Talk:Traditional knowledge

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nabaan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

POV

I have the feeling that the article is slightly biased towards the local community's interests. No explanation is made indeed as to the potential importance of a specific knowledge (a plant, or whatever) to create new medecines for the community as a whole. If you can save the life 10 millions people by openly sharing traditional knowledge known for centuries in some cases, in order to make new medicines to cure some diseases, a balance of interests should be made. --Edcolins 13:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Any bias is unintended. This article is relatively new and is still being expanded. I have tried to strike a balance by presenting a summary of the issues from an objective perspective. However, because of the general subject matter, bias positions are sometimes difficult to "neutralize" in a short and concise style format. Nonetheless, I suspect that as this article grows, interests will become more equally balanced. --MrMMattson, 17 December 2005

I made an extensive rewrite of the entry. Although I understand the need for "balance", I believe the article as it stood, was inadequate to reflect the debate as I know it (I worked as a negotiator on the issues for the last 15 years). Some of the comments, I believe, were misleading. For example, it was generally not indigenous peoples who brought the issues to WIPO and the WTO - the intellectual property approach was set by the state members of WIPO, the WTO and the CBD. Indigenous peoples have been in a mostly reactive mode to these developments.

I also believe that any statements about conflicts with national laws and constitutional laws have to be heavily qualified. The United States, for example, now recognizes tri-federalism: there are three sovereigns, not two, in the the federal dance: federal government, states, and tribes. The US maintains a government-to-government relationship with tribes. And the tribes have a unique relationship to the Federal government - they signed treaties, and the Supreme Court ruled over 150 years ago that they retain sovereign, prior rights not granted by the US but retained until ceded or expressly terminated (which requires extraordinary reasons by Congress). These rights do not diminish with time: in the Pacific Northwest, tribal salmon fishers were deprived of much of their salmon catch, against treaty guarantees, for over 50 years. Despite long suppression, the Supreme Court awarded the tribes of the PNW collective rights to 50% of the fish in 1979. There has been no litigation of the Constitutional provisions for IPRs and tribal rights to identity and cultural protection (which are mentioned as positive rights in many treaties). And it is indsputable that the Supreme Court has interpreted the rights as recognized prior rights (arising from self-governance prior to contact) and treaty rights (positively guaranteed by treaty), not grants of rights by the US government.

I've added a few more references, including a few by indigenous peoples themselves. If you follow this debate, you can't help but be struck how the intellectual conversation is dominated by non-indigenous and non-local scholars. I've tried to present some of their views here in an objective manner, reporting but not editorializing on the substance of the debates.

I made a minor change from "positivism" to "positive protection" (which is the term of art being used at WIPO, the CBD and the WTO).

~~phardison, 13 September 2006

Characteristics

Could whoever put in this sentence please provide specific citations to these scholarly studies?

"A large number of scholarly studies in the naturalistic tradition demonstrate that traditional knowledge is not a natural category, and may reflect power struggles and relationships for land, resources and social control rather than adherence to a claimed ancestry or heritage." Drvestone (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Is "traditional knowledge" knowledge?

This article needs a major edit to reflect the fact that much of what is referred to as "traditional knowledge" is not really knowledge at all. The article mostly focuses on how "traditional knowledge" should be recognized and, most importantly, paid for, without acknowledging that the existence of "traditional knowledge" itself is debateable. The very term "traditional knowledge" is tendentious, for it purports to decide by terminological fiat precisely the fundamental issue under debate: namely, whether the beliefs in question in fact constitute "knowledge", i.e. justified true belief.

In everyday language, as in philosophical discourse, a distinction is made between knowledge and mere belief; that is why the word "knowledge" has a positive connotation, while "belief" is neutral. Though philosophers continue to debate the precise meaning of "knowledge", the general consensus is that "knowledge" is, roughly speaking a synonym for "justified true belief". Thus, if I believe that Ontario lies due south of Mississippi, or that American troops have found weapons of mass destruction (other than their own) in Iraq, these beliefs would not constitute knowledge, for the simple reason that they are false. Similarly, if on the night of September 10, 2001 and dreamt that the World Trade Center towers would collapse the next day, and then awoke believing it, that belief would still not constitute knowledge, for though it turned out to be true, that was so by accident; I did not have any good reason to believe it was true, i.e. it was not a justified true belief relative to the evidence at my disposal.

The central question, then, is whether so-called "traditional knowledge" in fact constitutes knowledge, understood as justified true belief. For each element of purported "traditional knowledge", we must ask, first of all, whether the belief is in fact true (i.e. a factually accurate representation of the world), and secondly whether we (or its advocates) have good reason to believe it in the light of the currently available evidence.

Much of what is put forward as "traditional knowledge" does not satisfy this criterion. "Traditional knowledge" is actually comprised of four elements (all of which are conflated in this article): observations, beliefs, values and practices. Beliefs form much of what is touted as "traditional knowledge" and none of them qualifies as knowledge. There is no such thing as "spiritual knowledge", as is stated in the article, because there is not good reason to believe that such a thing exists. Values and practices also cannot be considered knowledge. They could be the result of knowledge, but just as easily, they could be the result of ignorance. "Traditional knowledge"'s value of "respect", for example, is based on the belief that animals communicate with human beings, and there is absolutely no evidence for this assertion. "Traditional knowledge" also involves the practice of throwing beaver fetuses into the water so that they will be "reborn" - a practice that reflects the unsubstantiated belief in reincarnation.

It is only some aspects of the first element, "observations", that actually constitute "knowledge". These concern matters such as animals' migration paths, which plants have curative properties and weather patterns ("red sky at night, sailors' delight; red sky in the morning, sailors take warning", for example {that is, a red sky in the evening is generally followed by balmy weather the next day, while a red sky in the morning generally indicates that a storm is brewing)). Some "traditional knowledge" observations, however, might not constitute knowledge in that they could be unrepresentative of material processes (the earth appears to be flat, after all, and it was only after various forms of controlled experiment were undertaken that this was understood to the case). "Traditional knowledge" observations are also less likely to be more accurate than modern scientific knowledge where the latter exists, but where the latter does not exist or is incomplete, indigenous people's ideas might be useful at least as a starting point for more rigorous investigation. Each claim has to be judged on a case-by-case basis in the light of all available evidence - giving low but not zero weight to anecdotal evidence.

This article, however, does not acknowledge this debateable character of "traditional knowledge" in any way. This is because the article reflects the advocacy stance of most of the work that is being done on the subject. Assertions about "traditional knowledge"'s importance are being made by aboriginal organizations who are using such allegations as a lever to extract funding from various sources (mostly governments and developers), as well as to assert rights to lands and resources. Franceswiddowson 16:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Please cite sources describing or criticizing traditional knowledge in the manner you describe above. Thanks! Hyacinth (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This is completely begging the question: you're using a blatantly culturally-specific definition of knowledge that -surprise!- only allows the status of "knowledge per se" to the particular culture you happen to be speaking from. This is exactly the sort of eurocentric definition of "knowledge" that the idea of "traditional" or "local" knowledge was developed to counter. A Wikipedia page should exist to inform people of what is to be understood by the term, not to belitte and ridicule the subject. If you want to criticise the status of traditional knowledge as knowledge per se, perhaps you could start by analysing how your own claims to knowledge are culturally specific, or how your traditions of apprehending the world (including that described as "science") often don't correspond to "hard reality" and respresent cultural specificities of time and place. There is an enormous literature on this in anthropology and in the history and philosophy of science; try starting with Clifford Geertz, maybe then some Foucault - hardly esoteric reading material. If you're trying to use this page as the place to drop your undergraduate essay on Plato's tripartite definition of knowledge you've completely missed the point. 141.20.6.73 (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Franceswiddowson criticism seems to be that there does not exist "true" knowledge outside of the European knowledge traditions. Many Indigenous communities have in-depth knowledge of their environment, geography, geology, biology, weather patterns, medicine, linguistics etc. They have technologies such as architecture, agriculture, food preservation, hunting and gathering, transportation, warfare etc. Many of these knowledge systems may still need further proper documentation and research, but that does not mean they do not exist. In fact the heading is not completely proper as these communities continue to develop new areas of knowledge; the title should be changed to indigenous knowledge. Everyone respects science and technological progress fueled by the scientific revolution. At the same time, proper respect must be given to knowledge that existed before that, and that gets developed outside of this realm. --67.70.137.87 (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedicity?

This article reads rather more like an essay (and a biased one at at that) than an encyclopedia article. 121a0012 21:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a correct analysis. The article is written like a biased essay (I have tried to make a few additions to counter this bias, but a major rewrite is required). The problem is that almost everyone who writes about "traditional knowledge" - like the person who originally wrote this article (he has been a "traditional knowledge" negotiator for 15 years) - is not interested in describing or analyzing the subject, but in promoting it. It is political advocacy at its worst under the pretence that the subject is a legitimate area of study. Franceswiddowson 15:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not grossly biassed (now, at least). It is not sufficient to describe the world, it is also necessary to change it - and equally to resist changing it. It's not possible to talk about 'traditional knowledge' unless you're willing to suspend disbelief, at least part of the time. I'm not sure that the piece would be much improved by going through putting in more "Advocates say that...", "Critics say that...", but maybe Traditional Cultural Expressions of the Wiki tribe require this. I've amended the conclusions by weakening the alleged consensus: "may be" for "is", and by deleting "use" from the last item. If I'm wrong about this, a reference should be given (better if one could be given anyway). --Twr57 (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Misleading Title?

This article is about traditional knowledge solely in the context of property rights, and should be flagged as such in the title. The term 'traditional knowledge', with broader implications related to a wide range of issues in anthropology, economics, sociology and other aspects of law, should be reserved for a more comprehensive article.Brett epic 07:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that that article would be titled "Traditional knowledge". As such the current article could be tagged as incomplete or POV and to later be expanded. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:POV. Hyacinth (talk) 07:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Traditional knowledge about landscape ecology

Anyone watching this page may be interested in this new article. The wiki editor appears to also be the author of the only source mentioned. I'm not sure what to do with it since it appears to be a very narrowly defined article and might need to be cut down to size or merged elsewhere. Thanks --Rkitko ^(talk) 16:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And another: Traditional knowledge about natural history of fishes. --Rkitko ^(talk) 17:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion Indigenous intellectual property be merged into Traditional Knowledge

Edcolins has suggested new article on indigenous intellectual property be merged into this article on traditional knowledge.

I, in turn, wish to suggest these two articles should NOT be merged for the same reasons that intellectual property has not been, and is not expected to be merged into knowledge, ie they are two quite different concepts, with too different connations to be merged

intellectual property, is a specifically legal concept constituting a bundle of legal rights 'owned' and variously enforced and enforceable in international, national or other laws

knowledge is an ontological concept describing something quite different, the nature of which is not confined to legal definition within law ..ie any person who 'knows' what they know would be shocked and offended to find this aspect of their 'being' wholly restricted, controlled, and 'policed' by international, national and other laws

Similarly:

indigenous intellectual property is more strictly legal concept, proprietarial in nature, constituting as it does bundles of legal rights held and claimed within in accordance with various international instruments, national laws, court laws etc, and it expected be enforced in law, and better policed (it is in no way limited to 'tradition/s', and in fact seeks to escape 'tradtion'.. see Declarations regarding Indigenous Intellectual Property

'traditional knowledge" is knowledge constrained by tradition, ie it is 'group' knowledge focused backwards in time to traditions passed down through generations, from generation to generation into the present;

Finally, I'm not sure if it appropriate to point this out .. but the 'traditional knowledge article' is still incomplete, and has been tagged as reading like an essay or personal reflection, needing tiding up?

I look forward to feedback and perhaps, support, for proposal NOT to merge the two articles .. but, perhaps, to include each in each other's 'See also' list?!! Bruceanthro 00:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection against keeping both articles. But... from your explanation, it appears that the link to traditional knowledge in template:intellectual property could be removed. Wouldn't that be better?

Also, shouldn't we have a general article, or an introduction in one article (?), (with sources) explaining the differences between

• indigenous intellectual property
• traditional knowledge (which needs a major cleanup indeed), and
• Intangible Cultural Heritage?

There seems to be quite some overlap between these concepts and this might not be obvious to grasp.

The article Indigenous intellectual property is otherwise very good. Thanks for the good work. Cheers --Edcolins 17:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this response and associated suggestions!

i. Yes, where the template:intellectual property is specifically linking 'intellectual property items', when dealing with indigenous intellectual property, it would be best to simply link to indigenous intellectual property .. wherein there may/should be link to 'traditional knowledge' for those who wish to know more about that subject!!

ii. Yes, I also agree it could be useful to have a genral intrdocuctory peice somewhere, within some overarching article/category people are likely to visit, performing a kind of 'disambiguiation' service, distinguishing 'traditional knowledge', 'intangible cultural heritage', and indigenous intellectual property.!

iii. I note that there is an overaching article on Indigenous peoples, which currently does have a small section onIndigneous Knowledge and Culture which currently links just to this 'traditional knowledge' page .. perhaps the disambiguiation peice could be written into that section, with links to each of 'traditional knowledge', 'intangible cultural heritage' and 'indigenous intellectual property'?

iv. as an alternative to iii. I note there is no article yet created dealing with the suvject 'cultural resources', which is an overarching term gaining increasing currency within the field .. perhaps new overarching article, 'cultural resources' might be written in a way that is not wholly restricted to indigenous cultural resources, but would include section/s on this within, performing diambiguation service and linking to each of 'traditional knowledge', 'intangible cultural heritage' and 'indigenous intellectual property'.

I should be ok to make a start on either iii. or iv., once 'indigenous intellectual property' has been fleshed out/expanded a little more .. subject to advice & further comment.! Bruceanthro 23:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Location of Refimprove

Improvements to the references are made throughout the article, so I have restored the tag to the top, to encourage interested editors to provide sources.- sinneed (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC) As the template says " There is currently no consensus on where to place this template.", so I certainly won't edit war over this, but I campaign for an "at the top" placement simply to increase visibility, and encourage interested editors.- sinneed (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Need article or section discussing the content of natural knowledge systems

I came to this article expecting a discussion of specific indigenous knowledge systems. What I have in mind is the botanical knowledge summarized in sources like Daniel Moreman's Medicinal plants of the American West, the astronomical knowledge described in recent ethnoastronomical research like Stephen Fabian's Patterns in the sky: an introduction to ethnoastronomy, ISBN 1577661818, and the traditional mathematical knowledge discussed in Ubiratan D'Ambrósio's Ethnomathematics, ISBN 9077874763.

This article is something quite different and, as mentioned in earlier discussions, seems to focus on the legal status of natural knowledge (from an intellectual property perspective). As such, it tells the reader very little about what these knowledge systems tell about the observed natural world and about their creators' modes of thought. I am not ready to undertake the extensive research such an article would require, but I suggest there is a place for either drastic revision or for an entirely new article on that topic. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

In checking out the history of this article, I found that two of the important early editors were single purpose accounts: Phardison and Mrmmattson. These early edits created a structure that led to the current unbalanced content.

Fundamental change is necessary if this article is to present a balanced account of traditional knowledge systems. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation

diff - the source is helpfully included - word for word copying. Regular editors of this page may want to check for further problems. Also if the contributor of this text is known they should be informed that the material was not suitable, and should not have been added.Sf5xeplus (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC,) KOANG MAYIEL JOCK contributed to Traditional Knolwledge,2023, University of Gondar,Ethiopia.

2.5 Commons and Intellectual Property

Recently, traditional knowledge has been drawn into the debate related to access to medicines, access to food, the need for poverty alleviation, and related issues that affect the livelihoods and welfare of people worldwide. It has been argued that traditional knowledge is an important source of health security, food security and livelihood security for the world's poor. As such, it has been argued that the benefits of sharing and actively disseminating traditional knowledge outweigh the benefits of protection and recognition of ownership. The Creative Commons, with its roots in the open software movement, the literary arts, the open access movement in science and the humanities, and in the media, arts, entertainment and communications communities, has also proposed that traditional knowledge is an essential and public source of cultural creativity. Part of the debate involves the question of whether or not traditional knowledge is part of the public sphere, national commons, or global commons as part of a "common heritage of mankind". There is no common indigenous and local community position on issues of the "common heritage of mankind" or the "global public good". Indigenous peoples and local communities have shared much of their knowledge and resources with the global community and many have traditions of sharing. Healers, in general, have spiritual obligations to heal the sick and have shared their healing knowledge. Indigenous peoples have strong traditions of reciprocity, that is people's informal exchange of goods and labour. Much of the historical appropriation and use of traditional knowledge has not occurred with reciprocity. Though traditional knowledge and resources have made contributions to the welfare of humankind as the basis of much of the world's food system and naturally-derived medicines.

I added some tags to this section, but realized it also needs some work in terms of Neutral Point of View. It is very much taking a position on the value of a commons and the role of indigenous people, namely:

Indigenous peoples and local communities have shared much of their knowledge and resources with the global community and many have traditions of sharing. Healers, in general, have spiritual obligations to heal the sick and have shared their healing knowledge. Indigenous peoples have strong traditions of reciprocity, that is people's informal exchange of goods and labour.

A sufficient resolution would include not only sources, but a diversity of sources that accurately represent existent positions (e.g. shared versus appropriated knowledge). Mattsenate (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

RFC

more heat than light and not going anywhere fast
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article has apparently been around awhile, and the category was created recently. They are under the scope of all sorts of areas, like "history of science," "sociology," "philosophy," "intellectual property law," and "Indigenous rights." I am quite dubious about the whole thing. There do appear to be sources for the term "Traditional knowledge" however, I believe this is a very unfortunate example of scholars in one area using a term like "knowledge" carelessly, whereas any scholar in the actual area responsible for studying "knowledge" (i.e. epistemology) would not use that term for this concept. They would call it "Traditional beliefs." Knowledge is true justified belief. So the question is 'what justifies "traditional knowledge?"' I do not belief it involves logic or science in this case.Greg Bard (talk) 06:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC) You seem not to actually know what traditional knowledge is and how the concept is used, you seem to think it is a codeword for superstition. And frankly you also don't seem to have a very good understanding of what epistemology is - positivist epistemology died about 50 years ago. Science is not the only way to derive "justified true knowledge" as any scholar of contemporary epistemology will know, including most scientists. People have had knowledge for millennia before the concept of science was invented. Knowledge arrived at through empirical investigations and passed down orally, sometimes in the form of myths, sometimes not. Knowledge allowing people to navigate between pacific islands thousands of miles apart using the stars. technological knowledge allowing people to survive in hostile environments from the Artic to the Sahara and the amazon. Wisdom is to know what we don't know - denying that others have the capacity to achieve knowledge of the world while thinking that one has found the onbe key to true knowledge is...not wise. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC) I have heard your claim, and I reject it. My claim is that it is you are the one who doesn't know what you are talking about insofar as epistemology is concerned, and I invite any other person who has an education in it to look into these claims. Certainly I have made no claim that depends solely on logical positivism, and the fact that you have simplified the issue using that presumption supports my claim. Just because logical positivism has been rejected upon rigorous analysis, doesn't give anyone license to just make knowledge claims based on tradition. Tradition is a fallacy. If you believe something because of tradition, that is the same thing as saying you believe it for no reason at all. I am perfectly happy to see this content organized under "beliefs" and "tradition" but putting it under "knowledge" is POV pushing, and I see that as very very clear. In order to call something knowledge, you have to have valid grounds, and this just is not a case of that. Greg Bard (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC) I happen to be an anthropologist working with indigenous knowledge which of course includes studying epistemological theory. You need to start citing some actual sources that are critical of traditional knowledge instead of parading your opinionated and ignorant bolony.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC) So in other words, you are not a philosopher, nor an epistemologist, nor a philosopher of science, nor a logician. Anthropology is barely a science, and I think you are overly impressed by things you should not be, including your own competence in the subject matter I am talking about. Myself? I make no claim to know about anthropology. All my claim is, is about the use of the term "knowledge." Greg Bard (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Literary and artistic works

The section 'Literary and artistic works ' looks inappropriate to the topic as far as I can see, it is only incidental to things like traditional medicines or local knowledge. Also the two illustrations in this article seems to be disconnected from the topic. I propose the illustrations and that section should be removed. Dmcq (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Should category traditional knowledge be listed in category knowledge?

Your comments welcome at Category talk:Traditional knowledge#RFC: Should category traditional knowledge be listed in category knowledge? Dmcq (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Distinction between Traditional Knowledge and Local Knowledge

User:Tavix and I have been having a good natured bunfight over this one. I say there is a distinction between local, geographical, knowledge, and historical, cultural, knowledge. Tavix says they are basically synonymous. Si Trew (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Critical Reader critique

This article and the apparently semi-abrupt merger with Indigenous knowledge received a fairly detailed analysis in "WHEN KNOWLEDGES MEET: WIKIPEDIA AND OTHER STORIES FROM THE CONTACT ZONE" by Maja van der Velden in CRITICAL POINT OF VIEW: A Wikipedia Reader, ISBN 978-90-78146-13-1 (2011)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Traditional knowledge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110721153335/http://www.businessline.in/cgi-bin/print.pl?file=2010012551041500.htm&date=2010/01/25/&prd=bl to http://www.businessline.in/cgi-bin/print.pl?file=2010012551041500.htm&date=2010/01/25/&prd=bl

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Traditional knowledge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060820080828/http://www.biodiv.org:80/programmes/socio-eco/traditional/default.aspx to http://www.biodiv.org/programmes/socio-eco/traditional/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061127191345/http://www.technetra.com:80/writings/archive/2006/08/24/ipr-open-source-methods-traditional-knowledge-in-developing-countries to http://www.technetra.com/writings/archive/2006/08/24/ipr-open-source-methods-traditional-knowledge-in-developing-countries

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Traditional knowledge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AboriginalLB/1992/52.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160330114112/http://arts.adelaide.edu.au/linguistics/guide.pdf to https://arts.adelaide.edu.au/linguistics/guide.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.biodiv.org/programmes/socio-eco/traditional/default.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.technetra.com/writings/archive/2006/08/24/ipr-open-source-methods-traditional-knowledge-in-developing-countries

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Suspect passage

In the course of revising a footnote for the section Characteristics, I found that most of that section had been taken from the source I was citing:

• Asiama, Elias (2015). "Indigenous knowledge and the management of ecological resources for Africa's develpment". In Mawere, Munyaradzi; Awuah-Nyamekye, Samuel (eds.). Between Rhetoric and Reality. The State and Use of Indigenous Knowledge in Post-Colonial Africa. Mankon, Bamenda, Cameroon: Langaa Research & Publishing CIG. pp. 221–222. ISBN 9956792691.

I have therefore removed the plagiarized passages. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Upon further checking, I found that the suspect passages were already in Wikipedia before the publication of the book in 2015. The situation is complex so I have retained the passges but deleted the footnote reference. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

It is unfortunately not unheard of that passages lifted from wiki-articles make their way into academic works.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

"Criticism" section?

I don't think it's the best title, but I think there should be a section on both the claims that indigenous knowledge is an equal to "Western" science and the pushback to such claims - e.g. the whole business with Maori traditional knowledge being included in the NZ science curriculum, and the criticism it received from figures like Dawkins. Eldomtom2 (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

November 2024

Hi @Crossroads, I agree that sentence isn't good and needs to be changed. The purpose of that sentence is to explain the epistemological methods rather than to give another definition. Sources comparing TK with modern science say it is intuitive and holistic, while modern science is reductionistic and analytical. I appreciate your concern over fringe implications, that was not what I was trying to do.

• Modern science favors analytical and reductionist methods, whereas, the traditional knowledge is towards intuitive and holistic view. [1]
• TEK has been accounted as intuitive and holistic as opposed to the pre dominantly analytical-reductionist character of Western science. [2]
• From the brief examples given above, it appears that by the standards of the scientific approach, TEK more closely resembles science than lay-knowledge. However, some real differences exist between TEK and science in that non-test able phenomena such as intuition and beliefs, as well as inter-generational and personal observations, are components ofknowledge in TEK. [3]
• TEK is holistic; Western science is reductionist. Western science deliberately breaks down data into smaller elements to understand whole and complex phenomena. For TEK, all elements of matter are viewed as interconnected and cannot be understood in isolation. • • • • TEK is intuitive in its mode of thinking; Western science is analytical. Intuitive thought emphasizes emotional involvement and subjective certainty of understanding. Analytical thought emphasizes abstract reasoning and the need to separate oneself from that being observed and to learn about it through various replicable measurements. [4]
• Western science favours analytical and reductionist methods as opposed to the more intuitive and holistic view often found in traditional knowledge. [5]

Kowal2701 (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Aside from the first source, which only mentions this in passing, all of these sources are quite old, which has been identified as an issue in this research field. Please read and engage in the existing discussion on this at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Traditional ecological knowledge, especially the subheading. Per WP:MULTI, this should be discussed in one place, and there is better since there are more eyes and editors with experience with this. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I would've thought it'd be better here as an expert might help us out if we're lucky Kowal2701 (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)