I partially disagree with this vision. Without the North American and European men there would not be any opportunity to say: "we would share the sum of the human knowledge".
Probably Wikimedia would not exist. It is correct to say that Wikimedia must offer to *all people* any opportunity without any difference of culture or gender or religion and probably to "promote" some disadvantaged potential contributors, but without forgetting that what Wikimedia is now is due to these "neglected white men". I agree with your sentence: "In my view our consensus-based decision-making model can only work well when there is enough diversity of contributions" but we must be clear that the diversity of contribution and of opinions is not automatically connected with the race or with the gender. The neutral point of view has been assured until now, I would not read in your sentence that this is wrong. There may be men or women gathered in a key decision committee but having the same "not neutral point of view" because the gender doesn't assure automatically the neutrality of point of view. The risk I see in the association of diversity with the gender or with the race is that we can say that having people from different countries or different races or different sex it can assure the neutral point of view. But that is wrong. Regards On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Chris Keating <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi there, > > > > That said, it doesn't matter who writes the content on Wikipedia so long > > as it's relevant and factual. > > > > > Who is to decide what is relevant and factual (or indeed, the other > editorial judgements we make in writing aricles)? If the only people doing > that are white North American and European men with (or working towards) > masters' degrees*, then their judgements will inevitably reflect their own > backgrounds and perspectives - and other backgrounds and perspectives will > be missing from those judgements. > > That does not and will not result in us fulfilling our mission to build and > share the sum of human knowledge. > > In my view our consensus-based decision-making model can only work well > when there is enough diversity of contributions in the first place. It is > easy for a small group of similar people to reach a consensus. However, > they are likely to miss important things in doing so. > Regards, > > Chris > > * This isn't (quite) a description of the status quo but is pretty close > _______________________________________________ > 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> > -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario> Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli <https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli> Twitter: Ilario Valdelli <https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli> Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469> Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ 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>
