[p2p-research] Wikiversity’s potential in global capacity building

Thu Feb 19 21:49:49 CET 2009

Michel,

I find more to agree with in your writings than in Wikipedia Review's.

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 13:53, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

> thanks for your perspective,
>
> from what I've seen, inexperienced experts are no match for the
> experienced, but not expert, editors, and that is the crux of the problem in
> my view,

This can certainly be a problem.

If an experienced editor takes a supportive role in helping someone who has
trouble, that improves things a lot - I've seen this happen, and I've done
it myself.

now, judging wikipedia on the best or normal places is one thing, but what
> happens when there is a conflict, that is when the true dynamics come out,
>
> if there is a conflict, is there a fair arbitration that can protect an
> expert writer from the in-crowd of editors?

There are informal efforts, that I think do good work, but it can be hard
for someone without friends.

Durova, a high-profile admin, does some good thinking on this, and regularly
proposes alternatives & improvements, e.g.:

   - "Today's solution: a path back to good standing for sitebanned
   editors." -  The Lucifer
Effect<http://durova.blogspot.com/2008/06/lucifer-effect.html>
   - Specific suggestions for admin coaching at RFA Review
boycott<http://durova.blogspot.com/2008/06/rfa-review-boycott.html>
   .

I weren't focused on Appropedia, I'd be more involved with supporting such
efforts myself. As it is, I do speak up on these things, and will be doing
more speaking up, with specific proposals for reform.

Chris

>
> Michel
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:26 AM, Chris Watkins <
> chriswaterguy at appropedia.org> wrote:
>
>> My own experience of Wikipedia is more positive (since I edit science and
>> tech articles, which are less controversial, and work better in Wikipedia).
>>
>>
>> Specialized sites have sprung up, such as the Wikipedia Review<http://wikipediareview.com/>,
>>> monitoring power abuse in general, or in particular cases<http://antisocialmedia.net/>
>>>
>>
>> Wikipedia Review seems to me to be somewhat less fair and balanced than
>> Fox News, from what I've seen. But this is at least a well structured
>> argument, even if I mostly don't buy it.
>>
>> *1. Wikipedia disrespects and disregards scholars, experts, scientists,
>>> and others with special knowledge.*
>>>
>>> "*Wikipedia specifically disregards authors with special knowledge,
>>> expertise, or credentials. There is no way for a real scholar to distinguish
>>> himself or herself from a random anonymous editor merely claiming scholarly
>>> credentials, and thus no claim of credentials is typically believed. Even
>>> when credentials are accepted, Wikipedia affords no special regard for
>>> expert editors contributing in their fields. This has driven most expert
>>> editors away from editing Wikipedia in their fields. Similarly, Wikipedia
>>> implements no controls that distinguish mature and educated editors from
>>> immature and uneducated ones*."
>>>
>> This is the flip side of Wikipedia's greatest strengths.
>>
>>    - Allowing anyone to edit - to fact check, to add or remove - means
>>    there are more people to contribute, leading to a far more exhaustive
>>    knowledge project than has ever been achieved before.
>>    - Requiring references regardless of whether you're a primary school
>>    student, a conspiracy theorist or a professor - keeps the argument focused
>>    on the facts, rather than the personalities. And sometimes the primary
>>    school student is right, and anyone who's been to university knows that
>>    professors can be wrong!
>>
>> I'm not sure that this has driven expert editors away. What were they
>> doing in terms of contributing to  a free knowledge resource before there
>> was Wikipedia? Nothing. And are they now flocking to Citizendium? If they
>> are, the amateurs at Wikipedia are still doing a better job.
>>
>> Some experts do edit. And consider that most content comes from anon
>> editors, or editors who do only a few edits, adding large amounts of
>> content, and mostly in just their field of interest. My guess is a lot of
>> these are people who really know the field they're contributing on.
>>
>> Overall, this has been a good thing. There is probably a way of having
>> their cake and eating it, and we've been also been thinking about how to do
>> this at Appropedia, and have some ideas (in terms of flagging versions of
>> pages as being approved by a certain respected group, either an existing
>> organization, or several respected people).
>>
>>
>>> Critique of Wikipedia's open source ideology, as opposed to free software
>>> principles<http://www.anat.org.au/stillopen/blog/2007/08/19/open-source-ideologies/>
>>>
>>> *2. Wikipedia's culture of anonymous editing and administration results
>>> in a lack of responsible authorship and management.*
>>>
>>> "*Wikipedia editors may contribute as IP addresses, or as an
>>> ever-changing set of pseudonyms. There is thus no way of determining
>>> conflicts of interest, canvassing, or other misbehaviour in article editing.
>>> Wikipedia's adminsitrators are similarly anonymous, shielding them from
>>> scrutiny for their actions. They additionally can hide the history of their
>>> editing (or that of others)*."
>>>
>>> *3. Wikipedia's administrators have become an entrenched and
>>> over-powerful elite, unresponsive and harmful to authors and contributors.
>>> *
>>>
>>> "*Without meaningful checks and balances on administrators,
>>> administrative abuse is the norm, rather than the exception, with blocks and
>>> bans being enforced by fiat and whim, rather than in implementation of
>>> policy. Many well-meaning editors have been banned simply on suspicion of
>>> being previously banned users, without any transgression, while others have
>>> been banned for disagreeing with a powerful adminâ€™s editorial point of
>>> view. There is no clear-cut code of ethics for administrators, no truly
>>> independent process leading to blocks and bans, no process for appeal that
>>> is not corrupted by the imbalance of power between admin and blocked editor,
>>> and no process by which administrators are reviewed regularly for
>>> misbehaviour*."
>>>
>>
>> This is the one point that I would mostly agree with. Wikipedia is still
>> better than anything else out there, in terms of making it easy for people
>> to contribute, but there is a problem that boils down to one word: Civility.
>> It's supposed to be one of the pillars of Wikipedia, but is not applied very
>> thoroughly these days. Certain other wikis - including Wikiversity (based on
>> conversations with Cormac Lawler a.k.a. Cormaggio), wikiHow and Appropedia -
>> place a much greater emphasis on being helpful and positive with
>> contributors, even in cases of disagreement.
>>
>> Overview of developments<http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20071216/attacking-the-source/>
>>>
>>> The blog Nonbovine ruminations critically monitors<http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/>Wikipedia governance
>>>
>>> The Wikipedia has stopped growing because of the deletionists: Andrew<http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/09/10/two-million-english-wikipedia-articles-celebrate/>
>>> Lih<http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/07/10/unwanted-new-articles-in-wikipedia/>; Slate
>>> <http://www.slate.com/id/2160222/fr/rss/>
>>>
>>
>> Note that Andrew Lih is still a committed Wikipedian as far as I know.
>> He's making constructive criticisms, and I doubt that he'd agree with much
>> in this Wikipedia Review piece.
>>
>> That's all I feel able to comment on.
>>
>>> <http://www.slate.com/id/2160222/fr/rss/>
>>>
>>> Wikipedia's abusive bio-deletion process: case by Tony Judge<http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/bio/wikibios.php>
>>>
>>> *4. Wikipedia's numerous policies and procedures are not enforced
>>> equally on the community, popular or powerful editors are often exempted
>>> *.
>>>
>>> "*Administrators, in particular, and former administrators, are
>>> frequently allowed to trangress (or change!) Wikipedia's numerous policies,
>>> such as those prohibiting personal attacks, prohibiting the release of
>>> personal information about editors, and those prohibiting collusion in
>>> editing*."
>>>
>>
>> Hang on - point 1 is that it doesn't respect the elites, and point 4 is
>> that it's not democratic? Okay, I see that this is a different kind of
>> elite, the Wikipedia in-crowd. Personally I haven't seen any case where I
>> thought a serious injustice was done - I won't say it doesn't happen, just
>> that I doubt the claim about their being "*frequently allowed to
>> trangress... **Wikipedia's numerous policies**" *let alone change the
>> policies. It mostly seems to work well.
>>
>>>  The undemocratic practices of its investigative committee<http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2007/12/wikipedia-al-qaeda.html>
>>>
>>> A personal experience<http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2007/12/kicked-out-of-wikicult.html>
>>>
>>> The badsites list <http://antisocialmedia.net/?p=118> of censored sites
>>> belonging to Wikipedia's enemies
>>>
>>> Lack of transparency and accountability<http://antisocialmedia.net/?p=118>
>>>
>>> The Judd Bagley<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/>case
>>>
>>> InformationLiberation on Wikipedia's totalitarian universe<http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=24450>
>>>
>>> 5. *Wikipedia's quasi-judicial body, the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom)
>>> is at best incompetent and at worst corrupt*.
>>>
>>> "*ArbCom holds secret proceedings, refuses to be bound by precedent,
>>> operates on non-existant or unwritten rules, and does not allow equal access
>>> to all editors. It will reject cases that threaten to undermine the
>>> Wikipedia status quo or that would expose powerful administrators to
>>> sanction, and will move slowly or not at all (in public) on cases it is
>>> discussing in private*."
>>>
>>> Monitoring of ArbCom's activities<http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showforum=28>
>>>
>>> Summary of criticisms<http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20071215/ten-reasons-why-the-arbitration-committee-doesnt-matter/>
>>>
>>> The case of the secret mailing list<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/>for top insiders
>>>
>>> *6. The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), the organization legally responsible
>>> for Wikipedia, is opaque, is poorly managed, and is insufficiently
>>> independent from Wikipedia's remaining founder and his business interests.
>>> *
>>>
>>> "*The WMF lacks a mechanism to address the concerns of outsiders,
>>> resulting in an insular and socially irresponsible internal culture. Because
>>> of inadequate oversight and supervision, Wikimedia has hired incompetent and
>>> (in at least one case) criminal employees. Jimmy Wales for-profit business
>>> Wikia benefits in numerous ways from its association with the non-profit
>>> Wikipedia*."
>>>
>>> The Foundation's budget<http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2007/12/foundation-budget.html>
>>>
>>> Wikimedia chairwoman rejects demand for transparency<http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-December/036559.html>
>>>
>>> Review of the conflict of interest<http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20070821/the-tight-knit-web-of-wikimedia-and-wikia/>issue
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Misc:
>>>
>>> -
>>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/conflict-arbitration-at-the-wikipedia/2009/02/10
>>>
>>> -
>>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/banning-the-wikipedia-bans-as-a-governance-tool/2008/11/21
>>>
>>> -
>>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/update-on-the-bagley-wikipedia-controversy/2008/10/26
>>>
>>> -
>>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/is-it-time-to-go-beyond-wikipedia/2008/11/11
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 12:18 AM, Tere Vadén <tere.vaden at uta.fi> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > This is perhaps a good moment to ask Tere explicitely how they see
>>>> their
>>>> > relation to the wikipedia and the wikimedia foundation, especially in
>>>> > the light of their problems with democratic governance?
>>>> >
>>>> > Michel
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> I forwarded the question to my co-authors as well, and here is what I
>>>> got:
>>>>
>>>> Teemu, who, btw, is a member of the foundation's advisory board, replied
>>>> in Finnish that he does not see/recognise a problem with regard to
>>>> democratic governance.
>>>>
>>>> Juha wrote: "I am not aware of the possible democracy gaps in Wikipedia
>>>> besides the obvious problems relating to the epistemological questions of
>>>> specific article topics (what is worth knowing, what information gets
>>>> through as a WP article etc.), and some stupid censors (a.k.a admins). But
>>>> all and all, I hope that Wikiversity will develop as a true grassroots
>>>> movement, that is, as much as possible as a bottom-up endeavor. What else
>>>> that means in practice than that those who participate share some common
>>>> elements of .... decency, honesty, openness etc. (Marxist tells that she is
>>>> a Marxist as well as Christian fundamentalist)..."
>>>>
>>>> I really have not much add to Juha. So this seems to be a good time for
>>>> everybody to instruct us on what *are* the problems of democratic
>>>> governance. Links would be fine! :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> p2presearch mailing list
>>>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
>>> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
>>> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>>
>>> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
>>> http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
>>> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>>>
>>> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>>>
>>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
>>> http://www.shiftn.com/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> p2presearch mailing list
>>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Chris Watkins (a.k.a. Chriswaterguy)
>>
>> Appropedia.org - Sharing knowledge to build rich, sustainable lives.
>>
>> identi.ca/appropedia / twitter.com/appropedia
>> blogs.appropedia.org
>>
>> I like this: five.sentenc.es
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>
> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
> http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>
> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>
> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
> http://www.shiftn.com/
>

-- 
Chris Watkins (a.k.a. Chriswaterguy)

Appropedia.org - Sharing knowledge to build rich, sustainable lives.

identi.ca/appropedia / twitter.com/appropedia
blogs.appropedia.org

I like this: five.sentenc.es
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090219/9330c5fd/attachment-0001.html>