| |
|
  |
 Institute Of Network Cultures, Koolaid Is The New “Kritikal†|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 17th March 2010, 5:23pm)  QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 17th March 2010, 10:30am) What bollocks. I absolutely refuse to believe that nobody believed in a "writable web" prior to the invention of wikis, if for no other reason than that I myself had the idea (even if I never implemented it) as far back as 1993. And if someone of my puny intellect had the idea, I'm sure others did too. I attended my first seminars on “Groupware†at U of M in 1985–1986, where research entrepreneurs from Business, Cognitive Psych, and EECS were building a joint co-lab for stuff like that, and they were a few years behind the MIT Media Lab. I'm hardly what anyone would call an early adopter when it it comes to any kind of technology, so I know that all this was probably already old hat by then. Jon (IMG: http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
CPOV Listings …Patrick Lichty has been stressing his interest in wiki-based communities in general, a meta*perspective that naturally appeals to me. Here's a comment I posted in regard to that Big Picture POV — QUOTE Having participated in several wikioid start up projects before I ever heard of Wikipedia, and still participating in a wide variety of similar projects today, I share this point of view. The feature of social-technical architecture that most markedly distinguishes a wiki system is its "erasability". This is a major boon to people, like me, who never manage to write anything anywhere near the way it needs to be on the first 20 or 30 drafts or so. And its aid to collaboration is clear, at least, among folks who are capable of genuine dialogue in pursuing joint work. The point where erasability becomes a disabling bug in the groupware is when some participants in a debate discover that they can "win" arguments simply by deleting the opposing arguments. Once that happens, even a little, the people who resort to this type of easy win almost always become hopelessly addicted to it — it becomes an automatic reflex, often literally enforced by bots — inquiry is short-circuited and the "community" has to be protected by scare-quotes from then on out. — Jon Awbrey, 18 Mar 2010, CET 19:18
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
CPOV Listings …I posted an update on the progress at the Magna Farta con-stitutional con-vention — QUOTE
CPOV Pilgrims who are following WikiPlex's Progress --
to wit, its "foundering" attempts to up-date itself
to the Year 1215 -- will find that a portion of the
action has shifted to the scenes of Meta-Wiki-Medea:
meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Remove_Founder_flag
Ciao,
Jon
I suppose we should start a pool on when the purges of e-ristocrats will commence — but positive numbers only, no fair counting pre-purgees … Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 31st May 2010, 10:48am) QUOTE The good of a concept or a term of description, more or less following Kant and Peirce, is that it unifies a manifold of sense impressions. As it happens, my work on social and technical means of facilitating inquiry led me to study the factors that "block inquiry", in other words, that inhibit critical reflective thinking, long before I ever encountered the worldview of the Wikipedian true believer. One of the telltale signs of a closed belief system that I kept noticing was one that I dubbed the "cul-de-sac" — rhymes with "cultist act". This is any plank of a belief platform that keeps those who stand on it from reflecting critically on its fundamental structures and evaluating their suitability for the espoused common purpose. For my part, I am skeptical of the hypothesis that "Peter Damian" asserted to lead off that sample thread — I don't think I'd trace every deleterious effect of the Wikipedia Complex to a single mad belief — but I can see some sense in trying to unify the manifold of otherwise senseless impressions. Jon Awbrey, 31 May 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 2nd June 2010, 9:46am) CPOV Listings …Juliana Brunello posted notice of last March's First Monday article by Vasilis Kostakis, based in part on interviews with a couple of our local lights, and asked for reflections on the theme of “Transparencyâ€. Jon (IMG: http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif) I have of course written — as most WReviewers have — till I'm blue in the phalanges on this particular subject, so here is all I could work up the joules to say at this late date: QUOTE One of the founding ideals of the wiki paradigm was akin to what W.S. Burroughs called the “Naked Lunchâ€, where everyone would be able to see exactly what was on everyone else's fork. Wikipedia has strayed so far from that ideal that it no longer makes sense to refer to the WMF+WP+Wikia+PM+IRC+SecretMailingLists+WhoWitsWhat system as a "wiki" at all. There is chamber upon chamber and storey upon storey of smoke-filled rooms that no faint body of researchers will ever be able to bring to light in a decade of digging and probing. Jon Awbrey, 02 June 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
CPOV Listings …Taking off from Sam Vaknin's article on “ The Wikipedia Cultâ€, a lively discussion of the whole cult issue has ensued on the CPOV List. I don't like copying other people's comments without permission, so I'll just give links to theirs and copy my own responses here. Re: Nathaniel Tkacz and Seth FinkelsteinQUOTE Wikipedia's cabalism, cultishness, groupthinkitude, whatever you want to call it, is very real, and Vaknin's article describes it quite accurately. I frankly wish we could be discussing the future of knowledge work on the Web, relative to which Wikipedia furnishes a wealth of data about how badly a naive idea can can wrong, but other people keep bringing it up, so those who know are forced to say what they know. This is of course a hoary old topic at The Wikipedia Review. I once began a "meta-thread" in the Meta-Discussion Forum to collect various reflections on the subject. It appears to be something of a dead horse over there, but here it is, FWIW: Meta-Thread On Cult DynamicsI am slightly incited to resuscitate the jockey if not the horse. Jon Awbrey, 03 Jun 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
CPOV Listings …Re: Juliana BrunelloQUOTE The topic of "dysfunction" is another one with a long record of discussion at The Wikipedia Review. The first thing to know about dysfunction is that it is relative to a function, that is, a goal, ideal, objective, purpose, or value. That brings us to the issue of "espoused values" versus "actual values", as emphasized, for instance, by systems thinkers like Argyris and Schön. One of the first questions to ask about a group project like Wikipedia is whether the values that are "actually" actualized by it are consistent with the values that group members are constantly espousing. When we see a wide divergence between the two, as most long-term observers see in Wikipedia, we have the task of explaining that difference. The complex of activities associated with Wikipedia may be perfectly functional with respect to certain goals — the fact that these activities persist in spite of every attempt to modify them should give us a clue — the question is, "What are those goals?" Jon Awbrey, 03 Jun 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
CPOV Listings …Re: Alan ShapiroQUOTE Being a Peircean pragmatic thinker, by virtue or maybe by dint of long-continuing auto-inculcation, I can't help coloring outside the lines of dyadic thinking for very long, so let me let that business pass. One of the lessons that my teachers pounded into my head over many long years of alio-inculcation was that education and inquiry have as much to do with process as product, as much to do with conduct as content. Wikipedia, just to take up the current example, begins to look like a very different proposition when we start to examine the reality of practice that prevails in its orbit. Maybe it would help to focus, one by one, on particular practices that distinguish Wikipedia Culture from other systems that we know? One practice that is very symptomatic of cults, dogmatic organizations, faith-oriented groups, religions, sects, whatever you want to call them, is the practice of banning, shunning, or excommunicating onetime members of the group, members who were once considered "good faith" participants. Jon Awbrey, 03 Jun 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
| thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 17th March 2010, 8:46am) Geert Lovink also posted notice to me, privately by e-mail, this morning. Here's what he had to say: QUOTE Dear Gregory,
The CPOV organisers have decided to remove you from the list. We feel that your contributions are working against the kind of dialogue we would like to see flourish on our list. Our intent is not to nit pick about Wikipedia, show our disdain for it, or to reveal its members to be evil or cult-like, etc. etc. Moreover, we do not wish to alienate people who participate in Wikipedia in our discussion. There already exists a space for that kind of discussion at The Wikipedia Review.
Thanks,
The CPOV editorial committee Sounds like Landru got to him. What is it with these Dutch guys? Oh, wait. That's another thread. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 19th July 2010, 7:03am) QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 17th March 2010, 8:46am) Geert Lovink also posted notice to me, privately by e-mail, this morning. Here's what he had to say: QUOTE
Dear Gregory,
The CPOV organisers have decided to remove you from the list. We feel that your contributions are working against the kind of dialogue we would like to see flourish on our list. Our intent is not to nit pick about Wikipedia, show our disdain for it, or to reveal its members to be evil or cult-like, etc. etc. Moreover, we do not wish to alienate people who participate in Wikipedia in our discussion. There already exists a space for that kind of discussion at The Wikipedia Review.
Thanks,
The CPOV editorial committee
Sounds like Landru got to him. What is it with these Dutch guys? Oh, wait. That's another thread. Don't feel too special, I got one, too … “Wikipedism As Cult†is hardly a novel theme these days, but it was actually Juliana Brunello — I thought she was one of the “Câ€POV List organizers? — who needled the current “Câ€POV thread titled “The Wikipedia Cultâ€: QUOTE <CPOV> The Wikipedia Cult Juliana Brunello <juliana at networkcultures.org> Mon May 31 12:33:36 CEST 2010 * Previous message: <CPOV> A critique of the idea of neutral language * Next message: <CPOV> The Wikipedia Cult * Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] This is an interesting interview that compares Wikipedia to a cult. Sam Vaknin sees Wikipedia through a very negative lens, but I did agree with some of the arguments (though I believe his arguments are mostly exaggerated). I would like to read your opinions on that. http://globalpolitician.com/26423-wikipedia-cult-jimmy-walesJuliana Institute of Network Cultures HvA Interactive Media www.networkcultures.org So if there was ever a diversity of critical opinion among the “Câ€POV Editorship, it appears those days are all in the past — there's a new “Consensus†in the Covert Central Committee Point Of View (C³POV). Grant money is so hard to come by these days — I wonder who bought them off? — stay tuned for the ¼coming CfP. Jon Awbrey |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 19th July 2010, 9:22am)
CPOV was a rather moribund discussion list. Without you or me contributing, Jon, it's going to be that much more moribund, in an echo chamber. I won't be holding my breath for the "great shining moment" where they make a meaningful breakthrough in their field.
You know me, The Infernal Optimist (TIO), I actually had a glimmer of hope that this group would earn their “Câ€. And no less a light than Seth Finkelstein had recently weighed in, so they had a chance of facing the facts from folks who've been forced to face them before. Well, excuse me for being critical — It's a dirty job, and they sure ain't going to do it. Just chalk it up to yet another Wikipedia-related failure of critical thinking. Jon Awbrey |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
Just by way of bringing folks up to date, my last post to the Cult, er, “Critical†POV List was partly a followup to this one by Seth Finkelstein: QUOTE <CPOV> The Wikipedia Cult Seth Finkelstein <sethf at sethf.com> Thu Jun 3 15:04:25 CEST 2010 > nathaniel tkacz > i don' think the question of whether wikipedia is or is not a cult is a useful one. > what is there to add by calling it a cult? Demystification. I've been saying "Wikipedia is a cult" for years now, including in some columns I wrote for the Guardian newspaper, for example: "Inside, Wikipedia is more like a sweatshop than Santa's workshop" http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/dec/06/wikipedia"One subtext of the Wikipedia hype is that businesses can harvest an eager pool of free labour, disposable volunteers who will donate effort for the sheer joy of it. The fantasy is somewhat akin to Santa's workshop, where little elves work happily away for wages of a glass of milk and a cookie. Whereas the reality is closer to an exploitative cult running on sweatshop labour." The point is a very concise way (four words) of conveying an alternate explanation for Wikipedia's functioning, against the immense marketing of it as a mystery created by magical technology ("wikis" and "The Internet"). I get a lot of flack from describing Wikipedia as a cult. One common response is a strawman argument, something like: Cults are by definition extreme apocalyptic, murderous, or suicidal, organizations. Wikipedia does not fit that definition. Therefore Wikipedia is not a cult. But I'd say such a definition would be drawn too narrowly. Extreme cults tends to be self-limiting, precisely because they are too dysfunctional to survive (mass suicide is not good for organizational continuity). Then sometimes people want me to give an extensive theory, which will handle all cases and examples they can imagine. That's very tedious. The basic point is that "cult" is a extremely illuminating way of analyzing how Wikipedia works (or doesn't), in terms of social dynamics. Especially in the face of much pressure to view it as some sort of unique technological entity which should not be connected to many well-known aspects of group psychology. -- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf at sethf.com http://sethf.comSee Guardian columns at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/sethfinkelstein |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 19th July 2010, 10:45am) QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 19th July 2010, 9:36am)
I actually had a glimmer of hope that this group would earn their “Câ€. And no less a light than Seth Finkelstein had recently weighed in, so they had a chance of facing the facts from folks who've been forced to face them before.
It is also interesting to note, then, that Seth Finkelstein has also been removed by the "editorial committee" from the CPOV mailing list. I had already called attention to the Banning Phenomenon — here and here — as being one of the chief features of a Not Especially Critical Point Of View (NECPOV). Here is what I wrote in what would turn out to be my last post to the list: QUOTE <CPOV> The Wikipedia Cult / Focal Problem / BanningCPOViewers, I've been meaning to get back to this exploration of focal problems in Wikipediatrics, but a couple of ongoing family crises have been keeping my wits scattered all over the map … The perception that Wikipedism is far more cult-like in its basic character than anything advertised as a knowledge-oriented enterprise ought to be has of course arisen on many occasions, but here is a reminder of the occasion that we came in with this time around: {{Links to Context}} Re: cpov listcultures.org/2010-June/000185.htmlRe: cpov listcultures.org/2010-June/000187.html{{/Links to Context}} That brings us to the focal problem of Banning, Shunning, Excommunicating … If you look at the amount of time that Wikipedists devote to filtering out inputs from "taboo" or "unclean" sources, you can't help but admit that the practices of banning, blocking, censoring, excommunicating, shunning, and generally plugging their fingers in their ears is one of the most significant features, or bugs, of Wikipedism as a social system. The question is — What's that all about? Jon Awbrey, 18 Jul 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 27th July 2010, 3:59pm) QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 19th July 2010, 2:20pm) This will make for a nice topic on an upcoming Examiner.com story. And lo and behold, it's been published. Very old story. Exclusion without clear and good reason, by a small oligarchy (perhaps just a single individual), is very poor process and leads to expectation of failure of the INC initiative. I've seen what happens when "disruptive critics" are excluded and, indeed, the normal response, ultimately, is collapse. That doesn't mean that disruption should be tolerated, but that the simplistic response of "ban" is dangerous and damaging. I didn't see that there was disruption happening, in fact. Just normal criticism of Wikipedia. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 27th July 2010, 3:59pm) QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 19th July 2010, 2:20pm)
This will make for a nice topic on an upcoming Examiner.com story.
And lo and behold, it's been published. QUOTE
Needless to say, it is highly unusual for the moderator of an academic discussion list like CPOV to eject 3 bona fide members at the same time with the same form letter without prior advisement or discussion.
I had been hopeful that the CPOV List would become a venue for truly critical reflection on Wikipedia and the Internet in general, but that hope is now dashed by these recent events. I had even started a thread at The Wikipedia Review way back in March for keeping its readers posted on the activities of the Institute of Network Cultures and the discussions occurring on the CPOV List. Readers here may find bits of background, history, and further discussion there.
Jon Awbrey, 27 July 2010
Zoom Messy Fooey !!! — They don't allow links in comments or even simple HTML — how backwoods is that!? Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
