http://prezi.com/szjdvdbtl0j_/is-wikipedia-done/
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Rui Correia <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Dear Colleagues at the Foundation
>> >
>> > I just came across an artecle called "White Africans of European
>> ancestry".
>> > What is that even supposed to mean?  Who would be any other "white
>> people"
>> > if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a
>> > definition of "white people" could these be? Especially as it already
>> says
>> > on the talk page that Arabs don't count.
>> >
>> >
>> > When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about
>> 'white
>> > people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, then
>> > we
>> > can't call the WP an encyclopaedia. But them the rules do say -
>> somewhere -
>> > that "just because ...". And those "just because" rules are all over
>> > the
>> > place - you can't use what was done in one case to justify another
>> similar
>> > case because someone is bound to throw a "just because" rule at you.
>> > But
>> > the "just because ..." rule applies only when it is convenient - the
>> > corollary of the "just because .." is "I know more rules and tricks
>> > than
>> > you and I will win this/ I will not allow you to have your way even if
>> > I
>> > have to break all the rules and make new ones as I go along".
>> >
>> > So, "just because" there isn't an artice about "Khoi people living in
>> > Denmark" is no reason to not have an article about "White Europens of
>> > Europen descent livng in Patagonia" or "White Europens of Europen
>> > descent
>> > livng in Timbaktu". We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the
>> digital
>> > divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans
>> > do.
>> > That is not an encyclopaedia.
>> >
>> > Why don't we have a page on "Black Americans of African ancestry"?
>> > Or "Black Europeans of African ancestry"? Strangely enough, type "Black
>> > African" and you get redirected to Black people, BUT the redirect
>> actually
>> > takes you all the way down to Africa - yes, the article on Black people
>> > does not start with Africa, but with the United States, then Brazil
>> > ....
>> >
>> > Like I said, When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable
>> article
>> > about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi
>> > people, ...
>> >
>> > The same goes for the so-called "Biographies of Living People". I had
>> > my
>> > first clash on WP on the issue of the "dual nationality" of Nelly
>> Furtado.
>> > Two hundred million people see her as Portuguese, three - yes, 3 -
>> editors
>> > disagree and BRAG they will NEVER ALLOW it. The rationale changes, as
>> > can
>> > be seen from the talk pages and archives. They go as far as
>> > 'challenging'
>> > editors that NF sees herself as Portuguese, to then dismiss all the
>> > evidence as not good enough - even Nelly HERSELF saying she is
>> > PORTUGESE
>> > was thrown out! Why? Obvious! She doesn't count, she is not a NEUTRAL
>> > source!!!!!!!!!!! We have become a joke!
>> >
>> > How about being constructive?
>> >
>> > If we can come up with every conceivable script in the world, why has
>> > nobody come up with a script for controversial articles that would
>> > appear
>> > on the the edit page - like the script that says the article is
>> protected -
>> > ALERTING unsuspecting editors to the fact that said article is
>> cotroversial
>> > for xand y reason, and that if the edit the editor is about to do falls
>> > under that theme, to please first read the talk page, with a direct
>> > link
>> > ALSO to an explanation on BLP and the issue of ethnic background/
>> > present
>> > nationality. It would save lots of wasted time and effort and the three
>> > editors who spend sleepless nights reverting the artcile might actually
>> do
>> > something constructive for a change.
>> >
>> > In closing, of the nine people featured in photos on that page, I know
>> > (have met 5) and correspond with 2 - I can guarantee that all five of
>> them
>> > (and most likley all 9 [or the descendents of those no longer with us])
>> > would object to being featured in such a racist article.
>> >
>> > I will write to them about this. I know that each one is not a valid
>> source
>> > about him/ herself and therefore them objecting will probably not
>> > count.
>> > Just as an side, in case you didn't know, the census in Brazil is done
>> > on
>> > the basis of how people see themselves - white, back, green, pink - and
>> > then we carry those figures here in the WP. Ah, sorry, those figures
>> > are
>> > credible, because they come from the CIA fact book, people speaking for
>> > themselves are not.
>> >
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > Rui
>> > --
>> > Rui Correia
>> > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > _________________________
>> > Rui Correia
>> > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
>> > Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
>> >
>> > Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
>> > Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
>> > _______________
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>     Asaf Bartov
>>     Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
>>
>> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
>> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
>> https://donate.wikimedia.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> _________________________
> Rui Correia
> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
> Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
>
> Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
> Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
> _______________
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Rui Correia-2
Journalist = professional troll
Explains but does not justify.
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rui Correia" <[hidden email]>
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia


> Denny
>
> If you going to shoot me down as a troll, then I can say only that you are
> one of those that refuse to see the elephant in the room. I am a
> journalist
> (and a journalism trainer), I know that if I want others to read what I
> have to say I need to come up a headline that will attract attention,
> while
> at the same time abiding by age-old ethic standards - and I have done so.
>
> Who controls what is said has become a big problem on the English and to a
> degree the Portuguese WPs. Be fair to yourself, step back and just look at
> some articles to see how many times a day they get reverted. The rot has
> become endemic - there are so many people who do nothing but revert the
> whole day without EVER contributing anything. Yes, I know that a lot of
> the
> reverting is to undo the work of vandals with nothing better to do, but
> most of it is done to preserve the view thae a specific article has
> 'acquired' through time.
>
> Can you honesty tell me that you have not come across articles that are
> 'untouchable'? That you know they convey a view that is not entirely
> right,
> but YOU and I cannot change it? Can you tell me that you have not come
> across editors who are hell-bent on preserving this or that article just
> as
> it is?
>
> Rui
>
> On 1 August 2013 22:40, Denny Vrandečić
> <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> Rui,
>>
>> if your basic assumption is that Wikipedia will never be a real
>> encyclopedia because of the lack of diversity among its contributors, I
>> would like to know of any other encyclopedia that is anywhere close to
>> the
>> diversity among its contributors that Wikipedia has (just a side-note,
>> the
>> original Encyclopédie had an even worse bias towards aristocratic, male
>> French than Wikipedias does, as surprising as it sounds). So, which
>> Encyclopedia do you consider a real encyclopedia at all?
>>
>> Also, never mind the fact that we already sport such a diversity -- we
>> are
>> actively aiming and striving for even more diversity, and we are not
>> comparing us to the usually abysmal record of other encyclopedias, but
>> merely to our own high, maybe even unreachable ideals.
>>
>> So, whereas I fully agree that there is a lot about Wikipedia that can be
>> improved, I am not sure that a mail that starts with the statement "Why
>> the
>> Wikipedia will never be a real encyclopedia" deserves even the
>> consideration that I offered you here, and is to be considered anything
>> beyond trolling.
>>
>> All the best,
>> Denny
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/8/1 Rui Correia <[hidden email]>
>>
>> > Dear Colleagues at the Foundation
>> >
>> > I just came across an artecle called "White Africans of European
>> ancestry".
>> > What is that even supposed to mean?  Who would be any other "white
>> people"
>> > if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a
>> > definition of "white people" could these be? Especially as it already
>> says
>> > on the talk page that Arabs don't count.
>> >
>> >
>> > When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about
>> 'white
>> > people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people, then
>> > we
>> > can't call the WP an encyclopaedia. But them the rules do say -
>> somewhere -
>> > that "just because ...". And those "just because" rules are all over
>> > the
>> > place - you can't use what was done in one case to justify another
>> similar
>> > case because someone is bound to throw a "just because" rule at you.
>> > But
>> > the "just because ..." rule applies only when it is convenient - the
>> > corollary of the "just because .." is "I know more rules and tricks
>> > than
>> > you and I will win this/ I will not allow you to have your way even if
>> > I
>> > have to break all the rules and make new ones as I go along".
>> >
>> > So, "just because" there isn't an artice about "Khoi people living in
>> > Denmark" is no reason to not have an article about "White Europens of
>> > Europen descent livng in Patagonia" or "White Europens of Europen
>> > descent
>> > livng in Timbaktu". We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the
>> digital
>> > divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans
>> > do.
>> > That is not an encyclopaedia.
>> >
>> > Why don't we have a page on "Black Americans of African ancestry"?
>> > Or "Black Europeans of African ancestry"? Strangely enough, type "Black
>> > African" and you get redirected to Black people, BUT the redirect
>> actually
>> > takes you all the way down to Africa - yes, the article on Black people
>> > does not start with Africa, but with the United States, then Brazil
>> > ....
>> >
>> > Like I said, When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable
>> article
>> > about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi
>> > people, ...
>> >
>> > The same goes for the so-called "Biographies of Living People". I had
>> > my
>> > first clash on WP on the issue of the "dual nationality" of Nelly
>> Furtado.
>> > Two hundred million people see her as Portuguese, three - yes, 3 -
>> editors
>> > disagree and BRAG they will NEVER ALLOW it. The rationale changes, as
>> > can
>> > be seen from the talk pages and archives. They go as far as
>> > 'challenging'
>> > editors that NF sees herself as Portuguese, to then dismiss all the
>> > evidence as not good enough - even Nelly HERSELF saying she is
>> > PORTUGESE
>> > was thrown out! Why? Obvious! She doesn't count, she is not a NEUTRAL
>> > source!!!!!!!!!!! We have become a joke!
>> >
>> > How about being constructive?
>> >
>> > If we can come up with every conceivable script in the world, why has
>> > nobody come up with a script for controversial articles that would
>> > appear
>> > on the the edit page - like the script that says the article is
>> protected -
>> > ALERTING unsuspecting editors to the fact that said article is
>> cotroversial
>> > for xand y reason, and that if the edit the editor is about to do falls
>> > under that theme, to please first read the talk page, with a direct
>> > link
>> > ALSO to an explanation on BLP and the issue of ethnic background/
>> > present
>> > nationality. It would save lots of wasted time and effort and the three
>> > editors who spend sleepless nights reverting the artcile might actually
>> do
>> > something constructive for a change.
>> >
>> > In closing, of the nine people featured in photos on that page, I know
>> > (have met 5) and correspond with 2 - I can guarantee that all five of
>> them
>> > (and most likley all 9 [or the descendents of those no longer with us])
>> > would object to being featured in such a racist article.
>> >
>> > I will write to them about this. I know that each one is not a valid
>> source
>> > about him/ herself and therefore them objecting will probably not
>> > count.
>> > Just as an side, in case you didn't know, the census in Brazil is done
>> > on
>> > the basis of how people see themselves - white, back, green, pink - and
>> > then we carry those figures here in the WP. Ah, sorry, those figures
>> > are
>> > credible, because they come from the CIA fact book, people speaking for
>> > themselves are not.
>> >
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > Rui
>> > --
>> > Rui Correia
>> > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > _________________________
>> > Rui Correia
>> > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
>> > Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
>> >
>> > Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
>> > Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
>> > _______________
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Project director Wikidata
>> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
>> Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de
>>
>> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
>> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
>> unter
>> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
>> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> _________________________
> Rui Correia
> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
> Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
>
> Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
> Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
> _______________
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] Why the WP will never be a real encyclopaedia

mathieu lovato stumpf guntz
In reply to this post by Rui Correia-2
Hey, what about writing the "White people self-centered writings"
article? ;P

Le 2013-08-01 22:22, Rui Correia a écrit :

> Dear Colleagues at the Foundation
>
> I just came across an artecle called "White Africans of European
> ancestry".
> What is that even supposed to mean?  Who would be any other "white
> people"
> if not of Europen ancestry? What other white people (yes, WP has a
> definition of "white people" could these be? Especially as it already
> says
> on the talk page that Arabs don't count.
>
>
> When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable article about
> 'white
> people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about 'Khoi people,
> then we
> can't call the WP an encyclopaedia. But them the rules do say -
> somewhere -
> that "just because ...". And those "just because" rules are all over
> the
> place - you can't use what was done in one case to justify another
> similar
> case because someone is bound to throw a "just because" rule at you.
> But
> the "just because ..." rule applies only when it is convenient - the
> corollary of the "just because .." is "I know more rules and tricks
> than
> you and I will win this/ I will not allow you to have your way even
> if I
> have to break all the rules and make new ones as I go along".
>
> So, "just because" there isn't an artice about "Khoi people living in
> Denmark" is no reason to not have an article about "White Europens of
> Europen descent livng in Patagonia" or "White Europens of Europen
> descent
> livng in Timbaktu". We have allowed ourselves to fall victim of the
> digital
> divide - the Khoi don't have computers and internet, white Europeans
> do.
> That is not an encyclopaedia.
>
> Why don't we have a page on "Black Americans of African ancestry"?
> Or "Black Europeans of African ancestry"? Strangely enough, type
> "Black
> African" and you get redirected to Black people, BUT the redirect
> actually
> takes you all the way down to Africa - yes, the article on Black
> people
> does not start with Africa, but with the United States, then Brazil
> ....
>
> Like I said, When we have 'white people' creating every conceivable
> article
> about 'white people', but we have no 'Khoi' people writing about
> 'Khoi
> people, ...
>
> The same goes for the so-called "Biographies of Living People". I had
> my
> first clash on WP on the issue of the "dual nationality" of Nelly
> Furtado.
> Two hundred million people see her as Portuguese, three - yes, 3 -
> editors
> disagree and BRAG they will NEVER ALLOW it. The rationale changes, as
> can
> be seen from the talk pages and archives. They go as far as
> 'challenging'
> editors that NF sees herself as Portuguese, to then dismiss all the
> evidence as not good enough - even Nelly HERSELF saying she is
> PORTUGESE
> was thrown out! Why? Obvious! She doesn't count, she is not a NEUTRAL
> source!!!!!!!!!!! We have become a joke!
>
> How about being constructive?
>
> If we can come up with every conceivable script in the world, why has
> nobody come up with a script for controversial articles that would
> appear
> on the the edit page - like the script that says the article is
> protected -
> ALERTING unsuspecting editors to the fact that said article is
> cotroversial
> for xand y reason, and that if the edit the editor is about to do
> falls
> under that theme, to please first read the talk page, with a direct
> link
> ALSO to an explanation on BLP and the issue of ethnic background/
> present
> nationality. It would save lots of wasted time and effort and the
> three
> editors who spend sleepless nights reverting the artcile might
> actually do
> something constructive for a change.
>
> In closing, of the nine people featured in photos on that page, I
> know
> (have met 5) and correspond with 2 - I can guarantee that all five of
> them
> (and most likley all 9 [or the descendents of those no longer with
> us])
> would object to being featured in such a racist article.
>
> I will write to them about this. I know that each one is not a valid
> source
> about him/ herself and therefore them objecting will probably not
> count.
> Just as an side, in case you didn't know, the census in Brazil is
> done on
> the basis of how people see themselves - white, back, green, pink -
> and
> then we carry those figures here in the WP. Ah, sorry, those figures
> are
> credible, because they come from the CIA fact book, people speaking
> for
> themselves are not.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rui
> --
> Rui Correia
> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant

--
Association Culture-Libre
http://www.culture-libre.org/

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12