Movement Strategy initiative #41: Identifying policies that hinder knowledge equity

Identifying policies that hinder knowledge equity

Wikimedia 2018-20 Recommendation 09 final.svg

In order to Innovate in Free Knowledge, we need to identify the policies that hinder knowledge equity. The current policies of Wikimedia Projects leave out certain underrepresented groups who, due to historical reasons, are not covered by sources that meet the standards of Wikimedia Policies (for example: they may lack sources that meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria). Research and consultations with communities would identify how exactly these policies are harming knowledge equity across the Wikimedia Projects.

  • Consult with communities and experts to identify policies in Wikimedia projects that act as barriers of access to content related to underrepresented communities (e.g. Notability).

Continue reading on Meta


Hi. sorry, but I disagreee with this item. this idea, topic, and priority, discussion should originate in and should be carried forward by ordinary editors within the regular community. with all due respect, this sounds like a solution in search of a problem.

yes, we should absolutely highlight and seek to address those topical areas that lack equity, or which have been under-represented. if you wish to do so,you are welcome to do so…as an individual editor.

in short, please, I would suggest that it might not be as helpful as we might wish, to go onto English Wikipedia or elsewhere, with an abstract convoluted idea to have a whole new “movement strategy” effort to rework, re-address, or re-allocate any topical areas.

with all respect, we don’t need it. if you have a bright idea, you are welcome to present it, as an individual editor, and welcome to present it through the multi-faceted procedures, projects, and resources which already exist in great abundance, throughout the wikipedia community.

by the way, this is #41 of these auto-generated threads for ideas. just noting that.

Hi, anybody still watching/subscribing to this thread?

A terminology bothers me as a translator en-ja. It goes:
*[Translate - Meta Decolonizing the internet conference by Whose Knowledge].

The term “[DECOLONIZE | 意味, Cambridge 英語辞書での定義 decolonizing]” bothers me a lot, since it puts two parties segregated as one as colonizer, the other being colonized. And we are discussing about equality. Please extend your imagination to ESEAP hub, which holds many geography with hard memories associated with 植民, and still debating the divide of one area under dictatorship and the other nearing/ distancing democracy.

Why do we need to apply such a term which involves negative memories that those pressured people remembers, while those who took advantage of others easily forget casually? Or I am not sure any age group will keep their cool reading such phrase as anything recommended to them.

Just tap on the “SMART Vocabulary” section at the Cambridge Dictionary site as above.

Yes, you can claim you selected the term as to speak of curricula. But could it not harms your intention that it also can impress the readers, esp non-Wikimedians you are referring to any political stands you abide?

More explanation is required, or if I apply direct translation as [[:w:ja:脱植民地化|脱植民地化/非植民地化]] in ja, it could sound very offensive towards a certain age group/geographic area. On top of that, I am ambiguous about wether 脱植民地化/非植民地化, the very script, is perceived the same context among those cultures where we apply writing systems in Kanji/漢字/Chinese characters.

Go whistle blowing, fine, but to invite anybody into a Movement, very doubtful.

@Omotecho -san
Thank you for sharing your comment. I think I understand how you feel. For me, the word in Japanese makes my stomach feel heavy. Surprisingly, the word in English doesn’t give me the same feeling. Maybe it has to do with my relationship with the language (not being my native one). Or maybe it is because of the nature that English is more universal.
As you know this event was held by an affiliate, and it’s quite interesting when you think about the fact that it was held in South Africa. With the country’s history, the word most likely holds quality and power that I cannot imagine. It’s very interesting how a word can carry different nuances and feelings in different regions or settings. And I think that this is also what makes translation and interpretation so challenging. This is why outputting the correct meaning of words or sentences is not enough in many cases.
I’m certainly not in the position to speak for the whole Foundation. I am, however, confident that being conscious and mindful of different footings is strongly valued, and improvements to better reflect them is a continuous working progress. Therefore, I appreciate your insight in reminding this very important aspect to everyone.

在中文的語境之中,我認為即便同樣都是「decolonization」這個詞,在這個討論中其實分別對映了兩種不同類型的「colonialism」(這也是為何《Cambridge Dictionary》區分成兩種「decolonization」的意思):

  1. Colonialism:這是我們在傳統意義上的殖民主義,通常是指單一國家對於個別地區的主權侵犯,並實行政治、經濟、社會上的管理與剝削。例如:過往西方國家與亞洲國家將某個地區劃為殖民地,而其解決方法是該地區宣告政治獨立或民族自決。這或許比較類似 @Omotecho 您所描述的東西。

  2. Postcolonialism:這是我們在 1970 年代以降發展出來的另一種殖民定義,通常是指即便政治和經濟取得獨立,來自西方的全球化、文化霸權、價值觀仍會對某個地區產生深刻影響。例如:即便殖民者離開某個殖民地,但其文化、制度、價值觀仍會深刻影響該地區,而其解決方法是該地區發展出屬於自己的身分認同與話語權解放。這或許比較類似 Decolonizing the Internet conference 想要討論的。


  1. Neocolonialism:這是指新興國家即便取得政治獨立,其政治形態和經濟狀態仍然迫使其必須接受西方資本與金融體制、市場與商品意識形態的控制,並因而成為全球資本主義經濟中的被殖民者。


不過可能就是因為「decolonization」這件事情本身就是複雜的、難以定義的、不斷變動的,且又因為不同人的關注焦點而有變化的(有時它是指政治層面、有時它是指經濟層面,有時它是指文化層面,有時它是指技術層面,等等),所以導致這個翻譯和討論才會如此困難。正如 Franz Fanon 所說:

Decolonization, which sets out to change the order of the world, is, obviously, a program of complete disorder. But it cannot come as a result of magical practices, nor of a natural shock, nor of a friendly understanding. Decolonization, as we know, is a historical process: that is to say it cannot be understood, it cannot become intelligible nor clear to itself except in the exact measure that we can discern the movements which give it historical form and content.

1 Like