The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V « < 3 4 5  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Institute Of Network Cultures, Koolaid Is The New “Kritikal”
Rating  3
Jon Awbrey
post Wed 1st December 2010, 6:08pm
Post #81


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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

I wonder … is three posts per month 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
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post Wed 1st December 2010, 8:17pm
Post #82


Bring back the guttersnipes!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Thu 2nd December 2010, 2:32am
Post #83


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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/

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

5 Pages V « < 3 4 5
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th 7 14, 1:08pm