Talk:Data decolonization

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Bluebeey

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Bluebeey/Decolonizing Data

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

The introductory sentence of the lead section is really great at concisely describing the topic. The lead section could mention a brief description of the article's major topics.

Content

The content is relevant to the topic and the content sources are up to date.

"Building complete awareness in indigenous communities of how their data is collected, aggregated." Indigenous should be capitalized.

"Tools such as the census were used to control narratives about Indigenous peoples, counting Indigenous peoples as they were viewed by the Canadian governenment rather than how they viewed themselves." The idea that the Census is used to control narratives may need a citation.

Tone and Balance

The tone is neutral and balanced.

Sources and References

The article may require more sources as it is the first article on this topic in Wikipedia.

Organization

The content is easy to read and well organized. The ‘also look at’ section is usually titled ‘see also’ in Wikipedia.

Overall Feedback

There are no major issues that stand out to me, but the article may benefit from some more sources. Overall, I think Decolonizing Data is a really strong Wikipedia article. Fall202222 (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Practical examples

I've looked at this article for the first time today, and it strikes me as being so vague that nothing could ever be done. It is precisely the last line in the article ("Concrete action: Focusing on action that produces real-world results for Indigenous peoples, rather than discourse for researchers") that is missing.

For example, the first principle is to center concerns and opinions of Indigenous people about healthcare data. Fine, but what does that look like? Can you name even a single concrete example of that? It's not clear whether that means "The hospital's computer should be able to cope with a mononym" or if that means "One Indigenous group thinks that epilepsy is a spiritual gift, so everyone has to stop calling it a disease, even though it kills people and all the other Indigenous peoples disagree" or even if that means "The concerns of an Indigenous group are more important than the concerns of healthcare professionals".

The third is "Building complete awareness in Indigenous communities of how their data is collected, aggregated". If you're in the hospital, do you really want "complete awareness"? Here's what "complete awareness" looks like: The nurse checks your blood pressure and records it. *ping* You've got mail with the subject "Blood pressure data collected". The nurse checks your temperature. *ping* "Temperature data collected". The nurse asks if you're feeling any pain. *ping* "Pain rating collected". The nurse gives you an aspirin. *ping" "Medication data collected". The nurse asks if you'd like an egg for breakfast. *ping* "Nutrition data collected". *ping* "Nutrition data aggregated by the kitchen, because they need to know how many eggs to cook". And so on and so forth. Nobody (sane) wants "complete awareness". So what is this supposed to mean, in practice? Can you give an example of something that is specific to Indigenous groups (i.e., you wouldn't think this is reasonable or relevant for any non-Indigenous people) that a five-year-old could understand? For example, maybe transparency looks something like saying "For example, Indigenous people who are hospitalized for alcohol-related health problems should be told that the hospital records could be used to write a paper about the ethnic and racial makeup of people with alcoholism" or "For example, Indigenous people should be told if the hospital aggregates all Indigenous people together in its routine reports, instead of tracking different groups separately". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2026 (UTC)