Whose Knowledge? is mapping opportunities and gaps in online knowledge, as a starting point for our work addressing systemic bias on Wikimedia projects and the larger internet. Someday we'll have lovely interactive visualizations! For now, we're using this page as a hub for the data we collect.
Map of the feminist internet
Map of gaps and opportunities in online knowledge
- Additional note on Whose Knowledge? maps: "missing inter-generational online feminist spaces"
- Q&A session on Wikipedia editing:
- Q: Can I create an article on the Feminist Principles of the Internet?
- A: Discussed Notability, NPOV
- Q: Why shouldn't I write about myself or my own org?
- A: Discussed Self promotion, disclosure
- Q: What do you do for Wikipedia (roles)?
- A: Discussed contributors, admins, board, committees, chapters
- Q: Why were the Arab feminists I wrote about deleted? They had book references!
- A: Helpful to say why they are notable in the first line. (Note: we looked later at one of these articles and discovered it was deleted by an IP and then later restored by another user. The content was good, the IP was mistaken, and the newbie had wandered off thanks to this negative experience so they never saw it restored. But now she's back!).
WikiConference North America - Indigenous People's Day 2016
We facilitated an edit-a-thon with Wikipedians, librarians, and Native American experts at WikiConference North America. Knowledge gaps and biases were captured from Michael Connolly Miskwish's talk, "Kumeyaay and California Indian History: Omissions & Bias." Michael also brought a list of references for the group to use in addressing gaps/bias, and librarians at the event gathered some of these books from the San Diego stacks for us to use in editing articles. Bringing together this combination of skillsets and expertise in the room helped the group prioritize bringing more knowledge from the margins into the core. For example, we improved English Wikipedia's coverage of how the California Gold Rush impacted Native Americans thanks to Mike's sharing his knowledge on both bias and sources that could help Wikipedians address this imbalance.
What is missing?
On which topic?
Guided by who?
Addressed with which sources?
|History of scholarship and narratives: Indians often referenced only through lens of the Missions, and in derogatory ways||Kumeyaay and California Indian History||Michael Connolly Miskwish||Environmental research and source materials help correct some of this bias|
|WP article on Kumeyaay, Language: Focus on different perspectives between linguists and native speakers. Native speakers don't see it as separate languages. Many linguists actually agree with Kumeyaay on that point.||Kumeyaay and California Indian History||Michael Connolly Miskwish||No reference yet|
|WP article on Kumeyaay, History: Before Contact - different people or different cultures? Bias comes in when perspective is portrayed as native opinions vs scientists studies. Nothing in the archaeological record says that new people moved in and wiped out others. Same people (maybe w/ intermarriage) w/ roots back to paleoIndians, with culture change over time.||Kumeyaay and California Indian History||Michael Connolly Miskwish||look at scholarship on Montana genetic testing, remains found in Mexico caves, and Kennewick man - findings show direct line of descent to current people|
|Environmental management, including fire management, harvest techniques, engineering||Kumeyaay and California Indian History||Michael Connolly Miskwish||Tending the Wild|
|Trade and commerce are often underreferenced. Obsidian mines, etc existed||Kumeyaay and California Indian History||Michael Connolly Miskwish||Archaeological reports|
|Politics of Paleo-identity: Scientists undermine scientific evidence that local people are descendents of paleo-Indians, to block repatriation. Scientific American took biased view||Kumeyaay and California Indian History||Michael Connolly Miskwish||no reference yet|
|History books often define California borders retroactively. As a geographic and ecological unit, there is continuity with Baja. Kumeyaay territory a great example of this.||Kumeyaay and California Indian History||Michael Connolly Miskwish||Kumeyaay: A history textbook precontact to 1893|
|Spread of diseases: estimate at least 1m Indians here before missions came, and 300,000 after Missions started. Estimates of population decline in present CA prior to 1769 range from 600,000 to 1.2m. Spread of indigenous spiritual traditions to try to safeguard Indians from these diseases||Kumeyaay and California Indian History||Michael Connolly Miskwish||CA population studies|
|San Diego experience: difficulties of religious conversion, lack of environmental understanding, and 1779 destruction of the mission (these are some distinctions from other parts of CA)||Kumeyaay and California Indian History||Michael Connolly Miskwish||Kumeyaay: A history textbook precontact to 1893|
|Conversions? 60 converts per year likely includes: People who didn't understand what it meant, Stockholm syndrome identification w/ opressors, and children born into the Mission system||Kumeyaay and California Indian History||Michael Connolly Miskwish|
|Population change 1600-1910 - add Mike's chart to Commons.||Kumeyaay and California Indian History||Michael Connolly Miskwish||Mike's slide deck|
|Gold rush and gold production, slaughter of many indigenous peoples during this time. Genocide driven by greed for gold (as well as land and water, of course)||Kumeyaay and California Indian History||Michael Connolly Miskwish||Lindsay, Brenden C (2012). "Murder State: California's Native American Genocide, 1846-1873." University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln and London (and other texts referenced in that book)|