[Solar-general] Impressions from "Wikipedia: Ein kritischer Standpunkt" in Leipzig

[Diego Saravia]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stefan Merten

Hi list!

I just returned from the conference_ "Wikipedia: Ein kritischer
Standpunkt" which was the German language successor of the "Wikipedia:
A Critical Point of View" earlier this year in Amsterdam.

.. _conference: http://www.cpov.de/

Onde more it turned out to be a very interesting conference with a
couple of new insights into Wikipedia. To me the most important
session was the first one about "Geschichte und Politik freien
Wissens" ("History and politics of free knowledge"). The organizers
had asked me to write a report on this session for the conference blog
and I share it with you below.


                                               Grüße

                                               Stefan

=== 8< === 8< === 8< === 8< === 8< === 8< === 8< === 8< === 8< === 8< ===

I enjoyed the first session of the German language CPOV conference
`Wikipedia: Ein kritischer Standpunkt`_. In fact to me it was one of
the most interesting of all five sessions. Here is a report about this
session which has been attended by about 100 persons. It took place on
Saturday 2010-09-25 in Leipzig.

Ulrich Johannes Schneider
-------------------------

The session started with a very interesting and relevant talk by
`Ulrich Johannes Schneider`_. Schneider's talk was titled
"Produktionsformen vernetzten Wissens seit der Aufklärung" ("Forms of
production of networked knowledge since the Enlightenment"). As the
director of the library of the University of Leipzig he is an expert
for encyclopedias. As such he reminded us that Wikipedia is an
encyclopedia and in his talk explained what that means.

He started with the observation that there are many persons who are
annoyed that Wikipedia is not exact and that there are errors.
Schneider is not annoyed by this. Instead he made clear that this is
the normal perspective on every encyclopedia. For instance Diderot as
the one who created the first encyclopedia ever was annoyed by his
work. Right after he completed the first encyclopedia Diderot wanted
to create a new, improved one. Since that time there were always
attempts to create improved encyclopedias. However, during the print
era such attempts for an improved version often failed.

Schneider outlined that what is new in an encyclopedia as a form of
knowledge is that while usually knowledge is presented in books an
encyclopedia presents knowledge in the form of articles. However, the
only way to present knowledge in the form of articles is by an
alphabetical sorting system. This is different for instance to
scientific sorting systems which usually try to sort the topics of a
certain field in an hierarchical way.

Encyclopedias pull knowledge to the surface. They do not explore
topics in depth but may contain links to deeper knowledge. Schneider
mentioned that there are also scientific encyclopedias which are
usually introductions into a certain field. Another aspect of this
pulling knowledge to the surface is that you expect an encyclopedia to
have articles which are comprehensible for the average reader. This
also differs from scientific texts which need to be comprehensible for
experts in the field.

Another common critique in universal encyclopedias is that they are
not systematic. Schneider made clear that knowledge as such is not
systematic and especially if you want to present knowledge from all
fields the alphabetical organization is the only one possible. Besides
presenting knowledge from all fields in one encyclopedia it is also
common for single encyclopedia articles to combine knowledge from all
fields. This particularly includes the practical applicability of
knowledge. As an example he told us about an article about vanilla. In
an article the content of an original scientific book about the plant
was used but also a cooking recipe.

Schneider made clear that an editorial process is decisive for an
encyclopedia. The single authors of an article disappear in this
process. Of course in practice the editorial process is a struggle.
For instance the scientific author claims that the article is still
not complete whereas the publisher stresses that the book needs to be
printed. Schneider also emphasized that in the editorial process the
creation of a certain perspective is necessary. Of course if you have
a certain perspective this can be criticized.

Schneider finished with three qualities he finds important for an
encyclopedia. First an encyclopedia may not be too difficult. Second
an encyclopedia needs to be written in a single, non-specialized
language. Third the success of an encyclopedia is bound to an
audience. In the case of book based encyclopedias this is clear
because the publishers can not survive if the audience doesn't like
the encyclopedia.

One question from the discussion was whether there have been
encyclopedias with a specific perspective. Schneider replied that
there have been such encyclopedias such as a catholic encyclopedia.

As I said I liked this talk very much because he told us what an
encyclopedia is supposed to be. For many criticizers of Wikipedia I
have the impression that they want something different from an
encyclopedia and in this sense I think their critique is void.

Felix Stalder
-------------

The second talk in this section came from `Felix Stalder`_. Felix'
talk had the title "Vom freien Wissen zur demokratischen
Wissensordnung" ("From free knowledge to a democratic order of
knowledge"). One of the things I liked very much in his talk was the
opening appeal that instead of starting from some theoretically
thinkable features people should think about feasible alternatives.

Felix explained that today terms like "free", "open" and "community"
are central in information capitalism and that participation can be
seen as the new spectacle. In this sense it is very important to
distinguish between the frontend of a web application and the backend.
For instance in Facebook the frontends are open and decentralized. The
backends, however, i.e. the software which processes all the input and
the data, is proprietary, non-open and closed. By this there is a
discrepancy between the public and the private knowledge. Felix made
clear that this is inherent to commercial products. For advertisement
to work the user is seen as the product which is sold to advertisers.
Google is another example here.

Felix went on with three guiding principles he sees for a democratic
order of knowledge. First the legitimation needs to come from active
participation. Second monopolies of knowledge need to be prevented.
Third knowledge of minorities needs to be protected. The remainder of
the talk checked how Wikipedia can be assessed regarding these points.

Regarding participation in an economic sense Felix remarked that
Wikipedia has been founded shortly after the burst of the dot.com
bubble. There was no venture capital involved and also no
advertisement. He claimed that today Wikipedia would be founded
differently - although Felix gave no arguments why this should be the
case. One of the results of this non-commercial nature of Wikipedia is
that the user management is not central to Wikipedia. He underpinned
this by the observation that the user management of Wikipedia is
quite buggy. In a commercial system of course the user management is
absolutely central.

As far as the editorial practice is concerned Felix said that there
are a few users who edit a lot. Still he emphasized that the mass of
editors is important. He also claimed such processes are very
characteristic for peer production projects. Felix explained that in
Wikipedia there is no data mining or user profiling. In this sense the
frontend and the backend are congruent. In fact there is no
proprietary knowledge and one reason of this is that MediaWiki as the
underlying software is Free Software.

As far as the prevention of knowledge monopolies is concerned Felix
said that there is a complex and contradictory set of rules which grew
over time. There is no conflict resolution mechanism which is an
advantage for insiders. Insiders have implicit knowledge which leads
to a social closure.

As far as the knowledge of minorities is concerned Felix sees only a
weak editorial control over the various fields. In fact Wikipedia
represents topics at the border of the common knowledge and as such
Wikipedia represents knowledge of minorities.

On the other hand Felix sees a dictate of the common sense. One
expression is the constant battle between inclusionists and
exclusionists. For instance in the German Wikipedia there is often a
debate whether it is the Wikipedia for Germany or the Wikipedia for
the German language. Also in cultural topics there is often a debate
about the relevance of topics.

He concluded that Wikipedia is both, a democracy of knowledge and a
frustration machine. Felix explained that there are many processes in
Wikipedia but after all they are public and they are discussed.

Felix closed with the claim that there is reason for optimism. He
argued that the editorial and the economical model force Wikipedia to
keep the level of frustration limited. He reminded us that there is a
very similar point with the maintainers of Free Software projects.
There as in Wikipedia the maintainers need the community. He finished
in saying that this is a great thing already. After all this is real
democracy and not an ideal democracy.

During the discussion Felix was asked whether he has practical
alternatives regarding the social closure. He replied that this social
closure is a standard problem in peer production projects. One of the
possible reasons he sees is that in the free time there is less
regulation than in business. That might be a reason for instance for
the gender problems in Free Software. He also stated that because
power structures are not allowed by ideology the still developing
power structures are kept implicit and are not reflected. My personal
view here is that this may be the case for Wikipedia but in Free
Software projects the power structures are usually explicit in that it
is clear that the maintainer has more power than others.

As a practical attempt to counter the social closure Felix mentioned
assessments from external persons. For Wikipedia he mentioned two
examples. One is a prize for the best article which is evaluated by
non-Wikipedians. Another form of external assessment is the book
project which brings new views into Wikipedia.

Christian Stegbauer
-------------------

The last talk in the first session was given by `Christian
Stegbauer`_. The title of this talk was "Wikipedia - Von der
Befreiungs- zur Produktideologie" ("Wikipedia - From the emancipation
ideology to the product ideology"). Unfortunately this talk was so
dense and full of details that I had a pretty hard time to follow the
talk. Thus I'll report only about a view points Stegbauer made.

One of Stegbauer's claims is that Wikipedia undergoes a process of
institutionalization. Stegbauer said that this is an unavoidable
social process and as such can not be fought.

In my opinion Stegbauer's main claim was that Wikipedia moves from an
emancipation ideology to a product ideology. The emancipation ideology
is still the "official" one and for instance contains claims such as
that everyone may participate and the knowledge of the world flows
together in Wikipedia. Other parts of this ideology is that Wikipedia
overcomes copyright and the access to knowledge is free in Wikipedia.

On the other hand there is a product ideology which becomes important
more and more. The product ideology consists of things like an
emphasis on quality or competition with established encyclopedias.

According to Stegbauer this change is driven by various things and the
pressure from outside is one. He cited one Wikipedian who said that
"when something happens on Monday it will appear in the Spiegel (a
major German weekly magazine)." Another driver is Jimbo Wales who
wants to see quality in Wikipedia. As a result only good authors are
welcome. Also the distance between activists and newcomers gets bigger
with the growing experience of the elders. At the same time with the
growth of the project the separation of work becomes more necessary.

As results of this change Stegbauer mentioned things like secret
mailing lists. He cited one Wikipedian by "I don't want to let every
idea to be destroyed by chatting". Other results is that the admins
more and more are seen as a leading class and the existence of
criteria for relevance and quality.

Stegbauer stated that ideologies need to stand the test of practice.
As such the emancipation ideology still appeals to and invites people
but in the perspective of the "makers" it doesn't stand the day to day
practice test. The perspective of the less involved is that they stay
with the emancipation ideology by which they have been invited. Of
course these different perspectives lead to conflicts.

In a conclusion Stegbauer mentioned that there is an
institutionalization in the transformation of Wikipedia. The change in
ideologies splits Wikipedia into realists and idealists.

The negative spiral Stegbauer sees in Wikipedia can be explained in
that externals can not understand the internal conflicts. Another
reason is that the preconditions for participation grow and as a
result the emancipation ideology can not be practiced any more. The
product ideology deters new participants and keeping or improving the
quality in terms of the product ideology becomes more difficult.
Finally the attraction gets less with the institutionalization prozess
because there are less options for a "career" in Wikipedia.

In the discussion one participant claimed that the contrast is not as
sharp as Stegbauer claims. Rather the difference between the
emancipation ideology and the product ideology has always been there.
Stegbauer agreed but still emphasized that the main focus moves.

Another participant claimed that this is a quite normal process also
seen in other projects. He called it a build-up ideology vs. a update
ideology. Stegbauer replied that you need an ideology as long as you
have no institutionalization. As soon as you have an institution the
ideology becomes superfluous. Still the problem of the split exists.

In a discussion I had later in a pub someone changed the term "product
ideology" to "production ideology". I like this very much because I
share the impression that what we see here is less the orientation in
a product but in a certain production process.

.. _Ulrich Johannes Schneider: http://www.cpov.de/?page_id=516

.. _Felix Stalder: http://www.cpov.de/?page_id=520

.. _Christian Stegbauer: http://www.cpov.de/?page_id=522

.. _`Wikipedia: Ein kritischer Standpunkt`: http://www.cpov.de/



-- 
Diego Saravia
Diego.Saravia en gmail.com
NO FUNCIONA->dsa en unsa.edu.ar
------------ próxima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un mensaje que no está en formato texto plano...
Nombre     : no disponible
Tipo       : application/pgp-signature
Tamaño     : 306 bytes
Descripción: no disponible
Url        : https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/solar-general/attachments/20100926/0469a142/attachment.pgp