QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 28th September 2009, 10:48am)
I don't know how you define "gonzo" -- "Fear and Loathing in Wikipedia"? (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)
The definition of gonzo journalism has varied over the years, but it's
foremost practitioner said,
QUOTE
True Gonzo reporting needs the talents of a master journalist, the eye of an artist/photographer and the heavy balls of an actor. Because the writer must be a participant in the scene, while he’s writing it – or at least taping it, or even sketching it. Or all three. Probably the closest analogy to the ideal would be a film director/producer who writes his own scripts, does his own camera work and somehow manages to film himself in action, as the protagonist or at least a minor character.
There's a interesting New Republic book review titled "
Gonzo Sociology" that is about C. Wright Mills. His writings influenced Thompson, who said, "[Mills] jolted me out of my chair. It's heartening to know that there are still people around with the simple guts to move in on the boobs with a chain-mace."
Piotr's paper examines whether an oligarchy exists on WP by studying how the verifiability policy evolved. He has made a few edits to the verifiabilty talk page during the period of his study, but more importantly he's an influential adminitrator who arguably was a "participant in the scene while writing it." The scene being that of the Wikipedia ruling class. One area where the comparison fails though is Piotrus, unlike Thompson, doesn't make it apparent (other than a link on his user page) he is a part of what he documents.