Centre for Internet and Society

Wikipedia comes to Hyderabad!

noopur — 2013-02-13T11:40:06Z

This post is a report on the series of Wikipedia meets organized in the city of Hyderabad on September 29-30, 2012. These workshops were a a part of the larger effort to help Wikipedia contributors in the same city to meet each other and strengthen the local community.

The city of Hyderabad is not only an IT hub but also home to many English and Indian language Wikipedians. In a recent series of weekend workshops and meet-ups conducted within the city, I had the opportunity to interact with many of them. We conducted a Wikipedia workshop at BITS-Pilani, Hyderabad, an Odia Wikipedia workshop as well as a general Wikipedia workshop for people interested in contributing to all language Wikipedias. I would like to convey my gratitude to the Computer Science department students at BITS, Hyderabad, Odia Wikipedians Swetapadma and Amaresh and English Wikipedians Tausif and Abhijith for making these events happen despite festivities and protests in the city.

To provide a brief report on the events, the BITS-Pilani, Hyderabad workshop was organized as a general introduction to Wikipedia. The event was organized with the support of the Computer Science department at the college and saw a presence of more than 60 students. It was 2 hour session where 6 students created their Wikipedia user accounts and entered their names on the BITS project page. They were also shown how Wikis work – live and global.

Students were encouraged to make changes to their college article and they discovered how to view recent changes, page views and other functions. It was a particularly informative session because majority of the group did not know that Wikipedia articles are written by common people from all walks of life! The session ended with a proposal to start a Wiki club for their college. The Odia Wikipedia meetup organized on the same day registered 11 participants while the general meetup on the next day had over 20 participants. In all three workshops, the majority of participants were not aware how one could contribute to Wikipedia articles.

Next steps:

It was great to see existing Wikipedians discuss the idea of having a Hyderabad SIG (special interest group) to conduct regular meetings, workshops, photo walks and more! Since the participants have shared their email-IDs, we will stay in touch and inform them about upcoming Telugu and English editing workshops. Students at BITS-Pilani, Hyderabad have also requested a Wikipedia workshop and hackathon for their upcoming techfest this month. A Telugu Wikipedia workshop has been proposed for the second week of October.

For more information on how to conduct a Wikipedia workshop in your city, you could contact noopur@cis-india.org

There was newspaper coverage about this event:

Wiki Meetup, Hindu, September 28, 2012

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/wikipedia-hyderabad-report

Access to Knowledge — September 2012 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2012-12-14T06:18:01Z

This is the first newsletter from the Access to Knowledge team of CIS in Delhi. The issue introduces you to the CIS Access to Knowledge program, the team members in Delhi and reports from Workshops conducted by the Wikipedia community.

Beginning from September 1, 2012, Wikimedia Foundation has awarded CIS a two-year grant of upto INR 26,000,000 to support and develop free knowledge in India:

Access to Knowledge Programme

The Wikimedia Foundation’s India Program has become the Access to Knowledge (A2K) programme of CIS.

CIS Office in Delhi

The A2K team consists of four members: Nitika Tandon, Shiju Alex, Subhashish Panigrahi and Noopur Raval.

Statistical Report

Indic Language Wikipedias – Statistical Report (January – June 2012) (by Shiju Alex). The data for this report and analysis are based on the statistical data published at http://stats.wikimedia.org.

Wikipedia Workshops

Note: Although most of these workshops were conducted prior to the grant period, the reports for all of these were written during September, hence we are featuring these:

The First Punjabi Wikipedia Workshop (by Shiju Alex and Subhashish Panigrahi, September 27, 2012).
Punjabi Wikipedia Workshop at Punjabi University, Patiala (by Shiju Alex and Subhashish Panigrahi, September 28, 2012).
Punjabi Wikipedia Workshop at Amritsar (by Shiju Alex and Subhashish Panigrahi, September 30, 2012).
Wikipedia Workshop in British Library, Chandigarh (by Subhashish Panigrahi, September 27, 2012).
Kannada Wiki Workshop at Tumkur University (Tumkur, Karnataka, September 15, 2012).
Wikipedia comes to Hyderabad! (by Noopur Raval, September 30, 2012). There was coverage in the Hindu on September 28, 2012.

Blog Entry

Editor Growth & Contribution Program on Telugu Wikipedia (by Nitika Tandon, September 29, 2012).

About CIS

CIS was registered as a society in Bangalore in 2008. As an independent, non-profit research organisation, it runs different policy research programmes such as Accessibility, Access to Knowledge, Openness, Internet Governance, and Telecom.

CIS is grateful to its donors, Wikimedia Foundation, Ford Foundation, Privacy International, UK, Hans Foundation and the Kusuma Trust which was founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin, for its core funding and support for most of its projects.

Follow us elsewhere

Get short, timely messages from us on Twitter
Join the CIS group on Facebook
Visit us at http://cis-india.org

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/access-to-knowledge-september-2012-bulletin

The Digital Classroom in the Time of Wikipedia

nishant — 2015-10-05T14:53:30Z

The digital turn in education comes across a wide range of initiatives and processes. The Wikipedia which is the largest user generated content website stands as a figurehead of such a digital turn, writes Nishant Shah.

Context

The digital turn in education has been described across a wide range of initiatives and processes. These include the introduction of digital tools and gadgets as a part of the learning environment, building digital archives and repositories of learning and curriculum building, facilitating remote access to education through information and communications technologies infrastructure, improving quality of access to education and learning resources, building diverse and customised syllabi to accommodate for alternative and contesting perspectives, building peer knowledge communities of information and knowledge production, and including non-canonical material and experiences into formal institutions of education. Different locations, contexts, geo-political circumstances, socio-economic factors, and cultural differences influence the spread, rise and integration of digital technologies in mainstream education. Much academic, policy and implementation attention has been given to these processes and several models of new learning environments and infrastructure have been postulated over the last two decades. The democratising promise of internet technologies has been largely if not exclusively about education, learning, literacy and production of knowledge from different parts of the world.

Wikipedia, one of the first and possibly the largest user generated content websites, that aims to put together the ‘sum total of all human knowledge’ in an open encyclopaedia, stands as the figurehead of such a digital turn. It questions and subverts the traditional analogue forms of knowledge production and relationships. The much discussed experiment conducted by Nature (Giles, 2005 and Orlowski, 2006) that established Wikipedia as an almost equal (if not more) reliable source of information to the fountainhead of print-based knowledge Encyclopaedia Britannica, has become the touchstone by which digital collaborative knowledge structures seek their validity within mainstream classroom pedagogy and learning. Wikipedia itself has emerged as an object of deep scrutiny and contestation, with warring factions going strong about its strengths and weaknesses. The supporters look at how this collaborative peer-to-peer structure has changed knowledge relationships that defined consumers, producers and mediators of knowledge. They see in the rise of Wikipedia, and other such wiki-based structures and user generated content sites that remix, reuse and share knowledge within the digital realm, the potentials and possibilities of changing the futures of knowledge ecologies and economies. The detractors of Wikipedia make a strong case for specialised and expert curatorial practices of knowledge, without which the information explosion of the digital world would collapse all distinctions between speculative writing and rigorous accountable research.

Concerns

In the seemingly unbridgeable differences of these two contesting positions, there is however, a set of common presumptions which remained unquestioned and unchallenged. The example of Wikipedia accordingly serves to throw in sharp relief these more general questions regarding digitally produced knowledge and digitally enabled learning practices.

Design of Trust

The first among them is the concern around Authority and Authorship (Liang, 2010). Increasingly, as Wikipedia becomes a de facto global reference site available in different languages, there is a growing dependence on the authority of information available on Wikipedia. Given that the number of users of Wikipedia is exponentially higher than the number of editors on Wikipedia, there are many users who never confront the structures of participation, processes of editing, and questioning the source of information (Harouni, 2009, Broughton, 2002) found on the site. This is not a problem exclusive to Wikipedia. Given the explosion of user generated sites which often gloss over the problems of authority and authorship, misdirected or misguided information, there is a need for digital criticality which can help people sift through different kinds of information and develop the capacity for effective critical judgment regarding both truth or falsity and rhetorical persuasiveness or manipulation. Especially within the context of scholarly and academic research and learning, classroom teaching and pedagogy, there is a need to define new parameters by which information introduced in the classroom or learning environment needs to stand deeper scrutiny regarding reliability (over authority).

Flattened Politics

The second concern has to do with the depoliticized perception of participation, collaboration and knowledge production on Wikipedia (Graham, 2010). Not only are geographical counters, experiential knowledges and non-standard forms of citation (Prabhala, 2010) ignored on Wikipedia, but they are also rendered redundant under the guise of objectivity. The essentially viral nature of information online and conditions of easy replicability that allow for copy and paste cultures often means that the information gets de-contextualised and de-politicized from its original intentions and circuits of production/distribution.

In many ways, Wikipedia’s adherence to an encyclopaedic model, promotes the idea that there is universal, objective knowledge which can be produced and understood without engaging with the politics of context, language, translation, evidence, etc. This adoption of an older model of aggregating knowledge becomes problematic in the light of new perspectives and theories of reading and writing, which establish knowledge as a contested terrain rather than the benign site that can be mediated through protocols, bots and procedures (Miller, 2007 and Rosenzweig, 2006). In classrooms, students and teachers are both faced with problems when they encounter the simultaneously authoritative and collaborative, definite and tentative nature of information on Wikipedia. The flattened structure of information further complicates our engagement with the larger contexts it refers to and often hinders the learner’s ability to go beyond the self contained universe of Wikipedia, unable to engage with that which has been omitted or left-out and only concentrating on that what has been written and represented.

Technology as Tool

The third concern marks a larger anxiety with the Web 2.0 technologies and their integration with formal structures of education and learning. It has to do with new configurations of power, recalibrated hierarchies of learning and teaching, and distributed communities of learning which might not often be cohesive and concurrent. With the unqualified emphasis on digital gadgets – OLPC, Smart Boards, iPads – and ubiquitous connectivity, there is often a danger to reducing these structures to sheer functionality. There have been experiments where pedagogues have merely introduced user generated sites as reference material and ways of accessing information without actually looking at how they posit questions to existing education systems. The larger trend of distrusting non-academic spaces continues.

A lecture on the problems of Wikipedia is immediately followed by a ban on or “policing” of the use of Wikipedia as a reliable resource, trying to create a false and divisive distinction between offline and online learning tools (Davidson, 2007). With the increased focus on ‘Digital Natives’ within education policy and everyday classroom pedagogy, there is a call for changing the existing classroom and replacing it with a digital classroom – a classroom that challenges the teacher-student relationships, the authority of the prescribed curricula, and the form of learning and teaching within college and university structures. The Digital Classroom is often mistaken to be a virtualisation of the contemporary classroom, where virtual presences and cloud-based resources of learning structure the syllabi and the methods of learning. However, the larger anxieties are about rendering the physical classroom digital by establishing new relationships and structures at the levels of curricula design, teaching, learning and evaluation. The need is to look beyond the social media as a tool, and start unpacking the transparency of the digital interface and the perceived non-hierarchical nature of information filtering (Geiger, 2010) on Wikipedia and other such user generated content portals.

Quality of Access

The fourth concern draws from digital internet rhetoric of Do It Yourself. There is a heavy promotion of howthe only thing that stops a student (or anybody who is a learner) from being an intelligent and engaged student is lack of resources. This rhetoric finds bolstering in other political movements like FLOSS and A2K (Willinsky, 2006). There is a presumption that the teacher is merely a proxy for the paucity of resources and that once the students have unlimited access to the ‘sum total of all human knowledge’, they will be able to Learn everything on their own. The DIY University models, the proposition of phasing out teachers and investing in digital infrastructure instead, the idea that the digital native student has instinctive abilities to navigate through knowledge systems (like a fish does to water), all obfuscate not only the traditional learning processes but also reduce all learning to Access.

There is no debate about the quality of access. Even when factual errors are spotted, it is celebrated as an opportunity to improve so that information on Wikipedia is by definition flawed and always potentially in the process of being improved. There is little theorisation of both the role of a teacher in a classroom and the relationship with information access and learning. The presumption that the only gating factor to better education is lack of resources glosses over questions of social and economic disadvantage, political contexts, age, language, race, gender, sexuality, social support, etc., that come into play when designing inclusive education systems. Instead, there is a promotion of fact-based skill-oriented learning that fits the larger neo-liberal agenda of producing workforces who necessarily should not have to be critical in their everyday labours (Achterman, 2005). Universities and colleges are finding increasing pressure to produce students who work within such flat knowledge horizons towards market expansion and promotion of information capitalism rather than a critical learner who is able to deploy lessons learned from education in order to question and change the reality of the conditions within which s/he lives.

Rationale

Given these dramatic measures and accelerated changes happening in academia and within the university systems across the worlds, it is necessary to dwell on what a digital college classroom and learning environment looks like in the time of Wikipedia. A synthesis of perspectives from different stakeholders in varied disciplines, engaging with knowledge production, consumption, distribution and access is necessary to understand what the futures and contours of the university system and classroom pedagogy are. The ambition is to look at Wikipedia as a symptom of our times rather than a site of analyses.

Call for Proposals

This is a call for proposals towards a special Reader, from people who are interested in producing historical and contemporary accounts of relationships between education, technology, learning, and pedagogy in order to map existing crises and questions of our present times. We take the classroom as the unit where different processes and flows of the education system meet. In this context, we invite researchers, academic practitioners, students, artists, new media theorists, education policy actors and historians of knowledge to look at the Digital Classroom in the Time of Wikipedia as an opportunity to question global trends in education and ways by which Wikipedia (and other such structures) can be fruitfully integrated in formal education towards better learning. Proposals can be for producing theoretical accounts, critical analyses, case-studies from one’s practice, review of information and knowledge, narratives of art and activist interventions, regional and local snap-shots, and other innovative forms by which the diverse and complex questions can be elaborated.

Key Questions

Proposals can be inspired by but not limited to some of the questions listed below that we identify as beginning points for engaging with the area:

What does a digital classroom look like? If we had to think beyond just integration of digital tools into the classroom, what are the new models and structures of classrooms (physical, pedagogical, or otherwise) that we are looking at?
What are the new relationships that we are mapping in the time of Wikipedia – student-teacher, teacher-curriculum, student-classroom, student-student, technology-education, pedagogy-learning? How do we account for the shifts and map the transitions?
How do we understand the changing nature and function of the university and education with the rise of the internet? What are the policy and practice visions of the University of the Future?
What does the integration of Wikipedia and similar structures in everyday classroom practice lead to? What does it change and for whom?
What is the role of the teacher in the age of ubiquitous information access? How do we restructure our ideas of pedagogy, learning and evaluation?
What are the historical tensions between technology and education that are being replayed with the rise of the digital?
What does the rise of Wikipedia mean for our traditional understandings of data repositories? What are the politics and implications of Wikimedia’s other projects on Alternative Citation, Wikipictures, GLAM, etc. on the larger knowledge ecology and industry?

References:

Achterman, D. (2005). “Surviving Wikipedia: Improving student search habits through information literacy and teacher collaboration”, Knowledge Quest, 33(5), 38−40.
Davidson, C. (2007). “We can’t ignore the influence of digital technologies”, Education Digest, 73(1), 15−18.
Geiger, S. (2011). “The Lives of Bots”, Critical Point of View A Wikipedia Reader (Eds.) Geert Lovink and Nathaniel Tkacz. Institute of Network Cultures : Amsterdam.
Giles, J. (2005). “Internet encyclopedias go head to head”, Nature, 438(7070), 900−901.
Graham, M. (2011). “Wiki Space: Palimpsests and the Politics of Exclusion”, Critical Point of View A Wikipedia Reader (Eds.) Geert Lovink and Nathaniel Tkacz. Institute of Network Cultures : Amsterdam.
Harouni, H. (2009). “High School Research and Critical Literacy: Social Studies with and Despite Wikipedia”, Harvard Educational Review, 79 (3), 473-494.
Liang, L. (2011). “A brief History of the Internet from the 15th to the 18th Century”, Critical Point of View A Wikipedia Reader (Eds.) Geert Lovink and Nathaniel Tkacz. Institute of Network Cultures : Amsterdam.
Miller, N. (2007). “Wikipedia revisited” ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 64(2), 147−150.
Orlowski, A. (2006, March 26). Nature mag cooked Wikipedia study, The Register. Retrieved December 17, 2011, from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/
Prabhala, A. (2011). People Are Knowledge. Documentary retrieved from December 17, 2011 from http://vimeo.com/26469276.
Rosenzweig, R. (2006). “Can history be open source? Wikipedia and the future of the past” Journal of American History, 93(1), 117–146.
Willinsky, J. (2006). The Access Principle: The Case for Open Access to Research and Scholarship. MIT Press :Massachusetts.
Collaborators: Dr. David Theo Goldberg, University of California Humanities Research Institute and Claudia Sullivan, Digital Media and Learning Initiative, HASTAC.
Photo source: Flickr (Creative Commons-licensed content for noncommercial use requiring attribution and share alike distribution).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/digital-humanities/blogs/digital-classroom/digital-classroom-in-time-of-wikipedia

WikiWars - A report

nishant — 2010-10-06T11:21:56Z

The Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore and the Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam, hosted WikiWars – an international event that brought together scholars, researchers, academics, artists and practitioners from various disciplines, to discuss the emergence and growth of Wikipedia and what it means for the information societies we inhabit. With participants from 15 countries making presentations about Wikipedia and the knowledge ecology within which it exists, the event saw a vigorous set of debates and discussions as questions about education, pedagogy, language, access, geography, resistance, art and subversion were raised by the presenters. The 2 day event marked the beginning of the process that hopes to produce the first critical reader – Critical Point of View (CPOV) - that collects key resources for research and inquiry around Wikipedia.

The debates around Wikipedia, the de facto dynamic knowledge production system online, are very fairly divided into two competing camps. There is a group of people who swear by Wikipedia – celebrating its democratic processes of knowledge production, ease of access, and the de-canonisation of knowledge to produce the ‘WikiWay’; And then there is a group of people who swear at Wikipedia – raising concerns over authenticity, reliability, vulgarisation of knowledge and the de-hierarchisation of knowledge systems that Wikipedia seems to embody. The debates between the two groups are often passionate and situated in wildly speculative and often personal interests and investments in Wikipedia and the Web 2.0 Information Revolution that it seems to be a symptom of. The debates also play out in various international locations, most of them relying on personal anecdotes, experiences and half hearted data that does not stand the tests of rigour.

WikiWars, then, concentrated on things which are about Wikipedia but also not about Wikipedia. In many ways, as Geert Lovink, the Director of INC suggested, WikiWars was a recognition of the fact that Wikipedia has come of age and can now be systematically and philosophically examined as a work in progress that has long-term implications about our future. It was the ambition of the Editorial team (consisting of Geert Lovink, Sabine Nerdeer, Nathaniel Tkacz, Johanna Niyesito, Sunil Abraham and Nishant Shah) to veer away from the recognised battle-lines drawn in, around and about Wikipedia, and instead examine the fault-lines that run under many of our assumptions, prejudices and imaginations of Wikipedia. And Wikiwars, through careful screening and invested interests, became one of the first platforms in the world to initiate a critical discourse on Wikipedia, seeking to engage with its histories, it contemporary manifestations and practices, and the futures that it seeks to inhabit.

The different presentations brought in located debates, theoretical and philosophical concepts and personal experiences to build frameworks that explain and contextualise Wikipedia as one of the most contested spaces online. The eight panels across two days dealt with four major thematic areas which need to be summarised in brief:

1. Education, Pedagogy and Knowledge: At the very basis of Wikipedia (and other structures like it) is the question of knowledge production, the possibility of using it as an educational tool and the potentials it has for introducing new pedagogies and learning practices in and outside of institutionalised education. Presenters from various disciplines engaged with these questions in interesting ways.

Usha Raman from Teacher Plus in Hyderabad, brought in the question of primary education, the need for teacher training programmes and the ways by which infrastructure development needs to be thought through when talking of Wikipedia and education in the Indian context. The necessity of locating Wikipedia in a much larger debates on learning were also echoed by Noopur Rawal and Srikeit Tadepalli, students from Christ University who brought their experience of Wikipedia and the expectations from classroom education and learning in their presentation.

In the same field, but from a different approach, a panel examined Wikipedia as a site to critique Western Knowledge production systems. Stian Haklev and Johanna Niyesito concentrated on the questions of language and knowledge production. Haklev made an impassioned argument deconstructing the utopian idea of Wikipedia’s multilingual dreams and instead made a call for recognising the black-holes when it comes to non-English production and consumption of knowledge on Wikipedia. He further explored the implications that linguistic imbalance has on the very governance structure of Wikipedia and its communities. Niyesito challenged the ‘global’ and ‘cosmopolitan’ image that Wikipedia has built for itself and posited the idea of Wikipedia as a translingual space where different languages and cultures negotiate common understandings and processes of producing knowledge. HanTeng Liao explored knowledge production through the market economy of key-words to see how the linguistic biases of search engines that harvest these keywords, determines the access and visibility of different Wikipedia pages.

Resistance, Diversity and Representation: While these questions were present as undercurrents to most of the presentations at WikWars, they were perhaps most fiercely present in the debates that followed the presentations by Eric Ilya Lee (Academia Sinica, Taiwan), YiPing Tsou (National Central University, Taiwan), William Beutler and Eric Zimmerman (IDC, Israel).

For Lee and Tsou, the responses to the Chinese language Wikipedia from popular media and personal experiences, were demonstrative of the fact that the lack of diverse means of representation and participation lead to a strong resistance of Wikipedia in Taiwan. Beutler looked at the heavily contested editorial space and policies of Wikipedia to make a point about how lack of effective governance systems based on mutual tolerance and diversity lead to stressful and often traumatic experiences for users who might not be represented through the mainstream ideas and ideologies of an English speaking populace.

Zimmerman took a startling position, calling for a regime of attribution and dissolving the pseudonymous structures of knowledge production in Wikipedia in order to build designs of trust and verification into the system, thus leading to better and more credible research tools and representations.

The tone of debates was altered with presentations by Mark Graham (Oxford Research Institute) and the team of artists Nathaniel Stern and Scott Kildal, the team responsible for the Wikipedia Art Project. Graham showed the complexity of visualising space and how the production of space (or physical geography) on Wikipedia often reflects the virtual density of access and presence online. Showing a nuanced set of images that help mapping these new geographies for a richer diversity and representation, Graham showed how systems like Wikipedia ‘cannot know what they cannot know’ despite the reliance on the wisdom of crowds.

Stern and Kildall, in giving an account of their project which used Wikipedia’s policies to undermine and challenge it, show how the institutionalisation of a space and its ‘canonisation’ can quickly lead to a new set of problems where the space becomes the very thing it had set itself against.

3. Politics of Free, Open and Exclusion: The rhetoric of free and open have been built into all popular discourses around Wikipedia. However, the presentations at WikiWars showed that these need to be taken with at least a pinch of salt and further examined for what they signify. Alok Nandi of Architempo made a dramatic and creative revisit of these guiding principles of Wikipedia. He showed how an inquiry into rituals of participation, distortion and access on Wikipedia can promote, not merely looking at the politics of exclusion but also at the politics of inclusion and the problems therein.

Dror Kamir’s evocative narrative of ‘Your side, my side and Wikipedia’ illustrated how the question of boundaries, of knowledges, of facts and truths get distorted as language, community, nationality, etc. come into play in recording and documenting knowledge on Wikipedia. Concentrating on conflict zones in the Middle East, he talked about the lack and perhaps the impossibility of producing neutrality the way in which Wikipedia demands of its users. These ideas resonated with the propositions that ShunLing Chen from Harvard had floated in the opening panel to explore the ‘boundary work’ of Wikipedia and how it defines and produces itself in relation to external forces and controversies. These discussions on the politics of presence, absence, inclusion and exclusion were further layered by presentations by Linda Gross, Elad Weider, Heather Ford and Nathaniel Tkacz who produced a critique of the Free and Open, taking a cautionary step away from accepting these as inherently good.

While Gross explored the structure of egalitarianism that Wikipedia builds for itself, Ford presented an analysis of the licensing regimes of the knowledge produced within Wikipedia and the problems they pose to traditional knowledges and non-mainstream information. Weider, trained as a lawyer, critiqued the neo-liberal discourse around Wikipedia and tried to correlate the communities with markets. Tkacz’s historical overview of Free and Open, resulted in a compelling inquiry into the very structures that inform the shape and functioning of objects like Wikipedia.

Twitter: #WikiWars http://twitter.com/wikiwars and www.twitter.com/jackerhack/wikiwars

Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/30479432@N03/sets/72157623193288710/

CPOV blog : http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/

The videos fom the Wikiwars event are embedded below:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/research/conferences/conference-blogs/wwrep

Wikiwars: 12th, 13th January, Bangalore

nishant — 2012-03-13T10:43:09Z

The Centre for Internet and Society and the Institute of Network Cultures brought together a critical range of scholars, academicians, practitioners, artists and researchers to inquire into the new conditions which emerge with the rise of Wikipedia. The first of two events, WikiWars was the beginning of a knowledge network that shall contribute to a reader titled Critical Point of View, becoming the first resource tool to engage creatively and fruitfully with the diverse range of questions that surround Wikipedia.

The Wikipedia has emerged as the de facto global reference of dynamic knowledge. Different stakeholders – Wikipedians, users, academics, researchers, gurus of Web 2.0, publishing houses and governments have entered into fierce debates and discussions about what the rise of Wikipedia and Wiki cultures means and how they influence the information societies we live in. The Wikipedia itself has been at the centre of much controversy, pivoted around questions of accuracy, anonymity, vandalism, expertise and authority.

The first event, titled WikiWars is scheduled on the 12th and 13th of January 2010. This is the registration page for interested participants who want to join us in the discussions at the WikiWars.

For Event Details look here

For information on Programme, Panels, participants and presentation titles, look here (MS Office) or here (PDF document)

For more details on WikiWars and CPOV, look here

We have, apart from the 40 presenters, 45 seats available for interested participants to join the discussions.

There are no fees for registration, but the seats are limited, available only on first come first serve basis and not expandable.

To register, email us on : nishant@cis-india.org

Registrations closes: 10th January, 12:00 midnight, Indian Time.

Make sure you give us the following information in your registration request: Name, Email address, Cell phone/contact number, Institutional affiliation, Position/Designation, Areas of interest.

We will publish the final list of registered participants on the 11th of January 2010. Registered participants will be provided with a Registration kit and lunch & refreshments during the event.

Please Note: We might not be able to accommodate participants who turn up at the venue without prior registration due to logistical constraints.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/research/conferences/conference-blogs/wikwarsreg

Wiki Academy

radha — 2011-08-18T05:01:57Z

An article by Hari Prasad Nadig on Wiki Academy, a workshop based on usage of Indian languages, editing and its applications in academics of Wikipedia - the free online encyclopedia, was held at Eric Mathias hall in St Aloysius College in Mangalore on Saturday, August 22.

Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high;

Where knowledge is free; - Rabindranath Tagore

ಜ್ಞಾನವೆಂಬುದು ಯಾರೊಬ್ಬರ ಸೊತ್ತಲ್ಲ. ಅದು ಎಲ್ಲರದೂ ಆಗಬೇಕು. ಮಾನವಕುಲದ ಒಟ್ಟು ಅರಿವು ಪ್ರತಿಯೊಬ್ಬರಿಗೂ ಸಿಗಬೇಕು, ಜ್ಞಾನವನ್ನು ಮುಚ್ಚಿಟ್ಟು ಅಥವ ಹಿಡಿದಿಟ್ಟು ಪ್ರಯೋಜನವಿಲ್ಲ. ಹಂಚಿಕೊಂಡ ಜ್ಞಾನ ಮತ್ತಷ್ಟು ಬೆಳೆಯುತ್ತದೆ - ಇದು ಒಂದು ರೀತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ಯೋಜನೆಯ ಹಿಂದಿರುವ ಸಿದ್ಧಾಂತ.

ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ಒಂದು ಮುಕ್ತ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ. ಎಲ್ಲರೂ ತಮ್ಮ ಅರಿವು ಹಂಚಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬಹುದಾದ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ. ಯಾರೊಬ್ಬರೂ ಎಡಿಟ್ ಮಾಡಬಹುದಾದ ಪುಟಗಳ ಗುಚ್ಛ. ಇದನ್ನು ನಡೆಸುವುದು ಜಗತ್ತಿನಾದ್ಯಂತ ತಮಗರಿವಿರುವ ವಿಷಯಗಳನ್ನು ಹಂಚಿಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತ ತಾವೂ ಹೊಸ ವಿಷಯಗಳನ್ನು ಅರಿತುಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ಉತ್ಸುಕರಾಗಿರುವ ಆಸಕ್ತರ ಸಮುದಾಯ. ಪ್ರಾರಂಭವಾದ ಕೆಲವೇ ವರ್ಷಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲದ ಅತ್ಯಂತ ಪ್ರಮುಖ ವೆಬ್ಸೈಟುಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಒಂದಾದ ಯೋಜನೆ ಇದು. ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಇಂದು ಅತ್ಯಂತ ಬಳಕೆಯಾಗುವ ಮೊದಲ ಐದು ವೆಬ್ಸೈಟುಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಇದೂ ಒಂದು.

ನಾಲ್ಕಾರು ವರ್ಷಗಳೇ ಈ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಕಳೆದವರಿಗೆ ಎಲ್ಲರೊಡನೆ ಕುಳಿತು ಒಂದು ದಿನದಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಕಿ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಹಂಚಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವುದು ಬಹುದೊಡ್ಡ ಸವಾಲು. ಏಕೆಂದರೆ, ವಿಕಿ(ಪೀಡಿಯ) ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಹಂಚಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ನಮಲ್ಲಿರುವ ವಿಷಯಗಳು ನೂರಾರು. ಮಂಗಳೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ರಾಜ್ಯಮಟ್ಟದ ಮೊಟ್ಟಮೊದಲ ವಿಕಿ ಅಕಾಡೆಮಿ ಆಯೋಜಿಸಿದಾಗ ನಮಗೆದುರಾದ ಸವಾಲು ಕೂಡ ಇದೇ. ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಅಂದು ನೆರೆದಿದ್ದ ಇನ್ನೂರಕ್ಕೂ ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಜನ ಆಸಕ್ತರ ಸಮೂಹ ನಮಗಿದ್ದ ಸವಾಲನ್ನು ಇಮ್ಮಡಿಗೊಳಿಸಿತ್ತು.

"ಮಂಗಳೂರು ಆಸ್ಟ್ರೇಲಿಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಕೂಡ ಇದೆ. ಅದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಲೇಖನ ಉಂಟೋ?" ಎಂದು ಸಭಿಕರೊಬ್ಬರು ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ ಮುಂದಿಟ್ಟಾಗ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮ ನಡೆಸಿಕೊಟ್ಟ ನಮಗೂ ಕುತೂಹಲ. ಅಲ್ಲಿಯೇ ಆಂಗ್ಲ ವಿಕಿಯ 'ಮಂಗಳೂರು' ಪುಟ ತೆರೆದು ನೋಡಿದಾಗ ಆಸ್ಟ್ರೇಲಿಯದಲ್ಲಿರುವ 'ಮಂಗಳೂರು' ಎಂಬ ಊರಿನ ಬಗ್ಗೆಯೂ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಓದಿ ಹೇಳುವಾಗ ಎಲ್ಲಿಲ್ಲದ ಖುಷಿ. ನಮ್ಮೆಲ್ಲರ ನಡುವೆ ಇರುವ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯ ತುಣುಕುಗಳು ಒಟ್ಟಾದಾಗ ಮಾತ್ರ ಹೀಗಾಗಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯ ಅಲ್ವ? ಇಲ್ಲದಿದ್ದರೆ ವಿಕ್ಟೋರಿಯ, ಆಸ್ಟ್ರೇಲಿಯದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಮಂಗಳೂರಿಗೆ ಒಂದು ರೈಲ್ವೇ ಸ್ಟೇಶನ್ ಕೂಡ ಇದೆ, ಒಂದು ಏರ್ಪೋರ್ಟ್ ಕೂಡ ಇದೆ ಎಂಬುದಿರಲಿ, ಮತ್ತೊಂದು ಮಂಗಳೂರು ಪರದೇಶವೊಂದರಲ್ಲಿದೆ ಎಂಬುದೂ ತಿಳಿದುಬರದು.

ಇದೇ ರೀತಿಯ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗಳು ಉತ್ಸಾಹದ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮವನ್ನಾಗಿಸಿತು ಆ ದಿನ. ಮಂಗಳೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ನಡೆದ ವಿಕಿ ಅಕಾಡೆಮಿ ನಮ್ಮೆಲ್ಲರ ಮನಸ್ಸಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಅಚ್ಚುಳಿಯುವಷ್ಟು.

ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ಎಂದರೇನು, ಅದರ ಸಿದ್ಧಾಂತ ಏನು, ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾರು ಭಾಗವಹಿಸಬಹುದು, ಹೇಗೆ ಭಾಗವಹಿಸಬಹುದು? ಭಾಗವಹಿಸಲು ಬೇಕಾದದ್ದು ಏನು? ಇದೇ ಮೊದಲಾದ ವಿಷಯಗಳೊಂದಿಗೆ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮ ಪ್ರಾರಂಭಿಸಿದೆವು. ಸೇಂಟ್ ಅಲೋಶಿಯಸ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ನೆರೆದಿದ್ದ ಆಸಕ್ತರು ನೆರೆದ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಒಡ್ಡಿದ ಸವಾಲು ನಮಗೆ ಅಷ್ಟೇ ಉತ್ಸಾಹ ಮೂಡಿಸಿದ್ದು ಹೌದು. ಬಿಳಿಗಿರಿರಂಗನ ಬೆಟ್ಟವನ್ನು ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ಷೇತ್ರವಾಗಿ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿರುವ ಡಾಕ್ಟರರಾದ ಪ್ರಶಾಂತ್ ಎನ್ ಎಸ್ ನನ್ನ ಜೊತೆ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮ ನಡೆಸಿಕೊಟ್ಟವರು. ಇವರ ನಿತ್ಯದ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ಎಡಿಟ್ಸ್ ನೋಡಿದರೆ ಅದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಅವರಿಗಿರುವ ಆಸಕ್ತಿ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತಿಳಿಸದೇ ಇರದು.

ಈ ಯೋಜನೆಯ ಜನಪ್ರಿಯತೆಗೆ ಕಾರಣವೇನು? ಇದು ಹೇಗೆ ಇಷ್ಟು ದೊಡ್ಡದಾಗಿ ಬೆಳದದ್ದು? ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ಎಂಬುದೊಂದು ಇಷ್ಟು ಅದ್ಭುತವಾದ ಯೋಜನೆಯಾದದ್ದು ಹೇಗೆ - ಮುಂತಾದ ವಿಷಯಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನಾವು ಬೆಳಕು ಚೆಲ್ಲುವ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನ ಮಾಡಿದೆವು. ಸಹಯೋಗದಲ್ಲಿ (Collaboration) ಮಾಡಿದ ಕೆಲಸ ಹೇಗೆ ಜಗತ್ ಸ್ವರೂಪ ಪಡೆದು ಉತ್ತಮವಾಗುತ್ತ ಹೋಗುತ್ತದೆ ಹಾಗು ವಿಶ್ವ ಮಟ್ಟದಲ್ಲಿ ಇದು ಹೇಗೆ ಕಾಣುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂಬುದರ ಕುರಿತು ಮಾತಾನಾಡಲು ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಿಸಿದೆವು. ರಾಜ್ಯಮಟ್ಟದಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಾರಂಭಿಸುವಾಗ ನಮ್ಮ ಭಾಷೆ ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾಲ್ಕು ವರ್ಷಗಳ ಹಿಂದೆಯೇ ಪ್ರಾರಂಭವಾಗಿರುವ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ಆವೃತ್ತಿ ಮರೆಯಲಾಗದು, ಅದರ ಕುರಿತು ಕೂಡ ಚರ್ಚೆ ಮಾಡಿದೆವು. ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ಬಹುಭಾಷಾ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ್ವವಾಗಿ ರೂಪುಗೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಿರುವ ಕುರಿತು, ಅದರ ಪ್ರಾಮುಖ್ಯತೆ ಕುರಿತು ಕೂಡ ಮಾತನಾಡಿದೆವು.

ಮಧ್ಯಾಹ್ನ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ಬಳಸುವುದು ಹೇಗೆ, ಈ ಯೋಜನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪಾಲ್ಗೊಳ್ಳುವುದು ಹೇಗೆ ಎಂಬುದರ ಕುರಿತು ಕಾರ್ಯಾಗಾರವಿತ್ತು. ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮದಲ್ಲಿ ಪಾಲ್ಗೊಂಡವರು ಸ್ವತಃ ಮುಂದೆ ಬಂದು ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯದಲ್ಲಿ ತಾವೂ ಒಂದು ಅಕೌಂಟು ತೆರೆದು ಎಡಿಟ್ ಮಾಡುವಂತೆ ಮಾಡಿದೆವು. ಇದು ಸಭೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ನೆರೆದಿದ್ದ ಹಲವರಿಗೆ ಬಹಳ ಖುಷಿಕೊಟ್ಟ ವಿಷಯವೆಂದು ಈಗ ನಾನು ಹೇಳಬಲ್ಲೆ. ಏಕೆಂದರೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಯೋಜನೆಯಾಗಲಿ, ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನವಾಗಲಿ - ಅದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಕೇಳುವುದು ಸುಲಭ, ಆದರೆ ಬಳಸಿ ನೋಡುವಾಗ ಸಮಸ್ಯೆ ಎದುರಾದಾಗ ಕಷ್ಟ! ನೇರ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮದಲ್ಲಿ ಪಾಲ್ಗೊಂಡವರನ್ನೇ ಭಾಗವಹಿಸಲು ಕೇಳುತ್ತ ಅವರ ಕೈಯಲ್ಲೇ ಅಕೌಂಟು ತೆರೆಯುವಂತೆ ಮಾಡುವುದು, ಪುಟವೊಂದನ್ನು ಎಡಿಟ್ ಮಾಡುವಂತೆ ಮಾಡುವುದು - ಸಭಿಕರಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗಳ ಸರಮಾಲೆಯನ್ನೇ ಹುಟ್ಟುಹಾಕಿತು! ನಮಗೂ ಅದೇ ಬೇಕಿದ್ದದ್ದು. ಎಲ್ಲರ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗಳಿಗೆ ನಮಗೆ ತಿಳಿದ ಉತ್ತರ ನೀಡುತ್ತ ಅವರಿಗೆ ಎದುರಾದ ಸಮಸ್ಯೆಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಹರಿಸುವ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನ ಮಾಡಿದೆವು. ಒಟ್ಟಾರೆ, ನಮಗದು ಬಹಳ ಖುಷಿಕೊಟ್ಟ ಕಾರ್ಯಾಗಾರ!

ದಿನದ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮ ಮುಗಿದ ಮೇಲೆ ವಿದ್ಯಾರ್ಥಿಗಳು, ಉಪನ್ಯಾಸಕರು, ಪತ್ರಕರ್ತರು - ಎಲ್ಲ ನಮ್ಮಲ್ಲಿ ಬಂದು ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯದೊಂದಿಗೆ ಅವರ ಅನುಭವ ಹಂಚಿಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತ ಕಳೆದ ಸಮಯವಂತೂ ಮರೆಯಲಾಗದ್ದು. ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞರಾಗಿ ನಾವು ಕಾಣುವ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ಎಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ತನ್ನದೇ ಮುಖವನ್ನು ಕಾಣಿಸುತ್ತದೆಂಬ ಅರಿವು ಈ ಯೋಜನೆಯ ಸಮಗ್ರತೆಯ ಪರಿಚಯ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿಸಿತು. ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ನಮ್ಮೆಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ಮತ್ತಷ್ಟು ಹತ್ತಿರವಾಯಿತು.

[ವಿಕಿ ಅಕಾಡೆಮಿಯನ್ನು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಾಗಿಸುತ್ತಿರುವ ಸೆಂಟರ್ ಫಾರ್ ಇಂಟರ್ನೆಟ್ ಎಂಡ್ ಸೊಸೈಟಿಯವರಿಗೆ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ಸಮುದಾಯದ ಪರವಾಗಿ ಅಭಿನಂದನೆಗಳು. ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನದೇನೂ ಅಪೇಕ್ಷೆಯಿಲ್ಲದೆ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯದ ಸ್ವಯಂಸೇವಕರಿಗೆ ಪ್ರೋತ್ಸಾಹ ನೀಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ವಿಕಿ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಂಚಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವ ನಮ್ಮೆಲ್ಲರ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನದಲ್ಲಿ ಇವರ ಪಾತ್ರ, ಕೊಡುಗೆ ಗಣನೀಯವಾದದ್ದು.

ಮಂಗಳೂರಿನ ಆವೃತ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ಆಯೋಜಿಸುವಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಮುಖ ಪಾತ್ರವಹಿಸಿದ ಮಂಗಳೂರು ಆಕಾಶವಾಣಿಯ ಸಾತ್ವಿಕ್, ಸೇಂಟ್ ಅಲೋಶಿಯಸ್ ಕಾಲೇಜಿನ ಉತ್ಸುಕ ಉಪನ್ಯಾಸಕರೂ, ಸರಳ ಜೀವಿಯೂ ಆದ ರೆವರೆಂಡ್ ಫಾದರ್ ರಿಚರ್ಡ್ ರೆಗೋ ಇವರಿಬ್ಬರಿಗೂ ನಮ್ಮೆಲ್ಲರ ಪರವಾಗಿ ಹೃತ್ಪೂರ್ವಕ ಅಭಿನಂದನೆಗಳು.

ಇದೆಲ್ಲದರ ಜೊತೆಗೆ ವಿಕಿ ಅಕಾಡೆಮಿಯನ್ನು ಕುತೂಹಲದಿಂದ, ವಿಶ್ವಾಸದಿಂದ ನೋಡುತ್ತ ವಿಕಿ ಕುರಿತು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಂಚಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವಲ್ಲಿ ತಮ್ಮದೂ ಒಂದು ಪಾತ್ರವಿದೆ ಎಂಬಂತೆ ನಡೆದ ಪತ್ರಕರ್ತ ಸ್ನೇಹಿತರಿಗೆ ನಾವೆಲ್ಲರೂ ಕೃತಜ್ಞರು. ಇವರಿಲ್ಲದೆ ನಾವು ಕೈಗೆತ್ತಿಕೊಂಡಿರುವ ಅರಿವು ಹಂಚಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವ ಅಭಿಯಾನ ಅಪೂರ್ಣ.

More information available here

Seminar held at Managlore - slides available here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/wiki-academy

CPOV: Critical Point of View

nishant — 2009-07-13T09:07:42Z

The Centre for Internet and Society (Bangalore, India) and the Institute of Network Cultures (Amsterdam, Netherlands) seek to bring together ideas, experiences and scholarship about Wikipedia in a reader that charts out detailed user stories as well as empirical and analytical work to produce.. The organisations will jointly host two separate conferences aimed at building a Wikipedia Knowledge Network and charting scholarship and stories about The Wikipedia from around the world.

CPOV: Critical Point of View

Wikipedia and the Politics of Open Knowledge

Proposal for a research network, two conferences and a reader

Organized by Centre for Internet & Society (Bangalore, India) and the Institute of Network Cultures (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Introduction: It would be no exaggeration to state that Wikipedia is at the brink of becoming the de facto global reference of dynamic knowledge. The highly visible clashes amongst opinion leaders, university professors, Web 2.0 ‘evangelists’ and publishers over accuracy, anonymity, trust, vandalism and expertise only seem to fuel further growth of Wikipedia and its user base. In this respect, what does it mean to now say that Wikipedia has become “mainstream”?

The accelerated growth and scope of Wikipedia as a knowledge reference of universal ambition is unheard of. The Google search engine gives preferential treatment to Wikipedia in an attempt to beat search engine optimizers and to provide a more fruitful experience to its users. Apart from leaving its modern counterparts Britannica and Encarta in the dust, such scale and breadth places Wikipedia on par with such historical milestones as Pliny the Elder's Naturalis Historia, the Ming Dynasty's Wen-hsien ta-ch' eng, and the key work of French Enlightenment, the Encyclopédie.

Wikipedia owns a whole set of characteristics – including number and automation (bots) of contributors, regularity of updates, fluidity, ease of search, number of languages, and growing user base. In doing so, this online encyclopedia might be cited as the most visible and successful example of the migration of FLOSS (Free/Libre/Open Source Software) principles into mainstream culture. Those of us who believe in pluralism, and the possibility of another world have reason to celebrate and defend Wikipedia from intellectual- property-right-maximalists and promoters of proprietary models of knowledge production and dissemination. However, such celebration and defense should contain critical insights, informed by the changing realities of the Internet at large and the Wikipedia project in particular.

The Wikimedia Foundation has recently employed its first research analyst and provides spaces for “Wikipediology”, including projects such as the Wiki Project on vandalism studies. Nonetheless, critical Wikipedia research should also be done outside the self-reflexivity of the Wikimedia Foundation and its community. There is an urgent need for quantitative and qualitative research from an Humanities and Arts perspective that could benefit both the wider user base and the active Wikipedia community itself.

More than this though, as one of the largest if not the largest self-contained general knowledge reference of our time, Wikipedia offers critical insights into the contemporary status of knowledge, its organizing principles, function, and impact; its production styles, mechanisms for conflict resolution and power (re-)constitution. New strategic and tactical operations of knowledge/power are clearly at work. The concept of the open remains ambiguous in this formation, serving as both a rallying concept and masking new agonistic encounters.

By permanently (re)formulating the open and inclusive as the guiding Wikipedia principle being formulated by the community itself, one might also look at this norm as a narrative or even call it a founding myth. For example, the demographic profile of the Wikipedia editor as a white male geek with a limited mono-cultural worldview based on Western rationality remains a concern. However, the question of (non)diversity being formulated in Wikipedia discussions needs also to be posed beyond existing stereotypes and at the general level of discourse. The question of (post)identity and representation is not necessarily resolved via the discursive construction of 'inclusion', if such inclusion may require leaving competing knowledge histories and practices at the door and if it puts a culture of editing not next to a culture of listening/hearing.

In the most material and perceptional way, every new technology modifies conditions of possibility for knowledge. The logic of technologies bleeds into the very structures and organizing principles of knowledge and today, both medium and message may reflect the ideas of the (organized) network, multitude or the Deleuzian machine. It is through a selected mix of technological and normative conditions – the distributed architecture of the net, the Wiki software platform, commons-based property licenses and the FLOSS zeitgeist – that Wikipedia as the encyclopedia of the information age emerges, both continuing and transforming the Enlightenment encyclopedic impulse or will to know.

The authors of these proposal are aware of the seemingly conflicting overarching research agenda: At one level is a philosophical, epistemological and theoretical investigation of knowledge artifacts and social, culture construction in terms of , authority and politics. At the other level the research agenda is an empirical, anecdotal, sociological investigation of the specific phenomenon of the Wikipedia. This has been done on purpose so that the learnings from theoretical research activities can inform practice oriented research and vice-versa.

Overall the conferences and reader may include the following areas inviting theoretical, empirical, practical and art-based contributions:

WikiTheory (opening session)
Wikipedia and Critique of Western Knowledge Production
Encyclopedia Models-- from 18th to 21th Century
Wiki Art
Designing Debate
Critique of Free and Open
Global Politics of Exclusion
The Place of Resistance
Wikipedia and Education
Wiki-analytics, Wikipedia as Platform and Software Studies
Wikipedia and Conditions of Knowledge Production

Descriptions of the Sessions/Fields of Interest

1. WikiTheory – Mining for Concepts (opening session)

Besides providing a general overview of the topics to come, and with an emphasis on diverse global approaches, the aim here is develop concepts that could be used in further research and that could fit into larger projects on Internet culture and the critique of the free and open. Is it possible to develop a counter-hegemony of critical practices that situates itself in the midst of technological cultures? What kind of critical lessons does Wikipedia provide in the face of overwhelming Web 2.0 hype and P2P utopianism? How can a radical Wikipedia critique be developed that does not present itself as the cynical ‘I told you so’ outsider or mimic the neo-conservatist position of Andrew Keen? What kind of insight can Wikipedia offer regarding the continuing tension between knowledge and information?

2. Wikipedia and Critical Histories of Western Knowledge Production

This session may include topics like: western vs. non/post-western knowledge production, textual vs. oral tradition, visual vs. textual knowledge, Wikipedia and language diversity, and indigenous knowledge.

The persistence of almost buried master-narratives: The Western tradition of Enlightenment tends to permeate both common and official understandings of knowledge on Wikipedia. Mirroring the Enlightenment itself, Wikipedia both offers a very particular type of knowledge and simultaneously makes claims upon the universal - e.g. in the formulation of visionary goals, structure of articles, author positions, writing style, categorization of entries, conflict resolution models and so on. The ways in which such ideals persist and continue to bear their mark on the present in often subtle ways requires further attention. Indeed, the 'grand narratives' of the Enlightenment that Jean-Francis Lyotard claimed had retreated with the emergence of 'computerized societies' continue to inform the popular imaginary in ways largely untouched by the deconstructive moment. Frederic Jameson once referred to this as the 'persistence of buried master-narratives', a 'political unconscious' that guides decisions irrespective of philosophical status. Likewise, this resonates with Foucault's urge 'to reveal a positive unconscious of knowledge' as that which performs the task of subjugation but operates beyond contention. What matters here is not truth or belief, but operation.

The predominance of textual or even linguistical cultures: The current system of Wikipedia citation prejudices textual systems of knowledge over oral and visual systems of knowledge. This under-values the knowledge systems of cultural memory and related technique such as mnemo techniques or oral poetry on the one hand, and illiterate populations on the other hand.

3. Encyclopedia Models-- from 18th to 21th Century

The word made durable: In this session we want to give an overview of various attempts to create a collection of global knowledge. In order to get a better understanding of the cultural specificity of the underlying code on which Wikipedia is built, this topic seeks to dig further into the histories of the encyclopedia. D' Alembert's Preliminary Discourse to the Encyclopedie is often described as the most succinct statement of European Enlightenment, and the Encyclopedie itself as the material project of Enlightenment. It is through the Encyclopedie that the Enlightenment becomes durable, tangible and disseminated. What can be learned by examining such historical precedents?

Encyclopedias have been said to be sources of national images and stereotypes of the self and the other within Europe. In Wikipedia image construction tends to be both disembogue and masked in favor of a cosmopolitan, global self-understanding. This session might interrogate to what extent knowledge production’s construction of national images is shifted from a discursive to an automatic georeferencing system of construction.

As machines think (or maybe Knowing Machines or The Machinic Intellect): This session may also look to historical attempts to revolutionize knowledge through the creation of new technologies and to what extent these alternate histories resonate with Wikipedia specifically and the technologies of the Net as driven by knowledge imperatives more generally. Examples include the Mundaneum, the Memex, the Galactic Network and project Xanadu.

4. Wikipedia Art

Art at the gates: Wikipedia Art is understood both as artwork and intervention. Taking place largely on Wikipedia itself, the project Wikipedia Art was considered controversial and was quickly removed (see recent debate on nettime-l). What does this project reveal about this type of knowledge production? What is the threshold of legitimacy for this type of knowledge and how are the boundaries policed? What is at stake in the rejection of art?

5. Models of Disambiguation and Designing Debate

May include topics like: Dissent made visible, After Talk / Alerts / Mailing Lists, the role of forum software, technical opportunities for discontent, barnstars/award culture.

The paradox of neutrality: The Neutral Point of View policy of Wikipedia does not always accurately depict the state of debate on topics: The view held by a corporate lobby, using funded research, will find equal space as the opinions of thousands of disadvantaged persons who might be impacted by the actions of the corporate lobby. Would it make sense to replace the NPoV policy and think about Wikipedia as a space of open political agonality; as a battle for meaning underpinned by the desire for reason?

New crises of authenticity: As Wikipedia gains the status of default reference for other printed textual knowledge artifacts – there are emerging challenges of representation; longevity born digital references; digital manipulation of sources; and circular referencing. Shuddhabrata Sengupta of CSDS/Sarai says “Wikipedia encouraged in its community the active exercise of a critical and skeptical attitude towards any received form of knowledge”. In this context the evolving notions of authenticity has to be further interrogated given the rise of peer-produced knowledge and the diminishing cult of the expert.

6. Critique of Free and Open

May include topics like: the parasite model of free culture (“You work for free, others will make the money from your free labour.”), governance, the role of developers, economy of Wikipedia, the beliefs of the founders as the political foundation of Wikipedia, critical interrogation of knowledge in relation to 'the open'.

Vacuous collaboration: Master concepts like freedom and openness are at constant risk of remaining empty or constituting an ‘empty signifier’. The failure to fill such concepts has lead to many descriptions of Wikipedia as 'collaborations' or even 'ad hoc meritocracies' (Alex Bruns). Both these second-tier notions also tend to mask the reconfiguration of the political and new forms of closure.

Paid and voluntary community manipulation: Many Wikipedians hold strong opinions on range of sensitive areas including identity, religion, science, politics, culture, and use sophisticated techniques such as astro-turfing on Wikipedia. Additionally, some states, corporations and organized religious groups sometimes pay specialists to engage in astro-turfing in order to remove critical opinions and rewrite information from Wikipedia.

7. Global Politics of Exclusion

May include topics like: non-western, language, connectedness, oral histories, women, non-geeks.

Tyranny of the connected: In societies which are compounded by digital and participation divides, the connected usually always win over those who don't have access and time to spare.

Gendered Knowledge: While women are strongly represented among readers, globally, they are hardly represented among contributors. In offlist chats, women express that they do not feel comfortable when contributing to Wikipedia conversations. They even felt silenced by the perception of Wikipedia as a masculine tech culture. Some women have already created an alternative space of discussion at wikichix.org. Does the separation of discussion spaces and the marginalization of domestic issues and social impacts on Wikipedia turn back time?

Morality laundering: Moral standards that exist in one country are being exported to other countries via Wikipedia. For example, photo-realistic images of human bodies on pages dealing with sexuality and anatomy are being replaced with drawings. Does this type of common denominator approach undermine the pluralism of global sexuality? The call and eventual refusal of image censorship for the entry on Mohammad represents a similar scenario.

Language diversity: Despite the self-imposed normative claim of language diversity and the self-description of Wikipedia as a truly multi-lingual project, English is the Lingua Franca in translingual meta projects and policy discussions. Also, on the level of content, is the English Wikipedia the 'Leitmedium' in terms of (content) synchronization. In what other ways does the language divide operate on Wikipedia?

Global governance: Governance of Wikipedia has evolved and become increasingly sophisticated to match its phenomenal growth and the attention it has garnered. While these changes in governance have managed to sustain the growth of Wikipedia and prevent its credibility from being undermined, there is a need to understand the impact that various governance mechanisms have on the different incarnations of Wikipedia throughout the world. Such analysis should consider separately (and compare) different national chapters, plus extend beyond Wikipedia projects to the governance of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Form and format: As the Wikipedia becomes a standard of documentation and knowledge archive, it becomes important to focus on traditional, oral and ephemeral knowledges which might die because of the limitations of technologised platforms to capture them. Oral histories, community knowledges, incipient systems of documenting personal and collective memories, etc. start getting lost as the logo-centric, ‘objectively verifiable’ structures of knowledge production come into being. Rather than a critique of Wikipedia, analysis needs to concentrate on ways by which such knowledge systems are not lost and further tools which need to be developed in order to make them accessible and visible.

8. The Place of Resistance

Why do people resign from Wikipedia? Are critical voices silenced by the majority of the mass? Does the exclusion of the Wikipedia Art project reveal that within Wikipedia is no place for contesting forms, repertoires, styles that go beyond linguistic approaches? Rituals and mechanisms of exclusion offers critical insights into the contemporary status of resistance formation in an paradigmatic age of diversity and inclusion. Going beyond and extending the thinking of social movement scholars such as Touraine or Melucci the study of Wikipedia might inform culture and identity approaches of social movement studies and vice versa.

Can Wikipedia said to be a social movement and/or how do social movement actors appropriate the Wikipedia to built alternatives?

9. Media Literacy and Education

Knowing about knowing: While technologies like newspapers, television, radio and cinema have given birth to educational institutions that engage in media studies, thereby providing tools for the discerning citizen-consumer and future professional, there is still much work required to develop similar critical models for emerging projects like Wikipedia. The common institutional (non)response to warn against the ‘dangers’ of Wikipedia-like projects and discourage or ban their use seems grossly inadequate. The rise of 'prosumers' suggests a need for new 'production literacies' in addition to the traditional 'consumption literacy'. Furthermore, there is also a growing number of meta projects on Wikipedia that seek cooperation with schools and academia. But is the Wikimedia foundation and select national bodies the legitimate actors to teach media literacy or is this rather a public relations effort? What would Wikipedia literacy entail?

10. Wiki-analytics, Wikipedia as Platform and Software Studies

Possible Topics: Protocological Knowledge, Knowledge vs. Information, Cultural Analytics, Cybernetics in the present, (Un)dead labour and the posthuman bot.

Knowledge in the neighborhood of software: Can we start thinking of Wikipedia as an interplay of editors and technology, since software and notification systems are such an important part of the Wikipedia project? Indeed, whilst humans argue over knowledge statements, 'bots' do much of the dirty work and general knowledge housekeeping – a kind of (un)dead labour. The presumption here, of code as politics, is that the wiki principles themselves need to be debated from a perspective of software studies. To what extent has bot politics triumphed over vernacular expertise or lead to an empowerment of the e-tech geeks in knowledge projects? Related to this is the question of the cultural history of Wikipedia as a platform. What is the relation between policy formation and technical protocols? Is Wikipedia knowledge Cybernetic?

Wikipedia as a data set: Besides the automation participation in the form of the bot, Wikipedia is an information artifact through and through. What kind of data analysis techniques can contribute to a radical critique or illuminate network regularities beyond human interpretation? What additional anonymised data sets of edit and use history should be released by the Wikimedia Foundation to promote media literacy and education.

11. Wikipedia and Conditions of Knowledge Production

Possible Topics: Politics of knowledge production, question of authority, The fallacy of objectivity, Wikipedia and the Public Sphere.

The alarm that traditional bastions of knowledge production and consumption (like universities and publishing houses) raise against Wikipedia, brings into sharp relief, the fact that the Wikipedia is a part of a much larger knowledge production industry. With the Wikipedia’s integration into more ‘mainstream’ usage, it becomes necessary to focus on how the emergence of such a space (and the principles it embodies) also affects the much larger and global politics, aesthetics and mechanics of knowledge production. Wikipedia has substantially changed academic trends of publication, citation, classroom pedagogy and research. It has also been central to many debates about who produces knowledge and who has the ‘right’ to be an Authority on the knowledge thus produced.

Moving beyond the class-room and questions of plagiarism or teaching, there is need to investigate the pre-conditions and the contexts within which Wikipedia emerges, and the kind of questions it poses to processes of knowledge production, consumption and verification.

Production Details

Besides setting up a network for critical Wikipedia research with its own mailing list and organizing two events early 2010 in Bangalore and Amsterdam (to start with), the aim is to gather materials for a Wikipedia Research Reader that will be published in the INC Reader series around September-October 2010.

Research and editorial group: Geert Lovink and Sabine Niederer (Amsterdam), Nathaniel Tkacz (Melbourne), Sunil Abraham (Bangalore), Johanna Niesyto (Siegen), Nishant Shah (Bangalore).

Contact info:

Sunil Abraham: sunil@cis-india.org

Nishant Shah: Nishant@cis-india.org

For more information on how to apply to the Bangalore WikiWars conference, please click here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/research/conferences/conference-blogs/Wikiwars

Analysing Wikipedia: A First Attempt at Clustering

jace — 2011-08-04T06:11:49Z

In this, their second update on their Analysing Wikipedia project, Kiran Jonnalagadda and Hans Varghese Mathews discuss their first attempt at grouping the various editors of a frequently edited Wikipedia document, each distinguished from the others by some particular interest, through a quick machine process requiring minimal human intervention.

For our first trials, we attempted two ways of analysing Wikipedia. Here’s a description of the first:

Given a target article, we retrieved its revision history over the last n days and made a list of all the users who had edited the article during this period. Then, for each of them, we made a list of all the other articles they had edited during the same period. We filtered this for outliers:

Wikipedia administrators rack up thousands of edits each month as they revert vandalism and annotate pages across the site. Our data downloading script can remove them from consideration in one of two ways. We used both in various combinations while attempting to arrive at a reasonable dataset for analysis:

Ignore anyone who made more than a specified number of edits.
Ignore explicitly specified users.

Some users (almost always anonymous) make one edit to an article and are never seen again. Others make an edit but have no articles in common with any of the other editors, typically because they edited to make an annotation, such as making a link to the same article in another language Wikipedia. We added the ability to filter for these by requiring that users have at least one other (or more) articles in common.

The following is Hans’s explanation for how the data thus retrieved was analysed.

Report of an Experiment in Clustering

The object of the exercise described in what follows was to see if the various editors of a frequently edited Wikipedia document could be clustered in different groups, each distinguished from the others by some particular interest, through some quick machine process requiring minimal human intervention. The experiment was not entirely unsuccessful; but the supervention of human judgement upon machine decision was more haphazard than one could wish.
The Wikipedia page named Evolution was chosen as the primary document; and for our collection of editors we chose, out of all the editors that this page had had from November 2008 through January 2009, those who had in that same period edited at least one other Wikipedia page. The rationale for proceeding so was to compute in some very quick and convenient way a measure of similarity between each pair of the editors to be clustered: without at all considering, at this stage, the textual character of their individual interventions. The data from which these similarities were computed constituted a matrix, with a row for each such ancillary document and a column for each editor; and the entry in the i^th row and the j^th column was 1 if the i^th page had been edited by the j^th editor, and 0 otherwise. The similarity between any pair of editors was then assessed by counting the pages they had both edited against the counts, for each, of those pages that one had edited but the other not: but in such a way that, among the pages both had edited, those that were on the whole less edited received more weight; while among the pages only one or other had edited, those that were on the whole less edited received less weight.
The similarities thus obtained were collected in a square and symmetric matrix, having as many rows and columns as there were editors: with the similarity between the i^th and the j^th editor being the entry in the i^th row and the j^th column, and the entry in the j^th row and the i^th column as well. This matrix of similarities was then used to cluster the editors in a variety of ways, using various techniques. Three among these clusterings were retained, on considerations of variation in size between, and of coherence within, their constitutive clusters: with the coherence of a given cluster of individuals being measured by λ₁/(λ₁ + λ₂ + ... + λ_k), where λ₁ is the largest among the positive eigenvalues {λ₁, λ₂, ... λ_k} of the submatrix recording the similarities between the individuals in that cluster.

A square matrix A of numbers, with m rows and columns say, may be regarded as device for rotating the direction and rescaling the length of any vector v having m numerical entries or components: through the usual multiplication, with the i^th component of the resultant vector A · v being (A_i1v₁ + A_i2v₂ + ... + A_imv_m), where A_ij is the entry in the i^th row and j^th column of A, while v_j is the j^th component of v. An eigenvector u of A is a vector of unit length whose direction is only reversed, if it is at all rotated; and one has A · u = λu for some eigenvalue λ now, with a reversal of direction if λ < 0, and with the size or ‘absolute value’ |λ| being the rescaling of length.

A vector v has the usual Euclidean length ||v|| = (v²₁ + v²₂ ... + v²_m)^½ here. To specify the direction of v we must consider the m standard basis vectors we obtain by taking the 0 vector here, whose m components are all zeroes, and replacing any one of these with 1; and e_k usually denotes the vector which has 1 for its k^th component and zeroes everywhere else. Now for each j ∈ {1, 2, ..., m} the direction-number v_j/||v|| is the cosine of the angle between v and e_j in the plane this pair of vectors would determine, whenever v is not a multiple of e_j : whenever v cannot be obtained from e_j by multiplying each component of the latter with some number. Note that when v is so obtained the direction-number v_j/||v|| would be either 1 = cosine(0^◦) or −1 = cosine(180^◦) : which is appropriate, since v would lie either along e_j itself or along its reverse −e_j in any plane that e_j might help determine. The word “plane” has its common geometrical meaning now.

We note that such a criterion of coherence would favour those clusters in which the similarities between members were more uniform than elsewhere: were the similarities between them used to locate all the editors in some Euclidean space, using some technique like multidimensional scaling for instance, our criterion would favour globular clusters over ﬂat or chainlike ones. Regarding variation between the sizes of constitutive clusters in a clustering, the desideratum was that the largest such cluster should not exceed too much the mean size of the remainder, when their difference is scaled by the variation in size there.

The specifics of the clustering techniques that were employed, and the statistical tests which decided the retention of clusterings, are set out in the technical supplement to this report; and the computation of similarities described in 1 may be found there as well.
Each cluster within a retained clustering was next used to induce a weighting on the collection of edited pages, in the evident way, with the weight of a document relative to a cluster being the proportion of the individuals there who had edited it; and the names of its most frequently edited pages were taken as indicative of the interest of that group or ‘pack’ of editors. A choice between the three retained clusterings might now be made by considering how distinctively the separate interests of their several constitutive packs could be characterised.

Such judgements are apt to vary considerably between individuals, of course: but we note that there were appreciable congruences between the three clusterings that were retained. Each clustering yielded one notably coherent pack, consisting of the same individuals almost in each clustering, set apart by their attention to creationism and intelligent design. Each retained clustering also yielded a pack whose members seemed to have a special interest in evolution as theory and fact; and these cognate groups almost overlapped as well. Another group identifiable in all three clusterings had its members linked by their common attention to the Wikipedia Sandbox. These results are hardly surprising. But we note that all three clusterings did indicate a small group, somewhat more coherent in one than in the other two, of individuals linked by an interest in the gastrointestinal tract.
Given the ‘virtual’ character of our packs or groups we should expect that some individuals may sit well in more than one of them; and we should ﬁnd a way to allot such an individual to each among the groups with which he might have comparable affinities. A convenient way to do so would be to locate our editors in some Euclidean space, again, so that each group may be identified with the centroid of the points to which its members are assigned. An individual who is markedly further from the centroid of his own group, than his fellows there, might now be allotted to some other groups: if, for instance, his distances from their centroids, compared to his distances from the rest, are markedly closer to his distance from his assigned centroid. Proceeding so would work best with globular spatial clusters, again, and we should be cautious about how similarities between individuals will be used to spatially locate them: especially when some very few of the clusters in a clustering are markedly more coherent than the others.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/wiki-analysis-and-assist/our-first-attempt-at-clustering

Analysing Wikipedia: An Introduction

jace — 2011-08-04T06:11:46Z

Kiran Jonnalagadda and Hans Varghese Matthews introduce their project, aimed at producing tools that will allow anyone to analyse editing behaviour on Wikipedia. This is the first in a series of posts documenting their work.

There used to be a time, only a few years ago, when the typical savvy internet user, in seeking an understanding of some new concept, would look it up on a Google search. Today, for an increasing number of users, the first reference likely to be looked at is Wikipedia. It is also usually the last.

Wikipedia’s prominence has grown phenomenally over the last few years, and that has made it important for anyone seeking acceptance of their version of facts. Vandalism is commonplace. Most of it is quickly removed and cleaned up, but some slips through, and the tools for fighting such vandalism remain relatively behind the curve.

We at the Centre for Internet and Society wondered if there was a way to detect pack editing behaviour, when a group of users edit together to push their agenda, across pages. The tools for fighting one vandal at a time are increasingly improving. Pack editing is harder to deal with. We don’t know if we have a solution, but we did think we should try.

I’m Kiran Jonnalagadda, your collaborator on this blog. I’m working with Hans Varghese Matthews, our resident statistician, who’s attempting to build mathematical models of pack behaviour. I write the code to pull the data from Wikipedia’s edit history that Hans needs and will later implement his algorithms in a set of tools that anyone can use to analyse Wikipedia.

We started a month ago with some initial experiments that I’ll describe in subsequent posts. Do let us know what you’d like to see come out of this project.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/wiki-analysis-and-assist/analysing-wikipedia

WikiWars: Programme

nishant — 2010-01-05T17:37:43Z

The programme for Wikiwars, 12th, 13th January - MS Office document

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/research/conferences/conference-blogs/uploads/wikiwarsprog