Yes. Finally, a voice of reason. On 8 January 2015 at 08:07, mcc99 <mc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dear fellow Wikipedia devotees, > > While I'm new to this list, I've been an avid fan and proponent of > Wikipedia and all the great service it gives people since it launched. > People can learn not just all the basics of nearly any topic imaginable, > but for a large number, readers can with diligence become expert on more > than a few and save themselves the cost of tuition/training. All this, in > addition to satisfying their curiosity about millions of subjects. > > That said, it doesn't matter who writes the content on Wikipedia so long > as it's relevant and factual. Unlike the published, single-authority > edited encyclopediae of the past, Wikipedia allows anyone with relevant > information to contribute to it. Their additions or other edits are > checked by volunteers to make sure the edit isn't a defacement, irrelevant, > patently unfactual, or unverifiable. They are typically left as written or > maybe edited only for grammar/spelling. Wikipedia is a rare success story > in democracy of knowledge. If one feels moved to contribute, they do. If > not, they don't. It's like voting in a sense, though it's true people in > democracies should perhaps take the opportunity to do so more often. But > it's up to them. > > Like voting or anything else, to single out a particular group of people > based on their indelible characteristics as being desirable as contributors > to any field implicitly devalues the contributions not just of those > currently contributing who don't fall into that category, but also says to > any other group of a particular identity that you care more about the group > you're trying to get more involvement from than them. "Identity politics" > is unfortunately a fact of our current political climate and I hope one day > we can, as MLK Jr. hoped, judge one another not by skin color (and I'd add > gender, sexuality, and a few others), but by content of character. In the > context of Wikipedia, this would translate to the veracity and > applicability of contributions made to the vast Wikipedia knowledge-base -- > not who in particular is doing the contributing, nor their indelible > characteristics of person. > > Because identity politics is today part of general electoral politics > doesn't mean it need be for anything else, and especially given how such > things as a person's ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc., say nothing about > what they know about or can do, I don't see how it's relevant to the > veracity and applicability of Wikipedia's knowledge base. I don't care > that, for example, a black person (Charles Drew, MD) came up with the > process of creating blood plasma, an innovation that has saved millions of > lives. He was tragically and mortally injured in a car accident, however, > and so his potential future achievements were lost to humanity. (He was > not refused treatment for his injuries at the hospital he was taken to > because of his ethnicity, as is widely but falsely believed; he was just so > badly injured that he died. See > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_R._Drew#Death ). I also don't care > that Adm Grace Hopper (USN) wad female, only that she wrote the first > computer language compiler so programmers of lesser brain power than her > (such as myself) could go on to program computers without struggling with > binary switches and punch cards. Her contributions were what was > important, not her gender, skin color, or anything else as far as her > professional achievements go. > > If you ask any RN the names of the greatest contributors to the nursing > profession, you'll get a stream of women's names. To suggest that nursing > "needs" more men or else it won't be able to achieve its greatest potential > would be a crass and inaccurate insult to the many thousands of women who > have made modern nursing what it is. Of course there have been and will be > male nurses who stand out as contributors, but only a very small > percentage, probably in keeping with the ratio of men to women in nursing. > And yet, despite the high salaries RNs command, are there any > gov't-sponsored initiatives to get men into nursing? If so, it'd be news > to me and many others. But I ask, if men by and large, for whatever > reasons, aren't interested in becoming nurses, why make a big deal about > it? Are there gov't-sponsored campaigns to get more women into the > relatively lucrative job of refuse collection? Or, the likewise lucrative > jobs of plumber, ordnance disposal engineer, nuclear materials technician, > etc.? No. But other fields that are a lot less dirty and/or dangerous, > yes. (Think professional STEM fields.) This isn't by accident, nor is the > fact that the nursing profession with its high salaries (for RNs, anyway) > is in no hurry to recruit men simply because they're men. But why should > they? That one receives care from a female vs. male nurse isn't relevant. > To trumpet a "need" for men in nursing minimizes the huge contributions of > women nurses and is a patently false proposition. Nursing needs competent, > dedicated people in its ranks. The gender of them is irrelevant. > > This returns me to my primary point, which I hope you can see. WMF may > think this idea to single out a particular group based on an innate > characteristic to encourage them to be Wikipedia contributors is good for > some reason, but it rests on false assumptions around a connection between > one's gender and their competence at any given task. Unless the task is > inherently tied to a person's sexual biology, it doesn't play a part in > whether or not they are good or not at something, nor whether or not they > want to do it. (I am for example a good improv-style comedian; many have > suggested I go to open-mic nights and share my schtick with the crowd. > Thing is, I don't want to, so I don't. It's enough for me to know I can > keep my friends in stitches when I am so moved.) > > As for devaluing current contributors should they happen *not* to be > female: WMF, like a political party, needs to be careful, I suggest, not to > drop a dozen eggs while going to pick up three. Also, in the process of > telling other identity groups you're focusing on just one, you marginalize > them. "Playing favorites" is a trap the gov't has fallen into and the > results have been bad for it. > > Like others on this list, I also got an email today from someone who > subbed me to a supposed Google Group for lesbian Wikipedia contributors. > While I knew immediately it was a fake [1. I'm not female and thus 2. > Cannot by definition be a lesbian], its very existence shows the > disaffection with the decision. It also underscores the hazards of going > the identity politics route. For example, to be extra-inclusive within the > target audience (women), would this initiative now need to be tweaked to > include a special sub-effort of outreach to gay women? And what about > bisexual women? They are, arguably, like gay women, a group in need > perhaps of specific outreach and encouragement. But maybe the same can be > said of black people (or African-American, if you prefer), Lationos (or > Hispanics, again, if you prefer), or maybe people of western Asian descent > (i.e., people whose ancestors lived in pre-modern era Asia in countries now > named China, Mongolia, Korea, and Japan). And then there are people of > Indo-Asian ethnicity (India, Pakistan, etc.). Polynesians. Mexicas. > Native Americans (or Indians, depending on who you ask). Gay men. Bi > men. Gay Latinos. Transsexual Polynesian-Indo-Asian women, men, or both. > There's no end of it once the precedent is established, and there'll be no > peace for the WMF. > > The gov't can get away with using identiy politics and pursuing policies > of favortism based on whatever aspects they choose to use. Age, sex, > ethnicity, non-natural personhood (i.e., corporate welfare/punishment), > etc., are all open to them because they are the gov't. Unless people are > ready to rebel against them, they have the say about where the taxpayers' > bounty goes and who is favored over another. It may annoy some in the > pop'n (esp. those not getting the largesse), but too bad. Unless you're > ready to go rebel, you have to accept it. > > Non-profit shoestring volunteer-dependent endeavors cannot afford to be > choosy or worse, be or appear to be high-handed. One key to success in the > marketplace is recognizing that everyone's money is as green as anyone > else's. In the case of WMF, the currency is contributors of knowledge. > WMF can't afford to alienate them in favor of *maybe* picking up a few more > volunteers/contributors. Again, don't drop a dozen eggs trying to pick up > three more. The risk isn't worth the reward. The only thing WMF has going > for itself is popularity and justifiable faith in what it provides. Lose > either of these things and it's done for. If you start counting such > irrelevancies as the physical or similar aspects of contributors (like > their ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) as being ipso facto > relevant to the value of their contributions, you've lost the second thing > (justifiable faith). If you openly, in fact or in appearance, start > playing favorites from among your readers/contributors/volunteers for any > reason, you are sure to lose the first (popularity). > > WMF would be better-served focusing not on the sex, etc. of its > contributors, but on its long-term survival strategy. At the moment, WMF > is living hand-to-mouth and relying on end-of-year micro-donations to keep > itself afloat. This isn't a sustainable model. > > Wikipedia is a free web-based teaching and reference service. It is only > a question of when someone with a better mousetrap who has a way to make > money from their site comes along. (Remember the #1 search engine in > 1996? It was called "Alta Vista". Then came Google. The rest is > history, and the big reason for that is simply Google's AdSense. If Alta > Vista had come up with that idea, maybe they'd still be around.) > > I won't suggest Wikipedia stop being Wikipedia. Did Google stop being a > free search engine after they learned how to make money from it, allowing > them to continue being Google (and more)? No. Neither should Wikipedia. > But WMF has to figure out how to become able to sustain itself without the > kindness of strangers. Projects like closing the (so-called) gender gap > will actually work against the aim of making Wikipedia more atteactive than > it is now as a web site for gaining knowledge but without the heaps of > embedded editorializing found today in newspapers on- and off-line, in > textbooks covering almost anything but the hard sciences, etc. Still, it > can create for itself opportunities to pay its own way and attract > donations that people feel good to make. > > About a week and a half ago, I asked for input re a project suggestion. ( > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiTribute ) To date, I haven't gotten > feedback because perhaps the list has been filled with discussion about the > exclusivity of the 3-month gender gap project funding. Already, the topic > has distracted people from possibilities that may otherwise have been > entertained that could generate income for WMF. Aside from the idea's > merits as such, it is also a way to encourage donations/get fees, and in an > ongoing basis rather than principally at one time of the year (December). > But even if WMF thinks it isn't worth pursuing, it needs something else -- > something it can charge for that will have broad, on-going appeal to many > people and/or business entities. (AdSense, for example, is used by > ordinary people with blogs and large high-traffic commercial web sites > alike.) It has to leave people feeling good about Wikipedia and WMF and be > popular broadly and "agnostically". Does your local gas station care if > you're male or female? Gay or straight or bi or asexual? Or does the Red > Cross decide when there's a blood drive that only certain donors will get > the cookies and coffee or be encouraged to get them while telling other > donors to wait until that particular group has gotten some first? If they > did, donations'd fall off fast, or blood donors would go directly to > hospitals to donate -- assuming they still felt like it. > > Maybe my note and/or opinion will be ignored, or denounced, or something > else. Perhaps it'll have no effect at all. But as a devoted Wikipedia > enthusiast, donor to WMF, and pro-knowledge-democracy advocate, I can tell > you that raising a fence if even temporarily to full participation in WMF > activities for Wikipedians interested in seeing it grow is bad on multiple > levels: politically, philosophically, practically, and financially, and > most especially, relative to its foundational purpose of allowing others to > contribute/participate to this great effort of recording the world's > collective knowledge on an on-going basis and without hindrance, except > insofar as the contributions are accurate, relevant, and sincere. > > It's a dream worth keeping alive. I for one would hate one day to look > back on 1Q 2015 and say to the others with me in the nursing home "Yeah, > Wikipedia -- it was a sad day back in '15. The beginning of the end. I > was there. I tried talking them out of it, but... it just didn't work. > Now we're all stuck with > www.selected-contributors-only-o-pedia-not-wikipedia.com and that's > nothing close to what we used to have in Wikipedia." > > Of course by then, we may all have computers implanted in our brains that > tell us anything we want to know just by thinking the question. Doubt it, > but who knows. > > Thank you for reading. > > Matt > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
