From geert at xs4all.nl  Thu Jan  6 20:52:37 2011
From: geert at xs4all.nl (Geert Lovink)
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 20:52:37 +0100
Subject: <CPOV> opinions about wikipedia part 1
Message-ID: <3B40CD58-9F56-40A6-87D0-9E42EFAD8837@xs4all.nl>

(let's make a marathon, who sends part 2?)

http://woorkup.com/2010/12/31/wikipedia-an-ephemeral-surrogate-for-the-universal-knowledge/



From nathanieltkacz at gmail.com  Fri Jan  7 00:20:08 2011
From: nathanieltkacz at gmail.com (nathaniel tkacz)
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 10:20:08 +1100
Subject: <CPOV> opinions about wikipedia part 1
In-Reply-To: <3B40CD58-9F56-40A6-87D0-9E42EFAD8837@xs4all.nl>
References: <3B40CD58-9F56-40A6-87D0-9E42EFAD8837@xs4all.nl>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim7_zdfVTiOj-k63Qg0zQVC8KKTOxfw+eFk8hk4@mail.gmail.com>

i think the blog post is, well, pretty crap. here's why...

"I think the millions of entries in the most popular online encyclopedia,
> which enclose a part of universal knowledge, are to some extents a common
> good which should be preserved."
>

when are people going to stop talking about universal knowledge?

>
> "However, I think Wikipedia is the worst example of how the ambition to
> centralize human knowledge in one place, by giving voice to everyone without
> distinction, represents nothing more than a vain illusion."
>

it doesn't give voice to everyone, BECAUSE there is an element of
"distinction", not of people but words. some words are good and others bad
and this is determined by many many rules.  if we want to be critical, let's
look closely at the rules.

>
> The user generated content model, which is at the base of encyclopedia?s
> success, has a critical weak point that concerns the accuracy and
> reliability of all that is published on the site.


dude, it's 2011.


> Despite the efforts of moderators, Wikipedia is full of incorrect or
> inaccurate entries and often, people who consult its pages ignore this
> problem and assume to be true their content.


i agree that many people use wikipedia with the assumption that the info is
correct. when i was talking to extended family over the break, they all used
wikipedia but had very little idea about how it was made. this is not a
problem with wikipedia. it's a problem about "digital" literacy.


> In this ?factory of knowledge?, moderators exert an immense power by
> performing the role of the ?sheriffs? of universal knowledge. They filter
> submitted content and decide what can be published and what can?t.


hmm... the author has changed position. above he writes "despite the efforts
of moderators..." but now their efforts to ensure accuracy is depicted as
draconian. it's almost as if their are different kinds of "moderators", some
better than others. ;)


> The question is, who among them has the adequate background to assess the
> merits of a specific topic? And which is the objective criterion used for
> evaluating the accuracy of entries?
>

surely if you're going to critique wikipedia, it can't be done by asking
"where is the objectivity?". it is exactly this linguistic hangover from old
school science that is the problem. the criteria of evaluation, which is
actually very sophisticated and interesting in terms of a reimagining of
Enlightenemnt, is both what makes the encyclopaedia possible and how
violences on other, let's say "subjugated knowledges" (following foucault),
are performed. the first question is more interesting. wikipedia attempts a
full disconnection between knowledge and individual knower. it is knowledge
that has achieved full discoursivity - validated only via reference to other
discourse. that is to say, despite its best attempts to retain a
romanticized, enlightened individual subject "who knows", wikipedia is fully
posthuman!

>
> It?s for this lack of accuracy that, in spite of the enormous success
> achieved, Wikipedia will never be a true compendium of human knowledge but,
> at most, nothing but a ephemeral surrogate for the universal knowledge.
>

it is for this lack of accuracy and knowledge about wikipedia, that this
blog post will never be a success.

from sunny melbourne, happy new year cpov!

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 Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 6:52 AM, Geert Lovink <geert at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> (let's make a marathon, who sends part 2?)
>
>
http://woorkup.com/2010/12/31/wikipedia-an-ephemeral-surrogate-for-the-universal-knowledge/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110107/adfa250a/attachment.html>

From luispo at gmail.com  Fri Jan  7 01:14:18 2011
From: luispo at gmail.com (Louis Suarez-Potts)
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 19:14:18 -0500
Subject: <CPOV> opinions about wikipedia part 1
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim7_zdfVTiOj-k63Qg0zQVC8KKTOxfw+eFk8hk4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3B40CD58-9F56-40A6-87D0-9E42EFAD8837@xs4all.nl>
	<AANLkTim7_zdfVTiOj-k63Qg0zQVC8KKTOxfw+eFk8hk4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2B2DD1D3-441C-447E-BA26-F7666B6AD7CA@gmail.com>

Hi all,

On 2011-01-06, at 18:20 , nathaniel tkacz wrote:

> i think the blog post is, well, pretty crap. here's why?

I have to agree. Indeed, the time spent even thinking about this blog entry can be valued only in the sense that it defines time wasted.


snip

> 
> it is for this lack of accuracy and knowledge about wikipedia, that this blog post will never be a success. 
> 

? or about what even counts as the effort to document, ontologise, "knowledge" as such. So, here's a probably equally worthless point, but one that, equally, bears scrutiny:

As we enter the real first decade of this century (yes, we are still locked in the embrace of the last decade, still shrugging off the shroud of the 20th century), What collaborative aims do we claim for the identification and documentation of knowledge? 

I ask because I can see the dual problematic of peer-reviewed publications under pressure and in crisis (too slow, they are), and the emergence of not just a single but multiple nodes of accessible and probably trustworthy information (if not knowledge). The first arguably led to a politics of knowledge that led us, ideally, out of the woods of demagoguery (it didn't) and the second levels those woods but still presents us with the scarecrows of false beliefs and understandings.

Put another way: What modalities of knowledge should we even want? And I mean for this question to appertain to education, to basic knowledge, to that which would or should equip a citizen agent of this new world?



> from sunny melbourne, happy new year cpov!

From snowy Toronto, the same wishes, for a happy new year!

Louis


> 
> 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 Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 6:52 AM, Geert Lovink <geert at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > (let's make a marathon, who sends part 2?)
> >
> > http://woorkup.com/2010/12/31/wikipedia-an-ephemeral-surrogate-for-the-universal-knowledge/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 nathanieltkacz at gmail.com  Tue Jan 11 05:23:12 2011
From: nathanieltkacz at gmail.com (nathaniel tkacz)
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 15:23:12 +1100
Subject: <CPOV> wired
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=jDnGT1LW=ZB30=YjVpeMD+d5dpwjVX+-G_pW1@mail.gmail.com>

wired UK is doing a special on wikipedia. i imagine there will be similar
initiatives in the coming week or two.

http://www.wired.co.uk/topics/wikipedia-week

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/20110111/d0fd6db9/attachment.html>

From geert at xs4all.nl  Tue Jan 11 08:51:27 2011
From: geert at xs4all.nl (Geert Lovink)
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 08:51:27 +0100
Subject: <CPOV> wired
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=jDnGT1LW=ZB30=YjVpeMD+d5dpwjVX+-G_pW1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=jDnGT1LW=ZB30=YjVpeMD+d5dpwjVX+-G_pW1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <62DB8485-0F4F-4699-9E6E-56AD7CBFF063@xs4all.nl>

And there is a BBC documentary coming up on the WorldService. Anyone  
already seen a URL of that?

On 11 Jan 2011, at 5:23 AM, nathaniel tkacz wrote:

> wired UK is doing a special on wikipedia. i imagine there will be  
> similar initiatives in the coming week or two.
>
> http://www.wired.co.uk/topics/wikipedia-week
>
> Nate Tkacz
>
> School of Culture and Communication
> University of Melbourne
>
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/__nate__
>
> Research Page: http://nathanieltkacz.net
>
> Current project: http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/about-2/
> _______________________________________________
> cpov mailing list
> cpov at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org




From Johanna.Niesyto at uni-siegen.de  Tue Jan 11 10:52:15 2011
From: Johanna.Niesyto at uni-siegen.de (Niesyto, Johanna)
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 10:52:15 +0100
Subject: <CPOV> online news about wikipedia (en/de)
Message-ID: <4109080A6B8F554E9C8EFDCA3DE7500F01CCB25C9EA9@MAIL40.uni-siegen.de>



ENGLISH LANGUGA
Using Wikipedia to change the language of the Web http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/article1032224.ece 

GERMAN LANGUAGE
Der Traum von der maschinenlesbaren Wikipedia http://www.zeit.de/digital/internet/2011-01/wikipedia-semantisch-maschinenlesbar 
Wikipedia (alle Artikel) http://www.spiegel.de/thema/wikipedia/ 
Wer bestimmt das Wikipedia Wissen? (Bsp. Artikel ?ber Neoliberalismus) http://www.taz.de/1/netz/netzkultur/artikel/1/wer-bestimmt-das-wikipedia-wissen/
Hey hey Wiki! http://www.br-online.de/wissen/wikipedia-internet-lexikon-ID1294393236102.xml 



From sabine at networkcultures.org  Tue Jan 11 12:01:08 2011
From: sabine at networkcultures.org (Sabine Niederer)
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:01:08 +0100
Subject: <CPOV> Visualizing Deletion Discussions on Wikipedia
Message-ID: <E660FC9A-13AA-4739-A2E7-88881C333323@networkcultures.org>

Source: http://notabilia.net/


Visualizing Deletion Discussions on Wikipedia 
Moritz Stefaner ? Dario Taraborelli ? Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia

As Doc Searls recently put it, Wikipedia is, like the protocols of the Net, "a set of agreements". A Web protocol defines the way in which computers communicate with each other and make decisions to ensure successful transactions. Wikipedia policies have the same purpose, but instead of transactions between machines, they regulate human decisions. An important part of these decisions bear on what topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia and what topics are not. The present project looks into the nature and shape of collective decisions about the inclusion of a topic in Wikipedia. 

http://notabilia.net/

see also: D. Taraborelli, G.L. Ciampaglia (2010) Beyond Notability. Collective Deliberation on Content Inclusion in Wikipedia. Fourth IEEE International Conference on Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems Workshops (SASOW '10). [PDF]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20110111/63bf723e/attachment.html>

From geert at xs4all.nl  Tue Jan 11 12:08:22 2011
From: geert at xs4all.nl (Geert Lovink)
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:08:22 +0100
Subject: <CPOV> wikipedia deletion discussion visualized
References: <AANLkTik+b16P3u9mVP4etx7NQ+uz=-qdsUh0o6Ce7AG8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A5BBA392-AB12-4B03-A425-269D8E233153@xs4all.nl>

i suppose this is only relating to the english wikipedia (!?!)

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Esther Weltevrede <eweltevrede at gmail.com>
> Date: 11 January 2011 11:57:33 AM
> To: Geert Lovink <geert at xs4all.nl>
> Subject: wikipedia deletion discussies gevisualiseerd
>
> http://notabilia.net/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20110111/11e8aeba/attachment.html>

From jfelipe at libresoft.es  Tue Jan 11 14:06:10 2011
From: jfelipe at libresoft.es (Felipe Ortega)
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:06:10 +0100
Subject: <CPOV> wikipedia deletion discussion visualized
In-Reply-To: <A5BBA392-AB12-4B03-A425-269D8E233153@xs4all.nl>
References: <AANLkTik+b16P3u9mVP4etx7NQ+uz=-qdsUh0o6Ce7AG8@mail.gmail.com>
	<A5BBA392-AB12-4B03-A425-269D8E233153@xs4all.nl>
Message-ID: <201101111406.13128.jfelipe@libresoft.es>

On Martes, 11 de Enero de 2011 12:08:22 Geert Lovink escribi?:
> i suppose this is only relating to the english wikipedia (!?!)
> 

Yes, it only covers AfD in the English Wikipedia. 

It was posted on wikimedia-research mailing list by Giovanni Luca, one of the 
authors along with Dario Taraborelli and Moritz Stefaner.

Cheers,
Felipe.

> Begin forwarded message:
> > From: Esther Weltevrede <eweltevrede at gmail.com>
> > Date: 11 January 2011 11:57:33 AM
> > To: Geert Lovink <geert at xs4all.nl>
> > Subject: wikipedia deletion discussies gevisualiseerd
> > 
> > http://notabilia.net/

-- 
Jos? Felipe Ortega Soto          | Researcher & Project Manager
Tel: (+34)-91 488 8105           | 
Fax: (+34)-91 664 7494           | GSyC/Libresoft - U. Rey Juan Carlos
jfelipe _at_libresoft_dot_es     | Edif. Departamental II - Office 106
http://libresoft.es/             | c/Tulip?n s/n 28933 M?stoles (Madrid)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20110111/5b9d1dcf/attachment.sig>

From nathanieltkacz at gmail.com  Thu Jan 20 20:49:40 2011
From: nathanieltkacz at gmail.com (nathaniel tkacz)
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 06:49:40 +1100
Subject: <CPOV> fork interview
Message-ID: <AANLkTimcpeS9njd7J9it2UFB78zLcNb4RFwb40yyE8Gb@mail.gmail.com>

hi all - an extract of a longer interview found on the cpov blog has
recently been published in wired.co.uk. it covers the 2002 fork of wikipedia
and tries to show that this was a very important moment in the history of
the project.

there is a reply from wales and quite a heated one from sanger as well.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-01/20/wikipedia-spanish-fork?page=all

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/20110121/b4411b00/attachment.html>

From joseph.2008 at reagle.org  Fri Jan 21 17:40:08 2011
From: joseph.2008 at reagle.org (Joseph Reagle)
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:40:08 -0500
Subject: <CPOV> fork interview
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimcpeS9njd7J9it2UFB78zLcNb4RFwb40yyE8Gb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimcpeS9njd7J9it2UFB78zLcNb4RFwb40yyE8Gb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <201101211140.09117.joseph.2008@reagle.org>

I left a comment about how much I appreciated the interview on the CPOV blog, but it never showed, but I'm glad to see it got a bit more attention and response at Wired.

As the situation between Wales/Sanger becomes ever more acrimonious and muddied the perspectives of others around at that time are ever more important. I'm guilty for focusing mostly on Wales and Sanger in my book -- and only allude to this issue via a reference to Kovitz in a footnote [1] -- because of my focus on Wikipedia as part of a long pursued "universal encyclopedia". However, I am greatly looking forward to historians -- and even biographers -- delving into this in time. (I'm confident this will happen, but perhaps it will take decades.)


[1]: The latest ?co-founding? controversy was prompted by an interview with Jimmy Wales when he agreed with an interviewer's question that Sanger's claims were shaky because ?he basically just put himself down as co-founder? on early press releases, in \cite{JohnsWales2009iww}. This prompted an ?open letter? from \cite{Sanger2009olj}. Interestingly, the most credible and detailed account of the birth of the Wikipedia idea differs from both Wales? and Sanger?s recollections, see \cite{Kovitz2009ub}.



From nathanieltkacz at gmail.com  Sat Jan 22 01:25:47 2011
From: nathanieltkacz at gmail.com (nathaniel tkacz)
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 11:25:47 +1100
Subject: <CPOV> fork interview
In-Reply-To: <201101211140.09117.joseph.2008@reagle.org>
References: <AANLkTimcpeS9njd7J9it2UFB78zLcNb4RFwb40yyE8Gb@mail.gmail.com>
	<201101211140.09117.joseph.2008@reagle.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=1Y+ROejJdRocRZpR8-We4V3fC8_Wr-NYuBmzC@mail.gmail.com>

thanks for the kind words joseph! you might remember me snooping around some
of the wikipedia lists a few weeks back trying to contact edgar. once i did,
i realised he had a wealth of material to share and i decided on the
interview.

edgar told me that he has been approached several times a year since 2002,
but has never shared his story because the people contacting him were either
mainstream journalists or people from wikimedia and he wasn't convinced they
would let him tell his version of the story.

the arguing between sanger and wales about the history of ads is fast
becoming ridiculous! the thing is, nobody would care if wales just said
"sure, in the early days i was considering some version of ads. i thought it
was a good way to ensure the project could grow and sustain itself. turns
out it wasn't needed and that's great!"

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 Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 3:40 AM, Joseph Reagle <joseph.2008 at reagle.org>wrote:

> I left a comment about how much I appreciated the interview on the CPOV
> blog, but it never showed, but I'm glad to see it got a bit more attention
> and response at Wired.
>
> As the situation between Wales/Sanger becomes ever more acrimonious and
> muddied the perspectives of others around at that time are ever more
> important. I'm guilty for focusing mostly on Wales and Sanger in my book --
> and only allude to this issue via a reference to Kovitz in a footnote [1] --
> because of my focus on Wikipedia as part of a long pursued "universal
> encyclopedia". However, I am greatly looking forward to historians -- and
> even biographers -- delving into this in time. (I'm confident this will
> happen, but perhaps it will take decades.)
>
>
> [1]: The latest ?co-founding? controversy was prompted by an interview with
> Jimmy Wales when he agreed with an interviewer's question that Sanger's
> claims were shaky because ?he basically just put himself down as co-founder?
> on early press releases, in \cite{JohnsWales2009iww}. This prompted an ?open
> letter? from \cite{Sanger2009olj}. Interestingly, the most credible and
> detailed account of the birth of the Wikipedia idea differs from both Wales?
> and Sanger?s recollections, see \cite{Kovitz2009ub}.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/attachments/20110122/7204ec51/attachment.html>

From majava at ifi.uio.no  Mon Jan 31 16:07:14 2011
From: majava at ifi.uio.no (Maja van der Velden)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:07:14 +0100
Subject: <CPOV> =?windows-1252?q?Define_Gender_Gap=3F_Look_Up_Wikipedia=92?=
 =?windows-1252?q?s_Contributor_List?=
Message-ID: <BA9C23A6-05E3-4CB6-BCE4-7C356FC0F574@ifi.uio.no>

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




From dqamir at bezeqint.net  Mon Jan 31 19:55:41 2011
From: dqamir at bezeqint.net (Dror Kamir)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:55:41 +0200
Subject: <CPOV> =?utf-8?q?Egypte=2C_br=C3=BBle-t-elle=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <BA9C23A6-05E3-4CB6-BCE4-7C356FC0F574@ifi.uio.no>
References: <BA9C23A6-05E3-4CB6-BCE4-7C356FC0F574@ifi.uio.no>
Message-ID: <4D4705AD.1090704@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
>