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

[marc fawzi]

"Jimbo Unilaterally Cashiers WMF's Section 230 Immunity - The Wikipedia Review

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22070

Jimbo's recent intervention in Wikiversity, where he declared various
academic lines of inquiry (primarily associated with a course on
Applied Ethics) to be "Beyond the Scope" of Wikiversity. At the same
time that Jimbo publishes an appeal to donors to contribute to WMF's
mission of bringing the sum of all human knowledge to 21st Century
youth, he declares that a wide swath of educational material on
Wikiversity is beyond the remit of the project, and he personally
expunges it."

==

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 11:27 PM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>