From joseph.2008 at reagle.org Wed Dec 1 19:33:28 2010 From: joseph.2008 at reagle.org (Joseph Reagle) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 13:33:28 -0500 Subject: CPOV on Wikipedia Signpost Message-ID: <201012011333.28898.joseph.2008@reagle.org> Interesting interview with Johanna and Nate [1]. The question of what it means to be "critical" is an interesting one. The response to this question seems to indicate it is a matter of language, that is, the distance afforded by using academic terminology. Is this an etic/emic distinction then? (Normative/empirical as used in the article.) However, one could still be a fanboy, and use academic terminology.... [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-29/Interview From dqamir at bezeqint.net Wed Dec 1 22:03:29 2010 From: dqamir at bezeqint.net (Dror Kamir) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 23:03:29 +0200 Subject: BBC Arabic report about the Middle East conflict and Wikipedia In-Reply-To: References: <4CF39F60.70507@bezeqint.net> Message-ID: <4CF6B821.6040005@bezeqint.net> A follow up on this - I added English subtitles - http://yt-subs.appspot.com/view?video=agd5dC1zdWJzcg4LEgVWaWRlbxids90BDA After listening carefully to the whole report in order to translate it, I should say that the picture arising from this report is rather distorted. It might be interesting to speculate why it is so. While the content of the report is not going to bring any of you new information, we might want to figure out why the overall impression that derives from this report is somewhat peculiar. First of all, such a report in English, German, French, Swedish, Hebrew or Persian would be discarded as "old news". It gives very basic description of the Web 2.0 phenomenon, but apparently such a description is still relevant to many Arabic-speaking viewers. The reporter is also rather concerned about who wins the "war", while bypassing the issue of how information should be conveyed. The dialog with the Huffington Post reporter also concentrate on the issue of how we Arabs should win this "war", rather than asking how Arabs can benefit from the fact that they can access information from various sources in various languages, and whether the public opinion within the Arab world can or should change owing to that. The Palestinian blogger also talks about the problem of poor English, rather than asking how the information available in Arabic can be improved. I think the inferiority the Palestinian blogger talks about is not technological or linguistic. I think it is a feeling of inferiority that drives many Arabs into concentrating on their image and on pushing their narrative in the global scene, rather than to harness the new technology for the benefit of their own society. This "complex" is also found in the Israeli society but to a lesser extent, at least to my objectivenessly-challenged judgment. Dror ?????? 30/11/10 15:15, ????? Jodi Schneider: > Thanks Dror -- never apologize for sharing something even though we can't read it! Hopefully someone will subtitle this! > > If you hear of anybody writing a transcript (even in Arabic), let me know -- automatic translation has been pretty reasonable recently. > > :) -Jodi > > On 29 Nov 2010, at 12:41, Dror Kamir wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> This report is entirely in Arabic, so I suppose most of you won't benefit from it, and yet, you never know when a source of information in a language you don't understand might come in handy. Besides, yours truly pops up in this report twice talking Arabic in a bad accent. >> The trigger for this report by BBC Arabic is the workshops organized by some Israeli right-wing organizations on how to introduce "Zionist edits" into Wikipedia. For the time being, I haven't seen any significant influence of these groups. Anyway, I was asked to give my five cents about the reflection of the Middle East conflict on Wikipedia. A few extra dimes were given by a Palestinian editor. Then there is a long interview with an Arabic-speaking Huffington Post reporter about how the new media changes the nature of the Middle Eastern conflict. >> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86vokoQBom0 >> >> Dror K >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cpov mailing list >> cpov at listcultures.org >> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org > From nathanieltkacz at gmail.com Thu Dec 2 12:09:23 2010 From: nathanieltkacz at gmail.com (nathaniel tkacz) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 22:09:23 +1100 Subject: CPOV on Wikipedia Signpost In-Reply-To: <201012011333.28898.joseph.2008@reagle.org> References: <201012011333.28898.joseph.2008@reagle.org> Message-ID: Hi Joseph, The question of what it means to be critical is indeed an interesting one and one we have been thinking a bit about in the intro to the reader. The emic/etic distinction in anthropology certainly resonates with the distinction we made regarding normative/empirical, although it seems to have quite a specific history. One can certainly use _academic_ language and still be a fanboy, and vice versa. I would say that language has a lot to do with it, but not necessarily academic language. Anybody whose terms don't align with Wikipedia and whose position is marginalised in the project can provide a critical perspective. This can also happen from within, but usually in different ways. As I said, there is no absolute inside or outside. For me, what's important is that the very terms of debate are up for grabs, that practices and knowledges can be described in multiple terms. It's also important to stress that to be critical is not to reject outright or be totally against. Rather, I see critique a the site of possibility, as a mode of transformation. That said, I think that a lot of the current language used to describe Wikipedia - as the best example of peer production, social media, free culture or whatever - such as collaboration, openness, participation and so on, actively work against the ability to provide critical perspectives. I think it's vital to challenge these terms and build more nuanced perspectives. For me, the question of critique is also linked to that of power, to making visible the new modes of force that operate in online projects. Best Nate Tkacz School of Culture and Communication University of Melbourne Twitter: http://twitter.com/__nate__ Research Page: http://nathanieltkacz.net Current project: http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/about-2/ On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Joseph Reagle wrote: > > Interesting interview with Johanna and Nate [1]. The question of what it > means to be "critical" is an interesting one. The response to this question > seems to indicate it is a matter of language, that is, the distance afforded > by using academic terminology. Is this an etic/emic distinction then? > (Normative/empirical as used in the article.) However, one could still be a > fanboy, and use academic terminology.... > > [1]: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-29/Interview > > _______________________________________________ > cpov mailing list > cpov at listcultures.org > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From majava at ifi.uio.no Thu Dec 2 13:04:37 2010 From: majava at ifi.uio.no (Maja van der Velden) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 13:04:37 +0100 Subject: CPOV on Wikipedia Signpost In-Reply-To: References: <201012011333.28898.joseph.2008@reagle.org> Message-ID: Maybe Donna Haraway can help: "I will critically analyze, or "deconstruct", only that which I love and only that in which I am deeply implicated." (p. 151, Modest_Witness at ...). Greetings, Maja On Dec 2, 2010, at 12:09 PM, nathaniel tkacz wrote: > Hi Joseph, > > The question of what it means to be critical is indeed an > interesting one and one we have been thinking a bit about in the > intro to the reader. > > The emic/etic distinction in anthropology certainly resonates with > the distinction we made regarding normative/empirical, although it > seems to have quite a specific history. One can certainly use > _academic_ language and still be a fanboy, and vice versa. I would > say that language has a lot to do with it, but not necessarily > academic language. Anybody whose terms don't align with Wikipedia > and whose position is marginalised in the project can provide a > critical perspective. This can also happen from within, but usually > in different ways. > > As I said, there is no absolute inside or outside. For me, what's > important is that the very terms of debate are up for grabs, that > practices and knowledges can be described in multiple terms. It's > also important to stress that to be critical is not to reject > outright or be totally against. Rather, I see critique a the site of > possibility, as a mode of transformation. That said, I think that a > lot of the current language used to describe Wikipedia - as the best > example of peer production, social media, free culture or whatever - > such as collaboration, openness, participation and so on, actively > work against the ability to provide critical perspectives. I think > it's vital to challenge these terms and build more nuanced > perspectives. > > For me, the question of critique is also linked to that of power, to > making visible the new modes of force that operate in online projects. > > Best > > Nate Tkacz > > School of Culture and Communication > University of Melbourne > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/__nate__ > > Research Page: http://nathanieltkacz.net > > Current project: http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/about-2/ > > > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Joseph Reagle 2008 at reagle.org> wrote: > > Interesting interview with Johanna and Nate [1]. The question of > what it means to be "critical" is an interesting one. The response > to this question seems to indicate it is a matter of language, that > is, the distance afforded by using academic terminology. Is this an > etic/emic distinction then? (Normative/empirical as used in the > article.) However, one could still be a fanboy, and use academic > terminology.... > > [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-29/Interview > > _______________________________________________ > cpov mailing list > cpov at listcultures.org > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org > > _______________________________________________ > cpov mailing list > cpov at listcultures.org > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From geert at xs4all.nl Thu Dec 2 15:03:53 2010 From: geert at xs4all.nl (Geert Lovink) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 15:03:53 +0100 Subject: CPOV on Wikipedia Signpost In-Reply-To: References: <201012011333.28898.joseph.2008@reagle.org>

Message-ID: <0B7B3EA7-47C7-478B-877D-CFC3564394D4@xs4all.nl> Talkin' about becoming critical and the different ways one can practice it.... how about the current donation campaign? On Dave Winer's scripting.com blog http://scripting.com/stories/2010/11/29/jimmyWalesDayOnTheInternet.html Gregory Kohns writes: "I wonder when the news media will figure out that the Wikimedia Foundation spends on program services only 41 cents of every dollar they scam from donors, which earns them ONE STAR (out of four!) from Charity Navigator in organizational efficiency. In fact, their KPMG audit discovered that it only takes about $2.5 million to keep the servers running, provide ample bandwidth, and staff a team of code developers to keep things running smoothly. Why, then, is the ask for $20 million? I also wonder why the news media never thought to cover the 2009 story of how the Wikimedia Foundation needed extra office space, and as if by magic, they hand-picked Jimmy Wales' for-profit corporation to be their landlord, THEN obtained competitive bids, THEN asked Wales' for- profit company to match the average of the competitive bids. I too wonder why the media don't seem to care that the 2010 market research study of past Wikimedia Foundation donors was awarded to the former employer of the WMF staffer running the project, without any competitive bidding whatsoever. And when the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation was asked how much the project cost, the guy asking the question was banned from the online discussion." From dqamir at bezeqint.net Thu Dec 2 23:35:14 2010 From: dqamir at bezeqint.net (Dror Kamir) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 00:35:14 +0200 Subject: CPOV on Wikipedia Signpost In-Reply-To: <0B7B3EA7-47C7-478B-877D-CFC3564394D4@xs4all.nl> References: <201012011333.28898.joseph.2008@reagle.org>

<0B7B3EA7-47C7-478B-877D-CFC3564394D4@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <4CF81F22.1050307@bezeqint.net> Well, the WMF needs money, and Jimmy Wales' picture brings money. I believe this is where it starts and this is where it ends. It is a bit of a problem that Jimmy Wales has become "the face of Wikipedia", but it is hard to argue with financial figures. I personally feel a bit uncomfortable with the call to donate to Wikipedia, while in fact, this is a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation and its chapters. Part of the money goes indeed to the logistic infrastructure of Wikipedia, but quite a lot of it to other projects whose relation to Wikipedia is somewhat vague (though they are important in their own right). I also feel that the WMF alienate itself from Wikipedia, claiming that the project runs by itself without any need for intervention (I disagree with this claim), but when it comes to fundraising campaign, WMF is presented as Wikipedia. Dror ?????? 02/12/10 16:03, ????? Geert Lovink: > Talkin' about becoming critical and the different ways one can > practice it.... how about the current donation campaign? > > On Dave Winer's scripting.com blog > > http://scripting.com/stories/2010/11/29/jimmyWalesDayOnTheInternet.html > > Gregory Kohns writes: > > "I wonder when the news media will figure out that the Wikimedia > Foundation spends on program services only 41 cents of every dollar > they scam from donors, which earns them ONE STAR (out of four!) from > Charity Navigator in organizational efficiency. In fact, their KPMG > audit discovered that it only takes about $2.5 million to keep the > servers running, provide ample bandwidth, and staff a team of code > developers to keep things running smoothly. Why, then, is the ask for > $20 million? > > I also wonder why the news media never thought to cover the 2009 story > of how the Wikimedia Foundation needed extra office space, and as if > by magic, they hand-picked Jimmy Wales' for-profit corporation to be > their landlord, THEN obtained competitive bids, THEN asked Wales' > for-profit company to match the average of the competitive bids. > > I too wonder why the media don't seem to care that the 2010 market > research study of past Wikimedia Foundation donors was awarded to the > former employer of the WMF staffer running the project, without any > competitive bidding whatsoever. And when the Executive Director of the > Wikimedia Foundation was asked how much the project cost, the guy > asking the question was banned from the online discussion." > _______________________________________________ > cpov mailing list > cpov at listcultures.org > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org > From paolo at gnuband.org Fri Dec 10 08:52:41 2010 From: paolo at gnuband.org (paolo massa) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 08:52:41 +0100 Subject: CPOV on Wikipedia Signpost In-Reply-To: <4CF81F22.1050307@bezeqint.net> References: <201012011333.28898.joseph.2008@reagle.org>

<0B7B3EA7-47C7-478B-877D-CFC3564394D4@xs4all.nl> <4CF81F22.1050307@bezeqint.net> Message-ID: It seems they have tested different banners (at least 4 in various different wikipedias) and Jimbo face was the most successful in term of money flowing in. See completa data at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Banner_testing Of course you can always say that the other 3 (losing) banners were designed to be real losers ... ;) P. On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Dror Kamir wrote: > Well, the WMF needs money, and Jimmy Wales' picture brings money. I believe > this is where it starts and this is where it ends. It is a bit of a problem > that Jimmy Wales has become "the face of Wikipedia", but it is hard to argue > with financial figures. I personally feel a bit uncomfortable with the call > to donate to Wikipedia, while in fact, this is a donation to the Wikimedia > Foundation and its chapters. Part of the money goes indeed to the logistic > infrastructure of Wikipedia, but quite a lot of it to other projects whose > relation to Wikipedia is somewhat vague (though they are important in their > own right). I also feel that the WMF alienate itself from Wikipedia, > claiming that the project runs by itself without any need for intervention > (I disagree with this claim), but when it comes to fundraising campaign, WMF > is presented as Wikipedia. > > Dror > > ?????? 02/12/10 16:03, ????? Geert Lovink: >> >> Talkin' about becoming critical and the different ways one can >> practice it.... how about the current donation campaign? >> >> On Dave Winer's scripting.com blog >> >> http://scripting.com/stories/2010/11/29/jimmyWalesDayOnTheInternet.html >> >> Gregory Kohns writes: >> >> "I wonder when the news media will figure out that the Wikimedia >> Foundation spends on program services only 41 cents of every dollar >> they scam from donors, which earns them ONE STAR (out of four!) from >> Charity Navigator in organizational efficiency. In fact, their KPMG >> audit discovered that it only takes about $2.5 million to keep the >> servers running, provide ample bandwidth, and staff a team of code >> developers to keep things running smoothly. Why, then, is the ask for >> $20 million? >> >> I also wonder why the news media never thought to cover the 2009 story >> of how the Wikimedia Foundation needed extra office space, and as if >> by magic, they hand-picked Jimmy Wales' for-profit corporation to be >> their landlord, THEN obtained competitive bids, THEN asked Wales' >> for-profit company to match the average of the competitive bids. >> >> I too wonder why the media don't seem to care that the 2010 market >> research study of past Wikimedia Foundation donors was awarded to the >> former employer of the WMF staffer running the project, without any >> competitive bidding whatsoever. And when the Executive Director of the >> Wikimedia Foundation was asked how much the project cost, the guy >> asking the question was banned from the online discussion." >> _______________________________________________ >> cpov mailing list >> cpov at listcultures.org >> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org >> > > _______________________________________________ > cpov mailing list > cpov at listcultures.org > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org > -- -- Paolo Massa Email: paolo AT gnuband DOT org Blog: http://gnuband.org From sabine at networkcultures.org Wed Dec 15 14:42:53 2010 From: sabine at networkcultures.org (Sabine Niederer) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:42:53 +0100 Subject: Cuba launches its own Wikipedia: Ecured.cu Message-ID: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/12/20101215425691693.html Cuba launches its own Wikipedia Online encyclopedia set up with the goal of presenting Cuba's version of the world "from a decoloniser point of view". EcuRed's entry about the US says it has historically taken "territory and natural resources from other nations" by force. Cuba has begun its own online encyclopedia, similar to Wikipedia, with the goal of presenting its version of the world and history. It describes its longtime ideological enemy, the US, as "the empire of our time" and "the most powerful nation of all time." EcuRed was launched officially on Tuesday, with more than 19,000 entries. It was developed "to create and disseminate the knowledge of all and for all, from Cuba and with the world," the site said. Users supposedly will be able to update entries with prior approval from EcuRed administrators. "Its philosophy is the accumulation and development of knowledge, with a democratising, not profitable, objective, from a decoloniser point of view," the site said. US criticism Cuba and the US, where Wikipedia was created, have been at odds since a 1959 revolution put Fidel Castro in power. The introduction of EcuRed's entry about the US said it had historically taken "by force territory and natural resources from other nations, to put at the service of its businesses and monopolies." "It consumes 25 per cent of the energy produced on the planet and in spite of its wealth, more than a third of its population does not have assured medical attention." About US-Cuba relations, it said from the late 18th century, US leaders looked upon Cuba with greed "like those who admire a beautiful fruit that will end up falling in their hands." According to a government survey conducted earlier this year, about 15 per cent of Cuba's 11.2 million population have access to the internet. http://www.ecured.cu/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nathanieltkacz at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 02:31:16 2010 From: nathanieltkacz at gmail.com (nathaniel tkacz) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 12:31:16 +1100 Subject: Cuba launches its own Wikipedia: Ecured.cu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: this is a very interesting development. if we had some more time, it would be awesome to have an official statement in the reader. the entry could be called "DPOV"! seriously though, there are a whole bunch of interesting questions here: how is wikipedia responding to this? in what ways does it challenge npov and the globalising effort of wpedia? what do the articles look like and how do they compare? and so forth. Nate Tkacz School of Culture and Communication University of Melbourne Twitter: http://twitter.com/__nate__ Research Page: http://nathanieltkacz.net Current project: http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/about-2/ > _______________________________________________ > cpov mailing list > cpov at listcultures.org > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org > >