Hey,
I was wondering if anyone was aware of any research on differences in
gender behavior when it comes to willingness to link to Wikipedia on social
media sites and blogs? Or even any blog posts or unpublished research on
this issue?
Thanks,
Laura Hale
--
twitter: purplepopple
Fowarding good news, and hoping that this will inspire more content
contributions and Wikimedia research.
Pine
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Raymond Leonard" <raymond.f.leonard.jr(a)gmail.com>
Date: Jun 17, 2015 9:47 AM
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia wins Spain's prestigious Asturias prize
for international cooperation
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc:
Folks,
I thought that this was good enough to send directly to this list.
Wikipedia wins Spain's prestigious Asturias prize for international
cooperation
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/eae55ea0d15841f5bb4f30ff00bf5430/wikipedia-w…
Yours,
Peaceray <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peaceray>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
*** Apologies for multiple postings ***
Call for Participation
Please consider submitting a contribution to the Computational Social
Science satellite workshop, co-located with CCS’15.
What: Computational Social Science — CCS’15 Satellite Workshop
Where: Tempe, Arizona
When: October 1 2015
Complete info: http://cssworkshop.oii.ox.ac.uk
Submission deadline: June 21 2015
Continuing an already consolidated pattern since 2013, the Conference in
Complex Systems (www.ccs2015.org) hosts the satellite workshop on
Computational Social Science.
The aim of this satellite is to address the question of ICT-mediated social
phenomena emerging over multiple scales, ranging from the interactions of
individuals to the emergence of self-organized global movements. Particular
attention will be devoted to the following topics:
- Interdependent social contagion process
- Peer production and mass collaboration
- Temporally evolving networks and dynamics of social contagion
- Cognitive aspects of belief formation and revision
- Online communication and information diffusion
- Viral propagation in online social network
- Crowd-sourcing; herding behaviour vs. wisdom of crowds
- E-democracy and online government-citizen interaction
- Online socio-political mobilizations
- Public attention and popularity
- Temporal and geographical patterns of information diffusion
- User-information interplay
- Group formation, evolution and group behavior analysis.
- Modeling, tracking and forecasting dynamic groups in social media.
- Community detection and dynamic community structure analysis.
- Social simulation, cultural, opinion, and normative dynamics.
- Empirical calibration and validation of agent-based social models.
- Models of social capital, collective action, social movements.
- Coevolution of network and behavior.
Please address any questions to css2015(a)indiana.edu
Thank you.
Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia on behalf of the
CSS Workshop Organizing Committee
✎ 919 E 10th ∙ Bloomington 47408 IN ∙ USA
☞ http://www.glciampaglia.com/
✆ +1 812 855-7261
✉ gciampag(a)indiana.edu
Conference on Intelligent Computer Mathematics
CICM 2015
13-17 July 2015
Washington DC, USA
The programme for this year's CICM in Washington can be found as
http://www.cicm-conference.org/2015/cicm.php?event=&menu=detailed-programme
The accepted papers as
http://www.cicm-conference.org/2015/cicm.php?event=&menu=talks
In addition we solicit for posters which will not be peer reviewed, but we
will just do a screen review for relevance to the conference. A poster
presentation will consist of a 5 minute teaser talk and the presentation of
the poster on Tuesday morning (together with the other presentations in the
Systems/Data/Projects track).
You can submit a brief abstract on a poster by 22 June 2015 via EasyChair:
https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=cicm2015
You will be informed about acceptance shortly after your submission.
Registration to the conference will open shortly.
For details on the conference, registration, accommodation, etc. see
http://www.cicm-conference.org/2015/cicm.php
**********************************************************************
Invited Speakers:
**********************************************************************
* Leonardo de Moura, https://leodemoura.github.io/
"Formalizing mathematics using the Lean Theorem Prover"
(http://leanprover.github.io/)
* Tobias Nipkow, http://www21.in.tum.de/~nipkow/
"Analyzing the Archive of Formal Proofs"
* Jim Pitman, http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~pitman/
"Towards a Global Digital Mathematics Library"
* Richard Zanibbi, http://www.cs.rit.edu/~rlaz/
"Math Search for the Masses: Multimodal Search
Interfaces and Appearance-Based Retrieval"
**********************************************************************
The principal tracks of the conference will be:
**********************************************************************
* Calculemus (Symbolic Computation and Mechanised Reasoning)
Chair: Jacques Carette
* DML (Digital Mathematical Libraries)
Chair: Volker Sorge
* MKM (Mathematical Knowledge Management)
Chair: Cezary Kaliszyk
* Systems and Data
Chair: Florian Rabe
* Doctoral Programme
Chair: Umair Siddique
Publicity chair is Serge Autexier. The local arrangements are
coordinated by the Local Arrangements Chairs, Bruce R. Miller
(National Institute of Standards and Technology, USA) and Abdou
Youssef (The George Washington University, Washington, D.C.), and the
overall programme is organized by the General Programme Chair,
Manfred Kerber (U. Birmingham, UK).
As in previous years, we have co-located workshops:
* Formal Mathematics for Mathematicians
* Theorem proving components for Educational software (ThEdu'15)
* MathUI
Furthermore we have a doctoral programme to mentor doctoral
students giving presentations and a tutorial on the generic proof
assistant Isabelle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm interested in hearing experienced educators' and researchers' thoughts
about what roles Wikipedia, and Internet-based learning in general, can and
can't do well.
Articles for consideration:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0608-godsey-altschool-teachers-2…http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/06/04/technology-wont-…
What does Wikipedia education do well, and what doesn't it do well?
Is Wikipedia-based education amplifying the learning of students who are
likely to be from highly resourced schools?
Do we have evidence that Wikipedia based education has outcomes for
students that are similar to, or better than, other kinds of online
learning?
How can we offer a service that is widely beneficial for students and
teachers with limited technological resources? Or should we not try because
of the additional challenges?
Thanks,
Pine
Sorry if this is the wrong list, please feel free to distribute as
appropriate.
Details (developing) here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computational_Biology/E…
Message from Jo McEntyre:
We are organising a Wikipedia-Europe PMC hackathon on 4th Sept on the
genome campus, around the Wikipedia Science conference
https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Wikipedia_Science_Conference.
With Daniel Mietchen, the three themes we have identified are:
- contributing datasets e.g. data citations, text-mined entities from
Europe PMC to Wikidata & possibly seeing this pushed through to some
Wikipedia pages
- import of full text articles into Wikisource and potential
highlighting named entities
- pushing PMID-PMCID-DOI mapping to Wikidata/Wikipedia
We would very much like you to attend!
Hi Aaron
Thanks for your comment. Of course, you are right - I should have phrased this better as in "I have not seen many analysis of the weight given to wiki-volunteer work in the context of broader paid work, or to the issues related to the presence of paid workers in wiki-volunteer projects". I could be wrong, particularly in the latter case, but an admittedly quick perusal of the first couple of pages of search results which you provided below would seem to indicate that researchers typically focus on how volunteers work cooperatively-communally in WP, rather than on how wiki-work fits into the broader political economy (i.e. wages) or how the broader political economy affects WP?
cheers,
Mathieu
________________________________________
Today's Topics:
1. CFP Journal of Peer Production: Work and peer production
(Mathieu ONeil)
2. Re: CFP Journal of Peer Production: Work and peer production
(Aaron Halfaker)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 12:12:34 +0000
From: Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil(a)anu.edu.au>
To: "wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org"
<wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Wiki-research-l] CFP Journal of Peer Production: Work and
peer production
Message-ID:
<SG2PR06MB07121A5CB08CD276CDCC46DEC6BF0(a)SG2PR06MB0712.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Hi all
I have not seen many studies of labour / work in the WP-WM context so I thought this may be of interest to some?
cheers
Mathieu
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
<apologies if you receive this message more than once>
CFP Journal of Peer Production: Work and peer production
Editors: Phoebe Moore (Middlesex University London), Mathieu O’Neil (University of Canberra), Stefano Zacchiroli (University Paris Diderot)
The rise in the usage and delivery capacity of the Internet in the 1990s has led to the development of massively distributed online projects where self-governing volunteers collaboratively produce public goods. Notable examples include Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) projects such as Debian and GNOME, as well as the Wikipedia encyclopedia. These distributed practices have been characterised as peer production, crowdsourcing, mass customization, social production, co-configurative work, playbour, user-generated content, wikinomics, open innovation, participatory culture, produsage, and the wisdom of the crowd, amongst other terms. In peer production, labour is communal and outputs are orientated towards the further expansion of the commons, an ecology of production that aims to defy and resist the hierarchies and rules of ownership that drive productive models within capitalism (Moore, 2011); while the commons, recursively, are the chief resource in this mode of production (Söderberg & O’Neil, 2014).
Peer projects are ‘ethical’ as participation is primarily motivated by self-fulfillment and validated by a community of peers, rather than by earning wages. Their governance is ‘modular’, understood in a design sense (decomposable blocks sharing a common interface), but also in political-economy terms: participants oppose restricted ownership and control by individually socializing their works into commons. Conflicting interpretations of their societal impact have been articulated (O’Neil, 2015). Skeptics view the abjuration of exclusive property rights over the goods they produce as irrelevant, and ethical-modular projects as increasing worker exploitation: participants’ passionate labour occurs at the expense of less fortunate others, who do not have the disposable income, cultural capital, or family support to engage in unpaid labour (Moore & Taylor, 2009; Huws, 2013). In contrast, reformists, often hailing from a management perspective, suggest that the co-optation of communal labour by firms will improve business practices and society (Arvidsson, 2008; Demil et al., 2015). Finally activists celebrate the abjuration of exclusive property rights, and present ethical-modular projects as key actors in a historical process leading to the supersession of capitalism and hierarchy (Kostakis & Bauwens, 2014).
This last perspective raises a central challenge, which is the avoidance of purely utopian thinking. In other words, how can commons-based peer production reach deeply into daily life? How can ‘already existing non-capitalist economic processes’ be strengthened, ‘new non-capitalist enterprises’ be built, and ‘communal subjects’ be established (Gibson-Graham, 2003: 157)? An increasingly large free public goods and services sector could well cohabit in a plural economy with employment in cooperatives, paid independent work, and the wage-earning of the commercial sector. However analysis of peer production typically eschews mundane considerations such as living wages, benefits, job security, working conditions, work-induced medical conditions, and debates on labour organization. How can peer production operate as a sustainable practice enabling people to live, if labour and work issues are not formally addressed?
To advance this agenda, the tenth issue of the Journal of Peer Production, titled Peer Production and Work, calls for papers in two linked areas:
*Peer production in a paid work society*
Nowadays firms attempt to monetize crowdsourced labour. The paradigmatic example is Amazon’s Mechanical Turk labourers (popularly known as ‘Turkers’, ‘cloud workers’ or ‘click workers’) who accomplish micro-tasks such as tagging and labeling images, transcribing audio or video recordings, and categorizing products. This extreme modularization of work results in their status being that of independent contractors rather than employees with rights, necessitating novel means of protection and redress (Irani & Silberman, 2013). The so-called 'sharing economy' also uses peer production methods, such as the self-selection of modular and granular tasks, to extract ever-more value from the labour of volunteer ‘prosumers’ (Frayssé & O’Neil, 2015). Capitalist firms are also increasingly engaging with ethical-modular organizations, in some cases paying wages to participants. Such labour is thus both ‘alienated’, or sold, and ‘communal’, as workers freely cooperate to produce commons. Do traditional categories such as exploitation and alienation still apply?
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
- Peer production and the global political economy
- Peer production and the rise of precarious work
- Peer workers and possibilities for worker organisation
- Does the autonomy of peer workers cause conflict in firms, and how is it resolved?
- What strategies do firms adopt to co-opt peer production (e.g., ‘hackhathons’)?
- Do tensions around property rights emerge?
- Subjectivity in peer production
- Peer production and intellectual property, coded work
*Paid work in peer production projects*
How does paid labour affect ethical P2P projects? Mansell and Berdou (2010) argue that firms supporting the work of programmers who contribute to volunteer projects, to the commons, will not affect the ‘cooperative spirit’ of projects; nor can this support prevent the results of labour from being socialized into commons. Is this always the case?
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
- How do peer projects deal with the presence of paid or waged labour?
- Is this topic discussed within peer production projects? In what way?
- What benefits do paid or waged workers enjoy in peer projects?
- How does paid labour affect peer production projects?
*Timeline*
300-500 word-abstract due: 30 July 2015
Notification to authors: 30 August 2015
Submission of full paper: 31 December 2015
Reviews to authors: 15 February 2016
Revised papers: 30 April 2016
Signals due: 30 May 2016
Issue release: June/July 2016
*Submission guidelines*
Submission abstracts of 300-500 words are due by July 30, 2015 and should be sent to <work(a)peerproduction.net>. All peer reviewed papers will be reviewed according to Journal of Peer Production guidelines. See http://peerproduction.net/peer-review/process/
Full papers and materials are due December 31, 2015 for review.
Peer reviewed papers should be around 8,000 words; personal testimonies or ‘tales of toil’ in the Processed World tradition should be up to 4,000 words.
*References*
Arvidsson, A. (2008). The ethical economy of consumer coproduction. Journal of Macromarketing, 8, 326-338.
Demil, B., Lecoq. X. & Warnier, E. (2015). The capabilities of bazaar governance: Investigating the advantage of business models based on open communities. Journal of Organizational Change Management, in press.
Frayssé, O. & O’Neil, M. (2015) Digital labour and prosumer capitalism: The US matrix. Basingstoke: Palgrave, in press.
Gibson-Graham, J.K. (2003). Enabling ethical economies: Cooperativism and class. Critical Sociology, 29, 123-164.
Huws, U. (2013). The underpinnings of class in the digital age: Living, labour and value. Socialist Register, 50, 80-107.
Irani, L. & Silberman, M. (2013). Turkopticon: Interrupting worker invisibility in Amazon Mechanical Turk. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
Kostakis, V. & Bauwens, M. (2014) Network society and future scenarios for a collaborative economy. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Mansell, R. & Berdou, E. (2010). Political economy, the internet and FL/OSS development. In Hunsinger, J., Allen, M. & Klastrup, L. (Eds.) International handbook of Internet research (pp. 341-362). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Springer.
Moore, P. (2011). Subjectivity in the ecologies of P2P Production. The Journal of Fibreculture FCJ-119. Online.
Moore, P. & Taylor, P. A. (2009). Exploitation of the self in community-based software production: Workers’ freedoms or firm foundations? Capital & Class, 99-117.
O’Neil, M. (2015). Labour out of control: The political economy of capitalist and ethical organizations. Organization Studies, 1-21.
Söderberg, J. & O’Neil, M. (2014). 'Introduction'. Book of Peer Production (pp. 2-3). Göteborg: NSU Press.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 08:46:34 -0500
From: Aaron Halfaker <ahalfaker(a)wikimedia.org>
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
<wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] CFP Journal of Peer Production: Work
and peer production
Message-ID:
<CAKP=3WxSPzS5ZRUgwKLO_4Uf7D7H1mv-ozxMv6S7_JCzQc9F8Q(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I have not seen many studies of labour / work in the WP-WM context
Genuinely curious: Would the ~25-50 papers per year studying work
practices in Wikipedia/Wikimedia published in ACM human-computer
interaction spaces each year not meet the definition?
E.g.
-
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=wikipedia+work&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C…
-
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=wikipedia+labor&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2…
-Aaron
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 7:12 AM, Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil(a)anu.edu.au>
wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I have not seen many studies of labour / work in the WP-WM context so I
> thought this may be of interest to some?
>
> cheers
>
> Mathieu
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
> <apologies if you receive this message more than once>
>
> CFP Journal of Peer Production: Work and peer production
> Editors: Phoebe Moore (Middlesex University London), Mathieu O’Neil
> (University of Canberra), Stefano Zacchiroli (University Paris Diderot)
>
> The rise in the usage and delivery capacity of the Internet in the 1990s
> has led to the development of massively distributed online projects where
> self-governing volunteers collaboratively produce public goods. Notable
> examples include Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) projects such as
> Debian and GNOME, as well as the Wikipedia encyclopedia. These distributed
> practices have been characterised as peer production, crowdsourcing, mass
> customization, social production, co-configurative work, playbour,
> user-generated content, wikinomics, open innovation, participatory culture,
> produsage, and the wisdom of the crowd, amongst other terms. In peer
> production, labour is communal and outputs are orientated towards the
> further expansion of the commons, an ecology of production that aims to
> defy and resist the hierarchies and rules of ownership that drive
> productive models within capitalism (Moore, 2011); while the commons,
> recursively, are the chief resource in this mode of production (Söderberg &
> O’Neil, 2014).
>
> Peer projects are ‘ethical’ as participation is primarily motivated by
> self-fulfillment and validated by a community of peers, rather than by
> earning wages. Their governance is ‘modular’, understood in a design sense
> (decomposable blocks sharing a common interface), but also in
> political-economy terms: participants oppose restricted ownership and
> control by individually socializing their works into commons. Conflicting
> interpretations of their societal impact have been articulated (O’Neil,
> 2015). Skeptics view the abjuration of exclusive property rights over the
> goods they produce as irrelevant, and ethical-modular projects as
> increasing worker exploitation: participants’ passionate labour occurs at
> the expense of less fortunate others, who do not have the disposable
> income, cultural capital, or family support to engage in unpaid labour
> (Moore & Taylor, 2009; Huws, 2013). In contrast, reformists, often hailing
> from a management perspective, suggest that the co-optation of communal
> labour by firms will improve business practices and society (Arvidsson,
> 2008; Demil et al., 2015). Finally activists celebrate the abjuration of
> exclusive property rights, and present ethical-modular projects as key
> actors in a historical process leading to the supersession of capitalism
> and hierarchy (Kostakis & Bauwens, 2014).
>
> This last perspective raises a central challenge, which is the avoidance
> of purely utopian thinking. In other words, how can commons-based peer
> production reach deeply into daily life? How can ‘already existing
> non-capitalist economic processes’ be strengthened, ‘new non-capitalist
> enterprises’ be built, and ‘communal subjects’ be established
> (Gibson-Graham, 2003: 157)? An increasingly large free public goods and
> services sector could well cohabit in a plural economy with employment in
> cooperatives, paid independent work, and the wage-earning of the commercial
> sector. However analysis of peer production typically eschews mundane
> considerations such as living wages, benefits, job security, working
> conditions, work-induced medical conditions, and debates on labour
> organization. How can peer production operate as a sustainable practice
> enabling people to live, if labour and work issues are not formally
> addressed?
>
> To advance this agenda, the tenth issue of the Journal of Peer Production,
> titled Peer Production and Work, calls for papers in two linked areas:
>
> *Peer production in a paid work society*
> Nowadays firms attempt to monetize crowdsourced labour. The paradigmatic
> example is Amazon’s Mechanical Turk labourers (popularly known as
> ‘Turkers’, ‘cloud workers’ or ‘click workers’) who accomplish micro-tasks
> such as tagging and labeling images, transcribing audio or video
> recordings, and categorizing products. This extreme modularization of work
> results in their status being that of independent contractors rather than
> employees with rights, necessitating novel means of protection and redress
> (Irani & Silberman, 2013). The so-called 'sharing economy' also uses peer
> production methods, such as the self-selection of modular and granular
> tasks, to extract ever-more value from the labour of volunteer ‘prosumers’
> (Frayssé & O’Neil, 2015). Capitalist firms are also increasingly engaging
> with ethical-modular organizations, in some cases paying wages to
> participants. Such labour is thus both ‘alienated’, or sold, and
> ‘communal’, as workers freely cooperate to produce commons. Do traditional
> categories such as exploitation and alienation still apply?
> Topics may include, but are not limited to:
> - Peer production and the global political economy
> - Peer production and the rise of precarious work
> - Peer workers and possibilities for worker organisation
> - Does the autonomy of peer workers cause conflict in firms, and how is it
> resolved?
> - What strategies do firms adopt to co-opt peer production (e.g.,
> ‘hackhathons’)?
> - Do tensions around property rights emerge?
> - Subjectivity in peer production
> - Peer production and intellectual property, coded work
>
> *Paid work in peer production projects*
> How does paid labour affect ethical P2P projects? Mansell and Berdou
> (2010) argue that firms supporting the work of programmers who contribute
> to volunteer projects, to the commons, will not affect the ‘cooperative
> spirit’ of projects; nor can this support prevent the results of labour
> from being socialized into commons. Is this always the case?
> Topics may include, but are not limited to:
> - How do peer projects deal with the presence of paid or waged labour?
> - Is this topic discussed within peer production projects? In what way?
> - What benefits do paid or waged workers enjoy in peer projects?
> - How does paid labour affect peer production projects?
>
> *Timeline*
> 300-500 word-abstract due: 30 July 2015
> Notification to authors: 30 August 2015
> Submission of full paper: 31 December 2015
> Reviews to authors: 15 February 2016
> Revised papers: 30 April 2016
> Signals due: 30 May 2016
> Issue release: June/July 2016
>
> *Submission guidelines*
> Submission abstracts of 300-500 words are due by July 30, 2015 and should
> be sent to <work(a)peerproduction.net>. All peer reviewed papers will be
> reviewed according to Journal of Peer Production guidelines. See
> http://peerproduction.net/peer-review/process/
> Full papers and materials are due December 31, 2015 for review.
> Peer reviewed papers should be around 8,000 words; personal testimonies or
> ‘tales of toil’ in the Processed World tradition should be up to 4,000
> words.
>
> *References*
> Arvidsson, A. (2008). The ethical economy of consumer coproduction.
> Journal of Macromarketing, 8, 326-338.
>
> Demil, B., Lecoq. X. & Warnier, E. (2015). The capabilities of bazaar
> governance: Investigating the advantage of business models based on open
> communities. Journal of Organizational Change Management, in press.
>
> Frayssé, O. & O’Neil, M. (2015) Digital labour and prosumer capitalism:
> The US matrix. Basingstoke: Palgrave, in press.
>
> Gibson-Graham, J.K. (2003). Enabling ethical economies: Cooperativism and
> class. Critical Sociology, 29, 123-164.
>
> Huws, U. (2013). The underpinnings of class in the digital age: Living,
> labour and value. Socialist Register, 50, 80-107.
>
> Irani, L. & Silberman, M. (2013). Turkopticon: Interrupting worker
> invisibility in Amazon Mechanical Turk. Proceedings of the SIGCHI
> Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
>
> Kostakis, V. & Bauwens, M. (2014) Network society and future scenarios for
> a collaborative economy. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
>
> Mansell, R. & Berdou, E. (2010). Political economy, the internet and
> FL/OSS development. In Hunsinger, J., Allen, M. & Klastrup, L. (Eds.)
> International handbook of Internet research (pp. 341-362). Amsterdam, The
> Netherlands: Springer.
>
> Moore, P. (2011). Subjectivity in the ecologies of P2P Production. The
> Journal of Fibreculture FCJ-119. Online.
>
> Moore, P. & Taylor, P. A. (2009). Exploitation of the self in
> community-based software production: Workers’ freedoms or firm foundations?
> Capital & Class, 99-117.
>
> O’Neil, M. (2015). Labour out of control: The political economy of
> capitalist and ethical organizations. Organization Studies, 1-21.
>
> Söderberg, J. & O’Neil, M. (2014). 'Introduction'. Book of Peer Production
> (pp. 2-3). Göteborg: NSU Press.
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
Hi all
I have not seen many studies of labour / work in the WP-WM context so I thought this may be of interest to some?
cheers
Mathieu
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
<apologies if you receive this message more than once>
CFP Journal of Peer Production: Work and peer production
Editors: Phoebe Moore (Middlesex University London), Mathieu O’Neil (University of Canberra), Stefano Zacchiroli (University Paris Diderot)
The rise in the usage and delivery capacity of the Internet in the 1990s has led to the development of massively distributed online projects where self-governing volunteers collaboratively produce public goods. Notable examples include Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) projects such as Debian and GNOME, as well as the Wikipedia encyclopedia. These distributed practices have been characterised as peer production, crowdsourcing, mass customization, social production, co-configurative work, playbour, user-generated content, wikinomics, open innovation, participatory culture, produsage, and the wisdom of the crowd, amongst other terms. In peer production, labour is communal and outputs are orientated towards the further expansion of the commons, an ecology of production that aims to defy and resist the hierarchies and rules of ownership that drive productive models within capitalism (Moore, 2011); while the commons, recursively, are the chief resource in this mode of production (Söderberg & O’Neil, 2014).
Peer projects are ‘ethical’ as participation is primarily motivated by self-fulfillment and validated by a community of peers, rather than by earning wages. Their governance is ‘modular’, understood in a design sense (decomposable blocks sharing a common interface), but also in political-economy terms: participants oppose restricted ownership and control by individually socializing their works into commons. Conflicting interpretations of their societal impact have been articulated (O’Neil, 2015). Skeptics view the abjuration of exclusive property rights over the goods they produce as irrelevant, and ethical-modular projects as increasing worker exploitation: participants’ passionate labour occurs at the expense of less fortunate others, who do not have the disposable income, cultural capital, or family support to engage in unpaid labour (Moore & Taylor, 2009; Huws, 2013). In contrast, reformists, often hailing from a management perspective, suggest that the co-optation of communal labour by firms will improve business practices and society (Arvidsson, 2008; Demil et al., 2015). Finally activists celebrate the abjuration of exclusive property rights, and present ethical-modular projects as key actors in a historical process leading to the supersession of capitalism and hierarchy (Kostakis & Bauwens, 2014).
This last perspective raises a central challenge, which is the avoidance of purely utopian thinking. In other words, how can commons-based peer production reach deeply into daily life? How can ‘already existing non-capitalist economic processes’ be strengthened, ‘new non-capitalist enterprises’ be built, and ‘communal subjects’ be established (Gibson-Graham, 2003: 157)? An increasingly large free public goods and services sector could well cohabit in a plural economy with employment in cooperatives, paid independent work, and the wage-earning of the commercial sector. However analysis of peer production typically eschews mundane considerations such as living wages, benefits, job security, working conditions, work-induced medical conditions, and debates on labour organization. How can peer production operate as a sustainable practice enabling people to live, if labour and work issues are not formally addressed?
To advance this agenda, the tenth issue of the Journal of Peer Production, titled Peer Production and Work, calls for papers in two linked areas:
*Peer production in a paid work society*
Nowadays firms attempt to monetize crowdsourced labour. The paradigmatic example is Amazon’s Mechanical Turk labourers (popularly known as ‘Turkers’, ‘cloud workers’ or ‘click workers’) who accomplish micro-tasks such as tagging and labeling images, transcribing audio or video recordings, and categorizing products. This extreme modularization of work results in their status being that of independent contractors rather than employees with rights, necessitating novel means of protection and redress (Irani & Silberman, 2013). The so-called 'sharing economy' also uses peer production methods, such as the self-selection of modular and granular tasks, to extract ever-more value from the labour of volunteer ‘prosumers’ (Frayssé & O’Neil, 2015). Capitalist firms are also increasingly engaging with ethical-modular organizations, in some cases paying wages to participants. Such labour is thus both ‘alienated’, or sold, and ‘communal’, as workers freely cooperate to produce commons. Do traditional categories such as exploitation and alienation still apply?
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
- Peer production and the global political economy
- Peer production and the rise of precarious work
- Peer workers and possibilities for worker organisation
- Does the autonomy of peer workers cause conflict in firms, and how is it resolved?
- What strategies do firms adopt to co-opt peer production (e.g., ‘hackhathons’)?
- Do tensions around property rights emerge?
- Subjectivity in peer production
- Peer production and intellectual property, coded work
*Paid work in peer production projects*
How does paid labour affect ethical P2P projects? Mansell and Berdou (2010) argue that firms supporting the work of programmers who contribute to volunteer projects, to the commons, will not affect the ‘cooperative spirit’ of projects; nor can this support prevent the results of labour from being socialized into commons. Is this always the case?
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
- How do peer projects deal with the presence of paid or waged labour?
- Is this topic discussed within peer production projects? In what way?
- What benefits do paid or waged workers enjoy in peer projects?
- How does paid labour affect peer production projects?
*Timeline*
300-500 word-abstract due: 30 July 2015
Notification to authors: 30 August 2015
Submission of full paper: 31 December 2015
Reviews to authors: 15 February 2016
Revised papers: 30 April 2016
Signals due: 30 May 2016
Issue release: June/July 2016
*Submission guidelines*
Submission abstracts of 300-500 words are due by July 30, 2015 and should be sent to <work(a)peerproduction.net>. All peer reviewed papers will be reviewed according to Journal of Peer Production guidelines. See http://peerproduction.net/peer-review/process/
Full papers and materials are due December 31, 2015 for review.
Peer reviewed papers should be around 8,000 words; personal testimonies or ‘tales of toil’ in the Processed World tradition should be up to 4,000 words.
*References*
Arvidsson, A. (2008). The ethical economy of consumer coproduction. Journal of Macromarketing, 8, 326-338.
Demil, B., Lecoq. X. & Warnier, E. (2015). The capabilities of bazaar governance: Investigating the advantage of business models based on open communities. Journal of Organizational Change Management, in press.
Frayssé, O. & O’Neil, M. (2015) Digital labour and prosumer capitalism: The US matrix. Basingstoke: Palgrave, in press.
Gibson-Graham, J.K. (2003). Enabling ethical economies: Cooperativism and class. Critical Sociology, 29, 123-164.
Huws, U. (2013). The underpinnings of class in the digital age: Living, labour and value. Socialist Register, 50, 80-107.
Irani, L. & Silberman, M. (2013). Turkopticon: Interrupting worker invisibility in Amazon Mechanical Turk. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
Kostakis, V. & Bauwens, M. (2014) Network society and future scenarios for a collaborative economy. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Mansell, R. & Berdou, E. (2010). Political economy, the internet and FL/OSS development. In Hunsinger, J., Allen, M. & Klastrup, L. (Eds.) International handbook of Internet research (pp. 341-362). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Springer.
Moore, P. (2011). Subjectivity in the ecologies of P2P Production. The Journal of Fibreculture FCJ-119. Online.
Moore, P. & Taylor, P. A. (2009). Exploitation of the self in community-based software production: Workers’ freedoms or firm foundations? Capital & Class, 99-117.
O’Neil, M. (2015). Labour out of control: The political economy of capitalist and ethical organizations. Organization Studies, 1-21.
Söderberg, J. & O’Neil, M. (2014). 'Introduction'. Book of Peer Production (pp. 2-3). Göteborg: NSU Press.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Speaking of specialized lists, I'd like to suggest that this discussion
would be well suited to Research-l, where many people who are interested in
these kinds of questions read and write about them more frequently than
they do on Wikimedia-l. I'm boldly adding that list to the recipients for
this thread.
I have some thoughts about the substance of this discussion but they're a
bit rushed at the moment. I may write more later.
Regards,
Pine
On Jun 2, 2015 4:32 AM, "Milos Rancic" <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Luis, I have to say that you are the first person on WMF side who has
> substantially engaged into this issue and I am very glad to see that :)
>
> The products of your work are of the highest importance, as the community
> is the most important part of our movement, not to say that it's the
> movement itself.
>
> I am finally relieved to know that we are on the path to rationally
> understand what's going on inside of the community after short 14.5 years.
>
> It would be good if you'd share your results with the rest of us.
>
> As for this list: As MZ said, this list is important. However, there is no
> doubt that it's far from being the only or even the most important
> indicator of community health. It is just about one of the rare publicly
> accessible data which could give a clue of what's going on inside of the
> community, but could mislead, as well.
> On Jun 2, 2015 04:39, "Luis Villa" <lvilla(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Luis Villa <lvilla(a)wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> 3. Participation in the mailing list may be a misleading indicator
> of
> > > >> activity or interest, as other regional or specialized forums (eg.
> > > >> Facebook, GLAM-oriented lists, etc) have emerged in recent years.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Let me second this. My department is thinking about community health
> > > > metrics (constructive suggestions welcome!), but I would not
> personally
> > > > propose mailing list participation (especially this list) as a good
> > > metric
> > > > - decreased participation here may reflect many, many things, only
> some
> > > of
> > > > which are actually negative.
> > >
> > > This is not the only one indicator, but it's pretty consistent since
> > > 2011 (take a look into [1]). In other words, something happened in
> > > May. Maybe it's actually about the elections because people used other
> > > means of communication for that.
> > >
> >
> > Looking briefly at some of the highest-traffic months, it could simply be
> > that people got tired of discussing high-controversy topics here.
> > (Flamewars are good for traffic volume; not so great for community
> health.)
> > I'm sure Facebook's increased acceptance also has a role. I suspect also
> > that some announcements that used to come here now go to other, more
> > specialized mailing lists.
> >
> > That last one points to a key thing: as MZ says, many people are
> subscribed
> > to this list, but many don't read and don't participate, because this
> > mailing list has an *awful* reputation, and people who want to get things
> > done are going elsewhere. So "the decline of wikimedia-l" may be a sign
> of
> > bad health of the overall community, or it may simply mean that the
> healthy
> > and constructive parts of the community has moved elsewhere.
> >
> > To re-iterate what I said in the last email, I'm all ears for suggestions
> > on creative community metrics. I'll add here that I'm also very open to
> > suggestions on what a new wikimedia-l might look like. (I know some FOSS
> > communities are having good experiences with discourse.org, for
> example.)
> > No commitment that WMF can act on either immediately, of course, but I
> > think it is worth starting both of those discussions.
> >
> > Luis
> >
> > --
> > Luis Villa
> > Sr. Director of Community Engagement
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > *Working towards a world in which every single human being can freely
> share
> > in the sum of all knowledge.*
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Hey all,
This isn't directly WP-related, except in the sense that it relates to
a toolset I think a lot of researchers in HCI tend to use (heck, a lot
of researchers, full stop)
As any of you who've had the misfortune to spend more than 5 minutes
talking to me in the last few years will know, I'm kind of fanatical
about the R programming language. It's commonly used within
statistical analysis and even Python users wander over to R land for
graphing ;).
While the Python Software Foundation has an anti-harassment policy for
conferences they run or sponsor, the R Foundation does not - and so
we've started an open letter asking for one to be instituted. The
letter lives at
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C1oPhup72lPHJXbpyJZNIo1BdCzfxZ_VoiWJWzm…
If you're an R programmer or someone with an interest in that field,
and you're interested in signing, simply:
1. Put your name in as a suggested edit, in the format existing
signers are using;
2. Email me so I can confirm that the person signing as Foo Bar is
genuinely Foo Bar;
3. Done!
Many thanks,
--
Oliver Keyes
Research Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation