Reagle's book is out, and the Berkman/WMF reviews are in Options

[thekohser]

try not to vomit.

"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

"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

"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

[thekohser]

This cordiality would be commented upon in a related incident later in 2005, in August, when Wikipedia user Amelkite, the owner/operator of the white supremacist Vanguard-News-Network, had his Wikipedia account blocked. MattCrypto, a Wikipedia administrator, then unblocked him, thinking it unfair to block someone because his or her affiliation rather than Wikipedia actions. This prompted another administrator, SlimVirgin, to reblock, pointing out Amelkite had posted a list of prominent Wikipedians thought to be Jews as well as information on how to counter Wikipedia controls of disruption. The conversation between Wikipedia administrators remained civil:

MattCrypto: Hi SlimVirgin, I don’t like getting into conflict, particularly with things like block wars and protect wars, so I’m unhappy about this. . . .

SlimVirgin: I take your point, Matt, but I feel you ought to have discussed this with the blocking admin, rather than undoing the block. . . .

This interaction prompted Jimmy “Jimbo” Wales, Wikipedia cofounder and leader, to write: “SlimVirgin, MattCrypto: this is why I love Wikipedians so much. I love this kind of discussion. Assume good faith, careful reasoning, a discussion which doesn’t involve personal attacks of any kind, a disagreement with a positive exploration of the deeper issues.” Whereas Godwin’s Law recognizes the tendency to think the worst of others, Wikipedia culture encourages contributors to treat and think of others well. For example, participants are supposed to abide by the norm of “Wikiquette,” which includes the guidelines of “Assume Good Faith” (AGF) and “Please Do Not Bite the Newcomers.”

Such Wikipedia norms and their relationship to the technology, discourse, and vision of a universal encyclopedia prompt me to ask: How should we understand this community’s collaborative—“good faith”—culture?

We know better, don't we? That that wasn't "good faith" being exhibited between MattCrypto and SlimVirgin. That was seething contempt for one another, concealed in civil words.

I love this.

[Peter Damian]

try not to vomit.

Too late. Very hard when it gets between the keys.

A charming example of wiki practice is the awarding of a “barnstar,” an image placed on another’s user page to recognize merit. “These awards are part of the Kindness Campaign and are meant to promote civility and WikiLove. They are a form of warm fuzzy: they are free to give and they bring joy to the recipient. ”33Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Barnstars,” Wikipedia, August 2009, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=307406807 (visited on August 20, 2009). There are different stars for dozens of virtues, including random acts of kindness, diligence, anti-vandalism, good humor, resilience, brilliance, and teamwork. As in any other community, at Wikipedia there is also a history of events, set of norms, constellation of values, and common lingo. Also, not surprisingly, there is a particular sensibility, including a love of knowledge and a geeky sense of humor.

I'm getting the bucket from downstairs. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

Readers of this forum may wish to comment here http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikip...h-collaboration

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Ottava]

Unless the book mentions me, it isn't worth reading about.

[the fieryangel]

Unless the book mentions me, it isn't worth reading about.

Hey, any book that includes references to Wikien-L posts by Tony Sidaway and Phil Sandifer, Raul's so-called "laws" and Jimbo's talkpage is worth reading for the laughs.

I see no mention of Essjay, nor of Ms. Doran....I wonder why that might be?

For the Larouche crowd, there's this from Slimmie : 64. SlimVirgin, “Re: Original Research versus Point of View,” wikien-l, January 2005, http://marc.info/?i=4cc603b0501181558569cb84f@mail.gmail.com (accessed January 18, 2005).

[thekohser]

Readers of this forum may wish to comment here http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikip...h-collaboration

Indeed:

Posted by Gregory Kohs at Sat Sep 25 22:06:54 2010
I read some of the freely-available first chapter, and I immediately recognized that most of its message did not conform at all with my interpretation of the culture that pervades Wikipedia and its management organization. I would not buy this book, but I would read the rest of it if someone gave it to me for free.

[Somey]

Unless the book mentions me, it isn't worth reading about.

It may sound odd, but I actually have to agree with this.

[Peter Damian]

Readers of this forum may wish to comment here http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikip...h-collaboration

Indeed:

Posted by Gregory Kohs at Sat Sep 25 22:06:54 2010
I read some of the freely-available first chapter, and I immediately recognized that most of its message did not conform at all with my interpretation of the culture that pervades Wikipedia and its management organization. I would not buy this book, but I would read the rest of it if someone gave it to me for free.

I clicked on your name there and it led to this

http://www.wikipediareview.com/Top_10_Reasons_No...te_to_Wikipedia

Very crafty! That article has come a long way since I read it last year - good work! I recommend it to everyone here.

Unless the book mentions me, it isn't worth reading about.

It may sound odd, but I actually have to agree with this.

Agree also, probably for the same reason.

[Zoloft]

Readers of this forum may wish to comment here http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikip...h-collaboration

Indeed:

Posted by Gregory Kohs at Sat Sep 25 22:06:54 2010
I read some of the freely-available first chapter, and I immediately recognized that most of its message did not conform at all with my interpretation of the culture that pervades Wikipedia and its management organization. I would not buy this book, but I would read the rest of it if someone gave it to me for free.

I clicked on your name there and it led to this

http://www.wikipediareview.com/Top_10_Reasons_No...te_to_Wikipedia

Very crafty! That article has come a long way since I read it last year - good work! I recommend it to everyone here.

Unless the book mentions me, it isn't worth reading about.

It may sound odd, but I actually have to agree with this.

Agree also, probably for the same reason.

What would Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas have been without Raoul Duke, after all?

[Peter Damian]

Unless the book mentions me, it isn't worth reading about.

It may sound odd, but I actually have to agree with this.

Agree also, probably for the same reason.

What would Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas have been without Raoul Duke, after all?

Duke was an alter ego, no? I was thinking more of a real character who is an embarrassment to the party and who is excluded from official histories, and airbrushed from pictures. Trotsky, e.g.

In medieval times, Abelard. Or Ockham, even.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Zoloft]

Unless the book mentions me, it isn't worth reading about.

It may sound odd, but I actually have to agree with this.

Agree also, probably for the same reason.

What would Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas have been without Raoul Duke, after all?

Duke was an alter ego, no? I was thinking more of a real character who is an embarrassment to the party and who is excluded from official histories, and airbrushed from pictures. Trotsky, e.g.

In medieval times, Abelard. Or Ockham, even.

A valid point, but I was thinking of the attitude, and the logorrhea with a touch of Tourette's. Of course, Ottava is an alter ego as well.

[Peter Damian]

Of course, Ottava is an alter ego as well.

Very true.

[Somey]

Duke was an alter ego, no? I was thinking more of a real character who is an embarrassment to the party and who is excluded from official histories, and airbrushed from pictures. Trotsky, e.g. ... In medieval times, Abelard. Or Ockham, even.

Exactly! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I mean, let's be completely clear about this, for the benefit of readers who are less cognizant of WP's internal politics/personalities and such than we are: If the point of this book is (as it appears to be) to praise WP for the way it manages to keep everything "civil" in ways other sites supposedly can't, then of course the book isn't going to mention you (i.e., Peter D), or User:Ottava rima, or User:Malleus Fatuorum, or User:Giano - or any of several dozen extremely talented writers, researchers, and editors (relatively speaking, at least) who have been threatened with bannage, if not actually banned/blocked, because they refused to play the Wikipedia Civility Game™ and felt compelled to speak out against bad policies, admin abuses, and other things they felt were wrong (irrespective of whether or not those things actually were wrong).

Or, at least to play that game to the extent necessary to keep up with, shall we say, some of the people who most likely are mentioned in the book.

The four people I mentioned above are among those who haven't completely denounced WP and/or disengaged from it, AFAIK. If we include the people who have, that could get to be a fairly long list.

Unfortunately I'd have to order a copy of the book and read it to be certain as to who/what is or isn't mentioned, so I should probably stop there.

[Ottava]

Duke was an alter ego, no? I was thinking more of a real character who is an embarrassment to the party and who is excluded from official histories, and airbrushed from pictures. Trotsky, e.g. ... In medieval times, Abelard. Or Ockham, even.

Exactly! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I mean, let's be completely clear about this, for the benefit of readers who are less cognizant of WP's internal politics/personalities and such than we are: If the point of this book is (as it appears to be) to praise WP for the way it manages to keep everything "civil" in ways other sites supposedly can't, then of course the book isn't going to mention you (i.e., Peter D), or User:Ottava rima, or User:Malleus Fatuorum, or User:Giano - or any of several dozen extremely talented writers, researchers, and editors (relatively speaking, at least) who have been threatened with bannage, if not actually banned/blocked, because they refused to play the Wikipedia Civility Game™ and felt compelled to speak out against bad policies, admin abuses, and other things they felt were wrong (irrespective of whether or not those things actually were wrong).

Or, at least to play that game to the extent necessary to keep up with, shall we say, some of the people who most likely are mentioned in the book.

The four people I mentioned above are among those who haven't completely denounced WP and/or disengaged from it, AFAIK. If we include the people who have, that could get to be a fairly long list.

Unfortunately I'd have to order a copy of the book and read it to be certain as to who/what is or isn't mentioned, so I should probably stop there.

A book about Malleus, Giano, and myself would have a plot that looks something akin to the Godfather movie.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[the fieryangel]

For people who don't want to buy the book, here is a page of "drafts" that went into the preparation of the final version : http://reagle.org/joseph/2006/05/wikipedia-results.html

Bottom line: this guy likes the koolaid a lot!

[Jon Awbrey]

Posted by Jon Awbrey at Sun Sep 26 11:06:12 2010

@ Gregory Kohs

That's a good point, Greg. Maybe Joseph Reagle could be persuaded to wiki-publish his book in WikiBooks, WikiSource, WikiVersity, or some other suitable MediaWiki site like Wikipedia Review — after all, if there's any information in it, then I'm sure it wants to be free — where anonymous contributors could help him FixIt for free.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

I posted a fairly nasty comment. It'll be interesting to see if it is removed.

[Peter Damian]

I posted a fairly nasty comment. It'll be interesting to see if it is removed.

Me too. It's nice that he has people reading his blog, though.

[Peter Damian]

Seth Finkelstein has just commented. Not in an entirely positive way, sadly.


http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikip...h-collaboration

Joe, after going through chapter 1, sadly my initial impression was also negative. Obviously you put a lot of work into this, and while I can respect the effort to do scholarship, the perspective seems problematic.

Basically, it struck me as extremely credulous, and regurgitating the most self-promotional presentations as profound truth.

Here's a simple question - Is there anywhere in the book where you write something along the lines of "The Wikipedia community tells itself a nice story here, but it's a fiction which covers up the following cultural dysfunction."?

Can you provide a quick counter-example to argue against the view that this is functionally a verbose marketing brochure for Wikipedia?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Larry Sanger]

I received a review copy, from the publisher looking for a promo quote from me. I glanced at a few woefully misleading things it contained about the early history of Wikipedia, and my views, and never picked it up again. This is probably all I'll ever say about it...

This post has been edited by Larry Sanger:

[Milton Roe]

I received a review copy, from the publisher looking for a promo quote from me. I glanced at a few woefully misleading things it contained about the early history of Wikipedia, and my views, and never picked it up again. This is probably all I'll ever say about it...

Too bad. I'd love to have seen the statement above as a jacket blurb. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

At least you could post it on Amazon.com.

[Peter Damian]

For the record, in case they disappear.

Posted by Sage Ross at Mon Sep 20 10:08:23 2010
Congrats! My copy from Amazon actually came about two weeks ago, but I'm glad it's officially out now.

It's next on my to-read list.

Posted by Joseph Reagle at Mon Sep 20 10:17:26 2010
Thank you Sage.

Posted by Mayo Fuster Morell at Wed Sep 22 12:09:35 2010
Dear Joseph!

Congratulations for the book!

Your articles were of great help to build upon for my dissertation on Governance of online creation communities (which I defended yesterday!); now I look forward to read your book!!!. You not only had done a great work, but also had been an important reference for the formation of a research community on Wikipedia.

Well done! Thank you, Mayo

Posted by Joseph Reagle at Wed Sep 22 13:26:05 2010
Hi Mayo, nice to hear from you! Thank you for the kind words and congratulations on your defense!

Posted by Gregory Kohs at Sat Sep 25 22:06:54 2010
I read some of the freely-available first chapter, and I immediately recognized that most of its message did not conform at all with my interpretation of the culture that pervades Wikipedia and its management organization. I would not buy this book, but I would read the rest of it if someone gave it to me for free.

Posted by Anonymous Crowbar at Sun Sep 26 02:59:39 2010
First, I'd have to advise against your use of the word "ethnographic." Whether or not that word is appropriate from your own perspective, it seems to convey the idea of an ethnically diverse user community, and Wikipedia's user community is about as ethnically homogenous as can possibly be imagined.

Second, it seems that you've fallen completely for one of the three main hooks of the con-game that is Wikipedia. The hooks are instant gratification, false appeal to the charitable impulse, and artificially-imposed civility. Without reading the book I can't say if you've fallen for the first two or not, though to be fair, the first is actually real and the second is made to seem real by the wonderfully-competent folks at the Internal Revenue Service. But you've definitely concluded, I would say wrongly, that Wikipedia's version of civility is based on something real. In fact, the only thing it's based on is the fear of narcissistic wounding and the possibility that any given "fellow" user might be some sort of mental case. It isn't based on trust or respect, and it certainly isn't based on credentials or experience.

Posted by Jon Awbrey at Sun Sep 26 11:06:12 2010
@ Gregory Kohs

That's a good point, Greg. Maybe Joseph Reagle could be persuaded to wiki-publish his book in WikiBooks, WikiSource, WikiVersity, or some other suitable MediaWiki site like Wikipedia Review — after all, if there's any information in it, then I'm sure it wants to be free — where anonymous contributors could help him FixIt for free.

Posted by Kelly Martin at Sun Sep 26 11:37:15 2010
I read the opening of first chapter that is published on Joseph's website. If the willful misinterpretation of the fairly transparently malicious conversation between MattCrypto and SlimVirgin that Joseph chooses to highlight there is typical of the analysis Joseph makes in this work, then it should indeed rise to stand as an exemplar of the sort of bankrupt scholarship that Wikipedia has come to be known for.

Joseph waxes long on Wikipedia's veneer of civility, but completely fails to recognize that that veneer is exactly that: a false veneer, that masks one of the most uncivil corners of the Internet. This book will no doubt make Joseph a hero with the Web 2.0 pundits for whom Wikipedia's charm has not yet run dry, but (based on what I can read without paying for the book, which I most certainly have no intention of doing) offers nothing of lasting merit. Wide-eyed cheering from the peanut gallery may ingratiate Joseph to Jimmy Wales and his admittedly wealthy and powerful friends, but it provides no meaningful understanding of the Wikipedia phenomenon, its successes and (more importantly) its failures.

Posted by Peter Damian (banned from Wikipedia) at Sun Sep 26 12:28:40 2010
Quite honestly I thought this comment
<a href="http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=30854&view=findpost&p=253957">http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=30854&view=findpost&p=253957</a>

more accurately captured the subtext of the culture of Wikipedia. I'm sorry but your first chapter reminded me of those company textbooks or manuals which say how staff ought to behave, and how they supposedly do behave. This does not describe, nor is it intended to describe the reality of how people actually behave in companies. (They are sometimes kind to each other, sometimes stab each other in the back, sometimes are honest, sometimes lie and cheat; nearly always politically incorrect and subversive).

Sorry to be negative.

Posted by Seth Finkelstein at Sun Sep 26 12:45:32 2010
Note, folks, you should be able to get the book from one of the older, non-exploitative, institutions of free culture - the public library.

Joe, after going through chapter 1, sadly my initial impression was also negative. Obviously you put a lot of work into this, and while I can respect the effort to do scholarship, the perspective seems problematic.

Basically, it struck me as extremely credulous, and regurgitating the most self-promotional presentations as profound truth.

Here's a simple question - Is there anywhere in the book where you write something along the lines of "The Wikipedia community tells itself a nice story here, but it's a fiction which covers up the following cultural dysfunction."?

Can you provide a quick counter-example to argue against the view that this is functionally a verbose marketing brochure for Wikipedia?

Posted by radek at Sun Sep 26 16:40:43 2010
I've been a part of many communities, both online and off, and it's no exaggeration for me to say that Wikipedia is the most mismanaged, dysfunctional and vicious of these.

[thekohser]

For the record, in case they disappear.

You should try WebCitation.org, PD. Things look more authentic, when you know it was an actual copy.

[EricBarbour]

Well, you were right to repost your comments---Reagle removed them from his blog entry.
(Whoops--just looked at it again, and they're back....weird....)

Even worse: Jessamyn West, one of the sysops of Metafilter and a "famous Web 2.0 pseudocelebrity",
has nothing but nice things to say about Reagle's book.
And I've got nothing nice to say about Ms. West, having been reading Metafilter since 2004. She and her
buddies are slowly ruining it, by turning it into a Wikipedia-style buttkissy manipu-egofest.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Kelly Martin]

Those of you in the Harvard area may attempt to educate Mr. Reagle at the luncheon in his "honor" scheduled for October 19.

[victim of censorship]

try not to vomit.

"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

"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

"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

Vomit, I would say... Wikipedia is an open, festering cesspool of hate, lies and hypocrisy. Wikipedia is an on line simulation of the ideas of jungle law, where truth is not important, only hatred for mankind and natural law. May Jimmy Wales, Sue Gartner, and the rest of the Wikipediots, ROT IN HELL.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[Jon Awbrey]

Those of you in the Harvard area may attempt to educate Mr. Reagle at the luncheon in his "honor" scheduled for October 19.

The lunch that anyone can lose?

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

A book about Malleus, Giano, and myself would have a plot that looks something akin to the Godfather movie.

With a cast like that, it is more like a "Carry On" comedy! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Let me take this opportunity to welcome new member "Reagle." I imagine that we will be hearing from him soon in this thread.

[Jon Awbrey]

Let me take this opportunity to welcome new member "Reagle" I imagine that we will be hearing from him soon in this thread.

And here I was all prepared to bee on my best beehivior — but then I see that JR has removed my perfectly civil comment from his blog.

Now where did I put those Hulk Hands ???

J (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/nuke.gif) N

[Jon Awbrey]

Posted by Kelly Martin at Sun Sep 26 11:37:15 2010 {Now Deleted from “Open” Codex}

I read the opening of first chapter that is published on Joseph's website. If the willful misinterpretation of the fairly transparently malicious conversation between MattCrypto and SlimVirgin that Joseph chooses to highlight there is typical of the analysis Joseph makes in this work, then it should indeed rise to stand as an exemplar of the sort of bankrupt scholarship that Wikipedia has come to be known for.

I think the phrase “Bankrupt Scholarship” hits the mark so perfectly that I have in mind abstracting it from the present case and making a Meta*Theme out of it. In all fairness, we can hardly pin too much blame on Joseph Reagle's latest offering, since he is simply following in the well-trod ruts of what has become a cottage industry genre of clueless writings.

So let us ask the Big Picture Question — What are the causes of this Bankruptcy?

Jon Awbrey

[thekohser]

Reagle states in his blog comments:

Posted by Joseph Reagle at Mon Sep 27 09:18:37 2010
Goodness! The wave of negative comments surely means that the folks at Wikipedia Review have taken notice, and checking the threads, indeed this is the case.

For those not familiar, Wikipedia Review is a forum dedicated to scrutinizing and reporting upon the flaws of Wikipedia. Decent content and commentary can sometimes be found there, but there are also a significant amount of gossip, personal attacks, and vitriol.

Since I see some of the, self-described, "nastier" comments have already been archived there and then claimed to have been censored before I even noticed them, I've gone ahead and removed them. I intend the comments feature on this blog to be a place for civil and informed discussion.

This of course raises the question of content discrimination, where to draw the line, etc. I will try to remain as open as possible, but can make no guarantees to make everyone happy or not close things for a bit and take a wiki-holiday.

Goodness! This looks like a job for Examiner.com to bring to light who among the Harvard crew have particularly thin skin.

[Jon Awbrey]

Reagle states in his blog comments:

Posted by Joseph Reagle at Mon Sep 27 09:18:37 2010

Goodness! The wave of negative comments surely means that the folks at Wikipedia Review have taken notice, and checking the threads, indeed this is the case.

For those not familiar, Wikipedia Review is a forum dedicated to scrutinizing and reporting upon the flaws of Wikipedia. Decent content and commentary can sometimes be found there, but there are also a significant amount of gossip, personal attacks, and vitriol.

Since I see some of the, self-described, "nastier" comments have already been archived there and then claimed to have been censored before I even noticed them, I've gone ahead and removed them. I intend the comments feature on this blog to be a place for civil and informed discussion.

This of course raises the question of content discrimination, where to draw the line, etc. I will try to remain as open as possible, but can make no guarantees to make everyone happy or not close things for a bit and take a wiki-holiday.

Goodness! This looks like a job for Examiner.com to bring to light who among the Harvard crew have particularly thin skin.

You Bluddy Infidel —

How dare you disrupt the Good Faith Clobberators with your heresies and your discouraging words.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

Reagle states in his blog comments:

Posted by Joseph Reagle at Mon Sep 27 09:18:37 2010
Goodness! The wave of negative comments surely means that the folks at Wikipedia Review have taken notice, and checking the threads, indeed this is the case.

For those not familiar, Wikipedia Review is a forum dedicated to scrutinizing and reporting upon the flaws of Wikipedia. Decent content and commentary can sometimes be found there, but there are also a significant amount of gossip, personal attacks, and vitriol.

Since I see some of the, self-described, "nastier" comments have already been archived there and then claimed to have been censored before I even noticed them, I've gone ahead and removed them. I intend the comments feature on this blog to be a place for civil and informed discussion.

This of course raises the question of content discrimination, where to draw the line, etc. I will try to remain as open as possible, but can make no guarantees to make everyone happy or not close things for a bit and take a wiki-holiday.

Goodness! This looks like a job for Examiner.com to bring to light who among the Harvard crew have particularly thin skin.

I wouldn't want to comment on a book I have not read and nothing anyone has said makes me want to read this book. But it seems the author's creepy combination of heavy handed elimination of criticism combined with his holier-than-thou self justification confirms everything said here. I see someone bearing his name has registered here. If this is in fact the author I believe that he will find the discussion here freer, with the right to comment he has denied others extended to himself, but I wouldn't expect it will pleasant and nobody is going to hold his hand.

[thekohser]

I just left another comment, copied here, in case it gets exiled:

Posted by Gregory Kohs at Mon Sep 27 10:18:25 2010
Dr. Reagle, if you examine a culture that systematically and formally renounces and exiles any thoughtful critic of said culture, much in the way you have censored a perfectly innocuous comment left here by scholar Jon Awbrey along with a highly cogent assessment by Kelly Martin (herself with over 17,000 edits to Wikipedia), I suspect you will have a personal "sense of things" that the majority of interactions are pro-social, rich, collaborative etc.

You're only looking at the behaviors and comments of those left behind after the pogroms. And I would agree with Kelly Martin, that that (along with your purge of comments here) is willful misrepresentation and bankrupt scholarship.

I will look for your book in my county library, in order to read Chapter 7. Or, you could send me a copy of that chapter for review. I am willing to remain open-minded about your ability to observe and address criticisms of Wikipedia's "collaborative" culture; but thus far, you're not demonstrating much good faith yourself.

[thekohser]

I wouldn't want to comment on a book I have not read ...

You can read all of Chapter One right here. That should be more than enough.

[A Horse With No Name]

I received a review copy, from the publisher looking for a promo quote from me. I glanced at a few woefully misleading things it contained about the early history of Wikipedia, and my views, and never picked it up again. This is probably all I'll ever say about it...

Too bad. I'd love to have seen the statement above as a jacket blurb. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

At least you could post it on Amazon.com.

"It stinks!" - Larry Sanger (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

I just read through his commentary on "Encyclopedic Anxiety" that apparently forms Chapter 7 of this book. In it, he seems to set forth the intriguing notion that encyclopedias are natural generators of fear and loathing, apparently because they seek to identify and concretialize social norms. Therefore, that Wikipedia draws harsh, vitriolic criticism, is merely proof that it is not merely an encyclopedia but in fact a good one, and the criticisms should be ignored as mainly the ravings of those who wish to resist change.

Would someone else care to review the presentation in question and tell me if I'm off base? (I obviously haven't read chapter 7 as it is not available on line and I don't want my tax dollars going to waste buying this book for my local library.)

[the fieryangel]

I just read through his commentary on "Encyclopedic Anxiety" that apparently forms Chapter 7 of this book. In it, he seems to set forth the intriguing notion that encyclopedias are natural generators of fear and loathing, apparently because they seek to identify and concretialize social norms. Therefore, that Wikipedia draws harsh, vitriolic criticism, is merely proof that it is not merely an encyclopedia but in fact a good one, and the criticisms should be ignored as mainly the ravings of those who wish to resist change.

Would someone else care to review the presentation in question and tell me if I'm off base? (I obviously haven't read chapter 7 as it is not available on line and I don't want my tax dollars going to waste buying this book for my local library.)

That's a bad link and I couldn't get Peter's link to work either. Frustrating, since it is a rather novel idea.

It would stand to reason, if he's signed up as "Reagle" here that he must be Reagle (T-C-L-K-R-D) over there.

This page might be of interest. Note the presence of Benjamin_Mako_Hill (T-C-L-K-R-D) and Sj (T-C-L-K-R-D) on this same group, which should speak volumes about how much koolaid this person has already consumed...

[thekohser]

Would someone else care to review the presentation in question and tell me if I'm off base? (I obviously haven't read chapter 7 as it is not available on line and I don't want my tax dollars going to waste buying this book for my local library.)

Wish I could help, but:

Not Found

The requested URL /joseph/Talks/2008/0207-ch7-enc-anxiety.htm was not found on this server.

And...

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /joseph/Talks/ on this server.

[Ottava]

Am I the only one who wonders how Reagle managed to get even a BA let alone a PhD? I'm baffled as to how no one could see that this guy doesn't really know what he is talking about (possibly making him great for advice on Wikipedia!).

[thekohser]

I seem to get a semi-working linkage to his "Talks" about Chapter 7, where I did find this:

I am focusing on Wikipedia as an exemplar; not on mean spirited trolls

Well, if you simply lump all criticism of the project as the work of "mean spirited trolls", then I guess you're left only with the exemplar.

[Kelly Martin]

That's a bad link and I couldn't get Peter's link to work either. Frustrating, since it is a rather novel idea.

Apologies for bad link. Try this one instead.

[thekohser]

Before it gets shunted into the Memory Hole...

Posted by Joseph Reagle at Mon Sep 27 09:18:37 2010
Goodness! The wave of negative comments surely means that the folks at Wikipedia Review have taken notice, and checking the threads, indeed this is the case.

For those not familiar, Wikipedia Review is a forum dedicated to scrutinizing and reporting upon the flaws of Wikipedia. Decent content and commentary can sometimes be found there, but there are also a significant amount of gossip, personal attacks, and vitriol.

Since I see some of the, self-described, "nastier" comments have already been archived there and then claimed to have been censored before I even noticed them, I've gone ahead and removed them. I intend the comments feature on this blog to be a place for civil and informed discussion.

This of course raises the question of content discrimination, where to draw the line, etc. I will try to remain as open as possible, but can make no guarantees to make everyone happy or not close things for a bit and take a wiki-holiday.

Posted by Joseph Reagle at Mon Sep 27 09:40:59 2010
@Gregory: Wikipedia is a massive phenomenon, and people can have varied experiences. I have no doubt that many people (in absolute terms) have been angered, disappointed, and treated unfairly. The question then is that the majority of interactions? Relatively speaking, this has not been my sense of things in watching Wikipedia. So, here, then is a question of balance. Also, my focus is on Wikipedia's culture, so despite particular faults and failings, WP's culture at least attempts to encourage pro-social behavior, rather than anti-social behavior.

@Seth: You might be disappointed in the balance, but there are references to critics and failings. In fact, the last substantive chapter (7) is all about criticism of Wikipedia.

@radek: I think it would be interesting to see some contributions with respect to how the culture of Wikipedia fails, and how those failings are prevented in other communities.

Posted by Gregory Kohs at Mon Sep 27 10:18:25 2010
Dr. Reagle, if you examine a culture that systematically and formally renounces and exiles any thoughtful critic of said culture, much in the way you have censored a perfectly innocuous comment left here by scholar Jon Awbrey along with a highly cogent assessment by Kelly Martin (herself with over 17,000 edits to Wikipedia), I suspect you will have a personal "sense of things" that the majority of interactions are pro-social, rich, collaborative etc.

You're only looking at the behaviors and comments of those left behind after the pogroms. And I would agree with Kelly Martin, that that (along with your purge of comments here) is willful misrepresentation and bankrupt scholarship.

I will look for your book in my county library, in order to read Chapter 7. Or, you could send me a copy of that chapter for review. I am willing to remain open-minded about your ability to observe and address criticisms of Wikipedia's "collaborative" culture; but thus far, you're not demonstrating much good faith yourself.

Posted by Joseph Reagle at Mon Sep 27 10:43:23 2010
@Gregory: I encourage you to pick it up at the library! As I note in the preface, I wrote most of it in a public library in Brooklyn :-) . However, I suspect you may not find it satisfying. I can tell you now that while I did endeavor to reference significant and substantive criticism on the themes I engage (e.g., from Sanger, Carr, Gorman, Lanier, Keen, Helprin, Orlowski, etc. on themes of collaborative practice, universal vision, encyclopedic impulse, and technological inspiration) I do conclude Wikipedia to be a remarkable phenomenon as the latest (and most successful, despite faults) project in the long pursuit of a universal encyclopedia.

Posted by Peter Damian at Mon Sep 27 10:50:02 2010
@Joseph. I am intrigued that you removed my comments. I don't know why you regard them as civil and uninformed. On the question of balance,

(a) does it not occur to you that the existence of a forum (the Wikipedia Review) dedicated to scrutinising and reporting on the failures of Wikipedia is itself an indication of serious flaws in the project?

(b) you haven't answered Seth's question: is there anywhere in the book where you write something along the lines of "The Wikipedia community tells itself a nice story here, but it's a fiction which covers up the following cultural dysfunction."? Is that what you say in chapter 7?

Posted by Peter Damian at Mon Sep 27 11:03:44 2010
Is chapter 7 essentially 'encyclopedic anxiety? You have a presentation here.

http://reagle.org/joseph/Talks/2008/0207-c...nc-anxiety.html

Posted by Joseph Reagle at Mon Sep 27 11:29:54 2010
@ Peter, yes, ch7 is entitled encyclopedic anxiety. In the book I note how openness, consensus, and egalitarianism, for example, are claimed by Wikipedians but are much more difficult and complex issues.

With respect to admin power, I write: "In Wikipedia culture, and in keeping with the larger wiki culture, delineations of authority are suspect, as is seen in the previous excerpt regarding the role of administrators. Yet, even if these other levels of authority entail responsibilities rather than rights -- which is the orthodox line -- they could nonetheless be seen as something to achieve or envy if only for symbolic status."

Posted by Peter Damian at Mon Sep 27 11:37:58 2010
Joseph, you haven't explained why you removed my previous comments.

Moving on, you say "Wikipedia is a massive phenomenon, and people can have varied experiences. I have no doubt that many people (in absolute terms) have been angered, disappointed, and treated unfairly. The question then is that the majority of interactions? Relatively speaking, this has not been my sense of things in watching Wikipedia. So, here, then is a question of balance. Also, my focus is on Wikipedia's culture, so despite particular faults and failings, WP's culture at least attempts to encourage pro-social behavior, rather than anti-social behavior."

I am wondering how your argument would deal with the case of a country with a repressive regime. E.g. Russia in the 1920's and 30's. Or China in the 1960's. You arguments are as follows:

(1) "It's a massive phenomenon and people can have varied experiences." The same was true Cambodia in the 1970's and many had "varied experiences" of that.

(2) On 'the majority of interactions' I'm not sure of what you mean here. In any repressive regime the number of dissidents is pretty small, let's say a significant minority. Did you make any attempt in your book to interview any of these and make an objective assessment of their experiences?

(3) You say this was not your "experience of things". Did you adopt any specific research methodology to avoid 'selection bias' and all the well-known problems of social or historical commentary?

(4) You say your focus is on Wikipedia's culture. Of course, but the critics are claiming that this is the fundamental problem.

(5) You say that Wikipedia "attempts to encourage pro-social behavior, rather than anti-social behavior". But that is also true of any repressive regime. The question is how to come to an objective assessment of whether this attempt has succeeded (in the cultural sense) or not. Most of those who have lived through the purges and the blockings and bannings would say not.

Posted by Joseph Reagle at Mon Sep 27 11:54:08 2010
Peter, I suggest reading the book. I know that I will not likely satisfy any "Wikipedia Review" contributor, and that many of you are as inexhaustible in the enthusiasm of your passion (Wikipedia criticism) as some Wikipedians are in theirs! However, if you read the book, and have a substantive critique with respect to any of the arguments I make, I suggest publishing then. For example, one might challenge the following arguments and theories in an informed way:

1. The historical argument that Wikipedia belongs in a longer historical pursuit of universal encyclopedic vision.
2. The model of what can be called a good-faith collaborative culture and its applicability to Wikipedia.
3. The model of open content community, and some of the most important issues associated with the challenges related to it.
4. The specific challenges associated with consensus decision-making in such a community.
5. The model of authorial leadership provided.
6. The historical argument that criticism of Wikipedia and is also related to criticism of earlier reference works.
7. The review of significant published criticisms of Wikipedia (relevant to themes within the book).

Posted by Joseph Reagle at Mon Sep 27 12:04:16 2010
I don't think comparing Wikipedia with a repressive political regime is a good analogy. One is a state actor with an ability to significantly harm the rights or safety of people. (Yes, Wikipedia has issues with questions of defamation, which I am not denying, but speaking of purges and pogroms seems hyperbolic.)

However, when it comes to this question of balance, historical arguments are always personal arguments. I think a scholar has an obligation to address, or at least identify, significant counter-arguments, which I do. However, I make no claim of perfect objectivity. With respect to ethnography, one of the important papers for me are Golden-Biddle and Locke's (1993) "Appealing work: An investigation of how ethnographic texts convince" where by one strives to exhibit authenticity, plausibility and criticality. I attempted to engage those strategies, so, of course, some might find my efforts lacking. And, of course, they are free to pursue their own research and publish their own results.

Unfortunately, I expect this is all the time I have for this discussion at the moment.

Posted by Gregory Kohs at Mon Sep 27 12:06:19 2010
Not sure how and why my comment of 10:18 was posted again at 10:58. May have been my mistake of "refreshing" page to see what else has been censored. In any regard, feel free to delete the 10:58 comment along with this very comment.

Posted by The Fieryangel at Mon Sep 27 12:07:25 2010
Dr. Reagle,

Might I point out that you have not answer a single one of the questions asked by Peter Damian, by Seth Finkelstein and by Gregory Kohs. Since civility seems to be an important part of this interaction (in much the same way it is made to seem that way on Wikipedia itself), might I ask you politely to try to respond to some of these concerns, rather than not responding at all and stopping discussion by censoring comments?

...although this is certainly much the same way that "civility" is enforced on Wikipedia itself...

Posted by Gregory Kohs at Mon Sep 27 12:07:42 2010
And, once again, merely refreshing the page posts another copy of my previous comment. I wonder how one who comments is supposed to keep up to date on new comments left by others?

Posted by Kelly Martin at Mon Sep 27 12:10:52 2010
I will agree with you that Wikipedia is a remarkable phenomenon. That appears to be the extent to which agreement is possible, however.

I will also agree with you that most people's interaction with Wikipedia will not be strongly colored by the deeply dysfunctional culture there, simply because most people's interactions with Wikipedia are those of the reader and the casual editor, neither of which experiences the full pleasure of Wikipedia's internal strife that closely or directly.

Indeed, the impact to readers is mainly limited to being presented with articles that are poorly written or edited, or occasionally by finding no article at all, because the editor who might otherwise have written a better article has been discouraged from editing by contact with this internal strife, and of course the reader will be unaware of this and will simply leave with either an ill feeling of being less informed than he or she might like, or even possibly ignorantly misinformed because the article he or she did read was the victim of one of the many Wikipedia editors who have learned to play Wikipedia's cultural system in order to insert and defend their personal biases into articles.

The impact to most casual editors is likewise limited: if one's editing is limited to an area of personal predilection and that area is not itself one in which there is much controversy, then one might edit for months, even years, without running into one of Wikipedia's power brokers. I imagine this tells the tale for most Wikipedians, and their experience quite likely resembles the gloriously pretty picture you have persistently tried to paint in your writings.

It is only when one tries to edit a "controversial" topic, such as (to pick one at random) "hummus", that one finds oneself thrown into the Wikipedian equivalent of a snake pit. Such articles are, in practice, controlled by relatively small groups of people, who make sure that their personal views on the topic at hand are preserved. They do this by careful social and political manipulation within Wikipedia's environment (and fairly rarely by appeals to reason or logic) to marginalize and exclude any editor who attempts to alter the article in a way they disapprove.

It has been frequently noted that a significant fraction of those Wikipedians who have been banned (other than those who are banned for repeated petty vandalism) are banned for persistently expressing viewpoints inconsistent with those preferred by those who hold power within Wikipedia's community. This is, of course, inconsistent with your treatise, just as it is inconsistent with Wikipedia's formally-stated policy. But it is the considered experience of those who watch Wikipedia from the outside that Wikipedia policy is observed mainly in the breach, and that the actual goings on at Wikipedia are not even remotely fairly consistent with its formal policy. Indeed, Wikipedia's "collaborative" system deals with ideological conflict by picking a victor by a sociopolitical process driven mainly by personalities, and then demonizing and excluding all those who champion inconsistent positions. Once the dust clears and only the victor is left standing, all is happiness and light (except for those pushed out into the darkness), and the facade that you have so carefully described in your book is maintained.

[Kelly Martin]

Well, if you simply lump all criticism of the project as the work of "mean spirited trolls", then I guess you're left only with the exemplar.

A common practice of poor-quality academic research is to classify all unwanted evidence so that it can be dismissed as inapplicable. We also see this in pharmaceutical trials. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Milton Roe]

Well, if you simply lump all criticism of the project as the work of "mean spirited trolls", then I guess you're left only with the exemplar.

A common practice of poor-quality academic research is to classify all unwanted evidence so that it can be dismissed as inapplicable. We also see this in pharmaceutical trials. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Yep. Which is why one doesn't don't bother FDA with it. No need to make them anxious.

[Jon Awbrey]

Well, I'm not seeing any good reason to try and dialogue with this guy.

Yet Another Wikipediot Talk Page.

BTDT, in ♠s …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

This is all so tiresome, dreary and inward looking. It seems to me that arguing that WP is not about honest collaboration is like arguing that Medal of Honor: Allied Assault isn't really about making the world safe for Democracy. Is there anything in there for us other seven billion people? Does it address the 500,000 petitioning Muslims? The Jana Winter pornography exposé? The Free Kulture British National Portrait Gallery Heist? Who cares what SlimVirgin said to SomeRandomAssKlown?

[Ottava]

This is all so tiresome, dreary and inward looking. It seems to me that arguing that WP is not about honest collaboration is like arguing that Medal of Honor: Allied Assault isn't really about making the world safe for Democracy. Is there anything in there for us other seven billion people? Does it address the 500,000 petitioning Muslims? The Jana Winter pornography exposé? The Free Kulture British National Portrait Gallery Heist? Who cares what SlimVirgin said to SomeRandomAssKlown?

Apparently some obscure "scholar" whose credentials need to be checked and challenged does.

Seriously, can someone dig into his background and see if this guy is legit? This has Essjay bs written all over it. The guy is clearly a hack, so there is very little chance he has a real degree.

[SB_Johnny]

This is all so tiresome, dreary and inward looking. It seems to me that arguing that WP is not about honest collaboration is like arguing that Medal of Honor: Allied Assault isn't really about making the world safe for Democracy. Is there anything in there for us other seven billion people? Does it address the 500,000 petitioning Muslims? The Jana Winter pornography exposé? The Free Kulture British National Portrait Gallery Heist? Who cares what SlimVirgin said to SomeRandomAssKlown?

Wasn't someone here, once upon a time, working on a book that actually takes a non-koolaid view on this? It's been a while since I've heard anything about it.

Seriously, can someone dig into his background and see if this guy is legit? This has Essjay bs written all over it. The guy is clearly a hack, so there is very little chance he has a real degree.

Because people with degrees would never be so silly as to defend a broken system, of course. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Larry Sanger]

He is legit. He has a recent Ph.D. from NYU.

[Peter Damian]

He is legit. He has a recent Ph.D. from NYU.

How did he obtain this? I recognise the writing style - I occasionally lecture to computer science MSc students and they are taught this odd method of citing some vacuous paper every other sentence. (Thus perpetuating the genre). But even by the standards of that discipline, this seems profoundly bad.

[edit] Also if you look at his CV http://reagle.org/joseph/2003/cv/cv.html you see it doesn't contain anything substantial. B.S. (good acronym) in computer science, training in 'conflict management', PhD in 'Media, Culture and Communication'. he is a fellow at the Berkman centre http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ which though part of Harvard seems to be one of those things that many academic institutions are putting out nowadays to be trendy and attract funding. But who actually does fund this sort of thing?

[edit] Well all these people http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/about/support it seems.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[GlassBeadGame]

This is all so tiresome, dreary and inward looking. It seems to me that arguing that WP is not about honest collaboration is like arguing that Medal of Honor: Allied Assault isn't really about making the world safe for Democracy. Is there anything in there for us other seven billion people? Does it address the 500,000 petitioning Muslims? The Jana Winter pornography exposé? The Free Kulture British National Portrait Gallery Heist? Who cares what SlimVirgin said to SomeRandomAssKlown?

Wasn't someone here, once upon a time, working on a book that actually takes a non-koolaid vielw on this? It's been a while since I've heard anything about it.

I think they decided to write something collaboratively; So much for that.

I notice Reagles last chapter is about "published criticism." Does this mean academic/scientific research? If so it a dodge. Such work would tend too narrow and yield trivial findings. Significant criticism is much more likely to arise out of journalism (Jana Winter) and writers of popular social criticism (Keen.) Even PARC's coverage, including the post maintenance phase study, which is as good as it gets, fails to connect the dots.

[Kelly Martin]

I occasionally lecture to computer science MSc students and they are taught this odd method of citing some vacuous paper every other sentence.

It serves as a way to appear erudite, and it also serves to cut off responses when talking to people who may not have access to JSTOR or to a library with that particular journal; if you do have access you have to go and look and if you don't you can't reply without obviously ignoring the journal reference.

When used in the hard sciences and in engineering, it's typically done to avoid a lengthy discussion of a highly technical nature (e.g. when you're talking about, oh, say, algorithms for unification, it makes so much more sense to a cite to a well-known paper about some algorithm instead of writing a two paragraph summary of an algorithm that doesn't really matter that much to the immediate issue). However, this habit doesn't necessarily carry over well to the liberal arts, where truth is a negotiable quantity, and where people care more about arguments than they do about facts (although it certainly does still matter who made them). Basically the difference is that papers in the hard sciences and in engineering tend to be about things discovered, while papers in the liberal arts tend to be about things imagined.

In Joseph's case here, I think he's playing the "I'm an academic and you're not" game. But that's just my take on it.

[victim of censorship]

I seem to get a semi-working linkage to his "Talks" about Chapter 7, where I did find this:

I am focusing on Wikipedia as an exemplar; not on mean spirited trolls

Well, if you simply lump all criticism of the project as the work of "mean spirited trolls", then I guess you're left only with the exemplar.

That's Wikipedia, any one who is in disagreement with the power leet on Wiki is called a troll. Real, Dale Carnegie way of engaging with other view points...Yell insults, and ban those who don't bend down and kiss the ring of the leets.

He is legit. He has a recent Ph.D. from NYU.

How did he obtain this? I recognise the writing style - I occasionally lecture to computer science MSc students and they are taught this odd method of citing some vacuous paper every other sentence. (Thus perpetuating the genre). But even by the standards of that discipline, this seems profoundly bad.

[edit] Also if you look at his CV http://reagle.org/joseph/2003/cv/cv.html you see it doesn't contain anything substantial. B.S. (good acronym) in computer science, training in 'conflict management', PhD in 'Media, Culture and Communication'. he is a fellow at the Berkman centre http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ which though part of Harvard seems to be one of those things that many academic institutions are putting out nowadays to be trendy and attract funding. But who actually does fund this sort of thing?

[edit] Well all these people http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/about/support it seems.

What cereal box did he get his P H D?

[Ottava]

In Joseph's case here, I think he's playing the "I'm an academic and you're not" game. But that's just my take on it.

If that is the case, then he is in the not side, especially with his choice of analysis. He chose neither topics essential to an encyclopedia or people who provided material for the real part of the encyclopedia. If you are judging the success of the project, those are the only two things that matter. Everything else is decoration.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Mr. Reagle's account here has been validated. I am hoping that he will join the fray here.

[Kelly Martin]

Mr. Reagle's account here has been validated. I am hoping that he will join the fray here.

I think that's rather unlikely, as it would not, in any way, advance his goals.

[Jon Awbrey]

In Joseph's case here, I think he's playing the “I'm an academic and you're not” game. But that's just my take on it.

More like, “I'm a certified techie, and I once read a half a webpage on X, ergo, let me now e-lecture you @ lenth on X …”

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Peter Damian]

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.

>>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

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[victim of censorship]

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:

[Peter Damian]

For those with a strong stomach, the article that Reagle refers to is here http://www.thoughtcrumbs.com/publications/328-burke.pdf

It begins with the astounding and thought-provoking observation that people like to present and identity with 'positive social value' and want to have that identity validated by others. But they may be presented with face-threatening criticisms, so engage in "face-work" when communicating to help maintain each other's identitities. Thus instead of saying 'take out the trash' (which might cause the person to lose face) you say 'Would you please take out the trash'. What an insight!! And the authors, in that brief paragraph, manage to refer to two other papers, one of which is Goffman's Theory of Politeness. That is the reality of social sciences generally, a bunch of stupid and vacuous people writing papers for crappy journals, and citing other equally vacuous papers, which in turn cite other .... You never get to anything real. I'm speaking as one who has a higher degree in the subject (I realised halfway through that it was complete nonsense but it was too late by then and I had to complete, although I did successfully refuse to submit one piece of required coursework on the grounds of its utter banality and stupidity - the examining committee surprisingly agreed and I was passed).

Then there is a 'typology of linguistic politeness strategies'. Papers like this always have a 'typology' despite the fact there is no such word in English. I was asked last year to deliver a lecture which had the word in the title and I made them change it to 'types'.

Then the authors build a 'model of linguistic politeness' using messages from some forum. To measure the 'impact' of politeness they performed 'a negative binomial regression' on the number of replies each message received. Well that is a sort of impact but it is utterly meaningless. As everyone who uses these forums knows (a) the intellectual level at which they are conducted is practically zero anyway, so it is not worth writing a paper about in the first place (b) the number of replies in no way reflects the quality of the message, quite the reverse, the more dim-witted and moronic and stupid the message, the more replies. The replies will be a mixture of the more intelligent members pointing out how stupid the message is, with those equally stupid or even more stupid members agreeing wholeheartedly with the idiotic sentiments expressed in the message. Anyone who follows AN/I will certainly know this.

The real question is whether politeness or 'civility' has any impact, using an appropriate measure of 'impact'. In Wikipedia's case, the only sensible and appropriate measure would be whether the message contributes to the goal of a universal, comprehensive and reliable reference work. But how is anyone going to build a computer model to assess a universal, comprehensive and reliable reference work? Anyone able to do that, would have solved the problem of humans getting involved in the first place.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

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."

(IMG:http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4145/5036183596_92f670e2bd_b.jpg)

As is the King, so is the Kingdom.

All images are genuine and taken from the Wikipedia with a free Share Alike licensed. No Penises were harmed in the making of this Cartoon® ... which is more than they can say about the Jimmy Wales's organ of self-promotion..

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[Peter Damian]

In case anyone wants to review the book

http://www.amazon.com/Good-Faith-Collabora...n/dp/0262014475

[Jon Awbrey]

Now, now, Peter, the social sciences are hardly responsible for the intellectual debts of this recent crop of social media blogologists.

Jon Awbrey

[lilburne]

Thus instead of saying 'take out the trash' (which might cause the person to lose face) you say 'Would you please take out the trash'. What an insight!!

FWIW: Back in the 1980s a local trades union rep was relating a story of how all the suoervisors and junior managers had been sent off on a training course. After which the lads on the shop floor found themselves doing things that they wouldn't normally have done. Analysis led to the understanding that they were now being asked to "Would you mind taking out the trash" rather than "take out the trash". Analysis completed the responses reverted back to "Go do it your bloody self" and everything was back to normal.

[Peter Damian]

Now, now, Peter, the social sciences are hardly responsible for the intellectual debts of this recent crop of social media blogologists.

Jon Awbrey

Sorry - I'm in an irritable mood today, as you might see.

[the fieryangel]

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."

(IMG:http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4145/5036183596_92f670e2bd_b.jpg)

As is the King, so is the Kingdom.

All images are genuine and taken from the Wikipedia with a free Share Alike licensed. No Penises were harmed in the making of this Cartoon® ... which is more than they can say about the Jimmy Wales's organ of self-promotion..

CUOC, that's a classic! You've outdone yourself, Man! My coffee is all over my keyboard!

[thekohser]

For those with a strong stomach, the article that Reagle refers to is here http://www.thoughtcrumbs.com/publications/328-burke.pdf

Some of the best work in social science is stored on ThoughtCrumbs.com, ranked in the top 6,400,000 of all websites, according to Alexa.

[Kelly Martin]

For those with a strong stomach, the article that Reagle refers to is here http://www.thoughtcrumbs.com/publications/328-burke.pdf

It begins with the astounding and thought-provoking observation that people like to present and identity with 'positive social value' and want to have that identity validated by others. But they may be presented with face-threatening criticisms, so engage in "face-work" when communicating to help maintain each other's identitities. Thus instead of saying 'take out the trash' (which might cause the person to lose face) you say 'Would you please take out the trash'. What an insight!! And the authors, in that brief paragraph, manage to refer to two other papers, one of which is Goffman's Theory of Politeness. That is the reality of social sciences generally, a bunch of stupid and vacuous people writing papers for crappy journals, and citing other equally vacuous papers, which in turn cite other .... You never get to anything real. I'm speaking as one who has a higher degree in the subject (I realised halfway through that it was complete nonsense but it was too late by then and I had to complete, although I did successfully refuse to submit one piece of required coursework on the grounds of its utter banality and stupidity - the examining committee surprisingly agreed and I was passed).

A friend of a friend, who was doing a graduate program in statistics, did a research study that consisted of evaluating published, peer-reviewed papers to determine whether the authors of the papers had properly applied statistical method. He found that nearly 80% of papers in the social sciences contained methodological errors in the use of statistics, usually in the form of using a method of analysis inapplicable to the data. A smaller proportion of authors reported as conclusions things that did not follow, either from the raw data or, in some cases, the statistical analysis (whether or not said analysis was methodologically correct). (He was nearly banished from the university for doing this, and made a lot of enemies in the sociology, psychology, and political science departments.) As a result of his study, I tend to distrust sociological studies, like this one, that reach broad conclusions based on small sample sets and "innovative" statistical analysis. Simply put, far too many social scientists fail to understand statistical method.

I'm not saying that this particular study is methodologically flawed; I haven't looked at it closely enough to tell, nor am I nearly expert enough in statistical method to tell without a good deal of research. It's just that I don't trust social science researchers to get it right, because so often they don't.

[thekohser]

In case anyone wants to review the book

http://www.amazon.com/Good-Faith-Collabora...n/dp/0262014475

There is one 1-star review already in place.

[dogbiscuit]

In case anyone wants to review the book

http://www.amazon.com/Good-Faith-Collabora...n/dp/0262014475

There is one 1-star review already in place.

Already 2 used copies up for sale (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

[Jon Awbrey]

In case anyone wants to review the book

www.amazon.com/Good-Faith-Collaboration-Foundation-Information

There is one 1-star review already in place.

Already 2 used copies up for sale (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

I'll bet one of them is Sanger's review copy.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

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.

[Jon Awbrey]

Let's not go overbored with this Penile Correctness, shall we …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

[the fieryangel]

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!

[Peter Damian]

In case anyone wants to review the book

http://www.amazon.com/Good-Faith-Collabora...n/dp/0262014475

There is one 1-star review already in place.

Lovely stuff there, Greg.

[Jon Awbrey]

In case anyone wants to review the book

www.amazon.com/Good-Faith-Collaboration-Foundation-Information

There is one 1-star review already in place.

Lovely stuff there, Greg.

Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought —

Clif Bar Energy Bars, Variety Pack of Chocolate Chip, Crunchy Peanut Butter, and Chocolate Chip Peanut Crunch, 2.4-Ounce Bars (Pack of 24)

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

[thekohser]

Here's a book that I want to know more about!

What the heck is that?

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought —

Clif Bar Energy Bars, Variety Pack of Chocolate Chip, Crunchy Peanut Butter, and Chocolate Chip Peanut Crunch, 2.4-Ounce Bars (Pack of 24)

Tokers ... having an attack of the munchies.

[Milton Roe]

Here's a book that I want to know more about!

What the heck is that?

The Philadelphia Society for the Preservation of Landmarks? Seems more self-explanatory than Wikipedia Review.

[Jon Awbrey]

In a similar vain …

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Reagle/Berkman Reading Group

Jon (IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif)

[EricBarbour]

In a similar vain …

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Reagle/Berkman Reading Group

Ever noticed how many Wiki-Suckers came out of the MIT Media Lab? Both Sam Klein and Ben Hill have
close relationships with it--Hill as a graduate researcher, Klein as a director of the OLTP project.

As you may know, the Media Lab was heavily hyped by WIRED magazine in their early days. That was how
their existence came to my attention, and even in 1995 I smelled a nicely-organized academic rat. There
was just too much gee-whiz love for the Negroponte Gang in the tech media. Even the dotcom collapse
didn't seem to have much impact on the affair.

More of that "digerati" nut-squad. They seem to be very good at logrolling each other's bullshit.

[thekohser]

You may wish to begin watching the Berkman Center luncheon talk at the point around 26:25, when Professor Charles Nesson reads portions of my Amazon book review, to which Reagle responds and expresses his displeasure for this very thread on Wikipedia Review.

We're famous, guys!

Also, Barry "Moulton" Kort makes a special appearance at 42:15, with a shout-out to SB Johnny, then another one to yours truly. Thanks, Moulton!

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[Peter Damian]

Nesson: As soon as your book was published, I went to Amazon to buy a copy and immediately noted that there was one customer review, er, which had one star on it. And it led off "I wouldn't think of buying this book, based on my complete reading of the freely-available first chapter.

The entire work (it says later) regurgitates the tired old public relations pablum that the Wikipedia organization sputters forth on the Internet - and it goes on. Here, it seems like someone who hasn't read your book goes on to critique the whole book on the basis of what you put up on the first chapter, and in a way seems to exemplify a kind of bad faith that undercuts the thesis - at least to some extent - that this Wikipedia environment is a good faith community. How did you react to this - bullying - tactic, yet I must say, still the only review that's up on Amazon.

Reagle: so, it can be quite challenging, and I wasn't so much upset by the Amazon as by a thread on the Wikipedia Review website where they talked about me and the book, and there are porn cutups and people say they spit on me and they want people to burn in hell. So there, there, there is definitely a sort of, um, flip side to the Wikipedia culture and Wikipedia is certainly right (rife?) to be criticised for a lot of things and I think that what I portray in the book is a lot of the challenges and how the community has wrestled with it and especially criticism from people like Helfa (?) and Keen and Orlowski and Sanger and a whole number of people. But nonetheless in one presentation at some point I said 'I do not engage the mean-spirited trolls, and that has upset some of these people because they might then imply that I characterise them as being mean-spirited trolls. And some of them I do think are mean-spirited trolls, but not all of them.

But I think one of the really important things is that you can find boneheads in all types of communities, including Wikipedia. You can find anti-social people, mean people - but the difference between Wikipedia and say the Wikipedia Review community is there are norms in Wikipedia where we say we wanna do better than that. When someone posted that porn cutup, or when someone posts a defamation and when some of these other places like Encyclopedia Dramatica, which is full of that stuff - people laugh. They don't say 'I don't think that's a productive way to engage'.

So I think it does speak to some of the differences. I'm not trying to represent Wikipedia as being perfect, as being this pasture of harmony and full of angels. Not at all! But nonetheless you do have this culture and this community that's trying to do better than what Godwin's law calls us to.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Jon Awbrey]

Yup, musta been all those porn cutups I pasted on his blog that made him delete my comments.

'Cause you know they don't have any porn cutups on Wikipedia, now do they …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Subtle Bee]

Just after the 34:00 mark, he gets into WP "process" and how everyone agrees there's too much of it, comparing it to a legal code. I'd been listening in the background, but that caught my attention; how could someone who spent enough time observing WP to write a scholarly book about it, only think to mention that WP has so many rules, but not also that none of them are actually obligatory? And that - contrary to his claim that they all worry about it, this is actually part of the design, and serves those who can use it quite well. So then he seems to answer me, coming to IAR right before 35:00. Here's how he understands it:

...there's also this rule - one of the first ones - which is ignore all rules. And basically it says if you find yourself getting too obsessed with all these rules and norms, just ignore them for the time being, edit a page, try to do a good job, and don't give it any more thought. But of course there ends up being this huge argument about what does IAR mean? Does it mean you can be a jerk, or you can say you can't tell me what to do? And of course they discuss it forever.

Could this be any more wrong? He's not even parroting the propaganda properly! "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Has anyone everr invoked IAR as an excuse to stop arguing, not worry about things, and go improve and article? Isn't this in fact the very "advice" offered to whomever is attempting to IAR (except those few with enough juice to pull it off)?

It just seems so completely credulous, it's hard to believe he's sincere.

ps. And it's completely deceitful to repeatedly mention the "porn cutups" without once noting where they came from. In fact, I think I just made up my (theory of) mind about him.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

For the Larouche crowd, there's this from Slimmie : 64. SlimVirgin, “Re: Original Research versus Point of View,” wikien-l, January 2005, http://marc.info/?i=4cc603b0501181558569cb84f@mail.gmail.com (accessed January 18, 2005).

Good times. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[SB_Johnny]

You may wish to begin watching the Berkman Center luncheon talk at the point around 26:25, when Professor Charles Nesson reads portions of my Amazon book review, to which Reagle responds and expresses his displeasure for this very thread on Wikipedia Review.

We're famous, guys!

Also, Barry "Moulton" Kort makes a special appearance at 42:15, with a shout-out to SB Johnny, then another one to yours truly. Thanks, Moulton!

Got it on my ipod, will give a listen later.

[A User]

Just after the 34:00 mark, he gets into WP "process" and how everyone agrees there's too much of it, comparing it to a legal code. I'd been listening in the background, but that caught my attention; how could someone who spent enough time observing WP to write a scholarly book about it, only think to mention that WP has so many rules, but not also that none of them are actually obligatory? And that - contrary to his claim that they all worry about it, this is actually part of the design, and serves those who can use it quite well. So then he seems to answer me, coming to IAR right before 35:00. Here's how he understands it:

...there's also this rule - one of the first ones - which is ignore all rules. And basically it says if you find yourself getting too obsessed with all these rules and norms, just ignore them for the time being, edit a page, try to do a good job, and don't give it any more thought. But of course there ends up being this huge argument about what does IAR mean? Does it mean you can be a jerk, or you can say you can't tell me what to do? And of course they discuss it forever.

Could this be any more wrong? He's not even parroting the propaganda properly! "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Has anyone everr invoked IAR as an excuse to stop arguing, not worry about things, and go improve and article? Isn't this in fact the very "advice" offered to whomever is attempting to IAR (except those few with enough juice to pull it off)?

It just seems so completely credulous, it's hard to believe he's sincere.

I know IAR has been used on AFDs in the past to try and prevent articles being deleted/saved but it's always been "ignored" (ironic). IAR has always appeared to me to be a public relations gimmick to tell people wikipedia has a "free" culture of editing, but the reality is far different. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Peter Damian]

I took on Reagle again with a post here http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/10/liberal-...d-internet.html , with a subsequent discussion here http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikip...blosxomComments

The frustrating thing about Reagle is that he never follows an argument through properly. He says he is interested in Sanger's arguments merely as 'polemic', i.e. they must be wrong because they illustrate 'anxiety' about encyclopedias. But he never examines the arguments themselves. It's like arguing with a cloud of gas.

[SB_Johnny]

I took on Reagle again with a post here http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/10/liberal-...d-internet.html , with a subsequent discussion here http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikip...blosxomComments

The frustrating thing about Reagle is that he never follows an argument through properly. He says he is interested in Sanger's arguments merely as 'polemic', i.e. they must be wrong because they illustrate 'anxiety' about encyclopedias. But he never examines the arguments themselves. It's like arguing with a cloud of gas.

OTOH, in the Q&A after the lecture, he did say that he thought WP would probably have grown just as well if it had required real identity from the start, but that there's too much inertia to change that now.

Too bad he didn't get the penis references, but tbh I don't think anyone would if they hadn't been following the threads on that topic that were raging at the time.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

I wasn't so much upset by the Amazon as by a thread on the Wikipedia Review website where they talked about me and the book, and there are porn cutups and people say they spit on me and they want people to burn in hell.

But I think one of the really important things is that you can find boneheads in all types of communities, including Wikipedia. You can find anti-social people, mean people - but the difference between Wikipedia and say the Wikipedia Review community is there are norms in Wikipedia where we say we wanna do better than that. When someone posted that porn cutup, or when someone posts a defamation and when some of these other places like Encyclopedia Dramatica, which is full of that stuff - people laugh. They don't say 'I don't think that's a productive way to engage'.

Oh, I am so offended to be misrepresented like that. That is so utterly "unacceptable" and WP:COI. Please someone give Reagle an account so that I can indefinitely block him or even better drag him off to the ritual humiliation of a WR:RfC.

Darling, as you well know, those were not "Porn Cut Ups". Those were "Wikipedia Cut Ups". Those are images of Wikipedia contributors' penises which they had kindly upload for "educational purposes" on your beloved Encyclopedia which you obviously know little about.

That shaved one on your book cover is RitchieX. RitchieX meet Reagle. If you are interested, RitchieX will masturbate for you and then ejaculate on the Linoleum and then upload the photos for the kids to see. He already has done so. One of 1000 (all white) penises.

"Bullying" ... Mr Reagle, I don't think that's a productive way to engage with me either. You are lying to your audience. And you are lying to your audience about the larger part of the nature of the Wikipedia, pulling the wool over their eyes.

I think Reagle comes across as far more preppy than geeky in the video. In a way he typifies the Wikipedian who spouts some highminded policy ... we want to do better than that ... and then goes off to the deep end calling them names ... "boneheads ... mean spirited troll ... anti-social ... mean" ... and then distorting the facts from a protected position as an empowered adherent.

Pablum ... (trite, naive, or simplistic ideas or writings; intellectual pap) ... now there's a nice word.

Ha! He calls the 'US', 'The Community', Wikipedians "cultured". I must have joined a different Wikipedia. The idea of "special masters" being appointed by Arbcom to police users made me laugh. May be he joined a different Wikipedia from the one I did.

Woah, watch him sidestep the issue of Jimbo's $100,000 prize money as he did not feel himself "qualified" to answer it in the "first serious study" of Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[jayvdb]

sort of related, slashdot has a current discussion about a article in The Atlantic which covers Reagle's PhD dissertation.

[EricBarbour]

sort of related, slashdot has a current discussion about a article in The Atlantic which covers Reagle's PhD dissertation.

This was nice. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

(I wonder who BadAnalogyGuy is on WP.
He talks like a Jimbo Luv Boy--when the subject is Wikipedia.
The rest of the time, he is a trollish asshole.
Oh and BTW: he posted this same moist little prayer back in 2008.....)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

(IMG:http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1195/5113893021_02b94676aa_b.jpg)

[Herschelkrustofsky]

This was nice. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

I see that the poster mentions Smashville (T-C-L-K-R-D) . I think it's probably about time that we devoted a thread to this particularly sadistic admin.

[TungstenCarbide]

(IMG:http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1195/5113893021_02b94676aa_b.jpg)

I have no words that can do this justice ... thank you, cockup (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) ... any chance you can throw it up on the Facebook wall with a thread link-back? (i don't know how facebook works, and have no intention of ever learning).

[Peter Damian]

I'm afraid poor Joseph is getting a bit of a thrashing from Larry here http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikip...blosxomComments

You now attempt to clarify what was probably impossible to clarify as it was bullshit in the first place: "the concern you speak of about memorization is also often accompanied (historically, in arguments about mediating technologies) by complaints about information overload." That may be so, but nowhere in my essay do I discuss this as a problem, and none of my essay's arguments depend on any view about info overload. So I'm not sure what the point of mentioning it is. Are you sure you weren't just sophomorically attempting to tar me with the brush of censorship a la Leibniz? Surely not. After all, I'm the guy who is saying it's important to read books, y'know; you, Tapscott, and others are the ones saying we can now conveniently avoid internalizing information. :-)

Once you and your group have read my essay, you'll see that it does not really express "concerns and anxieties" about technology itself, but about the implausible claims made on its behalf. I'd be curious to hear if anybody had anything intelligent to say about it in the group!

(My emphasis)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Jon Awbrey]

I'm afraid poor Joseph is getting a bit of a thrashing from Larry here reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikipedia/sanger-on-internet-education

You now attempt to clarify what was probably impossible to clarify as it was bullshit in the first place: "the concern you speak of about memorization is also often accompanied (historically, in arguments about mediating technologies) by complaints about information overload." That may be so, but nowhere in my essay do I discuss this as a problem, and none of my essay's arguments depend on any view about info overload. So I'm not sure what the point of mentioning it is. Are you sure you weren't just sophomorically attempting to tar me with the brush of censorship a la Leibniz? Surely not. After all, I'm the guy who is saying it's important to read books, y'know; you, Tapscott, and others are the ones saying we can now conveniently avoid internalizing information. :-)

— Larry Sanger, Mon Oct 25 14:59:46 2010

It is hard to read more than a sentence or two of that ignoramus without screaming at the screen. I compliment you and Sanger on your snagfraud, er, sangfroid.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

P.S. You are, of course, wasting your breath.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Larry to Reagle:
And then you say that "this [ref?] also relates" to a "concern" that "changes in media proliferate information that is a burden," citing Leibniz's alleged view [citation needed, I fear] that "unworthwhile books" should be censored.

Citation needed, indeed.

[Subtle Bee]

CUOC, that is damn fine work. Has anybody engaging with Reagle drawn his attention to how wrong and misleading his comments were? I'd be very interested in having him account for himself.

[thekohser]

CUOC, that is damn fine work. Has anybody engaging with Reagle drawn his attention to how wrong and misleading his comments were? I'd be very interested in having him account for himself.

I'd be interested in ending poverty and perhaps creating a perpetual motion machine, but I'm afraid your interest is less plausibly fulfilled than mine would be.

[thekohser]

My Amazon book review is featured in The Signpost now.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

My Amazon book review is featured in The Signpost now.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) Lots of indef-blocked Wikipedians out there, aren't there?

The Global Warming coverage is nice also.

[Kelly Martin]

Wow, that coverage really demostrates the house POV, doesn't it?

It's fairly obvious at this point that Reagle is a barefaced cheerleader, and not a legitimate researcher. He quite gleefully interprets anything and everything he encounters as proof of his thesis, going through quite impressive acrobatics to do so in some cases. It's quite shameful that people are willing to pay him money to do this.

[Milton Roe]

My Amazon book review is featured in The Signpost now.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) Lots of indef-blocked Wikipedians out there, aren't there?

It's very strange for an organization which is supposed to suppose good faith. If this Reagle guy knew the details of why Kohs is blocked, he might actually have a second throught. Assuming his first thought should be actually counted as a "thought."

[Jon Awbrey]

It's fairly obvious at this point that Reagle is a barefaced cheerleader, and not a legitimate researcher. He quite gleefully interprets anything and everything he encounters as proof of his thesis, going through quite impressive acrobatics to do so in some cases. It's quite shameful that people are willing to pay him money to do this.

Finding facts and facing reality is hard work. It is always far easier to pander to people's desires for pleasant fantasies and simple, all too simple answers. Conmen and cultists depend on that.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[SB_Johnny]

My Amazon book review is featured in The Signpost now.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) Lots of indef-blocked Wikipedians out there, aren't there?

Ruh-roh. Guess I'm officially a bad, bad, bad man now. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

With sore disappointment that the young gentleman would not join we "mean spirited, boneheaded trolls" to defend his comments or for informed discussion ... Joseph, don't worry, we will all just be bit part players in the story of your life.

Sell out. And we know you know we know ...

(IMG:http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4152/5127068741_8cd14ba803_b.jpg)

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[thekohser]

Have you got a citation or link on that "before" image?

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Your wish is my command line instruction.

http://www.re-public.gr/en/?p=131
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/profiles/doctoral/joseph_reagle_jr

I believe we have the same chameleon but one listed as Joseph Reagle and Joseph M. Reagle Jr. Please correct me if I am wrong. Is that the same Joseph Reagle with a <reagle@w3.org> email address? Are there two Joseph Reagles? Is he a clone?

In defence of vegans, he only stated vegan cooking rather than vegan being, but the cycle reference is good: http://www.technologyreview.com/tr35/Profi...Cand=T&TRID=384. A Joseph does appear on a Peter Singer thread elsewhere.

http://reagle.org/joseph/

Apparently according to Tim Berners-Lee, the Reagle is “continually” looking to better the relationship of the Web to society which may well be meat enough for the next 'toon.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[Peter Damian]

Another fascinating discussion going on here

http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikip...blosxomComments

Reagle is blocking my (quite harmless) comments again. Can't he see how this damages his case?

[Kelly Martin]

I posted a comment, but I imagine Joe will refuse to publish it. Here it is, against that risk:

"engaged in intentional, repetitive, and harmful actions;... that violates Wikipedia policies;... have high interest and destructive involvement within the Wikipedia community;... work in isolation under hidden virtual identities" describes not only classic trolls but also both the highly aggressive point of view pushers that dominate some areas of Wikipedia discourse, and many Wikipedia administrators. In the latter two cases, however, it is often not broadly recognized that the behaviors in question are harmful. A more accurate statement is that the identification of such behaviors is actively suppressed because the actors are socially powerful enough to avoid sanction.

Wikipedia's internal use of "troll" is idiosyncratic; at Wikipedia a "troll" is anyone who refuses to quietly accept the "consensus" decreed by Wikipedia's elites. This technically could be described as failing to follow Wikipedia policy, as Wikipedia policy is whatever its elite says it is (notwithstanding what the published policy documents might say), but it's not what most people think of by a troll. This especially applies if the individual speaks in opposition to the will of the elite more than once, persists in forwarding an argument after an elite has made it clear that it will not be accepted, or does anything to try to increase public awareness of the dispute.

The key point here is that one can be described as a "troll" for violating "consensus" long before a reasonable person would believe that a consensus had been formed, and the epithet "troll" is routinely used in Wikipedia dialogue as a epithet to marginalize and exclude those whose opinions differ from those preferred by the elite.

[Jon Awbrey]

Another fascinating discussion going on here

reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikipedia/troll-plex

Reagle is blocking my (quite harmless) comments again.
Can't he see how this damages his case?

People who use the word “troll” that way are not adults.

Why are you arguing with children?

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

I considered identifying David Gerard as one of the trolls that Wikipedia tolerates, but I figured that if I did there would be no chance at all that Joey would publish my comment.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

delete

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Another fascinating discussion going on here: http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikip...blosxomComments

Reagle is blocking my (quite harmless) comments again. Can't he see how this damages his case?

What does he mean by "mean kids site"? Do you think wikipediareview.com is a "mean kids site" rather than, say, the "kewl kids site"? Actually, I thought we were the grownups. Ha.

If Joseph Reagle, Jnr is honestly writing stuff inferring wikipediareview.com etc a "mean kids site", the guy has pricked out entirely ... I cannot believe. Is he selling himself as the King of the Weenies, Defender of the Faith, Champine of the Wiki-peedia, or something.

"Look at me, I'm a victim too, watch me call them names back, and you can too! (Buy my book).".

The guy bullshat on camera. The guy put up a lie in front of the faculty and guests hiding the truth and started throwing around insults. His book is a whitewash. It lacks rigor, integrity and depth. He knows it. We knows it. He knows we knows it.

And he has not the balls to come on to an open forum where neither he nor his ilk can censor and block in order to defend it their ideas.

(IMG:http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4048/5148365264_18c767a25c_b.jpg)

Wikipedia's internal use of "troll" is idiosyncratic; at Wikipedia a "troll" is anyone who refuses to quietly accept the "consensus" decreed by Wikipedia's elites.

Support - except it is hardly an "elite". More than often it boils down to 3 or 4 of the usual ANI clowns 99.9% of other reasonable admins keeping well out of it so as to avoid incurring future vindictive wrath.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[Peter Damian]

The comment he deleted was as follows. He used the definition in the famous usenet post copied here http://web.archive.org/web/20030105223101/...s/trollfaq.html (I love the way he cites these in academic style). He then used these to define a troll as someone sending messages (1) that appear outwardly sincere, (2) are designed to attract predictable responses or flames, and (3) waste a group's time by provoking futile argument.

I pointed out he had missed something there, since the troll's message (according to the essay he cites) is only intended to be outwardly sincere to "clueless newbies". It should "subtly convey to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it." "Your skill is shown in the easy way that you manipulate large areas of the Usenet community into making public fools of themselves. "

I also pointed out that criterion (3) is also ambiguous. A good troll exposes the inherent futility of everything these clueless people are on about.

He rejected this comment, and he also rejected my comment pointing out he had rejected it. The essence of good censorship is to conceal its very existence.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Kelly Martin]

It is fairly obvious that Joey wants to tag Wikipedia Review as a "trollplex". Personally, I doubt the troll concentration here is any higher than it is in Wikipedia.