[p2p-research] Wikiversity’s potential in global capacity building
Chris Watkins
chriswaterguy at appropedia.org
Fri Feb 20 08:17:59 CET 2009
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 01:04, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
I met someone in Australia who said he'd given up on Wikipedia - he'd tried
contributing twice, and had it deleted. I asked what he'd contributed, and
it was something to do with aliens and advanced civilizations in
pre-colonization Australia.
Some content does not belong in Wikipedia, and should be deleted. Make it
"anything goes" and you have a completely different animal.
Chris
> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090220/34184154/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the p2presearch
mailing list