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