This is an archive of past discussions with User:Pgallert. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello @Pgallert. I saw some of your recent edits on the Namibia page. I wanted to ask about the demotion of the section on Demographics. Most other country pages, if not nearly all, have dedicated sections for Demographics. I was wondering what your reason was for demoting it, especially given the lack of discussion on it at its Talk page. I personally find searching for Demographics information on the new version rather difficult, given that it is split between the sections on Geography and Culture, and I think that it makes said sections excessively long. Thanks, --Amtoastintolerant (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi Amtoastintolerant, thanks for bringing this up. The section on demographics is rather small, and in my understanding the topic is part of geography. But checking now, most other country pages indeed have it as a main section after "economy", with health, religion, languages, subordinate to it. I can undo my sorting; You're right that I should have sought consensus first. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:
That wasn't information but links to random pages that somehow also contain atrocities against the indigenous population of some territory. If they are somehow connected, state a source that says so. If they are not, do not re-add. That other pages contain similar content is not a good reason to include them. In general, unreferenced content here is often allowed to stay unless someone complains about it. If that happens, either a source will be provided or the content will be removed. Hope that helps, Pgallert (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Several German colonials, including Lothar von Trotha and Alexander Kuhn, compared their conflict with the Herero to the American Indian Wars. The former's comparisons are evidenced in his diary: "The natives must give way [weichen]--look at America."
Hull, Isabel V. (2005). Absolute Destruction: Military Culture and the Practices of War in Imperial Germany. Cornell University. p. 30
RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:
Hi Kowal2701! I have seen the discussions that you initiated. I didn't react yet because I fear it is the opposite of what I advocate for.
At this Foundation blog post there is an overview of the work that User:Aprabhala started many years ago. You can find a lot more material and past activities on my meta user page. In a nutshell, I disagree with the way we collect information about oral traditions: We wait for a researcher to visit the community and publish a paper. Then we cite this paper because we need references, while everything in the scientists' work actually originates from the knowledge bearers in the community, and time and again major parts were being misunderstood.
A much better way, in my view, would be to directly quote the elder. This would mean giving a reference to a narrative, and this is currently not accepted by the community. I have lately not been pushing this point of view because resistance to such a change was more of less unanimous. But with the classical workflow of building Wikipedia content I won't be contributing much to an Oral Traditions project.
See WP:Oral history, you can record an oral tradition and cite that, and still attribute it to them. It is a big issue though. Personally I’d like all recorded oral traditions to be attributed. The issue is verifiability, but you could also film someone performing an oral tradition, upload it to YouTube, and cite that? Kowal2701 (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't reply properly initially, I was too fixated on messaging people. I'd really love for you and @Aprabhala: to be involved in the wikiproject, what you advocate for is exactly what this wikiproject is about, you'll find a lot of like minded people and it could serve as a support base for any future projects. I think you've got the grains of something really brilliant, we just need to iterate on it Kowal2701 (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
@Kowal2701:I think User:Aprabhala has given up on this, and I haven't pursued the matter further, even though I'm still a somewhat active editor. The feedback I received from various presentations at Wikimanias and WikiIndabas was very encouraging and positive. This is in contrast to the feedback online, which was "go away".
This was to a large extent my fault: I wasn't able to bring across my point. You seem to be very energetic and interested in the topic, so I will try my luck with you:
In an oral culture, publications are oral, a performance in front of an audience. The most important way to "publish" is to be the recognised narrator of history and culture at an official event like the burial of an important person, the celebration of an anniversary, the inauguration of a leader or an institution, and so on. The occasion, the place, and the role of the narrator determines the legitimacy of the oral narrative.
This narrative is verifiable: Once the next leader dies, the same string of history and context will be provided by the then-recognised knowledge bearer. At the next anniversary of a leader's death, their biography will again be narrated, and if there is a change in narration, then this is due to a change in perception within the community; history books change over time, too.
So, neither a recording nor a scientific citation will win over the relevance and quality of an oral citation. To document knowledge from an oral culture, we need to cite the narrative directly, citing narrator, place, and occasion.
I've been authoring numerous papers, book chapters and conference contributions about this issue (check "Peter Gallert" on Google Scholar), but I haven't convinced the Wikipedia editors. That doesn't change my view that it is counter-productive to adhere to the accepted Wikipedia workflow of "Wait for a scientist to visit and write a paper" -> "Cite the scientist's paper". There are thousands of documented cases where scientists got it completely wrong, and a direct quote from the elders would be clearer, more factual, easier to understand, and more relevant. --Pgallert (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
You are right. It is the position or role that gives it legitimacy, like Griot, and these people are just as valuable and proficient as academics. At the moment so much knowledge and expertise is ignored. I suggest we start at common ground, which is identifying the problem. If we can all agree that this is a big problem, then we can all work on a solution. Some may not like any solution and see it as unsolvable, but as long as they agree that there is a problem, it is constructive, and their criticism will be useful. This is corporate bollocks, but when you have an idea that you believe in, you have to knock on that door at least 10 times, improving on the criticism you receive each time.
I think that once we can get most to agree on the identification of the problem, it might be worth looking at voice notes, where the citation template links to a separate page which has the voice note embedded, a transcription, and a translation into english. These can be verified by another EC user who speaks the native language. It isn't perfect, but most people in Africa have smartphones, so it won't be too much of a barrier Kowal2701 (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely. Wikipedia is supposed to be the sum of all human knowledge. Not all first-world knowledge. Not all knowledge documented in writing. All knowledge. --- I'm almost off to Wikimania,won't be answering much in the coming week. But if you have a place to brainstorm, I'll contribute. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
One thing that may be causing a negative reaction is the use of the term 'Elder'. In the west we view 'Elders' as anyone that is old, and we have plenty of unwise old people lol. In reality it is a prestigious administrative title not handed to everyone, so clarifying that any time you can and emphasising it as a specific role might be helpful Kowal2701 (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
It's just a different culture. Down here, efficiency, speed, adaptiveness, all the abilities of the Young, do not matter in the slightest. Consensus and harmony are important, and indeed, being recognised an elder is the highest honour anyone can achieve. An Omuherero colleague of mine, PhD in Computer Science, very successful, once told me he would give up all of his academic achievements if he became village elder of his 80-household hamlet. BTW, I believe that European elders are equally wise, just that nobody listens to them. --Pgallert (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree, my gran is brilliant. Because everyone now lives to old age it's lost its novelty. There's a difference in thinking for an answer and feeling for one, and the latter fosters wisdom. But our job is not to argue a position but to convince people and we need to address their concerns. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Sorry I say ‘our’ like I’ve done anything, you’ve obviously put a massive amount of time, passion, and expertise into this and I need to engage more with the work you’ve done before I speak properly Kowal2701 (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I wrote a book chapter summarising that feedback but it is somewhere on my home computer, and behind a pay wall on the Internet. If you send me an email I can give you a copy next week. -- Pgallert (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Would it make sense to segregate literate and oral citations? Oral citations could have a different symbol or notation, so then the reader can treat the information relative to how they value literacy or orality. Jan Vansina differentiates between oral and literate civilisations. In literate civilisations it is natural to have prejudice, the counterpart of pride in the written word, towards the oral word, and in oral civilisations it is natural to have prejudice towards the written word. If it isn't already, I think this needs to be discussed in introductions you give. I imagine natural prejudice is the crux of the disagreement. Kowal2701 (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
That's very true, @Kowal2701. The pro-oral group is a tiny minority, though, and our consensus protocol on Wikipedia is still very much a head count. -- Pgallert (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I imagine most people are well meaning and well intentioned and not aware of this prejudice, so it might be more of an educational job Kowal2701 (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Oral citations could be a user right that people can apply for, where they state what they will use them for. This’d limit the nonsense ones where you just ask 1 person on the street and ensure accountability, which will drive accuracy. The onus would be placed on the user to judge the veracity of the information they receive and to seek confirmation from multiple sources if necessary, and where it’s uncertain they could just attribute the information in the article, and obviously WP:Due still applies. If people are found to add problematic and incorrect content, they get their rights taken away. Kowal2701 (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I know I don't articulate myself well or argue well but I think the vague points on using voice notes, segregating the notation for oral and literate citations, and making it a user right are workable ideas. Upon reading some of your work it appears you already heavily engage in the education side of things, which is great. You write very well, much better than I ever could.
When a westerner reads a paper and it starts in the opening paragraphs without framing the issues or even with slight negative sentiment towards them, like here, it polarises them. I know you're very passionate and likely frustrated at the lack of effort to see other points of view, but this isn't going to win anyone over that isn't already sympathetic to it. I think an essay or a speech would need to start with saying something like:
"I know there are valid criticisms of orality as a method of factual recordation, and you will likely have some reservations about oral citations on Wikipedia, however I hope to address these and believe they have been taken into account in this proposal. First of all, oral citations are workable but not suited to (2 ridiculous sciencey examples), but to indigenous knowledge, oral traditions, and local knowledge about local (things). (Sentence on how different cultures value written and spoken word differently, with them having natural prejudice towards the other) (Then go into the proposal, starting with the most likely feature to ease their reservations like making it a user right where people say what they're using them for in their application, and then progressively less likely/whatever)
Great, you have found the book chapter I wrote with Maya. I wasn't even aware it is in our repository. Well yes, Kowal2701, we were using strong words and answering some ridicule with ridicule. But to advocate for a two-step solution, first: IK for "soft topics" like a tribe's own history, and only then for hard science, will simply duplicate the advocacy work. All science was indigenous knowledge, all science was non-written, some 5,000 years ago. See my 2013 Wikimania presentation for examples. I'd like to go all-or-nothing on this. --Pgallert (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not saying that it shouldn't be used for science, but in practice it'll likely mostly be used for those three things mentioned. I don't think there should be a barrier on topics, as the reviewer of the user rights can assess the constructiveness of the intentions. For example if someone applied for it and said: I want to interview specialist academics at (this university) about microbiology, that'd probably get accepted. I think emphasis should be placed on multiple oral citations for non-local facts.
I'm saying that in the presentation of the proposal, emphasis should be placed on the three things mentioned, or any more you're aware of. My thinking is that the next proposal would need to compromise heavily with the opposing views in order to gain approval by giving it lots of barriers like user rights, and then if it proves successful and people agree, we can reduce barriers and iterate on it to find what works best for the encyclopedia.
That nine step visualisation slide is very good. I still think the profiling of wikipedia's community and the point there can be made more respectfully. Try not to make it political but personal to them and to the encyclopedia, people in western countries hate politics and the culture wars, it's everywhere and is very toxic.
I think another parameter should be the profile of the researcher, eg. local man if from that area, or Namibian man if from that country. Less so for epics, but for narratives the performer has a licence to recontextualise the content in order for it to be understood by the listener, I imagine in most cases this is an older generation recontextualising it for the younger generation. Kowal2701 (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Basically the culture wars are received as white people being told they’re terrible, so the point would have to say that it is noone’s fault that this problem exists, but here’s a solution Kowal2701 (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Ridicule just means it needs to be improved. The points you make are very good, it's the language that is very important. There's a youtube video I can't find now of Obama talking about how there was a referendum on domestic abuse in a Balkan country, and it failed. The reason it failed was because the wording used led to a negative interpretation, and in the next one their language was used and it passed. Kowal2701 (talk) 12:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
You're right. When I wrote the chapter my concern was less Wikipedia, and more to have a published book chapter to my name---bias is everywhere. But to be clear, I'm not claiming a stake, like 'a traditional healer's opinion must be included in an article on illness X'. Articles that can have proper, nigh-complete coverage without input from oral sources should stay as they are.
What I'm concerned about is topics that never make it to Wikipedia because all potential sources are oral, and that's currently not allowed. For instance there is a local practice in Australia where indigenous people hang bags with honey into trees and make predictions about the climate (not: weather) based on that. You won't find much on the Internet about that, and the topic is being shunned because a) there are no scientific sources as we know them, and b) IK normally does not attempt, and is not able to, explain their science. It works, that's all that counts. There is no theory, there is no model, no paradigm. I would say, if it works then it should be covered in order to let the world know what's possible with indigenous technologies. All the human knowledge, that's our mission. --Pgallert (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
That is very tricky. It'd be hard to write an article entirely based on oral citations without engaging in some original research. You'd have to have 10+ recorded conversations in order to gather enough material to write an article. The benefit of using academic papers is that they're already written in a format similar to wikipedia articles, conversations are not, so the editor would have to organise the material into the format. The OR is more in the framing of the material and that is very problematic. In academic papers the framing is done for us. I think an article needs to have at least one academic citation discussing it in order to obtain the framing. That can come from doing an interview with academics on the topic. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
I suppose I say that because that’s whose words hold authority in my society. I suppose the framing can come from oral citations, provided it’s a good source Kowal2701 (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
How do oral citations affect policy on NPOV? NPOV is about representing the POVs of the existing sources. Either we look at oral citations as creating sources or the whole population as sources that are to be represented. The latter, while ideologically appealing, would be incredibly problematic as we can't reasonably ascertain the abundancy of opinion empirically. The general population are also much more likely to have misinformed or incorrect opinions. I suggest we first look at oral citations as creating sources, and it is up to the user rights to regulate which sources are created. Maybe if it proves successful, and there are further ideas on how to prevent harm to the encyclopedia, we can look at removing the user right. What I'm struggling to solve, is if someone applies for the right to do one thing/topic, and then uses it for another thing/topic that hasn't been authorised. I suppose there would have to be a list page of users that have the right and next to their names say what they've been authorised for so other editors can check. If you want to do another topic area, you have to apply for it. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Is it true that on African language wikipedias, you don’t need to cite for information on oral traditions and folklore? If that’s the case, it may be worth trialling oral citations without making it a user right on there after and if the proposal on English Wikipedia is successful Kowal2701 (talk) 06:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
I think traditional knowledge is interpreted by some as anti-intellectual, in the US especially there’s a tug of war between logic and intuition, and the murkying of truth, and this is inserted into that context Kowal2701 (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
^ I know that the above posts aren’t what you wanted to hear but I really struggle to see a one-step route forward to get community support. I’m not at all knowledgeable about the workings of Wikipedia and the various stages of such of a proposal, nor am I terribly familiar with the community, I only have my impression, so take what I say with a pinch of salt Kowal2701 (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry to bother you again, but do you by any chance have a link to the book you wrote on the community's response? As above, I doubt I'll be of much help, but I'm really curious Kowal2701 (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
My bad, book chapter, you said I wrote a book chapter summarising that feedback but it is somewhere on my home computer, and behind a pay wall on the Internet. If you send me an email I can give you a copy next week. I'm happy to pay for it if a free copy isn't available Kowal2701 (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
