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

Chris Watkins chriswaterguy at appropedia.org
Fri Feb 20 07:54:07 CET 2009 

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 23:28, 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.
>

Hmm. I would have put "really stupid policy" at the top of the list. Poor
governance. But I don't see the parallel with Wikipedia.


>
> 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'm all for proposals for better solutions, in economic/social systems and
in Wikipedia. In the latter case, the good suggestions that I've seen have
come from within Wikipedia (e.g. from Durova).

>
>
> I apologize for taking a sharp tone,


No problem - my response was blunt as well - I feel it's important to be
frank, and appreciate that you're not being angry about it.



> 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.


I'm for "transwikiing" rather than deletion, but not so keen on multiple
versions. (Another wiki forked from Wikipedia did that. I'd tell you what
it's called but it never took off, and I've forgotten the name.)
Having one article, with solid debate over what belongs in it, remains the
way forward, IMO. Lets just improve the way the debate takes place.

>From your other email, I do like this joke:
"No.. there's no secret [ban] list - I checked Wikipedia and it said so."

I wouldn't draw any conclusions from a throwaway line like this, though,
funny though it is. If I wanted to draw a conclusion, I'd check the relevant
article(s) and the discussions on the talk page(s).

I'm going to sign out of this conversation - I really need to focus on my
work.
Chris

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
> >
>



-- 
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/20090220/88efd0f4/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the p2presearch mailing list