From geert at xs4all.nl Thu May 5 22:16:43 2011 From: geert at xs4all.nl (Geert Lovink) Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 22:16:43 +0200 Subject: Seeking participants for brief e-mail interview on Wikipedia References: Message-ID: <7C58CAD7-F9F1-4549-A0FA-5DB76DD58DE1@xs4all.nl> > Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 13:44:53 -0400 > From: Kristin Eckert > To: > Subject: [Air-L] Seeking participants for brief e-mail interview on > Wikipedia > > Dear fellow researchers, > > We are seeking Wikipedia users (without contributing) and contributors > for a brief e-mail interview (ca. 15 min.) for a study on how the > English version Wikipedia works. Please consider participating and > spread our call to friends and acquaintances. > > Thank you very much for our help. > > Best regards, > Stine Eckert > > Here are the details: > > Why Wikipedia works -- Wikipedia contributors and users for brief > e-mail interview needed > > The Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland > is seeking Wikipedia contributors willing to participate in a brief > e-mail interview (ca. 15 min.). If you have been contributing to or > have used the English language Wikipedia without contributing and you > are over 18 years old, please consider participating in our study. We > will share the result of the study with you. Your information will be > confidential and your name will not be used. If you are interested > please e-mail: > > Dr. Linda Steiner at lsteiner at jmail.umd.edu or > Stine Eckert at keckert at jmail.umd.edu. > > > -- > > > PhD Student > Co-President, Merrill Graduate Student Association (MGSA) > Philip Merrill College of Journalism | University of Maryland | Knight > Hall 2100N > College Park, MD 20742 | USA > keckert at jmail.umd.edu From geert at xs4all.nl Sat May 7 11:52:19 2011 From: geert at xs4all.nl (Geert Lovink) Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 11:52:19 +0200 Subject: Geert Lovink and Nathaniel Tkacz (eds), Critical Point of View: A Wikipedia Reader (INC Reader #7) Message-ID: <760495D2-9E80-4915-8D93-C69F5148518E@xs4all.nl> INC Reader #7 Critical Point of View: A Wikipedia Reader Geert Lovink and Nathaniel Tkacz (eds) For millions of internet users around the globe, the search for new knowledge begins with Wikipedia. The encyclopedia?s rapid rise, novel organization, and freely offered content have been marveled at and denounced by a host of commentators. Critical Point of View moves beyond unflagging praise, well-worn facts, and questions about its reliability and accuracy, to unveil the complex, messy, and controversial realities of a distributed knowledge platform. The essays, interviews and artworks brought together in this reader form part of the overarching Critical Point of View research initiative, which began with a conference in Bangalore (January 2010), followed by events in Amsterdam (March 2010) and Leipzig (September 2010). With an emphasis on theoretical reflection, cultural difference and indeed, critique, contributions to this collection ask: What values are embedded in Wikipedia?s software? On what basis are Wikipedia?s claims to neutrality made? How can Wikipedia give voice to those outside the Western tradition of Enlightenment, or even its own administrative hierarchies? Critical Point of View collects original insights on the next generation of wiki-related research, from radical artistic interventions and the significant role of bots to hidden trajectories of encyclopedic knowledge and the politics of agency and exclusion. Contributors: Amila Akdag Salah, Nicholas Carr, Shun-ling Chen, Florian Cramer, Morgan Currie, Edgar Enyedy, Andrew Famiglietti, Heather Ford, Mayo Fuster Morell, Cheng Gao, R. Stuart Geiger, Mark Graham, Gautam John, Dror Kamir, Peter B. Kaufman, Scott Kildall, Lawrence Liang, Patrick Lichty, Geert Lovink, Hans Varghese Mathews, Johanna Niesyto, Matheiu O?Neil, Dan O?Sullivan, Joseph Reagle, Andrea Scharnhorst, Alan Shapiro, Christian Stegbauer, Nathaniel Stern, Krzystztof Suchecki, Nathaniel Tkacz, Maja van der Velden Colophon: Editors: Geert Lovink and Nathaniel Tkacz. Editorial Assistance: Ivy Roberts and Morgan Currie. Copy-Editing: Cielo Lutino. Design: Katja van Stiphout. Cover Image: Ayumi Higuchi. Priner: Ten Klei, Amsterdam. Publisher: Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam. Supported by: The School for Communication and Design at the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences (Hogeschool van Amsterdam DMCI), the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in Bangalore and the Kusuma Trust. You can download the pdf for free here: http://www.networkcultures.org/_uploads/#7reader_Wikipedia.pdf To order a hard copy of the reader, send an email: books at networkcultures.org Geert Lovink and Nathaniel Tkacz (eds), Critical Point of View: A Wikpedia Reader, Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures, 2011. ISBN: 978-90-78146-13-1, paperback, 385 pages. From geert at xs4all.nl Sat May 7 12:14:50 2011 From: geert at xs4all.nl (Geert Lovink) Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 12:14:50 +0200 Subject: Geert Lovink and Nathaniel Tkacz (eds), Critical Point of View: A Wikipedia Reader (INC Reader #7) Message-ID: <2C2929B7-CE7D-4B69-BCB2-D99FF8B46299@xs4all.nl> INC Reader #7 Critical Point of View: A Wikipedia Reader Geert Lovink and Nathaniel Tkacz (eds) For millions of internet users around the globe, the search for new knowledge begins with Wikipedia. The encyclopedia?s rapid rise, novel organization, and freely offered content have been marveled at and denounced by a host of commentators. Critical Point of View moves beyond unflagging praise, well-worn facts, and questions about its reliability and accuracy, to unveil the complex, messy, and controversial realities of a distributed knowledge platform. The essays, interviews and artworks brought together in this reader form part of the overarching Critical Point of View research initiative, which began with a conference in Bangalore (January 2010), followed by events in Amsterdam (March 2010) and Leipzig (September 2010). With an emphasis on theoretical reflection, cultural difference and indeed, critique, contributions to this collection ask: What values are embedded in Wikipedia?s software? On what basis are Wikipedia?s claims to neutrality made? How can Wikipedia give voice to those outside the Western tradition of Enlightenment, or even its own administrative hierarchies? Critical Point of View collects original insights on the next generation of wiki-related research, from radical artistic interventions and the significant role of bots to hidden trajectories of encyclopedic knowledge and the politics of agency and exclusion. Contributors: Amila Akdag Salah, Nicholas Carr, Shun-ling Chen, Florian Cramer, Morgan Currie, Edgar Enyedy, Andrew Famiglietti, Heather Ford, Mayo Fuster Morell, Cheng Gao, R. Stuart Geiger, Mark Graham, Gautam John, Dror Kamir, Peter B. Kaufman, Scott Kildall, Lawrence Liang, Patrick Lichty, Geert Lovink, Hans Varghese Mathews, Johanna Niesyto, Matheiu O?Neil, Dan O?Sullivan, Joseph Reagle, Andrea Scharnhorst, Alan Shapiro, Christian Stegbauer, Nathaniel Stern, Krzystztof Suchecki, Nathaniel Tkacz, Maja van der Velden. Colophon: Editors: Geert Lovink and Nathaniel Tkacz. Editorial Assistance: Ivy Roberts and Morgan Currie. Copy-Editing: Cielo Lutino. Design: Katja van Stiphout. Cover Image: Ayumi Higuchi. Priner: Ten Klei, Amsterdam. Publisher: Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam. Supported by: The School for Communication and Design at the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences (Hogeschool van Amsterdam DMCI), the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in Bangalore and the Kusuma Trust. You can download the pdf for free here: http://www.networkcultures.org/_uploads/%237reader_Wikipedia.pdf To order a hard copy of the reader, send an email to books at networkcultures.org Geert Lovink and Nathaniel Tkacz (eds), Critical Point of View: A Wikpedia Reader, Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures, 2011. ISBN: 978-90-78146-13-1, paperback, 385 pages. From dqamir at bezeqint.net Wed May 18 07:18:31 2011 From: dqamir at bezeqint.net (Dror Kamir) Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 08:18:31 +0300 Subject: Kafka and Orwell join forces on Wikipedia Message-ID: <4DD356A7.8030904@bezeqint.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nathanieltkacz at gmail.com Wed May 18 07:37:48 2011 From: nathanieltkacz at gmail.com (nathaniel tkacz) Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 15:37:48 +1000 Subject: Kafka and Orwell join forces on Wikipedia In-Reply-To: <4DD356A7.8030904@bezeqint.net> References: <4DD356A7.8030904@bezeqint.net> Message-ID: very interesting indeed dror - i wonder if anyone who follows the wp tech lists knows anything of it. is this new? was it discussed? perhaps our resident botologist, stuart geiger, knows something of these developments? 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, May 18, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Dror Kamir wrote: > Hello, > > An interesting anecdote that has been brought to my attention - > > A friend's friend of mine tried to write a comment on the Talk Page of the > English WP's article about the Golan Heights. The comment was detailed and > referred to fallacies in comments of another user. The discussion is > interesting for itself, but a technical issue that happened when he tried to > post the comment was much more interesting. > > He is not someone who regularly writes on WP, and registering for one > comment seemed to him inappropriate (his intuition worked well, he could > have been accused of being a "sock puppet" for such registration). So he > wrote whatever he wrote, pressed "save page", and received the following > error message: "*An automated filter has identified this edit as > potentially unconstructive, and it has been disallowed. If this edit is > constructive, please report this error > *". He thought something was wrong with his Internet connection, so he > reconnected. The error message was still there. He then clicked the "report > this error" link. This link led him to a page, in which he had to search for > another link (I think this is the page: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives). > Luckily, the link was on the top of that page, so he found it quickly and > clicked it. An edit box with all kinds of strange markings and explanations > appeared. He eventually found where to write the name of the page on which > he tried to post his comment. Below it he pasted the comment that triggered > the error message. When pressing "save page" he received an error message: " > *An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially > unconstructive, and it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, > please report this error > *". > > Had I been cruel, I'd say it is a combination of Kafka and Orwell - the > encyclopedia that anyone can edit gets you in an indefinite loop in order to > prevent you from editing. I'm not that cruel, so instead I had a good laugh > and decided to share it with you. > > Dror K > > _______________________________________________ > cpov mailing list > cpov at listcultures.org > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jfelipe at gsyc.es Wed May 18 10:08:16 2011 From: jfelipe at gsyc.es (Felipe Ortega) Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 10:08:16 +0200 Subject: Kafka and Orwell join forces on Wikipedia In-Reply-To: References: <4DD356A7.8030904@bezeqint.net> Message-ID: 2011/5/18 nathaniel tkacz > very interesting indeed dror - i wonder if anyone who follows the wp tech > lists knows anything of it. is this new? was it discussed? > > If you follow the link to the parent page, you can learn some details about the Edit filter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_filter Apparently, it's working since March 2009. Interestingly, it is the first time I've heard of anyone affected by this bot. I'm curious about the type of comment that was being filtered. I mean, perhaps not the answer from friend's friend of Dror, but the original comment from other user this person was trying to reply to. >From the page of false positives, I read several cases in which you are filtered because you reproduce in you answer inappropriate words from a prior edit, or you are deleting vandalism. Thanks for the heads up. Felipe. > perhaps our resident botologist, stuart geiger, knows something of these > developments? > > 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, May 18, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Dror Kamir wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> An interesting anecdote that has been brought to my attention - >> >> A friend's friend of mine tried to write a comment on the Talk Page of the >> English WP's article about the Golan Heights. The comment was detailed and >> referred to fallacies in comments of another user. The discussion is >> interesting for itself, but a technical issue that happened when he tried to >> post the comment was much more interesting. >> >> He is not someone who regularly writes on WP, and registering for one >> comment seemed to him inappropriate (his intuition worked well, he could >> have been accused of being a "sock puppet" for such registration). So he >> wrote whatever he wrote, pressed "save page", and received the following >> error message: "*An automated filter has identified this edit as >> potentially unconstructive, and it has been disallowed. If this edit is >> constructive, please report this error >> *". He thought something was wrong with his Internet connection, so he >> reconnected. The error message was still there. He then clicked the "report >> this error" link. This link led him to a page, in which he had to search for >> another link (I think this is the page: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives). >> Luckily, the link was on the top of that page, so he found it quickly and >> clicked it. An edit box with all kinds of strange markings and explanations >> appeared. He eventually found where to write the name of the page on which >> he tried to post his comment. Below it he pasted the comment that triggered >> the error message. When pressing "save page" he received an error message: " >> *An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially >> unconstructive, and it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, >> please report this error >> *". >> >> Had I been cruel, I'd say it is a combination of Kafka and Orwell - the >> encyclopedia that anyone can edit gets you in an indefinite loop in order to >> prevent you from editing. I'm not that cruel, so instead I had a good laugh >> and decided to share it with you. >> >> Dror K >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cpov mailing list >> cpov at listcultures.org >> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > cpov mailing list > cpov at listcultures.org > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pjacobi.de at googlemail.com Wed May 18 10:31:43 2011 From: pjacobi.de at googlemail.com (Peter Jacobi) Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 10:31:43 +0200 Subject: Kafka and Orwell join forces on Wikipedia In-Reply-To: References: <4DD356A7.8030904@bezeqint.net> Message-ID: I guess I see why this indefinite loop happens. It could have been easily avoided by a better definition of the filter. Edit filters are heavily used on German Wikipedia, and from time to time a controversy erupts about them, but by their very nature of not being very visible and hard to understand for non-techies, not much comes out of this. Note that edit filters not only can prohibit edits, but also can just warn the user (he would be able to do the edit when clicking through the warning message) or just silently log the edit. The latter is used in German Wikipedia to track banned users who use dynamic IP. Peter From dqamir at bezeqint.net Wed May 18 10:56:28 2011 From: dqamir at bezeqint.net (Dror Kamir) Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 11:56:28 +0300 Subject: Kafka and Orwell join forces on Wikipedia In-Reply-To: References: <4DD356A7.8030904@bezeqint.net> Message-ID: <4DD389BC.5000004@bezeqint.net> To be honest, this event bugs me not because of the isolated case. Strange errors happen, and a person of good humor should be amused rather than annoyed when s/he runs into such an error. And yet, I feel this even represents a general attitude on the English-language Wikipedia. An attitude of suspiciousness, sometimes even hostility, to people from "outside". Wikipedia has never defined itself as a member club, quite the contrary. Using such a filter seems reasonable in close member sites, not in an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" (especially its talk pages). There is a price to openness, and I have a feeling that most veteran Wikipedians are not willing to pay this price. Cleaning the mess after a demonstration down town is harder than hiding dirty words and other improper comments, and yet no one suggests blocking the streets down town in order to prevent messy demonstrations - such a step would be considered dictatorial, rather than a blessed concern about the environment - and here we are talking merely about leaving a comment on a virtual page. Also, the mechanism of filing complaints is very unfriendly. I've been following cases of blocks on the English-language WP. A user can be blocked based on some kind of suspicion without an appropriate warning or a chance to justify her/himself (in several cases, block requests seemed to me like an attempt of a certain user to get rid of another user whose edits s/he didn't like). When such a sudden block occurs it is very hard to understand where to appeal. If you do manage to locate the mailing list to which appeal should be addressed, you need to wait several days, and usually your request would be rejected on the account that the admins should be trusted. A reasonable step, even before thinking about sending an appeal, would be to re-register to WP, based on the assumption that some error occurred, but then you would automatically be considered a "sock-puppeteer". Dror K ?????? 18/05/11 11:31, ????? Peter Jacobi: > I guess I see why this indefinite loop happens. It could have been > easily avoided by a better definition of the filter. > > Edit filters are heavily used on German Wikipedia, and from time to > time a controversy erupts about them, but by their very nature of not > being very visible and hard to understand for non-techies, not much > comes out of this. > > Note that edit filters not only can prohibit edits, but also can just > warn the user (he would be able to do the edit when clicking through > the warning message) or just silently log the edit. The latter is used > in German Wikipedia to track banned users who use dynamic IP. > > > Peter > > _______________________________________________ > cpov mailing list > cpov at listcultures.org > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org > From joomen at beeldengeluid.nl Thu May 19 18:02:09 2011 From: joomen at beeldengeluid.nl (Johan Oomen) Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 18:02:09 +0200 Subject: Wikipedia as a UNESCO World Cultural Heritage Site In-Reply-To: Message-ID: (forwarded from the open-heritage mailing list) Hello all,? If you were unaware, Wikimedia Deutschland, the volunteer chapter of the Wikimedia community in Germany, has been spearheading a move to push for UNESCO World Cultural Heritage Site recognition for Wikipedia. As one of the most successful open knowledge activities, and probably the most?publicly?visible open knowledge projects, this push for Wikipedia as a World Cultural Heritage may be a great opportunity for gaining greater public awareness of the principles of our movement of open and free culture. The project manager for the push at Wikimedia Deutschland recently wrote a post at?http://wikimedia.de/wiki/WorldHeritage/the_idea?which discusses the idea and how to get involved if you are interested.? Please forward this to any relevant groups that may be interested in supporting the push for World Cultural Heritage, Alex Stinson User:Sadads Wikipedia Ambassadors Wikimedia DC _______________________________________________ open-heritage mailing list open-heritage at lists.okfn.org http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-heritage From dqamir at bezeqint.net Thu May 19 19:11:15 2011 From: dqamir at bezeqint.net (Dror Kamir) Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 20:11:15 +0300 Subject: Wikipedia as a UNESCO World Cultural Heritage Site In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DD54F33.70209@bezeqint.net> I have a lot of respect to what Wikimedia Deutschland is doing, and I say it honestly and with all my heart. However, I think such a move is wrong. I think Wikipedia has already gained too much publicity and too much power. I don't see how UNESCO's recognition would serve the project. I sincerely think Wikipedians should slow down and look back for a short while, because there are already serious problems which do not receive proper attention (and I'm talking here about Wikipedians worldwide). Also, I am not too keen about having strong connections between a political organization like the UN and a non-political project (at least by definition) like WP. Wikipedia, for example, describes in details the contemporary structure of the Republic of China, which, as far as the UN is concerned, ceased to exist quite a long time ago. This is just one example of how the UN and WP do not think alike. Dror K ?????? 19/05/11 19:02, ????? Johan Oomen: > (forwarded from the open-heritage mailing list) > > > Hello all, > > If you were unaware, Wikimedia Deutschland, the volunteer chapter of the > Wikimedia community in Germany, has been spearheading a move to push for > UNESCO World Cultural Heritage Site recognition for Wikipedia. As one of the > most successful open knowledge activities, and probably the > most publicly visible open knowledge projects, this push for Wikipedia as a > World Cultural Heritage may be a great opportunity for gaining greater > public awareness of the principles of our movement of open and free culture. > The project manager for the push at Wikimedia Deutschland recently wrote a > post at http://wikimedia.de/wiki/WorldHeritage/the_idea which discusses the > idea and how to get involved if you are interested. > > Please forward this to any relevant groups that may be interested in > supporting the push for World Cultural Heritage, > > Alex Stinson > User:Sadads > Wikipedia Ambassadors > Wikimedia DC > > > _______________________________________________ > open-heritage mailing list > open-heritage at lists.okfn.org > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-heritage > > > _______________________________________________ > cpov mailing list > cpov at listcultures.org > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org > From sgeiger at gmail.com Fri May 20 20:30:44 2011 From: sgeiger at gmail.com (R.Stuart Geiger) Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 11:30:44 -0700 Subject: Kafka and Orwell join forces on Wikipedia In-Reply-To: <4DD389BC.5000004@bezeqint.net> References: <4DD356A7.8030904@bezeqint.net> <4DD389BC.5000004@bezeqint.net> Message-ID: Oh edit filter, trying to make my precious bots irrelevant by finally embedding 'anti-vandalism' into the platform itself. It's really interesting because the filter actually disallows edits instead of retroactively reverting them, making it a qualitatively different kind of social actor than a bot. Bots still work within the "anyone can edit" logic, even though they are the ultimate expression of its consequences: you *can* do anything you want, but that doesn't mean it will stay that way. But is a bot who immediately reverses every edit containing a certain pattern all that different from an edit filter rule which makes it impossible to make such an edit? Of course, there is a major difference in how they are created -- bots are notorious black boxes, often running on code that cannot be viewed, much less changed by even those with root access to the Wikimedia server farms. Any admin who knows regex can read and write these rules, though as Peter points out, the process is still opaque. And the user experience is certainly different, as you're actually told that your edit is not allowed, while with a bot you may not even know that such an event has happened. Stuart On May 17, 2011 10:38 PM, "nathaniel tkacz" wrote: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mayo.Fuster at EUI.eu Mon May 23 03:43:56 2011 From: Mayo.Fuster at EUI.eu (Fuster, Mayo) Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 18:43:56 -0700 Subject: Call out to camp! < From Barcelona Square Message-ID: <2B9AD225C77EEE4682E54A6D352E2CE50D83ED094A@IE2RD2XVS261.red002.local> (PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD) Dear friends of the world, We see you below a short declaration of principles of Barcelona Camp translated into several languages (English, Spanish, French, Neerland?s, Portugu?s, Greek, German, ???, Italian, and Catalan). Here a message from the International Commission to help to spread protest worldwide and coordinate internationally (sorry only in English): We want to share with as much people as possible, these unforgettable moments that we are living in #spanishrevolution and want to make this protest even more global. With this mail we want to animate others to sum more camps outside Barcelona organized by you. We propose not to focus the manifestations in reclamations in front of the Spanish embassies in your countries, the Spanish press practically does not cover those actions. Our proposal is that you make your own fight, to take the central places from your cities following the model of organization of the Arab revolutions (and Spaniards), connecting with the groups and local organizations of fight and to begin to encamp, to work in commissions and to write up your own documents (manifest, calls, proposals, minutes of meetings, etc). To do this public, spread it, use the networks to expand your message and to self-manage. What it is happening in the different Spanish cities is not accidental nor specific of our society, we fought to recover the dignity, the freedom and social justice, the direct democracy, to participate in the course of our lives. We are a network, we are spontaneous, independent, we did not need leaders for that reason we want that in each place you take the place, you think by your self and with others, the alternatives to that mercantilist and cruel world to which our governments are taking to the planet and all of us. For us the borders do not exist, the network is ours and the street also! Another world is possible now! More concretely we propose to you that you camp in your cities and countries the next days of THURSDAY AND FRIDAY 26 AND 27 OF MAY in order of taking advantage of the international days of mobilization of the anti-G8 against the world-wide oligarchy, we invited you to take the street and to establish fields in sufficiently big places to receive a consequent infrastructure that allow you to work and to mobilize in the best conditions. These two days and their night must be basic to encamped an indefinite camp and that you add encamped yours to the world-wide map of: http://www.thetechnoant.info/campmap/ We use the social networks to coordinate and to maintain to us informed. We encourage you to create an international commission to communicate with us, to share materials and strategies of organization in the Web n-1.cc to look for the group https://n-1.cc/pg/groups/104127/take-the-square-international/ and open a space with the name of the country that you represent. In that link you will find a camping guide. In the chat (http://ur1.ca/48ogs) you can contact with us and others encamped simultaneously or to contact us by e-mail comisiointernacional at gmail.com. Our content commissions is working on a document which systematize the very elaborated agreements on content of the super big assembly. The document is available on web http://acampadabcn.wordpress.com Takes the street! Real Democracy Now! Hugs, International Networks of the International Commission of the Barcelona Camp Barcelona Information: #acampadabcn http://acampadabcn.wordpress.com e-mail general: acampadabcn at yahoo.es Internacional commission - Barcelona Camp: https://n-1.cc/pg/groups/103405/akbcn_int/ e-mail international commission: comisiointernacional at gmail.com Internacional coordination: http://takethesquare.net/ Map: http://www.thetechnoant.info/campmap/ e-lists: https://lists.takethesquare.net/mailman/listinfo/cominterm https://n-1.cc/pg/groups/104127/take-the-square-international/ Chat irc.freenode.net # takethesquare http://ur1.ca/48ogs DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES (English, Spanish, French, Neerland?s, Portugu?s, Greek, German, ???, Italian, and Catalan) English DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES #acampadabcn We have come here voluntarily and by free will. After the 15th of May demonstrations we have decided to remain united and grow in numbers on our fight for dignity. We do not represent any political party and they do not represent us. We are united on our rage, our discomfort, our precarious life which is derived by inequality but, above all, what keeps us together is our will for change. We are here because we want a new society that puts our life on top any political or economic interest. We feel crushed by the capitalist economy, we feel excluded from the present political system which does not represent us. We are striking for a radical change in society. And, above all, we aim at keeping society as the sole driver of this transformation. They thought we were asleep. They thought they could carry on cutting our rights without finding any resistance. But they were wrong: we are fighting ? peacefully, but with determination ? for the life we deserve. We have learned from Cairo, Iceland and Madrid. Now it?s time to extend the fight and spread the word. Barcelona Information: #acampadabcn http://acampadabcn.wordpress.com e-mail general: acampadabcn at yahoo.es International commission - Barcelona Camp: https://n-1.cc/pg/groups/103405/akbcn_int/ e-mail international commission: comisiointernacional at gmail.com International coordination: http://takethesquare.net/ Map: http://www.thetechnoant.info/campmap/ e-lists: https://lists.takethesquare.net/mailman/listinfo/cominterm https://n-1.cc/pg/groups/104127/take-the-square-international/ Chat irc.freenode.net # takethesquare http://ur1.ca/48ogs SPANISH: Declaraci?n de principios: ?Qui?nes somos? Somos personas que hemos venido libre y voluntariamente, que despu?s de la manifestaci?n decidimos reunirnos para seguir reivindicando la dignidad y la conciencia pol?tica y social. No representamos a ning?n partido ni asociaci?n. Nos une una vocaci?n de cambio. Estamos aqu? por dignidad y por solidaridad con los que no pueden estar aqu?. ?Por qu? estamos aqu?? Estamos aqu? porque queremos una sociedad nueva que d? prioridad a la vida por encima de los intereses econ?micos y pol?ticos. Abogamos por un cambio en la sociedad y en la conciencia social. Demostrar que la sociedad no se ha dormido y que seguiremos luchando por lo que nos merecemos mediante la v?a pac?fica. Apoyamos a los compa?er at s que detuvieron tras la manifestaci?n, y pedimos su puesta en libertad sin cargos. Lo queremos todo, lo queremos ahora, si est?s de acuerdo con nosotros: ??NETE! Barcelona Information: #acampadabcn http://acampadabcn.wordpress.com e-mail general: acampadabcn at yahoo.es International commission - Barcelona Camp: https://n-1.cc/pg/groups/103405/akbcn_int/ e-mail international commission: comisiointernacional at gmail.com International coordination: http://takethesquare.net/ Map: http://www.thetechnoant.info/campmap/ e-lists: https://lists.takethesquare.net/mailman/listinfo/cominterm https://n-1.cc/pg/groups/104127/take-the-square-international/ Chat irc.freenode.net # takethesquare http://ur1.ca/48ogs FRENCH: DECLARATION DE PRINCIPES #acampadabcn Qui sommes nous au campement de Barcelone? Nous sommes des personnes venues librement et de forme volontaire : apr?s la manifestation du 15 mai, nous avons d?cid? de rester ensemble et d??tre toujours plus nombreux dans la combat pour la dignit?. Nous ne repr?sentons aucun parti politique ni aucune association, et ne sommes repr?sent?s par personne. Nous partageons la m?me inqui?tude des vies pr?caires, des in?galit?s, mais ce qui nous unis avant tout, c?est une volont? de changement. Nous sommes r?unis parce que nous voulons une soci?t? nouvelle qui donne priorit? ? la vie par-dessus les int?r?ts ?conomiques et politiques. Nous avons le sentiment d??tre pi?tin?s par l??conomie capitaliste, et d??tre exclus du syst?me politique actuel qui ne nous repr?sente pas, Nous faisons le pari pour une transformation profonde de la soci?t?, et avant tout, que la soci?t? elle-m?me soit protagoniste de ce changement. Ils nous croyaient endormis, qu?ils pouvaient continuer ? r?duire nos droits sans manifester d?opposition. Ils se trompaient : nous nous sommes engag?s, pacifiquement mais avec d?termination, pour une vie que nous m?ritons tous. Nous avons appris du Caire, d?Islande, de Madrid.. Il est l?heure d??tendre le combat et prendre la parole. Barcelona Information: #acampadabcn http://acampadabcn.wordpress.com e-mail general: acampadabcn at yahoo.es International commission - Barcelona Camp: https://n-1.cc/pg/groups/103405/akbcn_int/ e-mail international commission: comisiointernacional at gmail.com International coordination: http://takethesquare.net/ Map: http://www.thetechnoant.info/campmap/ e-lists: https://lists.takethesquare.net/mailman/listinfo/cominterm https://n-1.cc/pg/groups/104127/take-the-square-international/ Chat irc.freenode.net # takethesquare http://ur1.ca/48ogs Neerland?s Principeverklaring - Barcelonakampement Wie zijn de deelnemers aan het Barcelonakampement? We zijn uit vrije wil en op eigen initiatief naar hier gekomen. Na de manifestatie van 15 mei hebben we beslist om samen te blijven en in steeds grotere aantallen te vechten voor onze waardigheid. We vertegenwoordigen geen enkele partij of vereniging. En niemand vertegenwoordigt ons. We voelen ons verbonden door een gevoel van onbehagen over precaire levensomstandigheden, over de ongelijkheid, maar vooral door een sterke drang naar verandering. We zijn hier omdat we een nieuwe maatschappij willen die voorrang geeft aan het leven, los van economische en politieke belangen. We voelen ons vertrappeld door de kapitalistische economie en uitgesloten door het huidige politiek systeem, dat ons helemaal niet vertegenwoordigt. We pleiten voor een diepgaande omwenteling van onze maatschappij. En we pleiten er vooral voor dat het de maatschappij zelf de hoofdrol speelt in deze omwenteling. Ze dachten dat we ingedommeld waren. Dat ze onze rechten konden blijven inperken zonder enig weerwerk. Ze hadden het fout: we zijn aan het strijden en zullen de strijd verderzetten ? vreedzaam maar doortastend ? voor een leven dat we alllemaal waard zijn. We hebben geleerd van El Cairo, Reykjavik en Madrid. Nu is het moment gekomen om de strijd uit te breiden en het woord te nemen. ? Barcelona Information: #acampadabcn http://acampadabcn.wordpress.com e-mail general: acampadabcn at yahoo.es International commission - Barcelona Camp: https://n-1.cc/pg/groups/103405/akbcn_int/ e-mail international commission: comisiointernacional at gmail.com International coordination: http://takethesquare.net/ Map: http://www.thetechnoant.info/campmap/ e-lists: https://lists.takethesquare.net/mailman/listinfo/cominterm https://n-1.cc/pg/groups/104127/take-the-square-international/ Chat irc.freenode.net # takethesquare http://ur1.ca/48ogs Portugu?s: Declara??o de Principios, acampadabcn Quem estamos acampando em Barcelona? Somos pessoas que vinhemos livremente e de forma volunt?ria, que depois da manifasta??o do dia 15 de maio, decidimos seguir juntos e sermos cada vez mais pessoas na luta pela dignidade. N?o representamos nenhum partido nem associa??o, e tamb?m nigu?m nos representa. Nos unimos pelo mal estar das vidas prec?rias que levam as pessoas por causa das desigualdades mundiais, mas, principalmente nos unimos pela id?ia de mudan?a. Estamos aqu? porque queremos uma nova sociedade que d? prioridade ? vida, mais que a interesses econ?micos e pol?ticos. Nos sentimos pisados pela economia capitalista e exclu?dos do sistema pol?tico atual, que n?o nos representa. Apostamos em uma transforma??o profunda da sociedade. E principalmente, apostamos em que a sociedade seja a protagonista desta mudan?a. Acreditavam que estavamos dormindo. Que podiam seguir reduzindo nossos direitos sem que nos opus?ssemos. Estavam errados: estamos lutando pacificamente mas com determina??o pela vida que todos merecemos. Aprendemos de Cairo, Islandia e de Madrid. Agora precisamos extender esta luta e tomar a palavra. Barcelona Information:#acampadabcn http://acampadabcn.wordpress.com e-mail general: acampadabcn at yahoo.es International commission - Barcelona Camp: https://n-1.cc/pg/groups/103405/akbcn_int/ e-mail international commission: comisiointernacional at gmail.com International coordination: http://takethesquare.net/ Map: http://www.thetechnoant.info/campmap/ e-lists: https://lists.takethesquare.net/mailman/listinfo/cominterm https://n-1.cc/pg/groups/104127/take-the-square-international/ Chat irc.freenode.net # takethesquare http://ur1.ca/48ogs GREEK ????????? ??????? ?????. ????? ??????? ???? ??acampada?? ??? ??????????; ??????? ???????? ??? ?????? ????? ???????? ??? ??????????, ???? ???? ??? ??? ????????? ??? 15 ??? ??? ??????????? ?? ??????????? ????, ??? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ???????????? ???? ????? ??? ???????????. ??? ?????????????? ?????? ???????? ????? ? ???????? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ??????????????. ??? ?????? ? ?????????? ??? ??? ??? ???????? ??? ??? ??????????, ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ? ?????? ??? ??????. ??????????? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ????????? ???????? ??? ????? ????????????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?????????? ??? ???????? ????????????. ???????????? ????????????? ??? ??? ????????????? ?????????? ????????, ??? ???????????? ?????????? ??? ?? ???????? ???????? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ??????????????. ??????????????? ?? ??? ???????? ??? ????????? ?? ?????, ???? ??? ??? ??????????????? ??? ?? ????????? ? ???? ? ???????? ? ????????????? ????? ??? ???????. ??????? ??? ??????? ?????????????, ??? ??????? ?? ?????????? ??? ????????? ??? ??????????? ??? ????? ?? ??????????????. ?????? ?????: ???????????? ???????? ???? ?? ???????????????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???????? ???? ???. ?????? ??? ?? ?????, ??? ???????? ??? ???????. ???? ????? ? ??? ?? ???????????? ??? ?? ??????????? ??? ?????. ???????????? #acampadabcn Barcelona Information: #acampadabcn http://acampadabcn.wordpress.com e-mail general: acampadabcn at yahoo.es Internacional commission - Barcelona Camp: https://n-1.cc/pg/groups/103405/akbcn_int/ e-mail international commission: comisiointernacional at gmail.com Internacional coordination: http://takethesquare.net/ Map: http://www.thetechnoant.info/campmap/ e-lists: https://lists.takethesquare.net/mailman/listinfo/cominterm https://n-1.cc/pg/groups/104127/take-the-square-international/ Chat irc.freenode.net # takethesquare http://ur1.ca/48ogs GERMAN Prinzipienerkl?rung Diese ist eine freiwillige Vereinigung. Nach den Demonstrationen am 15. Mai haben wir entschieden, dass wir zusammen bleiben werden, und dass wir im Kampf um unsere W?rde an Anzahl wachsen werden. Wir repr?sentieren keine politische Partei, und sie repr?sentieren uns auch nicht. Wir sind in unserer Wut, unserem Unbehagen, unserem prek?rem Leben einig, welches aus der Ungleichheit erw?chst. Was un saber vor allem vereint, ist unserer Wille der Ver?nderung. Wir sind hier, weil wir eine neue Gesellschaft wollen, welche unser Leben vor jeglichen politischen und wirtschaftlichen Interessen stellt. Wir f?hlen uns von der kapitalstischen Wirtschaft unterdr?ckt, vom jetzigen politischen System ausgeschlossen, welches uns nicht repr?sentiert. Wir pl?dieren f?r einen radikalen Wechsel in der Gesellschaft. Vor allem m?chten wir, dass diese Transformation einzig und alleine von der Gesellschaft getrieben wird. Sie dachten, wir w?ren eingeschlafen. Sie dachten, sie k?nnten unsere Rechte weiterhin einschr?nken, ohne dass wir Widerstand leisten w?rden. Aber das war ein Fehler: wir k?mpfen ? friedlich, aber bestimmt ? f?r das Leben, das wir verdienen. Wir haben von Kairo, Eisland und Madrid gelernt. Es ist nun an der Zeit, dass wir den Kampf und das Wort verbreiten! Barcelona Information: #acampadabcn http://acampadabcn.wordpress.com e-mail general: acampadabcn at yahoo.es Internacional commission - Barcelona Camp: https://n-1.cc/pg/groups/103405/akbcn_int/ e-mail international commission: comisiointernacional at gmail.com Internacional coordination: http://takethesquare.net/ Map: http://www.thetechnoant.info/campmap/ e-lists: https://lists.takethesquare.net/mailman/listinfo/cominterm https://n-1.cc/pg/groups/104127/take-the-square-international/ Chat irc.freenode.net # takethesquare http://ur1.ca/48ogs ???? ??????? (Acampada de Barcelona) ??? ?????????5?15????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????? ??????????????? ?? Barcelona Information: #acampadabcn http://acampadabcn.wordpress.com e-mail general: acampadabcn at yahoo.es International commission - Barcelona Camp: https://n-1.cc/pg/groups/103405/akbcn_int/ e-mail international commission: comisiointernacional at gmail.com International coordination: http://takethesquare.net/ Map: http://www.thetechnoant.info/campmap/ e-lists: https://lists.takethesquare.net/mailman/listinfo/cominterm https://n-1.cc/pg/groups/104127/take-the-square-international/ Chat irc.freenode.net # takethesquare http://ur1.ca/48ogs ITALIAN Siamo venuti qui liberamente e volontariamente. Dopole manifestazioni del 15 Maggio abbiamo deciso di restare uniti e crescere nella nostra lotta per la dignit?. Non rappresentiamo nessun partito politico e loro non rappresentano noi. Siamo uniti nella nostra rabbia, nel nostro sconforto, nella nostra vita precaria che deriva dalla diseguaglianza ma, soprattutto, ci? che ci unisce ? la nostra volont? di cambiamento. Siamo qui perch? vogliamo una societ? nuova che mette le nostre vite al di sopra di ogni interesse politico. Ci sentiamo schiacciati dall?economia capitalista, ci sentiamo esclusi dal sistema politico presente che non ci rappresenta. Stiamo manifestando per un cambio radicale nella societ?. E , soprattutto, puntiamo a mantenere la societ? come il motore unico di questa trasformazione. Pensavano che fossimo addormentati. Pensavano di poter continuare a ritagliare i nostri diritti senza trovare nessuna resistenza. Ma si sbagliavano: stiamo lottando ? pacificamente, ma con determinazione ? per la vita che ci meritiamo. Ora ? il momento di estendere la lotta e spargere la voce. Barcelona Information: #acampadabcn http://acampadabcn.wordpress.com e-mail general: acampadabcn at yahoo.es Internacional commission - Barcelona Camp: https://n-1.cc/pg/groups/103405/akbcn_int/ e-mail international commission: comisiointernacional at gmail.com Internacional coordination: http://takethesquare.net/ Map: http://www.thetechnoant.info/campmap/ e-lists: https://lists.takethesquare.net/mailman/listinfo/cominterm https://n-1.cc/pg/groups/104127/take-the-square-international/ Chat irc.freenode.net # takethesquare http://ur1.ca/48ogs CATALAN Declaraci? de principis: Qui som? Som persones que hem vingut lliure i volunt?riament, que despr?s de la manifestaci? decidim reunir-nos per a seguir reivindicant la dignitat i la consci?ncia pol?tica i social. No representem a cap partit ni associaci?. Ens uneix una vocaci? de canvi. Estem ac? per dignitat i per solidaritat amb els quals no poden estar ac?. Per qu? estem ac?? Estem ac? perqu? volem una societat nova que done prioritat a la vida per sobre dels interessos econ?mics i pol?tics. Advoquem per un canvi en la societat i en la consci?ncia social. Demostrar que la societat no s'ha dormit i que seguirem lluitant pel que ens mereixem mitjan?ant la via pac?fica. Donem suport als compa?er at s que van detenir despr?s de la manifestaci?, i demanem la seua posada en llibertat sense c?rrecs. Ho volem tot, ho volem ara, si est?s d'acord amb nosaltres: UNEIX-TE! Barcelona Information: #acampadabcn http://acampadabcn.wordpress.com e-mail general: acampadabcn at yahoo.es International commission - Barcelona Camp: https://n-1.cc/pg/groups/103405/akbcn_int/ e-mail international commission: comisiointernacional at gmail.com International coordination: http://takethesquare.net/ Map: http://www.thetechnoant.info/campmap/ e-lists: https://lists.takethesquare.net/mailman/listinfo/cominterm https://n-1.cc/pg/groups/104127/take-the-square-international/ Chat irc.freenode.net # takethesquare http://ur1.ca/48ogs ???`?.(*?.?(`?.? ?.??)?.?*).??`?? ????*???? 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 From dqamir at bezeqint.net Wed May 25 08:44:54 2011 From: dqamir at bezeqint.net (Dror Kamir) Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 09:44:54 +0300 Subject: Something I've written about the development of the NPOV principle on en-wp Message-ID: <4DDCA566.4020504@bezeqint.net> Hi, As part of my preparations to my talk on Wikimania 2011 (in Haifa), I wrote a short essay about the development of the NPOV principle on Wikipedia. I used quite a few citations from the recently published reader (therefore I presented it at the preface with some flattering words, I hope you don't mind, even though it's beyond the CC "protocol"...). http://anduraru.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/the-development-of-the-npov-rule-on-the-english-language-wikipedia/ I don't know how much time you have to spare (these are busy days - Icelandic volcanoes erupt, the US president is looking for his Irish roots, the Israeli circus is making extra shows at the Capitol Hill, Egypt still tries to figure out what elections are...), but if you do have some spare time, I would very much appreciate your comments. Warning: This is an essay ABOUT NPOV. It does not follow any NPOV rule in any form. It wouldn't be hard to guess my opinion after reading it. Another warning: I didn't have enough time yet to make the final touch, so please excuse me for any spelling or grammar mistakes. Thanks a lot and enjoy, Dror K From joseph.2011 at reagle.org Wed May 25 19:09:31 2011 From: joseph.2011 at reagle.org (Joseph Reagle) Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 13:09:31 -0400 Subject: Something I've written about the development of the NPOV principle on en-wp In-Reply-To: <4DDCA566.4020504@bezeqint.net> References: <4DDCA566.4020504@bezeqint.net> Message-ID: <201105251309.32071.joseph.2011@reagle.org> It seems that your primary objection is the subsumption of NPOV to the Verifiability policy, as well as a shift away from worrying about "rationality"? I actually think this makes sense as the earlier formulation then prompts questions as to who was being rational or not. What, then, is the standard? But by saying Neutral Point of View, verifiability, no original research are actually different manifestations of a single epistemological stance remove such subjectivities and contentions. If you're not familiar with it, you might also be interested with my discussion of this in Good-Faith Collaboration pages 53-58 on the history of the term. From dqamir at bezeqint.net Wed May 25 23:44:41 2011 From: dqamir at bezeqint.net (Dror Kamir) Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 00:44:41 +0300 Subject: Something I've written about the development of the NPOV principle on en-wp In-Reply-To: <201105251309.32071.joseph.2011@reagle.org> References: <4DDCA566.4020504@bezeqint.net> <201105251309.32071.joseph.2011@reagle.org> Message-ID: <4DDD7849.1040002@bezeqint.net> I'm going to read it of course (as I said, I still have a lot of work to do with this "thesis" I am going to present), but just to clarify something - I wasn't thinking too much about the rationality issue, in fact. What bothered me more is the undermining of the "meta-principle" that NPOV is a desired byproduct of collaborative work (to be more exact, collaborative work is the meta-principle which caters to the three basic principles of WP, NPOV included) and the transition of NPOV from being independent, even dominating principle to its subduing to the "verifiability" principle (which is not exactly verifiability rule imho). The latter shift is dramatic, first of all because it puts WP under the somewhat post-modernistic approach that there is no truth but rather people's talks about truth. When I went to "Wikimania 2006" in Boston I had a strong feeling that WP rejected this notion and tried to return to the modernist "search the truth" approach. Secondly, this shift brings pseudo-academic requirements to WP, something that it tried to avoid for a long time. The idea of Wikipedia was (at first, as much as I can judge): it is the academy that needs to adjust to the new system of knowledge flow and to the new technologies, rather than trying to restrict the new media to their old-fashioned rules. Indeed the changes in the pseudo-"verifiability" rule gave people with knowledge of academic norms and access to (Western universities-based) academic libraries a huge advantage. Perhaps this another explanation why issues related to Africa (for example) became even harder to write about, as Heather Ford and Mark Graham showed in their articles. More importantly - it shifted the discussions on Wikipedia from arguments about the truthfulness of statements (while bringing all kind of academic, non-academic, written or visual proofs) to arguments about whether a certain statement can be backed up with a "reliable source" (whatever this means). The possibilities it opened for manipulations and "gaming the system" incidents is truly amazing. Dror K ?????? 25/05/11 20:09, ????? Joseph Reagle: > It seems that your primary objection is the subsumption of NPOV to the Verifiability policy, as well as a shift away from worrying about "rationality"? I actually think this makes sense as the earlier formulation then prompts questions as to who was being rational or not. What, then, is the standard? But by saying Neutral Point of View, verifiability, no original research are actually different manifestations of a single epistemological stance remove such subjectivities and contentions. If you're not familiar with it, you might also be interested with my discussion of this in Good-Faith Collaboration pages 53-58 on the history of the term. > From joseph.2011 at reagle.org Thu May 26 19:20:58 2011 From: joseph.2011 at reagle.org (Joseph Reagle) Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 13:20:58 -0400 Subject: Something I've written about the development of the NPOV principle on en-wp In-Reply-To: <4DDD7849.1040002@bezeqint.net> References: <4DDCA566.4020504@bezeqint.net> <201105251309.32071.joseph.2011@reagle.org> <4DDD7849.1040002@bezeqint.net> Message-ID: <201105261320.58540.joseph.2011@reagle.org> On Wednesday, May 25, 2011, Dror Kamir wrote: > I'm going to read it of course (as I said, I still have a lot of work to > do with this "thesis" I am going to present), but just to clarify > something - I wasn't thinking too much about the rationality issue, in > fact. What bothered me more is the undermining of the "meta-principle" > that NPOV is a desired byproduct of collaborative work (to be more > exact, collaborative work is the meta-principle which caters to the > three basic principles of WP, NPOV included) and the transition of NPOV > from being independent, even dominating principle to its subduing to the > "verifiability" principle (which is not exactly verifiability rule imho). I am not sure I agree with his characterization, as I have been arguing the opposite quite some time myself. That is, neutrality is best not used to describe the product of collaboration, but a necessary ingredient to collaboration. Rather than describing the encyclopedia, it describes the approach Wikipedians should take with one another relative to knowledge claims. > The latter shift is dramatic, first of all because it puts WP under the > somewhat post-modernistic approach that there is no truth but rather > people's talks about truth. When I went to "Wikimania 2006" in Boston I > had a strong feeling that WP rejected this notion and tried to return to > the modernist "search the truth" approach. Coincidentally/interestingly, it was at Wikimania 2006 that I first made this argument [1,2]. [1]: http://reagle.org/joseph/2005/06/neutrality.html [2]: http://reagle.org/joseph/Talks/2006/0806-wikipedia-neutral.html That said, I wouldn't characterize Wikipedia's epistemology as necessarily post-modern -- where the real problem is they use the "truths" where "perspectives" would do -- since Wales and Sanger are both rooted in an objectivist philosophical worldview. As I quote Wales and the book: [[ Surely you will agree that there are _more_ or _less_ accurate, objective, fair, [un]biased ways of putting things. We should simply strive to eliminate all the problems that we can, and remain constantly open to sensible revisions. Will this be perfect? Of course not. But it is all we can do \*and\* it is the least we can do.... if you are trying to say that someone, somewhere will always accuse us of bias, I'm sure you're right. But we should nonetheless try our best to be objective. It doesn't strike me as particularly difficult. We will want to present a broad consensus of mainstream thought.... This does mean that sometimes we will be wrong! All the top scholars in some field will say X, but 50 years from now, we will know more, and X will seem a quaint and old-fashioned opinion. O.k., fine. But still, X is a respectable and valid opinion today, as it is formed in careful consideration of all the available evidence with the greatest care possible. That's the best we can do. And, as I say, that's also the least we can do. \acite{Wales2000b} ]] > Indeed the changes in the pseudo-"verifiability" rule gave people with > knowledge of academic norms and access to (Western universities-based) > academic libraries a huge advantage. Perhaps this another explanation > why issues related to Africa (for example) became even harder to write > about, as Heather Ford and Mark Graham showed in their articles. I do think that verifiability and no original research privilege people with Internet access -- not necessarily academics since many high-quality online sources are accessible yet even high-quality but print-only sources are not liked as much since they cannot be easily verified. I think it can also lead to problems outside of the Western/online cultural context. A couple of years ago someone was telling me how much difficulty they were having in writing articles about free software in China because -- since there was nothing for them to cite in Chinese really -- their work was construed as original research. From nathanieltkacz at gmail.com Fri May 27 15:52:27 2011 From: nathanieltkacz at gmail.com (nathaniel tkacz) Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 23:52:27 +1000 Subject: Something I've written about the development of the NPOV principle on en-wp In-Reply-To: <201105261320.58540.joseph.2011@reagle.org> References: <4DDCA566.4020504@bezeqint.net> <201105251309.32071.joseph.2011@reagle.org> <4DDD7849.1040002@bezeqint.net> <201105261320.58540.joseph.2011@reagle.org> Message-ID: Hi all, this is all very interesting. I've been meaning to contribute but been busy conferencing. I'm about to write something on npov myself. Will respond soon... Nate On Friday, May 27, 2011, Joseph Reagle wrote: > On Wednesday, May 25, 2011, Dror Kamir wrote: >> I'm going to read it of course (as I said, I still have a lot of work to >> do with this "thesis" I am going to present), but just to clarify >> something - I wasn't thinking too much about the rationality issue, in >> fact. What bothered me more is the undermining of the "meta-principle" >> that NPOV is a desired byproduct of collaborative work (to be more >> exact, collaborative work is the meta-principle which caters to the >> three basic principles of WP, NPOV included) and the transition of NPOV >> from being independent, even dominating principle to its subduing to the >> "verifiability" principle (which is not exactly verifiability rule imho). > > I am not sure I agree with his characterization, as I have been arguing the opposite quite some time myself. That is, neutrality is best not used to describe the product of collaboration, but a necessary ingredient to collaboration. Rather than describing the encyclopedia, it describes the approach Wikipedians should take with one another relative to knowledge claims. > >> The latter shift is dramatic, first of all because it puts WP under the >> somewhat post-modernistic approach that there is no truth but rather >> people's talks about truth. When I went to "Wikimania 2006" in Boston I >> had a strong feeling that WP rejected this notion and tried to return to >> the modernist "search the truth" approach. > > Coincidentally/interestingly, it was at Wikimania 2006 that I first made this argument [1,2]. > > [1]: http://reagle.org/joseph/2005/06/neutrality.html > [2]: http://reagle.org/joseph/Talks/2006/0806-wikipedia-neutral.html > > That said, I wouldn't characterize Wikipedia's epistemology as necessarily post-modern -- where the real problem is they use the "truths" where "perspectives" would do -- since Wales and Sanger are both rooted in an objectivist philosophical worldview. As I quote Wales and the book: > > [[ > Surely you will agree that there are _more_ or _less_ accurate, objective, fair, [un]biased ways of putting things. We should simply strive to eliminate all the problems that we can, and remain constantly open to sensible revisions. Will this be perfect? Of course not. But it is all we can do \*and\* it is the least we can do.... if you are trying to say that someone, somewhere will always accuse us of bias, I'm sure you're right. But we should nonetheless try our best to be objective. It doesn't strike me as particularly difficult. We will want to present a broad consensus of mainstream thought.... This does mean that sometimes we will be wrong! All the top scholars in some field will say X, but 50 years from now, we will know more, and X will seem a quaint and old-fashioned opinion. O.k., fine. But still, X is a respectable and valid opinion today, as it is formed in careful consideration of all the available evidence with the greatest care possible. That's the best we can do. And, as I say, that's also the least we can do. \acite{Wales2000b} > ]] > >> Indeed the changes in the pseudo-"verifiability" rule gave people with >> knowledge of academic norms and access to (Western universities-based) >> academic libraries a huge advantage. Perhaps this another explanation >> why issues related to Africa (for example) became even harder to write >> about, as Heather Ford and Mark Graham showed in their articles. > > I do think that verifiability and no original research privilege people with Internet access -- not necessarily academics since many high-quality online sources are accessible yet even high-quality but print-only sources are not liked as much since they cannot be easily verified. I think it can also lead to problems outside of the Western/online cultural context. A couple of years ago someone was telling me how much difficulty they were having in writing articles about free software in China because -- since there was nothing for them to cite in Chinese really -- their work was construed as original research. > > _______________________________________________ > cpov mailing list > cpov at listcultures.org > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org > -- 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/