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

[thekohser]

try not to vomit.

"Joseph Reagle's account of what makes Wikipedia tick debunks the vision of a shining Alexandria gliding towards free and perfect knowledge and replaces it with something far more awe-inspiring: a humane, and human, enterprise that with each fitful back-and-forth elicits the best from those it draws in. In an era of polemic and cheap shots that some attribute largely to the Internet's influence, he shows how even those of wildly varying backgrounds who disagree intensely can see themselves as embarked on a common, ennobling mission grounded in respect and reason."
�Jonathan Zittrain, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School and Kennedy School, Professor of Computer Science, Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, and author of The Future of the Internet � And How to Stop It

"Good Faith Collaboration sheds some much needed light on one of the most influential resources available today. Joseph Reagle accurately captures the internal collaborative climate of 'good faith' in Wikipedia, and provides an excellent history of its progenitors like Nupedia."
�Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia

"Wikipedia deserves to have its story intelligently told, and Joseph Reagle has done exactly that. Good Faith Collaboration is smart, accessible, and astutely observed. I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to better understand how Wikipedia works, and why it matters."
�Sue Gardner, Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation

[Peter Damian]

For the record, in case they disappear.

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

It's next on my to-read list.

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

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

Congratulations for the book!

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

Well done! Thank you, Mayo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry to be negative.

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

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

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

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

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

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