zlacker

>>elsewh+(OP)
I can see worrying about harassment. "Inclusivity", though? (From the tone of the press release, they mean race and gender, not article subjects.) Wikipedia editors are anonymous unless they don't want to be. How can anyone tell?

>>Animat+L2
Inclusivity of editors is a major factor for inclusivity of content.

Different demographics have different interests, experiences, and knowledge. It's trivially obvious that getting a broader subset of society to contribute will also broaden the content.

With less than 10% of editors being women, for example, content is guaranteed to be somewhat skewed, even assuming absolutely no ill will by anybody.

Among the famous examples are a scientist's entry being deleted as "not notable" just weeks before she won the Nobel Prize. Or, if you prefer quantitative data, that articles about women tend to emphasise their relationships and children (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.06307v2.pdf).

>>IAmEve+C4
> Different demographics have different interests, experiences, and knowledge. It's trivially obvious that getting a broader subset of society to contribute will also broaden the content.

Wikipedia wants to be an encyclopedia though, not a bag of personal anecdotes and life experiences.

>>luckyl+L6
Look at you go, immediately discarding everything that other persons could contribute on the sole basis that it would be content from people different from yourself, true meritocracy in action!

>>Siempr+h7
I don't think that's what he means. You are reading too much there.

I read that as wikipedia should be factual and facts don't need to care about the background of the person. Citations are always needed.

Diversity in race imo is a bad diversity criteria for some things. For one, it separates people living long time at a particular place (think 2-3 generations) as different people because they are not white so they must be different.

Anyone who talks about diversity I have seen has stereotypes of their own on what people from different races are like.

>>thrwaw+G8
Ok, so how did he got from "different demographics have different interests, experiences, and knowledge" to "a bag of personal anecdotes and life experiences".

The only way to do so is to discard the interests and knowledge while putting great emphasis on experiences - and immediately assume they will end manifest as bulk personal anecdotes.

>>watwut+Bp
> Ok, so how did he got

Way to assume my gender and preferred pronouns. Bet you're glad that HN has no CoC that would get you a stern warning for this.

> The only way to do so is to discard the interests and knowledge while putting great emphasis on experiences - and immediately assume they will end manifest as bulk personal anecdotes.

No. One very obvious way to do so is to recognize that Wikipedia isn't about interests and experiences and the contributors/authors of articles but about sourced information. It's an encyclopedia, not a social network or a blog. The articles are supposed to represent information gathered from other sources (and they take other literal there, Original Research by the author is not desired [1]), not the knowledge, interests or experiences of the person adding information to the article.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

>>luckyl+Tq
People write about what interests them and what they know about before starting to write. That is where interest and knowledge plays huge role. Lack of knowledge about something means you wont be able to put together good article.

This has zero to do with original research, that is red herring trying to shift the topic. The whole "sourced information therefore pre-existing knowledge, interests and experiences dont play role" is obvious nonsense.

Experiences influence what you write about, what you put emphasis on and how you write.