Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[David Goodman]

Most reputable translators of literary texts do not aim at a literal
translation, but one that replicate the meaning, the emotional affect
as far as possible, and ideally some of the linguistic subtleties.
Even in translating prose texts, a literal translation is usually not
produced unless it is for some reason specifically wanted, because a
literal translation  will normally not convey the same meaning exactly
as the original. Once you start looking for equivalent idioms, and a
natural way of saying things in the target language, there is always
room for interpretation.  Consider the Bible: the only way of citing
it accurately is to give a range of translations, along with the
original.

Very few of the materials we use for quotations will have good
translations, now or ever. The purpose of giving the original along
with whatever we can manage as a translation is first, that if the
original is given , others may find or write a better translation;
second, so those who know a little of the source language can see for
themselves.

We write the enWP for English readers--not providing some sort of a
translation leaves 90% of them helpless in any particular case.  I
think of the 18th century writers like Gibbon who left the sexual
parts in "the decent obscurity of a learned language" , with the
intended effect that the gentlemen could read them, but not the ladies
(very few of whom were ever taught Latin at the time) and certainly
not any of the common people who might happen to see a serious book.

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 1:37 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
> On 29 July 2011 17:39, Wjhonson  wrote:
>
>> I would agree with Ray that we should quote Latin texts in Latin, Spanish 
>> texts in Spanish no matter what language-page we are using.  IF the text is 
>> that important to English speakers then there should be or probably will 
>> soon be, a verifiable English language translation *not* created in-project, 
>> but rather by a reputable author publishing just such a translation.
>
-- 
David Goodman

DGG at the enWP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

Message-ID: 
X-Sender: pute...@mccme.ru
User-Agent: Webmail/
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 23:28:31 +0100, Thomas Morton
 wrote:
> For what it is worth
> 
> I think this approach exists on en.wiki on the premise that by using
> foreign
> sources with no independent translation available:
> 
> a) It makes it easier to push a POV or miss-interpretation via that
source
> (because other editors are generally not able to understand it)
> b) There is more potential for mistakes or miscomprehension - for
example
> if
> editors resort to using Google translate (not at all uncommon)
> 

Actually, I do not see much of a problem here.

I created more than 30 articles in English Wikipedia in the last three
months, and all but two only cite Russian sources. I believe for the topics
of these articles English (or, for that matter, in any other language than
Russian) sources do not exist. I was one approached and asked to check the
facts based on one of the sources (which I did and corrected the text of
the article. However, if someone asks me to provide a translated piece
proving one of the statements I will gladly do it (I believe the article
talk page is an appropriate place). In my opinion, providing a source in a
foreign language is not more OR than to provide just one source in a topic
where thousands of contradicting sources exist (the perennial example is
Israeli-Palestine conflict).

Cheers
Yaroslav

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Milos Rancic]

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 20:31, Michael Snow  wrote:
> On 7/29/2011 11:06 AM, Wjhonson wrote:
>> Yes of course translating documents "has been practiced in academia for a 
>> very long time."
>>
>> We however are not a first publisher of translations.  We are an aggregator 
>> of sources.
>> That is the point of RS.
>> We don't publish first.
> Translating a quotation from a foreign-language source in a Wikipedia
> article is functionally no different from translating the contents of a
> Wikipedia article in one language to create an equivalent Wikipedia
> article in a different language.

That's, actually, different. Encyclopedic text is our work; or, if we
talk in the sense of OR, our own OR, no matter if it's been written
originally or translated. So, when you translate an article from one
language to another, you do that as encyclopedist, not as researcher.

In other words, if you miss something in encyclopedic text, that would
affect just encyclopedic text itself. If you claim that you've
translated the source, that affects validity of the source itself.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Thomas Morton]

For what it is worth

I think this approach exists on en.wiki on the premise that by using foreign
sources with no independent translation available:

a) It makes it easier to push a POV or miss-interpretation via that source
(because other editors are generally not able to understand it)
b) There is more potential for mistakes or miscomprehension - for example if
editors resort to using Google translate (not at all uncommon)

I for one consider this much akin to cracking a nut with a sledgehammer -
but I can see the reasoning behind it. It would be interesting to see a
working group dedicated to looking into ways to approach the "foreign
language source" issue.

English Wikipedia is pretty bad at considering foreign language sources. But
I have seen other language projects which appear worse still at accepting
them... and it is worse than just a language issue - often it feels like a
case of people thinking "well that culture is not the same as ours, so not
likely to be as reliable". (I criticise myself here too for this thinking,
even when I try to avoid it!)

I can never help feeling that this is often the core of our cultural
centrist bias (for all Wikipedias). Way before I learned my first foreign
language, back when young and naive, I believed that most  countries were
functionally the same as mine, just with different words. My first trip the
to US disabused me of this notion. I have never been hot-shot with languages
but always make a point, now, of learning at least a little of the native
language of wherever I travel - because the difference you see when using
that language is insane.

Anyway; the point is that we are in an interesting position to help advocate
this amazingly different cultural views to each other. Does anyone have idea
to address these issues of centrism and lack of trust in other cultures? I
think this would be a really interesting thing to explore!

Tom

On 29 July 2011 19:31, Michael Snow  wrote:

> On 7/29/2011 11:06 AM, Wjhonson wrote:
> > Yes of course translating documents "has been practiced in academia for a
> very long time."
> >
> > We however are not a first publisher of translations.  We are an
> aggregator of sources.
> > That is the point of RS.
> > We don't publish first.
> Translating a quotation from a foreign-language source in a Wikipedia
> article is functionally no different from translating the contents of a
> Wikipedia article in one language to create an equivalent Wikipedia
> article in a different language. The latter is an utterly routine and
> fairly common practice (though I'm not suggesting that any Wikipedia
> article *needs* to be based on translations this way). Obviously
> translation needs to be done with care, just like synthesizing source
> material to write an article requires care. And some people may be
> better at one or the other, so it may be possible to improve on the work
> as Mark describes, as long as the original also remains available, as it
> should.
>
> Stretching a guideline about using reliable sources to the point that it
> conflicts with unobjectionable standard practices suggests that the
> guideline is being stretched too far. Even the most reliable sources do
> not need to be treated like some people treat the Quran, as if it's
> inappropriate to render them in any language but the original. That's a
> religious belief, and in a religious context I fully respect that people
> may believe such things, but in the context of writing Wikipedia
> articles, our beliefs about the sources we use should not be religious,
> they should be based on analysis and editorial judgment.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Wjhonson]

Nope, never said that.
I disagree with the idea that this is "usually done" however I have no 
objections to it's being done.
Never did.
My point is, and was that the source should be quoted in its original language.






-Original Message-
From: David Gerard 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 11:26 am
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge


On 29 July 2011 19:19, Dan Rosenthal  wrote:
> Why can't you do both?
 Provide the original text in the original language in the citation, followed 
y a translation. Any bickering over the quality of the translation can be dealt 
ith through consensus on the talk page, while the original is still there for 
hose who want the original to do their own verification of the translation.

his is what is usually done at present. Hence my boggling at
Johnson's bizarre suggestion to overuse a rule to break usefuless to
he reader.

 d.
___
oundation-l mailing list
oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Michael Snow]

On 7/29/2011 11:06 AM, Wjhonson wrote:
> Yes of course translating documents "has been practiced in academia for a 
> very long time."
>
> We however are not a first publisher of translations.  We are an aggregator 
> of sources.
> That is the point of RS.
> We don't publish first.
Translating a quotation from a foreign-language source in a Wikipedia 
article is functionally no different from translating the contents of a 
Wikipedia article in one language to create an equivalent Wikipedia 
article in a different language. The latter is an utterly routine and 
fairly common practice (though I'm not suggesting that any Wikipedia 
article *needs* to be based on translations this way). Obviously 
translation needs to be done with care, just like synthesizing source 
material to write an article requires care. And some people may be 
better at one or the other, so it may be possible to improve on the work 
as Mark describes, as long as the original also remains available, as it 
should.

Stretching a guideline about using reliable sources to the point that it 
conflicts with unobjectionable standard practices suggests that the 
guideline is being stretched too far. Even the most reliable sources do 
not need to be treated like some people treat the Quran, as if it's 
inappropriate to render them in any language but the original. That's a 
religious belief, and in a religious context I fully respect that people 
may believe such things, but in the context of writing Wikipedia 
articles, our beliefs about the sources we use should not be religious, 
they should be based on analysis and editorial judgment.

--Michael Snow

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[David Gerard]

On 29 July 2011 19:19, Dan Rosenthal  wrote:

> Why can't you do both?
> Provide the original text in the original language in the citation, followed 
> by a translation. Any bickering over the quality of the translation can be 
> dealt with through consensus on the talk page, while the original is still 
> there for those who want the original to do their own verification of the 
> translation.


This is what is usually done at present. Hence my boggling at
WJohnson's bizarre suggestion to overuse a rule to break usefuless to
the reader.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Dan Rosenthal]

Why can't you do both?

Provide the original text in the original language in the citation, followed by 
a translation. Any bickering over the quality of the translation can be dealt 
with through consensus on the talk page, while the original is still there for 
those who want the original to do their own verification of the translation.

-Dan
On Jul 29, 2011, at 9:06 PM, Wjhonson wrote:

> 
> Yes of course translating documents "has been practiced in academia for a 
> very long time."
> 
> We however are not a first publisher of translations.  We are an aggregator 
> of sources.
> That is the point of RS.
> We don't publish first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: M. Williamson 
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
> Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 10:59 am
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
> 
> 
> And what if readers don't understand Spanish? As a translator, I have to say
> am strongly against the idea that a translation counts as original
> esearch. Translating quotes has been practiced in academia for a very long
> ime, and just in the last month I must've read several papers with quotes
> n languages I didn't understand well enough to read without the translation
> y the author (German, Latin, etc). If I want to quote an academic paper in
> panish for an article where there are few or no English-language sources
> vailable, I should be able to quote directly from the paper but provide a
> ranslation so that English speakers who do not speak Spanish can benefit
> rom the quote. The great thing about the wiki process is that if someone
> isagrees with my translation, it can be fixed (I have fixed a few
> ranslations on en.wp myself).
> 011/7/29 Wjhonson 
>> 
> No that's not what it would mean.
> It would mean that if a Spanish language source is used on an English
> language page, we should quote that source in Spanish, and not quote it
> using our OWN translation.  As editors we should not be creating
> publications, only quoting publications.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-
> From: David Gerard 
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
> Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 10:37 am
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
> 
> 
> On 29 July 2011 17:39, Wjhonson  wrote:
>> I would agree with Ray that we should quote Latin texts in Latin, Spanish
> exts in Spanish no matter what language-page we are using.  IF the text is
> that
> mportant to English speakers then there should be or probably will soon be,
> a
> erifiable English language translation *not* created in-project, but rather
> by
>  reputable author publishing just such a translation.
> 
> his would mean that only English-language references are acceptable
> n en:wp, which is of course false. Your statement takes a useful idea
> no original research), extrapolates it until it really obviously
> reaks, and then puts forward the broken version as a good thing.
> You appear to be mixing up policy, guidelines, practice and how you
> ersonally think things should be, without distinguishing which you
> re describing at any given time; this leads only to confusion.
> 
>  d.
> ___
> oundation-l mailing list
> oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
>  nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 
> __
> oundation-l mailing list
> oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
> nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Wjhonson]

Yes of course translating documents "has been practiced in academia for a very 
long time."

We however are not a first publisher of translations.  We are an aggregator of 
sources.
That is the point of RS.
We don't publish first.






-Original Message-
From: M. Williamson 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 10:59 am
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge


And what if readers don't understand Spanish? As a translator, I have to say
 am strongly against the idea that a translation counts as original
esearch. Translating quotes has been practiced in academia for a very long
ime, and just in the last month I must've read several papers with quotes
n languages I didn't understand well enough to read without the translation
y the author (German, Latin, etc). If I want to quote an academic paper in
panish for an article where there are few or no English-language sources
vailable, I should be able to quote directly from the paper but provide a
ranslation so that English speakers who do not speak Spanish can benefit
rom the quote. The great thing about the wiki process is that if someone
isagrees with my translation, it can be fixed (I have fixed a few
ranslations on en.wp myself).
011/7/29 Wjhonson 
>
 No that's not what it would mean.
 It would mean that if a Spanish language source is used on an English
 language page, we should quote that source in Spanish, and not quote it
 using our OWN translation.  As editors we should not be creating
 publications, only quoting publications.






 -Original Message-
 From: David Gerard 
 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
 Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 10:37 am
 Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge


 On 29 July 2011 17:39, Wjhonson  wrote:
 > I would agree with Ray that we should quote Latin texts in Latin, Spanish
 exts in Spanish no matter what language-page we are using.  IF the text is
 that
 mportant to English speakers then there should be or probably will soon be,
 a
 erifiable English language translation *not* created in-project, but rather
 by
  reputable author publishing just such a translation.

 his would mean that only English-language references are acceptable
 n en:wp, which is of course false. Your statement takes a useful idea
 no original research), extrapolates it until it really obviously
 reaks, and then puts forward the broken version as a good thing.
 You appear to be mixing up policy, guidelines, practice and how you
 ersonally think things should be, without distinguishing which you
 re describing at any given time; this leads only to confusion.

  d.
 ___
 oundation-l mailing list
 oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
  nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

 ___
 foundation-l mailing list
 foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

__
oundation-l mailing list
oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[M. Williamson]

And what if readers don't understand Spanish? As a translator, I have to say
I am strongly against the idea that a translation counts as original
research. Translating quotes has been practiced in academia for a very long
time, and just in the last month I must've read several papers with quotes
in languages I didn't understand well enough to read without the translation
by the author (German, Latin, etc). If I want to quote an academic paper in
Spanish for an article where there are few or no English-language sources
available, I should be able to quote directly from the paper but provide a
translation so that English speakers who do not speak Spanish can benefit
from the quote. The great thing about the wiki process is that if someone
disagrees with my translation, it can be fixed (I have fixed a few
translations on en.wp myself).
2011/7/29 Wjhonson 

>
> No that's not what it would mean.
> It would mean that if a Spanish language source is used on an English
> language page, we should quote that source in Spanish, and not quote it
> using our OWN translation.  As editors we should not be creating
> publications, only quoting publications.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: David Gerard 
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
> Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 10:37 am
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
>
>
> On 29 July 2011 17:39, Wjhonson  wrote:
> > I would agree with Ray that we should quote Latin texts in Latin, Spanish
> exts in Spanish no matter what language-page we are using.  IF the text is
> that
> mportant to English speakers then there should be or probably will soon be,
> a
> erifiable English language translation *not* created in-project, but rather
> by
>  reputable author publishing just such a translation.
>
> his would mean that only English-language references are acceptable
> n en:wp, which is of course false. Your statement takes a useful idea
> no original research), extrapolates it until it really obviously
> reaks, and then puts forward the broken version as a good thing.
> You appear to be mixing up policy, guidelines, practice and how you
> ersonally think things should be, without distinguishing which you
> re describing at any given time; this leads only to confusion.
>
>  d.
> ___
> oundation-l mailing list
> oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
>  nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Wjhonson]

No that's not what it would mean.
It would mean that if a Spanish language source is used on an English language 
page, we should quote that source in Spanish, and not quote it using our OWN 
translation.  As editors we should not be creating publications, only quoting 
publications.






-Original Message-
From: David Gerard 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 10:37 am
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge


On 29 July 2011 17:39, Wjhonson  wrote:
> I would agree with Ray that we should quote Latin texts in Latin, Spanish 
exts in Spanish no matter what language-page we are using.  IF the text is that 
mportant to English speakers then there should be or probably will soon be, a 
erifiable English language translation *not* created in-project, but rather by 
 reputable author publishing just such a translation.

his would mean that only English-language references are acceptable
n en:wp, which is of course false. Your statement takes a useful idea
no original research), extrapolates it until it really obviously
reaks, and then puts forward the broken version as a good thing.
You appear to be mixing up policy, guidelines, practice and how you
ersonally think things should be, without distinguishing which you
re describing at any given time; this leads only to confusion.

 d.
___
oundation-l mailing list
oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[David Gerard]

On 29 July 2011 17:39, Wjhonson  wrote:

> I would agree with Ray that we should quote Latin texts in Latin, Spanish 
> texts in Spanish no matter what language-page we are using.  IF the text is 
> that important to English speakers then there should be or probably will soon 
> be, a verifiable English language translation *not* created in-project, but 
> rather by a reputable author publishing just such a translation.


This would mean that only English-language references are acceptable
in en:wp, which is of course false. Your statement takes a useful idea
(no original research), extrapolates it until it really obviously
breaks, and then puts forward the broken version as a good thing.

You appear to be mixing up policy, guidelines, practice and how you
personally think things should be, without distinguishing which you
are describing at any given time; this leads only to confusion.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[geni]

On 29 July 2011 11:25, Ray Saintonge  wrote:
> This is spot on.
>
> At times I wonder if some Wikipedians have ever heard of epistemology.

Some have some haven't.

However the field of epistemology tends to have so little relation to
what people actually do that it's not particularly critical.

-- 
geni

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Wjhonson]

The logical flaw here comes between "use" and "translate".
Although Wikipedians may and probably sometimes do, translate Wikipedia pages, 
from English to French etc, translating a source citation is something quite 
different.

I would agree with Ray that we should quote Latin texts in Latin, Spanish texts 
in Spanish no matter what language-page we are using.  IF the text is that 
important to English speakers then there should be or probably will soon be, a 
verifiable English language translation *not* created in-project, but rather by 
a reputable author publishing just such a translation.






-Original Message-
From: Ray Saintonge 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 12:03 am
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge


LOL. If that's the case it would be a good reason for changing the OR 
olicy. It would also make sense to quote non-English sources in their 
riginal language unless the translation itself is verifiable.
Ray
On 07/27/11 4:36 PM, M. Williamson wrote:
 Well then, Ray, en.wp would not be able to use non-English sources since all
 translation is interpretation and would therefore be considered OR which is
 not allowed at Wikipedia.

 2011/7/27 Ray Saintonge On 07/27/11 12:42 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
>> David how is an exact quote a summary or interpretation?
>> An exact quote, backed up by the actual audio track is... exact.
>> You are not summarizing it, and you are not interpreting it either.
>> You are presenting it.
> If that is to be the case the exact quote MUST be in its original
> language.  All translations require interpretation.
>
> Ray

__
oundation-l mailing list
oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[David Gerard]

On 29 July 2011 11:58, Thomas Morton  wrote:

> While some editors do tend to argue binary options over sources, in general
> this is not the case (and if you are observing it as so, it's probably one
> of the battlefield areas where such things do occur).


They do tend to be noisiest, and they do tend to poison the
epistemology of the project. Look at the remarkable hostility seen in
this thread to changing anything whatsoever.

In this case, "mostly okay" means "only slightly poisoned".


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Sarah Stierch]

Thanks Ray! I actually met with developers from RRN and a few First Nations 
advocacy groups (regarding cultural preservation) - RRN is really amazing, and 
I look forward to exploring how opportunities can open from it. We will talk 
more in Haifa!

(I lived in Van for a year, give my best to Commercial Drive ;-))


-Sarah

Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! :)


On Jul 29, 2011, at 6:08 AM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:

> From the perspective of Wikimedia Canada, this sounds exciting.  Many 
> of us believe that work with the First Nations is an important element 
> in Wikimedia Canada's tasks.  I look forward to meeting you in Haifa. 
> Thanks for providing the RRN link; since I am in the Greater Vancouver 
> District they should be more accessible to me.
> 
> Ray
> 
> 
> On 07/27/11 6:06 AM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
>> Hi all -
>> 
>> I came across a lighter version of this conversation on another Wikimedia
>> list, and felt the need to share my similar thoughts and statements that I
>> made previously.
>> 
>> For the past year, I have been examining opportunities involving Indigenous
>> communities of North America and opportunities to utilize Wikipedia and
>> related websites as an affordable, unique and global form of cultural
>> preservation. I have my undergraduate in Native American Studies, and I am
>> obtaining my masters currently. My final paper (not quite a thesis) for
>> graduation will be a strong examination of the opportunities related to
>> Indigenous communities and opportunities/pros/cons related to Wikipedia. I'm
>> actually presenting on my preliminary observations and concerns at
>> Wikimania, you can learn a bit more here:
>> 
>> http://wikimania2011.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Wikimedia_%26_Indigenous_Peoples:_Pros,_Cons_and_Community
>> 
>> In the United States, as far as I am aware, I am the only person thinking
>> about this on a higher level. While right now I am quite busy with other
>> matters, come this Fall I will be diving head first into my research. I will
>> be serving as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Museum of the American
>> Indian, where I will be working with staff to examine these concerns.  One
>> of our biggest concerns lies with *oral history*. We have had countless
>> conversations about the struggles with "no original research" however, in
>> oral history based societies, we will have a very hard time moving beyond
>> anything else. As stated previously, the majority of content created related
>> to Indigenous communities in North America was often written by (and still
>> is) Anglo anthropologists - some of that data is highly out of date and is
>> still being utilized on Wikipedia as a source today.
>> 
>> This project, Oral Citations, follows closely with the type of work I am
>> seeking to do. I have been planning to examine Wikipedia (English at first)
>> research policies and consider proposals or changes in relation to serious
>> research and Indigenous communities. Of course, it all comes down to
>> funding, and Native people of North American are often the first overlooked
>> group - it will take a lot of work, years of effort, and a lot of buy in
>> that is needed to be gathered from inside the community itself.
>> 
>> I'm babbling right now, but, this is a very passionate topic for me. I see
>> Wikipedia as providing an affordable and unique way for Indigenous
>> communities to not only learn valuable skills - many of the communities here
>> in America are among the poorest in the world, you'd think you were in a
>> developing country, and kids barely receive beyond an elementary school
>> education - but to have a broad arena to share stories (that the community
>> chooses to share of course), beliefs, cosmologies, and traditions so that
>> they are accessible and *vetted* for researchers and community members
>> around the world.
>> 
>> I do hope that some of you are attending Wikimania, I'd like to be able to
>> have a break out session of sorts or an unconference to discuss this topic
>> further. I'm hoping in the next year to have an international conference of
>> sorts that brings together Indigenous people, open source gurus, and
>> Wiki-folks to examine opportunities, processes, and belief systems in
>> regards to opportunities.
>> 
>> Feel free to email me directly, again, right now I am unable to move quickly
>> in any major projects due to my already big work load, but, I'm hoping that
>> this will be large part of my career work as an advocate for Native rights,
>> a scholar, and an open source-lover.
>> 
>> -Sarah
> 
> 
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Thomas Morton]

> Here's essays from Tom Morris (another philosopher):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tom_Morris/The_Reliability_Delusion
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tom_Morris/The_Definition_Delusion
>
>
While some editors do tend to argue binary options over sources, in general
this is not the case (and if you are observing it as so, it's probably one
of the battlefield areas where such things do occur).

WP:RS has always struck me as being quite carefully worded to suggest
factors of a source that editors should critically consider in
determining reliability (publisher, author, content).

Take for example the Daily Mail, which we quite often discuss in relation to
BLP articles. This is treated as potentially reliable media source as it is
published and edited, on the other hand it has a reputation for tabloid
sensationalism so naturally it's not the best of sources to use in
biographical articles on its own.

There are other examples too. For example Torrent Freak is considered fairly
unreliable as a source, but specifically for factual information about the
Torrent community (and associated) it is explicitly considered
acceptable. TechCrunch is considered fairly reliable for technology news -
but has a recognised tendency for sensationalism which requires caution.

In the "Context sensitivity" portion of that essay Morris makes some good
suggestions - but I see that approach taken literally all the time... sure
in some areas (and for some editors) the idea of a reliable source is very
absolute. But largely this is not the case. In contentious areas it is
applied much more uncritically, of course, as all policies are - which is
why you will see much more binary classification in those areas.

:)

Tom
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[David Gerard]

On 29 July 2011 10:50, David Gerard  wrote:

> Thus we end up with blithering insanity like the phrase "reliable
> sources" being used unironically, as if being listed on WP:RS
> *actually makes a source humanly reliable*. This is particularly
> hilarious when applied to newspapers - no-one who has *ever* been
> quoted by the media would think this way.
> (For those of you aware of the hip Bayesian way to calculate
> uncertainty, this is what happens when your network has allowed
> probabilities of 1 or 0.)


Also, I must note: everything Wikipedia gets right is when it's doing
it to be useful to the readers, and everything Wikipedia gets wrong is
when it's doing it to appease battling editors. The binary nature of
"reliable sources" is largely an attempt to get editors to stop
arguing, at the cost of doing increasing disservice to readers.

It gets worse when editors internalise the no-shades-of-grey
black-and-white ideal of "reliable sources" and suggest blithering
insanity such as that supplying a quote translation is forbidden as
"original research".

This is put up with because editors think it's better than editors
fighting. While editors fighting is bad (although, as Alex Curran has
noted, we drop editors into an arena then we're surprised when they
fight), I suggest we really need to consider whether what it's doing
to our epistemology is worse.

It's an attempt to solve the problems with people by turning yourself
into a robot. Funnily enough, doing this leads to really bad and
stupid results.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[David Gerard]

On 29 July 2011 11:25, Ray Saintonge  wrote:

> At times I wonder if some Wikipedians have ever heard of epistemology.


Larry Sanger was no great shakes as a philosopher, but at least he'd
heard of the stuff.

Here's essays from Tom Morris (another philosopher):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tom_Morris/The_Reliability_Delusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tom_Morris/The_Definition_Delusion

Basically, the fact of "Wikipedia's epistemology is broken" is
becoming better-known.


> I also have taken note that there is a tendency among some editors to
> truncate probability calculations to the nearest whole number.


This is Wikipedia-induced aspergism, which turns
otherwise-socially-able people into annoying doctrinaire nerds, who
CANNOT STAND UNCERTAINTY.

This is where Wikipedia's epistemology is broken: the real world is
made of uncertainty. And the grey areas are what people are actually
interested in.

None of what I'm saying here is new, it's been circulating since 2004.
That doesn't mean it isn't in urgent need of being fixed, now that
Wikipedia is *the* reference work and we've dodged the Expert Problem
by being so big the experts are now coming to us.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Ray Saintonge]

This is spot on.

At times I wonder if some Wikipedians have ever heard of epistemology.  
I also have taken note that there is a tendency among some editors to 
truncate probability calculations to the nearest whole number.

Ray

On 07/29/11 2:50 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> The great thing about an oral history citations project is that it is
> a first and active method to remedy one of the big problems with
> English Wikipedia: the epistemology - how we decide we know what we
> know - really is completely and utterly broken at the edges.
>
> (I realise this is foundation-l, but en:wp is a third of Wikimedia by
> most measures, and this discussion shows its ways of doing things
> getting into everywhere else.)
>
> The trouble is that all through history, turning information into
> knowledge has required human judgement and nuance. People do four-year
> humanities degrees to *start* getting *any good at all* at this stuff.
> But Wikipedia being Wikipedia, the whole thing has to be (a) reduced
> to a three paragraph guideline (b) which calcifies into policy (c)
> misinterpreted by socially-inept teenagers (d) with the
> misinterpretations being perpetuated well past the point of actual
> failure.
>
> Thus we end up with blithering insanity like the phrase "reliable
> sources" being used unironically, as if being listed on WP:RS
> *actually makes a source humanly reliable*. This is particularly
> hilarious when applied to newspapers - no-one who has *ever* been
> quoted by the media would think this way.
>
> (For those of you aware of the hip Bayesian way to calculate
> uncertainty, this is what happens when your network has allowed
> probabilities of 1 or 0.)
>
> Now, the sourcing method we have almost works. Its successes are
> important and useful. But there's a lot of denial that it breaks
> really badly when misapplied, and that the misapplications are even a
> problem. WJohnson's earnestly put forward this viewpoint in this
> thread; his argument appears to be that we don't have a perfect
> solution so therefore this must not be a problem and doing something
> that doesn't work *harder* must be the right answer.
>
> Somehow we have to get the nuance back. All this stuff is produced by
> humans, and working assumptions that it isn't are *broken*.
>
> The oral citations project appears to be a first step to even
> acknowledging that the present methods actually break at the edges.
> This alone makes it a good and useful thing. And, y'know, we might
> actually learn something.
>
>
> - d.


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Ray Saintonge]

 From the perspective of Wikimedia Canada, this sounds exciting.  Many 
of us believe that work with the First Nations is an important element 
in Wikimedia Canada's tasks.  I look forward to meeting you in Haifa. 
Thanks for providing the RRN link; since I am in the Greater Vancouver 
District they should be more accessible to me.

Ray


On 07/27/11 6:06 AM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
> Hi all -
>
> I came across a lighter version of this conversation on another Wikimedia
> list, and felt the need to share my similar thoughts and statements that I
> made previously.
>
> For the past year, I have been examining opportunities involving Indigenous
> communities of North America and opportunities to utilize Wikipedia and
> related websites as an affordable, unique and global form of cultural
> preservation. I have my undergraduate in Native American Studies, and I am
> obtaining my masters currently. My final paper (not quite a thesis) for
> graduation will be a strong examination of the opportunities related to
> Indigenous communities and opportunities/pros/cons related to Wikipedia. I'm
> actually presenting on my preliminary observations and concerns at
> Wikimania, you can learn a bit more here:
>
> http://wikimania2011.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Wikimedia_%26_Indigenous_Peoples:_Pros,_Cons_and_Community
>
> In the United States, as far as I am aware, I am the only person thinking
> about this on a higher level. While right now I am quite busy with other
> matters, come this Fall I will be diving head first into my research. I will
> be serving as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Museum of the American
> Indian, where I will be working with staff to examine these concerns.  One
> of our biggest concerns lies with *oral history*. We have had countless
> conversations about the struggles with "no original research" however, in
> oral history based societies, we will have a very hard time moving beyond
> anything else. As stated previously, the majority of content created related
> to Indigenous communities in North America was often written by (and still
> is) Anglo anthropologists - some of that data is highly out of date and is
> still being utilized on Wikipedia as a source today.
>
> This project, Oral Citations, follows closely with the type of work I am
> seeking to do. I have been planning to examine Wikipedia (English at first)
> research policies and consider proposals or changes in relation to serious
> research and Indigenous communities. Of course, it all comes down to
> funding, and Native people of North American are often the first overlooked
> group - it will take a lot of work, years of effort, and a lot of buy in
> that is needed to be gathered from inside the community itself.
>
> I'm babbling right now, but, this is a very passionate topic for me. I see
> Wikipedia as providing an affordable and unique way for Indigenous
> communities to not only learn valuable skills - many of the communities here
> in America are among the poorest in the world, you'd think you were in a
> developing country, and kids barely receive beyond an elementary school
> education - but to have a broad arena to share stories (that the community
> chooses to share of course), beliefs, cosmologies, and traditions so that
> they are accessible and *vetted* for researchers and community members
> around the world.
>
> I do hope that some of you are attending Wikimania, I'd like to be able to
> have a break out session of sorts or an unconference to discuss this topic
> further. I'm hoping in the next year to have an international conference of
> sorts that brings together Indigenous people, open source gurus, and
> Wiki-folks to examine opportunities, processes, and belief systems in
> regards to opportunities.
>
> Feel free to email me directly, again, right now I am unable to move quickly
> in any major projects due to my already big work load, but, I'm hoping that
> this will be large part of my career work as an advocate for Native rights,
> a scholar, and an open source-lover.
>
> -Sarah


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[David Gerard]

The great thing about an oral history citations project is that it is
a first and active method to remedy one of the big problems with
English Wikipedia: the epistemology - how we decide we know what we
know - really is completely and utterly broken at the edges.

(I realise this is foundation-l, but en:wp is a third of Wikimedia by
most measures, and this discussion shows its ways of doing things
getting into everywhere else.)

The trouble is that all through history, turning information into
knowledge has required human judgement and nuance. People do four-year
humanities degrees to *start* getting *any good at all* at this stuff.
But Wikipedia being Wikipedia, the whole thing has to be (a) reduced
to a three paragraph guideline (b) which calcifies into policy (c)
misinterpreted by socially-inept teenagers (d) with the
misinterpretations being perpetuated well past the point of actual
failure.

Thus we end up with blithering insanity like the phrase "reliable
sources" being used unironically, as if being listed on WP:RS
*actually makes a source humanly reliable*. This is particularly
hilarious when applied to newspapers - no-one who has *ever* been
quoted by the media would think this way.

(For those of you aware of the hip Bayesian way to calculate
uncertainty, this is what happens when your network has allowed
probabilities of 1 or 0.)

Now, the sourcing method we have almost works. Its successes are
important and useful. But there's a lot of denial that it breaks
really badly when misapplied, and that the misapplications are even a
problem. WJohnson's earnestly put forward this viewpoint in this
thread; his argument appears to be that we don't have a perfect
solution so therefore this must not be a problem and doing something
that doesn't work *harder* must be the right answer.

Somehow we have to get the nuance back. All this stuff is produced by
humans, and working assumptions that it isn't are *broken*.

The oral citations project appears to be a first step to even
acknowledging that the present methods actually break at the edges.
This alone makes it a good and useful thing. And, y'know, we might
actually learn something.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Ray Saintonge]

On 07/27/11 4:40 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
> Yes I agree that primary sources should ONLY be cited-quoted, in their 
> original language.
> A translation can be *published* but that publication cannot be in Wikipedia 
> solely.  It must live somewhere else as well, published by a reliable source.
>
> In this case of an audio file, we should have a transcription, than a 
> translation.  However having Wikipedians translate primary sources and then 
> citing and quoting those *translations* in-project is a recipe for disaster 
> and fraught with the potential for abuse, as well as being original research. 
>  In this case the original research is *your unpublished translation used as 
> the actual source*.

It's also a mistake to use "original research" as an excuse for 
suppressing information, as is often done on Wikipedia. A 
wiki-translation is fine as long as long as the original is linked and 
can be checked.  The other dangers that you cite are real, but we cannot 
expect perfection from imperfect sources.  Whether a source is 
"reliable" or research is "original" depends on one's POV.  Knowledge is 
best served by expressing our uncertainties instead of blocking 
uncertain facts.  Especially in matters of history it should be up to 
the reader to decide what weight to give to material.

Ray

> -Original Message-----
> From: Ray Saintonge
> Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 4:36 pm
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
>
> On 07/27/11 12:42 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
>   David how is an exact quote a summary or interpretation?
>   An exact quote, backed up by the actual audio track is... exact.
>   You are not summarizing it, and you are not interpreting it either.
>   You are presenting it.
> If that is to be the case the exact quote MUST be in its original
> anguage.  All translations require interpretation.
> Ray


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Ray Saintonge]

LOL. If that's the case it would be a good reason for changing the OR 
policy. It would also make sense to quote non-English sources in their 
original language unless the translation itself is verifiable.

Ray

On 07/27/11 4:36 PM, M. Williamson wrote:
> Well then, Ray, en.wp would not be able to use non-English sources since all
> translation is interpretation and would therefore be considered OR which is
> not allowed at Wikipedia.
>
> 2011/7/27 Ray Saintonge> On 07/27/11 12:42 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
>>> David how is an exact quote a summary or interpretation?
>>> An exact quote, backed up by the actual audio track is... exact.
>>> You are not summarizing it, and you are not interpreting it either.
>>> You are presenting it.
>> If that is to be the case the exact quote MUST be in its original
>> language.  All translations require interpretation.
>>
>> Ray


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Ryan Kaldari]

Ha, sorry I missed the joke! I had no idea what emesis referred to.

Ryan Kaldari

On 7/28/11 7:41 AM, M. Williamson wrote:
> Ryan, perhaps you missed the intention of my e-mail. The sentence about
> "emesis" was also clearly not serious. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/emesis
>
> 2011/7/27 Ryan Kaldari
>
>> So if I post nothing but emails about "the cabal" and random insults to
>> people trying to have legitimate discussions, it's cool as long as I end
>> my emails with a serious sentence???
>>
>> Ryan Kaldari
>>
>> On 7/27/11 4:53 PM, M. Williamson wrote:
>>> Yes, Elizabeth is clearly not a troll, her suggestion: "I still think a
>>> research project in emesis in the global south or something would have
>>> suited english wikipedia better but that's just me." was clearly entirely
>>> serious and meant to be taken seriously. On that note, I think I will go
>> do
>>> a "research project" on emesis in the nearest restroom.
>>>
>>> 2011/7/27 Ray Saintonge
>>>
 On 07/27/11 2:34 PM, M. Williamson wrote:
> Nathan, I think that Raul Gutierrez, Maria Alameda and "Elizabeth" are
 all
> the same person, somebody trolling the list. While we occasionally get
> single-issue new posters starting topics, it's rare to see them pop up
>> in
> the middle of a topic just to attack one user. Something fishy is
 definitely
> going on here.
 Your failure to assume good faith is excruciatingly apparent.

 Ray

 ___
 foundation-l mailing list
 foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

>>> ___
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> ___
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[M. Williamson]

Ryan, perhaps you missed the intention of my e-mail. The sentence about
"emesis" was also clearly not serious. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/emesis

2011/7/27 Ryan Kaldari 

> So if I post nothing but emails about "the cabal" and random insults to
> people trying to have legitimate discussions, it's cool as long as I end
> my emails with a serious sentence???
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>
> On 7/27/11 4:53 PM, M. Williamson wrote:
> > Yes, Elizabeth is clearly not a troll, her suggestion: "I still think a
> > research project in emesis in the global south or something would have
> > suited english wikipedia better but that's just me." was clearly entirely
> > serious and meant to be taken seriously. On that note, I think I will go
> do
> > a "research project" on emesis in the nearest restroom.
> >
> > 2011/7/27 Ray Saintonge
> >
> >> On 07/27/11 2:34 PM, M. Williamson wrote:
> >>> Nathan, I think that Raul Gutierrez, Maria Alameda and "Elizabeth" are
> >> all
> >>> the same person, somebody trolling the list. While we occasionally get
> >>> single-issue new posters starting topics, it's rare to see them pop up
> in
> >>> the middle of a topic just to attack one user. Something fishy is
> >> definitely
> >>> going on here.
> >> Your failure to assume good faith is excruciatingly apparent.
> >>
> >> Ray
> >>
> >> ___
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[MZMcBride]

Ryan Kaldari wrote:
> So if I post nothing but emails about "the cabal" and random insults to
> people trying to have legitimate discussions, it's cool as long as I end
> my emails with a serious sentence???

No, it's not okay. whothis's posts have been largely unacceptable and while
I don't generally favor moderation, this is one case where I think it would
have been appropriate.

whothis is a "bad hand" account of an otherwise upstanding user. I'm
confident that this user now understands the consequences of such
socking/trolling behavior and I don't imagine we'll hear from this account
again.

(For the record, whothis is not connected to Maria or Raul. I hope both
Maria and Raul continue to participate in this list, as I think they both
offer interesting and insightful perspectives, but that's obviously their
decision to make.)

MZMcBride



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Ryan Kaldari]

So if I post nothing but emails about "the cabal" and random insults to 
people trying to have legitimate discussions, it's cool as long as I end 
my emails with a serious sentence???

Ryan Kaldari

On 7/27/11 4:53 PM, M. Williamson wrote:
> Yes, Elizabeth is clearly not a troll, her suggestion: "I still think a
> research project in emesis in the global south or something would have
> suited english wikipedia better but that's just me." was clearly entirely
> serious and meant to be taken seriously. On that note, I think I will go do
> a "research project" on emesis in the nearest restroom.
>
> 2011/7/27 Ray Saintonge
>
>> On 07/27/11 2:34 PM, M. Williamson wrote:
>>> Nathan, I think that Raul Gutierrez, Maria Alameda and "Elizabeth" are
>> all
>>> the same person, somebody trolling the list. While we occasionally get
>>> single-issue new posters starting topics, it's rare to see them pop up in
>>> the middle of a topic just to attack one user. Something fishy is
>> definitely
>>> going on here.
>> Your failure to assume good faith is excruciatingly apparent.
>>
>> Ray
>>
>> ___
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[M. Williamson]

Yes, Elizabeth is clearly not a troll, her suggestion: "I still think a
research project in emesis in the global south or something would have
suited english wikipedia better but that's just me." was clearly entirely
serious and meant to be taken seriously. On that note, I think I will go do
a "research project" on emesis in the nearest restroom.

2011/7/27 Ray Saintonge 

> On 07/27/11 2:34 PM, M. Williamson wrote:
> > Nathan, I think that Raul Gutierrez, Maria Alameda and "Elizabeth" are
> all
> > the same person, somebody trolling the list. While we occasionally get
> > single-issue new posters starting topics, it's rare to see them pop up in
> > the middle of a topic just to attack one user. Something fishy is
> definitely
> > going on here.
>
> Your failure to assume good faith is excruciatingly apparent.
>
> Ray
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Ray Saintonge]

On 07/27/11 2:34 PM, M. Williamson wrote:
> Nathan, I think that Raul Gutierrez, Maria Alameda and "Elizabeth" are all
> the same person, somebody trolling the list. While we occasionally get
> single-issue new posters starting topics, it's rare to see them pop up in
> the middle of a topic just to attack one user. Something fishy is definitely
> going on here.

Your failure to assume good faith is excruciatingly apparent.

Ray

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Wjhonson]

Yes I agree that primary sources should ONLY be cited-quoted, in their original 
language.
A translation can be *published* but that publication cannot be in Wikipedia 
solely.  It must live somewhere else as well, published by a reliable source.

In this case of an audio file, we should have a transcription, than a 
translation.  However having Wikipedians translate primary sources and then 
citing and quoting those *translations* in-project is a recipe for disaster and 
fraught with the potential for abuse, as well as being original research.  In 
this case the original research is *your unpublished translation used as the 
actual source*.

That's no good.





-Original Message-
From: Ray Saintonge 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 4:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge


On 07/27/11 12:42 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
 David how is an exact quote a summary or interpretation?
 An exact quote, backed up by the actual audio track is... exact.
 You are not summarizing it, and you are not interpreting it either.
 You are presenting it.
If that is to be the case the exact quote MUST be in its original 
anguage.  All translations require interpretation.
Ray
___
oundation-l mailing list
oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Maria Alameda]

Thank you Sarah. I knew I owed a public apology to other members of this list, 
but did not want to bring up my conduct again. I found that the discussion had 
since moved on and I could convey my feelings to Sarah privately.
I would like to publicly apologize to other readers for my past comments. I do 
not edit Wikipedia. I have no idea about the context of discussions on this 
particular mailing list. An old student referred me to the email this morning, 
and I signed up instantly to this mailing list for only the purpose of replying 
to that email. I realized that my knee-jerk reaction at the time was out of 
place and a complete over-reaction to what was being discussed. 
I have since then apologized to Sarah privately, and I do really hope she 
accepted it. I sincerely hope I didn't affect her enthusiasm and passion with 
my comments. My comments were clearly an over-sensitive reaction to 
the perceived content of the last email, I saw them out of context and 
I sincerely apologize for my conduct to everyone who read them.
It has been a while since I have been called a troll, though I am old enough to 
probably be considered one. I don't feel I have anymore to contribute. There 
seems to be a much more active discussion here than what I was expecting. As 
such, this would be my last email to this mailing list, I will be unsubscribe 
after this email - Troll or not. 
I wish everyone the best in their endeavors. I have nothing but good things to 
say about Wikipedia and what it is doing to change our world.
Best wishes
Maria Alameda


> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:40:49 -0400
> From: sarah.stie...@gmail.com
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
> 
> Maria Alameda is not a troll. She apologized to me in a very sincere manner
> offlist. Culturally this is a very sensitive topic, and I have learned to
> deal with the criticism, weariness and lack of trust that people have
> towards the work I do based on my skin color and name. This is not the first
> time I have experienced sentiments like that, and I take each one very
> seriously. It's unfortunate, but, plenty of people have paved the way for
> folks like Maria to have the response she did. :-/
> 
> The other two..I'm not so sure.
> 
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:34 PM, M. Williamson  wrote:
> 
> > Nathan, I think that Raul Gutierrez, Maria Alameda and "Elizabeth" are all
> > the same person, somebody trolling the list. While we occasionally get
> > single-issue new posters starting topics, it's rare to see them pop up in
> > the middle of a topic just to attack one user. Something fishy is
> > definitely
> > going on here.
> >
> > 2011/7/27 Nathan 
> >
> > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Maria Alameda  > >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hello all
> > > > I usually don't comment on mailing lists but a colleague of mine
> > referred
> > > me here. I wanted to comment on the issues related to Native-american
> > > research raised earlier by Ms. Stierch. I found her outlook completely
> > > isolated from the realities.
> > > > I would rather attribute her naivety to her limited view of the world
> > as
> > > a fresh graduate. Personally, it reminds me of a somewhat racist outlook
> > > common among predominantly white-american graduates and students. While I
> > > agree there is a need for more research related to Native american
> > culture,
> > > I really can't agree with the implication that Native american culture is
> > as
> > > overlooked as some unknown tribe in New Guinea.
> > > > I should be thankful for her enthusiasm but this is ridiculous. I'm
> > happy
> > > for her residency at National museum of American Indian(s) and her thesis
> > or
> > > even efforts to change certain policies on Wikipedia, but none of that is
> > > connected with the much-larger cultural and race issues she's referring
> > to.
> > > While I wish her the best, I would hope she not use her thesis as an
> > excuse
> > > to comment on the realities of those cultural issues. Oral citation is
> > just
> > > one small aspect of a much larger culture she learnt in school.
> > > > I might be too sensitive here, but if her comments were to be applied
> > to
> > > african-american culture in the United States coming from a female
> > > white-undergraduate student pursuing her masters, her comments on the
> > plight
> > > and the issues of an entire race would seem rather patronizing. Perhaps,
> > its
> > 

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[M. Williamson]

Well then, Ray, en.wp would not be able to use non-English sources since all
translation is interpretation and would therefore be considered OR which is
not allowed at Wikipedia.

2011/7/27 Ray Saintonge 

> On 07/27/11 12:42 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
> > David how is an exact quote a summary or interpretation?
> > An exact quote, backed up by the actual audio track is... exact.
> > You are not summarizing it, and you are not interpreting it either.
> > You are presenting it.
>
> If that is to be the case the exact quote MUST be in its original
> language.  All translations require interpretation.
>
> Ray
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Sarah]

2011/7/27 David Richfield :
>
> Lots of ethnographic work is very strongly based on interviews with
> people who have an oral tradition.  This is then published and, quite
> correctly, cited in Wikipedia: the view is that it is then a secondary
> source, and hence appropriate.  When we directly source oral
> interviews and host them on a sister project, the complaint is that
> this is a primary source: prone to small sample sizes, unscientific
> data gathering, and hidden biases on the part of the interviewers.
>
Some Wikinews reporters have introduced their interviews as sources on
Wikipedia, with some success -- linking directly to an audio recording
of the interview, not to the Wikinews story -- but there has been
resistance to it.

I've often wondered why we don't introduce video and audio recordings
to our articles, showing interviews by Wikipedians of notable primary
sources. It would make our articles significantly more interesting and
reader-friendly, and would tie in directly with efforts to record oral
histories.

Sarah

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Ray Saintonge]

On 07/27/11 12:42 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
> David how is an exact quote a summary or interpretation?
> An exact quote, backed up by the actual audio track is... exact.
> You are not summarizing it, and you are not interpreting it either.
> You are presenting it.

If that is to be the case the exact quote MUST be in its original 
language.  All translations require interpretation.

Ray

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Ryan Kaldari]

Unless you go by the name Elizabeth or whothis, I don't believe I 
mentioned you in my email. Apologies if there was any confusion. My 
request is specifically regarding the email address whoth...@gmail.com, 
and no one else.

Ryan Kaldari

On 7/27/11 4:18 PM, Raul Gutierrez wrote:
> Dear Ryan,
>
> So I am not entitled to voice my opinion here
>
> BTW, I am not attacking anyone, and I am not any of those other people, I
> would like to request moderation on your comments!
>
> My W user name is GUMR51
>
> Thank you for your consideration
>
> Raul Gutierrez
>
> -Original Message-
> From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Kaldari
> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:52 PM
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
>
> Regardless, Elizabeth/Anon/whothis is clearly trolling the list and being
> disruptive. I would like to request moderation of his/her comments.
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>
> On 7/27/11 2:45 PM, Nathan wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:34 PM, M. Williamson   wrote:
>>> Nathan, I think that Raul Gutierrez, Maria Alameda and "Elizabeth"
>>> are all the same person, somebody trolling the list. While we
>>> occasionally get single-issue new posters starting topics, it's rare
>>> to see them pop up in the middle of a topic just to attack one user.
>>> Something fishy is definitely going on here.
>>>
>> That would be interesting, but I think whothis is a somewhat regular
>> poster (who uses the name Elizabeth Forrester and has been posting
>> since September) and Raul Gutierrez is using a non-free e-mail
>> account. Makes it unlikely that they are the same person.
>>
>> ~Nathan
>>
>> ___
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Raul Gutierrez]

Dear Ryan,

So I am not entitled to voice my opinion here

BTW, I am not attacking anyone, and I am not any of those other people, I
would like to request moderation on your comments!

My W user name is GUMR51

Thank you for your consideration

Raul Gutierrez

-Original Message-
From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Kaldari
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:52 PM
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

Regardless, Elizabeth/Anon/whothis is clearly trolling the list and being
disruptive. I would like to request moderation of his/her comments.

Ryan Kaldari

On 7/27/11 2:45 PM, Nathan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:34 PM, M. Williamson  wrote:
>> Nathan, I think that Raul Gutierrez, Maria Alameda and "Elizabeth" 
>> are all the same person, somebody trolling the list. While we 
>> occasionally get single-issue new posters starting topics, it's rare 
>> to see them pop up in the middle of a topic just to attack one user. 
>> Something fishy is definitely going on here.
>>
> That would be interesting, but I think whothis is a somewhat regular 
> poster (who uses the name Elizabeth Forrester and has been posting 
> since September) and Raul Gutierrez is using a non-free e-mail 
> account. Makes it unlikely that they are the same person.
>
> ~Nathan
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Ryan Kaldari]

Regardless, Elizabeth/Anon/whothis is clearly trolling the list and 
being disruptive. I would like to request moderation of his/her comments.

Ryan Kaldari

On 7/27/11 2:45 PM, Nathan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:34 PM, M. Williamson  wrote:
>> Nathan, I think that Raul Gutierrez, Maria Alameda and "Elizabeth" are all
>> the same person, somebody trolling the list. While we occasionally get
>> single-issue new posters starting topics, it's rare to see them pop up in
>> the middle of a topic just to attack one user. Something fishy is definitely
>> going on here.
>>
> That would be interesting, but I think whothis is a somewhat regular
> poster (who uses the name Elizabeth Forrester and has been posting
> since September) and Raul Gutierrez is using a non-free e-mail
> account. Makes it unlikely that they are the same person.
>
> ~Nathan
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[David Goodman]

Using an exact quote , from video or print,  in an article is a
summary, because you are normally selecting a portion of the potential
material that you consider representative. But the link to the entire
item, as is the required practice, does make this at least audit-able,
in that anyone else can check what you chose to use, at least if the
link is to material that is permanently online--as will be the videos
under discussion.

But choosing to use the quote at all in the article is interpretation.
One normally cannot cite all possible sources. Choosing a source is
intrinsically interpretation. An editor chooses a source because they
consider the source useful to the article; what an editor considers
useful to the article depends on what they want to say, or support.
Wikipedia articles   edited by diverse editors can attain a NPOV
because other editors can also search for sources to use as quotes,
and the principle of crowd-sourcing is that they balance out.
Wikipedia articles not actively edited by multiple diverse individuals
are not NPOV.

How one presents a quote is interpretation and summary. How much
context does one give about where the quote comes from, and the likely
nature of bias from the source? It is impossible to give everything
relevant, while citing all informants or all printed sources as if
they were equal is even worse, and one cannot assume the reader will
be able to do this for themselves. They must judge the arguments for
themselves, but someone in a position to know must judge the sources
and this cannot be done without bias, which can only be partially
corrected by group participation and whatever conscious effort an
individual's skill and integrity make possible. .

Any one WP as a whole is not NPOV because the particular WP reflects
the interests and POV of the overall body of editors, which is not
representative of world opinion; I would argue that the enWP jas the
potential to be the most neutral because of the most diverse
editorship, with perhaps the fr and the es also having this advantage.
A conscious effort to try to surpass personal and cultural bias is
possible, and in this respect, I am less sure the enWP does very well.

I cannot give examples without getting into the related controversies,
which, however tempting, is not my present purpose.


On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Wjhonson  wrote:
>
> David how is an exact quote a summary or interpretation?
> An exact quote, backed up by the actual audio track is... exact.
> You are not summarizing it, and you are not interpreting it either.
> You are presenting it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: David Goodman 
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
> Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 12:39 pm
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Wjhonson  wrote:
>
>  For actual quotations from sources, you should quote the source exactly.
>  Then you will never be using original research.
>
>  You are going the next step and summarizing and interpreting.  Don't do that.
> But selecting what quotations to use, what parts of them to use, and
> n what context one uses them, and the language one uses to present
> hem, is a not a mechanical or necessarily neutral endeavor. It cannot
> e done without summarizing and interpreting.
> Certainly in Wikipedia and everywhere else the world also,
> nrepresentative of partial quotations are used to propagandistic or
> ontroversial effect--sometimes even deliberately, but more often
> ecause the particular quotation and manner fits what the editor
> esires to express. A person in the course of a long career will say
> any things on their main interests, and some will be  at  least
> artially contradictory. Selecting what represents the person's true
> iews, what represents a true change of opinion, what represent
> rratic misstatements --all of this require decisions which amount to
> hat we call original research and synthesis. It is not possible to
> rite any but the most trivial article without research and synthesis.
> reparing a summary of the state of a question intrinsically requires
> t. Deciding of the balance of an article necessarily involves having
>  POV--if one approaches a subject where one has none initially, by
> he time the article has been finished, one or the other position is
> ure to have been found more appealing, and a non-neural POV is sure
> o have developed.
> The writing of secondary and tertiary works   are inevitably
> ssociated with bias.  The way by which we avoid its worst
> anifestations in Wikipedia is not by being free from bias, but by
> aving articles written collectively by a diverse group of people.
> hat we lose in elegant prose we gain in objectivity. This is why it
> s important to  continually increase

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Nathan]

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:34 PM, M. Williamson  wrote:
> Nathan, I think that Raul Gutierrez, Maria Alameda and "Elizabeth" are all
> the same person, somebody trolling the list. While we occasionally get
> single-issue new posters starting topics, it's rare to see them pop up in
> the middle of a topic just to attack one user. Something fishy is definitely
> going on here.
>

That would be interesting, but I think whothis is a somewhat regular
poster (who uses the name Elizabeth Forrester and has been posting
since September) and Raul Gutierrez is using a non-free e-mail
account. Makes it unlikely that they are the same person.

~Nathan

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Sarah Stierch]

Maria Alameda is not a troll. She apologized to me in a very sincere manner
offlist. Culturally this is a very sensitive topic, and I have learned to
deal with the criticism, weariness and lack of trust that people have
towards the work I do based on my skin color and name. This is not the first
time I have experienced sentiments like that, and I take each one very
seriously. It's unfortunate, but, plenty of people have paved the way for
folks like Maria to have the response she did. :-/

The other two..I'm not so sure.

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:34 PM, M. Williamson  wrote:

> Nathan, I think that Raul Gutierrez, Maria Alameda and "Elizabeth" are all
> the same person, somebody trolling the list. While we occasionally get
> single-issue new posters starting topics, it's rare to see them pop up in
> the middle of a topic just to attack one user. Something fishy is
> definitely
> going on here.
>
> 2011/7/27 Nathan 
>
> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Maria Alameda  >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello all
> > > I usually don't comment on mailing lists but a colleague of mine
> referred
> > me here. I wanted to comment on the issues related to Native-american
> > research raised earlier by Ms. Stierch. I found her outlook completely
> > isolated from the realities.
> > > I would rather attribute her naivety to her limited view of the world
> as
> > a fresh graduate. Personally, it reminds me of a somewhat racist outlook
> > common among predominantly white-american graduates and students. While I
> > agree there is a need for more research related to Native american
> culture,
> > I really can't agree with the implication that Native american culture is
> as
> > overlooked as some unknown tribe in New Guinea.
> > > I should be thankful for her enthusiasm but this is ridiculous. I'm
> happy
> > for her residency at National museum of American Indian(s) and her thesis
> or
> > even efforts to change certain policies on Wikipedia, but none of that is
> > connected with the much-larger cultural and race issues she's referring
> to.
> > While I wish her the best, I would hope she not use her thesis as an
> excuse
> > to comment on the realities of those cultural issues. Oral citation is
> just
> > one small aspect of a much larger culture she learnt in school.
> > > I might be too sensitive here, but if her comments were to be applied
> to
> > african-american culture in the United States coming from a female
> > white-undergraduate student pursuing her masters, her comments on the
> plight
> > and the issues of an entire race would seem rather patronizing. Perhaps,
> its
> > just me.
> > > Maria AlamedaM.A, Ph.d (Native American studies)
> > >
> >
> > This seems like an over-reaction to me. It doesn't seem horribly
> > unlikely that Sarah is, if not alone, then among a very small group of
> > academics studying the intersection of Native Americans and Wikimedia
> > projects.
> >
> > Were her descriptions of the challenges facing Native American
> > communities inaccurate?
> >
> > Are you aware of outreach efforts by the WMF aimed at Native
> > Americans? (There are certainly many aimed at many other groups around
> > the world; the seeming absence of focus on Native Americans would
> > support Sarah's statement that they are "overlooked" in this regard).
> >
> > Could you explain the specific errors she made that led you to call
> > her e-mail racist, patronizing and naive? I think if you are going to
> > use such strong words, then more substantial criticism is required
> > than simply stating that she is female, young and white.
> >
> > Nathan
> >
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia
Foundation
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Art
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
--
http://www.sarahstierch.com/
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[M. Williamson]

Nathan, I think that Raul Gutierrez, Maria Alameda and "Elizabeth" are all
the same person, somebody trolling the list. While we occasionally get
single-issue new posters starting topics, it's rare to see them pop up in
the middle of a topic just to attack one user. Something fishy is definitely
going on here.

2011/7/27 Nathan 

> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Maria Alameda 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello all
> > I usually don't comment on mailing lists but a colleague of mine referred
> me here. I wanted to comment on the issues related to Native-american
> research raised earlier by Ms. Stierch. I found her outlook completely
> isolated from the realities.
> > I would rather attribute her naivety to her limited view of the world as
> a fresh graduate. Personally, it reminds me of a somewhat racist outlook
> common among predominantly white-american graduates and students. While I
> agree there is a need for more research related to Native american culture,
> I really can't agree with the implication that Native american culture is as
> overlooked as some unknown tribe in New Guinea.
> > I should be thankful for her enthusiasm but this is ridiculous. I'm happy
> for her residency at National museum of American Indian(s) and her thesis or
> even efforts to change certain policies on Wikipedia, but none of that is
> connected with the much-larger cultural and race issues she's referring to.
> While I wish her the best, I would hope she not use her thesis as an excuse
> to comment on the realities of those cultural issues. Oral citation is just
> one small aspect of a much larger culture she learnt in school.
> > I might be too sensitive here, but if her comments were to be applied to
> african-american culture in the United States coming from a female
> white-undergraduate student pursuing her masters, her comments on the plight
> and the issues of an entire race would seem rather patronizing. Perhaps, its
> just me.
> > Maria AlamedaM.A, Ph.d (Native American studies)
> >
>
> This seems like an over-reaction to me. It doesn't seem horribly
> unlikely that Sarah is, if not alone, then among a very small group of
> academics studying the intersection of Native Americans and Wikimedia
> projects.
>
> Were her descriptions of the challenges facing Native American
> communities inaccurate?
>
> Are you aware of outreach efforts by the WMF aimed at Native
> Americans? (There are certainly many aimed at many other groups around
> the world; the seeming absence of focus on Native Americans would
> support Sarah's statement that they are "overlooked" in this regard).
>
> Could you explain the specific errors she made that led you to call
> her e-mail racist, patronizing and naive? I think if you are going to
> use such strong words, then more substantial criticism is required
> than simply stating that she is female, young and white.
>
> Nathan
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Ziko van Dijk]

Dear Achal,

I don't have a form fetishism :-) although I highly prefer written to
oral sources for many practical reasons. You know that in oral history
projects the transcription is an essential part of the work, by the
way.

What I am pointing to is the difference between primary sources and
secondary sources. It is the utmost important distinction in history
science. I am sure that any introduction to historiography will agree
with me on that.

Kind regards
Ziko




2011/7/27 Achal Prabhala :
> Dear Ziko,
>
> On Wednesday 27 July 2011 09:38 PM, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Today I found the time to read the messages about the "Oral Citations"
>> project and watch the film "People are Knowledge". I hope that we can
>> go on in this discussion without accusations about racism etc. In
>> science, it is the quality of the findings that should matter, not the
>> colour of the researcher's skin (may it be black, white, or green).
>>
>> == Concerned ==
>> I must say that I am deeply concerned about the "Oral Citations". If
>> someone wants to set up a new Wikimedia project for oral traditions or
>> "oral history", I could live with that although I don't think that it
>> fits into the scope of Wikimedia. It certainly does not fit into the
>> scope of Wikipedia.
> May I say, firstly, that this is an experiment - an experiment which
> those of us working on it, and others around us, thought might lead to
> interesting results. Secondly, may I also say that the project is not on
> "oral history" - it's on using oral sources as citations.
>> The film says that recorded "oral history" should be considered to be
>> a reliable souce "when there are some accessible printed sources on a
>> subjet, but the sources are incomplete or misleading by way of being
>> outdated or biased". So, when someone believes that those "accessible
>> printed sources" are "biased", he comes up with the video of his grand
>> uncle telling the truth?
>> == Problems of orality (of the human brain) ==
>> The film presents some carefully selected scholars supporting the film
>> makers' opinion, but if you ask the huge majority of historians they
>> will explain to you why they are so reluctant about "oral history".
> Obviously, the scholars and intellectuals we talked to were selected. We
> don't pretend otherwise. I am personally not privy to what the "majority
> of historians" think. But on that note - this project was about using
> oral citations as sources, not about re-writing history. If you will
> please take a look at the subjects we covered through the course of this
> experiment, you will see that they are: recipes, religious ceremonies,
> traditional liquor and folk games. All of these things relate to
> everyday events that are practised by a large number of people and can
> be observed by anyone
>> Take an example described by Johannes Fried, Memorik, p. 215: The
>> Gonja in Northern Ghana told to British colonial officials that there
>> once was the founder of their empire, Ndewura Japka. He had seven
>> sons, each of them mentioned by name, and each of them administered
>> one of the seven provinces of the Gonja empire.
>>
>> Then the British reformed the administration, and only five provinces
>> remained. Decennias later, when the British rule ended, scholars asked
>> the people again about the history of Ndewura Japka. Now, the founder
>> had only five sons. Those two sons, whose provinces were abolished by
>> the British, were totally erased from memory, if British colonial
>> records had not preseved their names.
> and none of the articles thus created are about rewriting the
> history of the last few centuries or undoing the work of the academy. We
> are simply interested in these subjects because they are part of the
> everyday life of millions of people like us, and because they haven't
> been recorded in print in a form that is useful to Wikipedia.
>> I myself have interviewed people who claimed that they did not write a
>> peticular letter (which I found in the archives), that they met a
>> person at a peticular convention (although the person did not
>> participate at all) and so on. These people may not be liars, but
>> memory is flexible and unstable. By nature, man is not created to be a
>> historian, to preserve carefully information in his brain, but to deal
>> with the actual world he lives in.
>>
>> == The way of historiography ==
>> * Historians collect primary sources and try to create a sound and
>> coherent narrative based on them. Those primary sources are written
>> records in archives, or already in printed or online editions, or
>> interviews recorded.
>> * Then the historians publish their findings in secondary sources.
>> * Later, text-book and handbook authors read those secondary sources
>> and create their tertiary sources. Wikipedia is such a tertiary
>> source.
>>
>> It is not the task of Wikipedians or even readers to be confronted
>> with the mass of primary sources and figure o

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[CasteloBranco]

Yes, Achal, i was listening to them right now. And reading the Meta 
page. My question is about the transcription. Should we use Wikisource 
(because it is an authoral work) or Wikinews (because it's an interview) 
for the written version? Or should we cite the audio file directly?

I'm asking this because Wikinews can maybe be reliable [1] enough. It 
has a process for original reports [2] and also for accredited 
contributors. [3] With the transcription in Wikinews, following these 
policies, we can assume we are using a neutral source, and therefore we 
can use news citations ({{cite news}}, for instance, or a specific one). 
This is what we would do if we were using any interview in some news 
magazine available on internet as a source for Wikipedia, isn't?

We can also develop something similar for Wikisource (which is already 
used for transcriptions, in general). What do you think?

Well, maybe the better place for that is Meta talk page.[4]

Castelo

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources
[2] http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Original_reporting
[3] http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Accreditation_policy
[4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Oral_Citations

Em 27/07/2011 16:42, Achal Prabhala escreveu:
> Dear Castelo,
>
> On Thursday 28 July 2011 12:25 AM, CasteloBranco wrote:
>> Tom,
>>
>> The fundamental difference in our views is that you talk about
>> translation, and i'm talking about another thing. The projects are not
>> bare translations of another language version (let's say, the English
>> version). Every project (en.wiki, pt.wiki, eo.wiki) has its own
>> community, which is not a group of translators. They produce the
>> articles that are interesting for them, and write in a style which is
>> neutral for its community. Maybe the result wouldn't be the same for
>> another project, and not because i say it, but simply because these
>> things take place in parallel. What i said is that the result of a
>> discussion on an article in a project doesn't apply for the other
>> projects, so the same article can have a version deleted in a project
>> and featured in another.  The choice itself of articles which are
>> considered "encyclopedic" enough to be kept may vary a lot from
>> community to community.
>>
>> About using English as the "transfer language", well... the knowledge
>> already exists in another language, the interviews are recorded in
>> native languages. Why don't we use the original language as a source? Or
>> shall we ask people to make those oral citations in English, just
>> because it "is the predominantly spoken language of Wikimedia"? What if
>> those people can't speak English? Should they learn it first, to have
>> those oral citations published? It doesn't seem very reasonable.
>>
>> I think this is a very interesting project, in order to improve quality
>> *specially* for other projects than en.wiki, but also - why not? - in
>> en.wiki. "Specially" because the subject of those citations are surely
>> interesting for those people, but maybe not for another ones.  For now,
>> this is hard because of the lack of written sources, but with the Oral
>> Citations projects, this can more frequently happen.
>>
>> One question: with the videos uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, will the
>> transcriptions be made on the respectives Wikisources (in Zulu, Swahili,
>> Malagasy, etc.) with translations to the other versions? Or should we
>> use the Wikinews, once they are interviews?
> We currently have several audio interviews up on commons. The Sepedi
> interviews (from South Africa) are simultaneously translated in the
> audio to English, so you should be able to understand them. The
> Malayalam and Hindi interviews are in those languages only, so harder
> for you to understand.
>
> We are working on transcripts, in each of the three languages + English,
> for all these audio files, but that will take some time (it is on our
> to-do list). Once they are done, perhaps you can make more sense of them.
>
> For the moment, here are the files if you wish to check them out:
>
> Sepedi:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Kgati_Interview1.ogg
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Kgati_Interview2.ogg
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Kgati_Interview3.ogg
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Mogkope_Interview1.ogg
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Mogkope_Interview2.ogg
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Mokgope_Interview3.ogg
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Mokgope_Interview4.ogg
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Mopani-Worms-Recipe_Interview1.ogg
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Tsere_tsere_Interview1.ogg
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Tsere_tsere_Interview2.ogg
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Wjhonson  wrote:

>
> David how is an exact quote a summary or interpretation?
> An exact quote, backed up by the actual audio track is... exact.
> You are not summarizing it, and you are not interpreting it either.
> You are presenting it.
>
>


We shut down simple quote, right?



-- 
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Wjhonson]

Linking the full audio allows the user to dig into the material without 
trusting your selection.
Then other editors can select other pieces, or remove your selection.

I personally don't equate "Selection" with "Interpretation".
To me interpretation is modifying the original source using other words.






-Original Message-
From: Thomas Morton 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 12:45 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge


>
 David how is an exact quote a summary or interpretation?
 An exact quote, backed up by the actual audio track is... exact.
 You are not summarizing it, and you are not interpreting it either.
 You are presenting it.


he point David is making is that you are selecting material to quote and
dd.
This is a problem that happens a lot anyway; you might have a lengthy piece
f audio, video or text that discusses material - picking a few points to
uote is in itself interpreting what it important. This is why secondary
ources are better - because they do the selection for us :)
Tom
__
oundation-l mailing list
oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Thomas Morton]

>
> David how is an exact quote a summary or interpretation?
> An exact quote, backed up by the actual audio track is... exact.
> You are not summarizing it, and you are not interpreting it either.
> You are presenting it.
>
>
The point David is making is that you are selecting material to quote and
add.

This is a problem that happens a lot anyway; you might have a lengthy piece
of audio, video or text that discusses material - picking a few points to
quote is in itself interpreting what it important. This is why secondary
sources are better - because they do the selection for us :)

Tom
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Achal Prabhala]

Dear Castelo,

On Thursday 28 July 2011 12:25 AM, CasteloBranco wrote:
> Tom,
>
> The fundamental difference in our views is that you talk about
> translation, and i'm talking about another thing. The projects are not
> bare translations of another language version (let's say, the English
> version). Every project (en.wiki, pt.wiki, eo.wiki) has its own
> community, which is not a group of translators. They produce the
> articles that are interesting for them, and write in a style which is
> neutral for its community. Maybe the result wouldn't be the same for
> another project, and not because i say it, but simply because these
> things take place in parallel. What i said is that the result of a
> discussion on an article in a project doesn't apply for the other
> projects, so the same article can have a version deleted in a project
> and featured in another.  The choice itself of articles which are
> considered "encyclopedic" enough to be kept may vary a lot from
> community to community.
>
> About using English as the "transfer language", well... the knowledge
> already exists in another language, the interviews are recorded in
> native languages. Why don't we use the original language as a source? Or
> shall we ask people to make those oral citations in English, just
> because it "is the predominantly spoken language of Wikimedia"? What if
> those people can't speak English? Should they learn it first, to have
> those oral citations published? It doesn't seem very reasonable.
>
> I think this is a very interesting project, in order to improve quality
> *specially* for other projects than en.wiki, but also - why not? - in
> en.wiki. "Specially" because the subject of those citations are surely
> interesting for those people, but maybe not for another ones.  For now,
> this is hard because of the lack of written sources, but with the Oral
> Citations projects, this can more frequently happen.
>
> One question: with the videos uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, will the
> transcriptions be made on the respectives Wikisources (in Zulu, Swahili,
> Malagasy, etc.) with translations to the other versions? Or should we
> use the Wikinews, once they are interviews?

We currently have several audio interviews up on commons. The Sepedi 
interviews (from South Africa) are simultaneously translated in the 
audio to English, so you should be able to understand them. The 
Malayalam and Hindi interviews are in those languages only, so harder 
for you to understand.

We are working on transcripts, in each of the three languages + English, 
for all these audio files, but that will take some time (it is on our 
to-do list). Once they are done, perhaps you can make more sense of them.

For the moment, here are the files if you wish to check them out:

Sepedi:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Kgati_Interview1.ogg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Kgati_Interview2.ogg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Kgati_Interview3.ogg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Mogkope_Interview1.ogg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Mogkope_Interview2.ogg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Mokgope_Interview3.ogg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Mokgope_Interview4.ogg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Mopani-Worms-Recipe_Interview1.ogg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Tsere_tsere_Interview1.ogg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Tsere_tsere_Interview2.ogg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Tsere_tsere_Interview3.ogg


Malayalam:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Dabba-Kali_Interview1.ogg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Neeliyar-Bhagavathi_%28Theyyam%29_Interview1.ogg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Neeliyar-Bhagavathi_%28Theyyam%29_Interview2.ogg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Neeliyar-Bhagavathi_%28Theyyam%29_Interview3.ogg


Hindi:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Gillidanda_Interview1.ogg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Sur_Interview1.ogg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeopleAreKnowledge_Sur_Interview2.ogg


Cheers,
Achal
> Castelo
>
> Em 27/07/2011 12:49, Thomas Morton escreveu:
>>> How about Brazilian "caldo de sururu", which is missing on en.wiki (and
>>> also
>>> on pt.wiki)? It's surely a lack for pt.wiki, but maybe not for en.wiki,
>>>
>> Perhaps this is the fundamental difference in our views; because I consider
>> that a lack on *any language Wikipedia* whether pt, en, de, fr etc
>>
>>
>>> On wikipedias, people doesn't look for other discussions (AfD) on the
>>> same article in another language before deleting an article for lack of
>>> notability. So you can expect that some valid unit of knowledge in one
>>> language

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Wjhonson]

David how is an exact quote a summary or interpretation?
An exact quote, backed up by the actual audio track is... exact.
You are not summarizing it, and you are not interpreting it either.
You are presenting it.






-Original Message-
From: David Goodman 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 12:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge


On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Wjhonson  wrote:

 For actual quotations from sources, you should quote the source exactly.
 Then you will never be using original research.

 You are going the next step and summarizing and interpreting.  Don't do that.
But selecting what quotations to use, what parts of them to use, and
n what context one uses them, and the language one uses to present
hem, is a not a mechanical or necessarily neutral endeavor. It cannot
e done without summarizing and interpreting.
Certainly in Wikipedia and everywhere else the world also,
nrepresentative of partial quotations are used to propagandistic or
ontroversial effect--sometimes even deliberately, but more often
ecause the particular quotation and manner fits what the editor
esires to express. A person in the course of a long career will say
any things on their main interests, and some will be  at  least
artially contradictory. Selecting what represents the person's true
iews, what represents a true change of opinion, what represent
rratic misstatements --all of this require decisions which amount to
hat we call original research and synthesis. It is not possible to
rite any but the most trivial article without research and synthesis.
reparing a summary of the state of a question intrinsically requires
t. Deciding of the balance of an article necessarily involves having
 POV--if one approaches a subject where one has none initially, by
he time the article has been finished, one or the other position is
ure to have been found more appealing, and a non-neural POV is sure
o have developed.
The writing of secondary and tertiary works   are inevitably
ssociated with bias.  The way by which we avoid its worst
anifestations in Wikipedia is not by being free from bias, but by
aving articles written collectively by a diverse group of people.
hat we lose in elegant prose we gain in objectivity. This is why it
s important to  continually increase the number of active
ditors--not just to increase the scope, but to ensure adequate eyes
n the articles.
But even so, the different Wikipedias will be inevitably different.
Attention has recently been called on the  list to
ttp://manypedia.com/.)  We need in particular more people with
ultiple language ability to incorporate the diversity in the
ndividual encyclopedias.This is one reason why it is critically
mportant to develop Wikipedias in the non-Western languages, so their
iews too can be represented not just in their own language, but
hroughout the project.
 --
avid Goodman
DGG at the enWP
ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
___
oundation-l mailing list
oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[David Goodman]

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Wjhonson  wrote:
>
> For actual quotations from sources, you should quote the source exactly.
> Then you will never be using original research.
>
> You are going the next step and summarizing and interpreting.  Don't do that.

But selecting what quotations to use, what parts of them to use, and
in what context one uses them, and the language one uses to present
them, is a not a mechanical or necessarily neutral endeavor. It cannot
be done without summarizing and interpreting.

Certainly in Wikipedia and everywhere else the world also,
unrepresentative of partial quotations are used to propagandistic or
controversial effect--sometimes even deliberately, but more often
because the particular quotation and manner fits what the editor
desires to express. A person in the course of a long career will say
many things on their main interests, and some will be  at  least
partially contradictory. Selecting what represents the person's true
views, what represents a true change of opinion, what represent
erratic misstatements --all of this require decisions which amount to
what we call original research and synthesis. It is not possible to
write any but the most trivial article without research and synthesis.
Preparing a summary of the state of a question intrinsically requires
it. Deciding of the balance of an article necessarily involves having
a POV--if one approaches a subject where one has none initially, by
the time the article has been finished, one or the other position is
sure to have been found more appealing, and a non-neural POV is sure
to have developed.

The writing of secondary and tertiary works   are inevitably
associated with bias.  The way by which we avoid its worst
manifestations in Wikipedia is not by being free from bias, but by
having articles written collectively by a diverse group of people.
What we lose in elegant prose we gain in objectivity. This is why it
is important to  continually increase the number of active
editors--not just to increase the scope, but to ensure adequate eyes
on the articles.

But even so, the different Wikipedias will be inevitably different.
(Attention has recently been called on the  list to
http://manypedia.com/.)  We need in particular more people with
multiple language ability to incorporate the diversity in the
individual encyclopedias.This is one reason why it is critically
important to develop Wikipedias in the non-Western languages, so their
views too can be represented not just in their own language, but
throughout the project.

 --
David Goodman

DGG at the enWP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Wjhonson]

So you wish to claim that you can make factual statements, based on oral 
interviews which are primary sources.

I find that position troubling.
I would suggest, should you actually present such a theory at our policy pages, 
you'd find strong opposition to this unique perspective.

Our policy does not mimic the policy of a print journal.  Wikipedia is not a 
secondary source in that sense.
It has rather been described as a "tertiary" source.
Encyclopedias in a general sense summarize and interpret multiple secondary 
sources with some primary source as well.

However this appears to be a leap that we should not make, IMHO.
I don't think requiring the use of quotations when you are quoting is much of a 
leap.
I do think, presenting facts, conclusions and positions based on a few data 
points only is irregular.






-Original Message-
From: Achal Prabhala 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 12:09 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge


Hallo, (responses inline)
On Thursday 28 July 2011 12:27 AM, Wjhonson wrote:
 Achal I was responding to Thomas not to you.
 However yes, if you are quoting what an interviewee is saying, you should use 
uotation marks to offset their statements.
 Or even use the blockquote markup for a lengthy quotation.
My own understanding is that this is not a requirement of a print 
rticle (say, a journal essay or a NYTimes report).
> If you do something like decide that because three people said "King Makambo 
uled from 800 to 840" that you can simply state this in an article and cite the 
ideo, I would suggest that is a decision not well-founded on our editing 
rinciples.
t is therefore not clear why on the oral citations we make (linked to 
he audio interview source) we should therefore do that. Two quick 
larifications again, because I fear that these are causing some confusion:
1) We don't have any video citations, only oral citations, linked to 
udio interviews.
2) None of the articles created (or in creation) are about things 
elated to fictional Kings & Queens in the 9th century AD. In short: 
e're not wading into the murky territory of rewriting events that 
appened 13 centuries ago. I think the distinction is important because 
here is an underlying feeling one gets here - and from a few other 
osts - that somehow this experiment with oral citations opens up the 
pportunity to write fictionalised accounts of the history of the world, 
hich would make for good science fiction, which is in itself a good 
hing - but also far above our pay grade. :)

 Citations to primary sources should, in my opinion, always use quotation 
arks.  And never fail to do so.



hile this is a possibility, there is no policy on citation of primary 
ources on Wikipedia. In academia, field work and interviews are often 
araphrased; they definitely do not have to be reported inside quotes, 
hough of course, they may be.


 -Original Message-
 From: Achal Prabhala
 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
 Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 11:53 am
 Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge


 Hallo, (responses inline)
 On Wednesday 27 July 2011 11:57 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
   For actual quotations from sources, you should quote the source exactly.
   Then you will never be using original research.
 I don't actually understand what this means. If you look at the articles
 reated:
 
ttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations#Articles.2F_Discussions_.28in_development.29
 you can see exactly how the citations are used. In the articles, each
 tatement that can be attributed to a particular audio interview is
 ited to that audio interview. Do you mean also using quotes for actual
 ords in the text of the article itself?
> You are going the next step and summarizing and interpreting.  Don't do that.
 Actually, no. We are not summarizing or interpreting, merely reporting
 he content of the cited audio interviews (and the accumulated reports,
 ometimes conflicting, gathered in the course of several audio
 nterviews) in exactly the same way one would do if the sources were
 ournal articles instead.
 But if I haven't understood your questions correctly, please elaborate
 nd explain further.
 Thanks,
 chal



   -Original Message-
   From: Thomas Morton
   To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
   Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 11:19 am
   Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge


 All sources can be cited without falling afoul of "original research"
 Original research only covers claims without sources at all, or claims 
ade
 from yourself as the source.
 Any source, including citing to a video interviews, is never original
 research.

 Ideally of course, yes. However it is quite hard to work with primary
   ources of this nature (i.e. ones that are not summarising a subjec

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Achal Prabhala]

Hallo, (responses inline)

On Thursday 28 July 2011 12:27 AM, Wjhonson wrote:
> Achal I was responding to Thomas not to you.
> However yes, if you are quoting what an interviewee is saying, you should use 
> quotation marks to offset their statements.
> Or even use the blockquote markup for a lengthy quotation.

My own understanding is that this is not a requirement of a print 
article (say, a journal essay or a NYTimes report).

> If you do something like decide that because three people said "King Makambo 
> ruled from 800 to 840" that you can simply state this in an article and cite 
> the video, I would suggest that is a decision not well-founded on our editing 
> principles.
It is therefore not clear why on the oral citations we make (linked to 
the audio interview source) we should therefore do that. Two quick 
clarifications again, because I fear that these are causing some confusion:

1) We don't have any video citations, only oral citations, linked to 
audio interviews.

2) None of the articles created (or in creation) are about things 
related to fictional Kings & Queens in the 9th century AD. In short: 
we're not wading into the murky territory of rewriting events that 
happened 13 centuries ago. I think the distinction is important because 
there is an underlying feeling one gets here - and from a few other 
posts - that somehow this experiment with oral citations opens up the 
opportunity to write fictionalised accounts of the history of the world, 
which would make for good science fiction, which is in itself a good 
thing - but also far above our pay grade. :)


> Citations to primary sources should, in my opinion, always use quotation 
> marks.  And never fail to do so.
>
>
>
While this is a possibility, there is no policy on citation of primary 
sources on Wikipedia. In academia, field work and interviews are often 
paraphrased; they definitely do not have to be reported inside quotes, 
though of course, they may be.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Achal Prabhala
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 11:53 am
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
>
>
> Hallo, (responses inline)
> On Wednesday 27 July 2011 11:57 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
>   For actual quotations from sources, you should quote the source exactly.
>   Then you will never be using original research.
> I don't actually understand what this means. If you look at the articles
> reated:
> ttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations#Articles.2F_Discussions_.28in_development.29
> you can see exactly how the citations are used. In the articles, each
> tatement that can be attributed to a particular audio interview is
> ited to that audio interview. Do you mean also using quotes for actual
> ords in the text of the article itself?
>> You are going the next step and summarizing and interpreting.  Don't do that.
> Actually, no. We are not summarizing or interpreting, merely reporting
> he content of the cited audio interviews (and the accumulated reports,
> ometimes conflicting, gathered in the course of several audio
> nterviews) in exactly the same way one would do if the sources were
> ournal articles instead.
> But if I haven't understood your questions correctly, please elaborate
> nd explain further.
> Thanks,
> chal
>
>
>
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: Thomas Morton
>   To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>   Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 11:19 am
>   Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
>
>
> All sources can be cited without falling afoul of "original research"
> Original research only covers claims without sources at all, or claims 
> made
> from yourself as the source.
> Any source, including citing to a video interviews, is never original
> research.
>
> Ideally of course, yes. However it is quite hard to work with primary
>   ources of this nature (i.e. ones that are not summarising a subject) and
>   void interpretation (which is at the core of OR). It is perfectly possible
>   o cite an iron clad reliable source and still end up doing original
>   esearch :) It's just that the risk is greater with these forms of sources.
>
> I don't really get by the way, why this is considered revolutionary.
> These aren't "oral citations" in the standard sense, these are citations 
> to
> a published video.
>
>   eliability depends on a number of factors; for a video it depends on things
>   ike the identity of the person speaking, the publishing body, etc.
>   Raw footage of this sort is very much primary sourcing
>   ith potential reliability problems.
>   The key thing for 

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Wjhonson]

Achal I was responding to Thomas not to you.
However yes, if you are quoting what an interviewee is saying, you should use 
quotation marks to offset their statements.
Or even use the blockquote markup for a lengthy quotation.

If you do something like decide that because three people said "King Makambo 
ruled from 800 to 840" that you can simply state this in an article and cite 
the video, I would suggest that is a decision not well-founded on our editing 
principles.

Citations to primary sources should, in my opinion, always use quotation marks. 
 And never fail to do so.






-Original Message-
From: Achal Prabhala 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 11:53 am
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge


Hallo, (responses inline)
On Wednesday 27 July 2011 11:57 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
 For actual quotations from sources, you should quote the source exactly.
 Then you will never be using original research.
I don't actually understand what this means. If you look at the articles 
reated: 
ttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations#Articles.2F_Discussions_.28in_development.29
you can see exactly how the citations are used. In the articles, each 
tatement that can be attributed to a particular audio interview is 
ited to that audio interview. Do you mean also using quotes for actual 
ords in the text of the article itself?
> You are going the next step and summarizing and interpreting.  Don't do that.
Actually, no. We are not summarizing or interpreting, merely reporting 
he content of the cited audio interviews (and the accumulated reports, 
ometimes conflicting, gathered in the course of several audio 
nterviews) in exactly the same way one would do if the sources were 
ournal articles instead.
But if I haven't understood your questions correctly, please elaborate 
nd explain further.
Thanks,
chal
>




 -Original Message-
 From: Thomas Morton
 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
 Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 11:19 am
 Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge


   All sources can be cited without falling afoul of "original research"
   Original research only covers claims without sources at all, or claims made
   from yourself as the source.
   Any source, including citing to a video interviews, is never original
   research.

   Ideally of course, yes. However it is quite hard to work with primary
 ources of this nature (i.e. ones that are not summarising a subject) and
 void interpretation (which is at the core of OR). It is perfectly possible
 o cite an iron clad reliable source and still end up doing original
 esearch :) It's just that the risk is greater with these forms of sources.

   I don't really get by the way, why this is considered revolutionary.
   These aren't "oral citations" in the standard sense, these are citations to
   a published video.

 eliability depends on a number of factors; for a video it depends on things
 ike the identity of the person speaking, the publishing body, etc.
 Raw footage of this sort is very much primary sourcing
 ith potential reliability problems.
 The key thing for reliable sources is the idea of *fact checking or peer
 eview*. This is why the very best sorts of sources are those published in
 espected scientific journals - because they have been reviewed for
 istakes, bias, etc.
 Ideally these videos would be published as a primary resource, interested
 arties would synthesise material and write papers (or give lectures, or
 ublish a book) - secondary sources - which could then be cited by tertiary
 ources, such as us :)
 Currently you would have to treat these videos with a modicum of care, under
 he usual guidelines for primary source material.
 Tom
 __
 oundation-l mailing list
 oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
 nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

 ___
 foundation-l mailing list
 foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

___
oundation-l mailing list
oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[CasteloBranco]

Tom,

The fundamental difference in our views is that you talk about 
translation, and i'm talking about another thing. The projects are not 
bare translations of another language version (let's say, the English 
version). Every project (en.wiki, pt.wiki, eo.wiki) has its own 
community, which is not a group of translators. They produce the 
articles that are interesting for them, and write in a style which is 
neutral for its community. Maybe the result wouldn't be the same for 
another project, and not because i say it, but simply because these 
things take place in parallel. What i said is that the result of a 
discussion on an article in a project doesn't apply for the other 
projects, so the same article can have a version deleted in a project 
and featured in another.  The choice itself of articles which are 
considered "encyclopedic" enough to be kept may vary a lot from 
community to community.

About using English as the "transfer language", well... the knowledge 
already exists in another language, the interviews are recorded in 
native languages. Why don't we use the original language as a source? Or 
shall we ask people to make those oral citations in English, just 
because it "is the predominantly spoken language of Wikimedia"? What if 
those people can't speak English? Should they learn it first, to have 
those oral citations published? It doesn't seem very reasonable.

I think this is a very interesting project, in order to improve quality 
*specially* for other projects than en.wiki, but also - why not? - in 
en.wiki. "Specially" because the subject of those citations are surely 
interesting for those people, but maybe not for another ones.  For now, 
this is hard because of the lack of written sources, but with the Oral 
Citations projects, this can more frequently happen.

One question: with the videos uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, will the 
transcriptions be made on the respectives Wikisources (in Zulu, Swahili, 
Malagasy, etc.) with translations to the other versions? Or should we 
use the Wikinews, once they are interviews?

Castelo

Em 27/07/2011 12:49, Thomas Morton escreveu:
>> How about Brazilian "caldo de sururu", which is missing on en.wiki (and
>> also
>> on pt.wiki)? It's surely a lack for pt.wiki, but maybe not for en.wiki,
>>
> Perhaps this is the fundamental difference in our views; because I consider
> that a lack on *any language Wikipedia* whether pt, en, de, fr etc
>
>
>> On wikipedias, people doesn't look for other discussions (AfD) on the
>> same article in another language before deleting an article for lack of
>> notability. So you can expect that some valid unit of knowledge in one
>> language is not surely (or automatic) valid in another.
>>
> This is not so much a problem to be looked at from the perspective of "oh
> their just not interested in X cultural articles", but from the perspective
> of how to convince editors to accept a less Y-centric viewpoint and include
> articles of relevance to X culture. This idea needs directing at en.wiki
> certainly, and probably at other language Wiki's too (because they also tend
> to have centric-attitudes needing to be overcome).
>
>
>
>> And English is not that 'global lingua franca'.
>
> It is, though, the predominantly spoken language of *Wikimedia*, at the
> moment (and that is not likely to change soon). So as a transfer language it
> is often our best bet.
>
> The point I was trying to make is that to get the material translated into *as
> many languages* as possible it needs a path of least resistance - whereby
> you have the maximum amount of translators available to process material. If
> English is no good as a "common" language from which to work on that then,
> fine, lets consider other options!
>
> There is no ideal solution yet available where we can all use our own
> languages and still interact effectively - grumping about translation
> efforts in light of that doesn't seem very constructive...
>
> Tom
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Achal Prabhala]

Hallo, (responses inline)

On Wednesday 27 July 2011 11:57 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
> For actual quotations from sources, you should quote the source exactly.
> Then you will never be using original research.

I don't actually understand what this means. If you look at the articles 
created: 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations#Articles.2F_Discussions_.28in_development.29

you can see exactly how the citations are used. In the articles, each 
statement that can be attributed to a particular audio interview is 
cited to that audio interview. Do you mean also using quotes for actual 
words in the text of the article itself?

> You are going the next step and summarizing and interpreting.  Don't do that.

Actually, no. We are not summarizing or interpreting, merely reporting 
the content of the cited audio interviews (and the accumulated reports, 
sometimes conflicting, gathered in the course of several audio 
interviews) in exactly the same way one would do if the sources were 
journal articles instead.

But if I haven't understood your questions correctly, please elaborate 
and explain further.

Thanks,
Achal

>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Thomas Morton
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 11:19 am
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
>
>
>   All sources can be cited without falling afoul of "original research"
>   Original research only covers claims without sources at all, or claims made
>   from yourself as the source.
>   Any source, including citing to a video interviews, is never original
>   research.
>
>   Ideally of course, yes. However it is quite hard to work with primary
> ources of this nature (i.e. ones that are not summarising a subject) and
> void interpretation (which is at the core of OR). It is perfectly possible
> o cite an iron clad reliable source and still end up doing original
> esearch :) It's just that the risk is greater with these forms of sources.
>
>   I don't really get by the way, why this is considered revolutionary.
>   These aren't "oral citations" in the standard sense, these are citations to
>   a published video.
>
> eliability depends on a number of factors; for a video it depends on things
> ike the identity of the person speaking, the publishing body, etc.
> Raw footage of this sort is very much primary sourcing
> ith potential reliability problems.
> The key thing for reliable sources is the idea of *fact checking or peer
> eview*. This is why the very best sorts of sources are those published in
> espected scientific journals - because they have been reviewed for
> istakes, bias, etc.
> Ideally these videos would be published as a primary resource, interested
> arties would synthesise material and write papers (or give lectures, or
> ublish a book) - secondary sources - which could then be cited by tertiary
> ources, such as us :)
> Currently you would have to treat these videos with a modicum of care, under
> he usual guidelines for primary source material.
> Tom
> __
> oundation-l mailing list
> oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
> nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Achal Prabhala]

Dear Ziko,

On Wednesday 27 July 2011 09:38 PM, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Today I found the time to read the messages about the "Oral Citations"
> project and watch the film "People are Knowledge". I hope that we can
> go on in this discussion without accusations about racism etc. In
> science, it is the quality of the findings that should matter, not the
> colour of the researcher's skin (may it be black, white, or green).
>
> == Concerned ==
> I must say that I am deeply concerned about the "Oral Citations". If
> someone wants to set up a new Wikimedia project for oral traditions or
> "oral history", I could live with that although I don't think that it
> fits into the scope of Wikimedia. It certainly does not fit into the
> scope of Wikipedia.
May I say, firstly, that this is an experiment - an experiment which 
those of us working on it, and others around us, thought might lead to 
interesting results. Secondly, may I also say that the project is not on 
"oral history" - it's on using oral sources as citations.
> The film says that recorded "oral history" should be considered to be
> a reliable souce "when there are some accessible printed sources on a
> subjet, but the sources are incomplete or misleading by way of being
> outdated or biased". So, when someone believes that those "accessible
> printed sources" are "biased", he comes up with the video of his grand
> uncle telling the truth?
> == Problems of orality (of the human brain) ==
> The film presents some carefully selected scholars supporting the film
> makers' opinion, but if you ask the huge majority of historians they
> will explain to you why they are so reluctant about "oral history".
Obviously, the scholars and intellectuals we talked to were selected. We 
don't pretend otherwise. I am personally not privy to what the "majority 
of historians" think. But on that note - this project was about using 
oral citations as sources, not about re-writing history. If you will 
please take a look at the subjects we covered through the course of this 
experiment, you will see that they are: recipes, religious ceremonies, 
traditional liquor and folk games. All of these things relate to 
everyday events that are practised by a large number of people and can 
be observed by anyone
> Take an example described by Johannes Fried, Memorik, p. 215: The
> Gonja in Northern Ghana told to British colonial officials that there
> once was the founder of their empire, Ndewura Japka. He had seven
> sons, each of them mentioned by name, and each of them administered
> one of the seven provinces of the Gonja empire.
>
> Then the British reformed the administration, and only five provinces
> remained. Decennias later, when the British rule ended, scholars asked
> the people again about the history of Ndewura Japka. Now, the founder
> had only five sons. Those two sons, whose provinces were abolished by
> the British, were totally erased from memory, if British colonial
> records had not preseved their names.
and none of the articles thus created are about rewriting the 
history of the last few centuries or undoing the work of the academy. We 
are simply interested in these subjects because they are part of the 
everyday life of millions of people like us, and because they haven't 
been recorded in print in a form that is useful to Wikipedia.
> I myself have interviewed people who claimed that they did not write a
> peticular letter (which I found in the archives), that they met a
> person at a peticular convention (although the person did not
> participate at all) and so on. These people may not be liars, but
> memory is flexible and unstable. By nature, man is not created to be a
> historian, to preserve carefully information in his brain, but to deal
> with the actual world he lives in.
>
> == The way of historiography ==
> * Historians collect primary sources and try to create a sound and
> coherent narrative based on them. Those primary sources are written
> records in archives, or already in printed or online editions, or
> interviews recorded.
> * Then the historians publish their findings in secondary sources.
> * Later, text-book and handbook authors read those secondary sources
> and create their tertiary sources. Wikipedia is such a tertiary
> source.
>
> It is not the task of Wikipedians or even readers to be confronted
> with the mass of primary sources and figure out a good synthesis. That
> is a work that must be let to scholars (in the largest sence) who have
> a good overview on the subject.
I don't think that anything in this project suggests otherwise. The 
system on Wikipedia (including a respect of traditionally published 
history) works. It doesn't work, however, for large parts of the world, 
and that is something you seem to agree with. Given the everyday aspects 
of life that we've run oral citation experiments with here, you might 
agree that the experts on recipes would be people who cook; that the 
experts on traditional li

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Wjhonson]

For actual quotations from sources, you should quote the source exactly.
Then you will never be using original research.

You are going the next step and summarizing and interpreting.  Don't do that.






-Original Message-
From: Thomas Morton 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 11:19 am
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge


>
 All sources can be cited without falling afoul of "original research"
 Original research only covers claims without sources at all, or claims made
 from yourself as the source.
 Any source, including citing to a video interviews, is never original
 research.

 Ideally of course, yes. However it is quite hard to work with primary
ources of this nature (i.e. ones that are not summarising a subject) and
void interpretation (which is at the core of OR). It is perfectly possible
o cite an iron clad reliable source and still end up doing original
esearch :) It's just that the risk is greater with these forms of sources.

 I don't really get by the way, why this is considered revolutionary.
 These aren't "oral citations" in the standard sense, these are citations to
 a published video.

eliability depends on a number of factors; for a video it depends on things
ike the identity of the person speaking, the publishing body, etc.
Raw footage of this sort is very much primary sourcing
ith potential reliability problems.
The key thing for reliable sources is the idea of *fact checking or peer
eview*. This is why the very best sorts of sources are those published in
espected scientific journals - because they have been reviewed for
istakes, bias, etc.
Ideally these videos would be published as a primary resource, interested
arties would synthesise material and write papers (or give lectures, or
ublish a book) - secondary sources - which could then be cited by tertiary
ources, such as us :)
Currently you would have to treat these videos with a modicum of care, under
he usual guidelines for primary source material.
Tom
__
oundation-l mailing list
oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Thomas Morton]

>
> All sources can be cited without falling afoul of "original research"
> Original research only covers claims without sources at all, or claims made
> from yourself as the source.
> Any source, including citing to a video interviews, is never original
> research.
>
> Ideally of course, yes. However it is quite hard to work with primary
sources of this nature (i.e. ones that are not summarising a subject) and
avoid interpretation (which is at the core of OR). It is perfectly possible
to cite an iron clad reliable source and still end up doing original
research :) It's just that the risk is greater with these forms of sources.


> I don't really get by the way, why this is considered revolutionary.
> These aren't "oral citations" in the standard sense, these are citations to
> a published video.


Reliability depends on a number of factors; for a video it depends on things
like the identity of the person speaking, the publishing body, etc.

Raw footage of this sort is very much primary sourcing
with potential reliability problems.

The key thing for reliable sources is the idea of *fact checking or peer
review*. This is why the very best sorts of sources are those published in
respected scientific journals - because they have been reviewed for
mistakes, bias, etc.

Ideally these videos would be published as a primary resource, interested
parties would synthesise material and write papers (or give lectures, or
publish a book) - secondary sources - which could then be cited by tertiary
sources, such as us :)

Currently you would have to treat these videos with a modicum of care, under
the usual guidelines for primary source material.

Tom
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Achal Prabhala]

Hallo, (responses inline)

On Wednesday 27 July 2011 11:36 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
> You should not create your own videos and then publish them on Wikipedia.
> You should create videos or audio tracks of oral interviews, and then publish 
> them.
We did not "create our own videos and then publish them on Wikipedia" 
(though it's not clear to me as to why that would be against the spirit 
of the movement :)).

What we did is to put out a film that captures the spirit of the 
research project.

And we did in fact only put out audio interviews as sources of citation, 
which are recorded in full. As you suggest we should, we did: i.e. the 
articles created out of the oral citations (posted near the bottom of 
the page) use the audio files as citations, as you can see here: 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Projects/Oral_Citations#Audio_Files.2FImages

(All of this is documented on the research page, btw).

> Then allow others to add that material to Wikipedia where appropriate.
> That's my two cents.
Once again, the research page is here: 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Projects/Oral_Citations

and a link to the film on the project is here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:People-are-Knowledge.ogv

Thanks,
Achal

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sarah Stierch
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 6:06 am
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
>
>
> Hi all -
> I came across a lighter version of this conversation on another Wikimedia
> ist, and felt the need to share my similar thoughts and statements that I
> ade previously.
> For the past year, I have been examining opportunities involving Indigenous
> ommunities of North America and opportunities to utilize Wikipedia and
> elated websites as an affordable, unique and global form of cultural
> reservation. I have my undergraduate in Native American Studies, and I am
> btaining my masters currently. My final paper (not quite a thesis) for
> raduation will be a strong examination of the opportunities related to
> ndigenous communities and opportunities/pros/cons related to Wikipedia. I'm
> ctually presenting on my preliminary observations and concerns at
> ikimania, you can learn a bit more here:
> http://wikimania2011.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Wikimedia_%26_Indigenous_Peoples:_Pros,_Cons_and_Community
> In the United States, as far as I am aware, I am the only person thinking
> bout this on a higher level. While right now I am quite busy with other
> atters, come this Fall I will be diving head first into my research. I will
> e serving as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Museum of the American
> ndian, where I will be working with staff to examine these concerns.  One
> f our biggest concerns lies with *oral history*. We have had countless
> onversations about the struggles with "no original research" however, in
> ral history based societies, we will have a very hard time moving beyond
> nything else. As stated previously, the majority of content created related
> o Indigenous communities in North America was often written by (and still
> s) Anglo anthropologists - some of that data is highly out of date and is
> till being utilized on Wikipedia as a source today.
> This project, Oral Citations, follows closely with the type of work I am
> eeking to do. I have been planning to examine Wikipedia (English at first)
> esearch policies and consider proposals or changes in relation to serious
> esearch and Indigenous communities. Of course, it all comes down to
> unding, and Native people of North American are often the first overlooked
> roup - it will take a lot of work, years of effort, and a lot of buy in
> hat is needed to be gathered from inside the community itself.
> I'm babbling right now, but, this is a very passionate topic for me. I see
> ikipedia as providing an affordable and unique way for Indigenous
> ommunities to not only learn valuable skills - many of the communities here
> n America are among the poorest in the world, you'd think you were in a
> eveloping country, and kids barely receive beyond an elementary school
> ducation - but to have a broad arena to share stories (that the community
> hooses to share of course), beliefs, cosmologies, and traditions so that
> hey are accessible and *vetted* for researchers and community members
> round the world.
> I do hope that some of you are attending Wikimania, I'd like to be able to
> ave a break out session of sorts or an unconference to discuss this topic
> urther. I'm hoping in the next year to have an international conference of
> orts that brings together Indigenous people, open source gurus, and
> iki-folks to examine opportunities, 

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Wjhonson]

You should not create your own videos and then publish them on Wikipedia.
You should create videos or audio tracks of oral interviews, and then publish 
them.

Then allow others to add that material to Wikipedia where appropriate.
That's my two cents.








-Original Message-
From: Sarah Stierch 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 6:06 am
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge


Hi all -
I came across a lighter version of this conversation on another Wikimedia
ist, and felt the need to share my similar thoughts and statements that I
ade previously.
For the past year, I have been examining opportunities involving Indigenous
ommunities of North America and opportunities to utilize Wikipedia and
elated websites as an affordable, unique and global form of cultural
reservation. I have my undergraduate in Native American Studies, and I am
btaining my masters currently. My final paper (not quite a thesis) for
raduation will be a strong examination of the opportunities related to
ndigenous communities and opportunities/pros/cons related to Wikipedia. I'm
ctually presenting on my preliminary observations and concerns at
ikimania, you can learn a bit more here:
http://wikimania2011.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Wikimedia_%26_Indigenous_Peoples:_Pros,_Cons_and_Community
In the United States, as far as I am aware, I am the only person thinking
bout this on a higher level. While right now I am quite busy with other
atters, come this Fall I will be diving head first into my research. I will
e serving as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Museum of the American
ndian, where I will be working with staff to examine these concerns.  One
f our biggest concerns lies with *oral history*. We have had countless
onversations about the struggles with "no original research" however, in
ral history based societies, we will have a very hard time moving beyond
nything else. As stated previously, the majority of content created related
o Indigenous communities in North America was often written by (and still
s) Anglo anthropologists - some of that data is highly out of date and is
till being utilized on Wikipedia as a source today.
This project, Oral Citations, follows closely with the type of work I am
eeking to do. I have been planning to examine Wikipedia (English at first)
esearch policies and consider proposals or changes in relation to serious
esearch and Indigenous communities. Of course, it all comes down to
unding, and Native people of North American are often the first overlooked
roup - it will take a lot of work, years of effort, and a lot of buy in
hat is needed to be gathered from inside the community itself.
I'm babbling right now, but, this is a very passionate topic for me. I see
ikipedia as providing an affordable and unique way for Indigenous
ommunities to not only learn valuable skills - many of the communities here
n America are among the poorest in the world, you'd think you were in a
eveloping country, and kids barely receive beyond an elementary school
ducation - but to have a broad arena to share stories (that the community
hooses to share of course), beliefs, cosmologies, and traditions so that
hey are accessible and *vetted* for researchers and community members
round the world.
I do hope that some of you are attending Wikimania, I'd like to be able to
ave a break out session of sorts or an unconference to discuss this topic
urther. I'm hoping in the next year to have an international conference of
orts that brings together Indigenous people, open source gurus, and
iki-folks to examine opportunities, processes, and belief systems in
egards to opportunities.
Feel free to email me directly, again, right now I am unable to move quickly
n any major projects due to my already big work load, but, I'm hoping that
his will be large part of my career work as an advocate for Native rights,
 scholar, and an open source-lover.
-Sarah
[w:en:User:SarahStierch]]
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 8:32 AM, CasteloBranco <
ichelcastelobra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And why does the people who speaks Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi need to
 write in English in order to have those oral citations published?
 English is not as universal as some people think. I guess we need to
 find an answer in their own language, so the solution won't be another
 barrier. Also, the escope of this project is much more important for the
 projects on these languages, and for speakers of these languages, rather
 than the English Wikipedia or its readers.

 But that's just me.

 Castelo


 Em 26/07/2011 16:16, whothis escreveu:
 > Looks like an excellent waste of effort.
 >
 > Maybe the problem of publishing non-publishable oral sources occurred to
 > someone on the team. Anyway the english wikipedia seems to be the
 > appropriate place for your original research. I can't wait to read all
 about
 >

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Wjhonson]

All sources can be cited without falling afoul of "original research"
Original research only covers claims without sources at all, or claims made 
from yourself as the source.
Any source, including citing to a video interviews, is never original research.

I don't really get by the way, why this is considered revolutionary.
These aren't "oral citations" in the standard sense, these are citations to a 
published video.










-Original Message-
From: Thomas Morton 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 2:33 am
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge


This is a really interesting and thoughtfully complete project.
As an editor I am cautious of how well these could be used as citations
ithout falling afoul of "original research".
The first problem I see is that presentation becomes difficult:
> "Interviews with members of the Sk8r
 tribe in 2011 indicated that they have a deep animosity towards the
 neighbouring Emos
Clearly marks the source, but does not clarify who made the interviews,
here the indication came from (i.e. did they say this outright, or did they
ust moan about the Emos constantly - the latter, of course, being a
roblematic conclusion), or who drew the interpretation (if applicable). On
op of that it is not a *great* way to write content - better to stick to
traight facts where possible ("the Sk8r tribe have a deep animosity toward
he Emos").
This can probably be addressed by working out a good way to cite oral
aterial.
The second issue I touched on above; in that editors may have difficulty
rawing purely factual material from the source, rather
han making interpretations. Whilst I could see an argument for a little
eeway on oral material being interpreted, I also think it is a bad idea to
ncourage too much.
Of course, material from academically qualified people (as much of this
articular project seems to be) could happily be treated in the same way as,
ay, an academic writing a book or an article (with the slight caveat of no
ndependent review). But from unqualified people - who is going to draw it
ogether? I've always been in favour of giving experts in a field some
eeway in how they record/report/source/present material in Wikipedia.
owever shifting that to an oral citation is not necessarily a simple task.
*What I do think is incredibly important though is that this material has
uge value in itself - and every effort to encourage more of the same should
e taken! *
In fact we should get as much material such as this as possible, host it,
ranslate it, make it accessible - and encourage secondary academic sources
o make use of it. This could work both as a "hack" to get around the issues
f citing oral material directly as well as contributing to the effort to
xpand knowledge of these areas of study.
I'm excited to see the next step for this... is there going to be more of
his work? Can we get some publicity for this in the relevant academic
ircles? Is there potential for the foundation to fund efforts to collect
ore and more material? Can we look at expanding it to other areas (for
xample - although I appreciate the focus is areas not covered by written
aterial, this would be equally valuable in some parts of the global north;
ven in the UK I could see advantages to recording interviews with different
eople).
Long term we could perhaps even consider a new project that is intended
pecifically to collect oral evidence, host it (through commons), translate
t and make it easy to cite/use. Such a project would be horrendously
aluable and provide insight into all manner of cultures.
Tom
__
oundation-l mailing list
oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

Today I found the time to read the messages about the "Oral Citations"
project and watch the film "People are Knowledge". I hope that we can
go on in this discussion without accusations about racism etc. In
science, it is the quality of the findings that should matter, not the
colour of the researcher's skin (may it be black, white, or green).

== Concerned ==
I must say that I am deeply concerned about the "Oral Citations". If
someone wants to set up a new Wikimedia project for oral traditions or
"oral history", I could live with that although I don't think that it
fits into the scope of Wikimedia. It certainly does not fit into the
scope of Wikipedia.

The film says that recorded "oral history" should be considered to be
a reliable souce "when there are some accessible printed sources on a
subjet, but the sources are incomplete or misleading by way of being
outdated or biased". So, when someone believes that those "accessible
printed sources" are "biased", he comes up with the video of his grand
uncle telling the truth?

== Problems of orality (of the human brain) ==
The film presents some carefully selected scholars supporting the film
makers' opinion, but if you ask the huge majority of historians they
will explain to you why they are so reluctant about "oral history".

Take an example described by Johannes Fried, Memorik, p. 215: The
Gonja in Northern Ghana told to British colonial officials that there
once was the founder of their empire, Ndewura Japka. He had seven
sons, each of them mentioned by name, and each of them administered
one of the seven provinces of the Gonja empire.

Then the British reformed the administration, and only five provinces
remained. Decennias later, when the British rule ended, scholars asked
the people again about the history of Ndewura Japka. Now, the founder
had only five sons. Those two sons, whose provinces were abolished by
the British, were totally erased from memory, if British colonial
records had not preseved their names.

I myself have interviewed people who claimed that they did not write a
peticular letter (which I found in the archives), that they met a
person at a peticular convention (although the person did not
participate at all) and so on. These people may not be liars, but
memory is flexible and unstable. By nature, man is not created to be a
historian, to preserve carefully information in his brain, but to deal
with the actual world he lives in.

== The way of historiography ==
* Historians collect primary sources and try to create a sound and
coherent narrative based on them. Those primary sources are written
records in archives, or already in printed or online editions, or
interviews recorded.
* Then the historians publish their findings in secondary sources.
* Later, text-book and handbook authors read those secondary sources
and create their tertiary sources. Wikipedia is such a tertiary
source.

It is not the task of Wikipedians or even readers to be confronted
with the mass of primary sources and figure out a good synthesis. That
is a work that must be let to scholars (in the largest sence) who have
a good overview on the subject.

Printed books may not be the answer in poor countries, but maybe
e-publishing is, and there are certainly at least some places on the
internet that are suitable for new primary and also secondary sources.
Wikipedia cannot solve all problems in the world, and even Wikimedia
cannot.

Kind regards
Ziko

-- 
Dr. Ziko van Dijk
The Netherlands
http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Thomas Morton]

>
> How about Brazilian "caldo de sururu", which is missing on en.wiki (and
> also
> on pt.wiki)? It's surely a lack for pt.wiki, but maybe not for en.wiki,
>

Perhaps this is the fundamental difference in our views; because I consider
that a lack on *any language Wikipedia* whether pt, en, de, fr etc


> On wikipedias, people doesn't look for other discussions (AfD) on the
> same article in another language before deleting an article for lack of
> notability. So you can expect that some valid unit of knowledge in one
> language is not surely (or automatic) valid in another.
>

This is not so much a problem to be looked at from the perspective of "oh
their just not interested in X cultural articles", but from the perspective
of how to convince editors to accept a less Y-centric viewpoint and include
articles of relevance to X culture. This idea needs directing at en.wiki
certainly, and probably at other language Wiki's too (because they also tend
to have centric-attitudes needing to be overcome).



> And English is not that 'global lingua franca'.


It is, though, the predominantly spoken language of *Wikimedia*, at the
moment (and that is not likely to change soon). So as a transfer language it
is often our best bet.

The point I was trying to make is that to get the material translated into *as
many languages* as possible it needs a path of least resistance - whereby
you have the maximum amount of translators available to process material. If
English is no good as a "common" language from which to work on that then,
fine, lets consider other options!

There is no ideal solution yet available where we can all use our own
languages and still interact effectively - grumping about translation
efforts in light of that doesn't seem very constructive...

Tom
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Nathan]

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Maria Alameda  wrote:
>
>
> Hello all
> I usually don't comment on mailing lists but a colleague of mine referred me 
> here. I wanted to comment on the issues related to Native-american research 
> raised earlier by Ms. Stierch. I found her outlook completely isolated from 
> the realities.
> I would rather attribute her naivety to her limited view of the world as a 
> fresh graduate. Personally, it reminds me of a somewhat racist outlook common 
> among predominantly white-american graduates and students. While I agree 
> there is a need for more research related to Native american culture, I 
> really can't agree with the implication that Native american culture is as 
> overlooked as some unknown tribe in New Guinea.
> I should be thankful for her enthusiasm but this is ridiculous. I'm happy for 
> her residency at National museum of American Indian(s) and her thesis or even 
> efforts to change certain policies on Wikipedia, but none of that is 
> connected with the much-larger cultural and race issues she's referring to. 
> While I wish her the best, I would hope she not use her thesis as an excuse 
> to comment on the realities of those cultural issues. Oral citation is just 
> one small aspect of a much larger culture she learnt in school.
> I might be too sensitive here, but if her comments were to be applied to 
> african-american culture in the United States coming from a female 
> white-undergraduate student pursuing her masters, her comments on the plight 
> and the issues of an entire race would seem rather patronizing. Perhaps, its 
> just me.
> Maria AlamedaM.A, Ph.d (Native American studies)
>

This seems like an over-reaction to me. It doesn't seem horribly
unlikely that Sarah is, if not alone, then among a very small group of
academics studying the intersection of Native Americans and Wikimedia
projects.

Were her descriptions of the challenges facing Native American
communities inaccurate?

Are you aware of outreach efforts by the WMF aimed at Native
Americans? (There are certainly many aimed at many other groups around
the world; the seeming absence of focus on Native Americans would
support Sarah's statement that they are "overlooked" in this regard).

Could you explain the specific errors she made that led you to call
her e-mail racist, patronizing and naive? I think if you are going to
use such strong words, then more substantial criticism is required
than simply stating that she is female, young and white.

Nathan

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[CasteloBranco]

Hi, Achal

I was sure you would do something special when i translated [1] some 
note on the launching of this project for Brazilians. And i wasn't 
wrong. Congrats!

Yes, we are saying the same thing, except perhaps for your last 
sentences (sorry if i didn't get your point). Despite of its italian 
origin, pasta is very important for some anglophones countries. How 
about Brazilian "caldo de sururu", which is missing on en.wiki (and also 
on pt.wiki)? It's surely a lack for pt.wiki, but maybe not for en.wiki, 
as some projects are not missing the articles on every Lady Gaga's song. 
On wikipedias, people doesn't look for other discussions (AfD) on the 
same article in another language before deleting an article for lack of 
notability. So you can expect that some valid unit of knowledge in one 
language is not surely (or automatic) valid in another. Each community 
makes its own discussions. Unless we create global AfD valid for all 
languages, this will not happen. And in which language it would be? In 
which project?

And English is not that 'global lingua franca'. As we talk in English on 
this list, many people that could have something interesting to say us 
just can't do that. If 5% of the world speaks English, then English is 
the most spoken language (in some criteria), but it is still a small 
part of the whole world. Let us not generalize,  'whole' and 'majority' 
are not the same thing. Even if 95% of the world could read and write in 
English (and this is not true), the language barrier would keep 
existing, and the English wouldn't the a perfect solution. In Brazil, 
99% of the people speaks Portuguese, but for some people here, even the 
Portuguese language is a true barrier.

Castelo

[1] http://br.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:%C3%81gora#Achal_Prabhala

Em 27/07/2011 10:05, Achal Prabhala escreveu:
> Hallo (responses inline)
>
> On Wednesday 27 July 2011 06:02 PM, CasteloBranco wrote:
>> And why does the people who speaks Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi need to
>> write in English in order to have those oral citations published?
> Yes, we don't. We have Sepedi, Malayalam and Hindi Wikipedias to work
> on. Which is exactly what we did and are doing.
>> English is not as universal as some people think. I guess we need to
>> find an answer in their own language, so the solution won't be another
>> barrier.
> Certainly, which is why the main scope of this project has been to
> create audio interviews in Sepedi, Malayalam and Hindi for use as oral
> citations on the Wikipedias that correspond to these languages.
>> Also, the escope of this project is much more important for the
>> projects on these languages, and for speakers of these languages, rather
>> than the English Wikipedia or its readers.
>> But that's just me.
> Well, a valid unit of knowledge in one language is surely valid in
> another? Perhaps not every single unit of knowledge transfers as easily
> (there was a really funny incident where certain Indian language
> Wikipedias got hit with a large number of articles on Lady Gaga by
> misguided machine translation some time ago). But by and large, this
> holds true: assuming that every culture in the world wants to know about
> every other culture, and assuming that English is a global lingua franca
> - to the extent that we are speaking in it, on this list, now.
>
> en:wiki would be weaker if every article on pasta resided solely on
> it:wiki - and all we're saying is the same thing, in the context of the
> oral citations project.
>
>
>> Castelo
>>
>>
>> Em 26/07/2011 16:16, whothis escreveu:
>>> Looks like an excellent waste of effort.
>>>
>>> Maybe the problem of publishing non-publishable oral sources occurred to
>>> someone on the team. Anyway the english wikipedia seems to be the
>>> appropriate place for your original research. I can't wait to read all about
>>> it.
>>>
>>> I still think a research project in emesis in the global south or something
>>> would have suited english wikipedia better but that's just me.
>>>
>>> Your fan
>>>
>>> Elizabeth
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Achal Prabhala
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Dear friends,

 At the beginning of 2011, a group of us began working on a project to
 explore alternative methods of citation on Wikipedia. We were motivated
 by the lack of published resources in much of the non-Anglo-European
 world, and the very real difficulty of citing everyday aspects of lived
 reality in India and South Africa.

 We are now at a stage where the project is almost complete, and we'd
 like to share our work with the broader movement, especially within
 India and South Africa.

 There are three languages we worked within: Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi.

 The project page documents the process and logistics employed, as well
 as the findings and results:

 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations

 A film made on the project is available here:

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Raul Gutierrez]

Greetings all,

While I fully concur with the note from Maria Alameda, it opens a much
broader discussion. A topic I have been researching lately.

Those who have (or could) much to say on the topic, for centuries have been
neglected and mostly been unable to  research and even have an opinion.
History was originally written by occidental conquerors and continues to be
researched and written by "colonial mentality" researchers, with a
Eurocentric view of the world. 

We should remain grateful for those occidental researchers, better that than
nothing, but must be remembered that they only wrote their perception of
what they saw or heard. At some point somebody needs to investigate and
conform the true stature of the original cultures and the
Mother-Civilization that developed in this continent some 1 years ago.

What if, there was indeed a Mother Civilization, similar to those of
Mesopotamia, India, China, Egypt, etc. And what if this civilization spanned
from Alaska to Panama, and it remains uninvestigated.

For those of you interested on this topic (that read spanish), please visit
www.toltecayotl.org. While it does not pretend to be sole holder of the
truth, possess some very interesting questions and facts, that require
further research.

Raul Gutierrez
A native American of Mexican descent.


-Original Message-
From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Maria Alameda
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 9:26 AM
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge



Hello all
I usually don't comment on mailing lists but a colleague of mine referred me
here. I wanted to comment on the issues related to Native-american research
raised earlier by Ms. Stierch. I found her outlook completely isolated from
the realities. 
I would rather attribute her naivety to her limited view of the world as a
fresh graduate. Personally, it reminds me of a somewhat racist outlook
common among predominantly white-american graduates and students. While I
agree there is a need for more research related to Native american culture,
I really can't agree with the implication that Native american culture is as
overlooked as some unknown tribe in New Guinea. 
I should be thankful for her enthusiasm but this is ridiculous. I'm happy
for her residency at National museum of American Indian(s) and her thesis or
even efforts to change certain policies on Wikipedia, but none of that is
connected with the much-larger cultural and race issues she's referring to.
While I wish her the best, I would hope she not use her thesis as an excuse
to comment on the realities of those cultural issues. Oral citation is just
one small aspect of a much larger culture she learnt in school.
I might be too sensitive here, but if her comments were to be applied to
african-american culture in the United States coming from a female
white-undergraduate student pursuing her masters, her comments on the plight
and the issues of an entire race would seem rather patronizing. Perhaps, its
just me.
Maria AlamedaM.A, Ph.d (Native American studies)

> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 19:26:16 +0530
> From: whoth...@gmail.com
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are 
> Knowledge
> 
> Hi Sarah
> 
> I just love the narcissism in this email. I really want to comment but 
> I don't want to be called a troll again..maybe later.
> 
> Much love
> 
> Elizabeth
> 
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Sarah Stierch
wrote:
> 
> > Hi all -
> >
> > I came across a lighter version of this conversation on another 
> > Wikimedia list, and felt the need to share my similar thoughts and 
> > statements that I made previously.
> >
> > For the past year, I have been examining opportunities involving 
> > Indigenous communities of North America and opportunities to utilize 
> > Wikipedia and related websites as an affordable, unique and global 
> > form of cultural preservation. I have my undergraduate in Native 
> > American Studies, and I am obtaining my masters currently. My final 
> > paper (not quite a thesis) for graduation will be a strong 
> > examination of the opportunities related to Indigenous communities and
opportunities/pros/cons related to Wikipedia.
> > I'm
> > actually presenting on my preliminary observations and concerns at 
> > Wikimania, you can learn a bit more here:
> >
> >
> > http://wikimania2011.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Wikimedia_%26_In
> > digenous_Peoples:_Pros,_Cons_and_Community
> >
> > In the United States, as far as I am aware, I am the only person 
> > thinking about this on a higher level. While right now I am quite 
> > busy with

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Sarah Stierch]

Maria and the rest of the list,

I deeply regret if my words or comments came off "racist" "patronizing" or
"isolated". I re-read my writing multiple times before sending it, and just
intended on making a general statement about the work I'm interested in
exploring, without overwhelming the list. I am sorry if it failed.

I really appreciate hearing your thoughts and ideas about my research. I
recently presented my paper at the Indigenous Peoples and Museum conference
and had a few responses similar to yours, and a few positive responses on
the opposite side of the spectrum.

This is all an exploration, and an ongoing experience. Your words, and the
words of others similar, constantly remind me of my place and the interests
of some community members. As a Wikipedian, I am devoted to many aspects of
the community, including retention and encouraging new editors, and to know
that I have stifled that by coming off as "racist" and "isolationist" goes
against what I am fighting for.

While I am not here to post my resume, tell you what I do for a living
outside of my work and schooling, share my experiences, and give a list of
who my friends are and friends aren't - I assure you that my intentions are
not meant to be purely selfish (all research is a bit selfish) and I never
intended on judging entire communities on a whole.  In regards to being
"overlooked," I meant that in reference to Wikimedia Foundation being a
United States based organization focusing more so on international efforts.

To be honest, your email was a slap in the face. Thank you again for sharing
your thoughts, I take your letter very seriously.

-Sarah


On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Maria Alameda wrote:

>
>
> Hello all
> I usually don't comment on mailing lists but a colleague of mine referred
> me here. I wanted to comment on the issues related to Native-american
> research raised earlier by Ms. Stierch. I found her outlook completely
> isolated from the realities.
> I would rather attribute her naivety to her limited view of the world as a
> fresh graduate. Personally, it reminds me of a somewhat racist outlook
> common among predominantly white-american graduates and students. While I
> agree there is a need for more research related to Native american culture,
> I really can't agree with the implication that Native american culture is as
> overlooked as some unknown tribe in New Guinea.
> I should be thankful for her enthusiasm but this is ridiculous. I'm happy
> for her residency at National museum of American Indian(s) and her thesis or
> even efforts to change certain policies on Wikipedia, but none of that is
> connected with the much-larger cultural and race issues she's referring to.
> While I wish her the best, I would hope she not use her thesis as an excuse
> to comment on the realities of those cultural issues. Oral citation is just
> one small aspect of a much larger culture she learnt in school.
> I might be too sensitive here, but if her comments were to be applied to
> african-american culture in the United States coming from a female
> white-undergraduate student pursuing her masters, her comments on the plight
> and the issues of an entire race would seem rather patronizing. Perhaps, its
> just me.
> Maria AlamedaM.A, Ph.d (Native American studies)
>
> > Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 19:26:16 +0530
> > From: whoth...@gmail.com
> > To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
> >
> > Hi Sarah
> >
> > I just love the narcissism in this email. I really want to comment but I
> > don't want to be called a troll again..maybe later.
> >
> > Much love
> >
> > Elizabeth
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Sarah Stierch  >wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all -
> > >
> > > I came across a lighter version of this conversation on another
> Wikimedia
> > > list, and felt the need to share my similar thoughts and statements
> that I
> > > made previously.
> > >
> > > For the past year, I have been examining opportunities involving
> Indigenous
> > > communities of North America and opportunities to utilize Wikipedia and
> > > related websites as an affordable, unique and global form of cultural
> > > preservation. I have my undergraduate in Native American Studies, and I
> am
> > > obtaining my masters currently. My final paper (not quite a thesis) for
> > > graduation will be a strong examination of the opportunities related to
> > > Indigenous communities and opportunities/pros/cons related to
> Wikipedia.
> > > I'm
> > > actually presenting on m

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Maria Alameda]

Hello all
I usually don't comment on mailing lists but a colleague of mine referred me 
here. I wanted to comment on the issues related to Native-american research 
raised earlier by Ms. Stierch. I found her outlook completely isolated from the 
realities. 
I would rather attribute her naivety to her limited view of the world as a 
fresh graduate. Personally, it reminds me of a somewhat racist outlook common 
among predominantly white-american graduates and students. While I agree there 
is a need for more research related to Native american culture, I really can't 
agree with the implication that Native american culture is as overlooked as 
some unknown tribe in New Guinea. 
I should be thankful for her enthusiasm but this is ridiculous. I'm happy for 
her residency at National museum of American Indian(s) and her thesis or even 
efforts to change certain policies on Wikipedia, but none of that is connected 
with the much-larger cultural and race issues she's referring to. While I wish 
her the best, I would hope she not use her thesis as an excuse to comment on 
the realities of those cultural issues. Oral citation is just one small aspect 
of a much larger culture she learnt in school.
I might be too sensitive here, but if her comments were to be applied to 
african-american culture in the United States coming from a female 
white-undergraduate student pursuing her masters, her comments on the plight 
and the issues of an entire race would seem rather patronizing. Perhaps, its 
just me.
Maria AlamedaM.A, Ph.d (Native American studies)

> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 19:26:16 +0530
> From: whoth...@gmail.com
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
> 
> Hi Sarah
> 
> I just love the narcissism in this email. I really want to comment but I
> don't want to be called a troll again..maybe later.
> 
> Much love
> 
> Elizabeth
> 
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
> 
> > Hi all -
> >
> > I came across a lighter version of this conversation on another Wikimedia
> > list, and felt the need to share my similar thoughts and statements that I
> > made previously.
> >
> > For the past year, I have been examining opportunities involving Indigenous
> > communities of North America and opportunities to utilize Wikipedia and
> > related websites as an affordable, unique and global form of cultural
> > preservation. I have my undergraduate in Native American Studies, and I am
> > obtaining my masters currently. My final paper (not quite a thesis) for
> > graduation will be a strong examination of the opportunities related to
> > Indigenous communities and opportunities/pros/cons related to Wikipedia.
> > I'm
> > actually presenting on my preliminary observations and concerns at
> > Wikimania, you can learn a bit more here:
> >
> >
> > http://wikimania2011.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Wikimedia_%26_Indigenous_Peoples:_Pros,_Cons_and_Community
> >
> > In the United States, as far as I am aware, I am the only person thinking
> > about this on a higher level. While right now I am quite busy with other
> > matters, come this Fall I will be diving head first into my research. I
> > will
> > be serving as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Museum of the
> > American
> > Indian, where I will be working with staff to examine these concerns.  One
> > of our biggest concerns lies with *oral history*. We have had countless
> > conversations about the struggles with "no original research" however, in
> > oral history based societies, we will have a very hard time moving beyond
> > anything else. As stated previously, the majority of content created
> > related
> > to Indigenous communities in North America was often written by (and still
> > is) Anglo anthropologists - some of that data is highly out of date and is
> > still being utilized on Wikipedia as a source today.
I am not certain what higher level you are referring to but I assure you, you 
are not the only one thinking about this in the entire country or the continent.
> >
> > This project, Oral Citations, follows closely with the type of work I am
> > seeking to do. I have been planning to examine Wikipedia (English at first)
> > research policies and consider proposals or changes in relation to serious
> > research and Indigenous communities. Of course, it all comes down to
> > funding, and Native people of North American are often the first overlooked
> > group - it will take a lot of work, years of effort, and a lot of buy in
> > that is needed to be gathered from inside the community itself.
> >
> > I'm babbling 

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[whothis]

Hi Sarah

I just love the narcissism in this email. I really want to comment but I
don't want to be called a troll again..maybe later.

Much love

Elizabeth

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:

> Hi all -
>
> I came across a lighter version of this conversation on another Wikimedia
> list, and felt the need to share my similar thoughts and statements that I
> made previously.
>
> For the past year, I have been examining opportunities involving Indigenous
> communities of North America and opportunities to utilize Wikipedia and
> related websites as an affordable, unique and global form of cultural
> preservation. I have my undergraduate in Native American Studies, and I am
> obtaining my masters currently. My final paper (not quite a thesis) for
> graduation will be a strong examination of the opportunities related to
> Indigenous communities and opportunities/pros/cons related to Wikipedia.
> I'm
> actually presenting on my preliminary observations and concerns at
> Wikimania, you can learn a bit more here:
>
>
> http://wikimania2011.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Wikimedia_%26_Indigenous_Peoples:_Pros,_Cons_and_Community
>
> In the United States, as far as I am aware, I am the only person thinking
> about this on a higher level. While right now I am quite busy with other
> matters, come this Fall I will be diving head first into my research. I
> will
> be serving as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Museum of the
> American
> Indian, where I will be working with staff to examine these concerns.  One
> of our biggest concerns lies with *oral history*. We have had countless
> conversations about the struggles with "no original research" however, in
> oral history based societies, we will have a very hard time moving beyond
> anything else. As stated previously, the majority of content created
> related
> to Indigenous communities in North America was often written by (and still
> is) Anglo anthropologists - some of that data is highly out of date and is
> still being utilized on Wikipedia as a source today.
>
> This project, Oral Citations, follows closely with the type of work I am
> seeking to do. I have been planning to examine Wikipedia (English at first)
> research policies and consider proposals or changes in relation to serious
> research and Indigenous communities. Of course, it all comes down to
> funding, and Native people of North American are often the first overlooked
> group - it will take a lot of work, years of effort, and a lot of buy in
> that is needed to be gathered from inside the community itself.
>
> I'm babbling right now, but, this is a very passionate topic for me. I see
> Wikipedia as providing an affordable and unique way for Indigenous
> communities to not only learn valuable skills - many of the communities
> here
> in America are among the poorest in the world, you'd think you were in a
> developing country, and kids barely receive beyond an elementary school
> education - but to have a broad arena to share stories (that the community
> chooses to share of course), beliefs, cosmologies, and traditions so that
> they are accessible and *vetted* for researchers and community members
> around the world.
>
> I do hope that some of you are attending Wikimania, I'd like to be able to
> have a break out session of sorts or an unconference to discuss this topic
> further. I'm hoping in the next year to have an international conference of
> sorts that brings together Indigenous people, open source gurus, and
> Wiki-folks to examine opportunities, processes, and belief systems in
> regards to opportunities.
>
> Feel free to email me directly, again, right now I am unable to move
> quickly
> in any major projects due to my already big work load, but, I'm hoping that
> this will be large part of my career work as an advocate for Native rights,
> a scholar, and an open source-lover.
>
> -Sarah
> [[w:en:User:SarahStierch]]
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 8:32 AM, CasteloBranco <
> michelcastelobra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > And why does the people who speaks Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi need to
> > write in English in order to have those oral citations published?
> > English is not as universal as some people think. I guess we need to
> > find an answer in their own language, so the solution won't be another
> > barrier. Also, the escope of this project is much more important for the
> > projects on these languages, and for speakers of these languages, rather
> > than the English Wikipedia or its readers.
> >
> > But that's just me.
> >
> > Castelo
> >
> >
> > Em 26/07/2011 16:16, whothis escreveu:
> > > Looks like an excellent waste of effort.
> > >
> > > Maybe the problem of publishing non-publishable oral sources occurred
> to
> > > someone on the team. Anyway the english wikipedia seems to be the
> > > appropriate place for your original research. I can't wait to read all
> > about
> > > it.
> > >
> > > I still think a research project in emesis in the global so

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Sarah Stierch]

>
> I partially disagree. Certainly it is very important from the perspective
> of
> providing material about the native countries of those languages.
>
>
I don't partially, I completely disagree. While these communities might not
be English based, and many of the members don't even speak English, we wall
want to see every single Wikipedia, regardless of language, grow and
flourish with information from cultures universal.

I have often found better articles in German (where "German Indianer" books
are some of the best selling books of all time and entire festivals are
based around Native American Plains culture) about Indigenous North American
communities than in English. Cross-language is a necessity in this global
age. And sharing content with other language based Wikis can also help to
update resources, break stereotypes about cultures and encourage respect in
regards those communities. It also allows people to understand that there
are "others" out there. It takes away from the centric-aspects of some
language Wikipedias, something that people often accuse English Wikipedia of
doing.

Information is the language of Wikipedia as a whole, and we must learn how
to make the utmost use of that language in order to continue our mission to
disseminate knowledge on a worldwide scale.

-Sarah
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Thomas Morton]

>
> Also, the escope of this project is much more important for the

projects on these languages, and for speakers of these languages, rather
> than the English Wikipedia or its readers.
>

I partially disagree. Certainly it is very important from the perspective of
providing material about the native countries of those languages.

However translating that material into other languages is also important;
the aim is to preserve as much knowledge as possible in a broad spectrum of
languages. The "elephant in the room" is that English Wikipedia is by far
the biggest and most well known. Followed closely by some of the European
languages. Translating the material to English/German/French gives it the
maximum accessibility - in terms of enabling* it to be used on the largest
Wikipedias and  improving the chances that other language Wikipedias being
able to parse/translate/understand the material.

English is the lingua franca of Wikipedia (whether this is wholly a good
thing or not is a much wider debate), so providing accessibility in English
helps ensure important content like this reaches as far as possible.

Tom


* note that by "enabling" I don't mean "making it acceptable to use", any
language source should be acceptable! Rather I mean "providing it in a
language that en.wiki editors will be able to make use of".
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Sarah Stierch]

Hi all -

I came across a lighter version of this conversation on another Wikimedia
list, and felt the need to share my similar thoughts and statements that I
made previously.

For the past year, I have been examining opportunities involving Indigenous
communities of North America and opportunities to utilize Wikipedia and
related websites as an affordable, unique and global form of cultural
preservation. I have my undergraduate in Native American Studies, and I am
obtaining my masters currently. My final paper (not quite a thesis) for
graduation will be a strong examination of the opportunities related to
Indigenous communities and opportunities/pros/cons related to Wikipedia. I'm
actually presenting on my preliminary observations and concerns at
Wikimania, you can learn a bit more here:

http://wikimania2011.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Wikimedia_%26_Indigenous_Peoples:_Pros,_Cons_and_Community

In the United States, as far as I am aware, I am the only person thinking
about this on a higher level. While right now I am quite busy with other
matters, come this Fall I will be diving head first into my research. I will
be serving as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Museum of the American
Indian, where I will be working with staff to examine these concerns.  One
of our biggest concerns lies with *oral history*. We have had countless
conversations about the struggles with "no original research" however, in
oral history based societies, we will have a very hard time moving beyond
anything else. As stated previously, the majority of content created related
to Indigenous communities in North America was often written by (and still
is) Anglo anthropologists - some of that data is highly out of date and is
still being utilized on Wikipedia as a source today.

This project, Oral Citations, follows closely with the type of work I am
seeking to do. I have been planning to examine Wikipedia (English at first)
research policies and consider proposals or changes in relation to serious
research and Indigenous communities. Of course, it all comes down to
funding, and Native people of North American are often the first overlooked
group - it will take a lot of work, years of effort, and a lot of buy in
that is needed to be gathered from inside the community itself.

I'm babbling right now, but, this is a very passionate topic for me. I see
Wikipedia as providing an affordable and unique way for Indigenous
communities to not only learn valuable skills - many of the communities here
in America are among the poorest in the world, you'd think you were in a
developing country, and kids barely receive beyond an elementary school
education - but to have a broad arena to share stories (that the community
chooses to share of course), beliefs, cosmologies, and traditions so that
they are accessible and *vetted* for researchers and community members
around the world.

I do hope that some of you are attending Wikimania, I'd like to be able to
have a break out session of sorts or an unconference to discuss this topic
further. I'm hoping in the next year to have an international conference of
sorts that brings together Indigenous people, open source gurus, and
Wiki-folks to examine opportunities, processes, and belief systems in
regards to opportunities.

Feel free to email me directly, again, right now I am unable to move quickly
in any major projects due to my already big work load, but, I'm hoping that
this will be large part of my career work as an advocate for Native rights,
a scholar, and an open source-lover.

-Sarah
[[w:en:User:SarahStierch]]

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 8:32 AM, CasteloBranco <
michelcastelobra...@gmail.com> wrote:

> And why does the people who speaks Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi need to
> write in English in order to have those oral citations published?
> English is not as universal as some people think. I guess we need to
> find an answer in their own language, so the solution won't be another
> barrier. Also, the escope of this project is much more important for the
> projects on these languages, and for speakers of these languages, rather
> than the English Wikipedia or its readers.
>
> But that's just me.
>
> Castelo
>
>
> Em 26/07/2011 16:16, whothis escreveu:
> > Looks like an excellent waste of effort.
> >
> > Maybe the problem of publishing non-publishable oral sources occurred to
> > someone on the team. Anyway the english wikipedia seems to be the
> > appropriate place for your original research. I can't wait to read all
> about
> > it.
> >
> > I still think a research project in emesis in the global south or
> something
> > would have suited english wikipedia better but that's just me.
> >
> > Your fan
> >
> > Elizabeth
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Achal Prabhala
>  wrote:
> >
> >> Dear friends,
> >>
> >> At the beginning of 2011, a group of us began working on a project to
> >> explore alternative methods of citation on Wikipedia. We were motivated
> >> by the lack of published r

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Achal Prabhala]

Hallo (responses inline)

On Wednesday 27 July 2011 06:02 PM, CasteloBranco wrote:
> And why does the people who speaks Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi need to
> write in English in order to have those oral citations published?
Yes, we don't. We have Sepedi, Malayalam and Hindi Wikipedias to work 
on. Which is exactly what we did and are doing.
> English is not as universal as some people think. I guess we need to
> find an answer in their own language, so the solution won't be another
> barrier.
Certainly, which is why the main scope of this project has been to 
create audio interviews in Sepedi, Malayalam and Hindi for use as oral 
citations on the Wikipedias that correspond to these languages.
> Also, the escope of this project is much more important for the
> projects on these languages, and for speakers of these languages, rather
> than the English Wikipedia or its readers.
> But that's just me.
Well, a valid unit of knowledge in one language is surely valid in 
another? Perhaps not every single unit of knowledge transfers as easily 
(there was a really funny incident where certain Indian language 
Wikipedias got hit with a large number of articles on Lady Gaga by 
misguided machine translation some time ago). But by and large, this 
holds true: assuming that every culture in the world wants to know about 
every other culture, and assuming that English is a global lingua franca 
- to the extent that we are speaking in it, on this list, now.

en:wiki would be weaker if every article on pasta resided solely on 
it:wiki - and all we're saying is the same thing, in the context of the 
oral citations project.


> Castelo
>
>
> Em 26/07/2011 16:16, whothis escreveu:
>> Looks like an excellent waste of effort.
>>
>> Maybe the problem of publishing non-publishable oral sources occurred to
>> someone on the team. Anyway the english wikipedia seems to be the
>> appropriate place for your original research. I can't wait to read all about
>> it.
>>
>> I still think a research project in emesis in the global south or something
>> would have suited english wikipedia better but that's just me.
>>
>> Your fan
>>
>> Elizabeth
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Achal Prabhala   wrote:
>>
>>> Dear friends,
>>>
>>> At the beginning of 2011, a group of us began working on a project to
>>> explore alternative methods of citation on Wikipedia. We were motivated
>>> by the lack of published resources in much of the non-Anglo-European
>>> world, and the very real difficulty of citing everyday aspects of lived
>>> reality in India and South Africa.
>>>
>>> We are now at a stage where the project is almost complete, and we'd
>>> like to share our work with the broader movement, especially within
>>> India and South Africa.
>>>
>>> There are three languages we worked within: Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi.
>>>
>>> The project page documents the process and logistics employed, as well
>>> as the findings and results:
>>>
>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations
>>>
>>> A film made on the project is available here:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:People-are-Knowledge.ogv?withJS=MediaWiki:MwEmbed.js
>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:People-are-Knowledge.ogv
>>> or
>>> http://vimeo.com/26469276
>>>
>>> There have been discussions on oral citations for some time now within
>>> the language communities we worked with for the duration of the project.
>>> At this stage, we are really interested in *your* feedback, either on
>>> this list, or on the Discussion section of the project page.
>>>
>>> There are still some things to come, namely:
>>>
>>> - Updates on events, meetings and discussions held around the project
>>> (as they happen)
>>> - Updates on articles created in Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi as a result
>>> of the project (as they happen)
>>> - English transcripts of the interviews and a full English subtitle track
>>> for further translation (we could use some help here).
>>>
>>> We would be very grateful to hear your feedback, and begin a broader
>>> discussion.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>> Achal
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[CasteloBranco]

And why does the people who speaks Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi need to 
write in English in order to have those oral citations published? 
English is not as universal as some people think. I guess we need to 
find an answer in their own language, so the solution won't be another 
barrier. Also, the escope of this project is much more important for the 
projects on these languages, and for speakers of these languages, rather 
than the English Wikipedia or its readers.

But that's just me.

Castelo


Em 26/07/2011 16:16, whothis escreveu:
> Looks like an excellent waste of effort.
>
> Maybe the problem of publishing non-publishable oral sources occurred to
> someone on the team. Anyway the english wikipedia seems to be the
> appropriate place for your original research. I can't wait to read all about
> it.
>
> I still think a research project in emesis in the global south or something
> would have suited english wikipedia better but that's just me.
>
> Your fan
>
> Elizabeth
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Achal Prabhala  wrote:
>
>> Dear friends,
>>
>> At the beginning of 2011, a group of us began working on a project to
>> explore alternative methods of citation on Wikipedia. We were motivated
>> by the lack of published resources in much of the non-Anglo-European
>> world, and the very real difficulty of citing everyday aspects of lived
>> reality in India and South Africa.
>>
>> We are now at a stage where the project is almost complete, and we'd
>> like to share our work with the broader movement, especially within
>> India and South Africa.
>>
>> There are three languages we worked within: Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi.
>>
>> The project page documents the process and logistics employed, as well
>> as the findings and results:
>>
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations
>>
>> A film made on the project is available here:
>>
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:People-are-Knowledge.ogv?withJS=MediaWiki:MwEmbed.js
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:People-are-Knowledge.ogv
>> or
>> http://vimeo.com/26469276
>>
>> There have been discussions on oral citations for some time now within
>> the language communities we worked with for the duration of the project.
>> At this stage, we are really interested in *your* feedback, either on
>> this list, or on the Discussion section of the project page.
>>
>> There are still some things to come, namely:
>>
>> - Updates on events, meetings and discussions held around the project
>> (as they happen)
>> - Updates on articles created in Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi as a result
>> of the project (as they happen)
>> - English transcripts of the interviews and a full English subtitle track
>> for further translation (we could use some help here).
>>
>> We would be very grateful to hear your feedback, and begin a broader
>> discussion.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Achal
>>
>>
>> ___
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Achal Prabhala]

Dear Tom and David,

On Wednesday 27 July 2011 03:03 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
> This is a really interesting and thoughtfully complete project.
>
> As an editor I am cautious of how well these could be used as citations
> without falling afoul of "original research".
>
> The first problem I see is that presentation becomes difficult:
>
>> "Interviews with members of the Sk8r
>> tribe in 2011 indicated that they have a deep animosity towards the
>> neighbouring Emos
> Clearly marks the source, but does not clarify who made the interviews,
> where the indication came from (i.e. did they say this outright, or did they
> just moan about the Emos constantly - the latter, of course, being a
> problematic conclusion), or who drew the interpretation (if applicable). On
> top of that it is not a *great* way to write content - better to stick to
> straight facts where possible ("the Sk8r tribe have a deep animosity toward
> the Emos").
In this case, if you scroll down the list on the research page 
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations) to see the 
articles created in Hindi and Malayalam, you will see reference links 
that take you straight to the audio file on Wikimedia Commons, wherein 
you will find exactly this information - this was part of the protocol. 
The who is doing it/ who is being talked to bit has been taken care of 
there.

We're still developing the articles, so more will come; we're also 
working on English transcripts for the audio interviews, which will 
happen in time, so stay tuned.
> This can probably be addressed by working out a good way to cite oral
> material.
>
> The second issue I touched on above; in that editors may have difficulty
> drawing purely factual material from the source, rather
> than making interpretations. Whilst I could see an argument for a little
> leeway on oral material being interpreted, I also think it is a bad idea to
> encourage too much.
>
> Of course, material from academically qualified people (as much of this
> particular project seems to be) could happily be treated in the same way as,
> say, an academic writing a book or an article (with the slight caveat of no
> independent review). But from unqualified people - who is going to draw it
> together? I've always been in favour of giving experts in a field some
> leeway in how they record/report/source/present material in Wikipedia.
> However shifting that to an oral citation is not necessarily a simple task.
If you look at the subjects we focused on (broadly taken: folk games, 
household recipes, traditional food, religious culture) one thing that 
becomes really interesting is who the "expert" is. Mokgope, for 
instance, is a country liquor brewed from marula fruit in one somewhat 
remote province of South Africa. I'd wager that the people we talked to 
- women from the village of Ga-Sebotlane - are the world experts on 
this. (Same goes for the recipe for how to cook Mopani worms). As with 
the folk games in India; the people who play them, in the places they 
do, are likely to know more about them than almost anyone else.

So: one nice consequence of this project (and, I would wager, a natural 
fit with Wikipedia) is that experts are everywhere, depending on what it 
is we're talking about.
> *What I do think is incredibly important though is that this material has
> huge value in itself - and every effort to encourage more of the same should
> be taken! *
>
> In fact we should get as much material such as this as possible, host it,
> translate it, make it accessible - and encourage secondary academic sources
> to make use of it. This could work both as a "hack" to get around the issues
> of citing oral material directly as well as contributing to the effort to
> expand knowledge of these areas of study.
>
> I'm excited to see the next step for this... is there going to be more of
> this work? Can we get some publicity for this in the relevant academic
> circles? Is there potential for the foundation to fund efforts to collect
> more and more material? Can we look at expanding it to other areas (for
> example - although I appreciate the focus is areas not covered by written
> material, this would be equally valuable in some parts of the global north;
> even in the UK I could see advantages to recording interviews with different
> people).
The universality of this idea is key, and thanks for pointing it out. 
While the lack of printed material in India and South Africa is 
symptomatic of the problem with documenting the world's knowledge under 
a strict (print only) citation system, the fact is, none of us who 
worked on this project see it merely as a tropical remedy for brown and 
black folks. It is Anglo-European language Wikipedias who stand to 
benefit the most; these are - and will be - the places people 
predominantly go to for some time to come. And currently, they stand to 
lose out on a vast chunk of the world's knowledge by restricting 
citations to mainly print sources. A tangent

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[David Richfield]

I agree with your assessment that problems with interpretation and
lack of independent review can definitely make it problematic for
editors to cite these interviews directly, and we'll have to see
whether it is in any way feasible under any circumstances, and if so,
what guidelines can be set up.

> *What I do think is incredibly important though is that this material has
> huge value in itself - and every effort to encourage more of the same should
> be taken! *
>
> In fact we should get as much material such as this as possible, host it,
> translate it, make it accessible - and encourage secondary academic sources
> to make use of it. This could work both as a "hack" to get around the issues
> of citing oral material directly as well as contributing to the effort to
> expand knowledge of these areas of study.

A very useful suggestion!  That should address the concerns quite
well, as well as improving the contacts between Wikipedia and
Academia.

Kind regards,

-- 
David Richfield
e^(πi)+1=0

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Thomas Morton]

This is a really interesting and thoughtfully complete project.

As an editor I am cautious of how well these could be used as citations
without falling afoul of "original research".

The first problem I see is that presentation becomes difficult:

> "Interviews with members of the Sk8r
> tribe in 2011 indicated that they have a deep animosity towards the
> neighbouring Emos

Clearly marks the source, but does not clarify who made the interviews,
where the indication came from (i.e. did they say this outright, or did they
just moan about the Emos constantly - the latter, of course, being a
problematic conclusion), or who drew the interpretation (if applicable). On
top of that it is not a *great* way to write content - better to stick to
straight facts where possible ("the Sk8r tribe have a deep animosity toward
the Emos").

This can probably be addressed by working out a good way to cite oral
material.

The second issue I touched on above; in that editors may have difficulty
drawing purely factual material from the source, rather
than making interpretations. Whilst I could see an argument for a little
leeway on oral material being interpreted, I also think it is a bad idea to
encourage too much.

Of course, material from academically qualified people (as much of this
particular project seems to be) could happily be treated in the same way as,
say, an academic writing a book or an article (with the slight caveat of no
independent review). But from unqualified people - who is going to draw it
together? I've always been in favour of giving experts in a field some
leeway in how they record/report/source/present material in Wikipedia.
However shifting that to an oral citation is not necessarily a simple task.

*What I do think is incredibly important though is that this material has
huge value in itself - and every effort to encourage more of the same should
be taken! *

In fact we should get as much material such as this as possible, host it,
translate it, make it accessible - and encourage secondary academic sources
to make use of it. This could work both as a "hack" to get around the issues
of citing oral material directly as well as contributing to the effort to
expand knowledge of these areas of study.

I'm excited to see the next step for this... is there going to be more of
this work? Can we get some publicity for this in the relevant academic
circles? Is there potential for the foundation to fund efforts to collect
more and more material? Can we look at expanding it to other areas (for
example - although I appreciate the focus is areas not covered by written
material, this would be equally valuable in some parts of the global north;
even in the UK I could see advantages to recording interviews with different
people).

Long term we could perhaps even consider a new project that is intended
specifically to collect oral evidence, host it (through commons), translate
it and make it easy to cite/use. Such a project would be horrendously
valuable and provide insight into all manner of cultures.

Tom
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

David Richfield, 27/07/2011 09:35:
> One of the most frequent complaints about Wikipedia, which I have seen
> in contexts such as the Wikipedia overview of World History and on
> websites that are critical of Wikipedia, is that it has an endemic
> bias towards Western, English-language information.  As long as
> Wikipedia is completely reliant on paper sources, this is unlikely to
> change.  The Oral Citations project is a brave attempt to light a
> candle instead of just cursing the darkness.

And a point I'd like to add is that this applies also to Europe... For 
instance the whole it.wikisource WikiProject about Italian folk music 
http://it.wikisource.org/wiki/Progetto:CantaStoria and Italian proverbs 
on it.wikiquote; both have more or less written guidelines and practices 
which (despite difficulties) allow oral sources because otherwise the 
work would sometimes be impossible. And we've had decades of studies in 
these fields...

Nemo

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[David Richfield]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:16 PM, whothis  wrote:
> Looks like an excellent waste of effort.
>
> Maybe the problem of publishing non-publishable oral sources occurred to
> someone on the team. Anyway the english wikipedia seems to be the
> appropriate place for your original research. I can't wait to read all about
> it.
>
> I still think a research project in emesis in the global south or something
> would have suited english wikipedia better but that's just me.
>
> Your fan
>
> Elizabeth

This was obviously just a puerile troll posting, and doesn't deserve a
response on its own merit, but I still think it's worthwhile to give
an ordinary Wikipedian's view of the general uncertainty about oral
sources in terms of notability and original research.

One of the most frequent complaints about Wikipedia, which I have seen
in contexts such as the Wikipedia overview of World History and on
websites that are critical of Wikipedia, is that it has an endemic
bias towards Western, English-language information.  As long as
Wikipedia is completely reliant on paper sources, this is unlikely to
change.  The Oral Citations project is a brave attempt to light a
candle instead of just cursing the darkness.

Lots of ethnographic work is very strongly based on interviews with
people who have an oral tradition.  This is then published and, quite
correctly, cited in Wikipedia: the view is that it is then a secondary
source, and hence appropriate.  When we directly source oral
interviews and host them on a sister project, the complaint is that
this is a primary source: prone to small sample sizes, unscientific
data gathering, and hidden biases on the part of the interviewers.

The key response to this objection in my opinion is that we have to be
clear about the kind of claim that can be supported by these
interviews, and the strength of the evidence.

Where there is no written discussion of a specific cultural practice,
endemic knowledge, minor language or whatever, an oral citation is
better than nothing.  As long as it's given in context, I don't see
the problem.  Something like "Interviews with members of the Sk8r
tribe in 2011 indicated that they have a deep animosity towards the
neighbouring Emos, 
and have several tribal songs in this regard ."

When the oral citations disagree with written sources, the authority
of the interviewee becomes relevant.  If a recognized elder of a
specific cultural group (whose identity can be verified) is on video
making a specific claim, that's notable and verifiable in itself, and
can be discussed as such in a Wikipedia article.

An example of such a claim might be "Although Ringo's Ethnography of
Eastern River-dwellers mentions their ritual use of torpedoes, Chief Tom of the Wilbury tribe has claimed in an
interview that none of the tribes ever had access to such weapons, and
believes this belief to be due to a confusion with the local
militia."

This way, no reader can be misled about the source and weight of the claim.

Of course, that's just, like, my opinion, man.{{cn}}

-- 
David Richfield
e^(πi)+1=0

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[M. Williamson]

What is your intention here, Elizabeth, besides trolling?

2011/7/26 whothis 

> Looks like an excellent waste of effort.
>
> Maybe the problem of publishing non-publishable oral sources occurred to
> someone on the team. Anyway the english wikipedia seems to be the
> appropriate place for your original research. I can't wait to read all
> about
> it.
>
> I still think a research project in emesis in the global south or something
> would have suited english wikipedia better but that's just me.
>
> Your fan
>
> Elizabeth
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Achal Prabhala 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear friends,
> >
> > At the beginning of 2011, a group of us began working on a project to
> > explore alternative methods of citation on Wikipedia. We were motivated
> > by the lack of published resources in much of the non-Anglo-European
> > world, and the very real difficulty of citing everyday aspects of lived
> > reality in India and South Africa.
> >
> > We are now at a stage where the project is almost complete, and we'd
> > like to share our work with the broader movement, especially within
> > India and South Africa.
> >
> > There are three languages we worked within: Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi.
> >
> > The project page documents the process and logistics employed, as well
> > as the findings and results:
> >
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations
> >
> > A film made on the project is available here:
> >
> >
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:People-are-Knowledge.ogv?withJS=MediaWiki:MwEmbed.js
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:People-are-Knowledge.ogv
> > or
> > http://vimeo.com/26469276
> >
> > There have been discussions on oral citations for some time now within
> > the language communities we worked with for the duration of the project.
> > At this stage, we are really interested in *your* feedback, either on
> > this list, or on the Discussion section of the project page.
> >
> > There are still some things to come, namely:
> >
> > - Updates on events, meetings and discussions held around the project
> > (as they happen)
> > - Updates on articles created in Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi as a result
> > of the project (as they happen)
> > - English transcripts of the interviews and a full English subtitle track
> > for further translation (we could use some help here).
> >
> > We would be very grateful to hear your feedback, and begin a broader
> > discussion.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Achal
> >
> >
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Oops, my karma ran over your dogma.
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[whothis]

Looks like an excellent waste of effort.

Maybe the problem of publishing non-publishable oral sources occurred to
someone on the team. Anyway the english wikipedia seems to be the
appropriate place for your original research. I can't wait to read all about
it.

I still think a research project in emesis in the global south or something
would have suited english wikipedia better but that's just me.

Your fan

Elizabeth


On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Achal Prabhala  wrote:

> Dear friends,
>
> At the beginning of 2011, a group of us began working on a project to
> explore alternative methods of citation on Wikipedia. We were motivated
> by the lack of published resources in much of the non-Anglo-European
> world, and the very real difficulty of citing everyday aspects of lived
> reality in India and South Africa.
>
> We are now at a stage where the project is almost complete, and we'd
> like to share our work with the broader movement, especially within
> India and South Africa.
>
> There are three languages we worked within: Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi.
>
> The project page documents the process and logistics employed, as well
> as the findings and results:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations
>
> A film made on the project is available here:
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:People-are-Knowledge.ogv?withJS=MediaWiki:MwEmbed.js
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:People-are-Knowledge.ogv
> or
> http://vimeo.com/26469276
>
> There have been discussions on oral citations for some time now within
> the language communities we worked with for the duration of the project.
> At this stage, we are really interested in *your* feedback, either on
> this list, or on the Discussion section of the project page.
>
> There are still some things to come, namely:
>
> - Updates on events, meetings and discussions held around the project
> (as they happen)
> - Updates on articles created in Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi as a result
> of the project (as they happen)
> - English transcripts of the interviews and a full English subtitle track
> for further translation (we could use some help here).
>
> We would be very grateful to hear your feedback, and begin a broader
> discussion.
>
> Best wishes,
> Achal
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Oops, my karma ran over your dogma.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

[Achal Prabhala]

Dear friends,

At the beginning of 2011, a group of us began working on a project to
explore alternative methods of citation on Wikipedia. We were motivated
by the lack of published resources in much of the non-Anglo-European
world, and the very real difficulty of citing everyday aspects of lived
reality in India and South Africa.

We are now at a stage where the project is almost complete, and we'd
like to share our work with the broader movement, especially within
India and South Africa.

There are three languages we worked within: Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi.

The project page documents the process and logistics employed, as well
as the findings and results:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations

A film made on the project is available here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:People-are-Knowledge.ogv?withJS=MediaWiki:MwEmbed.js
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:People-are-Knowledge.ogv
or
http://vimeo.com/26469276

There have been discussions on oral citations for some time now within
the language communities we worked with for the duration of the project.
At this stage, we are really interested in *your* feedback, either on
this list, or on the Discussion section of the project page.

There are still some things to come, namely:

- Updates on events, meetings and discussions held around the project
(as they happen)
- Updates on articles created in Malayalam, Hindi and Sepedi as a result
of the project (as they happen)
- English transcripts of the interviews and a full English subtitle track
for further translation (we could use some help here).

We would be very grateful to hear your feedback, and begin a broader
discussion.

Best wishes,
Achal


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l