# Share your corner of Mexico to the world through Wikipedia



## Thelmdatter (May 31, 2011)

Saludos!

Im a US expat in Mexico City, living here and working as an English teacher for 9 years now. Ive also been an active "Wikipedian" since 2007 and have even incorporated contributing to the world's largest encyclopedia into my classes! The Foundation behind Wikipedia published a nice article about this in its blog. I cant put in urls.. but you can Google "Wikipedia as a foreign culture" to find it. 

I have found working with Wikipedia very rewarding. Although I am not paid for the articles I write or the fotos I contribute, it has given me a niche at work and I now network with museum and other cultural institutions in Mexico and abroad! These include the Museo de Arte Popular and the Museo del Objeto del Objeto in Mexico City as well as Garros Gallery , the Smithsonian, the British Museum and many many more. 

As much as I and my students have done, there is so much more. Coverage of Mexico in English and other language Wikipedias is poor and I know many of us here would love the world to see Mexico as we do, instead of just the violence on the news. 

Im hoping to find some expats like myself who have some time to spend doing this. (Its not a bad way to improve your Spanish too, especially if you research info in Spanish to write in your language) while learning more about what surrounds you!

Please dont hesitate to contact me with questions. My last name is Thelmadatter (I mistyped it when I registered) and very easy to Google!


----------



## maesonna (Jun 10, 2008)

I want to second this call for participation. Thelmadatter is a friend of mine online and in real life, and she has done a fantastic job organizing and writing for Wikipedia. 

I suggested to her that she post in this forum because I know that there are a lot of you here that are enthusiastic about the part of Mexico that you have gotten to know well, and this is a chance to share your love and knowledge with the world.


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

maesonna said:


> I want to second this call for participation. Thelmadatter is a friend of mine online and in real life, and she has done a fantastic job organizing and writing for Wikipedia.
> 
> I suggested to her that she post in this forum because I know that there are a lot of you here that are enthusiastic about the part of Mexico that you have gotten to know well, and this is a chance to share your love and knowledge with the world.


A problem which I believe exists at Wiki is inaccurate or biased information uploaded by people for various reasons. As important it may be to post things I think it's equally as important to edit/remove the inaccuracies. Wiki shouldn't be relied on as the absolute authority on any topic. The information is only as good as the people and the intent of the people who upload the text.


----------



## edgeee (Jun 21, 2012)

i too am a big fan of wikipedia, but as longford notes, it must be taken with a grain of salt. (or two. is the salt supposed to balance out the acidic nature? in this case, i'm probably being too much of a word-nerd. i often do.)
IMO the fault - if you can call it that - lies not with the wiki, but with people who believe everything they see on the internet.
Wikipedia, by and large, is a fantastic resource for learning the basics about almost anything. anyone who takes every item as the final word is not really doing research, they are taking the easy way out.

the people who contribute to it should be appreciated for their efforts.
their work is a huge contribution to the free flow of information and knowledge.
(i often cite the wiki as my source for info.)
and you can't paint them all with the same brush. 'one bad apple' and all that.
i'm guessing the bad info there is rare, and the contributors who are accurate do a service for us all.

as a well known Know-It-All, i would never try to be a contributor, because i'm too lazy to do it right, and i hate doing things wrong.

Thelmadatter, you have my undying gratitude. without you and people like you i would be even more ignorant than i am.
thanks to the wiki, i'm a little less stupid than i used to be.


----------



## TundraGreen (Jul 15, 2010)

Longford said:


> A problem which I believe exists at Wiki is inaccurate or biased information uploaded by people for various reasons. As important it may be to post things I think it's equally as important to edit/remove the inaccuracies. Wiki shouldn't be relied on as the absolute authority on any topic. The information is only as good as the people and the intent of the people who upload the text.


People like to criticize Wiki because many assume that since anyone can contribute, it can't be accurate. However, tests of its accuracy find that it is quite comparable to other former sources like Encyclopedia Britannica. A number of independent groups have examined the question of its accuracy, and there is a Wikipedia page on the accuracy of Wikipedia.

There was a radio station in San Francisco that used to end every newscast with the quip, "If you don't like the news, go out and make some of your own." This certainly applies to Wikipedia. If you find something you know to be in error or misleading, then fix it. Unlike the person that started this thread, I cannot claim to have contributed a lot of wiki pages, however, I have corrected or added information to over 50 of them.

Like any other source, it is wise to think critically about anything you read on Wikipedia and if it is important, check other sources, but it is an amazing resource.


----------



## dongringo (Dec 13, 2010)

I love Wikipedia - with all its shortcomings, it is still the most significant contribution in the world about anything, including Mexico

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico


----------



## mickisue1 (Mar 10, 2012)

As noted above, if you have knowledge that there are errors in Wikipedia information, you can change it.

Be prepared, however, to have it changed back if your changes are based on opinion, not fact. They realy are NOT the same thing.


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

TundraGreen said:


> People like to criticize Wiki because many assume that since anyone can contribute, it can't be accurate. However, tests of its accuracy find that it is quite comparable to other former sources like Encyclopedia Britannica.


I frequently consult Wiki, and as you suggest I consult more than one source for information I place a high importance on. I don't share the same confidence you hae in Wiki when you compare it to Encyclopedia Britannica. However, I recognize that history (and "facts") are told through the lenses of the authors. And, as we understand, just because someone writes something that "something" isn't always accurate. Thanks.


----------



## TundraGreen (Jul 15, 2010)

Longford said:


> I frequently consult Wiki, and as you suggest I consult more than one source for information I place a high importance on. I don't share the same confidence you hae in Wiki when you compare it to Encyclopedia Britannica. However, I recognize that history (and "facts") are told through the lenses of the authors. And, as we understand, just because someone writes something that "something" isn't always accurate. Thanks.


I wasn't expressing a blind confidence in Wikipedia. I was reflecting what I have read about tests that have been done by independent groups. If you have seen other tests that suggest Wikipedia is less reliable than Encyclopedia Britannica, I would be interested in looking at them. 

Incidentally, Encyclopedia Britannica just recently stopped publication. When my kids were young, we bought a set of printed encyclopedias at a garage sale. I think it was the World Book. That is a tradition that has disappeared.


----------



## maesonna (Jun 10, 2008)

The idea of calling on members of this forum to participate is to invite anyone who wishes to go to the page on your corner of Mexico (if there is one) and check it out. If there are errors, you can correct them. If there are important elements missing, you can add them. You can do this whatever may be your opinion of Wikipedia. If the article was written by a “bird of passage” who has never lived in your part of Mexico, your contribution will surely improve it.


----------



## mickisue1 (Mar 10, 2012)

While we're on the subject of correcting inaccurate information...there is a blog post attached to this forum about the cost of living in MX.

It's written by a citizen of the UK, and, of course, costs are expressed in pounds. A lot of the so called averages seem wildly high to me, especially the cost of eating out.

If you keep in mind that the exchange rate of pounds/pesos is about 1/21, it's even worse.

I'd appreciate either original blogger, or someone who has better knowledge than I, either trashing it or repairing it.

And, given that the cost of living in any country is highly dependent on both the location and the desired level of luxury, I'd vote for trashing it.


----------



## edgeee (Jun 21, 2012)

TundraGreen said:


> . . .
> There was a radio station in San Francisco that used to end every newscast with the quip, "If you don't like the news, go out and make some of your own." This certainly applies to Wikipedia. . .


Will, i love you man, but you have no idea what a treasure trove you have uncovered.

San Francisco has a long history of being different from the rest of the world.
the history of the music scene there in the 60s, 70s and so on will go on forever.
it spawned more divergence than the human mind can absorb.
one aspect of that influence was a radio station far removed from the norm.
for a few years - glorious years - KFAT FM, 94.5,
was a beacon of sanity for those of us who recognized it for what it was.

based in Gilroy California, a bit south of SF, (known as the Garlic Capital of the World),
it was the brain child of Laura Ellen Hopper (1950–2007) and Jeremy Lansman.
the story of KFAT can be found in the wiki. search for: KFAT (defunct)
(there is a KFAT in Alaska now, no relation to the original.)
Wikipedia gives us some of the last remnants we can cling to.

(i apologize for being so adamant about this issue, 
but it is seldom that such a volatile -to me- subject erupts forty years after i thought it was a dead topic.)

they had a commentator who's name i can not recall, but he changed the way i looked at the world.
he pronounced guerilla in the proper way, instead of saying 'gorilla'.

eventually KFAT, a totally different view of the world, became just another commercial venture,
and it was changed to become KWSS, a top 40 format station. (just what the world needs, another clone of commercialism.)
KWSS was something else altogether, as anything but KFAT would be. 
KFAT was one of a kind and nothing could replace it. (KPIG is trying.)
to understand that, you would have to listen to it, and of course, that's not possible now.

i used to have a t-shirt with the KFAT logo with "KWSS My Ass" over it.
(when i was in rehab, they made me stop wearing it.)

so the Wikipedia, to me, is a way to revisit a past that i thought was gone forever.


----------



## TundraGreen (Jul 15, 2010)

edgeee said:


> Will, i love you man, but you have no idea what a treasure trove you have uncovered.
> 
> San Francisco has a long history of being different from the rest of the world.
> the history of the music scene there in the 60s, 70s and so on will go on forever.
> ...


A quick web search reminds me that it was Scoop Nisker who used that tag line. According to Wikipedia he worked at KFOG. I would have guessed it was KPFA, but I really don't remember what station I was listening to in those days. I moved to San Francisco in 1967. An interesting time to live there, but that is another, and long, story. KFAT I don't remember even though I spent a lot of time in the Gilroy-Hollister area. Incidentally, there was another announcer on the station named Dusty Street. I thought that was a great name.

Edited. I just found it. He worked for KSAN in those days. His web site wesnisker.com mentions it.


----------



## TundraGreen (Jul 15, 2010)

Thanks Edgee. In response to your prompting, I have been listening to some clips that Scoop Nisker has on his web site from the late 60s and early 70s. It really takes me back.


----------



## edgeee (Jun 21, 2012)

TundraGreen said:


> Thanks Edgee. In response to your prompting, I have been listening to some clips that Scoop Nisker has on his web site from the late 60s and early 70s. It really takes me back.


likewise and ditto.
my search led me to download the KFAT sound i thought was gone.
i have spent the last three hours listening to it.

as i write this it is still playing, i have no idea how long it will last, but whenever it ends it will be too soon.

maesonna, i love you for providing a path i did not know existed.

(edit: i re-discovered the "New Riders of the Purple Sage" and Dirty Business down in Cold Creek".
where 'this morning' becomes 'this mourning.'
thanks again.


----------



## sparks (Jun 17, 2007)

Again this has wandered off to radio stations of the '60's rather than Wiki-whatever. How many Wiki things are there?

I've limited myself to corrections, fotos and mapping because things change like the new cancer clinic in Colima and age restrictions. Too many editors deciding what links and info was important. Very part time for me anymore


----------



## edgeee (Jun 21, 2012)

sparks said:


> Again this has wandered off to radio stations of the '60's rather than Wiki-whatever. How many Wiki things are there?
> 
> I've limited myself to corrections, fotos and mapping because things change like the new cancer clinic in Colima and age restrictions. Too many editors deciding what links and info was important. Very part time for me anymore


sorry sparks, but Wikipedia does that to me.
one of the beautiful things about Wikipedia is that it provides an endless string of opportunities, with no end in sight.
this may not be the best place to expound on that, but it is still relevant.

so, do you have "your corner of Mexico" ready to share through Wikipedia?


----------



## TundraGreen (Jul 15, 2010)

edgeee said:


> sorry sparks, but Wikipedia does that to me.
> one of the beautiful things about Wikipedia is that it provides an endless string of opportunities, with no end in sight.
> this may not be the best place to expound on that, but it is still relevant.
> 
> so, do you have "your corner of Mexico" ready to share through Wikipedia?


A guy named James Burke used to write a column for Scientific American called "Connections". He had one page at the end of the magazine as I recall. He would start with one idea, then go through a long chain of connected ideas, straying very far from his starting point, only to end up with the last idea tying back into the origin point.

Wikipedia makes easy an exercise like that. Although, without James Burke guiding it, you don't often end up back where you started.


----------



## edgeee (Jun 21, 2012)

i try to do that, but it only works about 1% of the time.
the other 99% seems to irritate the hell out of other people.
from my viewpoint, it works for me.
irritated people tend to start thinking.
that's all i ask.


----------



## ptrichmondmike (Aug 26, 2010)

I'm a "facts and figures" freak -- I had my first "World Almanac" at age 8, and devoured it. I love reference books on just about any subject except the more arcane sciences and mathematics. I think Wikipedia is one of the greatest of all internet sites, and superior in almost every way to the big old Britannicas of our youth.

Yes, there are plenty of lousy, useless, illiterate or simply biased* entries (and the label of bias is usually highlighted on the page). But any sophisticated reader can tell the quality of an article by several factors, most especially documentation. The best Wiki articles blow away the old encyclopedias in this area, and are real contributions to the preservation -- if not spread -- of public knowledge in this increasingly book-free world.

Unsophisticated readers? Well, they are everywhere, and what's to be done?

I think lots of forum members could make their own valuable contributions. This is a great idea.

*And speaking of bias, the wonderful, classic 11th edition of the Britannica (1911) was issued at the peak of the Age of Imperialism, and Eurocentric superiority is pervasive in thousands of articles.


----------



## ptrichmondmike (Aug 26, 2010)

ptrichmondmike said:


> *And speaking of bias, the wonderful, classic 11th edition of the Britannica (1911) was issued at the peak of the Age of Imperialism, and Eurocentric superiority is pervasive in thousands of articles.


Let me amend that: "Eurocentric superiority was implicit in hundreds, even thousands, of articles." I don't want to be accused of inaccuracy or, worse, bias.

The thing about bias is that it stems from beliefs, principles, experience, emotions etc. Most people find it hard to see beyond these. I can't imagine writing an article that excluded my many heartfelt biases. Being a truly objective writer is very difficult. I think they are supposed to do that in journalism -- reporting and the like -- but all journalism today is biased. And maybe it always has been, and thinking otherwise is a delusion.


----------



## edgeee (Jun 21, 2012)

ptrichmondmike said:


> Let me amend that: "Eurocentric superiority was implicit in hundreds, even thousands, of articles." I don't want to be accused of inaccuracy or, worse, bias.
> 
> The thing about bias is that it stems from beliefs, principles, experience, emotions etc. Most people find it hard to see beyond these. I can't imagine writing an article that excluded my many heartfelt biases. Being a truly objective writer is very difficult. I think they are supposed to do that in journalism -- reporting and the like -- but all journalism today is biased. And maybe it always has been, and thinking otherwise is a delusion.


history is always written by the victors.
it is up to the reader do decide where fiction ends and 'history' begins.


----------

