What If the Great WP 'Revolution' Was Actually a Reversion?

Wikipedia in the news - rip and read.
User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
kołdry
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

What If the Great WP 'Revolution' Was Actually a Reversion?

Unread post by HRIP7 » Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:51 am

What If the Great Wikipedia 'Revolution' Was Actually a Reversion?
Wikipedia certainly deserves many of the superlatives ascribed to it: It is unquestionably the largest, deepest, and most accessible encyclopedia ever written.

But a new paper argues that when it comes to the method by which Wikipedia was assembled -- amateur, obsessive collaborators augmenting earlier work bit by bit -- Wikipedia's not as revolutionary as it's cracked up to be.
The paper referred to is "Wikipedia and encyclopedic production", by Jeff Loveland and Joseph Reagle.
Abstract

Wikipedia is often presented within a foreshortened or idealized history of encyclopedia-making. Here we challenge this viewpoint by contextualizing Wikipedia and its modes of production on a broad temporal scale. Drawing on examples from Roman antiquity onward, but focusing on the years since 1700, we identify three forms of encyclopedic production: compulsive collection, stigmergic accumulation, and corporate production. While each could be characterized as a discrete period, we point out the existence of significant overlaps in time as well as with the production of Wikipedia today. Our analysis explores the relation of editors, their collaborators, and their modes of composition with respect to changing notions of authorship and originality. Ultimately, we hope our contribution will help scholars avoid ahistorical claims about Wikipedia, identify historical cases germane to the social scientist’s concerns, and show that contemporary questions about Wikipedia have a lifespan exceeding the past decade.

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: What If the Great WP 'Revolution' Was Actually a Reversi

Unread post by EricBarbour » Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:14 pm

"stigmergic accumulation", I like that.

And of course, Wikipedians will be the first to deny this.

User avatar
SB_Johnny
Habitué
Posts: 4640
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:26 am
Wikipedia User: SB_Johnny
Wikipedia Review Member: SB_Johnny

Re: What If the Great WP 'Revolution' Was Actually a Reversi

Unread post by SB_Johnny » Sun Feb 03, 2013 4:37 pm

EricBarbour wrote:"stigmergic accumulation", I like that.
Yeah, word for the day!
EricBarbour wrote:And of course, Wikipedians will be the first to deny this.
Actually WP is presented as an example in the stigmergy (T-H-L) article, or at least it was this morning.
This is not a signature.

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: What If the Great WP 'Revolution' Was Actually a Reversi

Unread post by EricBarbour » Sun Feb 03, 2013 5:18 pm

I'm actually surprised that Reagle isn't being pilloried on noticeboards for "helping to destroy" Wikipedia.

Say what you will about his fanboyism, or his questionable research and writing skills (self-admitted).
Lately he's been publishing a number of papers (always with co-authors, making them more difficult to dismiss) that tend to cast the Magical Wiki in a less-than-optimal light.

We already have a case of Ironholds attempting to verbally belittle Reagle on IRC ("Reaglesodomy").
No doubt there are others, unrecorded because they were in private channels.

Related thread, about another paper, here, with above-mentioned response by Reagle. As pointed out therein, Wallis's paper has one major weakness: his statement about Wikipedia's "refusal to decline into mess of destructive in-fighting", which I'm sure most of you would find to be risible. It's been a mess of destructive infighting since 2005, and is simply organized so as to hide the infighting.

Post Reply