<CPOV> Beyond the Legacy of the Enlightenment?

Lichty, Patrick plichty at colum.edu
Thu Mar 18 17:12:36 CET 2010

A thought that I had as well is that homotopia/heterotopia in wikipedia really depends on scale.
there may be a heterotopic landscape as you get down to user level, but the overall frame, guidance by the admins/directors, insitution create hegemony and homogeny, btu from a very odd, Keenian "emnlightened Amateur" as unpaid inforserf.  I find it perverse, actually.

Much of what i want to look at is cultural structrue as defined by Wikicommunities and how that can be translated to acuratoral model for art.

Patrick Lichty
Assit. Professor
Dept of Interactive Arts & media
Columbia College, Chicago
916/1000 S. Wabash Ave #104
Chicago, IL USA
"Better to Die on Your Feet Than to Live On Your Knees"
From: cpov-bounces at listcultures.org [cpov-bounces at listcultures.org] On Behalf Of Jon Awbrey [jawbrey at att.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 11:10 AM
To: nathaniel tkacz
Cc: cpov
Subject: Re: <CPOV> Beyond the Legacy of the Enlightenment?

Nate & All,

It may be Monday before I can get back to this,
but just one thought off the cuff comes to mind:

I think we need to examine the very deep divide between
post*modern reflections on Weber's ''stahlhartes Gehäuse''
and the Ayn Rand brand of "objectivism" that underlies the
Sanger-Wales model of a modern major 'pedia.



nathaniel tkacz wrote:
> hi all - i read that article awhile back. i'm writing on the back of
> thirty-odd hours in transit from melbourne to hull, but here goes...
> from memory, what i liked about that article was that it was one of the few
> that took the concept of the encyclopedia seriously. it gave it some
> attention, which doesn't happen all that often. however, i thought the link
> to heterotopias wasn't very interesting and i didn't agree with it. it
> wasn't very interesting because (from memory) it didn't DO anything to the
> concept. it just applied it. this kind of theorisation isn't very
> interesting for me. moreover, heterotopias are those "really existing"
> spaces of difference, those spaces on the margins. while some parts of (the
> english) wikipedia are novel, other parts are not. in particular, the
> aspects of wikipedia that align with the Enlightenment seem very
> conservative and not in any way marginal. many wikipedians that i have come
> across have a very naive understanding of what knowledge is - a very
> positivistic understanding. from this perspective i find it hard to frame
> wikipedia as a heterotopia. the other question is: what do you get out of
> this "move" anyway? does calling it a heterotopia do anything to wikipedia?
> does it force us to rethink anything?
> best
> Nate Tkacz
> Research Fellow,
> RMIT University
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/__nate__
> Homepage: www.nathanieltkacz.net
> Current project: http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/about-2/


inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
knol: http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/3fkwvf69kridz/1
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey

Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com

More information about the cpov mailing list