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

marc fawzi marc.fawzi at gmail.com
Fri Feb 20 08:04:15 CET 2009 

Chris,

Appropedia is a very interesting and relevant *pedia!

Ultimately if we have more domain-specific *pedias I think the quality
will improve per each domain.

In closing remarks, I'm entirely against deletion of user-submitted
content and banning of users, for whatever reason. Resilience is what
we need in the new society not intolerance.

Marc


On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Chris Watkins
<chriswaterguy at appropedia.org> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>

More information about the p2presearch mailing list