CarwilBJ’s avatarCarwilBJ’s Twitter Archive—№ 25,263

  1. …in reply to @bretgustafson
    @bretgustafson @Dan_Beeton I have multiple thoughts… 1. Venezuela has become one of the simultaneously polarized (lots of edit wars) and productive (lots of articles being written) portions of Wikipedia, much like Israel/Palestine and contemporary US politics.
    On twitter.com Twitter logo CarwilBJ’s avatar ❤️ 1 Favorite Mood +2 🙂
    1. …in reply to @CarwilBJ
      @bretgustafson @Dan_Beeton 2. WikiProject are a standard discussion forum space on Wikipedia, and most have fairly multi-Point Of View memberships. The breathless coverage on The Mint as if this is a secret cabal is unwarranted.
      Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo CarwilBJ’s avatar Mood 0
      1. …in reply to @CarwilBJ
        @bretgustafson @Dan_Beeton 3. But all the same, there seems to be aggressive POV pushing happening under the guise of reliable sources discussion at WikiProject Venezuela. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Venezuela#WP_VEN_RfC_on_reliability_of_various_NGOs
        Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo CarwilBJ’s avatar Mood 0
        1. …in reply to @CarwilBJ
          @bretgustafson @Dan_Beeton 4. Excluding publications as potential reliable sources Wikipedia wide is a relatively new phenomenon that began with the Daily Mail in 2017. The list is relatively evenhanded, but has become a go-to tool for anti-Bolivarian Venezuelans: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources
          Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo CarwilBJ’s avatar Mood +2 🙂
          1. …in reply to @CarwilBJ
            @bretgustafson @Dan_Beeton 5. Their aggressive effort to take down CEPR site-wide gestated here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Venezuela/Reliable_and_unreliable_sources#CEPR and failed here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_283#RfC:_Center_for_Economic_and_Policy_Research_(CEPR)
            Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo CarwilBJ’s avatar Mood -4 🙁
            1. …in reply to @CarwilBJ
              @bretgustafson @Dan_Beeton 6. On the other hand this WikiProject Venezuela essay has no force in terms of exclusion, but looks like a hatchet job. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Venezuela/Reliable_and_unreliable_sources Outsiders to Wikipedia editing might not know the difference, unfortunately.
              Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo CarwilBJ’s avatar Mood 0
              1. …in reply to @CarwilBJ
                @bretgustafson @Dan_Beeton 7. The goal of Wikipedia editing should be to document facts in a way that grounds them clearly before skeptical reader. Using reliable, nonpartisan sources is (imho) the right way to do that.
                Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo CarwilBJ’s avatar Mood +1 🙂
                1. …in reply to @CarwilBJ
                  @bretgustafson @Dan_Beeton 8. So if I read some dramatic fact about Palestine from Electronic Intifada or Mondoweiss, and feel it contributes to a Wikipedia page, I'm going to look for it in a newspaper or scholarly source and cite that.
                  Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo CarwilBJ’s avatar Mood 0
                  1. …in reply to @CarwilBJ
                    @bretgustafson @Dan_Beeton 9. Note that Spanish-language sources may be freely cited on Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources
                    Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo CarwilBJ’s avatar Mood 0
                    1. …in reply to @CarwilBJ
                      @bretgustafson @Dan_Beeton 10. I don't work on Venezuela, but prior to November in Bolivia, there were precious few significant facts that were only available in the partisan reporting world and not in the national press. I wonder if that's true in Venezuela.
                      Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo CarwilBJ’s avatar Mood +3 🙂