Grants:IdeaLab/Wikipedia Freedom Index
Project idea
editWhat is the problem you're trying to solve?
editThe political leaders of countries such as Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan for example have biographies in the corresponding Wikipedia language versions that are devoid of criticism, even though their governments are widely condemned for some of the worst human rights abuses on record. This absence of criticism may be because contributors in the countries concerned do not feel it is safe for them to add such content, or it may be because administrators loyal to the government prevent addition of critical content.
What is your solution?
editFund human rights organisations to monitor Wikipedia coverage of human rights violations in the relevant language versions, and publish corresponding reports. A Wikipedia in which widely documented human rights abuses of the national government are censored or self-censored is not free. Publicising this lack of freedom will serve as a warning to readers, and will put pressure on governments to relax their control. A Wikipedia Freedom Index, analogous to the well-known World Press Freedom Index, would be a useful method to communicate status in the various Wikipedia projects.
Goals
editGet Involved
editParticipants
editEndorsements
edit- Very good, and importat as our brand is at risk Yger (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- So fund Wikipedians in residence to be in human rights organisations? Sounds like a great idea! EdSaperia (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think a Wikipedian in Residence would be necessary. As envisaged, the human rights organizations would form their own working groups to review Wikipedia content in the relevant language version, and report their findings, to be republished by WMF. (Their role in this project would not include editing Wikipedia.) What I think would be needed is, in the first instance, an advisor helping to identify the relevant human rights organisations for different geographical regions, and then a small number of project managers (each responsible for one of these geographical region) liaising with the relevant HR organisations to check feasibility of the project, get buy-in, agree ground rules for funding and staffing, track progress of working group formation and content review, and schedule the publication of reports. In my view, these project managers should be WMF staff. Andreas JN466 16:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- External analysis would improve the credibility of any claim that Wikimedia is active for transparency and against censorship of knowledge. I would like this to be stated more clearly, so that funding is strictly limited to credible (preferably peer reviewed) academic research and analysis, with the expectation that it becomes a regular governance report, rather than eaten up in a general Wikipedian in residence or a less useful Wikimedia brand advocate role. --Fæ (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Undertaking regular assessments across all serious WP's are what is needed first and foremost as a public awareness; whether the WP's communities fix content problems highlighted is a different problem, which we can hope will be solved organically. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- We say we're neutral: but are we? Having third party reports point out our flaws would be a good step to take. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- This looks like a good idea to me, and would probably be particularly useful for not only the three countries mentioned, but the wikipedias of any other countries where human rights issues or similar governmental misconduct might be inadequately discussed as per WEIGHT in the various wikipedias. John Carter (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- +1 → «« Man77 »» [de] 01:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- +1. Rgds •
• hugarheimur 10:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC) - Per proposal Ricordisamoa 18:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support. A good starting point would be a collaboration of Wikimedia with the Herdict website, a project of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University ("Help spot web blockages"; http://www.herdict.org/participate/reporter). It' a a Web-based platform for user/ crowdsourced reports on inaccessibility of websites worldwide (an inaccessible site does not always imply censorship). They are listing en.wikipedia, have a look. It's also important to watch if the corresponding interwiki articles in other languages are blocked too, and to compare the content of controversial articles. Manypedia and Omnipedia show the possibilities! --Atlasowa (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Wholeheartedly. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Any sort of peer review is likely to help Wikipedia's credibility, and this is an especially important area in which it could take place. Jonathandeamer (talk) 08:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- A great idea, and I would love to see this in practice. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Expand your idea
editDo you want to submit your idea for funding from the Wikimedia Foundation?