Talk:Requests for comment/Is their a failuer of wikimedia movement and wikipedia culture to take native american cultures and people in confidance? if so, then why ?

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This seems quite off topic for an RfC. It seems a casual observation looking for informal discussion, which should be at the Wikimedia Forum. Nemo 14:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. CorbieVreccan (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stuff from en-wiki[edit]

As article talk pages are for improving articles, and per Mahitgar's statement, "5) As such this discussion was intended for meta rfc page."[1] I am moving Mahitgar's long discussion to the talk page here. CorbieVreccan (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfc at meta[edit]

To take above comment of User:CorbieVreccan in to account at Meta I have started Requests for comment/Is their a failuer of wikimedia movement and wikipedia culture to take native american cultures and people in confidance? if so, then why ? Your inputs are most welcome Mahitgar (talk) 04:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For Meta rfc following sentence where I have placed templates {{specify}} {{which}} and {{cn}}, I suppose there is scope for clarification.

PleaseClarrify

For Meta rfc In above sentence where I have placed templates {{specify}} {{which}} and {{cn}}, I suppose there is scope for clarification.

Mahitgar (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think my statement speaks for itself. I'm sorry if you can't understand English well enough to make sense of our words here. I think it's clear from your actions above that you do not understand WP policy well enough to understand how talk pages work. As I said in your bizarre post on meta: It's not the role of Wikipedia or Wikipedians to try to pressure people to change their cultural values. Rather than a failure, on either side, this is just a cultural difference. We already have a Wikiproject where we deal with Indigenous issues. I could say more about how you are portraying our communities here and in the edits you've made, but others can see that for themselves and I'm going to hope that at least some of this is due to language barriers. - CorbieV 16:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. FWIW, editors might be interested to know that Mahitgar has nominated himself for admin. Sort of. - CorbieV 16:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First and foremost for this, I am not involved building this article so there is no POV from my side as far as this article goes. Taking people into confidance does not mean changing their values but just informing and explaining how does wikipedia or for that matter any encyclopedia works. It is not that if, wikipedia does not publish any information or article about any specific tribe still some information is already on the internet and information on internet is evergrowing. Rather on wikipedia there is some chance people like you and me and hundreds of reader do crosscheck it. They themselves too can participate and take part in wikipedia editing.
There are hundreds of indigenous communities all may not unhappy that there cultural info being shared through wikipedia. Wikimedia's goal is to reach to every person to take and share knoledge. Your statement is too generalised, I call upon your goodselves to specify exacly which communities do have reservations about writing on wikipedia (citation/reference expected), or any specific communities you are speaking for; so that wikimedia community can approach them understand there concerns and explains how wikipedia works get them involved in wikipedia activities.
You say there is some wikimedia project (I suppose project is as of now limited to indigenous languages to have wikipedias in there languages) I have not come across any specific such project that goes to indigenous people with trainig for wikimedia academy and all; if any such project exists please give the link.
(Last but not least why one should be against any community and atleast I am not, you need to have good faith in other editors, you yourself said above that "...well-meaning users add in incorrect details because they found them on a webpage, in a new age book, or even in an academic text..." I am also just one among them (not for this article). Rather my misunderstood wikipedia freind seems to be on wrong track, What I included in the content on ceremonial pole page was already existing on some other wikipedia articles from where I gathered info since ceremonial pole is supposed to be an umbrella article. If you have to blame any thing then other wikipedia articles and information available on iternet, and blaming an individual like me who is working here like any other editor is incorrect, I hope you take this explanation in to account and if still any doubts are there putting them in clear manner by specifying facts is your responsiility since others can not read what is goingon in your mind
Mahitgar (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I may, Mahitgar, I agree that there should be freedom of information, that knowledge and information should be free and available to everyone – up to a point. There are secrets all around the world in politics, in religion and in many other contexts. Some information, if discovered and told to the world, may very well jeopardize the security of a nation, or compromise the cultural beliefs and faith of religious sects. Wikipedia must respect this whether it is the American nation, the eastern Indian nation or the culture of Native Americans. While most information should be made available to the world so we can know more about each other and learn to live together in harmony, that very harmony itself might be severely hurt and compromised by the spread of nationally or culturally bound sensitive knowledge and information. Please let me know either here or on my talk page if I can further assist you to understand this resistance to outside knowledge of sensitive cultural and political areas. Pleasant pathways, Painius  05:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


May I suggest that most of the above content be moved elsewhere, like to Mahitgar's talk page, as it has nothing to do with improving this article? Mahitgar, do you know what oral tradition means? Some cultures do not write their ceremonial details down. Ever. This is to protect their cultures from interference by outsiders, as well as to make sure people learn in person, from the elders who have been entrusted with this knowledge. In those cases, anything that is published, especially by those not from that culture, is almost certainly unreliable and unusable. Does this make it any clearer? I'm really baffled by your obsession with this. - CorbieV 16:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Dear friend,
1) In an open environment are you trying to defend vacume ? For a while suppose present wikipedia community gives you all powers unquestioned to defend vacume, how long you will be guarding it ? Whether it is you, me or some other freinds of yours do have human limitations after all and I doubt without a proper system in place your successess will sustain for ever, once your guarding is over same air (i.e.information available elswhere) is likely to occupy that vacume again. So what kind of long term system you have given thought to ?
2) Rather as effect of positive outreach effort towards indigenous communities from wikipedia and wikimedia community will improve their own participation and would be able to guard manage the information probably more efficiently than you and me and without need of our continued presence What do you think ?
Do you remember when did you last visit related changes link on leftside menubar for categories of Indigenous people or trabal people/ culture etc. How many edits are happening more than 200 bytes of core encyclopedic information. I do not know your obsrvation but what I find is activity is just next to null. So is it not time to put heads together to get tribal communities involved through proper outreach activities ?
3) Please try to revisit your statement which we are discussing from angle of an indipendant person; Take a pinch of salt and think how does it sound ? Is it not seeking blanket authority by self-apropriation and/or self certification to delete information without any oversight? I am not against withholding information for legitimate reasons but is not there any need of base level transperancy some where ?
4) You seem to get annoyed when people put up the questions but if I am not going to put it some one else will come and end up putting the simmillar questions today or tomorrow, here on this page or some where else, whatever my limitations we are civil in nature open to discussions and just requesting healthy discussions and nothing beyond.
5) As such this discussion was intended for meta rfc page .
I can not change some one elses openion, it is for open minded people to revisit their positions, I do revisit my own positions for sure thanks and regards
Mahitgar (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then how about you move this entire section to one of the talk pages there? In all of this you seem utterly unaware that Indigenous people are editing the 'pedia every day, and reading your words here. And yes, as a member of both communities, I encourage Indigenous folks to join WP; all the time. But others rarely stay as it's frustrating to have cultural outsiders acting like experts because they found some crap on google. Best. - CorbieV 15:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment here[edit]

I came here from the en.wiki discussion. This discussion is just odd. Use of a ceremonial pipe and other sacred ceremonies are, in some native cultures, private and the rituals not given to outsiders. There are thousands of Native American nations and cultures in North America and they are not all alike. Rather than offend some by treating a few rituals of a limited number of cultures as universal, we simply state general concepts. Montanabw (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]