From niesyto at fk615.uni-siegen.de  Mon May  3 12:43:42 2010
From: niesyto at fk615.uni-siegen.de (Niesyto, Johanna)
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 12:43:42 +0200
Subject: <CPOV> What is NPoV?
Message-ID: <4109080A6B8F554E9C8EFDCA3DE7500FC77275E57A@MAIL40.uni-siegen.de>

Since much of the CPoV discussion has been centred around the NPoV principle, one can see the importance of this "open signifier" also in the outreach measures taken by the Wikimedia Foundation. One of the first instructional training tools/videos set up for newbees is about the NPoV & Verifiabilty:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Verifiability_and_Neutral_point_of_view_%28Common_Craft%29-600px-en.ogv

More about the Bookshelf project you find here: http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bookshelf_Project




From T.Koenig at surrey.ac.uk  Mon May  3 12:54:06 2010
From: T.Koenig at surrey.ac.uk (T.Koenig at surrey.ac.uk)
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 11:54:06 +0100
Subject: <CPOV> What is NPoV?
In-Reply-To: <4109080A6B8F554E9C8EFDCA3DE7500FC77275E57A@MAIL40.uni-siegen.de>
References: <4109080A6B8F554E9C8EFDCA3DE7500FC77275E57A@MAIL40.uni-siegen.de>
Message-ID: <F4854797FC46B94592D30FED779D2E3D65E63E93BC@EXMB05CMS.surrey.ac.uk>

> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Verifiability_and_Ne
> utral_point_of_view_%28Common_Craft%29-600px-en.ogv

I love the fact that the video contains the much dreaded weasel phrase "critics claim" (w/o specifying, who these "critics" are).

Thomas



From thekohser at gmail.com  Tue May  4 16:09:38 2010
From: thekohser at gmail.com (Gregory Kohs)
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 10:09:38 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> Community run or royal decree?
Message-ID: <t2n14b1e7be1005040709g8e5a8867t611f317bb41b9bd3@mail.gmail.com>

It may be interesting to observe the following recent incident that ran
across all Wikimedia projects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=360060669#Thekohser

http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1119503#Global_ban_enforcement

And perhaps most tellingly:

http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1870066#Global_ban_enforcement

In summary, about two months ago, Jimmy Wales was spoofed into thinking that
a Wikiversity project was setting out to undermine Wikipedia.  He stepped in
and began blocking and desysopping long-time contributors to that project.
He also matter-of-factly stated that "as far as he was concerned" the user
Thekohser (that's me) is blocked from all projects.  A few weeks passed, and
after I began to draw attention to the fact that Wikimedia Commons hosts
exploitative images of children fellating men, another user took it upon
himself to make sure Jimmy's decree was made law throughout the land.  He
and Jimmy didn't even know that a "global account lock" feature exists on
Meta Wikimedia.  This is the gentleman who worked to have my account
globally blocked:

http://web.archive.org/web/20000930112202/www.cris.com/~Jeffg/gski109.jpg

This is me:

http://www.mywikibiz.com/File:Gregory_Kohs_headshot.jpg

The public relations mantra of the Wikimedia projects is that they are
"community run", at least in theory.  But, it would seem that royal decree,
executed by mustachioed sycophants, is the actual practice.

As a footnote, if anyone is interested in some of my various contributions
to Wikimedia projects over the past couple of years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arch_Coal&oldid=76592206

<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alec_Head&oldid=316417922>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Job_sharing&oldid=299529822

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Line_management&oldid=301438047

<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lippe-Weissenfeld&oldid=316412877><http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looking_Glass_Falls&oldid=76523009>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Fuel_Gas&oldid=238999676

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Propositional_function&oldid=309988531

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Half_International&oldid=300305693

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zale_Corporation&oldid=76232040

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kurume_hybrid_Azalea_x_Rhododendron_%27Firefly%27.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ben_Franklin_Bridge_from_Adventure_Aquarium.jpg

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFundraising_2009%2FSurvey&action=historysubmit&diff=1556772&oldid=1544535

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Funding&action=historysubmit&diff=1908812&oldid=330554

Apparently this sort of content is so utterly subversive to the Wikimedia
community and mission, it calls for an extraordinary "global ban" from all
projects.  Why is that?

-- 
Gregory Kohs
Cell: 302.463.1354
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20100504/1cbbf597/attachment.html>

From jawbrey at att.net  Tue May  4 16:34:05 2010
From: jawbrey at att.net (Jon Awbrey)
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 10:34:05 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> Community run or royal decree?
In-Reply-To: <t2n14b1e7be1005040709g8e5a8867t611f317bb41b9bd3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <t2n14b1e7be1005040709g8e5a8867t611f317bb41b9bd3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4BE0305D.7060809@att.net>

Au contraire, Mister Kohs, we have this academic article testifying to the fact,
I say {{fact}}, that Wikipedia Gubermince is more and more decentralized every day.

http://p2pfoundation.net/Increasing_Decentralization_in_Wikipedia_Governance

Jon Awbrey

Gregory Kohs wrote:
> It may be interesting to observe the following recent incident that ran
> across all Wikimedia projects.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=360060669#Thekohser
> 
> http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1119503#Global_ban_enforcement
> 
> And perhaps most tellingly:
> 
> http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1870066#Global_ban_enforcement
> 
> In summary, about two months ago, Jimmy Wales was spoofed into thinking that
> a Wikiversity project was setting out to undermine Wikipedia.  He stepped in
> and began blocking and desysopping long-time contributors to that project.
> He also matter-of-factly stated that "as far as he was concerned" the user
> Thekohser (that's me) is blocked from all projects.  A few weeks passed, and
> after I began to draw attention to the fact that Wikimedia Commons hosts
> exploitative images of children fellating men, another user took it upon
> himself to make sure Jimmy's decree was made law throughout the land.  He
> and Jimmy didn't even know that a "global account lock" feature exists on
> Meta Wikimedia.  This is the gentleman who worked to have my account
> globally blocked:
> 
> http://web.archive.org/web/20000930112202/www.cris.com/~Jeffg/gski109.jpg
> 
> This is me:
> 
> http://www.mywikibiz.com/File:Gregory_Kohs_headshot.jpg
> 
> The public relations mantra of the Wikimedia projects is that they are
> "community run", at least in theory.  But, it would seem that royal decree,
> executed by mustachioed sycophants, is the actual practice.
> 
> As a footnote, if anyone is interested in some of my various contributions
> to Wikimedia projects over the past couple of years:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arch_Coal&oldid=76592206
> 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alec_Head&oldid=316417922>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Job_sharing&oldid=299529822
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Line_management&oldid=301438047
> 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lippe-Weissenfeld&oldid=316412877><http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looking_Glass_Falls&oldid=76523009>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Fuel_Gas&oldid=238999676
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Propositional_function&oldid=309988531
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Half_International&oldid=300305693
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zale_Corporation&oldid=76232040
> 
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kurume_hybrid_Azalea_x_Rhododendron_%27Firefly%27.jpg
> 
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ben_Franklin_Bridge_from_Adventure_Aquarium.jpg
> 
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFundraising_2009%2FSurvey&action=historysubmit&diff=1556772&oldid=1544535
> 
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Funding&action=historysubmit&diff=1908812&oldid=330554
> 
> Apparently this sort of content is so utterly subversive to the Wikimedia
> community and mission, it calls for an extraordinary "global ban" from all
> projects.  Why is that?

-- 

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 juliana at networkcultures.org  Tue May  4 16:41:27 2010
From: juliana at networkcultures.org (Juliana Brunello)
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 16:41:27 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: <CPOV> Community run or royal decree?
In-Reply-To: <4BE0305D.7060809@att.net>
References: <t2n14b1e7be1005040709g8e5a8867t611f317bb41b9bd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<4BE0305D.7060809@att.net>
Message-ID: <1066.87.210.38.21.1272984087.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>

An interview with only 11 "chosen" individuals can barely testify to the
fact that WP is more and more decentralized. Maybe this research should
contain also interviews with individuals like Mr. Kohs in order to analyze
both sides.

Juliana



> Au contraire, Mister Kohs, we have this academic article testifying to the
> fact,
> I say {{fact}}, that Wikipedia Gubermince is more and more decentralized
> every day.
>
> http://p2pfoundation.net/Increasing_Decentralization_in_Wikipedia_Governance
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> Gregory Kohs wrote:
>> It may be interesting to observe the following recent incident that ran
>> across all Wikimedia projects.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=360060669#Thekohser
>>
>> http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1119503#Global_ban_enforcement
>>
>> And perhaps most tellingly:
>>
>> http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1870066#Global_ban_enforcement
>>
>> In summary, about two months ago, Jimmy Wales was spoofed into thinking
>> that
>> a Wikiversity project was setting out to undermine Wikipedia.  He
>> stepped in
>> and began blocking and desysopping long-time contributors to that
>> project.
>> He also matter-of-factly stated that "as far as he was concerned" the
>> user
>> Thekohser (that's me) is blocked from all projects.  A few weeks passed,
>> and
>> after I began to draw attention to the fact that Wikimedia Commons hosts
>> exploitative images of children fellating men, another user took it upon
>> himself to make sure Jimmy's decree was made law throughout the land.
>> He
>> and Jimmy didn't even know that a "global account lock" feature exists
>> on
>> Meta Wikimedia.  This is the gentleman who worked to have my account
>> globally blocked:
>>
>> http://web.archive.org/web/20000930112202/www.cris.com/~Jeffg/gski109.jpg
>>
>> This is me:
>>
>> http://www.mywikibiz.com/File:Gregory_Kohs_headshot.jpg
>>
>> The public relations mantra of the Wikimedia projects is that they are
>> "community run", at least in theory.  But, it would seem that royal
>> decree,
>> executed by mustachioed sycophants, is the actual practice.
>>
>> As a footnote, if anyone is interested in some of my various
>> contributions
>> to Wikimedia projects over the past couple of years:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arch_Coal&oldid=76592206
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alec_Head&oldid=316417922>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Job_sharing&oldid=299529822
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Line_management&oldid=301438047
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lippe-Weissenfeld&oldid=316412877><http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looking_Glass_Falls&oldid=76523009>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Fuel_Gas&oldid=238999676
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Propositional_function&oldid=309988531
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Half_International&oldid=300305693
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zale_Corporation&oldid=76232040
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kurume_hybrid_Azalea_x_Rhododendron_%27Firefly%27.jpg
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ben_Franklin_Bridge_from_Adventure_Aquarium.jpg
>>
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFundraising_2009%2FSurvey&action=historysubmit&diff=1556772&oldid=1544535
>>
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Funding&action=historysubmit&diff=1908812&oldid=330554
>>
>> Apparently this sort of content is so utterly subversive to the
>> Wikimedia
>> community and mission, it calls for an extraordinary "global ban" from
>> all
>> projects.  Why is that?
>
> --
>
> 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
>
>
>





From jawbrey at att.net  Tue May  4 17:48:15 2010
From: jawbrey at att.net (Jon Awbrey)
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 11:48:15 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> Community run or royal decree?
In-Reply-To: <1066.87.210.38.21.1272984087.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
References: <t2n14b1e7be1005040709g8e5a8867t611f317bb41b9bd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<4BE0305D.7060809@att.net>
	<1066.87.210.38.21.1272984087.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
Message-ID: <4BE041BF.30304@att.net>

Good point, and good advice ...

But it ignores the de facto Wikipedia policy
of "Banned Is Banned Is Banned" (WP:BIBIB),
and NPOV does not extend to ex-communicees.
 From TheCommunity POV they are "non-persons".

Jon Awbrey

Juliana Brunello wrote:
> An interview with only 11 "chosen" individuals can barely testify to the
> fact that WP is more and more decentralized. Maybe this research should
> contain also interviews with individuals like Mr. Kohs in order to analyze
> both sides.
> 
> Juliana
> 
> 
> 
>> Au contraire, Mister Kohs, we have this academic article testifying to the fact,
>> I say {{fact}}, that Wikipedia Gubermince is more and more decentralized every day.
>>
>> http://p2pfoundation.net/Increasing_Decentralization_in_Wikipedia_Governance
>>
>> 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 joseph.nyu at reagle.org  Tue May  4 18:15:32 2010
From: joseph.nyu at reagle.org (Joseph Reagle)
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 12:15:32 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> Community run or royal decree?
In-Reply-To: <4BE0305D.7060809@att.net>
References: <t2n14b1e7be1005040709g8e5a8867t611f317bb41b9bd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<4BE0305D.7060809@att.net>
Message-ID: <201005041215.33485.joseph.nyu@reagle.org>

On Tuesday, May 04, 2010, Jon Awbrey wrote:
> Au contraire, Mister Kohs, we have this academic article testifying to the fact,
> I say {{fact}}, that Wikipedia Gubermince is more and more decentralized every day.

It's a question of context, it is decentralized relative to Sanger/Wales in 2001. There's now a Board, which has grown, ArbCom, with subcommittees, etc. This study and others concerned with governance tend to look this Weberian transition from personal/charismatic authority to bureaucratic authority. Community governance and "royal decree" is a model I've described here:
  http://reagle.org/joseph/2007/10/Wikipedia-Authorial-Leadership.pdf



From juliana at networkcultures.org  Tue May  4 18:21:05 2010
From: juliana at networkcultures.org (Juliana Brunello)
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 18:21:05 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: <CPOV> [Fwd: RE:  Community run or royal decree?]
Message-ID: <1861.87.210.38.21.1272990065.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: RE: <CPOV> Community run or royal decree?
From:    T.Koenig at surrey.ac.uk
Date:    Tue, May 4, 2010 6:11 pm
To:      cpov-bounces at listcultures.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------



> An interview with only 11 "chosen" individuals can barely testify to
> the
> fact that WP is more and more decentralized. Maybe this research should
> contain also interviews with individuals like Mr. Kohs in order to
> analyze
> both sides.

I don't think the fact that there were only 11 interviews (from the table
in the document, it's not clear, if there were not additional interviews),
is the most problematic point. Instead, the fact that almost all
interviewees came from the very people, who are firmly rooted in the
formal power structure, makes this a problematic study.

The studies sets out by claiming:

"In order to understand what regulates behavior in Wikipedia, we
interviewed individuals who had experienced those regulating influences
first hand."

But in fact they interviewed those people, who had exercised, not
experienced "regulating influences". It's like, as if you would have
interviewed in 1960 people from the Soviet nomenclatura, and then
concluded that a "decentralization" process is taking place. It's as banal
as it is obvious that with the growing complexity of Wikipedia, there is
some "decentralization" in the sense that there is differentiation of the
social system, but at the same time, hierarchies have become extremely
rigid, which is bad, if you follow either Luhmann, or Habermas, or even
Popper for that matter. /Digital Maoism/ is becomes more and more an
appropriate metaphor for the Wikipedia system, I think.

It's also curious, how uncritically the authors adopt Wikipedia lingo,
they speak of "consensus", when in fact they are dealing with hegemony in
sociological terms.

Thomas




From mathieu.oneil at anu.edu.au  Tue May  4 18:26:58 2010
From: mathieu.oneil at anu.edu.au (Mathieu ONeil)
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 18:26:58 +0200
Subject: <CPOV> Community run or royal decree?
In-Reply-To: <t2n14b1e7be1005040709g8e5a8867t611f317bb41b9bd3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <t2n14b1e7be1005040709g8e5a8867t611f317bb41b9bd3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fbe48e1115cf1.4be066f2@anu.edu.au>

Hi Gregory

Thanks for your message, which brings attention to a seeming power imbalance within WM projects. It is not completely clear though, so could you please explain a little more what exactly what the nature of the "spoof" as well as where and why there were the kinds of "exploitative" imagery you describe on WM sites?

cheers,
Mathieu

----- Original Message -----
From: Gregory Kohs <thekohser at gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 4, 2010 4:10 pm
Subject: <CPOV> Community run or royal decree?
To: cpov at listcultures.org

> It may be interesting to observe the following recent incident that ran across all Wikimedia projects.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=360060669#Thekohser
 > 
> http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1119503#Global_ban_enforcement
 > 
> And perhaps most tellingly:
> 
> http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1870066#Global_ban_enforcement
 > 
> In summary, about two months ago, Jimmy Wales was spoofed into thinking that a Wikiversity project was setting out to undermine Wikipedia.  He stepped in and began blocking and desysopping long-time contributors to that project.  He also matter-of-factly stated that "as far as he was concerned" the user Thekohser (that's me) is blocked from all projects.  A few weeks passed, and after I began to draw attention to the fact that Wikimedia Commons hosts exploitative images of children fellating men, another user took it upon himself to make sure Jimmy's decree was made law throughout the land.  He and Jimmy didn't even know that a "global account lock" feature exists on Meta Wikimedia.  This is the gentleman who worked to have my account globally blocked:
 > 
> http://web.archive.org/web/20000930112202/www.cris.com/~Jeffg/gski109.jpg
> 
> This is me:
> 
> http://www.mywikibiz.com/File:Gregory_Kohs_headshot.jpg
 > 
> The public relations mantra of the Wikimedia projects is that they are "community run", at least in theory.  But, it would seem that royal decree, executed by mustachioed sycophants, is the actual practice.
 > 
> As a footnote, if anyone is interested in some of my various contributions to Wikimedia projects over the past couple of years:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arch_Coal&oldid=76592206
 > 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Job_sharing&oldid=299529822
 > 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Line_management&oldid=301438047
 > 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Fuel_Gas&oldid=238999676
 > 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Propositional_function&oldid=309988531
 > 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Half_International&oldid=300305693
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zale_Corporation&oldid=76232040
 > 
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kurume_hybrid_Azalea_x_Rhododendron_%27Firefly%27.jpg
> 
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ben_Franklin_Bridge_from_Adventure_Aquarium.jpg
 > 
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFundraising_2009%2FSurvey&action=historysubmit&diff=1556772&oldid=1544535
 > 
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Funding&action=historysubmit&diff=1908812&oldid=330554
 > 
> Apparently this sort of content is so utterly subversive to the Wikimedia community and mission, it calls for an extraordinary "global ban" from all projects.  Why is that?
> 
> -- 
> Gregory Kohs
> Cell: 302.463.1354
  > _______________________________________________
> 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/20100504/5103a12e/attachment.html>

From niesyto at fk615.uni-siegen.de  Tue May  4 18:39:37 2010
From: niesyto at fk615.uni-siegen.de (Niesyto, Johanna)
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 18:39:37 +0200
Subject: <CPOV> Community run or royal decree?
In-Reply-To: <fbe48e1115cf1.4be066f2@anu.edu.au>
References: <t2n14b1e7be1005040709g8e5a8867t611f317bb41b9bd3@mail.gmail.com>,
	<fbe48e1115cf1.4be066f2@anu.edu.au>
Message-ID: <4109080A6B8F554E9C8EFDCA3DE7500FC77275E59A@MAIL40.uni-siegen.de>

Hi Gregory

I would be interested what you think about Wikiversity as project and its relation to wp:

> May it be considered as a failure case? If yes, why?
> Unlike other projects such as Wikimedia Commons there is a kind of obvious negation of the npov principle; may this be the reason why you talk about a perception of this project as 'undermining Wikipedia'? And where have you observed this particular perception?

Bests,
Johanna



________________________________
Von: cpov-bounces at listcultures.org [cpov-bounces at listcultures.org] im Auftrag von Mathieu ONeil [mathieu.oneil at anu.edu.au]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. Mai 2010 18:26
An: cpov at listcultures.org
Betreff: Re: <CPOV> Community run or royal decree?

Hi Gregory

Thanks for your message, which brings attention to a seeming power imbalance within WM projects. It is not completely clear though, so could you please explain a little more what exactly what the nature of the "spoof" as well as where and why there were the kinds of "exploitative" imagery you describe on WM sites?

cheers,
Mathieu

----- Original Message -----
From: Gregory Kohs <thekohser at gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 4, 2010 4:10 pm
Subject: <CPOV> Community run or royal decree?
To: cpov at listcultures.org

> It may be interesting to observe the following recent incident that ran across all Wikimedia projects.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=360060669#Thekohser<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=360060669#Thekohser>
>
> http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1119503#Global_ban_enforcement<http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1119503#Global_ban_enforcement>
>
> And perhaps most tellingly:
>
> http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1870066#Global_ban_enforcement<http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1870066#Global_ban_enforcement>
>
> In summary, about two months ago, Jimmy Wales was spoofed into thinking that a Wikiversity project was setting out to undermine Wikipedia.  He stepped in and began blocking and desysopping long-time contributors to that project.  He also matter-of-factly stated that "as far as he was concerned" the user Thekohser (that's me) is blocked from all projects.  A few weeks passed, and after I began to draw attention to the fact that Wikimedia Commons hosts exploitative images of children fellating men, another user took it upon himself to make sure Jimmy's decree was made law throughout the land.  He and Jimmy didn't even know that a "global account lock" feature exists on Meta Wikimedia.  This is the gentleman who worked to have my account globally blocked:
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20000930112202/www.cris.com/~Jeffg/gski109.jpg<http://web.archive.org/web/20000930112202/www.cris.com/%7EJeffg/gski109.jpg>
>
> This is me:
>
> http://www.mywikibiz.com/File:Gregory_Kohs_headshot.jpg<http://www.mywikibiz.com/File:Gregory_Kohs_headshot.jpg>
>
> The public relations mantra of the Wikimedia projects is that they are "community run", at least in theory.  But, it would seem that royal decree, executed by mustachioed sycophants, is the actual practice.
>
> As a footnote, if anyone is interested in some of my various contributions to Wikimedia projects over the past couple of years:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arch_Coal&oldid=76592206<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arch_Coal&oldid=76592206>
>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alec_Head&oldid=316417922>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Job_sharing&oldid=299529822<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Job_sharing&oldid=299529822>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Line_management&oldid=301438047<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Line_management&oldid=301438047>
>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lippe-Weissenfeld&oldid=316412877><http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looking_Glass_Falls&oldid=76523009>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Fuel_Gas&oldid=238999676<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Fuel_Gas&oldid=238999676>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Propositional_function&oldid=309988531<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Propositional_function&oldid=309988531>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Half_International&oldid=300305693<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Half_International&oldid=300305693>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zale_Corporation&oldid=76232040<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zale_Corporation&oldid=76232040>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kurume_hybrid_Azalea_x_Rhododendron_%27Firefly%27.jpg<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kurume_hybrid_Azalea_x_Rhododendron_%27Firefly%27.jpg>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ben_Franklin_Bridge_from_Adventure_Aquarium.jpg<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ben_Franklin_Bridge_from_Adventure_Aquarium.jpg>
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFundraising_2009%2FSurvey&action=historysubmit&diff=1556772&oldid=1544535<http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFundraising_2009%2FSurvey&action=historysubmit&diff=1556772&oldid=1544535>
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Funding&action=historysubmit&diff=1908812&oldid=330554<http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Funding&action=historysubmit&diff=1908812&oldid=330554>
>
> Apparently this sort of content is so utterly subversive to the Wikimedia community and mission, it calls for an extraordinary "global ban" from all projects.  Why is that?
>
> --
> Gregory Kohs
> Cell: 302.463.1354
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100504/c943485e/attachment.html>

From thekohser at gmail.com  Tue May  4 18:49:42 2010
From: thekohser at gmail.com (Gregory Kohs)
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 12:49:42 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> Community run or royal decree?
In-Reply-To: <201005041215.33485.joseph.nyu@reagle.org>
References: <t2n14b1e7be1005040709g8e5a8867t611f317bb41b9bd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<4BE0305D.7060809@att.net> <201005041215.33485.joseph.nyu@reagle.org>
Message-ID: <z2g14b1e7be1005040949n6f2bd2dex56ede073d6d2ec5d@mail.gmail.com>

Apparently, Thomas Koenig (T.Koenig at surrey.ac.uk) on behalf of Juliana
Brunello, wrote:

It's also curious, how uncritically the authors adopt Wikipedia lingo,
they speak of "consensus", when in fact they are dealing with hegemony in
sociological terms.

++++++++++++++++

It is also curious that both authors are themselves a part of the Wikimedia
mania.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Asbruckman

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2008/Bids/Atlanta/Bid_team#Andrea_Forte
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Andicat

I'm not saying there's anything "wrong" with being a long-time participant
in a subject, then conducting research about that subject.  However, I did a
lot of research in college and in grad school about the ethics of strategic
bombing, though I've never piloted a plane, nor dropped a bomb on an enemy,
nor ever been bombed.  I was decidedly undecided about the net effectiveness
of strategic bombing campaigns during World War Two.  War is such an
unquantifiable ethical conundrum, once waged.  I hope that my research was
better for the fact that I didn't carry the baggage of personal experience
with the phenomenon into my research.

Andrea Forte teaches at Drexel, about a 15-minute walk from my workplace.
Maybe we'll have lunch sometime and discuss the notion of Wikipedia's
"consensus" when it comes to snuffing out criticism of Wikipedia.

Greg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20100504/f507cf6f/attachment.html>

From thekohser at gmail.com  Tue May  4 19:03:28 2010
From: thekohser at gmail.com (Gregory Kohs)
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 13:03:28 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> Community run or royal decree?
In-Reply-To: <t2n14b1e7be1005040709g8e5a8867t611f317bb41b9bd3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <t2n14b1e7be1005040709g8e5a8867t611f317bb41b9bd3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <n2z14b1e7be1005041003s4b0207abz83a39e50cc4b6a38@mail.gmail.com>

Apologies, that I'm quite awful at replying to the thread properly, when all
I receive is a summary report of the list.  I'll try to quickly answer the
last two questions.

>From Mathieu ONeil:

To learn about the "spoof", please read this:
http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20100406/wikiversity-when-breaching-experiments-attack/

As for the "where and why there were the kinds of 'exploitative' imagery" on
WM sites, please read these:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100428/1153439220.shtml

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=29428

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-November/056050.html


And from Johanna Niesyt:

I think that the Wikiversity project is a modestly useful pastime for
amateur and would-be scholars to publish ideas and resources.  I do not
consider it a "failure", although I consider its community's backbone
(specifically, the lack thereof) a failure.  In other words, the Wikiversity
community allowed itself to be run over roughshod by a rampaging Jimmy Wales
who didn't follow protocol, lied about the source of his authority, and
basically made a bigger mess than before he arrived.  When I spoke of the
Wikiversity "undermining Wikipedia", I didn't mean the whole project.  I
meant this small task-force within that project:

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Ethics/Ethical_Breaching_Experiments

And, you'll also want to see that first link I posted above, if you don't
know about that whole scene.

Kindly all,

Greg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20100504/fb196018/attachment.html>

From jawbrey at att.net  Tue May  4 20:02:15 2010
From: jawbrey at att.net (Jon Awbrey)
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 14:02:15 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> Community run or royal decree?
In-Reply-To: <201005041215.33485.joseph.nyu@reagle.org>
References: <t2n14b1e7be1005040709g8e5a8867t611f317bb41b9bd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<4BE0305D.7060809@att.net>
	<201005041215.33485.joseph.nyu@reagle.org>
Message-ID: <4BE06127.1050305@att.net>

Researchers who are examining the questions of global control versus local autonomy
in Wikimedia projects owe it to themselves and their readers to become familiar with
the operations of the Wikimedia Foundation's Meta-Wiki:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/

Particular attention should be paid to the role of the so-called "Spam Blacklist":

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist

We all know that genuine spam is a genuine problem, but Wikipedists are notable
for stretching the coverage of formerly meaningful words to cover any purpose
that suits their prejudices.

No doubt my own narrative in influenced by the personal experience of having been bombed
on a recurring basis by Meta Wikimedia HeliCops, but here is thread at The Wikipedia Review
where I collected a record of those experiences, for what it's worth, as they say:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27873

Ciao,

Jon Awbrey

Joseph Reagle wrote:
 > On Tuesday, May 04, 2010, Jon Awbrey wrote:
 >> Au contraire, Mister Kohs, we have this academic article testifying to the fact,
 >> I say {{fact}}, that Wikipedia Gubermince is more and more decentralized every day.
 >
 > It's a question of context, it is decentralized relative to Sanger/Wales in 2001.
 > There's now a Board, which has grown, ArbCom, with subcommittees, etc.  This study
 > and others concerned with governance tend to look this Weberian transition from
 > personal/charismatic authority to bureaucratic authority. Community governance
 > and "royal decree" is a model I've described here:
 >
 > http://reagle.org/joseph/2007/10/Wikipedia-Authorial-Leadership.pdf

-- 

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  Tue May  4 21:12:06 2010
From: mathieu.oneil at anu.edu.au (Mathieu ONeil)
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 21:12:06 +0200
Subject: <CPOV> Community run or royal decree?
In-Reply-To: <4BE06127.1050305@att.net>
References: <t2n14b1e7be1005040709g8e5a8867t611f317bb41b9bd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<4BE0305D.7060809@att.net> <201005041215.33485.joseph.nyu@reagle.org>
	<4BE06127.1050305@att.net>
Message-ID: <fbd9e7ae13a19.4be08da6@anu.edu.au>

After a while in the link-thicket (trolls vs good foundation?, control-freak foundation vs brave souls who just want to be free?) my mind starts to leak out my ears and I begin to think heretical thoughts such as "isn't there a more productive way to expend your energy than conducting 'breaching experiments'?" Or "is there simply too much bad blood between these antagonists to ever be able to communicate"? ... but thanks guys, I did learn some new stuff!

cheers
M
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey at att.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 4, 2010 8:02 pm
Subject: Re: <CPOV> Community run or royal decree?
To: joseph.nyu at reagle.org
Cc: Gregory Kohs <thekohser at gmail.com>, cpov at listcultures.org

> Researchers who are examining the questions of global control 
> versus local autonomy
> in Wikimedia projects owe it to themselves and their readers to 
> become familiar with
> the operations of the Wikimedia Foundation's Meta-Wiki:
> 
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/
> 
> Particular attention should be paid to the role of the so-called 
> "Spam Blacklist":
> 
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist
> 
> We all know that genuine spam is a genuine problem, but 
> Wikipedists are notable
> for stretching the coverage of formerly meaningful words to 
> cover any purpose
> that suits their prejudices.
> 
> No doubt my own narrative in influenced by the personal 
> experience of having been bombed
> on a recurring basis by Meta Wikimedia HeliCops, but here is 
> thread at The Wikipedia Review
> where I collected a record of those experiences, for what it's 
> worth, as they say:
> 
> http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27873
> 
> Ciao,
> 
> Jon Awbrey
> 
> Joseph Reagle wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 04, 2010, Jon Awbrey wrote:
> >> Au contraire, Mister Kohs, we have this academic article 
> testifying to the fact,
> >> I say {{fact}}, that Wikipedia Gubermince is more and more 
> decentralized every day.
> >
> > It's a question of context, it is decentralized relative to 
> Sanger/Wales in 2001.
> > There's now a Board, which has grown, ArbCom, with 
> subcommittees, etc.  This study
> > and others concerned with governance tend to look this 
> Weberian transition from
> > personal/charismatic authority to bureaucratic authority. 
> Community governance
> > and "royal decree" is a model I've described here:
> >
> > http://reagle.org/joseph/2007/10/Wikipedia-Authorial-Leadership.pdf
> 
> -- 
> 
> 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

****
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/20100504/b212b78c/attachment.html>

From jawbrey at att.net  Tue May  4 22:56:10 2010
From: jawbrey at att.net (Jon Awbrey)
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 16:56:10 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> Community Run or Royal Decree?
In-Reply-To: <fbd9e7ae13a19.4be08da6@anu.edu.au>
References: <t2n14b1e7be1005040709g8e5a8867t611f317bb41b9bd3@mail.gmail.com>	<4BE0305D.7060809@att.net>
	<201005041215.33485.joseph.nyu@reagle.org>	<4BE06127.1050305@att.net>
	<fbd9e7ae13a19.4be08da6@anu.edu.au>
Message-ID: <4BE089EA.3040600@att.net>

Mathieu,

I wasn't one of the experimenters conducting that particular series of trials,
but I fully sympathize with their reasons for doing so.  I can tell you from
my own experience with EN Wikipedia, several other language-based Wikipedias,
and numerous Wikimedia sibling wikis, including a couple of Wikiversities,
that all of us have exhausted all of the due and proper preceding stages
of grief with Wikipediocracy before we reach the stage of engaging in
that mode of ''Consumer Report'' testing.  Everything that concerned
and reasonable citizens naturally do 1st and 2nd and 3rd and 4th ...
simply falls on deaf ears and they find themselves forced to
march on Wiki-Walesington in order to be heard at all.

Jon Hancock, er, Awbrey

Mathieu ONeil wrote:
> After a while in the link-thicket (trolls vs good foundation?,
 > control-freak foundation vs brave souls who just want to be free?)
 > my mind starts to leak out my ears and I begin to think heretical
 > thoughts such as "isn't there a more productive way to expend your
 > energy than conducting 'breaching experiments'?" Or "is there simply
 > too much bad blood between these antagonists to ever be able to
 > communicate"? ... but thanks guys, I did learn some new stuff!
> 
> cheers
> M
> ****
> 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


-- 

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 joseph.nyu at reagle.org  Tue May  4 23:36:41 2010
From: joseph.nyu at reagle.org (Joseph Reagle)
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 17:36:41 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> Community run or royal decree?
In-Reply-To: <z2g14b1e7be1005040949n6f2bd2dex56ede073d6d2ec5d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <t2n14b1e7be1005040709g8e5a8867t611f317bb41b9bd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<201005041215.33485.joseph.nyu@reagle.org>
	<z2g14b1e7be1005040949n6f2bd2dex56ede073d6d2ec5d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <201005041736.41919.joseph.nyu@reagle.org>

On Tuesday, May 04, 2010, Gregory Kohs wrote:
> I'm not saying there's anything "wrong" with being a long-time participant
> in a subject, then conducting research about that subject. 

Yes, there's differences in varied methodologies with respect to distance and authenticity with respect to the study subject. One turn is to at least be clear with one's sympathies.



From jawbrey at att.net  Fri May  7 14:12:53 2010
From: jawbrey at att.net (Jon Awbrey)
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 08:12:53 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> [Fwd: Re:  Community run or royal decree?]
In-Reply-To: <1861.87.210.38.21.1272990065.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
References: <1861.87.210.38.21.1272990065.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
Message-ID: <4BE403C5.9000900@att.net>

Juliana, Thomas, & All --

I have found that the term "Digital Maoism" is somewhat lost on contemporary audiences,
but whether neglect of history, a lack of World-Hysterical-Consciousness, or a wincing
resistance on account of the fact that "the truth hurts", I'm not sure why.

When it comes to the issue of central committees vs. local autonomy, I think that
a comment I made in ''The Guardian'' way last year is ever more telling and true:

| Wikipedia has shown us that a mass medium can be rendered so plastic and so well-leveraged
| that any part of it can be manipulated by a relatively small number of people, in ways that
| defy a free society's usual means to guard against it, so long as the special interests in
| question have a moderate amount of resources and the will to do so.  If there are portions
| of the content that remain untouched, it is for two reasons only: (1) no one has conceived
| a stake in them yet, (2) virgin forest makes for good cover.
|
| If you're thinking that Wikipedia is the Latest Thing in Blows Against The Empire,
| then you have a DoubleThink coming.  (JA, Comment in ''The Guardian'', 30 Jan 2009).

Excepted here: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=16823

Original here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/29/wikipedia-internet-publishing?showallcomments=true#CommentKey:711da8d3-cb32-470d-96d3-a02b575a3e66

Jon Awbrey

P.S.

I gather that the following message was forwarded
by Juliana Brunello (JB) from Thomas Koenig (TK).
Please let me know if I got the attribution tags
wrong.

Juliana Brunello wrote:
> ---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
> Subject: RE: <CPOV> Community run or royal decree?
> From:    T.Koenig at surrey.ac.uk
> Date:    Tue, May 4, 2010 6:11 pm
> To:      cpov-bounces at listcultures.org
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
>> JB: An interview with only 11 "chosen" individuals can barely testify to
>>     the fact that WP is more and more decentralized.  Maybe this research
>>     should contain also interviews with individuals like Mr. Kohs in order
>>     to analyze both sides.
>> 
> 
TK: I don't think the fact that there were only 11 interviews (from the table
>   in the document, it's not clear, if there were not additional interviews),
>   is the most problematic point. Instead, the fact that almost all interviewees
>   came from the very people, who are firmly rooted in the formal power structure,
>   makes this a problematic study.
> 
>   The studies sets out by claiming:
> 
>   "In order to understand what regulates behavior in Wikipedia, we
>   interviewed individuals who had experienced those regulating influences
>   first hand."
> 
>   But in fact they interviewed those people, who had exercised, not
>   experienced "regulating influences". It's like, as if you would have
>   interviewed in 1960 people from the Soviet nomenclatura, and then
>   concluded that a "decentralization" process is taking place. It's as banal
>   as it is obvious that with the growing complexity of Wikipedia, there is
>   some "decentralization" in the sense that there is differentiation of the
>   social system, but at the same time, hierarchies have become extremely
>   rigid, which is bad, if you follow either Luhmann, or Habermas, or even
>   Popper for that matter. /Digital Maoism/ is becomes more and more an
>   appropriate metaphor for the Wikipedia system, I think.
> 
>   It's also curious, how uncritically the authors adopt Wikipedia lingo,
>   they speak of "consensus", when in fact they are dealing with hegemony in
>   sociological terms.
> 
>   Thomas

-- 

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 juliana at networkcultures.org  Tue May 11 15:50:12 2010
From: juliana at networkcultures.org (Juliana Brunello)
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 15:50:12 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: <CPOV> tools
Message-ID: <3603.145.92.166.94.1273585812.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>

Interesting tools for research

http://www.lkozma.net/wpv/index.html
Visualization from anonymous edits to Wikipedia (almost) in real-time

http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/
Lists anonymous wikipedia edits from organizations. You can type in the
organization you want to research about and it shows you the results.

http://www.wikimindmap.org/
Easy way of making a mind map based on Wikipedia connections.

http://www.wikirage.com/
Wikirage tracks the pages in Wikipedia which are receiving the most edits
over various periods of time.

http://stats.grok.se/
Just enter a wikipedia article title and press go for the statistics on
how much the page was viewed.

http://dbpedia.org/About
DBpedia extracts structured information from Wikipedia and to make this
information available on the Web. DBpedia allows you to ask sophisticated
queries against Wikipedia, and to link other data sets on the Web to
Wikipedia data.

http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Main_Page
A website with all deleted articles from wikipedia.

http://wikidashboard.parc.com/doc/faq.html
The top summary graph shows the weekly edit pattern of the article.

http://wikipediafs.sourceforge.net/
View and edit Wikipedia articles as if they were real files

http://similpedia.org/
Enter either a URL of the format: http://www.example.com or copy and paste
a paragraph of text of at least 100 words to find similar content.





From andrew.famiglietti at lcc.gatech.edu  Wed May 12 17:15:13 2010
From: andrew.famiglietti at lcc.gatech.edu (Famiglietti, Andrew F)
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 11:15:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: <CPOV> XKCD and Wikipedia
Message-ID: <1012783194.1482071273677313819.JavaMail.root@mail6.gatech.edu>

This morning, the widely read web-comic XKCD posted a joke about Wikipedia's love for Neologisms: 

http://xkcd.com/739/

The particular neologism this comic claims to be about did not actually exist as a Wikipedia article at the time. Of course someone immediately created such an article, and, of course, it was just as quickly deleted: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malamanteau

(as I typed up this e-mail, the article's status changed! it now exists as a page informing visitors of the ongoing debate, and suggesting a redirect to the article for the XKCD comic)

The ensuing debate over the article, its creation, Wikipedia's open-ness or lack thereof, etc is very interesting and can be found here: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malamanteau

As of right now, the first feature on that page is a tag welcoming XKCD fans to the site, and attempting to re-direct their energies to work on a more "appropriate" article, which I think is a great example of the sort of very conscious management of labor-power that Wikipedia is always engaged in. 

More thoughts later, for now, I just thought I would let everyone know. 

- Andy

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



From dqamir at bezeqint.net  Sun May 16 19:06:26 2010
From: dqamir at bezeqint.net (Dror Kamir)
Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 20:06:26 +0300
Subject: <CPOV> Wikipedia's handling of the Middle East conflict reaches the
 press - caution, a very Israeli POV
In-Reply-To: <fbd9e7ae13a19.4be08da6@anu.edu.au>
References: <t2n14b1e7be1005040709g8e5a8867t611f317bb41b9bd3@mail.gmail.com>	<4BE0305D.7060809@att.net>
	<201005041215.33485.joseph.nyu@reagle.org>	<4BE06127.1050305@att.net>
	<fbd9e7ae13a19.4be08da6@anu.edu.au>
Message-ID: <4BF02612.3020004@bezeqint.net>

Hi,

You might be interested in this article, published on the Israeli 
English-language daily "The Jerusalem Post". 
http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=175660#
I know who the "veteran Wikipedia editor from the center of the country" 
is, but I'll let you guess. A similar but more balanced report, on the 
same subject, was published on Friday in the Israeli Hebrew-language 
daily "Maariv", and was part of a serious of polemic articles about the 
Nakba Day, commemorated by Palestinians annually on May 15.

Naturally, Israeli reporters see pro-Palestinian editing as a problem. 
Naturally, it is not necessarily so, it depends on the reliability of 
the information and they way it is presented. In the Maariv report, it 
was much clearer that Wikipedia is not the villain, but rather a tool 
that can be used for better and for worse, depending on the people who 
use it and their intentions. This report is less clear about this point, 
and might seem like an Israeli onslaught on Wikipedia. I have some 
inside information, and it seems to me that this is more of the editor's 
approach than the reporter's. I was also told that this report was 
considered especially interesting by the editors and they placed it on 
the front page of the print edition (there is a low demand to 
English-language newspapers in my neighborhood, but I might go downtown 
later to buy a copy).

The Israeli Hebrew-language newspaper "Haaretz" also published a report 
about politics and Wikipedia on its weekend edition this Friday. 
Apparently there were legal threats on the Hebrew Wikipedia editors 
because they described the new "Im Tirtzu" political movement as "right 
wing". The movement insists it is non-aligned, although its most 
prominent actions so far are campaigns against Israeli left-wing 
organizations. Haaretz report say the movement has tried several times 
to upload its own version about itself to the Hebrew Wikipedia, but 
these versions were deleted because their were deemed too promotional. 
Currently, after the legal threats, the most veteran editor on he-wp 
decided to delete the article altogether. Haaretz asked for "Im Tirtzu" 
reaction, and received... errr... how to call it? A childish response. 
"We are waiting for Wikipedia to define the New Israel Fund (a left-wing 
organization that was at the center of "Im Tirtzu" recent campaign, DK) 
as an extremist leftist movement that undermines the existence of Israel 
as a Jewish state and engaged in bringing IDF officers before foreign 
courts as war criminals. We are sure that the Fund would protest against 
such definition, but they could present nothing to refute it".

Wikimedia Israel received the honor to host 2011 Wikimania in Haifa, so 
if you find all this political exchange of fists interesting, you could 
come next year for the live show :-) In the meantime, I'm adding a link 
to the Wikipedia-Academy Tel Aviv's schedule, just to give you an idea 
about the extent of academic interest in Wikipedia on the Mediterranean 
south-eastern shore: http://www.wikimedia.org.il/Wiki_Academy_2010

Take care all,
Dror



From majava at ifi.uio.no  Mon May 24 11:51:47 2010
From: majava at ifi.uio.no (Maja van der Velden)
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 11:51:47 +0200
Subject: <CPOV> The world according to Jimmy Wales?
Message-ID: <1FB3F3A9-CDD7-48D8-A9E4-C93980919B47@ifi.uio.no>

Hi,

Until i started to prepare for my presentation at the CPOV conference,  
i never really paid attention to Jimmy Wales. Now i do ;-) So i read  
this interview with him in a Norwegian newspaper last Saturday. The  
article has the title ' Jimmypedia'. Here is a section from the  
interview (translated from the Norwegian):

----
Jimmy Wales on several occasions expressed that Wikipedia is going to  
save the world.

"I think Wikipedia has already saved the world. But I still think the  
biggest impact lies ahead, "he said.

-In developing countries, access to information has been extremely  
limited and in many languages, we are the first encyclopedia that  
exists. When you talk with people who try to help schools in Africa,  
they say that they teach material from textbooks that were written 30  
years ago. People in Africa may know more about what happened in  
England in the 70th century than what happened in the neighboring  
country until recently. The lack of information is an opportunity for  
tyrants, and others who want to manipulate the truth.

He thinks the first Wikipedia page in the Arabic language is  
important, even though it still only has 125,000 articles.

"There has never existed any traditional encyclopaedia in Arabic. Now  
there is here. A few years ago as many books were translated into  
Arabic in one year as there were books were translated into German in  
one day. So there is a huge population that has not had access to  
information the rest of us take for granted. And one of my favorite  
projects is the Wikipedia page in the Wolof language in Senegal. So  
far, only 1000 articles, but it's a start. I am incredibly excited at  
the idea that we are in Wolof. I love it.
----

Where does this 'saving the world' idea come from? What does it mean  
in the context of Wikipedia? Anyone knows?

What he says about encyclopedias in Arabic is of course nonsense  
(there is a rich history of encyclopedia-writing in the Arab world).  
Wikipedia itself has some entries on Arab encyclopedias:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia#Arabic_and_Persian

and for some examples of their authors, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Encyclopedists

A quick look online and i found these Wiki-style Arabic lexicons/ 
encyclopedias:

Global Arabic Encyclopedia: http://www.mawsoah.net
Dahsha: http://www.dahsha.com/

Is it his ignorance or is Wales purposely creating a world in which he/ 
Wikipedia can be the saviour?

Greetings,

Maja





From joseph.2008 at reagle.org  Mon May 24 14:35:28 2010
From: joseph.2008 at reagle.org (Joseph Reagle)
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 08:35:28 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> The world according to Jimmy Wales?
In-Reply-To: <1FB3F3A9-CDD7-48D8-A9E4-C93980919B47@ifi.uio.no>
References: <1FB3F3A9-CDD7-48D8-A9E4-C93980919B47@ifi.uio.no>
Message-ID: <201005240835.28768.joseph.2008@reagle.org>

On Monday, May 24, 2010, Maja van der Velden wrote:
> Where does this 'saving the world' idea come from? What does it mean  
> in the context of Wikipedia? Anyone knows?

This is a theme, what I call the "universal encyclopedic vision", that continues from the early twentieth century. I discuss this in my forthcoming book, but here's a few notable quotes:

> H. G. Wells felt that "Encyclopaedic enterprise has not kept pace with material progress" but when the "modern facilities of transport, radio, [and] photographic reproduction" were embraced the creation of a permanent world encyclopedia would be "a way to world peace": "Quietly and sanely this new encyclopaedia will, not so much overcome these archaic discords, as deprive them, steadily but imperceptibly, of their present reality." \acite{Wells1937wbi} 

> Suzanne Briet captured this sentiment when she wrote of her library's reading room of three hundred patrons: "peaceful with their books. Peace through books." \acites[Suzanne Briet, *Entre Aisne et Meuse . . . et au del?*, Les cahiers ardennais 22. (Charleville-Mezi?res: Soci?t? de Ecrivains Ardennais, 1976), 87, quoted in][5]{Maack2004las}

>  "To the men, women, and children of the world who, by increasing their knowledge of the earth and its people, seek to understand each other's problems and through this understanding strive for a community of nations living in peace, the *Encyclopaedia Britannica* dedicates this volume." \acite[Ted Pappas citing G. Donald Hudson, Walter Yust, eds., *Encyclopaedia Britannica World Atlas* (Chicago: Britannica, 1956),

Kevin Kelly writing of Ted Nelson:

> Wearing a ballpoint pen on a string around his neck, he [Nelso] told me -- way too earnestly for a bar at 4 o'clock in the afternoon -- about his scheme for organizing all the knowledge of humanity. Salvation lay in cutting up 3 x 5 cards, of which he had plenty.... He spoke of "transclusion" and "intertwingularity" as he described the grand utopian benefits of his embedded structure. It was going to save the world from stupidity. \acite{Kelly2005waw}



From jawbrey at att.net  Mon May 24 14:38:20 2010
From: jawbrey at att.net (Jon Awbrey)
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 08:38:20 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> The World According to Jimmy Wales?
In-Reply-To: <1FB3F3A9-CDD7-48D8-A9E4-C93980919B47@ifi.uio.no>
References: <1FB3F3A9-CDD7-48D8-A9E4-C93980919B47@ifi.uio.no>
Message-ID: <4BFA733C.2050203@att.net>

Maja,

Maybe there's an off switch on the Jimbo Machine,
and I really hope we find it someday, but in the
meantime it roves the world searching for places
where they haven't heard his line of bull before.

The only thing that will save the world is that it's finite.

Jon Awbrey

Maja van der Velden wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Until i started to prepare for my presentation at the CPOV conference, 
> i never really paid attention to Jimmy Wales. Now i do ;-) So i read this 
> interview with him in a Norwegian newspaper last Saturday. The article 
> has the title ' Jimmypedia'. Here is a section from the interview 
> (translated from the Norwegian):
> 
> ----
> Jimmy Wales on several occasions expressed that Wikipedia is going to 
> save the world.
> 
> "I think Wikipedia has already saved the world. But I still think the 
> biggest impact lies ahead, "he said.
> 
> -In developing countries, access to information has been extremely 
> limited and in many languages, we are the first encyclopedia that 
> exists. When you talk with people who try to help schools in Africa, 
> they say that they teach material from textbooks that were written 30 
> years ago. People in Africa may know more about what happened in England 
> in the 70th century than what happened in the neighboring country until 
> recently. The lack of information is an opportunity for tyrants, and 
> others who want to manipulate the truth.
> 
> He thinks the first Wikipedia page in the Arabic language is important, 
> even though it still only has 125,000 articles.
> 
> "There has never existed any traditional encyclopaedia in Arabic. Now 
> there is here. A few years ago as many books were translated into Arabic 
> in one year as there were books were translated into German in one day. 
> So there is a huge population that has not had access to information the 
> rest of us take for granted. And one of my favorite projects is the 
> Wikipedia page in the Wolof language in Senegal. So far, only 1000 
> articles, but it's a start. I am incredibly excited at the idea that we 
> are in Wolof. I love it.
> ----
> 
> Where does this 'saving the world' idea come from? What does it mean in 
> the context of Wikipedia? Anyone knows?
> 
> What he says about encyclopedias in Arabic is of course nonsense (there 
> is a rich history of encyclopedia-writing in the Arab world). Wikipedia 
> itself has some entries on Arab encyclopedias:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia#Arabic_and_Persian
> 
> and for some examples of their authors, see:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Encyclopedists
> 
> A quick look online and i found these Wiki-style Arabic 
> lexicons/encyclopedias:
> 
> Global Arabic Encyclopedia: http://www.mawsoah.net
> Dahsha: http://www.dahsha.com/
> 
> Is it his ignorance or is Wales purposely creating a world in which 
> he/Wikipedia can be the saviour?
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> Maja

-- 

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 thekohser at gmail.com  Mon May 24 15:05:37 2010
From: thekohser at gmail.com (Gregory Kohs)
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 09:05:37 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> Cpov_listcultures.org Digest, Vol 4, Issue 10
In-Reply-To: <mailman.5.1274695203.8585.cpov_listcultures.org@p10.alfaservers.com>
References: <mailman.5.1274695203.8585.cpov_listcultures.org@p10.alfaservers.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTilLTCFVtDL8Yo__Zrwi4EBrY9vtwe4yWF3L4qdL@mail.gmail.com>

> From: Maja van der Velden <majava at ifi.uio.no>
> Subject: <CPOV> The world according to Jimmy Wales?
>
> ...

>
> Is it his ignorance or is Wales purposely creating a world in which he/
> Wikipedia can be the saviour?
>
> Greetings,
>
> Maja
>

Jimmy Wales is both ignorant and willing to deliberately manipulate stories
for unsuspecting journalists and followers who don't take the time or have
the courage to call him on his distortions.  After all, this is the man who
not only thinks he is the "sole founder" of Wikipedia (despite the idea of
wiki software and architecture being brought to him by Larry Sanger, and
despite the fact that Sanger named it "Wikipedia", and despite the fact that
Sanger first invited the wider world to come edit Wikipedia), he
purposefully tried to privately launch a multi-editor campaign to assist him
in changing to "sole founder" all references to him being a "co-founder" of
Wikipedia.  The man is shameless.  My only regret is that tens of thousands
of independent observers (such as yourself, Maja) are only now cottoning on
to this fact.

Welcome to the real world and the truth about Jimmy Wales.

-- 
Gregory Kohs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20100524/e0b79f81/attachment.html>

From jawbrey at att.net  Mon May 24 15:50:48 2010
From: jawbrey at att.net (Jon Awbrey)
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 09:50:48 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> Universal Encyclopedic Vision : E-lightenment &
	Bee-nightenment
Message-ID: <4BFA8438.7030703@att.net>

CPOVers,

I like this idea of looking at the "Universal Encyclopedic Vision" (UEV)
in its own right, the up-sides and the upside-down-sides, so I hope no one
will mind if I detach a thread devoted to just that.

Joseph Reagle wrote:
|
| On Monday, May 24, 2010, Maja van der Velden wrote:
||
|| Where does this 'saving the world' idea come from?
|| What does it mean in the context of Wikipedia?
|| Anyone knows?
|
| This is a theme, what I call the "universal encyclopedic vision",
| that continues from the early twentieth century.  I discuss this
| in my forthcoming book, but here's a few notable quotes:
|
| H. G. Wells felt that "Encyclopaedic enterprise has not kept pace
| with material progress" but when the "modern facilities of transport,
| radio, [and] photographic reproduction" were embraced the creation of
| a permanent world encyclopedia would be "a way to world peace":
| "Quietly and sanely this new encyclopaedia will, not so much
| overcome these archaic discords, as deprive them, steadily
| but imperceptibly, of their present reality."
| \acite{Wells1937wbi}
|
| Suzanne Briet captured this sentiment when she wrote of her library's
| reading room of three hundred patrons:  "peaceful with their books.
| Peace through books." \acites[Suzanne Briet, *Entre Aisne et Meuse
| ... et au del?*, Les cahiers ardennais 22. (Charleville-Mezi?res:
| Soci?t? de Ecrivains Ardennais, 1976), 87, quoted in [5]{Maack2004las}
|
| "To the men, women, and children of the world who, by increasing their
| knowledge of the earth and its people, seek to understand each other's
| problems and through this understanding strive for a community of nations
| living in peace, the *Encyclopaedia Britannica* dedicates this volume."
| \acite[Ted Pappas citing G. Donald Hudson, Walter Yust, eds.,
| *Encyclopaedia Britannica World Atlas* (Chicago: Britannica, 1956),
|
| Kevin Kelly writing of Ted Nelson:
|
| "Wearing a ballpoint pen on a string around his neck, he [Nelso] told me --
| way too earnestly for a bar at 4 o'clock in the afternoon -- about his scheme
| for organizing all the knowledge of humanity.  Salvation lay in cutting up
| 3 x 5 cards, of which he had plenty.... He spoke of "transclusion" and
| "intertwingularity" as he described the grand utopian benefits of his
| embedded structure. It was going to save the world from stupidity."
| \acite{Kelly2005waw}

-- 

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 jeblad at gmail.com  Mon May 24 16:15:01 2010
From: jeblad at gmail.com (John Erling Blad)
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:15:01 +0200
Subject: <CPOV> The World According to Jimmy Wales?
In-Reply-To: <4BFA733C.2050203@att.net>
References: <1FB3F3A9-CDD7-48D8-A9E4-C93980919B47@ifi.uio.no>
	<4BFA733C.2050203@att.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTino7dXPtceVTrRcaKlAa05iwWpYiH7Xmq4G6A0z@mail.gmail.com>

I was told this is a list of scientific discussions about Wikipedia, but it
seems like this is wrong?
Can someone clarify whats the purpose of the list.
John

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Jon Awbrey <jawbrey at att.net> wrote:

> Maja,
>
> Maybe there's an off switch on the Jimbo Machine,
> and I really hope we find it someday, but in the
> meantime it roves the world searching for places
> where they haven't heard his line of bull before.
>
> The only thing that will save the world is that it's finite.
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> Maja van der Velden wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Until i started to prepare for my presentation at the CPOV conference, i
>> never really paid attention to Jimmy Wales. Now i do ;-) So i read this
>> interview with him in a Norwegian newspaper last Saturday. The article has
>> the title ' Jimmypedia'. Here is a section from the interview (translated
>> from the Norwegian):
>>
>> ----
>> Jimmy Wales on several occasions expressed that Wikipedia is going to save
>> the world.
>>
>> "I think Wikipedia has already saved the world. But I still think the
>> biggest impact lies ahead, "he said.
>>
>> -In developing countries, access to information has been extremely limited
>> and in many languages, we are the first encyclopedia that exists. When you
>> talk with people who try to help schools in Africa, they say that they teach
>> material from textbooks that were written 30 years ago. People in Africa may
>> know more about what happened in England in the 70th century than what
>> happened in the neighboring country until recently. The lack of information
>> is an opportunity for tyrants, and others who want to manipulate the truth.
>>
>> He thinks the first Wikipedia page in the Arabic language is important,
>> even though it still only has 125,000 articles.
>>
>> "There has never existed any traditional encyclopaedia in Arabic. Now
>> there is here. A few years ago as many books were translated into Arabic in
>> one year as there were books were translated into German in one day. So
>> there is a huge population that has not had access to information the rest
>> of us take for granted. And one of my favorite projects is the Wikipedia
>> page in the Wolof language in Senegal. So far, only 1000 articles, but it's
>> a start. I am incredibly excited at the idea that we are in Wolof. I love
>> it.
>> ----
>>
>> Where does this 'saving the world' idea come from? What does it mean in
>> the context of Wikipedia? Anyone knows?
>>
>> What he says about encyclopedias in Arabic is of course nonsense (there is
>> a rich history of encyclopedia-writing in the Arab world). Wikipedia itself
>> has some entries on Arab encyclopedias:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia#Arabic_and_Persian
>>
>> and for some examples of their authors, see:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Encyclopedists
>>
>> A quick look online and i found these Wiki-style Arabic
>> lexicons/encyclopedias:
>>
>> Global Arabic Encyclopedia: http://www.mawsoah.net
>> Dahsha: http://www.dahsha.com/
>>
>> Is it his ignorance or is Wales purposely creating a world in which
>> he/Wikipedia can be the saviour?
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> Maja
>>
>
> --
>
> 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/20100524/cd88ab07/attachment.html>

From jawbrey at att.net  Mon May 24 16:38:43 2010
From: jawbrey at att.net (Jon Awbrey)
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 10:38:43 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> The World According to Jimmy Wales?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTino7dXPtceVTrRcaKlAa05iwWpYiH7Xmq4G6A0z@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1FB3F3A9-CDD7-48D8-A9E4-C93980919B47@ifi.uio.no>	
	<4BFA733C.2050203@att.net>
	<AANLkTino7dXPtceVTrRcaKlAa05iwWpYiH7Xmq4G6A0z@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4BFA8F73.3080001@att.net>

John,

I regard the CPOV List as a place for critical discussion
of the full array of issues that arise in connection with
the general class of media of which Wikipedia is one case.

Scientific discussions, as a species of realistic practical
discussions, frequently require one to call a spade a spade.

That done, I have already split off a thread for discussing
the more generic themes that we find instanced, tho obscured,
in this one.

Jon Awbrey

John Erling Blad wrote:
> I was told this is a list of scientific discussions
> about Wikipedia, but it seems like this is wrong?
> Can someone clarify whats the purpose of the list.
> John

-- 

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 May 24 16:47:47 2010
From: nathanieltkacz at gmail.com (nathaniel tkacz)
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 00:47:47 +1000
Subject: <CPOV> The World According to Jimmy Wales?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTino7dXPtceVTrRcaKlAa05iwWpYiH7Xmq4G6A0z@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1FB3F3A9-CDD7-48D8-A9E4-C93980919B47@ifi.uio.no>
	<4BFA733C.2050203@att.net>
	<AANLkTino7dXPtceVTrRcaKlAa05iwWpYiH7Xmq4G6A0z@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTilNPEGGLZuC_oqGbt9RRtEKifNtbULAE0RF3w9c@mail.gmail.com>

hi john, jon, all,
the purpose of this list is indeed to foster critical discussion about
wikipedia and the issues that play out in relation to it. while scientists
are welcome on our list, i certainly wouldn't lay claim to the discussions
here as being scientific! "informed" is what i am hoping for. to get a sense
of what the organising team is about, you can take a look at the cpov
website (link below).

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 Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:15 AM, John Erling Blad <jeblad at gmail.com> wrote:

> I was told this is a list of scientific discussions about Wikipedia, but it
> seems like this is wrong?
> Can someone clarify whats the purpose of the list.
> John
>
>
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Jon Awbrey <jawbrey at att.net> wrote:
>
>> Maja,
>>
>> Maybe there's an off switch on the Jimbo Machine,
>> and I really hope we find it someday, but in the
>> meantime it roves the world searching for places
>> where they haven't heard his line of bull before.
>>
>> The only thing that will save the world is that it's finite.
>>
>> Jon Awbrey
>>
>> Maja van der Velden wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Until i started to prepare for my presentation at the CPOV conference, i
>>> never really paid attention to Jimmy Wales. Now i do ;-) So i read this
>>> interview with him in a Norwegian newspaper last Saturday. The article has
>>> the title ' Jimmypedia'. Here is a section from the interview (translated
>>> from the Norwegian):
>>>
>>> ----
>>> Jimmy Wales on several occasions expressed that Wikipedia is going to
>>> save the world.
>>>
>>> "I think Wikipedia has already saved the world. But I still think the
>>> biggest impact lies ahead, "he said.
>>>
>>> -In developing countries, access to information has been extremely
>>> limited and in many languages, we are the first encyclopedia that exists.
>>> When you talk with people who try to help schools in Africa, they say that
>>> they teach material from textbooks that were written 30 years ago. People in
>>> Africa may know more about what happened in England in the 70th century than
>>> what happened in the neighboring country until recently. The lack of
>>> information is an opportunity for tyrants, and others who want to manipulate
>>> the truth.
>>>
>>> He thinks the first Wikipedia page in the Arabic language is important,
>>> even though it still only has 125,000 articles.
>>>
>>> "There has never existed any traditional encyclopaedia in Arabic. Now
>>> there is here. A few years ago as many books were translated into Arabic in
>>> one year as there were books were translated into German in one day. So
>>> there is a huge population that has not had access to information the rest
>>> of us take for granted. And one of my favorite projects is the Wikipedia
>>> page in the Wolof language in Senegal. So far, only 1000 articles, but it's
>>> a start. I am incredibly excited at the idea that we are in Wolof. I love
>>> it.
>>> ----
>>>
>>> Where does this 'saving the world' idea come from? What does it mean in
>>> the context of Wikipedia? Anyone knows?
>>>
>>> What he says about encyclopedias in Arabic is of course nonsense (there
>>> is a rich history of encyclopedia-writing in the Arab world). Wikipedia
>>> itself has some entries on Arab encyclopedias:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia#Arabic_and_Persian
>>>
>>> and for some examples of their authors, see:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Encyclopedists
>>>
>>> A quick look online and i found these Wiki-style Arabic
>>> lexicons/encyclopedias:
>>>
>>> Global Arabic Encyclopedia: http://www.mawsoah.net
>>> Dahsha: http://www.dahsha.com/
>>>
>>> Is it his ignorance or is Wales purposely creating a world in which
>>> he/Wikipedia can be the saviour?
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> Maja
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100525/8029e99a/attachment.html>

From joseph.nyu at reagle.org  Mon May 24 16:57:51 2010
From: joseph.nyu at reagle.org (Joseph Reagle)
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 10:57:51 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> The World According to Jimmy Wales?
In-Reply-To: <4BFA8F73.3080001@att.net>
References: <1FB3F3A9-CDD7-48D8-A9E4-C93980919B47@ifi.uio.no>
	<AANLkTino7dXPtceVTrRcaKlAa05iwWpYiH7Xmq4G6A0z@mail.gmail.com>
	<4BFA8F73.3080001@att.net>
Message-ID: <201005241057.52326.joseph.nyu@reagle.org>

On Monday, May 24, 2010, Jon Awbrey wrote:
> I regard the CPOV List as a place for critical discussion
> of the full array of issues that arise in connection with
> the general class of media of which Wikipedia is one case.

I want to voice support for John's original query, which I don't think was so much about moving to discussion of media more generally, but the difference between informed scholarly critique and personal "axe grinding."



From nathanieltkacz at gmail.com  Mon May 24 17:10:06 2010
From: nathanieltkacz at gmail.com (nathaniel tkacz)
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 01:10:06 +1000
Subject: <CPOV> The World According to Jimmy Wales?
In-Reply-To: <201005241057.52326.joseph.nyu@reagle.org>
References: <1FB3F3A9-CDD7-48D8-A9E4-C93980919B47@ifi.uio.no>
	<AANLkTino7dXPtceVTrRcaKlAa05iwWpYiH7Xmq4G6A0z@mail.gmail.com>
	<4BFA8F73.3080001@att.net> <201005241057.52326.joseph.nyu@reagle.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimS8cCleAFBGaIqdwRTaT1hA7DXilx4nMvBbNsp@mail.gmail.com>

we are not in disagreement here joseph. i certainly don't see this list as a
space for personal attacks or settling scores. that said, i don't think it
is unreasonable to make critical comments about the visions and practices of
key players. indeed, the way you historicize jim wales' comments is exactly
the kind of thing we are aiming for. the same can be said of maja, who came
across something, made some comments and brought it to the group for
discussion. what we don't want is conspiracy theories or useless attacks.

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 Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Joseph Reagle <joseph.nyu at reagle.org>wrote:

> On Monday, May 24, 2010, Jon Awbrey wrote:
> > I regard the CPOV List as a place for critical discussion
> > of the full array of issues that arise in connection with
> > the general class of media of which Wikipedia is one case.
>
> I want to voice support for John's original query, which I don't think was
> so much about moving to discussion of media more generally, but the
> difference between informed scholarly critique and personal "axe grinding."
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100525/56900834/attachment.html>

From jawbrey at att.net  Mon May 24 17:24:47 2010
From: jawbrey at att.net (Jon Awbrey)
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 11:24:47 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> Universal Encyclopedic Vision : E-lightenment &
	Bee-nightenment
In-Reply-To: <4BFA8438.7030703@att.net>
References: <4BFA8438.7030703@att.net>
Message-ID: <4BFA9A3F.6020701@att.net>

The theme that I hear being sounded here is actually a very old tune.
I learned from my subsequent researches that it long predates my own
first awareness of it -- that was probably sometime in the 1990s when
that old riff about the "Dark Side of the Enlightenment" was all the
rave in post-modern circles, echoing, a bit racistly, if you ask me,
''Dialectic of Enlightenment" by Horkheimer and Adorno.  I confess
that I thought it was all a bit absurd, as if they were trying to
blame Thomas Jefferson for what Hitler did.  Well, I eventually
started to see rather more sense in it than my first dim read.

But that's another meta-narrative ...

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 john.erling.blad at jeb.no  Mon May 24 17:32:34 2010
From: john.erling.blad at jeb.no (John Erling Blad)
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 17:32:34 +0200
Subject: <CPOV> The World According to Jimmy Wales?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimS8cCleAFBGaIqdwRTaT1hA7DXilx4nMvBbNsp@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1FB3F3A9-CDD7-48D8-A9E4-C93980919B47@ifi.uio.no>	<AANLkTino7dXPtceVTrRcaKlAa05iwWpYiH7Xmq4G6A0z@mail.gmail.com>	<4BFA8F73.3080001@att.net>
	<201005241057.52326.joseph.nyu@reagle.org>
	<AANLkTimS8cCleAFBGaIqdwRTaT1hA7DXilx4nMvBbNsp@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4BFA9C12.6060007@jeb.no>

I'm totally for scientific evaluation of Wikipedia or whattever other
site that is on the top ranking 100 websites (make it whattever number
you fancy) and claims to be "neutral" in evaluating present and past
historical events. Keep the discussion on track and moderate the list as
appropriate, or I moderate myself out of here. ;)

John

nathaniel tkacz wrote:
> we are not in disagreement here joseph. i certainly don't see this
> list as a space for personal attacks or settling scores. that said, i
> don't think it is unreasonable to make critical comments about the
> visions and practices of key players. indeed, the way you historicize
> jim wales' comments is exactly the kind of thing we are aiming for.
> the same can be said of maja, who came across something, made some
> comments and brought it to the group for discussion. what we don't
> want is conspiracy theories or useless attacks. 
>
> best
>
> Nate Tkacz
>
> Research Fellow,
> RMIT University
>
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/__nate__
> Homepage: www.nathanieltkacz.net <http://www.nathanieltkacz.net>
> Current project: http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/about-2/
>
>
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Joseph Reagle <joseph.nyu at reagle.org
> <mailto:joseph.nyu at reagle.org>> wrote:
>
>     On Monday, May 24, 2010, Jon Awbrey wrote:
>     > I regard the CPOV List as a place for critical discussion
>     > of the full array of issues that arise in connection with
>     > the general class of media of which Wikipedia is one case.
>
>     I want to voice support for John's original query, which I don't
>     think was so much about moving to discussion of media more
>     generally, but the difference between informed scholarly critique
>     and personal "axe grinding."
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
>     Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com
>     <mailto: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: john_erling_blad.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20100524/c4c66bc9/attachment.vcf>

From thekohser at gmail.com  Mon May 24 17:49:35 2010
From: thekohser at gmail.com (Gregory Kohs)
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 11:49:35 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> The World According to Jimmy Wales?
Message-ID: <AANLkTinkYWoZNJZ4wLc4QuG2sYHiB1Q7jb-jTOEwAhwi@mail.gmail.com>

I am hopeful that nothing in my commentary was a falsehood.  I know Jimmy
Wales personally from multiple telephone conversations and numerous e-mail
exchanges with him, over the course of three years.  I have arrived at my
opinions on the basis of my learning about him through those private
discussions, as well as his lengthy history of publicly-documented
manipulations and other foibles that would lead any "neutral" observer to
question whether Wales exhibits shame the way most of the rest of us do.

I would be disappointed for this list to be "moderated" because one of us
has expressed a vociferous opinion about a noted leader in the world of
"point of view", but if the powers that be feel that my contributions should
be censored, so that others might more happily remain here, just let me
know.  I don't care to be a part of a mailing list community that doesn't
respect dissenting views, anyway.

Gregory Kohs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20100524/8b97b62b/attachment.html>

From majava at ifi.uio.no  Mon May 24 21:20:10 2010
From: majava at ifi.uio.no (Maja van der Velden)
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 21:20:10 +0200
Subject: <CPOV> The world according to Jimmy Wales?
In-Reply-To: <201005240835.28768.joseph.2008@reagle.org>
References: <1FB3F3A9-CDD7-48D8-A9E4-C93980919B47@ifi.uio.no>
	<201005240835.28768.joseph.2008@reagle.org>
Message-ID: <28771B21-4CDD-4140-9B7D-EB3770287C7F@ifi.uio.no>

Hi all,

Joseph, it's a very interesting topic - i am looking forward to  
reading your book! Have you come across this idea that Wikipedia will  
save the world?

Would be nice if someone remembers where else he said this. And what  
doe he mean by "I think Wikipedia has already saved the world"? I am  
trying to write something for the CPOV Reader and this might be  
relevant.

Greetings,

Maja



On May 24, 2010, at 2:35 PM, Joseph Reagle wrote:

> On Monday, May 24, 2010, Maja van der Velden wrote:
>> Where does this 'saving the world' idea come from? What does it mean
>> in the context of Wikipedia? Anyone knows?
>
> This is a theme, what I call the "universal encyclopedic vision",  
> that continues from the early twentieth century. I discuss this in  
> my forthcoming book, but here's a few notable quotes:
>
>> H. G. Wells felt that "Encyclopaedic enterprise has not kept pace  
>> with material progress" but when the "modern facilities of  
>> transport, radio, [and] photographic reproduction" were embraced  
>> the creation of a permanent world encyclopedia would be "a way to  
>> world peace": "Quietly and sanely this new encyclopaedia will, not  
>> so much overcome these archaic discords, as deprive them, steadily  
>> but imperceptibly, of their present reality." \acite{Wells1937wbi}
>
>> Suzanne Briet captured this sentiment when she wrote of her  
>> library's reading room of three hundred patrons: "peaceful with  
>> their books. Peace through books." \acites[Suzanne Briet, *Entre  
>> Aisne et Meuse . . . et au del?*, Les cahiers ardennais 22.  
>> (Charleville-Mezi?res: Soci?t? de Ecrivains Ardennais, 1976), 87,  
>> quoted in][5]{Maack2004las}
>
>> "To the men, women, and children of the world who, by increasing  
>> their knowledge of the earth and its people, seek to understand  
>> each other's problems and through this understanding strive for a  
>> community of nations living in peace, the *Encyclopaedia  
>> Britannica* dedicates this volume." \acite[Ted Pappas citing G.  
>> Donald Hudson, Walter Yust, eds., *Encyclopaedia Britannica World  
>> Atlas* (Chicago: Britannica, 1956),
>
> Kevin Kelly writing of Ted Nelson:
>
>> Wearing a ballpoint pen on a string around his neck, he [Nelso]  
>> told me -- way too earnestly for a bar at 4 o'clock in the  
>> afternoon -- about his scheme for organizing all the knowledge of  
>> humanity. Salvation lay in cutting up 3 x 5 cards, of which he had  
>> plenty.... He spoke of "transclusion" and "intertwingularity" as he  
>> described the grand utopian benefits of his embedded structure. It  
>> was going to save the world from stupidity. \acite{Kelly2005waw}




From ms at ms-studio.net  Mon May 24 21:51:28 2010
From: ms at ms-studio.net (Manuel Schmalstieg)
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 21:51:28 +0200
Subject: <CPOV> Wiki-Sprint Documentation
Message-ID: <AANLkTin13HQuW_al6NrKrjvBR7yc4b-mgAW4GDbIrGiu@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

I have the pleasure to inform you that the documentation of the
"Wiki-Sprint" workshop is now online at http://wiki-sprint.ch/blog/

This project--an experiment in grassroots knowledge management--has
been carried out during Mapping Festival in Geneva, May 6-13th, and
consisted in an international get-together of scholars, artists, geeks
and tinkerers, working through 5 days of intense collaborative
text-editing, in order to challenge, redefine and improve the
representation of the audiovisual artform of "VJing" (live video
performance) on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The online documentation includes timelapse videos, photos, code
snippets, and--most importantly--the full audio recording of the
public reading of the Wikipedia article by the workshop team.

I hope you will enjoy listening/reading/browsing through our data.

Thanks for your attention.

Regards,
Manuel Schmalstieg




From joseph.2008 at reagle.org  Mon May 24 21:55:38 2010
From: joseph.2008 at reagle.org (Joseph Reagle)
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 15:55:38 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> The world according to Jimmy Wales?
In-Reply-To: <28771B21-4CDD-4140-9B7D-EB3770287C7F@ifi.uio.no>
References: <1FB3F3A9-CDD7-48D8-A9E4-C93980919B47@ifi.uio.no>
	<201005240835.28768.joseph.2008@reagle.org>
	<28771B21-4CDD-4140-9B7D-EB3770287C7F@ifi.uio.no>
Message-ID: <201005241555.39685.joseph.2008@reagle.org>

On Monday, May 24, 2010, Maja van der Velden wrote:
> Joseph, it's a very interesting topic - i am looking forward to  
> reading your book! Have you come across this idea that Wikipedia will  
> save the world?

Not so boldly as what your article states. (Do you to have a URL to the article?) I end up noting a trend that while the universal encyclopedic vision continues over the course of the century, claims of world peace tend to lessen -- while the probability of a world encyclopedia being created increases because of digital networks.

> Would be nice if someone remembers where else he said this. And what  
> doe he mean by "I think Wikipedia has already saved the world"?

I don't know. And, I don't have a record of any such statement -- and wish I did so I could've included it! :-) Perhaps he is speaking to the founding statement: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." So there has always been a universal and global aspiration at Wikipedia, but I'm not sure what it means to have saved the world, and am surprised that he thinks it has already happened.



From nathanieltkacz at gmail.com  Tue May 25 03:20:53 2010
From: nathanieltkacz at gmail.com (nathaniel tkacz)
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 11:20:53 +1000
Subject: <CPOV> The World According to Jimmy Wales?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinkYWoZNJZ4wLc4QuG2sYHiB1Q7jb-jTOEwAhwi@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinkYWoZNJZ4wLc4QuG2sYHiB1Q7jb-jTOEwAhwi@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikwrbRNjUTxOdkV4TT7Q3psbD7_nseL_xvDpexj@mail.gmail.com>

gregory, jon, john and others,

i think perhaps things have been blown slightly out of proportion. we all
agree that this is a place for critical discussion. part of this might
include discussions of articles written by jim wales, but it is important
that such discussions are directed, historicized, connected to other things
etc etc. so far i think this has been happening. hopefully we all agree that
what jim wales has for breakfast is not relevant, while his comments about
what he sees as the purpose and function of wikipedia are.

let's not forget that there are also many other things the list can and has
been considering (the conference topics are a good guide here, but there's
room for more!). indeed, i am concerned that this conversation might be
taking energy away from these other discussions!

gregory: nobody here is being moderated for having a critical opinion. i
hope that the list is able to recognise its reason for being and works outs
the details on its own!

john: i don't think it's in the interest of the list to start moderating
people. generally, we are still trying to encourage contributions. hopefully
there will be enough that you like and find rewarding for you continue on
the list. so far i don't think anything has been said that warrants a
heavy-handed response, and i'm not even sure what such a response would look
like. (also, because i come from a humanities-based, french theory heavy
background, i'm not used to people talking about being scientific. i think
however, when i say "informed", we mean something similar. i just want to
make it clear that even though i don't use the word "science" do describe
what i want for the list, it doesn't mean i therefore encourage "personal
axe-grinding", naysaying and gossip!)

at this stage i would just like to encourage people to keep writing about
the important issues that wikipedia raises. individual people might play a
part in these issues, but let's make sure it stays about the issues.

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 Tue, May 25, 2010 at 1:49 AM, Gregory Kohs <thekohser at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am hopeful that nothing in my commentary was a falsehood.  I know Jimmy
> Wales personally from multiple telephone conversations and numerous e-mail
> exchanges with him, over the course of three years.  I have arrived at my
> opinions on the basis of my learning about him through those private
> discussions, as well as his lengthy history of publicly-documented
> manipulations and other foibles that would lead any "neutral" observer to
> question whether Wales exhibits shame the way most of the rest of us do.
>
> I would be disappointed for this list to be "moderated" because one of us
> has expressed a vociferous opinion about a noted leader in the world of
> "point of view", but if the powers that be feel that my contributions should
> be censored, so that others might more happily remain here, just let me
> know.  I don't care to be a part of a mailing list community that doesn't
> respect dissenting views, anyway.
>
> Gregory Kohs
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100525/9503516f/attachment.html>

From jawbrey at att.net  Tue May 25 04:45:12 2010
From: jawbrey at att.net (Jon Awbrey)
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 22:45:12 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> The World According to Jimmy Wales?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikwrbRNjUTxOdkV4TT7Q3psbD7_nseL_xvDpexj@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinkYWoZNJZ4wLc4QuG2sYHiB1Q7jb-jTOEwAhwi@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikwrbRNjUTxOdkV4TT7Q3psbD7_nseL_xvDpexj@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4BFB39B8.4080005@att.net>

Nathaniel,

Maja initiated a thread titled "The World According to Jimmy Wales" and
quoted several statements by Jimmy Wales, concluding with the question,
"Is it his ignorance or is Wales purposely creating a world in which
he/Wikipedia can be the saviour?"

Mr. Wales proclaims himself the "spiritual leader" of Wikipedia
and persists in having a major impact on its course and character.
After five years of experience tracking the statements of Mr. Wales
and discussing them with other experienced editors and users, I think
I can safely make certain generalizations about their consistency and
credibility.  I gave my considered impressions in the context of the
thread already underway.

I am not all that interested in individual agents, as a rule, not even
self-proclaimed "spiritual leaders", so I immediately detached one of
the more general themes that was suggested by Joseph Reagle's remarks.
I am more than happy to move on to that if anyone else is, but when
a compelling question of individual cases is raised I will probably
be compelled to say what I know about it.  Everyone is of course
free to gather their own experiences, because science, as we know
is based on reproducible experiences.

Jon Awbrey

nathaniel tkacz wrote:
> gregory, jon, john and others,
> 
> i think perhaps things have been blown slightly out of proportion. we all
> agree that this is a place for critical discussion. part of this might
> include discussions of articles written by jim wales, but it is important
> that such discussions are directed, historicized, connected to other things
> etc etc. so far i think this has been happening. hopefully we all agree that
> what jim wales has for breakfast is not relevant, while his comments about
> what he sees as the purpose and function of wikipedia are.
> 
> let's not forget that there are also many other things the list can and has
> been considering (the conference topics are a good guide here, but there's
> room for more!). indeed, i am concerned that this conversation might be
> taking energy away from these other discussions!
> 
> gregory: nobody here is being moderated for having a critical opinion. i
> hope that the list is able to recognise its reason for being and works outs
> the details on its own!
> 
> john: i don't think it's in the interest of the list to start moderating
> people. generally, we are still trying to encourage contributions. hopefully
> there will be enough that you like and find rewarding for you continue on
> the list. so far i don't think anything has been said that warrants a
> heavy-handed response, and i'm not even sure what such a response would look
> like. (also, because i come from a humanities-based, french theory heavy
> background, i'm not used to people talking about being scientific. i think
> however, when i say "informed", we mean something similar. i just want to
> make it clear that even though i don't use the word "science" do describe
> what i want for the list, it doesn't mean i therefore encourage "personal
> axe-grinding", naysaying and gossip!)
> 
> at this stage i would just like to encourage people to keep writing about
> the important issues that wikipedia raises. individual people might play a
> part in these issues, but let's make sure it stays about the issues.
> 
> 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 Tue, May 25, 2010 at 1:49 AM, Gregory Kohs <thekohser at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I am hopeful that nothing in my commentary was a falsehood.  I know Jimmy
>> Wales personally from multiple telephone conversations and numerous e-mail
>> exchanges with him, over the course of three years.  I have arrived at my
>> opinions on the basis of my learning about him through those private
>> discussions, as well as his lengthy history of publicly-documented
>> manipulations and other foibles that would lead any "neutral" observer to
>> question whether Wales exhibits shame the way most of the rest of us do.
>>
>> I would be disappointed for this list to be "moderated" because one of us
>> has expressed a vociferous opinion about a noted leader in the world of
>> "point of view", but if the powers that be feel that my contributions should
>> be censored, so that others might more happily remain here, just let me
>> know.  I don't care to be a part of a mailing list community that doesn't
>> respect dissenting views, anyway.
>>
>> Gregory Kohs

-- 

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 jeanette at wzb.eu  Tue May 25 09:42:26 2010
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 08:42:26 +0100
Subject: <CPOV> The world according to Jimmy Wales?
In-Reply-To: <201005241555.39685.joseph.2008@reagle.org>
References: <1FB3F3A9-CDD7-48D8-A9E4-C93980919B47@ifi.uio.no>	<201005240835.28768.joseph.2008@reagle.org>	<28771B21-4CDD-4140-9B7D-EB3770287C7F@ifi.uio.no>
	<201005241555.39685.joseph.2008@reagle.org>
Message-ID: <4BFB7F62.4000104@wzb.eu>

Hi all,

I agree with Maja that the universalist notion implicit in Wikipedia's 
self-image is a very interesting topic. Similar claims can be found in 
the context of google books and the idea of a universal library. "The 
world at your fingertips" also seems to play with this theme.

I vaguely remember a very interesting presentation on the history of 
large infrastructure projects. The speaker found that the early days of 
a new infrastructure are often driven by euphoric dreams of getting 
everything and everyone connected to it. He spoke of an 
"Anschlusszwang", a coercion of access.

So, perhaps the universal vision is not that specific to Wikipedia but 
rather a comment element of many Internet related projects. The 
uneasiness some of us feel in the face of such visions may have to do 
with the "imperialist" drive embedded in them on the one hand and the 
suspected marginalization of less codified and visible types of social 
practices and knowledges on the other. Visions of the universal are 
always selective as Maja's presentation showed so beautifully.

jeanette



Joseph Reagle wrote:
> On Monday, May 24, 2010, Maja van der Velden wrote:
>> Joseph, it's a very interesting topic - i am looking forward to  
>> reading your book! Have you come across this idea that Wikipedia will  
>> save the world?
> 
> Not so boldly as what your article states. (Do you to have a URL to the article?) I end up noting a trend that while the universal encyclopedic vision continues over the course of the century, claims of world peace tend to lessen -- while the probability of a world encyclopedia being created increases because of digital networks.
> 
>> Would be nice if someone remembers where else he said this. And what  
>> doe he mean by "I think Wikipedia has already saved the world"?
> 
> I don't know. And, I don't have a record of any such statement -- and wish I did so I could've included it! :-) Perhaps he is speaking to the founding statement: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." So there has always been a universal and global aspiration at Wikipedia, but I'm not sure what it means to have saved the world, and am surprised that he thinks it has already happened.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
> Cpov_listcultures.org at p10.alfaservers.com
> http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org



From thekohser at gmail.com  Tue May 25 14:40:12 2010
From: thekohser at gmail.com (Gregory Kohs)
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 08:40:12 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> The world according to Jimmy Wales?
Message-ID: <AANLkTinjXOUzy1LkbL7cDPKxl0m8bWkb9NBrQ_hHAgN6@mail.gmail.com>

The notion of new technologies inspiring people to believe that we are on
the verge of a new era of world peace is not new.  From my own graduate
studies focusing on strategic bombing, I can speak to the common theme in
the 1920's and 1930's that the airplane would usher in an "age of peace",
because different cultures would have much better access to one another and
learn how common are the shared values between us, and (of course) no
government would ever dare start a war, with the risk of being annihilated
by airborne bombers from the other side ("the bomber will always get
through").

For those interested in learning more about this "winged gospel", I suggest
look-ups of the names Giulio Douhet, Stanley Baldwin, and (for a
head-slapping good time) witness how the idealism of the 1920's was
transformed in the immediate post-WW2 years:

*http://tinyurl.com/air-power-peace-power*

There!  A post to CPOV without any hint of the sound of an axe being ground
in the background!

Whoops, wait a minute.  Here comes my axe.
*
*"Frankly, and let me be blunt, Wikipedia as a readable product is not for
us. It's for them. It's for that girl in Africa who can save the lives of
hundreds of thousands of people around her, but only if she's empowered with
the knowledge to do so."
  -- Jimmy Wales  (sourced by Wikiquote.org to:  Wikipedia-l mailing list
(23 October 2005), even though Jimmy Wales didn't publish anything on the
Wikipedia-l mailing list on 23 October 2005).

-- 
Gregory Kohs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20100525/ef0589b7/attachment.html>

From joseph.2008 at reagle.org  Tue May 25 14:41:02 2010
From: joseph.2008 at reagle.org (Joseph Reagle)
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 08:41:02 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> The world according to Jimmy Wales?
In-Reply-To: <4BFB7F62.4000104@wzb.eu>
References: <1FB3F3A9-CDD7-48D8-A9E4-C93980919B47@ifi.uio.no>
	<201005241555.39685.joseph.2008@reagle.org>
	<4BFB7F62.4000104@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <201005250841.03259.joseph.2008@reagle.org>

On Tuesday, May 25, 2010, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> So, perhaps the universal vision is not that specific to Wikipedia but 
> rather a comment element of many Internet related projects.

I would go so far to say technology in general, though information technology seems particularly susceptible. Here's a paragraph that includes the quote from H. G. Wells I noted earlier, as well as a reference to Sturken and Thomas' "Technological Visions: The Hopes and Fears That Shape New Technologies" 

[[
Furthermore, whereas Wales conceived of his encyclopedia reaching those without access to the Internet, technology is central to the modern version of the vision (Sturken and Thomas 2004). Technology is expected to facilitate a radically accessible resource that bridges the distance between people. As recounted in Tom Standage's history of the telegraph (i.e., the "Victorian Internet"), the "rapid distribution of news was thought to promote universal peace, truthfulness, and mutual understanding." (Standage1999, p. 163). H. G. Wells felt that "Encyclopaedic enterprise has not kept pace with material progress" but when the "modern facilities of transport, radio, [and] photographic reproduction" were embraced the creation of a permanent world encyclopedia would be "a way to world peace": "Quietly and sanely this new encyclopaedia will, not so much overcome these archaic discords, as deprive them, steadily but imperceptibly, of their present reality" (Wells 1937). One can even see the universal vision in a different sort of technology altogether: the airplane. Joseph Corn, in *The Winged Gospel*, tells of high aeronautical expectations. "Air Globes," representations of the earth and its cities without political or geographical boundaries, were deployed in the classroom to tangibly symbolize "the new world which Americans believed the airplane was about to create, a world of peace where national boundaries and topographical features were no longer pertinent" (Corn 1983, p. 129).
]]



From athina.k at gmail.com  Tue May 25 15:09:02 2010
From: athina.k at gmail.com (Athina Karatzogianni)
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 14:09:02 +0100
Subject: <CPOV> The world according to Jimmy Wales?
In-Reply-To: <201005250841.03259.joseph.2008@reagle.org>
References: <1FB3F3A9-CDD7-48D8-A9E4-C93980919B47@ifi.uio.no>
	<201005241555.39685.joseph.2008@reagle.org> <4BFB7F62.4000104@wzb.eu>
	<201005250841.03259.joseph.2008@reagle.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTilF7AYH0uCAeWaY3sBLgFK2noIvA6gHwFbhPJsl@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Everyone

I have been following the discussion with interest, I agree that there is a
technological utopianism involved, and I find the analysis by Evgeny Morozov
here something that might be of interest in that regard. I dont know whether
this is taking us out of the wikipedia remit, and apologies to those that
might find it so, but I think it is worth checking out nevertheless
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703983004575073911147404540.html

[serendipity threw me on the article while researching russian hackers and
the discourse leading to the automatic blame for climategate hack]

Cheers

Athina

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Joseph Reagle <joseph.2008 at reagle.org>wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 25, 2010, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> > So, perhaps the universal vision is not that specific to Wikipedia but
> > rather a comment element of many Internet related projects.
>
> I would go so far to say technology in general, though information
> technology seems particularly susceptible. Here's a paragraph that includes
> the quote from H. G. Wells I noted earlier, as well as a reference to
> Sturken and Thomas' "Technological Visions: The Hopes and Fears That Shape
> New Technologies"
>
> [[
> Furthermore, whereas Wales conceived of his encyclopedia reaching those
> without access to the Internet, technology is central to the modern version
> of the vision (Sturken and Thomas 2004). Technology is expected to
> facilitate a radically accessible resource that bridges the distance between
> people. As recounted in Tom Standage's history of the telegraph (i.e., the
> "Victorian Internet"), the "rapid distribution of news was thought to
> promote universal peace, truthfulness, and mutual understanding."
> (Standage1999, p. 163). H. G. Wells felt that "Encyclopaedic enterprise has
> not kept pace with material progress" but when the "modern facilities of
> transport, radio, [and] photographic reproduction" were embraced the
> creation of a permanent world encyclopedia would be "a way to world peace":
> "Quietly and sanely this new encyclopaedia will, not so much overcome these
> archaic discords, as deprive them, steadily but imperceptibly, of their
> present reality" (Wells 1937). One can even see the universal vision in a
> different sort of technology altogether: the airplane. Joseph Corn, in *The
> Winged Gospel*, tells of high aeronautical expectations. "Air Globes,"
> representations of the earth and its cities without political or
> geographical boundaries, were deployed in the classroom to tangibly
> symbolize "the new world which Americans believed the airplane was about to
> create, a world of peace where national boundaries and topographical
> features were no longer pertinent" (Corn 1983, p. 129).
> ]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3AAthina%20Karatzogianni&page=1

China-Google article: http://www.e-ir.info/?p=3420
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20100525/bbe99865/attachment.html>

From jawbrey at att.net  Tue May 25 20:40:15 2010
From: jawbrey at att.net (Jon Awbrey)
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 14:40:15 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> Universal Encyclopedic Vision : Up Sides & Down Sides
In-Reply-To: <4BFA9A3F.6020701@att.net>
References: <4BFA8438.7030703@att.net> <4BFA9A3F.6020701@att.net>
Message-ID: <4BFC198F.9060707@att.net>

Re: http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-May/000135.html

Incidentally, Herschel Krustofsky raised a similar question
almost exactly two years ago in The Wikipedia Review, here:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18623

Once again, I don't think I caught the full drift of what he was saying --
and this even though, as I now tardily recognize, it echoes themes that
I once studied rather intently.  Oh well, blame it on the burnout nova.

At any rate, this CPOV thread inspired me to raise HK's old WR thread back from
the depths of our meta-discussion sediments, and some CPOVers may find study there.

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 juliana at networkcultures.org  Wed May 26 11:22:25 2010
From: juliana at networkcultures.org (Juliana Brunello)
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 11:22:25 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: <CPOV> Universal Encyclopedic Vision : Up Sides & Down Sides
In-Reply-To: <4BFC198F.9060707@att.net>
References: <4BFA8438.7030703@att.net> <4BFA9A3F.6020701@att.net>
	<4BFC198F.9060707@att.net>
Message-ID: <1351.145.92.166.94.1274865745.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>

This is very interesting. Just some thoughts that occurred to me when I
was reading it:

First, I could not avoid thinking on the current wars between
inclusionists and deletionists. If the deletionists should win (or have
they already won?) then there is the problem of Wikipedia purporting just
what a minority of editors considers to be "important knowledge".
Following that thought, I came to the NPoV issue: can one judge what
important knowledge is with NPoV in mind? I do not think it is possible,
actually, it is very contradictory.

The discussion you mentioned also points to the concept of encyclopedias
being "inherently feudal" ... "set out to put a stop to the origination of
new knowledge". I have to disagree with that. No original research inside
an encyclopedia does not mean no original research outside it.

Juliana

> Re:
> http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-May/000135.html
>
> Incidentally, Herschel Krustofsky raised a similar question
> almost exactly two years ago in The Wikipedia Review, here:
>
> http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18623
>
> Once again, I don't think I caught the full drift of what he was saying --
> and this even though, as I now tardily recognize, it echoes themes that
> I once studied rather intently.  Oh well, blame it on the burnout nova.
>
> At any rate, this CPOV thread inspired me to raise HK's old WR thread back
> from
> the depths of our meta-discussion sediments, and some CPOVers may find
> study there.
>
> 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
>
>
>





From jawbrey at att.net  Wed May 26 13:15:50 2010
From: jawbrey at att.net (Jon Awbrey)
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 07:15:50 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> Universal Encyclopedic Vision : Up Sides & Down Sides
In-Reply-To: <1351.145.92.166.94.1274865745.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
References: <4BFA8438.7030703@att.net> <4BFA9A3F.6020701@att.net>
	<4BFC198F.9060707@att.net>
	<1351.145.92.166.94.1274865745.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
Message-ID: <4BFD02E6.9040009@att.net>

Juliana & All,

I think that most long-time observers of Wikipediatrix eventually come to the
conclusion that the whole tempest over deletionism vs. inclusionism is basically
just a red herring (in a teapot?) -- all the Wikipedia gamers who are really into
the game try to delete stuff they don't like and try to include stuff they do like,
and the only real question is where the balance of power lies at any given moment on
any given piece of turf.  On second thought, that is the micro-political question --
the "Big Picture" macro-political question would require us to identify the global
controls on the process, the catalysts, coercions, and conductances that shape the
overarching "system of practices".  (I use that term advisedly in preference to
"community of practice" because I don't think the WMF-WP-WV system qualifies
as a genuine community.)

I'll have to leave the matter of WP:NPOV to another time ...

I'm still not sure I understood what Herschel was getting at, and he seems to be
out of the loop at the moment, so I may just be free associating a little bit,
but some of it reminded me of the things that various post-modernists were
always saying about the dimmer aspects of the Enlightenment.  I will need
to go look up some old books and papers before I can recall what that
was all about.

No, I don't think encyclopedic horizons can block inquiry except in the minds
of people who try to live inside their urly bounds, but if that becomes a big
segment of the wider population then it will have a non-trivial impact on the
overall vitality of whatever culture is thus infected.

Jon


Juliana Brunello wrote:
 >
> This is very interesting. Just some thoughts that occurred to me
> when I was reading it:
> 
> First, I could not avoid thinking on the current wars between
> inclusionists and deletionists. If the deletionists should win (or have
> they already won?) then there is the problem of Wikipedia purporting just
> what a minority of editors considers to be "important knowledge".
> Following that thought, I came to the NPoV issue: can one judge what
> important knowledge is with NPoV in mind? I do not think it is possible,
> actually, it is very contradictory.
> 
> The discussion you mentioned also points to the concept of encyclopedias
> being "inherently feudal" ... "set out to put a stop to the origination of
> new knowledge". I have to disagree with that. No original research inside
> an encyclopedia does not mean no original research outside it.
> 
> Juliana
> 
>> Re:
>> http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-May/000135.html
>>
>> Incidentally, Herschel Krustofsky raised a similar question
>> almost exactly two years ago in The Wikipedia Review, here:
>>
>> http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18623
>>
>> Once again, I don't think I caught the full drift of what he was saying --
>> and this even though, as I now tardily recognize, it echoes themes that
>> I once studied rather intently.  Oh well, blame it on the burnout nova.
>>
>> At any rate, this CPOV thread inspired me to raise HK's old WR thread back
>> from
>> the depths of our meta-discussion sediments, and some CPOVers may find
>> study there.
>>
>> 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 Alan.Shapiro at gmx.de  Wed May 26 13:55:52 2010
From: Alan.Shapiro at gmx.de (Alan Shapiro)
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 13:55:52 +0200
Subject: <CPOV> A critique of the idea of neutral language
In-Reply-To: <1351.145.92.166.94.1274865745.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
References: <4BFA8438.7030703@att.net>
	<4BFA9A3F.6020701@att.net><4BFC198F.9060707@att.net>
	<1351.145.92.166.94.1274865745.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
Message-ID: <027C55B06B7F4F579FA585F204DD8D36@AlanShapiroPC>

As a contribution to the ongoing debate and discussion, I have posted at my 
website some writing by my friend Marc Silver called "Arguing the Case: 
Language and Play in Argumentation":

http://www.alan-shapiro.com/arguing-the-case-by-marc-silver/

This is an excerpt from Marc's book which addresses the question of 
neutrality in discourse and knowledge.

Marc Silver is Professor of Linguistics at the University of Modena, Italy.


-- Alan N. Shapiro 




From jawbrey at att.net  Wed May 26 14:31:01 2010
From: jawbrey at att.net (Jon Awbrey)
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 08:31:01 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> "An Ontologically Neutral Message"
In-Reply-To: <027C55B06B7F4F579FA585F204DD8D36@AlanShapiroPC>
References: <4BFA8438.7030703@att.net>	<4BFA9A3F.6020701@att.net><4BFC198F.9060707@att.net>	<1351.145.92.166.94.1274865745.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
	<027C55B06B7F4F579FA585F204DD8D36@AlanShapiroPC>
Message-ID: <4BFD1485.1050402@att.net>

http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg01810.html

ja ;)

-- 

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 phi.schmidt at gmail.com  Fri May 28 11:35:33 2010
From: phi.schmidt at gmail.com (Philipp Schmidt)
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 09:35:33 +0000
Subject: <CPOV> Fwd: [Commons-research] Reminder: Deadline for Free Culture
	Research Conference (extended abstracts) is June 7
In-Reply-To: <4bfea6c6.1065730a.46e7.7eb4@mx.google.com>
References: <4bfea6c6.1065730a.46e7.7eb4@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimAqqXN4uoUuT1l_tnf7WERYCIfEobC_4u0LziU@mail.gmail.com>

Sorry for cross posting, but this might be interesting for some of you. P


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Giorgos Cheliotis <gcheliotis.lists at gmail.com>
Date: 2010/5/27
Subject: [Commons-research] Reminder: Deadline for Free Culture
Research Conference (extended abstracts) is June 7
To: cci at lists.ibiblio.org, commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org,
cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org


Dear all,



With apologies for cross-postings, this is to remind you that we have
about 10 days left until the June 7 deadline for the submission of
extended abstracts for the 2010 Free Culture Research Conference
(FCRC), which will take place October 8-9, in Berlin. The event
follows from last year?s one-day workshop at Harvard University:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/fcrw/Main_Page





Online CFP: http://wikis.fu-berlin.de/display/fcrc/Home

Program Committee:
http://wikis.fu-berlin.de/display/fcrc/Academic+Program+Committee



Please find also the CFP below:



Deadline for extended abstracts: June 7, 2010



The 3rd Free Culture Research Conference

Free Culture between Commons and Markets: Approaching the Hybrid Economy?



The Free Culture Research Conference presents a unique opportunity for
scholars whose work contributes to the promotion, study or criticism
of a Free Culture, to engage with a multidisciplinary group of
academic peers and practitioners, identify the most important research
opportunities and challenges, and attempt to chart the future of Free
Culture. This event builds upon the successful workshop held in 2009
at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University,
organized and attended by renowned scholars and research institutions
from the US, Europe and Asia. The first event was held in Sapporo,
Japan, in 2008, in conjunction with the 4th iCommons Summit. This
year's event is larger in ambition and scope, to provide more time for
interaction in joint as well as break-out sessions. It is hosted
jointly by the Free University of Berlin and the Max Planck Institute
for the Study of Societies and will take place at October 8-9, 2010 at
the Free University Campus in Berlin, in collaboration with COMMUNIA,
the European Network on the digital public domain. Funding and support
is also provided by the Heinrich B?ll Foundation.



Given this year's theme and the generous support of the Free
University's School of Business and Economics, we encourage
submissions at the interface of Free Culture and business, although we
welcome submissions from any relevant discipline, will be inclusive
and will maintain the interdisciplinary nature of the event, as in
previous years. Enabled by new Internet technologies and innovative
legal solutions, Free Culture prospers in the form of new business
models and via commons-based peer production, thereby both challenging
and complementing classic market institutions. Alongside business
perspectives, we expect that perspectives from law, IT, the social
sciences and humanities will help us develop a better understanding of
the challenges at hand, for individuals, business, law, the economy,
and society at large. Topics of interest include:



??? * Studies on the use and growth of open/free licensing models

??? * Critical analyses of the role of Creative Commons or similar models

??? * The role of? Free Culture in markets, industry, government, or
the non-profit sector

??? * Technical, legal or business solutions towards a hybrid economy

??? * Incentives, innovation and community dynamics in open
collaborative peer production

??? * Economic models for the sustainability of commons-based production

? ??* The economic value of the public domain

??? * Business models and the public domain

??? * Successes and failures of open licensing

??? * Analyses of policies, court rulings or industry moves that
influence the future of Free Culture

??? * Regional studies of Free Culture with global lessons

??? * Best practices from open/free licensing, and the application of
different business and organizational models by specific communities
or individuals

??? * Definitions of openness and freedom for different media types,
users and communities

??? * Broader economic, sociopolitical, legal or cultural implications
of Free Culture initiatives and peer production practices

* Methodological concerns in the study of Free Culture



http://wikis.fu-berlin.de/display/fcrc/Home





On behalf of the organizing committee:



Giorgos Cheliotis

Assistant Professor

Communications and New Media

Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences

National University of Singapore









_______________________________________________
Commons-research mailing list
Commons-research at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-research



From jawbrey at att.net  Fri May 28 14:26:29 2010
From: jawbrey at att.net (Jon Awbrey)
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 08:26:29 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> A critique of the idea of neutral language
In-Reply-To: <027C55B06B7F4F579FA585F204DD8D36@AlanShapiroPC>
References: <4BFA8438.7030703@att.net>	<4BFA9A3F.6020701@att.net><4BFC198F.9060707@att.net>	<1351.145.92.166.94.1274865745.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
	<027C55B06B7F4F579FA585F204DD8D36@AlanShapiroPC>
Message-ID: <4BFFB675.7040908@att.net>

Alan,

So where would you want to go with this?  The links that you gave debouch,
as they say, onto a very wide field, most of which is far more interesting
than the Wikipedestrian defile on whose fruits we currently gorge -- or gag.
To your new rhetoric I might well add the golden oldie of Peircean semiotic,
but what would be the first critical step in the application to wikioid media?

Jon Awbrey

Alan Shapiro wrote:
 >
 > As a contribution to the ongoing debate and discussion, I have
 > posted at my website some writing by my friend Marc Silver called
 > "Arguing the Case: Language and Play in Argumentation":
 >
 > http://www.alan-shapiro.com/arguing-the-case-by-marc-silver/
 >
 > This is an excerpt from Marc's book which addresses
 > the question of neutrality in discourse and knowledge.
 >
 > Marc Silver is Professor of Linguistics at the University of Modena, Italy.
 >
 > -- Alan N. Shapiro

-- 

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 Alan.Shapiro at gmx.de  Fri May 28 20:38:01 2010
From: Alan.Shapiro at gmx.de (Alan Shapiro)
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 20:38:01 +0200
Subject: <CPOV> A critique of the idea of neutral language
Message-ID: <12CB155C79AD47B9A2E2F6952191EAF0@AlanShapiroPC>

Jon,

 

that's a very good question, Jon, thanks for asking. The example of Peirce is excellent.

 

I believe that a Peircian semiotic could be implemented on the Internet (or a successor to the Internet), and that this a very worthwhile goal. A sort of Peircian emphasis on content, meaning, or deep referent as counterpoint to what is currently happening on the Internet, which is the nightmare realization of the fundamental media-theory-insight of McLuhan-Baudrillard that "the medium is the message" gone haywire, on drugs, so to speak. Content means nothing right now. Everything is links, links, links, where can i get my website or blog linked or ping-backed to as many other websites as possible. And this happening in the context of the rampant reign of Homo Economicus. More links to my website equals more visitors equals higher google ranking equals the dream of the pot of gold.

 

Any chat of any kind today immediately deteriorates into: are you on Facebook?, are you registered at the Huffington Post?, do you have Skype?, MSN?, Yahoo Messenger?, etc. Meet me at odesk or elance and let's get exploited together. That's a nice app you've got, but does it run on iPad? Nice book there, but it is on Kindle? The media that overwhelms the message was TV for McLuhan-Baudrillard. Today that fetishized media is Facebook, skype, MSN, etc.

 

And add to that list the fetish of "just the facts, ma'am" of the Wikipedia gatekeepers.

 

The second half of my answer to your question will be in the context of explaining something about my project which is my contribution to the conference reader. Focusing on Star Trek (there are about 100 Wikipedia articles on Star Trek, at least), i am establishing myself as a good Wikipedia citizen making contributions which, on one level, are indeed adding to the mountain of fetishized facts. However, i am doing this with awareness in such a way that I simultaneously deconstruct from within the fetish of facts by subtly pointing out contextualizations, ambiguities, uncertainties, undecidabilities. Today, for example, on this very day, I was very involved with the Star Trek question: was the character Flint Shakespeare? (Flint is a character in The Original Series episode "Requiem for Methuselah" who is immortal and was many of the great creators of human history, like DaVinci and Brahms). The "fetish of facts" nitpickers will debate until the cows come home whether Flint was Shakespeare or not. Half will defend one thesis, half the other. Of course that's a ridiculous binary. The episode, which is in fact a brilliant literary story, presents evidence on both sides of the question and the question is undecidable.

 

So that's what I think is the first step to take. We have to deconstuct Wikipedia from within. That's what we should do. A Trojan Horse strategy. We have to stand the coin of whether we are Wikipedians or critics of Wikipedia on its edge, neither heads nor tails. I love the Twilight Zone episode where the guy flips his coin into the newspaper boy's coin box and it stands on its edge. (then he can read minds all day)

 

Back to Peirce: Peirce is the best semiotician, better than Eco or Derrida or Baudrillard or Greimas or Jakobsen, because his viewpoint includes everything about the chains of signs and signifiers that is in their systems, but Peirce also emphasizes meaning, the referent of the sign. 

 

The hypertext cultural theory crowd of the 1990s of Landow, Bolter, Brown University, etc. didn't really get Peirce. A Derrida-only-inspired view of hypertext is exposed to a kind of nihilism of the chain of signifiers, it seems to me.

 

Alan



www.alan-shapiro.com 

 





Alan,

So where would you want to go with this?  The links that you gave debouch,
as they say, onto a very wide field, most of which is far more interesting
than the Wikipedestrian defile on whose fruits we currently gorge -- or gag.
To your new rhetoric I might well add the golden oldie of Peircean semiotic,
but what would be the first critical step in the application to wikioid media?

Jon Awbrey

Alan Shapiro wrote:
 >
 > As a contribution to the ongoing debate and discussion, I have
 > posted at my website some writing by my friend Marc Silver called
 > "Arguing the Case: Language and Play in Argumentation":
 >
 > http://www.alan-shapiro.com/arguing-the-case-by-marc-silver/
 >
 > This is an excerpt from Marc's book which addresses
 > the question of neutrality in discourse and knowledge.
 >
 > Marc Silver is Professor of Linguistics at the University of Modena, Italy.
 >
 > -- Alan N. Shapiro

-- 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20100528/4d3c0e20/attachment.html>

From juliana at networkcultures.org  Mon May 31 12:33:36 2010
From: juliana at networkcultures.org (Juliana Brunello)
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 12:33:36 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: <CPOV> The Wikipedia Cult
Message-ID: <3530.145.92.114.183.1275302016.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>

This is an interesting interview that compares Wikipedia to a cult. Sam
Vaknin sees Wikipedia through a very negative lens, but I did agree with
some of the arguments (though I believe his arguments are mostly
exaggerated). I would like to read your opinions on that.

http://globalpolitician.com/26423-wikipedia-cult-jimmy-wales

Juliana


Institute of Network Cultures
HvA Interactive Media
t: +31 (0)20 595 18 66
f: +31 (0)20 595 18 40
www.networkcultures.org




From joseph.2008 at reagle.org  Mon May 31 15:00:52 2010
From: joseph.2008 at reagle.org (Joseph Reagle)
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 09:00:52 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> The Wikipedia Cult
In-Reply-To: <3530.145.92.114.183.1275302016.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
References: <3530.145.92.114.183.1275302016.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
Message-ID: <201005310900.53105.joseph.2008@reagle.org>

On Monday, May 31, 2010, Juliana Brunello wrote:
> This is an interesting interview that compares Wikipedia to a cult. Sam
> Vaknin sees Wikipedia through a very negative lens, but I did agree with
> some of the arguments (though I believe his arguments are mostly
> exaggerated). I would like to read your opinions on that.

Well, I don't think Vaknin has met anyone that he didn't think is a narcissist -- that is his hammer after all -- but this is a wonderful example of the criticism of WP enthusiasm as a cult or religion, many earlier examples of which I describe in my dissertation.

I think there are some very enthusiastic WPians, and some of whom have a high inward-facing community orientation, and some parochialism, particular that resulting from the pressure of having to "defend" WP, but to call it a cult is hyperbolic. Cults ask you to orient you're whole world view within a particular ideology without any possibility for skepticism, to cut off family and friends, extreme parochialism, etc.  WP actually has a nice page on this :-) .
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_checklist



From jawbrey at att.net  Mon May 31 15:18:48 2010
From: jawbrey at att.net (Jon Awbrey)
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 09:18:48 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> The Wikipedia Cult
In-Reply-To: <201005310900.53105.joseph.2008@reagle.org>
References: <3530.145.92.114.183.1275302016.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
	<201005310900.53105.joseph.2008@reagle.org>
Message-ID: <4C03B738.3010906@att.net>

Of course every cult or groupthinktank
will have its checklist of reasons why
it isn't a cult or groupthinktank ...

There are numerous long-running threads
at ''The Wikipedia Review'' on this issue --

Here's just one:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=17175

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 May 31 15:37:57 2010
From: nathanieltkacz at gmail.com (nathaniel tkacz)
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 23:37:57 +1000
Subject: <CPOV> The Wikipedia Cult
In-Reply-To: <4C03B738.3010906@att.net>
References: <3530.145.92.114.183.1275302016.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>
	<201005310900.53105.joseph.2008@reagle.org>
	<4C03B738.3010906@att.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinkDsEAuwKdL0fKDW8e_YuOYn1iM9wXWi4xUdgr@mail.gmail.com>

i don' think the question of whether wikipedia is or is not a cult is a
useful one. what is there to add by calling it a cult? what does it get you
besides a scary term? it seems clumsy and glib. i don't think there is any
insight in lengthy debates about this. our task here should be to aim higher
than these kinds of debates.

for the record, going by the wikipedia review definition one could argue
that they themselves have cult-like sensibilities: there one mad belief is
that wikipedia is a cult! (and of course it would be denied, and of course
that would only strengthen the argument, but not make it a good one!)

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, May 31, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Jon Awbrey <jawbrey at att.net> wrote:

> Of course every cult or groupthinktank
> will have its checklist of reasons why
> it isn't a cult or groupthinktank ...
>
> There are numerous long-running threads
> at ''The Wikipedia Review'' on this issue --
>
> Here's just one:
>
> http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=17175
>
> 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/20100531/a9ce554d/attachment.html>

From jawbrey at att.net  Mon May 31 16:06:41 2010
From: jawbrey at att.net (Jon Awbrey)
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 10:06:41 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> The Wikipedia Cult
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinkDsEAuwKdL0fKDW8e_YuOYn1iM9wXWi4xUdgr@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3530.145.92.114.183.1275302016.squirrel@webmail.sonologic.nl>	<201005310900.53105.joseph.2008@reagle.org>	<4C03B738.3010906@att.net>
	<AANLkTinkDsEAuwKdL0fKDW8e_YuOYn1iM9wXWi4xUdgr@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4C03C271.60606@att.net>

Nathaniel & All,

The good of a concept or a term of description, more or less following
Kant and Peirce, is that it unifies a manifold of sense impressions.

As it happens, my work on social and technical means of facilitating inquiry
led me study the factors that "block inquiry", in other words, that inhibit
critical reflective thinking, long before I ever encountered the worldview
of the Wikipedian true believer.  One of the telltale signs of a closed
belief system that I kept noticing was one that I dubbed the "cul-de-sac" --
rhymes with "cultist act".  This is any plank of a belief platform that
keeps those who stand on it from reflecting critically on its fundamental
structures and evaluating their suitability for the espoused common purpose.

For my part, I am skeptical of the hypothesis that "Peter Damian" asserted
to lead off that sample thread -- I don't think I'd trace every deleterious
effect of the Wikipedia Complex to a ''single'' mad belief, but I can see
some sense in trying to unify the manifold of otherwise senseless impressions.

Jon

nathaniel tkacz wrote:
 >
> i don' think the question of whether wikipedia is or is not a cult is a
> useful one. what is there to add by calling it a cult? what does it get you
> besides a scary term? it seems clumsy and glib. i don't think there is any
> insight in lengthy debates about this. our task here should be to aim higher
> than these kinds of debates.
> 
> for the record, going by the wikipedia review definition one could argue
> that they themselves have cult-like sensibilities: there one mad belief is
> that wikipedia is a cult! (and of course it would be denied, and of course
> that would only strengthen the argument, but not make it a good one!)
> 
> 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, May 31, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Jon Awbrey <jawbrey at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> Of course every cult or groupthinktank
>> will have its checklist of reasons why
>> it isn't a cult or groupthinktank ...
>>
>> There are numerous long-running threads
>> at ''The Wikipedia Review'' on this issue --
>>
>> Here's just one:
>>
>> http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=17175
>>
>> 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 thekohser at gmail.com  Mon May 31 22:52:19 2010
From: thekohser at gmail.com (Gregory Kohs)
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 16:52:19 -0400
Subject: <CPOV> The world according to Jimmy Wales?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinjXOUzy1LkbL7cDPKxl0m8bWkb9NBrQ_hHAgN6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinjXOUzy1LkbL7cDPKxl0m8bWkb9NBrQ_hHAgN6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimPNq109J4wKfYOvuT5uo-zaqjfHclNMSb-Ll5u@mail.gmail.com>

This recently taped video interview with Jimmy Wales (especially the
part beginning at 05:15) demonstrates that Wales is clearly cognizant
of how the era of peace rhetoric that surrounded the advent of the
telegraph was, in hindsight, charmingly fruitless.

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/7221958

Wales coaches us that it's not the technology, but how we use it.  So,
how should we use the Internet, Jimbo?

Apparently, the goal of a good blogger should be to "work for
neutrality".  And, the key to unlocking U.S.-Saudi Arabian relations
is... Muppets.

--
Gregory Kohs