July 27, 2008
Women who are part Native
Women who are (or were) part Native according to the List of Native American Women on Wikipedia:
Tori Amos (born 1963), part Cherokee musician
Pearl Bailey (1918–1990), singer/actress of Native American extraction
Josephine Baker (1906–1975), part Apalachee entertainer
Kristin Chenoweth (born 1968), 1/4 Cherokee actress and singer
Dorothy Dandridge (1922–1965), part Native American actress
Angie Harmon (born 1972), half Cherokee actress and model
Lena Horne (born 1917), singer/actress, part Cherokee and other Amerindian extraction
Mahalia Jackson, gospel singer, part Choctaw
Coretta Scott King (1927–2006), wife of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, part Native American
Eartha Kitt (born 1927), part Cherokee actress and singer
Beyonce Knowles, part Cherokee and other Amerindian extractions
Moms Mabley (1894–1975), actress/comedian, part Native American
Diana Ross (born 1944), singer/actress, part Cherokee
Tiffany (born 1971), part Cherokee singer
Tina Turner (born 1939), part Navajo and Cherokee singer
Alice Walker (born 1944), part Cherokee author and feminist
Vanessa L. Williams (born 1963), part Cherokee and other Amerindian extractions
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
"part Native"? Which part? Legs? Kidney?
Writerfella here --
For the most part, genealogies...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
I'm just going by how Wikipedia designated them. Which is probably how they designate themselves.
If Beyoncé or Tina Turner wants to call herself an Indian rather than an African American, I'll consider her wishes. Let me know when that happens. ;-)
Writerfella here --
Wikipedia has self-admitted that its contents are written by its internet contributors. Whether or not such content is accurate depends upon who made the contribution and what were their motives. This blog as easily could make such contributions, but then it would have to be re-named 'Newspaper Rockepedia'...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
I do contribute to Wikipedia entries sometimes. Usually I correct punctuation and grammar mistakes, but occasionally I correct the facts. That's because I want to promote good writing and the truth.
As for Wikipedia's accuracy, see the following reports. From these, I conclude that most of Wikipedia's inaccuracies occur in technical or controversial areas. I tend to cite Wikipedia for nontechnical, noncontroversial matters--such as a person's Native ancestry. And I cite plenty of other sources too.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/wikipedia-under-the-microscope-over-accuracy-466444.html
Despite the constant battle to maintain the probity of entries about controversial subjects, studies attest to Wikipedia's accuracy. Nature reported in December that Wikipedia was about as reliable on science subjects as the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Nature found on average that Wikipedia had four inaccuracies per entry compared with three for its more conventional rival. The magazine noted: "Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia." In an evaluation of 66 articles, a German computer magazine, c't, rated Wikipedia 3.6 out of 5 for accuracy, beating two other online encyclopedias, including Microsoft Encarta (3.1).
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002684602_wikipedia15.html
"We're very pleased with the results and we're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good," said Jimmy Wales, who founded Wikipedia in 2001.
Wales said the accuracy of his project varies by topic, with strong suits including pop culture and contemporary technology. That's because Wikipedia's stable of dedicated volunteers tends to have more collective expertise in such areas, he said.
http://sourcefrog.net/weblog/software/wikipedia/accuracy.html
Wikipedia is clearly not perfectly accurate; in some areas it is noticeably incomplete, inaccurate, or biased. I wouldn't want someone to rely solely on Wikipedia in making an important decision. I wouldn't want someone to rely on any single source on the net to make a truly important decision.
On the other hand, as background material, as an overview or summary of the subject, as entertainment, to merely remind you of the meaning of a word or location of a country, I think it's harmless.
In the future I think it is likely to continue to improve. I think there is strong self-regulation to make sure that good content is not lost or corrupted once it's added, and so the fraction of good bits will increase. Any one page at any one moment may be incorrect, but the probability will decrease over time. Critical reading, and applying Wikipedia-specific skills such as scrutinizing the history and cross-referencing, can reduce the danger of false information.
Post a Comment