From athina.k at gmail.com  Thu Feb  3 16:43:05 2011
From: athina.k at gmail.com (Athina Karatzogianni)
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 15:43:05 +0000
Subject: <CPOV> =?iso-8859-1?q?Egypte=2C_br=FBle-t-elle=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <4D4705AD.1090704@bezeqint.net>
References: <BA9C23A6-05E3-4CB6-BCE4-7C356FC0F574@ifi.uio.no>
	<4D4705AD.1090704@bezeqint.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=UQLVYrEu6KtYJE31dwdbYhBppfX3bxLXR88_Y@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Dror, CPOV list

I am emailing to recognise what you are saying in relation to wikipedia's
Egyptian protest,
and I dont wish to hijack your email,
but also I am emailing the list to start a discussion, if people are at all
willing, on Wikileaks as
a side issue to this, and the overall social media factor concerning the
protests in Tunisia, Egypt and soon
to be elsewhere.

The spectrum of issues is so far and wide, that attempting to take in the
empirical reality quickly enough to
advance our theoretical understanding of what is happening in so many areas
is head spinning.

I am currently writing a couple of chapters for different book efforts, one
looking at Wikileaks as an actor in global politics and their effect
in relation to the content released and the media political economy of how
it was released, and another looking at Wikileaks
internally and the organizational, ideological, and internal issues emerging
in regards to leadership and forking to Openleaks.
Wikileaks is in a way a starting point to address issues lurking in my area
of expertise during the last decade.

I hope this is not seen as too self-involved and I am wondering whether
other where doing similar work, in which case it would be interesting for me
to exchange some views on this list or via one-to-one emails/chats at this
point.

Best,

Athina

2011/1/31 Dror Kamir <dqamir at bezeqint.net>

> Hi,
>
> I suppose you have all noticed that Egypt is going through rough time, but
> I wonder if you looked into the history of the article about the events. It
> almost seems as if the article preceded the actual events. The article on
> the English-language Wikipedia is entitled "2011 Egyptian protests". It
> already exists in 39 languages (incl. English). In Arabic and
> Egyptian-Arabic it is entitled "The Egyptian Revolution of Wrath" (the
> demonstrations on Friday were called by the organizers "Friday of Wrath").
>
> Now to the interesting part - The demonstrations were planned via FaceBook
> for about a week, and "D-Day" was Tuesday, 25 January (which is a public
> holiday in Egypt). The first version of the article on the English Wikipedia
> has a time stamp of 13:26 25 January 2011 (UTC I presume). The person who
> initiated the article is nicknamed "The Egyptian Liberal" and according to
> his userpage he is an Egyptian who lives in Dubai and speaks both Arabic and
> English as mother tongues. "The Egyptian Liberal" worked very fast to enrich
> the article, and it was practically written in the course of the events. In
> the list of things that Wikipedia isn't there is a paragraph saying
> "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". Indeed, Wikipedia did not function here as a
> newspaper, but rather as a tool serving the organizers of the
> demonstrations.
>
> An equivalent article was initiated on the Arabic Wikipedia 3 and a half
> hours after its English counterpart. It was initiated by someone who
> apparently lives in Egypt, but "The Egyptian Liberal" joined him quite soon.
> The article on the Egyptian-Arabic Wikipedia emerged only on 28 January, two
> and a half days after its English and Arabic counterparts. It was initiated
> by a person who lives in Egypt, and he is also the main contributor, but
> "The Egyptian Liberal" had his share here too.
>
> These are just my first observation, which I find interesting because it
> is, in my opinion, another stage of Wikipedia losing its encyclopedic
> characteristics.
>
> Dror
>
>
> ?????? 31/01/11 17:07, ????? Maja van der Velden:
>
>> Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia?s Contributor List
>>
>> In 10 short years, Wikipedia has accomplished some remarkable goals. More
>> than 3.5 million articles in English? Done. More than 250 languages? Sure.
>> But another number has proved to be an intractable obstacle for the online
>> encyclopedia: surveys suggest that less than 15 percent of its hundreds of
>> thousands of contributors are women.
>>
>> More here:
>>
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&emc=eta1&adxnnlx=1296486151-4fB4AiSiCizUtpXNS2UGPA
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> Maja
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cpov mailing list
>> cpov at listcultures.org
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> cpov mailing list
> cpov at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org
>



-- 
<http://www.routledge.com/books/search/keywords/karatzogianni/>
Dr Athina Karatzogianni<http://www2.hull.ac.uk/FASS/humanities/media,_culture_and_society/staff/karatzogianni,_dr_athina.aspx>
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
E: a.karatzogianni at hull.ac.uk
Check out Athina's
work<http://www.routledge.com/books/search/keywords/karatzogianni/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20110203/c99309e5/attachment.html>

From dqamir at bezeqint.net  Thu Feb  3 17:56:34 2011
From: dqamir at bezeqint.net (Dror Kamir)
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 18:56:34 +0200
Subject: <CPOV> =?utf-8?q?Egypte=2C_br=C3=BBle-t-elle=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=UQLVYrEu6KtYJE31dwdbYhBppfX3bxLXR88_Y@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BA9C23A6-05E3-4CB6-BCE4-7C356FC0F574@ifi.uio.no>	<4D4705AD.1090704@bezeqint.net>
	<AANLkTi=UQLVYrEu6KtYJE31dwdbYhBppfX3bxLXR88_Y@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4D4ADE42.8000005@bezeqint.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20110203/95bf728b/attachment.html>

From nathanieltkacz at gmail.com  Thu Feb  3 22:47:23 2011
From: nathanieltkacz at gmail.com (nathaniel tkacz)
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 08:47:23 +1100
Subject: <CPOV> =?iso-8859-1?q?Egypte=2C_br=FBle-t-elle=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <4D4ADE42.8000005@bezeqint.net>
References: <BA9C23A6-05E3-4CB6-BCE4-7C356FC0F574@ifi.uio.no>
	<4D4705AD.1090704@bezeqint.net>
	<AANLkTi=UQLVYrEu6KtYJE31dwdbYhBppfX3bxLXR88_Y@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D4ADE42.8000005@bezeqint.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinRhit38xYxrVfuLXM3iwnx9kEP7P4A=_Wzjk4M@mail.gmail.com>

hi athina, dror, all,

wikileaks is undoubtedly an 'event' and very suggestive in terms of
developments in geo- and info-politics. i don't think CPOV is the place to
discuss it though, as this list is for wikipedia and most people on this
list are focused on wikipedia-related issues.

but where best to get into the thick of wikileaks? nettime is probably to
broad to focus too much on one topic. aoir isn't really the place for
critical discussion (imho). perhaps you (athina) should send a general post
to all the lists, a call for interest like you've done here, and if you get
enough interest you could start your own wikileaks list or email group. i
would also canvas the blogosphere as a lot of what i have read has come
through twitter pointing to blog posts.

best

Nate Tkacz

School of Culture and Communication
University of Melbourne

Twitter: http://twitter.com/__nate__

Research Page: http://nathanieltkacz.net

Current project: http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/about-2/


2011/2/4 Dror Kamir <dqamir at bezeqint.net>

>  Hi,
>
> It is an interesting subject indeed, but I don't see how it relates to the
> concept that underlies Wikipedia, namely sources of knowledge written
> collaboratively or by "crowd-sourcing". Wikileaks, despite the "wiki"
> incorporated in its name, is actually another news agency, collecting
> information from various sources and offering them to newspapers.
>
> Dror
>
> ?????? 03/02/11 17:43, ????? Athina Karatzogianni:
>
> Hi Dror, CPOV list
>
>  I am emailing to recognise what you are saying in relation to wikipedia's
> Egyptian protest,
> and I dont wish to hijack your email,
> but also I am emailing the list to start a discussion, if people are at all
> willing, on Wikileaks as
> a side issue to this, and the overall social media factor concerning the
> protests in Tunisia, Egypt and soon
> to be elsewhere.
>
>  The spectrum of issues is so far and wide, that attempting to take in the
> empirical reality quickly enough to
> advance our theoretical understanding of what is happening in so many areas
> is head spinning.
>
>  I am currently writing a couple of chapters for different book efforts,
> one looking at Wikileaks as an actor in global politics and their effect
> in relation to the content released and the media political economy of how
> it was released, and another looking at Wikileaks
> internally and the organizational, ideological, and internal issues
> emerging in regards to leadership and forking to Openleaks.
> Wikileaks is in a way a starting point to address issues lurking in my area
> of expertise during the last decade.
>
>  I hope this is not seen as too self-involved and I am wondering whether
> other where doing similar work, in which case it would be interesting for me
> to exchange some views on this list or via one-to-one emails/chats at this
> point.
>
>  Best,
>
>  Athina
>
> 2011/1/31 Dror Kamir <dqamir at bezeqint.net>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I suppose you have all noticed that Egypt is going through rough time, but
>> I wonder if you looked into the history of the article about the events. It
>> almost seems as if the article preceded the actual events. The article on
>> the English-language Wikipedia is entitled "2011 Egyptian protests". It
>> already exists in 39 languages (incl. English). In Arabic and
>> Egyptian-Arabic it is entitled "The Egyptian Revolution of Wrath" (the
>> demonstrations on Friday were called by the organizers "Friday of Wrath").
>>
>> Now to the interesting part - The demonstrations were planned via FaceBook
>> for about a week, and "D-Day" was Tuesday, 25 January (which is a public
>> holiday in Egypt). The first version of the article on the English Wikipedia
>> has a time stamp of 13:26 25 January 2011 (UTC I presume). The person who
>> initiated the article is nicknamed "The Egyptian Liberal" and according to
>> his userpage he is an Egyptian who lives in Dubai and speaks both Arabic and
>> English as mother tongues. "The Egyptian Liberal" worked very fast to enrich
>> the article, and it was practically written in the course of the events. In
>> the list of things that Wikipedia isn't there is a paragraph saying
>> "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". Indeed, Wikipedia did not function here as a
>> newspaper, but rather as a tool serving the organizers of the
>> demonstrations.
>>
>> An equivalent article was initiated on the Arabic Wikipedia 3 and a half
>> hours after its English counterpart. It was initiated by someone who
>> apparently lives in Egypt, but "The Egyptian Liberal" joined him quite soon.
>> The article on the Egyptian-Arabic Wikipedia emerged only on 28 January, two
>> and a half days after its English and Arabic counterparts. It was initiated
>> by a person who lives in Egypt, and he is also the main contributor, but
>> "The Egyptian Liberal" had his share here too.
>>
>> These are just my first observation, which I find interesting because it
>> is, in my opinion, another stage of Wikipedia losing its encyclopedic
>> characteristics.
>>
>> Dror
>>
>>
>> ?????? 31/01/11 17:07, ????? Maja van der Velden:
>>
>>> Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia?s Contributor List
>>>
>>> In 10 short years, Wikipedia has accomplished some remarkable goals. More
>>> than 3.5 million articles in English? Done. More than 250 languages? Sure.
>>> But another number has proved to be an intractable obstacle for the online
>>> encyclopedia: surveys suggest that less than 15 percent of its hundreds of
>>> thousands of contributors are women.
>>>
>>> More here:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&emc=eta1&adxnnlx=1296486151-4fB4AiSiCizUtpXNS2UGPA
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> Maja
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cpov mailing list
>>> cpov at listcultures.org
>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cpov mailing list
>> cpov at listcultures.org
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
>  Dr Athina Karatzogianni<http://www2.hull.ac.uk/FASS/humanities/media,_culture_and_society/staff/karatzogianni,_dr_athina.aspx>
> 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
> E: a.karatzogianni at hull.ac.uk
> Check out Athina's work<http://www.routledge.com/books/search/keywords/karatzogianni/>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cpov mailing list
> cpov at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20110204/8cc88269/attachment.html>

From geert at xs4all.nl  Sat Feb  5 22:42:32 2011
From: geert at xs4all.nl (Geert Lovink)
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 22:42:32 +0100
Subject: <CPOV> post-10 years' celebrations, the add debate once again?
Message-ID: <FED27279-E1D5-4FEE-9E08-8FF7C8358B2E@xs4all.nl>

http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/05/wikipedia-affiliate-links/



From dqamir at bezeqint.net  Sun Feb  6 09:01:40 2011
From: dqamir at bezeqint.net (Dror Kamir)
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 10:01:40 +0200
Subject: <CPOV> post-10 years' celebrations, the add debate once again?
In-Reply-To: <FED27279-E1D5-4FEE-9E08-8FF7C8358B2E@xs4all.nl>
References: <FED27279-E1D5-4FEE-9E08-8FF7C8358B2E@xs4all.nl>
Message-ID: <4D4E5564.6070503@bezeqint.net>

Hi,

I tend to agree with the first talkback - This idea is even worse than 
introducing ads, it is actually a proposal to introduce covert advertising.
Ads are not merely an aesthetic nuisance (on the contrary - in many 
cases they are very artistic and aesthetic). Ads are a tool used for 
persuading people, and as such they can turn into harassment (like 
having a group of people going with you wherever you go, each of them 
try to persuade you to do something or think something. Unless these 
"people" are ads, such an experience justify calling the police or 
having a psychiatric examination). Ads are also, by definition, biased, 
while Wikipedia still tries to adhere to neutral point of view (hopefully).
Marking ads and/or separating them from the regular content of 
newspapers, magazines, TV shows etc. is a common practice to ensure 
fairness. Commercial productions sometime use covert advertisement, but 
WP is not a commercial production, and if regular ads seem inappropriate 
to many Wikipedians, covert advertisement would be even worse.

Dror

?????? 05/02/11 23:42, ????? Geert Lovink:
> http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/05/wikipedia-affiliate-links/
>
> _______________________________________________
> cpov mailing list
> cpov at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org
>



From hfordsa at gmail.com  Sun Feb  6 18:41:27 2011
From: hfordsa at gmail.com (Heather Ford)
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 09:41:27 -0800
Subject: <CPOV> post-10 years' celebrations, the add debate once again?
In-Reply-To: <4D4E5564.6070503@bezeqint.net>
References: <FED27279-E1D5-4FEE-9E08-8FF7C8358B2E@xs4all.nl>
	<4D4E5564.6070503@bezeqint.net>
Message-ID: <4D4EDD47.5000307@gmail.com>

Re. Hunter's piece, seems amazing to me how much there is about how 
Wikipedia could better raise its money without looking at the 
Foundation's rapidly increasing operating budget. Hunter says that 
Wikipedia 'depressingly, seems to be perpetually on the fringe of 
solvency'. But if you look at the Wikimedia Foundation Financial Reports 
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports you'll see how 
well they're doing financially and how every year seem to make comments 
about how they raised more money than they ever wanted. See below:

'The total operating budget for the 2010-11 annual plan is $20.4 
million. In comparison, 2009-10 projected spending will be $8.7 million 
(against a plan of $9.4 million). In 2008-09, the Foundation spent (cash 
expenses excluding depreciation and in-kind expenses) $5.2 million; in 
2007-08, $3.0 million; in 06-07, $1.4 million; in 05-06 $0.5 million; in 
04-05 $0.1 million. In general, spending has increased every year, as 
the projects and the organization have grown.'

Um. But Wikipedia - at least the English version - is stagnating, right? 
Is all this extra spending necessary/worthwhile? Would love to have this 
debate before working out how to feed the ever-growing beast.

On 2011/02/06 12:01 AM, Dror Kamir wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I tend to agree with the first talkback - This idea is even worse than 
> introducing ads, it is actually a proposal to introduce covert 
> advertising.
> Ads are not merely an aesthetic nuisance (on the contrary - in many 
> cases they are very artistic and aesthetic). Ads are a tool used for 
> persuading people, and as such they can turn into harassment (like 
> having a group of people going with you wherever you go, each of them 
> try to persuade you to do something or think something. Unless these 
> "people" are ads, such an experience justify calling the police or 
> having a psychiatric examination). Ads are also, by definition, 
> biased, while Wikipedia still tries to adhere to neutral point of view 
> (hopefully).
> Marking ads and/or separating them from the regular content of 
> newspapers, magazines, TV shows etc. is a common practice to ensure 
> fairness. Commercial productions sometime use covert advertisement, 
> but WP is not a commercial production, and if regular ads seem 
> inappropriate to many Wikipedians, covert advertisement would be even 
> worse.
>
> Dror
>
> ?????? 05/02/11 23:42, ????? Geert Lovink:
>> http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/05/wikipedia-affiliate-links/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cpov mailing list
>> cpov at listcultures.org
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cpov mailing list
> cpov at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org


-- 
Heather Ford
UC Berkeley School of Information
http://hblog.org | https://twitter.com/hfordsa
New blog on information privacy and identity:
http://blogs.ischool.berkeley.edu/masks




From dqamir at bezeqint.net  Sun Feb  6 21:25:17 2011
From: dqamir at bezeqint.net (Dror Kamir)
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 22:25:17 +0200
Subject: <CPOV> post-10 years' celebrations, the add debate once again?
In-Reply-To: <4D4EDD47.5000307@gmail.com>
References: <FED27279-E1D5-4FEE-9E08-8FF7C8358B2E@xs4all.nl>	<4D4E5564.6070503@bezeqint.net>
	<4D4EDD47.5000307@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4D4F03AD.5050608@bezeqint.net>

Wikipedia is only one of the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. Their 
goal, as they present it, is to encourage free content policy and to 
support the creation and distribution of free content worldwide. They do 
manage to collect more donations each year (although they present it as 
"money for Wikipedia", since this is the "brand" that everyone knows), 
and they do spend more every year. And yet it would be wrong to judge 
the usefulness of these spending by the activity on Wikipedia. The 
question is whether they are successful in promoting the entire aspects 
of their goal. I don't have a decisive answer to that, partially because 
some of their new ideas are in a very early stage (that is, money is 
already spent for hiring people and planning, but it is hard to tell 
whether there will be fruits at the end of the road).

Disclosure: I used to be an enthusiastic volunteer of the WM Foundation 
and even traveled to conferences on their expanse. I'm still involved in 
some of their project, though much less than I used too. To be honest, I 
have never been in full agreement with the Foundation's policy, but I 
value their work.

Dror

?????? 06/02/11 19:41, ????? Heather Ford:

> Re. Hunter's piece, seems amazing to me how much there is about how 
> Wikipedia could better raise its money without looking at the 
> Foundation's rapidly increasing operating budget. Hunter says that 
> Wikipedia 'depressingly, seems to be perpetually on the fringe of 
> solvency'. But if you look at the Wikimedia Foundation Financial 
> Reports http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports you'll 
> see how well they're doing financially and how every year seem to make 
> comments about how they raised more money than they ever wanted. See 
> below:
>
> 'The total operating budget for the 2010-11 annual plan is $20.4 
> million. In comparison, 2009-10 projected spending will be $8.7 
> million (against a plan of $9.4 million). In 2008-09, the Foundation 
> spent (cash expenses excluding depreciation and in-kind expenses) $5.2 
> million; in 2007-08, $3.0 million; in 06-07, $1.4 million; in 05-06 
> $0.5 million; in 04-05 $0.1 million. In general, spending has 
> increased every year, as the projects and the organization have grown.'
>
> Um. But Wikipedia - at least the English version - is stagnating, 
> right? Is all this extra spending necessary/worthwhile? Would love to 
> have this debate before working out how to feed the ever-growing beast.
>
> On 2011/02/06 12:01 AM, Dror Kamir wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I tend to agree with the first talkback - This idea is even worse 
>> than introducing ads, it is actually a proposal to introduce covert 
>> advertising.
>> Ads are not merely an aesthetic nuisance (on the contrary - in many 
>> cases they are very artistic and aesthetic). Ads are a tool used for 
>> persuading people, and as such they can turn into harassment (like 
>> having a group of people going with you wherever you go, each of them 
>> try to persuade you to do something or think something. Unless these 
>> "people" are ads, such an experience justify calling the police or 
>> having a psychiatric examination). Ads are also, by definition, 
>> biased, while Wikipedia still tries to adhere to neutral point of 
>> view (hopefully).
>> Marking ads and/or separating them from the regular content of 
>> newspapers, magazines, TV shows etc. is a common practice to ensure 
>> fairness. Commercial productions sometime use covert advertisement, 
>> but WP is not a commercial production, and if regular ads seem 
>> inappropriate to many Wikipedians, covert advertisement would be even 
>> worse.
>>
>> Dror
>>
>> ?????? 05/02/11 23:42, ????? Geert Lovink:
>>> http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/05/wikipedia-affiliate-links/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cpov mailing list
>>> cpov at listcultures.org
>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cpov mailing list
>> cpov at listcultures.org
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org
>
>



From hfordsa at gmail.com  Mon Feb  7 01:45:10 2011
From: hfordsa at gmail.com (Heather Ford)
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 16:45:10 -0800
Subject: <CPOV> post-10 years' celebrations, the add debate once again?
In-Reply-To: <4D4F03AD.5050608@bezeqint.net>
References: <FED27279-E1D5-4FEE-9E08-8FF7C8358B2E@xs4all.nl>	<4D4E5564.6070503@bezeqint.net>	<4D4EDD47.5000307@gmail.com>
	<4D4F03AD.5050608@bezeqint.net>
Message-ID: <4D4F4096.1090902@gmail.com>

I agree with you (mostly), Dror. I was a part of the Wikimedia 
Foundation Advisory Board once and an enthusiastic contributor as you 
were. I'm still enthusiastic about the potential - I just feel like 
there are problems here that will not be solved by money alone.

On 2011/02/06 12:25 PM, Dror Kamir wrote:
> Wikipedia is only one of the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. 
> Their goal, as they present it, is to encourage free content policy 
> and to support the creation and distribution of free content 
> worldwide. They do manage to collect more donations each year 
> (although they present it as "money for Wikipedia", since this is the 
> "brand" that everyone knows), and they do spend more every year. And 
> yet it would be wrong to judge the usefulness of these spending by the 
> activity on Wikipedia. The question is whether they are successful in 
> promoting the entire aspects of their goal. I don't have a decisive 
> answer to that, partially because some of their new ideas are in a 
> very early stage (that is, money is already spent for hiring people 
> and planning, but it is hard to tell whether there will be fruits at 
> the end of the road).
>
> Disclosure: I used to be an enthusiastic volunteer of the WM 
> Foundation and even traveled to conferences on their expanse. I'm 
> still involved in some of their project, though much less than I used 
> too. To be honest, I have never been in full agreement with the 
> Foundation's policy, but I value their work.
>
> Dror
>
> ?????? 06/02/11 19:41, ????? Heather Ford:
>
>> Re. Hunter's piece, seems amazing to me how much there is about how 
>> Wikipedia could better raise its money without looking at the 
>> Foundation's rapidly increasing operating budget. Hunter says that 
>> Wikipedia 'depressingly, seems to be perpetually on the fringe of 
>> solvency'. But if you look at the Wikimedia Foundation Financial 
>> Reports http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports you'll 
>> see how well they're doing financially and how every year seem to 
>> make comments about how they raised more money than they ever wanted. 
>> See below:
>>
>> 'The total operating budget for the 2010-11 annual plan is $20.4 
>> million. In comparison, 2009-10 projected spending will be $8.7 
>> million (against a plan of $9.4 million). In 2008-09, the Foundation 
>> spent (cash expenses excluding depreciation and in-kind expenses) 
>> $5.2 million; in 2007-08, $3.0 million; in 06-07, $1.4 million; in 
>> 05-06 $0.5 million; in 04-05 $0.1 million. In general, spending has 
>> increased every year, as the projects and the organization have grown.'
>>
>> Um. But Wikipedia - at least the English version - is stagnating, 
>> right? Is all this extra spending necessary/worthwhile? Would love to 
>> have this debate before working out how to feed the ever-growing beast.
>>
>> On 2011/02/06 12:01 AM, Dror Kamir wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I tend to agree with the first talkback - This idea is even worse 
>>> than introducing ads, it is actually a proposal to introduce covert 
>>> advertising.
>>> Ads are not merely an aesthetic nuisance (on the contrary - in many 
>>> cases they are very artistic and aesthetic). Ads are a tool used for 
>>> persuading people, and as such they can turn into harassment (like 
>>> having a group of people going with you wherever you go, each of 
>>> them try to persuade you to do something or think something. Unless 
>>> these "people" are ads, such an experience justify calling the 
>>> police or having a psychiatric examination). Ads are also, by 
>>> definition, biased, while Wikipedia still tries to adhere to neutral 
>>> point of view (hopefully).
>>> Marking ads and/or separating them from the regular content of 
>>> newspapers, magazines, TV shows etc. is a common practice to ensure 
>>> fairness. Commercial productions sometime use covert advertisement, 
>>> but WP is not a commercial production, and if regular ads seem 
>>> inappropriate to many Wikipedians, covert advertisement would be 
>>> even worse.
>>>
>>> Dror
>>>
>>> ?????? 05/02/11 23:42, ????? Geert Lovink:
>>>> http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/05/wikipedia-affiliate-links/
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cpov mailing list
>>>> cpov at listcultures.org
>>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cpov mailing list
>>> cpov at listcultures.org
>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cpov mailing list
> cpov at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org


-- 
Heather Ford
UC Berkeley School of Information
http://hblog.org | https://twitter.com/hfordsa
New blog on information privacy and identity:
http://blogs.ischool.berkeley.edu/masks




From geert at xs4all.nl  Fri Feb 18 09:12:58 2011
From: geert at xs4all.nl (Geert Lovink)
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:12:58 +0100
Subject: <CPOV> About Wikipedia Illustrated
Message-ID: <482A196D-B1F9-449A-8590-CA1083A2121C@xs4all.nl>

From: mushon at shual.com

Wikipedia Illustrated

While we?re celebrating the explosion of open source software and  
collaborative projects like Wikipedia, visual art has not been  
enjoying similar levels of passionate and generous online  
contribution. Open culture has developed inspiring text-based  
collaborative models, but have yet to develop successful models for  
open collaboration on visual culture. Wikipedia Illustrated seeks to  
develop such models. Through a book featuring 26 illustrated articles,  
a blog that follows the production and a set of workshops we hope to  
develop a methodology for contributing creative-commons licensed  
illustrations to Wikipedia.

Is the visual aspect of Wikipedia so lacking and dated because it  
could only use freely licensed images? Or is it that images have to  
become ?historical? to become removed, objective, factual, and  
therefore applicable to the Wikipedia guidelines? Is the Wikipedia  
project really inviting visual artists to contribute their work to the  
commons? Or is visual work inherently less collaborative? As the  
project evolves it exposes the myths and biases behind these questions  
and reveals the surprising and complicated dynamics of open culture.

Here are some examples for the Wikipedia articles we chose for the  
project and for why we chose them:

	? /Ash_heap_of_history?Wikipedia seems to give a lot of room for what  
history has forgotten. But it seems to be doing so while forgetting  
the way history has remembered ? through visual art.
	? /Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view?The principle of achieving  
neutrality and striving towards the middle ground is a key feature of  
the Wikipedia project. But visual culture has its own needs and  
processes. Collaboration on an image would not necessarily look like  
collaboration on text. The Wikimedia-Commons project itself recognizes  
that and chooses multiplicity over a unified visual content and style.
	? /Bathroom_singing?The individual echo chamber that often fosters  
creativity is actually also an important player in Wikipedia itself.  
In choosing articles like ?Bathroom Singing? we embrace the esoteric  
edges of Wikipedia. We believe they expose the creative force of the  
subjective tone. Subjectivity is an essential component of the visual  
work. It makes sure that the image not only echos the text, but adds a  
substantial value on top of it.
	? /Unkown_knowns?we don?t know that we know how to collaborate on  
text. Wikipedia?s sophisticated ideology?its collaborative model has  
been perfected to slip into the background of the networked  
collaboration.
	? /Ignore_All_Rules?we don?t have a perfected collaborative model for  
visual work. It would not be dozens of participants collaboratively  
editing the same canvas. We have to ignore the rules that were not  
perfected for visual collaboration to find ways of breaking the  
individual creativity vs. networked collaboration deadlock.
	? /Fight-or-flight_response?Through the blog, the book, the  
workshops, we attempt to craft a new collaborative model for image  
making. One that does not fly away at the sight of mass collaboration.  
One that resists the initial tendency to neutralize itself for what  
some may consider to be a more collaborative practice. We believe it  
is essential for a liberated subjective image to hash out the  
difficulties before we preemptively attempting to solve them.
	? /Victory_(disambiguation)?But what would a successful result look  
like? Would we measure it by the longevity of the illustrations within  
Wikipedia?s pages? Would we manage to disambiguate visual culture for  
the sake of collaboration? Should we even attempt to? Or maybe the  
opposite is required? Maybe it is the time for ?reambiguation??
WikipediaIllustrated.org was initiated by artist/illustrator Galia  
Offri and by designer/educator Mushon Zer-Aviv and launched at the  
2011 Transmediale Festival in Berlin.
Mushon Zer-Aviv

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: shual_gray.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20110218/e78724e9/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
  Shual.com - design studio
?  ShiftSpace.org - an opensource layer above any website
?  Mushon.com - blog
? @mushon - Tweet me



From nathanieltkacz at gmail.com  Tue Feb 22 23:38:59 2011
From: nathanieltkacz at gmail.com (nathaniel tkacz)
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 09:38:59 +1100
Subject: <CPOV> Signpost on The Missing Wikipedians
Message-ID: <AANLkTimTrRSkUDzsyHXsdME+fpNV_xZm8vxUdxbBYu78@mail.gmail.com>

greetings,

some of you might have seen the discussion that has developed around heather
ford's contribution to the cpov reader, which she also posted on her her
blog. the essay, 'the missing wikipedians' is now featured in the latest
wikipedia signpost and discusses its reception in the community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single#In_the_news

best

Nate Tkacz

School of Culture and Communication
University of Melbourne

Twitter: http://twitter.com/__nate__

Research Page: http://nathanieltkacz.net

Current project: http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/about-2/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20110223/e38b7469/attachment.html>

From dqamir at bezeqint.net  Tue Feb 22 23:59:59 2011
From: dqamir at bezeqint.net (Dror Kamir)
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 00:59:59 +0200
Subject: <CPOV> Signpost on The Missing Wikipedians
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimTrRSkUDzsyHXsdME+fpNV_xZm8vxUdxbBYu78@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimTrRSkUDzsyHXsdME+fpNV_xZm8vxUdxbBYu78@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4D643FEF.7060305@bezeqint.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20110223/6678a090/attachment.html>

From nathanieltkacz at gmail.com  Wed Feb 23 00:58:52 2011
From: nathanieltkacz at gmail.com (nathaniel tkacz)
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:58:52 +1100
Subject: <CPOV> Signpost on The Missing Wikipedians
In-Reply-To: <4D643FEF.7060305@bezeqint.net>
References: <AANLkTimTrRSkUDzsyHXsdME+fpNV_xZm8vxUdxbBYu78@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D643FEF.7060305@bezeqint.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinG1JGm+tFbVtrMhZiL9=p+NDWJhrLOQMhB2gNd@mail.gmail.com>

there is critical discussion about it on the foundation list.

best

Nate Tkacz

School of Culture and Communication
University of Melbourne

Twitter: http://twitter.com/__nate__

Research Page: http://nathanieltkacz.net

Current project: http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/about-2/


On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Dror Kamir <dqamir at bezeqint.net> wrote:

>  Hi
>
> I sent a link to Wikimedia's mailing list for "developing nations"/"global
> south" (choose your favorite PC term...) However, I didn't see much debate
> on Heather's blog. Has another discussion about the article developed
> elsewhere?
>
> Dror
>
> ?????? 23/02/11 00:38, ????? nathaniel tkacz:
>
> greetings,
>
>  some of you might have seen the discussion that has developed around
> heather ford's contribution to the cpov reader, which she also posted on her
> her blog. the essay, 'the missing wikipedians' is now featured in the latest
> wikipedia signpost and discusses its reception in the community.
>
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single#In_the_news
>
>  best
>
> Nate Tkacz
>
> School of Culture and Communication
> University of Melbourne
>
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/__nate__
>
> Research Page: http://nathanieltkacz.net
>
> Current project: http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/about-2/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cpov mailing listcpov at listcultures.orghttp://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cpov mailing list
> cpov at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20110223/b2143cc1/attachment.html>

From dqamir at bezeqint.net  Wed Feb 23 10:09:13 2011
From: dqamir at bezeqint.net (Dror Kamir)
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:09:13 +0200
Subject: <CPOV> Signpost on The Missing Wikipedians
Message-ID: <4D64CEB9.80107@bezeqint.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20110223/708fecfd/attachment.html>

From Mayo.Fuster at EUI.eu  Mon Feb 28 18:53:11 2011
From: Mayo.Fuster at EUI.eu (Fuster, Mayo)
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 09:53:11 -0800
Subject: <CPOV> Fcforum: New models of sustainability of culture and
 knowledge in the digital era.
Message-ID: <2B9AD225C77EEE4682E54A6D352E2CE50246508099@IE2RD2XVS261.red002.local>

(English, Spanish, Catalan)

Launching: Declaration and how-to manual on new models of sustainability of culture and knowledge in the digital era.

Over 40 international organizations endorse the Declaration and how-to manual on new models of sustainability in the digital era that are released today by the Free/Libre Culture Forum (FCForum).
Declaration and how to manual on new models of sustainability in the digital era: http://fcforum.net/sustainable-models-for-creativity

Each year, the FCForum (http://2010.fcforum.net) brings together key organization and active voices in the sphere of free/libre culture and knowledge. It responds to the need for an international arena to coordinate a global framework for action to defend and expand the sphere in which human creativity and knowledge can prosper freely and sustainable. As civil society, it is our responsibility to oppose practices that plunder the common heritage and to block its future development. 

The Declaration and How-to manual of new models of sustainability in the digital era that we are releasing today includes a review of the current situation of diverse sectors of creativity (music, cinema, digital infrastructure, writing content and online repositories resulting of open collaboration online, among others), list several emerging models and sources of sustainability, and, importantly, argue our conviction that:

Copyright, as we currently know it, is counterproductive, and the restructuring of existing business models is inevitable and imperative; attempts by some entities and corporations to profit through the creation of monopolies, often with the active connivance of government, should be brought to a stop. The sharing and exchange of ideas is of vital importance to culture, knowledge and democracy, and we must work towards maximizing governmental and institutional initiatives that understand and support them. Last but not least, it is necessary and important that people is compensated for their socially valuable creative work. Furthermore, digital commons provided by civic society actors and resulting from citizens collaboration are increasing in importance and accordingly have to gain visibility and social recognition.

The Declaration and How-to manual of new models of sustainability in the digital era present some of the many existing and possible models. We should be encouraging and promoting further development and recognition of them.

We invite citizens, policy reformers and institutions to take the content of this practical proposal into account and to use its release as an opportunity to discuss our future together. We aim this resource to be useful for initiatives that are searching to find sustainable solutions to their promotion of access and creativity of culture and knowledge.


We will continue to collect signatures, endorsements and contributions. With them we will be developing new versions, as new requirements and new solutions appear.


Read, share, spread and participate! 

Free/Libre Culture Forum (FCForum): http://fcforum.net

To endorse the declaration write to: info at fcforum.net

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
(SPANISH)

Declaraci?n y Manual sobre modelos sostenibles para la creatividad en la cultura y el conocimiento en la era digital

El Foro de cultura libre (FCForum) (http://2010.fcforum.net/) lanza hoy La Declaraci?n y el ?Manual? sobre modelos sostenibles para la creatividad en la era digital: http://fcforum.net/es/sustainable-models-for-creativity
Hay muchos modelos que ya est?n operando o que son posibles. Este documento examina algunos de ellos y pide que se aliente y promueva su desarrollo. Lo que viene a demostrar es que soluciones pr?cticas las hay. Cosa bien distinta es que no interesen a pol?ticos a sueldo de multinacionales y de intereses particulares. #NoLesVotes.

El FCForum es una plataforma internacional que re?ne cada a?o a organizaciones clave y voces activas en el ?mbito de la cultura y el conocimiento libre para crear y coordinar un marco global de acci?n. El texto que se publica hoy es el resultado del encuentro de 150 organizaciones en Octubre de 2010 en Barcelona (http://2010.fcforum.net/). El proceso de trabajo y consenso ha sido facilitado por La-EX.net (exEXGAE), Mayo Fuster Morell, y YProductions. La declaraci?n y el manual contienen un an?lisis de cada sector (m?sica, cine, textos colaborativos online, infraestructura digital, entre otros) y la descripci?n detallada de los nuevos fuentes y modelos operantes y posibles. As? mismo, plasma nuestras convicciones compartidas, entre ellas:

Que el modelo actual de copyright es contraproducente y la reconversi?n del sector cultural es inevitable y necesaria; hay que acabar con los monopolios creados por algunas entidades y corporaciones para su propio beneficio, en muchos casos con la complicidad activa de gobiernos. Compartir e intercambiar ideas tiene una importancia central para la cultura, el conocimiento y la democracia, y debemos ampliar los esfuerzos institucionales y las iniciativas de la sociedad civil que los apoyan y promueven. Es necesario e importante que las personas que al compartir y colaborar crean valor sean compensadas por estas contribuciones valiosas para la sociedad. El rol de la sociedad civil en tanto que proveedora de bienes comunes digitales merece mayor reconocimiento y apoyo institucional.

La declaraci?n tambi?n alerta de que en los pasillos de ministerios y grandes compa??as del sector de la telecomunicaci?n est?n preparando un acuerdo para ampliar el canon digital a la propia conexi?n a internet. Propuesta que consideramos absolutamente inaceptable en las condiciones actuales y ser? rechazado por la sociedad civil. 

El documento, que sigue recogiendo adhesiones, se publica firmado por m?s de 40 organizaciones y especialistas nacionales e internacionales tales como Electronic Frontair Foundation, P2P Foundation, La Quadrature du Net, Consumers International, Red SOStenible, Enrique Dans, Ricardo Galli, el abogado Carlos Almeida, Creative Commons Espa?a y Alemania y muchos otros.

Esperamos que este recurso resulte ?til para otras iniciativas que buscan soluciones de sostenibilidad en la promoci?n del acceso y la creatividad para el desarrollo de la cultura y el conocimeinto. Invitamos a la ciudadan?a, y a las instituciones a seguir la discusi?n sobre nuevos modelos sostenibles para la creatividad en un espacio de debate online que ha sido creado expresamente para ello: http://list.fcforum.net/wws/info/modelos-sostenibles

Si te interesa participar escribe a: info at fcforum.net

En nuestro pa?s Alex de la Iglesia abri? una brecha importante por la que el debate ya no puede ser silenciado. Este documento es una base pr?ctica para seguir avanzando en la discusi?n.

Tenemos que defender y ampliar el ?mbito en el que la creatividad humana y el conocimiento pueden prosperar libremente y de forma sostenible. Como sociedad civil, es nuestra responsabilidad oponernos a las pr?cticas de saqueo del patrimonio com?n y a las trabas a nuestro futuro desarrollo. 

Se seguir?n recogiendo adhesiones y aportaciones. Con ellas se ir?n elaborando nuevas versiones a medida que nuevas exigencias y nuevas soluciones vayan emergiendo.

Nuevos modelos de negocio? Si no los encuentran es porque no quieren.

Comparte, difunde, participa.

Foro de cultura libre (http://www.fcforum.net)
Adhesiones a la declaraci?n: info at fcforum.net

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
(CATALAN)

Declaraci? i Manual sobre models sostenibles per a la creativitat en la cultura i el coneixement en l'era digital 

El F?rum de cultura lliure (FCForum) (http://2010.fcforum.net/) llan?a avui la Declaraci? i el Manual sobre models sostenibles per a la creativitat en l'era digital: http://fcforum.net/es/sustainable-models-for-creativity 

Hi ha molts models que ja estan operant o que s?n possibles. Aquest document examina alguns d'ells i demana que s'encoratgi i promogui el seu desenvolupament. El que ve a demostrar ?s que solucions pr?ctiques hi han. El que es ben distint ?s que no interessin a pol?tics a sou de multinacionals i d'interessos particulars. #NoLesVotes. 

El FCForum ?s una plataforma internacional que reuneix cada any a organitzacions clau i veus actives en l'?mbit de la cultura i el coneixement lliure per a crear i coordinar un marc global d'acci?. El text que es publica avui ?s el resultat de la trobada de 150 organitzacions a l'octubre de 2010 a Barcelona (http://2010.fcforum.net/). El proc?s de treball i consens va estar facilitat per La-EX.net (exEXGAE), Mayo Fuster Morell, i YProductions. La declaraci? i el manual contenen un an?lisi de cada sector (m?sica, cinema, textos col.laboratius online, infraestructura digital, entre altres) i la descripci? detallada de les noves fonts i models operant i possibles. 

Aix? mateix, plasma les nostres conviccions compartides, entre elles: 
Que el model actual de copyright ?s contraproduent i la reconversi? del sector cultural ?s inevitable i necess?ria; que cal acabar amb els monopolis creats per algunes entitats i corporacions per al seu propi benefici, en molts casos amb la complicitat activa de governs. Compartir i intercanviar idees t? una import?ncia central per a la cultura, el coneixement i la democr?cia, i hem d'ampliar els esfor?os institucionals i les iniciatives de la societat civil que els donen suport i promouen. ?s necessari i important que les persones que al compartir i col?laborar creen valor siguin compensades per aquestes contribucions valuoses per a la societat. El rol de la societat c?vil com a prove?dora de b?ns comuns digitals mereix major reconeixement  institucional. 

La declaraci? tamb? alerta que en els passadissos de ministeris i grans companyies del sector de la telecomunicaci? estan preparant un acord per a ampliar el c?non digital a la pr?pia connexi? a Internet. Jugada que considerem absolutament inacceptable en les condicions actuals i ser? rebutjat per la societat civil. 

El document, que segueix recollint adhesions, es publica signat per m?s de 40 organitzacions i especialistes nacionals i internacionals tals menjo Electronic Frontair Foundation, P2P Foundation, La Quadrature du Net, Consumers International, Xarxa Sostenible, Enrique Dans, Ricardo Galli, l'advocat Carlos Almeida, Creative Commons Espanya i Alemanya i molts altres. 

Esperem que aquest recurs resulti ?til per a altres iniciatives que busquen solucions de sostenibilitat en la promoci? de l'acc?s i la creativitat per al desenvolupament de la cultura i el coneixement. 

Convidem a la ciutadania, i a les institucions a seguir la discussi? sobre nous models sostenibles per a la creativitat en un espai de debat online que ha estat creat expressament per a aix?: http://list.fcforum.net/wws/info/models-sostenibles 

Si t'interessa participar escriu a: info at fcforum.net 

En el nostre pa?s Alex de l'Esgl?sia va obrir una bretxa important per la qual el debat ja no pot ser silenciat. Aquest document ?s una base pr?ctica per a seguir avan?ant en la discussi?. 

Hem de defensar i ampliar l'?mbit en el qual la creativitat humana i el coneixement poden prosperar lliurement i de forma sostenible. Com societat civil, ?s la nostra responsabilitat oposar-nos a les pr?ctiques de saqueig del patrimoni com? i als entrebancs al nostre futur desenvolupament. Es seguiran recollint adhesions i aportacions. I s'aniran elaborant noves versions a mesura que noves exig?ncies i noves solucions vagin emergint. 

Nous models de negoci? Si no els troben ?s perqu? no volen. 

Comparteix, difon, participa. 

F?rum de cultura lliure (http://www.fcforum.net) 
Adhesions a la declaraci?: info at fcforum.net

               
???`?.(*?.?(`?.? ?.??)?.?*).??`??
????*???? Mayo Fuster Morell ?.?.?*?`??
???`?.(?.??(?.?* *?.?)`?.?).??`??

Research Digital Commons Governance: http://www.onlinecreation.info

Ph.D European University Institute
Postdoctoral Researcher. Institute of Govern and Public Policies. Autonomous University of Barcelona.
Visiting scholar. Internet Interdisciplinary Institute. Open University of Catalonia (UOC).
Visiting researcher (2008). School of information. University of California, Berkeley.
Member Research Committee. Wikimedia Foundation 

http://www.onlinecreation.info
E-mail: mayo.fuster at eui.eu
Skype: mayoneti
Phone Spanish State: 0034-648877748