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

[marc fawzi]

To illustrate the point about the major flow in Wikipedia's model,
using some slashdot humor:

"Not true - I checked (Score:5, Funny)
by DuncanE (35734) * on Tuesday December 04, @03:39AM (#21569413)
(http://www.iinet.net.au/~dionysus/)

No.. there's no secret [ban] list - I checked Wikipedia and it said so.

Said it was not "not notable" or something.

"

See the problem?

Marc


On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 9:28 PM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's not illegality but morality
>
> Remember, nothing illegal was done that brought about the economic
> catastrophe we have now
>
> Only immoral, unethical behavior.
>
> Wikipedia is centralized in governance (no true democracy) and in structure.
>
> It has proven itself as much as capitalism has. It does not mean we
> should not propose better solutions.
>
> I apologize for taking a sharp tone, and I understand your underlying
> philosophical argument about relativism and Wikipedia.
>
> I think a good option would be banning deletions and banning "banning"
> and letting each topic has as many versions as there are people who
> want to write about it singly or collaboratively and then use PageRank
> as a quality filter, where the good (or rather the popular) versions
> rise to the top.
>
> It's my belief that PageRank works very differently than digg (there
> is some humor in this comparison for the technically tuned in)
>
> PageRank is not un-game-able, but it is the only trust metric that
> actually fights back, as far as my knowledge of trust metrics go.
>
> Marc
>
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Chris Watkins
> <chriswaterguy at appropedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 15:33, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Chris,
>>>
>>> The "make sense" argument is so subjective and dependent on one's own
>>> biases, knowledge, ability to understand others conclusions, etc, that
>>> it hold very little weight in absolute terms.
>>
>> If we're going completely relativist, I don't see any value in continuing.
>> You do your thing, and if it has value it will last. Wikipedia has already
>> demonstrated its value.
>>
>>> It seems that you avoided to debate the slashdot article. Why?
>>
>>  I have more email than I can handle - the argument you presented didn't
>> make me inclined to click on any additional links. Now I check it, I see
>> it's a very brief account of an old story.
>>
>>> Are you
>>> afraid that actual facts might undermine the point you're making?
>>
>> (How do I answer a facetious question?)
>>
>> No. Facts are welcome. I didn't see any substantial facts in the slashdot
>> article - just an extremely thin and slanted news snippet. I don't know all
>> the details, and I don't know whether I would support Jimbo if I did know
>> every detail. But I know enough about him that he's earned substantial trust
>> on governance issues.
>>
>> Keep in mind, most of the sensationalist stuff you see comes from people
>> with an ax to grind - like the accusations about the use of foundation funds
>> coming from Danny Wool.
>>
>>>
>>> If you have not been at a VC funded venture and have not taken VC
>>> money then it probably would not make sense to you that you are not
>>> supposed to be running or be involved in running a non-profit in the
>>> same industry as your VC funded startup. And you're not supposed to
>>> leverage your position at a major non-profit in order to pursue your
>>> commercial interest.
>>>
>>> If you have not managed an R&D team at a VC startup (like Wikia) then
>>> how can you make any conclusions about improper leverage and conflict
>>> of interest?
>>
>> Those are interesting claims - an allusion to that would have made more
>> sense of your original post.
>>
>> However, if he's doing something so blatantly illegal, I'd expect that he'd
>> be stopped. He hasn't been, so I suspect it's not so cut and dried (these
>> things usually aren't).
>>
>> Besides which, this has little to do with the day-to-day governance issues
>> that this thread started with. It might be more helpful to define what
>> Wikipedia issues we're actually talking about.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Funny.
>>>
>>> Marc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Chris Watkins
>>> <chriswaterguy at appropedia.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 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
>>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>