Wikipedia through the Looking Glass

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 6:07 pm

I completed another large chunk today, and updated the page:

http://www.logicmuseum.com/x/index.php? ... king_Glass

I'll keep you informed of progress via this thread. Any thoughts on additional chapters are welcome (that said, I aim to finish soon).

I think this is going be a blockbuster, not just because it is the first critical book about Wikipedia to be published, but because it is so well-written and well-researched. It’s going to embarrass a lot of people who richly deserve to be embarrassed. The trouble for the defenders of the Wikipedia establishment is that the evidence itself, the facts themselves, are damning. – Larry Sanger

(Cited with permission from Larry)

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:25 pm

Peter Damian wrote:I completed another large chunk today, and updated the page:

http://www.logicmuseum.com/x/index.php? ... king_Glass

I'll keep you informed of progress via this thread. Any thoughts on additional chapters are welcome (that said, I aim to finish soon).

I think this is going be a blockbuster, not just because it is the first critical book about Wikipedia to be published, but because it is so well-written and well-researched. It’s going to embarrass a lot of people who richly deserve to be embarrassed. The trouble for the defenders of the Wikipedia establishment is that the evidence itself, the facts themselves, are damning. – Larry Sanger
(Cited with permission from Larry)

Got a publisher or going DIY with it?

RfB

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Fri Nov 30, 2012 11:34 am

First draft of the pedophilia chapter now complete http://www.logicmuseum.com/x/index.php? ... ldid=11222 .

Some interesting points emerged from the research.

First, the pedophile user box dispute, which began in Feb 2006, was a year before the crackdown by Arbcom beginning in Feb 2007. Very little happened in 2006. Indeed the Arbcom even published a statement that the Wikipedia Foundation would not discriminate against any user based on stuff like sexual 'orientation', unless their conduct warranted it. What prompted the crackdown was the discovery that Perverted Justice had published a statement about Wikipedia enabling pedophiles to edit. This caused a massive dispute both on the publicly viewable pages on Wikipedia , and on the private Arbcom only list.

Second, the problem was secretly addressed, following a private mail from Jimbo, by a 'don’t ask, don't tell' policy.

I am not an advocate of "don't ask, don't tell" in the US military. I think it is a bad policy in that case. But in OUR situation it seems to me to be just about right. We don't care what people are doing outside Wikipedia, but we do care about their behavior *in* wikipedia, including advocacy behavior on userpages which tends to disrupt the encyclopedia. I recommend that we move slowly, thoughtfully, and in search of a reasonable middle ground.

He is always going on about 'thoughtfully', isn't he?

In summary, the worry was about the public image of Wikipedia, and not the fact that pedophiles were actually editing together with minors. For example, Forrester agrees with the banning of one pedophile "I think, for the good of the project, we would have to have him leave (for bringing the project into disrepute)", but then immediately adds "I don't think we should be particularly stringent on enforcement of his return if he doesn't continue to advertise the fact, though".

The 'don’t ask' part of that caused problems later when editors concerned about pedophile advocacy got banned for asking.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:08 pm

Peter Damian wrote:He is always going on about 'thoughtfully', isn't he?

Huffington Post:

Last Thursday, Wales's line was that you really need to see the Muhammed images to "think thoughtfully" about the controversy.

eppur si muove · Unread post by **eppur si muove** » Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:29 pm

HRIP7 wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:He is always going on about 'thoughtfully', isn't he?
Huffington Post:
Last Thursday, Wales's line was that you really need to see the Muhammed images to "think thoughtfully" about the controversy.

Engelhart obviously liked the tautology.

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:34 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:Got a publisher or going DIY with it?

RfB

Bumping Randy's question.

The Devil's Advocate · Unread post by **The Devil's Advocate** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:24 pm

Where do you cover the chapter organizations?

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 10:24 pm

The Devil's Advocate wrote:Where do you cover the chapter organizations?

http://www.logicmuseum.com/x/index.php? ... king_Glass
if you mean the book chapters.

If you mean Wikimedia chapters, they came much later in the story, and will not be covered in detail--especially since they are notorious for
running secret mailing lists and having secret meetings. I've already asked people to give me inside info on both WMUK and WMAU, and
was roundly ignored. If you want to read about the Wikimedia chapters, you'll have to do some of the digging.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 6:14 pm

Another first draft complete http://www.logicmuseum.com/x/index.php? ... ldid=12271 . The 'robots' chapter looks at how they are used to aggregate material from external sources like Britannica 1911 and the U.S census bureau, and how their use was essential to the development of something that looked like a reliable reference work. It draws an analogy between the optimism of the pioneers of artificial intelligence - another project that failed due to misplaced confidence in the magic of technology - and the optimism of the founding fathers/parents of Wikipedia.

Still to complete -

1. The chapter on the WMF, which will draw partly on the problems at WMUK.

2. The Kazakhstan adventure

3. Paid editing (Greg has been commissioned to write this).

Michaeldsuarez wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:Got a publisher or going DIY with it?

RfB
Bumping Randy's question.

Not got a publisher, and will not be going DIY. Haven't looked at all, so far. Will wait until first draft complete, then finish of the book proposal, and start approaching agents.

The book will be dedicated to GlassBeadGame of Wikipedia Review, who said "there's going to be no fucking book".
Copyright is CC-FY.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 6:32 pm

Peter Damian wrote:Another first draft complete http://www.logicmuseum.com/x/index.php? ... ldid=12271 . The 'robots' chapter looks at how they are used to aggregate material from external sources like Britannica 1911 and the U.S census bureau, and how their use was essential to the development of something that looked like a reliable reference work. It draws an analogy between the optimism of the pioneers of artificial intelligence - another project that failed due to misplaced confidence in the magic of technology - and the optimism of the founding fathers/parents of Wikipedia.

Still to complete -

1. The chapter on the WMF, which will draw partly on the problems at WMUK.

2. The Kazakhstan adventure

3. Paid editing (Greg has been commissioned to write this).

Michaeldsuarez wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:Got a publisher or going DIY with it?

RfB
Bumping Randy's question.
Not got a publisher, and will not be going DIY. Haven't looked at all, so far. Will wait until first draft complete, then finish of the book proposal, and start approaching agents.

The book will be dedicated to GlassBeadGame of Wikipedia Review, who said "there's going to be no fucking book".
Copyright is CC-FY.

The current Norton case at ArbCom is probably going to speak on the "1911 Britannica approach" at some point. Some of RAN's circa 2005-2007 pages were dumps from public domain sources; some of which were flagged as problematic by Contributor Copyright Investigations (the WP copyright auditors) and some of which were not.

In the proposed remedy which I was trying to get RAN to accept to avoid ArbCom, (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =537165713) I made sure to include this line:

He is also reminded that copy-pasting vast blocks of text from public domain sources (pre-1923 American books, etc.) with a single footnote appended is no longer regarded as an acceptable editing practice at Wikipedia and doing so in the future may have serious ramifications.

If you see anything to this effect in the final remedy to the case by ArbCom, it's a pretty clear statement of official site policy. If that is watered down or missing, it is indicative that this sort of editing remains in the grey area.

RfB

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 6:40 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:Another first draft complete http://www.logicmuseum.com/x/index.php? ... ldid=12271 . The 'robots' chapter looks at how they are used to aggregate material from external sources like Britannica 1911 and the U.S census bureau, and how their use was essential to the development of something that looked like a reliable reference work. It draws an analogy between the optimism of the pioneers of artificial intelligence - another project that failed due to misplaced confidence in the magic of technology - and the optimism of the founding fathers/parents of Wikipedia.

Still to complete -

1. The chapter on the WMF, which will draw partly on the problems at WMUK.

2. The Kazakhstan adventure

3. Paid editing (Greg has been commissioned to write this).

Michaeldsuarez wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:Got a publisher or going DIY with it?

RfB
Bumping Randy's question.
Not got a publisher, and will not be going DIY. Haven't looked at all, so far. Will wait until first draft complete, then finish of the book proposal, and start approaching agents.

The book will be dedicated to GlassBeadGame of Wikipedia Review, who said "there's going to be no fucking book".
Copyright is CC-FY.
The current Norton case at ArbCom is probably going to speak on the "1911 Britannica approach" at some point. Some of RAN's circa 2005-2007 pages were dumps from public domain sources; some of which were flagged as problematic by Contributor Copyright Investigations (the WP copyright auditors) and some of which were not.

In the proposed remedy which I was trying to get RAN to accept to avoid ArbCom, (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =537165713) I made sure to include this line:

He is also reminded that copy-pasting vast blocks of text from public domain sources (pre-1923 American books, etc.) with a single footnote appended is no longer regarded as an acceptable editing practice at Wikipedia and doing so in the future may have serious ramifications.
If you see anything to this effect in the final remedy to the case by ArbCom, it's a pretty clear statement of official site policy. If that is watered down or missing, it is indicative that this sort of editing remains in the grey area.

RfB

Ah thank you. That could make a nice little coda to round it off at the end.

Tarc · Unread post by **Tarc** » Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:45 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:In the proposed remedy which I was trying to get RAN to accept to avoid ArbCom, (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =537165713) I made sure to include this line:

He is also reminded that copy-pasting vast blocks of text from public domain sources (pre-1923 American books, etc.) with a single footnote appended is no longer regarded as an acceptable editing practice at Wikipedia and doing so in the future may have serious ramifications.
If you see anything to this effect in the final remedy to the case by ArbCom, it's a pretty clear statement of official site policy. If that is watered down or missing, it is indicative that this sort of editing remains in the grey area.

RfB

In that linked discussion, FeydHuxtable (T-C-L) states;

I well remember some of the key history as its connected to perhaps the most traumatic event Ive ever witnessed on Wikipedia. The May 2009 witch-hunting of one of the most friendly, helpful and good natured young editors we've ever been blessed with. She was accused of plagiarism by a small but determined group of elite editors, led by the WR account Peter Damian. One of the results was the promotion of the Plagiarism essay to guideline status. As I recall from the discussion at the time, even hardliners admitted there was at the time no substantial policy on plagiarism above essay status. They justified their attacks with the laughable claim that any uni educated person should be aware of the issues. So you make an indisputable point Carrite, none of RANs pre 2008 edits were made in violation of this guideline, and even up to May 2009 it was only an essay.

What/who is this in reference to?

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:55 pm

Tarc wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:In the proposed remedy which I was trying to get RAN to accept to avoid ArbCom, (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =537165713) I made sure to include this line:

He is also reminded that copy-pasting vast blocks of text from public domain sources (pre-1923 American books, etc.) with a single footnote appended is no longer regarded as an acceptable editing practice at Wikipedia and doing so in the future may have serious ramifications.
If you see anything to this effect in the final remedy to the case by ArbCom, it's a pretty clear statement of official site policy. If that is watered down or missing, it is indicative that this sort of editing remains in the grey area.

RfB
In that linked discussion, FeydHuxtable (T-C-L) states;

I well remember some of the key history as its connected to perhaps the most traumatic event Ive ever witnessed on Wikipedia. The May 2009 witch-hunting of one of the most friendly, helpful and good natured young editors we've ever been blessed with. She was accused of plagiarism by a small but determined group of elite editors, led by the WR account Peter Damian. One of the results was the promotion of the Plagiarism essay to guideline status. As I recall from the discussion at the time, even hardliners admitted there was at the time no substantial policy on plagiarism above essay status. They justified their attacks with the laughable claim that any uni educated person should be aware of the issues. So you make an indisputable point Carrite, none of RANs pre 2008 edits were made in violation of this guideline, and even up to May 2009 it was only an essay.
What/who is this in reference to?

The attempted RFA of FlyingToaster (T-C-L). Some of the discussion and relevant links are here.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 9:02 am

DanMurphy wrote:The attempted RFA of FlyingToaster (T-C-L). Some of the discussion and relevant links are here.

That's an interesting one to revisit. The best view is the discussion that starts here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... oaster_RfA. There were issues of copyvio as well as plagiarism. It was also 'lazy' plagiarism: copying the stuff without any idea of what was in it. As a result, one of the articles she copied had to be deleted because it was fringe science. See e.g. my comments here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =291238459 . Also, the candidate specifically pointed to their content work – 156 articles – as evidence of her ability to be an administrator. The opposers of the RfA were depicted by the other side as 'badgering' and 'hectoring' a nice girl who wanted to be an administrator. She was very active on IRC and at least 100 of the support votes came from there.

With hindsight, it was a classic example of what Wikipedia had become. Also – with hindsight – I should have been much more careful about raising the problem given the popularity of the candidate. Despite much time on Wikipedia I had entirely failed to understand the culture of the place. I was permanently blocked only a few months later in August 2009, and I suspect a lot of the support for the block was because of my perceived harassment of this poor young girl.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:00 am

Peter Damian wrote:That's an interesting one to revisit. The best view is the discussion that starts here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... oaster_RfA. There were issues of copyvio as well as plagiarism. It was also 'lazy' plagiarism: copying the stuff without any idea of what was in it. As a result, one of the articles she copied had to be deleted because it was fringe science. See e.g. my comments here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =291238459 . Also, the candidate specifically pointed to their content work – 156 articles – as evidence of her ability to be an administrator. The opposers of the RfA were depicted by the other side as 'badgering' and 'hectoring' a nice girl who wanted to be an administrator. She was very active on IRC and at least 100 of the support votes came from there.

Ah, yes, that was an extremely ripe fecal explosion. Ottava just had to turn up and screech at you, with no point and no real result.
A near-perfect example of how butt-kissing on IRC will get one much farther on Wikipedia than writing good content, or doing other useful work.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sat Mar 02, 2013 7:39 am

Peter Damian wrote:Another first draft complete http://www.logicmuseum.com/x/index.php? ... ldid=12271 . The 'robots' chapter looks at how they are used to aggregate material from external sources like Britannica 1911 and the U.S census bureau, and how their use was essential to the development of something that looked like a reliable reference work. It draws an analogy between the optimism of the pioneers of artificial intelligence - another project that failed due to misplaced confidence in the magic of technology - and the optimism of the founding fathers/parents of Wikipedia.

Still to complete -

1. The chapter on the WMF, which will draw partly on the problems at WMUK.

2. The Kazakhstan adventure

3. Paid editing (Greg has been commissioned to write this).

Michaeldsuarez wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:Got a publisher or going DIY with it?

RfB
Bumping Randy's question.
Not got a publisher, and will not be going DIY. Haven't looked at all, so far. Will wait until first draft complete, then finish of the book proposal, and start approaching agents.

The book will be dedicated to GlassBeadGame of Wikipedia Review, who said "there's going to be no fucking book".
Copyright is CC-FY.

*Bump* Moved this topic from Off Topic (because it doesn't belong there) and wanting a progress report.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sat Mar 02, 2013 8:12 am

Zoloft wrote:*Bump* Moved this topic from Off Topic (because it doesn't belong there) and wanting a progress report.

Progress report as requested http://www.logicmuseum.com/x/index.php? ... ldid=12422

Essentially all chapters complete in first draft, and many well into second draft. The exceptions are

(1) The chapter on the WMF. I am waiting for some more material on this one.

(2) Chapter on paid editing. Greg did agree to do this one but haven't heard from him. In any case, we can take it to a publisher with or without that chapter.

Someone has already suggested an agent, and we are at the position where we could take a book proposal to them.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:44 pm

I will have the first draft of the paid editing chapter completed before April 15.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sun Mar 24, 2013 5:34 pm

Second draft of the 'Wikipedians' chapter now complete http://www.logicmuseum.com/x/index.php? ... ldid=13025 , with the title changed to 'what is Wikipedia' from 'who are the Wikipedians'.

I redrafted the chapter to focus on the book's core thesis, namely that we don't need any special theory to explain Wikipedia, and that Wikipedia is not sui generis, and it is not the phenomenon that 'works in practice but not in theory'. Wikipedia is not the bumblebee that cannot fly (nor is the bumblebee as it happens). Our existing knowledge of economics, psychology, management science and history can easily explain Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a combination of vested interests and personality types that easily explain the finished product.

Wikipedia is fucked up in practice because it is fucked up in theory. End of story, or at least end of chapter.

I spent some time on John Wallis's fascinating thesis "Destructive Editing and Habitus in the Imaginative Construction of Wikipedia".

Destructive editing, despite being comparatively rare, is the subject of perhaps Wikipedia’s largest and most central discursive field. At the heart of this field are the essentialised figures of the vandal, the troll and the edit warrior. They are a core part of the overall ideological landscape of Wikipedia. It is against these figures that Wikipedian identity and positive qualities can form. It is interesting to note that the first policy page on Wikipedia, and one of the most commonly cited to this day, is called What Wikipedia Is Not. It describes a list of concepts and values that are construed as antithetical to the Wikipedian project (Fig13). In this way, the category of the ideal Wikipedian is constructed as the vandal’s Other. Both have become “naturalised” [1], and it is assumed that some editors have destructive intentions and will exhibit undesirable behaviour, while other, true Wikipedians, will stay faithful to their collaborative, constructive mission.Several informants told me that contributors who did not exhibit the correct qualities could not rightly be called Wikipedians.

In the religious “field”, distinctions between sacred and profane are, for Bourdieu, really expressions of the class binary of the dominant group who control the goods of salvation as against the dominated laity who require them (1991). In much the same way, notions of neutrality and vandalism on Wikipedia often correspond to editors that are able to position themselves on the side of NPOV and consensus –who have the “goods” of neutrality, we might say, such as appropriate references, knowledge of policy and the correct forms of stylistic expression –opposed to those who are perceived as opinionated and fringe.

http://www.academia.edu/2067102/Destruc ... _Wikipedia

The only remaining chapter to get to first draft is the one on the Wikimedia Foundation. The opening quote is "For above a thousand years, the money of Europe has been flowing to Rome, by an open and sensible current; but it has been emptied by many secret and insensible channels" (David Hume) Does that make sense? In any case, it will be spelled out for the reader.

The Devil's Advocate · Unread post by **The Devil's Advocate** » Sun Mar 24, 2013 6:07 pm

Peter Damian wrote:The only remaining chapter to get to first draft is the one on the Wikimedia Foundation. The opening quote is "For above a thousand years, the money of Europe has been flowing to Rome, by an open and sensible current; but it has been emptied by many secret and insensible channels" (David Hume) Does that make sense? In any case, it will be spelled out for the reader.

If the chapter is spelling out issues with the Foundation's budgetary expenditures than I imagine the meaning will be apparent quickly enough.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sun Mar 24, 2013 7:40 pm

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:The only remaining chapter to get to first draft is the one on the Wikimedia Foundation. The opening quote is "For above a thousand years, the money of Europe has been flowing to Rome, by an open and sensible current; but it has been emptied by many secret and insensible channels" (David Hume) Does that make sense? In any case, it will be spelled out for the reader.
If the chapter is spelling out issues with the Foundation's budgetary expenditures than I imagine the meaning will be apparent quickly enough.

Couldn't possibly comment.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sun Mar 24, 2013 9:58 pm

Peter Damian wrote:I redrafted the chapter to focus on the book's core thesis, namely that we don't need any special theory to explain Wikipedia, and that Wikipedia is not sui generis, and it is not the phenomenon that 'works in practice but not in theory'. Wikipedia is not the bumblebee that cannot fly (nor is the bumblebee as it happens). Our existing knowledge of economics, psychology, management science and history can easily explain Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a combination of vested interests and personality types that easily explain the finished product.

Wikipedia is fucked up in practice because it is fucked up in theory. End of story, or at least end of chapter.

Perfect.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:05 pm

Another diff http://www.logicmuseum.com/x/index.php? ... ldid=13039 to calm the fears of doubters and naysayers such as Tarc. The chapter on edit wars is part of a sequence of chapters in the middle section in support of the book's central thesis, namely no special theory is needed to explain Wikipedia. Everything about Wikipedia we can explain by means of existing, well-understood theories of economics, management theory, history, sociology etc. This contrasts with the popular idea that Wikipedia "works in practice, but not in theory", that it is sui generis, etc. In fact, we can easily explain Wikipedia by a few simple observations, and some elementary theory. First, there is a division into skilled and unskilled labour on Wikipedia that you would find in any office or factory. This needs no special theory, and economists have understood its basic principles for hundreds of years. The difference with Wikipedia, and this is what explains its peculiar character, is that there is a formal reward system for unskilled work (namely, promotion to administrator), yet there is no formal reward system, and no official status for 'skilled labourers'.

This elementary feature, combined with the fact that anyone can work on it, that anonymous contributions are permitted, and that it is the 6th most visited site on the planet, explains nearly everything we know about Wikipedia.

Chapter 9 ('community'), looks at the hierarchy of Wikipedia, the official promotion system and the 'ideology' of its community.
Chapter 11 looks at the content contributors, how their interests conflict with the administrative community, as well as with each other.
Chapter 12 is the story of one kind of advocacy.
Chapter 13 is the story of 'World Traveller', one of the first major content contributors to be blocked - the first shot in the great war between the content creators and the administrative community.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Wed Apr 10, 2013 5:47 pm

Malicious BLP chapter now complete http://www.logicmuseum.com/x/index.php? ... ldid=13346 .

Did you know that one Wikipedian tried to prove that santorum does not exist?

One editor tried to object that there was actually no such a thing as santorum. “Despite being an homosexual, Dan Savage evidently has little experience with actual anal sex, as there is no “frothy by-product.” The anal sphincter is ordinarily very tight and has a “squeegee effect” upon the penis, allowing very little lube to come out afterwards, and almost never a trace of fecal material. Whatever has been deposited inside almost always remains inside until expelled in a subsequent and ordinary bowel movement”. But no one paid any attention. There was nothing in Wikipedia’s rules that prevented the article being there.

Eew.

Captain Occam · Unread post by **Captain Occam** » Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:05 pm

Does the book have an official release date yet?

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Thu Apr 11, 2013 6:18 am

Captain Occam wrote:Does the book have an official release date yet?

No. Not finished.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sun May 19, 2013 8:50 am

http://www.logicmuseum.com/x/index.php? ... ldid=13388

All first drafts finished, except for Greg's chapter (eh Greg?). Half of the second drafts completed. Will weigh in at about 410 pages. "Is it any good?" is always the nagging question at this stage. as the blurb says, I've tried to focus on the reasons why Wikipedia is so fucked up, rather than the symptoms. That may make it a too philosophical for some tastes.

Reading the chapters on the early history and culture, I am increasingly struck by the difference between then and now. And also by the similarities. A bit like Dorian Gray: the face is horribly repulsive, though once beautiful. Yet you can see it is the same person. Also, you can see the decay that will some day happen even in the original face. "Full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty" and yet soon to fall.

I'm happy to send out sample chapters for comment, with an informal non-disclosure agreement. I can be reached at edward AT logicmuseum.com.

I plan to finish all second drafts by the end of this week, then do some serious work approaching publishers.

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Sun May 19, 2013 2:12 pm

Peter Damian wrote:I'm happy to send out sample chapters for comment, with an informal non-disclosure agreement. I can be reached at edward AT logicmuseum.com.

I would like to review the chapter on the free software movement, the "Slashdot" chapter, the "What is Wikipedia?" chapter, and the SOPA chapter.

Edit: Adding "Slashdot" chapter to the list.

Edit 2: Actually, four chapters is a little much.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sun May 19, 2013 2:18 pm

Michaeldsuarez wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:I'm happy to send out sample chapters for comment, with an informal non-disclosure agreement. I can be reached at edward AT logicmuseum.com.
I would like to review the chapter on the free software movement, the "What is Wikipedia?" chapter, and the SOPA chapter.

You have mail.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun May 19, 2013 3:38 pm

Where can the table of contents be viewed?

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sun May 19, 2013 3:44 pm

Vigilant wrote:Where can the table of contents be viewed?

You mean something that is more than a one-sentence summary http://www.logicmuseum.com/x/index.php? ... king_Glass of chapters?

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sun May 19, 2013 4:10 pm

I haven't really sat down to this properly, but here's a first stab:

Chapters 1-8 are the early history of Wikipedia, and in particular the ideas and principles which were formative for its later development.

Chapter 1 starts with Jimbo on the floor of the CME, and how the decentralised system of the futures markets was a crucial influence in his vision of Wikipedia. Chapter 2 is about the design of Bomis and how it used user-generated content. “Jimmy was “user generated content” before most people understood the concept. He had the foresight to apply this concept to an encyclopedia. with a lot of capable and talented help.

Chapter 3 is about the thoughts and principles underlying Nupedia, including a lot of emails still outside the public domain. Chapter 4 starts with the famous meeting at the Mexican food restaurant which inspired Larry to set up the wiki. There’s some material which resolves (in my mind) the question of who really had the idea for Wikipedia.

Chapters 5 and 6 look at the influence of Stallman and Slashdot respectively. Stallman brought the idea of ‘community’ and altruism to Wikipedia, which is quite at odds with the Chicago vision of decentralisation. The Slashdot chapter, in which the true identity of the Cuncator is revealed, shows how the community rejected any kind of authority – both administrative and epistemic, and how Jimmy connived with this.

Chapter 7 is about how advertising was rejected in Wikipedia, and attempts to explain why Jimmy accepted this. It also resolves the dispute about whether Jimmy originally planned advertising on Wikipedia.

Chapter 8 is about how robots began on Wikipedia, and how it is infected by plagiarism of all sorts.

Chapter 9 stands out on its own. It is an attempt to explain how a community which began with the radical idea of having no hierarchy, ended up with a hierarchy. Musings about the division of labour, and about a system which, unlike the real world, rewards those who perform mundane and repetitive tasks, without rewarding those who do the more skilled work. The key question is why do they do it?

Chapters 10-19 are about the other half of the Wikipedia, the content creators. It is a fundamental and depressing assumption of the book that few people are genuinely altruistic, and most people do something in return for something. The administrators (discussed in Chapter 9 above) do it for status. The content creators do it for various self-interested reasons. Chapter 10 talks about those who want money from the Foundation. Chapter 11 about the various activists who promote their cause on Wikipedia. Chapter 12 is about the promotion of pedophilia. Chapter 13 about the small band of people who really do seem to be doing it for the public benefit. Or are they? Chapter 14, about those who are motivated by malice and revenge. Chapter 15, about those who do it for narcissism and vanity. Chapter 16 about those who want to self-publish, and the effect it has on quality. Chapter 17 about the attraction of Wikipedia to the mentally disturbed. Chapter 18 is an outlier, see below. Chapter 19 is about exhibitionism, and those curious people who want to upload a picture of themselves wanking, or who are driven by misogyny.

Chapter 18 is about secrecy and cover-up on Wikipedia, and relies heavily on some noxious leaked material. Some of the arbcom have seen it and are very upset by it.

Chapter 20 is about the wider internet, and the digital slavery that Web 2.0 imposes upon us, of which Wikipedia is just a microsm.

Chapter 21 is about the vision of the techno-utopians. Will the internet really route us round censorship?

-----------------

If there is any underlying unifying theme to the book, it is that of Augustine. We are essentially fallen creatures, condemned to misery on this earth, with our ambitions ever frustrated. We yearn for a utopia, and successive ages have promised us this in various ways. The current age promises technological utopia. We can repeal human nature by the redeeming power of the computer, or the internet. The depressing conclusion is that this is a failure. There is no promised land. Only hell.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Sun May 19, 2013 4:22 pm

If there is any underlying unifying theme to the book, it is that of Augustine. We are essentially fallen creatures, condemned to misery on this earth, with our ambitions ever frustrated. We yearn for a utopia, and successive ages have promised us this in various ways. The current age promises technological utopia. We can repeal human nature by the redeeming power of the computer, or the internet. The depressing conclusion is that this is a failure. There is no promised land. Only hell.

Have you tried talking to Morozov yet? If you want an external reviewer, this sounds right in his wheelhouse.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sun May 19, 2013 4:42 pm

DanMurphy wrote:
If there is any underlying unifying theme to the book, it is that of Augustine. We are essentially fallen creatures, condemned to misery on this earth, with our ambitions ever frustrated. We yearn for a utopia, and successive ages have promised us this in various ways. The current age promises technological utopia. We can repeal human nature by the redeeming power of the computer, or the internet. The depressing conclusion is that this is a failure. There is no promised land. Only hell.
Have you tried talking to Morozov yet? If you want an external reviewer, this sounds right in his wheelhouse.

Yes, several times, with suitably fawning emails. I have an explanation of why he hasn't replied, which I won't repeat here.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Sun May 19, 2013 5:17 pm

Thanks for the summary.

Peter Damian wrote: Chapter 9 stands out on its own. It is an attempt to explain how a community which began with the radical idea of having no hierarchy, ended up with a hierarchy. Musings about the division of labour, and about a system which, unlike the real world, rewards those who perform mundane and repetitive tasks, without rewarding those who do the more skilled work. The key question is why do they do it? ... The administrators (discussed in Chapter 9 above) do it for status.

Out of interest, have you been able to get many administrators to talk to you for this chapter? By your reckoning I'm one of the minority who aren't an administrator for "status", but then again I'm really not sure how many are.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sun May 19, 2013 5:23 pm

The chapter outline makes it clear that this will be an interesting book.

My personal take would, of course, be altogether different, but I'm sure it will make for a good read.

tim

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sun May 19, 2013 6:21 pm

Hex wrote:Thanks for the summary.

Peter Damian wrote: Chapter 9 stands out on its own. It is an attempt to explain how a community which began with the radical idea of having no hierarchy, ended up with a hierarchy. Musings about the division of labour, and about a system which, unlike the real world, rewards those who perform mundane and repetitive tasks, without rewarding those who do the more skilled work. The key question is why do they do it? ... The administrators (discussed in Chapter 9 above) do it for status.
Out of interest, have you been able to get many administrators to talk to you for this chapter? By your reckoning I'm one of the minority who aren't an administrator for "status", but then again I'm really not sure how many are.

For the book, I have. For that chapter, no. That's a weakness, yes.

Actually I have tried, but this is the problem

The official reason why so many people volunteer on Wikipedia is simple altruism. If you ask them, they will give you generic, well-rehearsed responses such as the need to fix incorrect information, or to contribute to the sum of human knowledge.

Typically the good interview subjects were the content creators. Eloquent, and with the ability to paint a picture in words, and to provide lots of quotable stuff. For the administrators I approached, it was on the whole monosyllabic, unpictorial and cliche ridden. But wouldn't that be the same with Scientology or the Moonies? If you want a true, real picture of either you are not going to ask the adherents of those cults.

[edit] Actually I relied heavily for part of that chapter on a scholarly thesis by John Wallis. He says (my emphasis).

It is assumed that some editors have destructive intentions and will exhibit undesirable behaviour, while other, true Wikipedians, will stay faithful to their collaborative, constructive mission. Several informants told me that contributors who did not exhibit the correct qualities could not rightly be called Wikipedians.

And I write

Wallis contends that Wikipedia is an imagined community – the idea of which originated with Benedict Anderson in 1983 - and so the need to explain motivation does not really arise. An imagined community is different from an actual community in that its members cannot regularly or systematically interact face-to-face, such as a whole nation, whose consciousness of itself is largely symbolic, objectified by means of in rituals, totems, or memorials. Online, such a community is forced to define itself in language, used in a ritualistic way to enforce social cohesion and uniformity, to maintain its structure and hierarchy, and to instill and preserve a set of shared values and an ethos. It may include references and terminology that are incomprehensible to outsiders, and which may help define itself as against, and somehow opposed to outsiders. Even the positive word ‘community’ may act as a sort of verbal totem to Wikipedians, given that it is one of the words they most frequently invoke. Wikipedia’s cohesive culture partly relies (like any collaborative culture, perhaps) on the use of references and terminology that are incomprehensible to non-Wikipedians.

Hence, according to Wallis, Wikipedians do not conceive their contributions as motivated, “any more than participants in an imagined nationalism feel “motivated” to involve themselves in their nationhood. Being a Wikipedian implies familiarity with its culture, an assumption of habitus, an internalization of behavioural modes. Individuals in such a state do not need to be incentivised, unless we describe the basic dynamic of social life as one of incentivisation” .

The Devil's Advocate · Unread post by **The Devil's Advocate** » Sun May 19, 2013 8:38 pm

I do love the Wonderland motif with the page about the book. It meshes very well. Do you incorporate that much in the book itself?

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Sun May 19, 2013 9:03 pm

I would just like to give Ed a big hug for referencing Ben Anderson (given my background, I always get a warm glow when I see him referenced intelligently; Perry was no slouch either, but less interesting to me).

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sun May 19, 2013 9:13 pm

The Devil's Advocate wrote:I do love the Wonderland motif with the page about the book. It meshes very well. Do you incorporate that much in the book itself?

Thank you, although it's just a placeholder. Er, but note all the images are actually from Through the Looking Glass, not Alice in Wonderland.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sun May 19, 2013 9:17 pm

Peter Damian wrote:
The Devil's Advocate wrote:I do love the Wonderland motif with the page about the book. It meshes very well. Do you incorporate that much in the book itself?
Thank you, although it's just a placeholder. Er, but note all the images are actually from Through the Looking Glass, not Alice in Wonderland.

If it was me, I'd use the John Tenniel (T-H-L) artwork extensively. You will never find a better match to your title or concept.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sun May 19, 2013 9:26 pm

Zoloft wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:
The Devil's Advocate wrote:I do love the Wonderland motif with the page about the book. It meshes very well. Do you incorporate that much in the book itself?
Thank you, although it's just a placeholder. Er, but note all the images are actually from Through the Looking Glass, not Alice in Wonderland.
If it was me, I'd use the John Tenniel (T-H-L) artwork extensively. You will never find a better match to your title or concept.

Sockpuppets.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sun May 19, 2013 9:39 pm

The Tao of Pooh (T-H-L) is an example of masterful re-purposing of art to enhance the theme (and saleability) of a work.

Sweet Revenge · Unread post by **Sweet Revenge** » Sun May 19, 2013 9:40 pm

Peter Damian wrote:
Zoloft wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:
The Devil's Advocate wrote:I do love the Wonderland motif with the page about the book. It meshes very well. Do you incorporate that much in the book itself?
Thank you, although it's just a placeholder. Er, but note all the images are actually from Through the Looking Glass, not Alice in Wonderland.
If it was me, I'd use the John Tenniel (T-H-L) artwork extensively. You will never find a better match to your title or concept.
Sockpuppets.

Oh lovely! I will not only be buying a copy but I will get it into at least two libraries for you.

Captain Occam · Unread post by **Captain Occam** » Sun May 19, 2013 10:53 pm

Is this book going to cover the Qworty affair, or is too late to include that now that the book's mostly finished?

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun May 19, 2013 11:02 pm

Captain Occam wrote:Is this book going to cover the Qworty affair, or is too late to include that now that the book's mostly finished?

Hear, hear!

It's a stereotypical case of what we've been warning against for years.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Mon May 20, 2013 8:04 am

Vigilant wrote:
Captain Occam wrote:Is this book going to cover the Qworty affair, or is too late to include that now that the book's mostly finished?
Hear, hear!

It's a stereotypical case of what we've been warning against for years.

I’m looking at it now. It depends whether the Qworty affair adds anything in principle to what is already in the book. I already discuss the ‘Anonymous Dirt Accretion Method’ (ADAM*) in some detail. “One quarter of a biography might be about the fact that the subject once said ‘fuck’ on television. Three-quarters of a fox hunting activist’s 650-word biography might be devoted to a meticulous, painstakingly detailed enumeration of minor arrests, half of which did not result in charges or a conviction”. Qworty’s technique was an extreme example of this, e.g. here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... d=28055330 when he removes everything but the negative material, so that the article begins “Brad Vice (b. 1973) was a fiction writer who was found guilty of having plagiarized materials he published in his Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Cincinnati”.

So it’s not like the general issue isn’t discussed in a prominent part of the book (in the chapter on Seigenthaler). However the Qworty case does stand out as egregious and consistent over many years, so I might replace one of the existing examples with this one.

*Andreas Kolbe, who coined the phrase, is fully credited in the book.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon May 20, 2013 8:06 am

Peter Damian wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
Captain Occam wrote:Is this book going to cover the Qworty affair, or is too late to include that now that the book's mostly finished?
Hear, hear!

It's a stereotypical case of what we've been warning against for years.
I’m looking at it now. It depends whether the Qworty affair adds anything in principle to what is already in the book. I already discuss the ‘Anonymous Dirt Accretion Method’ (ADAM*) in some detail. “One quarter of a biography might be about the fact that the subject once said ‘fuck’ on television. Three-quarters of a fox hunting activist’s 650-word biography might be devoted to a meticulous, painstakingly detailed enumeration of minor arrests, half of which did not result in charges or a conviction”. Qworty’s technique was an extreme example of this, e.g. here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... d=28055330 when he removes everything but the negative material, so that the article begins “Brad Vice (b. 1973) was a fiction writer who was found guilty of having plagiarized materials he published in his Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Cincinnati”.
Just add another. It's emblematic, topical and current.
So it’s not like the general issue isn’t discussed in a prominent part of the book (in the chapter on Seigenthaler). However the Qworty case does stand out as egregious and consistent over many years, so I might replace one of the existing examples with this one.

*Andreas Kolbe, who coined the phrase, is fully credited in the book.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Mon May 20, 2013 8:19 am

Randy from Boise wrote:The chapter outline makes it clear that this will be an interesting book.

My personal take would, of course, be altogether different, but I'm sure it will make for a good read.

tim

Not that different, I think.

We have policies and institutions to handle these sort of situations, insufficient and flawed though they may be. Jimmy Wales has enough on his plate not to be expected to run around as judge, jury, and executioner. Moreover, none of us should WANT a system in which one individual has such power. The failure to stop Qworty from malicious editing is a failure of all of us. And this failure was exacerbated by Wikipedia's unhealthy worship of editing secrecy and its failure to install mechanisms to halt the ability of one person to start and use multiple accounts. Along the latter line, one good idea I heard recently was that WMF should unilaterally begin including IP addresses in the signature of each post at WP. This would serve as a red flag on multiple accounts being used in close proximity to one another by a single editor. In the long run, Wikipedia needs real name registration and sign-in-to-edit mechanisms to further limit the use of multiple accounts and to make sure that content can be attributed to a real life individual — which would incidentally slice vandalism massively. Carrite (talk) (Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR, USA) 06:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555904093

The overall theme of the book is that the Internet does not make us good, and that most of the checks and balances we have introduced in the real world are also needed on Wikipedia. This is against the kind of internet techno-utopianism that says we can throw away all that old real-life stuff because it is so pre-2000s etc etc.

roger_pearse · Unread post by **roger_pearse** » Mon May 20, 2013 8:22 am

Peter Damian wrote:I completed another large chunk today

One thing that will be really important ... you need to get it read soon by someone who uses Wikipedia but has no idea about the internals, never contributed to WP, and cares less about online fights and trolling. (Ideally a journalist)

This is a big audience, and the book needs to engage with such people. People here cannot point out any tunnel-vision, and you would be inhuman if the process of compiling all this did not create that in you.

All the best,

Roger Pearse