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

[Chris Watkins]

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 14:57, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Tere,
>
> It's so bad that "deletionpedia" has better quality articles (in a
> growing number of areas) at this point
>
> See this in regards to corruption:
> http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/12/04/0333252.shtml?tid=267
>
> The fish rots from the head down.
>
> Also, Jimmy Wales has a conflict of interest in running Wikia, a
> commercial venture that aims to apply semantic web technology to a
> wikipedia like service. Wikia was started after I had written about
> applying semantic tech to Wikipedia itself. But he actually not only
> applying the concept to a commercial for-profit venture but in doing
> so he's sucking creative ideas away from wikipedia and funneling them
> into what makes him money. Wikia now hosts "semantic mediawiki" which
> was designed originally with the hope of its adoption by Wikipedia.
> But on a more broader scale, Wales is leveraging wikipedia and his
> status there to make money with Wikia. If no one else gets this, then
> oh well... But I can write a 3 page article on it, easily with
> researched facts and links.
>

Conflict of interest because he started another site doing something
different from Wikipedia?

Semantic MediaWiki is still an option for Wikipedia - so what if Wikia hosts
that site?

Sorry Marc, but you need to make sense in a paragraph before writing a 3
page article.

Chris


>
> Marc
>
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > http://p2pfoundation.net/Wikipedia_Controversies
> >
> > Tere,
> >
> > since you ask, here's the overview of the main arguments
> >
> > from
> >
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/is-something-fundamentally-wrong-with-wikipedia-governance-processes/2008/01/07
> >
> > point 4, 5 and 6 are key, and have only worsened since it was written,
> >
> > I'm no longer optimistic, I think the Wikipedia's flawed governance is
> > beyond repair, there is no social force that could reform it
> >
> > my key argument: after the victory of the deletionist created artificial
> > scarcity and therefore an allocation problem, but without any democratic
> > governance structure to accompany it, the problems became structurally
> > entrenched
> >
> > Michel
> >
> >
> > Is something fundamentally wrong with Wikipedia governance processes?
> >
> > The Wikipedia is often hailed as a prime example of peer production and
> peer
> > governance, an example of how a community can self-govern very complex
> > processes. Including by me.
> >
> > But it is also increasingly showing the dark side and pitfalls of purely
> > informal approaches, especially when they scale.
> >
> > Wikipedia is particularly vulnerable because its work is not done in
> teams,
> > but by individuals with rather weak links. At the same time it is also a
> > very complex project, with consolidating social norms and rules, and with
> an
> > elite that knows them, vs. many occasional page writers who are ignorant
> of
> > them. When that system then instaures a scarcity rule, articles have to
> be
> > ‘notable" or they can be deleted. It creates a serious imbalance.
> >
> > While the Wikipedia remains a remarkable achievement, and escapes any
> easy
> > characterization of its qualities because of its sheer vastness, there
> must
> > indeed be hundreds of thousands of volunteers doing good work on
> articles,
> > it has also created a power structure, but it is largely invisible,
> opaque,
> > and therefore particularly vulnerable to the well-known tyranny of
> > structurelessness.
> >
> > Consider the orginal thoughts of Jo Freeman:
> >
> > "Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a
> > 'structureless' group. Any group of people of whatever nature coming
> > together for any length of time, for any purpose, will inevitably
> structure
> > itself in some fashion. The structure may be flexible, it may vary over
> > time, it may evenly or unevenly distribute tasks, power and resources
> over
> > the members of the group. But it will be formed regardless of the
> abilities,
> > personalities and intentions of the people involved. The very fact that
> we
> > are individuals with different talents, predispositions and backgrounds
> > makes this inevitable. Only if we refused to relate or interact on any
> basis
> > whatsoever could we approximate 'structurelessness' and that is not the
> > nature of a human group.
> >
> > Consider also this warning:
> >
> > Every group of people with an unusual goal - good, bad, or silly - will
> > trend toward the cult attractor unless they make a constant effort to
> resist
> > it. You can keep your house cooler than the outdoors, but you have to run
> > the air conditioner constantly, and as soon as you turn off the
> electricity
> > - give up the fight against entropy - things will go back to "normal".
> >
> > In the same sense that every thermal differential wants to equalize
> itself,
> > and every computer program wants to become a collection of ad-hoc
> patches,
> > every Cause wants to be a cult. It's a high-entropy state into which the
> > system trends, an attractor in human psychology.
> >
> > Cultishness is quantitative, not qualitative. The question is not
> "Cultish,
> > yes or no?" but "How much cultishness and where?"
> >
> > The Wikicult website asserts that this stage has already been reached:
> >
> > With the systems, policies, procedures, committees, councils, processes
> and
> > appointed authorities that run Wikipedia, a lot of intrinsic power goes
> > around. While most serious contributors devotedly continue to contribute
> to
> > the implied idealism, there are those with the communication and
> political
> > skill to place themselves in the right place at the right time and
> establish
> > even more apparent power. Out of these, a cabal inevitably forms; the
> rest,
> > as they say, is history.
> >
> > Specialized sites have sprung up, such as the Wikipedia Review,
> monitoring
> > power abuse in general, or in particular cases
> >
> > The Wikipedia Review offers an interesting summary of the various
> criticisms
> > that have been leveled agains the Wikipedia, which I'm reproducing here
> > below, but I'm adding links that document these processes as well. Spend
> > some time on reading the allegations, their documentation, and make up
> your
> > own mind.
> >
> > My conclusion though is that major reforms will be needed to insure the
> > Wikipedia governance is democratic and remains so.
> >
> > 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."
> >
> > Critique of Wikipedia's open source ideology, as opposed to free software
> > principles
> >
> > 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 admin’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."
> >
> > Overview of developments
> >
> > The blog Nonbovine ruminations critically monitors Wikipedia governance
> >
> > The Wikipedia has stopped growing because of the deletionists: Andrew Lih
> ;
> > Slate
> >
> > Wikipedia's abusive bio-deletion process: case by Tony Judge
> >
> > 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."
> >
> > The undemocratic practices of its investigative committee
> >
> > A personal experience
> >
> > The badsites list of censored sites belonging to Wikipedia's enemies
> >
> > Lack of transparency and accountability
> >
> > The Judd Bagley case
> >
> > InformationLiberation on Wikipedia's totalitarian universe
> >
> > 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
> >
> > Summary of criticisms
> >
> > The case of the secret mailing list 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
> >
> > Wikimedia chairwoman rejects demand for transparency
> >
> > Review of the conflict of interest 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
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090219/ae27c139/attachment-0001.html>