The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2012-03-12. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.
Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-03-12/Arbitration report
Would it be possible to tone down those colours a bit? They're pretty jarring at the moment... Jenks24 ( talk) 11:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree, it can be great "to have different cultures stating their own views on the same subjects." The only problem I've run into with that (with my admittedly very limited multilanguage editing experience) is that different cultures sometimes have non-compatible views on the same subject. We run into this in the English Wikipedia fairly often on such topics as "Should this famous person who was born in India then moved to Great Britain and became a British citizen be listed as an Indian person?" And, "Should this famous person who was born in Turkey, but whose Armenian parents emigrated to Turkey, be listed as a Turkish person or an Armenian person?"
As far as non-English Wikipedias go, let me give one example. In 1869, Francis Fox Tuckett, an English guy went down to Italy and climbed the Italian Alps. A mountain was named after him. In 1879, some Germans built a chalet, a nice multi-story house, next to this mountain. The Italians and the Germans consequently called it the "German House" or "Berliner Hütte". The Germans used the house as an ammo dump during World War II. At some point, the Italians renamed the chalet "Tuckett's Refuge" or "Refugio Tuckett". Today, on the German Wikipedia, this house is known as the Berliner Hütte and on the Italian Wikipedia this house is known as the Refugio Tuckett.
Multiculturalism is great. Problems can arise, though, when one culture touts their view as "correct" and the other culture's view as "wrong".
Banaticus (
talk) 03:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your perspective piece, Leigh - Lots of ideas to explore !
An addendum while I'm at it : at WMFr, we have worked on Wikipedia:Wikimédia France/Workshop banner that can be of help during your university workshops (we use it with doctoral student) --Ofol ( t) 23:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
importScript("User:Mxn/serendipity.js");
to
this page.) –
Minh Nguyễn (
talk,
contribs) 18:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-03-12/WikiProject report
Editors may be interested in the 94 missing articles I have listed at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedia articles/NWHP (National Women's History Project) and the six remaining red-links at
National Women's Hall of Fame, although both pages are wholly American centred.
Rich
Farmbrough, 20:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC).
It's ridiculous to suggest that recruiting women editors will redress imbalances and that we'll suddenly have greater coverage on biographies of women and other 'female-orientated' issues. I've said it before: it's sexist and demeaning to both genders to a) think that women editors ought to be writing about females and/or birth control and/or friendship bracelets and b) that men don't, or can't be encouraged to, write about females and birth control also. I hate the fact that this narrow-minded and segregational viewpoint is alive on a supposedly mature and intellectual encyclopaedia, and that it parades under an "equality" banner. Please! Julia\ talk 07:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm cringing while reading how strongly and polemically I worded my post. Evidently I woke up on the wrong side of the bed; it was early, and just before catching another student-crowded bus into work, and knew I'd probably be elbowed in the face again. I'm sorry! The issue of 'women and Wikipedia' does tend to rile me though. First, I can't help but feel that blame is being apportioned to men, as it is with many traditionally 'feminist' issues. There seems to be a tendency to think that men are somehow responsible for there being a low number of females on Wikipedia; leaving aside historical cultural points about why this might be so, I think the major reason is that most women just aren't interested, or interested enough to stick with it. Second, as I've commented before ( [4]), this undervalues the women who are already on Wikipedia and not writing about traditionally female topics. It's like pushing me, and many others, into the male demographic, because we're not serving the feminist cause, as if women's value on Wikipedia could be measured by topic coverage. It only strengthens the stereotyping that women like me have been struggling with. The very fact that the gender gap 'issue' has brewed speeches and roundtables and journalism shouts that women need propped up and supported in something as simple as Wikipedia: not a good way to challenge the "weaker sex" notion, right? I know that if I were not already an editor when the drive to get women on WP came out, it would certainly have put me off becoming one. I wouldn't have wanted to insert myself somewhere as one of the prized, rescued, recruited few, amongst males who may now feel undervalued and resentful because the focus is on how, through no fault of their own, the encyclopaedia isn't 'good enough' because of their demographic, instead of focusing on their enormously worthy contributions that have built this encyclopaedia from the ground up. Third, we ought to be encouraging all diversity. We have a huge Western bias, which I see as far more of a concern, and more of a problem worth fixing, than pushing to have yet more small articles on, say, female authors of borderline notability, just to satisfy some perceived persecution. As unpopular as my opinion will be, I think women need to get over themselves and just get on with it. Reverse discrimination is never admirable, and no one respects it. By pushing this agenda we are creating a gender gap, and it's not about numbers this time. Julia\ talk 20:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2012-03-12. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.
Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-03-12/Arbitration report
Would it be possible to tone down those colours a bit? They're pretty jarring at the moment... Jenks24 ( talk) 11:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree, it can be great "to have different cultures stating their own views on the same subjects." The only problem I've run into with that (with my admittedly very limited multilanguage editing experience) is that different cultures sometimes have non-compatible views on the same subject. We run into this in the English Wikipedia fairly often on such topics as "Should this famous person who was born in India then moved to Great Britain and became a British citizen be listed as an Indian person?" And, "Should this famous person who was born in Turkey, but whose Armenian parents emigrated to Turkey, be listed as a Turkish person or an Armenian person?"
As far as non-English Wikipedias go, let me give one example. In 1869, Francis Fox Tuckett, an English guy went down to Italy and climbed the Italian Alps. A mountain was named after him. In 1879, some Germans built a chalet, a nice multi-story house, next to this mountain. The Italians and the Germans consequently called it the "German House" or "Berliner Hütte". The Germans used the house as an ammo dump during World War II. At some point, the Italians renamed the chalet "Tuckett's Refuge" or "Refugio Tuckett". Today, on the German Wikipedia, this house is known as the Berliner Hütte and on the Italian Wikipedia this house is known as the Refugio Tuckett.
Multiculturalism is great. Problems can arise, though, when one culture touts their view as "correct" and the other culture's view as "wrong".
Banaticus (
talk) 03:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your perspective piece, Leigh - Lots of ideas to explore !
An addendum while I'm at it : at WMFr, we have worked on Wikipedia:Wikimédia France/Workshop banner that can be of help during your university workshops (we use it with doctoral student) --Ofol ( t) 23:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
importScript("User:Mxn/serendipity.js");
to
this page.) –
Minh Nguyễn (
talk,
contribs) 18:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-03-12/WikiProject report
Editors may be interested in the 94 missing articles I have listed at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedia articles/NWHP (National Women's History Project) and the six remaining red-links at
National Women's Hall of Fame, although both pages are wholly American centred.
Rich
Farmbrough, 20:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC).
It's ridiculous to suggest that recruiting women editors will redress imbalances and that we'll suddenly have greater coverage on biographies of women and other 'female-orientated' issues. I've said it before: it's sexist and demeaning to both genders to a) think that women editors ought to be writing about females and/or birth control and/or friendship bracelets and b) that men don't, or can't be encouraged to, write about females and birth control also. I hate the fact that this narrow-minded and segregational viewpoint is alive on a supposedly mature and intellectual encyclopaedia, and that it parades under an "equality" banner. Please! Julia\ talk 07:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm cringing while reading how strongly and polemically I worded my post. Evidently I woke up on the wrong side of the bed; it was early, and just before catching another student-crowded bus into work, and knew I'd probably be elbowed in the face again. I'm sorry! The issue of 'women and Wikipedia' does tend to rile me though. First, I can't help but feel that blame is being apportioned to men, as it is with many traditionally 'feminist' issues. There seems to be a tendency to think that men are somehow responsible for there being a low number of females on Wikipedia; leaving aside historical cultural points about why this might be so, I think the major reason is that most women just aren't interested, or interested enough to stick with it. Second, as I've commented before ( [4]), this undervalues the women who are already on Wikipedia and not writing about traditionally female topics. It's like pushing me, and many others, into the male demographic, because we're not serving the feminist cause, as if women's value on Wikipedia could be measured by topic coverage. It only strengthens the stereotyping that women like me have been struggling with. The very fact that the gender gap 'issue' has brewed speeches and roundtables and journalism shouts that women need propped up and supported in something as simple as Wikipedia: not a good way to challenge the "weaker sex" notion, right? I know that if I were not already an editor when the drive to get women on WP came out, it would certainly have put me off becoming one. I wouldn't have wanted to insert myself somewhere as one of the prized, rescued, recruited few, amongst males who may now feel undervalued and resentful because the focus is on how, through no fault of their own, the encyclopaedia isn't 'good enough' because of their demographic, instead of focusing on their enormously worthy contributions that have built this encyclopaedia from the ground up. Third, we ought to be encouraging all diversity. We have a huge Western bias, which I see as far more of a concern, and more of a problem worth fixing, than pushing to have yet more small articles on, say, female authors of borderline notability, just to satisfy some perceived persecution. As unpopular as my opinion will be, I think women need to get over themselves and just get on with it. Reverse discrimination is never admirable, and no one respects it. By pushing this agenda we are creating a gender gap, and it's not about numbers this time. Julia\ talk 20:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)