[p2p-research] wiki controversy ..

Tue Jul 20 11:59:45 CEST 2010

hi james,

I'm not sorry about the greek situation at all, that was absolutely
necessary to bring out in the open what they were trying to do, and if we
get any compensation out of it, I'm pretty sure it's related .. if I
understand you correctly you are referring to the fact that our discussions
can be forwarded and become much more public than necessary ?

but the intervention itself was justified and how to do it differently than
informing the people via the list, as even broadcasted private emails could
be forwarded?

remember, as they themselves acknowledged, the greeks had decided secretly
during the day itself to get us out of the project, and they clearly showed
they wanted to do this unceremoniously, without due process and without any
compensation ...

of course they didn't like it being in the open, but I have received quite a
bit of letters from other greeks telling me, "we could have told you so" ...
remember also that in the greek case, the article I wrote was preceded by
numerous attempts by myself and Adam to communicate, but never got any
responses, while they were conducting separate discussions of which we were
excluded ..

the logic is the same actually in the present case, if I felt I would be
heard in my private communication, I would not resort to a public
discussion,

when the future of the wiki and the work of the p2p foundation is at stake,
it is worth discussing it in public, even if I'm mistaken and over-reacting,
as people can react to it, as you did,

similarly in this case many new initiatives have been taken, new logics
instituted, many without any discussion, this is not problematic in itself,
there is no need to always 'ask for permission', but you still need to be
open to challenges post-facto, and react to it in proper ways

I'd prefer it myself if major initiatives were discussed in this list, and
to have input from others, rather than any strategy of "faits accomplis"

now I agree that broadcasting controversial discussions to everyone can be
problematic, especially as they involve real persons, and it can be used
against us, me or alex ... it's a problem, I have no ready-made solution for
this ...

make the p2p-list not searchable, retroactively hide or delete discussions,
or just accept that we are frail humans, bound to misunderstandings and that
some of our communications will be abused later on ...

again to conclude, I accept and applaud the contributions of Alex, this is
not what the discussion is about, and thanks James to attempt to moderate
any of my exagerrations ..

Michel

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 4:42 PM, james burke <lifesized at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Michel,
>
> i hear you feeling threatened,
> but as i've experienced recently, (remember that greek situation)
> I think shouting out loud about existential threats on this public email
> lists broadcasting to everyone
> it the less practical of solutions, while scheduling a skype conversation
> between you and alex is more useful,
> so without further ado, let's do that as there should be space for both of
> you to contribute and not nuke the commons so created.
>
> Let's continue this between Alex and you and me, and if anyone else wants
> to join, mail me
> privately and add your skype name
>
> thanks
>
> james
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Dear friends,
>>
>> I may have appeared rather harsh and too emotional in my previous exchange
>> with Alex, and Alex is probably wisely refraining from putting more oil in
>> the water at the time when I'm clearly 'excited' ..
>>
>> still, I want to explain my perspective on why this is happening,
>>
>> First, I hope you understand that when a person works a number of years on
>> a project, at substantial cost in terms of personal and family security, you
>> do get emotionally involved in your project, even if you formulate and
>> construct it as a commons; like Marcin, who clearly overreacted last year
>> and had mistakenly accused some people, I may also overreact at times ..
>>
>> I say may, and perhaps indeed in the form I have been too harsh, but in
>> any case, here are two reasons, and perhaps a third personal one:
>>
>> - first, I really considered this as the gravest existential threat to the
>> continued existence of the wiki as I had envisaged it ..
>>
>> - second, the kind of responses I got, mostly offlist, but also on the
>> list, made me fear that my concerns got no hearing
>>
>> - third, this is the personal aspect, there is a personal dialectic going
>> on when a alpha male type, who is mostly undisturbed and sometimes thrives
>> on conflict, is faced with a conflict-intolerant person like me. I'm  not
>> proud of this, this is a personality quirk, but I don't thrive on conflict,
>> frequently somatize on it, and hence generally avoid this mode, BUT, this is
>> the problem, when I face a real threat, and feel my own weakness in
>> conducting a conflict, then I have to overreact to protect what I see as
>> essential boundaries. So, while generally a mellow person, seen by my
>> environment as tolerant and taking things in stride, I got to really
>> mobilize my defensive energies in specific circumstances. Always comes with
>> a price tag though .. last thursday, upset with the conflict, I must have
>> paid insufficient attention to the 'embodiedness' required for jogging and
>> the result is I can hardly walk for the last five days, as I have a very
>> painful strained muscle ... just to show you I do not thrive or conflict,
>>
>> so, to return to the conflict at hand,
>>
>> first, let me say I deeply appreciate the many ways in which Alex has
>> improving the wiki. This does not mean that I find everything he does
>> positive or unproblematic, but generally speaking I do not want to police
>> other people's contributions.
>>
>> secondly however, it is very important to me that the legacy logic of the
>> wiki is respected, representing four years of hard work, and thought out
>> organisation ...
>>
>> the superficial problem is a proliferation of redirects and new categories
>> and subcategories, most of which will stay empty and confuse people, some of
>> which like the redirects which will impede people to contribute on
>> individual pages
>>
>> the more deeper problem is that the new layer can only be a improvement of
>> the older wiki, but not a replacement or a hostile takeover that imposes a
>> new and alien logic on what was done before,
>>
>> and as I said, the personal problem when my concerns are answered back in
>> authoritarian ways, basically saying "f off, it's my way or the highway and
>> I will restore any of your edits"
>>
>> So this is basically it,
>>
>> Michel
>>
>> --
>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>
>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>>
>> Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Web: www.lifesized.net  Phone:+31 (0)6 5244 6445 Twitter: @lifesized
>
>

-- 
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100720/ec0de4dc/attachment.html>