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

Chris Watkins chriswaterguy at appropedia.org
Fri Feb 20 23:30:06 CET 2009 

Is there something about this from a trustworthy source? I.e. not
wikipediareview.com. Speaking personally, quotes from such an unreliable
troll site really detract from the discussion, and make me less inclined to
follow these conversations, unfortunately.

I notice one of the replies says:
It wasn't the concept of a course on applied ethics that was declared
"beyond the scope" of wikiversity, it was the implementation (drawn heavily
from your personal disputes).

- which sounds far more believable, based on what I know of Jimbo and
Wikimedia.

Chris

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 13:30, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:

> "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
> >>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090220/19bcda7a/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the p2presearch mailing list