... is apparently happening later this month, with participation from a number of people from the UK: http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/program/amsterdam-program/
Does anyone know anything about this?
Mike
On 13 March 2010 23:31, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
... is apparently happening later this month, with participation from a number of people from the UK: http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/program/amsterdam-program/
Does anyone know anything about this?
First I've heard of it. This page lists the people involved, none of them jump out at me as UK people: http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/program/biographies/
On 13 Mar 2010, at 23:38, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 13 March 2010 23:31, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
... is apparently happening later this month, with participation from a number of people from the UK: http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/program/amsterdam-program/
Does anyone know anything about this?
First I've heard of it. This page lists the people involved, none of them jump out at me as UK people: http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/program/biographies/
Take a look at the national affiliations on the program page I linked to above - quite a few of them are "UK".
Mike
On 13 March 2010 23:31, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
... is apparently happening later this month, with participation from a number of people from the UK: http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/program/amsterdam-program/ Does anyone know anything about this?
I read the first description and my brain went "Danger! Danger! Pomo bollocks publication-credit-generator critical mass!" The others weren't any better. If actual Wikipedians weren't involved I'd think considerably less of it ... Can anyone translate the jargon-riddled descriptions into something that wouldn't make any sane human want to cut off all academic funding forever?
- d.
On 14 March 2010 13:48, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I read the first description and my brain went "Danger! Danger! Pomo bollocks publication-credit-generator critical mass!" The others weren't any better. If actual Wikipedians weren't involved I'd think considerably less of it ... Can anyone translate the jargon-riddled descriptions into something that wouldn't make any sane human want to cut off all academic funding forever?
Most Wikipedia-related research we've seen so far is pretty down-and-dirty stuff; studies of accuracy and revert patterns and growth rates and contributor dynamics and so on. As time goes on (and we become more ubiquitous) we find we get studied as a concept - another level or two of academic abstraction above this.
It's not a bad thing, by any means, but it does mean that it's relatively vague by the standards we're used to, and it's much less - well, less practically useful to us rather than to people who study the abstracted stuff. (If you think of these people as historians rather than scientific analysts, it might be clearer - they're more detatched, from our perspective)
This, for example, talks about Wikipedia, but at a level we don't need to worry about on a day-to-day basis:
"Joseph Reagle makes a broader argument that reference works can serve as a flashpoint for larger social anxieties about technological and social change. With this understanding in hand, he tries to make sense of the social unease embodied in and prompted by Wikipedia..."
This may tell us something interesting about how we practically implement NPOV:
"... the interpretations of the Neutral Point of View policy that accompanied the production of the politically contentious Wikipedia article documenting Israel's invasion of the Gaza strip in the winter of 2008/2009. He will show how these negotiations reveal ... Wikipedia editors are guided by a moral sense of what is and is not a legitimate intervention in their productive process."
(The later papers generally seem a bit more interesting and less... abtruse)
On 14 March 2010 13:48, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 March 2010 23:31, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
... is apparently happening later this month, with participation from a number of people from the UK: http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/program/amsterdam-program/ Does anyone know anything about this?
I read the first description and my brain went "Danger! Danger! Pomo bollocks publication-credit-generator critical mass!" The others weren't any better. If actual Wikipedians weren't involved I'd think considerably less of it ... Can anyone translate the jargon-riddled descriptions into something that wouldn't make any sane human want to cut off all academic funding forever?
- d.
Rough translation?
First read:
http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html
It doesn't directly cover the topic in question but will give you some idea as the game being played.
Still onto the actual articles "Rethinking Wikipedia: Power, Knowledge and the Technologies of the Self"
Broadly speaking this one appears to translate as looking at Wikipedia as interactions between wikipedians rather than as an encyclopedia. Note the mention of Michel Foucault for bonus points.
Wikipedia between Emancipation and Self-Regulation
I don't know what the "recent controversy among German Wikipedians" but it appears that the author has picked up on the fact that how wikipedia's decision making processes nominally work doesn't match how they actually work and feels the need to witter on about this. You will note that the author is taking a somewhat risqué approach of citing the Brazilian Boaventura de Sousa Santos rather than someone french. Perhaps Portuguese has been gaining in status of late.
The Critique of Law in Free Online Projects
Picked up that Wikipedians do have some biases and has tried to fit it into the same framework that has been used by certain section of the left on everything since about 1900. While the author has failed to cite anyone they make up for that by getting their Phd from a french university.
The Knowledge Bar
I think what is going on here is that the author is working from the position that what people know shapes what opinions they can have have. Think Orwell's new speak. The author probably loses points for not only citing Germans but one of which you've probably heard of (Immanuel Kant). They make up for this by actually being french.
Wikipedia and Encyclopedic Anxiety
The author tries to argue that people's worries about Wikipedia are related to their concerns about how the world is changing. Fairly straightforward and the author cites no one french but then they are American so what do you expect.
nil points
Authoritative Annotations, Encyclopedia Universalis Mundaneum, Wikipedia and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Basically the author wants to talk about a project of Paul Otlet's and may mention wikipedia in passing.
An Encyclopedia for the Times: Thoughts on Wikipedia from a Historical Perspective
What can Wikipedians learn from the past. The author has made the fatal mistake of writing what they are going to talk about in clear language. They are also british so it's not like they had much of a chance to begin with though.
Gustave Flaubert Laughs at Wikipedia
A mix of criticism from a dead Frenchman (throws in the question of how aware we are of it) and some stuff about the future of databases. On the basis that he doesn't appear to have any qualifications in computer science I doubt there will be much of interest.
Wikipedia Art: Citation as Performative Act
We know these guys. They still have nothing of interest.
Social Media, Cultural Scaffolds, and Molecular Hegemonies. Musings on Anarchic Media, WIKIs, and De-territorialized Art
"Musings" says it all. The author appears to want to talk about how different wikis have different communities and how the commuities build power structures. Then they throw in 4chan in case Encyclopedia dramtica didn't make them appear edgy enough. Apparently the author thinks it is 2008 or something.
Wiki Loves Art
The description appears to be straightforward. What Wikipedia loves art is/was and what some of the tensions are.
New Trends in the Evolution of Wikipedia
Basicaly an attempt to review where the available research says Wikipedia is now.
Bot Politics: The Domination, Subversion, and Negotiation of Code in Wikipedia
Basically arguing that how bots are written is driven by what the community will put up with as much as it is driven by what is possible.
Famous Forkings and Other Objects of Wikipedia Analysis.
I have no idea what this is about.
Clustering the Contributors to a Wikipedia Page
Errr ot entirely sure what this is about. It appears that the author is saying that due to the size of wikipedia it's hard to study and the ways of getting around this problem introduce bias in the kind of results received. The author appears to have realised that they have failed to cite anyone french and has decided to make up ground by being completely incomprehensible.
Negotiating the Neutral Point of View: Politics and the Moral Economy of Wikipedia
The author appears to have noticed NPOV is complicated and negation over contentious articles follows and even more complicated set of written and unwritten rules. The author suffers from being British and citing a Brit but tries to get around this by using the term Moral Economy. Quite how this is meant to apply to a gift economy I'm not sure.
Kosovo War in Wikipedia, Tracing the Conflict and Consensus in the Wikipedia Talk –pages
Again the author appears to have noticed NPOV is complicated and negation over contentious articles follows and even more complicated set of written and unwritten rules. The twist is that sometimes NPOV is not the only deciding factor. The author then jumps to the idea that NPOV needs to be challenged in controversial situations for no readily apparent reasons.
The German WikiWars and the Limits of Objectivism
Author appears to have discovered that jimbo was an Ayn Rand and run with the idea. They have then overgeneralised a single conflict on de.pedia
Wikipedia and the Authority of Knowledge
How people argued about the authority of dead tree sources back in the day.
Wikimedia Governance: The Role of the Wikimedia Foundation and the Form and Geopolitics of its Internationalization
Looking at the role of the WMF in terms of how wikipedia organises itself and how it operates internationally
Knowledge Satyagraha: Towards a People’s Knowledge Movement
Author looks to promote the idea of "Knowledge Satyagraha" mentions of wikipedia appear to be passing at most. No I have no idea what "Knowledge Satyagraha" is.
When Knowledges Meet: Database Design and the Performance of Knowledge
I think the author wants to witter on about how databases impact how people think. However they then talk about authoring tools which are not really part of a database. Given that it contains the words "perform their knowledge" and "cognitive justice" I'm not sure the effort required to work out what the author is really going on about would be worthwhile.
Wikipedia's Impact on the Global Power-Knowledge Hierarchies
Wikipedia may mess things up. What those things are and how it will do so appears unclear.
All in all there are a handful of talks that may be of interest:
Wikipedia and the Authority of Knowledge New Trends in the Evolution of Wikipedia Wiki Loves Art
The rest is low grade CV padding.
On 14 March 2010 15:12, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The rest is low grade CV padding.
Yuh. So, agreed then: we burn down any university hosting such academics and hand post-modernism back to the British pop music industry, who at least have turned it to viable business use from time to time. (Then we burn them down too.)
- d.
On 13 March 2010 23:31, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
... is apparently happening later this month, with participation from a number of people from the UK: http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/program/amsterdam-program/
Does anyone know anything about this?
Yes, it's a continuation of another conference - 'Wikiwars' or 'CPOV' - which took place in Bangalore in January this year: < http://www.cis-india.org/research/conferences/conference-blogs/Wikiwars%3E. I think, if I were to summarise them, I'd say both conferences are about the societal implications of Wikipedia, what it means to participate in Wikipedia, and the limitations of the Wikipedia model in documenting 'the sum of human knowledge'. Yes, it's geared towards academics - hence the language! - so, in this sense, I wouldn't take "being critical" to equate with "being negative". If there's specific jargon that you think I can help with, please shoot.
There are a lot of good contributors, some of whom are members of the Wikimedia community, e.g. Joseph Reagle and Stuart Geiger, both of whom have presented at past Wikimanias. Also, Mathieu O'Neil has written a very interesting book about online communities, including a case study of Wikipedia.
Personally, I'd love to be going, though I have no money, and even less time. If anyone's interested in going, and WMUK have funds... do it!
Cheers, Cormac
On 13/03/2010 23:44, Michael Peel wrote:
On 13 Mar 2010, at 23:38, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 13 March 2010 23:31, Michael Peelemail@mikepeel.net wrote:
... is apparently happening later this month, with participation from a number of people from the UK: http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/program/amsterdam-program/
Does anyone know anything about this?
First I've heard of it. This page lists the people involved, none of them jump out at me as UK people: http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/program/biographies/
Take a look at the national affiliations on the program page I linked to above - quite a few of them are "UK".
Mike
Ahem!
*****
*Andrew Famiglietti (UK) * /Negotiating the Neutral Point of View: Politics and the Moral Economy of Wikipedia /
About the Author
Andrew Famiglietti is a PhD canididate in Bowling Green State University's American Culture Studies Program. He is currently working on his dissertation "Hackers, Cyborgs, and Wikipedians: The Political Economy and Oppositional Potential of the Wikimedia Constellation."
On 15 March 2010 14:40, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 13/03/2010 23:44, Michael Peel wrote:
On 13 Mar 2010, at 23:38, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 13 March 2010 23:31, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
... is apparently happening later this month, with participation from a number of people from the UK: http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/program/amsterdam-program/
Does anyone know anything about this?
First I've heard of it. This page lists the people involved, none of them jump out at me as UK people: http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/program/biographies/
Take a look at the national affiliations on the program page I linked to above - quite a few of them are "UK".
Mike
Odd... I didn't receive that email... was it sent to this list (wikimediauk-l)?
On 15 March 2010 14:58, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 March 2010 14:40, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 13/03/2010 23:44, Michael Peel wrote:
On 13 Mar 2010, at 23:38, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 13 March 2010 23:31, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
... is apparently happening later this month, with participation from a number of people from the UK: http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/program/amsterdam-program/
Does anyone know anything about this?
First I've heard of it. This page lists the people involved, none of them jump out at me as UK people: http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/program/biographies/
Take a look at the national affiliations on the program page I linked to above - quite a few of them are "UK".
Mike
Odd... I didn't receive that email... was it sent to this list (wikimediauk-l)?
Ah, it's just arrived. Very odd...
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org