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: