Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Dalit History Month 2017

Who is co-ordinating this thing?

People who seem to be involved with this Dalit History Month thing, usually operating out of the US, seem generally to make a real mess of things. Examples include numerous copyright violations, misrepresentation of sources, misuse of categories and creation of very poor articles about marginal subject matter.

I am well aware of the historic and current issues facing Dalits but Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Whoever is co-ordinating these initiatives needs to get a grip on those who are participating because it really isn't acceptable. So who is it? - Sitush (talk) 06:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia was created to document and share the sum of all human knowledge. When a large group of people (in the millions) are generally absent and considered "marginal", that is indeed a great wrong. The motto "Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs" in this instance enforces a historical status quo with intransigent and conservative resistance. Why? Because Wikipedia not only reflects the world as it is (full of wrongs), but we are also charged with documenting the world as it has changed (a category of "rights" indeed). Wikipedia can't be ahead of reliable sources, but that's not what is at issue here actually. There are plenty of reliable sources about Dalit people, and good faith efforts here to incorporate them into the encyclopedia. The Dalit subject-area is not well developed on Wikipedia and needs a lot of work. So, when a campaign of dozens if not hundreds of people--leaderless, or rather full of many leaders (I'm not one of them btw), from all over the world--in the U.S. and India and elsewhere--make an effort to document and share knowledge about the notable figures and culture of an entire human group and its history, prominent figures, and changemakers, that is... wrong? They need to "get a grip"? They cause "mayhem"? It is all "unacceptable"? I think not Sitush. Instead it looks like you are keeping a gate shut on a group of people who are in your view by definition "marginal". That is unacceptable. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 00:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Says you, who has done fuck all in the India topic area and knows fuck all about it? When you have lifted the weight I have, I'll listen to your views on what is or is not acceptable. - Sitush (talk) 05:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sitush. Dalit History Month is organized by a collective of folks. Like Wikipedia, no one person owns it. Because you say that you're well aware of the issues facing Dalits, you must also be aware that safety and security is an issue for many Dalit people, just as it often is for women and other marginalized groups online. So I can only hope that you'll take a minute to step back and consider that your demands to know who and where people are, in a tone that reads both angry and aggressive (and quickly moves to "fuck all") is unconstructive here. Anonymous contributions are welcome and editor privacy is taken seriously on Wikipedia, and I know you know this, so I'm asking you to please take an extra minute to respect that.

I can also see you're upset about changes to articles that you patrol. Dalit History Month isn't perfect, and having you flag any constructive suggestions you have about where the collective can improve would be welcome. It's normal that new folks make mistakes as they learn. Some of the best Wikipedia admins that I know made their first edits as vandals. Sometimes even you make mistakes [1]. But we all have a choice here as to whether we educate (as well as learn from) new and different folks through constructive discussion, or just scare them away by reverting and shouting and making snarky edit summaries which read like ownership. Unless you always want to be the only one editing in the India topic area, educating is more useful. No one asked you to cleanup a "mess." And since you've decided to take it upon yourself to cleanup, because I'm sure you care about Wikipedia as much as I do, I'd also ask you to fairly apply editorial standards to Dalit topics - for example, not deleting citations and adding citation needed tags at the same time, which doesn't seem like the most useful fix [2].

As for the path forward: I've been talking with international organizers about the process and some changes that can be made, and folks are aware that there's room to improve at each event and with each participant. Organizers and editors are happy to make changes and get better over time, especially with constructive input from long-time Wikipedians who are willing to engage in good faith. It would be good to hear from you or anyone else coming across issues in edits on Dalit topics:

• What problems concern you most?
• How do you recommend participants make higher quality edits?
• Do you have any suggestions for what participants should focus on at upcoming edit-a-thons?

Cheers, Siko (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Your criticism of me is wildly inaccurate and what you are saying is this project was a case of the blind leading the blind. As it was last time round. Brilliant: no-one is learning.

Teach them about copyright and BLP, since those are major legal issues and you should know about them even though you clearly know nothing about the topic area itself. And every collaboration should have a co-ordinator - you yourself keep referring to "education" and the DHM collaboration is effectively a global class project. I'll probably speak directly with someone at the WMF: the lackadaisical attitude and desire of experienced contributors to pursue a righting great wrongs agenda is astonishing. Enabling activists, for Dalit rights or anything else, is a COI issue also.

BTW, I'm not particularly interested in any messages that use phrases such as "way forward" - they're usually the product of corporate-speak or PR. I'd rather deal with real people who talk real words, don't mince about, and do know their stuff. There are plenty of newbies, even, who fit that bill. - Sitush (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I am "someone at the WMF", and specifically someone interested in helping emerging communities grow and helping our projects become more diverse, in both content and participation.

I think it is perfectly fine to encourage activists to edit Wikipedia, provided they understand the "educate, don't advocate" principle. Whatever their activism appropriately calls for elsewhere, on Wikipedia they must offer neutral information and avoid advocacy or invective.

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, newbies make mistakes; it does not invalidate the whole undertaking, so long as there's a willingness -- as there is here -- to learn and improve.

You, on the other hand, as a veteran and accomplished editor, should definitely know better than using obscenities and aggressive language in expressing your (substantively justified) concerns. I encourage you to find ways to deal with your "blood boil[ing]" problem other than taking it out on well-meaning newbies. Your editing record does not give you the prerogative to abuse people. If you find this initiative irks you so much you are unable to engage with it in a civil manner, the only recourse for you is not to engage with it. I hope it won't come to that, though; your experience and your familiarity with Indian subject matter broadly can, and should, be an asset to this endeavor. Please do reconsider your approach. Asaf (WMF) (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

My blood is boiling about the "oldies", the likes of Siko, Kaldari and Ocaasi who are making such a mess of things either directly in their own editing or indirectly by enabling the problems. I can assure you that I won't be alone in this view. Are we going to see some proper co-ordination this time next year? It needs someone to monitor what is going on, to guide beforehand and during the collaboration. And preferably someone who appears actually to know something about the subject, unlike the aforementioned people. - Sitush (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, re-reading your patronising response just makes my blood boil more, Siko. "Take it upon [myself]" sounds like you are blaming me for these troubles, not the actual cause. And what on earth is wrong with this edit that you highlight? Are you suggesting that the overcites supported the bits that I tagged as needing citations? I'm known for doing lots of small edits so that I can give edit summaries that at least have some meaning - ask, for example, Drmies, who has referred to this habit on several occasions as an example of something he thinks he does not do enough. If I've done something wrong then fair enough but it looks to me like you are trawling around to find something, anything. - Sitush (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• While I'm not sure why the simple question of who is coordinating this group has devolved into a mudslinging match, I can confirm that the quality of edits made by this meetup is lacklustre. I generally edit only in the Indian history space, but existing articles are being edited to give them a Dalit slant (example) and tantrums asking fellow editors to Stop victimizing Dalit/Adivasi/Muslims!!! are being thrown on talk pages. There are enough NPOV, RS, and ADVOCACY issues that it makes sense to get whoever is coordinating the meetup to mentor attendees on these points. If there is not coordinator, then it will be a good idea to use one especially when you consider the subject matter. And FWIW, there are hundreds and thousands of castes, sub-castes, sects, and sub-sects in India and only a fraction of them are documented on WP. All of them have "caste warriors" who regularly inundate WP with edits claiming that certain figures belong to their caste or attempt to malign other castes. The Dalits have their own pre- and mis- conceptions and are no different.

Also, frankly, if you actually believe this tripe about safety and security is an issue for many Dalit people in this context and within the context of editing Wikipedia, then this project should perhaps not be posting photographs of meetups online and editors should be advised not to use their real names for their usernames. There's way too much drama here, people.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I am an Indian (in India) and an unconnected editor, and not a Dalit myself. I can confirm that safety and security of minorities, including Dalits, is a grave issue, considering the kind of politics that is happening in India. Reliable sources can be quoted for this. This assertion of @Cpt.a.haddock: is incorrect, besides being extremely crudely worded. The WP:ownership shown by respected and experienced editors is not at all appreciated. While there is a great deal of improvement needed in the knowledge and techniques of the new editors of the Dalit month, abrogating to oneself the right to judge and condemn good faith edits, instead of having an neutral, NPOV stance, goes against everything these editors profess to defend. I request all editors to firstly, to have good faith, secondly, to stop getting aggressive on these issues, thirdly, to not resort to bad language, and lastly to cooperate to make WP more accurate and complete so that the encyclopedia is improved. AshLin (talk) 04:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)