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

[marc fawzi]

The question is who dictates what is useful knowledge and what is not.

God? Jimmy Wales? You? I? The Crowd? or Google?

I personally vote for The Crowd via PageRank like algorithm.


On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Chris Watkins
<chriswaterguy at appropedia.org> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>