Talk:Self-managed social center

centri sociali ¶ needs sources

The italian is the more rooted and widespread movement of autonomous social centers in Europe and also the world, with Rome as it's pulsing heart with more than 51 center active and occupied as per october 2018. Rome also has the largest occupied space of this kind in Europe, FORTE PRENESTINO, occupied since 1987, with his 13 acres of space this occupied military fort is a hub of multicultural activities and home to the largest italian festival of printed art (CRACK). The centri sociali of the most important cities across the whole country such as LEONCAVALLO in Milan, PEDRO in Padua, ASKATASUNA in Turin, CPA in Florence, OFFICINA 99 in Naples, are occupied from a minumum of 15 to 30 years. Due to this these places count now several generations of activist who changed over the years as well as being deeply rooted in the neighborhoods they are in. Some of them have some type of deal with local authorities, still, these places mostly remain outlaw and off the grid and police is never allowed inside. Most italian centri sociali may offer a wide range of services (unless most of the nort european squat) to their communities including legal counseling and language courses for immigrants, gyms as well as team sports (an entire parallel movement called palestre popolari connected to centri sociali see popular gym with courses about boxe and other fighting sports exponentially growing in the last few years), reharsal rooms, bars and restaurants, typography etc. Services and events at centri sociali are offered usually at accessibe low costs or often for free.

Hi @WizoHC, do you have reliable, secondary sources for this info, from newspapers or magazines with editorial oversight? Wikipedia requires these types of sources to verify claims. czar 23:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

RiP UK Social Centre Network page

I'm really saddened to see UK Social Centre Network got merged into this page. I wouldn't have minded if the information contained in the table and the details on various projects had been inserted here, but that isn't the case. Loads of decent information has been lost. And there doesn't even seem to have been a discussion about it!? Mujinga (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

it's back Mujinga (talk) 09:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Developing this page

I think this page is a good start but needs a lot of work. Here's a few suggestions:

• The coverage of Social centres in the United Kingdom is so low as to be nonexistent, only 121 Centre is mentioned by name
• Centres that are referred to and have their own wikipages eg Autonomous Centre of Edinburgh are not linked which seems weird
• The merge that trashed the infoshops page lost quite a lot of information. For example this diff shows that the following projects with their own wikipages were mentioned before and now are not:

Projects now unmentioned
ABC No Rio
Boxcar Books
Camas Bookstore and Infoshop
Civic Media Center
Coffee Strong
Firestorm Cafe & Books
Internationalist Books
The Old Market Autonomous Zone
Spartacus Books

• The recently renamed infobox at the bottom of the page is now supposed to sync with this page, but lists lots of projects which are not mentioned. Indeed adding them would be a great way to get rid of the US bias in the article

Mujinga (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

(1) You're welcome to edit the page, though I'd be mindful of its scope: (2) This page is an overview of the concept, not a listing of every instance. It's only worth mentioning specific venues if the sources invoke the venue to make a specific point about the concept in overview. There is a category page for anyone who needs a listing of every instance. (3) The point of the navbox (not infobox) is to navigate between pages—the navbox itself does not become justified by mentioning more of its items within the main article. (4) re: "trashed", anyone who views that diff can see the unsourced state of that article. I've already asked you kindly to drop this invective. czar 10:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• 1 well yes you are also welcome to edit, in fact you created the page but didn't put in the info then, that's why i need to point it out now. don't you think Social centres in the United Kingdom should at least be linked? you didnt reply on the US bias .. let's hope some other people will edit and make the article more balanced
• 2&3 well, my point is that those projects are now not present AT ALL (not in the page and not in the box) whereas they were originally
• 4 in light of the previous point, "trashed" seems the right word to use to me, since useful encyclopaedic information has been deleted. "drop this invective"? i'm actually pretty good natured but if something frustrates me i will say so. Mujinga (talk) 09:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no deadline and no obligation for anyone to write the entire article overnight. re: US bias, I'm not seeing the issue. There at least as many sentences dedicated to UK and Canadian social centers/infoshops/free skools as there are to those in the US. re: Social centres in the United Kingdom should at least be linked, you recently recreated that article, so you know the answer for why it wasn't linked. re: mentioning those social centers in prose, my point remains that in an overview article, the only reason to mention a specific venue is when it makes a larger point about the topic concept as a whole. Otherwise it is sufficient to leave the individual instances listed in their individual category. re: "trashed", no, this is the wrong word because it is tendentious. Assumption of good faith is foundational to WP's editing community and you've already been admonished for not showing it. No, I didn't pejoratively "trash" any content that warranted keeping, and if you want to edit collaboratively, certainly you can think of a more reconciliatory way to communicate your disagreement. czar 10:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

first off i am impressed you can accuse me of being tendentious today whilst throwing around words like abysmal. WP:OUCH comes to mind. further, i do not consider myself monished in the slightest, your buddy didn't even familiarise themselves with the matter at hand. anyhoo i don't intend on taking the bait.

so to return to the matter at hand, the point is that information that was previously on the infoshop page which was "merged" to this page is now not present at all, not even in the box. the page about social centres in the UK was also "merged" here with an almost total loss of information, although at least some projects are in the box, although my argument is that this is not enough. i hope that this time round you understand this. i am not a mindreader but i am guessing you are taking this personally because you made this page, that would be unfortunate. i do hope you'll notice my original comments were not addressed to you at all, but rather made on the talk page of the article to help improve it. AGF goes both ways.

Mujinga (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a difference between describing the state of an article's sourcing and characterizing another editor's actions.

the point is that information that was previously on the infoshop page which was "merged" to this page

The edit summary explains why the article was redirected, not merged. (Same for Social centres in the United Kingdom.) No one has said that the content was "merged" besides you. I recovered any reliable sources that could be useful, but otherwise the content needed to be rewritten from scratch for the repurposed scope. Moreover, this common sense action should be obvious to anyone reading through the prior state of that article and its sourcing.

Don't gaslight me. The moment you made this about "trashing" other articles—a smear you have repeated in multiple other talk pages now—your condescension was not directed at anyone else. If you actually want to improve the article, I've responded to all of your suggestions, but I don't find their assumptions sound. czar 10:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Gaslighting? What a truly unpleasant thing to say Mujinga (talk) 10:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)