[p2p-research] From Citizendium To Eduzendium

[Jon Awbrey]

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

JA = Jon Awbrey
MB = Michel Bauwens

Michel, my new comments interleaved and unindented below:

MB: Hi Jon, thanks for that.  I do not use the concept
    of equality, but of equipotentiality, see here
    http://p2pfoundation.net/Equipotentiality
    for a definition, basically, people volunteer
    those aspects of themselves that they judge of use
    to the project, and nobody stops them from contributing.

I continue to feel that we cannot sever the concept of
a peer from its historical ligaments in such embodiments
as "a jury of one's peers", "peer review", "peer pressure",
and so on, without doing radical harm to the idea.  Of course,
there is no suggestion of "equal in all respects", which would
be absurd, but merely a requirement of being evaluated by those
whose experience is comparable enough to allow of fair, informed,
and prudent judgment.

As for the condition, "nobody stops them from contributing",
that is precisely the catch in systems like Wikipedia and
Citizendium, where excommunication has gradually become
the primary means of dispute resolution, and where the
prevailing notion of due process is to revoke people's
rights of citizenship first and then try them later.

MB: | Peer production has three aspects:
    | 1) voluntary contributions;
    | 2) participatory processes;
    | 3) commons oriented output.

JA: You have stated your opinion that Wikipedia exemplifies
    or exhibits the characters of 1 and 3, lacking only 2.

JA: There are several questions that I would have to ask at the outset:

JA: A. Is peer production like "fire production", where missing any side
       of the "fire triangle" -- fuel, heat, oxygen -- breaks the chain
       of necessary causes?  Or does one get partial credit for 2/3?

MB: I would tend to say, you get partial  credit;  so  in this context,
    I would say that Wikipedia is a dysfunctional model of peer governance
    (I do think it is actually still very productive in terms of producing
    useful services, and I think the millions of users would agree).

I am not so sure, but will save these points for later.

JA: B. What is the output?  What is the product of ultimate interest?
       Is it the content of documents and files, the content of minds,
       or is it the conditional general resolution of people to act in
       certain ways, in short, beliefs?

MB: in this context, a universal encyclopedia accessible everywhere
    for free, to which, theoretically, everyone can contribute

This is one of those places where I think that people
are all too often dazzled by content and message when
they should be paying at least equal attention to the
conduct inculcated in easily-impressed users -- as in
shanghaied sailors? -- and the characteristics of the
medium that is being crafted under their very noses.
These are factors that educators and media engineers
are trained to examine and critique.

JA: C. What does it say about the level of voluntary contribution
       when there is a very high level of involuntary exclusion?

MB: Yes, that is the problematic which may render various process
    dysfunctional to various degrees, and a key issue is, when do
    we hit a threshold ...

Let me just insert a note here of a distinction to take up later.
When we speak of "functional" or "dysfunctional", this is always
relative to the "end in view" -- the intended function or purpose.
Most of the time we think we know the relevant aim from context,
but when there is a gap between espoused and enacted functions
then we have to ask "dys/functional in relation to what end?".

MB: This is a very difficult issue,  free software is still pretty much
    a male, probably 'western' affair, but that is indeed involuntary,
    and various women's groups are working to change that practice
    and the culture that engenders the practice.

There are exclusions based on demographic factors, and there are
exclusions based on disciplinary, ideological, and methodological
factors.

MB: In Wikipedia I would say that the politicization of the
    collective choice process, in the hands of deletionist and
    less than capable editors, is what makes contributions an
    increasingly high threshold affair which leads to exclusion;
    in this case, choosing for deletionism was a conscious decision
    by this group; and you can probably not say that it is involuntary,
    therefore, it is a much more serious offense against the ethic of
    participation.

Yes!  The so-called "Five Pillars" of Wikipedia supposedly include the
off-the-cuff rules of thumb for deletion decisions, basically saying
"improve, don't delete".  But Wikipedia policies and guidelines are
hopelessly inconsistent -- the steamroller of NPOV and the scalpel
of NOR, that excises any sin of originality that might arise as we
attempt to synthesize diverse data from sundry perspectives, will
always render it easier and safer to lobotomize than to think.

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
mathweb: http://www.mathweb.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
getwiki: http://www.getwiki.net/-UserTalk:Jon_Awbrey
p2p wiki: http://www.p2pfoundation.net/User:JonAwbrey
zhongwen wp: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
ontolog: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?JonAwbrey
http://www.altheim.com/ceryle/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=JonAwbrey
wp review: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=398
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o