User talk:Markworthen/sandbox/Feminist critique of Wikipedia's epistemology/2nd draft

Talpedia and WhatamIdoing - Please let me know what you think about submitting this version ("2nd draft") to the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (after editing by you two and reaching a consensus). Thanks! Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It's basically a long series of quotations, with no commentary on the quotations. I'm not sure that will be accepted.
 * For example, they propose changing "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute" to "The integrity of Wikipedia is a function of the size and breadth of its community". These two ideas are almost unrelated.
 * The original version says: The content is free as in beer AND free as in freedom.  You can give a copy of this to your students even if you have no money to pay for it.  You can make derivatives and stick them on your own blog.  You can load this whole thing onto someone's phone.  You can even re-use the pictures on your commercial website, and the copyright police won't be coming for you.  It's okay!
 * Their version says: Biased people create biased content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you WhatamIdoing. Good points. I think I'll just let it go. Weeeee! I already feel lighter. ;^) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 15:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment
Just a comment on the proposed alternative pillars: — Paleo Neonate  – 11:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -> Wikipedia is an encyclopedic process
 * The goal is to produce/maintain an encyclopedia, but that of course requires some processes and WP:NODEADLINE may agree (not that I particularly support the proposed wording).
 * 1) Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view -> Wikipedia is written by an objective community
 * WP:NPOV and WP:RS is related policy (applying for both males and females, of course). While "objective" appears to be an ideal, it may never fully be met, unfortunately the community includes disruptive elements, people with many backgrounds and beliefs, people with conflicts of interest, propagandists, kids, experts (with the limitation that they rarely can cite their own work), etc.  The "systematic bias" approach of attempting to reflect sources considered reliable is an attempt to escape chaos, with aspects like WP:GEVAL and WP:YESPOV and processes like WP:RSN helping...  Many argue that the bias of sources is a problem, but the alternative to assessing their reliability and representing them is to let anyone decide whenever convenient to express their POV.  If the latter was permitted, it would be accurate to state that the POV of articles is mostly determined by the editor base.  It may be up to some limited extent.  Moreover, the community always needs an active army of patrollers and article reviewers that attempt to help apply policy and it is never watertight.  Those also tend to be volunteers, versus some that have an interest (personal, financial, political, etc) in pushing or excluding specific material...  This comment is long but NPOV is apparently the most discussed topic on article talk pages and project space.
 * 1) Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute -> The integrity of Wikipedia is a function of the size and breadth of its community
 * This pillar is in relation to the legal distribution license of the text in the encyclopedia, so the change appears to drop this important point in favor of something that is more related to the above (2).
 * 1) Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility -> Editors should be epistemically and discursively responsible
 * I also have the impression that the target is very different to the original intention of the pillar. But perhaps that WP:CIR, WP:HERE, WP:CIVIL and others may be relevant in relation to the proposed change?
 * 1) Wikipedia has no firm rules -> Wikipedia is norm-driven (rather than rule-governed)
 * The context is WP:IAR that I never personally liked as it's often referenced in attempt to game processes, but the intention is to allow action and solutions where common sense prevails, often for efficiency reasons or because it's unnecessary to bureaucratize some aspects, etc. The proposed alternative requires more context like defining the terms used (this comment does not approve or object).  Moreover, while I personally try to avoid it, "rules" is very commonly used in informal English when referring to policies and guidelines.