From jawbrey at att.net  Thu Apr  1 00:10:50 2010
From: jawbrey at att.net (Jon Awbrey)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:10:50 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> Is Wikipedia Neutral
In-Reply-To: <201003311630.01576.joseph.2008@reagle.org>
References: <201003311630.01576.joseph.2008@reagle.org>
Message-ID: <4BB3C86A.6080707@att.net>

| The first step on the unpaved road to "objectivity"
| is to become aware that you do have a point of view.
|
| It is a step that Wikipedancers think they can skip.
|
| - Also sprach 0*

-- 

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



From andrew.famiglietti at lcc.gatech.edu  Thu Apr  1 01:40:42 2010
From: andrew.famiglietti at lcc.gatech.edu (andrew.famiglietti at lcc.gatech.edu)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:40:42 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: <CPOV> Wales and objectivism
In-Reply-To: <212703961.613841270078682661.JavaMail.root@mail6.gatech.edu>
Message-ID: <1198492517.614441270078842502.JavaMail.root@mail6.gatech.edu>

I think irony is indeed the best word to describe the relationship between Wales' commitment to Rand and the larger construction of Wikipedia. A quote from an early Wikipedia-L post by active early Wikipedia Lee Crocker comes to mind: 

"And yes, my mind ponders the irony of a radical Friedmanite anarchocapitalist offering a radical Randian Objectivist help in establishing a non-profit collective. :-)" (Crocker, Wikipedia-L, Fri Apr 19 22:30:33 UTC 2002)



----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Reagle" <joseph.nyu at reagle.org>
To: "CPOV" <cpov at listcultures.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 5:43:58 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: <CPOV> Wales and objectivism


Since the topic came up in Florian's presentation, I coincidentally read a bio of Rand in which Wales is mentioned, and I think touches on the irony/balance:

[[ http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikipedia/wales_objectivism

   I just finished an excellent biography of Ayn Rand and her philosophy
   in the context of American political culture. While reading, I couldn't
   help think of Wales' expressed interest in Objectivism and the next to
   the last page actually comments on this issue:

     One of the many ironies of Rand's career is her latter-day
     popularity among entrepreneurs who are pioneering new forms of
     community. Among her high-profile fans as Wikipedia's founder Jimmy
     Wales, once an active participant in the listserv controversies of
     the Objectivist Center. A nonprofit that depends on charitable
     donations, Wikipedia may ultimately put its rival encyclopedias out
     of business. At the root of Wikipedia are warring sensibilities that
     seemed to both embody and defy Rand's beliefs. The website's
     emphasis on individual empowerment, the value of knowledge, and its
     own risky organizational model reflects Rand's sensibility. But its
     trust in the wisdom of crowds, celebration of the social nature of
     knowledge, and faith that many working together will produce
     something of enduring value contradict Rand's adage "all creation is
     individual." (Burns 2009, p. 284)
]]

_______________________________________________
Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com
http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org

-- 
--
Andrew Famiglietti 
Brittain Fellow 
School of Literature, Communication, and Culture 
Georgia Institute of Technology



From jawbrey at att.net  Thu Apr  1 02:02:00 2010
From: jawbrey at att.net (Jon Awbrey)
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 20:02:00 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> Wales and Objectivism
In-Reply-To: <1198492517.614441270078842502.JavaMail.root@mail6.gatech.edu>
References: <1198492517.614441270078842502.JavaMail.root@mail6.gatech.edu>
Message-ID: <4BB3E278.1080904@att.net>

And they've been locked in that ironic cage ever since ...

Jon

andrew.famiglietti at lcc.gatech.edu wrote:
> I think irony is indeed the best word to describe the relationship between Wales' commitment to Rand and the larger construction of Wikipedia. A quote from an early Wikipedia-L post by active early Wikipedia Lee Crocker comes to mind: 
> 
> "And yes, my mind ponders the irony of a radical Friedmanite anarchocapitalist offering a radical Randian Objectivist help in establishing a non-profit collective. :-)" (Crocker, Wikipedia-L, Fri Apr 19 22:30:33 UTC 2002)
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joseph Reagle" <joseph.nyu at reagle.org>
> To: "CPOV" <cpov at listcultures.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 5:43:58 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: <CPOV> Wales and objectivism
> 
> 
> Since the topic came up in Florian's presentation, I coincidentally read a bio of Rand in which Wales is mentioned, and I think touches on the irony/balance:
> 
> [[ http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikipedia/wales_objectivism
> 
>    I just finished an excellent biography of Ayn Rand and her philosophy
>    in the context of American political culture. While reading, I couldn't
>    help think of Wales' expressed interest in Objectivism and the next to
>    the last page actually comments on this issue:
> 
>      One of the many ironies of Rand's career is her latter-day
>      popularity among entrepreneurs who are pioneering new forms of
>      community. Among her high-profile fans as Wikipedia's founder Jimmy
>      Wales, once an active participant in the listserv controversies of
>      the Objectivist Center. A nonprofit that depends on charitable
>      donations, Wikipedia may ultimately put its rival encyclopedias out
>      of business. At the root of Wikipedia are warring sensibilities that
>      seemed to both embody and defy Rand's beliefs. The website's
>      emphasis on individual empowerment, the value of knowledge, and its
>      own risky organizational model reflects Rand's sensibility. But its
>      trust in the wisdom of crowds, celebration of the social nature of
>      knowledge, and faith that many working together will produce
>      something of enduring value contradict Rand's adage "all creation is
>      individual." (Burns 2009, p. 284)
> ]]

-- 

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



From jawbrey at att.net  Tue Apr  6 15:38:39 2010
From: jawbrey at att.net (Jon Awbrey)
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 09:38:39 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> Teach-In @ Wikiversity?
In-Reply-To: <4BB38719.200@att.net>
References: <4BA39AD9.5040603@att.net> <4BAE2BB0.8030800@att.net>
	<4BB38719.200@att.net>
Message-ID: <4BBB395F.9080608@att.net>

Staff writer "Somey" of ''The Wikipedia Review'' has written a very
helpful Guide for the Perplexed on the Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Blog --

http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20100406/wikiversity-when-breaching-experiments-attack/

Jon Awbrey

-- 

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



From mathieu.oneil at anu.edu.au  Thu Apr  8 13:34:50 2010
From: mathieu.oneil at anu.edu.au (Mathieu ONeil)
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 13:34:50 +0200
Subject: <CPOV> wikileaks: recent findings
In-Reply-To: <4BB1D60D.5080703@erikborra.net>
References: <70D5C3BE-6F27-499E-8469-0A34BC2BB48A@xs4all.nl>
	<4BB1D60D.5080703@erikborra.net>
Message-ID: <fbd98a0f7b7f.4bbddb7a@anu.edu.au>

Hi all

A more critical POV on WikiLeaks ("WikiLeaks' stance that all leaks are good leaks and its disregard for the established protocols for verifying them also alarms some journalists"):

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/04/wikileaks-julian-assange-iraq-video

I'll take this opportunity to remind the cpov organisers that the virtual journal critical studies in peer production would like to invite them to contribute a report about the conference: what did they hope to achieve, and did they feel they achieved it?, for example. 

cheers,

Mathieu

----- Original Message -----
From: Erik Borra <erik at erikborra.net>
Date: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 12:45 pm
Subject: Re: <CPOV> wikileaks: recent findings
To: cpov at listcultures.org

 
     -----------------------------------------------------------
| 

>  In addition, this is very interesting article on WikiLeaks, and why it matters:  http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/27/wikileaks/index.html
 > 
>  Best,
 > 
>  Erik
 > 
>  On 3/30/10 12:31 PM, Geert Lovink wrote: 
(unfortunately we did not pay attention to wikileaks during the last weekend in amsterdam. we discussed it and might do something with it for the third planned event in taipei, in january 2011. /geert)   
   > 
>  WikiLeaks 26. Mar. 2010:   
   > 
>  CIA report into shoring up Afghan war support in Western Europe, 11 March, 2010   
   > 
 > http://file.wikileaks.org/file/cia-afghanistan.pdf   
   > 
>  This classified CIA analysis from March, outlines possible PR-strategies to shore up public   
>  support in Germany and France for a continued war in Afghanistan. After the dutch   
>  government fell on the issue of dutch troops in Afghanistan last month, the CIA became   
>  worried that similar events could happen in the countries that post the third and fourth largest   
>  troop contingents to the ISAF-mission. The proposed PR strategies focus on pressure points   
>  that have been identified within these countries. For France it is the sympathy of the public for   
>  Afghan refugees and women. For Germany it is the fear of the consequences of defeat   
>  (drugs, more refugees, terrorism) as well as for Germany's standing in the NATO. The memo   
>  is an recipe for the targeted manipulation of public opinion in two NATO ally countries, written   
>  by the CIA. It is classified as Confidential / No Foreign Nationals.   
   > 
   > 
   > 
>  _______________________________________________   
>  Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list   
 > Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com   
 > http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org   
   > 
   > 
  > 
  |
-----------------------------------------------------------
  > _______________________________________________
> Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
> Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com
> http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org

****
Dr Mathieu O'Neil
Adjunct Research Fellow
Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute
College of Arts and Social Science
The Australian National University
email: mathieu.oneil[at]anu.edu.au
web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20100408/30873876/attachment.html>

From Martin.HellbergOlsson at UGent.be  Thu Apr  8 18:34:35 2010
From: Martin.HellbergOlsson at UGent.be (Martin Hellberg Olsson)
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 18:34:35 +0200
Subject: <CPOV> Teach-In @ Wikiversity?
Message-ID: <4BBE059B.9020206@UGent.be>

Quite interesting (though I'm not sure I agree with everything), but I'm 
a bit confused... It seems to be written from the assumption that the 
intended meaning of  "breaching experiment" has something to do with 
security tests rather than the kind of sociological experiment described 
at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaching_experiment . Is that really 
the case?

Kind regards,
Martin Hellberg Olsson

VISST MISSF?RST?R HAN DEN TERMEN

Citerar "Jon Awbrey" <jawbrey at att.net>:

> Staff writer "Somey" of ''The Wikipedia Review'' has written a very
> helpful Guide for the Perplexed on the Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Blog --
>
> http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20100406/wikiversity-when-breaching-experiments-attack/
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> -- 
>
> 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
> http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org
>



-- 
Assistent
Vakroep Scandinavistiek en Noordeuropakunde
Universiteit Gent
Rozier 44
B-9000 Gent
+32 9 264 38 04
martin.hellbergolsson at ugent.be



From teemu.mikkonen at uta.fi  Fri Apr  9 12:37:24 2010
From: teemu.mikkonen at uta.fi (Teemu Mikkonen)
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 13:37:24 +0300
Subject: <CPOV> CFP: Dynamics of Knowledge Creation in Wikis
Message-ID: <4BBF0364.8090100@uta.fi>

Hello all,
here is more information about the CFP which I mentioned in my presentation.

Br.
Teemu

Call for papers (open until May 15., 2010):

Dynamics of Knowledge Creation in Wikis

A session in The 2nd International Power & Knowledge Conference, 
Tampere, Finland. September 6-8, 2010
http://tinyurl.com/yfvgyh6

The collective knowledge creation on various wiki-sites, including the 
massively popular Wikipedia, is having a profound effect on the social 
and epistemological conditions of public information. Distributed 
collaboration, possible anonymity, radical equality and global reach of 
wikified information lead to a situation that at the same time 
democratizes knowledge production by leveling hierarchies of expertise 
and increases the postmodern condition of reflective uncertainty. 
Everybody knows that the Wikipedia can not be trusted in the same way 
as, say, the Encyclopedia Britannica, yet over 100 million people 
utilize the Wikipedia daily. The 'edit' and 'history' buttons ever 
present on wiki pages are already starting to exert pressure on 
information presented elsewhere. For instance, the negotiations on what 
information to include and how the information should be presented in 
various Wikipedia entries constitute a huge experiment in the use of 
public reason ? la Kant. Consequently, the dynamics of collective 
collaboration also bring out questions on the nature of rationality and 
plurality of knowledge. Wikis provide ready made windows into the 
dialectical interplay between knowledge creation and issues of identity, 
social inclusion, authority, and the interface between information and 
politics.
The session invites contributions discussing these themes through 
theoretical reflection and/or empirical case studies. Abstracts should 
be between 150-200 words of length.
Abstract submission: http://tinyurl.com/yk98dgk

Organizers & more information:
Tere Vad?n, tere.vaden at uta.fi , Teemu Mikkonen, teemu.mikkonen at uta.fi, 
Juha Suoranta juha.suoranta at uta.fi



From thekohser at gmail.com  Fri Apr  9 13:00:49 2010
From: thekohser at gmail.com (Gregory Kohs)
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 07:00:49 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> Teach-In @ Wikiversity?
Message-ID: <o2p14b1e7be1004090400u4a5ac6ecge70c0c9dd73b04d2@mail.gmail.com>

Martin said:
+++++++++++
It seems to be written from the assumption that the
intended meaning of  "breaching experiment" has something to do with
security tests rather than the kind of sociological experiment described
at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaching_experiment . Is that really
the case?

Kind regards,
Martin Hellberg Olsson
+++++++++++

I agree.  What they really seemed to be conducting was "covert
security vulnerability testing".  Thing is, the project wasn't given
enough time for people like you and me to improve it, even down to how
it should be named.  Jimmy Wales decided that it was out of scope, and
that anyone who disagreed with him was subject to punishment.
Ironically, it became a "breaching experiment", considering that
outcome.

-- 
Gregory Kohs



From jfelipe at libresoft.es  Fri Apr  9 12:23:55 2010
From: jfelipe at libresoft.es (Felipe Ortega)
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 12:23:55 +0200
Subject: <CPOV> Impact of flagged revisions
Message-ID: <1270808635.17435.28.camel@bluethunder>

Hi, CPOVs.

It was clear that one of the main challenges that Wikipedia will address
in the next future will be to explore the best ways to catalize the
contributions from editors, while fighting against vandalisms to
preserve the quality of content.

Well, we're going right into the heart of this matter :-).

http://libresoft.es/news/new-project-impact-of-flagged-revisions-in-the-german-wikipedia 
http://blog.wikimedia.de/2010/04/09/libresoft-untersucht-gesichtete-versionen/ 
http://blog.felipeortega.net 

Final reports expected by the end of June 2010.

Best,
Felipe.

-- 
Jos? Felipe Ortega Soto          | Project Manager
Tel: (+34)-914 888 105           | 
Fax: (+34)-916 647 494           | GSyC/Libresoft - U. Rey Juan Carlos
jfelipe _at_libresoft_dot_es     | Edif. Departamental II - Office 106
http://libresoft.es/             | c/Tulip?n s/n 28933 M?stoles (Madrid)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20100409/4eef9821/attachment.sig>

From jfelipe at gsyc.es  Sat Apr 10 15:28:11 2010
From: jfelipe at gsyc.es (Felipe Ortega)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 15:28:11 +0200
Subject: <CPOV> Impact of flagged revisions
Message-ID: <1270906091.27539.25.camel@bluethunder>

Hi, CPOVs.

It was clear that one of the main challenges that Wikipedia will address
in the next future will be to explore the best ways to catalize the
contributions from editors, while fighting against vandalisms to
preserve the quality of content.

Well, we're going right into the heart of this matter :-).

http://libresoft.es/news/new-project-impact-of-flagged-revisions-in-the-german-wikipedia 
http://blog.wikimedia.de/2010/04/09/libresoft-untersucht-gesichtete-versionen/ 
http://blog.felipeortega.net 

Final reports expected by the end of June 2010.

Best,
Felipe.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20100410/74af3418/attachment.sig>

From jfelipe at gsyc.es  Sat Apr 10 17:23:54 2010
From: jfelipe at gsyc.es (Felipe Ortega)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 17:23:54 +0200
Subject: <CPOV> Impact of flagged revisions
In-Reply-To: <1270906091.27539.25.camel@bluethunder>
References: <1270906091.27539.25.camel@bluethunder>
Message-ID: <1270913034.27539.42.camel@bluethunder>

Sorry, I resent the message on request, due to some problems with my new
main address.

Best,
F.

On s?b, 2010-04-10 at 15:28 +0200, Felipe Ortega wrote:
> Hi, CPOVs.
> 
> It was clear that one of the main challenges that Wikipedia will address
> in the next future will be to explore the best ways to catalize the
> contributions from editors, while fighting against vandalisms to
> preserve the quality of content.
> 
> Well, we're going right into the heart of this matter :-).
> 
> http://libresoft.es/news/new-project-impact-of-flagged-revisions-in-the-german-wikipedia 
> http://blog.wikimedia.de/2010/04/09/libresoft-untersucht-gesichtete-versionen/ 
> http://blog.felipeortega.net 
> 
> Final reports expected by the end of June 2010.
> 
> Best,
> Felipe.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
> Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com
> http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20100410/a05dfa8f/attachment.sig>

From geert at xs4all.nl  Sat Apr 10 17:45:40 2010
From: geert at xs4all.nl (Geert Lovink)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 17:45:40 +0200
Subject: <CPOV> Full video report of CPOV Amsterdam (March 26/27 2010)
Message-ID: <653E19AD-2982-4DFC-8137-6EE011448D61@xs4all.nl>

Full video report of CPOV

We were very happy with the large amount of people attending the CPOV  
Wikipedia conference in Amsterdam. However, for those of you who could  
not make it, there is a full video report of all presented lectures to  
be found here:
http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/videos/

Credits: The Critical Point of View conference is organized by the  
Institute of Network Cultures in collaboration with the Centre for  
Internet & Society in Bangalore, India. Supported by Centre for  
Internet & Society, Applied Sciences, School of Design and  
Communication, Foundation Democracy and Media, Public Library  
Amsterdam. The video are produced by http://www.mtime.nl.





From luispo at gmail.com  Sat Apr 10 19:08:05 2010
From: luispo at gmail.com (Louis Suarez-Potts)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 13:08:05 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> Full video report of CPOV Amsterdam (March 26/27 2010)
In-Reply-To: <653E19AD-2982-4DFC-8137-6EE011448D61@xs4all.nl>
References: <653E19AD-2982-4DFC-8137-6EE011448D61@xs4all.nl>
Message-ID: <A3505972-B1D0-4A69-BA41-CA7E80DB02AB@gmail.com>

Thanks, all. I regret I couldn't make it to Amsterdam (nor to India), and for that reason alone deeply appreciate the effort taken to make available these recordings.

best
Louis


On 2010-04-10, at 11:45 , Geert Lovink wrote:

> Full video report of CPOV
> 
> We were very happy with the large amount of people attending the CPOV Wikipedia conference in Amsterdam. However, for those of you who could not make it, there is a full video report of all presented lectures to be found here:
> http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/videos/
> 
> Credits: The Critical Point of View conference is organized by the Institute of Network Cultures in collaboration with the Centre for Internet & Society in Bangalore, India. Supported by Centre for Internet & Society, Applied Sciences, School of Design and Communication, Foundation Democracy and Media, Public Library Amsterdam. The video are produced by http://www.mtime.nl.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
> Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com
> http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org



--
Louis Suarez-Potts, PhD
Community Development Manager, Oracle
OpenOffice.org




From juliana at networkcultures.org  Mon Apr 12 13:46:42 2010
From: juliana at networkcultures.org (Juliana Brunello)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:46:42 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: <CPOV> Anonymity and Privacy
Message-ID: <3792.145.92.114.203.1271072802.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>

I was reading an article at the new york times and came across the
following sentence: ?anonymity was a habit, not a guarantee?. It is an
article about rethinking anonymity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/technology/12comments.html

Some people feel invaded in their privacy if they have to put their real
names on a comment, much like Wikipedians who "forget to sign" their names
on discussion pages and have a problem with the bots who correct it.  The
problem is that anonymous users/users with fake identities are oft the
cause of flaming.

In local everyday life, it is hard to be anonymous or keep a fake identity
if you make a comment. I assume these users would not feel invaded in
their privacy in this case. OR: Would they maybe just not comment on
anything?

My question is: How to deal with anonymity and privacy nowadays?




From jfelipe at gsyc.es  Mon Apr 12 13:56:58 2010
From: jfelipe at gsyc.es (Felipe Ortega)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:56:58 +0200
Subject: <CPOV> Anonymity and Privacy
In-Reply-To: <3792.145.92.114.203.1271072802.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
References: <3792.145.92.114.203.1271072802.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
Message-ID: <1271073418.30490.27.camel@bluethunder>

On lun, 2010-04-12 at 13:46 +0200, Juliana Brunello wrote:
> I was reading an article at the new york times and came across the
> following sentence: ?anonymity was a habit, not a guarantee?. It is an
> article about rethinking anonymity.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/technology/12comments.html
> 
> Some people feel invaded in their privacy if they have to put their real
> names on a comment, much like Wikipedians who "forget to sign" their names
> on discussion pages and have a problem with the bots who correct it.  The
> problem is that anonymous users/users with fake identities are oft the
> cause of flaming.
> 
> In local everyday life, it is hard to be anonymous or keep a fake identity
> if you make a comment. I assume these users would not feel invaded in
> their privacy in this case. OR: Would they maybe just not comment on
> anything?
> 
> My question is: How to deal with anonymity and privacy nowadays?

Some thoughts about the implications of this issue as for public data on
the Internet, with examples:

http://blog.felipeortega.net/2010/04/07/private-side-public-data/ 

Something that still puzzles me is how people still want to consider
their data private when they participate in publicly audited projects.

Regards,
Felipe.

> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
> Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com
> http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20100412/a5286fff/attachment.sig>

From geert at xs4all.nl  Mon Apr 12 14:17:13 2010
From: geert at xs4all.nl (Geert Lovink)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 14:17:13 +0200
Subject: <CPOV> Anonymity and Privacy
In-Reply-To: <1271073418.30490.27.camel@bluethunder>
References: <3792.145.92.114.203.1271072802.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
	<1271073418.30490.27.camel@bluethunder>
Message-ID: <B18A74E9-F2AF-4B1A-A124-EA1A9B78753C@xs4all.nl>

Interesting. Let's hear the compelling voices that argue in favor of  
anonymity/pseudonymity on Wikipedia. I never understood this. Funny  
enough the organizers of Bangalore and Amsterdam conference never  
discussed to include this topic on the agenda. It is somehow not  
considered a very urgent issue. Maybe because, in the end, anonymity  
on the Net doesn't exist anyway. And we all know that (or should  
know...). This turns mask wearing into a somewhat funny theatrical  
situation. It also, potentially, could mean that we feel for sorry for  
them. Aren't they aware that it doesn't exist? It is a kind of  
Zizekian 'concious false conciousness' that the anonymous users enjoy?  
Geert


On 12 Apr 2010, at 1:56 PM, Felipe Ortega wrote:

> On lun, 2010-04-12 at 13:46 +0200, Juliana Brunello wrote:
>> I was reading an article at the new york times and came across the
>> following sentence: ?anonymity was a habit, not a guarantee?. It is  
>> an
>> article about rethinking anonymity.
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/technology/12comments.html
>>
>> Some people feel invaded in their privacy if they have to put their  
>> real
>> names on a comment, much like Wikipedians who "forget to sign"  
>> their names
>> on discussion pages and have a problem with the bots who correct  
>> it.  The
>> problem is that anonymous users/users with fake identities are oft  
>> the
>> cause of flaming.
>>
>> In local everyday life, it is hard to be anonymous or keep a fake  
>> identity
>> if you make a comment. I assume these users would not feel invaded in
>> their privacy in this case. OR: Would they maybe just not comment on
>> anything?
>>
>> My question is: How to deal with anonymity and privacy nowadays?
>
> Some thoughts about the implications of this issue as for public  
> data on
> the Internet, with examples:
>
> http://blog.felipeortega.net/2010/04/07/private-side-public-data/
>
> Something that still puzzles me is how people still want to consider
> their data private when they participate in publicly audited projects.
>
> Regards,
> Felipe.
>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
>> Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com
>> http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
> Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com
> http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org




From dqamir at bezeqint.net  Tue Apr 13 19:18:43 2010
From: dqamir at bezeqint.net (Dror Kamir)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:18:43 +0300
Subject: <CPOV> Wikipedia and I
In-Reply-To: <B18A74E9-F2AF-4B1A-A124-EA1A9B78753C@xs4all.nl>
References: <3792.145.92.114.203.1271072802.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>	<1271073418.30490.27.camel@bluethunder>
	<B18A74E9-F2AF-4B1A-A124-EA1A9B78753C@xs4all.nl>
Message-ID: <4BC4A773.1090501@bezeqint.net>

Hi,

First of all, an apology - ever since I came back from Bangalore I've 
been overloaded with work and projects, and didn't have enough time to 
follow the CPOV events and mailing list. I truly regret that, and I hope 
it'll change in the near future. Having said that, I can't avoid using 
this mailing list today, since I arose the curiosity of some of you, 
when I published a call to boycott Wikipedia on FaceBook (a personal 
call, I should emphasize, before my colleagues at Wikimedia Israel eat 
me alive). I published some explanations to my friends there, but they 
were in Hebrew, so they weren't very useful to most of you. Last remark 
before telling the story - I have been so much involved in Wikipedia and 
Wikipedia-related projects, that I've become quite emotional about them. 
To those of you who see Wikipedia as a subject of research, it might 
seem strange, and I can't blame them for that :-)

Several months ago I returned to the English Wikipedia and looked again 
at articles related to the Middle East. I think it was part of my 
preparations to the Bangalore conference, but I'm not sure this was the 
trigger. This way or another, I found out that there was a strange 
pattern of edits in articles such as "Israel", "State of Palestine", 
"Palestinian territories" and other related articles. There was a group 
of editors who persistently and quite forcefully introduced a political 
thesis into the aforementioned articles. There were several 
characteristics for these edits:

1. Excessive use of the name Palestine, while blurring the distinction 
among its various meanings. In many articles, it has become unclear 
whether the name Palestine refers to a geographical region, to a 
historical political entity, to a future state, to the Palestinian 
Authority and so forth.

2. Excessive use of terms like "occupied", e.g. in the article about the 
Golan Heights or the Palestinian territories, where previously it was 
agreed to use more neutral terms like "controlled". That was not merely 
a change of term, but also overuse of this term over and over again.

3. Describing the State of Palestine as a fact on the ground and drawing 
a straight line between the British Mandate of Palestine and the Arab 
State of Palestine. The idea is basically to instill the notion as if 
Israel was just a temporary stage in the history of the region, while 
the "real" State of Palestine that existed in the past was about to 
reemerge.

Politically-wise, this is a sensitive time in this ongoing Middle East 
conflict. The Palestinian Authority appealed to the International Court 
of Justice asking for recognition as a state so it could formally accuse 
Israel in conducting war crimes. In the UK the pro-Palestinian 
organizations calling to boycott Israel are more active than ever. For 
my naked eyes, it seems too much like an anti-Israeli campaign of a 
group of Europe-based Palestinians or pro-Palestinians. On Wikimedia 
Commons, BTW, I already had some fierce battles with pro-Palestinian 
editors who tried to upload problematic fiels and hinder projects of 
Wikimedia Israel.

I won't get into the political discussion that evolved between me and 
this group, and I beg you not to assess my judgment regarding the 
editors' motives or the legitimacy of their edits.  In fact, this is the 
minor issue here. What really bugs me is what I found out about the way 
Wikipedia is currently working.

1. The English Wikipedia developed a judicial system. There are laws and 
tribunals, but they act in a way would amaze even Kafka. There is a 
decision by the Arbitrary Committee that any editor who makes 
problematic edits to ME-related articles would be banned from making 
further edits about the subject. While the Arbitrary Committee meant 
well, in practice it means that every admin can ban an editor. Wikipedia 
cherishes anonymity. It is very hard to understand who complained about 
you, what his motives are, and why his complained was endorsed by the 
certain admin. Asking to lift the ban requires a long bureaucratic process.

2. If one dares to complain about another editor, he might find the 
accusations turned around at him. Basically it is all about forming 
cliques. I you have your clique, you are quite immunized, and you can 
even revert accusations and penalties to those who accuse you.

The whole treatment of content has become very bureaucratic and 
imbalanced. The idea that information should be sources has been brought 
to absurd. Practically anything is regarded as reliable if you can bring 
a name of an article that says so. I often pointed out to serious 
problems in the logics of a certain articles, and was answered that I 
have to bring articles that state otherwise in order to make my claims 
valid. When I brought such articles, I was often answered that my source 
was not serious enough, too pro-Israeli, a primary source while WP 
favors secondary sources and so forth. I often found myself in a strange 
position where I could not argue with a person, because I did not have 
access to the book he mentioned.

Actually WP has abandoned most of its primary values - it is no longer 
open to all. One must have an access to big academic libraries, be very 
skilled in conducting debates and have huge amount of time to conduct 
them. NPOV and No Original Research have become idle principle. 
Practically any problematic term or theory can be used, as long as you 
can find some source and interpret it in a way that would enable you to 
present it as a previously uttered idea. The idea of reaching 
informative articles through confluence of information and exchange of 
views has failed. It is all about imposing one's view. The person who 
imposes his view successfully is the one who has better relations with 
the judges, namely the admins.

Okay, I think I wrote quite a lot, and used quite harsh words (I warned 
you about my emotionality). I'd be happy to hear some relaxed wise 
comments and insights.

Best wishes,
Dror



From dqamir at bezeqint.net  Wed Apr 14 16:56:07 2010
From: dqamir at bezeqint.net (Dror Kamir)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:56:07 +0300
Subject: <CPOV> Wikipedia and I - follow up from yesterday
In-Reply-To: <4BC4A773.1090501@bezeqint.net>
References: <3792.145.92.114.203.1271072802.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>	<1271073418.30490.27.camel@bluethunder>	<B18A74E9-F2AF-4B1A-A124-EA1A9B78753C@xs4all.nl>
	<4BC4A773.1090501@bezeqint.net>
Message-ID: <4BC5D787.4040107@bezeqint.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20100414/078a4b04/attachment.html>

From juliana at networkcultures.org  Wed Apr 14 18:58:25 2010
From: juliana at networkcultures.org (Juliana Brunello)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:58:25 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: <CPOV> Wikipedia and I - follow up from yesterday
In-Reply-To: <4BC5D787.4040107@bezeqint.net>
References: <3792.145.92.114.203.1271072802.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
	<1271073418.30490.27.camel@bluethunder>
	<B18A74E9-F2AF-4B1A-A124-EA1A9B78753C@xs4all.nl>
	<4BC4A773.1090501@bezeqint.net> <4BC5D787.4040107@bezeqint.net>
Message-ID: <3833.87.210.38.21.1271264305.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>

Hi Dror,
your complaints are indeed very legit. I will make here a summary of the
main arguments, so lazy readers can follow the debate ;)

>>The new implemented judicial System in WP, the Arbitrary Committee:
Admins can ban a certain person from editing a topic, as I understood,
based on complaints of other editors. Since it can be anonymous, it is
hard to see what the real intentions are and why his complained was
endorsed by the certain admin.

>>The problems that surge due to the idea of  >sources instead of truth<
and access to such sources. Also, one needs to know the pseudo-judicial
laws of WP in order to successfully take part on the debate. Moreover,
some sources seem to be more valid than others.

The fact that WP ignores that there are cabals on the project does not
make them disappear (>there are no cabals<), as we can see quite often,
like the case cited by Dror. One can see that POVs are enforced on certain
themes, and that NPOV is hardly effective on controversial cases. I say,
in WP some editors under the safeguard of some admins are more equal than
others!

Juliana

> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
> <html>
> <head>
>   <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
> </head>
> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
> Hello,<br>
> <br>
> Apparently I cried loud enough to bring the Hebrew-speaking Wikipedians
> to discuss the issue I raised yesterday. Actually there were two
> interesting debates on he-wp, one about me and the other about the Anat
> Kam affair (I don't know how many of you heard of it, but it has also
> become a Wikipedian affair). I am translating the debate about myself,
> partially because of my egocentric nature :-) but mostly because it is
> a follow-up to my long message yesterday. Please tell me if you'd like
> me to translate some of the Anat Kam debate. BTW, I joined the debate
> twice.<br>
> <br>
> <b>The English Wikipedia - An Anti-Israel Propaganda Tool</b><br>
> <br>
> ONE: I bring here the words of Dror Kamir who is known to be a
> left-wing person, simply unbelievable.<br>
> [<i>cites one of my Hebrew messages yesterday, which is basically what
> I wrote to this list in English]</i><br>
> <br>
> TWO: This is hardly new. See this and this on my blog. [<i>brings links
> to a blog post that describes more or less the same things I
> experienced. The post was written on 29 Dec 2009, so I should have
> noticed it while preparing for my talk on Bangalore. This oversight of
> mine deserves flogging.</i>]<br>
> <br>
> ONE: Yes, I saw it also here on the Hebrew Wikipedia debate page
> [<i>that's
> another version of the aforementioned post, apparently you should add
> some more lashes to my punishment</i>].<br>
> <br>
> THREE: The fact that Dror is left-wing doesn't matter at all. There is
> a huge difference between the lunatic vociferous left that took roots
> in Europe (but also in the Americas and even here in Israel) and the
> sane left, which examines reality cautiously and by reasonable
> criteria. Actually, I wouldn't use the term "left" at all in reference
> to that lunatic left, it would just blur the fact that they they are
> weird. They are usually youths under 30 addicted to the junk-food of
> opinion journalism.<br>
> <br>
> FOUR: Actually, I was amazed by this page
> (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
> href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active_sanctions">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active_sanctions</a>),
> this page
> (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
> href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Drork">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Drork</a>)
> and some others. Beyond the issue in question, it is scary to see the
> monster of bureaucracy, enforcement, punishments, expulsions, bans,
> committees and tribunals that has emerged there on "Wikenglish".<br>
> <br>
> TWO: Anyone wants to establish [our own] ArbCom [Arbitration
> Committee]?<br>
> <br>
> FIVE: Wouldn't it be better to annihilate the servers hosting the
> Hebrew Wikipedia? It would be quicker and more humane.<br>
> <br>
> FOUR: I'm not sure. I mean, I see advantages to such committee, as some
> of you know [<i>links to an article he wrote on he-wp about ArbCom on
> the German and English Wikipedias and how it should be implemented in
> he-wp</i>], but there are hazards too. Like anything good, it can get
> out of control. I don't see a principle problem with imposing bans on
> certain users to do certain things in certain articles. For itself, it
> could have resolved all kind of past crises quite easily and it would
> have been less harsh than blocking a person.<br>
> <br>
> SIX: Should such a committee be established, it should rule in
> controversial issues. In what concerns imposing bans of this kind or
> another, it may recommend, but the final decision should be left at the
> hands of the admins. Anyway, what happens on the English Wikipedia is
> indeed worrying. I don't understand how come none of the thousands of
> activists there protests.<br>
> <br>
> TWO: The problem with such a committee is that it takes its toll. It is
> not only articles that can be diverted. In their manic pursue of
> justice on the English Wikipedia, they forgot they were not qualified
> as judges; hence it is easier for interested people to divert them. I
> have never asked for such authority [as SIX suggested] and I wasn't
> appointed to exercise such authority. I don't want it and don't want it
> to be exclusively at the hands of the admins.<br>
> <br>
> SIX: Let me get it straight, it is okay to completely block a person,
> but wrong to prevent him from editing a certain limited subject?<br>
> <br>
> TWO: Blocking is a preventative measure. I block a person when I see
> his actions cause damage, and assess that blocking is the only tool I
> have to stop him (if I reckoned there were another tool, I would use
> it). On the other hand, ruling that a person is free to edit on
> Wikipedia except in a certain subject, actually means a declaration
> that this person's opinion in this subject should be ignored, even
> though he is still a member of the community. The considerations
> required for weighing such ruling are numerous and grave, much more
> than the simple consideration whether or not a person causes damage.<br>
> <br>
> SIX: I didn't mean a permanent removal from a certain subject, but a
> temporary one. For example, I would have been glad if someone removed
> me from the discussion about the Elad association [<i>an Israeli
> right-wing NGO highly involved in conflicts between Jews and Arabs in
> Jerusalem</i>] before it got out of hand, but that's me.<br>
> <br>
> TWO: Temporary is even more problematic - it gives an unfair advantage
> to those holding opposite views. Once you introduce too many "levels"
> between "fully qualified user" and "banned from the community", you
> introduce considerations that the normal community member, and also, as
> a result, the normal admin, is not truly able to consider. We are not
> judges. Most of us never delved into philosophy or law.<br>
> <br>
> ME: [<i>After receiving a letter saying: you must write something in
> this debate</i>] I was asked to respond, so I hereby publish my
> response: This is the fifth year for me to be engaged in
> Wikipedia-related activities. I believe this project has taken the
> wrong course and diverted from its objectives. This is why I don't
> write anymore on the Hebrew Wikipedia, nor in the Arabic Wikipedia. I
> also write very little on the English Wikipedia. My recent harsh
> comments there were due to the fact that things have gone too far. I
> could have pulled my hands from anything related to Wikipedia, and I
> even considered it several times in the past year, but it is not that
> easy. I turned into persona non grate on the English Wikipedia due to
> complaints of pro-Palestinian editors that I attacked them personally.
> These editors did not not come with clear hands, as they were blocked
> in the past due to similar complaints directed at them. Nevertheless,
> their complaints were acknowledged. Late Arie Kaspi, may he rest in
> peace [<i>a local publicist whom I admire</i>] once wrote that a
> factory needs the workers to declare a strike every now and then, in
> order to shake-up the management and keep the factory away from
> decadence. Wikipedia might need such treatment. In any event, since I
> am active in several free-content projects within Wikimedia Israel, It
> is important to me to clarify that all I said and will say about
> Wikipedia is my own personal view with no relation to Wikimedia Israel.
> Due to my harsh criticism, I asked not to represent Wikimedia Israel
> abroad anymore (a duty I had to fulfill in the past), so that there
> would be no doubt that my criticism is my own. I will continue to
> promote free-content projects within Wikimedia Israel, as long as the
> association is interested and as long as I have something to
> contribute.<br>
> <br>
> SEVEN: If most of the world is antisemitic, there is no reason why the
> big free encyclopedia that it writes be different. Haven't we got tired
> of trying change the world not to be antisemitic? When the Egyptians
> shoot Sudanese on the border fences (I've seen some bodies with my own
> eyes), while we let them into our country, and discuss their rights, we
> are condemned as human rights violators. When rockets are fired at us
> from Gaza, an event that every enlightened cultural nation would react
> to with more than a siege, while we handle it with kid gloves, then
> something is allegedly wrong with us. Leave this idea of convincing the
> world with reason, it is bound to remain this way. I am more and more
> convinced in what Rabbi Bar Yochai said: "It is common knowledge that
> Esau hates Jacob" [<i>an ancient saying known only to someone who took
> Jewish religious studies</i>].<br>
> <br>
> EIGHT: Most of the world is not antisemitic. There are countries where
> the government offers indoctrinated antisemitic education, like Egypt,
> but that doesn't make the majority of the world population antisemitic,
> not at all. There are also communities that consume media which is very
> unfair to us, but when I lived in such a community, it was clear to me
> that the media is not successful in turning the most of the public
> antisemitic. Stop this defeatism. Anyone who is concerned about the
> public opinion vis-??-vis Israel and about fighting antisemitism, should
> cool down, and use his brain. There is a lot to do in order to
> communicate our position to the majority of the public (not just to
> some few idiots). Good Luck.<br>
> <br>
> It goes on, but I'll stop here, because I think you get the idea. I
> don't know what can be extracted from this debate, but it seems
> interesting. Tell me what you think.<br>
> <br>
> Dror<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> ?????&#65533;?????? 13/04/10 20:18, ?????????? Dror Kamir:
> <blockquote cite="mid:4BC4A773.1090501 at bezeqint.net" type="cite">Hi,
>   <br>
>   <br>
> First of all, an apology - ever since I came back from Bangalore I've
> been overloaded with work and projects, and didn't have enough time to
> follow the CPOV events and mailing list. I truly regret that, and I
> hope it'll change in the near future. Having said that, I can't avoid
> using this mailing list today, since I arose the curiosity of some of
> you, when I published a call to boycott Wikipedia on FaceBook (a
> personal call, I should emphasize, before my colleagues at Wikimedia
> Israel eat me alive). I published some explanations to my friends
> there, but they were in Hebrew, so they weren't very useful to most of
> you. Last remark before telling the story - I have been so much
> involved in Wikipedia and Wikipedia-related projects, that I've become
> quite emotional about them. To those of you who see Wikipedia as a
> subject of research, it might seem strange, and I can't blame them for
> that :-)
>   <br>
>   <br>
> Several months ago I returned to the English Wikipedia and looked again
> at articles related to the Middle East. I think it was part of my
> preparations to the Bangalore conference, but I'm not sure this was the
> trigger. This way or another, I found out that there was a strange
> pattern of edits in articles such as "Israel", "State of Palestine",
> "Palestinian territories" and other related articles. There was a group
> of editors who persistently and quite forcefully introduced a political
> thesis into the aforementioned articles. There were several
> characteristics for these edits:
>   <br>
>   <br>
> 1. Excessive use of the name Palestine, while blurring the distinction
> among its various meanings. In many articles, it has become unclear
> whether the name Palestine refers to a geographical region, to a
> historical political entity, to a future state, to the Palestinian
> Authority and so forth.
>   <br>
>   <br>
> 2. Excessive use of terms like "occupied", e.g. in the article about
> the Golan Heights or the Palestinian territories, where previously it
> was agreed to use more neutral terms like "controlled". That was not
> merely a change of term, but also overuse of this term over and over
> again.
>   <br>
>   <br>
> 3. Describing the State of Palestine as a fact on the ground and
> drawing a straight line between the British Mandate of Palestine and
> the Arab State of Palestine. The idea is basically to instill the
> notion as if Israel was just a temporary stage in the history of the
> region, while the "real" State of Palestine that existed in the past
> was about to reemerge.
>   <br>
>   <br>
> Politically-wise, this is a sensitive time in this ongoing Middle East
> conflict. The Palestinian Authority appealed to the International Court
> of Justice asking for recognition as a state so it could formally
> accuse Israel in conducting war crimes. In the UK the pro-Palestinian
> organizations calling to boycott Israel are more active than ever. For
> my naked eyes, it seems too much like an anti-Israeli campaign of a
> group of Europe-based Palestinians or pro-Palestinians. On Wikimedia
> Commons, BTW, I already had some fierce battles with pro-Palestinian
> editors who tried to upload problematic fiels and hinder projects of
> Wikimedia Israel.
>   <br>
>   <br>
> I won't get into the political discussion that evolved between me and
> this group, and I beg you not to assess my judgment regarding the
> editors' motives or the legitimacy of their edits.?? In fact, this is
> the minor issue here. What really bugs me is what I found out about the
> way Wikipedia is currently working.
>   <br>
>   <br>
> 1. The English Wikipedia developed a judicial system. There are laws
> and tribunals, but they act in a way would amaze even Kafka. There is a
> decision by the Arbitrary Committee that any editor who makes
> problematic edits to ME-related articles would be banned from making
> further edits about the subject. While the Arbitrary Committee meant
> well, in practice it means that every admin can ban an editor.
> Wikipedia cherishes anonymity. It is very hard to understand who
> complained about you, what his motives are, and why his complained was
> endorsed by the certain admin. Asking to lift the ban requires a long
> bureaucratic process.
>   <br>
>   <br>
> 2. If one dares to complain about another editor, he might find the
> accusations turned around at him. Basically it is all about forming
> cliques. I you have your clique, you are quite immunized, and you can
> even revert accusations and penalties to those who accuse you.
>   <br>
>   <br>
> The whole treatment of content has become very bureaucratic and
> imbalanced. The idea that information should be sources has been
> brought to absurd. Practically anything is regarded as reliable if you
> can bring a name of an article that says so. I often pointed out to
> serious problems in the logics of a certain articles, and was answered
> that I have to bring articles that state otherwise in order to make my
> claims valid. When I brought such articles, I was often answered that
> my source was not serious enough, too pro-Israeli, a primary source
> while WP favors secondary sources and so forth. I often found myself in
> a strange position where I could not argue with a person, because I did
> not have access to the book he mentioned.
>   <br>
>   <br>
> Actually WP has abandoned most of its primary values - it is no longer
> open to all. One must have an access to big academic libraries, be very
> skilled in conducting debates and have huge amount of time to conduct
> them. NPOV and No Original Research have become idle principle.
> Practically any problematic term or theory can be used, as long as you
> can find some source and interpret it in a way that would enable you to
> present it as a previously uttered idea. The idea of reaching
> informative articles through confluence of information and exchange of
> views has failed. It is all about imposing one's view. The person who
> imposes his view successfully is the one who has better relations with
> the judges, namely the admins.
>   <br>
>   <br>
> Okay, I think I wrote quite a lot, and used quite harsh words (I warned
> you about my emotionality). I'd be happy to hear some relaxed wise
> comments and insights.
>   <br>
>   <br>
> Best wishes,
>   <br>
> Dror
>   <br>
>   <br>
> _______________________________________________
>   <br>
> Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
>   <br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
> href="mailto:Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com">Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com</a>
>   <br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
> href="http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org">http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org</a>
>   <br>
>   <br>
> </blockquote>
> </body>
> </html>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
> Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com
> http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org
>





From dqamir at bezeqint.net  Thu Apr 15 01:16:35 2010
From: dqamir at bezeqint.net (Dror Kamir)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 02:16:35 +0300
Subject: <CPOV> Wikipedia and I - follow up from yesterday
In-Reply-To: <3833.87.210.38.21.1271264305.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
References: <3792.145.92.114.203.1271072802.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
	<1271073418.30490.27.camel@bluethunder>
	<B18A74E9-F2AF-4B1A-A124-EA1A9B78753C@xs4all.nl>
	<4BC4A773.1090501@bezeqint.net> <4BC5D787.4040107@bezeqint.net>
	<3833.87.210.38.21.1271264305.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
Message-ID: <4BC64CD3.8090000@bezeqint.net>

Hi,

Thanks for making this summary :-)
Stepping aside and alienating myself from the issue, I am mostly 
interested in the reemergence of problematic patterns of social 
behavior. It is a bit like watching a "rerun" of the development of 
judicial system, with all the regrettable (even tragic in real life) 
errors in the process. As for the discussion that developed on he-wp, it 
is interesting for me to see the interface between "real life" and 
"Wikipedian life". The fear of antisemitism creeps into the discussion, 
as if it weren't merely a discussion about how to write articles (BTW, 
it was Holocaust Remembrance Day in Israel this week, so may be this was 
the trigger). Beside being anthropologically fascinated (still 
alienating myself from the issue), I cannot come up with interesting new 
insights (yet), but maybe people here could enlighten me :-)

Dror

?????? 14/04/10 19:58, ????? Juliana Brunello:
> Hi Dror,
> your complaints are indeed very legit. I will make here a summary of the
> main arguments, so lazy readers can follow the debate ;)
>
>    
>>> The new implemented judicial System in WP, the Arbitrary Committee:
>>>        
> Admins can ban a certain person from editing a topic, as I understood,
> based on complaints of other editors. Since it can be anonymous, it is
> hard to see what the real intentions are and why his complained was
> endorsed by the certain admin.
>
>    
>>> The problems that surge due to the idea of>sources instead of truth<
>>>        
> and access to such sources. Also, one needs to know the pseudo-judicial
> laws of WP in order to successfully take part on the debate. Moreover,
> some sources seem to be more valid than others.
>
> The fact that WP ignores that there are cabals on the project does not
> make them disappear (>there are no cabals<), as we can see quite often,
> like the case cited by Dror. One can see that POVs are enforced on certain
> themes, and that NPOV is hardly effective on controversial cases. I say,
> in WP some editors under the safeguard of some admins are more equal than
> others!
>
> Juliana
>
>    
>> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
>> <html>
>> <head>
>>    <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
>> </head>
>> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
>> Hello,<br>
>> <br>
>> Apparently I cried loud enough to bring the Hebrew-speaking Wikipedians
>> to discuss the issue I raised yesterday. Actually there were two
>> interesting debates on he-wp, one about me and the other about the Anat
>> Kam affair (I don't know how many of you heard of it, but it has also
>> become a Wikipedian affair). I am translating the debate about myself,
>> partially because of my egocentric nature :-) but mostly because it is
>> a follow-up to my long message yesterday. Please tell me if you'd like
>> me to translate some of the Anat Kam debate. BTW, I joined the debate
>> twice.<br>
>> <br>
>> <b>The English Wikipedia - An Anti-Israel Propaganda Tool</b><br>
>> <br>
>> ONE: I bring here the words of Dror Kamir who is known to be a
>> left-wing person, simply unbelievable.<br>
>> [<i>cites one of my Hebrew messages yesterday, which is basically what
>> I wrote to this list in English]</i><br>
>> <br>
>> TWO: This is hardly new. See this and this on my blog. [<i>brings links
>> to a blog post that describes more or less the same things I
>> experienced. The post was written on 29 Dec 2009, so I should have
>> noticed it while preparing for my talk on Bangalore. This oversight of
>> mine deserves flogging.</i>]<br>
>> <br>
>> ONE: Yes, I saw it also here on the Hebrew Wikipedia debate page
>> [<i>that's
>> another version of the aforementioned post, apparently you should add
>> some more lashes to my punishment</i>].<br>
>> <br>
>> THREE: The fact that Dror is left-wing doesn't matter at all. There is
>> a huge difference between the lunatic vociferous left that took roots
>> in Europe (but also in the Americas and even here in Israel) and the
>> sane left, which examines reality cautiously and by reasonable
>> criteria. Actually, I wouldn't use the term "left" at all in reference
>> to that lunatic left, it would just blur the fact that they they are
>> weird. They are usually youths under 30 addicted to the junk-food of
>> opinion journalism.<br>
>> <br>
>> FOUR: Actually, I was amazed by this page
>> (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
>> href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active_sanctions">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active_sanctions</a>),
>> this page
>> (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
>> href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Drork">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Drork</a>)
>> and some others. Beyond the issue in question, it is scary to see the
>> monster of bureaucracy, enforcement, punishments, expulsions, bans,
>> committees and tribunals that has emerged there on "Wikenglish".<br>
>> <br>
>> TWO: Anyone wants to establish [our own] ArbCom [Arbitration
>> Committee]?<br>
>> <br>
>> FIVE: Wouldn't it be better to annihilate the servers hosting the
>> Hebrew Wikipedia? It would be quicker and more humane.<br>
>> <br>
>> FOUR: I'm not sure. I mean, I see advantages to such committee, as some
>> of you know [<i>links to an article he wrote on he-wp about ArbCom on
>> the German and English Wikipedias and how it should be implemented in
>> he-wp</i>], but there are hazards too. Like anything good, it can get
>> out of control. I don't see a principle problem with imposing bans on
>> certain users to do certain things in certain articles. For itself, it
>> could have resolved all kind of past crises quite easily and it would
>> have been less harsh than blocking a person.<br>
>> <br>
>> SIX: Should such a committee be established, it should rule in
>> controversial issues. In what concerns imposing bans of this kind or
>> another, it may recommend, but the final decision should be left at the
>> hands of the admins. Anyway, what happens on the English Wikipedia is
>> indeed worrying. I don't understand how come none of the thousands of
>> activists there protests.<br>
>> <br>
>> TWO: The problem with such a committee is that it takes its toll. It is
>> not only articles that can be diverted. In their manic pursue of
>> justice on the English Wikipedia, they forgot they were not qualified
>> as judges; hence it is easier for interested people to divert them. I
>> have never asked for such authority [as SIX suggested] and I wasn't
>> appointed to exercise such authority. I don't want it and don't want it
>> to be exclusively at the hands of the admins.<br>
>> <br>
>> SIX: Let me get it straight, it is okay to completely block a person,
>> but wrong to prevent him from editing a certain limited subject?<br>
>> <br>
>> TWO: Blocking is a preventative measure. I block a person when I see
>> his actions cause damage, and assess that blocking is the only tool I
>> have to stop him (if I reckoned there were another tool, I would use
>> it). On the other hand, ruling that a person is free to edit on
>> Wikipedia except in a certain subject, actually means a declaration
>> that this person's opinion in this subject should be ignored, even
>> though he is still a member of the community. The considerations
>> required for weighing such ruling are numerous and grave, much more
>> than the simple consideration whether or not a person causes damage.<br>
>> <br>
>> SIX: I didn't mean a permanent removal from a certain subject, but a
>> temporary one. For example, I would have been glad if someone removed
>> me from the discussion about the Elad association [<i>an Israeli
>> right-wing NGO highly involved in conflicts between Jews and Arabs in
>> Jerusalem</i>] before it got out of hand, but that's me.<br>
>> <br>
>> TWO: Temporary is even more problematic - it gives an unfair advantage
>> to those holding opposite views. Once you introduce too many "levels"
>> between "fully qualified user" and "banned from the community", you
>> introduce considerations that the normal community member, and also, as
>> a result, the normal admin, is not truly able to consider. We are not
>> judges. Most of us never delved into philosophy or law.<br>
>> <br>
>> ME: [<i>After receiving a letter saying: you must write something in
>> this debate</i>] I was asked to respond, so I hereby publish my
>> response: This is the fifth year for me to be engaged in
>> Wikipedia-related activities. I believe this project has taken the
>> wrong course and diverted from its objectives. This is why I don't
>> write anymore on the Hebrew Wikipedia, nor in the Arabic Wikipedia. I
>> also write very little on the English Wikipedia. My recent harsh
>> comments there were due to the fact that things have gone too far. I
>> could have pulled my hands from anything related to Wikipedia, and I
>> even considered it several times in the past year, but it is not that
>> easy. I turned into persona non grate on the English Wikipedia due to
>> complaints of pro-Palestinian editors that I attacked them personally.
>> These editors did not not come with clear hands, as they were blocked
>> in the past due to similar complaints directed at them. Nevertheless,
>> their complaints were acknowledged. Late Arie Kaspi, may he rest in
>> peace [<i>a local publicist whom I admire</i>] once wrote that a
>> factory needs the workers to declare a strike every now and then, in
>> order to shake-up the management and keep the factory away from
>> decadence. Wikipedia might need such treatment. In any event, since I
>> am active in several free-content projects within Wikimedia Israel, It
>> is important to me to clarify that all I said and will say about
>> Wikipedia is my own personal view with no relation to Wikimedia Israel.
>> Due to my harsh criticism, I asked not to represent Wikimedia Israel
>> abroad anymore (a duty I had to fulfill in the past), so that there
>> would be no doubt that my criticism is my own. I will continue to
>> promote free-content projects within Wikimedia Israel, as long as the
>> association is interested and as long as I have something to
>> contribute.<br>
>> <br>
>> SEVEN: If most of the world is antisemitic, there is no reason why the
>> big free encyclopedia that it writes be different. Haven't we got tired
>> of trying change the world not to be antisemitic? When the Egyptians
>> shoot Sudanese on the border fences (I've seen some bodies with my own
>> eyes), while we let them into our country, and discuss their rights, we
>> are condemned as human rights violators. When rockets are fired at us
>> from Gaza, an event that every enlightened cultural nation would react
>> to with more than a siege, while we handle it with kid gloves, then
>> something is allegedly wrong with us. Leave this idea of convincing the
>> world with reason, it is bound to remain this way. I am more and more
>> convinced in what Rabbi Bar Yochai said: "It is common knowledge that
>> Esau hates Jacob" [<i>an ancient saying known only to someone who took
>> Jewish religious studies</i>].<br>
>> <br>
>> EIGHT: Most of the world is not antisemitic. There are countries where
>> the government offers indoctrinated antisemitic education, like Egypt,
>> but that doesn't make the majority of the world population antisemitic,
>> not at all. There are also communities that consume media which is very
>> unfair to us, but when I lived in such a community, it was clear to me
>> that the media is not successful in turning the most of the public
>> antisemitic. Stop this defeatism. Anyone who is concerned about the
>> public opinion vis-? -vis Israel and about fighting antisemitism, should
>> cool down, and use his brain. There is a lot to do in order to
>> communicate our position to the majority of the public (not just to
>> some few idiots). Good Luck.<br>
>> <br>
>> It goes on, but I'll stop here, because I think you get the idea. I
>> don't know what can be extracted from this debate, but it seems
>> interesting. Tell me what you think.<br>
>> <br>
>> Dror<br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> ?????&#65533;?????? 13/04/10 20:18, ?????????? Dror Kamir:
>> <blockquote cite="mid:4BC4A773.1090501 at bezeqint.net" type="cite">Hi,
>>    <br>
>>    <br>
>> First of all, an apology - ever since I came back from Bangalore I've
>> been overloaded with work and projects, and didn't have enough time to
>> follow the CPOV events and mailing list. I truly regret that, and I
>> hope it'll change in the near future. Having said that, I can't avoid
>> using this mailing list today, since I arose the curiosity of some of
>> you, when I published a call to boycott Wikipedia on FaceBook (a
>> personal call, I should emphasize, before my colleagues at Wikimedia
>> Israel eat me alive). I published some explanations to my friends
>> there, but they were in Hebrew, so they weren't very useful to most of
>> you. Last remark before telling the story - I have been so much
>> involved in Wikipedia and Wikipedia-related projects, that I've become
>> quite emotional about them. To those of you who see Wikipedia as a
>> subject of research, it might seem strange, and I can't blame them for
>> that :-)
>>    <br>
>>    <br>
>> Several months ago I returned to the English Wikipedia and looked again
>> at articles related to the Middle East. I think it was part of my
>> preparations to the Bangalore conference, but I'm not sure this was the
>> trigger. This way or another, I found out that there was a strange
>> pattern of edits in articles such as "Israel", "State of Palestine",
>> "Palestinian territories" and other related articles. There was a group
>> of editors who persistently and quite forcefully introduced a political
>> thesis into the aforementioned articles. There were several
>> characteristics for these edits:
>>    <br>
>>    <br>
>> 1. Excessive use of the name Palestine, while blurring the distinction
>> among its various meanings. In many articles, it has become unclear
>> whether the name Palestine refers to a geographical region, to a
>> historical political entity, to a future state, to the Palestinian
>> Authority and so forth.
>>    <br>
>>    <br>
>> 2. Excessive use of terms like "occupied", e.g. in the article about
>> the Golan Heights or the Palestinian territories, where previously it
>> was agreed to use more neutral terms like "controlled". That was not
>> merely a change of term, but also overuse of this term over and over
>> again.
>>    <br>
>>    <br>
>> 3. Describing the State of Palestine as a fact on the ground and
>> drawing a straight line between the British Mandate of Palestine and
>> the Arab State of Palestine. The idea is basically to instill the
>> notion as if Israel was just a temporary stage in the history of the
>> region, while the "real" State of Palestine that existed in the past
>> was about to reemerge.
>>    <br>
>>    <br>
>> Politically-wise, this is a sensitive time in this ongoing Middle East
>> conflict. The Palestinian Authority appealed to the International Court
>> of Justice asking for recognition as a state so it could formally
>> accuse Israel in conducting war crimes. In the UK the pro-Palestinian
>> organizations calling to boycott Israel are more active than ever. For
>> my naked eyes, it seems too much like an anti-Israeli campaign of a
>> group of Europe-based Palestinians or pro-Palestinians. On Wikimedia
>> Commons, BTW, I already had some fierce battles with pro-Palestinian
>> editors who tried to upload problematic fiels and hinder projects of
>> Wikimedia Israel.
>>    <br>
>>    <br>
>> I won't get into the political discussion that evolved between me and
>> this group, and I beg you not to assess my judgment regarding the
>> editors' motives or the legitimacy of their edits.?  In fact, this is
>> the minor issue here. What really bugs me is what I found out about the
>> way Wikipedia is currently working.
>>    <br>
>>    <br>
>> 1. The English Wikipedia developed a judicial system. There are laws
>> and tribunals, but they act in a way would amaze even Kafka. There is a
>> decision by the Arbitrary Committee that any editor who makes
>> problematic edits to ME-related articles would be banned from making
>> further edits about the subject. While the Arbitrary Committee meant
>> well, in practice it means that every admin can ban an editor.
>> Wikipedia cherishes anonymity. It is very hard to understand who
>> complained about you, what his motives are, and why his complained was
>> endorsed by the certain admin. Asking to lift the ban requires a long
>> bureaucratic process.
>>    <br>
>>    <br>
>> 2. If one dares to complain about another editor, he might find the
>> accusations turned around at him. Basically it is all about forming
>> cliques. I you have your clique, you are quite immunized, and you can
>> even revert accusations and penalties to those who accuse you.
>>    <br>
>>    <br>
>> The whole treatment of content has become very bureaucratic and
>> imbalanced. The idea that information should be sources has been
>> brought to absurd. Practically anything is regarded as reliable if you
>> can bring a name of an article that says so. I often pointed out to
>> serious problems in the logics of a certain articles, and was answered
>> that I have to bring articles that state otherwise in order to make my
>> claims valid. When I brought such articles, I was often answered that
>> my source was not serious enough, too pro-Israeli, a primary source
>> while WP favors secondary sources and so forth. I often found myself in
>> a strange position where I could not argue with a person, because I did
>> not have access to the book he mentioned.
>>    <br>
>>    <br>
>> Actually WP has abandoned most of its primary values - it is no longer
>> open to all. One must have an access to big academic libraries, be very
>> skilled in conducting debates and have huge amount of time to conduct
>> them. NPOV and No Original Research have become idle principle.
>> Practically any problematic term or theory can be used, as long as you
>> can find some source and interpret it in a way that would enable you to
>> present it as a previously uttered idea. The idea of reaching
>> informative articles through confluence of information and exchange of
>> views has failed. It is all about imposing one's view. The person who
>> imposes his view successfully is the one who has better relations with
>> the judges, namely the admins.
>>    <br>
>>    <br>
>> Okay, I think I wrote quite a lot, and used quite harsh words (I warned
>> you about my emotionality). I'd be happy to hear some relaxed wise
>> comments and insights.
>>    <br>
>>    <br>
>> Best wishes,
>>    <br>
>> Dror
>>    <br>
>>    <br>
>> _______________________________________________
>>    <br>
>> Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
>>    <br>
>> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
>> href="mailto:Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com">Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com</a>
>>    <br>
>> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
>> href="http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org">http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org</a>
>>    <br>
>>    <br>
>> </blockquote>
>> </body>
>> </html>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
>> Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com
>> http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org
>>
>>      
>
>
>    



From athina.k at gmail.com  Thu Apr 15 11:04:19 2010
From: athina.k at gmail.com (Athina Karatzogianni)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 10:04:19 +0100
Subject: <CPOV> Wikipedia and I - follow up from yesterday
In-Reply-To: <4BC64CD3.8090000@bezeqint.net>
References: <3792.145.92.114.203.1271072802.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
	<1271073418.30490.27.camel@bluethunder>
	<B18A74E9-F2AF-4B1A-A124-EA1A9B78753C@xs4all.nl>
	<4BC4A773.1090501@bezeqint.net> <4BC5D787.4040107@bezeqint.net>
	<3833.87.210.38.21.1271264305.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
	<4BC64CD3.8090000@bezeqint.net>
Message-ID: <g2k4a2b32551004150204ze3cfa85cqcf95f7b4735ae90b@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Dror,

Many Thanks for sharing this. I think for me besides the very bizarre
dialogue reminiscent of some kind of neo-stalinist idiocy, this is the only
way I can find to describe it, it is interesting to look at the discourse
regarding the left. I am referring to 'the fact that Dror is left-wing
doesn't matter at all. There is a huge difference between the lunatic
vociferous left that took roots in Europe (but also in the Americas and even
here in Israel) and the sane left, which examines reality cautiously and by
reasonable criteria. Actually, I wouldn't use the term "left" at all in
reference to that lunatic left, it would just blur the fact that they they
are weird. They are usually youths under 30 addicted to the junk-food of
opinion journalism'.

Anyone claiming to be "examining reality cautiously and by reasonable
criteria" and the "lunatic left" just makes my skin crawl. The crude
description of the left I think for me means that we all have better things
than seriously considering their deliberations. This kind of discourse so
vividly reflects the microfascisms of everyday life, and I have to say it
never seizes to amaze me.

Thanks again for sharing, we all need to see this kind of thing from time to
time to situate oneself.

Athina

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Dror Kamir <dqamir at bezeqint.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Thanks for making this summary :-)
> Stepping aside and alienating myself from the issue, I am mostly interested
> in the reemergence of problematic patterns of social behavior. It is a bit
> like watching a "rerun" of the development of judicial system, with all the
> regrettable (even tragic in real life) errors in the process. As for the
> discussion that developed on he-wp, it is interesting for me to see the
> interface between "real life" and "Wikipedian life". The fear of
> antisemitism creeps into the discussion, as if it weren't merely a
> discussion about how to write articles (BTW, it was Holocaust Remembrance
> Day in Israel this week, so may be this was the trigger). Beside being
> anthropologically fascinated (still alienating myself from the issue), I
> cannot come up with interesting new insights (yet), but maybe people here
> could enlighten me :-)
>
> Dror
>
> ?????? 14/04/10 19:58, ????? Juliana Brunello:
>
>  Hi Dror,
>> your complaints are indeed very legit. I will make here a summary of the
>> main arguments, so lazy readers can follow the debate ;)
>>
>>
>>
>>> The new implemented judicial System in WP, the Arbitrary Committee:
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Admins can ban a certain person from editing a topic, as I understood,
>> based on complaints of other editors. Since it can be anonymous, it is
>> hard to see what the real intentions are and why his complained was
>> endorsed by the certain admin.
>>
>>
>>
>>> The problems that surge due to the idea of>sources instead of truth<
>>>>
>>>>
>>> and access to such sources. Also, one needs to know the pseudo-judicial
>> laws of WP in order to successfully take part on the debate. Moreover,
>> some sources seem to be more valid than others.
>>
>> The fact that WP ignores that there are cabals on the project does not
>> make them disappear (>there are no cabals<), as we can see quite often,
>> like the case cited by Dror. One can see that POVs are enforced on certain
>> themes, and that NPOV is hardly effective on controversial cases. I say,
>> in WP some editors under the safeguard of some admins are more equal than
>> others!
>>
>> Juliana
>>
>>
>>
>>> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
>>> <html>
>>> <head>
>>>   <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
>>> </head>
>>> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
>>> Hello,<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Apparently I cried loud enough to bring the Hebrew-speaking Wikipedians
>>> to discuss the issue I raised yesterday. Actually there were two
>>> interesting debates on he-wp, one about me and the other about the Anat
>>> Kam affair (I don't know how many of you heard of it, but it has also
>>> become a Wikipedian affair). I am translating the debate about myself,
>>> partially because of my egocentric nature :-) but mostly because it is
>>> a follow-up to my long message yesterday. Please tell me if you'd like
>>> me to translate some of the Anat Kam debate. BTW, I joined the debate
>>> twice.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> <b>The English Wikipedia - An Anti-Israel Propaganda Tool</b><br>
>>> <br>
>>> ONE: I bring here the words of Dror Kamir who is known to be a
>>> left-wing person, simply unbelievable.<br>
>>> [<i>cites one of my Hebrew messages yesterday, which is basically what
>>> I wrote to this list in English]</i><br>
>>> <br>
>>> TWO: This is hardly new. See this and this on my blog. [<i>brings links
>>> to a blog post that describes more or less the same things I
>>> experienced. The post was written on 29 Dec 2009, so I should have
>>> noticed it while preparing for my talk on Bangalore. This oversight of
>>> mine deserves flogging.</i>]<br>
>>> <br>
>>> ONE: Yes, I saw it also here on the Hebrew Wikipedia debate page
>>> [<i>that's
>>> another version of the aforementioned post, apparently you should add
>>> some more lashes to my punishment</i>].<br>
>>> <br>
>>> THREE: The fact that Dror is left-wing doesn't matter at all. There is
>>> a huge difference between the lunatic vociferous left that took roots
>>> in Europe (but also in the Americas and even here in Israel) and the
>>> sane left, which examines reality cautiously and by reasonable
>>> criteria. Actually, I wouldn't use the term "left" at all in reference
>>> to that lunatic left, it would just blur the fact that they they are
>>> weird. They are usually youths under 30 addicted to the junk-food of
>>> opinion journalism.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> FOUR: Actually, I was amazed by this page
>>> (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
>>> href="
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active_sanctions">
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active_sanctions
>>> </a>),
>>> this page
>>> (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
>>> href="
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Drork
>>> ">
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Drork
>>> </a>)
>>> and some others. Beyond the issue in question, it is scary to see the
>>> monster of bureaucracy, enforcement, punishments, expulsions, bans,
>>> committees and tribunals that has emerged there on "Wikenglish".<br>
>>> <br>
>>> TWO: Anyone wants to establish [our own] ArbCom [Arbitration
>>> Committee]?<br>
>>> <br>
>>> FIVE: Wouldn't it be better to annihilate the servers hosting the
>>> Hebrew Wikipedia? It would be quicker and more humane.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> FOUR: I'm not sure. I mean, I see advantages to such committee, as some
>>> of you know [<i>links to an article he wrote on he-wp about ArbCom on
>>> the German and English Wikipedias and how it should be implemented in
>>> he-wp</i>], but there are hazards too. Like anything good, it can get
>>> out of control. I don't see a principle problem with imposing bans on
>>> certain users to do certain things in certain articles. For itself, it
>>> could have resolved all kind of past crises quite easily and it would
>>> have been less harsh than blocking a person.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> SIX: Should such a committee be established, it should rule in
>>> controversial issues. In what concerns imposing bans of this kind or
>>> another, it may recommend, but the final decision should be left at the
>>> hands of the admins. Anyway, what happens on the English Wikipedia is
>>> indeed worrying. I don't understand how come none of the thousands of
>>> activists there protests.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> TWO: The problem with such a committee is that it takes its toll. It is
>>> not only articles that can be diverted. In their manic pursue of
>>> justice on the English Wikipedia, they forgot they were not qualified
>>> as judges; hence it is easier for interested people to divert them. I
>>> have never asked for such authority [as SIX suggested] and I wasn't
>>> appointed to exercise such authority. I don't want it and don't want it
>>> to be exclusively at the hands of the admins.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> SIX: Let me get it straight, it is okay to completely block a person,
>>> but wrong to prevent him from editing a certain limited subject?<br>
>>> <br>
>>> TWO: Blocking is a preventative measure. I block a person when I see
>>> his actions cause damage, and assess that blocking is the only tool I
>>> have to stop him (if I reckoned there were another tool, I would use
>>> it). On the other hand, ruling that a person is free to edit on
>>> Wikipedia except in a certain subject, actually means a declaration
>>> that this person's opinion in this subject should be ignored, even
>>> though he is still a member of the community. The considerations
>>> required for weighing such ruling are numerous and grave, much more
>>> than the simple consideration whether or not a person causes damage.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> SIX: I didn't mean a permanent removal from a certain subject, but a
>>> temporary one. For example, I would have been glad if someone removed
>>> me from the discussion about the Elad association [<i>an Israeli
>>> right-wing NGO highly involved in conflicts between Jews and Arabs in
>>> Jerusalem</i>] before it got out of hand, but that's me.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> TWO: Temporary is even more problematic - it gives an unfair advantage
>>> to those holding opposite views. Once you introduce too many "levels"
>>> between "fully qualified user" and "banned from the community", you
>>> introduce considerations that the normal community member, and also, as
>>> a result, the normal admin, is not truly able to consider. We are not
>>> judges. Most of us never delved into philosophy or law.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> ME: [<i>After receiving a letter saying: you must write something in
>>> this debate</i>] I was asked to respond, so I hereby publish my
>>> response: This is the fifth year for me to be engaged in
>>> Wikipedia-related activities. I believe this project has taken the
>>> wrong course and diverted from its objectives. This is why I don't
>>> write anymore on the Hebrew Wikipedia, nor in the Arabic Wikipedia. I
>>> also write very little on the English Wikipedia. My recent harsh
>>> comments there were due to the fact that things have gone too far. I
>>> could have pulled my hands from anything related to Wikipedia, and I
>>> even considered it several times in the past year, but it is not that
>>> easy. I turned into persona non grate on the English Wikipedia due to
>>> complaints of pro-Palestinian editors that I attacked them personally.
>>> These editors did not not come with clear hands, as they were blocked
>>> in the past due to similar complaints directed at them. Nevertheless,
>>> their complaints were acknowledged. Late Arie Kaspi, may he rest in
>>> peace [<i>a local publicist whom I admire</i>] once wrote that a
>>> factory needs the workers to declare a strike every now and then, in
>>> order to shake-up the management and keep the factory away from
>>> decadence. Wikipedia might need such treatment. In any event, since I
>>> am active in several free-content projects within Wikimedia Israel, It
>>> is important to me to clarify that all I said and will say about
>>> Wikipedia is my own personal view with no relation to Wikimedia Israel.
>>> Due to my harsh criticism, I asked not to represent Wikimedia Israel
>>> abroad anymore (a duty I had to fulfill in the past), so that there
>>> would be no doubt that my criticism is my own. I will continue to
>>> promote free-content projects within Wikimedia Israel, as long as the
>>> association is interested and as long as I have something to
>>> contribute.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> SEVEN: If most of the world is antisemitic, there is no reason why the
>>> big free encyclopedia that it writes be different. Haven't we got tired
>>> of trying change the world not to be antisemitic? When the Egyptians
>>> shoot Sudanese on the border fences (I've seen some bodies with my own
>>> eyes), while we let them into our country, and discuss their rights, we
>>> are condemned as human rights violators. When rockets are fired at us
>>> from Gaza, an event that every enlightened cultural nation would react
>>> to with more than a siege, while we handle it with kid gloves, then
>>> something is allegedly wrong with us. Leave this idea of convincing the
>>> world with reason, it is bound to remain this way. I am more and more
>>> convinced in what Rabbi Bar Yochai said: "It is common knowledge that
>>> Esau hates Jacob" [<i>an ancient saying known only to someone who took
>>> Jewish religious studies</i>].<br>
>>> <br>
>>> EIGHT: Most of the world is not antisemitic. There are countries where
>>> the government offers indoctrinated antisemitic education, like Egypt,
>>> but that doesn't make the majority of the world population antisemitic,
>>> not at all. There are also communities that consume media which is very
>>> unfair to us, but when I lived in such a community, it was clear to me
>>> that the media is not successful in turning the most of the public
>>> antisemitic. Stop this defeatism. Anyone who is concerned about the
>>> public opinion vis-? -vis Israel and about fighting antisemitism, should
>>> cool down, and use his brain. There is a lot to do in order to
>>> communicate our position to the majority of the public (not just to
>>> some few idiots). Good Luck.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> It goes on, but I'll stop here, because I think you get the idea. I
>>> don't know what can be extracted from this debate, but it seems
>>> interesting. Tell me what you think.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Dror<br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> ?????&#65533;?????? 13/04/10 20:18, ?????????? Dror Kamir:
>>> <blockquote cite="mid:4BC4A773.1090501 at bezeqint.net<mid%3A4BC4A773.1090501 at bezeqint.net>"
>>> type="cite">Hi,
>>>   <br>
>>>   <br>
>>> First of all, an apology - ever since I came back from Bangalore I've
>>> been overloaded with work and projects, and didn't have enough time to
>>> follow the CPOV events and mailing list. I truly regret that, and I
>>> hope it'll change in the near future. Having said that, I can't avoid
>>> using this mailing list today, since I arose the curiosity of some of
>>> you, when I published a call to boycott Wikipedia on FaceBook (a
>>> personal call, I should emphasize, before my colleagues at Wikimedia
>>> Israel eat me alive). I published some explanations to my friends
>>> there, but they were in Hebrew, so they weren't very useful to most of
>>> you. Last remark before telling the story - I have been so much
>>> involved in Wikipedia and Wikipedia-related projects, that I've become
>>> quite emotional about them. To those of you who see Wikipedia as a
>>> subject of research, it might seem strange, and I can't blame them for
>>> that :-)
>>>   <br>
>>>   <br>
>>> Several months ago I returned to the English Wikipedia and looked again
>>> at articles related to the Middle East. I think it was part of my
>>> preparations to the Bangalore conference, but I'm not sure this was the
>>> trigger. This way or another, I found out that there was a strange
>>> pattern of edits in articles such as "Israel", "State of Palestine",
>>> "Palestinian territories" and other related articles. There was a group
>>> of editors who persistently and quite forcefully introduced a political
>>> thesis into the aforementioned articles. There were several
>>> characteristics for these edits:
>>>   <br>
>>>   <br>
>>> 1. Excessive use of the name Palestine, while blurring the distinction
>>> among its various meanings. In many articles, it has become unclear
>>> whether the name Palestine refers to a geographical region, to a
>>> historical political entity, to a future state, to the Palestinian
>>> Authority and so forth.
>>>   <br>
>>>   <br>
>>> 2. Excessive use of terms like "occupied", e.g. in the article about
>>> the Golan Heights or the Palestinian territories, where previously it
>>> was agreed to use more neutral terms like "controlled". That was not
>>> merely a change of term, but also overuse of this term over and over
>>> again.
>>>   <br>
>>>   <br>
>>> 3. Describing the State of Palestine as a fact on the ground and
>>> drawing a straight line between the British Mandate of Palestine and
>>> the Arab State of Palestine. The idea is basically to instill the
>>> notion as if Israel was just a temporary stage in the history of the
>>> region, while the "real" State of Palestine that existed in the past
>>> was about to reemerge.
>>>   <br>
>>>   <br>
>>> Politically-wise, this is a sensitive time in this ongoing Middle East
>>> conflict. The Palestinian Authority appealed to the International Court
>>> of Justice asking for recognition as a state so it could formally
>>> accuse Israel in conducting war crimes. In the UK the pro-Palestinian
>>> organizations calling to boycott Israel are more active than ever. For
>>> my naked eyes, it seems too much like an anti-Israeli campaign of a
>>> group of Europe-based Palestinians or pro-Palestinians. On Wikimedia
>>> Commons, BTW, I already had some fierce battles with pro-Palestinian
>>> editors who tried to upload problematic fiels and hinder projects of
>>> Wikimedia Israel.
>>>   <br>
>>>   <br>
>>> I won't get into the political discussion that evolved between me and
>>> this group, and I beg you not to assess my judgment regarding the
>>> editors' motives or the legitimacy of their edits.?  In fact, this is
>>> the minor issue here. What really bugs me is what I found out about the
>>> way Wikipedia is currently working.
>>>   <br>
>>>   <br>
>>> 1. The English Wikipedia developed a judicial system. There are laws
>>> and tribunals, but they act in a way would amaze even Kafka. There is a
>>> decision by the Arbitrary Committee that any editor who makes
>>> problematic edits to ME-related articles would be banned from making
>>> further edits about the subject. While the Arbitrary Committee meant
>>> well, in practice it means that every admin can ban an editor.
>>> Wikipedia cherishes anonymity. It is very hard to understand who
>>> complained about you, what his motives are, and why his complained was
>>> endorsed by the certain admin. Asking to lift the ban requires a long
>>> bureaucratic process.
>>>   <br>
>>>   <br>
>>> 2. If one dares to complain about another editor, he might find the
>>> accusations turned around at him. Basically it is all about forming
>>> cliques. I you have your clique, you are quite immunized, and you can
>>> even revert accusations and penalties to those who accuse you.
>>>   <br>
>>>   <br>
>>> The whole treatment of content has become very bureaucratic and
>>> imbalanced. The idea that information should be sources has been
>>> brought to absurd. Practically anything is regarded as reliable if you
>>> can bring a name of an article that says so. I often pointed out to
>>> serious problems in the logics of a certain articles, and was answered
>>> that I have to bring articles that state otherwise in order to make my
>>> claims valid. When I brought such articles, I was often answered that
>>> my source was not serious enough, too pro-Israeli, a primary source
>>> while WP favors secondary sources and so forth. I often found myself in
>>> a strange position where I could not argue with a person, because I did
>>> not have access to the book he mentioned.
>>>   <br>
>>>   <br>
>>> Actually WP has abandoned most of its primary values - it is no longer
>>> open to all. One must have an access to big academic libraries, be very
>>> skilled in conducting debates and have huge amount of time to conduct
>>> them. NPOV and No Original Research have become idle principle.
>>> Practically any problematic term or theory can be used, as long as you
>>> can find some source and interpret it in a way that would enable you to
>>> present it as a previously uttered idea. The idea of reaching
>>> informative articles through confluence of information and exchange of
>>> views has failed. It is all about imposing one's view. The person who
>>> imposes his view successfully is the one who has better relations with
>>> the judges, namely the admins.
>>>   <br>
>>>   <br>
>>> Okay, I think I wrote quite a lot, and used quite harsh words (I warned
>>> you about my emotionality). I'd be happy to hear some relaxed wise
>>> comments and insights.
>>>   <br>
>>>   <br>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>   <br>
>>> Dror
>>>   <br>
>>>   <br>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>   <br>
>>> Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
>>>   <br>
>>> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
>>> href="mailto:Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com">
>>> Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com</a>
>>>   <br>
>>> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
>>> href="http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org
>>> ">http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org</a>
>>>   <br>
>>>   <br>
>>> </blockquote>
>>> </body>
>>> </html>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
>>> Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com
>>> http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
> Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com
> http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org
>



-- 
Dr Athina Karatzogianni
Lecturer in Media, Culture and Society
The Dean's Representative (Chinese Partnerships)
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
The University of Hull
United Kingdom
HU6 7RX
T: ++44 (0) 1482 46 5790
F: ++44 (0) 1482 466107
http://www2.hull.ac.uk/FASS/humanities/media,_culture_and_society/staff/karatzogianni,_dr_athina.aspx

Check out Athina's work
http://browse.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?ath=A+Karatzogianni

Check Virtual Communication Collaboration and Conflict (Virt3C) Conference
Call
http://virt3c.wordpress.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20100415/1566dd9e/attachment.html>

From dqamir at bezeqint.net  Thu Apr 15 11:10:29 2010
From: dqamir at bezeqint.net (Dror Kamir)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:10:29 +0300
Subject: <CPOV> Wikipedia and I - follow up from yesterday
In-Reply-To: <g2k4a2b32551004150204ze3cfa85cqcf95f7b4735ae90b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3792.145.92.114.203.1271072802.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>	
	<1271073418.30490.27.camel@bluethunder>	
	<B18A74E9-F2AF-4B1A-A124-EA1A9B78753C@xs4all.nl>	
	<4BC4A773.1090501@bezeqint.net> <4BC5D787.4040107@bezeqint.net>	
	<3833.87.210.38.21.1271264305.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>	
	<4BC64CD3.8090000@bezeqint.net>
	<g2k4a2b32551004150204ze3cfa85cqcf95f7b4735ae90b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4BC6D805.3070705@bezeqint.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20100415/c7f2c19d/attachment.html>

From mathieu.oneil at anu.edu.au  Thu Apr 15 15:15:09 2010
From: mathieu.oneil at anu.edu.au (Mathieu ONeil)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:15:09 +0200
Subject: <CPOV> Wikipedia and I - follow up from yesterday
In-Reply-To: <4BC6D805.3070705@bezeqint.net>
References: <3792.145.92.114.203.1271072802.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
	<1271073418.30490.27.camel@bluethunder>
	<B18A74E9-F2AF-4B1A-A124-EA1A9B78753C@xs4all.nl>
	<4BC4A773.1090501@bezeqint.net> <4BC5D787.4040107@bezeqint.net>
	<3833.87.210.38.21.1271264305.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
	<4BC64CD3.8090000@bezeqint.net>
	<g2k4a2b32551004150204ze3cfa85cqcf95f7b4735ae90b@mail.gmail.com>
	<4BC6D805.3070705@bezeqint.net>
Message-ID: <fbbbcf925929.4bc72d7d@anu.edu.au>

Hi Dror, all
 
 The question of (friendship) cliques manipulating nominally grassroots / collectivist / democratic processes behind the scenes (by discussing issues and taking decisions privately, and in public contexts by responding positively to each other's interventions and ignoring non-cliques members) was addressed by Jo Freeman about feminist groups in the early 1970s. That's why transparent rules are necessary in her view, she makes other recommendations, see her article "The Tyranny of Structurelessness". 
 
 The problem on WP in general is the management of anonymity which justifies extensive policing (which can then lead to abuses concerning content etc) and on the English WP, its size, which makes discussion of reform difficult. This is all pretty well known; if enough people care sufficiently about any of this they might make some changes, through public discussion and proposals. However some possible solutions (recall mechanisms for abusive admins, a clear constitution) contradict the non-institutional feel ("avoid process creep!" etc) championed by the En-WP founder(s)... some could argue to their advantage, I suppose: as stasis is the result.
 
 An insight I can think of from the correspondence you divulged is that there are strong local vibes to the different WPs, namely (these particular) He-WPians seem defensive / touchy about issues surrounding how their country is portrayed. It might be interesting to investigate whether that is the case in other "smaller" WP-environments: what about the Greek WP for example? Looking at discussions around Turkey, Cyprus for example? How are dissident voices treated there, is there stigmatisation also, etc.
 
 Hope this helps,
 cheers,
 
 Mathieu

----- Original Message -----
From: Dror Kamir <dqamir at bezeqint.net>
Date: Thursday, April 15, 2010 11:11 am
Subject: Re: <CPOV> Wikipedia and I - follow up from yesterday
Cc: cpov at listcultures.org

 
        -----------------------------------------------------------
| 

>  That guy placed me at the "sane left"... I thought I was more sinister :-)
 > 
>  ?????? 15/04/10 12:04, ????? Athina Karatzogianni: 
Hi Dror,
   > 
>  Many Thanks for sharing this. I think for me besides the very bizarre dialogue reminiscent of some kind of neo-stalinist idiocy, this is the only way I can find to describe it, it is interesting to look at the discourse regarding the left. I am referring to 'the fact that Dror is left-wing doesn't matter at all. There is a huge difference between the lunatic vociferous left that took roots in Europe (but also in the Americas and even here in Israel) and the sane left, which examines reality cautiously and by reasonable criteria. Actually, I wouldn't use the term "left" at all in reference to that lunatic left, it would just blur the fact that they they are weird. They are usually youths under 30 addicted to the junk-food of opinion journalism'.
   > 
>  Anyone claiming to be "examining reality cautiously and by reasonable criteria" and the "lunatic left" just makes my skin crawl. The crude description of the left I think for me means that we all have better things than seriously considering their deliberations. This kind of discourse so vividly reflects the microfascisms of everyday life, and I have to say it never seizes to amaze me.
   > 
>  Thanks again for sharing, we all need to see this kind of thing from time to time to situate oneself.
   > 
>  Athina 
   > 
   > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Dror Kamir   <dqamir at bezeqint.net> wrote:
   > Hi,
     > 
>  Thanks for making this summary :-)
>  Stepping aside and alienating myself from the issue, I am mostly interested in the reemergence of problematic patterns of social behavior. It is a bit like watching a "rerun" of the development of judicial system, with all the regrettable (even tragic in real life) errors in the process. As for the discussion that developed on he-wp, it is interesting for me to see the interface between "real life" and "Wikipedian life". The fear of antisemitism creeps into the discussion, as if it weren't merely a discussion about how to write articles (BTW, it was Holocaust Remembrance Day in Israel this week, so may be this was the trigger). Beside being anthropologically fascinated (still alienating myself from the issue), I cannot come up with interesting new insights (yet), but maybe people here could enlighten me :-)
     > 
>  Dror
     > 
>  ?????? 14/04/10 19:58, ????? Juliana Brunello:          
     >  Hi Dror,
>  your complaints are indeed very legit. I will make here a summary of the
>  main arguments, so lazy readers can follow the debate ;)
       > 
>    
                > The new implemented judicial System in WP, the Arbitrary Committee:
>        
                >  Admins can ban a certain person from editing a topic, as I understood,
>  based on complaints of other editors. Since it can be anonymous, it is
>  hard to see what the real intentions are and why his complained was
>  endorsed by the certain admin.
       > 
>    
                > The problems that surge due to the idea of>sources instead of truth<
>        
                >  and access to such sources. Also, one needs to know the pseudo-judicial
>  laws of WP in order to successfully take part on the debate. Moreover,
>  some sources seem to be more valid than others.
       > 
>  The fact that WP ignores that there are cabals on the project does not
>  make them disappear (>there are no cabals<), as we can see quite often,
>  like the case cited by Dror. One can see that POVs are enforced on certain
>  themes, and that NPOV is hardly effective on controversial cases. I say,
>  in WP some editors under the safeguard of some admins are more equal than
>  others!
       > 
>  Juliana
       > 
>    
       >  <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
>  <html>
>  <head>
>    <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
>  </head>
>  <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
>  Hello,<br>
>  <br>
>  Apparently I cried loud enough to bring the Hebrew-speaking Wikipedians
>  to discuss the issue I raised yesterday. Actually there were two
>  interesting debates on he-wp, one about me and the other about the Anat
>  Kam affair (I don't know how many of you heard of it, but it has also
>  become a Wikipedian affair). I am translating the debate about myself,
>  partially because of my egocentric nature :-) but mostly because it is
>  a follow-up to my long message yesterday. Please tell me if you'd like
>  me to translate some of the Anat Kam debate. BTW, I joined the debate
>  twice.<br>
>  <br>
>  <b>The English Wikipedia - An Anti-Israel Propaganda Tool</b><br>
>  <br>
>  ONE: I bring here the words of Dror Kamir who is known to be a
>  left-wing person, simply unbelievable.<br>
>  [<i>cites one of my Hebrew messages yesterday, which is basically what
>  I wrote to this list in English]</i><br>
>  <br>
>  TWO: This is hardly new. See this and this on my blog. [<i>brings links
>  to a blog post that describes more or less the same things I
>  experienced. The post was written on 29 Dec 2009, so I should have
>  noticed it while preparing for my talk on Bangalore. This oversight of
>  mine deserves flogging.</i>]<br>
>  <br>
>  ONE: Yes, I saw it also here on the Hebrew Wikipedia debate page
>  [<i>that's
>  another version of the aforementioned post, apparently you should add
>  some more lashes to my punishment</i>].<br>
>  <br>
>  THREE: The fact that Dror is left-wing doesn't matter at all. There is
>  a huge difference between the lunatic vociferous left that took roots
>  in Europe (but also in the Americas and even here in Israel) and the
>  sane left, which examines reality cautiously and by reasonable
>  criteria. Actually, I wouldn't use the term "left" at all in reference
>  to that lunatic left, it would just blur the fact that they they are
>  weird. They are usually youths under 30 addicted to the junk-food of
>  opinion journalism.<br>
>  <br>
>  FOUR: Actually, I was amazed by this page
>  (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
>  href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active_sanctions">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active_sanctions</a>),
>  this page
>  (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
>  href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Drork">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Drork</a>)
>  and some others. Beyond the issue in question, it is scary to see the
>  monster of bureaucracy, enforcement, punishments, expulsions, bans,
>  committees and tribunals that has emerged there on "Wikenglish".<br>
>  <br>
>  TWO: Anyone wants to establish [our own] ArbCom [Arbitration
>  Committee]?<br>
>  <br>
>  FIVE: Wouldn't it be better to annihilate the servers hosting the
>  Hebrew Wikipedia? It would be quicker and more humane.<br>
>  <br>
>  FOUR: I'm not sure. I mean, I see advantages to such committee, as some
>  of you know [<i>links to an article he wrote on he-wp about ArbCom on
>  the German and English Wikipedias and how it should be implemented in
>  he-wp</i>], but there are hazards too. Like anything good, it can get
>  out of control. I don't see a principle problem with imposing bans on
>  certain users to do certain things in certain articles. For itself, it
>  could have resolved all kind of past crises quite easily and it would
>  have been less harsh than blocking a person.<br>
>  <br>
>  SIX: Should such a committee be established, it should rule in
>  controversial issues. In what concerns imposing bans of this kind or
>  another, it may recommend, but the final decision should be left at the
>  hands of the admins. Anyway, what happens on the English Wikipedia is
>  indeed worrying. I don't understand how come none of the thousands of
>  activists there protests.<br>
>  <br>
>  TWO: The problem with such a committee is that it takes its toll. It is
>  not only articles that can be diverted. In their manic pursue of
>  justice on the English Wikipedia, they forgot they were not qualified
>  as judges; hence it is easier for interested people to divert them. I
>  have never asked for such authority [as SIX suggested] and I wasn't
>  appointed to exercise such authority. I don't want it and don't want it
>  to be exclusively at the hands of the admins.<br>
>  <br>
>  SIX: Let me get it straight, it is okay to completely block a person,
>  but wrong to prevent him from editing a certain limited subject?<br>
>  <br>
>  TWO: Blocking is a preventative measure. I block a person when I see
>  his actions cause damage, and assess that blocking is the only tool I
>  have to stop him (if I reckoned there were another tool, I would use
>  it). On the other hand, ruling that a person is free to edit on
>  Wikipedia except in a certain subject, actually means a declaration
>  that this person's opinion in this subject should be ignored, even
>  though he is still a member of the community. The considerations
>  required for weighing such ruling are numerous and grave, much more
>  than the simple consideration whether or not a person causes damage.<br>
>  <br>
>  SIX: I didn't mean a permanent removal from a certain subject, but a
>  temporary one. For example, I would have been glad if someone removed
>  me from the discussion about the Elad association [<i>an Israeli
>  right-wing NGO highly involved in conflicts between Jews and Arabs in
>  Jerusalem</i>] before it got out of hand, but that's me.<br>
>  <br>
>  TWO: Temporary is even more problematic - it gives an unfair advantage
>  to those holding opposite views. Once you introduce too many "levels"
>  between "fully qualified user" and "banned from the community", you
>  introduce considerations that the normal community member, and also, as
>  a result, the normal admin, is not truly able to consider. We are not
>  judges. Most of us never delved into philosophy or law.<br>
>  <br>
>  ME: [<i>After receiving a letter saying: you must write something in
>  this debate</i>] I was asked to respond, so I hereby publish my
>  response: This is the fifth year for me to be engaged in
>  Wikipedia-related activities. I believe this project has taken the
>  wrong course and diverted from its objectives. This is why I don't
>  write anymore on the Hebrew Wikipedia, nor in the Arabic Wikipedia. I
>  also write very little on the English Wikipedia. My recent harsh
>  comments there were due to the fact that things have gone too far. I
>  could have pulled my hands from anything related to Wikipedia, and I
>  even considered it several times in the past year, but it is not that
>  easy. I turned into persona non grate on the English Wikipedia due to
>  complaints of pro-Palestinian editors that I attacked them personally.
>  These editors did not not come with clear hands, as they were blocked
>  in the past due to similar complaints directed at them. Nevertheless,
>  their complaints were acknowledged. Late Arie Kaspi, may he rest in
>  peace [<i>a local publicist whom I admire</i>] once wrote that a
>  factory needs the workers to declare a strike every now and then, in
>  order to shake-up the management and keep the factory away from
>  decadence. Wikipedia might need such treatment. In any event, since I
>  am active in several free-content projects within Wikimedia Israel, It
>  is important to me to clarify that all I said and will say about
>  Wikipedia is my own personal view with no relation to Wikimedia Israel.
>  Due to my harsh criticism, I asked not to represent Wikimedia Israel
>  abroad anymore (a duty I had to fulfill in the past), so that there
>  would be no doubt that my criticism is my own. I will continue to
>  promote free-content projects within Wikimedia Israel, as long as the
>  association is interested and as long as I have something to
>  contribute.<br>
>  <br>
>  SEVEN: If most of the world is antisemitic, there is no reason why the
>  big free encyclopedia that it writes be different. Haven't we got tired
>  of trying change the world not to be antisemitic? When the Egyptians
>  shoot Sudanese on the border fences (I've seen some bodies with my own
>  eyes), while we let them into our country, and discuss their rights, we
>  are condemned as human rights violators. When rockets are fired at us
>  from Gaza, an event that every enlightened cultural nation would react
>  to with more than a siege, while we handle it with kid gloves, then
>  something is allegedly wrong with us. Leave this idea of convincing the
>  world with reason, it is bound to remain this way. I am more and more
>  convinced in what Rabbi Bar Yochai said: "It is common knowledge that
>  Esau hates Jacob" [<i>an ancient saying known only to someone who took
>  Jewish religious studies</i>].<br>
>  <br>
>  EIGHT: Most of the world is not antisemitic. There are countries where
>  the government offers indoctrinated antisemitic education, like Egypt,
>  but that doesn't make the majority of the world population antisemitic,
>  not at all. There are also communities that consume media which is very
>  unfair to us, but when I lived in such a community, it was clear to me
>  that the media is not successful in turning the most of the public
>  antisemitic. Stop this defeatism. Anyone who is concerned about the
>  public opinion vis-? -vis Israel and about fighting antisemitism, should
>  cool down, and use his brain. There is a lot to do in order to
>  communicate our position to the majority of the public (not just to
>  some few idiots). Good Luck.<br>
>  <br>
>  It goes on, but I'll stop here, because I think you get the idea. I
>  don't know what can be extracted from this debate, but it seems
>  interesting. Tell me what you think.<br>
>  <br>
>  Dror<br>
>  <br>
>  <br>
>  <br>
>  <br>
>  <br>
>  <br>
>  ?????&#65533;?????? 13/04/10 20:18, ?????????? Dror Kamir:
>  <blockquote cite="mid:4BC4A773.1090501 at bezeqint.net" type="cite">Hi,
>    <br>
>    <br>
>  First of all, an apology - ever since I came back from Bangalore I've
>  been overloaded with work and projects, and didn't have enough time to
>  follow the CPOV events and mailing list. I truly regret that, and I
>  hope it'll change in the near future. Having said that, I can't avoid
>  using this mailing list today, since I arose the curiosity of some of
>  you, when I published a call to boycott Wikipedia on FaceBook (a
>  personal call, I should emphasize, before my colleagues at Wikimedia
>  Israel eat me alive). I published some explanations to my friends
>  there, but they were in Hebrew, so they weren't very useful to most of
>  you. Last remark before telling the story - I have been so much
>  involved in Wikipedia and Wikipedia-related projects, that I've become
>  quite emotional about them. To those of you who see Wikipedia as a
>  subject of research, it might seem strange, and I can't blame them for
>  that :-)
>    <br>
>    <br>
>  Several months ago I returned to the English Wikipedia and looked again
>  at articles related to the Middle East. I think it was part of my
>  preparations to the Bangalore conference, but I'm not sure this was the
>  trigger. This way or another, I found out that there was a strange
>  pattern of edits in articles such as "Israel", "State of Palestine",
>  "Palestinian territories" and other related articles. There was a group
>  of editors who persistently and quite forcefully introduced a political
>  thesis into the aforementioned articles. There were several
>  characteristics for these edits:
>    <br>
>    <br>
>  1. Excessive use of the name Palestine, while blurring the distinction
>  among its various meanings. In many articles, it has become unclear
>  whether the name Palestine refers to a geographical region, to a
>  historical political entity, to a future state, to the Palestinian
>  Authority and so forth.
>    <br>
>    <br>
>  2. Excessive use of terms like "occupied", e.g. in the article about
>  the Golan Heights or the Palestinian territories, where previously it
>  was agreed to use more neutral terms like "controlled". That was not
>  merely a change of term, but also overuse of this term over and over
>  again.
>    <br>
>    <br>
>  3. Describing the State of Palestine as a fact on the ground and
>  drawing a straight line between the British Mandate of Palestine and
>  the Arab State of Palestine. The idea is basically to instill the
>  notion as if Israel was just a temporary stage in the history of the
>  region, while the "real" State of Palestine that existed in the past
>  was about to reemerge.
>    <br>
>    <br>
>  Politically-wise, this is a sensitive time in this ongoing Middle East
>  conflict. The Palestinian Authority appealed to the International Court
>  of Justice asking for recognition as a state so it could formally
>  accuse Israel in conducting war crimes. In the UK the pro-Palestinian
>  organizations calling to boycott Israel are more active than ever. For
>  my naked eyes, it seems too much like an anti-Israeli campaign of a
>  group of Europe-based Palestinians or pro-Palestinians. On Wikimedia
>  Commons, BTW, I already had some fierce battles with pro-Palestinian
>  editors who tried to upload problematic fiels and hinder projects of
>  Wikimedia Israel.
>    <br>
>    <br>
>  I won't get into the political discussion that evolved between me and
>  this group, and I beg you not to assess my judgment regarding the
>  editors' motives or the legitimacy of their edits.?  In fact, this is
>  the minor issue here. What really bugs me is what I found out about the
>  way Wikipedia is currently working.
>    <br>
>    <br>
>  1. The English Wikipedia developed a judicial system. There are laws
>  and tribunals, but they act in a way would amaze even Kafka. There is a
>  decision by the Arbitrary Committee that any editor who makes
>  problematic edits to ME-related articles would be banned from making
>  further edits about the subject. While the Arbitrary Committee meant
>  well, in practice it means that every admin can ban an editor.
>  Wikipedia cherishes anonymity. It is very hard to understand who
>  complained about you, what his motives are, and why his complained was
>  endorsed by the certain admin. Asking to lift the ban requires a long
>  bureaucratic process.
>    <br>
>    <br>
>  2. If one dares to complain about another editor, he might find the
>  accusations turned around at him. Basically it is all about forming
>  cliques. I you have your clique, you are quite immunized, and you can
>  even revert accusations and penalties to those who accuse you.
>    <br>
>    <br>
>  The whole treatment of content has become very bureaucratic and
>  imbalanced. The idea that information should be sources has been
>  brought to absurd. Practically anything is regarded as reliable if you
>  can bring a name of an article that says so. I often pointed out to
>  serious problems in the logics of a certain articles, and was answered
>  that I have to bring articles that state otherwise in order to make my
>  claims valid. When I brought such articles, I was often answered that
>  my source was not serious enough, too pro-Israeli, a primary source
>  while WP favors secondary sources and so forth. I often found myself in
>  a strange position where I could not argue with a person, because I did
>  not have access to the book he mentioned.
>    <br>
>    <br>
>  Actually WP has abandoned most of its primary values - it is no longer
>  open to all. One must have an access to big academic libraries, be very
>  skilled in conducting debates and have huge amount of time to conduct
>  them. NPOV and No Original Research have become idle principle.
>  Practically any problematic term or theory can be used, as long as you
>  can find some source and interpret it in a way that would enable you to
>  present it as a previously uttered idea. The idea of reaching
>  informative articles through confluence of information and exchange of
>  views has failed. It is all about imposing one's view. The person who
>  imposes his view successfully is the one who has better relations with
>  the judges, namely the admins.
>    <br>
>    <br>
>  Okay, I think I wrote quite a lot, and used quite harsh words (I warned
>  you about my emotionality). I'd be happy to hear some relaxed wise
>  comments and insights.
>    <br>
>    <br>
>  Best wishes,
>    <br>
>  Dror
>    <br>
>    <br>
>  _______________________________________________
>    <br>
>  Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
>    <br>
>  <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
>  href="mailto:Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com">Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com</a>
>    <br>
>  <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
>  href="http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org">http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org</a>
>    <br>
>    <br>
>  </blockquote>
>  </body>
>  </html>
         > 
>  _______________________________________________
>  Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
         > Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com
         > http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org
         > 
>      
              > 
       > 
>    
          > 
>  _______________________________________________
>  Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
     > Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com
     > http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org
                   > 
   >    > 
>  -- 
>  Dr Athina Karatzogianni
>  Lecturer in Media, Culture and Society
>  The Dean's Representative (Chinese Partnerships)
>  Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
>  The University of Hull
>  United Kingdom
>  HU6 7RX 
>  T: ++44 (0) 1482 46 5790
>  F: ++44 (0) 1482 466107
   > http://www2.hull.ac.uk/FASS/humanities/media,_culture_and_society/staff/karatzogianni,_dr_athina.aspx
   > 
>  Check out Athina's work
   > http://browse.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?ath=A+Karatzogianni
   > 
>  Check Virtual Communication Collaboration and Conflict (Virt3C) Conference Call
   > http://virt3c.wordpress.com/
   |
-----------------------------------------------------------
   > _______________________________________________
> Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
> Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com
> http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org

****
Dr Mathieu O'Neil
Adjunct Research Fellow
Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute
College of Arts and Social Science
The Australian National University
email: mathieu.oneil[at]anu.edu.au
web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20100415/abc6892c/attachment.html>

From bia.martins at gmail.com  Thu Apr 15 16:39:57 2010
From: bia.martins at gmail.com (Bia Martins)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:39:57 -0300
Subject: <CPOV> Evaluating quality control of Wikipedia's feature articles
Message-ID: <v2jfe878d551004150739qc68634d5j1ab40c6f029a99b5@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

This paper, published in the last edition of First Monday, may interest you.

Cheers,

Bia

====================================================================

Evaluating quality control of Wikipedia's feature articles
*David Lindsey*

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Wikipedia?s
internal quality control mechanism, the ?featured article? process, which
assesses articles against a stringent set of criteria. To this end, scholars
were asked to evaluate the quality and accuracy of Wikipedia featured
articles within their area of expertise. A total of 22 usable responses were
collected from a variety of disciplines. Out of the Wikipedia articles
assessed, only 12 of 22 were found to pass Wikipedia?s own featured article
criteria, indicating that Wikipedia?s process is ineffective. This finding
suggests both that Wikipedia must take steps to improve its featured article
process and that scholars interested in studying Wikipedia should be careful
not to naively believe its assertions of quality.

Full Text: HTML<http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2721/2482>

http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2721/2482
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20100415/19fb7f3f/attachment.html>

From juliana at networkcultures.org  Thu Apr 15 17:30:40 2010
From: juliana at networkcultures.org (Juliana Brunello)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 17:30:40 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: <CPOV> Evaluating quality control of Wikipedia's feature
 articles
In-Reply-To: <v2jfe878d551004150739qc68634d5j1ab40c6f029a99b5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <v2jfe878d551004150739qc68634d5j1ab40c6f029a99b5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1703.145.92.166.89.1271345440.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>

The research idea is indeed interesting. However, it is not representative
enough. Only 22 articles were analyzed, all in the english wp. Also,
grading from 1 to 10 can be quite a subjective matter. I believe such
research should be further developed in order to deliver a better
knowledge of wp's FAs.

Juliana

> Hello,
>
> This paper, published in the last edition of First Monday, may interest
> you.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bia
>
> ====================================================================
>
> Evaluating quality control of Wikipedia's feature articles
> *David Lindsey*
>
> Abstract
> The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Wikipedia?s
> internal quality control mechanism, the ?featured article? process, which
> assesses articles against a stringent set of criteria. To this end,
> scholars
> were asked to evaluate the quality and accuracy of Wikipedia featured
> articles within their area of expertise. A total of 22 usable responses
> were
> collected from a variety of disciplines. Out of the Wikipedia articles
> assessed, only 12 of 22 were found to pass Wikipedia?s own featured
> article
> criteria, indicating that Wikipedia?s process is ineffective. This finding
> suggests both that Wikipedia must take steps to improve its featured
> article
> process and that scholars interested in studying Wikipedia should be
> careful
> not to naively believe its assertions of quality.
>
> Full Text:
> HTML<http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2721/2482>
>
> http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2721/2482
> _______________________________________________
> Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
> Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com
> http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org
>





From jfelipe at gsyc.es  Fri Apr 16 14:24:35 2010
From: jfelipe at gsyc.es (Felipe Ortega)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:24:35 +0200
Subject: <CPOV> Evaluating quality control of Wikipedia's feature
 articles
In-Reply-To: <1703.145.92.166.89.1271345440.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
References: <v2jfe878d551004150739qc68634d5j1ab40c6f029a99b5@mail.gmail.com>
	<1703.145.92.166.89.1271345440.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
Message-ID: <1271420675.15401.42.camel@bluethunder>

On jue, 2010-04-15 at 17:30 +0200, Juliana Brunello wrote:
> The research idea is indeed interesting. However, it is not representative
> enough. Only 22 articles were analyzed, all in the english wp. Also,
> grading from 1 to 10 can be quite a subjective matter. I believe such
> research should be further developed in order to deliver a better
> knowledge of wp's FAs.

I totally agree with your review. Moreover, this excerpt is really
confusing:

"It is worth noting that many of the articles assessed did score quite
well, proving that Wikipedia?s contributors can produce very good
articles. The articles receiving lower scores, however, show quite
convincingly that Wikipedia?s attempt at quality control is failing".

Since this accounts for 7 out of 22 (31.8%) it is hardly believable how
this can shows that the whole process is failing (even less if we
consider that the sample is far from representative, both in quantity
and scope of content).

Best,
Felipe.

> Juliana
> 
> > Hello,
> >
> > This paper, published in the last edition of First Monday, may interest
> > you.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Bia
> >
> > ====================================================================
> >
> > Evaluating quality control of Wikipedia's feature articles
> > *David Lindsey*
> >
> > Abstract
> > The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Wikipedia?s
> > internal quality control mechanism, the ?featured article? process, which
> > assesses articles against a stringent set of criteria. To this end,
> > scholars
> > were asked to evaluate the quality and accuracy of Wikipedia featured
> > articles within their area of expertise. A total of 22 usable responses
> > were
> > collected from a variety of disciplines. Out of the Wikipedia articles
> > assessed, only 12 of 22 were found to pass Wikipedia?s own featured
> > article
> > criteria, indicating that Wikipedia?s process is ineffective. This finding
> > suggests both that Wikipedia must take steps to improve its featured
> > article
> > process and that scholars interested in studying Wikipedia should be
> > careful
> > not to naively believe its assertions of quality.
> >
> > Full Text:
> > HTML<http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2721/2482>
> >
> > http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2721/2482
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
> > Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com
> > http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
> Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com
> http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20100416/2cdb0a86/attachment.sig>

From joseph.nyu at reagle.org  Fri Apr 16 15:51:33 2010
From: joseph.nyu at reagle.org (Joseph Reagle)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:51:33 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> Evaluating quality control of Wikipedia's feature
	articles
In-Reply-To: <1271420675.15401.42.camel@bluethunder>
References: <v2jfe878d551004150739qc68634d5j1ab40c6f029a99b5@mail.gmail.com>
	<1703.145.92.166.89.1271345440.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
	<1271420675.15401.42.camel@bluethunder>
Message-ID: <201004160951.34388.joseph.nyu@reagle.org>


[I hope people don't mind that I'm actually CCing David with my question as well.]

On Friday 16 April 2010, X wrote:
> On jue, 2010-04-15 at 17:30 +0200, Y wrote:
> > The research idea is indeed interesting. However, it is not representative
> > enough. Only 22 articles were analyzed, all in the english wp. Also,
> > grading from 1 to 10 can be quite a subjective matter. I believe such
> > research should be further developed in order to deliver a better
> > knowledge of wp's FAs.
> 
> I totally agree with your review. Moreover, this excerpt is really
> confusing:
> 
> "It is worth noting that many of the articles assessed did score quite
> well, proving that Wikipedia?s contributors can produce very good
> articles. The articles receiving lower scores, however, show quite
> convincingly that Wikipedia?s attempt at quality control is failing".
> 
> Since this accounts for 7 out of 22 (31.8%) it is hardly believable how
> this can shows that the whole process is failing (even less if we
> consider that the sample is far from representative, both in quantity
> and scope of content).

The article notes: "Out of the Wikipedia articles assessed, only 12 of 22 were found to pass Wikipedia?s own featured article criteria, indicating that Wikipedia?s process is ineffective."

I wonder which criteria of the featured article process were found not to be satisfied. We only have the numerical ratings, which I think are actually independent of the featured article criteria, as they were a general assessment by the experts.



From esalor at gmail.com  Sun Apr 18 10:53:28 2010
From: esalor at gmail.com (Erinc Salor)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 10:53:28 +0200
Subject: <CPOV> Evaluating quality control of Wikipedia's feature
	articles
In-Reply-To: <1703.145.92.166.89.1271345440.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
References: <v2jfe878d551004150739qc68634d5j1ab40c6f029a99b5@mail.gmail.com> 
	<1703.145.92.166.89.1271345440.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
Message-ID: <y2ued8263ed1004180153n89d27161s83d77d4f93bce932@mail.gmail.com>

There was an article from 2008 with similar focus on the 'featured article'
process and quality.
May be interesting for comparison. Details are below and can also be found
at;
http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/short/25/2/262

Patterns of Revision in Online WritingA Study of Wikipedia's Featured
Articles*John Jones*

University of Texas at Austin

This study examines the revision histories of 10 Wikipedia articles nominated
for the site's Featured Article Class (FAC), its highest quality rating, 5
of which achieved FAC and 5 of which did not. The revisions to each article
were coded, and the coding results were combined with a descriptive analysis
of two representative articles in order to determine revision patterns. All
articles in both groups showed a higher percentage of additions of new material
compared to deletions and revisions that rearranged the text. Although the
FAC articles had roughly equal numbers of content and surface revisions, the
non-FAC articles had fewer surface revisions and were dominated by content
revisions. Although the unique features of the Wikipedia environment inhibit
strict comparisons between these results and those of earlier revision studies,
these results suggest revision in this environment places unique structural
demands on writers, possibly leading to unique revision patterns.

*Key Words:* collaborative online revision ? composing online ? new media ?
wiki ? network effects ? Web 2.0

Written Communication, Vol. 25, No. 2, 262-289 (2008)

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Juliana Brunello <
juliana at networkcultures.org> wrote:

> The research idea is indeed interesting. However, it is not representative
> enough. Only 22 articles were analyzed, all in the english wp. Also,
> grading from 1 to 10 can be quite a subjective matter. I believe such
> research should be further developed in order to deliver a better
> knowledge of wp's FAs.
>
> Juliana
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > This paper, published in the last edition of First Monday, may interest
> > you.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Bia
> >
> > ====================================================================
> >
> > Evaluating quality control of Wikipedia's feature articles
> > *David Lindsey*
> >
> > Abstract
> > The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of
> Wikipedia?s
> > internal quality control mechanism, the ?featured article? process, which
> > assesses articles against a stringent set of criteria. To this end,
> > scholars
> > were asked to evaluate the quality and accuracy of Wikipedia featured
> > articles within their area of expertise. A total of 22 usable responses
> > were
> > collected from a variety of disciplines. Out of the Wikipedia articles
> > assessed, only 12 of 22 were found to pass Wikipedia?s own featured
> > article
> > criteria, indicating that Wikipedia?s process is ineffective. This
> finding
> > suggests both that Wikipedia must take steps to improve its featured
> > article
> > process and that scholars interested in studying Wikipedia should be
> > careful
> > not to naively believe its assertions of quality.
> >
> > Full Text:
> > HTML<
> http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2721/2482
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2721/2482
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
> > Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com
> > http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
> Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com
> http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20100418/26f4e3e2/attachment.html>

From jfelipe at gsyc.es  Sun Apr 18 18:45:23 2010
From: jfelipe at gsyc.es (Felipe Ortega)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 18:45:23 +0200
Subject: <CPOV> Updates for the Wikipedia General Survey
Message-ID: <1271609123.2526.20.camel@bluethunder>

Hello, all.

A couple of hectic weeks after vacations prevented me to realize that an
update of the Wikipedia General Survey results was issued on April 2.

http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/04/02/new-reports-from-november-2008-survey-released/ 

Among other interesting points (I encourage you to read the reports,
since they're presented in a very straightforward way):

- It looks like my favourite stat (% of contributors among female
Wikipedia users) has changed dramatically in the final numbers. I'm
trying to check why with the UNU-MERIT team, since it is suprising for
me, unless they happened to process most of female contributors answers
at first.

- A significant proportion of users still demand more information on
which specific areas of Wikipedia still need substantial contributions.
This concurs with the ideas already mentioned so far on possible ways to
improve the editorial work.

Please, share your comments and insights for the results.

Best,
Felipe.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20100418/0f71be0b/attachment.sig>

From jawbrey at att.net  Sun Apr 18 18:50:51 2010
From: jawbrey at att.net (Jon Awbrey)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 12:50:51 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> Updates for the Wikipedia General Survey
In-Reply-To: <1271609123.2526.20.camel@bluethunder>
References: <1271609123.2526.20.camel@bluethunder>
Message-ID: <4BCB386B.4050507@att.net>

Is that female persons?

Or female sockpuppets?

R. U. Sure?

Jon

-- 

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



From nathanieltkacz at gmail.com  Mon Apr 19 02:35:13 2010
From: nathanieltkacz at gmail.com (nathaniel tkacz)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:35:13 +1000
Subject: <CPOV> Updates for the Wikipedia General Survey
In-Reply-To: <4BCB386B.4050507@att.net>
References: <1271609123.2526.20.camel@bluethunder> <4BCB386B.4050507@att.net>
Message-ID: <l2x5eca9f761004181735x32e92a0dga7b2e1d59f036be@mail.gmail.com>

hi all - the authors note how the surprisingly large number of
contributors (circa 31%) compared to plain readers is probably not
representative and i agree that it seems remarkably high. in the past when i
discuss wikipedia with my undergraduate students it is very rare to have
even one who has contributed. across several years and a few hundred
students i only had a handful who had contributed. interestingly, most of
them didn't even know this was possible and these are media students.

if this initial stat is so off, i wonder how it impacts some of the other
questions. don't get me wrong, i am grateful to have any stats like this and
it's a real task putting something like this together. i just wonder what
truth claims can be drawn from this kind of work when one of the stats seems
quite off.

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/


On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 2:50 AM, Jon Awbrey <jawbrey at att.net> wrote:

> Is that female persons?
>
> Or female sockpuppets?
>
> R. U. Sure?
>
> Jon
>
> --
>
> 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
> http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20100419/95e60cb6/attachment.html>

From dqamir at bezeqint.net  Mon Apr 19 08:11:16 2010
From: dqamir at bezeqint.net (Dror Kamir)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:11:16 +0300
Subject: <CPOV> Updates for the Wikipedia General Survey
In-Reply-To: <l2x5eca9f761004181735x32e92a0dga7b2e1d59f036be@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1271609123.2526.20.camel@bluethunder> <4BCB386B.4050507@att.net>
	<l2x5eca9f761004181735x32e92a0dga7b2e1d59f036be@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4BCBF404.1030806@bezeqint.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20100419/d6c94e9d/attachment.html>

From juliana at networkcultures.org  Tue Apr 20 15:32:35 2010
From: juliana at networkcultures.org (Juliana Brunello)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:32:35 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: <CPOV> Videos of the Conference online
Message-ID: <2473.145.92.114.53.1271770355.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>

Here are the links to the videos of all the talks for the CPoV conference
in Amsterdam. Enjoy!

These are the links to the videos of all the talks for the CPoV Conference
in Amsterdam - Enjoy!


SESSION 1
http://vimeo.com/10605801 Ramon Reichert (AT)
Rethinking Wikipedia: Power, Knowledge and the Technologies of the Self

http://vimeo.com/10606220 Jeanette Hofmann (DE)
Wikipedia between Emancipation and Self-Regulation

http://vimeo.com/10606547 Mathieu O?Neil
(AU) The Critique of Law in Free Online Projects

http://vimeo.com/10696489 Gerard Wormser(FR)
The Knowledge Bar

SESSION 2


http://vimeo.com/10607993 Joseph Reagle (USA)
Wikipedia and Encyclopedic Anxiety

http://vimeo.com/10608291 Charles van den Heuvel (NL)
Authoritative Annotations, Encyclopedia Universalis Mundaneum, Wikipedia
and the Stanford Encycloped

http://vimeo.com/10697853 Dan O?Sullivan (UK)
An Encyclopedia for the Times: Thoughts on Wikipedia from a His- torical
Perspective

http://vimeo.com/10699949 Alan Shapiro (USA/DE)
Gustave Flaubert Laughs at Wikipedia

http://www.vimeo.com/10607690 Discussion session 2 Encyclopedia Histories
Moderaror: Nathaniel Tkacz
Speakers: Joseph Reagle, Charles van den Heuvel, Dan O'Sullivan, Alan Shapiro

SESSION 3

http://www.vimeo.com/10701587 Hendrik-Jan Grievink (NL)
Wiki Loves Art

http://www.vimeo.com/10702729 Scott Kildall (USA)
Wikipedia Art: Citation as Performative Act

http://vimeo.com/10741921 Patrick Lichty (USA)
Social Media, Cultural Scaffolds, and Molecular Hegemonies. Musings on
Anarchic Media, WIKIs, and De-territorialized Art

http://www.vimeo.com/10607690 Discussion session 3 Wiki Art
Moderator: Rachel Somers Miles
Speakers: Hendrik-Jan Grievink, Scott Kildall, Patrick Lichty

SESSION 4

http://vimeo.com/10747211 Felipe Ortega (ES)
New Trends in the Evolution of Wikipedia

http://vimeo.com/10748335 Stuart Geiger (USA)
Bot Politics: The Domination, Subversion, and Negotiation of Code in
Wikipedia

http://vimeo.com/10748727 Hans Varghese Mathews (IN)
Clustering the Contributors to a Wikipedia Page

http://vimeo.com/10748888 Esther Weltevrede  (NL) and Erik Borra (BE/NL)
Controversy Analysis with Wikipedia

http://www.vimeo.com/10749027 Discussion session 4 Wiki Analytics
Moderator: NIshant Shah
Speakers: Felipe Ortega, Stuart Geiger, Hans Varghese Mathews, Esther
Weltevrede & Erik Borra

SESSION 5

http://vimeo.com/10750350 Lawrence Liang (IN)
Wikipedia and the authority of knowledge

http://vimeo.com/10750495 Teemu Mikkonen (FI)
Kosovo War on Wikipedia, Tracing the Conflict and Concensus on the
Wikipedia Talk pages

http://vimeo.com/10799887 Andrew Famiglietti (USA)
Negotiating the Neutral Point of View: Politics and the Moral Economy of
Wikipedia

http://vimeo.com/10772241 Florian Cramer(DE/NL)
The German WikiWars and the limits of objectivism

http://www.vimeo.com/10799600 Discussion session 5 Designing Debate
Moderator: Caroline Nevejan
Speakers: Lawrence Liang, Teemu Mikkonen, Andrew Famiglietti, Florian Cramer

SESSION 6

http://vimeo.com/10772313 Mayo Fuster Morell (IT)
Wikimedia Governance: The Role of the Wikimedia Foundation and the Form
and Geopolitics of its Internationalization

http://vimeo.com/10800562 Athina Karatzogianni (UK)
Wikipedia?s Impact on the Global Power-Knowledge Hierarchies

http://vimeo.com/10800100 Maja van der Velden (NL/NO)
When Knowledges Meet: Database Design and the Performance of Knowledge

http://vimeo.com/10800206 Amit Basole (IN)
Knowledge Satyagraha: Towards a People?s Knowledge Movement

http://www.vimeo.com/10800354 Discussion session 6 Global Issues and Outlooks
Moderator: Johanna Niesyto
Speakers: Mayo Fuster Morell, Athina Karatzogianni, Maja van der Velden,
Amit Basole





From T.Koenig at surrey.ac.uk  Tue Apr 20 17:28:17 2010
From: T.Koenig at surrey.ac.uk (T.Koenig at surrey.ac.uk)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:28:17 +0100
Subject: <CPOV> Videos of the Conference online
In-Reply-To: <2473.145.92.114.53.1271770355.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
References: <2473.145.92.114.53.1271770355.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
Message-ID: <F4854797FC46B94592D30FED779D2E3D65E5313228@EXMB05CMS.surrey.ac.uk>

Dear all,

I realize this might not be the most polite way to introduce myself to the list, but as a sociologist working inter alia on nationalism, and being all too weary of banal nationalism (Michael Billig) and sociological nationalism, it struck me, that the presentation of the videos like this:
 
> SESSION 1
> http://vimeo.com/10605801 Ramon Reichert (AT) Rethinking Wikipedia:
> Power, Knowledge and the Technologies of the Self

(and so on) is a typical case of this type of this kind nationalism. I don't know, if "AT" in preferences means the presenters citizenship status or his residence status or the country, where the institution he's affiliated with (if any) is located in, but none of the answers would be in any way essential for me deciding, whether I want to watch the video. Nor should they be in my view, as long as they are not speaking as state officials (which I doubt anyone of the presenters does).

Can I therefore please kindly ask you to omit national affiliations in the future? More helpful would be the institutional affiliation, if you think there is a need to categorize presenters.

Many thanks!

Thomas
-- 
thomas koenig
department of sociology
university of surrey 



From dqamir at bezeqint.net  Tue Apr 20 17:48:34 2010
From: dqamir at bezeqint.net (Dror Kamir)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:48:34 +0300
Subject: <CPOV> Videos of the Conference online
In-Reply-To: <F4854797FC46B94592D30FED779D2E3D65E5313228@EXMB05CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
References: <2473.145.92.114.53.1271770355.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
	<F4854797FC46B94592D30FED779D2E3D65E5313228@EXMB05CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <4BCDCCD2.5070406@bezeqint.net>

Actually, I think the place from which a person come is an important 
aspect in her/his background. I wouldn't mind if it were a name of a 
city, a province or a country, but I think it is a legitimate and 
relevant information, just like the person's name, his education etc.

Thanks,

Dror

?????? 20/04/10 18:28, ????? T.Koenig at surrey.ac.uk:
> Dear all,
>
> I realize this might not be the most polite way to introduce myself to the list, but as a sociologist working inter alia on nationalism, and being all too weary of banal nationalism (Michael Billig) and sociological nationalism, it struck me, that the presentation of the videos like this:
>
>    
>> SESSION 1
>> http://vimeo.com/10605801 Ramon Reichert (AT) Rethinking Wikipedia:
>> Power, Knowledge and the Technologies of the Self
>>      
> (and so on) is a typical case of this type of this kind nationalism. I don't know, if "AT" in preferences means the presenters citizenship status or his residence status or the country, where the institution he's affiliated with (if any) is located in, but none of the answers would be in any way essential for me deciding, whether I want to watch the video. Nor should they be in my view, as long as they are not speaking as state officials (which I doubt anyone of the presenters does).
>
> Can I therefore please kindly ask you to omit national affiliations in the future? More helpful would be the institutional affiliation, if you think there is a need to categorize presenters.
>
> Many thanks!
>
> Thomas
>    



From juliana at networkcultures.org  Tue Apr 20 17:53:23 2010
From: juliana at networkcultures.org (Juliana Brunello)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 17:53:23 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: <CPOV> Videos of the Conference online
In-Reply-To: <F4854797FC46B94592D30FED779D2E3D65E5313228@EXMB05CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
References: <2473.145.92.114.53.1271770355.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
	<F4854797FC46B94592D30FED779D2E3D65E5313228@EXMB05CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <2954.145.92.114.53.1271778803.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>

Dear Thomas,

I believe this has little to do with nationalism. It is just a matter of
knowing where people come from and recognizing that there were ambassadors
of different cultures present at the conference. I, as a social scientist
from Brazil, who lived in Germany, am sure that the culture one person is
born into have a strong influence in their way of thinking. It is
definitely interesting to see what topics and what conclusions people from
different cultures talking about a central theme come up with, their
differences and similarities. Maybe our definitions of nationalism are not
the same. This might be due to our different cultural backgrounds. Was
that banal sociological nationalism?

Juliana

> Dear all,
>
> I realize this might not be the most polite way to introduce myself to the
> list, but as a sociologist working inter alia on nationalism, and being
> all too weary of banal nationalism (Michael Billig) and sociological
> nationalism, it struck me, that the presentation of the videos like this:
>
>> SESSION 1
>> http://vimeo.com/10605801 Ramon Reichert (AT) Rethinking Wikipedia:
>> Power, Knowledge and the Technologies of the Self
>
> (and so on) is a typical case of this type of this kind nationalism. I
> don't know, if "AT" in preferences means the presenters citizenship status
> or his residence status or the country, where the institution he's
> affiliated with (if any) is located in, but none of the answers would be
> in any way essential for me deciding, whether I want to watch the video.
> Nor should they be in my view, as long as they are not speaking as state
> officials (which I doubt anyone of the presenters does).
>
> Can I therefore please kindly ask you to omit national affiliations in the
> future? More helpful would be the institutional affiliation, if you think
> there is a need to categorize presenters.
>
> Many thanks!
>
> Thomas
> --
> thomas koenig
> department of sociology
> university of surrey
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
> Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com
> http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org
>
>
>





From T.Koenig at surrey.ac.uk  Tue Apr 20 18:09:46 2010
From: T.Koenig at surrey.ac.uk (T.Koenig at surrey.ac.uk)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 17:09:46 +0100
Subject: <CPOV> Videos of the Conference online
In-Reply-To: <4BCDCCD2.5070406@bezeqint.net>
References: <2473.145.92.114.53.1271770355.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
	<F4854797FC46B94592D30FED779D2E3D65E5313228@EXMB05CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
	<4BCDCCD2.5070406@bezeqint.net>
Message-ID: <F4854797FC46B94592D30FED779D2E3D65E5313240@EXMB05CMS.surrey.ac.uk>

Dror,

> Actually, I think the place from which a person come is an important
> aspect in her/his background.

It certainly is. Just as social class (in Bourdieuan terms) is important, or gender, to name only a few things, aka the holy trinity of identity studies (Karen Cerolo). I am just against privileging a certain type of an identity trait, that "space" that is the national country. I have nothing against attaching a small vita, but I, for one, would not like to be presented, as "Thomas Koenig (GR/DE/UK/I/US/SR)", it also would be pretty meaningless, keeping it that cryptic way.

Thomas


From T.Koenig at surrey.ac.uk  Tue Apr 20 18:50:04 2010
From: T.Koenig at surrey.ac.uk (T.Koenig at surrey.ac.uk)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 17:50:04 +0100
Subject: <CPOV> Videos of the Conference online
In-Reply-To: <2954.145.92.114.53.1271778803.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
References: <2473.145.92.114.53.1271770355.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
	<F4854797FC46B94592D30FED779D2E3D65E5313228@EXMB05CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
	<2954.145.92.114.53.1271778803.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
Message-ID: <F4854797FC46B94592D30FED779D2E3D65E5313247@EXMB05CMS.surrey.ac.uk>

Dear Juliana,

You wrote:
> -----Original Message-----> 
> I believe this has little to do with nationalism.

With all due respect, but most scholars of nationalism would dispute this assertion.

> It is just a matter of
> knowing where people come from and recognizing that there were
> ambassadors of different cultures present at the conference.

The concept of different distinct "cultures" is not very helpful, I'm afraid. There are undoubtedly important cultural traits and one can speak of cultures of collectivities, like homosexual culture, working class culture, even Belgian culture. But it is not at all helpful to emphasize one of these cultures over others, nor is it permissible to deduce from one's citizenship or place of residence the individual's belonging to a certain culture. In quantitative social science, that is called "ecological fallacy", Cultural Studies would probably say "essentialization". 

> I, as a
> social scientist from Brazil, who lived in Germany, am sure that the
> culture one person is born into have a strong influence in their way of
> thinking.

Undoubtedly, that is the case, but you conflate the nation state with culture, that is not a good idea, I think. 

> Maybe our definitions
> of nationalism are not the same.

I am almost certain they aren't. You seem to have a definition that many people in everyday live have in mind: A definition, where nationalism is confined to the extreme right, like the Lega Nord in Italy, the British National Party and so on. Standard social scientific definitions of nationalism are very different: For them, nationalism is prevalent across the whole political spectrum. Certainly, all European and North American parties I know of are nationalist in that sense.

> This might be due to our different
> cultural backgrounds.

Yes, I am coming from the culture of nationalism studies, and you do not seem to share that culture with me. 

> Was that banal sociological nationalism?

"Banal nationalism" is the nationalism almost all people in the world share, there are very few non- or anti-nationalists around the globe. It's present in everyday life, with the little red and white flags on Danish buses or Brazilians rooting for the Brazilian soccer team, to name just two examples.

"Sociological nationalism" is an altogether different concept, it is the na?ve adoption of nations as main units of comparison, even when this is not sensible. Because the nation state is the most powerful actor in global politics, it often is sensible to compare on the basis of nation states. In case of Wikipedia, for instance, it evidently isn't. It's primarily language versions that matter (which is why the introduction of the Serbian, Croat, and Bosnian Wikipedias was a disastrous idea: The English, Spanish or even the German Wikipedia benefit enormously from crossing national borders, an opportunity that was floundered by not privileging the Serbo-Croatian over their even more nationalist siblings.)

I suspect, much of our misunderstandings come, because we are from different cultures, I am from the culture of sociological studies of nationalism, and, I naively thought that most people here were familiar with that area of sociology, only because a sociologist, who is familiar with theories of nationalism (or so I think), pointed me to this list, so I probably should have been a bit more elaborate in my first posting.

Thomas
-- 
thomas koenig
department of sociology
university of surrey



From goldenberg.anne at gmail.com  Tue Apr 20 18:55:04 2010
From: goldenberg.anne at gmail.com (Anne GOLDENBERG)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:55:04 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> Videos of the Conference online
In-Reply-To: <2473.145.92.114.53.1271770355.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
References: <2473.145.92.114.53.1271770355.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
Message-ID: <l2rbfcec2e21004200955s7b4459dao52dfb85c24741035@mail.gmail.com>

Allo list,
I'm very quiet as being amoung my thesis last corrections.

Note that this video was also done,
a quick resume of the structure construction
http://vimeo.com/10829778 Rut Jesus, Anne Goldenberg and all Bangalore
Participants
OurColl(nn)ective minds

Enjoy,

Anne

2010/4/20 Juliana Brunello <juliana at networkcultures.org>

> Here are the links to the videos of all the talks for the CPoV conference
> in Amsterdam. Enjoy!
>
> These are the links to the videos of all the talks for the CPoV Conference
> in Amsterdam - Enjoy!
>
>
> SESSION 1
> http://vimeo.com/10605801 Ramon Reichert (AT)
> Rethinking Wikipedia: Power, Knowledge and the Technologies of the Self
>
> http://vimeo.com/10606220 Jeanette Hofmann (DE)
> Wikipedia between Emancipation and Self-Regulation
>
> http://vimeo.com/10606547 Mathieu O?Neil
> (AU) The Critique of Law in Free Online Projects
>
> http://vimeo.com/10696489 Gerard Wormser(FR)
> The Knowledge Bar
>
> SESSION 2
>
>
> http://vimeo.com/10607993 Joseph Reagle (USA)
> Wikipedia and Encyclopedic Anxiety
>
> http://vimeo.com/10608291 Charles van den Heuvel (NL)
> Authoritative Annotations, Encyclopedia Universalis Mundaneum, Wikipedia
> and the Stanford Encycloped
>
> http://vimeo.com/10697853 Dan O?Sullivan (UK)
> An Encyclopedia for the Times: Thoughts on Wikipedia from a His- torical
> Perspective
>
> http://vimeo.com/10699949 Alan Shapiro (USA/DE)
> Gustave Flaubert Laughs at Wikipedia
>
> http://www.vimeo.com/10607690 Discussion session 2 Encyclopedia Histories
> Moderaror: Nathaniel Tkacz
> Speakers: Joseph Reagle, Charles van den Heuvel, Dan O'Sullivan, Alan
> Shapiro
>
> SESSION 3
>
> http://www.vimeo.com/10701587 Hendrik-Jan Grievink (NL)
> Wiki Loves Art
>
> http://www.vimeo.com/10702729 Scott Kildall (USA)
> Wikipedia Art: Citation as Performative Act
>
> http://vimeo.com/10741921 Patrick Lichty (USA)
> Social Media, Cultural Scaffolds, and Molecular Hegemonies. Musings on
> Anarchic Media, WIKIs, and De-territorialized Art
>
> http://www.vimeo.com/10607690 Discussion session 3 Wiki Art
> Moderator: Rachel Somers Miles
> Speakers: Hendrik-Jan Grievink, Scott Kildall, Patrick Lichty
>
> SESSION 4
>
> http://vimeo.com/10747211 Felipe Ortega (ES)
> New Trends in the Evolution of Wikipedia
>
> http://vimeo.com/10748335 Stuart Geiger (USA)
> Bot Politics: The Domination, Subversion, and Negotiation of Code in
> Wikipedia
>
> http://vimeo.com/10748727 Hans Varghese Mathews (IN)
> Clustering the Contributors to a Wikipedia Page
>
> http://vimeo.com/10748888 Esther Weltevrede  (NL) and Erik Borra (BE/NL)
> Controversy Analysis with Wikipedia
>
> http://www.vimeo.com/10749027 Discussion session 4 Wiki Analytics
> Moderator: NIshant Shah
> Speakers: Felipe Ortega, Stuart Geiger, Hans Varghese Mathews, Esther
> Weltevrede & Erik Borra
>
> SESSION 5
>
> http://vimeo.com/10750350 Lawrence Liang (IN)
> Wikipedia and the authority of knowledge
>
> http://vimeo.com/10750495 Teemu Mikkonen (FI)
> Kosovo War on Wikipedia, Tracing the Conflict and Concensus on the
> Wikipedia Talk pages
>
> http://vimeo.com/10799887 Andrew Famiglietti (USA)
> Negotiating the Neutral Point of View: Politics and the Moral Economy of
> Wikipedia
>
> http://vimeo.com/10772241 Florian Cramer(DE/NL)
> The German WikiWars and the limits of objectivism
>
> http://www.vimeo.com/10799600 Discussion session 5 Designing Debate
> Moderator: Caroline Nevejan
> Speakers: Lawrence Liang, Teemu Mikkonen, Andrew Famiglietti, Florian
> Cramer
>
> SESSION 6
>
> http://vimeo.com/10772313 Mayo Fuster Morell (IT)
> Wikimedia Governance: The Role of the Wikimedia Foundation and the Form
> and Geopolitics of its Internationalization
>
> http://vimeo.com/10800562 Athina Karatzogianni (UK)
> Wikipedia?s Impact on the Global Power-Knowledge Hierarchies
>
> http://vimeo.com/10800100 Maja van der Velden (NL/NO)
> When Knowledges Meet: Database Design and the Performance of Knowledge
>
> http://vimeo.com/10800206 Amit Basole (IN)
> Knowledge Satyagraha: Towards a People?s Knowledge Movement
>
> http://www.vimeo.com/10800354 Discussion session 6 Global Issues and
> Outlooks
> Moderator: Johanna Niesyto
> Speakers: Mayo Fuster Morell, Athina Karatzogianni, Maja van der Velden,
> Amit Basole
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
> Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com
> http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20100420/6549bbe9/attachment.html>

From geert at xs4all.nl  Wed Apr 21 14:59:40 2010
From: geert at xs4all.nl (Geert Lovink)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:59:40 +0200
Subject: <CPOV> http://videoonwikipedia.org/
Message-ID: <DAEB93E1-DC4C-42A8-8792-DEC1D500B412@xs4all.nl>

http://videoonwikipedia.org/

Hi all,

this is a nice project where two projects/research networks of our INC  
institute come together: Video Vortex and WikiWars/Critical Point of  
View.

If you know more about videoonwikipedia.org, please keep us up to date.

Best, Geert