Institute Of Network Cultures, Koolaid Is The New “Kritikal� Options Rating

[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 �

Institute of Network Cultures : Main Portal

Society of the Query : Collaborative Research Blog

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

[Jon Awbrey]

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

• The Wikipedia Cult, CPOV List, May 2010
• The Wikipedia Cult, CPOV List, Jun 2010

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

> 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�

“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

Seth Finkelstein, 03 June 2010, CEST 15:04

[Jon Awbrey]

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

• The Wikipedia Cult, CPOV List, May 2010
• The Wikipedia Cult, CPOV List, Jun 2010

Dramatis personæ

• JA = Jon Awbrey
• MO = Mathieu ONeil
• NT = Nathaniel Tkacz
• SF = Seth Finkelstein
• TK = Thomas Koenig

The next few posts on “The Wikipedia Cult� thread were as follows �

1. Nathaniel Tkacz �
   

   
   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. Thomas Koenig �
   

   
   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. Seth Finkelstein �
   

   
   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. Mathieu ONeil �
   

   
   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. Jon Awbrey �
   

   
   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.