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.
   
   

[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

• AK = Athina Karatzogianni
• JA = Jon Awbrey
• JB = Juliana Brunello
• MO = Mathieu ONeil
• NT = Nathaniel Tkacz
• SF = Seth Finkelstein
• TK = Thomas Koenig

Another fiber of the thread raveled out as follows �

1. Jon Awbrey �
   

   
   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. Juliana Brunello �
   

   
   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. Thomas Koenig �
   

   
   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. Jon Awbrey �
   

   
   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. Athina Karatzogianni �
   

   
   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, “Cyberconflict at the Edge of Chaos : Cryptohierarchies and Self-Organisation in the Open-Source Movement�. It is a strange paper admittedly, but if anyone is interested I can email you an electronic copy.
   
   

[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

• AK = Athina Karatzogianni
• AS = Alan Shapiro
• GK = Gregory Kohs
• JA = Jon Awbrey
• JB = Juliana Brunello
• MO = Mathieu ONeil
• NT = Nathaniel Tkacz
• SF = Seth Finkelstein
• TK = Thomas Koenig

The remainder of discussion in June on the topic of “The Wikipedia Cult� proceeded as follows �

1. Gregory Kohs �
   

   
   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 � 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:
   
   www.flickr.com/photos/nojhan/1453862379/
   
   Who knows?
   
   

2. Alan Shapiro �
   

   
   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. Jon Awbrey �
   

   
   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. Alan Shapiro �
   

   
   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. Jon Awbrey �
   

   
   The Wikipedia Cult / Focal Problem / Banning
   
   

   
   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.
   
   

[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 Wikipedia Cult, CPOV List, Jul 2010

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.

• Jon Awbrey â€â€�
  

  
  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:
  
  

  
  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.
  
  

  
  AS = Alan Shapiro
  JA = Jon Awbrey
  
  AS: 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. …
  
  JA: 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.
  
  JA: 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.
  
  JA: 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.
  
  JA: Maybe it would help to focus, one by one, on particular practices that distinguish Wikipedia Culture from other systems that we know?
  
  JA: 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.
  
  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?
  
  

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

[Jon Awbrey]

The CultPOV List has been pretty dead ever since Geert Lovink booted Greg Kohs, Seth Finkelstein, and Yours Truly off it last July � 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:

• UvA students create new Wikipedia entries and blog about it

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)