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