This subforum is for general discussion of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. For a glossary of terms frequently used in such discussions, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary. For a glossary of musical terms, see here. Other useful links:
"Joseph Reagle's account of what makes Wikipedia tick debunks the vision of a shining Alexandria gliding towards free and perfect knowledge and replaces it with something far more awe-inspiring: a humane, and human, enterprise that with each fitful back-and-forth elicits the best from those it draws in. In an era of polemic and cheap shots that some attribute largely to the Internet's influence, he shows how even those of wildly varying backgrounds who disagree intensely can see themselves as embarked on a common, ennobling mission grounded in respect and reason." —Jonathan Zittrain, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School and Kennedy School, Professor of Computer Science, Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, and author of The Future of the Internet — And How to Stop It
QUOTE
"Good Faith Collaboration sheds some much needed light on one of the most influential resources available today. Joseph Reagle accurately captures the internal collaborative climate of 'good faith' in Wikipedia, and provides an excellent history of its progenitors like Nupedia." —Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia
QUOTE
"Wikipedia deserves to have its story intelligently told, and Joseph Reagle has done exactly that. Good Faith Collaboration is smart, accessible, and astutely observed. I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to better understand how Wikipedia works, and why it matters." —Sue Gardner, Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
Reagle also deleted the comment I made below, together with a further comment briefly noting the fact he had deleted it. He has persistently refused to engage with any reasonable argument against his point of view. I won't be commenting any further, the guy is clearly beyond any form of reason.
QUOTE
>>If there is a concern about quantitative attempts to characterize Wikipedian interaction, one naturally looks to the literature.
Of course, but that is not my complaint. My complaint was about your whole style (unfortunately common in the field of HCI - I should know, I have a master's in the subject). You make a citation out of context without explaining what the authors say, and without any pretence at analysis. As a matter of fact I went on to read the paper you mention ((Burke and Kraut 2008) use in "Mind your Ps and Qs: The impact of politeness and rudeness in online communities") and it is as I suspected almost entirely vacuous. It attempts to measure the impact of politeness and rudeness by the number of responses to comments. Of what use is that to the project of building an encyclopedia? The only impact that is of interest is whether it furthers the goal of achieving a comprehensive and reliable reference work. I don't see how their silly computer model will work on that. To do this you need metrics for 'comprehensive' and 'reliable', and you need a model that determines whether any set of interactions are furthering that goal.
>>But I have not set as my goal to participate in endless bickering
Then make a reasoned and considered reply to any of the substantive points that have been raised here. Kelly's, for example. She has made the reasonable point that you are confusing the norms that people pretend to follow on Wikipedia with the actual ones that are being followed. She has given examples, such as the military history project. I am familiar with this project, and with its successes and failures, and what she says is entirely accurate. Is she right? If not, why not? Give a coherent and well-argued and evidenced analysis, and please do not cite some vacuous and irrelevant paper out of context. http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikip...h-collaboration
Not all thugs are Wikipediots, but all Wikipediots are thugs.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,166
Joined:
From: The SOCK HOP
Member No.: 9,640
Reagle new theme song...
REAGLE, I SPIT ON YOU... you ask why???
Because, you enable an evil enterprise, with your lack of scholarship, honesty, and due diligence.
You book on Wikipedia is just some kind of "SHINE JOB" or "JUG OF KOOLAID quick mix". There is many documented accounts of the evil of Wikipedia, which you ignore that your book is a face of academic honesty.
In the end you just a coward to refuse to face peer review of you work among people who know the true farce of Wikipedia. You are an enabling of Wikipedia's crimes of stealing of peoples IP property, reputations and humanity.
This post has been edited by victim of censorship:
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Wed 29th September 2010, 11:13am)
REAGLE ... you ... you ... you ... you ... you ... you ...
Nah, the guy is just going to make more money and improve his status within the academic stream he has chosen. Good heaven, give him a chance to speak first, will you?
And I have to say, Victim, "that is n-o-t very WP:CIVIL of you. WP:AGF, you are WP:POV and God knows WP:WTF else ... We will have to ban you ... Ban You ... BAN YOU ... BAN YOU!!!. It's our Wikipedia, now go away and find another hobby."
the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined:
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Wed 29th September 2010, 12:00pm)
QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Wed 29th September 2010, 11:13am)
REAGLE ... you ... you ... you ... you ... you ... you ...
Nah, the guy is just going to make more money and improve his status within the academic stream he has chosen. Good heaven, give him a chance to speak first, will you?
And I have to say, Victim, "that is n-o-t very WP:CIVIL of you. WP:AGF, you are WP:POV and God knows WP:WTF else ... We will have to ban you ... Ban You ... BAN YOU ... BAN YOU!!!. It's our Wikipedia, now go away and find another hobby."
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Wed 29th September 2010, 12:33pm)
CUOC, that's a classic! You've outdone yourself, Man! My coffee is all over my keyboard!
Why, thank you, good sir. I am glad that in your case it was only the coffee.
I've just realised that, in the name of POV balance, we need room for 'Brown Asians (Dravidian included)' and 'Yellow Asians' which takes us over the 5,000 figure ... unless we adopt a strictly pro rata basis, in which case colored wangs would have to out number weenie whites by 82 to 18, thereby reducing the number to 4,500.
But then, would one would have to duplicate that for those with the chop and those not, or reduce both set by half? The mind boggles.
The question is, will Joseph be able to swallow the truth and the bitter aftertaste of free license.
the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined:
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Wed 29th September 2010, 1:47pm)
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Wed 29th September 2010, 12:33pm)
CUOC, that's a classic! You've outdone yourself, Man! My coffee is all over my keyboard!
Why, thank you, good sir. I am glad that in your case it was only the coffee.
I've just realised that, in the name of POV balance, we need room for 'Brown Asians (Dravidian included)' and 'Yellow Asians' which takes us over the 5,000 figure ... unless we adopt a strictly pro rata basis, in which case colored wangs would have to out number weenie whites by 82 to 18, thereby reducing the number to 4,500.
But then, would one would have to duplicate that for those with the chop and those not, or reduce both set by half? The mind boggles.
The question is, will Joseph be able to swallow the truth and the bitter aftertaste of free license.
Where is Shankers when you need him? Come on, Man! Get to work!