Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ Meta Discussion _ Institute Of Network Cultures

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

The Institute of Network Cultures maintains an engaging complex of activities, blogs, conferences, discussion groups, and assorted websites. A lot of what I read there is bit too much the Helium Hermenautical Armchair (HeHa) for my down-to-earth tastes, but I do see a concerted effort toward real understanding that is but rarely encountered these days.

I'll just collect a few links here —

http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/

http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/query/

Jon Image

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/ …

http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/about/staff/ http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/publications/geert-lovink-publications/ posted notice of a http://firstmonday.org/ article by Jutta Haider and Olaf Sundin, titled “http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2744/2428”.

On that same topia, er, topic, http://blogs.bgsu.edu/afamigl/about/ posted notice of his essay, “http://blogs.bgsu.edu/afamigl/2009/03/26/tasty-theory-clusters/”, found on his blog, http://blogs.bgsu.edu/afamigl/.

Jon Image

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

http://reagle.org/joseph/ posted notice of his essay, “http://reagle.org/joseph/2009/01/wikipedia-happy-accident.html”, on the http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/.

Jon Image

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 17th March 2010, 10:30am) *
http://reagle.org/joseph/ posted notice of his essay, “http://reagle.org/joseph/2009/01/wikipedia-happy-accident.html”, on the http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/.
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.

Posted by: Moulton

Web-based community discussion boards (like http://www.motet.com/html/press.html) came online around 1995.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 17th March 2010, 5:23pm) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 17th March 2010, 10:30am) *

http://reagle.org/joseph/ posted notice of his essay, “http://reagle.org/joseph/2009/01/wikipedia-happy-accident.html”, on the http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/.


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 Image

Posted by: Eva Destruction

Vannevar Bush's Memex proposal dates right back to 1945 and was essentially a mechanical precursor of Wikipedia (linked microfilm sheets would be retrieved on command and the reader would be able to annotate them). The US Navy had ZOG up and running on internal shipboard networks by the early 1980s; there were no doubt other open-editable networks running before that.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/ …

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-March/000037.html 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.

— http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-March/000042.html


Posted by: Jon Awbrey

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/ …

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-March/000050.html announced his paper, “http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/09/01/Jcom0901%282010%29C01/Jcom0901%282010%29C04”. It appears in the current special issue of the http://jcom.sissa.it/about-jcom/ on http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/09/01.

Jon Image

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 22nd March 2010, 8:24am) *

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/ …

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-March/000050.html announced his paper, “http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/09/01/Jcom0901%282010%29C01/Jcom0901%282010%29C04”. It appears in the current special issue of the http://jcom.sissa.it/about-jcom/ on http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/09/01.

Jon Image



Bravo:
QUOTE
...we could say that the community management of anonymous expertise, as practised on Wikipedia, results in extraordinary costs, in the form of uncertainty and flawed perspectives for users; irresponsibility and increased judicial and police work for producers; to say nothing of the consequences of the resulting concentration of legal competencies.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/ …

http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/about/staff/ posted an http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-March/000053.html from the First Monday article, “http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2309/2163” by Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis.

Andreas Kemper added an http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-March/000056.html about missed opportunities for author funding as it affects the German scene, but I don't know enough about this to know if it has more global implications.

Maybe Greg could take a look at it?

Jon Awbrey

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/ …

I posted an http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-March/000064.html 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:

http://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 tongue.gif

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/ …

TheUsualSuspect incites a http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-May/thread.html#116 of our Imperious (Co-)Leader's imperiosity …

Jon Image

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/ …

I posted http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-May/000130.html on the thread Greg needled to ask the question, “http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-May/thread.html#116”

Some of you will have heard it before …

Jon Image

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/ …

Juliana Brunello http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-May/000131.html for researching various aspects of Wikipedia.

I think we have discussed almost all of these at one point or another, but a few of them I don't recall having seen before, and it's handy in any case to have them all listed in one place.

Jon Image

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/ …

From http://www.alan-shapiro.com/, an n-teresting http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-May/000159.html to a wild and wooly link-o-rama, n-cidentally tangent to the http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-May/thread.html#138 that I x-tracted for x-amining http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-May/000135.html.

Jon Image

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/ …

Juliana Brunello http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-May/thread.html#164 on the recent http://globalpolitician.com/ interview with Sam Vaknin, titled “http://globalpolitician.com/26423-wikipedia-cult-jimmy-wales”, that is already being discussed here on its own thread.

Jon Image

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 31st May 2010, 10:48am) *

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/ …

Juliana Brunello http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-May/thread.html#164 on “http://globalpolitician.com/26423-wikipedia-cult-jimmy-wales”, the recent http://globalpolitician.com/ interview with Sam Vaknin, which was also being discussed on its own thread here.

Jon Image


Reply to objections on the use of the word "cult" —

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.

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-May/000168.html


Posted by: Jon Awbrey

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/ …

Juliana Brunello http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-June/thread.html#170 of last March's http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2613/2479, based in part on interviews with a couple of our local lights, and asked for reflections on the theme of “Transparency”.

Jon Image

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 2nd June 2010, 9:46am) *

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/ …

Juliana Brunello http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-June/thread.html#170 of last March's http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2613/2479, based in part on interviews with a couple of our local lights, and asked for reflections on the theme of “Transparency”.

Jon Image


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 Lunch”, 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.

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-June/000172.html


Posted by: Jon Awbrey

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/ …

Taking off from Sam Vaknin's article on “http://globalpolitician.com/26423-wikipedia-cult-jimmy-wales”, 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: http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-May/000167.html and http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-June/000173.html

QUOTE

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 Dynamics

I am slightly incited to resuscitate the jockey if not the horse.

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-June/000176.html


Posted by: Jon Awbrey

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/ …

Re: http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-June/000177.html

QUOTE

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?"

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-June/000181.html


Posted by: Jon Awbrey

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/ …

Re: http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-June/000178.html

QUOTE

Seth's remarks about "pre-existing vulnerable people" ties in with another one of those much-discussed topics at The Wikipedia Review. Many observers have noticed the commonalities that connect 3 types of "usual susceptibles":
  1. the predisposition to become addicted to online role-playing games,
  2. the psychological profile of the typical mark in a confidence game,
  3. the susceptibility to sudden belief system conversion, as in cults.
The engine that drives the game forward in all of these cases is an unbridled expectation buried in the psyche of the exploited person, an irrational drive that the exploiter uses to rein and ride the mark.

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-June/000188.html


Posted by: Jon Awbrey

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/ …

Re: http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-June/000186.html

QUOTE

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.

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-June/000187.html



Posted by: Moulton

I admire your last paragraph, especially as you resisted the temptation to invoke the name of Hammurabi in the general context of ostracism and castigation.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 5th June 2010, 8:45am) *

I admire your last paragraph, especially as you resisted the temptation to invoke the name of Hammurabi in the general context of ostracism and castigation.


The mere thought of being castigrated with oyster shells makes me wince too much to bear.

Jon pinch.gif

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sat 5th June 2010, 8:50am) *
The mere thought of being castigrated with oyster shells makes me wince too much to bear.

Jon pinch.gif

Well, yeah. Can you imagine being castigated, ostracized, and emasculated in the process of editing a scholarly article on Peirce, Action Research, or Affective Computing?

Can you imagine writing a memoir about such an experience?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Academic studies of Wikipediot Culture that limit themselves to the content of articles are like Martian astronomers documenting the spread of an oil slick across one of Earth's oceans, with no inkling of its underlying Economic-Political-Technical (EPT) causes.

Rather INEPT, don't you think?

Jon Image

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 17th March 2010, 8:46am) *

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/ …

http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/about/staff/ http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/publications/geert-lovink-publications/ posted notice ...


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 http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=30166&hl=dutch+vacation.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 19th July 2010, 7:03am) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 17th March 2010, 8:46am) *

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/ …

http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/about/staff/ http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/publications/geert-lovink-publications/ posted notice …


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 http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=30166&hl=dutch+vacation.


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 “C”POV List organizers? — who needled the http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-May/thread.html#164:

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-wales

Juliana

Institute of Network Cultures
HvA Interactive Media
www.networkcultures.org


So if there was ever a diversity of critical opinion among the “C”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

Posted by: thekohser

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.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

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 “C”. 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

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Just by way of bringing folks up to date, my last post to the Cult, er, “Critical” POV List was partly a followup to http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-June/thread.html#173:

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.com
See Guardian columns at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/sethfinkelstein


Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 19th July 2010, 9:36am) *

...I actually had a glimmer of hope that this group would earn their “C”. 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.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

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 “C”. 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.


O My Prophetic Soul !!!

I had already called attention to the Banning Phenomenon — http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-June/thread.html#187 and http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-July/thread.html#237 — 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 / Banning

CPOViewers,

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: http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-June/000185.html
Re: http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/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?

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-July/000237.html


Posted by: thekohser

This will make for a nice topic on an upcoming Examiner.com story.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 19th July 2010, 2:20pm) *

This will make for a nice topic on an upcoming Examiner.com story.


Crazy Like A Fox News Write-Up ???

I'm guessing it's all a ploy to get more press — no doubt they subscribe to the theory that no publicity is bad publicity.

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: thekohser

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, http://www.examiner.com/x-58002-Wiki-Edits-Examiner~y2010m7d27-Wikipedia-criticism-group-purges-three-critics.

Posted by: Abd

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, http://www.examiner.com/x-58002-Wiki-Edits-Examiner~y2010m7d27-Wikipedia-criticism-group-purges-three-critics.
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.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

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, http://www.examiner.com/x-58002-Wiki-Edits-Examiner~y2010m7d27-Wikipedia-criticism-group-purges-three-critics.


My comment —

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 hrmph.gif

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 27th July 2010, 11:22pm) *

Zoom Messy Fooey !!! — They don't allow links in comments or even simple HTML — how backwoods is that!?

Jon hrmph.gif


Extremely irritating. Supposedly, a new Examiner interface is just around the corner, so I hope that it will tolerate links in comments. (Although, I can see why this feature was disabled to prevent spammers from taking over.)

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE

“There is only one way to turn signals into information, through interpretation”, wrote the computer critic Joseph Weizenbaum. As Google's hegemony over online content increases, argues http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2008-09-05-lovink-en.html, we should stop searching and start questioning.


http://www.examiner.com/x-58002-Wiki-Edits-Examiner~y2010m7d27-Wikipedia-criticism-group-purges-three-critics …


Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Dork Fibber

QUOTE

According to media critic Geert Lovink, the Internet is being closed off by corporations and governments intent on creating a business and information environment free of dissent. Calling himself a radical media pragmatist, Lovink envisions an Internet culture that goes beyond the engineering culture that spawned it to bring humanities, user groups, social movements, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), artists, and cultural critics into the core of Internet development.

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=9005


Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 29th July 2010, 12:08am) *

Dork Fibber

QUOTE

According to media critic Geert Lovink, the Internet is being closed off by corporations and governments intent on creating a business and information environment free of dissent. Calling himself a radical media pragmatist, Lovink envisions an Internet culture that goes beyond the engineering culture that spawned it to bring humanities, user groups, social movements, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), artists, and cultural critics into the core of Internet development.

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=9005




Wow... the hypocrisy of it all. That's very telling.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 29th July 2010, 12:40am) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 29th July 2010, 12:08am) *

Dork Fibber

QUOTE

According to media critic Geert Lovink, the Internet is being closed off by corporations and governments intent on creating a business and information environment free of dissent. Calling himself a radical media pragmatist, Lovink envisions an Internet culture that goes beyond the engineering culture that spawned it to bring humanities, user groups, social movements, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), artists, and cultural critics into the core of Internet development.

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=9005



Wow … the hypocrisy of it all. That's very telling.


It's hard for me to figure out what happened here. We're talking about a well-respected author who obviously had some sort of critical vision — once upon a time. How did he fall into such a state of irreflection that he can't see what he did?

Is is just that Jimbo's “Sub-Midas Touch” turns everything he touches to Hypochrysy?

Is it just that Geert has staked his career on the supposition that Wikipedia is something Wonderful And Complex And New And Radically Different (WACANARD) — when anyone who knows anything can tell it's something Plain And Simple And Really Same Old Same Old (PASARSOSO)?

Time … Will … I … Reckon … Tell … (TWIRT) …

Jon Image

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Here's a possible clue …

Maybe CPOV's e-radical reason — whose critique I e-lide … for now — has something to do with Geert Lovink's vision of http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/publications/geert-lovink-publications/zero-comments/?

Maybe 0 (M-P-T) could e-lighten us with a comment on that?

Or Nought …

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

It looks like we need a disambiguation page …

Yahoo! Search for “CPOV” gives this near the top — http://wikiality.wikia.com/Wikiality:CPOV

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Just by way of trying to figure out what happened here …

Let's go back to what was evidently the last straw for the “C” in CPOV, namely, the topic of “The Wikipedia Cult”. This topic was raised by Juliana Brunello, one of the staff at The Institute of Network Cultures (no, the other TINC), and it began with this post:

QUOTE

<CPOV> The Wikipedia Cult
Juliana Brunello <juliana at networkcultures.org>
Mon May 31 12:33:36 CEST 2010

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-wales

Juliana

Institute of Network Cultures
HvA Interactive Media
www.networkcultures.org

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-May/000164.html


Posted by: Moulton

Jon, did the CPOV dialog proceed to a review of http://globalpolitician.com/26478-wikipedia-cult-tynan-wales-reagle to comments and criticisms arising in the aftermath of his interview with Daniel Tynan?

QUOTE(Is Wikipedia a Cult? Wikipedia strikes back)
http://globalpolitician.com/26478-wikipedia-cult-tynan-wales-reagle

Sam Vaknin, Ph.D. - 6/16/2010

In response to Dan Tynan's http://infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/faith-in-numbers-six-more-tech-cults-846?page=0,2 , Wikipedia struck back, in an article typically riddled with blatant lies and not so subtle distortions (see the text below). ...

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 2nd August 2010, 10:09am) *

Jon, did the CPOV dialog proceed to a review of http://globalpolitician.com/26478-wikipedia-cult-tynan-wales-reagle to comments and criticisms arising in the aftermath of his interview with Daniel Tynan?

QUOTE(Is Wikipedia a Cult? Wikipedia strikes back)

http://globalpolitician.com/26478-wikipedia-cult-tynan-wales-reagle

Sam Vaknin, Ph.D. — 6/16/2010

In response to Dan Tynan's http://infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/faith-in-numbers-six-more-tech-cults-846?page=0,2 , Wikipedia struck back, in an article typically riddled with blatant lies and not so subtle distortions (see the text below). …



No, the posts that followed in May 2010 were these:
  1. http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-May/000165.html — cited http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cult_checklist&oldid=361776631
  2. http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-May/000166.html — cited Wikipedia Review on “Single Mad Belief”
  3. http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-May/000167.html — “i don' think the question of whether wikipedia is or is not a cult is a
    useful one.”
  4. http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-May/000168.html —
    QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ 31 May 2010, CEST 16:06)

    Nathaniel & All,

    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 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


Posted by: Moulton

Jon, your academic work following up on Kant and Peirce devising "a concept or term of description that unifies a manifold of sense impressions" concords with my own work on modeling or characterizing a system. I don't use the same vocabulary terms as you. My terminology comes from the fields of Systems Theory, Systems Science, and Systems Modeling, as pioneered by those who, some 60 years ago, called their work "Cybernetics." But we fundamentally have been using the same tools for thought.

I am perplexed by the recurring observation that these reflective inquiry processes keep getting halted, just as we are converging to a deeper and more profound insight, model, or understanding of the rascally beast we are seeking to tame.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 2nd August 2010, 12:49pm) *

Jon, your academic work following up on Kant and Peirce devising "a concept or term of description that unifies a manifold of sense impressions" concords with my own work on modeling or characterizing a system. I don't use the same vocabulary terms as you. My terminology comes from the fields of Systems Theory, Systems Science, and Systems Modeling, as pioneered by those who, some 60 years ago, called their work "Cybernetics". But we fundamentally have been using the same tools for thought.

I am perplexed by the recurring observation that these reflective inquiry processes keep getting halted, just as we are converging to a deeper and more profound insight, model, or understanding of the rascally beast we are seeking to tame.


The variable of state that comes into play at this juncture is called by many names, the top three being Doubt, Entropy, Uncertainty. Peirce observed that Inquiry begins with the “Irritation of Doubt”, a mentally distressing state that we launch into inquiry for the sake of avoiding, if not now then maybe at a future date. But inquiry tends be a backtrack process, recurrently requiring us to relearn things that we thought we had learned well enough already, and that requires us to regress a bit, to re-experience irritating doubts that we dreamed we were well quit of. People tend to demur at that.

Jon Awbrey

Posted by: Moulton

What Peirce called “Irritation of Doubt” I would call Cognitive Dissonance, that inchoate feeling that one's mental model or concept is incomplete or incorrect, perhaps even internally inconsistent.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Incidentally, here is the brand of Pøst-Mødish Peacøck Pøøfery that passes for a “Critical Point Of View”™ vis-a-vis Wikipedia on the “New, Impurged CPOV List”™, now that its critics have been “de-opened” from the “open”™ diablog —

QUOTE

Niesyto, Johanna <niesyto at fk615.uni-siegen.de>
Mon Aug 2 16:24:46 CEST 2010

[[Wikipedia:Ein kritischer Standpunkt]]
September 25-26, 2010
University Library Leipzig, Germany

On 25th and 26th of September 2010 the German speaking conference [[Wikipedia:Ein kritischer Standpunkt]] ([[Wikipedia:Critical Point of View]]) will take place at the University Library in Leipzig, Germany. The conference will gather Wikipedia researchers, critics as well as community-members from the German-speaking world for an interdisciplinary debate. In particular the significance of Wikipedia for education, politics, culture and society will be discussed.

Wikipedia is one of the largest, if not the largest, self-contained general knowledge reference of our time. It offers critical insights into the contemporary status of knowledge, its organizing principles, function, impact, production styles, mechanisms for conflict resolution, and relation to power (re-)constitution. New strategic and tactical operations of knowledge and power are clearly at work through Wikipedia. Of specific interest is the concept of 'the open', which is ambiguous within the social formation(s) constituted by Wikipedia, serving as both a rallying concept of digital democracy enthusiasts and as an ideoglical nodal point masking new agonistic encounters.

In both material and perceptional ways, every new technology modifies the conditions of possibility for knowledge. The logic of technologies bleeds into the very structures and organizing principles of knowledge, and today both medium and message may reflect the ideas of the (organized) network, multitude, or the Deleuzian machine. It is through a selected mix of technological and normative conditions — the distributed architecture of the net, the Wiki software platform, commons-based property licenses and the FLOSS zeitgeist — that Wikipedia as the encyclopedia of the information age emerges, both continuing and transforming the Enlightenment encyclopedic impulse or will to know.

The main topics of the conference are Wikipedia & The Politics of Open Knowledge, Digital Governance, and Wikipedia & Education. These topics derive from the significance of the online encyclopedia in the reconfiguration of knowledge (re-)production and its consequences for the public, architectures of participation, and political education in a media democracy. Alongside presentations of established scholars like Christian Stegbauer, Peter Haber, Rainer Hammwöhner, Ramón Reichert, and Ulrich Johannes Schneider, the programme of the conference will consist of a panel discussion of Wikipedia community-members and critics, as well as Wikipedia-workshops and a research network meeting.

The research network meeting addresses Wikipedia researchers to discuss their current research and draft new research projects. Especially aimed for young academics, the research network meeting is planned as open space, allowing its participants to actively engage in the event as questions and topics are shaped and discussed among the group. To participate, we ask for a registration by email not later than August 31, 2010 to info at cpov.de. Please include a description of your research interest or abstract of your research on one page and tell us, if you are interested to make a short presentation.

The Leipzig conference continues the series of international conferences of the Wikipedia Research Initiative Critical Point of View from January and March 2010 in Bangalore (India) and Amsterdam (Netherlands). It is hosted by cultiv — Gesellschaft für internationale Kulturprojekte e.V. in cooperation with the Research Initiative Critical Point of View and funded by the Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.

The conference will be open to the public. There will be no participation fee. Conference language is German.

For further information please visit the conference website: www.cpov.de

Deadline for the Registration for the network meeting: August 31, 2010

Concept and Editorial board: Geert Lovink, Johanna Niesyto and Andreas Möllenkamp

Contact
cultiv
Gesellschaft für internationale Kulturprojekte e.V.
Bernhard-Göring-Str. 65
D-04107 Leipzig
Tel. +49-341-2228893
Email: info at cpov.de
www.cpov.de

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-August/000239.html


Try not to bust a gut lolling …

Jon laugh.gif

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Just by way of trying to figure out what happened here (cont.) …

The next post on “The Wikipedia Cult” thread was by Seth Finkelstein —

QUOTE

> 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:

“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.com
See Guardian columns at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/sethfinkelstein

http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-June/000173.html


Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Seth Finklesten paraphrases his critics)
Cults are by definition extreme apocalyptic, murderous, or suicidal, organizations. Wikipedia does not fit that definition. Therefore Wikipedia is not a cult.

I have found Wikiculture to be apocalyptic, annihilative, and self-defeating.

I can provide details (and evidence), but I suspect everyone here has already seen it.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 2nd August 2010, 5:01pm) *

QUOTE(Seth Finklesten paraphrases his critics)

Cults are by definition extreme apocalyptic, murderous, or suicidal, organizations. Wikipedia does not fit that definition. Therefore Wikipedia is not a cult.


I have found Wikiculture to be apocalyptic, annihilative, and self-defeating.

I can provide details (and evidence), but I suspect everyone here has already seen it.


When it comes to cult dynamics, early diagnosis is vastly preferable to vain attempts at the post-apoxalyptic cure of souls after the Reign Of Terror (ROT) has already run its course.

So I hope people will excuse us for trying to be as pro-gnostic as possible, but all the early symptoms of cult-think are there.

Jon Awbrey

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Just by way of trying to figure out what happened here (cont.) …

Dramatis personæThe next few posts on “The Wikipedia Cult” thread were as follows —
  1. http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-June/000174.html —
    QUOTE

    if the term "cult" is too attractive to be left aside, i think it would be useful to pose the question: how does wikipedia transform the notion of cult? one thing about cults historically, for example, is that almost everyone who isn't in the cult thinks the cult is crazy. with wikipedia this isn't that case. only a very small minority of people are critical of wikipedia and most think it's great (regardless of what you or i think). this kind of thought experiment seems more interesting for me.

    regarding your description of wikipedia as exploitative and akin to sweatshop labour, i have to strongly disagree. the realities of sweatshop labour are a million miles from wikipedia. last time i checked people weren't committing suicide on a weekly basis after contributing to wikipedia, as is the case in the ifactories. people who contribute to wikipedia aren't in free trade zones, or living in cramped dorms on company grounds. even if these comments were merely stylistic, think these kinds of claims are way over the top and disrespectful to actual factory workers.

    it seems to me that thinking about the work/contribution/labour process of wikipedia should begin with the debates around playbour. is anyone writing about work in wikipedia on this list?

    what is clear is that modern, industrial paradigms that clearly demarcate between work and leisure no longer apply.

  2. http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-June/000175.html —
    QUOTE

    The term "cult" might be popular in the press, but it has not caught on in the social sciences, for very good reasons. The best definition I have come across is by William Bainbridge and Rodney Stark, who define cults as groups with novel belief systems (as opposed to sects, which are splinter groups from larger religions). Other definitions include a tension with wider society. Neither is true of Wikipedia, nor is it (for most people, maybe the inner circle of 500–1000 Wikip/media regulars) an ideology that permeates all aspects of life.

    You can't "demystify" something with a fairly mysterious concept, such as a cult.

  3. http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-June/000178.html —
    QUOTE

    NT: if the term "cult" is too attractive to be left aside, i think it would be useful to pose the question: how does wikipedia transform the notion of cult?

    Easy — it's the first truly successful *online* cult. This is where there really is something interesting going on — not unknown in the abstract, but new implementations are possible due to the scaling and efficiencies from electronic communications.

    For example, where physical cults may create alienation and isolation by trying to control the person's environment, Wikipedia can work by funneling in those who are *already* alienated and isolated in their lives. Now, it's not that physical cults can't recruit. Of course they do. But physical recruitment is a labor-intensive effort (getting someone to stand in an airport or on a streetcorner all day is difficult). If you can "advertise", worldwide — suddenly new methods of getting pre-existing vulnerable people to come to *you* become cost-effective.

    This seems to me so much more helpful in analysis that the standard line of saying a cult is X, and X doesn't fit, therefore …

    [Tedious note: I *did not* say "Every member is alienated and isolated"]

    NT: one thing about cults historically, for example, is that almost everyone who isn't in the cult thinks the cult is crazy.

    I'd say that's somewhat begging the age-old question of the difference between "cult" and "acceptable religion".

    NT: with wikipedia this isn't that case. only a very small minority of people are critical of wikipedia and most think it's great (regardless of what you or i think). this kind of thought experiment seems more interesting for me.

    Indeed, Wikipedia gets good press. So what?

    NT: regarding your description of wikipedia as exploitative and akin to sweatshop labour, i have to strongly disagree. the realities of sweatshop labour are a million miles from wikipedia. [… snip]

    Sigh. The sentence was "Whereas the reality *IS CLOSER TO* an exploitative cult running on sweatshop labour." Not "is exactly and precisely and fits perfectly as".

    People really seems to dislike that sentence. If I wrote something along the lines of "The government of Freedonia is closer to a mafia gang run by a murderous thug, than a happy extended family presided over by a loving patriarch", I don't think I'd get reactions like "The realities of a mafia gang are so different from Freedonia". (though maybe I would, and there's a lesson there)

    NT: what is clear is that modern, industrial paradigms that clearly demarcate between work and leisure no longer apply.

    No, there's now more money to be made trying to convince people to do free work.

    [combining replies]

    TK: The term "cult" might be popular in the press, but it has not caught on in the social sciences, for very good reasons.

    I will provisionally accept your assertion that the term "cult" would be inappropriate in an academic social science paper.

    TK: You can't "demystify" something with a fairly mysterious concept, such as a cult.

    However, here I must disagree, and I believe you are making the perfect the enemy of the good. In the context of opposing technological mystification, I find the imperfect but evocative phrasing of "Wikipedia is a cult" seems to work about as well as can be expected for a concise counter-argument.

  4. http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-June/000180.html —
    QUOTE

    One way in which WP might be seen to operate as a cult is in fact common to other online projects (such as free software): it was explicitly set up against a certain way of producing code / culture, i.e. proprietary businesses, such as Britannica etc. So there are enemies which help negatively structure the project. The difference with WP (I think I wrote this a month ago on this very list, could be wrong) is that there anonymity leads to vandalism or manipulation leads to a siege mentality leads to heavy-handed policing leads to cases of injustice or abuses of authority by cliques etc leads to apostates (?) who leave and denounce the project. Plus, there is a charismatic leader who wields enormous power … At the same time I don't know that there is a really coherent belief system shared by members of the so-called Cabal other than to Protect the Project from Evildoers … so not sure if the term "cult" is appropriate as a coherent shared belief system would seem like a pretty necessary element of a cult.

  5. http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-June/000188.html —
    QUOTE

    Seth's remarks about "pre-existing vulnerable people" tie in with another one of those much-discussed topics at The Wikipedia Review. Many observers have noticed the commonalities that connect 3 types of "usual susceptibles":
    1. the predisposition to become addicted to online role-playing games,
    2. the psychological profile of the typical mark in a confidence game,
    3. the susceptibility to sudden belief system conversion, as in cults.
    The engine that that drives the game forward in all of these cases is an unbridled expectation buried in the psyche of the exploited person, an irrational drive that the exploiter uses to rein and ride the mark.


Posted by: Moulton

The "susceptibility to sudden belief system conversion" is the issue that I find most intriguing and perplexing.

It's intriguing because it is seen to actually happen (so we know it's possible).

It's perplexing because the beliefs in question do not necessarily progress towards increasingly accurate ones. The gains in accurate knowledge are neither monotonic nor fluid in time.

As near as I can tell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ohnoitsjamie), belief system reversals seem to correspond to guidance from selected mentors whom one respects. Guidance from disrespected sources tends to be rejected, no matter how authoritative or accurate the disrespected source might be.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 3rd August 2010, 10:37am) *

The "susceptibility to sudden belief system conversion" is the issue that I find most intriguing and perplexing.

It's intriguing because it is seen to actually happen (so we know it's possible).

It's perplexing because the beliefs in question do not necessarily progress towards increasingly accurate ones. The gains in accurate knowledge are neither monotonic nor fluid in time.

As near as I can tell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ohnoitsjamie), belief system reversals seem to correspond to guidance from selected mentors whom one respects. Guidance from disrespected sources tends to be rejected, no matter how authoritative or accurate the disrespected source might be.


Once you open your eyes to the presence of the phenomenon, the next couple of questions are:As for Mentor FX, look to Homer and Freud for guidance.

Just an aside. I did not say “belief system reversals” — whatever those are — though I suppose they could be special cases of conversion experiences.

Jon Awbrey

Posted by: Moulton

Banhammerama

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 3rd August 2010, 10:52am) *
Once you open your eyes to the presence of the phenomenon, the next couple of questions are:
  • What is the belief that these wannabelievers so desperately wannabelieve?
  • And why?

My preferred hypothesis regarding the belief most in need of being questioned is the belief in a Rules and Sanctions Regime as a suitable regulatory mechanism to sustain a low-drama educational project to systematically compile the sum of all human knowledge.

As to why that is, I'd love to have Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/sabina-spielrein/3iyoslgwsp412/21#, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080314/worrying-about-wheel-warring-in-our-wikiwoe/ on hand to help us discuss that question.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 3rd August 2010, 11:46am) *

Banhammerama

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 3rd August 2010, 10:52am) *
Once you open your eyes to the presence of the phenomenon, the next couple of questions are:
  • What is the belief that these wannabelievers so desperately wannabelieve?
  • And why?

My preferred hypothesis regarding the belief most in need of being questioned is the belief in a Rules and Sanctions Regime as a suitable regulatory mechanism to sustain a low-drama educational project to systematically compile the sum of all human knowledge.

As to why that is, I'd love to have Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/sabina-spielrein/3iyoslgwsp412/21, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080314/worrying-about-wheel-warring-in-our-wikiwoe/ on hand to help us discuss that question.


Now, seriously, does that really sound like the sort of belief that would entrain the entrails — grab the guts — of these “I Just Wanna Be Pseudonymous Me” con-marks?

Try again …

Jon dry.gif

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 3rd August 2010, 12:12pm) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 3rd August 2010, 11:46am) *
Banhammerama

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 3rd August 2010, 10:52am) *
Once you open your eyes to the presence of the phenomenon, the next couple of questions are:
  • What is the belief that these wannabelievers so desperately wannabelieve?
  • And why?

My preferred hypothesis regarding the belief most in need of being questioned is the belief in a Rules and Sanctions Regime as a suitable regulatory mechanism to sustain a low-drama educational project to systematically compile the sum of all human knowledge.

As to why that is, I'd love to have Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/sabina-spielrein/3iyoslgwsp412/21, http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/search?q=Jean+Piaget, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080314/worrying-about-wheel-warring-in-our-wikiwoe/ on hand to help us discuss that question.

Now, seriously, does that really sound like the sort of belief that would entrain the entrails — grab the guts — of these “I Just Wanna Be Pseudonymous Me” con-marks?

Yes it does, Jon. If you like, I'll take the time explain why I see it that way.

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 3rd August 2010, 12:12pm) *
Try again …

Jon dry.gif

I keep getting the same answer.

By way of comparison, what answer do you get, Jon?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 3rd August 2010, 12:28pm) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 3rd August 2010, 12:12pm) *

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 3rd August 2010, 11:46am) *

Banhammerama

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 3rd August 2010, 10:52am) *

Once you open your eyes to the presence of the phenomenon, the next couple of questions are:
  • What is the belief that these wannabelievers so desperately wannabelieve?
  • And why?

My preferred hypothesis regarding the belief most in need of being questioned is the belief in a Rules and Sanctions Regime as a suitable regulatory mechanism to sustain a low-drama educational project to systematically compile the sum of all human knowledge.

As to why that is, I'd love to have Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/sabina-spielrein/3iyoslgwsp412/21, http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/search?q=Jean+Piaget, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080314/worrying-about-wheel-warring-in-our-wikiwoe/ on hand to help us discuss that question.


Now, seriously, does that really sound like the sort of belief that would entrain the entrails — grab the guts — of these “I Just Wanna Be Pseudonymous Me” con-marks?


Yes it does, Jon. If you like, I'll take the time explain why I see it that way.

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 3rd August 2010, 12:12pm) *

Try again …

Jon dry.gif


I keep getting the same answer.

By way of comparison, what answer do you get, Jon?


More fun, and more edificational, to let a few others take a shot at the Kewpie Doll.

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 3rd August 2010, 12:42pm) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 3rd August 2010, 12:28pm) *
I keep getting the same answer.

By way of comparison, what answer do you get, Jon?

More fun, and more edificational, to let a few others take a shot at the Kewpie Doll.

Jon tongue.gif

Let me rephrase the question...

By way of comparison, what answer do you get, Jon?

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 3rd August 2010, 10:52am) *

Once you open your eyes to the presence of the phenomenon, the next couple of questions are:
  • What is the belief that these wannabelievers so desperately wannabelieve?
  • And why?


(1) That a volunteer-generated encyclopedia will be better than all other encyclopedias, and that said encyclopedia will help and empower ordinary people in profound ways.

(2) We live in a world where a very few hold much of the wealth and power. By making a transfer of knowledge management from the restrictive wealthy/powerful minority to the impoverished/weak majority, there will be a more equitable, peaceful, productive global society that emerges.

I honestly believe these are the sorts of answers that Wikipediots would provide to you, Jon. I don't honestly believe in the rationale behind these beliefs.

Posted by: Moulton

I still want to know what Jon thinks is the answer to his own question.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 3rd August 2010, 3:48pm) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 3rd August 2010, 10:52am) *

Once you open your eyes to the presence of the phenomenon, the next couple of questions are:
  • What is the belief that these wannabelievers so desperately wannabelieve?
  • And why?
  1. That a volunteer-generated encyclopedia will be better than all other encyclopedias, and that said encyclopedia will help and empower ordinary people in profound ways.
  2. We live in a world where a very few hold much of the wealth and power. By making a transfer of knowledge management from the restrictive wealthy/powerful minority to the impoverished/weak majority, there will be a more equitable, peaceful, productive global society that emerges.
I honestly believe these are the sorts of answers that Wikipediots would provide to you, Jon. I don't honestly believe in the rationale behind these beliefs.


That sounds a bit closer to what a Wikipedim, Wikipedist, or Wikipedyterian might articulate as espoused tenets of belief, but those aren't the forces that drive souls to Wikiperdition. What we need to excavate is buried far deeper and dimmer in the psyche than the brands of fully conscious, semi-rational beliefs that a person might be capable of stating in so many words, since by those words the beliefs in question are made more available to critical reflection. (Not always, of course — with too many reps they can become mantras.)

Try starting from http://www.jstor.org/pss/2707763 — expressed in gender-neutral terms as “That On Which A Person Is Prepared To Act” (TOWAPIPTA) — and think about the complex of largely unexamined beliefs that would lead a person to fall for the usual run of "bank examiner", "found money", "pigeon drop", or "unclaimed inheritance" scams.

Jon Awbrey

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Just by way of trying to figure out what happened here (cont.) …

Dramatis personæAnother fiber of the thread raveled out as follows —
  1. http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-June/000176.html —
    QUOTE

    Ye Who Would Be C In Thy POV,

    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 Dynamics

    I am slightly incited to resuscitate the jockey if not the horse.

  2. http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-June/000177.html —
    QUOTE

    I believe that the word 'cult' works more as a catchy title than a real concept. What I find important in this discussion is that it all points out to a disfunction in the WP community, and this, I believe, is worth analyzing.

  3. http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-June/000179.html —
    QUOTE

    In my view, the two single most important problems of Wikipedia are:
    1. Path dependency and lack of diversity: Those people, who sit at the most important power positions tend to belong to a very distinct group of people, rather than a random sample of the population: people with affinities to computing technologies, men rather than women, white rather than minority, young rather than old, not the best educated, etc.: They sit there, plainly, because they came first, which ties neatly into
    2. The iron law of oligarchy: There is a inner circle of people, who holds far too much power: Rather than keeping Wikipedia as a self-regulatory system with flat hierarchies, all sorts of rank distinctions, both informal and formal have been introduced. That doesn't even work with the original (far too simplistic) ideology dreamt up by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger in the big shadow of Ayn Rand, who is hardly one of the most respected philosophers of science.
    What is worse, those people most interested in climbing up the Wikipedia hierarchy are to some extent the least qualified for it: These are the people, who usually could not climb up any hierarchies other than the Wikipedia ones. Now, we may thing the educational system works poorly, but frankly, not as poorly that being a drop-out from the system necessarily means, you did a good job.

  4. http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-June/000181.html —
    QUOTE

    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 observe 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?"

  5. http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-June/000182.html —
    QUOTE

    Regarding the cabal, cult etc, I have used the term cryptohierarchies (like a true Greek) to describe leadership emergence of this style, in this article with George Michaelides, “http://cnc.sagepub.com/content/33/1/143.abstract”. It is a strange paper admittedly, but if anyone is interested I can email you an electronic copy.


Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Just by way of trying to figure out what happened here (cont.) …

Dramatis personæThe remainder of discussion in June on the topic of “The Wikipedia Cult” proceeded as follows —
  1. http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-June/000183.html —
    QUOTE

    I disagree with the notion that "only a very small minority of people are critical of wikipedia and most think it's great (regardless of what you or i think)" [NT].

    This video — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaADQTeZRCY — has nearly a million views on YouTube, not to mention how many views took place on the original CollegeHumor.com website and other cross-publishing sites and blogs. If the inanity of Wikipedia is so tangible and accessible for average people that a dramatic/humor production could take the time and effort to make what is obviously a popular meme actually FUNNY, then you know that society at large may think Wikipedia "is great", but simultaneously "laughable". The phrase "Professor Wikipedia" returns over 60,000 results on Google. The phrase "Wikipedia is a joke" returns over 41,000 hits; meanwhile, "Wikipedia is reliable" garners fewer than 4,000 results. A 2-to-1 ratio favors "Wikipedia is wrong" versus "Wikipedia is right" on Google.

    I think most people have a viewpoint on Scientology that it is a rather laughable institution and/or belief system. However, they gladly support (with money!) and "think great" the movies and musical output of famous Scientologists (John Travolta, Tom Cruise, Rob Thomas, Beck, etc.). I think Wikipedia is viewed in a similar light — it's the butt of jokes, but if you set aside that you're not going to go to Wikipedia for final guidance on heart surgery or for instructions on how to build a house, it can be an amusing and engaging source of free information that (you know in your heart) probably has a 5% chance at any given moment of being quite wrong.

    As for it being a "cult"? Maybe so, maybe not … depending on your terms, and whether you're talking about the user, the author, the governing board, or the True Believers. Is this person a cultist or a humorist:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/nojhan/1453862379/

    Who knows?

  2. http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-June/000184.html —
    QUOTE

    I think that it's sad that so much of this discussion seems to come down to a binary opposition of either one is critical of Wikipedia or one thinks that it's great. Why is it so difficult to have a balanced view? My view is both critical and enthusiastic. There's a lot to criticize and also a lot of valuable work that has been done there. I know some very intelligent people who are contributing to Wikipedia articles.

  3. http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-June/000185.html —
    QUOTE

    What binary opposition?

    I know some very intelligent people who contributed excellent content to Wikipedia articles, and some of them are still trying to do so, and yet they are many of the strongest critics of Wikipedian practices.

    I think the purpose of criticism is a bit more nuanced than that, and it has more to do with the system of practices that is being inculcated in impressionable minds than the mere content of pages.

  4. http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-June/000186.html —
    QUOTE

    Well, that's a very intelligent and balanced statement (except for the first three words, which are themselves a binary opposition, you're taking the position that there is absolutely no truth in what I am saying?). I applaud this statement. It is much more reasonable than most of the assertions in the recent avalanche of declarations coming on this listserv.

    My statement was not directly at you personally.

  5. http://p10.alfaservers.com/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-June/000187.html —
    QUOTE

    The Wikipedia Cult / Focal Problem / Banning

    QUOTE(Alan Shapiro @ 03 Jun 2010 CEST 19:50)

    Well, that's a very intelligent and balanced statement (except for the first three words, which are themselves a binary opposition, you're taking the position that there is absolutely no truth in what I am saying?). I applaud this statement. It is much more reasonable than most of the assertions in the recent avalanche of declarations coming on this listserv. My statement was not directly at you personally.


    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.


Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Just by way of trying to figure out what happened here (cont.) …

July was a month that found me on the road and in the air more often than e-scounced in my e.z.chair@home, but I did make an effort to continue my examination of distinctive practices that Wikipedologists, willy-nilly, share with notable cults of history.The rest is hystery, as you know. Critical examination of Wikipedian Culture's cultoid character has become yet another one of those Undiscussables anywhere within the Farce Field of Wikimpedance, and that now includes the CPOV List.

Jon Awbrey

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

The http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org has been pretty dead ever since http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikipedia-criticism-group-purges-three-critics — for a while there it was largely just a spam magnet for Spanish spam — but there's some pretty funny stuff on it this week:

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: thekohser

I have to say, that is pretty funny, Jon. That they think it's "pretty good, overall" that "about half" of new media enthusiasts have substantial trouble with Wikipedia... is quite rich.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 7th October 2010, 4:46pm) *

I have to say, that is pretty funny, Jon. That they think it's "pretty good, overall" that "about half" of new media enthusiasts have substantial trouble with Wikipedia … is quite rich.


My favorite —

QUOTE(Geert Lovink @ 06 Oct 2010 CEST 16:43)

Out of the 55 or so students only 2 or 3 had ever edited a Wikipedia page. Mind you, these are new media students … they do not have technical issues. After a training session it was relatively easy for them to figure out how to create a new entry, the formatting etc. Despite some frustrating experiences the overall response was positive.

I am always surprised how few young people contribute to Wikipedia. They all use it, but it doesn't cross their mind to change or add something. Why is that? Same with most academics. They complain a lot about Wikipedia but we never take up the initiave [sic] to make that small step to edit an entry. I would say, this is due to culture. I believe that changing (and creating) Wikipedia entries should be part of every school cirriculum [sic]. Not all these changes will remain. But that's not the point.

The actual percentage of students that will continue to add to Wikipedia will be quite low. Maybe 10%?

The Ortega curve, if I may call it like that, should be of great concern for us all. The initial response of the Wikimedia Foundation and some individual Wikipedians to the stagnation of editor numbers etc. was one of initial denial. Maybe understandable but not very clever on the long run. The inclusion of Wikipedia in courses like these is one of possibly many ways to break out of the current threat of social closure.

— http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-October/000261.html


“The inclusion of Wikipedia in courses like these is one of possibly many ways to break out of the current threat of social closure.”

That is what passes for Kritik Der Reinen Stierscheiße on the Euro Scene — How to get more of the Widdle Baby Bees to imbibe more Koolaid Nectar.

Jon sick.gif

Posted by: thekohser

By the way, most of these kids are making their new articles on the Dutch Wikipedia, which we know doesn't really count.

One kid who has published a near-non-notable article in the English Wikipedia seems to have caught on:

QUOTE
One of the reasons I can think of is that this niche entry has little interested readers. Not a lot of people know about this term so revisions should be quite rare. I did put a reference to post-demographics in the first paragraph of the much busier demographics-entry, because it, well, belongs there and also hopefully to give my entry some more readers. It states in the demographics-entry:

“Another form of demographics is post-demographics, originally a way to study the data retrieved from social networking sites, but also very applicable to integrate with marketing theories.”

The last part of that sentence, that it is very applicable with marketing theories is my own opinion. Yes, my opinion on Wikipedia. Still there.


He posted his http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demographics&diff=389099115&oldid=387691927 smack in the middle of the lede paragraph of a big article that gets over 4,000 page views per day. I might need to hire this guy for some paid editing work.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Okay, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-29/Interview cuts it …

There's some stuff I was keeping quiet about,
and it's too late to haul it out tonight,
but come the morn —

CPOVLEAKS …

Jon angry.gif

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Nate Tkacz @ 17 Oct 2010)

Subj: cpov reader
From: nathaniel tkacz <tkaczn@...>
To: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@...>
Date: 10/17/2010 9:29 PM

Hello Jon,

As you may know, we are currently working on a CPOV book, based on the three events we have held and on discussions from the list. As a "controversial" figure in relation to Wikipedia and to a lesser extent CPOV itself, we would like to ask you to contribute to the reader. It is obvious that you have a range of critical material about Wikipedia already and you could simply compile and edit the best of these into one piece. Alternatively, or in addition, you could map out the various online spaces for critical commentary about Wikipedia, such as the Wikipedia Review, and perhaps why and how they came about. If you are interested I will send you more details.

Best

Nate Tkacz

School of Culture and Communication
University of Melbourne

Twitter: http://twitter.com/__nate__
Homepage: www.nathanieltkacz.net
Current project: http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/about-2/


Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ 19 Oct 2010)

Subj: cpov reader
From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@...>
To: nathaniel tkacz <tkaczn@...>
Cc: Gregory Kohs, Seth Finkelstein
Date: 10/19/2010 10:02 AM

Hi Nate,

As you may or may not know, Geert, et al. summarily banned Greg Kohs, Seth Finkelstein, and myself from the so-called "Critical" POV List, so I can hardly be expected to take their pretensions seriously any longer. I had been cautiously optimistic up to that point and had even devoted a thread on The Wikipedia Review to covering the Institute and the List -- naturally the character of our critique was affected by that highly non-open action:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28881&view=findpost&p=244574

If you wish to discuss the situation further, I would invite you to participate there.

Sincerely yours,

Jon Awbrey


Posted by: thekohser

So, we're good enough to provide free content for their book-for-sale, but not good enough to generate life and vitality on their mailing list.

I think I see a pattern here.

Posted by: thekohser

I wonder... is http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-November/date.html a "healthy" level of activity on a mailing list?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 1st December 2010, 12:58pm) *

I wonder … is http://listcultures.org/pipermail/cpov_listcultures.org/2010-November/date.html a "healthy" level of activity on a mailing list?


CPOV = IYCWANDWAAA*

Jon tongue.gif

* If You Can't Write Anything Nice Don't Write Anything At All

Posted by: Kelly Martin

The real problem that anyone researching Web 2.0 has is that any in-depth review of Web 2.0 will threaten its ongoing viability. Web 2.0 is utterly dependent on the people who create "user-contributed content" to not mind that the service providers are making oodles of money off the content they're creating. While it's true that most of them do not, in fact, mind this, they are more likely to mind if someone points it out to them. As it's very hard to discuss Web 2.0 without discussing this aspect of it, most every attempt to examine Web 2.0 in detail gets cut off at the point that it would begin to threaten the golden-egg-laying goose.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Nate Tkacz @ 19 Oct 2010)

Subj: cpov reader
From: nathaniel tkacz <tkaczn@...>
To: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@...>
Cc: Seth Finkelstein, Gregory Kohs
Date: 10/19/2010 8:38 PM

Hi Jon, Seth, Gregory,

I figure I'll address all three of you because Jon forwarded on my last email.

Firstly, Geert sent the email but it was a group decision. All the editors/organisers, including myself, agreed. It is to be expected that the three of you were unhappy with our decision. What I will say is the CPOV makes no pretensions as to being "open". We have a list where people discuss ideas and events, but we also have a hierarchy. Indeed, my contribution to the reader is titled "A Critique of Political Openness". I believe that Openness simply masks the power dynamics of a group. Not everyone from CPOV agrees with me, but that's my position. The book we are preparing will be freely available and under a commons based license, but it won't be organised like a "bazaar". Geert and I are the editors. We will make suggestions and negotiate with the authors.

Part of the reason that we invited Jon to contribute (and this was also very much Geert's suggestion), was exactly because of his antagonistic position regarding Wikipedia. I know you have described our group as not really critical and as an echo chamber etc. etc. But we are of the opinion that our book will have different kinds of voices. For example, we have a recognised expert on star trek who kept a diary while trying to edit key entries. We have an inclusion from the authors of Wikipedia Art. We are negotiating contributions from Nicholas Carr and Jaron Lanier. We have people focusing on how power is delegated to bots, as a critique of the idea of Wisdom of the Crowds. We have a long interview with a disgruntled former Wikipedian who was very active on the Hebrew and Arabic Wikipedias. We have people focusing on the question of Western Knowledge and classification. We have Joseph Reagle talking about what kinds of
larger social anxieties are expressed through Wikipedia and so on.

We expect the book to be widely read. We expect it to circulate among the Wikipedia communities, in teaching institutions and to a larger public. If Jon (or Seth or Greg, or all three working as a team — we chose Jon because he was the most active on the list) want to contribute another voice to this publication we welcome it. And as I said, we would like to have someone cover the main alternative places for critical info about Wikipedia (how they started, what they cover etc.), perhaps at the end of a larger contribution. (Originally, we invited Jon to compile his best writings into a longer piece.)

Although it would be good for us to have the contribution, I would expect that it would be written not to "help us out", but to have your own views published in a different place and for a different audience. Our book will come out regardless. We would like you to be in it, we would like your voice in our echo chamber (!), and we won't ask you to tone down your views about Wikipedia.

Let me know if you change your mind.

Best,

Nate Tkacz

School of Culture and Communication
University of Melbourne

Twitter: http://twitter.com/__nate__
Homepage: www.nathanieltkacz.net
Current project: http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/about-2/