Re: [Wiki-research-l] New paper - Indigenous knowledge on Wikipedia

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When people want to register for their own reasons as a group, they can
make an item for themselves in Wikidata and identify as "member of" their
group. We do have process oriented data for Wikipedia in Wikidata so there
is a precedent.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 01:39, Kerry Raymond  wrote:

> On en.WP we prohibit shared accounts and accounts that appear to represent
> an organisation so that's a barrier. But assuming there was some special
> case to allow a username to represent a community of knowledge, we would
> still have a practical problem of whether the individual creating such an
> account or doing the edit was authorised to do so by that community, which
> would require some kind of real-world validation. But, let's say local
> chapters or local users could undertake that process using local knowledge
> of how such communities identify and operate.
>
> The problem it still doesn't solve is that whatever information is added
> by that account could then be changed by anyone. We would have to have a
> way to prevent that happening, which would be a technical problem. Also
> could that information ever be deleted by anyone (even for purely innocent
> purposes, e.g. splitting a large article might delete the content from one
> article to re-insert into other article). Or is the positioning of the
> content within a particular article a decision only that group might be
> allowed to take?
>
> A possible technical/social solution is to have traditional knowledge of
> this nature in a sister project, where rules on user names would be
> entirely different and obviously oral sourced material allowed.  The group
> could then produce named units of information as a single unit (similar to
> a File on Commons). These units could then be added to en.WP or others
> (obviously the language the units are written would have be identified, as
> Commons does with descriptions already) so only English content is added to
> en.WP and so on. The content would be presented in en.WP in a way (in a
> "traditional language" box with a link to something explaining that what
> means) so the reader understands what this info is and is free to trust it
> or not. The information itself cannot be modified on en.WP only on the
> sister project (requests on talk pages of the sister project would need to
> be allowed for anyone to make requests eg report misspelling). En.WP would
> remain in control of whether the content was included but could not change
> the content themselves.
>
> It seems to be a sister project similar to the current Commons would be
> what we need to make this work.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 4 Jul 2019, at 6:03 pm, Jan Dittrich  wrote:
>
> >> Maybe not "signed" in the sense of a signature of a Talk page, but each
> > contribution is attributed automatically to its user as seen in the
> > history. As someone who edits under my real name, I absolutely put my
> name
> > to my contributions.
> >
> > That is what I assumed, too, since it was coherent with some of the
> > problems described in:
> >
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/PG-Slides-Wikimania18.pdf
> > in this interpretation, Mediawiki (and lots of other software) code-ify
> > knowledge production as done by single people  [1]– a person can edit,
> but
> > not a group (which was one of the challenges in the project described in
> > the slides, if I remember correctly)
> >
> > I would be much interested in more research on what values are "build in"
> > our software (Some Research by Heather Ford and Stuart Geiger goes in
> this
> > direction).
> >
> > Best,
> > Jan
> >
> > [1] An interesting read on the concept of "transmitting knowledge" (e.g.
> in
> > articles and via the web) and knowledge as inherently social would be
> > Ingold’s "From the Transmission of Representation to the Education of
> > Attention" (http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/ingold/ingold1.htm).
> >
> > Am Do., 4. Juli 2019 um 02:20 Uhr schrieb Kerry Raymond <
> > kerry.raym...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> Maybe not "signed" in the sense of a signature of a Talk page, but each
> >> contribution is attributed automatically to its user as seen in the
> >> history. As someone who edits under my real name, I absolutely put my
> name
> >> to my contributions.
> >>
> >> Or the other possible interpretation of "signed" here may be referring
> to
> >> the citations which are usually sources with one or small number of
> >> individual authors, as opposed to a community of shared knowledge
> >> custodians which is the case with Aboriginal Australians.
> >>
> >> Kerry
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >>> On 4 Jul 2019, at 10:28 am, Todd Allen  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I found one error:
> >>>
> >>> "Even the idea that contributions to the wiki should be signed by
> >>> individuals is at odds with many traditional societies where knowledge
> >>> expression is mainly collective, not individualised..."
> >>>
> >>> That's already how it works. Only discussion posts 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] New paper - Indigenous knowledge on Wikipedia

[Samuel Klein]

On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 10:11 PM Ocean Power 
wrote:

> What about Australian indigenous songs that trace the path of songlines
> that both document collective history and folk knowledge and also
> rhythmically document land contours and other landmarks as a
> map/timeline/travel guide and often compile folkloric and secondary and
> primary knowledge over generations? I'm curious if you think these function
> in some ways as tertiary sources which, at least according to the wiki,
> include "travel guides, field guides, and almanacs." I'm out of my depth
> but enjoying the back and forth here.
>

Hello :)  Sounds like a tertiary source to me, whatever the format.   I
would say instructional, historical, and cataloging stories + songs are
traditional tertiary sources.  As are the maintainers of legal precedent
and local data records.

There are also a few independent dimensions where oral and written
histories tend to differ, which are sometimes confused.  Three at play here:

* *Format*: Seen (video) vs. Spoken (audio) vs. written (text).
   Video or audio are sometimes considered more authentic than text for a
primary source.
* *Verifiability*: Contemporaneously recorded in a lasting medium, vs.
remembered + retransmitted through the memory of recipients
* *Closeness to observation*:  Primary observation / Secondary analysis /
Tertiary compilation
A town elder remembering the town's history is primary; when I develop
my own history based on it (w/o direct experience) and tell it to you, that
is secondary; if you catalog different versions of town histories in an
epic song, that's tertiary (even as your performance of it is a primary
source for your singing style!)

S.
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] New paper - Indigenous knowledge on Wikipedia

[Stuart A. Yeates]

Technically these are primary sources when they are first recorded /
written down. The first recorded / written theorizing about them is
secondary. Reporting on a concensus reached by that theorizing is tertiary.
Assuming that the singing, theorizing and reporting is done by different
parties.

The model very much assumes a subject and an observer and written /
recorded communication.

The model (for better or worse) is very effective is suppressing things
like arguing from the Bible or from direct religious experience. Presumably
new models would either accept those or deal with them in other ways.

Cheers
Stuart

On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 2:11 pm Ocean Power  wrote:

> What about Australian indigenous songs that trace the path of songlines
> that both document collective history and folk knowledge and also
> rhythmically document land contours and other landmarks as a
> map/timeline/travel guide and often compile folkloric and secondary and
> primary knowledge over generations? I'm curious if you think these function
> in some ways as tertiary sources which, at least according to the wiki,
> include "travel guides, field guides, and almanacs." I'm out of my depth
> but enjoying the back and forth here.
>
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 5:20 PM, Stuart A. Yeates 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Samuel
> >
> > Can you provide examples of tertiary sources from pure oral cultures?
> I've
> > never heard of any.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Stuart
> >
> > On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 1:19 am Samuel Klein  wrote:
> >
> >> I think we have all the mechanics needed for this.
> >>
> >> - Individual revisions aren't editable, once posted, and stay around
> >> forever (unless revdeleted).
> >> - Each wiki can have its own guidelines for how accounts can be shared.
> >> - Rather than limiting who can edit, you could have a whitelist of
> >> contributors considered by the local community to represent their
> >> knowledge; and have a lens that only looks at those contributions. (like
> >> flagged revs)
> >>
> >> (@stuart - tertiary sourcing can apply to any source; it does not
> privilege
> >> print culture. only particular standards of notability and verifiability
> >> start to limit which sources are preferred.)
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 7:39 PM Kerry Raymond 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On en.WP we prohibit shared accounts and accounts that appear to
> >> represent
> >> > an organisation so that's a barrier. But assuming there was some
> special
> >> > case to allow a username to represent a community of knowledge, we
> would
> >> > still have a practical problem of whether the individual creating
> such an
> >> > account or doing the edit was authorised to do so by that community,
> >> which
> >> > would require some kind of real-world validation. But, let's say local
> >> > chapters or local users could undertake that process using local
> >> knowledge
> >> > of how such communities identify and operate.
> >> >
> >> > The problem it still doesn't solve is that whatever information is
> added
> >> > by that account could then be changed by anyone. We would have to
> have a
> >> > way to prevent that happening, which would be a technical problem.
> Also
> >> > could that information ever be deleted by anyone (even for purely
> >> innocent
> >> > purposes, e.g. splitting a large article might delete the content from
> >> one
> >> > article to re-insert into other article). Or is the positioning of the
> >> > content within a particular article a decision only that group might
> be
> >> > allowed to take?
> >> >
> >> > A possible technical/social solution is to have traditional knowledge
> of
> >> > this nature in a sister project, where rules on user names would be
> >> > entirely different and obviously oral sourced material allowed. The
> >> group
> >> > could then produce named units of information as a single unit
> (similar
> >> to
> >> > a File on Commons). These units could then be added to en.WP or others
> >> > (obviously the language the units are written would have be
> identified,
> >> as
> >> > Commons does with descriptions already) so only English content is
> added
> >> to
> >> > en.WP and so on. The content would be presented in en.WP in a way (in
> a
> >> > "traditional language" box with a link to something explaining that
> what
> >> > means) so the reader understands what this info is and is free to
> trust
> >> it
> >> > or not. The information itself cannot be modified on en.WP only on the
> >> > sister project (requests on talk pages of the sister project would
> need
> >> to
> >> > be allowed for anyone to make requests eg report misspelling). En.WP
> >> would
> >> > remain in control of whether the content was included but could not
> >> change
> >> > the content themselves.
> >> >
> >> > It seems to be a sister project similar to the current Commons would
> be
> >> > what we need to make this work.
> >> >
> >> > Sent from my iPad
> >> >
> >> > On 4 Jul 2019, at 6:03 pm, Jan Dittrich 
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >> Maybe not "signed" in 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] New paper - Indigenous knowledge on Wikipedia

[Ocean Power]

What about Australian indigenous songs that trace the path of songlines that 
both document collective history and folk knowledge and also rhythmically 
document land contours and other landmarks as a map/timeline/travel guide and 
often compile folkloric and secondary and primary knowledge over generations? 
I'm curious if you think these function in some ways as tertiary sources which, 
at least according to the wiki, include "travel guides, field guides, and 
almanacs." I'm out of my depth but enjoying the back and forth here.

On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 5:20 PM, Stuart A. Yeates  wrote:

> Hi Samuel
>
> Can you provide examples of tertiary sources from pure oral cultures? I've
> never heard of any.
>
> Cheers
> Stuart
>
> On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 1:19 am Samuel Klein  wrote:
>
>> I think we have all the mechanics needed for this.
>>
>> - Individual revisions aren't editable, once posted, and stay around
>> forever (unless revdeleted).
>> - Each wiki can have its own guidelines for how accounts can be shared.
>> - Rather than limiting who can edit, you could have a whitelist of
>> contributors considered by the local community to represent their
>> knowledge; and have a lens that only looks at those contributions. (like
>> flagged revs)
>>
>> (@stuart - tertiary sourcing can apply to any source; it does not privilege
>> print culture. only particular standards of notability and verifiability
>> start to limit which sources are preferred.)
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 7:39 PM Kerry Raymond 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On en.WP we prohibit shared accounts and accounts that appear to
>> represent
>> > an organisation so that's a barrier. But assuming there was some special
>> > case to allow a username to represent a community of knowledge, we would
>> > still have a practical problem of whether the individual creating such an
>> > account or doing the edit was authorised to do so by that community,
>> which
>> > would require some kind of real-world validation. But, let's say local
>> > chapters or local users could undertake that process using local
>> knowledge
>> > of how such communities identify and operate.
>> >
>> > The problem it still doesn't solve is that whatever information is added
>> > by that account could then be changed by anyone. We would have to have a
>> > way to prevent that happening, which would be a technical problem. Also
>> > could that information ever be deleted by anyone (even for purely
>> innocent
>> > purposes, e.g. splitting a large article might delete the content from
>> one
>> > article to re-insert into other article). Or is the positioning of the
>> > content within a particular article a decision only that group might be
>> > allowed to take?
>> >
>> > A possible technical/social solution is to have traditional knowledge of
>> > this nature in a sister project, where rules on user names would be
>> > entirely different and obviously oral sourced material allowed. The
>> group
>> > could then produce named units of information as a single unit (similar
>> to
>> > a File on Commons). These units could then be added to en.WP or others
>> > (obviously the language the units are written would have be identified,
>> as
>> > Commons does with descriptions already) so only English content is added
>> to
>> > en.WP and so on. The content would be presented in en.WP in a way (in a
>> > "traditional language" box with a link to something explaining that what
>> > means) so the reader understands what this info is and is free to trust
>> it
>> > or not. The information itself cannot be modified on en.WP only on the
>> > sister project (requests on talk pages of the sister project would need
>> to
>> > be allowed for anyone to make requests eg report misspelling). En.WP
>> would
>> > remain in control of whether the content was included but could not
>> change
>> > the content themselves.
>> >
>> > It seems to be a sister project similar to the current Commons would be
>> > what we need to make this work.
>> >
>> > Sent from my iPad
>> >
>> > On 4 Jul 2019, at 6:03 pm, Jan Dittrich 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> Maybe not "signed" in the sense of a signature of a Talk page, but
>> each
>> > > contribution is attributed automatically to its user as seen in the
>> > > history. As someone who edits under my real name, I absolutely put my
>> > name
>> > > to my contributions.
>> > >
>> > > That is what I assumed, too, since it was coherent with some of the
>> > > problems described in:
>> > >
>> >
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/PG-Slides-Wikimania18.pdf
>> > > in this interpretation, Mediawiki (and lots of other software) code-ify
>> > > knowledge production as done by single people [1]– a person can edit,
>> > but
>> > > not a group (which was one of the challenges in the project described
>> in
>> > > the slides, if I remember correctly)
>> > >
>> > > I would be much interested in more research on what values are "build
>> in"
>> > > our software (Some Research by Heather Ford and 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] New paper - Indigenous knowledge on Wikipedia

[Kerry Raymond]

The current mechanisms would allow anyone to alter the Indigenous content in an 
article. That is unlikely to be acceptable to Ingenenous Australians. This is 
why I propose a sister project with different rules to create such content and 
then import it into en.WP etc as an unalterable unit into en.WP (from where it 
can be deleted but not changed in content). The WP gets to decide if the 
content is welcome but does not control the content. This appears to me to 
strike be an acceptable balance between the two cultures. 

If our current mechanisms and policies were working, I don't think we'd be 
having this conversation.

Sent from my iPad

> On 5 Jul 2019, at 11:18 pm, Samuel Klein  wrote:
> 
> I think we have all the mechanics needed for this.
> 
> - Individual revisions aren't editable, once posted, and stay around
> forever (unless revdeleted).
> - Each wiki can have its own guidelines for how accounts can be shared.
> - Rather than limiting who can edit, you could have a whitelist of
> contributors considered by the local community to represent their
> knowledge; and have a lens that only looks at those contributions.  (like
> flagged revs)
> 
> (@stuart - tertiary sourcing can apply to any source; it does not privilege
> print culture.  only particular standards of notability and verifiability
> start to limit which sources are preferred.)
> 
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 7:39 PM Kerry Raymond 
> wrote:
> 
>> On en.WP we prohibit shared accounts and accounts that appear to represent
>> an organisation so that's a barrier. But assuming there was some special
>> case to allow a username to represent a community of knowledge, we would
>> still have a practical problem of whether the individual creating such an
>> account or doing the edit was authorised to do so by that community, which
>> would require some kind of real-world validation. But, let's say local
>> chapters or local users could undertake that process using local knowledge
>> of how such communities identify and operate.
>> 
>> The problem it still doesn't solve is that whatever information is added
>> by that account could then be changed by anyone. We would have to have a
>> way to prevent that happening, which would be a technical problem. Also
>> could that information ever be deleted by anyone (even for purely innocent
>> purposes, e.g. splitting a large article might delete the content from one
>> article to re-insert into other article). Or is the positioning of the
>> content within a particular article a decision only that group might be
>> allowed to take?
>> 
>> A possible technical/social solution is to have traditional knowledge of
>> this nature in a sister project, where rules on user names would be
>> entirely different and obviously oral sourced material allowed.  The group
>> could then produce named units of information as a single unit (similar to
>> a File on Commons). These units could then be added to en.WP or others
>> (obviously the language the units are written would have be identified, as
>> Commons does with descriptions already) so only English content is added to
>> en.WP and so on. The content would be presented in en.WP in a way (in a
>> "traditional language" box with a link to something explaining that what
>> means) so the reader understands what this info is and is free to trust it
>> or not. The information itself cannot be modified on en.WP only on the
>> sister project (requests on talk pages of the sister project would need to
>> be allowed for anyone to make requests eg report misspelling). En.WP would
>> remain in control of whether the content was included but could not change
>> the content themselves.
>> 
>> It seems to be a sister project similar to the current Commons would be
>> what we need to make this work.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> On 4 Jul 2019, at 6:03 pm, Jan Dittrich  wrote:
>> 
 Maybe not "signed" in the sense of a signature of a Talk page, but each
>>> contribution is attributed automatically to its user as seen in the
>>> history. As someone who edits under my real name, I absolutely put my
>> name
>>> to my contributions.
>>> 
>>> That is what I assumed, too, since it was coherent with some of the
>>> problems described in:
>>> 
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/PG-Slides-Wikimania18.pdf
>>> in this interpretation, Mediawiki (and lots of other software) code-ify
>>> knowledge production as done by single people  [1]– a person can edit,
>> but
>>> not a group (which was one of the challenges in the project described in
>>> the slides, if I remember correctly)
>>> 
>>> I would be much interested in more research on what values are "build in"
>>> our software (Some Research by Heather Ford and Stuart Geiger goes in
>> this
>>> direction).
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Jan
>>> 
>>> [1] An interesting read on the concept of "transmitting knowledge" (e.g.
>> in
>>> articles and via the web) and knowledge as inherently social would be
>>> Ingold’s "From the 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] New paper - Indigenous knowledge on Wikipedia

[Stuart A. Yeates]

Hi Samuel

Can you provide examples of tertiary sources from pure oral cultures? I've
never heard of any.

Cheers
Stuart

On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 1:19 am Samuel Klein  wrote:

> I think we have all the mechanics needed for this.
>
> - Individual revisions aren't editable, once posted, and stay around
> forever (unless revdeleted).
> - Each wiki can have its own guidelines for how accounts can be shared.
> - Rather than limiting who can edit, you could have a whitelist of
> contributors considered by the local community to represent their
> knowledge; and have a lens that only looks at those contributions.  (like
> flagged revs)
>
> (@stuart - tertiary sourcing can apply to any source; it does not privilege
> print culture.  only particular standards of notability and verifiability
> start to limit which sources are preferred.)
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 7:39 PM Kerry Raymond 
> wrote:
>
> > On en.WP we prohibit shared accounts and accounts that appear to
> represent
> > an organisation so that's a barrier. But assuming there was some special
> > case to allow a username to represent a community of knowledge, we would
> > still have a practical problem of whether the individual creating such an
> > account or doing the edit was authorised to do so by that community,
> which
> > would require some kind of real-world validation. But, let's say local
> > chapters or local users could undertake that process using local
> knowledge
> > of how such communities identify and operate.
> >
> > The problem it still doesn't solve is that whatever information is added
> > by that account could then be changed by anyone. We would have to have a
> > way to prevent that happening, which would be a technical problem. Also
> > could that information ever be deleted by anyone (even for purely
> innocent
> > purposes, e.g. splitting a large article might delete the content from
> one
> > article to re-insert into other article). Or is the positioning of the
> > content within a particular article a decision only that group might be
> > allowed to take?
> >
> > A possible technical/social solution is to have traditional knowledge of
> > this nature in a sister project, where rules on user names would be
> > entirely different and obviously oral sourced material allowed.  The
> group
> > could then produce named units of information as a single unit (similar
> to
> > a File on Commons). These units could then be added to en.WP or others
> > (obviously the language the units are written would have be identified,
> as
> > Commons does with descriptions already) so only English content is added
> to
> > en.WP and so on. The content would be presented in en.WP in a way (in a
> > "traditional language" box with a link to something explaining that what
> > means) so the reader understands what this info is and is free to trust
> it
> > or not. The information itself cannot be modified on en.WP only on the
> > sister project (requests on talk pages of the sister project would need
> to
> > be allowed for anyone to make requests eg report misspelling). En.WP
> would
> > remain in control of whether the content was included but could not
> change
> > the content themselves.
> >
> > It seems to be a sister project similar to the current Commons would be
> > what we need to make this work.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On 4 Jul 2019, at 6:03 pm, Jan Dittrich 
> wrote:
> >
> > >> Maybe not "signed" in the sense of a signature of a Talk page, but
> each
> > > contribution is attributed automatically to its user as seen in the
> > > history. As someone who edits under my real name, I absolutely put my
> > name
> > > to my contributions.
> > >
> > > That is what I assumed, too, since it was coherent with some of the
> > > problems described in:
> > >
> >
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/PG-Slides-Wikimania18.pdf
> > > in this interpretation, Mediawiki (and lots of other software) code-ify
> > > knowledge production as done by single people  [1]– a person can edit,
> > but
> > > not a group (which was one of the challenges in the project described
> in
> > > the slides, if I remember correctly)
> > >
> > > I would be much interested in more research on what values are "build
> in"
> > > our software (Some Research by Heather Ford and Stuart Geiger goes in
> > this
> > > direction).
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Jan
> > >
> > > [1] An interesting read on the concept of "transmitting knowledge"
> (e.g.
> > in
> > > articles and via the web) and knowledge as inherently social would be
> > > Ingold’s "From the Transmission of Representation to the Education of
> > > Attention" (http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/ingold/ingold1.htm).
> > >
> > > Am Do., 4. Juli 2019 um 02:20 Uhr schrieb Kerry Raymond <
> > > kerry.raym...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > >> Maybe not "signed" in the sense of a signature of a Talk page, but
> each
> > >> contribution is attributed automatically to its user as seen in the
> > >> history. As someone who edits under my 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] New paper - Indigenous knowledge on Wikipedia

[Samuel Klein]

I think we have all the mechanics needed for this.

- Individual revisions aren't editable, once posted, and stay around
forever (unless revdeleted).
- Each wiki can have its own guidelines for how accounts can be shared.
- Rather than limiting who can edit, you could have a whitelist of
contributors considered by the local community to represent their
knowledge; and have a lens that only looks at those contributions.  (like
flagged revs)

(@stuart - tertiary sourcing can apply to any source; it does not privilege
print culture.  only particular standards of notability and verifiability
start to limit which sources are preferred.)

On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 7:39 PM Kerry Raymond 
wrote:

> On en.WP we prohibit shared accounts and accounts that appear to represent
> an organisation so that's a barrier. But assuming there was some special
> case to allow a username to represent a community of knowledge, we would
> still have a practical problem of whether the individual creating such an
> account or doing the edit was authorised to do so by that community, which
> would require some kind of real-world validation. But, let's say local
> chapters or local users could undertake that process using local knowledge
> of how such communities identify and operate.
>
> The problem it still doesn't solve is that whatever information is added
> by that account could then be changed by anyone. We would have to have a
> way to prevent that happening, which would be a technical problem. Also
> could that information ever be deleted by anyone (even for purely innocent
> purposes, e.g. splitting a large article might delete the content from one
> article to re-insert into other article). Or is the positioning of the
> content within a particular article a decision only that group might be
> allowed to take?
>
> A possible technical/social solution is to have traditional knowledge of
> this nature in a sister project, where rules on user names would be
> entirely different and obviously oral sourced material allowed.  The group
> could then produce named units of information as a single unit (similar to
> a File on Commons). These units could then be added to en.WP or others
> (obviously the language the units are written would have be identified, as
> Commons does with descriptions already) so only English content is added to
> en.WP and so on. The content would be presented in en.WP in a way (in a
> "traditional language" box with a link to something explaining that what
> means) so the reader understands what this info is and is free to trust it
> or not. The information itself cannot be modified on en.WP only on the
> sister project (requests on talk pages of the sister project would need to
> be allowed for anyone to make requests eg report misspelling). En.WP would
> remain in control of whether the content was included but could not change
> the content themselves.
>
> It seems to be a sister project similar to the current Commons would be
> what we need to make this work.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 4 Jul 2019, at 6:03 pm, Jan Dittrich  wrote:
>
> >> Maybe not "signed" in the sense of a signature of a Talk page, but each
> > contribution is attributed automatically to its user as seen in the
> > history. As someone who edits under my real name, I absolutely put my
> name
> > to my contributions.
> >
> > That is what I assumed, too, since it was coherent with some of the
> > problems described in:
> >
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/PG-Slides-Wikimania18.pdf
> > in this interpretation, Mediawiki (and lots of other software) code-ify
> > knowledge production as done by single people  [1]– a person can edit,
> but
> > not a group (which was one of the challenges in the project described in
> > the slides, if I remember correctly)
> >
> > I would be much interested in more research on what values are "build in"
> > our software (Some Research by Heather Ford and Stuart Geiger goes in
> this
> > direction).
> >
> > Best,
> > Jan
> >
> > [1] An interesting read on the concept of "transmitting knowledge" (e.g.
> in
> > articles and via the web) and knowledge as inherently social would be
> > Ingold’s "From the Transmission of Representation to the Education of
> > Attention" (http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/ingold/ingold1.htm).
> >
> > Am Do., 4. Juli 2019 um 02:20 Uhr schrieb Kerry Raymond <
> > kerry.raym...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> Maybe not "signed" in the sense of a signature of a Talk page, but each
> >> contribution is attributed automatically to its user as seen in the
> >> history. As someone who edits under my real name, I absolutely put my
> name
> >> to my contributions.
> >>
> >> Or the other possible interpretation of "signed" here may be referring
> to
> >> the citations which are usually sources with one or small number of
> >> individual authors, as opposed to a community of shared knowledge
> >> custodians which is the case with Aboriginal Australians.
> >>
> >> Kerry
> >>
> >> Sent from my 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] New paper - Indigenous knowledge on Wikipedia

[Kerry Raymond]

I don't think it's impossible. I think the presentation of the material in a 
box that clearly indicates the nature of the material and its provenance to 
allow the reader to decide for themselves whether they wish to read it and how 
much they wish to believe it. We already have the same problem with images; a 
random person with a pseudonym uploads a photo of a mountain to Commons and 
says "that's Mt Whatsit". It gets added to related WP articles as Mt Whatsit. 
So I don't see what I am proposing is any more risky, indeed it's considerably 
less risky if the sister project dies some real world validation.

Whether or not what I am proposing will be what indigenous communities want is 
a separate question. I suspect what they want will never be acceptable to 
en.WP. But is there a compromise?

Kerry

Sent from my iPad

> On 5 Jul 2019, at 10:19 am, Stuart A. Yeates  wrote:
> 
> At the end of the day, wikipedia is by definition a tertiary source
> source and built on concepts of Western print culture. Traditional
> knowledge is immiscible with this model.
> 
> This is exactly why I stopped promoting mi.wiki locally here --- as I
> understand the needs of mi speakers and activists wikipedias are
> incapable of meeting them.
> 
> cheers
> stuart
> --
> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
> 
>> On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 11:39, Kerry Raymond  wrote:
>> 
>> On en.WP we prohibit shared accounts and accounts that appear to represent 
>> an organisation so that's a barrier. But assuming there was some special 
>> case to allow a username to represent a community of knowledge, we would 
>> still have a practical problem of whether the individual creating such an 
>> account or doing the edit was authorised to do so by that community, which 
>> would require some kind of real-world validation. But, let's say local 
>> chapters or local users could undertake that process using local knowledge 
>> of how such communities identify and operate.
>> 
>> The problem it still doesn't solve is that whatever information is added by 
>> that account could then be changed by anyone. We would have to have a way to 
>> prevent that happening, which would be a technical problem. Also could that 
>> information ever be deleted by anyone (even for purely innocent purposes, 
>> e.g. splitting a large article might delete the content from one article to 
>> re-insert into other article). Or is the positioning of the content within a 
>> particular article a decision only that group might be allowed to take?
>> 
>> A possible technical/social solution is to have traditional knowledge of 
>> this nature in a sister project, where rules on user names would be entirely 
>> different and obviously oral sourced material allowed.  The group could then 
>> produce named units of information as a single unit (similar to a File on 
>> Commons). These units could then be added to en.WP or others (obviously the 
>> language the units are written would have be identified, as Commons does 
>> with descriptions already) so only English content is added to en.WP and so 
>> on. The content would be presented in en.WP in a way (in a "traditional 
>> language" box with a link to something explaining that what means) so the 
>> reader understands what this info is and is free to trust it or not. The 
>> information itself cannot be modified on en.WP only on the sister project 
>> (requests on talk pages of the sister project would need to be allowed for 
>> anyone to make requests eg report misspelling). En.WP would remain in 
>> control of whether the content was included but could not change the content 
>> themselves.
>> 
>> It seems to be a sister project similar to the current Commons would be what 
>> we need to make this work.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> On 4 Jul 2019, at 6:03 pm, Jan Dittrich  wrote:
>> 
 Maybe not "signed" in the sense of a signature of a Talk page, but each
>>> contribution is attributed automatically to its user as seen in the
>>> history. As someone who edits under my real name, I absolutely put my name
>>> to my contributions.
>>> 
>>> That is what I assumed, too, since it was coherent with some of the
>>> problems described in:
>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/PG-Slides-Wikimania18.pdf
>>> in this interpretation, Mediawiki (and lots of other software) code-ify
>>> knowledge production as done by single people  [1]– a person can edit, but
>>> not a group (which was one of the challenges in the project described in
>>> the slides, if I remember correctly)
>>> 
>>> I would be much interested in more research on what values are "build in"
>>> our software (Some Research by Heather Ford and Stuart Geiger goes in this
>>> direction).
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Jan
>>> 
>>> [1] An interesting read on the concept of "transmitting knowledge" (e.g. in
>>> articles and via the web) and knowledge as inherently social would be
>>> Ingold’s "From the Transmission of Representation to the Education of
>>> 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] New paper - Indigenous knowledge on Wikipedia

[Kerry Raymond]

Sorry I meant to say "traditional knowledge" box not "traditional language" box.

Kerry

Sent from my iPad

> On 5 Jul 2019, at 9:38 am, Kerry Raymond  wrote:
> 
> On en.WP we prohibit shared accounts and accounts that appear to represent an 
> organisation so that's a barrier. But assuming there was some special case to 
> allow a username to represent a community of knowledge, we would still have a 
> practical problem of whether the individual creating such an account or doing 
> the edit was authorised to do so by that community, which would require some 
> kind of real-world validation. But, let's say local chapters or local users 
> could undertake that process using local knowledge of how such communities 
> identify and operate.
> 
> The problem it still doesn't solve is that whatever information is added by 
> that account could then be changed by anyone. We would have to have a way to 
> prevent that happening, which would be a technical problem. Also could that 
> information ever be deleted by anyone (even for purely innocent purposes, 
> e.g. splitting a large article might delete the content from one article to 
> re-insert into other article). Or is the positioning of the content within a 
> particular article a decision only that group might be allowed to take?
> 
> A possible technical/social solution is to have traditional knowledge of this 
> nature in a sister project, where rules on user names would be entirely 
> different and obviously oral sourced material allowed.  The group could then 
> produce named units of information as a single unit (similar to a File on 
> Commons). These units could then be added to en.WP or others (obviously the 
> language the units are written would have be identified, as Commons does with 
> descriptions already) so only English content is added to en.WP and so on. 
> The content would be presented in en.WP in a way (in a "traditional language" 
> box with a link to something explaining that what means) so the reader 
> understands what this info is and is free to trust it or not. The information 
> itself cannot be modified on en.WP only on the sister project (requests on 
> talk pages of the sister project would need to be allowed for anyone to make 
> requests eg report misspelling). En.WP would remain in control of whether the 
> content was included but could not change the content themselves.
> 
> It seems to be a sister project similar to the current Commons would be what 
> we need to make this work.
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On 4 Jul 2019, at 6:03 pm, Jan Dittrich  wrote:
> 
>>> Maybe not "signed" in the sense of a signature of a Talk page, but each
>> contribution is attributed automatically to its user as seen in the
>> history. As someone who edits under my real name, I absolutely put my name
>> to my contributions.
>> 
>> That is what I assumed, too, since it was coherent with some of the
>> problems described in:
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/PG-Slides-Wikimania18.pdf
>> in this interpretation, Mediawiki (and lots of other software) code-ify
>> knowledge production as done by single people  [1]– a person can edit, but
>> not a group (which was one of the challenges in the project described in
>> the slides, if I remember correctly)
>> 
>> I would be much interested in more research on what values are "build in"
>> our software (Some Research by Heather Ford and Stuart Geiger goes in this
>> direction).
>> 
>> Best,
>> Jan
>> 
>> [1] An interesting read on the concept of "transmitting knowledge" (e.g. in
>> articles and via the web) and knowledge as inherently social would be
>> Ingold’s "From the Transmission of Representation to the Education of
>> Attention" (http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/ingold/ingold1.htm).
>> 
>> Am Do., 4. Juli 2019 um 02:20 Uhr schrieb Kerry Raymond <
>> kerry.raym...@gmail.com>:
>> 
>>> Maybe not "signed" in the sense of a signature of a Talk page, but each
>>> contribution is attributed automatically to its user as seen in the
>>> history. As someone who edits under my real name, I absolutely put my name
>>> to my contributions.
>>> 
>>> Or the other possible interpretation of "signed" here may be referring to
>>> the citations which are usually sources with one or small number of
>>> individual authors, as opposed to a community of shared knowledge
>>> custodians which is the case with Aboriginal Australians.
>>> 
>>> Kerry
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>> 
 On 4 Jul 2019, at 10:28 am, Todd Allen  wrote:
 
 I found one error:
 
 "Even the idea that contributions to the wiki should be signed by
 individuals is at odds with many traditional societies where knowledge
 expression is mainly collective, not individualised..."
 
 That's already how it works. Only discussion posts and the like are
>>> signed.
 I don't know of any language Wikipedia in which contributions to the
>>> actual
 encyclopedia articles are signed, and I know several of the 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] New paper - Indigenous knowledge on Wikipedia

[Stuart A. Yeates]

At the end of the day, wikipedia is by definition a tertiary source
source and built on concepts of Western print culture. Traditional
knowledge is immiscible with this model.

This is exactly why I stopped promoting mi.wiki locally here --- as I
understand the needs of mi speakers and activists wikipedias are
incapable of meeting them.

cheers
stuart
--
...let us be heard from red core to black sky

On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 11:39, Kerry Raymond  wrote:
>
> On en.WP we prohibit shared accounts and accounts that appear to represent an 
> organisation so that's a barrier. But assuming there was some special case to 
> allow a username to represent a community of knowledge, we would still have a 
> practical problem of whether the individual creating such an account or doing 
> the edit was authorised to do so by that community, which would require some 
> kind of real-world validation. But, let's say local chapters or local users 
> could undertake that process using local knowledge of how such communities 
> identify and operate.
>
> The problem it still doesn't solve is that whatever information is added by 
> that account could then be changed by anyone. We would have to have a way to 
> prevent that happening, which would be a technical problem. Also could that 
> information ever be deleted by anyone (even for purely innocent purposes, 
> e.g. splitting a large article might delete the content from one article to 
> re-insert into other article). Or is the positioning of the content within a 
> particular article a decision only that group might be allowed to take?
>
> A possible technical/social solution is to have traditional knowledge of this 
> nature in a sister project, where rules on user names would be entirely 
> different and obviously oral sourced material allowed.  The group could then 
> produce named units of information as a single unit (similar to a File on 
> Commons). These units could then be added to en.WP or others (obviously the 
> language the units are written would have be identified, as Commons does with 
> descriptions already) so only English content is added to en.WP and so on. 
> The content would be presented in en.WP in a way (in a "traditional language" 
> box with a link to something explaining that what means) so the reader 
> understands what this info is and is free to trust it or not. The information 
> itself cannot be modified on en.WP only on the sister project (requests on 
> talk pages of the sister project would need to be allowed for anyone to make 
> requests eg report misspelling). En.WP would remain in control of whether the 
> content was included but could not change the content themselves.
>
> It seems to be a sister project similar to the current Commons would be what 
> we need to make this work.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 4 Jul 2019, at 6:03 pm, Jan Dittrich  wrote:
>
> >> Maybe not "signed" in the sense of a signature of a Talk page, but each
> > contribution is attributed automatically to its user as seen in the
> > history. As someone who edits under my real name, I absolutely put my name
> > to my contributions.
> >
> > That is what I assumed, too, since it was coherent with some of the
> > problems described in:
> > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/PG-Slides-Wikimania18.pdf
> > in this interpretation, Mediawiki (and lots of other software) code-ify
> > knowledge production as done by single people  [1]– a person can edit, but
> > not a group (which was one of the challenges in the project described in
> > the slides, if I remember correctly)
> >
> > I would be much interested in more research on what values are "build in"
> > our software (Some Research by Heather Ford and Stuart Geiger goes in this
> > direction).
> >
> > Best,
> > Jan
> >
> > [1] An interesting read on the concept of "transmitting knowledge" (e.g. in
> > articles and via the web) and knowledge as inherently social would be
> > Ingold’s "From the Transmission of Representation to the Education of
> > Attention" (http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/ingold/ingold1.htm).
> >
> > Am Do., 4. Juli 2019 um 02:20 Uhr schrieb Kerry Raymond <
> > kerry.raym...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> Maybe not "signed" in the sense of a signature of a Talk page, but each
> >> contribution is attributed automatically to its user as seen in the
> >> history. As someone who edits under my real name, I absolutely put my name
> >> to my contributions.
> >>
> >> Or the other possible interpretation of "signed" here may be referring to
> >> the citations which are usually sources with one or small number of
> >> individual authors, as opposed to a community of shared knowledge
> >> custodians which is the case with Aboriginal Australians.
> >>
> >> Kerry
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >>> On 4 Jul 2019, at 10:28 am, Todd Allen  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I found one error:
> >>>
> >>> "Even the idea that contributions to the wiki should be signed by
> >>> individuals is at odds with many traditional 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] New paper - Indigenous knowledge on Wikipedia

[Kerry Raymond]

On en.WP we prohibit shared accounts and accounts that appear to represent an 
organisation so that's a barrier. But assuming there was some special case to 
allow a username to represent a community of knowledge, we would still have a 
practical problem of whether the individual creating such an account or doing 
the edit was authorised to do so by that community, which would require some 
kind of real-world validation. But, let's say local chapters or local users 
could undertake that process using local knowledge of how such communities 
identify and operate.

The problem it still doesn't solve is that whatever information is added by 
that account could then be changed by anyone. We would have to have a way to 
prevent that happening, which would be a technical problem. Also could that 
information ever be deleted by anyone (even for purely innocent purposes, e.g. 
splitting a large article might delete the content from one article to 
re-insert into other article). Or is the positioning of the content within a 
particular article a decision only that group might be allowed to take?

A possible technical/social solution is to have traditional knowledge of this 
nature in a sister project, where rules on user names would be entirely 
different and obviously oral sourced material allowed.  The group could then 
produce named units of information as a single unit (similar to a File on 
Commons). These units could then be added to en.WP or others (obviously the 
language the units are written would have be identified, as Commons does with 
descriptions already) so only English content is added to en.WP and so on. The 
content would be presented in en.WP in a way (in a "traditional language" box 
with a link to something explaining that what means) so the reader understands 
what this info is and is free to trust it or not. The information itself cannot 
be modified on en.WP only on the sister project (requests on talk pages of the 
sister project would need to be allowed for anyone to make requests eg report 
misspelling). En.WP would remain in control of whether the content was included 
but could not change the content themselves.

It seems to be a sister project similar to the current Commons would be what we 
need to make this work.

Sent from my iPad

On 4 Jul 2019, at 6:03 pm, Jan Dittrich  wrote:

>> Maybe not "signed" in the sense of a signature of a Talk page, but each
> contribution is attributed automatically to its user as seen in the
> history. As someone who edits under my real name, I absolutely put my name
> to my contributions.
> 
> That is what I assumed, too, since it was coherent with some of the
> problems described in:
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/PG-Slides-Wikimania18.pdf
> in this interpretation, Mediawiki (and lots of other software) code-ify
> knowledge production as done by single people  [1]– a person can edit, but
> not a group (which was one of the challenges in the project described in
> the slides, if I remember correctly)
> 
> I would be much interested in more research on what values are "build in"
> our software (Some Research by Heather Ford and Stuart Geiger goes in this
> direction).
> 
> Best,
> Jan
> 
> [1] An interesting read on the concept of "transmitting knowledge" (e.g. in
> articles and via the web) and knowledge as inherently social would be
> Ingold’s "From the Transmission of Representation to the Education of
> Attention" (http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/ingold/ingold1.htm).
> 
> Am Do., 4. Juli 2019 um 02:20 Uhr schrieb Kerry Raymond <
> kerry.raym...@gmail.com>:
> 
>> Maybe not "signed" in the sense of a signature of a Talk page, but each
>> contribution is attributed automatically to its user as seen in the
>> history. As someone who edits under my real name, I absolutely put my name
>> to my contributions.
>> 
>> Or the other possible interpretation of "signed" here may be referring to
>> the citations which are usually sources with one or small number of
>> individual authors, as opposed to a community of shared knowledge
>> custodians which is the case with Aboriginal Australians.
>> 
>> Kerry
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>>> On 4 Jul 2019, at 10:28 am, Todd Allen  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I found one error:
>>> 
>>> "Even the idea that contributions to the wiki should be signed by
>>> individuals is at odds with many traditional societies where knowledge
>>> expression is mainly collective, not individualised..."
>>> 
>>> That's already how it works. Only discussion posts and the like are
>> signed.
>>> I don't know of any language Wikipedia in which contributions to the
>> actual
>>> encyclopedia articles are signed, and I know several of the largest
>>> (German, Spanish, and English) do not have such a practice. (If there is
>> a
>>> project where individual contributions are signed, please let me know,
>> I'd
>>> be interested to see how they make that work. What if it gets edited?)
>>> 
>>> Aside from that, the article seems to 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] New paper - Indigenous knowledge on Wikipedia

[Jan Dittrich]

> Maybe not "signed" in the sense of a signature of a Talk page, but each
contribution is attributed automatically to its user as seen in the
history. As someone who edits under my real name, I absolutely put my name
to my contributions.

That is what I assumed, too, since it was coherent with some of the
problems described in:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/PG-Slides-Wikimania18.pdf
in this interpretation, Mediawiki (and lots of other software) code-ify
knowledge production as done by single people  [1]– a person can edit, but
not a group (which was one of the challenges in the project described in
the slides, if I remember correctly)

I would be much interested in more research on what values are "build in"
our software (Some Research by Heather Ford and Stuart Geiger goes in this
direction).

Best,
 Jan

[1] An interesting read on the concept of "transmitting knowledge" (e.g. in
articles and via the web) and knowledge as inherently social would be
Ingold’s "From the Transmission of Representation to the Education of
Attention" (http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/ingold/ingold1.htm).

Am Do., 4. Juli 2019 um 02:20 Uhr schrieb Kerry Raymond <
kerry.raym...@gmail.com>:

> Maybe not "signed" in the sense of a signature of a Talk page, but each
> contribution is attributed automatically to its user as seen in the
> history. As someone who edits under my real name, I absolutely put my name
> to my contributions.
>
> Or the other possible interpretation of "signed" here may be referring to
> the citations which are usually sources with one or small number of
> individual authors, as opposed to a community of shared knowledge
> custodians which is the case with Aboriginal Australians.
>
> Kerry
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On 4 Jul 2019, at 10:28 am, Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> > I found one error:
> >
> > "Even the idea that contributions to the wiki should be signed by
> > individuals is at odds with many traditional societies where knowledge
> > expression is mainly collective, not individualised..."
> >
> > That's already how it works. Only discussion posts and the like are
> signed.
> > I don't know of any language Wikipedia in which contributions to the
> actual
> > encyclopedia articles are signed, and I know several of the largest
> > (German, Spanish, and English) do not have such a practice. (If there is
> a
> > project where individual contributions are signed, please let me know,
> I'd
> > be interested to see how they make that work. What if it gets edited?)
> >
> > Aside from that, the article seems to state that such a project is
> > incompatible with both NPOV and copyleft, so I'm not sure that Wikimedia
> > hosting it would be the best fit as those are fundamental requirements.
> > (That's not to say it's not worth doing at all, of course.)
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 5:52 PM Nathalie Casemajor 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> For those of you who are interested in "small" Wikipedias and Indigenous
> >> languages, here's a new academic paper co-signed by yours truly.
> >>
> >> Published in an open access journal :)
> >>
> >> Nathalie Casemajor (Seeris)
> >>
> >> -
> >>
> >> *Openness, Inclusion and Self-Affirmation: Indigenous knowledge in Open
> >> Knowledge Projects
> >> <
> >>
> http://peerproduction.net/editsuite/issues/issue-13-open/peer-reviewed-papers/openness-inclusion-and-self-affirmation/?fbclid=IwAR3YQA3eXXZ7Z3ou6lz38_zxXsU_XZ0fu8AJVHE5EVGDil0SBa2U2q0gCKc
> >>> *
> >>
> >> This paper is based on an action research project (Greenwood and Levin,
> >> 1998) conducted in 2016-2017 in partnership with the Atikamekw
> Nehirowisiw
> >> Nation and Wikimedia Canada. Built into the educational curriculum of a
> >> secondary school on the Manawan reserve, the project led to the launch
> of a
> >> Wikipedia encyclopaedia in the Atikamekw Nehirowisiw language. We
> discuss
> >> the results of the project by examining the challenges and opportunities
> >> raised in the collaborative process of creating Wikimedia content in the
> >> Atikamekw Nehirowisiw language. What are the conditions of inclusion of
> >> Indigenous and traditional knowledge in open projects? What are the
> >> cultural and political dimensions of empowerment in this relationship
> >> between openness and inclusion? How do the processes of inclusion and
> >> negotiation of openness affect Indigenous skills and worlding processes?
> >> Drawing from media studies, indigenous studies and science and
> technology
> >> studies, we adopt an ecological perspective (Star, 2010) to analyse the
> >> complex relationships and interactions between knowledge practices,
> >> ecosystems and infrastructures. The material presented in this paper is
> the
> >> result of the group of participants’ collective reflection digested by
> one
> >> Atikamekw Nehirowisiw and two settlers. Each co-writer then brings
> his/her
> >> own expertise and speaks from what he or she knows and has been trained
> >> for.
> >>
> >> 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] New paper - Indigenous knowledge on Wikipedia

[Heather Ford]

This looks like a wonderful paper and excellent research. Thank you so much
for sharing, Nathalie! I look forward to reading!

Best,
Heather.

Dr Heather Ford
Senior Lecturer, School of Arts & Media ,
University of New South Wales
w: hblog.org / EthnographyMatters.net  / t:
@hfordsa 



On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 09:52, Nathalie Casemajor 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> For those of you who are interested in "small" Wikipedias and Indigenous
> languages, here's a new academic paper co-signed by yours truly.
>
> Published in an open access journal :)
>
> Nathalie Casemajor (Seeris)
>
> -
>
> *Openness, Inclusion and Self-Affirmation: Indigenous knowledge in Open
> Knowledge Projects
> <
> http://peerproduction.net/editsuite/issues/issue-13-open/peer-reviewed-papers/openness-inclusion-and-self-affirmation/?fbclid=IwAR3YQA3eXXZ7Z3ou6lz38_zxXsU_XZ0fu8AJVHE5EVGDil0SBa2U2q0gCKc
> >*
>
> This paper is based on an action research project (Greenwood and Levin,
> 1998) conducted in 2016-2017 in partnership with the Atikamekw Nehirowisiw
> Nation and Wikimedia Canada. Built into the educational curriculum of a
> secondary school on the Manawan reserve, the project led to the launch of a
> Wikipedia encyclopaedia in the Atikamekw Nehirowisiw language. We discuss
> the results of the project by examining the challenges and opportunities
> raised in the collaborative process of creating Wikimedia content in the
> Atikamekw Nehirowisiw language. What are the conditions of inclusion of
> Indigenous and traditional knowledge in open projects? What are the
> cultural and political dimensions of empowerment in this relationship
> between openness and inclusion? How do the processes of inclusion and
> negotiation of openness affect Indigenous skills and worlding processes?
> Drawing from media studies, indigenous studies and science and technology
> studies, we adopt an ecological perspective (Star, 2010) to analyse the
> complex relationships and interactions between knowledge practices,
> ecosystems and infrastructures. The material presented in this paper is the
> result of the group of participants’ collective reflection digested by one
> Atikamekw Nehirowisiw and two settlers. Each co-writer then brings his/her
> own expertise and speaks from what he or she knows and has been trained
> for.
>
> Casemajor N., Gentelet K., Coocoo C. (2019), « Openness, Inclusion and
> Self-Affirmation: Indigenous knowledge in Open Knowledge Projects »,
> *Journal
> of Peer Production*, no13, pp. 1-20.
>
>
> More info about the Atikamekw Wikipetcia project and the involvement
> of Wikimedia Canada:
>
> https://ca.wikimedia.org/…/Atikamekw_knowledge,_culture_and…
> <
> https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Atikamekw_knowledge,_culture_and_language_in_Wikimedia_projects?fbclid=IwAR1PynlNUrZcRSIIu9WwcKhp0QjE_UqPz2O8_KNZxnsrTGQYKoLyOMuvh10
> >
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] New paper - Indigenous knowledge on Wikipedia

[Kerry Raymond]

Maybe not "signed" in the sense of a signature of a Talk page, but each 
contribution is attributed automatically to its user as seen in the history. As 
someone who edits under my real name, I absolutely put my name to my 
contributions.

Or the other possible interpretation of "signed" here may be referring to the 
citations which are usually sources with one or small number of individual 
authors, as opposed to a community of shared knowledge custodians which is the 
case with Aboriginal Australians.

Kerry

Sent from my iPad

> On 4 Jul 2019, at 10:28 am, Todd Allen  wrote:
> 
> I found one error:
> 
> "Even the idea that contributions to the wiki should be signed by
> individuals is at odds with many traditional societies where knowledge
> expression is mainly collective, not individualised..."
> 
> That's already how it works. Only discussion posts and the like are signed.
> I don't know of any language Wikipedia in which contributions to the actual
> encyclopedia articles are signed, and I know several of the largest
> (German, Spanish, and English) do not have such a practice. (If there is a
> project where individual contributions are signed, please let me know, I'd
> be interested to see how they make that work. What if it gets edited?)
> 
> Aside from that, the article seems to state that such a project is
> incompatible with both NPOV and copyleft, so I'm not sure that Wikimedia
> hosting it would be the best fit as those are fundamental requirements.
> (That's not to say it's not worth doing at all, of course.)
> 
> Todd
> 
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 5:52 PM Nathalie Casemajor 
> wrote:
> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> For those of you who are interested in "small" Wikipedias and Indigenous
>> languages, here's a new academic paper co-signed by yours truly.
>> 
>> Published in an open access journal :)
>> 
>> Nathalie Casemajor (Seeris)
>> 
>> -
>> 
>> *Openness, Inclusion and Self-Affirmation: Indigenous knowledge in Open
>> Knowledge Projects
>> <
>> http://peerproduction.net/editsuite/issues/issue-13-open/peer-reviewed-papers/openness-inclusion-and-self-affirmation/?fbclid=IwAR3YQA3eXXZ7Z3ou6lz38_zxXsU_XZ0fu8AJVHE5EVGDil0SBa2U2q0gCKc
>>> *
>> 
>> This paper is based on an action research project (Greenwood and Levin,
>> 1998) conducted in 2016-2017 in partnership with the Atikamekw Nehirowisiw
>> Nation and Wikimedia Canada. Built into the educational curriculum of a
>> secondary school on the Manawan reserve, the project led to the launch of a
>> Wikipedia encyclopaedia in the Atikamekw Nehirowisiw language. We discuss
>> the results of the project by examining the challenges and opportunities
>> raised in the collaborative process of creating Wikimedia content in the
>> Atikamekw Nehirowisiw language. What are the conditions of inclusion of
>> Indigenous and traditional knowledge in open projects? What are the
>> cultural and political dimensions of empowerment in this relationship
>> between openness and inclusion? How do the processes of inclusion and
>> negotiation of openness affect Indigenous skills and worlding processes?
>> Drawing from media studies, indigenous studies and science and technology
>> studies, we adopt an ecological perspective (Star, 2010) to analyse the
>> complex relationships and interactions between knowledge practices,
>> ecosystems and infrastructures. The material presented in this paper is the
>> result of the group of participants’ collective reflection digested by one
>> Atikamekw Nehirowisiw and two settlers. Each co-writer then brings his/her
>> own expertise and speaks from what he or she knows and has been trained
>> for.
>> 
>> Casemajor N., Gentelet K., Coocoo C. (2019), « Openness, Inclusion and
>> Self-Affirmation: Indigenous knowledge in Open Knowledge Projects »,
>> *Journal
>> of Peer Production*, no13, pp. 1-20.
>> 
>> 
>> More info about the Atikamekw Wikipetcia project and the involvement
>> of Wikimedia Canada:
>> 
>> https://ca.wikimedia.org/…/Atikamekw_knowledge,_culture_and…
>> <
>> https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Atikamekw_knowledge,_culture_and_language_in_Wikimedia_projects?fbclid=IwAR1PynlNUrZcRSIIu9WwcKhp0QjE_UqPz2O8_KNZxnsrTGQYKoLyOMuvh10
>>> 
>> ___
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>> 
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] New paper - Indigenous knowledge on Wikipedia

[Todd Allen]

I found one error:

"Even the idea that contributions to the wiki should be signed by
individuals is at odds with many traditional societies where knowledge
expression is mainly collective, not individualised..."

That's already how it works. Only discussion posts and the like are signed.
I don't know of any language Wikipedia in which contributions to the actual
encyclopedia articles are signed, and I know several of the largest
(German, Spanish, and English) do not have such a practice. (If there is a
project where individual contributions are signed, please let me know, I'd
be interested to see how they make that work. What if it gets edited?)

Aside from that, the article seems to state that such a project is
incompatible with both NPOV and copyleft, so I'm not sure that Wikimedia
hosting it would be the best fit as those are fundamental requirements.
(That's not to say it's not worth doing at all, of course.)

Todd

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 5:52 PM Nathalie Casemajor 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> For those of you who are interested in "small" Wikipedias and Indigenous
> languages, here's a new academic paper co-signed by yours truly.
>
> Published in an open access journal :)
>
> Nathalie Casemajor (Seeris)
>
> -
>
> *Openness, Inclusion and Self-Affirmation: Indigenous knowledge in Open
> Knowledge Projects
> <
> http://peerproduction.net/editsuite/issues/issue-13-open/peer-reviewed-papers/openness-inclusion-and-self-affirmation/?fbclid=IwAR3YQA3eXXZ7Z3ou6lz38_zxXsU_XZ0fu8AJVHE5EVGDil0SBa2U2q0gCKc
> >*
>
> This paper is based on an action research project (Greenwood and Levin,
> 1998) conducted in 2016-2017 in partnership with the Atikamekw Nehirowisiw
> Nation and Wikimedia Canada. Built into the educational curriculum of a
> secondary school on the Manawan reserve, the project led to the launch of a
> Wikipedia encyclopaedia in the Atikamekw Nehirowisiw language. We discuss
> the results of the project by examining the challenges and opportunities
> raised in the collaborative process of creating Wikimedia content in the
> Atikamekw Nehirowisiw language. What are the conditions of inclusion of
> Indigenous and traditional knowledge in open projects? What are the
> cultural and political dimensions of empowerment in this relationship
> between openness and inclusion? How do the processes of inclusion and
> negotiation of openness affect Indigenous skills and worlding processes?
> Drawing from media studies, indigenous studies and science and technology
> studies, we adopt an ecological perspective (Star, 2010) to analyse the
> complex relationships and interactions between knowledge practices,
> ecosystems and infrastructures. The material presented in this paper is the
> result of the group of participants’ collective reflection digested by one
> Atikamekw Nehirowisiw and two settlers. Each co-writer then brings his/her
> own expertise and speaks from what he or she knows and has been trained
> for.
>
> Casemajor N., Gentelet K., Coocoo C. (2019), « Openness, Inclusion and
> Self-Affirmation: Indigenous knowledge in Open Knowledge Projects »,
> *Journal
> of Peer Production*, no13, pp. 1-20.
>
>
> More info about the Atikamekw Wikipetcia project and the involvement
> of Wikimedia Canada:
>
> https://ca.wikimedia.org/…/Atikamekw_knowledge,_culture_and…
> <
> https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Atikamekw_knowledge,_culture_and_language_in_Wikimedia_projects?fbclid=IwAR1PynlNUrZcRSIIu9WwcKhp0QjE_UqPz2O8_KNZxnsrTGQYKoLyOMuvh10
> >
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] New paper - Indigenous knowledge on Wikipedia

[Nathalie Casemajor]

Hello,

For those of you who are interested in "small" Wikipedias and Indigenous
languages, here's a new academic paper co-signed by yours truly.

Published in an open access journal :)

Nathalie Casemajor (Seeris)

-

*Openness, Inclusion and Self-Affirmation: Indigenous knowledge in Open
Knowledge Projects
*

This paper is based on an action research project (Greenwood and Levin,
1998) conducted in 2016-2017 in partnership with the Atikamekw Nehirowisiw
Nation and Wikimedia Canada. Built into the educational curriculum of a
secondary school on the Manawan reserve, the project led to the launch of a
Wikipedia encyclopaedia in the Atikamekw Nehirowisiw language. We discuss
the results of the project by examining the challenges and opportunities
raised in the collaborative process of creating Wikimedia content in the
Atikamekw Nehirowisiw language. What are the conditions of inclusion of
Indigenous and traditional knowledge in open projects? What are the
cultural and political dimensions of empowerment in this relationship
between openness and inclusion? How do the processes of inclusion and
negotiation of openness affect Indigenous skills and worlding processes?
Drawing from media studies, indigenous studies and science and technology
studies, we adopt an ecological perspective (Star, 2010) to analyse the
complex relationships and interactions between knowledge practices,
ecosystems and infrastructures. The material presented in this paper is the
result of the group of participants’ collective reflection digested by one
Atikamekw Nehirowisiw and two settlers. Each co-writer then brings his/her
own expertise and speaks from what he or she knows and has been trained for.

Casemajor N., Gentelet K., Coocoo C. (2019), « Openness, Inclusion and
Self-Affirmation: Indigenous knowledge in Open Knowledge Projects », *Journal
of Peer Production*, no13, pp. 1-20.


More info about the Atikamekw Wikipetcia project and the involvement
of Wikimedia Canada:

https://ca.wikimedia.org/…/Atikamekw_knowledge,_culture_and…

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l