MyWikiBiz - User contributions [en]

User talk:MyWikiBiz

2010-10-23T21:26:43Z

Raf: /* Hello Greg */

'''Past discussions are archived here''':

*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 1|Archive 1]] ''(Oct 2006 - Mar 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 2|Archive 2]] ''(Mar 2007 - May 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 3|Archive 3]] ''(June 2007 - June 2008)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 4|Archive 4]] ''(July 2008 - January 2009)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 5|Archive 5]] ''(January 2009 - December 2009)''

==Aricle not doing well in google==

this article [[Sarey Savy]] is number 15 on google i need to make it number one! Help! please?! ([[User:Michael Chen|Michael Chen]] 21:06, 11 February 2010 (PST))
: You just created it. It may take some time to get to #1. Also, it will help if you go to other websites (Facebook, MySpace, Wikia, etc.) and try to get an external link placed FROM there TO this article here. I will look at the [[Sarey Savy]] page and see if I can help matters with the semantic tagging in the article. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 06:00, 12 February 2010 (PST)

Thanks man this is WAY better than Wikipedia =] If i could give away awards for best wikis i would give you millions and you'd win all the time =] ([[User:Michael Chen|Michael Chen]] 08:42, 12 February 2010 (PST))

Oh it's decreasing it's rank on google. ([[User:Michael Chen|Michael Chen]] 09:08, 12 February 2010 (PST))

Why is it decreasing? ([[User:Michael Chen|Michael Chen]] 09:47, 12 February 2010 (PST))

:It probably senses your panic. Seriously, calm down -- these things take time. And there's no saying that this page is going to go to #1 -- there's already a page on MySpace and on Facebook. They tend to perform stronger than MyWikiBiz. Have you set up any inbound, "dofollow" links on other sites? -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 12:52, 12 February 2010 (PST)

Yes it is linked on myspace facebook etc. ([[User:Michael Chen|Michael Chen]] 14:03, 12 February 2010 (PST))

What can i do to improve the google ranking? ([[User:Michael Chen|Michael Chen]] 21:40, 12 February 2010 (PST))

:Mr. Chen, may I ask how old are you? Please [http://www.slideshare.net/bencrothers/10-tips-to-boost-your-google-ranking read this] and follow what you learn there. These are basic tips for boosting the Google ranking of a site or page you wish to optimize. Good luck! -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 06:51, 13 February 2010 (PST)

Thanks! It's number 3 on google ranking! Can't you take the Directory talk out? ([[User:Michael Chen|Michael Chen]] 10:37, 13 February 2010 (PST))

Okay it fell down it's not even on google!!! I just deleted my history and everything then the next thing you know Sarey Savy-Mywikibiz is GONE! ([[User:Michael Chen|Michael Chen]] 16:01, 14 February 2010 (PST))

The directory doesn't show up but, yet when i take the directory out it does at number 3. ([[User:Michael Chen|Michael Chen]] 09:39, 15 February 2010 (PST))

== Problems With SVG Images ==

Hi, Greg, there's some kind of problem with SVG images. Maybe we're a couple of MediaWiki updates behind?

* Here's my test page: http://mywikibiz.com/User:Jon_Awbrey/SVG

* Here's what it should look like: http://oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey/SVG

[[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 10:50, 16 February 2010 (PST)

:We will look into it and [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Image_Administration#SVG seek a repair]. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 13:42, 16 February 2010 (PST)

==Can you please explain to me what your site is for?==
I don't want to break any rules here. I really don't want to be banned from here. They banned me at wikipedia review and it just hurt my feelings even more. I would like to help out here, but I don't want any more bans because it makes me feel bad. I guess I have a very big problem with following or understanding site rules, so if you could please help me out with what you expect here and what this is for - before I do anything wrong and get banned I would appreciate it.[[User:Wiki Greek Basketball|Wiki Greek Basketball]] 12:45, 19 February 2010 (PST)
:[http://www.mywikibiz.com/Help:Introduction This page] should answer most of your questions. I'm happy that you're here. Not looking to ban you. In fact, three of the four top contributors to MyWikiBiz.com are blocked on Wikipedia. You basically have a lot of options here, but the first thing you need to square away is whether you are going to try to make a little bit of money here (more effort and slightly more rules to obey), or whether money is not of interest to you (easier, and fewer rules to stay on top of). -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 17:10, 19 February 2010 (PST)

== Wikia ==

Do you suppose Wikia would be profitable by now, or ever if Wikipedia did not tag Wikia links with the "nofollow" tag for however long? Do you know for how long they were not tagged with "nofollow"?

I saw that you posted this link, I think on WR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=5000&offset=20000&target=http://*.wikia.com

So there are like 22,000 Wikia links? Wow. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

:Considering that Wikia is only barely profitable at this time (and with $14 million sunk into it, and likely very little of that recuperated), I would honestly suggest that Wikia would not be profitable by now if they hadn't had the early and ongoing boost(s) from Wikipedia-based link relevance and traffic. If you add to this how often Jimmy Wales has traveled on purportedly a Wikimedia Foundation "mission", but manages to talk about Wikia even briefly to large audiences, then I am absolutely certain Wikia would be well underwater without that self-promotional boost. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 09:18, 18 March 2010 (PDT)

:: But it is probably legal to do things like that I suppose? I am not a lawyer. I have no idea. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

::: Oh, I'm sure it's legal... up until the point the IRS decides to conduct an audit of either your personal or your corporation's taxes. But, regardless; the real point is when you consider how Wales speaks so glowingly of his free (and freewill) contributions to the Wikimedia Foundation mission (with no mention of how he's appropriated that mission to almost entirely drive his personal fortunes), his character is revealed to be that of a hypocrite when he speaks with revulsion about those who would "exploit" Wikipedia for profit. You're smart enough to see through that phony baloney, right? -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 14:15, 18 March 2010 (PDT)
:::: Self deception maybe? Or maybe just the way capitalism has to work? [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

== Wikademia and Wikieducator ==

I'm sure you'd be welcome to edit on both of those. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]

:Have you seen the Alexa ratings of WikiEducator? They are a bit lower than MyWikiBiz. I'd reach more people working here. As for Wikademia, let me know when it reaches the top million on Alexa. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 21:50, 21 March 2010 (PDT)

== Hi MyWikiBiz ==

I would like to edit the article 'Greg James Sculpture Studio Gallery' but it appears to be locked. The article was created by Peter Z. who doesn't seem to have any problems in editing it. My menu bar displays on the article 'View Source'. Can you please help? [[User:Greg James Sculpture|Greg James Sculpture]] 21:11, 31 March 2010 (PDT)
:It is open now to your being able to edit it. However, be advised, once you make an edit, you will become the "owner" of the article (because it's in Directory space), and others (including Peter) will not have access to edit. That's how our Directory space is set up at MyWikiBiz -- it's intended to be one-editor-only. If the two of you are both equally interested in editing it, I would suggest creating a joint account between you and share the password. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 21:30, 31 March 2010 (PDT)
:: Thank you [[User:Greg James Sculpture|Greg James Sculpture]] 21:47, 31 March 2010 (PDT)

== Title Help ==
Hi MyWikiBiz! Could you please help me. I've created a new article & left a dot at the end of the title: [[Directory:Robert Dawkins-The Silver Gallery.]] Is their a way of removing the dot, because I can't figure out how to do it? Regards:) [[User:Peter Z.|Peter Z.]] 19:34, 7 April 2010 (PDT)
: I have moved it to [[Directory:Robert_Dawkins-The_Silver_Gallery|a new location]], sans period. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 04:55, 8 April 2010 (PDT)
:: Thanks. [[User:Peter Z.|Peter Z.]] 05:38, 8 April 2010 (PDT)

== Help:SMW ==

There is a note on one of my pages which says that ASK is no longer supported but to use 'SMW'. Is there any documentation on this pls? (Couldn't find any). [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 19:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Does [http://semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Inline_queries this] have anything to do with it? If I can figure this out I will add some help files. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 19:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

:Yes, that is exactly the page I was going to point you to, Ockham. This was one of the most frustrating aspects of our transfer to a new server host and a complete upgrade/update to both the most current Mediawiki core software, but also the most current Semantic Mediawiki extension that used to run all of our Attributes and Relations. Now, both Attributes and Relations are lumped into a new field called "Properties". And instead of using a := for Attributes, all Properties now need a :: instruction. I'm going to be hiring a coder to try to make some of these universal, global changes to try to make things a bit more polished around here. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 02:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
:: Hi thanks. I [http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=List_of_medieval_philosophers&oldid=116947 tested] the medieval philosophers query with the SMW syntax but still doesn't work. I think it needs a professional to set us on the right road and then we can take it from there. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 07:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit] ah my mistake. It does work (see [http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=List_of_medieval_philosophers this version] of the page). [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 07:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
{edit] The key is to remember that it doesn't support the '=<' sign. '<' in SMW means 'less or equal to'. Otherwise you get the bug. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 07:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

===How about this===

I think SMW is going to be more powerful than ASK. I have created a new version of [[List_of_Scholastic_Texts]], which as you can see now supports links to the authors, which the old version never did.

I am going to experiment with catalogues of medieval manuscripts. I have a digitised version of M.R.James catologue of manuscripts held in Gonville and Caius' library. This has details of condition, production date or century, lists of Authors and so on. There are currently projects to take catalogues like these and use professional software developers in the old-fahshioned and expensive way, to build large and difficult-to-maintain databases that only professional developers (rather than users) can understand. Using environments like this, you hardly need developers. A team of users and experts working together can quickly build a database that is far easier to use and far more transparent than any expensive database developed in the traditional IT-led way.

The problem is to get the users (i.e. medievalists or whoever) to understand how powerful this can be, and how easy to use. I will make some experiments with the James catalogue and if this works I will publish something in 'Digital Medievalist'. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 08:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

:I agree that while this was a painful upgrade, the opportunities for even better uses of the Semantic architecture are worth it. I am very, very pleased (you don't know how much) that a "regular user" figured this out and will be setting an example for others. I'm going to be hiring the coder later today or tomorrow, and I hope that he'll do quite a lot to help "clean up" the old messes left behind by the upgrade. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 16:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks, it's no problem. I also succeeded in setting up [[List_of_medieval_manuscripts]] as mentioned above. This points to pages like [[Directory:Logic_Museum/Caius_344/540]] which are a much better way of structuring information than in the old [[Directory:Logic_Museum/Manuscripts]], which is the old Wikipedia-style of hard-coding a list of things that cannot be sorted or filtered or categorised. If I have time I will write a little 1-2-3 tutorial that will take someone used to the old ways and show them the new way. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 17:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

== Access to The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View ==

Hi Greg I have lost edit rights to [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View|The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View]]. I can edit subdirectories of it, and other directories I own, but not this. Oddly, Peter Z seems able to edit it. How strange. I was going to start a subdirectory on terrible economics articles. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 17:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:Try again. We're working on this issue. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 17:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:: No. Still 'View source' only.[[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 18:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
==Problems with my articles==

Hi MyWikiBiz! There are problems with my articles. What do you think is going on? [http://www.mywikibiz.com/Titoism_and_Totalitarianism link] [[User:Peter Z.|Peter Z.]] 00:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This one too. [http://www.mywikibiz.com/Criticism_of_Jimmy_Wales link] [[User:Peter Z.|Peter Z.]] 01:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

==Hello Greg==
How are you doing? Would it be ok if i posted some pages here that i made elsewhere? [[User:Raf|Raf]] 19:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
:I also noticed your paid wiki-gnome thread, but how do you send money to people online, and is it valid for people who live outside the USA? [[User:Raf|Raf]] 19:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it's okay to post pages that you made elsewhere, as long as you have rights to do so, and that the pages don't violate our own [[Help:General_disclaimer|terms of service]]. Payment for wiki-gnoming can be via PayPal.com, or via a mailed commercial check drawn in US dollars on a US bank. If neither of those options work, then I'm not sure how to transact. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 19:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
::So in theory, i just have to set up a pre-paid card with PayPal and then it's all good for transferring money, from any country to any country? [[User:Raf|Raf]] 20:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
:::I'm sure certain limitations and restrictions apply, so see PayPal.com for details. However, I know that I have transacted payments internationally on PayPal, multiple times. As for this particular wiki-gnoming project, though... I believe I have another taker working on it now. For a $15 ''Om nom nom nom'' payment to the Wikimedia Foundation. Ugh. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 14:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
::::''Om nom nom nom''? ... Well for my part give 1 dollar to the WMF with a comment like "Wikipedia keeps being [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwear_fetishism child] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urolagnia friendly] with appropriate pictures for an encyclopedia" or something like that. The other 14 dollars could go to [http://scoobysworkshop.com/support.htm this], he puts a lot of time for his non-profit hobby to give advice on how to fight obesity and sedentary lifestiles. Also, if you donate 200 $ or more to him, he will give you a t-shirt. [[User:Raf|Raf]] 19:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

:::::Regarding the possible pages i can import here, they're mostly not business related and are quite obscure topics, to which i have no relation at all. Since there are pages like [[Directory:Quasi Brands]], would they be fine here? [[User:Raf|Raf]] 21:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:MyWikiBiz

2010-10-23T19:55:08Z

Raf: /* Hello Greg */ om nom nom nom

Directory:Akahele/Searching for answers

2010-10-22T23:42:52Z

Raf: /* Image credits: */

Without question, Search is one of the most important and utilized services on the Internet. If you look at the [http://www.alexa.com/topsites ten most-visited websites] according to Alexa.com, domains known for web search occupy the #1, #2, #5, and #10 spots (Google, Yahoo, Windows Live, and Baidu, respectively). Usually when people search, they are looking for an answer to a question they have.

This fact has prompted several corporate players to enter into what I might call "the answer enterprise". I myself was no stranger to the answer enterprise. Since graduate school, I noted how many of my friends and relatives marveled at how proficient I was in using various Internet search tools (back then, I'd go to [http://web.archive.org/web/19961023234707/http://www.webcrawler.com/ Webcrawler] and [http://web.archive.org/web/19961023234631/http://altavista.digital.com/ AltaVista] -- remember those?) and finding electronic databases that might help answer complex questions. After I realized that some of these question-and-answer journeys were taking over an hour to fulfill properly, my entrepreneurial instincts kicked in.

==Facts On Call==

Thus, in 1995, I incorporated [http://web.archive.org/web/20021125075325/http://www.factsoncall.com/ Facts On Call]. For nine years with this side-project of mine, I learned about everything under the sun, assisting typically small enterprises and entrepreneurs with questions usually related to making a business case. Some examples:

::What are the total number of athletic scholarships awarded in North America, the total number of junior college athletes, and the total number of professional athletes? (Asked by a promotion agency for high school athletes.)
::Could you find an expert in the melting characteristics of different types of ice cream? (Asked by an attorney handling a "slip and fall" lawsuit directed against a grocery store; and yes, we found an academic expert on this topic.)
::Could you critically review all of the websites of North Carolina manufacturers of heavy machinery who have e-commerce capability? (For a manufacturing firm seeking "best practices" ideas for their own website.)
::Find me a list of 10-15 experts in terrorism and security, and provide their bios. (For the organizer of a conference on investment banking in the post-9/11 era.)

<table style="float: right; border=" border="0" width="155">
<tr>
<td>http://web.archive.org/web/20021125075325/http://www.factsoncall.com/images/foc_logo.gif</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: left;">Facts On Call logo (1995)</td>
</tr>
</table>
Facts On Call was a bunch of fun for me. Sure, it was a hassle to keep the balance sheet current and tax forms accurate, but still a great learning experience, and I met a wide array of interesting clients. Annual revenues never topped $5,000, but I soon justified to myself that "it wasn't about the money".

As the web matured and consumers began to learn search retrieval techniques that essentially were my competitive advantage, I began to wind down Facts On Call to focus more on marketing consulting and publishing, and my primary career in market research. Once I heard the fifth or sixth individual ask me, "Why would someone pay you to search for stuff on the Internet, when they could just do it themselves for free?", it confirmed in my mind that paid information retrieval (at least from freely available sources) was a dead end.

==Google Answers==

Google seemed to think otherwise. In April 2002, they unveiled Google Answers, a fee-based question and answer clearinghouse. An earlier attempt by Google to run an answer farm using only paid staffers failed after being inundated with questions during the first day or two. That led to the "crowdsourced" version, where a panel of about 500 registered "researchers" would tackle questions in exchange for payments of $4 to $50, which was promptly expanded to a range anchored at $2 and at $200. Those posting a query were charged a non-refundable fee of 50 cents, and Google pocketed 25% of the final payment to successful respondents.

After passing a [https://answers.google.com/answers/researchertraining.html relatively simple test] of search and writing skills, one could join another [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&num=100&q=factsoncall-ga+site%3Aanswers.google.com&btnG=Search" 500 designated researchers]. As an observer, a bounty-posting questioner, and an occasional answerer, my memory of the program is as follows:

(1) Most of the questions that could be researched and answered within 10 minutes were:
... (a) offering only $2 to $6, and
... (b) already "locked" (or even answered) by a faster researcher.

(2) Most of the questions that were priced above $20 were either:
... (a) bound to take at least an hour of time to research and respond to, or
... (b) impossible to answer, or
... (c) already "locked" by a faster researcher.

Another memory I have of the program was a problem of withheld payments. If someone wasn't satisfied with the answer received, they could walk away from the deal -- even if the answer they were given was in fact comprehensive and thorough. I heard that attempts to follow up to rectify any shortfalls were often met with silence from the client, and Google supported the policy that the customer is always right, regardless of how thorough an answer may have been.

I eventually decided to never again work within ''that'' system, and in a couple more years (late 2006), the service was terminated. Yahoo! had recently launched a competing free service called...

==Yahoo! Answers==

Launched in very late 2005, [http://answers.yahoo.com/ Yahoo! Answers] became the [http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2006/09/01/8384345/ second-most popular] reference website after Wikipedia in less than a year's time. Seeded with "Featured Questions" to get the juices flowing, in the earliest days these might have included questions such as:

::Are all [http://web.archive.org/web/20051220075200/http://answers.yahoo.com/ snowflakes] really different?
::What's your favorite [http://web.archive.org/web/20051211040657/http://answers.yahoo.com/ chocolate] recipe?

The database allows anonymous posters to ask questions for free, and it allows any registered user to respond to questions (under the "free" model, which means people doing substantially meritorious work get paid the exact same amount as a prankster posting jokes -- not a dime). Why would people contribute time and effort for free? It would seem that the elaborate grading system that awards "points" to players participating in the knowledge marketplace is sufficient enticement to keep the site populated.
<table style="float: left; border=" border="0" width="155">
<tr>
<td>http://www.script-office.com/images/yahooAnswersLogo.png</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: center;">#2 online reference site?</td>
</tr>
</table>
For the past few months, I myself have been asking questions and contributing answers to Yahoo! queries in the categories I'm most adept -- market research, travel, and Wikipedia. I admit, it is predictably addictive to see myself rise up from nowhere to (currently) the [http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/stars?sid=2115500146 fifth best] contributor on a topic. But, I have ulterior motives, too. By watching and answering questions, I've been building up some material for this very Akahele article, while occasionally posting a link to other Akahele articles, when appropriate.

==Lost souls==

From my recent experience, I have found both the questions and most of the answers delivered on the Yahoo! platform to reveal a careless level of engagement at best, to an appalling lack of sensibility at worst. Indeed, Jacob Leibenluft [http://www.slate.com/id/2179393/pagenum/all/ writing in ''Slate''] called Yahoo! Answers "every middle-school teacher's worst nightmare about the Web".

As I look at the site at this moment, the featured question is, "How do I bond with my rats?" I found the next featured question even more astounding: "How much should i charge for painting a fence?" Not an awful question, but in the details, the guy making the query points out that the fence is post-and-rail, and that the fence runs for 11,000 feet. If you were a landowner with a two-mile fence, would you want your contractor going to Yahoo! Answers to ask strangers how to estimate the job? That's a bit scary.

Wait. It's not as scary as the "[http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/;_ylt=AlDqXDhDxp9NtXTiF.Xq3Pzpy6IX;_ylv=3?link=list&sid=396546046 Pregnancy and Parenting]" category. Today, I see the following questions there:

:[http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuN77L5M.XgNvBocUMj.L1d37hR.;_ylv=3?qid=20090412185420AApVBvl Brown Discharge????? Help!!!?]
:What first name would go with Joseph Cyplik?
:When does conception occur?
:He's a deadbeat w/ his first child so will he be any different with a new baby?

Clearly, there is a general behavioral problem here, is there not? Children and adults seeking advice seem wholly capable of reaching "answer" sites on the Internet. But they exhibit an implicit trust with these sites, assessing them as (apparently) a completely appropriate channel for important advice. They want advice and answers from people they don't know, who are using fictitious user names with cartoon avatars, who make no claim to know what the hell they're talking about. What happened to the old advice, "talk to someone you trust and respect -- a parent, a teacher, a librarian, a doctor, a pastor"?

==Building brands==

There are other answer enterprises out there. Some borrow from the popular success of Wikipedia and try the wiki approach: [http://wiki.answers.com/ WikiAnswers] and the older, but far less popular Jimmy Wales-led site, [http://answers.wikia.com/wiki/Wikianswers Wikianswers]. Amazing how an upper-case letter can keep lawsuits at bay. I am reminded of the old [http://www.linksandlaw.com/decisions-7.htm Digital Equipment (Alta<strong>V</strong>ista) v. Alta<strong>v</strong>ista Technology] trademark dispute.

Yahoo! Answers features a program called [http://answers.yahoo.com/info/knowledge_partners Knowledge Partners], where business organizations can flaunt their expertise -- oh, and also "mention its products or services, where relevant, in an answer". So far, Yahoo! has invited Dell, Kraft, Purina, Quicken Loans, Entertainment Weekly, and a few others to participate. The program "is currently in Beta and only available by invitation". This seems like the next natural step in the downward slope of "progress" in the answer enterprise.

==You get what you pay for==

Facts On Call charged good money to provide good answers to good questions. Google Answers charged meager money to provide good answers to good questions. Yahoo! Answers charges no money to provide marginal answers to marginal questions, and you might even see a Knowledge Partner's product hawked in the process.

==Image credits:==

*Facts On Call, Inc. logo used courtesy of Gregory Kohs, its creator.
*Yahoo! Answers logo, [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 fair use doctrine].

==Comments==

===11 Responses to “Searching for answers”===

Comments RSS

====Dan T.====
I believe the Wikia answer subsite actually existed before its competitor, though it was pretty dormant until the other site came along.

As for “how do I bond with my rats”, did he try CrazyGlue?

====Gregory Kohs====
Dan T., I agree that the facts seem to indicate that the Wikia answer subsite DID pre-exist the Answers.com wiki. I’d describe its early activity as “very dormant”. Indeed, I found that Answers.com put forth extensive efforts to build and brand and market their site, all while Wikia’s site just sat there like a bump on a log. Only after Answers.com found relative success with their site did Wikia seem to “wake up” and decide that they had had a similarly brilliant brand name, some longer period of time ago. I have no remorse in describing the latter activity as “copycat”.

A similar conundrum exists around the “Budweiser” brand name. Budweiser Bürgerbräu was the original Bohemian brand, but it was later trademarked by Anheuser-Busch for use in North America. When considering right from wrong on this, we ought to consider the production and marketing efforts that Anheuser-Busch invested in the brand, before we tear them asunder for mimicking an existing brand.

Coincidentally, if a large company like Reuters or Encyclopedia Britannica were now to launch a brand called “Facts On Call”, I can assure you, I would not spend one minute of time fretting about it, because I chose to abandon claim to that brand. As a matter of fact, even while Facts On Call was an active, incorporated entity, the New Jersey Lawyer publication launched a “Facts-on-call” fax service for court documents. I chose to discuss the problem privately with them, without involving lawyers, and both brands co-existed without harm.

====RFK====
Do I remember AltaVista? – I’m still using it – and loving it!

====MightyUnderdog====
Not to split hairs, but I thought Budvar was the original Bohemian brand, and is now distributed in North America as Czechvar.

====Gregory Kohs====
Split hairs all you want. It’s a long story, that as far as I can tell, actually has TWO main breweries in Bohemia competing for the name, and then Anheuser-Busch came into the story.

http://www.budweiser1795.com/index.php?s=2&l=2

http://www.budweiser1795.com/index.php?s=2&a=1&l=2

====Gregory Kohs====
I have been mildly upbraided by another observer whom I know and respect, and he’s right — I’m playing loose with the fact that Wikianswers did, indeed, pre-date WikiAnswers — so it is merely petty and unfair to say that Wikianswers is the “copycat” site. I have modified accordingly the blog post above.

That being said, a detailed inquiry shows that FAQ Farm was a project launched in 2002 by Chris Whitten.

Answers.Wikia.com was launched November 2004 by someone named “Hemanshu“, who decided to brand it as “Wikianswers”, then made only two more contributions to the site. The site was mostly unused until January 2009 (before which, there were always under 2,000 unique visitors per month, according to Compete.com — by comparison, my humble MyWikiBiz site has gotten over 2,000 visitors since the month we re-opened it as a wiki directory, with an average of 13,000 visitors a month for the past three months.)

Angela Beesley (co-founder of Wikia, Inc.) made edits to the Answers.Wikia.com (or “Wikianswers”) site in the following proportion:

2004 – 14 edits
2005 – 11 edits
2006 – 31 edits
2007 – 1 edit
2008 – 1 edit
2009 – 500+ edits

Meanwhile, back in November 2006, Answers.com purchased Whitten’s FAQ Farm. The buyer re-named it “WikiAnswers” (from Wiki.Answers.com) to better fit the Answers.com brand line. As far back as March 2008, Wiki.Answers.com (”WikiAnswers”) was getting 7,500,000+ unique visitors per month, while Answers.Wikia.com (”Wikianswers”) was getting about 1,200.

So, while the blog post is now corrected factually, I hope that this comment underscores that “first to a name” (which was never protected with a trademark) means little if your competition is a more enterprising operation capable of building a more popular and better-organized web destination.

====Anthony DiPierro====
Greg, I think you’re missing something quite key. Whitten claims to have registered wikianswers.com in June 2004.

====Al Tally====
You could have discussed text-based answer services, such as http://www.text118118.com.

====Gregory Kohs====
Anthony: You’re right. In this Internet age, the “first to grab the .com domain name” is most of the battle for laying claim to “ownership” of a brand name. If Whitten registered wikianswers.com in June 2004, and Answers.com bought the property from him, it does look rather silly for Answers.Wikia.com to say they were “first” to the word “Wikianswers”. Considering my past interactions with the folks at Wikia.com (such as their hesitation and rudeness when I brought to their attention a group’s use of their servers to promote images of child abuse), I am not surprised by this evidence of false claim to “Wikianswers”. Thanks for your research.

Al: Yes, I could have and should have talked about other answer services. My bad! I have since discovered (and participate in) another sort of cool one — Vark.com (or, “Aardvark”). The content of the questions & answers is typically unhelpful, but the way they ping you via Google Chat for answer help is pretty neat.

====Gregory Kohs====
After producing 99 “Best Answers” and rising to the #3 top answerer in the Wikipedia category, my account on Yahoo! Answers has been suspended for “Terms of Service violations” that Yahoo’s form-letter system seems incapable of elaborating upon. After the wiki-clique of teenagers there had gotten into the habit of “thumbs down” swarming on my answers, and for asking questions that personally attacked me (which the Yahoo! TOS folks seemed unresponsive to my take-down requests), I did admittedly begin to game the system with 4 sockpuppet accounts that I would use for voting up my answers. The wiki-clique retaliated with what appears to be about 8 or 9 sockpuppet accounts, swarming on “their” favorite answer — which produced fairly ridiculous voting outcomes like this:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiqxckD2hXsJF4SHFjJZ.kFy.Bd.;_ylv=3?qid=20090519070830AAxBcLU

(The “winning” response got 13 votes, while the second-place answer of “Hero you go” got 5 votes, all of which were generated by me and my sockpuppet accounts, just to demonstrate the “counter-attack voting” that was taking place.)

Another example of vote-stacking (12 votes):

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtsF3szE_zbh_FEgl22_Idpy.Bd.;_ylv=3?qid=20090520095251AAArqlv

Now, it is interesting to point out that a month ago, prior to my escalation of the vote-stacking battle, “Best Answer” responses in the same category would “win” with only 2 or 3 votes:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqF3T4gDzJfVaVJLr7ubq9py.Bd.;_ylv=3?qid=20090430012528AAlkp5D

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqF3T4gDzJfVaVJLr7ubq9py.Bd.;_ylv=3?qid=20090503125153AAKo0gd

So, after gaming a poorly-designed, anonymity-protecting system to discover and illuminate its faults, my account has been suspended. Left behind is a small platoon of teen-aged sockpuppeteers who think they are “in charge” of their fiefdom.

What a fascinating experiment for me, and what an utter disgrace is the Yahoo! system of governance on that particular community.

====Gregory Kohs====
This Yahoo! question and answer are worth sharing: http://imgur.com/4tdCP.jpg

Directory:Akahele/Searching for answers

2010-10-22T23:40:19Z

Raf: /* Lost souls */

Without question, Search is one of the most important and utilized services on the Internet. If you look at the [http://www.alexa.com/topsites ten most-visited websites] according to Alexa.com, domains known for web search occupy the #1, #2, #5, and #10 spots (Google, Yahoo, Windows Live, and Baidu, respectively). Usually when people search, they are looking for an answer to a question they have.

This fact has prompted several corporate players to enter into what I might call "the answer enterprise". I myself was no stranger to the answer enterprise. Since graduate school, I noted how many of my friends and relatives marveled at how proficient I was in using various Internet search tools (back then, I'd go to [http://web.archive.org/web/19961023234707/http://www.webcrawler.com/ Webcrawler] and [http://web.archive.org/web/19961023234631/http://altavista.digital.com/ AltaVista] -- remember those?) and finding electronic databases that might help answer complex questions. After I realized that some of these question-and-answer journeys were taking over an hour to fulfill properly, my entrepreneurial instincts kicked in.

==Facts On Call==

Thus, in 1995, I incorporated [http://web.archive.org/web/20021125075325/http://www.factsoncall.com/ Facts On Call]. For nine years with this side-project of mine, I learned about everything under the sun, assisting typically small enterprises and entrepreneurs with questions usually related to making a business case. Some examples:

::What are the total number of athletic scholarships awarded in North America, the total number of junior college athletes, and the total number of professional athletes? (Asked by a promotion agency for high school athletes.)
::Could you find an expert in the melting characteristics of different types of ice cream? (Asked by an attorney handling a "slip and fall" lawsuit directed against a grocery store; and yes, we found an academic expert on this topic.)
::Could you critically review all of the websites of North Carolina manufacturers of heavy machinery who have e-commerce capability? (For a manufacturing firm seeking "best practices" ideas for their own website.)
::Find me a list of 10-15 experts in terrorism and security, and provide their bios. (For the organizer of a conference on investment banking in the post-9/11 era.)

<table style="float: right; border=" border="0" width="155">
<tr>
<td>http://web.archive.org/web/20021125075325/http://www.factsoncall.com/images/foc_logo.gif</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: left;">Facts On Call logo (1995)</td>
</tr>
</table>
Facts On Call was a bunch of fun for me. Sure, it was a hassle to keep the balance sheet current and tax forms accurate, but still a great learning experience, and I met a wide array of interesting clients. Annual revenues never topped $5,000, but I soon justified to myself that "it wasn't about the money".

As the web matured and consumers began to learn search retrieval techniques that essentially were my competitive advantage, I began to wind down Facts On Call to focus more on marketing consulting and publishing, and my primary career in market research. Once I heard the fifth or sixth individual ask me, "Why would someone pay you to search for stuff on the Internet, when they could just do it themselves for free?", it confirmed in my mind that paid information retrieval (at least from freely available sources) was a dead end.

==Google Answers==

Google seemed to think otherwise. In April 2002, they unveiled Google Answers, a fee-based question and answer clearinghouse. An earlier attempt by Google to run an answer farm using only paid staffers failed after being inundated with questions during the first day or two. That led to the "crowdsourced" version, where a panel of about 500 registered "researchers" would tackle questions in exchange for payments of $4 to $50, which was promptly expanded to a range anchored at $2 and at $200. Those posting a query were charged a non-refundable fee of 50 cents, and Google pocketed 25% of the final payment to successful respondents.

After passing a [https://answers.google.com/answers/researchertraining.html relatively simple test] of search and writing skills, one could join another [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&num=100&q=factsoncall-ga+site%3Aanswers.google.com&btnG=Search" 500 designated researchers]. As an observer, a bounty-posting questioner, and an occasional answerer, my memory of the program is as follows:

(1) Most of the questions that could be researched and answered within 10 minutes were:
... (a) offering only $2 to $6, and
... (b) already "locked" (or even answered) by a faster researcher.

(2) Most of the questions that were priced above $20 were either:
... (a) bound to take at least an hour of time to research and respond to, or
... (b) impossible to answer, or
... (c) already "locked" by a faster researcher.

Another memory I have of the program was a problem of withheld payments. If someone wasn't satisfied with the answer received, they could walk away from the deal -- even if the answer they were given was in fact comprehensive and thorough. I heard that attempts to follow up to rectify any shortfalls were often met with silence from the client, and Google supported the policy that the customer is always right, regardless of how thorough an answer may have been.

I eventually decided to never again work within ''that'' system, and in a couple more years (late 2006), the service was terminated. Yahoo! had recently launched a competing free service called...

==Yahoo! Answers==

Launched in very late 2005, [http://answers.yahoo.com/ Yahoo! Answers] became the [http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2006/09/01/8384345/ second-most popular] reference website after Wikipedia in less than a year's time. Seeded with "Featured Questions" to get the juices flowing, in the earliest days these might have included questions such as:

::Are all [http://web.archive.org/web/20051220075200/http://answers.yahoo.com/ snowflakes] really different?
::What's your favorite [http://web.archive.org/web/20051211040657/http://answers.yahoo.com/ chocolate] recipe?

The database allows anonymous posters to ask questions for free, and it allows any registered user to respond to questions (under the "free" model, which means people doing substantially meritorious work get paid the exact same amount as a prankster posting jokes -- not a dime). Why would people contribute time and effort for free? It would seem that the elaborate grading system that awards "points" to players participating in the knowledge marketplace is sufficient enticement to keep the site populated.
<table style="float: left; border=" border="0" width="155">
<tr>
<td>http://www.script-office.com/images/yahooAnswersLogo.png</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: center;">#2 online reference site?</td>
</tr>
</table>
For the past few months, I myself have been asking questions and contributing answers to Yahoo! queries in the categories I'm most adept -- market research, travel, and Wikipedia. I admit, it is predictably addictive to see myself rise up from nowhere to (currently) the [http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/stars?sid=2115500146 fifth best] contributor on a topic. But, I have ulterior motives, too. By watching and answering questions, I've been building up some material for this very Akahele article, while occasionally posting a link to other Akahele articles, when appropriate.

==Lost souls==

From my recent experience, I have found both the questions and most of the answers delivered on the Yahoo! platform to reveal a careless level of engagement at best, to an appalling lack of sensibility at worst. Indeed, Jacob Leibenluft [http://www.slate.com/id/2179393/pagenum/all/ writing in ''Slate''] called Yahoo! Answers "every middle-school teacher's worst nightmare about the Web".

As I look at the site at this moment, the featured question is, "How do I bond with my rats?" I found the next featured question even more astounding: "How much should i charge for painting a fence?" Not an awful question, but in the details, the guy making the query points out that the fence is post-and-rail, and that the fence runs for 11,000 feet. If you were a landowner with a two-mile fence, would you want your contractor going to Yahoo! Answers to ask strangers how to estimate the job? That's a bit scary.

Wait. It's not as scary as the "[http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/;_ylt=AlDqXDhDxp9NtXTiF.Xq3Pzpy6IX;_ylv=3?link=list&sid=396546046 Pregnancy and Parenting]" category. Today, I see the following questions there:

:[http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuN77L5M.XgNvBocUMj.L1d37hR.;_ylv=3?qid=20090412185420AApVBvl Brown Discharge????? Help!!!?]
:What first name would go with Joseph Cyplik?
:When does conception occur?
:He's a deadbeat w/ his first child so will he be any different with a new baby?

Clearly, there is a general behavioral problem here, is there not? Children and adults seeking advice seem wholly capable of reaching "answer" sites on the Internet. But they exhibit an implicit trust with these sites, assessing them as (apparently) a completely appropriate channel for important advice. They want advice and answers from people they don't know, who are using fictitious user names with cartoon avatars, who make no claim to know what the hell they're talking about. What happened to the old advice, "talk to someone you trust and respect -- a parent, a teacher, a librarian, a doctor, a pastor"?

==Building brands==

There are other answer enterprises out there. Some borrow from the popular success of Wikipedia and try the wiki approach: [http://wiki.answers.com/ WikiAnswers] and the older, but far less popular Jimmy Wales-led site, [http://answers.wikia.com/wiki/Wikianswers Wikianswers]. Amazing how an upper-case letter can keep lawsuits at bay. I am reminded of the old [http://www.linksandlaw.com/decisions-7.htm Digital Equipment (Alta<strong>V</strong>ista) v. Alta<strong>v</strong>ista Technology] trademark dispute.

Yahoo! Answers features a program called [http://answers.yahoo.com/info/knowledge_partners Knowledge Partners], where business organizations can flaunt their expertise -- oh, and also "mention its products or services, where relevant, in an answer". So far, Yahoo! has invited Dell, Kraft, Purina, Quicken Loans, Entertainment Weekly, and a few others to participate. The program "is currently in Beta and only available by invitation". This seems like the next natural step in the downward slope of "progress" in the answer enterprise.

==You get what you pay for==

Facts On Call charged good money to provide good answers to good questions. Google Answers charged meager money to provide good answers to good questions. Yahoo! Answers charges no money to provide marginal answers to marginal questions, and you might even see a Knowledge Partner's product hawked in the process.

==Image credits:==

*Facts On Call, Inc. logo used courtesy of Gregory Kohs, its creator.
*<span style="color: #000000;">Yahoo! Answers logo, <a title="Yahoo! Answers logo, Fair use" href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 <span class="comment">fair use doctrine</span>].</span>

==Comments==

===11 Responses to “Searching for answers”===

Comments RSS

====Dan T.====
I believe the Wikia answer subsite actually existed before its competitor, though it was pretty dormant until the other site came along.

As for “how do I bond with my rats”, did he try CrazyGlue?

====Gregory Kohs====
Dan T., I agree that the facts seem to indicate that the Wikia answer subsite DID pre-exist the Answers.com wiki. I’d describe its early activity as “very dormant”. Indeed, I found that Answers.com put forth extensive efforts to build and brand and market their site, all while Wikia’s site just sat there like a bump on a log. Only after Answers.com found relative success with their site did Wikia seem to “wake up” and decide that they had had a similarly brilliant brand name, some longer period of time ago. I have no remorse in describing the latter activity as “copycat”.

A similar conundrum exists around the “Budweiser” brand name. Budweiser Bürgerbräu was the original Bohemian brand, but it was later trademarked by Anheuser-Busch for use in North America. When considering right from wrong on this, we ought to consider the production and marketing efforts that Anheuser-Busch invested in the brand, before we tear them asunder for mimicking an existing brand.

Coincidentally, if a large company like Reuters or Encyclopedia Britannica were now to launch a brand called “Facts On Call”, I can assure you, I would not spend one minute of time fretting about it, because I chose to abandon claim to that brand. As a matter of fact, even while Facts On Call was an active, incorporated entity, the New Jersey Lawyer publication launched a “Facts-on-call” fax service for court documents. I chose to discuss the problem privately with them, without involving lawyers, and both brands co-existed without harm.

====RFK====
Do I remember AltaVista? – I’m still using it – and loving it!

====MightyUnderdog====
Not to split hairs, but I thought Budvar was the original Bohemian brand, and is now distributed in North America as Czechvar.

====Gregory Kohs====
Split hairs all you want. It’s a long story, that as far as I can tell, actually has TWO main breweries in Bohemia competing for the name, and then Anheuser-Busch came into the story.

http://www.budweiser1795.com/index.php?s=2&l=2

http://www.budweiser1795.com/index.php?s=2&a=1&l=2

====Gregory Kohs====
I have been mildly upbraided by another observer whom I know and respect, and he’s right — I’m playing loose with the fact that Wikianswers did, indeed, pre-date WikiAnswers — so it is merely petty and unfair to say that Wikianswers is the “copycat” site. I have modified accordingly the blog post above.

That being said, a detailed inquiry shows that FAQ Farm was a project launched in 2002 by Chris Whitten.

Answers.Wikia.com was launched November 2004 by someone named “Hemanshu“, who decided to brand it as “Wikianswers”, then made only two more contributions to the site. The site was mostly unused until January 2009 (before which, there were always under 2,000 unique visitors per month, according to Compete.com — by comparison, my humble MyWikiBiz site has gotten over 2,000 visitors since the month we re-opened it as a wiki directory, with an average of 13,000 visitors a month for the past three months.)

Angela Beesley (co-founder of Wikia, Inc.) made edits to the Answers.Wikia.com (or “Wikianswers”) site in the following proportion:

2004 – 14 edits
2005 – 11 edits
2006 – 31 edits
2007 – 1 edit
2008 – 1 edit
2009 – 500+ edits

Meanwhile, back in November 2006, Answers.com purchased Whitten’s FAQ Farm. The buyer re-named it “WikiAnswers” (from Wiki.Answers.com) to better fit the Answers.com brand line. As far back as March 2008, Wiki.Answers.com (”WikiAnswers”) was getting 7,500,000+ unique visitors per month, while Answers.Wikia.com (”Wikianswers”) was getting about 1,200.

So, while the blog post is now corrected factually, I hope that this comment underscores that “first to a name” (which was never protected with a trademark) means little if your competition is a more enterprising operation capable of building a more popular and better-organized web destination.

====Anthony DiPierro====
Greg, I think you’re missing something quite key. Whitten claims to have registered wikianswers.com in June 2004.

====Al Tally====
You could have discussed text-based answer services, such as http://www.text118118.com.

====Gregory Kohs====
Anthony: You’re right. In this Internet age, the “first to grab the .com domain name” is most of the battle for laying claim to “ownership” of a brand name. If Whitten registered wikianswers.com in June 2004, and Answers.com bought the property from him, it does look rather silly for Answers.Wikia.com to say they were “first” to the word “Wikianswers”. Considering my past interactions with the folks at Wikia.com (such as their hesitation and rudeness when I brought to their attention a group’s use of their servers to promote images of child abuse), I am not surprised by this evidence of false claim to “Wikianswers”. Thanks for your research.

Al: Yes, I could have and should have talked about other answer services. My bad! I have since discovered (and participate in) another sort of cool one — Vark.com (or, “Aardvark”). The content of the questions & answers is typically unhelpful, but the way they ping you via Google Chat for answer help is pretty neat.

====Gregory Kohs====
After producing 99 “Best Answers” and rising to the #3 top answerer in the Wikipedia category, my account on Yahoo! Answers has been suspended for “Terms of Service violations” that Yahoo’s form-letter system seems incapable of elaborating upon. After the wiki-clique of teenagers there had gotten into the habit of “thumbs down” swarming on my answers, and for asking questions that personally attacked me (which the Yahoo! TOS folks seemed unresponsive to my take-down requests), I did admittedly begin to game the system with 4 sockpuppet accounts that I would use for voting up my answers. The wiki-clique retaliated with what appears to be about 8 or 9 sockpuppet accounts, swarming on “their” favorite answer — which produced fairly ridiculous voting outcomes like this:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiqxckD2hXsJF4SHFjJZ.kFy.Bd.;_ylv=3?qid=20090519070830AAxBcLU

(The “winning” response got 13 votes, while the second-place answer of “Hero you go” got 5 votes, all of which were generated by me and my sockpuppet accounts, just to demonstrate the “counter-attack voting” that was taking place.)

Another example of vote-stacking (12 votes):

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtsF3szE_zbh_FEgl22_Idpy.Bd.;_ylv=3?qid=20090520095251AAArqlv

Now, it is interesting to point out that a month ago, prior to my escalation of the vote-stacking battle, “Best Answer” responses in the same category would “win” with only 2 or 3 votes:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqF3T4gDzJfVaVJLr7ubq9py.Bd.;_ylv=3?qid=20090430012528AAlkp5D

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqF3T4gDzJfVaVJLr7ubq9py.Bd.;_ylv=3?qid=20090503125153AAKo0gd

So, after gaming a poorly-designed, anonymity-protecting system to discover and illuminate its faults, my account has been suspended. Left behind is a small platoon of teen-aged sockpuppeteers who think they are “in charge” of their fiefdom.

What a fascinating experiment for me, and what an utter disgrace is the Yahoo! system of governance on that particular community.

====Gregory Kohs====
This Yahoo! question and answer are worth sharing: http://imgur.com/4tdCP.jpg

Directory:Akahele/Searching for answers

2010-10-22T23:38:50Z

Raf: /* Google Answers */

Without question, Search is one of the most important and utilized services on the Internet. If you look at the [http://www.alexa.com/topsites ten most-visited websites] according to Alexa.com, domains known for web search occupy the #1, #2, #5, and #10 spots (Google, Yahoo, Windows Live, and Baidu, respectively). Usually when people search, they are looking for an answer to a question they have.

This fact has prompted several corporate players to enter into what I might call "the answer enterprise". I myself was no stranger to the answer enterprise. Since graduate school, I noted how many of my friends and relatives marveled at how proficient I was in using various Internet search tools (back then, I'd go to [http://web.archive.org/web/19961023234707/http://www.webcrawler.com/ Webcrawler] and [http://web.archive.org/web/19961023234631/http://altavista.digital.com/ AltaVista] -- remember those?) and finding electronic databases that might help answer complex questions. After I realized that some of these question-and-answer journeys were taking over an hour to fulfill properly, my entrepreneurial instincts kicked in.

==Facts On Call==

Thus, in 1995, I incorporated [http://web.archive.org/web/20021125075325/http://www.factsoncall.com/ Facts On Call]. For nine years with this side-project of mine, I learned about everything under the sun, assisting typically small enterprises and entrepreneurs with questions usually related to making a business case. Some examples:

::What are the total number of athletic scholarships awarded in North America, the total number of junior college athletes, and the total number of professional athletes? (Asked by a promotion agency for high school athletes.)
::Could you find an expert in the melting characteristics of different types of ice cream? (Asked by an attorney handling a "slip and fall" lawsuit directed against a grocery store; and yes, we found an academic expert on this topic.)
::Could you critically review all of the websites of North Carolina manufacturers of heavy machinery who have e-commerce capability? (For a manufacturing firm seeking "best practices" ideas for their own website.)
::Find me a list of 10-15 experts in terrorism and security, and provide their bios. (For the organizer of a conference on investment banking in the post-9/11 era.)

<table style="float: right; border=" border="0" width="155">
<tr>
<td>http://web.archive.org/web/20021125075325/http://www.factsoncall.com/images/foc_logo.gif</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: left;">Facts On Call logo (1995)</td>
</tr>
</table>
Facts On Call was a bunch of fun for me. Sure, it was a hassle to keep the balance sheet current and tax forms accurate, but still a great learning experience, and I met a wide array of interesting clients. Annual revenues never topped $5,000, but I soon justified to myself that "it wasn't about the money".

As the web matured and consumers began to learn search retrieval techniques that essentially were my competitive advantage, I began to wind down Facts On Call to focus more on marketing consulting and publishing, and my primary career in market research. Once I heard the fifth or sixth individual ask me, "Why would someone pay you to search for stuff on the Internet, when they could just do it themselves for free?", it confirmed in my mind that paid information retrieval (at least from freely available sources) was a dead end.

==Google Answers==

Google seemed to think otherwise. In April 2002, they unveiled Google Answers, a fee-based question and answer clearinghouse. An earlier attempt by Google to run an answer farm using only paid staffers failed after being inundated with questions during the first day or two. That led to the "crowdsourced" version, where a panel of about 500 registered "researchers" would tackle questions in exchange for payments of $4 to $50, which was promptly expanded to a range anchored at $2 and at $200. Those posting a query were charged a non-refundable fee of 50 cents, and Google pocketed 25% of the final payment to successful respondents.

After passing a [https://answers.google.com/answers/researchertraining.html relatively simple test] of search and writing skills, one could join another [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&num=100&q=factsoncall-ga+site%3Aanswers.google.com&btnG=Search" 500 designated researchers]. As an observer, a bounty-posting questioner, and an occasional answerer, my memory of the program is as follows:

(1) Most of the questions that could be researched and answered within 10 minutes were:
... (a) offering only $2 to $6, and
... (b) already "locked" (or even answered) by a faster researcher.

(2) Most of the questions that were priced above $20 were either:
... (a) bound to take at least an hour of time to research and respond to, or
... (b) impossible to answer, or
... (c) already "locked" by a faster researcher.

Another memory I have of the program was a problem of withheld payments. If someone wasn't satisfied with the answer received, they could walk away from the deal -- even if the answer they were given was in fact comprehensive and thorough. I heard that attempts to follow up to rectify any shortfalls were often met with silence from the client, and Google supported the policy that the customer is always right, regardless of how thorough an answer may have been.

I eventually decided to never again work within ''that'' system, and in a couple more years (late 2006), the service was terminated. Yahoo! had recently launched a competing free service called...

==Yahoo! Answers==

Launched in very late 2005, [http://answers.yahoo.com/ Yahoo! Answers] became the [http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2006/09/01/8384345/ second-most popular] reference website after Wikipedia in less than a year's time. Seeded with "Featured Questions" to get the juices flowing, in the earliest days these might have included questions such as:

::Are all [http://web.archive.org/web/20051220075200/http://answers.yahoo.com/ snowflakes] really different?
::What's your favorite [http://web.archive.org/web/20051211040657/http://answers.yahoo.com/ chocolate] recipe?

The database allows anonymous posters to ask questions for free, and it allows any registered user to respond to questions (under the "free" model, which means people doing substantially meritorious work get paid the exact same amount as a prankster posting jokes -- not a dime). Why would people contribute time and effort for free? It would seem that the elaborate grading system that awards "points" to players participating in the knowledge marketplace is sufficient enticement to keep the site populated.
<table style="float: left; border=" border="0" width="155">
<tr>
<td>http://www.script-office.com/images/yahooAnswersLogo.png</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: center;">#2 online reference site?</td>
</tr>
</table>
For the past few months, I myself have been asking questions and contributing answers to Yahoo! queries in the categories I'm most adept -- market research, travel, and Wikipedia. I admit, it is predictably addictive to see myself rise up from nowhere to (currently) the [http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/stars?sid=2115500146 fifth best] contributor on a topic. But, I have ulterior motives, too. By watching and answering questions, I've been building up some material for this very Akahele article, while occasionally posting a link to other Akahele articles, when appropriate.

==Lost souls==

From my recent experience, I have found both the questions and most of the answers delivered on the Yahoo! platform to reveal a careless level of engagement at best, to an appalling lack of sensibility at worst. Indeed, Jacob Leibenluft [http://www.slate.com/id/2179393/pagenum/all/ writing in ''Slate''] called Yahoo! Answers "every middle-school teacher's worst nightmare about the Web".

As I look at the site at this moment, the featured question is, "How do I bond with my rats?" I found the next featured question even more astounding: "How much should i charge for painting a fence?" Not an awful question, but in the details, the guy making the query points out that the fence is post-and-rail, and that the fence runs for 11,000 feet. If you were a landowner with a two-mile fence, would you want your contractor going to Yahoo! Answers to ask strangers how to estimate the job? That's a bit scary.

Wait. It's not as scary as the "[http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/;_ylt=AlDqXDhDxp9NtXTiF.Xq3Pzpy6IX;_ylv=3?link=list&sid=396546046 Pregnancy and Parenting]" category. Today, I see the following questions there:<a class="subject l3" title="See more details on Brown Discharge????? Help!!!?" href="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuN77L5M.XgNvBocUMj.L1d37hR.;_ylv=3?qid=20090412185420AApVBvl">]

:Brown Discharge????? Help!!!?
:What first name would go with Joseph Cyplik?
:When does conception occur?
:He's a deadbeat w/ his first child so will he be any different with a new baby?

Clearly, there is a general behavioral problem here, is there not? Children and adults seeking advice seem wholly capable of reaching "answer" sites on the Internet. But they exhibit an implicit trust with these sites, assessing them as (apparently) a completely appropriate channel for important advice. They want advice and answers from people they don't know, who are using fictitious user names with cartoon avatars, who make no claim to know what the hell they're talking about. What happened to the old advice, "talk to someone you trust and respect -- a parent, a teacher, a librarian, a doctor, a pastor"?

==Building brands==

There are other answer enterprises out there. Some borrow from the popular success of Wikipedia and try the wiki approach: [http://wiki.answers.com/ WikiAnswers] and the older, but far less popular Jimmy Wales-led site, [http://answers.wikia.com/wiki/Wikianswers Wikianswers]. Amazing how an upper-case letter can keep lawsuits at bay. I am reminded of the old [http://www.linksandlaw.com/decisions-7.htm Digital Equipment (Alta<strong>V</strong>ista) v. Alta<strong>v</strong>ista Technology] trademark dispute.

Yahoo! Answers features a program called [http://answers.yahoo.com/info/knowledge_partners Knowledge Partners], where business organizations can flaunt their expertise -- oh, and also "mention its products or services, where relevant, in an answer". So far, Yahoo! has invited Dell, Kraft, Purina, Quicken Loans, Entertainment Weekly, and a few others to participate. The program "is currently in Beta and only available by invitation". This seems like the next natural step in the downward slope of "progress" in the answer enterprise.

==You get what you pay for==

Facts On Call charged good money to provide good answers to good questions. Google Answers charged meager money to provide good answers to good questions. Yahoo! Answers charges no money to provide marginal answers to marginal questions, and you might even see a Knowledge Partner's product hawked in the process.

==Image credits:==

*Facts On Call, Inc. logo used courtesy of Gregory Kohs, its creator.
*<span style="color: #000000;">Yahoo! Answers logo, <a title="Yahoo! Answers logo, Fair use" href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 <span class="comment">fair use doctrine</span>].</span>

==Comments==

===11 Responses to “Searching for answers”===

Comments RSS

====Dan T.====
I believe the Wikia answer subsite actually existed before its competitor, though it was pretty dormant until the other site came along.

As for “how do I bond with my rats”, did he try CrazyGlue?

====Gregory Kohs====
Dan T., I agree that the facts seem to indicate that the Wikia answer subsite DID pre-exist the Answers.com wiki. I’d describe its early activity as “very dormant”. Indeed, I found that Answers.com put forth extensive efforts to build and brand and market their site, all while Wikia’s site just sat there like a bump on a log. Only after Answers.com found relative success with their site did Wikia seem to “wake up” and decide that they had had a similarly brilliant brand name, some longer period of time ago. I have no remorse in describing the latter activity as “copycat”.

A similar conundrum exists around the “Budweiser” brand name. Budweiser Bürgerbräu was the original Bohemian brand, but it was later trademarked by Anheuser-Busch for use in North America. When considering right from wrong on this, we ought to consider the production and marketing efforts that Anheuser-Busch invested in the brand, before we tear them asunder for mimicking an existing brand.

Coincidentally, if a large company like Reuters or Encyclopedia Britannica were now to launch a brand called “Facts On Call”, I can assure you, I would not spend one minute of time fretting about it, because I chose to abandon claim to that brand. As a matter of fact, even while Facts On Call was an active, incorporated entity, the New Jersey Lawyer publication launched a “Facts-on-call” fax service for court documents. I chose to discuss the problem privately with them, without involving lawyers, and both brands co-existed without harm.

====RFK====
Do I remember AltaVista? – I’m still using it – and loving it!

====MightyUnderdog====
Not to split hairs, but I thought Budvar was the original Bohemian brand, and is now distributed in North America as Czechvar.

====Gregory Kohs====
Split hairs all you want. It’s a long story, that as far as I can tell, actually has TWO main breweries in Bohemia competing for the name, and then Anheuser-Busch came into the story.

http://www.budweiser1795.com/index.php?s=2&l=2

http://www.budweiser1795.com/index.php?s=2&a=1&l=2

====Gregory Kohs====
I have been mildly upbraided by another observer whom I know and respect, and he’s right — I’m playing loose with the fact that Wikianswers did, indeed, pre-date WikiAnswers — so it is merely petty and unfair to say that Wikianswers is the “copycat” site. I have modified accordingly the blog post above.

That being said, a detailed inquiry shows that FAQ Farm was a project launched in 2002 by Chris Whitten.

Answers.Wikia.com was launched November 2004 by someone named “Hemanshu“, who decided to brand it as “Wikianswers”, then made only two more contributions to the site. The site was mostly unused until January 2009 (before which, there were always under 2,000 unique visitors per month, according to Compete.com — by comparison, my humble MyWikiBiz site has gotten over 2,000 visitors since the month we re-opened it as a wiki directory, with an average of 13,000 visitors a month for the past three months.)

Angela Beesley (co-founder of Wikia, Inc.) made edits to the Answers.Wikia.com (or “Wikianswers”) site in the following proportion:

2004 – 14 edits
2005 – 11 edits
2006 – 31 edits
2007 – 1 edit
2008 – 1 edit
2009 – 500+ edits

Meanwhile, back in November 2006, Answers.com purchased Whitten’s FAQ Farm. The buyer re-named it “WikiAnswers” (from Wiki.Answers.com) to better fit the Answers.com brand line. As far back as March 2008, Wiki.Answers.com (”WikiAnswers”) was getting 7,500,000+ unique visitors per month, while Answers.Wikia.com (”Wikianswers”) was getting about 1,200.

So, while the blog post is now corrected factually, I hope that this comment underscores that “first to a name” (which was never protected with a trademark) means little if your competition is a more enterprising operation capable of building a more popular and better-organized web destination.

====Anthony DiPierro====
Greg, I think you’re missing something quite key. Whitten claims to have registered wikianswers.com in June 2004.

====Al Tally====
You could have discussed text-based answer services, such as http://www.text118118.com.

====Gregory Kohs====
Anthony: You’re right. In this Internet age, the “first to grab the .com domain name” is most of the battle for laying claim to “ownership” of a brand name. If Whitten registered wikianswers.com in June 2004, and Answers.com bought the property from him, it does look rather silly for Answers.Wikia.com to say they were “first” to the word “Wikianswers”. Considering my past interactions with the folks at Wikia.com (such as their hesitation and rudeness when I brought to their attention a group’s use of their servers to promote images of child abuse), I am not surprised by this evidence of false claim to “Wikianswers”. Thanks for your research.

Al: Yes, I could have and should have talked about other answer services. My bad! I have since discovered (and participate in) another sort of cool one — Vark.com (or, “Aardvark”). The content of the questions & answers is typically unhelpful, but the way they ping you via Google Chat for answer help is pretty neat.

====Gregory Kohs====
After producing 99 “Best Answers” and rising to the #3 top answerer in the Wikipedia category, my account on Yahoo! Answers has been suspended for “Terms of Service violations” that Yahoo’s form-letter system seems incapable of elaborating upon. After the wiki-clique of teenagers there had gotten into the habit of “thumbs down” swarming on my answers, and for asking questions that personally attacked me (which the Yahoo! TOS folks seemed unresponsive to my take-down requests), I did admittedly begin to game the system with 4 sockpuppet accounts that I would use for voting up my answers. The wiki-clique retaliated with what appears to be about 8 or 9 sockpuppet accounts, swarming on “their” favorite answer — which produced fairly ridiculous voting outcomes like this:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiqxckD2hXsJF4SHFjJZ.kFy.Bd.;_ylv=3?qid=20090519070830AAxBcLU

(The “winning” response got 13 votes, while the second-place answer of “Hero you go” got 5 votes, all of which were generated by me and my sockpuppet accounts, just to demonstrate the “counter-attack voting” that was taking place.)

Another example of vote-stacking (12 votes):

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtsF3szE_zbh_FEgl22_Idpy.Bd.;_ylv=3?qid=20090520095251AAArqlv

Now, it is interesting to point out that a month ago, prior to my escalation of the vote-stacking battle, “Best Answer” responses in the same category would “win” with only 2 or 3 votes:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqF3T4gDzJfVaVJLr7ubq9py.Bd.;_ylv=3?qid=20090430012528AAlkp5D

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqF3T4gDzJfVaVJLr7ubq9py.Bd.;_ylv=3?qid=20090503125153AAKo0gd

So, after gaming a poorly-designed, anonymity-protecting system to discover and illuminate its faults, my account has been suspended. Left behind is a small platoon of teen-aged sockpuppeteers who think they are “in charge” of their fiefdom.

What a fascinating experiment for me, and what an utter disgrace is the Yahoo! system of governance on that particular community.

====Gregory Kohs====
This Yahoo! question and answer are worth sharing: http://imgur.com/4tdCP.jpg

Directory:Akahele/Searching for answers

2010-10-22T23:37:31Z

Raf: /* Yahoo! Answers */

Without question, Search is one of the most important and utilized services on the Internet. If you look at the [http://www.alexa.com/topsites ten most-visited websites] according to Alexa.com, domains known for web search occupy the #1, #2, #5, and #10 spots (Google, Yahoo, Windows Live, and Baidu, respectively). Usually when people search, they are looking for an answer to a question they have.

This fact has prompted several corporate players to enter into what I might call "the answer enterprise". I myself was no stranger to the answer enterprise. Since graduate school, I noted how many of my friends and relatives marveled at how proficient I was in using various Internet search tools (back then, I'd go to [http://web.archive.org/web/19961023234707/http://www.webcrawler.com/ Webcrawler] and [http://web.archive.org/web/19961023234631/http://altavista.digital.com/ AltaVista] -- remember those?) and finding electronic databases that might help answer complex questions. After I realized that some of these question-and-answer journeys were taking over an hour to fulfill properly, my entrepreneurial instincts kicked in.

==Facts On Call==

Thus, in 1995, I incorporated [http://web.archive.org/web/20021125075325/http://www.factsoncall.com/ Facts On Call]. For nine years with this side-project of mine, I learned about everything under the sun, assisting typically small enterprises and entrepreneurs with questions usually related to making a business case. Some examples:

::What are the total number of athletic scholarships awarded in North America, the total number of junior college athletes, and the total number of professional athletes? (Asked by a promotion agency for high school athletes.)
::Could you find an expert in the melting characteristics of different types of ice cream? (Asked by an attorney handling a "slip and fall" lawsuit directed against a grocery store; and yes, we found an academic expert on this topic.)
::Could you critically review all of the websites of North Carolina manufacturers of heavy machinery who have e-commerce capability? (For a manufacturing firm seeking "best practices" ideas for their own website.)
::Find me a list of 10-15 experts in terrorism and security, and provide their bios. (For the organizer of a conference on investment banking in the post-9/11 era.)

<table style="float: right; border=" border="0" width="155">
<tr>
<td>http://web.archive.org/web/20021125075325/http://www.factsoncall.com/images/foc_logo.gif</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: left;">Facts On Call logo (1995)</td>
</tr>
</table>
Facts On Call was a bunch of fun for me. Sure, it was a hassle to keep the balance sheet current and tax forms accurate, but still a great learning experience, and I met a wide array of interesting clients. Annual revenues never topped $5,000, but I soon justified to myself that "it wasn't about the money".

As the web matured and consumers began to learn search retrieval techniques that essentially were my competitive advantage, I began to wind down Facts On Call to focus more on marketing consulting and publishing, and my primary career in market research. Once I heard the fifth or sixth individual ask me, "Why would someone pay you to search for stuff on the Internet, when they could just do it themselves for free?", it confirmed in my mind that paid information retrieval (at least from freely available sources) was a dead end.

==Google Answers==

Google seemed to think otherwise. In April 2002, they unveiled Google Answers, a fee-based question and answer clearinghouse. An earlier attempt by Google to run an answer farm using only paid staffers failed after being inundated with questions during the first day or two. That led to the "crowdsourced" version, where a panel of about 500 registered "researchers" would tackle questions in exchange for payments of $4 to $50, which was promptly expanded to a range anchored at $2 and at $200. Those posting a query were charged a non-refundable fee of 50 cents, and Google pocketed 25% of the final payment to successful respondents.

After passing a [https://answers.google.com/answers/researchertraining.html relatively simple test] of search and writing skills, one could join another [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&num=100&q=factsoncall-ga+site%3Aanswers.google.com&btnG=Search">] 500 designated researchers. As an observer, a bounty-posting questioner, and an occasional answerer, my memory of the program is as follows:

(1) Most of the questions that could be researched and answered within 10 minutes were:
... (a) offering only $2 to $6, and
... (b) already "locked" (or even answered) by a faster researcher.

(2) Most of the questions that were priced above $20 were either:
... (a) bound to take at least an hour of time to research and respond to, or
... (b) impossible to answer, or
... (c) already "locked" by a faster researcher.

Another memory I have of the program was a problem of withheld payments. If someone wasn't satisfied with the answer received, they could walk away from the deal -- even if the answer they were given was in fact comprehensive and thorough. I heard that attempts to follow up to rectify any shortfalls were often met with silence from the client, and Google supported the policy that the customer is always right, regardless of how thorough an answer may have been.

I eventually decided to never again work within ''that'' system, and in a couple more years (late 2006), the service was terminated. Yahoo! had recently launched a competing free service called...

==Yahoo! Answers==

Launched in very late 2005, [http://answers.yahoo.com/ Yahoo! Answers] became the [http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2006/09/01/8384345/ second-most popular] reference website after Wikipedia in less than a year's time. Seeded with "Featured Questions" to get the juices flowing, in the earliest days these might have included questions such as:

::Are all [http://web.archive.org/web/20051220075200/http://answers.yahoo.com/ snowflakes] really different?
::What's your favorite [http://web.archive.org/web/20051211040657/http://answers.yahoo.com/ chocolate] recipe?

The database allows anonymous posters to ask questions for free, and it allows any registered user to respond to questions (under the "free" model, which means people doing substantially meritorious work get paid the exact same amount as a prankster posting jokes -- not a dime). Why would people contribute time and effort for free? It would seem that the elaborate grading system that awards "points" to players participating in the knowledge marketplace is sufficient enticement to keep the site populated.
<table style="float: left; border=" border="0" width="155">
<tr>
<td>http://www.script-office.com/images/yahooAnswersLogo.png</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: center;">#2 online reference site?</td>
</tr>
</table>
For the past few months, I myself have been asking questions and contributing answers to Yahoo! queries in the categories I'm most adept -- market research, travel, and Wikipedia. I admit, it is predictably addictive to see myself rise up from nowhere to (currently) the [http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/stars?sid=2115500146 fifth best] contributor on a topic. But, I have ulterior motives, too. By watching and answering questions, I've been building up some material for this very Akahele article, while occasionally posting a link to other Akahele articles, when appropriate.

==Lost souls==

From my recent experience, I have found both the questions and most of the answers delivered on the Yahoo! platform to reveal a careless level of engagement at best, to an appalling lack of sensibility at worst. Indeed, Jacob Leibenluft [http://www.slate.com/id/2179393/pagenum/all/ writing in ''Slate''] called Yahoo! Answers "every middle-school teacher's worst nightmare about the Web".

As I look at the site at this moment, the featured question is, "How do I bond with my rats?" I found the next featured question even more astounding: "How much should i charge for painting a fence?" Not an awful question, but in the details, the guy making the query points out that the fence is post-and-rail, and that the fence runs for 11,000 feet. If you were a landowner with a two-mile fence, would you want your contractor going to Yahoo! Answers to ask strangers how to estimate the job? That's a bit scary.

Wait. It's not as scary as the "[http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/;_ylt=AlDqXDhDxp9NtXTiF.Xq3Pzpy6IX;_ylv=3?link=list&sid=396546046 Pregnancy and Parenting]" category. Today, I see the following questions there:<a class="subject l3" title="See more details on Brown Discharge????? Help!!!?" href="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuN77L5M.XgNvBocUMj.L1d37hR.;_ylv=3?qid=20090412185420AApVBvl">]

:Brown Discharge????? Help!!!?
:What first name would go with Joseph Cyplik?
:When does conception occur?
:He's a deadbeat w/ his first child so will he be any different with a new baby?

Clearly, there is a general behavioral problem here, is there not? Children and adults seeking advice seem wholly capable of reaching "answer" sites on the Internet. But they exhibit an implicit trust with these sites, assessing them as (apparently) a completely appropriate channel for important advice. They want advice and answers from people they don't know, who are using fictitious user names with cartoon avatars, who make no claim to know what the hell they're talking about. What happened to the old advice, "talk to someone you trust and respect -- a parent, a teacher, a librarian, a doctor, a pastor"?

==Building brands==

There are other answer enterprises out there. Some borrow from the popular success of Wikipedia and try the wiki approach: [http://wiki.answers.com/ WikiAnswers] and the older, but far less popular Jimmy Wales-led site, [http://answers.wikia.com/wiki/Wikianswers Wikianswers]. Amazing how an upper-case letter can keep lawsuits at bay. I am reminded of the old [http://www.linksandlaw.com/decisions-7.htm Digital Equipment (Alta<strong>V</strong>ista) v. Alta<strong>v</strong>ista Technology] trademark dispute.

Yahoo! Answers features a program called [http://answers.yahoo.com/info/knowledge_partners Knowledge Partners], where business organizations can flaunt their expertise -- oh, and also "mention its products or services, where relevant, in an answer". So far, Yahoo! has invited Dell, Kraft, Purina, Quicken Loans, Entertainment Weekly, and a few others to participate. The program "is currently in Beta and only available by invitation". This seems like the next natural step in the downward slope of "progress" in the answer enterprise.

==You get what you pay for==

Facts On Call charged good money to provide good answers to good questions. Google Answers charged meager money to provide good answers to good questions. Yahoo! Answers charges no money to provide marginal answers to marginal questions, and you might even see a Knowledge Partner's product hawked in the process.

==Image credits:==

*Facts On Call, Inc. logo used courtesy of Gregory Kohs, its creator.
*<span style="color: #000000;">Yahoo! Answers logo, <a title="Yahoo! Answers logo, Fair use" href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 <span class="comment">fair use doctrine</span>].</span>

==Comments==

===11 Responses to “Searching for answers”===

Comments RSS

====Dan T.====
I believe the Wikia answer subsite actually existed before its competitor, though it was pretty dormant until the other site came along.

As for “how do I bond with my rats”, did he try CrazyGlue?

====Gregory Kohs====
Dan T., I agree that the facts seem to indicate that the Wikia answer subsite DID pre-exist the Answers.com wiki. I’d describe its early activity as “very dormant”. Indeed, I found that Answers.com put forth extensive efforts to build and brand and market their site, all while Wikia’s site just sat there like a bump on a log. Only after Answers.com found relative success with their site did Wikia seem to “wake up” and decide that they had had a similarly brilliant brand name, some longer period of time ago. I have no remorse in describing the latter activity as “copycat”.

A similar conundrum exists around the “Budweiser” brand name. Budweiser Bürgerbräu was the original Bohemian brand, but it was later trademarked by Anheuser-Busch for use in North America. When considering right from wrong on this, we ought to consider the production and marketing efforts that Anheuser-Busch invested in the brand, before we tear them asunder for mimicking an existing brand.

Coincidentally, if a large company like Reuters or Encyclopedia Britannica were now to launch a brand called “Facts On Call”, I can assure you, I would not spend one minute of time fretting about it, because I chose to abandon claim to that brand. As a matter of fact, even while Facts On Call was an active, incorporated entity, the New Jersey Lawyer publication launched a “Facts-on-call” fax service for court documents. I chose to discuss the problem privately with them, without involving lawyers, and both brands co-existed without harm.

====RFK====
Do I remember AltaVista? – I’m still using it – and loving it!

====MightyUnderdog====
Not to split hairs, but I thought Budvar was the original Bohemian brand, and is now distributed in North America as Czechvar.

====Gregory Kohs====
Split hairs all you want. It’s a long story, that as far as I can tell, actually has TWO main breweries in Bohemia competing for the name, and then Anheuser-Busch came into the story.

http://www.budweiser1795.com/index.php?s=2&l=2

http://www.budweiser1795.com/index.php?s=2&a=1&l=2

====Gregory Kohs====
I have been mildly upbraided by another observer whom I know and respect, and he’s right — I’m playing loose with the fact that Wikianswers did, indeed, pre-date WikiAnswers — so it is merely petty and unfair to say that Wikianswers is the “copycat” site. I have modified accordingly the blog post above.

That being said, a detailed inquiry shows that FAQ Farm was a project launched in 2002 by Chris Whitten.

Answers.Wikia.com was launched November 2004 by someone named “Hemanshu“, who decided to brand it as “Wikianswers”, then made only two more contributions to the site. The site was mostly unused until January 2009 (before which, there were always under 2,000 unique visitors per month, according to Compete.com — by comparison, my humble MyWikiBiz site has gotten over 2,000 visitors since the month we re-opened it as a wiki directory, with an average of 13,000 visitors a month for the past three months.)

Angela Beesley (co-founder of Wikia, Inc.) made edits to the Answers.Wikia.com (or “Wikianswers”) site in the following proportion:

2004 – 14 edits
2005 – 11 edits
2006 – 31 edits
2007 – 1 edit
2008 – 1 edit
2009 – 500+ edits

Meanwhile, back in November 2006, Answers.com purchased Whitten’s FAQ Farm. The buyer re-named it “WikiAnswers” (from Wiki.Answers.com) to better fit the Answers.com brand line. As far back as March 2008, Wiki.Answers.com (”WikiAnswers”) was getting 7,500,000+ unique visitors per month, while Answers.Wikia.com (”Wikianswers”) was getting about 1,200.

So, while the blog post is now corrected factually, I hope that this comment underscores that “first to a name” (which was never protected with a trademark) means little if your competition is a more enterprising operation capable of building a more popular and better-organized web destination.

====Anthony DiPierro====
Greg, I think you’re missing something quite key. Whitten claims to have registered wikianswers.com in June 2004.

====Al Tally====
You could have discussed text-based answer services, such as http://www.text118118.com.

====Gregory Kohs====
Anthony: You’re right. In this Internet age, the “first to grab the .com domain name” is most of the battle for laying claim to “ownership” of a brand name. If Whitten registered wikianswers.com in June 2004, and Answers.com bought the property from him, it does look rather silly for Answers.Wikia.com to say they were “first” to the word “Wikianswers”. Considering my past interactions with the folks at Wikia.com (such as their hesitation and rudeness when I brought to their attention a group’s use of their servers to promote images of child abuse), I am not surprised by this evidence of false claim to “Wikianswers”. Thanks for your research.

Al: Yes, I could have and should have talked about other answer services. My bad! I have since discovered (and participate in) another sort of cool one — Vark.com (or, “Aardvark”). The content of the questions & answers is typically unhelpful, but the way they ping you via Google Chat for answer help is pretty neat.

====Gregory Kohs====
After producing 99 “Best Answers” and rising to the #3 top answerer in the Wikipedia category, my account on Yahoo! Answers has been suspended for “Terms of Service violations” that Yahoo’s form-letter system seems incapable of elaborating upon. After the wiki-clique of teenagers there had gotten into the habit of “thumbs down” swarming on my answers, and for asking questions that personally attacked me (which the Yahoo! TOS folks seemed unresponsive to my take-down requests), I did admittedly begin to game the system with 4 sockpuppet accounts that I would use for voting up my answers. The wiki-clique retaliated with what appears to be about 8 or 9 sockpuppet accounts, swarming on “their” favorite answer — which produced fairly ridiculous voting outcomes like this:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiqxckD2hXsJF4SHFjJZ.kFy.Bd.;_ylv=3?qid=20090519070830AAxBcLU

(The “winning” response got 13 votes, while the second-place answer of “Hero you go” got 5 votes, all of which were generated by me and my sockpuppet accounts, just to demonstrate the “counter-attack voting” that was taking place.)

Another example of vote-stacking (12 votes):

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtsF3szE_zbh_FEgl22_Idpy.Bd.;_ylv=3?qid=20090520095251AAArqlv

Now, it is interesting to point out that a month ago, prior to my escalation of the vote-stacking battle, “Best Answer” responses in the same category would “win” with only 2 or 3 votes:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqF3T4gDzJfVaVJLr7ubq9py.Bd.;_ylv=3?qid=20090430012528AAlkp5D

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqF3T4gDzJfVaVJLr7ubq9py.Bd.;_ylv=3?qid=20090503125153AAKo0gd

So, after gaming a poorly-designed, anonymity-protecting system to discover and illuminate its faults, my account has been suspended. Left behind is a small platoon of teen-aged sockpuppeteers who think they are “in charge” of their fiefdom.

What a fascinating experiment for me, and what an utter disgrace is the Yahoo! system of governance on that particular community.

====Gregory Kohs====
This Yahoo! question and answer are worth sharing: http://imgur.com/4tdCP.jpg

Directory:Akahele/Searching for answers

2010-10-22T23:36:02Z

Raf: /* Facts On Call */

Without question, Search is one of the most important and utilized services on the Internet. If you look at the [http://www.alexa.com/topsites ten most-visited websites] according to Alexa.com, domains known for web search occupy the #1, #2, #5, and #10 spots (Google, Yahoo, Windows Live, and Baidu, respectively). Usually when people search, they are looking for an answer to a question they have.

This fact has prompted several corporate players to enter into what I might call "the answer enterprise". I myself was no stranger to the answer enterprise. Since graduate school, I noted how many of my friends and relatives marveled at how proficient I was in using various Internet search tools (back then, I'd go to [http://web.archive.org/web/19961023234707/http://www.webcrawler.com/ Webcrawler] and [http://web.archive.org/web/19961023234631/http://altavista.digital.com/ AltaVista] -- remember those?) and finding electronic databases that might help answer complex questions. After I realized that some of these question-and-answer journeys were taking over an hour to fulfill properly, my entrepreneurial instincts kicked in.

==Facts On Call==

Thus, in 1995, I incorporated [http://web.archive.org/web/20021125075325/http://www.factsoncall.com/ Facts On Call]. For nine years with this side-project of mine, I learned about everything under the sun, assisting typically small enterprises and entrepreneurs with questions usually related to making a business case. Some examples:

::What are the total number of athletic scholarships awarded in North America, the total number of junior college athletes, and the total number of professional athletes? (Asked by a promotion agency for high school athletes.)
::Could you find an expert in the melting characteristics of different types of ice cream? (Asked by an attorney handling a "slip and fall" lawsuit directed against a grocery store; and yes, we found an academic expert on this topic.)
::Could you critically review all of the websites of North Carolina manufacturers of heavy machinery who have e-commerce capability? (For a manufacturing firm seeking "best practices" ideas for their own website.)
::Find me a list of 10-15 experts in terrorism and security, and provide their bios. (For the organizer of a conference on investment banking in the post-9/11 era.)

<table style="float: right; border=" border="0" width="155">
<tr>
<td>http://web.archive.org/web/20021125075325/http://www.factsoncall.com/images/foc_logo.gif</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: left;">Facts On Call logo (1995)</td>
</tr>
</table>
Facts On Call was a bunch of fun for me. Sure, it was a hassle to keep the balance sheet current and tax forms accurate, but still a great learning experience, and I met a wide array of interesting clients. Annual revenues never topped $5,000, but I soon justified to myself that "it wasn't about the money".

As the web matured and consumers began to learn search retrieval techniques that essentially were my competitive advantage, I began to wind down Facts On Call to focus more on marketing consulting and publishing, and my primary career in market research. Once I heard the fifth or sixth individual ask me, "Why would someone pay you to search for stuff on the Internet, when they could just do it themselves for free?", it confirmed in my mind that paid information retrieval (at least from freely available sources) was a dead end.

==Google Answers==

Google seemed to think otherwise. In April 2002, they unveiled Google Answers, a fee-based question and answer clearinghouse. An earlier attempt by Google to run an answer farm using only paid staffers failed after being inundated with questions during the first day or two. That led to the "crowdsourced" version, where a panel of about 500 registered "researchers" would tackle questions in exchange for payments of $4 to $50, which was promptly expanded to a range anchored at $2 and at $200. Those posting a query were charged a non-refundable fee of 50 cents, and Google pocketed 25% of the final payment to successful respondents.

After passing a [https://answers.google.com/answers/researchertraining.html relatively simple test] of search and writing skills, one could join another [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&num=100&q=factsoncall-ga+site%3Aanswers.google.com&btnG=Search">] 500 designated researchers. As an observer, a bounty-posting questioner, and an occasional answerer, my memory of the program is as follows:

(1) Most of the questions that could be researched and answered within 10 minutes were:
... (a) offering only $2 to $6, and
... (b) already "locked" (or even answered) by a faster researcher.

(2) Most of the questions that were priced above $20 were either:
... (a) bound to take at least an hour of time to research and respond to, or
... (b) impossible to answer, or
... (c) already "locked" by a faster researcher.

Another memory I have of the program was a problem of withheld payments. If someone wasn't satisfied with the answer received, they could walk away from the deal -- even if the answer they were given was in fact comprehensive and thorough. I heard that attempts to follow up to rectify any shortfalls were often met with silence from the client, and Google supported the policy that the customer is always right, regardless of how thorough an answer may have been.

I eventually decided to never again work within ''that'' system, and in a couple more years (late 2006), the service was terminated. Yahoo! had recently launched a competing free service called...

==Yahoo! Answers==

Launched in very late 2005, [http://answers.yahoo.com/ Yahoo! Answers] became the [http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2006/09/01/8384345/ second-most popular] reference website after Wikipedia in less than a year's time. Seeded with "Featured Questions" to get the juices flowing, in the earliest days these might have included questions such as:
<ul>
<li>Are all [http://web.archive.org/web/20051220075200/http://answers.yahoo.com/ snowflakes] really different?</li>
<li>What's your favorite [http://web.archive.org/web/20051211040657/http://answers.yahoo.com/ chocolate] recipe?</li>
</ul>
The database allows anonymous posters to ask questions for free, and it allows any registered user to respond to questions (under the "free" model, which means people doing substantially meritorious work get paid the exact same amount as a prankster posting jokes -- not a dime). Why would people contribute time and effort for free? It would seem that the elaborate grading system that awards "points" to players participating in the knowledge marketplace is sufficient enticement to keep the site populated.
<table style="float: left; border=" border="0" width="155">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://www.script-office.com/images/yahooAnswersLogo.png" alt="Yahoo! Answers logo" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: center;">#2 online reference site?</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
For the past few months, I myself have been asking questions and contributing answers to Yahoo! queries in the categories I'm most adept -- market research, travel, and Wikipedia. I admit, it is predictably addictive to see myself rise up from nowhere to (currently) the [http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/stars?sid=2115500146 fifth best] contributor on a topic. But, I have ulterior motives, too. By watching and answering questions, I've been building up some material for this very Akahele article, while occasionally posting a link to other Akahele articles, when appropriate.

<strong>Lost souls</strong>

From my recent experience, I have found both the questions and most of the answers delivered on the Yahoo! platform to reveal a careless level of engagement at best, to an appalling lack of sensibility at worst. Indeed, Jacob Leibenluft [http://www.slate.com/id/2179393/pagenum/all/ writing in ''Slate''] called Yahoo! Answers "every middle-school teacher's worst nightmare about the Web".

As I look at the site at this moment, the featured question is, "How do I bond with my rats?" I found the next featured question even more astounding: "How much should i charge for painting a fence?" Not an awful question, but in the details, the guy making the query points out that the fence is post-and-rail, and that the fence runs for 11,000 feet. If you were a landowner with a two-mile fence, would you want your contractor going to Yahoo! Answers to ask strangers how to estimate the job? That's a bit scary.

Wait. It's not as scary as the "[http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/;_ylt=AlDqXDhDxp9NtXTiF.Xq3Pzpy6IX;_ylv=3?link=list&sid=396546046 Pregnancy and Parenting]" category. Today, I see the following questions there:<a class="subject l3" title="See more details on Brown Discharge????? Help!!!?" href="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuN77L5M.XgNvBocUMj.L1d37hR.;_ylv=3?qid=20090412185420AApVBvl">]

:Brown Discharge????? Help!!!?
:What first name would go with Joseph Cyplik?
:When does conception occur?
:He's a deadbeat w/ his first child so will he be any different with a new baby?

Clearly, there is a general behavioral problem here, is there not? Children and adults seeking advice seem wholly capable of reaching "answer" sites on the Internet. But they exhibit an implicit trust with these sites, assessing them as (apparently) a completely appropriate channel for important advice. They want advice and answers from people they don't know, who are using fictitious user names with cartoon avatars, who make no claim to know what the hell they're talking about. What happened to the old advice, "talk to someone you trust and respect -- a parent, a teacher, a librarian, a doctor, a pastor"?

==Building brands==

There are other answer enterprises out there. Some borrow from the popular success of Wikipedia and try the wiki approach: [http://wiki.answers.com/ WikiAnswers] and the older, but far less popular Jimmy Wales-led site, [http://answers.wikia.com/wiki/Wikianswers Wikianswers]. Amazing how an upper-case letter can keep lawsuits at bay. I am reminded of the old [http://www.linksandlaw.com/decisions-7.htm Digital Equipment (Alta<strong>V</strong>ista) v. Alta<strong>v</strong>ista Technology] trademark dispute.

Yahoo! Answers features a program called [http://answers.yahoo.com/info/knowledge_partners Knowledge Partners], where business organizations can flaunt their expertise -- oh, and also "mention its products or services, where relevant, in an answer". So far, Yahoo! has invited Dell, Kraft, Purina, Quicken Loans, Entertainment Weekly, and a few others to participate. The program "is currently in Beta and only available by invitation". This seems like the next natural step in the downward slope of "progress" in the answer enterprise.

==You get what you pay for==

Facts On Call charged good money to provide good answers to good questions. Google Answers charged meager money to provide good answers to good questions. Yahoo! Answers charges no money to provide marginal answers to marginal questions, and you might even see a Knowledge Partner's product hawked in the process.

==Image credits:==

*Facts On Call, Inc. logo used courtesy of Gregory Kohs, its creator.
*<span style="color: #000000;">Yahoo! Answers logo, <a title="Yahoo! Answers logo, Fair use" href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 <span class="comment">fair use doctrine</span>].</span>

==Comments==

===11 Responses to “Searching for answers”===

Comments RSS

====Dan T.====
I believe the Wikia answer subsite actually existed before its competitor, though it was pretty dormant until the other site came along.

As for “how do I bond with my rats”, did he try CrazyGlue?

====Gregory Kohs====
Dan T., I agree that the facts seem to indicate that the Wikia answer subsite DID pre-exist the Answers.com wiki. I’d describe its early activity as “very dormant”. Indeed, I found that Answers.com put forth extensive efforts to build and brand and market their site, all while Wikia’s site just sat there like a bump on a log. Only after Answers.com found relative success with their site did Wikia seem to “wake up” and decide that they had had a similarly brilliant brand name, some longer period of time ago. I have no remorse in describing the latter activity as “copycat”.

A similar conundrum exists around the “Budweiser” brand name. Budweiser Bürgerbräu was the original Bohemian brand, but it was later trademarked by Anheuser-Busch for use in North America. When considering right from wrong on this, we ought to consider the production and marketing efforts that Anheuser-Busch invested in the brand, before we tear them asunder for mimicking an existing brand.

Coincidentally, if a large company like Reuters or Encyclopedia Britannica were now to launch a brand called “Facts On Call”, I can assure you, I would not spend one minute of time fretting about it, because I chose to abandon claim to that brand. As a matter of fact, even while Facts On Call was an active, incorporated entity, the New Jersey Lawyer publication launched a “Facts-on-call” fax service for court documents. I chose to discuss the problem privately with them, without involving lawyers, and both brands co-existed without harm.

====RFK====
Do I remember AltaVista? – I’m still using it – and loving it!

====MightyUnderdog====
Not to split hairs, but I thought Budvar was the original Bohemian brand, and is now distributed in North America as Czechvar.

====Gregory Kohs====
Split hairs all you want. It’s a long story, that as far as I can tell, actually has TWO main breweries in Bohemia competing for the name, and then Anheuser-Busch came into the story.

http://www.budweiser1795.com/index.php?s=2&l=2

http://www.budweiser1795.com/index.php?s=2&a=1&l=2

====Gregory Kohs====
I have been mildly upbraided by another observer whom I know and respect, and he’s right — I’m playing loose with the fact that Wikianswers did, indeed, pre-date WikiAnswers — so it is merely petty and unfair to say that Wikianswers is the “copycat” site. I have modified accordingly the blog post above.

That being said, a detailed inquiry shows that FAQ Farm was a project launched in 2002 by Chris Whitten.

Answers.Wikia.com was launched November 2004 by someone named “Hemanshu“, who decided to brand it as “Wikianswers”, then made only two more contributions to the site. The site was mostly unused until January 2009 (before which, there were always under 2,000 unique visitors per month, according to Compete.com — by comparison, my humble MyWikiBiz site has gotten over 2,000 visitors since the month we re-opened it as a wiki directory, with an average of 13,000 visitors a month for the past three months.)

Angela Beesley (co-founder of Wikia, Inc.) made edits to the Answers.Wikia.com (or “Wikianswers”) site in the following proportion:

2004 – 14 edits
2005 – 11 edits
2006 – 31 edits
2007 – 1 edit
2008 – 1 edit
2009 – 500+ edits

Meanwhile, back in November 2006, Answers.com purchased Whitten’s FAQ Farm. The buyer re-named it “WikiAnswers” (from Wiki.Answers.com) to better fit the Answers.com brand line. As far back as March 2008, Wiki.Answers.com (”WikiAnswers”) was getting 7,500,000+ unique visitors per month, while Answers.Wikia.com (”Wikianswers”) was getting about 1,200.

So, while the blog post is now corrected factually, I hope that this comment underscores that “first to a name” (which was never protected with a trademark) means little if your competition is a more enterprising operation capable of building a more popular and better-organized web destination.

====Anthony DiPierro====
Greg, I think you’re missing something quite key. Whitten claims to have registered wikianswers.com in June 2004.

====Al Tally====
You could have discussed text-based answer services, such as http://www.text118118.com.

====Gregory Kohs====
Anthony: You’re right. In this Internet age, the “first to grab the .com domain name” is most of the battle for laying claim to “ownership” of a brand name. If Whitten registered wikianswers.com in June 2004, and Answers.com bought the property from him, it does look rather silly for Answers.Wikia.com to say they were “first” to the word “Wikianswers”. Considering my past interactions with the folks at Wikia.com (such as their hesitation and rudeness when I brought to their attention a group’s use of their servers to promote images of child abuse), I am not surprised by this evidence of false claim to “Wikianswers”. Thanks for your research.

Al: Yes, I could have and should have talked about other answer services. My bad! I have since discovered (and participate in) another sort of cool one — Vark.com (or, “Aardvark”). The content of the questions & answers is typically unhelpful, but the way they ping you via Google Chat for answer help is pretty neat.

====Gregory Kohs====
After producing 99 “Best Answers” and rising to the #3 top answerer in the Wikipedia category, my account on Yahoo! Answers has been suspended for “Terms of Service violations” that Yahoo’s form-letter system seems incapable of elaborating upon. After the wiki-clique of teenagers there had gotten into the habit of “thumbs down” swarming on my answers, and for asking questions that personally attacked me (which the Yahoo! TOS folks seemed unresponsive to my take-down requests), I did admittedly begin to game the system with 4 sockpuppet accounts that I would use for voting up my answers. The wiki-clique retaliated with what appears to be about 8 or 9 sockpuppet accounts, swarming on “their” favorite answer — which produced fairly ridiculous voting outcomes like this:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiqxckD2hXsJF4SHFjJZ.kFy.Bd.;_ylv=3?qid=20090519070830AAxBcLU

(The “winning” response got 13 votes, while the second-place answer of “Hero you go” got 5 votes, all of which were generated by me and my sockpuppet accounts, just to demonstrate the “counter-attack voting” that was taking place.)

Another example of vote-stacking (12 votes):

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtsF3szE_zbh_FEgl22_Idpy.Bd.;_ylv=3?qid=20090520095251AAArqlv

Now, it is interesting to point out that a month ago, prior to my escalation of the vote-stacking battle, “Best Answer” responses in the same category would “win” with only 2 or 3 votes:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqF3T4gDzJfVaVJLr7ubq9py.Bd.;_ylv=3?qid=20090430012528AAlkp5D

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqF3T4gDzJfVaVJLr7ubq9py.Bd.;_ylv=3?qid=20090503125153AAKo0gd

So, after gaming a poorly-designed, anonymity-protecting system to discover and illuminate its faults, my account has been suspended. Left behind is a small platoon of teen-aged sockpuppeteers who think they are “in charge” of their fiefdom.

What a fascinating experiment for me, and what an utter disgrace is the Yahoo! system of governance on that particular community.

====Gregory Kohs====
This Yahoo! question and answer are worth sharing: http://imgur.com/4tdCP.jpg

Directory:Akahele/Searching for answers

2010-10-22T23:31:52Z

Raf: wikif

Without question, Search is one of the most important and utilized services on the Internet. If you look at the [http://www.alexa.com/topsites ten most-visited websites] according to Alexa.com, domains known for web search occupy the #1, #2, #5, and #10 spots (Google, Yahoo, Windows Live, and Baidu, respectively). Usually when people search, they are looking for an answer to a question they have.

This fact has prompted several corporate players to enter into what I might call "the answer enterprise". I myself was no stranger to the answer enterprise. Since graduate school, I noted how many of my friends and relatives marveled at how proficient I was in using various Internet search tools (back then, I'd go to [http://web.archive.org/web/19961023234707/http://www.webcrawler.com/ Webcrawler] and [http://web.archive.org/web/19961023234631/http://altavista.digital.com/ AltaVista] -- remember those?) and finding electronic databases that might help answer complex questions. After I realized that some of these question-and-answer journeys were taking over an hour to fulfill properly, my entrepreneurial instincts kicked in.

==Facts On Call==

Thus, in 1995, I incorporated [http://web.archive.org/web/20021125075325/http://www.factsoncall.com/ Facts On Call]. For nine years with this side-project of mine, I learned about everything under the sun, assisting typically small enterprises and entrepreneurs with questions usually related to making a business case. Some examples:
<ul>
<li> What are the total number of athletic scholarships awarded in North America, the total number of junior college athletes, and the total number of professional athletes? (Asked by a promotion agency for high school athletes.)</li>
<li> Could you find an expert in the melting characteristics of different types of ice cream? (Asked by an attorney handling a "slip and fall" lawsuit directed against a grocery store; and yes, we found an academic expert on this topic.)</li>
<li> Could you critically review all of the websites of North Carolina manufacturers of heavy machinery who have e-commerce capability? (For a manufacturing firm seeking "best practices" ideas for their own website.)</li>
<li> Find me a list of 10-15 experts in terrorism and security, and provide their bios. (For the organizer of a conference on investment banking in the post-9/11 era.)</li>
</ul>
<table style="float: right; border=" border="0" width="155">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://web.archive.org/web/20021125075325/http://www.factsoncall.com/images/foc_logo.gif" alt="Facts On Call logo" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: left;">Facts On Call logo (1995)</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
Facts On Call was a bunch of fun for me. Sure, it was a hassle to keep the balance sheet current and tax forms accurate, but still a great learning experience, and I met a wide array of interesting clients. Annual revenues never topped $5,000, but I soon justified to myself that "it wasn't about the money".

As the web matured and consumers began to learn search retrieval techniques that essentially were my competitive advantage, I began to wind down Facts On Call to focus more on marketing consulting and publishing, and my primary career in market research. Once I heard the fifth or sixth individual ask me, "Why would someone pay you to search for stuff on the Internet, when they could just do it themselves for free?", it confirmed in my mind that paid information retrieval (at least from freely available sources) was a dead end.

==Google Answers==

Google seemed to think otherwise. In April 2002, they unveiled Google Answers, a fee-based question and answer clearinghouse. An earlier attempt by Google to run an answer farm using only paid staffers failed after being inundated with questions during the first day or two. That led to the "crowdsourced" version, where a panel of about 500 registered "researchers" would tackle questions in exchange for payments of $4 to $50, which was promptly expanded to a range anchored at $2 and at $200. Those posting a query were charged a non-refundable fee of 50 cents, and Google pocketed 25% of the final payment to successful respondents.

After passing a [https://answers.google.com/answers/researchertraining.html relatively simple test] of search and writing skills, one could join another [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&num=100&q=factsoncall-ga+site%3Aanswers.google.com&btnG=Search">] 500 designated researchers. As an observer, a bounty-posting questioner, and an occasional answerer, my memory of the program is as follows:

(1) Most of the questions that could be researched and answered within 10 minutes were:
... (a) offering only $2 to $6, and
... (b) already "locked" (or even answered) by a faster researcher.

(2) Most of the questions that were priced above $20 were either:
... (a) bound to take at least an hour of time to research and respond to, or
... (b) impossible to answer, or
... (c) already "locked" by a faster researcher.

Another memory I have of the program was a problem of withheld payments. If someone wasn't satisfied with the answer received, they could walk away from the deal -- even if the answer they were given was in fact comprehensive and thorough. I heard that attempts to follow up to rectify any shortfalls were often met with silence from the client, and Google supported the policy that the customer is always right, regardless of how thorough an answer may have been.

I eventually decided to never again work within ''that'' system, and in a couple more years (late 2006), the service was terminated. Yahoo! had recently launched a competing free service called...

==Yahoo! Answers==

Launched in very late 2005, [http://answers.yahoo.com/ Yahoo! Answers] became the [http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2006/09/01/8384345/ second-most popular] reference website after Wikipedia in less than a year's time. Seeded with "Featured Questions" to get the juices flowing, in the earliest days these might have included questions such as:
<ul>
<li>Are all [http://web.archive.org/web/20051220075200/http://answers.yahoo.com/ snowflakes] really different?</li>
<li>What's your favorite [http://web.archive.org/web/20051211040657/http://answers.yahoo.com/ chocolate] recipe?</li>
</ul>
The database allows anonymous posters to ask questions for free, and it allows any registered user to respond to questions (under the "free" model, which means people doing substantially meritorious work get paid the exact same amount as a prankster posting jokes -- not a dime). Why would people contribute time and effort for free? It would seem that the elaborate grading system that awards "points" to players participating in the knowledge marketplace is sufficient enticement to keep the site populated.
<table style="float: left; border=" border="0" width="155">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://www.script-office.com/images/yahooAnswersLogo.png" alt="Yahoo! Answers logo" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: center;">#2 online reference site?</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
For the past few months, I myself have been asking questions and contributing answers to Yahoo! queries in the categories I'm most adept -- market research, travel, and Wikipedia. I admit, it is predictably addictive to see myself rise up from nowhere to (currently) the [http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/stars?sid=2115500146 fifth best] contributor on a topic. But, I have ulterior motives, too. By watching and answering questions, I've been building up some material for this very Akahele article, while occasionally posting a link to other Akahele articles, when appropriate.

<strong>Lost souls</strong>

From my recent experience, I have found both the questions and most of the answers delivered on the Yahoo! platform to reveal a careless level of engagement at best, to an appalling lack of sensibility at worst. Indeed, Jacob Leibenluft [http://www.slate.com/id/2179393/pagenum/all/ writing in ''Slate''] called Yahoo! Answers "every middle-school teacher's worst nightmare about the Web".

As I look at the site at this moment, the featured question is, "How do I bond with my rats?" I found the next featured question even more astounding: "How much should i charge for painting a fence?" Not an awful question, but in the details, the guy making the query points out that the fence is post-and-rail, and that the fence runs for 11,000 feet. If you were a landowner with a two-mile fence, would you want your contractor going to Yahoo! Answers to ask strangers how to estimate the job? That's a bit scary.

Wait. It's not as scary as the "[http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/;_ylt=AlDqXDhDxp9NtXTiF.Xq3Pzpy6IX;_ylv=3?link=list&sid=396546046 Pregnancy and Parenting]" category. Today, I see the following questions there:<a class="subject l3" title="See more details on Brown Discharge????? Help!!!?" href="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuN77L5M.XgNvBocUMj.L1d37hR.;_ylv=3?qid=20090412185420AApVBvl">]

:Brown Discharge????? Help!!!?
:What first name would go with Joseph Cyplik?
:When does conception occur?
:He's a deadbeat w/ his first child so will he be any different with a new baby?

Clearly, there is a general behavioral problem here, is there not? Children and adults seeking advice seem wholly capable of reaching "answer" sites on the Internet. But they exhibit an implicit trust with these sites, assessing them as (apparently) a completely appropriate channel for important advice. They want advice and answers from people they don't know, who are using fictitious user names with cartoon avatars, who make no claim to know what the hell they're talking about. What happened to the old advice, "talk to someone you trust and respect -- a parent, a teacher, a librarian, a doctor, a pastor"?

==Building brands==

There are other answer enterprises out there. Some borrow from the popular success of Wikipedia and try the wiki approach: [http://wiki.answers.com/ WikiAnswers] and the older, but far less popular Jimmy Wales-led site, [http://answers.wikia.com/wiki/Wikianswers Wikianswers]. Amazing how an upper-case letter can keep lawsuits at bay. I am reminded of the old [http://www.linksandlaw.com/decisions-7.htm Digital Equipment (Alta<strong>V</strong>ista) v. Alta<strong>v</strong>ista Technology] trademark dispute.

Yahoo! Answers features a program called [http://answers.yahoo.com/info/knowledge_partners Knowledge Partners], where business organizations can flaunt their expertise -- oh, and also "mention its products or services, where relevant, in an answer". So far, Yahoo! has invited Dell, Kraft, Purina, Quicken Loans, Entertainment Weekly, and a few others to participate. The program "is currently in Beta and only available by invitation". This seems like the next natural step in the downward slope of "progress" in the answer enterprise.

==You get what you pay for==

Facts On Call charged good money to provide good answers to good questions. Google Answers charged meager money to provide good answers to good questions. Yahoo! Answers charges no money to provide marginal answers to marginal questions, and you might even see a Knowledge Partner's product hawked in the process.

==Image credits:==

*Facts On Call, Inc. logo used courtesy of Gregory Kohs, its creator.
*<span style="color: #000000;">Yahoo! Answers logo, <a title="Yahoo! Answers logo, Fair use" href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 <span class="comment">fair use doctrine</span>].</span>

==Comments==

===11 Responses to “Searching for answers”===

Comments RSS

====Dan T.====
I believe the Wikia answer subsite actually existed before its competitor, though it was pretty dormant until the other site came along.

As for “how do I bond with my rats”, did he try CrazyGlue?

====Gregory Kohs====
Dan T., I agree that the facts seem to indicate that the Wikia answer subsite DID pre-exist the Answers.com wiki. I’d describe its early activity as “very dormant”. Indeed, I found that Answers.com put forth extensive efforts to build and brand and market their site, all while Wikia’s site just sat there like a bump on a log. Only after Answers.com found relative success with their site did Wikia seem to “wake up” and decide that they had had a similarly brilliant brand name, some longer period of time ago. I have no remorse in describing the latter activity as “copycat”.

A similar conundrum exists around the “Budweiser” brand name. Budweiser Bürgerbräu was the original Bohemian brand, but it was later trademarked by Anheuser-Busch for use in North America. When considering right from wrong on this, we ought to consider the production and marketing efforts that Anheuser-Busch invested in the brand, before we tear them asunder for mimicking an existing brand.

Coincidentally, if a large company like Reuters or Encyclopedia Britannica were now to launch a brand called “Facts On Call”, I can assure you, I would not spend one minute of time fretting about it, because I chose to abandon claim to that brand. As a matter of fact, even while Facts On Call was an active, incorporated entity, the New Jersey Lawyer publication launched a “Facts-on-call” fax service for court documents. I chose to discuss the problem privately with them, without involving lawyers, and both brands co-existed without harm.

====RFK====
Do I remember AltaVista? – I’m still using it – and loving it!

====MightyUnderdog====
Not to split hairs, but I thought Budvar was the original Bohemian brand, and is now distributed in North America as Czechvar.

====Gregory Kohs====
Split hairs all you want. It’s a long story, that as far as I can tell, actually has TWO main breweries in Bohemia competing for the name, and then Anheuser-Busch came into the story.

http://www.budweiser1795.com/index.php?s=2&l=2

http://www.budweiser1795.com/index.php?s=2&a=1&l=2

====Gregory Kohs====
I have been mildly upbraided by another observer whom I know and respect, and he’s right — I’m playing loose with the fact that Wikianswers did, indeed, pre-date WikiAnswers — so it is merely petty and unfair to say that Wikianswers is the “copycat” site. I have modified accordingly the blog post above.

That being said, a detailed inquiry shows that FAQ Farm was a project launched in 2002 by Chris Whitten.

Answers.Wikia.com was launched November 2004 by someone named “Hemanshu“, who decided to brand it as “Wikianswers”, then made only two more contributions to the site. The site was mostly unused until January 2009 (before which, there were always under 2,000 unique visitors per month, according to Compete.com — by comparison, my humble MyWikiBiz site has gotten over 2,000 visitors since the month we re-opened it as a wiki directory, with an average of 13,000 visitors a month for the past three months.)

Angela Beesley (co-founder of Wikia, Inc.) made edits to the Answers.Wikia.com (or “Wikianswers”) site in the following proportion:

2004 – 14 edits
2005 – 11 edits
2006 – 31 edits
2007 – 1 edit
2008 – 1 edit
2009 – 500+ edits

Meanwhile, back in November 2006, Answers.com purchased Whitten’s FAQ Farm. The buyer re-named it “WikiAnswers” (from Wiki.Answers.com) to better fit the Answers.com brand line. As far back as March 2008, Wiki.Answers.com (”WikiAnswers”) was getting 7,500,000+ unique visitors per month, while Answers.Wikia.com (”Wikianswers”) was getting about 1,200.

So, while the blog post is now corrected factually, I hope that this comment underscores that “first to a name” (which was never protected with a trademark) means little if your competition is a more enterprising operation capable of building a more popular and better-organized web destination.

====Anthony DiPierro====
Greg, I think you’re missing something quite key. Whitten claims to have registered wikianswers.com in June 2004.

====Al Tally====
You could have discussed text-based answer services, such as http://www.text118118.com.

====Gregory Kohs====
Anthony: You’re right. In this Internet age, the “first to grab the .com domain name” is most of the battle for laying claim to “ownership” of a brand name. If Whitten registered wikianswers.com in June 2004, and Answers.com bought the property from him, it does look rather silly for Answers.Wikia.com to say they were “first” to the word “Wikianswers”. Considering my past interactions with the folks at Wikia.com (such as their hesitation and rudeness when I brought to their attention a group’s use of their servers to promote images of child abuse), I am not surprised by this evidence of false claim to “Wikianswers”. Thanks for your research.

Al: Yes, I could have and should have talked about other answer services. My bad! I have since discovered (and participate in) another sort of cool one — Vark.com (or, “Aardvark”). The content of the questions & answers is typically unhelpful, but the way they ping you via Google Chat for answer help is pretty neat.

====Gregory Kohs====
After producing 99 “Best Answers” and rising to the #3 top answerer in the Wikipedia category, my account on Yahoo! Answers has been suspended for “Terms of Service violations” that Yahoo’s form-letter system seems incapable of elaborating upon. After the wiki-clique of teenagers there had gotten into the habit of “thumbs down” swarming on my answers, and for asking questions that personally attacked me (which the Yahoo! TOS folks seemed unresponsive to my take-down requests), I did admittedly begin to game the system with 4 sockpuppet accounts that I would use for voting up my answers. The wiki-clique retaliated with what appears to be about 8 or 9 sockpuppet accounts, swarming on “their” favorite answer — which produced fairly ridiculous voting outcomes like this:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiqxckD2hXsJF4SHFjJZ.kFy.Bd.;_ylv=3?qid=20090519070830AAxBcLU

(The “winning” response got 13 votes, while the second-place answer of “Hero you go” got 5 votes, all of which were generated by me and my sockpuppet accounts, just to demonstrate the “counter-attack voting” that was taking place.)

Another example of vote-stacking (12 votes):

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtsF3szE_zbh_FEgl22_Idpy.Bd.;_ylv=3?qid=20090520095251AAArqlv

Now, it is interesting to point out that a month ago, prior to my escalation of the vote-stacking battle, “Best Answer” responses in the same category would “win” with only 2 or 3 votes:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqF3T4gDzJfVaVJLr7ubq9py.Bd.;_ylv=3?qid=20090430012528AAlkp5D

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqF3T4gDzJfVaVJLr7ubq9py.Bd.;_ylv=3?qid=20090503125153AAKo0gd

So, after gaming a poorly-designed, anonymity-protecting system to discover and illuminate its faults, my account has been suspended. Left behind is a small platoon of teen-aged sockpuppeteers who think they are “in charge” of their fiefdom.

What a fascinating experiment for me, and what an utter disgrace is the Yahoo! system of governance on that particular community.

====Gregory Kohs====
This Yahoo! question and answer are worth sharing: http://imgur.com/4tdCP.jpg

Directory:Akahele/In the eye of the beholder

2010-10-22T23:14:16Z

Raf: /* Comments */ wikif

<table style="float: left; text-align: left; height: 190px;" border="0" width="160
<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/kirilove2-150x150.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: left; Performance Artist Vic Kirilove and his Journal-de-Boörd project.</td>
</tr>
</table>
[http://www.kirilove.com Vic Kirilove] is the latest enigma to come out of the Paris Art scene. Arriving unannounced at prestigious art galleries and openings with his faithful press agent [http://www.youtube.com/milenavlasenska Milena Vlasenka], a sound man, and a lighting operator, Kirilove carries a camera which is obviously not real, but which contains a real camera. He "records" what he calls "the superposition of true and false" in the context of making " fiction on the sites of temples of social fiction".

As his website states: ''Vic Kirilove capte les circonstances de l’échange où se mettent en place les structures de vérité.'' (Vic Kirilove captures the circumstances of the exchange in which the structures of truth are put into place.)

<table style="float: left; text-align: right;" border="0" width="150
<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/insitu5-150x150.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: left; A Kirilove performance.</td>
</tr>
</table>
Indeed, in the highly ritualized art world, where value is determined by image, and where social connections and representation often take the place of true artistic content and ideas, Vic Kirilove presents a mirror where the fake camera is actually a real camera recording the events that people are creating for the "performance".

The boundaries of ''what is true'' and ''what is false'' are intentionally blurred, to create a climate which provokes questions about the motivations of everyone present at the event. The art in this case is not in the creation of an object or the realization of an idea, but rather in the form of a mirror presented to the audience itself, underlining their reactions and their motivations for being objects of representation.

==Wikipedia and Art: Love at first flash==

Wikipedia is another [http://akahele.org/2009/03/world-of-wikipediacraft highly ritualized, complex society] which is concerned with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:AfD_debates_(Fiction_and_the_arts) evaluating the value of artists and Art]. And in this world of worker bees documenting, organizing, and protecting the "sum of all human knowledge", Art is not only serious business, but also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Loves_Art something which Wikipedia loves]. However, it would seem that the art which Wikipedia supposedly loves so dearly as to convert it into "a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest", is probably extremely far from the Art that someone like Vic Kirilove is creating. Although the definition in Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art&oldid=277296421 ''Art'' article] might suggest otherwise:
<blockquote>Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music and literature. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as Aesthetics.</blockquote>
The image of well-scrubbed young American teenagers running around museums taking photos of Art works which have been deemed worthy of display in prominent venues seems like a rather constructive way to get these bright young minds interested in their own cultural heritage. The picture is indeed extremely pretty, but to borrow a phrase, ''is it Art?''

==The Question of Intent==

The honest answer is ''perhaps''. If these industrious photographers are having an aesthetic reaction to the objects that they are photographing, then Art can be said to be taking place. However, what if they're only taking the pictures in order to document the objects for the corresponding articles? Are they considering what the meaning of these objects might be? And what about these prizes? It looks an awful lot like a carrot-and-stick mentality is at work here, rather than the pure artistic pleasure of experiencing a work of art.

The fundamental determining factor in an artistic experience is <strong>intent</strong>; either that of the artist, that of the observer, or both. In the case of ''Wikipedia Loves Art'', the observer seems to be motivated probably by documenting the object and not reacting to it, other than to capture its form on film. In a contrary manner, Vic Kirilove has provided a mirror in which the reality of truth and artifice is reflected back to the observer, who then becomes a willing or unwilling participant in the Art itself.

Which act is closer to Wikipedia's own definition of Art?

==Wikipedia's core policies and creativity==
<table style="float: left; text-align: left;" border="0" width="150 />
<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/250px-comcast2alr-150x150.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption />A photo can also be a violation of the "No original research" policy.</td>
</tr>
</table>
Wikipedia is governed by any number of core policies, which are supposedly enforced equally on all editors, but which in practice are often conveniently "forgotten" for editors who are established personalities. The three most important of these policies are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research no original research], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view neutral point of view], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability verifiability, not truth]. What these core policies effectively do is exclude all original thinking and any notion of creativity, and instead simply reporting what is said, rather than what is known. Wikipedia editors are not supposed to reason, much less create, but rather are supposed to take what has already been said, and simply restate the ideas using different words. Thus, it may be reckoned that by these three core policies Wikipedia effectively excludes any artistic activity from its encyclopedia articles. Sometimes editors are allowed to be creative, as was the designer of the digitally-altered photo shown above, but often these types of contributions are excluded because of the way the three core policies are interpreted.

The reason that the three core policies exist is a matter of much discussion. As the point of Wikipedia is presented as ''the creation of a free, open-source encyclopedia'' using the collected contributions of ''everyone'', one possible theory is that Wikipedia is intended as an expression of ''what everybody knows.'' Artists, as well as other theoretical thinkers whose vision is often uniquely personal, must be excluded from this equation, as they are not just ''anybody''. Another more concrete reason may be [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1354424 the way in which Wikipedia handles individuals who do not conform to its core policies and ideals], through an "inclusion/exclusion" process which has been described as "weeding in/weeding out". But perhaps the main reason is the eternal and inherent conflict in the relationship between the Artist and Society...

==Art as a mirror of social reality==

The Artist as a mirror that reflects truth back to Society has often been the cause of conflict. The long list of artists in the very provincial German city of Weimar (from Göethe to Nina Hagen, via the ''Bauhaus'' crowd) who were forced to leave the city because of the negative reactions of the stuffy bourgeois residents is one very fine example of this type of exclusion of artists by a strongly conventional society.

Another fine example of this process is the Lyrical Satire [http://www.classicalmusicnow.com/tailleferre-pn.htm ''Il était un petit Navire''] that [http://www.classicalmusicnow.com/Tailleferrebiography.htm Germaine Tailleferre] of Les Six wrote with the French screenwriter [href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Jeanson Henri Jeanson] (who wrote the screen plays for ''Pepe Le Moko'', ''Hôtel du Nord'', and many other great French films of the 1950s). The work was written specifically to not only make fun of operas, but also of the people who go see them. At the end of the work, the Heroine goes to the front of the stage and sings :

<blockquote>The curtain is going up for you now! Please collect your roles at the coat check and go back to playing the same games that you've been playing so well for so long!</blockquote>

Even though everything was done to downplay the scandal, even to the point of cutting the work to almost half its intended length, the first performance demonstrated that Jeanson's libretto coupled with Tailleferre's music created a mirror which reflected an image back to the audience that was too true to be acceptable. Their reactions were, according to critic Henri Barraud in ''Musical America'', extremely violent:

<blockquote>...the most exciting first performance that Paris has seen in many, many years. The gallery let loose with a storm of invective against the authors and actors, shouting disapproval and demanding its money back. The people in the orchestra and the first balconies, fortified by a large group of invited guests, tried to offset the hostile outcries with their applause.</blockquote>

The Artist creates a mirror and the audience looks at their own reflection through the Artist's actions. When what is reflected back is neither what the audience expects nor wants, hostility is generally the predictable reaction.

What do you suppose happens when this type of allegorical mirror is directed at Wikipedia?

==Wikipedia...Art?==
<table style="float: right; text-align: left;" border="0" width="150 />
<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/180px-wikipedia_art-copy-150x150.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption"> the official logo of the Wikipedia Art project.</td>
</tr>
</table>
On February 14, 2009, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Kildall Scott Kildall] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Stern Nathaniel Stern] created ''Wikipedia Art'' by posting [http://wikipediaart.org/wiki/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Art&oldid=211 an article of the same name] on Wikipedia. ''Wikipedia Art'' was defined as :

''"an art intervention which explicitly invites performative utterances in order to change the work itself. The ongoing composition and performance of Wikipedia Art is intended to point to the 'invisible authors and authorities' of Wikipedia, and by extension the Internet,[2] as well as the site's extant criticisms: bias, consensus over credentials, reliability and accuracy, vandalism, etc... like knowledge and like art, Wikipedia Art is always already variable.

The project is 'similar to [http://andrewkeen.typepad.com/ Andrew Keen's] complaints of Wikipedia as being an unreasonable request upon internet society to create cultural foundations (encyclopedias, art media, etc) without compensation, thus devaluing production."''

The Wikipedia Art project manifesto uses obvious cues to express that it will attempt to follow Wikipedia core polices, yet makes the probably fatal error of naming Andrew Keen, who is seen as a key Wikipedia opponent. The authors are clearly using Wikipedia as a reference, reflecting the bureaucratic structure and highly ritualized practices back to the very society that has created them. How could we expect this Society to react to this mirror image?

The reaction was like oil and water, with discussion taking place immediately on several areas within Wikipedia itself. The Wikipedia Art article lasted for fifteen hours until it was removed from Wikipedia through [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_Art Wikipedia's deletion process] and generated [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29&oldid=271062016#Help._I_have_created_a_monster.21 an extremely long discussion] on Wikipedia's ''Village Pump'' page. In the middle of the ''exceedingly polite discussion'' as to whether or not this article should be kept, there is another much more burning question which is only fleetingly touched upon in certain comments: ''Are we being had?'' In other words, is this serious or is this a big joke? Or, to put it another way, ''what is the intent?'' Werdna, the user name of the administrator who closed this debate seems to make a judgment in his comments on the Village Pump :

''I ended the circus as a routine A7. — Werdna • talk 06:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)''

Note the disparaging remark, and the return to normalcy via the Wikipedia-specific alphanumeric jargon. ''Those art trolls aren't going to pull the wool over our eyes! No sir! '' Unfortunately for him, Werdna [http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/vlog/ScenesOfProvincialLife.cgi/2009/02/15#post298 discovered too late the perils of confronting the Art World] head on! (A history of the project from the point of view of the artists is available [http://wikipediaart.org/brief-history/ here]).

==The end product of the conflict: Vandalism==

Around the same time the Wikipedia Art project was going on, police in Stockholm, Sweden were [http://www.thelocal.se/17660/20090218/ investigating the case] of an art student who had filmed the vandalism of a subway train as part of his final project for Art School. Another student [http://www.thelocal.se/17268/20090130/ pretended to be be psychotic] and went as far as arranging to be committed to a psychiatric hospital.

The artist who seeks to express his views of society to generate a reaction may resort to many strategies, which may include [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin/Poetgate role-playing], [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18309 vandalism ] or ideas which are merely [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Shii/Hoaxes&oldid=276937327 creations of the fertile imagination of the Artist]. Of course, many non-artists also use these same strategies for other aims. The question is: how does one tell who is an artist and who is a psychotic, especially in an environment where just about everyone is a pseudonym to begin with?

==Wiki-projections and the question of intent==

The answer is: ''you can't'', unless you can know the intent of the person involved. In the Web 2.0 world, where pseudonyms are the rule rather than the exception, you can't know the intent of the person making a given statement, but you can make guesses as to what you think the person might be implying. These types of projections, especially in text-only settings where vocal and facial cues are absent, often lead to conclusions which have more to say about the people making the judgment rather than the speaker.

For example, in [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23304 this thread on the Wikipedia Review] which discusses an article entitled [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_search_prank_call_scam The Strip Search Prank Call Scam], participants made judgments about the principals in the story based on their personal feelings about the incident, rather than by using the sources or the evidence. Clearly, a great deal of projection as to the intent of the people involved was being generated.

This type of emotional judgment of intent is typical of the core group of Wikipedia editors, with all people outside of their behavioral expectations being labeled with the same generic term: '''Troll'''.

==Positive Trolling for the greater good of Mankind==

<table style="float: left; text-align: left;" border="0" width="150 />
<tr>
<td><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3177/2799642335_0816a4f213.jpg" alt="A troll and his electric knife" height="200" width="150" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption"> A troll and his electric knife.</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>

People who are seen as ''trolls'' by those in power at Wikipedia are often those who are simply pointing out flaws in the way Wikipedia works, or rather in the way it doesn't work. To give one famous example, for quite a while [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_knife&oldid=168689419 the Wikipedia article for ''Electric knife''] contained the following text :

QUOTE (Wikipedia, "Electric knife" @ 12/10/07)
''They are also sometimes used for other purposes, such as shaping polyurethane foam rubber to make [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hip_and_buttock_padding&oldid=161678268 hip and buttock padding]''.

Because this particular use of the electric knife was difficult to source and sounded rather odd, a "thoughtful" editor added [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_knife&diff=next&oldid=177138881 another use for electric knives] which was easier to source. This was seen as ''trolling'' by other Wikipedia editors, but it did serve to point out that the other information about padding was perhaps not necessary for a general-purpose encyclopedia. While one cannot know whether or not this edit was "artistic", the effect of the edit itself served to underline the true motivations of the initial editor, bringing into light the existence of a hidden agenda. In this sense, it may be seen as an artistic action, whether or not an artistic intent was indeed present, as the result was a reaction from both participants and [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=14505 spectators].

The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wet_floor_sign&oldid=210932395 original incarnation of the "Wet Floor sign" article] is perhaps my favorite example of possibly artistic Wikipedia vandalism, underlining many major faults of Wikipedia practice, the foremost of which is taking everything much too seriously. The last paragraph is particularly stunning in its pretentious and vapid tone :

''There is currently a debate within the intelligentsia and within the population as a whole concerning the worthiness of treating the 'wet-floor sign' as a subject of inquiry, independent of the more general topic of 'signs.' On the one side are those scholars such as the present writer, who view each and every type of sign as a unique contribution to civilization's wealth and security, just as each individual human is perfectly independent of others and is endowed with certain unalienable rights: rights held by the individual, not the collective. These scholars understand the incredible value of a wet-floor sign. A wet-floor sign warns. It teaches. It promotes bilingualism. It enhances the aesthetics of an environment. It prevents injury. It is yellow and has a man falling down on it. On the other side of the debate are those who wish to censor; those who wish to label; those who wish to limit the debate; those who wish limit expression of a person's, an object's individual characteristics. They argue that by knowing what a 'sign' is, we obviously know what a 'wet-floor sign' is. They argue that there is no difference between a sign that proclaims "WET FLOOR" and a sign that proclaims "START LINE HERE." They argue that it is unnecessary to specialize one's knowledge, to understand uniqueness, to consider the small things around us. They argue that 'a sign is a sign, no matter what it says.' This debate continues, and its conclusion will determine humanity's intellectual future.''

<table style="float: right; text-align: center;" border="0" width="199 />
<tr>
<td>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c5/CdeB2.jpg" alt="Lady Catherine Augusta Amelia Gladys de Burgh was a candidate for the ArbCom elections in 2008, until her sudden death</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: left; Lady Catherine Augusta Amelia Gladys de Burgh was a candidate for the ArbCom elections in 2008, until her sudden "death".</td>
</tr>
</table>
Although the author of this gem is unknown, I have always suspected [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Giano_II User: Giano] whose beautifully written prose articles and wonderfully dry sense of humor shine like gems amongst the rest of the ''dreck'' which passes for writing on Wikipedia. He certainly knows [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Catherine_de_Burgh/Catherine_Bonkbuster how to push buttons] without getting indefinitely banned, in spite of being seen as a troll almost universally among the higher cabals of Wikipedia. Giano's greatest achievement was creating the character Lady Catherine de Burgh, whose [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Candidate_statements/Catherine_de_Burgh/Questions_for_the_candidate bid to be elected] to Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee was stopped short by her very untimely death, although not before making some very arch statements:

''"Rumour is a very dangerous thing, just imagine if we were all to listen to every Wikipedia rumour and whisper. Goodness gracious one would believe every Arb and check-user were the mistress/lover of the other - or worse! - perish the thought. The only blackberries I have dear are in a crumble. The Arbcom is quite safe in my hands. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)"''

It might be said that Giano is perhaps the most successful Wikipedia artist of all time, having found (at least temporarily) a way of working within the confines of that highly ritualized society. It is also highly likely that, given his long history of conflicts with the Wikipedia establishment (right up to Jimbo Wales) that he will be banned at some point, proving once again that original thinking and creativity have no place in Wikipedia.

It is regrettable that the "weeding in/weeding out" process generally excludes those whose thinking is outside of what is accepted by the masses as "normal" and includes those whose role is to simply repeat that which is already known by all, without considering the consequences and implications of what is being said. That this is a popular viewpoint says much about our society and the role of Art and Artists within it.

Meanwhile, within the confines of Wikipedia, the mop-wielding administrators will continue to do battle with the unending stream of ''trolls'' until somebody finally pulls the plug on the servers, like so many monks trying to solve an infinite number of unsolvable zen koans. If the administrators would put their mops down for a minute and listen to what the ''trolls'' are saying, perhaps they might learn something.

==Image credits:==
*Vic Kirilove photos, © Vic Kirilove, all rights reserved, used with permission. [http://www.kirilove.com kirilove.com].
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comcast2aLR.jpg Comcast Center], photo by User:Photodavid. *[http://www.flickr.com/photos/thekohser/ Troll and Electric Knife, © by Gregory Kohs] all rights reserved, used with permission.
*[http://wikipediaart.org/wiki/index.php?title=Image:Wikipedia_Art.png Wikipedia Art logo], GNU Free Documentation License 1.2

==Comments==

===16 Responses to ''In the eye of the beholder''===

Comments RSS

====Barry Kort====
Spitting In the Eye of the Bescolder

In the gray area between True and False, there lies the Unknown, the Unknowable, and Art.

Sincerity and Intent are notoriously hard to judge in a cyber-culture like Wikipedia. In the end, it comes down to a personal opinion, a haphazard theory of mind about another character, based on a handful of encounters in a bizarro online world.

Notwithstanding the taboo against original research, the discussion pages of Wikipedia are flush with novel characterizations in which rival editors are variously adjudged as disruptive trolls, tendentious PoV-pushers, vandals, meat puppets, clowns, and cranks.

Oddly enough, few of these challengers are characterized as artistes worthy of respect for illustrating the erratic process by which one reliably reckons authentic knowledge amidst a miasma of opinions, judgments, and idiosyncratic points of view.

My Continuing Adventures in Technology… » links for 2009-03-23
[...] Akahele | In the eye of the beholder (tags: art culture criticism internet wikipedia authorship online intent epistemology) [...]

====Gregory Kohs====
It may be appropriate at this time for me to take full credit for this artistic edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_knife&diff=next&oldid=177138881

Less than 30 hours later, the user account was indefinitely blocked for the crime of “vandalism”. The Wikipedia administrator who issued the block also happens to be a trans-gendered individual (which might suggest a conflict-of-interest surrounding “hip and buttock padding”), but who am I to say?

====Nihiltres====
“If the administrators would put their mops down for a minute and listen to what the trolls are saying, perhaps they might learn something.”

If so, what’s a reasonable way of dealing with edits designed to be disruptive? What do you suggest is the proper way to react?

It stands to reason that people who can’t behave within reasonable limits shouldn’t be listened to—being listened to is their goal, to get a reaction is their goal, and this goal is destructive. Satire and irony are one thing, but surely it is better for the goal of a constructive, collaborative project to filter out nonsense and so-called “trolling”.

P.S.: With all due respect to Mr. Kohs, the picture with the electric knife is hilarious

====Gregory Kohs====
Nihiltres is a Wikipedian with whom I’ve sparred (sometimes with less tact than I’d have wished) in various venues on the Internet. However, we have been participating amicably in the Yahoo! Answers forum regarding Wikipedia, for a number of weeks now. I have to say I am building a certain respect for this person, and his 68% “Best Answer” ratio in generating Answers on Yahoo! is simply phenomenal.

Now, that being said, I ask the dear readers to simply peruse some of the words that Nihiltres has entered into the discussion:

“disruptive”

“can’t behave”

“destructive”

But, he does show hope in at least noting that “Satire and irony are one thing…” STICK WITH THAT THOUGHT, Nihiltres. If you are capable of recognizing irony when it’s presented to you from the outside artist, might not you also be capable of recognizing irony when it surrounds you from within on a particular encyclopedia project?

Are you absolutely certain that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia? After nearly six years of existence, would not someone by now have served on the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees who has professional experience in reference publishing?

If you’re wearing a live chicken on your head, but you insist that it’s a fedora, is it our responsibility to not “disrupt” you from your notions, “behave” ourselves, and try to not be “destructive” in telling you things might not be as they seem to you?

====Paul Wehage====
@Nihiltres, thank you for the compliment about the photo of Mr. Kohs. It’s under his copyright and he very generously agreed to share it with us for the humorous note it gives the article.

The business about “hip and buttock” padding on the “electric knife” article is a long standing joke on WR, but it does beg the question of why the person who made the sourced statement (dismembering spouses) was banned and why the person who made the unsourced statement (”hip and buttock padding for transvestites”) was allowed to continue editing without as much as a warning, in spite of the clear breach of policy?

In hindsight, we now know that the person who ended up banning the person who challenged the “hip and buttock” padding was later discovered to be trans gendered herself. So who was making the disruptive edits? Who was banned? Are you sure that you can completely state who was the troll and who was the encyclopedist in this situation?

The whole point of this article is that WP editors are much too quick to call “troll” when they can’t really know what the other person is trying to say. Self-criticism is a good start here: even the WP cabal has come around to this idea, given the number of card-carrying members who now post on the Wikipedia Review.

The Wikipedia Art project was handled with a bit more tact, yet it created a great deal of bad blood between the artists and Wikipedia, as their site points out. These people are serious, notable artists. Why are they excluded from participating because you people can’t understand what they were trying to do? Why have you allowed this to remain in this state, without trying to at least understand the motivations and actions? Why is it always a one way street to Bansville with you people?

Maybe you need to think about what you’re doing and why because it sure isn’t adding up to “the sum of all human knowledge” with de-facto exclusions such as this.

====Barry Kort====
“What’s a reasonable way of dealing with edits designed to be disruptive? What do you suggest is the proper way to react?”

The first thing to do is to verify the hypothesis that an edit is “designed to be disruptive.” Can you tell me how you establish a reliable theory of mind regarding another editor’s intentions?

However, if one is disturbed or upset by an unexpected edit, a reasonable way to react is to 1) candidly disclose that one is surprised, disturbed, or upset, 2) inquire if that was the intended reaction, and 3) inquire further as to the editor’s intended purpose.

It occurs to me that jumping to a haphazard conclusion about another editor’s intentions is a classic recipe for absurdist drama.

====Nihiltres====
Rather, I think it is one’s responsibility to not rip the chicken from the person’s head and cook them something like in that picture I found so amusing above. Instead, perhaps merely holding up a mirror will do the trick—if it turns out that the chicken is a pet by the name of Fedora…

====Nihiltres====
My previous comment might make less sense than I thought it did, especially in the light of the comments I missed by leaving the window open for a long time. :/

I find the responses interesting, (and indeed I acknowledge that you’re right about the importance of a theory of mind, though I want to point out that it’s not black-and-white) and think it would be worthwhile to continue this conversation in a better forum than a blog comment system.

Perhaps I’ll get around to registering an account on Wikipedia Review; while I dislike the atmosphere there, if discussion there could produce ideas to improve Wikipedia without sacrificing its nature*, it would be constructive.

*that is, sacrificing those elements which are arguably strengths of Wikipedia, such as open editing. Nupedia’s already been proven to not work.

====Barry Kort====
There are two or three alternative venues that can be used for a serious round-table discussion.

====Emperor====
Ah the infamous electric knife, with “cheeto-colored beaver teeth”. Good times.

Speaking of trolling, readers might be interested in the SureFire M6 Guardian article, and Jimmy Wales’ response to the creation of the article. He titles it, “A little advice from an Internet old timer about trolls”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASureFire_M6_Guardian&diff=177094663&oldid=177092001

====Jon Awbrey====
It appears that Akahele has quickly, all too quickly reached that old Kierkegaardian Either-Or — it will have to choose Either the response of the conversional aesthete, running the mill from effete to hysterical, Or it will have to convert the moral outrage that is our due into the concerted action that it will take to ameliorate, not celebrate the Absurd.

====Paul Wehage====
Shouldn’t one first try to examine the underlying patterns and reactions to THE ABSURD in order to find the underlying meaning in all of this? If you haven’t defined the problem, you certainly can’t solve it. An examination of intent seems to be necessary in understanding the dynamics.

====Jon Awbrey====
Re: “An examination of intent seems to be necessary in understanding the dynamics.”

Observation of the dynamics is necessary to form a fair hypothesis about the intent.

Just how long do you plan on staring at this particular cobra before you do that?

====Paul Wehage====
Well, Mr. Awbrey, why don’t you write a piece about what should be happening? We’re going to be opening up to other contributors pretty soon…

====Violet Vernon====
If I had a nickel for every time I came to akahele.org! Great read!

Directory:Akahele/In the eye of the beholder

2010-10-22T23:07:42Z

Raf: /* Image credits: */

<table style="float: left; text-align: left; height: 190px;" border="0" width="160
<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/kirilove2-150x150.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: left; Performance Artist Vic Kirilove and his Journal-de-Boörd project.</td>
</tr>
</table>
[http://www.kirilove.com Vic Kirilove] is the latest enigma to come out of the Paris Art scene. Arriving unannounced at prestigious art galleries and openings with his faithful press agent [http://www.youtube.com/milenavlasenska Milena Vlasenka], a sound man, and a lighting operator, Kirilove carries a camera which is obviously not real, but which contains a real camera. He "records" what he calls "the superposition of true and false" in the context of making " fiction on the sites of temples of social fiction".

As his website states: ''Vic Kirilove capte les circonstances de l’échange où se mettent en place les structures de vérité.'' (Vic Kirilove captures the circumstances of the exchange in which the structures of truth are put into place.)

<table style="float: left; text-align: right;" border="0" width="150
<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/insitu5-150x150.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: left; A Kirilove performance.</td>
</tr>
</table>
Indeed, in the highly ritualized art world, where value is determined by image, and where social connections and representation often take the place of true artistic content and ideas, Vic Kirilove presents a mirror where the fake camera is actually a real camera recording the events that people are creating for the "performance".

The boundaries of ''what is true'' and ''what is false'' are intentionally blurred, to create a climate which provokes questions about the motivations of everyone present at the event. The art in this case is not in the creation of an object or the realization of an idea, but rather in the form of a mirror presented to the audience itself, underlining their reactions and their motivations for being objects of representation.

==Wikipedia and Art: Love at first flash==

Wikipedia is another [http://akahele.org/2009/03/world-of-wikipediacraft highly ritualized, complex society] which is concerned with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:AfD_debates_(Fiction_and_the_arts) evaluating the value of artists and Art]. And in this world of worker bees documenting, organizing, and protecting the "sum of all human knowledge", Art is not only serious business, but also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Loves_Art something which Wikipedia loves]. However, it would seem that the art which Wikipedia supposedly loves so dearly as to convert it into "a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest", is probably extremely far from the Art that someone like Vic Kirilove is creating. Although the definition in Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art&oldid=277296421 ''Art'' article] might suggest otherwise:
<blockquote>Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music and literature. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as Aesthetics.</blockquote>
The image of well-scrubbed young American teenagers running around museums taking photos of Art works which have been deemed worthy of display in prominent venues seems like a rather constructive way to get these bright young minds interested in their own cultural heritage. The picture is indeed extremely pretty, but to borrow a phrase, ''is it Art?''

==The Question of Intent==

The honest answer is ''perhaps''. If these industrious photographers are having an aesthetic reaction to the objects that they are photographing, then Art can be said to be taking place. However, what if they're only taking the pictures in order to document the objects for the corresponding articles? Are they considering what the meaning of these objects might be? And what about these prizes? It looks an awful lot like a carrot-and-stick mentality is at work here, rather than the pure artistic pleasure of experiencing a work of art.

The fundamental determining factor in an artistic experience is <strong>intent</strong>; either that of the artist, that of the observer, or both. In the case of ''Wikipedia Loves Art'', the observer seems to be motivated probably by documenting the object and not reacting to it, other than to capture its form on film. In a contrary manner, Vic Kirilove has provided a mirror in which the reality of truth and artifice is reflected back to the observer, who then becomes a willing or unwilling participant in the Art itself.

Which act is closer to Wikipedia's own definition of Art?

==Wikipedia's core policies and creativity==
<table style="float: left; text-align: left;" border="0" width="150 />
<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/250px-comcast2alr-150x150.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption />A photo can also be a violation of the "No original research" policy.</td>
</tr>
</table>
Wikipedia is governed by any number of core policies, which are supposedly enforced equally on all editors, but which in practice are often conveniently "forgotten" for editors who are established personalities. The three most important of these policies are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research no original research], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view neutral point of view], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability verifiability, not truth]. What these core policies effectively do is exclude all original thinking and any notion of creativity, and instead simply reporting what is said, rather than what is known. Wikipedia editors are not supposed to reason, much less create, but rather are supposed to take what has already been said, and simply restate the ideas using different words. Thus, it may be reckoned that by these three core policies Wikipedia effectively excludes any artistic activity from its encyclopedia articles. Sometimes editors are allowed to be creative, as was the designer of the digitally-altered photo shown above, but often these types of contributions are excluded because of the way the three core policies are interpreted.

The reason that the three core policies exist is a matter of much discussion. As the point of Wikipedia is presented as ''the creation of a free, open-source encyclopedia'' using the collected contributions of ''everyone'', one possible theory is that Wikipedia is intended as an expression of ''what everybody knows.'' Artists, as well as other theoretical thinkers whose vision is often uniquely personal, must be excluded from this equation, as they are not just ''anybody''. Another more concrete reason may be [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1354424 the way in which Wikipedia handles individuals who do not conform to its core policies and ideals], through an "inclusion/exclusion" process which has been described as "weeding in/weeding out". But perhaps the main reason is the eternal and inherent conflict in the relationship between the Artist and Society...

==Art as a mirror of social reality==

The Artist as a mirror that reflects truth back to Society has often been the cause of conflict. The long list of artists in the very provincial German city of Weimar (from Göethe to Nina Hagen, via the ''Bauhaus'' crowd) who were forced to leave the city because of the negative reactions of the stuffy bourgeois residents is one very fine example of this type of exclusion of artists by a strongly conventional society.

Another fine example of this process is the Lyrical Satire [http://www.classicalmusicnow.com/tailleferre-pn.htm ''Il était un petit Navire''] that [http://www.classicalmusicnow.com/Tailleferrebiography.htm Germaine Tailleferre] of Les Six wrote with the French screenwriter [href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Jeanson Henri Jeanson] (who wrote the screen plays for ''Pepe Le Moko'', ''Hôtel du Nord'', and many other great French films of the 1950s). The work was written specifically to not only make fun of operas, but also of the people who go see them. At the end of the work, the Heroine goes to the front of the stage and sings :

<blockquote>The curtain is going up for you now! Please collect your roles at the coat check and go back to playing the same games that you've been playing so well for so long!</blockquote>

Even though everything was done to downplay the scandal, even to the point of cutting the work to almost half its intended length, the first performance demonstrated that Jeanson's libretto coupled with Tailleferre's music created a mirror which reflected an image back to the audience that was too true to be acceptable. Their reactions were, according to critic Henri Barraud in ''Musical America'', extremely violent:

<blockquote>...the most exciting first performance that Paris has seen in many, many years. The gallery let loose with a storm of invective against the authors and actors, shouting disapproval and demanding its money back. The people in the orchestra and the first balconies, fortified by a large group of invited guests, tried to offset the hostile outcries with their applause.</blockquote>

The Artist creates a mirror and the audience looks at their own reflection through the Artist's actions. When what is reflected back is neither what the audience expects nor wants, hostility is generally the predictable reaction.

What do you suppose happens when this type of allegorical mirror is directed at Wikipedia?

==Wikipedia...Art?==
<table style="float: right; text-align: left;" border="0" width="150 />
<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/180px-wikipedia_art-copy-150x150.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption"> the official logo of the Wikipedia Art project.</td>
</tr>
</table>
On February 14, 2009, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Kildall Scott Kildall] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Stern Nathaniel Stern] created ''Wikipedia Art'' by posting [http://wikipediaart.org/wiki/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Art&oldid=211 an article of the same name] on Wikipedia. ''Wikipedia Art'' was defined as :

''"an art intervention which explicitly invites performative utterances in order to change the work itself. The ongoing composition and performance of Wikipedia Art is intended to point to the 'invisible authors and authorities' of Wikipedia, and by extension the Internet,[2] as well as the site's extant criticisms: bias, consensus over credentials, reliability and accuracy, vandalism, etc... like knowledge and like art, Wikipedia Art is always already variable.

The project is 'similar to [http://andrewkeen.typepad.com/ Andrew Keen's] complaints of Wikipedia as being an unreasonable request upon internet society to create cultural foundations (encyclopedias, art media, etc) without compensation, thus devaluing production."''

The Wikipedia Art project manifesto uses obvious cues to express that it will attempt to follow Wikipedia core polices, yet makes the probably fatal error of naming Andrew Keen, who is seen as a key Wikipedia opponent. The authors are clearly using Wikipedia as a reference, reflecting the bureaucratic structure and highly ritualized practices back to the very society that has created them. How could we expect this Society to react to this mirror image?

The reaction was like oil and water, with discussion taking place immediately on several areas within Wikipedia itself. The Wikipedia Art article lasted for fifteen hours until it was removed from Wikipedia through [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_Art Wikipedia's deletion process] and generated [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29&oldid=271062016#Help._I_have_created_a_monster.21 an extremely long discussion] on Wikipedia's ''Village Pump'' page. In the middle of the ''exceedingly polite discussion'' as to whether or not this article should be kept, there is another much more burning question which is only fleetingly touched upon in certain comments: ''Are we being had?'' In other words, is this serious or is this a big joke? Or, to put it another way, ''what is the intent?'' Werdna, the user name of the administrator who closed this debate seems to make a judgment in his comments on the Village Pump :

''I ended the circus as a routine A7. — Werdna • talk 06:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)''

Note the disparaging remark, and the return to normalcy via the Wikipedia-specific alphanumeric jargon. ''Those art trolls aren't going to pull the wool over our eyes! No sir! '' Unfortunately for him, Werdna [http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/vlog/ScenesOfProvincialLife.cgi/2009/02/15#post298 discovered too late the perils of confronting the Art World] head on! (A history of the project from the point of view of the artists is available [http://wikipediaart.org/brief-history/ here]).

==The end product of the conflict: Vandalism==

Around the same time the Wikipedia Art project was going on, police in Stockholm, Sweden were [http://www.thelocal.se/17660/20090218/ investigating the case] of an art student who had filmed the vandalism of a subway train as part of his final project for Art School. Another student [http://www.thelocal.se/17268/20090130/ pretended to be be psychotic] and went as far as arranging to be committed to a psychiatric hospital.

The artist who seeks to express his views of society to generate a reaction may resort to many strategies, which may include [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin/Poetgate role-playing], [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18309 vandalism ] or ideas which are merely [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Shii/Hoaxes&oldid=276937327 creations of the fertile imagination of the Artist]. Of course, many non-artists also use these same strategies for other aims. The question is: how does one tell who is an artist and who is a psychotic, especially in an environment where just about everyone is a pseudonym to begin with?

==Wiki-projections and the question of intent==

The answer is: ''you can't'', unless you can know the intent of the person involved. In the Web 2.0 world, where pseudonyms are the rule rather than the exception, you can't know the intent of the person making a given statement, but you can make guesses as to what you think the person might be implying. These types of projections, especially in text-only settings where vocal and facial cues are absent, often lead to conclusions which have more to say about the people making the judgment rather than the speaker.

For example, in [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23304 this thread on the Wikipedia Review] which discusses an article entitled [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_search_prank_call_scam The Strip Search Prank Call Scam], participants made judgments about the principals in the story based on their personal feelings about the incident, rather than by using the sources or the evidence. Clearly, a great deal of projection as to the intent of the people involved was being generated.

This type of emotional judgment of intent is typical of the core group of Wikipedia editors, with all people outside of their behavioral expectations being labeled with the same generic term: '''Troll'''.

==Positive Trolling for the greater good of Mankind==

<table style="float: left; text-align: left;" border="0" width="150 />
<tr>
<td><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3177/2799642335_0816a4f213.jpg" alt="A troll and his electric knife" height="200" width="150" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption"> A troll and his electric knife.</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>

People who are seen as ''trolls'' by those in power at Wikipedia are often those who are simply pointing out flaws in the way Wikipedia works, or rather in the way it doesn't work. To give one famous example, for quite a while [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_knife&oldid=168689419 the Wikipedia article for ''Electric knife''] contained the following text :

QUOTE (Wikipedia, "Electric knife" @ 12/10/07)
''They are also sometimes used for other purposes, such as shaping polyurethane foam rubber to make [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hip_and_buttock_padding&oldid=161678268 hip and buttock padding]''.

Because this particular use of the electric knife was difficult to source and sounded rather odd, a "thoughtful" editor added [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_knife&diff=next&oldid=177138881 another use for electric knives] which was easier to source. This was seen as ''trolling'' by other Wikipedia editors, but it did serve to point out that the other information about padding was perhaps not necessary for a general-purpose encyclopedia. While one cannot know whether or not this edit was "artistic", the effect of the edit itself served to underline the true motivations of the initial editor, bringing into light the existence of a hidden agenda. In this sense, it may be seen as an artistic action, whether or not an artistic intent was indeed present, as the result was a reaction from both participants and [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=14505 spectators].

The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wet_floor_sign&oldid=210932395 original incarnation of the "Wet Floor sign" article] is perhaps my favorite example of possibly artistic Wikipedia vandalism, underlining many major faults of Wikipedia practice, the foremost of which is taking everything much too seriously. The last paragraph is particularly stunning in its pretentious and vapid tone :

''There is currently a debate within the intelligentsia and within the population as a whole concerning the worthiness of treating the 'wet-floor sign' as a subject of inquiry, independent of the more general topic of 'signs.' On the one side are those scholars such as the present writer, who view each and every type of sign as a unique contribution to civilization's wealth and security, just as each individual human is perfectly independent of others and is endowed with certain unalienable rights: rights held by the individual, not the collective. These scholars understand the incredible value of a wet-floor sign. A wet-floor sign warns. It teaches. It promotes bilingualism. It enhances the aesthetics of an environment. It prevents injury. It is yellow and has a man falling down on it. On the other side of the debate are those who wish to censor; those who wish to label; those who wish to limit the debate; those who wish limit expression of a person's, an object's individual characteristics. They argue that by knowing what a 'sign' is, we obviously know what a 'wet-floor sign' is. They argue that there is no difference between a sign that proclaims "WET FLOOR" and a sign that proclaims "START LINE HERE." They argue that it is unnecessary to specialize one's knowledge, to understand uniqueness, to consider the small things around us. They argue that 'a sign is a sign, no matter what it says.' This debate continues, and its conclusion will determine humanity's intellectual future.''

<table style="float: right; text-align: center;" border="0" width="199 />
<tr>
<td>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c5/CdeB2.jpg" alt="Lady Catherine Augusta Amelia Gladys de Burgh was a candidate for the ArbCom elections in 2008, until her sudden death</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: left; Lady Catherine Augusta Amelia Gladys de Burgh was a candidate for the ArbCom elections in 2008, until her sudden "death".</td>
</tr>
</table>
Although the author of this gem is unknown, I have always suspected [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Giano_II User: Giano] whose beautifully written prose articles and wonderfully dry sense of humor shine like gems amongst the rest of the ''dreck'' which passes for writing on Wikipedia. He certainly knows [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Catherine_de_Burgh/Catherine_Bonkbuster how to push buttons] without getting indefinitely banned, in spite of being seen as a troll almost universally among the higher cabals of Wikipedia. Giano's greatest achievement was creating the character Lady Catherine de Burgh, whose [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Candidate_statements/Catherine_de_Burgh/Questions_for_the_candidate bid to be elected] to Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee was stopped short by her very untimely death, although not before making some very arch statements:

''"Rumour is a very dangerous thing, just imagine if we were all to listen to every Wikipedia rumour and whisper. Goodness gracious one would believe every Arb and check-user were the mistress/lover of the other - or worse! - perish the thought. The only blackberries I have dear are in a crumble. The Arbcom is quite safe in my hands. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)"''

It might be said that Giano is perhaps the most successful Wikipedia artist of all time, having found (at least temporarily) a way of working within the confines of that highly ritualized society. It is also highly likely that, given his long history of conflicts with the Wikipedia establishment (right up to Jimbo Wales) that he will be banned at some point, proving once again that original thinking and creativity have no place in Wikipedia.

It is regrettable that the "weeding in/weeding out" process generally excludes those whose thinking is outside of what is accepted by the masses as "normal" and includes those whose role is to simply repeat that which is already known by all, without considering the consequences and implications of what is being said. That this is a popular viewpoint says much about our society and the role of Art and Artists within it.

Meanwhile, within the confines of Wikipedia, the mop-wielding administrators will continue to do battle with the unending stream of ''trolls'' until somebody finally pulls the plug on the servers, like so many monks trying to solve an infinite number of unsolvable zen koans. If the administrators would put their mops down for a minute and listen to what the ''trolls'' are saying, perhaps they might learn something.

==Image credits:==
*Vic Kirilove photos, © Vic Kirilove, all rights reserved, used with permission. [http://www.kirilove.com kirilove.com].
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comcast2aLR.jpg Comcast Center], photo by User:Photodavid. *[http://www.flickr.com/photos/thekohser/ Troll and Electric Knife, © by Gregory Kohs] all rights reserved, used with permission.
*[http://wikipediaart.org/wiki/index.php?title=Image:Wikipedia_Art.png Wikipedia Art logo], GNU Free Documentation License 1.2

==Comments==

16 Responses to “ In the eye of the beholder ”

Comments RSS

Barry Kort
Spitting In the Eye of the Bescolder

In the gray area between True and False, there lies the Unknown, the Unknowable, and Art.

Sincerity and Intent are notoriously hard to judge in a cyber-culture like Wikipedia. In the end, it comes down to a personal opinion, a haphazard theory of mind about another character, based on a handful of encounters in a bizarro online world.

Notwithstanding the taboo against original research, the discussion pages of Wikipedia are flush with novel characterizations in which rival editors are variously adjudged as disruptive trolls, tendentious PoV-pushers, vandals, meat puppets, clowns, and cranks.

Oddly enough, few of these challengers are characterized as artistes worthy of respect for illustrating the erratic process by which one reliably reckons authentic knowledge amidst a miasma of opinions, judgments, and idiosyncratic points of view.

My Continuing Adventures in Technology… » links for 2009-03-23
[...] Akahele | In the eye of the beholder (tags: art culture criticism internet wikipedia authorship online intent epistemology) [...]

Gregory Kohs
It may be appropriate at this time for me to take full credit for this artistic edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_knife&diff=next&oldid=177138881

Less than 30 hours later, the user account was indefinitely blocked for the crime of “vandalism”. The Wikipedia administrator who issued the block also happens to be a trans-gendered individual (which might suggest a conflict-of-interest surrounding “hip and buttock padding”), but who am I to say?

Nihiltres
“If the administrators would put their mops down for a minute and listen to what the trolls are saying, perhaps they might learn something.”

If so, what’s a reasonable way of dealing with edits designed to be disruptive? What do you suggest is the proper way to react?

It stands to reason that people who can’t behave within reasonable limits shouldn’t be listened to—being listened to is their goal, to get a reaction is their goal, and this goal is destructive. Satire and irony are one thing, but surely it is better for the goal of a constructive, collaborative project to filter out nonsense and so-called “trolling”.

P.S.: With all due respect to Mr. Kohs, the picture with the electric knife is hilarious

Gregory Kohs
Nihiltres is a Wikipedian with whom I’ve sparred (sometimes with less tact than I’d have wished) in various venues on the Internet. However, we have been participating amicably in the Yahoo! Answers forum regarding Wikipedia, for a number of weeks now. I have to say I am building a certain respect for this person, and his 68% “Best Answer” ratio in generating Answers on Yahoo! is simply phenomenal.

Now, that being said, I ask the dear readers to simply peruse some of the words that Nihiltres has entered into the discussion:

“disruptive”

“can’t behave”

“destructive”

But, he does show hope in at least noting that “Satire and irony are one thing…” STICK WITH THAT THOUGHT, Nihiltres. If you are capable of recognizing irony when it’s presented to you from the outside artist, might not you also be capable of recognizing irony when it surrounds you from within on a particular encyclopedia project?

Are you absolutely certain that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia? After nearly six years of existence, would not someone by now have served on the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees who has professional experience in reference publishing?

If you’re wearing a live chicken on your head, but you insist that it’s a fedora, is it our responsibility to not “disrupt” you from your notions, “behave” ourselves, and try to not be “destructive” in telling you things might not be as they seem to you?

Paul Wehage
@Nihiltres, thank you for the compliment about the photo of Mr. Kohs. It’s under his copyright and he very generously agreed to share it with us for the humorous note it gives the article.

The business about “hip and buttock” padding on the “electric knife” article is a long standing joke on WR, but it does beg the question of why the person who made the sourced statement (dismembering spouses) was banned and why the person who made the unsourced statement (”hip and buttock padding for transvestites”) was allowed to continue editing without as much as a warning, in spite of the clear breach of policy?

In hindsight, we now know that the person who ended up banning the person who challenged the “hip and buttock” padding was later discovered to be trans gendered herself. So who was making the disruptive edits? Who was banned? Are you sure that you can completely state who was the troll and who was the encyclopedist in this situation?

The whole point of this article is that WP editors are much too quick to call “troll” when they can’t really know what the other person is trying to say. Self-criticism is a good start here: even the WP cabal has come around to this idea, given the number of card-carrying members who now post on the Wikipedia Review.

The Wikipedia Art project was handled with a bit more tact, yet it created a great deal of bad blood between the artists and Wikipedia, as their site points out. These people are serious, notable artists. Why are they excluded from participating because you people can’t understand what they were trying to do? Why have you allowed this to remain in this state, without trying to at least understand the motivations and actions? Why is it always a one way street to Bansville with you people?

Maybe you need to think about what you’re doing and why because it sure isn’t adding up to “the sum of all human knowledge” with de-facto exclusions such as this.

Barry Kort
“What’s a reasonable way of dealing with edits designed to be disruptive? What do you suggest is the proper way to react?”

The first thing to do is to verify the hypothesis that an edit is “designed to be disruptive.” Can you tell me how you establish a reliable theory of mind regarding another editor’s intentions?

However, if one is disturbed or upset by an unexpected edit, a reasonable way to react is to 1) candidly disclose that one is surprised, disturbed, or upset, 2) inquire if that was the intended reaction, and 3) inquire further as to the editor’s intended purpose.

It occurs to me that jumping to a haphazard conclusion about another editor’s intentions is a classic recipe for absurdist drama.

Nihiltres
Rather, I think it is one’s responsibility to not rip the chicken from the person’s head and cook them something like in that picture I found so amusing above. Instead, perhaps merely holding up a mirror will do the trick—if it turns out that the chicken is a pet by the name of Fedora…

Nihiltres
My previous comment might make less sense than I thought it did, especially in the light of the comments I missed by leaving the window open for a long time. :/

I find the responses interesting, (and indeed I acknowledge that you’re right about the importance of a theory of mind, though I want to point out that it’s not black-and-white) and think it would be worthwhile to continue this conversation in a better forum than a blog comment system.

Perhaps I’ll get around to registering an account on Wikipedia Review; while I dislike the atmosphere there, if discussion there could produce ideas to improve Wikipedia without sacrificing its nature*, it would be constructive.

*that is, sacrificing those elements which are arguably strengths of Wikipedia, such as open editing. Nupedia’s already been proven to not work.

Barry Kort
There are two or three alternative venues that can be used for a serious round-table discussion.

Emperor
Ah the infamous electric knife, with “cheeto-colored beaver teeth”. Good times.

Speaking of trolling, readers might be interested in the SureFire M6 Guardian article, and Jimmy Wales’ response to the creation of the article. He titles it, “A little advice from an Internet old timer about trolls”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASureFire_M6_Guardian&diff=177094663&oldid=177092001

Jon Awbrey
It appears that Akahele has quickly, all too quickly reached that old Kierkegaardian Either-Or — it will have to choose Either the response of the conversional aesthete, running the mill from effete to hysterical, Or it will have to convert the moral outrage that is our due into the concerted action that it will take to ameliorate, not celebrate the Absurd.

Paul Wehage
Shouldn’t one first try to examine the underlying patterns and reactions to THE ABSURD in order to find the underlying meaning in all of this? If you haven’t defined the problem, you certainly can’t solve it. An examination of intent seems to be necessary in understanding the dynamics.

Jon Awbrey
Re: “An examination of intent seems to be necessary in understanding the dynamics.”

Observation of the dynamics is necessary to form a fair hypothesis about the intent.

Just how long do you plan on staring at this particular cobra before you do that?

Paul Wehage
Well, Mr. Awbrey, why don’t you write a piece about what should be happening? We’re going to be opening up to other contributors pretty soon…

Violet Vernon
If I had a nickel for every time I came to akahele.org! Great read!

Directory:Akahele/In the eye of the beholder

2010-10-22T23:06:33Z

Raf: /* Wikipedia...Art? */ wikif

<table style="float: left; text-align: left; height: 190px;" border="0" width="160
<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/kirilove2-150x150.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: left; Performance Artist Vic Kirilove and his Journal-de-Boörd project.</td>
</tr>
</table>
[http://www.kirilove.com Vic Kirilove] is the latest enigma to come out of the Paris Art scene. Arriving unannounced at prestigious art galleries and openings with his faithful press agent [http://www.youtube.com/milenavlasenska Milena Vlasenka], a sound man, and a lighting operator, Kirilove carries a camera which is obviously not real, but which contains a real camera. He "records" what he calls "the superposition of true and false" in the context of making " fiction on the sites of temples of social fiction".

As his website states: ''Vic Kirilove capte les circonstances de l’échange où se mettent en place les structures de vérité.'' (Vic Kirilove captures the circumstances of the exchange in which the structures of truth are put into place.)

<table style="float: left; text-align: right;" border="0" width="150
<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/insitu5-150x150.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: left; A Kirilove performance.</td>
</tr>
</table>
Indeed, in the highly ritualized art world, where value is determined by image, and where social connections and representation often take the place of true artistic content and ideas, Vic Kirilove presents a mirror where the fake camera is actually a real camera recording the events that people are creating for the "performance".

The boundaries of ''what is true'' and ''what is false'' are intentionally blurred, to create a climate which provokes questions about the motivations of everyone present at the event. The art in this case is not in the creation of an object or the realization of an idea, but rather in the form of a mirror presented to the audience itself, underlining their reactions and their motivations for being objects of representation.

==Wikipedia and Art: Love at first flash==

Wikipedia is another [http://akahele.org/2009/03/world-of-wikipediacraft highly ritualized, complex society] which is concerned with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:AfD_debates_(Fiction_and_the_arts) evaluating the value of artists and Art]. And in this world of worker bees documenting, organizing, and protecting the "sum of all human knowledge", Art is not only serious business, but also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Loves_Art something which Wikipedia loves]. However, it would seem that the art which Wikipedia supposedly loves so dearly as to convert it into "a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest", is probably extremely far from the Art that someone like Vic Kirilove is creating. Although the definition in Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art&oldid=277296421 ''Art'' article] might suggest otherwise:
<blockquote>Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music and literature. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as Aesthetics.</blockquote>
The image of well-scrubbed young American teenagers running around museums taking photos of Art works which have been deemed worthy of display in prominent venues seems like a rather constructive way to get these bright young minds interested in their own cultural heritage. The picture is indeed extremely pretty, but to borrow a phrase, ''is it Art?''

==The Question of Intent==

The honest answer is ''perhaps''. If these industrious photographers are having an aesthetic reaction to the objects that they are photographing, then Art can be said to be taking place. However, what if they're only taking the pictures in order to document the objects for the corresponding articles? Are they considering what the meaning of these objects might be? And what about these prizes? It looks an awful lot like a carrot-and-stick mentality is at work here, rather than the pure artistic pleasure of experiencing a work of art.

The fundamental determining factor in an artistic experience is <strong>intent</strong>; either that of the artist, that of the observer, or both. In the case of ''Wikipedia Loves Art'', the observer seems to be motivated probably by documenting the object and not reacting to it, other than to capture its form on film. In a contrary manner, Vic Kirilove has provided a mirror in which the reality of truth and artifice is reflected back to the observer, who then becomes a willing or unwilling participant in the Art itself.

Which act is closer to Wikipedia's own definition of Art?

==Wikipedia's core policies and creativity==
<table style="float: left; text-align: left;" border="0" width="150 />
<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/250px-comcast2alr-150x150.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption />A photo can also be a violation of the "No original research" policy.</td>
</tr>
</table>
Wikipedia is governed by any number of core policies, which are supposedly enforced equally on all editors, but which in practice are often conveniently "forgotten" for editors who are established personalities. The three most important of these policies are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research no original research], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view neutral point of view], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability verifiability, not truth]. What these core policies effectively do is exclude all original thinking and any notion of creativity, and instead simply reporting what is said, rather than what is known. Wikipedia editors are not supposed to reason, much less create, but rather are supposed to take what has already been said, and simply restate the ideas using different words. Thus, it may be reckoned that by these three core policies Wikipedia effectively excludes any artistic activity from its encyclopedia articles. Sometimes editors are allowed to be creative, as was the designer of the digitally-altered photo shown above, but often these types of contributions are excluded because of the way the three core policies are interpreted.

The reason that the three core policies exist is a matter of much discussion. As the point of Wikipedia is presented as ''the creation of a free, open-source encyclopedia'' using the collected contributions of ''everyone'', one possible theory is that Wikipedia is intended as an expression of ''what everybody knows.'' Artists, as well as other theoretical thinkers whose vision is often uniquely personal, must be excluded from this equation, as they are not just ''anybody''. Another more concrete reason may be [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1354424 the way in which Wikipedia handles individuals who do not conform to its core policies and ideals], through an "inclusion/exclusion" process which has been described as "weeding in/weeding out". But perhaps the main reason is the eternal and inherent conflict in the relationship between the Artist and Society...

==Art as a mirror of social reality==

The Artist as a mirror that reflects truth back to Society has often been the cause of conflict. The long list of artists in the very provincial German city of Weimar (from Göethe to Nina Hagen, via the ''Bauhaus'' crowd) who were forced to leave the city because of the negative reactions of the stuffy bourgeois residents is one very fine example of this type of exclusion of artists by a strongly conventional society.

Another fine example of this process is the Lyrical Satire [http://www.classicalmusicnow.com/tailleferre-pn.htm ''Il était un petit Navire''] that [http://www.classicalmusicnow.com/Tailleferrebiography.htm Germaine Tailleferre] of Les Six wrote with the French screenwriter [href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Jeanson Henri Jeanson] (who wrote the screen plays for ''Pepe Le Moko'', ''Hôtel du Nord'', and many other great French films of the 1950s). The work was written specifically to not only make fun of operas, but also of the people who go see them. At the end of the work, the Heroine goes to the front of the stage and sings :

<blockquote>The curtain is going up for you now! Please collect your roles at the coat check and go back to playing the same games that you've been playing so well for so long!</blockquote>

Even though everything was done to downplay the scandal, even to the point of cutting the work to almost half its intended length, the first performance demonstrated that Jeanson's libretto coupled with Tailleferre's music created a mirror which reflected an image back to the audience that was too true to be acceptable. Their reactions were, according to critic Henri Barraud in ''Musical America'', extremely violent:

<blockquote>...the most exciting first performance that Paris has seen in many, many years. The gallery let loose with a storm of invective against the authors and actors, shouting disapproval and demanding its money back. The people in the orchestra and the first balconies, fortified by a large group of invited guests, tried to offset the hostile outcries with their applause.</blockquote>

The Artist creates a mirror and the audience looks at their own reflection through the Artist's actions. When what is reflected back is neither what the audience expects nor wants, hostility is generally the predictable reaction.

What do you suppose happens when this type of allegorical mirror is directed at Wikipedia?

==Wikipedia...Art?==
<table style="float: right; text-align: left;" border="0" width="150 />
<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/180px-wikipedia_art-copy-150x150.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption"> the official logo of the Wikipedia Art project.</td>
</tr>
</table>
On February 14, 2009, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Kildall Scott Kildall] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Stern Nathaniel Stern] created ''Wikipedia Art'' by posting [http://wikipediaart.org/wiki/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Art&oldid=211 an article of the same name] on Wikipedia. ''Wikipedia Art'' was defined as :

''"an art intervention which explicitly invites performative utterances in order to change the work itself. The ongoing composition and performance of Wikipedia Art is intended to point to the 'invisible authors and authorities' of Wikipedia, and by extension the Internet,[2] as well as the site's extant criticisms: bias, consensus over credentials, reliability and accuracy, vandalism, etc... like knowledge and like art, Wikipedia Art is always already variable.

The project is 'similar to [http://andrewkeen.typepad.com/ Andrew Keen's] complaints of Wikipedia as being an unreasonable request upon internet society to create cultural foundations (encyclopedias, art media, etc) without compensation, thus devaluing production."''

The Wikipedia Art project manifesto uses obvious cues to express that it will attempt to follow Wikipedia core polices, yet makes the probably fatal error of naming Andrew Keen, who is seen as a key Wikipedia opponent. The authors are clearly using Wikipedia as a reference, reflecting the bureaucratic structure and highly ritualized practices back to the very society that has created them. How could we expect this Society to react to this mirror image?

The reaction was like oil and water, with discussion taking place immediately on several areas within Wikipedia itself. The Wikipedia Art article lasted for fifteen hours until it was removed from Wikipedia through [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_Art Wikipedia's deletion process] and generated [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29&oldid=271062016#Help._I_have_created_a_monster.21 an extremely long discussion] on Wikipedia's ''Village Pump'' page. In the middle of the ''exceedingly polite discussion'' as to whether or not this article should be kept, there is another much more burning question which is only fleetingly touched upon in certain comments: ''Are we being had?'' In other words, is this serious or is this a big joke? Or, to put it another way, ''what is the intent?'' Werdna, the user name of the administrator who closed this debate seems to make a judgment in his comments on the Village Pump :

''I ended the circus as a routine A7. — Werdna • talk 06:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)''

Note the disparaging remark, and the return to normalcy via the Wikipedia-specific alphanumeric jargon. ''Those art trolls aren't going to pull the wool over our eyes! No sir! '' Unfortunately for him, Werdna [http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/vlog/ScenesOfProvincialLife.cgi/2009/02/15#post298 discovered too late the perils of confronting the Art World] head on! (A history of the project from the point of view of the artists is available [http://wikipediaart.org/brief-history/ here]).

==The end product of the conflict: Vandalism==

Around the same time the Wikipedia Art project was going on, police in Stockholm, Sweden were [http://www.thelocal.se/17660/20090218/ investigating the case] of an art student who had filmed the vandalism of a subway train as part of his final project for Art School. Another student [http://www.thelocal.se/17268/20090130/ pretended to be be psychotic] and went as far as arranging to be committed to a psychiatric hospital.

The artist who seeks to express his views of society to generate a reaction may resort to many strategies, which may include [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin/Poetgate role-playing], [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18309 vandalism ] or ideas which are merely [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Shii/Hoaxes&oldid=276937327 creations of the fertile imagination of the Artist]. Of course, many non-artists also use these same strategies for other aims. The question is: how does one tell who is an artist and who is a psychotic, especially in an environment where just about everyone is a pseudonym to begin with?

==Wiki-projections and the question of intent==

The answer is: ''you can't'', unless you can know the intent of the person involved. In the Web 2.0 world, where pseudonyms are the rule rather than the exception, you can't know the intent of the person making a given statement, but you can make guesses as to what you think the person might be implying. These types of projections, especially in text-only settings where vocal and facial cues are absent, often lead to conclusions which have more to say about the people making the judgment rather than the speaker.

For example, in [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23304 this thread on the Wikipedia Review] which discusses an article entitled [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_search_prank_call_scam The Strip Search Prank Call Scam], participants made judgments about the principals in the story based on their personal feelings about the incident, rather than by using the sources or the evidence. Clearly, a great deal of projection as to the intent of the people involved was being generated.

This type of emotional judgment of intent is typical of the core group of Wikipedia editors, with all people outside of their behavioral expectations being labeled with the same generic term: '''Troll'''.

==Positive Trolling for the greater good of Mankind==

<table style="float: left; text-align: left;" border="0" width="150 />
<tr>
<td><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3177/2799642335_0816a4f213.jpg" alt="A troll and his electric knife" height="200" width="150" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption"> A troll and his electric knife.</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>

People who are seen as ''trolls'' by those in power at Wikipedia are often those who are simply pointing out flaws in the way Wikipedia works, or rather in the way it doesn't work. To give one famous example, for quite a while [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_knife&oldid=168689419 the Wikipedia article for ''Electric knife''] contained the following text :

QUOTE (Wikipedia, "Electric knife" @ 12/10/07)
''They are also sometimes used for other purposes, such as shaping polyurethane foam rubber to make [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hip_and_buttock_padding&oldid=161678268 hip and buttock padding]''.

Because this particular use of the electric knife was difficult to source and sounded rather odd, a "thoughtful" editor added [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_knife&diff=next&oldid=177138881 another use for electric knives] which was easier to source. This was seen as ''trolling'' by other Wikipedia editors, but it did serve to point out that the other information about padding was perhaps not necessary for a general-purpose encyclopedia. While one cannot know whether or not this edit was "artistic", the effect of the edit itself served to underline the true motivations of the initial editor, bringing into light the existence of a hidden agenda. In this sense, it may be seen as an artistic action, whether or not an artistic intent was indeed present, as the result was a reaction from both participants and [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=14505 spectators].

The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wet_floor_sign&oldid=210932395 original incarnation of the "Wet Floor sign" article] is perhaps my favorite example of possibly artistic Wikipedia vandalism, underlining many major faults of Wikipedia practice, the foremost of which is taking everything much too seriously. The last paragraph is particularly stunning in its pretentious and vapid tone :

''There is currently a debate within the intelligentsia and within the population as a whole concerning the worthiness of treating the 'wet-floor sign' as a subject of inquiry, independent of the more general topic of 'signs.' On the one side are those scholars such as the present writer, who view each and every type of sign as a unique contribution to civilization's wealth and security, just as each individual human is perfectly independent of others and is endowed with certain unalienable rights: rights held by the individual, not the collective. These scholars understand the incredible value of a wet-floor sign. A wet-floor sign warns. It teaches. It promotes bilingualism. It enhances the aesthetics of an environment. It prevents injury. It is yellow and has a man falling down on it. On the other side of the debate are those who wish to censor; those who wish to label; those who wish to limit the debate; those who wish limit expression of a person's, an object's individual characteristics. They argue that by knowing what a 'sign' is, we obviously know what a 'wet-floor sign' is. They argue that there is no difference between a sign that proclaims "WET FLOOR" and a sign that proclaims "START LINE HERE." They argue that it is unnecessary to specialize one's knowledge, to understand uniqueness, to consider the small things around us. They argue that 'a sign is a sign, no matter what it says.' This debate continues, and its conclusion will determine humanity's intellectual future.''

<table style="float: right; text-align: center;" border="0" width="199 />
<tr>
<td>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c5/CdeB2.jpg" alt="Lady Catherine Augusta Amelia Gladys de Burgh was a candidate for the ArbCom elections in 2008, until her sudden death</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: left; Lady Catherine Augusta Amelia Gladys de Burgh was a candidate for the ArbCom elections in 2008, until her sudden "death".</td>
</tr>
</table>
Although the author of this gem is unknown, I have always suspected [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Giano_II User: Giano] whose beautifully written prose articles and wonderfully dry sense of humor shine like gems amongst the rest of the ''dreck'' which passes for writing on Wikipedia. He certainly knows [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Catherine_de_Burgh/Catherine_Bonkbuster how to push buttons] without getting indefinitely banned, in spite of being seen as a troll almost universally among the higher cabals of Wikipedia. Giano's greatest achievement was creating the character Lady Catherine de Burgh, whose [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Candidate_statements/Catherine_de_Burgh/Questions_for_the_candidate bid to be elected] to Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee was stopped short by her very untimely death, although not before making some very arch statements:

''"Rumour is a very dangerous thing, just imagine if we were all to listen to every Wikipedia rumour and whisper. Goodness gracious one would believe every Arb and check-user were the mistress/lover of the other - or worse! - perish the thought. The only blackberries I have dear are in a crumble. The Arbcom is quite safe in my hands. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)"''

It might be said that Giano is perhaps the most successful Wikipedia artist of all time, having found (at least temporarily) a way of working within the confines of that highly ritualized society. It is also highly likely that, given his long history of conflicts with the Wikipedia establishment (right up to Jimbo Wales) that he will be banned at some point, proving once again that original thinking and creativity have no place in Wikipedia.

It is regrettable that the "weeding in/weeding out" process generally excludes those whose thinking is outside of what is accepted by the masses as "normal" and includes those whose role is to simply repeat that which is already known by all, without considering the consequences and implications of what is being said. That this is a popular viewpoint says much about our society and the role of Art and Artists within it.

Meanwhile, within the confines of Wikipedia, the mop-wielding administrators will continue to do battle with the unending stream of ''trolls'' until somebody finally pulls the plug on the servers, like so many monks trying to solve an infinite number of unsolvable zen koans. If the administrators would put their mops down for a minute and listen to what the ''trolls'' are saying, perhaps they might learn something.

==Image credits:==
*Vic Kirilove photos, © Vic Kirilove, all rights reserved, used with permission. [http://www.kirilove.com kirilove.com].
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comcast2aLR.jpg Comcast Center], photo by User:Photodavid]. *[http://www.flickr.com/photos/thekohser/ Troll and Electric Knife, © by Gregory Kohs] all rights reserved, used with permission.
*[http://wikipediaart.org/wiki/index.php?title=Image:Wikipedia_Art.png Wikipedia Art logo], GNU Free Documentation License 1.2

==Comments==

16 Responses to “ In the eye of the beholder ”

Comments RSS

Barry Kort
Spitting In the Eye of the Bescolder

In the gray area between True and False, there lies the Unknown, the Unknowable, and Art.

Sincerity and Intent are notoriously hard to judge in a cyber-culture like Wikipedia. In the end, it comes down to a personal opinion, a haphazard theory of mind about another character, based on a handful of encounters in a bizarro online world.

Notwithstanding the taboo against original research, the discussion pages of Wikipedia are flush with novel characterizations in which rival editors are variously adjudged as disruptive trolls, tendentious PoV-pushers, vandals, meat puppets, clowns, and cranks.

Oddly enough, few of these challengers are characterized as artistes worthy of respect for illustrating the erratic process by which one reliably reckons authentic knowledge amidst a miasma of opinions, judgments, and idiosyncratic points of view.

My Continuing Adventures in Technology… » links for 2009-03-23
[...] Akahele | In the eye of the beholder (tags: art culture criticism internet wikipedia authorship online intent epistemology) [...]

Gregory Kohs
It may be appropriate at this time for me to take full credit for this artistic edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_knife&diff=next&oldid=177138881

Less than 30 hours later, the user account was indefinitely blocked for the crime of “vandalism”. The Wikipedia administrator who issued the block also happens to be a trans-gendered individual (which might suggest a conflict-of-interest surrounding “hip and buttock padding”), but who am I to say?

Nihiltres
“If the administrators would put their mops down for a minute and listen to what the trolls are saying, perhaps they might learn something.”

If so, what’s a reasonable way of dealing with edits designed to be disruptive? What do you suggest is the proper way to react?

It stands to reason that people who can’t behave within reasonable limits shouldn’t be listened to—being listened to is their goal, to get a reaction is their goal, and this goal is destructive. Satire and irony are one thing, but surely it is better for the goal of a constructive, collaborative project to filter out nonsense and so-called “trolling”.

P.S.: With all due respect to Mr. Kohs, the picture with the electric knife is hilarious

Gregory Kohs
Nihiltres is a Wikipedian with whom I’ve sparred (sometimes with less tact than I’d have wished) in various venues on the Internet. However, we have been participating amicably in the Yahoo! Answers forum regarding Wikipedia, for a number of weeks now. I have to say I am building a certain respect for this person, and his 68% “Best Answer” ratio in generating Answers on Yahoo! is simply phenomenal.

Now, that being said, I ask the dear readers to simply peruse some of the words that Nihiltres has entered into the discussion:

“disruptive”

“can’t behave”

“destructive”

But, he does show hope in at least noting that “Satire and irony are one thing…” STICK WITH THAT THOUGHT, Nihiltres. If you are capable of recognizing irony when it’s presented to you from the outside artist, might not you also be capable of recognizing irony when it surrounds you from within on a particular encyclopedia project?

Are you absolutely certain that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia? After nearly six years of existence, would not someone by now have served on the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees who has professional experience in reference publishing?

If you’re wearing a live chicken on your head, but you insist that it’s a fedora, is it our responsibility to not “disrupt” you from your notions, “behave” ourselves, and try to not be “destructive” in telling you things might not be as they seem to you?

Paul Wehage
@Nihiltres, thank you for the compliment about the photo of Mr. Kohs. It’s under his copyright and he very generously agreed to share it with us for the humorous note it gives the article.

The business about “hip and buttock” padding on the “electric knife” article is a long standing joke on WR, but it does beg the question of why the person who made the sourced statement (dismembering spouses) was banned and why the person who made the unsourced statement (”hip and buttock padding for transvestites”) was allowed to continue editing without as much as a warning, in spite of the clear breach of policy?

In hindsight, we now know that the person who ended up banning the person who challenged the “hip and buttock” padding was later discovered to be trans gendered herself. So who was making the disruptive edits? Who was banned? Are you sure that you can completely state who was the troll and who was the encyclopedist in this situation?

The whole point of this article is that WP editors are much too quick to call “troll” when they can’t really know what the other person is trying to say. Self-criticism is a good start here: even the WP cabal has come around to this idea, given the number of card-carrying members who now post on the Wikipedia Review.

The Wikipedia Art project was handled with a bit more tact, yet it created a great deal of bad blood between the artists and Wikipedia, as their site points out. These people are serious, notable artists. Why are they excluded from participating because you people can’t understand what they were trying to do? Why have you allowed this to remain in this state, without trying to at least understand the motivations and actions? Why is it always a one way street to Bansville with you people?

Maybe you need to think about what you’re doing and why because it sure isn’t adding up to “the sum of all human knowledge” with de-facto exclusions such as this.

Barry Kort
“What’s a reasonable way of dealing with edits designed to be disruptive? What do you suggest is the proper way to react?”

The first thing to do is to verify the hypothesis that an edit is “designed to be disruptive.” Can you tell me how you establish a reliable theory of mind regarding another editor’s intentions?

However, if one is disturbed or upset by an unexpected edit, a reasonable way to react is to 1) candidly disclose that one is surprised, disturbed, or upset, 2) inquire if that was the intended reaction, and 3) inquire further as to the editor’s intended purpose.

It occurs to me that jumping to a haphazard conclusion about another editor’s intentions is a classic recipe for absurdist drama.

Nihiltres
Rather, I think it is one’s responsibility to not rip the chicken from the person’s head and cook them something like in that picture I found so amusing above. Instead, perhaps merely holding up a mirror will do the trick—if it turns out that the chicken is a pet by the name of Fedora…

Nihiltres
My previous comment might make less sense than I thought it did, especially in the light of the comments I missed by leaving the window open for a long time. :/

I find the responses interesting, (and indeed I acknowledge that you’re right about the importance of a theory of mind, though I want to point out that it’s not black-and-white) and think it would be worthwhile to continue this conversation in a better forum than a blog comment system.

Perhaps I’ll get around to registering an account on Wikipedia Review; while I dislike the atmosphere there, if discussion there could produce ideas to improve Wikipedia without sacrificing its nature*, it would be constructive.

*that is, sacrificing those elements which are arguably strengths of Wikipedia, such as open editing. Nupedia’s already been proven to not work.

Barry Kort
There are two or three alternative venues that can be used for a serious round-table discussion.

Emperor
Ah the infamous electric knife, with “cheeto-colored beaver teeth”. Good times.

Speaking of trolling, readers might be interested in the SureFire M6 Guardian article, and Jimmy Wales’ response to the creation of the article. He titles it, “A little advice from an Internet old timer about trolls”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASureFire_M6_Guardian&diff=177094663&oldid=177092001

Jon Awbrey
It appears that Akahele has quickly, all too quickly reached that old Kierkegaardian Either-Or — it will have to choose Either the response of the conversional aesthete, running the mill from effete to hysterical, Or it will have to convert the moral outrage that is our due into the concerted action that it will take to ameliorate, not celebrate the Absurd.

Paul Wehage
Shouldn’t one first try to examine the underlying patterns and reactions to THE ABSURD in order to find the underlying meaning in all of this? If you haven’t defined the problem, you certainly can’t solve it. An examination of intent seems to be necessary in understanding the dynamics.

Jon Awbrey
Re: “An examination of intent seems to be necessary in understanding the dynamics.”

Observation of the dynamics is necessary to form a fair hypothesis about the intent.

Just how long do you plan on staring at this particular cobra before you do that?

Paul Wehage
Well, Mr. Awbrey, why don’t you write a piece about what should be happening? We’re going to be opening up to other contributors pretty soon…

Violet Vernon
If I had a nickel for every time I came to akahele.org! Great read!

Directory:Akahele/In the eye of the beholder

2010-10-22T23:00:14Z

Raf: /* Wikipedia's core policies and creativity */

<table style="float: left; text-align: left; height: 190px;" border="0" width="160
<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/kirilove2-150x150.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: left; Performance Artist Vic Kirilove and his Journal-de-Boörd project.</td>
</tr>
</table>
[http://www.kirilove.com Vic Kirilove] is the latest enigma to come out of the Paris Art scene. Arriving unannounced at prestigious art galleries and openings with his faithful press agent [http://www.youtube.com/milenavlasenska Milena Vlasenka], a sound man, and a lighting operator, Kirilove carries a camera which is obviously not real, but which contains a real camera. He "records" what he calls "the superposition of true and false" in the context of making " fiction on the sites of temples of social fiction".

As his website states: ''Vic Kirilove capte les circonstances de l’échange où se mettent en place les structures de vérité.'' (Vic Kirilove captures the circumstances of the exchange in which the structures of truth are put into place.)

<table style="float: left; text-align: right;" border="0" width="150
<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/insitu5-150x150.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: left; A Kirilove performance.</td>
</tr>
</table>
Indeed, in the highly ritualized art world, where value is determined by image, and where social connections and representation often take the place of true artistic content and ideas, Vic Kirilove presents a mirror where the fake camera is actually a real camera recording the events that people are creating for the "performance".

The boundaries of ''what is true'' and ''what is false'' are intentionally blurred, to create a climate which provokes questions about the motivations of everyone present at the event. The art in this case is not in the creation of an object or the realization of an idea, but rather in the form of a mirror presented to the audience itself, underlining their reactions and their motivations for being objects of representation.

==Wikipedia and Art: Love at first flash==

Wikipedia is another [http://akahele.org/2009/03/world-of-wikipediacraft highly ritualized, complex society] which is concerned with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:AfD_debates_(Fiction_and_the_arts) evaluating the value of artists and Art]. And in this world of worker bees documenting, organizing, and protecting the "sum of all human knowledge", Art is not only serious business, but also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Loves_Art something which Wikipedia loves]. However, it would seem that the art which Wikipedia supposedly loves so dearly as to convert it into "a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest", is probably extremely far from the Art that someone like Vic Kirilove is creating. Although the definition in Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art&oldid=277296421 ''Art'' article] might suggest otherwise:
<blockquote>Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music and literature. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as Aesthetics.</blockquote>
The image of well-scrubbed young American teenagers running around museums taking photos of Art works which have been deemed worthy of display in prominent venues seems like a rather constructive way to get these bright young minds interested in their own cultural heritage. The picture is indeed extremely pretty, but to borrow a phrase, ''is it Art?''

==The Question of Intent==

The honest answer is ''perhaps''. If these industrious photographers are having an aesthetic reaction to the objects that they are photographing, then Art can be said to be taking place. However, what if they're only taking the pictures in order to document the objects for the corresponding articles? Are they considering what the meaning of these objects might be? And what about these prizes? It looks an awful lot like a carrot-and-stick mentality is at work here, rather than the pure artistic pleasure of experiencing a work of art.

The fundamental determining factor in an artistic experience is <strong>intent</strong>; either that of the artist, that of the observer, or both. In the case of ''Wikipedia Loves Art'', the observer seems to be motivated probably by documenting the object and not reacting to it, other than to capture its form on film. In a contrary manner, Vic Kirilove has provided a mirror in which the reality of truth and artifice is reflected back to the observer, who then becomes a willing or unwilling participant in the Art itself.

Which act is closer to Wikipedia's own definition of Art?

==Wikipedia's core policies and creativity==
<table style="float: left; text-align: left;" border="0" width="150 />
<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/250px-comcast2alr-150x150.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption />A photo can also be a violation of the "No original research" policy.</td>
</tr>
</table>
Wikipedia is governed by any number of core policies, which are supposedly enforced equally on all editors, but which in practice are often conveniently "forgotten" for editors who are established personalities. The three most important of these policies are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research no original research], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view neutral point of view], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability verifiability, not truth]. What these core policies effectively do is exclude all original thinking and any notion of creativity, and instead simply reporting what is said, rather than what is known. Wikipedia editors are not supposed to reason, much less create, but rather are supposed to take what has already been said, and simply restate the ideas using different words. Thus, it may be reckoned that by these three core policies Wikipedia effectively excludes any artistic activity from its encyclopedia articles. Sometimes editors are allowed to be creative, as was the designer of the digitally-altered photo shown above, but often these types of contributions are excluded because of the way the three core policies are interpreted.

The reason that the three core policies exist is a matter of much discussion. As the point of Wikipedia is presented as ''the creation of a free, open-source encyclopedia'' using the collected contributions of ''everyone'', one possible theory is that Wikipedia is intended as an expression of ''what everybody knows.'' Artists, as well as other theoretical thinkers whose vision is often uniquely personal, must be excluded from this equation, as they are not just ''anybody''. Another more concrete reason may be [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1354424 the way in which Wikipedia handles individuals who do not conform to its core policies and ideals], through an "inclusion/exclusion" process which has been described as "weeding in/weeding out". But perhaps the main reason is the eternal and inherent conflict in the relationship between the Artist and Society...

==Art as a mirror of social reality==

The Artist as a mirror that reflects truth back to Society has often been the cause of conflict. The long list of artists in the very provincial German city of Weimar (from Göethe to Nina Hagen, via the ''Bauhaus'' crowd) who were forced to leave the city because of the negative reactions of the stuffy bourgeois residents is one very fine example of this type of exclusion of artists by a strongly conventional society.

Another fine example of this process is the Lyrical Satire [http://www.classicalmusicnow.com/tailleferre-pn.htm ''Il était un petit Navire''] that [http://www.classicalmusicnow.com/Tailleferrebiography.htm Germaine Tailleferre] of Les Six wrote with the French screenwriter [href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Jeanson Henri Jeanson] (who wrote the screen plays for ''Pepe Le Moko'', ''Hôtel du Nord'', and many other great French films of the 1950s). The work was written specifically to not only make fun of operas, but also of the people who go see them. At the end of the work, the Heroine goes to the front of the stage and sings :

<blockquote>The curtain is going up for you now! Please collect your roles at the coat check and go back to playing the same games that you've been playing so well for so long!</blockquote>

Even though everything was done to downplay the scandal, even to the point of cutting the work to almost half its intended length, the first performance demonstrated that Jeanson's libretto coupled with Tailleferre's music created a mirror which reflected an image back to the audience that was too true to be acceptable. Their reactions were, according to critic Henri Barraud in ''Musical America'', extremely violent:

<blockquote>...the most exciting first performance that Paris has seen in many, many years. The gallery let loose with a storm of invective against the authors and actors, shouting disapproval and demanding its money back. The people in the orchestra and the first balconies, fortified by a large group of invited guests, tried to offset the hostile outcries with their applause.</blockquote>

The Artist creates a mirror and the audience looks at their own reflection through the Artist's actions. When what is reflected back is neither what the audience expects nor wants, hostility is generally the predictable reaction.

What do you suppose happens when this type of allegorical mirror is directed at Wikipedia?

==Wikipedia...Art?==
<table style="float: right; text-align: left;" border="0" width="150
<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/180px-wikipedia_art-copy-150x150.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption the official logo of the Wikipedia Art project.</td>
</tr>
</table>
On February 14, 2009, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Kildall Scott Kildall] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Stern Nathaniel Stern] created ''Wikipedia Art'' by posting [http://wikipediaart.org/wiki/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Art&oldid=211 an article of the same name] on Wikipedia. ''Wikipedia Art'' was defined as :

''"an art intervention which explicitly invites performative utterances in order to change the work itself. The ongoing composition and performance of Wikipedia Art is intended to point to the 'invisible authors and authorities' of Wikipedia, and by extension the Internet,[2] as well as the site's extant criticisms: bias, consensus over credentials, reliability and accuracy, vandalism, etc... like knowledge and like art, Wikipedia Art is always already variable.

The project is 'similar to [http://andrewkeen.typepad.com/ Andrew Keen's] complaints of Wikipedia as being an unreasonable request upon internet society to create cultural foundations (encyclopedias, art media, etc) without compensation, thus devaluing production."''

The Wikipedia Art project manifesto uses obvious cues to express that it will attempt to follow Wikipedia core polices, yet makes the probably fatal error of naming Andrew Keen, who is seen as a key Wikipedia opponent. The authors are clearly using Wikipedia as a reference, reflecting the bureaucratic structure and highly ritualized practices back to the very society that has created them. How could we expect this Society to react to this mirror image?

The reaction was like oil and water, with discussion taking place immediately on several areas within Wikipedia itself. The Wikipedia Art article lasted for fifteen hours until it was removed from Wikipedia through [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_Art Wikipedia's deletion process] and generated [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29&oldid=271062016#Help._I_have_created_a_monster.21 an extremely long discussion] on Wikipedia's ''Village Pump'' page. In the middle of the ''exceedingly polite discussion'' as to whether or not this article should be kept, there is another much more burning question which is only fleetingly touched upon in certain comments: ''Are we being had?'' In other words, is this serious or is this a big joke? Or, to put it another way, ''what is the intent?'' Werdna, the user name of the administrator who closed this debate seems to make a judgment in his comments on the Village Pump :

''I ended the circus as a routine A7. — Werdna • talk 06:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)''

Note the disparaging remark, and the return to normalcy via the Wikipedia-specific alphanumeric jargon. ''Those art trolls aren't going to pull the wool over our eyes! No sir! '' Unfortunately for him, Werdna [http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/vlog/ScenesOfProvincialLife.cgi/2009/02/15#post298 discovered too late the perils of confronting the Art World] head on! (A history of the project from the point of view of the artists is available [http://wikipediaart.org/brief-history/ here]).

<strong>The end product of the conflict: Vandalism</strong>

Around the same time the Wikipedia Art project was going on, police in Stockholm, Sweden were [http://www.thelocal.se/17660/20090218/ investigating the case] of an art student who had filmed the vandalism of a subway train as part of his final project for Art School. Another student [http://www.thelocal.se/17268/20090130/ pretended to be be psychotic] and went as far as arranging to be committed to a psychiatric hospital.

The artist who seeks to express his views of society to generate a reaction may resort to many strategies, which may include [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin/Poetgate role-playing], [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18309 vandalism ] or ideas which are merely [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Shii/Hoaxes&oldid=276937327 creations of the fertile imagination of the Artist]. Of course, many non-artists also use these same strategies for other aims. The question is: how does one tell who is an artist and who is a psychotic, especially in an environment where just about everyone is a pseudonym to begin with?

<strong>Wiki-projections and the question of intent</strong>

The answer is: ''you can't'', unless you can know the intent of the person involved. In the Web 2.0 world, where pseudonyms are the rule rather than the exception, you can't know the intent of the person making a given statement, but you can make guesses as to what you think the person might be implying. These types of projections, especially in text-only settings where vocal and facial cues are absent, often lead to conclusions which have more to say about the people making the judgment rather than the speaker.

For example, in [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23304 this thread on the Wikipedia Review] which discusses an article entitled [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_search_prank_call_scam The Strip Search Prank Call Scam], participants made judgments about the principals in the story based on their personal feelings about the incident, rather than by using the sources or the evidence. Clearly, a great deal of projection as to the intent of the people involved was being generated.

This type of emotional judgment of intent is typical of the core group of Wikipedia editors, with all people outside of their behavioral expectations being labeled with the same generic term: <strong>Troll</strong>.

<strong>Positive Trolling for the greater good of Mankind</strong>

<table style="float: left; text-align: left;" border="0" width="150
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3177/2799642335_0816a4f213.jpg" alt="A troll and his electric knife" height="200" width="150" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption A troll and his electric knife.</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>

People who are seen as ''trolls'' by those in power at Wikipedia are often those who are simply pointing out flaws in the way Wikipedia works, or rather in the way it doesn't work. To give one famous example, for quite a while [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_knife&oldid=168689419 the Wikipedia article for ''Electric knife''] contained the following text :

QUOTE (Wikipedia, "Electric knife" @ 12/10/07)
<strong>They are also sometimes used for other purposes, such as shaping polyurethane foam rubber to make [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hip_and_buttock_padding&oldid=161678268 hip and buttock padding]</strong>.

Because this particular use of the electric knife was difficult to source and sounded rather odd, a "thoughtful" editor added [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_knife&diff=next&oldid=177138881 another use for electric knives] which was easier to source. This was seen as ''trolling'' by other Wikipedia editors, but it did serve to point out that the other information about padding was perhaps not necessary for a general-purpose encyclopedia. While one cannot know whether or not this edit was "artistic", the effect of the edit itself served to underline the true motivations of the initial editor, bringing into light the existence of a hidden agenda. In this sense, it may be seen as an artistic action, whether or not an artistic intent was indeed present, as the result was a reaction from both participants and [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=14505 spectators].

The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wet_floor_sign&oldid=210932395 original incarnation of the "Wet Floor sign" article] is perhaps my favorite example of possibly artistic Wikipedia vandalism, underlining many major faults of Wikipedia practice, the foremost of which is taking everything much too seriously. The last paragraph is particularly stunning in its pretentious and vapid tone :

''There is currently a debate within the intelligentsia and within the population as a whole concerning the worthiness of treating the 'wet-floor sign' as a subject of inquiry, independent of the more general topic of 'signs.' On the one side are those scholars such as the present writer, who view each and every type of sign as a unique contribution to civilization's wealth and security, just as each individual human is perfectly independent of others and is endowed with certain unalienable rights: rights held by the individual, not the collective. These scholars understand the incredible value of a wet-floor sign. A wet-floor sign warns. It teaches. It promotes bilingualism. It enhances the aesthetics of an environment. It prevents injury. It is yellow and has a man falling down on it. On the other side of the debate are those who wish to censor; those who wish to label; those who wish to limit the debate; those who wish limit expression of a person's, an object's individual characteristics. They argue that by knowing what a 'sign' is, we obviously know what a 'wet-floor sign' is. They argue that there is no difference between a sign that proclaims "WET FLOOR" and a sign that proclaims "START LINE HERE." They argue that it is unnecessary to specialize one's knowledge, to understand uniqueness, to consider the small things around us. They argue that 'a sign is a sign, no matter what it says.' This debate continues, and its conclusion will determine humanity's intellectual future.''

<table style="float: right; text-align: center;" border="0" width="199
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c5/CdeB2.jpg" alt="Lady Catherine Augusta Amelia Gladys de Burgh was a candidate for the ArbCom elections in 2008, until her sudden death" width="199" height="290" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: left; Lady Catherine Augusta Amelia Gladys de Burgh was a candidate for the ArbCom elections in 2008, until her sudden "death".</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
Although the author of this gem is unknown, I have always suspected [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Giano_II User: Giano] whose beautifully written prose articles and wonderfully dry sense of humor shine like gems amongst the rest of the ''dreck'' which passes for writing on Wikipedia. He certainly knows [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Catherine_de_Burgh/Catherine_Bonkbuster how to push buttons] without getting indefinitely banned, in spite of being seen as a troll almost universally among the higher cabals of Wikipedia. Giano's greatest achievement was creating the character Lady Catherine de Burgh, whose [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Candidate_statements/Catherine_de_Burgh/Questions_for_the_candidate bid to be elected] to Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee was stopped short by her very untimely death, although not before making some very arch statements:

''"Rumour is a very dangerous thing, just imagine if we were all to listen to every Wikipedia rumour and whisper. Goodness gracious one would believe every Arb and check-user were the mistress/lover of the other - or worse! - perish the thought. The only blackberries I have dear are in a crumble. The Arbcom is quite safe in my hands. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)"''

It might be said that Giano is perhaps the most successful Wikipedia artist of all time, having found (at least temporarily) a way of working within the confines of that highly ritualized society. It is also highly likely that, given his long history of conflicts with the Wikipedia establishment (right up to Jimbo Wales) that he will be banned at some point, proving once again that original thinking and creativity have no place in Wikipedia.

It is regrettable that the "weeding in/weeding out" process generally excludes those whose thinking is outside of what is accepted by the masses as "normal" and includes those whose role is to simply repeat that which is already known by all, without considering the consequences and implications of what is being said. That this is a popular viewpoint says much about our society and the role of Art and Artists within it.

Meanwhile, within the confines of Wikipedia, the mop-wielding administrators will continue to do battle with the unending stream of ''trolls'' until somebody finally pulls the plug on the servers, like so many monks trying to solve an infinite number of unsolvable zen koans. If the administrators would put their mops down for a minute and listen to what the ''trolls'' are saying, perhaps they might learn something.

<h4>Image credits:</h4>
<li><span style="color: #000000; Vic Kirilove photos, © Vic Kirilove, all rights reserved, used with permission <a title="©" href="http://www.kirilove.com" target="_blank <span class="comment kirilove.com</span>].</span></li>
<li><span style="color: #000000; Comcast Center, <a title="CC" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comcast2aLR.jpg" target="_blank <span class="comment photo by User: Photodavid</span>].</span></li>
<li><span style="color: #000000; Troll and Electric Knife, © by Gregory Kohs, <a title="©" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/thekohser/" target="_blank <span class="comment all rights reserved, used with permission</span>].</span></li>
<li><span style="color: #000000; Wikipedia Art logo, <a title="GNU" href="http://wikipediaart.org/wiki/index.php?title=Image:Wikipedia_Art.png" target="_blank <span class="comment GNU Free Documentation License 1.2</span>].</span></li>

==Comments==

16 Responses to “ In the eye of the beholder ”

Comments RSS

Barry Kort
Spitting In the Eye of the Bescolder

In the gray area between True and False, there lies the Unknown, the Unknowable, and Art.

Sincerity and Intent are notoriously hard to judge in a cyber-culture like Wikipedia. In the end, it comes down to a personal opinion, a haphazard theory of mind about another character, based on a handful of encounters in a bizarro online world.

Notwithstanding the taboo against original research, the discussion pages of Wikipedia are flush with novel characterizations in which rival editors are variously adjudged as disruptive trolls, tendentious PoV-pushers, vandals, meat puppets, clowns, and cranks.

Oddly enough, few of these challengers are characterized as artistes worthy of respect for illustrating the erratic process by which one reliably reckons authentic knowledge amidst a miasma of opinions, judgments, and idiosyncratic points of view.

My Continuing Adventures in Technology… » links for 2009-03-23
[...] Akahele | In the eye of the beholder (tags: art culture criticism internet wikipedia authorship online intent epistemology) [...]

Gregory Kohs
It may be appropriate at this time for me to take full credit for this artistic edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_knife&diff=next&oldid=177138881

Less than 30 hours later, the user account was indefinitely blocked for the crime of “vandalism”. The Wikipedia administrator who issued the block also happens to be a trans-gendered individual (which might suggest a conflict-of-interest surrounding “hip and buttock padding”), but who am I to say?

Nihiltres
“If the administrators would put their mops down for a minute and listen to what the trolls are saying, perhaps they might learn something.”

If so, what’s a reasonable way of dealing with edits designed to be disruptive? What do you suggest is the proper way to react?

It stands to reason that people who can’t behave within reasonable limits shouldn’t be listened to—being listened to is their goal, to get a reaction is their goal, and this goal is destructive. Satire and irony are one thing, but surely it is better for the goal of a constructive, collaborative project to filter out nonsense and so-called “trolling”.

P.S.: With all due respect to Mr. Kohs, the picture with the electric knife is hilarious

Gregory Kohs
Nihiltres is a Wikipedian with whom I’ve sparred (sometimes with less tact than I’d have wished) in various venues on the Internet. However, we have been participating amicably in the Yahoo! Answers forum regarding Wikipedia, for a number of weeks now. I have to say I am building a certain respect for this person, and his 68% “Best Answer” ratio in generating Answers on Yahoo! is simply phenomenal.

Now, that being said, I ask the dear readers to simply peruse some of the words that Nihiltres has entered into the discussion:

“disruptive”

“can’t behave”

“destructive”

But, he does show hope in at least noting that “Satire and irony are one thing…” STICK WITH THAT THOUGHT, Nihiltres. If you are capable of recognizing irony when it’s presented to you from the outside artist, might not you also be capable of recognizing irony when it surrounds you from within on a particular encyclopedia project?

Are you absolutely certain that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia? After nearly six years of existence, would not someone by now have served on the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees who has professional experience in reference publishing?

If you’re wearing a live chicken on your head, but you insist that it’s a fedora, is it our responsibility to not “disrupt” you from your notions, “behave” ourselves, and try to not be “destructive” in telling you things might not be as they seem to you?

Paul Wehage
@Nihiltres, thank you for the compliment about the photo of Mr. Kohs. It’s under his copyright and he very generously agreed to share it with us for the humorous note it gives the article.

The business about “hip and buttock” padding on the “electric knife” article is a long standing joke on WR, but it does beg the question of why the person who made the sourced statement (dismembering spouses) was banned and why the person who made the unsourced statement (”hip and buttock padding for transvestites”) was allowed to continue editing without as much as a warning, in spite of the clear breach of policy?

In hindsight, we now know that the person who ended up banning the person who challenged the “hip and buttock” padding was later discovered to be trans gendered herself. So who was making the disruptive edits? Who was banned? Are you sure that you can completely state who was the troll and who was the encyclopedist in this situation?

The whole point of this article is that WP editors are much too quick to call “troll” when they can’t really know what the other person is trying to say. Self-criticism is a good start here: even the WP cabal has come around to this idea, given the number of card-carrying members who now post on the Wikipedia Review.

The Wikipedia Art project was handled with a bit more tact, yet it created a great deal of bad blood between the artists and Wikipedia, as their site points out. These people are serious, notable artists. Why are they excluded from participating because you people can’t understand what they were trying to do? Why have you allowed this to remain in this state, without trying to at least understand the motivations and actions? Why is it always a one way street to Bansville with you people?

Maybe you need to think about what you’re doing and why because it sure isn’t adding up to “the sum of all human knowledge” with de-facto exclusions such as this.

Barry Kort
“What’s a reasonable way of dealing with edits designed to be disruptive? What do you suggest is the proper way to react?”

The first thing to do is to verify the hypothesis that an edit is “designed to be disruptive.” Can you tell me how you establish a reliable theory of mind regarding another editor’s intentions?

However, if one is disturbed or upset by an unexpected edit, a reasonable way to react is to 1) candidly disclose that one is surprised, disturbed, or upset, 2) inquire if that was the intended reaction, and 3) inquire further as to the editor’s intended purpose.

It occurs to me that jumping to a haphazard conclusion about another editor’s intentions is a classic recipe for absurdist drama.

Nihiltres
Rather, I think it is one’s responsibility to not rip the chicken from the person’s head and cook them something like in that picture I found so amusing above. Instead, perhaps merely holding up a mirror will do the trick—if it turns out that the chicken is a pet by the name of Fedora…

Nihiltres
My previous comment might make less sense than I thought it did, especially in the light of the comments I missed by leaving the window open for a long time. :/

I find the responses interesting, (and indeed I acknowledge that you’re right about the importance of a theory of mind, though I want to point out that it’s not black-and-white) and think it would be worthwhile to continue this conversation in a better forum than a blog comment system.

Perhaps I’ll get around to registering an account on Wikipedia Review; while I dislike the atmosphere there, if discussion there could produce ideas to improve Wikipedia without sacrificing its nature*, it would be constructive.

*that is, sacrificing those elements which are arguably strengths of Wikipedia, such as open editing. Nupedia’s already been proven to not work.

Barry Kort
There are two or three alternative venues that can be used for a serious round-table discussion.

Emperor
Ah the infamous electric knife, with “cheeto-colored beaver teeth”. Good times.

Speaking of trolling, readers might be interested in the SureFire M6 Guardian article, and Jimmy Wales’ response to the creation of the article. He titles it, “A little advice from an Internet old timer about trolls”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASureFire_M6_Guardian&diff=177094663&oldid=177092001

Jon Awbrey
It appears that Akahele has quickly, all too quickly reached that old Kierkegaardian Either-Or — it will have to choose Either the response of the conversional aesthete, running the mill from effete to hysterical, Or it will have to convert the moral outrage that is our due into the concerted action that it will take to ameliorate, not celebrate the Absurd.

Paul Wehage
Shouldn’t one first try to examine the underlying patterns and reactions to THE ABSURD in order to find the underlying meaning in all of this? If you haven’t defined the problem, you certainly can’t solve it. An examination of intent seems to be necessary in understanding the dynamics.

Jon Awbrey
Re: “An examination of intent seems to be necessary in understanding the dynamics.”

Observation of the dynamics is necessary to form a fair hypothesis about the intent.

Just how long do you plan on staring at this particular cobra before you do that?

Paul Wehage
Well, Mr. Awbrey, why don’t you write a piece about what should be happening? We’re going to be opening up to other contributors pretty soon…

Violet Vernon
If I had a nickel for every time I came to akahele.org! Great read!

Directory:Akahele/In the eye of the beholder

2010-10-22T22:57:19Z

Raf: converted links

<table style="float: left; text-align: left; height: 190px;" border="0" width="160
<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/kirilove2-150x150.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: left; Performance Artist Vic Kirilove and his Journal-de-Boörd project.</td>
</tr>
</table>
[http://www.kirilove.com Vic Kirilove] is the latest enigma to come out of the Paris Art scene. Arriving unannounced at prestigious art galleries and openings with his faithful press agent [http://www.youtube.com/milenavlasenska Milena Vlasenka], a sound man, and a lighting operator, Kirilove carries a camera which is obviously not real, but which contains a real camera. He "records" what he calls "the superposition of true and false" in the context of making " fiction on the sites of temples of social fiction".

As his website states: ''Vic Kirilove capte les circonstances de l’échange où se mettent en place les structures de vérité.'' (Vic Kirilove captures the circumstances of the exchange in which the structures of truth are put into place.)

<table style="float: left; text-align: right;" border="0" width="150
<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/insitu5-150x150.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: left; A Kirilove performance.</td>
</tr>
</table>
Indeed, in the highly ritualized art world, where value is determined by image, and where social connections and representation often take the place of true artistic content and ideas, Vic Kirilove presents a mirror where the fake camera is actually a real camera recording the events that people are creating for the "performance".

The boundaries of ''what is true'' and ''what is false'' are intentionally blurred, to create a climate which provokes questions about the motivations of everyone present at the event. The art in this case is not in the creation of an object or the realization of an idea, but rather in the form of a mirror presented to the audience itself, underlining their reactions and their motivations for being objects of representation.

==Wikipedia and Art: Love at first flash==

Wikipedia is another [http://akahele.org/2009/03/world-of-wikipediacraft highly ritualized, complex society] which is concerned with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:AfD_debates_(Fiction_and_the_arts) evaluating the value of artists and Art]. And in this world of worker bees documenting, organizing, and protecting the "sum of all human knowledge", Art is not only serious business, but also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Loves_Art something which Wikipedia loves]. However, it would seem that the art which Wikipedia supposedly loves so dearly as to convert it into "a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest", is probably extremely far from the Art that someone like Vic Kirilove is creating. Although the definition in Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art&oldid=277296421 ''Art'' article] might suggest otherwise:
<blockquote>Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music and literature. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as Aesthetics.</blockquote>
The image of well-scrubbed young American teenagers running around museums taking photos of Art works which have been deemed worthy of display in prominent venues seems like a rather constructive way to get these bright young minds interested in their own cultural heritage. The picture is indeed extremely pretty, but to borrow a phrase, ''is it Art?''

==The Question of Intent==

The honest answer is ''perhaps''. If these industrious photographers are having an aesthetic reaction to the objects that they are photographing, then Art can be said to be taking place. However, what if they're only taking the pictures in order to document the objects for the corresponding articles? Are they considering what the meaning of these objects might be? And what about these prizes? It looks an awful lot like a carrot-and-stick mentality is at work here, rather than the pure artistic pleasure of experiencing a work of art.

The fundamental determining factor in an artistic experience is <strong>intent</strong>; either that of the artist, that of the observer, or both. In the case of ''Wikipedia Loves Art'', the observer seems to be motivated probably by documenting the object and not reacting to it, other than to capture its form on film. In a contrary manner, Vic Kirilove has provided a mirror in which the reality of truth and artifice is reflected back to the observer, who then becomes a willing or unwilling participant in the Art itself.

Which act is closer to Wikipedia's own definition of Art?

==Wikipedia's core policies and creativity==
<table style="float: left; text-align: left;" border="0" width="150
<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/250px-comcast2alr-150x150.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption A photo can also be a violation of the "No original research" policy.</td>
</tr>
</table>
Wikipedia is governed by any number of core policies, which are supposedly enforced equally on all editors, but which in practice are often conveniently "forgotten" for editors who are established personalities. The three most important of these policies are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research no original research], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view neutral point of view], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability verifiability, not truth]. What these core policies effectively do is exclude all original thinking and any notion of creativity, and instead simply reporting what is said, rather than what is known. Wikipedia editors are not supposed to reason, much less create, but rather are supposed to take what has already been said, and simply restate the ideas using different words. Thus, it may be reckoned that by these three core policies Wikipedia effectively excludes any artistic activity from its encyclopedia articles. Sometimes editors are allowed to be creative, as was the designer of the digitally-altered photo shown above, but often these types of contributions are excluded because of the way the three core policies are interpreted.

The reason that the three core policies exist is a matter of much discussion. As the point of Wikipedia is presented as ''the creation of a free, open-source encyclopedia'' using the collected contributions of ''everyone'', one possible theory is that Wikipedia is intended as an expression of ''what everybody knows.'' Artists, as well as other theoretical thinkers whose vision is often uniquely personal, must be excluded from this equation, as they are not just ''anybody''. Another more concrete reason may be [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1354424 the way in which Wikipedia handles individuals who do not conform to its core policies and ideals], through an "inclusion/exclusion" process which has been described as "weeding in/weeding out". But perhaps the main reason is the eternal and inherent conflict in the relationship between the Artist and Society...

==Art as a mirror of social reality==

The Artist as a mirror that reflects truth back to Society has often been the cause of conflict. The long list of artists in the very provincial German city of Weimar (from Göethe to Nina Hagen, via the ''Bauhaus'' crowd) who were forced to leave the city because of the negative reactions of the stuffy bourgeois residents is one very fine example of this type of exclusion of artists by a strongly conventional society.

Another fine example of this process is the Lyrical Satire [http://www.classicalmusicnow.com/tailleferre-pn.htm ''Il était un petit Navire''] that [http://www.classicalmusicnow.com/Tailleferrebiography.htm Germaine Tailleferre] of Les Six wrote with the French screenwriter [href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Jeanson Henri Jeanson] (who wrote the screen plays for ''Pepe Le Moko'', ''Hôtel du Nord'', and many other great French films of the 1950s). The work was written specifically to not only make fun of operas, but also of the people who go see them. At the end of the work, the Heroine goes to the front of the stage and sings :

<blockquote>The curtain is going up for you now! Please collect your roles at the coat check and go back to playing the same games that you've been playing so well for so long!</blockquote>

Even though everything was done to downplay the scandal, even to the point of cutting the work to almost half its intended length, the first performance demonstrated that Jeanson's libretto coupled with Tailleferre's music created a mirror which reflected an image back to the audience that was too true to be acceptable. Their reactions were, according to critic Henri Barraud in ''Musical America'', extremely violent:

<blockquote>...the most exciting first performance that Paris has seen in many, many years. The gallery let loose with a storm of invective against the authors and actors, shouting disapproval and demanding its money back. The people in the orchestra and the first balconies, fortified by a large group of invited guests, tried to offset the hostile outcries with their applause.</blockquote>

The Artist creates a mirror and the audience looks at their own reflection through the Artist's actions. When what is reflected back is neither what the audience expects nor wants, hostility is generally the predictable reaction.

What do you suppose happens when this type of allegorical mirror is directed at Wikipedia?

==Wikipedia...Art?==
<table style="float: right; text-align: left;" border="0" width="150
<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/180px-wikipedia_art-copy-150x150.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption the official logo of the Wikipedia Art project.</td>
</tr>
</table>
On February 14, 2009, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Kildall Scott Kildall] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Stern Nathaniel Stern] created ''Wikipedia Art'' by posting [http://wikipediaart.org/wiki/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Art&oldid=211 an article of the same name] on Wikipedia. ''Wikipedia Art'' was defined as :

''"an art intervention which explicitly invites performative utterances in order to change the work itself. The ongoing composition and performance of Wikipedia Art is intended to point to the 'invisible authors and authorities' of Wikipedia, and by extension the Internet,[2] as well as the site's extant criticisms: bias, consensus over credentials, reliability and accuracy, vandalism, etc... like knowledge and like art, Wikipedia Art is always already variable.

The project is 'similar to [http://andrewkeen.typepad.com/ Andrew Keen's] complaints of Wikipedia as being an unreasonable request upon internet society to create cultural foundations (encyclopedias, art media, etc) without compensation, thus devaluing production."''

The Wikipedia Art project manifesto uses obvious cues to express that it will attempt to follow Wikipedia core polices, yet makes the probably fatal error of naming Andrew Keen, who is seen as a key Wikipedia opponent. The authors are clearly using Wikipedia as a reference, reflecting the bureaucratic structure and highly ritualized practices back to the very society that has created them. How could we expect this Society to react to this mirror image?

The reaction was like oil and water, with discussion taking place immediately on several areas within Wikipedia itself. The Wikipedia Art article lasted for fifteen hours until it was removed from Wikipedia through [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_Art Wikipedia's deletion process] and generated [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29&oldid=271062016#Help._I_have_created_a_monster.21 an extremely long discussion] on Wikipedia's ''Village Pump'' page. In the middle of the ''exceedingly polite discussion'' as to whether or not this article should be kept, there is another much more burning question which is only fleetingly touched upon in certain comments: ''Are we being had?'' In other words, is this serious or is this a big joke? Or, to put it another way, ''what is the intent?'' Werdna, the user name of the administrator who closed this debate seems to make a judgment in his comments on the Village Pump :

''I ended the circus as a routine A7. — Werdna • talk 06:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)''

Note the disparaging remark, and the return to normalcy via the Wikipedia-specific alphanumeric jargon. ''Those art trolls aren't going to pull the wool over our eyes! No sir! '' Unfortunately for him, Werdna [http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/vlog/ScenesOfProvincialLife.cgi/2009/02/15#post298 discovered too late the perils of confronting the Art World] head on! (A history of the project from the point of view of the artists is available [http://wikipediaart.org/brief-history/ here]).

<strong>The end product of the conflict: Vandalism</strong>

Around the same time the Wikipedia Art project was going on, police in Stockholm, Sweden were [http://www.thelocal.se/17660/20090218/ investigating the case] of an art student who had filmed the vandalism of a subway train as part of his final project for Art School. Another student [http://www.thelocal.se/17268/20090130/ pretended to be be psychotic] and went as far as arranging to be committed to a psychiatric hospital.

The artist who seeks to express his views of society to generate a reaction may resort to many strategies, which may include [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin/Poetgate role-playing], [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18309 vandalism ] or ideas which are merely [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Shii/Hoaxes&oldid=276937327 creations of the fertile imagination of the Artist]. Of course, many non-artists also use these same strategies for other aims. The question is: how does one tell who is an artist and who is a psychotic, especially in an environment where just about everyone is a pseudonym to begin with?

<strong>Wiki-projections and the question of intent</strong>

The answer is: ''you can't'', unless you can know the intent of the person involved. In the Web 2.0 world, where pseudonyms are the rule rather than the exception, you can't know the intent of the person making a given statement, but you can make guesses as to what you think the person might be implying. These types of projections, especially in text-only settings where vocal and facial cues are absent, often lead to conclusions which have more to say about the people making the judgment rather than the speaker.

For example, in [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23304 this thread on the Wikipedia Review] which discusses an article entitled [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_search_prank_call_scam The Strip Search Prank Call Scam], participants made judgments about the principals in the story based on their personal feelings about the incident, rather than by using the sources or the evidence. Clearly, a great deal of projection as to the intent of the people involved was being generated.

This type of emotional judgment of intent is typical of the core group of Wikipedia editors, with all people outside of their behavioral expectations being labeled with the same generic term: <strong>Troll</strong>.

<strong>Positive Trolling for the greater good of Mankind</strong>

<table style="float: left; text-align: left;" border="0" width="150
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3177/2799642335_0816a4f213.jpg" alt="A troll and his electric knife" height="200" width="150" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption A troll and his electric knife.</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>

People who are seen as ''trolls'' by those in power at Wikipedia are often those who are simply pointing out flaws in the way Wikipedia works, or rather in the way it doesn't work. To give one famous example, for quite a while [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_knife&oldid=168689419 the Wikipedia article for ''Electric knife''] contained the following text :

QUOTE (Wikipedia, "Electric knife" @ 12/10/07)
<strong>They are also sometimes used for other purposes, such as shaping polyurethane foam rubber to make [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hip_and_buttock_padding&oldid=161678268 hip and buttock padding]</strong>.

Because this particular use of the electric knife was difficult to source and sounded rather odd, a "thoughtful" editor added [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_knife&diff=next&oldid=177138881 another use for electric knives] which was easier to source. This was seen as ''trolling'' by other Wikipedia editors, but it did serve to point out that the other information about padding was perhaps not necessary for a general-purpose encyclopedia. While one cannot know whether or not this edit was "artistic", the effect of the edit itself served to underline the true motivations of the initial editor, bringing into light the existence of a hidden agenda. In this sense, it may be seen as an artistic action, whether or not an artistic intent was indeed present, as the result was a reaction from both participants and [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=14505 spectators].

The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wet_floor_sign&oldid=210932395 original incarnation of the "Wet Floor sign" article] is perhaps my favorite example of possibly artistic Wikipedia vandalism, underlining many major faults of Wikipedia practice, the foremost of which is taking everything much too seriously. The last paragraph is particularly stunning in its pretentious and vapid tone :

''There is currently a debate within the intelligentsia and within the population as a whole concerning the worthiness of treating the 'wet-floor sign' as a subject of inquiry, independent of the more general topic of 'signs.' On the one side are those scholars such as the present writer, who view each and every type of sign as a unique contribution to civilization's wealth and security, just as each individual human is perfectly independent of others and is endowed with certain unalienable rights: rights held by the individual, not the collective. These scholars understand the incredible value of a wet-floor sign. A wet-floor sign warns. It teaches. It promotes bilingualism. It enhances the aesthetics of an environment. It prevents injury. It is yellow and has a man falling down on it. On the other side of the debate are those who wish to censor; those who wish to label; those who wish to limit the debate; those who wish limit expression of a person's, an object's individual characteristics. They argue that by knowing what a 'sign' is, we obviously know what a 'wet-floor sign' is. They argue that there is no difference between a sign that proclaims "WET FLOOR" and a sign that proclaims "START LINE HERE." They argue that it is unnecessary to specialize one's knowledge, to understand uniqueness, to consider the small things around us. They argue that 'a sign is a sign, no matter what it says.' This debate continues, and its conclusion will determine humanity's intellectual future.''

<table style="float: right; text-align: center;" border="0" width="199
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c5/CdeB2.jpg" alt="Lady Catherine Augusta Amelia Gladys de Burgh was a candidate for the ArbCom elections in 2008, until her sudden death" width="199" height="290" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: left; Lady Catherine Augusta Amelia Gladys de Burgh was a candidate for the ArbCom elections in 2008, until her sudden "death".</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
Although the author of this gem is unknown, I have always suspected [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Giano_II User: Giano] whose beautifully written prose articles and wonderfully dry sense of humor shine like gems amongst the rest of the ''dreck'' which passes for writing on Wikipedia. He certainly knows [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Catherine_de_Burgh/Catherine_Bonkbuster how to push buttons] without getting indefinitely banned, in spite of being seen as a troll almost universally among the higher cabals of Wikipedia. Giano's greatest achievement was creating the character Lady Catherine de Burgh, whose [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Candidate_statements/Catherine_de_Burgh/Questions_for_the_candidate bid to be elected] to Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee was stopped short by her very untimely death, although not before making some very arch statements:

''"Rumour is a very dangerous thing, just imagine if we were all to listen to every Wikipedia rumour and whisper. Goodness gracious one would believe every Arb and check-user were the mistress/lover of the other - or worse! - perish the thought. The only blackberries I have dear are in a crumble. The Arbcom is quite safe in my hands. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)"''

It might be said that Giano is perhaps the most successful Wikipedia artist of all time, having found (at least temporarily) a way of working within the confines of that highly ritualized society. It is also highly likely that, given his long history of conflicts with the Wikipedia establishment (right up to Jimbo Wales) that he will be banned at some point, proving once again that original thinking and creativity have no place in Wikipedia.

It is regrettable that the "weeding in/weeding out" process generally excludes those whose thinking is outside of what is accepted by the masses as "normal" and includes those whose role is to simply repeat that which is already known by all, without considering the consequences and implications of what is being said. That this is a popular viewpoint says much about our society and the role of Art and Artists within it.

Meanwhile, within the confines of Wikipedia, the mop-wielding administrators will continue to do battle with the unending stream of ''trolls'' until somebody finally pulls the plug on the servers, like so many monks trying to solve an infinite number of unsolvable zen koans. If the administrators would put their mops down for a minute and listen to what the ''trolls'' are saying, perhaps they might learn something.

<h4>Image credits:</h4>
<li><span style="color: #000000; Vic Kirilove photos, © Vic Kirilove, all rights reserved, used with permission <a title="©" href="http://www.kirilove.com" target="_blank <span class="comment kirilove.com</span>].</span></li>
<li><span style="color: #000000; Comcast Center, <a title="CC" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comcast2aLR.jpg" target="_blank <span class="comment photo by User: Photodavid</span>].</span></li>
<li><span style="color: #000000; Troll and Electric Knife, © by Gregory Kohs, <a title="©" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/thekohser/" target="_blank <span class="comment all rights reserved, used with permission</span>].</span></li>
<li><span style="color: #000000; Wikipedia Art logo, <a title="GNU" href="http://wikipediaart.org/wiki/index.php?title=Image:Wikipedia_Art.png" target="_blank <span class="comment GNU Free Documentation License 1.2</span>].</span></li>

==Comments==

16 Responses to “ In the eye of the beholder ”

Comments RSS

Barry Kort
Spitting In the Eye of the Bescolder

In the gray area between True and False, there lies the Unknown, the Unknowable, and Art.

Sincerity and Intent are notoriously hard to judge in a cyber-culture like Wikipedia. In the end, it comes down to a personal opinion, a haphazard theory of mind about another character, based on a handful of encounters in a bizarro online world.

Notwithstanding the taboo against original research, the discussion pages of Wikipedia are flush with novel characterizations in which rival editors are variously adjudged as disruptive trolls, tendentious PoV-pushers, vandals, meat puppets, clowns, and cranks.

Oddly enough, few of these challengers are characterized as artistes worthy of respect for illustrating the erratic process by which one reliably reckons authentic knowledge amidst a miasma of opinions, judgments, and idiosyncratic points of view.

My Continuing Adventures in Technology… » links for 2009-03-23
[...] Akahele | In the eye of the beholder (tags: art culture criticism internet wikipedia authorship online intent epistemology) [...]

Gregory Kohs
It may be appropriate at this time for me to take full credit for this artistic edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_knife&diff=next&oldid=177138881

Less than 30 hours later, the user account was indefinitely blocked for the crime of “vandalism”. The Wikipedia administrator who issued the block also happens to be a trans-gendered individual (which might suggest a conflict-of-interest surrounding “hip and buttock padding”), but who am I to say?

Nihiltres
“If the administrators would put their mops down for a minute and listen to what the trolls are saying, perhaps they might learn something.”

If so, what’s a reasonable way of dealing with edits designed to be disruptive? What do you suggest is the proper way to react?

It stands to reason that people who can’t behave within reasonable limits shouldn’t be listened to—being listened to is their goal, to get a reaction is their goal, and this goal is destructive. Satire and irony are one thing, but surely it is better for the goal of a constructive, collaborative project to filter out nonsense and so-called “trolling”.

P.S.: With all due respect to Mr. Kohs, the picture with the electric knife is hilarious

Gregory Kohs
Nihiltres is a Wikipedian with whom I’ve sparred (sometimes with less tact than I’d have wished) in various venues on the Internet. However, we have been participating amicably in the Yahoo! Answers forum regarding Wikipedia, for a number of weeks now. I have to say I am building a certain respect for this person, and his 68% “Best Answer” ratio in generating Answers on Yahoo! is simply phenomenal.

Now, that being said, I ask the dear readers to simply peruse some of the words that Nihiltres has entered into the discussion:

“disruptive”

“can’t behave”

“destructive”

But, he does show hope in at least noting that “Satire and irony are one thing…” STICK WITH THAT THOUGHT, Nihiltres. If you are capable of recognizing irony when it’s presented to you from the outside artist, might not you also be capable of recognizing irony when it surrounds you from within on a particular encyclopedia project?

Are you absolutely certain that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia? After nearly six years of existence, would not someone by now have served on the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees who has professional experience in reference publishing?

If you’re wearing a live chicken on your head, but you insist that it’s a fedora, is it our responsibility to not “disrupt” you from your notions, “behave” ourselves, and try to not be “destructive” in telling you things might not be as they seem to you?

Paul Wehage
@Nihiltres, thank you for the compliment about the photo of Mr. Kohs. It’s under his copyright and he very generously agreed to share it with us for the humorous note it gives the article.

The business about “hip and buttock” padding on the “electric knife” article is a long standing joke on WR, but it does beg the question of why the person who made the sourced statement (dismembering spouses) was banned and why the person who made the unsourced statement (”hip and buttock padding for transvestites”) was allowed to continue editing without as much as a warning, in spite of the clear breach of policy?

In hindsight, we now know that the person who ended up banning the person who challenged the “hip and buttock” padding was later discovered to be trans gendered herself. So who was making the disruptive edits? Who was banned? Are you sure that you can completely state who was the troll and who was the encyclopedist in this situation?

The whole point of this article is that WP editors are much too quick to call “troll” when they can’t really know what the other person is trying to say. Self-criticism is a good start here: even the WP cabal has come around to this idea, given the number of card-carrying members who now post on the Wikipedia Review.

The Wikipedia Art project was handled with a bit more tact, yet it created a great deal of bad blood between the artists and Wikipedia, as their site points out. These people are serious, notable artists. Why are they excluded from participating because you people can’t understand what they were trying to do? Why have you allowed this to remain in this state, without trying to at least understand the motivations and actions? Why is it always a one way street to Bansville with you people?

Maybe you need to think about what you’re doing and why because it sure isn’t adding up to “the sum of all human knowledge” with de-facto exclusions such as this.

Barry Kort
“What’s a reasonable way of dealing with edits designed to be disruptive? What do you suggest is the proper way to react?”

The first thing to do is to verify the hypothesis that an edit is “designed to be disruptive.” Can you tell me how you establish a reliable theory of mind regarding another editor’s intentions?

However, if one is disturbed or upset by an unexpected edit, a reasonable way to react is to 1) candidly disclose that one is surprised, disturbed, or upset, 2) inquire if that was the intended reaction, and 3) inquire further as to the editor’s intended purpose.

It occurs to me that jumping to a haphazard conclusion about another editor’s intentions is a classic recipe for absurdist drama.

Nihiltres
Rather, I think it is one’s responsibility to not rip the chicken from the person’s head and cook them something like in that picture I found so amusing above. Instead, perhaps merely holding up a mirror will do the trick—if it turns out that the chicken is a pet by the name of Fedora…

Nihiltres
My previous comment might make less sense than I thought it did, especially in the light of the comments I missed by leaving the window open for a long time. :/

I find the responses interesting, (and indeed I acknowledge that you’re right about the importance of a theory of mind, though I want to point out that it’s not black-and-white) and think it would be worthwhile to continue this conversation in a better forum than a blog comment system.

Perhaps I’ll get around to registering an account on Wikipedia Review; while I dislike the atmosphere there, if discussion there could produce ideas to improve Wikipedia without sacrificing its nature*, it would be constructive.

*that is, sacrificing those elements which are arguably strengths of Wikipedia, such as open editing. Nupedia’s already been proven to not work.

Barry Kort
There are two or three alternative venues that can be used for a serious round-table discussion.

Emperor
Ah the infamous electric knife, with “cheeto-colored beaver teeth”. Good times.

Speaking of trolling, readers might be interested in the SureFire M6 Guardian article, and Jimmy Wales’ response to the creation of the article. He titles it, “A little advice from an Internet old timer about trolls”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASureFire_M6_Guardian&diff=177094663&oldid=177092001

Jon Awbrey
It appears that Akahele has quickly, all too quickly reached that old Kierkegaardian Either-Or — it will have to choose Either the response of the conversional aesthete, running the mill from effete to hysterical, Or it will have to convert the moral outrage that is our due into the concerted action that it will take to ameliorate, not celebrate the Absurd.

Paul Wehage
Shouldn’t one first try to examine the underlying patterns and reactions to THE ABSURD in order to find the underlying meaning in all of this? If you haven’t defined the problem, you certainly can’t solve it. An examination of intent seems to be necessary in understanding the dynamics.

Jon Awbrey
Re: “An examination of intent seems to be necessary in understanding the dynamics.”

Observation of the dynamics is necessary to form a fair hypothesis about the intent.

Just how long do you plan on staring at this particular cobra before you do that?

Paul Wehage
Well, Mr. Awbrey, why don’t you write a piece about what should be happening? We’re going to be opening up to other contributors pretty soon…

Violet Vernon
If I had a nickel for every time I came to akahele.org! Great read!

Directory:Akahele/In the eye of the beholder

2010-10-22T22:55:04Z

Raf: temp save

<table style="float: left; text-align: left; height: 190px;" border="0" width="160">
<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/kirilove2-150x150.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: left;">Performance Artist Vic Kirilove and his Journal-de-Boörd project.</td>
</tr>
</table>
[http://www.kirilove.com Vic Kirilove] is the latest enigma to come out of the Paris Art scene. Arriving unannounced at prestigious art galleries and openings with his faithful press agent [http://www.youtube.com/milenavlasenska Milena Vlasenka], a sound man, and a lighting operator, Kirilove carries a camera which is obviously not real, but which contains a real camera. He "records" what he calls "the superposition of true and false" in the context of making " fiction on the sites of temples of social fiction".

As his website states: ''Vic Kirilove capte les circonstances de l’échange où se mettent en place les structures de vérité.'' (Vic Kirilove captures the circumstances of the exchange in which the structures of truth are put into place.)

<table style="float: left; text-align: right;" border="0" width="150">
<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/insitu5-150x150.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: left;">A Kirilove performance.</td>
</tr>
</table>
Indeed, in the highly ritualized art world, where value is determined by image, and where social connections and representation often take the place of true artistic content and ideas, Vic Kirilove presents a mirror where the fake camera is actually a real camera recording the events that people are creating for the "performance".

The boundaries of ''what is true'' and ''what is false'' are intentionally blurred, to create a climate which provokes questions about the motivations of everyone present at the event. The art in this case is not in the creation of an object or the realization of an idea, but rather in the form of a mirror presented to the audience itself, underlining their reactions and their motivations for being objects of representation.

==Wikipedia and Art: Love at first flash==

Wikipedia is another [http://akahele.org/2009/03/world-of-wikipediacraft highly ritualized, complex society] which is concerned with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:AfD_debates_(Fiction_and_the_arts) evaluating the value of artists and Art]. And in this world of worker bees documenting, organizing, and protecting the "sum of all human knowledge", Art is not only serious business, but also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Loves_Art something which Wikipedia loves]. However, it would seem that the art which Wikipedia supposedly loves so dearly as to convert it into "a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest", is probably extremely far from the Art that someone like Vic Kirilove is creating. Although the definition in Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art&oldid=277296421 ''Art'' article] might suggest otherwise:
<blockquote>Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music and literature. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as Aesthetics.</blockquote>
The image of well-scrubbed young American teenagers running around museums taking photos of Art works which have been deemed worthy of display in prominent venues seems like a rather constructive way to get these bright young minds interested in their own cultural heritage. The picture is indeed extremely pretty, but to borrow a phrase, ''is it Art?''

==The Question of Intent==

The honest answer is ''perhaps''. If these industrious photographers are having an aesthetic reaction to the objects that they are photographing, then Art can be said to be taking place. However, what if they're only taking the pictures in order to document the objects for the corresponding articles? Are they considering what the meaning of these objects might be? And what about these prizes? It looks an awful lot like a carrot-and-stick mentality is at work here, rather than the pure artistic pleasure of experiencing a work of art.

The fundamental determining factor in an artistic experience is <strong>intent</strong>; either that of the artist, that of the observer, or both. In the case of ''Wikipedia Loves Art'', the observer seems to be motivated probably by documenting the object and not reacting to it, other than to capture its form on film. In a contrary manner, Vic Kirilove has provided a mirror in which the reality of truth and artifice is reflected back to the observer, who then becomes a willing or unwilling participant in the Art itself.

Which act is closer to Wikipedia's own definition of Art?

==Wikipedia's core policies and creativity==
<table style="float: left; text-align: left;" border="0" width="150">
<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/250px-comcast2alr-150x150.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">A photo can also be a violation of the "No original research" policy.</td>
</tr>
</table>
Wikipedia is governed by any number of core policies, which are supposedly enforced equally on all editors, but which in practice are often conveniently "forgotten" for editors who are established personalities. The three most important of these policies are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research no original research], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view neutral point of view], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability verifiability, not truth]. What these core policies effectively do is exclude all original thinking and any notion of creativity, and instead simply reporting what is said, rather than what is known. Wikipedia editors are not supposed to reason, much less create, but rather are supposed to take what has already been said, and simply restate the ideas using different words. Thus, it may be reckoned that by these three core policies Wikipedia effectively excludes any artistic activity from its encyclopedia articles. Sometimes editors are allowed to be creative, as was the designer of the digitally-altered photo shown above, but often these types of contributions are excluded because of the way the three core policies are interpreted.

The reason that the three core policies exist is a matter of much discussion. As the point of Wikipedia is presented as ''the creation of a free, open-source encyclopedia'' using the collected contributions of ''everyone'', one possible theory is that Wikipedia is intended as an expression of ''what everybody knows.'' Artists, as well as other theoretical thinkers whose vision is often uniquely personal, must be excluded from this equation, as they are not just ''anybody''. Another more concrete reason may be [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1354424 the way in which Wikipedia handles individuals who do not conform to its core policies and ideals], through an "inclusion/exclusion" process which has been described as "weeding in/weeding out". But perhaps the main reason is the eternal and inherent conflict in the relationship between the Artist and Society...

==Art as a mirror of social reality==

The Artist as a mirror that reflects truth back to Society has often been the cause of conflict. The long list of artists in the very provincial German city of Weimar (from Göethe to Nina Hagen, via the ''Bauhaus'' crowd) who were forced to leave the city because of the negative reactions of the stuffy bourgeois residents is one very fine example of this type of exclusion of artists by a strongly conventional society.

Another fine example of this process is the Lyrical Satire [http://www.classicalmusicnow.com/tailleferre-pn.htm ''Il était un petit Navire''] that [http://www.classicalmusicnow.com/Tailleferrebiography.htm Germaine Tailleferre] of Les Six wrote with the French screenwriter [href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Jeanson Henri Jeanson] (who wrote the screen plays for ''Pepe Le Moko'', ''Hôtel du Nord'', and many other great French films of the 1950s). The work was written specifically to not only make fun of operas, but also of the people who go see them. At the end of the work, the Heroine goes to the front of the stage and sings :

<blockquote>The curtain is going up for you now! Please collect your roles at the coat check and go back to playing the same games that you've been playing so well for so long!</blockquote>

Even though everything was done to downplay the scandal, even to the point of cutting the work to almost half its intended length, the first performance demonstrated that Jeanson's libretto coupled with Tailleferre's music created a mirror which reflected an image back to the audience that was too true to be acceptable. Their reactions were, according to critic Henri Barraud in ''Musical America'', extremely violent:

<blockquote>...the most exciting first performance that Paris has seen in many, many years. The gallery let loose with a storm of invective against the authors and actors, shouting disapproval and demanding its money back. The people in the orchestra and the first balconies, fortified by a large group of invited guests, tried to offset the hostile outcries with their applause.</blockquote>

The Artist creates a mirror and the audience looks at their own reflection through the Artist's actions. When what is reflected back is neither what the audience expects nor wants, hostility is generally the predictable reaction.

What do you suppose happens when this type of allegorical mirror is directed at Wikipedia?

==Wikipedia...Art?==
<table style="float: right; text-align: left;" border="0" width="150">
<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/180px-wikipedia_art-copy-150x150.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">the official logo of the Wikipedia Art project.</td>
</tr>
</table>
On February 14, 2009, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Kildall Scott Kildall] and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Stern">Nathaniel Stern</a> created ''Wikipedia Art'' by posting <a href="http://wikipediaart.org/wiki/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Art&oldid=211">an article of the same name</a> on Wikipedia. ''Wikipedia Art'' was defined as :

''"an art intervention which explicitly invites performative utterances in order to change the work itself. The ongoing composition and performance of Wikipedia Art is intended to point to the 'invisible authors and authorities' of Wikipedia, and by extension the Internet,[2] as well as the site's extant criticisms: bias, consensus over credentials, reliability and accuracy, vandalism, etc... like knowledge and like art, Wikipedia Art is always already variable.

The project is 'similar to <a href="http://andrewkeen.typepad.com/">Andrew Keen's</a> complaints of Wikipedia as being an unreasonable request upon internet society to create cultural foundations (encyclopedias, art media, etc) without compensation, thus devaluing production."''

The Wikipedia Art project manifesto uses obvious cues to express that it will attempt to follow Wikipedia core polices, yet makes the probably fatal error of naming Andrew Keen, who is seen as a key Wikipedia opponent. The authors are clearly using Wikipedia as a reference, reflecting the bureaucratic structure and highly ritualized practices back to the very society that has created them. How could we expect this Society to react to this mirror image?

The reaction was like oil and water, with discussion taking place immediately on several areas within Wikipedia itself. The Wikipedia Art article lasted for fifteen hours until it was removed from Wikipedia through <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_Art">Wikipedia's deletion process</a> and generated <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29&oldid=271062016#Help._I_have_created_a_monster.21">an extremely long discussion</a> on Wikipedia's ''Village Pump'' page. In the middle of the ''exceedingly polite discussion'' as to whether or not this article should be kept, there is another much more burning question which is only fleetingly touched upon in certain comments: ''Are we being had?'' In other words, is this serious or is this a big joke? Or, to put it another way, ''what is the intent?'' Werdna, the user name of the administrator who closed this debate seems to make a judgment in his comments on the Village Pump :

''I ended the circus as a routine A7. — Werdna • talk 06:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)''

Note the disparaging remark, and the return to normalcy via the Wikipedia-specific alphanumeric jargon. ''Those art trolls aren't going to pull the wool over our eyes! No sir! '' Unfortunately for him, Werdna <a href="http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/vlog/ScenesOfProvincialLife.cgi/2009/02/15#post298">discovered too late the perils of confronting the Art World</a> head on! (A history of the project from the point of view of the artists is available <a href="http://wikipediaart.org/brief-history/">here</a>).

<strong>The end product of the conflict: Vandalism</strong>

Around the same time the Wikipedia Art project was going on, police in Stockholm, Sweden were <a href="http://www.thelocal.se/17660/20090218/">investigating the case</a> of an art student who had filmed the vandalism of a subway train as part of his final project for Art School. Another student <a href="http://www.thelocal.se/17268/20090130/">pretended to be be psychotic</a> and went as far as arranging to be committed to a psychiatric hospital.

The artist who seeks to express his views of society to generate a reaction may resort to many strategies, which may include <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin/Poetgate">role-playing</a>, <a href="http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18309">vandalism </a> or ideas which are merely <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Shii/Hoaxes&oldid=276937327">creations of the fertile imagination of the Artist</a>. Of course, many non-artists also use these same strategies for other aims. The question is: how does one tell who is an artist and who is a psychotic, especially in an environment where just about everyone is a pseudonym to begin with?

<strong>Wiki-projections and the question of intent</strong>

The answer is: ''you can't'', unless you can know the intent of the person involved. In the Web 2.0 world, where pseudonyms are the rule rather than the exception, you can't know the intent of the person making a given statement, but you can make guesses as to what you think the person might be implying. These types of projections, especially in text-only settings where vocal and facial cues are absent, often lead to conclusions which have more to say about the people making the judgment rather than the speaker.

For example, in <a href="http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23304">this thread on the Wikipedia Review</a> which discusses an article entitled <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_search_prank_call_scam">The Strip Search Prank Call Scam</a>, participants made judgments about the principals in the story based on their personal feelings about the incident, rather than by using the sources or the evidence. Clearly, a great deal of projection as to the intent of the people involved was being generated.

This type of emotional judgment of intent is typical of the core group of Wikipedia editors, with all people outside of their behavioral expectations being labeled with the same generic term: <strong>Troll</strong>.

<strong>Positive Trolling for the greater good of Mankind</strong>

<table style="float: left; text-align: left;" border="0" width="150">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3177/2799642335_0816a4f213.jpg" alt="A troll and his electric knife" height="200" width="150" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">A troll and his electric knife.</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>

People who are seen as ''trolls'' by those in power at Wikipedia are often those who are simply pointing out flaws in the way Wikipedia works, or rather in the way it doesn't work. To give one famous example, for quite a while <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_knife&oldid=168689419">the Wikipedia article for ''Electric knife''</a> contained the following text :

QUOTE (Wikipedia, "Electric knife" @ 12/10/07)
<strong>They are also sometimes used for other purposes, such as shaping polyurethane foam rubber to make <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hip_and_buttock_padding&oldid=161678268">hip and buttock padding</a></strong>.

Because this particular use of the electric knife was difficult to source and sounded rather odd, a "thoughtful" editor added <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_knife&diff=next&oldid=177138881">another use for electric knives</a> which was easier to source. This was seen as ''trolling'' by other Wikipedia editors, but it did serve to point out that the other information about padding was perhaps not necessary for a general-purpose encyclopedia. While one cannot know whether or not this edit was "artistic", the effect of the edit itself served to underline the true motivations of the initial editor, bringing into light the existence of a hidden agenda. In this sense, it may be seen as an artistic action, whether or not an artistic intent was indeed present, as the result was a reaction from both participants and <a href="http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=14505">spectators</a>.

The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wet_floor_sign&oldid=210932395">original incarnation of the "Wet Floor sign" article</a> is perhaps my favorite example of possibly artistic Wikipedia vandalism, underlining many major faults of Wikipedia practice, the foremost of which is taking everything much too seriously. The last paragraph is particularly stunning in its pretentious and vapid tone :

''There is currently a debate within the intelligentsia and within the population as a whole concerning the worthiness of treating the 'wet-floor sign' as a subject of inquiry, independent of the more general topic of 'signs.' On the one side are those scholars such as the present writer, who view each and every type of sign as a unique contribution to civilization's wealth and security, just as each individual human is perfectly independent of others and is endowed with certain unalienable rights: rights held by the individual, not the collective. These scholars understand the incredible value of a wet-floor sign. A wet-floor sign warns. It teaches. It promotes bilingualism. It enhances the aesthetics of an environment. It prevents injury. It is yellow and has a man falling down on it. On the other side of the debate are those who wish to censor; those who wish to label; those who wish to limit the debate; those who wish limit expression of a person's, an object's individual characteristics. They argue that by knowing what a 'sign' is, we obviously know what a 'wet-floor sign' is. They argue that there is no difference between a sign that proclaims "WET FLOOR" and a sign that proclaims "START LINE HERE." They argue that it is unnecessary to specialize one's knowledge, to understand uniqueness, to consider the small things around us. They argue that 'a sign is a sign, no matter what it says.' This debate continues, and its conclusion will determine humanity's intellectual future.''

<table style="float: right; text-align: center;" border="0" width="199">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c5/CdeB2.jpg" alt="Lady Catherine Augusta Amelia Gladys de Burgh was a candidate for the ArbCom elections in 2008, until her sudden death" width="199" height="290" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: left;">Lady Catherine Augusta Amelia Gladys de Burgh was a candidate for the ArbCom elections in 2008, until her sudden "death".</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
Although the author of this gem is unknown, I have always suspected <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Giano_II">User: Giano</a> whose beautifully written prose articles and wonderfully dry sense of humor shine like gems amongst the rest of the ''dreck'' which passes for writing on Wikipedia. He certainly knows <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Catherine_de_Burgh/Catherine_Bonkbuster">how to push buttons</a> without getting indefinitely banned, in spite of being seen as a troll almost universally among the higher cabals of Wikipedia. Giano's greatest achievement was creating the character Lady Catherine de Burgh, whose <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Candidate_statements/Catherine_de_Burgh/Questions_for_the_candidate">bid to be elected</a> to Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee was stopped short by her very untimely death, although not before making some very arch statements:

''"Rumour is a very dangerous thing, just imagine if we were all to listen to every Wikipedia rumour and whisper. Goodness gracious one would believe every Arb and check-user were the mistress/lover of the other - or worse! - perish the thought. The only blackberries I have dear are in a crumble. The Arbcom is quite safe in my hands. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)"''

It might be said that Giano is perhaps the most successful Wikipedia artist of all time, having found (at least temporarily) a way of working within the confines of that highly ritualized society. It is also highly likely that, given his long history of conflicts with the Wikipedia establishment (right up to Jimbo Wales) that he will be banned at some point, proving once again that original thinking and creativity have no place in Wikipedia.

It is regrettable that the "weeding in/weeding out" process generally excludes those whose thinking is outside of what is accepted by the masses as "normal" and includes those whose role is to simply repeat that which is already known by all, without considering the consequences and implications of what is being said. That this is a popular viewpoint says much about our society and the role of Art and Artists within it.

Meanwhile, within the confines of Wikipedia, the mop-wielding administrators will continue to do battle with the unending stream of ''trolls'' until somebody finally pulls the plug on the servers, like so many monks trying to solve an infinite number of unsolvable zen koans. If the administrators would put their mops down for a minute and listen to what the ''trolls'' are saying, perhaps they might learn something.

<h4>Image credits:</h4>
<li><span style="color: #000000;">Vic Kirilove photos, © Vic Kirilove, all rights reserved, used with permission <a title="©" href="http://www.kirilove.com" target="_blank"><span class="comment">kirilove.com</span></a>.</span></li>
<li><span style="color: #000000;">Comcast Center, <a title="CC" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comcast2aLR.jpg" target="_blank"><span class="comment">photo by User: Photodavid</span></a>.</span></li>
<li><span style="color: #000000;">Troll and Electric Knife, © by Gregory Kohs, <a title="©" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/thekohser/" target="_blank"><span class="comment">all rights reserved, used with permission</span></a>.</span></li>
<li><span style="color: #000000;">Wikipedia Art logo, <a title="GNU" href="http://wikipediaart.org/wiki/index.php?title=Image:Wikipedia_Art.png" target="_blank"><span class="comment">GNU Free Documentation License 1.2</span></a>.</span></li>

==Comments==

16 Responses to “ In the eye of the beholder ”

Comments RSS

Barry Kort
Spitting In the Eye of the Bescolder

In the gray area between True and False, there lies the Unknown, the Unknowable, and Art.

Sincerity and Intent are notoriously hard to judge in a cyber-culture like Wikipedia. In the end, it comes down to a personal opinion, a haphazard theory of mind about another character, based on a handful of encounters in a bizarro online world.

Notwithstanding the taboo against original research, the discussion pages of Wikipedia are flush with novel characterizations in which rival editors are variously adjudged as disruptive trolls, tendentious PoV-pushers, vandals, meat puppets, clowns, and cranks.

Oddly enough, few of these challengers are characterized as artistes worthy of respect for illustrating the erratic process by which one reliably reckons authentic knowledge amidst a miasma of opinions, judgments, and idiosyncratic points of view.

My Continuing Adventures in Technology… » links for 2009-03-23
[...] Akahele | In the eye of the beholder (tags: art culture criticism internet wikipedia authorship online intent epistemology) [...]

Gregory Kohs
It may be appropriate at this time for me to take full credit for this artistic edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_knife&diff=next&oldid=177138881

Less than 30 hours later, the user account was indefinitely blocked for the crime of “vandalism”. The Wikipedia administrator who issued the block also happens to be a trans-gendered individual (which might suggest a conflict-of-interest surrounding “hip and buttock padding”), but who am I to say?

Nihiltres
“If the administrators would put their mops down for a minute and listen to what the trolls are saying, perhaps they might learn something.”

If so, what’s a reasonable way of dealing with edits designed to be disruptive? What do you suggest is the proper way to react?

It stands to reason that people who can’t behave within reasonable limits shouldn’t be listened to—being listened to is their goal, to get a reaction is their goal, and this goal is destructive. Satire and irony are one thing, but surely it is better for the goal of a constructive, collaborative project to filter out nonsense and so-called “trolling”.

P.S.: With all due respect to Mr. Kohs, the picture with the electric knife is hilarious

Gregory Kohs
Nihiltres is a Wikipedian with whom I’ve sparred (sometimes with less tact than I’d have wished) in various venues on the Internet. However, we have been participating amicably in the Yahoo! Answers forum regarding Wikipedia, for a number of weeks now. I have to say I am building a certain respect for this person, and his 68% “Best Answer” ratio in generating Answers on Yahoo! is simply phenomenal.

Now, that being said, I ask the dear readers to simply peruse some of the words that Nihiltres has entered into the discussion:

“disruptive”

“can’t behave”

“destructive”

But, he does show hope in at least noting that “Satire and irony are one thing…” STICK WITH THAT THOUGHT, Nihiltres. If you are capable of recognizing irony when it’s presented to you from the outside artist, might not you also be capable of recognizing irony when it surrounds you from within on a particular encyclopedia project?

Are you absolutely certain that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia? After nearly six years of existence, would not someone by now have served on the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees who has professional experience in reference publishing?

If you’re wearing a live chicken on your head, but you insist that it’s a fedora, is it our responsibility to not “disrupt” you from your notions, “behave” ourselves, and try to not be “destructive” in telling you things might not be as they seem to you?

Paul Wehage
@Nihiltres, thank you for the compliment about the photo of Mr. Kohs. It’s under his copyright and he very generously agreed to share it with us for the humorous note it gives the article.

The business about “hip and buttock” padding on the “electric knife” article is a long standing joke on WR, but it does beg the question of why the person who made the sourced statement (dismembering spouses) was banned and why the person who made the unsourced statement (”hip and buttock padding for transvestites”) was allowed to continue editing without as much as a warning, in spite of the clear breach of policy?

In hindsight, we now know that the person who ended up banning the person who challenged the “hip and buttock” padding was later discovered to be trans gendered herself. So who was making the disruptive edits? Who was banned? Are you sure that you can completely state who was the troll and who was the encyclopedist in this situation?

The whole point of this article is that WP editors are much too quick to call “troll” when they can’t really know what the other person is trying to say. Self-criticism is a good start here: even the WP cabal has come around to this idea, given the number of card-carrying members who now post on the Wikipedia Review.

The Wikipedia Art project was handled with a bit more tact, yet it created a great deal of bad blood between the artists and Wikipedia, as their site points out. These people are serious, notable artists. Why are they excluded from participating because you people can’t understand what they were trying to do? Why have you allowed this to remain in this state, without trying to at least understand the motivations and actions? Why is it always a one way street to Bansville with you people?

Maybe you need to think about what you’re doing and why because it sure isn’t adding up to “the sum of all human knowledge” with de-facto exclusions such as this.

Barry Kort
“What’s a reasonable way of dealing with edits designed to be disruptive? What do you suggest is the proper way to react?”

The first thing to do is to verify the hypothesis that an edit is “designed to be disruptive.” Can you tell me how you establish a reliable theory of mind regarding another editor’s intentions?

However, if one is disturbed or upset by an unexpected edit, a reasonable way to react is to 1) candidly disclose that one is surprised, disturbed, or upset, 2) inquire if that was the intended reaction, and 3) inquire further as to the editor’s intended purpose.

It occurs to me that jumping to a haphazard conclusion about another editor’s intentions is a classic recipe for absurdist drama.

Nihiltres
Rather, I think it is one’s responsibility to not rip the chicken from the person’s head and cook them something like in that picture I found so amusing above. Instead, perhaps merely holding up a mirror will do the trick—if it turns out that the chicken is a pet by the name of Fedora…

Nihiltres
My previous comment might make less sense than I thought it did, especially in the light of the comments I missed by leaving the window open for a long time. :/

I find the responses interesting, (and indeed I acknowledge that you’re right about the importance of a theory of mind, though I want to point out that it’s not black-and-white) and think it would be worthwhile to continue this conversation in a better forum than a blog comment system.

Perhaps I’ll get around to registering an account on Wikipedia Review; while I dislike the atmosphere there, if discussion there could produce ideas to improve Wikipedia without sacrificing its nature*, it would be constructive.

*that is, sacrificing those elements which are arguably strengths of Wikipedia, such as open editing. Nupedia’s already been proven to not work.

Barry Kort
There are two or three alternative venues that can be used for a serious round-table discussion.

Emperor
Ah the infamous electric knife, with “cheeto-colored beaver teeth”. Good times.

Speaking of trolling, readers might be interested in the SureFire M6 Guardian article, and Jimmy Wales’ response to the creation of the article. He titles it, “A little advice from an Internet old timer about trolls”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASureFire_M6_Guardian&diff=177094663&oldid=177092001

Jon Awbrey
It appears that Akahele has quickly, all too quickly reached that old Kierkegaardian Either-Or — it will have to choose Either the response of the conversional aesthete, running the mill from effete to hysterical, Or it will have to convert the moral outrage that is our due into the concerted action that it will take to ameliorate, not celebrate the Absurd.

Paul Wehage
Shouldn’t one first try to examine the underlying patterns and reactions to THE ABSURD in order to find the underlying meaning in all of this? If you haven’t defined the problem, you certainly can’t solve it. An examination of intent seems to be necessary in understanding the dynamics.

Jon Awbrey
Re: “An examination of intent seems to be necessary in understanding the dynamics.”

Observation of the dynamics is necessary to form a fair hypothesis about the intent.

Just how long do you plan on staring at this particular cobra before you do that?

Paul Wehage
Well, Mr. Awbrey, why don’t you write a piece about what should be happening? We’re going to be opening up to other contributors pretty soon…

Violet Vernon
If I had a nickel for every time I came to akahele.org! Great read!

Directory:Akahele/Wikimedia Foundation subletting space?

2010-10-22T22:20:02Z

Raf: wikif

<table style="float: right;" border="0" cellspacing="5" align="left">
<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/stillman-street-lease.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">This space available!</td>
</tr>
</table>
The [[Directory:Internet_Review_Corporation|Internet Review Corporation]] has discovered that the '''Wikimedia Foundation''' plans to [http://www.webcitation.org/5jXSqfPxc open up its office space] at 39 Stillman Street in San Francisco for sub-lease.

Our inside source at Grubb & Ellis says they're asking $25 per square foot, for the 3,000-square-foot space. (We presume that's an annual rate, which derives $6,250 per month.)

==Why is this interesting?==

It seems a bit strange that as recently as January 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation was lamenting how they had [http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/01/21/a-note-on-the-wikipedia-usability-initiative/ "outgrown" their current space], and to solve that problem, they conducted a competitive search for some overflow office space that they could rent. When the bids came in, the prices were all over the place, but they really thought the shiniest apple in the bushel was the offer from '''Wikia, Inc.''', which is the for-profit enterprise co-founded by the founder of the Wikimedia Foundation. While Wikia didn't present the lowest rental price (indeed, it was above the average of all bids collected), Wikia was extended the exclusive opportunity to [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049354.html lower their price] to closer to the average of the other bids. Wikia complied, and that's how tax-advantaged money from the Ruth and Frank Stanton Fund ended up in the pocket of Jimmy Wales' privately-held company. Some have called this a "wired deal".

And this [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049343.html struck some people] (those with brains) as a conflict of interest.

Now, only eight months later, are we to understand that instead of having "outgrown" its office space on Stillman Street, the WMF is swimming in surplus floor space, that they need to hire Grubb & Ellis to sub-let it out to someone else?

('''Author's note''': ''The Wikimedia Foundation has clarified that they are not swimming in surplus floor space. In fact, the entire staff plans to move soon to new space that reportedly offers more than three times the flooring of 39 Stillman Street's WMF-apportioned space. The "sub-lease" plans are still in place, but the contract is for the entirety of the soon-to-be-former WMF footprint. I also understand that the rented office space at Wikia, Inc. will be canceled and those code developers brought under the "home" roof of the Foundation. Apologies for making the above suggestion; although, in my defense, my initial e-mail about this to my Internet Review Corporation brethren expressed my first hunch that all of WMF was moving. I should have stuck with my initial gut instinct.'')

Since we appear to have scooped this story, maybe the Internet Review Corporation should move its ''Akahele'' blog staff to San Francisco, so we can be closer to the action? What do you all think? Comments welcome below!

==Comments==

===8 Responses to ''Wikimedia Foundation subletting space?''===

Comments RSS

====Emperor====
Nice story. Donations of time or money to Wikipedia are also donations to Wikia, a for-profit company.

The silly thing is, Wikia makes so little money that Jimmy would probably be better off selling it and focusing on Wikipedia.

Have you explained “nofollow” recently?

====Chuthya====
I think you have it backwards. If Wikia is subleasing the space, then money from the for-profit is going to the non-profit. Unless you’re claiming Wikia is getting some kind of sweetheart deal, or they’re getting the space rent free.

====Cool Hand Luke====
No Chuthya, Wikimedia is currently leasing space from Wikia (paying rent to Wikia). When they initiated this arrangement, Wikimedia claimed that they were out of space. If they’re now trying to unload extra space, it would cast some doubt upon the prudence of the original lease.

====Gregory Kohs====
WMF Deputy Director Erik Moeller has weighed in on this, confirming my very initial thought when I saw the real estate ad — the Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to up and move EVERYONE to a new, much larger space; and once evacuated, they wish to sublet the abandoned space to recuperate some of their investment into the original lease agreement.

So, while I got the story a bit wrong, it was still a nice scoop to be the first to find that the WMF is actually making good on their 2009-2010 plan to move off of Stillman Street.

====John A====
The story is mostly wrong, Greg. Learn from your jounralistic mistakes – don’t trivialize them.

====Gregory Kohs====
Duly noted, John. Good thing I’m not a journalist, eh?

Meanwhile, could someone give me an explanation why the WMF is seeking to sublet, rather than simply terminating their lease?

====Anthony DiPierro====
If they can’t sublet it, then the owner won’t be able to lease it out, and the damages for breaking the lease would be huge?

====Nil Einne====
Have to agree with Anthony DiPierro here. I’ve never owned a business (although I’ve discussed and offered some minor assistance to someone with properties before) only in my 20s after all. However I can guess what things may be like and would have expected anyone trying make such a big fuss about it to have some idea on how these sort of things work…

For starters, it seems there are three basic possibilities. The first one is that the WMF have no fixed term lease, they can leave whenever they want with a few months notice. Beyond the fact we can rule this out from what they’re doing, I’m pretty sure this is unlikely. For one, I don’t think it’s common with commercial property for a variety reasons, even less likely given that the lease was I presume signed before the current economic collapse.

The second is that the WMF have a fixed term lease (how long I’m not sure, 2-5 years maybe) with an escape clause. There are numerous possible escape clauses. E.g. one that guarantees them the right out of the lease, but they have to pay a likely quite harsh penalty. Or perhaps the escape clause only allows them to get out if a suitable replacement tenant for the same or better conditions is found. (In this case there may be no fixed penalty.) If the property owner finds the tenant (unlikely as mentioned below) it’s likely the WMF would have to pay for the cost to the owner at least.

The final possibility is there’s a fixed term lease with no escape clause. In this case the WMF has no choice but to keep renting the property until their lease runs out if they can’t come to an alternative agreement.

Sure in both 2 and 3 the WMF could try to negotiate something else with the owner. But the problem is the landlord has all the power here. The WMF isn’t in any danger of going bankrupt anytime soon. They are also not the sort of organisation that would dare or is able to just run away and hope the landlord doesn’t pursue them. And as I’ve said the current economic conditions are likely a lot worse then when they started.

So there’s no reason why the landlord would settle for anything much less then what they’re legally entitled to. Unless the WMF has a guaranteed out clause (or they’re required to by a non guaranteed out clause) they’re not even likely to look that hard for a new tenant until near the end of the lease. Why bother? And as I said, you can expect they won’t settle for anything less in rents and would likely expect the WMF to pay for all their costs in finding such a tenant. The WMF however clearly has far greater incentive to find a new tenant. They can manage costs. Importantly even if they can only find one for less then what they’re paying they can decide if it’s worth it for them to make up the shortfall.

Even if there is a guaranteed out clause, as I’ve said the penalty would likely be quite high so it would likely be far more effective for the WMF to just find a replacement tenant. BTW, although I know Erik said sublease I don’t know whether we can presume this is definite. It’s possible the WMF could convince (or it’s in their existing agreement) the owner to take on the tenant directly. Note, as I’ve already mentioned it is almost definite the WMF will have to make up for any shortfall whatever the case.

There are obviously a lot of variations on the above but ultimately what it comes down to is if you have a fixed term lease it’s likely in your interest to find a replacement tenant.

Directory:Akahele/MIT students prove that privacy is a thing of the past

2010-10-22T22:11:51Z

Raf:

According to this article in the [http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/09/20/project_gaydar_an_mit_experiment_raises_new_questions_about_online_privacy/?page=full Boston Globe], a couple of MIT students have figured out a way of predicting male Facebook users' sexual orientations simply by analyzing their friends list. The students Carter Jernigan and Behram Mistree called their study ''Project Gaydar'' and were able to find 10 men who were openly gay in real life but undeclared on Facebook in a sample of 947 men who did not report their sexual preference. In another study, Murat Kantarcioglu, an assistant professor of computer science at the University of Texas at Dallas was able to make predictions about a person's political affiliations using Facebook profile information as well as lists of friends.

What these two studies underline is that we might be giving away much more personal information about ourselves than we realize. As [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jkaufman Jason Kaufman], a research fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University said in the Boston Globe article, "Potentially everything you ever do on the Internet will live forever. I like to think we’ll all learn to give each other a little more slack for our indiscretions and idiosyncrasies.”

==Comments==

===One Response to ''MIT students prove that privacy is a thing of the past''===

Comments RSS

====Gregory Kohs====
I note that “the work has not been published in a scientific journal”. It’s certainly interesting, but I wouldn’t draw too much from the conclusions that were “based on their own knowledge outside the Facebook world”.

I think we’re getting to the point where there are two types of people in the world:

* Those who have a Facebook profile and therefore value self-expression over privacy issues.

* Those who don’t have a Facebook profile.

Interesting times we live in. Thanks for this memo, Paul!

Directory:Akahele/MIT students prove that privacy is a thing of the past

2010-10-22T22:11:05Z

Raf: wikif

According to this article in the [http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/09/20/project_gaydar_an_mit_experiment_raises_new_questions_about_online_privacy/?page=full Boston Globe], a couple of MIT students have figured out a way of predicting male Facebook users' sexual orientations simply by analyzing their friends list. The students Carter Jernigan and Behram Mistree called their study ''Project Gaydar'' and were able to find 10 men who were openly gay in real life but undeclared on Facebook in a sample of 947 men who did not report their sexual preference. In another study, Murat Kantarcioglu, an assistant professor of computer science at the University of Texas at Dallas was able to make predictions about a person's political affiliations using Facebook profile information as well as lists of friends.

What these two studies underline is that we might be giving away much more personal information about ourselves than we realize. As [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jkaufman Jason Kaufman], a research fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University said in the Boston Globe article, "Potentially everything you ever do on the Internet will live forever. I like to think we’ll all learn to give each other a little more slack for our indiscretions and idiosyncrasies.”

==Comments==

===One Response to ''MIT students prove that privacy is a thing of the past''==

Comments RSS

====Gregory Kohs====
I note that “the work has not been published in a scientific journal”. It’s certainly interesting, but I wouldn’t draw too much from the conclusions that were “based on their own knowledge outside the Facebook world”.

I think we’re getting to the point where there are two types of people in the world:

* Those who have a Facebook profile and therefore value self-expression over privacy issues.

* Those who don’t have a Facebook profile.

Interesting times we live in. Thanks for this memo, Paul!

Directory:Akahele/Ron Livingston battles phantom defendant

2010-10-22T22:06:30Z

Raf: wikif

Over the past few days, we've become aware of actor Ron Livingston's agency [http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/08/Ron_Livingston_Sues_Over_Gay_Rumors.htm taking legal action] to protect his biography on Wikipedia and his personality on Facebook from the malicious efforts of a pseudonymous attacker seeking to defame (or, if not defame, then at least irritate) Livingston by saying he is in a gay relationship with casting director Lee Dennison.

The thing is, Livingston is not gay.

And "Lee Dennison" doesn't exist.

Interestingly, the community at Wikipedia Review has done most of the [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27677 detective work] for lawyer [http://www.kwikalaw.com/cfitzgerald Chad Fitzgerald], whether he knew about it or not. It appears that the accused "John Doe" is actually one Mark Binmore, if even that is a real name.

Attorney Ben Sheffner has also [http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/12/why-you-cant-trust-legal-analysis-that.html commented] on the [http://www.scribd.com/doc/23812308/Complaint-in-Coupleguys-Inc-v-John-Doe legal brief] and the related common tragedy of events like this -- both the mainstream and the gossip media typically botch the details of any legal case involving the Internet. Why is that? Why do Internet issues having anything to deal with privacy and defamation seem so difficult to accurately report in the media? Maybe it's because most reporters have a mistaken understanding that on the Internet people are good, they don't lie, they say who they are, and they don't spread falsehoods deliberately. Well, wake up. Thanks to [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html Section 230], I'm beginning to think that generally speaking, on the Internet the opposite is actually true.

People are bad. They lie. They don't say who they are. And they spread falsehoods deliberately.

==Comments==

===3 Responses to ''Ron Livingston battles phantom defendant''===

Comments RSS

====Anthony DiPierro====
“People are bad. They lie. They don’t say who they are. And they spread falsehoods deliberately.”

Umm, a *few* people. We’re not all like that .

====Barry Kort====
Once upon a time, human beings invented the art of crafting make-believe stories. For many centuries, these make-believe stories were the primary means of transmitting cultural knowledge from one generation to the next.

In the 20th Century, the art of crafting make-believe stories evolved from the bardic arts to become high-tech multimedia presentations in radio dramas, motion pictures, and television.

Now the entertainment industry is learning how to exploit the Internet to raise make-believe to the next level. Just as Sasha Baron-Cohen has demonstrated how to blur the boundaries between fantasy and reality, so too have many erstwhile performers turned to the Internet to do the same.

Ron Livinsgton may be a real actor who appears in conventional entertainment media, wherein he portrays a fictional character in a fictional world. But through the artifice of Wikipedia and the Internet, the invisible hand of yet another mysterious author has produced a fantastic episode that bridges the misty divide between fact and fiction.

We would all be wise to heed these sage words of advice:

“Be ye not bamboozled.” –The Big Bamboozler

It’s the Casting Director Lee Dennison Story! at Wikipedia Review: Opinions and Editorials
[...] picked up by most of the entertainment media, none of whom made any initial attempts to investigate whether or not “Lee Dennison” actually existed. (Ironically, because it bore no copyright, [...]

Directory:Akahele/Nobodyâ€™s watching

2010-10-22T21:57:10Z

Raf:

I just [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=28080&view=findpost&p=214080 learned today] that if you consider all of the English Wikipedia's biographies of living people, and cross-reference that list with a server-level database of the pages that registered editor accounts have decided to put on their own "Watchlist" (to keep tabs on changes to the articles), something grave becomes apparent.

Over 295,000 such biographies, or nearly 70% of all biographies of living people, are being watched by fewer than 4 registered accounts. Not to mention, there's no telling if those watchlists are in the possession of accounts who log in daily or weekly or monthly or not since [http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ratcliffe/?p=271 Essjay said he was a multi-degreed theologian].

No wonder libel and defamation abound on Wikipedia.

==Comments==

===2 Responses to ''Nobody’s watching''===

Comments RSS

====Mark====
*tumbleweed*

Is there anyone watching this blog? I haven’t seen a post in over a month. I’m disappointed.

====Gregory Kohs====
Sure, we’re still getting about 11 unique visitors a day to the domain. Admittedly, the publication schedule has dropped off; but then again, there are no external financial stakeholders or donors to our corporation, so it really is a case of “you get what you get”.

Directory:Akahele/Nobodyâ€™s watching

2010-10-22T21:56:55Z

Raf: wikif

I just [href="http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=28080&view=findpost&p=214080 learned today] that if you consider all of the English Wikipedia's biographies of living people, and cross-reference that list with a server-level database of the pages that registered editor accounts have decided to put on their own "Watchlist" (to keep tabs on changes to the articles), something grave becomes apparent.

Over 295,000 such biographies, or nearly 70% of all biographies of living people, are being watched by fewer than 4 registered accounts. Not to mention, there's no telling if those watchlists are in the possession of accounts who log in daily or weekly or monthly or not since [http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ratcliffe/?p=271 Essjay said he was a multi-degreed theologian].

No wonder libel and defamation abound on Wikipedia.

==Comments==

===2 Responses to ''Nobody’s watching''===

Comments RSS

====Mark====
*tumbleweed*

Is there anyone watching this blog? I haven’t seen a post in over a month. I’m disappointed.

====Gregory Kohs====
Sure, we’re still getting about 11 unique visitors a day to the domain. Admittedly, the publication schedule has dropped off; but then again, there are no external financial stakeholders or donors to our corporation, so it really is a case of “you get what you get”.

Directory:Akahele/Tilikum and Wikipedia

2010-10-22T21:48:54Z

Raf: first test

A darkly amusing pair of links, made relevant in light of the [http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/02/25 CNN report] yesterday:

Tilikum, the killer whale, according to Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_captive_orcas&diff=335514963&oldid=334442101 on January 2], 2010.
<blockquote>"He is in fact very docile" -- 173.18.247.14</blockquote>
And Tilikum, the killer whale, according to Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_captive_orcas&diff=346191204&oldid=346185413 on February 24], 2010, after the fatal incident.
<blockquote>"Maybe, he's not quite so docile..." -- JoelWhy</blockquote>

==Comments==

===2 Responses to ''Tilikum and Wikipedia''===

Comments RSS

====Jon Awbrey====
Ya Really Gotta Watch Those Wales …

====Timothy Usher====
Thanks for this post, Greg. The prevailing view among “responsible” Wikipedians is that misinformation isn’t particularly harmful, so long as it doesn’t appear in a biography of a living person. This example illustrates that misinformation about any subject has the potential to harm readers in unforeseeable ways. Who knows if our deceased trainer consulted the Wikipedia article to determine whether she was at risk? We’d like to think that someone would know better, but the fact is that countless people who ought to know better rely upon Wikipedia anyhow, simply because it’s free and easily accessible. Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects should be shut down, by law if necessary, until the Wikimedia Foundation accepts that ensuring the accuracy of what it publishes isn’t just a good idea, but an ethical responsibility.

Directory:Akahele/The more things change...

2010-10-22T21:41:12Z

Raf: /* The darling of Web 1.0: MP3.com */

It never fails to amaze me the amount of loyalty some people will give to whatever website happens to be the latest ''big thing''. If one looks at the underlying function of most of these sites, one wonders why things which are intended to serve as tools for conveying information, images, or other such content are seen as objectives in and of themselves. Yet, over and over again, the crowd flocks to whatever happens to be the flavor of the month, insisting that this is going to be the thing to completely change the world.

If one were cynical, one would be tempted to recall dear Mr. Plato and his [http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/allegory.html allegory of the Cave]. However, perhaps Rousseau's ''plus ça change, plus que ça reste pareil'' or Léo Ferré's ''Quand c'est fini, ça recommence'' would suffice. Human nature tends to repeat itself and what is happening now has probably happened before. Web 2.0 is no exception.

==Back to the Dark Ages of Web 1.0==

Of course, the Web 1.0 was another story, since things were much simpler back then. Musicians were almost uniformly excited about how this ''internet thing'' was going to change our lives. And it did: in the digital dark ages (way back in 1995), a man named Robin Whittle wrote an article entitled [http://www.firstpr.com.au/musicmar/mmed.html Music Marketing in the Age of Electronic Delivery] which basically predicted pretty much everything that we take for granted today. To quote his abstract :
<blockquote>By the turn of the century many music consumers are expected to have fast network access, home computers and CD-R disc writers. This will enable them to purchase music via electronic delivery, rather than on physical media such as compact disks. Existing distribution channels and radio's stylistically restrictive music discovery process will be bypassed as artists and listeners engage in two way communication, without geographic restrictions. Radical changes to industry structure are expected. As amateur musicians share music electronically, folk music - withering in the age of mass media - may flourish in the 21st century, in a profusion of contemporary styles.</blockquote>
For those of us working in the ''backwaters'' of the music business (classical music, jazz, world music, etc.), these new possibilities seemed like the answer to many problems facing us: how to deliver our product to our relatively small audience without spending the profits on producing stock. These tools have changed the way we do business, but they have also led to a number of developments which no one could have expected.

==The darling of Web 1.0: MP3.com==
<table style="float: left;" border="0" cellspacing="5" align="left">

<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/800px-michael_robertson_2006-150x150.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">Michael Robertson</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">former MP3.com CEO</td>
</tr>
</table>
For example, take one of the biggest success stories of the dot-com era: MP3.com. Started in 1997 by the CEO of Z Company (filez.com, websitez.com, and sharepaper.com) [http://michaelrobertson.com Michael Robertson] and his head of sales Greg Flores, the initial idea was to simply purchase the domain name MP3.com and set up a redirect to filez.com. When ad revenue and large amounts of traffic began to flow into the domain name because of web searches, a decision was made to use the domain to feature unsigned "indie" musicians, and musicians in the thriving techno genre.

==A Musician's Utopia==

Musicians flocked to the site, leading to a concentration of talent, creativity, and a real sense of community. Those who were there in the early days still remember sensing that they were part of something that was on the edge of changing the music business in a profound way.
<table style="float: right;" border="0" cellspacing="5" align="right">
<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/mp3comlogo199.gif</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">MP3.com logo, circa 1999</td>
</tr>
</table>
For artists, it was exciting, completely self-empowering, and unlike any other creative experience ever. You could have an idea in the morning, record a demo at noon, send your track to someone halfway across the globe to add vocals or an instrumental part, and put your work up in evening for the world to hear. The management of MP3.com seemed to understand the importance of this vibrant artistic community, in submitting an ad to the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences ''Grammy'' magazine in 1998:
<blockquote>What the whole world listens to…Future Grammy winners found here</blockquote>

==The beginning of the end==

When MP3.com went public in 1999, the stock sale raised over $370 million, which was a record for an Internet IPO at that time. To motivate the musicians on the site, the management began a promotion called ''Pay for Play'' which paid a "promotional fee" to each artist based on their monthly streams and downloads...''Oddly, this was the beginning of the end.''

Why? For many reasons. The first of which was that, like the Devil's contract with Faust, the ''Pay for Play'' deal with too good to be true. It wasn't a royalty: it was a ''promotion'' which could be halted at any time. But since people had already given royalty-free licenses to their music to the site in the first place, that drawback didn't seem like a big deal. What should have happened at this point is that MP3.com should have started paying into Performance Rights Organizations such as BMI and ASCAP to cover regular performance and mechanical royalties. But since they already had a free license, they could not be persuaded to do this by a bunch of unsigned artists. And when the paychecks started coming, it seemed like a very good deal indeed.

Some people started making lots of money. As in, ''enough money to live on. ''Certain stars emerged such as [http://www.lindhe.com/bassic.html Bassic] who got written up in some mainstream news magazines, [http://www.myspace.com/303infinity 303Infinity] who ruled the Techno charts, and even some big names like Alanis Morissette, who was closely associated with the site in 1999. And everybody wanted a piece of that pie... even people whose music wasn't likely as good as those who were up there at the top of the charts. So, ''the game changed''. Music making became a sideline.

==The new game : phony fights, faked stalking, sex, and DRAMA = traffic==

The first thing that people noticed was that drama led to attention, which in turn led to downloads and streams. So, the message boards which had previously been about collaboration opportunities, trying out songs, and socializing, now began to be about creating fights (real or imagined), insults, trolling, and baiting others. People started using off-site message boards to try to get people to visit their site, polluting Usenet groups with endless insults, off-topic questions, and other ploys to get people to click those links. People pretended to get into fights with other artists and also pretended that other artists were stalking them. Several people posted nude photos to pornography groups, with links to their MP3.com pages. Anything to get people talking.

==Bending the rules and bending the facts = better product placement and more power==

Secondly, people figured out that music placed in certain categories did better than if it were placed in other categories. The techno charts ruled the site, but there was still money to be made in out-of-the-way places such as the Classical or World Music charts. A Mexican pianist named <a href="http://www.last.fm/music/Ernesto+Cortazar">Ernesto Cortazar</a> discovered that placing his Muzak-inspired versions of such golden hits as "Strangers in the Night" in the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_music">Romantic classical</a>" category led to much higher traffic. His rather lame excuse was ''my music makes you feel romantic''. He made a killing at MP3.com, but the stable of concert pianists was always trying to boot him off of the classical charts. However, Ernesto's status as a high money-maker made him immune to any sensible rules about what music belonged in the classical music genre.

==A little help from your friends = Cabals for fun and profit==

Then came the "gamers" or those who "cracked the code": although the MP3.com system examined the IP addresses where the listening and streaming came from (to prohibit people from streaming their own songs), they couldn't examine <strong>all</strong> of the data. People quickly figured out that although their own listens didn't count for themselves, their listens for "friends" did. Around the same time, MP3.com launched a promotion called "New Music Army" which allowed people to make money by promoting other artists. The people who had "rosters" to promote would distribute all of their artists' playlists, which they would encourage recipients to stream several times a week. Many people streamed these playlists on multiple computers all day, with the sound turned off.

==The Script Kiddies made profit a question of ''point and click''==

As to be expected, somebody wrote an automatic script which could play all of the songs on a cabal's playlist automatically, but which played them only for the amount of time necessary to get "credit" before going to the next one. There were rumors of entire blocks of computers running playlists automatically at various server locations. MP3.com tried to catch those who were cheating and did manage to ban some of them, but there was no way that they could ban everyone. And since the site traffic soared and ad revenue went through the roof, maybe it wasn't that big of a deal?

==The sausage factory, version 1.0==

Finally, people figured out that you didn't actually have to make music to get into the game. You could simply record your girlfriend moaning erotically, or you could mindlessly convert to mp3 format any MIDI files found on the web and upload those. And by this point, it didn't really matter. Nobody was listening anyway... at least, not many people. In November 2000, Salon.com wrote an article entitled [http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2000/11/30/download_trading/print.html Whoring for Downloads], which spoke of a woman who traded downloads of her song for a porn video on adult sites, and another woman who described her "song" ''90 seconds of ecstasy'' as:
<blockquote>"90 seconds of my ecstasy as I make myself come. This is the real thing! When I scream as I come loud with the mic near my face, you can even hear the sounds of my breasts slapping against each other and I go wild with pleasure."</blockquote>
This was rather far from the actual act of making music, but it did indeed get lots of streams and downloads. What used to be vibrant artistic community became a mindless factory of worthless content which was mainly comprised of [http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/DP/2007/02/036_4_Super_Robot_Deluxe_-_Delicious_Bobotronic.mp3 porn], machine-generated copies of public domain material, and [http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/LG/Background/Background_-_Alien_Abduction.mp3 some of the most mind-bogglingly bad music ever produced anywhere]. Much of the music became so bad that Time magazine featured [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,128113,00.html a story on the phenomenon in their May 27, 2001 issue.]

==The disillusioned ''old guard''==

The artists who were there at the beginning and who were there during those very exciting first few months took these developments badly. There was a great sense of something unique (perhaps unique in the history of Western music) that had gone terribly wrong and a sense of being caught in the middle of a boring and pointless game.

One of the the most evocative and direct responses to this situation is a song by the artist Dyonisos [http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page_songInfo.cfm?bandID=105722&songID=719567" "Play my song list again, my friend"] which sums up the aggressive atmosphere, the drama, and the endless quest for "more hits! more hits!" -- not musical ''hits'', but simply hits on the play buttons on the artist pages, like so many mice running through a maze and hitting a button to get a reward. In other words, the tool became the master and the original usefulness of the tool became an activity which replaced the entire point of the exercise. What should have set musicians free became a depressing prison, where one spent one's days promoting music to people who weren't listening, except if you clicked their buttons.

==Reality rears its ugly head==

And the management of MP3.com? They were at the head of an extremely popular website, at the effective control of the largest online music catalog ever amassed which had a huge potential value, making lots of ad revenue as well as other revenue from a commercial music service. They were seen as the movers and shakers who were changing the face of the music industry. They had an army of non-salaried worker bees who drove endless streams of traffic and content to their site. They made money off of ads, from album sales, and other promotions. They were the new guys who were calling the shots. And because they were at the top of the food chain and at the helm of the hot new technology, they got cocky. And then they made a huge mistake.

The name of this mistake was "Beam it". This was a service which allowed
users to convert CDs that they had purchased into MP3 format, directly onto the MP3.com servers, and then play them from a personal "locker" on the MP3.com site. Up until this point, MP3.com had not been attacked by the major record labels for copyright infringement because nobody really knew whether or not the law covered the types of uses that MP3.com was pioneering. This time, however, the majors felt that here they had a clear case of unauthorized duplication and therefore a strong case.

MP3.com hid behind the concept of "fair use", giving as an argument that only music which had already been purchased was stored on their servers, as well as their idea that because they were ''cutting edge'' and providing a new service, these attacks would not be successful. All of the recording companies, save one, accepted an "out of court" settlement. The outlier was Universal, and they wanted their day in court. Universal won the case easily: the first line of the UMG v MP3.com decision reads as follows :
<blockquote>"The complex marvels of cyberspatial communication may create difficult legal issues; but not in this case. Defendant's infringement of plaintiff's copyrights is clear,"</blockquote>
''So much for being "cutting edge" as a defense ploy...''

MP3.com was then sold to Vivendi, who had already been given a large amount of stock in their out-of-court settlement. Not wanting to have to pay for a lot of unsigned artists whom they had no intention of signing, the "Pay for Play" program became the ''Premium artist service'' or PAS (with the worst promotional slogan ever: ''PAS is a GAS!''), in which you had to pay to get paid. Then predictably, the payments to artists were phased out.

==Pavlov was right==

What was extremely odd was that the behavior of the artists after the payment incentive was discontinued remained the same. People still did all of the old empty rituals to get to the top of meaningless charts which no longer meant anything. It was as if they were addicted to the same meaningless tasks they had undertaken to get the cash and it no longer mattered whether or not there was a financial incentive.

==The end of the world's largest archive of free online music==

Finally, Vivendi (the owner of UMG) had enough and sold the entire operation to CNET. [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/15/hungover_cnet_wakes_up_next As Andrew Orlowski put it in his Register article], this was a bit like waking up in bed with someone that you don't remember going home with... and CNET decided to do the sensible thing and wipe the servers clean. Thus ended the largest collection of online music ever amassed in one place. While I find the comparison a bit exaggerated, I found the fact that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3.com Wikipedia's article about MP3.com] links to the article about the ''Destruction of the Library of Alexandria'' to be a fitting tribute to the spirit in which the site was founded.

==And the beat goes on...==

''Well, we're in the POST web 2.0 world now'', you say? ''We're past all of that!''

Are we really? The crucial difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, according to Andrew Odlyzko's 2001 article [http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/history.communications2.pdf. "Content is not King"] is the idea that communication is more important than content, or in other words ''traffic is more important than thought''. And this idea seems to underline the entire transition from ''music ''to ''traffic'' which characterized the MP3.com experience from the artist's perspective. However, on another level, it was a transition from ''using tools'' to ''being used by tools''. Isn't this second image close to what Web 2.0 is becoming?

The failure of the artists to see that everything they had created in the context of the site could be and would be destroyed at the whim of site management, the mindless creation of content to generate traffic rather than to provoke reaction and thought, and site management who feel immune from attack because of their position as ''the next big thing''... aren't all of these issues alive and well at our favorite Web 2.0 sites? And since the genesis of these sites and the current processes are so strikingly similar, how can the final outcome be any different?

==Image credits:==
*[http://duncandavidson.com/ James Duncan Davidson], Photo of Michael Robertson, all rights reserved, used with permission.
*[http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 MP3.com logo], used under the Fair Use doctrine.

==Comments==

===19 Responses to ''The more things change''===

Comments RSS

'''Jon Awbrey'''<br/>
Absoulootely Brilliant Analysis!!! Best thing I’ve read about the dynamix of web phenomena in 5 years. Give Paul a raise immediately.

Jon Awbrey

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
Thanks, Jonny! (If Greg gives me a raise, we won’t be able to afford beer and pretzels at our next board meeting, but I appreciate the thought!)

'''Gregory Kohs'''<br/>
I’ll take this as a quick opportunity to add my praise for Paul Wehage’s thoughtful narrative, but also to remind readers that I’m not the one to dole out “raises” to our Board members (who, of course, are all volunteering without compensation for this non-profit enterprise).

The corporation was founded by four people, it was formally registered by Anthony DiPierro, and if anything, I merely had the not-so-original idea of creating an Internet review site where the ownership would be split between multiple, real-name-identified individuals. Imagine that — accountability.

I’m happy that Akahele is resonating favorably with most everyone who reads it. I had a feeling it would.

'''W.R. Somey'''<br/>
I was impressed…!

A lot of this is still going on, actually. “Vanity-distribution” sites like tunecore.com and iodalliance.com make it possible for anyone to get their music onto practically all the major digital-distribution sites, including iTunes, for a small fee and a percentage. Nobody actually listens to the material that’s being distributed in advance, so the artists can categorize it however they want (i.e., wrongly), and of course there’s no quality control whatsoever. Some listeners don’t mind so much because you can occasionally find a gem amidst all that dreck, but the downside is that it becomes very difficult for talented new artists to stand out when there are hundreds of new releases every day, and none of the actual download sites are paying much attention (though I will say that eMusic does a better job than most, and of course, iTunes handles it by simply ignoring anything that comes from a vanity-distribution site).

I remain pessimistic about the future of music as a way for people to make a living, but folks are still going to try… Another interesting new MP3.com-like scheme that’s appeared recently is amiestreet.com, which has a rather unique and convoluted rating/recommendation and pricing scheme – it’s too complex to describe here, and there’s a good chance it will fail too, mostly because established artists won’t want anything to do with it. But in some ways, it’s what MP3.com should have been, and maybe would have been if they’d thought things through better at the outset.

'''Emperor'''<br/>
Excellent article. It’s good to hear things put into perspective.

Great job with Akahele. So far, it’s the kind of site I wouldn’t be embarrassed to tell my friends to go read.

Maybe someday I’ll comment here under my real name.

'''Darby Lines'''<br/>
Paul,
I just wanted to pop in and say that this is a brilliant analysis. Also, I’d like to thank all involved here for this effort. As a disaffected wikipedia reviewer, I’m very much looking forward to a place where some responsible adults can comment on these issues.

'''Alison Cassidy'''<br/>
Excellent analysis indeed. Well done, Paul!

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
@Somey, actually quite a few things which look like “non-vanity” labels actually are “vanity” labels, if you know the business. We call these types of recordings “artist calling cards” since they’re basically used for people either to get University jobs or gigs. Nobody really makes any money off of them (except for composers and publishers who do get broadcast royalties and mechanicals), but they are indeed useful for other reasons.

The only way anybody makes any money in music these days (outside of teaching) is if you do everything yourself, as in have your own label, release your own recordings and manage your own concert work. Many successful classical artists do just this and, even if they’re not rolling in the dough, make enough to live upper-middle class lives. It’s a lot of work though and requires a great deal of energy. Many people would rather just dump their masters into the hands of a label and not worry about sales etc–you make your money off of concerts anyway. Of course, because of this, most of these artists fail WP’s notability requirements (because they’re self-published), but that’s simply because WP hasn’t figured out that this is the new norm.

It’s real life concerts that make the difference these days in terms of separating the wannabes from the real talents. You can’t just rely on the web to make your reputation, especially these days when anybody can sound great on a recording, at the press of a button.

The really incredible thing about mp3.com was that for two years (and perhaps for the first time in the history of music), there were people who did make their living from recordings who did everything themselves; without management, without labels. That’s not happened before or since. We (as a community of musicians) really blew it by making the wrong choices. I’m not sure if it could have been changed, but it was a really exciting thing to be part of that.

@Emperor, Darby and Alison, your comments are greatly appreciated.

'''Dan T.'''<br/>
Pretty nice piece. But, since I don’t share the antipathy to anything in the “geek”, “cyberlibertarian”, “Web 2.0″ mode that’s common on sites like this, I’d prefer it without the preordained conclusions that the way to go is to conservatively follow the way things have been done for 100 years in other media, like “What should have happened at this point is that MP3.com should have started paying into Performance Rights Organizations such as BMI and ASCAP to cover regular performance and mechanical royalties”, like making any attempt to come up with a different business model was some sort of sin that the site was justly punished for.

What your article shows is that systems will get gamed and abused by people, sometimes enough to doom the entire project. Sticking to the way things were done a century ago might be one way to avoid this (those old systems get gamed too, but clearly not enough to make them collapse, since they haven’t), but this is no guarantee of continued success either (ask the buggy whip industry, if it were around to ask); sometimes times change and it’s necessary to adjust, even if this involves trying and failing at new ideas before something better is eventually arrived at.

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
@Dan T. Thanks for your thoughtful comments. This is kind of like writing a paper about the French revolution: you already know that Louis XVI gets his head chopped off in that story. The interesting question is whether or not anything he did before could have been changed to make the end of the story different.

In this case, I already knew why mp3.com got sued by Universal: because they weren’t following copyright laws and thought that they were protected by the “new technology” and that their innovative business model made them immune to these laws. The lawsuit proved that they were wrong. If they had “conservatively” followed the usual practice at the beginning and had gotten licenses from BMI/ASCAP/FOX for everything on the site, Universal could not have sued them. Since they thought that “Beam it” was covered under “fair use” (are you listening, Wikipedia?) and that they had free licenses for the rest of the content, mp3.com thought that they had their bases covered. All of this could have been avoided.

The whole point of that passage being that although the law takes awhile to catch up with new technology, it eventually does. Innovative technology and business practices sometimes do give innovative operations a bit of slack, but not always…and not forever. Being the “new thing” is not a license to do whatever you wish without bothering to follow the rules.

On pps 115-116 of her article “Cyber Civil Rights” (which can be downloaded here), Danielle Citron gives a very interesting model of how the law adapts to new technology. At first, the risk is identified. Secondly, a more permissive period begins where the law allows the new technology to flourish. Finally, in the third stage, the law sees that ligation is not going to hurt the emerging technology and starts accepting cases, which leads to lawsuits which drive some out of business, but not all. I believe that this process is what happened to mp3.com. I also believe we are currently going from stage 2 to stage 3 in community-driven web 2.0 websites. This is a theme that I will be exploring in future pieces.

'''David Holley'''<br/>
Interesting and thoughtful analysis. It seems that yet again a lack of control over content contributors inherent in many “crowdsourced” applications, combined with a refusal to recognize these problems as they arose, led to the downfall of something which had the potential to be successful.

Hopefully subsequent articles will continue in this thought-provoking vein.

'''Dan T.'''<br/>
The people running the site didn’t believe themselves to be breaking the law; they had a reasonably sensible argument for their activities being covered under fair use. Unfortunately for them, the judge didn’t agree, but it was impossible to predict this in advance; they gambled and lost. It doesn’t seem to be so much of an open-and-shut case as you make it to be.

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
@Dan T. I never intended to imply that Universal’s case against mp3.com was “open-and-shut”, as a matter of course. In many ways, in much the same way that Wikipedia is at the top of its game today, Mp3.com was untouchable: a wildly popular and profitable website, an army of artists to do the promotion and content creation, a profitable business model, and innovative use of technology.

The problem is that the story did indeed end the way it ended and mp3.com’s servers were erased. That’s what happened, so mp3.com was not reasonable in implying that they were protected by “fair use” because they weren’t.

No one could have “known” this in advance, but one can know it after the fact. And the process seems to be common enough that other legal scholars have identified it and are applying it to other cases. This hypothesis seems to have validity in that sense.

'''Kato'''<br/>
This is an excellant blog post, by the way. I think I’d grown used to the repetitive and frustrated critiques we usually read and write on the Wikipedia Review, and was refreshingly impressed here.

Much food for thought, and the piece has significantly impacted on my thinking about this whole business.

Great start, and good Work.

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
Thanks, Kato!

I think that it’s extremely useful to take a few steps back and get away from the focus on Users that is so prevalent on WR to look at the larger patterns. I think that there are many “larger picture” issues that can be uncovered through this type of comparative analysis…and at the end of the day, the problem is not what one user does to another, but what the whole does to society.

'''Jon Awbrey'''<br/>
Preacher, Choir.
Choir, Preacher.

'''Anthony DiPierro'''<br/>
I don’t think that licenses from BMI/ASCAP/FOX could have saved mp3.com, because these licenses would have only covered broadcasting, while what mp3.com wanted to do with “Beam It” was duplication and distribution (and thus not covered by statutory license).

Maybe they could have negotiated licenses for each song/album, one at a time, like Apple has now done for iTunes. I was under the impression that the vast majority of record labels were still under the delusion that they didn’t need to embrace these new technologies, though. Maybe I’m wrong on that point – I didn’t realize that many/most of the record labels other than Universal negotiated an out of court settlement.

In any case, mp3.com opted for the wiki wiki path rather than the akahele one. And that made all the difference.

Thanks for the great post, Paul. You’ll be a tough act to follow.

'''TCO'''<br/>
Read BURN RATE. I read it in 1998 and already knew the dynamic at that time. Wolff talks about “chat” versus “edited content”. Chat ruled then and now. Web 2.0 is just Wolff’s chat.

'''Les McQueen'''<br/>
Thank you Paul. Tremendous article.

Tragic really, the demise of such an inspirational site. Fond memories.

For a moment mp3.com really did offer a new way for musicians and songwriters. People often misunderstand what motivates ‘artists’. The power of the community there, the previously unknown opportunity to be heard and appreciated by an audience of other music lovers across the world meant a huge amount to many people. Empowering stuff. Mp3.com mattered.

Yes a few people were making a living (and yes things did get stupid with the gaming), but I don’t think the emotional return that the site offered artists should be overlooked. That was the saddest thing about mp3.com disappearing, all the connection, all the interaction, the kudos, the culture, the community, the esteem, all the relevance rendered irrelevant at the flick of a switch.

Back in your box you unsigned twats (twatter perhaps)

It’s a shit business.
LM

Directory:Akahele/The more things change...

2010-10-22T21:40:00Z

Raf: /* A Musician's Utopia */

It never fails to amaze me the amount of loyalty some people will give to whatever website happens to be the latest ''big thing''. If one looks at the underlying function of most of these sites, one wonders why things which are intended to serve as tools for conveying information, images, or other such content are seen as objectives in and of themselves. Yet, over and over again, the crowd flocks to whatever happens to be the flavor of the month, insisting that this is going to be the thing to completely change the world.

If one were cynical, one would be tempted to recall dear Mr. Plato and his [http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/allegory.html allegory of the Cave]. However, perhaps Rousseau's ''plus ça change, plus que ça reste pareil'' or Léo Ferré's ''Quand c'est fini, ça recommence'' would suffice. Human nature tends to repeat itself and what is happening now has probably happened before. Web 2.0 is no exception.

==Back to the Dark Ages of Web 1.0==

Of course, the Web 1.0 was another story, since things were much simpler back then. Musicians were almost uniformly excited about how this ''internet thing'' was going to change our lives. And it did: in the digital dark ages (way back in 1995), a man named Robin Whittle wrote an article entitled [http://www.firstpr.com.au/musicmar/mmed.html Music Marketing in the Age of Electronic Delivery] which basically predicted pretty much everything that we take for granted today. To quote his abstract :
<blockquote>By the turn of the century many music consumers are expected to have fast network access, home computers and CD-R disc writers. This will enable them to purchase music via electronic delivery, rather than on physical media such as compact disks. Existing distribution channels and radio's stylistically restrictive music discovery process will be bypassed as artists and listeners engage in two way communication, without geographic restrictions. Radical changes to industry structure are expected. As amateur musicians share music electronically, folk music - withering in the age of mass media - may flourish in the 21st century, in a profusion of contemporary styles.</blockquote>
For those of us working in the ''backwaters'' of the music business (classical music, jazz, world music, etc.), these new possibilities seemed like the answer to many problems facing us: how to deliver our product to our relatively small audience without spending the profits on producing stock. These tools have changed the way we do business, but they have also led to a number of developments which no one could have expected.

==The darling of Web 1.0: MP3.com==
<table style="float: left;" border="0" cellspacing="5" align="left">

<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/800px-michael_robertson_2006-150x150.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">Michael Robertson, former MP3.com CEO</td>
</tr>
</table>
For example, take one of the biggest success stories of the dot-com era: MP3.com. Started in 1997 by the CEO of Z Company (filez.com, websitez.com, and sharepaper.com) [http://michaelrobertson.com Michael Robertson] and his head of sales Greg Flores, the initial idea was to simply purchase the domain name MP3.com and set up a redirect to filez.com. When ad revenue and large amounts of traffic began to flow into the domain name because of web searches, a decision was made to use the domain to feature unsigned "indie" musicians, and musicians in the thriving techno genre.

==A Musician's Utopia==

Musicians flocked to the site, leading to a concentration of talent, creativity, and a real sense of community. Those who were there in the early days still remember sensing that they were part of something that was on the edge of changing the music business in a profound way.
<table style="float: right;" border="0" cellspacing="5" align="right">
<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/mp3comlogo199.gif</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">MP3.com logo, circa 1999</td>
</tr>
</table>
For artists, it was exciting, completely self-empowering, and unlike any other creative experience ever. You could have an idea in the morning, record a demo at noon, send your track to someone halfway across the globe to add vocals or an instrumental part, and put your work up in evening for the world to hear. The management of MP3.com seemed to understand the importance of this vibrant artistic community, in submitting an ad to the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences ''Grammy'' magazine in 1998:
<blockquote>What the whole world listens to…Future Grammy winners found here</blockquote>

==The beginning of the end==

When MP3.com went public in 1999, the stock sale raised over $370 million, which was a record for an Internet IPO at that time. To motivate the musicians on the site, the management began a promotion called ''Pay for Play'' which paid a "promotional fee" to each artist based on their monthly streams and downloads...''Oddly, this was the beginning of the end.''

Why? For many reasons. The first of which was that, like the Devil's contract with Faust, the ''Pay for Play'' deal with too good to be true. It wasn't a royalty: it was a ''promotion'' which could be halted at any time. But since people had already given royalty-free licenses to their music to the site in the first place, that drawback didn't seem like a big deal. What should have happened at this point is that MP3.com should have started paying into Performance Rights Organizations such as BMI and ASCAP to cover regular performance and mechanical royalties. But since they already had a free license, they could not be persuaded to do this by a bunch of unsigned artists. And when the paychecks started coming, it seemed like a very good deal indeed.

Some people started making lots of money. As in, ''enough money to live on. ''Certain stars emerged such as [http://www.lindhe.com/bassic.html Bassic] who got written up in some mainstream news magazines, [http://www.myspace.com/303infinity 303Infinity] who ruled the Techno charts, and even some big names like Alanis Morissette, who was closely associated with the site in 1999. And everybody wanted a piece of that pie... even people whose music wasn't likely as good as those who were up there at the top of the charts. So, ''the game changed''. Music making became a sideline.

==The new game : phony fights, faked stalking, sex, and DRAMA = traffic==

The first thing that people noticed was that drama led to attention, which in turn led to downloads and streams. So, the message boards which had previously been about collaboration opportunities, trying out songs, and socializing, now began to be about creating fights (real or imagined), insults, trolling, and baiting others. People started using off-site message boards to try to get people to visit their site, polluting Usenet groups with endless insults, off-topic questions, and other ploys to get people to click those links. People pretended to get into fights with other artists and also pretended that other artists were stalking them. Several people posted nude photos to pornography groups, with links to their MP3.com pages. Anything to get people talking.

==Bending the rules and bending the facts = better product placement and more power==

Secondly, people figured out that music placed in certain categories did better than if it were placed in other categories. The techno charts ruled the site, but there was still money to be made in out-of-the-way places such as the Classical or World Music charts. A Mexican pianist named <a href="http://www.last.fm/music/Ernesto+Cortazar">Ernesto Cortazar</a> discovered that placing his Muzak-inspired versions of such golden hits as "Strangers in the Night" in the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_music">Romantic classical</a>" category led to much higher traffic. His rather lame excuse was ''my music makes you feel romantic''. He made a killing at MP3.com, but the stable of concert pianists was always trying to boot him off of the classical charts. However, Ernesto's status as a high money-maker made him immune to any sensible rules about what music belonged in the classical music genre.

==A little help from your friends = Cabals for fun and profit==

Then came the "gamers" or those who "cracked the code": although the MP3.com system examined the IP addresses where the listening and streaming came from (to prohibit people from streaming their own songs), they couldn't examine <strong>all</strong> of the data. People quickly figured out that although their own listens didn't count for themselves, their listens for "friends" did. Around the same time, MP3.com launched a promotion called "New Music Army" which allowed people to make money by promoting other artists. The people who had "rosters" to promote would distribute all of their artists' playlists, which they would encourage recipients to stream several times a week. Many people streamed these playlists on multiple computers all day, with the sound turned off.

==The Script Kiddies made profit a question of ''point and click''==

As to be expected, somebody wrote an automatic script which could play all of the songs on a cabal's playlist automatically, but which played them only for the amount of time necessary to get "credit" before going to the next one. There were rumors of entire blocks of computers running playlists automatically at various server locations. MP3.com tried to catch those who were cheating and did manage to ban some of them, but there was no way that they could ban everyone. And since the site traffic soared and ad revenue went through the roof, maybe it wasn't that big of a deal?

==The sausage factory, version 1.0==

Finally, people figured out that you didn't actually have to make music to get into the game. You could simply record your girlfriend moaning erotically, or you could mindlessly convert to mp3 format any MIDI files found on the web and upload those. And by this point, it didn't really matter. Nobody was listening anyway... at least, not many people. In November 2000, Salon.com wrote an article entitled [http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2000/11/30/download_trading/print.html Whoring for Downloads], which spoke of a woman who traded downloads of her song for a porn video on adult sites, and another woman who described her "song" ''90 seconds of ecstasy'' as:
<blockquote>"90 seconds of my ecstasy as I make myself come. This is the real thing! When I scream as I come loud with the mic near my face, you can even hear the sounds of my breasts slapping against each other and I go wild with pleasure."</blockquote>
This was rather far from the actual act of making music, but it did indeed get lots of streams and downloads. What used to be vibrant artistic community became a mindless factory of worthless content which was mainly comprised of [http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/DP/2007/02/036_4_Super_Robot_Deluxe_-_Delicious_Bobotronic.mp3 porn], machine-generated copies of public domain material, and [http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/LG/Background/Background_-_Alien_Abduction.mp3 some of the most mind-bogglingly bad music ever produced anywhere]. Much of the music became so bad that Time magazine featured [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,128113,00.html a story on the phenomenon in their May 27, 2001 issue.]

==The disillusioned ''old guard''==

The artists who were there at the beginning and who were there during those very exciting first few months took these developments badly. There was a great sense of something unique (perhaps unique in the history of Western music) that had gone terribly wrong and a sense of being caught in the middle of a boring and pointless game.

One of the the most evocative and direct responses to this situation is a song by the artist Dyonisos [http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page_songInfo.cfm?bandID=105722&songID=719567" "Play my song list again, my friend"] which sums up the aggressive atmosphere, the drama, and the endless quest for "more hits! more hits!" -- not musical ''hits'', but simply hits on the play buttons on the artist pages, like so many mice running through a maze and hitting a button to get a reward. In other words, the tool became the master and the original usefulness of the tool became an activity which replaced the entire point of the exercise. What should have set musicians free became a depressing prison, where one spent one's days promoting music to people who weren't listening, except if you clicked their buttons.

==Reality rears its ugly head==

And the management of MP3.com? They were at the head of an extremely popular website, at the effective control of the largest online music catalog ever amassed which had a huge potential value, making lots of ad revenue as well as other revenue from a commercial music service. They were seen as the movers and shakers who were changing the face of the music industry. They had an army of non-salaried worker bees who drove endless streams of traffic and content to their site. They made money off of ads, from album sales, and other promotions. They were the new guys who were calling the shots. And because they were at the top of the food chain and at the helm of the hot new technology, they got cocky. And then they made a huge mistake.

The name of this mistake was "Beam it". This was a service which allowed
users to convert CDs that they had purchased into MP3 format, directly onto the MP3.com servers, and then play them from a personal "locker" on the MP3.com site. Up until this point, MP3.com had not been attacked by the major record labels for copyright infringement because nobody really knew whether or not the law covered the types of uses that MP3.com was pioneering. This time, however, the majors felt that here they had a clear case of unauthorized duplication and therefore a strong case.

MP3.com hid behind the concept of "fair use", giving as an argument that only music which had already been purchased was stored on their servers, as well as their idea that because they were ''cutting edge'' and providing a new service, these attacks would not be successful. All of the recording companies, save one, accepted an "out of court" settlement. The outlier was Universal, and they wanted their day in court. Universal won the case easily: the first line of the UMG v MP3.com decision reads as follows :
<blockquote>"The complex marvels of cyberspatial communication may create difficult legal issues; but not in this case. Defendant's infringement of plaintiff's copyrights is clear,"</blockquote>
''So much for being "cutting edge" as a defense ploy...''

MP3.com was then sold to Vivendi, who had already been given a large amount of stock in their out-of-court settlement. Not wanting to have to pay for a lot of unsigned artists whom they had no intention of signing, the "Pay for Play" program became the ''Premium artist service'' or PAS (with the worst promotional slogan ever: ''PAS is a GAS!''), in which you had to pay to get paid. Then predictably, the payments to artists were phased out.

==Pavlov was right==

What was extremely odd was that the behavior of the artists after the payment incentive was discontinued remained the same. People still did all of the old empty rituals to get to the top of meaningless charts which no longer meant anything. It was as if they were addicted to the same meaningless tasks they had undertaken to get the cash and it no longer mattered whether or not there was a financial incentive.

==The end of the world's largest archive of free online music==

Finally, Vivendi (the owner of UMG) had enough and sold the entire operation to CNET. [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/15/hungover_cnet_wakes_up_next As Andrew Orlowski put it in his Register article], this was a bit like waking up in bed with someone that you don't remember going home with... and CNET decided to do the sensible thing and wipe the servers clean. Thus ended the largest collection of online music ever amassed in one place. While I find the comparison a bit exaggerated, I found the fact that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3.com Wikipedia's article about MP3.com] links to the article about the ''Destruction of the Library of Alexandria'' to be a fitting tribute to the spirit in which the site was founded.

==And the beat goes on...==

''Well, we're in the POST web 2.0 world now'', you say? ''We're past all of that!''

Are we really? The crucial difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, according to Andrew Odlyzko's 2001 article [http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/history.communications2.pdf. "Content is not King"] is the idea that communication is more important than content, or in other words ''traffic is more important than thought''. And this idea seems to underline the entire transition from ''music ''to ''traffic'' which characterized the MP3.com experience from the artist's perspective. However, on another level, it was a transition from ''using tools'' to ''being used by tools''. Isn't this second image close to what Web 2.0 is becoming?

The failure of the artists to see that everything they had created in the context of the site could be and would be destroyed at the whim of site management, the mindless creation of content to generate traffic rather than to provoke reaction and thought, and site management who feel immune from attack because of their position as ''the next big thing''... aren't all of these issues alive and well at our favorite Web 2.0 sites? And since the genesis of these sites and the current processes are so strikingly similar, how can the final outcome be any different?

==Image credits:==
*[http://duncandavidson.com/ James Duncan Davidson], Photo of Michael Robertson, all rights reserved, used with permission.
*[http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 MP3.com logo], used under the Fair Use doctrine.

==Comments==

===19 Responses to ''The more things change''===

Comments RSS

'''Jon Awbrey'''<br/>
Absoulootely Brilliant Analysis!!! Best thing I’ve read about the dynamix of web phenomena in 5 years. Give Paul a raise immediately.

Jon Awbrey

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
Thanks, Jonny! (If Greg gives me a raise, we won’t be able to afford beer and pretzels at our next board meeting, but I appreciate the thought!)

'''Gregory Kohs'''<br/>
I’ll take this as a quick opportunity to add my praise for Paul Wehage’s thoughtful narrative, but also to remind readers that I’m not the one to dole out “raises” to our Board members (who, of course, are all volunteering without compensation for this non-profit enterprise).

The corporation was founded by four people, it was formally registered by Anthony DiPierro, and if anything, I merely had the not-so-original idea of creating an Internet review site where the ownership would be split between multiple, real-name-identified individuals. Imagine that — accountability.

I’m happy that Akahele is resonating favorably with most everyone who reads it. I had a feeling it would.

'''W.R. Somey'''<br/>
I was impressed…!

A lot of this is still going on, actually. “Vanity-distribution” sites like tunecore.com and iodalliance.com make it possible for anyone to get their music onto practically all the major digital-distribution sites, including iTunes, for a small fee and a percentage. Nobody actually listens to the material that’s being distributed in advance, so the artists can categorize it however they want (i.e., wrongly), and of course there’s no quality control whatsoever. Some listeners don’t mind so much because you can occasionally find a gem amidst all that dreck, but the downside is that it becomes very difficult for talented new artists to stand out when there are hundreds of new releases every day, and none of the actual download sites are paying much attention (though I will say that eMusic does a better job than most, and of course, iTunes handles it by simply ignoring anything that comes from a vanity-distribution site).

I remain pessimistic about the future of music as a way for people to make a living, but folks are still going to try… Another interesting new MP3.com-like scheme that’s appeared recently is amiestreet.com, which has a rather unique and convoluted rating/recommendation and pricing scheme – it’s too complex to describe here, and there’s a good chance it will fail too, mostly because established artists won’t want anything to do with it. But in some ways, it’s what MP3.com should have been, and maybe would have been if they’d thought things through better at the outset.

'''Emperor'''<br/>
Excellent article. It’s good to hear things put into perspective.

Great job with Akahele. So far, it’s the kind of site I wouldn’t be embarrassed to tell my friends to go read.

Maybe someday I’ll comment here under my real name.

'''Darby Lines'''<br/>
Paul,
I just wanted to pop in and say that this is a brilliant analysis. Also, I’d like to thank all involved here for this effort. As a disaffected wikipedia reviewer, I’m very much looking forward to a place where some responsible adults can comment on these issues.

'''Alison Cassidy'''<br/>
Excellent analysis indeed. Well done, Paul!

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
@Somey, actually quite a few things which look like “non-vanity” labels actually are “vanity” labels, if you know the business. We call these types of recordings “artist calling cards” since they’re basically used for people either to get University jobs or gigs. Nobody really makes any money off of them (except for composers and publishers who do get broadcast royalties and mechanicals), but they are indeed useful for other reasons.

The only way anybody makes any money in music these days (outside of teaching) is if you do everything yourself, as in have your own label, release your own recordings and manage your own concert work. Many successful classical artists do just this and, even if they’re not rolling in the dough, make enough to live upper-middle class lives. It’s a lot of work though and requires a great deal of energy. Many people would rather just dump their masters into the hands of a label and not worry about sales etc–you make your money off of concerts anyway. Of course, because of this, most of these artists fail WP’s notability requirements (because they’re self-published), but that’s simply because WP hasn’t figured out that this is the new norm.

It’s real life concerts that make the difference these days in terms of separating the wannabes from the real talents. You can’t just rely on the web to make your reputation, especially these days when anybody can sound great on a recording, at the press of a button.

The really incredible thing about mp3.com was that for two years (and perhaps for the first time in the history of music), there were people who did make their living from recordings who did everything themselves; without management, without labels. That’s not happened before or since. We (as a community of musicians) really blew it by making the wrong choices. I’m not sure if it could have been changed, but it was a really exciting thing to be part of that.

@Emperor, Darby and Alison, your comments are greatly appreciated.

'''Dan T.'''<br/>
Pretty nice piece. But, since I don’t share the antipathy to anything in the “geek”, “cyberlibertarian”, “Web 2.0″ mode that’s common on sites like this, I’d prefer it without the preordained conclusions that the way to go is to conservatively follow the way things have been done for 100 years in other media, like “What should have happened at this point is that MP3.com should have started paying into Performance Rights Organizations such as BMI and ASCAP to cover regular performance and mechanical royalties”, like making any attempt to come up with a different business model was some sort of sin that the site was justly punished for.

What your article shows is that systems will get gamed and abused by people, sometimes enough to doom the entire project. Sticking to the way things were done a century ago might be one way to avoid this (those old systems get gamed too, but clearly not enough to make them collapse, since they haven’t), but this is no guarantee of continued success either (ask the buggy whip industry, if it were around to ask); sometimes times change and it’s necessary to adjust, even if this involves trying and failing at new ideas before something better is eventually arrived at.

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
@Dan T. Thanks for your thoughtful comments. This is kind of like writing a paper about the French revolution: you already know that Louis XVI gets his head chopped off in that story. The interesting question is whether or not anything he did before could have been changed to make the end of the story different.

In this case, I already knew why mp3.com got sued by Universal: because they weren’t following copyright laws and thought that they were protected by the “new technology” and that their innovative business model made them immune to these laws. The lawsuit proved that they were wrong. If they had “conservatively” followed the usual practice at the beginning and had gotten licenses from BMI/ASCAP/FOX for everything on the site, Universal could not have sued them. Since they thought that “Beam it” was covered under “fair use” (are you listening, Wikipedia?) and that they had free licenses for the rest of the content, mp3.com thought that they had their bases covered. All of this could have been avoided.

The whole point of that passage being that although the law takes awhile to catch up with new technology, it eventually does. Innovative technology and business practices sometimes do give innovative operations a bit of slack, but not always…and not forever. Being the “new thing” is not a license to do whatever you wish without bothering to follow the rules.

On pps 115-116 of her article “Cyber Civil Rights” (which can be downloaded here), Danielle Citron gives a very interesting model of how the law adapts to new technology. At first, the risk is identified. Secondly, a more permissive period begins where the law allows the new technology to flourish. Finally, in the third stage, the law sees that ligation is not going to hurt the emerging technology and starts accepting cases, which leads to lawsuits which drive some out of business, but not all. I believe that this process is what happened to mp3.com. I also believe we are currently going from stage 2 to stage 3 in community-driven web 2.0 websites. This is a theme that I will be exploring in future pieces.

'''David Holley'''<br/>
Interesting and thoughtful analysis. It seems that yet again a lack of control over content contributors inherent in many “crowdsourced” applications, combined with a refusal to recognize these problems as they arose, led to the downfall of something which had the potential to be successful.

Hopefully subsequent articles will continue in this thought-provoking vein.

'''Dan T.'''<br/>
The people running the site didn’t believe themselves to be breaking the law; they had a reasonably sensible argument for their activities being covered under fair use. Unfortunately for them, the judge didn’t agree, but it was impossible to predict this in advance; they gambled and lost. It doesn’t seem to be so much of an open-and-shut case as you make it to be.

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
@Dan T. I never intended to imply that Universal’s case against mp3.com was “open-and-shut”, as a matter of course. In many ways, in much the same way that Wikipedia is at the top of its game today, Mp3.com was untouchable: a wildly popular and profitable website, an army of artists to do the promotion and content creation, a profitable business model, and innovative use of technology.

The problem is that the story did indeed end the way it ended and mp3.com’s servers were erased. That’s what happened, so mp3.com was not reasonable in implying that they were protected by “fair use” because they weren’t.

No one could have “known” this in advance, but one can know it after the fact. And the process seems to be common enough that other legal scholars have identified it and are applying it to other cases. This hypothesis seems to have validity in that sense.

'''Kato'''<br/>
This is an excellant blog post, by the way. I think I’d grown used to the repetitive and frustrated critiques we usually read and write on the Wikipedia Review, and was refreshingly impressed here.

Much food for thought, and the piece has significantly impacted on my thinking about this whole business.

Great start, and good Work.

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
Thanks, Kato!

I think that it’s extremely useful to take a few steps back and get away from the focus on Users that is so prevalent on WR to look at the larger patterns. I think that there are many “larger picture” issues that can be uncovered through this type of comparative analysis…and at the end of the day, the problem is not what one user does to another, but what the whole does to society.

'''Jon Awbrey'''<br/>
Preacher, Choir.
Choir, Preacher.

'''Anthony DiPierro'''<br/>
I don’t think that licenses from BMI/ASCAP/FOX could have saved mp3.com, because these licenses would have only covered broadcasting, while what mp3.com wanted to do with “Beam It” was duplication and distribution (and thus not covered by statutory license).

Maybe they could have negotiated licenses for each song/album, one at a time, like Apple has now done for iTunes. I was under the impression that the vast majority of record labels were still under the delusion that they didn’t need to embrace these new technologies, though. Maybe I’m wrong on that point – I didn’t realize that many/most of the record labels other than Universal negotiated an out of court settlement.

In any case, mp3.com opted for the wiki wiki path rather than the akahele one. And that made all the difference.

Thanks for the great post, Paul. You’ll be a tough act to follow.

'''TCO'''<br/>
Read BURN RATE. I read it in 1998 and already knew the dynamic at that time. Wolff talks about “chat” versus “edited content”. Chat ruled then and now. Web 2.0 is just Wolff’s chat.

'''Les McQueen'''<br/>
Thank you Paul. Tremendous article.

Tragic really, the demise of such an inspirational site. Fond memories.

For a moment mp3.com really did offer a new way for musicians and songwriters. People often misunderstand what motivates ‘artists’. The power of the community there, the previously unknown opportunity to be heard and appreciated by an audience of other music lovers across the world meant a huge amount to many people. Empowering stuff. Mp3.com mattered.

Yes a few people were making a living (and yes things did get stupid with the gaming), but I don’t think the emotional return that the site offered artists should be overlooked. That was the saddest thing about mp3.com disappearing, all the connection, all the interaction, the kudos, the culture, the community, the esteem, all the relevance rendered irrelevant at the flick of a switch.

Back in your box you unsigned twats (twatter perhaps)

It’s a shit business.
LM

Directory:Akahele/The more things change...

2010-10-22T21:39:30Z

Raf: /* A little help from your friends = Cabals for fun and profit */

It never fails to amaze me the amount of loyalty some people will give to whatever website happens to be the latest ''big thing''. If one looks at the underlying function of most of these sites, one wonders why things which are intended to serve as tools for conveying information, images, or other such content are seen as objectives in and of themselves. Yet, over and over again, the crowd flocks to whatever happens to be the flavor of the month, insisting that this is going to be the thing to completely change the world.

If one were cynical, one would be tempted to recall dear Mr. Plato and his [http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/allegory.html allegory of the Cave]. However, perhaps Rousseau's ''plus ça change, plus que ça reste pareil'' or Léo Ferré's ''Quand c'est fini, ça recommence'' would suffice. Human nature tends to repeat itself and what is happening now has probably happened before. Web 2.0 is no exception.

==Back to the Dark Ages of Web 1.0==

Of course, the Web 1.0 was another story, since things were much simpler back then. Musicians were almost uniformly excited about how this ''internet thing'' was going to change our lives. And it did: in the digital dark ages (way back in 1995), a man named Robin Whittle wrote an article entitled [http://www.firstpr.com.au/musicmar/mmed.html Music Marketing in the Age of Electronic Delivery] which basically predicted pretty much everything that we take for granted today. To quote his abstract :
<blockquote>By the turn of the century many music consumers are expected to have fast network access, home computers and CD-R disc writers. This will enable them to purchase music via electronic delivery, rather than on physical media such as compact disks. Existing distribution channels and radio's stylistically restrictive music discovery process will be bypassed as artists and listeners engage in two way communication, without geographic restrictions. Radical changes to industry structure are expected. As amateur musicians share music electronically, folk music - withering in the age of mass media - may flourish in the 21st century, in a profusion of contemporary styles.</blockquote>
For those of us working in the ''backwaters'' of the music business (classical music, jazz, world music, etc.), these new possibilities seemed like the answer to many problems facing us: how to deliver our product to our relatively small audience without spending the profits on producing stock. These tools have changed the way we do business, but they have also led to a number of developments which no one could have expected.

==The darling of Web 1.0: MP3.com==
<table style="float: left;" border="0" cellspacing="5" align="left">

<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/800px-michael_robertson_2006-150x150.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">Michael Robertson, former MP3.com CEO</td>
</tr>
</table>
For example, take one of the biggest success stories of the dot-com era: MP3.com. Started in 1997 by the CEO of Z Company (filez.com, websitez.com, and sharepaper.com) [http://michaelrobertson.com Michael Robertson] and his head of sales Greg Flores, the initial idea was to simply purchase the domain name MP3.com and set up a redirect to filez.com. When ad revenue and large amounts of traffic began to flow into the domain name because of web searches, a decision was made to use the domain to feature unsigned "indie" musicians, and musicians in the thriving techno genre.

==A Musician's Utopia==

Musicians flocked to the site, leading to a concentration of talent, creativity, and a real sense of community. Those who were there in the early days still remember sensing that they were part of something that was on the edge of changing the music business in a profound way.
<table style="float: right;" border="0" cellspacing="5" align="right">
<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/mp3comlogo199.gif</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">MP3.com logo, circa 1999</td>
</tr>
</table>
For artists, it was exciting, completely self-empowering, and unlike any other creative experience ever. You could have an idea in the morning, record a demo at noon, send your track to someone halfway across the globe to add vocals or an instrumental part, and put your work up in evening for the world to hear. The management of MP3.com seemed to understand the importance of this vibrant artistic community, in submitting an ad to the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences ''Grammy'' magazine in 1998:
<blockquote>What the whole world listens to…Future Grammy winners found here</blockquote>
<strong>The beginning of the end</strong>

When MP3.com went public in 1999, the stock sale raised over $370 million, which was a record for an Internet IPO at that time. To motivate the musicians on the site, the management began a promotion called ''Pay for Play'' which paid a "promotional fee" to each artist based on their monthly streams and downloads...''Oddly, this was the beginning of the end.''

Why? For many reasons. The first of which was that, like the Devil's contract with Faust, the ''Pay for Play'' deal with too good to be true. It wasn't a royalty: it was a ''promotion'' which could be halted at any time. But since people had already given royalty-free licenses to their music to the site in the first place, that drawback didn't seem like a big deal. What should have happened at this point is that MP3.com should have started paying into Performance Rights Organizations such as BMI and ASCAP to cover regular performance and mechanical royalties. But since they already had a free license, they could not be persuaded to do this by a bunch of unsigned artists. And when the paychecks started coming, it seemed like a very good deal indeed.

Some people started making lots of money. As in, ''enough money to live on. ''Certain stars emerged such as [http://www.lindhe.com/bassic.html Bassic] who got written up in some mainstream news magazines, [http://www.myspace.com/303infinity 303Infinity] who ruled the Techno charts, and even some big names like Alanis Morissette, who was closely associated with the site in 1999. And everybody wanted a piece of that pie... even people whose music wasn't likely as good as those who were up there at the top of the charts. So, ''the game changed''. Music making became a sideline.

==The new game : phony fights, faked stalking, sex, and DRAMA = traffic==

The first thing that people noticed was that drama led to attention, which in turn led to downloads and streams. So, the message boards which had previously been about collaboration opportunities, trying out songs, and socializing, now began to be about creating fights (real or imagined), insults, trolling, and baiting others. People started using off-site message boards to try to get people to visit their site, polluting Usenet groups with endless insults, off-topic questions, and other ploys to get people to click those links. People pretended to get into fights with other artists and also pretended that other artists were stalking them. Several people posted nude photos to pornography groups, with links to their MP3.com pages. Anything to get people talking.

==Bending the rules and bending the facts = better product placement and more power==

Secondly, people figured out that music placed in certain categories did better than if it were placed in other categories. The techno charts ruled the site, but there was still money to be made in out-of-the-way places such as the Classical or World Music charts. A Mexican pianist named <a href="http://www.last.fm/music/Ernesto+Cortazar">Ernesto Cortazar</a> discovered that placing his Muzak-inspired versions of such golden hits as "Strangers in the Night" in the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_music">Romantic classical</a>" category led to much higher traffic. His rather lame excuse was ''my music makes you feel romantic''. He made a killing at MP3.com, but the stable of concert pianists was always trying to boot him off of the classical charts. However, Ernesto's status as a high money-maker made him immune to any sensible rules about what music belonged in the classical music genre.

==A little help from your friends = Cabals for fun and profit==

Then came the "gamers" or those who "cracked the code": although the MP3.com system examined the IP addresses where the listening and streaming came from (to prohibit people from streaming their own songs), they couldn't examine <strong>all</strong> of the data. People quickly figured out that although their own listens didn't count for themselves, their listens for "friends" did. Around the same time, MP3.com launched a promotion called "New Music Army" which allowed people to make money by promoting other artists. The people who had "rosters" to promote would distribute all of their artists' playlists, which they would encourage recipients to stream several times a week. Many people streamed these playlists on multiple computers all day, with the sound turned off.

==The Script Kiddies made profit a question of ''point and click''==

As to be expected, somebody wrote an automatic script which could play all of the songs on a cabal's playlist automatically, but which played them only for the amount of time necessary to get "credit" before going to the next one. There were rumors of entire blocks of computers running playlists automatically at various server locations. MP3.com tried to catch those who were cheating and did manage to ban some of them, but there was no way that they could ban everyone. And since the site traffic soared and ad revenue went through the roof, maybe it wasn't that big of a deal?

==The sausage factory, version 1.0==

Finally, people figured out that you didn't actually have to make music to get into the game. You could simply record your girlfriend moaning erotically, or you could mindlessly convert to mp3 format any MIDI files found on the web and upload those. And by this point, it didn't really matter. Nobody was listening anyway... at least, not many people. In November 2000, Salon.com wrote an article entitled [http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2000/11/30/download_trading/print.html Whoring for Downloads], which spoke of a woman who traded downloads of her song for a porn video on adult sites, and another woman who described her "song" ''90 seconds of ecstasy'' as:
<blockquote>"90 seconds of my ecstasy as I make myself come. This is the real thing! When I scream as I come loud with the mic near my face, you can even hear the sounds of my breasts slapping against each other and I go wild with pleasure."</blockquote>
This was rather far from the actual act of making music, but it did indeed get lots of streams and downloads. What used to be vibrant artistic community became a mindless factory of worthless content which was mainly comprised of [http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/DP/2007/02/036_4_Super_Robot_Deluxe_-_Delicious_Bobotronic.mp3 porn], machine-generated copies of public domain material, and [http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/LG/Background/Background_-_Alien_Abduction.mp3 some of the most mind-bogglingly bad music ever produced anywhere]. Much of the music became so bad that Time magazine featured [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,128113,00.html a story on the phenomenon in their May 27, 2001 issue.]

==The disillusioned ''old guard''==

The artists who were there at the beginning and who were there during those very exciting first few months took these developments badly. There was a great sense of something unique (perhaps unique in the history of Western music) that had gone terribly wrong and a sense of being caught in the middle of a boring and pointless game.

One of the the most evocative and direct responses to this situation is a song by the artist Dyonisos [http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page_songInfo.cfm?bandID=105722&songID=719567" "Play my song list again, my friend"] which sums up the aggressive atmosphere, the drama, and the endless quest for "more hits! more hits!" -- not musical ''hits'', but simply hits on the play buttons on the artist pages, like so many mice running through a maze and hitting a button to get a reward. In other words, the tool became the master and the original usefulness of the tool became an activity which replaced the entire point of the exercise. What should have set musicians free became a depressing prison, where one spent one's days promoting music to people who weren't listening, except if you clicked their buttons.

==Reality rears its ugly head==

And the management of MP3.com? They were at the head of an extremely popular website, at the effective control of the largest online music catalog ever amassed which had a huge potential value, making lots of ad revenue as well as other revenue from a commercial music service. They were seen as the movers and shakers who were changing the face of the music industry. They had an army of non-salaried worker bees who drove endless streams of traffic and content to their site. They made money off of ads, from album sales, and other promotions. They were the new guys who were calling the shots. And because they were at the top of the food chain and at the helm of the hot new technology, they got cocky. And then they made a huge mistake.

The name of this mistake was "Beam it". This was a service which allowed
users to convert CDs that they had purchased into MP3 format, directly onto the MP3.com servers, and then play them from a personal "locker" on the MP3.com site. Up until this point, MP3.com had not been attacked by the major record labels for copyright infringement because nobody really knew whether or not the law covered the types of uses that MP3.com was pioneering. This time, however, the majors felt that here they had a clear case of unauthorized duplication and therefore a strong case.

MP3.com hid behind the concept of "fair use", giving as an argument that only music which had already been purchased was stored on their servers, as well as their idea that because they were ''cutting edge'' and providing a new service, these attacks would not be successful. All of the recording companies, save one, accepted an "out of court" settlement. The outlier was Universal, and they wanted their day in court. Universal won the case easily: the first line of the UMG v MP3.com decision reads as follows :
<blockquote>"The complex marvels of cyberspatial communication may create difficult legal issues; but not in this case. Defendant's infringement of plaintiff's copyrights is clear,"</blockquote>
''So much for being "cutting edge" as a defense ploy...''

MP3.com was then sold to Vivendi, who had already been given a large amount of stock in their out-of-court settlement. Not wanting to have to pay for a lot of unsigned artists whom they had no intention of signing, the "Pay for Play" program became the ''Premium artist service'' or PAS (with the worst promotional slogan ever: ''PAS is a GAS!''), in which you had to pay to get paid. Then predictably, the payments to artists were phased out.

==Pavlov was right==

What was extremely odd was that the behavior of the artists after the payment incentive was discontinued remained the same. People still did all of the old empty rituals to get to the top of meaningless charts which no longer meant anything. It was as if they were addicted to the same meaningless tasks they had undertaken to get the cash and it no longer mattered whether or not there was a financial incentive.

==The end of the world's largest archive of free online music==

Finally, Vivendi (the owner of UMG) had enough and sold the entire operation to CNET. [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/15/hungover_cnet_wakes_up_next As Andrew Orlowski put it in his Register article], this was a bit like waking up in bed with someone that you don't remember going home with... and CNET decided to do the sensible thing and wipe the servers clean. Thus ended the largest collection of online music ever amassed in one place. While I find the comparison a bit exaggerated, I found the fact that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3.com Wikipedia's article about MP3.com] links to the article about the ''Destruction of the Library of Alexandria'' to be a fitting tribute to the spirit in which the site was founded.

==And the beat goes on...==

''Well, we're in the POST web 2.0 world now'', you say? ''We're past all of that!''

Are we really? The crucial difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, according to Andrew Odlyzko's 2001 article [http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/history.communications2.pdf. "Content is not King"] is the idea that communication is more important than content, or in other words ''traffic is more important than thought''. And this idea seems to underline the entire transition from ''music ''to ''traffic'' which characterized the MP3.com experience from the artist's perspective. However, on another level, it was a transition from ''using tools'' to ''being used by tools''. Isn't this second image close to what Web 2.0 is becoming?

The failure of the artists to see that everything they had created in the context of the site could be and would be destroyed at the whim of site management, the mindless creation of content to generate traffic rather than to provoke reaction and thought, and site management who feel immune from attack because of their position as ''the next big thing''... aren't all of these issues alive and well at our favorite Web 2.0 sites? And since the genesis of these sites and the current processes are so strikingly similar, how can the final outcome be any different?

==Image credits:==
*[http://duncandavidson.com/ James Duncan Davidson], Photo of Michael Robertson, all rights reserved, used with permission.
*[http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 MP3.com logo], used under the Fair Use doctrine.

==Comments==

===19 Responses to ''The more things change''===

Comments RSS

'''Jon Awbrey'''<br/>
Absoulootely Brilliant Analysis!!! Best thing I’ve read about the dynamix of web phenomena in 5 years. Give Paul a raise immediately.

Jon Awbrey

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
Thanks, Jonny! (If Greg gives me a raise, we won’t be able to afford beer and pretzels at our next board meeting, but I appreciate the thought!)

'''Gregory Kohs'''<br/>
I’ll take this as a quick opportunity to add my praise for Paul Wehage’s thoughtful narrative, but also to remind readers that I’m not the one to dole out “raises” to our Board members (who, of course, are all volunteering without compensation for this non-profit enterprise).

The corporation was founded by four people, it was formally registered by Anthony DiPierro, and if anything, I merely had the not-so-original idea of creating an Internet review site where the ownership would be split between multiple, real-name-identified individuals. Imagine that — accountability.

I’m happy that Akahele is resonating favorably with most everyone who reads it. I had a feeling it would.

'''W.R. Somey'''<br/>
I was impressed…!

A lot of this is still going on, actually. “Vanity-distribution” sites like tunecore.com and iodalliance.com make it possible for anyone to get their music onto practically all the major digital-distribution sites, including iTunes, for a small fee and a percentage. Nobody actually listens to the material that’s being distributed in advance, so the artists can categorize it however they want (i.e., wrongly), and of course there’s no quality control whatsoever. Some listeners don’t mind so much because you can occasionally find a gem amidst all that dreck, but the downside is that it becomes very difficult for talented new artists to stand out when there are hundreds of new releases every day, and none of the actual download sites are paying much attention (though I will say that eMusic does a better job than most, and of course, iTunes handles it by simply ignoring anything that comes from a vanity-distribution site).

I remain pessimistic about the future of music as a way for people to make a living, but folks are still going to try… Another interesting new MP3.com-like scheme that’s appeared recently is amiestreet.com, which has a rather unique and convoluted rating/recommendation and pricing scheme – it’s too complex to describe here, and there’s a good chance it will fail too, mostly because established artists won’t want anything to do with it. But in some ways, it’s what MP3.com should have been, and maybe would have been if they’d thought things through better at the outset.

'''Emperor'''<br/>
Excellent article. It’s good to hear things put into perspective.

Great job with Akahele. So far, it’s the kind of site I wouldn’t be embarrassed to tell my friends to go read.

Maybe someday I’ll comment here under my real name.

'''Darby Lines'''<br/>
Paul,
I just wanted to pop in and say that this is a brilliant analysis. Also, I’d like to thank all involved here for this effort. As a disaffected wikipedia reviewer, I’m very much looking forward to a place where some responsible adults can comment on these issues.

'''Alison Cassidy'''<br/>
Excellent analysis indeed. Well done, Paul!

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
@Somey, actually quite a few things which look like “non-vanity” labels actually are “vanity” labels, if you know the business. We call these types of recordings “artist calling cards” since they’re basically used for people either to get University jobs or gigs. Nobody really makes any money off of them (except for composers and publishers who do get broadcast royalties and mechanicals), but they are indeed useful for other reasons.

The only way anybody makes any money in music these days (outside of teaching) is if you do everything yourself, as in have your own label, release your own recordings and manage your own concert work. Many successful classical artists do just this and, even if they’re not rolling in the dough, make enough to live upper-middle class lives. It’s a lot of work though and requires a great deal of energy. Many people would rather just dump their masters into the hands of a label and not worry about sales etc–you make your money off of concerts anyway. Of course, because of this, most of these artists fail WP’s notability requirements (because they’re self-published), but that’s simply because WP hasn’t figured out that this is the new norm.

It’s real life concerts that make the difference these days in terms of separating the wannabes from the real talents. You can’t just rely on the web to make your reputation, especially these days when anybody can sound great on a recording, at the press of a button.

The really incredible thing about mp3.com was that for two years (and perhaps for the first time in the history of music), there were people who did make their living from recordings who did everything themselves; without management, without labels. That’s not happened before or since. We (as a community of musicians) really blew it by making the wrong choices. I’m not sure if it could have been changed, but it was a really exciting thing to be part of that.

@Emperor, Darby and Alison, your comments are greatly appreciated.

'''Dan T.'''<br/>
Pretty nice piece. But, since I don’t share the antipathy to anything in the “geek”, “cyberlibertarian”, “Web 2.0″ mode that’s common on sites like this, I’d prefer it without the preordained conclusions that the way to go is to conservatively follow the way things have been done for 100 years in other media, like “What should have happened at this point is that MP3.com should have started paying into Performance Rights Organizations such as BMI and ASCAP to cover regular performance and mechanical royalties”, like making any attempt to come up with a different business model was some sort of sin that the site was justly punished for.

What your article shows is that systems will get gamed and abused by people, sometimes enough to doom the entire project. Sticking to the way things were done a century ago might be one way to avoid this (those old systems get gamed too, but clearly not enough to make them collapse, since they haven’t), but this is no guarantee of continued success either (ask the buggy whip industry, if it were around to ask); sometimes times change and it’s necessary to adjust, even if this involves trying and failing at new ideas before something better is eventually arrived at.

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
@Dan T. Thanks for your thoughtful comments. This is kind of like writing a paper about the French revolution: you already know that Louis XVI gets his head chopped off in that story. The interesting question is whether or not anything he did before could have been changed to make the end of the story different.

In this case, I already knew why mp3.com got sued by Universal: because they weren’t following copyright laws and thought that they were protected by the “new technology” and that their innovative business model made them immune to these laws. The lawsuit proved that they were wrong. If they had “conservatively” followed the usual practice at the beginning and had gotten licenses from BMI/ASCAP/FOX for everything on the site, Universal could not have sued them. Since they thought that “Beam it” was covered under “fair use” (are you listening, Wikipedia?) and that they had free licenses for the rest of the content, mp3.com thought that they had their bases covered. All of this could have been avoided.

The whole point of that passage being that although the law takes awhile to catch up with new technology, it eventually does. Innovative technology and business practices sometimes do give innovative operations a bit of slack, but not always…and not forever. Being the “new thing” is not a license to do whatever you wish without bothering to follow the rules.

On pps 115-116 of her article “Cyber Civil Rights” (which can be downloaded here), Danielle Citron gives a very interesting model of how the law adapts to new technology. At first, the risk is identified. Secondly, a more permissive period begins where the law allows the new technology to flourish. Finally, in the third stage, the law sees that ligation is not going to hurt the emerging technology and starts accepting cases, which leads to lawsuits which drive some out of business, but not all. I believe that this process is what happened to mp3.com. I also believe we are currently going from stage 2 to stage 3 in community-driven web 2.0 websites. This is a theme that I will be exploring in future pieces.

'''David Holley'''<br/>
Interesting and thoughtful analysis. It seems that yet again a lack of control over content contributors inherent in many “crowdsourced” applications, combined with a refusal to recognize these problems as they arose, led to the downfall of something which had the potential to be successful.

Hopefully subsequent articles will continue in this thought-provoking vein.

'''Dan T.'''<br/>
The people running the site didn’t believe themselves to be breaking the law; they had a reasonably sensible argument for their activities being covered under fair use. Unfortunately for them, the judge didn’t agree, but it was impossible to predict this in advance; they gambled and lost. It doesn’t seem to be so much of an open-and-shut case as you make it to be.

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
@Dan T. I never intended to imply that Universal’s case against mp3.com was “open-and-shut”, as a matter of course. In many ways, in much the same way that Wikipedia is at the top of its game today, Mp3.com was untouchable: a wildly popular and profitable website, an army of artists to do the promotion and content creation, a profitable business model, and innovative use of technology.

The problem is that the story did indeed end the way it ended and mp3.com’s servers were erased. That’s what happened, so mp3.com was not reasonable in implying that they were protected by “fair use” because they weren’t.

No one could have “known” this in advance, but one can know it after the fact. And the process seems to be common enough that other legal scholars have identified it and are applying it to other cases. This hypothesis seems to have validity in that sense.

'''Kato'''<br/>
This is an excellant blog post, by the way. I think I’d grown used to the repetitive and frustrated critiques we usually read and write on the Wikipedia Review, and was refreshingly impressed here.

Much food for thought, and the piece has significantly impacted on my thinking about this whole business.

Great start, and good Work.

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
Thanks, Kato!

I think that it’s extremely useful to take a few steps back and get away from the focus on Users that is so prevalent on WR to look at the larger patterns. I think that there are many “larger picture” issues that can be uncovered through this type of comparative analysis…and at the end of the day, the problem is not what one user does to another, but what the whole does to society.

'''Jon Awbrey'''<br/>
Preacher, Choir.
Choir, Preacher.

'''Anthony DiPierro'''<br/>
I don’t think that licenses from BMI/ASCAP/FOX could have saved mp3.com, because these licenses would have only covered broadcasting, while what mp3.com wanted to do with “Beam It” was duplication and distribution (and thus not covered by statutory license).

Maybe they could have negotiated licenses for each song/album, one at a time, like Apple has now done for iTunes. I was under the impression that the vast majority of record labels were still under the delusion that they didn’t need to embrace these new technologies, though. Maybe I’m wrong on that point – I didn’t realize that many/most of the record labels other than Universal negotiated an out of court settlement.

In any case, mp3.com opted for the wiki wiki path rather than the akahele one. And that made all the difference.

Thanks for the great post, Paul. You’ll be a tough act to follow.

'''TCO'''<br/>
Read BURN RATE. I read it in 1998 and already knew the dynamic at that time. Wolff talks about “chat” versus “edited content”. Chat ruled then and now. Web 2.0 is just Wolff’s chat.

'''Les McQueen'''<br/>
Thank you Paul. Tremendous article.

Tragic really, the demise of such an inspirational site. Fond memories.

For a moment mp3.com really did offer a new way for musicians and songwriters. People often misunderstand what motivates ‘artists’. The power of the community there, the previously unknown opportunity to be heard and appreciated by an audience of other music lovers across the world meant a huge amount to many people. Empowering stuff. Mp3.com mattered.

Yes a few people were making a living (and yes things did get stupid with the gaming), but I don’t think the emotional return that the site offered artists should be overlooked. That was the saddest thing about mp3.com disappearing, all the connection, all the interaction, the kudos, the culture, the community, the esteem, all the relevance rendered irrelevant at the flick of a switch.

Back in your box you unsigned twats (twatter perhaps)

It’s a shit business.
LM

Directory:Akahele/The more things change...

2010-10-22T21:38:20Z

Raf: /* The end of the world's largest archive of free online music */

It never fails to amaze me the amount of loyalty some people will give to whatever website happens to be the latest ''big thing''. If one looks at the underlying function of most of these sites, one wonders why things which are intended to serve as tools for conveying information, images, or other such content are seen as objectives in and of themselves. Yet, over and over again, the crowd flocks to whatever happens to be the flavor of the month, insisting that this is going to be the thing to completely change the world.

If one were cynical, one would be tempted to recall dear Mr. Plato and his [http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/allegory.html allegory of the Cave]. However, perhaps Rousseau's ''plus ça change, plus que ça reste pareil'' or Léo Ferré's ''Quand c'est fini, ça recommence'' would suffice. Human nature tends to repeat itself and what is happening now has probably happened before. Web 2.0 is no exception.

==Back to the Dark Ages of Web 1.0==

Of course, the Web 1.0 was another story, since things were much simpler back then. Musicians were almost uniformly excited about how this ''internet thing'' was going to change our lives. And it did: in the digital dark ages (way back in 1995), a man named Robin Whittle wrote an article entitled [http://www.firstpr.com.au/musicmar/mmed.html Music Marketing in the Age of Electronic Delivery] which basically predicted pretty much everything that we take for granted today. To quote his abstract :
<blockquote>By the turn of the century many music consumers are expected to have fast network access, home computers and CD-R disc writers. This will enable them to purchase music via electronic delivery, rather than on physical media such as compact disks. Existing distribution channels and radio's stylistically restrictive music discovery process will be bypassed as artists and listeners engage in two way communication, without geographic restrictions. Radical changes to industry structure are expected. As amateur musicians share music electronically, folk music - withering in the age of mass media - may flourish in the 21st century, in a profusion of contemporary styles.</blockquote>
For those of us working in the ''backwaters'' of the music business (classical music, jazz, world music, etc.), these new possibilities seemed like the answer to many problems facing us: how to deliver our product to our relatively small audience without spending the profits on producing stock. These tools have changed the way we do business, but they have also led to a number of developments which no one could have expected.

==The darling of Web 1.0: MP3.com==
<table style="float: left;" border="0" cellspacing="5" align="left">

<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/800px-michael_robertson_2006-150x150.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">Michael Robertson, former MP3.com CEO</td>
</tr>
</table>
For example, take one of the biggest success stories of the dot-com era: MP3.com. Started in 1997 by the CEO of Z Company (filez.com, websitez.com, and sharepaper.com) [http://michaelrobertson.com Michael Robertson] and his head of sales Greg Flores, the initial idea was to simply purchase the domain name MP3.com and set up a redirect to filez.com. When ad revenue and large amounts of traffic began to flow into the domain name because of web searches, a decision was made to use the domain to feature unsigned "indie" musicians, and musicians in the thriving techno genre.

==A Musician's Utopia==

Musicians flocked to the site, leading to a concentration of talent, creativity, and a real sense of community. Those who were there in the early days still remember sensing that they were part of something that was on the edge of changing the music business in a profound way.
<table style="float: right;" border="0" cellspacing="5" align="right">
<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/mp3comlogo199.gif</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">MP3.com logo, circa 1999</td>
</tr>
</table>
For artists, it was exciting, completely self-empowering, and unlike any other creative experience ever. You could have an idea in the morning, record a demo at noon, send your track to someone halfway across the globe to add vocals or an instrumental part, and put your work up in evening for the world to hear. The management of MP3.com seemed to understand the importance of this vibrant artistic community, in submitting an ad to the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences ''Grammy'' magazine in 1998:
<blockquote>What the whole world listens to…Future Grammy winners found here</blockquote>
<strong>The beginning of the end</strong>

When MP3.com went public in 1999, the stock sale raised over $370 million, which was a record for an Internet IPO at that time. To motivate the musicians on the site, the management began a promotion called ''Pay for Play'' which paid a "promotional fee" to each artist based on their monthly streams and downloads...''Oddly, this was the beginning of the end.''

Why? For many reasons. The first of which was that, like the Devil's contract with Faust, the ''Pay for Play'' deal with too good to be true. It wasn't a royalty: it was a ''promotion'' which could be halted at any time. But since people had already given royalty-free licenses to their music to the site in the first place, that drawback didn't seem like a big deal. What should have happened at this point is that MP3.com should have started paying into Performance Rights Organizations such as BMI and ASCAP to cover regular performance and mechanical royalties. But since they already had a free license, they could not be persuaded to do this by a bunch of unsigned artists. And when the paychecks started coming, it seemed like a very good deal indeed.

Some people started making lots of money. As in, ''enough money to live on. ''Certain stars emerged such as [http://www.lindhe.com/bassic.html Bassic] who got written up in some mainstream news magazines, [http://www.myspace.com/303infinity 303Infinity] who ruled the Techno charts, and even some big names like Alanis Morissette, who was closely associated with the site in 1999. And everybody wanted a piece of that pie... even people whose music wasn't likely as good as those who were up there at the top of the charts. So, ''the game changed''. Music making became a sideline.

==The new game : phony fights, faked stalking, sex, and DRAMA = traffic==

The first thing that people noticed was that drama led to attention, which in turn led to downloads and streams. So, the message boards which had previously been about collaboration opportunities, trying out songs, and socializing, now began to be about creating fights (real or imagined), insults, trolling, and baiting others. People started using off-site message boards to try to get people to visit their site, polluting Usenet groups with endless insults, off-topic questions, and other ploys to get people to click those links. People pretended to get into fights with other artists and also pretended that other artists were stalking them. Several people posted nude photos to pornography groups, with links to their MP3.com pages. Anything to get people talking.

==Bending the rules and bending the facts = better product placement and more power==

Secondly, people figured out that music placed in certain categories did better than if it were placed in other categories. The techno charts ruled the site, but there was still money to be made in out-of-the-way places such as the Classical or World Music charts. A Mexican pianist named <a href="http://www.last.fm/music/Ernesto+Cortazar">Ernesto Cortazar</a> discovered that placing his Muzak-inspired versions of such golden hits as "Strangers in the Night" in the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_music">Romantic classical</a>" category led to much higher traffic. His rather lame excuse was ''my music makes you feel romantic''. He made a killing at MP3.com, but the stable of concert pianists was always trying to boot him off of the classical charts. However, Ernesto's status as a high money-maker made him immune to any sensible rules about what music belonged in the classical music genre.

==A little help from your friends = Cabals for fun and profit==

Then came the "gamers" or those who "cracked the code": although the MP3.com system examined the IP addresses where the listening and streaming came from (to prohibit people from streaming their own songs), they couldn't examine <strong>all</strong> of the data. People quickly figured out that although their own listens didn't count for themselves, their listens for "friends" did. Around the same time, MP3.com launched a promotion called "New Music Army" which allowed people to make money by promoting other artists. The people who had "rosters" to promote would distribute all of their artists' playlists, which they would encourage recipients to stream several times a week. Many people streamed these playlists on multiple computers all day, with the sound turned off.

<strong>The Script Kiddies made profit a question of ''point and click''</strong>

As to be expected, somebody wrote an automatic script which could play all of the songs on a cabal's playlist automatically, but which played them only for the amount of time necessary to get "credit" before going to the next one. There were rumors of entire blocks of computers running playlists automatically at various server locations. MP3.com tried to catch those who were cheating and did manage to ban some of them, but there was no way that they could ban everyone. And since the site traffic soared and ad revenue went through the roof, maybe it wasn't that big of a deal?

==The sausage factory, version 1.0==

Finally, people figured out that you didn't actually have to make music to get into the game. You could simply record your girlfriend moaning erotically, or you could mindlessly convert to mp3 format any MIDI files found on the web and upload those. And by this point, it didn't really matter. Nobody was listening anyway... at least, not many people. In November 2000, Salon.com wrote an article entitled [http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2000/11/30/download_trading/print.html Whoring for Downloads], which spoke of a woman who traded downloads of her song for a porn video on adult sites, and another woman who described her "song" ''90 seconds of ecstasy'' as:
<blockquote>"90 seconds of my ecstasy as I make myself come. This is the real thing! When I scream as I come loud with the mic near my face, you can even hear the sounds of my breasts slapping against each other and I go wild with pleasure."</blockquote>
This was rather far from the actual act of making music, but it did indeed get lots of streams and downloads. What used to be vibrant artistic community became a mindless factory of worthless content which was mainly comprised of [http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/DP/2007/02/036_4_Super_Robot_Deluxe_-_Delicious_Bobotronic.mp3 porn], machine-generated copies of public domain material, and [http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/LG/Background/Background_-_Alien_Abduction.mp3 some of the most mind-bogglingly bad music ever produced anywhere]. Much of the music became so bad that Time magazine featured [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,128113,00.html a story on the phenomenon in their May 27, 2001 issue.]

==The disillusioned ''old guard''==

The artists who were there at the beginning and who were there during those very exciting first few months took these developments badly. There was a great sense of something unique (perhaps unique in the history of Western music) that had gone terribly wrong and a sense of being caught in the middle of a boring and pointless game.

One of the the most evocative and direct responses to this situation is a song by the artist Dyonisos [http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page_songInfo.cfm?bandID=105722&songID=719567" "Play my song list again, my friend"] which sums up the aggressive atmosphere, the drama, and the endless quest for "more hits! more hits!" -- not musical ''hits'', but simply hits on the play buttons on the artist pages, like so many mice running through a maze and hitting a button to get a reward. In other words, the tool became the master and the original usefulness of the tool became an activity which replaced the entire point of the exercise. What should have set musicians free became a depressing prison, where one spent one's days promoting music to people who weren't listening, except if you clicked their buttons.

==Reality rears its ugly head==

And the management of MP3.com? They were at the head of an extremely popular website, at the effective control of the largest online music catalog ever amassed which had a huge potential value, making lots of ad revenue as well as other revenue from a commercial music service. They were seen as the movers and shakers who were changing the face of the music industry. They had an army of non-salaried worker bees who drove endless streams of traffic and content to their site. They made money off of ads, from album sales, and other promotions. They were the new guys who were calling the shots. And because they were at the top of the food chain and at the helm of the hot new technology, they got cocky. And then they made a huge mistake.

The name of this mistake was "Beam it". This was a service which allowed
users to convert CDs that they had purchased into MP3 format, directly onto the MP3.com servers, and then play them from a personal "locker" on the MP3.com site. Up until this point, MP3.com had not been attacked by the major record labels for copyright infringement because nobody really knew whether or not the law covered the types of uses that MP3.com was pioneering. This time, however, the majors felt that here they had a clear case of unauthorized duplication and therefore a strong case.

MP3.com hid behind the concept of "fair use", giving as an argument that only music which had already been purchased was stored on their servers, as well as their idea that because they were ''cutting edge'' and providing a new service, these attacks would not be successful. All of the recording companies, save one, accepted an "out of court" settlement. The outlier was Universal, and they wanted their day in court. Universal won the case easily: the first line of the UMG v MP3.com decision reads as follows :
<blockquote>"The complex marvels of cyberspatial communication may create difficult legal issues; but not in this case. Defendant's infringement of plaintiff's copyrights is clear,"</blockquote>
''So much for being "cutting edge" as a defense ploy...''

MP3.com was then sold to Vivendi, who had already been given a large amount of stock in their out-of-court settlement. Not wanting to have to pay for a lot of unsigned artists whom they had no intention of signing, the "Pay for Play" program became the ''Premium artist service'' or PAS (with the worst promotional slogan ever: ''PAS is a GAS!''), in which you had to pay to get paid. Then predictably, the payments to artists were phased out.

==Pavlov was right==

What was extremely odd was that the behavior of the artists after the payment incentive was discontinued remained the same. People still did all of the old empty rituals to get to the top of meaningless charts which no longer meant anything. It was as if they were addicted to the same meaningless tasks they had undertaken to get the cash and it no longer mattered whether or not there was a financial incentive.

==The end of the world's largest archive of free online music==

Finally, Vivendi (the owner of UMG) had enough and sold the entire operation to CNET. [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/15/hungover_cnet_wakes_up_next As Andrew Orlowski put it in his Register article], this was a bit like waking up in bed with someone that you don't remember going home with... and CNET decided to do the sensible thing and wipe the servers clean. Thus ended the largest collection of online music ever amassed in one place. While I find the comparison a bit exaggerated, I found the fact that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3.com Wikipedia's article about MP3.com] links to the article about the ''Destruction of the Library of Alexandria'' to be a fitting tribute to the spirit in which the site was founded.

==And the beat goes on...==

''Well, we're in the POST web 2.0 world now'', you say? ''We're past all of that!''

Are we really? The crucial difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, according to Andrew Odlyzko's 2001 article [http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/history.communications2.pdf. "Content is not King"] is the idea that communication is more important than content, or in other words ''traffic is more important than thought''. And this idea seems to underline the entire transition from ''music ''to ''traffic'' which characterized the MP3.com experience from the artist's perspective. However, on another level, it was a transition from ''using tools'' to ''being used by tools''. Isn't this second image close to what Web 2.0 is becoming?

The failure of the artists to see that everything they had created in the context of the site could be and would be destroyed at the whim of site management, the mindless creation of content to generate traffic rather than to provoke reaction and thought, and site management who feel immune from attack because of their position as ''the next big thing''... aren't all of these issues alive and well at our favorite Web 2.0 sites? And since the genesis of these sites and the current processes are so strikingly similar, how can the final outcome be any different?

==Image credits:==
*[http://duncandavidson.com/ James Duncan Davidson], Photo of Michael Robertson, all rights reserved, used with permission.
*[http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 MP3.com logo], used under the Fair Use doctrine.

==Comments==

===19 Responses to ''The more things change''===

Comments RSS

'''Jon Awbrey'''<br/>
Absoulootely Brilliant Analysis!!! Best thing I’ve read about the dynamix of web phenomena in 5 years. Give Paul a raise immediately.

Jon Awbrey

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
Thanks, Jonny! (If Greg gives me a raise, we won’t be able to afford beer and pretzels at our next board meeting, but I appreciate the thought!)

'''Gregory Kohs'''<br/>
I’ll take this as a quick opportunity to add my praise for Paul Wehage’s thoughtful narrative, but also to remind readers that I’m not the one to dole out “raises” to our Board members (who, of course, are all volunteering without compensation for this non-profit enterprise).

The corporation was founded by four people, it was formally registered by Anthony DiPierro, and if anything, I merely had the not-so-original idea of creating an Internet review site where the ownership would be split between multiple, real-name-identified individuals. Imagine that — accountability.

I’m happy that Akahele is resonating favorably with most everyone who reads it. I had a feeling it would.

'''W.R. Somey'''<br/>
I was impressed…!

A lot of this is still going on, actually. “Vanity-distribution” sites like tunecore.com and iodalliance.com make it possible for anyone to get their music onto practically all the major digital-distribution sites, including iTunes, for a small fee and a percentage. Nobody actually listens to the material that’s being distributed in advance, so the artists can categorize it however they want (i.e., wrongly), and of course there’s no quality control whatsoever. Some listeners don’t mind so much because you can occasionally find a gem amidst all that dreck, but the downside is that it becomes very difficult for talented new artists to stand out when there are hundreds of new releases every day, and none of the actual download sites are paying much attention (though I will say that eMusic does a better job than most, and of course, iTunes handles it by simply ignoring anything that comes from a vanity-distribution site).

I remain pessimistic about the future of music as a way for people to make a living, but folks are still going to try… Another interesting new MP3.com-like scheme that’s appeared recently is amiestreet.com, which has a rather unique and convoluted rating/recommendation and pricing scheme – it’s too complex to describe here, and there’s a good chance it will fail too, mostly because established artists won’t want anything to do with it. But in some ways, it’s what MP3.com should have been, and maybe would have been if they’d thought things through better at the outset.

'''Emperor'''<br/>
Excellent article. It’s good to hear things put into perspective.

Great job with Akahele. So far, it’s the kind of site I wouldn’t be embarrassed to tell my friends to go read.

Maybe someday I’ll comment here under my real name.

'''Darby Lines'''<br/>
Paul,
I just wanted to pop in and say that this is a brilliant analysis. Also, I’d like to thank all involved here for this effort. As a disaffected wikipedia reviewer, I’m very much looking forward to a place where some responsible adults can comment on these issues.

'''Alison Cassidy'''<br/>
Excellent analysis indeed. Well done, Paul!

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
@Somey, actually quite a few things which look like “non-vanity” labels actually are “vanity” labels, if you know the business. We call these types of recordings “artist calling cards” since they’re basically used for people either to get University jobs or gigs. Nobody really makes any money off of them (except for composers and publishers who do get broadcast royalties and mechanicals), but they are indeed useful for other reasons.

The only way anybody makes any money in music these days (outside of teaching) is if you do everything yourself, as in have your own label, release your own recordings and manage your own concert work. Many successful classical artists do just this and, even if they’re not rolling in the dough, make enough to live upper-middle class lives. It’s a lot of work though and requires a great deal of energy. Many people would rather just dump their masters into the hands of a label and not worry about sales etc–you make your money off of concerts anyway. Of course, because of this, most of these artists fail WP’s notability requirements (because they’re self-published), but that’s simply because WP hasn’t figured out that this is the new norm.

It’s real life concerts that make the difference these days in terms of separating the wannabes from the real talents. You can’t just rely on the web to make your reputation, especially these days when anybody can sound great on a recording, at the press of a button.

The really incredible thing about mp3.com was that for two years (and perhaps for the first time in the history of music), there were people who did make their living from recordings who did everything themselves; without management, without labels. That’s not happened before or since. We (as a community of musicians) really blew it by making the wrong choices. I’m not sure if it could have been changed, but it was a really exciting thing to be part of that.

@Emperor, Darby and Alison, your comments are greatly appreciated.

'''Dan T.'''<br/>
Pretty nice piece. But, since I don’t share the antipathy to anything in the “geek”, “cyberlibertarian”, “Web 2.0″ mode that’s common on sites like this, I’d prefer it without the preordained conclusions that the way to go is to conservatively follow the way things have been done for 100 years in other media, like “What should have happened at this point is that MP3.com should have started paying into Performance Rights Organizations such as BMI and ASCAP to cover regular performance and mechanical royalties”, like making any attempt to come up with a different business model was some sort of sin that the site was justly punished for.

What your article shows is that systems will get gamed and abused by people, sometimes enough to doom the entire project. Sticking to the way things were done a century ago might be one way to avoid this (those old systems get gamed too, but clearly not enough to make them collapse, since they haven’t), but this is no guarantee of continued success either (ask the buggy whip industry, if it were around to ask); sometimes times change and it’s necessary to adjust, even if this involves trying and failing at new ideas before something better is eventually arrived at.

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
@Dan T. Thanks for your thoughtful comments. This is kind of like writing a paper about the French revolution: you already know that Louis XVI gets his head chopped off in that story. The interesting question is whether or not anything he did before could have been changed to make the end of the story different.

In this case, I already knew why mp3.com got sued by Universal: because they weren’t following copyright laws and thought that they were protected by the “new technology” and that their innovative business model made them immune to these laws. The lawsuit proved that they were wrong. If they had “conservatively” followed the usual practice at the beginning and had gotten licenses from BMI/ASCAP/FOX for everything on the site, Universal could not have sued them. Since they thought that “Beam it” was covered under “fair use” (are you listening, Wikipedia?) and that they had free licenses for the rest of the content, mp3.com thought that they had their bases covered. All of this could have been avoided.

The whole point of that passage being that although the law takes awhile to catch up with new technology, it eventually does. Innovative technology and business practices sometimes do give innovative operations a bit of slack, but not always…and not forever. Being the “new thing” is not a license to do whatever you wish without bothering to follow the rules.

On pps 115-116 of her article “Cyber Civil Rights” (which can be downloaded here), Danielle Citron gives a very interesting model of how the law adapts to new technology. At first, the risk is identified. Secondly, a more permissive period begins where the law allows the new technology to flourish. Finally, in the third stage, the law sees that ligation is not going to hurt the emerging technology and starts accepting cases, which leads to lawsuits which drive some out of business, but not all. I believe that this process is what happened to mp3.com. I also believe we are currently going from stage 2 to stage 3 in community-driven web 2.0 websites. This is a theme that I will be exploring in future pieces.

'''David Holley'''<br/>
Interesting and thoughtful analysis. It seems that yet again a lack of control over content contributors inherent in many “crowdsourced” applications, combined with a refusal to recognize these problems as they arose, led to the downfall of something which had the potential to be successful.

Hopefully subsequent articles will continue in this thought-provoking vein.

'''Dan T.'''<br/>
The people running the site didn’t believe themselves to be breaking the law; they had a reasonably sensible argument for their activities being covered under fair use. Unfortunately for them, the judge didn’t agree, but it was impossible to predict this in advance; they gambled and lost. It doesn’t seem to be so much of an open-and-shut case as you make it to be.

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
@Dan T. I never intended to imply that Universal’s case against mp3.com was “open-and-shut”, as a matter of course. In many ways, in much the same way that Wikipedia is at the top of its game today, Mp3.com was untouchable: a wildly popular and profitable website, an army of artists to do the promotion and content creation, a profitable business model, and innovative use of technology.

The problem is that the story did indeed end the way it ended and mp3.com’s servers were erased. That’s what happened, so mp3.com was not reasonable in implying that they were protected by “fair use” because they weren’t.

No one could have “known” this in advance, but one can know it after the fact. And the process seems to be common enough that other legal scholars have identified it and are applying it to other cases. This hypothesis seems to have validity in that sense.

'''Kato'''<br/>
This is an excellant blog post, by the way. I think I’d grown used to the repetitive and frustrated critiques we usually read and write on the Wikipedia Review, and was refreshingly impressed here.

Much food for thought, and the piece has significantly impacted on my thinking about this whole business.

Great start, and good Work.

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
Thanks, Kato!

I think that it’s extremely useful to take a few steps back and get away from the focus on Users that is so prevalent on WR to look at the larger patterns. I think that there are many “larger picture” issues that can be uncovered through this type of comparative analysis…and at the end of the day, the problem is not what one user does to another, but what the whole does to society.

'''Jon Awbrey'''<br/>
Preacher, Choir.
Choir, Preacher.

'''Anthony DiPierro'''<br/>
I don’t think that licenses from BMI/ASCAP/FOX could have saved mp3.com, because these licenses would have only covered broadcasting, while what mp3.com wanted to do with “Beam It” was duplication and distribution (and thus not covered by statutory license).

Maybe they could have negotiated licenses for each song/album, one at a time, like Apple has now done for iTunes. I was under the impression that the vast majority of record labels were still under the delusion that they didn’t need to embrace these new technologies, though. Maybe I’m wrong on that point – I didn’t realize that many/most of the record labels other than Universal negotiated an out of court settlement.

In any case, mp3.com opted for the wiki wiki path rather than the akahele one. And that made all the difference.

Thanks for the great post, Paul. You’ll be a tough act to follow.

'''TCO'''<br/>
Read BURN RATE. I read it in 1998 and already knew the dynamic at that time. Wolff talks about “chat” versus “edited content”. Chat ruled then and now. Web 2.0 is just Wolff’s chat.

'''Les McQueen'''<br/>
Thank you Paul. Tremendous article.

Tragic really, the demise of such an inspirational site. Fond memories.

For a moment mp3.com really did offer a new way for musicians and songwriters. People often misunderstand what motivates ‘artists’. The power of the community there, the previously unknown opportunity to be heard and appreciated by an audience of other music lovers across the world meant a huge amount to many people. Empowering stuff. Mp3.com mattered.

Yes a few people were making a living (and yes things did get stupid with the gaming), but I don’t think the emotional return that the site offered artists should be overlooked. That was the saddest thing about mp3.com disappearing, all the connection, all the interaction, the kudos, the culture, the community, the esteem, all the relevance rendered irrelevant at the flick of a switch.

Back in your box you unsigned twats (twatter perhaps)

It’s a shit business.
LM

Directory:Akahele/The more things change...

2010-10-22T21:37:37Z

Raf: /* The disillusioned old guard */

It never fails to amaze me the amount of loyalty some people will give to whatever website happens to be the latest ''big thing''. If one looks at the underlying function of most of these sites, one wonders why things which are intended to serve as tools for conveying information, images, or other such content are seen as objectives in and of themselves. Yet, over and over again, the crowd flocks to whatever happens to be the flavor of the month, insisting that this is going to be the thing to completely change the world.

If one were cynical, one would be tempted to recall dear Mr. Plato and his [http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/allegory.html allegory of the Cave]. However, perhaps Rousseau's ''plus ça change, plus que ça reste pareil'' or Léo Ferré's ''Quand c'est fini, ça recommence'' would suffice. Human nature tends to repeat itself and what is happening now has probably happened before. Web 2.0 is no exception.

==Back to the Dark Ages of Web 1.0==

Of course, the Web 1.0 was another story, since things were much simpler back then. Musicians were almost uniformly excited about how this ''internet thing'' was going to change our lives. And it did: in the digital dark ages (way back in 1995), a man named Robin Whittle wrote an article entitled [http://www.firstpr.com.au/musicmar/mmed.html Music Marketing in the Age of Electronic Delivery] which basically predicted pretty much everything that we take for granted today. To quote his abstract :
<blockquote>By the turn of the century many music consumers are expected to have fast network access, home computers and CD-R disc writers. This will enable them to purchase music via electronic delivery, rather than on physical media such as compact disks. Existing distribution channels and radio's stylistically restrictive music discovery process will be bypassed as artists and listeners engage in two way communication, without geographic restrictions. Radical changes to industry structure are expected. As amateur musicians share music electronically, folk music - withering in the age of mass media - may flourish in the 21st century, in a profusion of contemporary styles.</blockquote>
For those of us working in the ''backwaters'' of the music business (classical music, jazz, world music, etc.), these new possibilities seemed like the answer to many problems facing us: how to deliver our product to our relatively small audience without spending the profits on producing stock. These tools have changed the way we do business, but they have also led to a number of developments which no one could have expected.

==The darling of Web 1.0: MP3.com==
<table style="float: left;" border="0" cellspacing="5" align="left">

<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/800px-michael_robertson_2006-150x150.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">Michael Robertson, former MP3.com CEO</td>
</tr>
</table>
For example, take one of the biggest success stories of the dot-com era: MP3.com. Started in 1997 by the CEO of Z Company (filez.com, websitez.com, and sharepaper.com) [http://michaelrobertson.com Michael Robertson] and his head of sales Greg Flores, the initial idea was to simply purchase the domain name MP3.com and set up a redirect to filez.com. When ad revenue and large amounts of traffic began to flow into the domain name because of web searches, a decision was made to use the domain to feature unsigned "indie" musicians, and musicians in the thriving techno genre.

==A Musician's Utopia==

Musicians flocked to the site, leading to a concentration of talent, creativity, and a real sense of community. Those who were there in the early days still remember sensing that they were part of something that was on the edge of changing the music business in a profound way.
<table style="float: right;" border="0" cellspacing="5" align="right">
<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/mp3comlogo199.gif</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">MP3.com logo, circa 1999</td>
</tr>
</table>
For artists, it was exciting, completely self-empowering, and unlike any other creative experience ever. You could have an idea in the morning, record a demo at noon, send your track to someone halfway across the globe to add vocals or an instrumental part, and put your work up in evening for the world to hear. The management of MP3.com seemed to understand the importance of this vibrant artistic community, in submitting an ad to the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences ''Grammy'' magazine in 1998:
<blockquote>What the whole world listens to…Future Grammy winners found here</blockquote>
<strong>The beginning of the end</strong>

When MP3.com went public in 1999, the stock sale raised over $370 million, which was a record for an Internet IPO at that time. To motivate the musicians on the site, the management began a promotion called ''Pay for Play'' which paid a "promotional fee" to each artist based on their monthly streams and downloads...''Oddly, this was the beginning of the end.''

Why? For many reasons. The first of which was that, like the Devil's contract with Faust, the ''Pay for Play'' deal with too good to be true. It wasn't a royalty: it was a ''promotion'' which could be halted at any time. But since people had already given royalty-free licenses to their music to the site in the first place, that drawback didn't seem like a big deal. What should have happened at this point is that MP3.com should have started paying into Performance Rights Organizations such as BMI and ASCAP to cover regular performance and mechanical royalties. But since they already had a free license, they could not be persuaded to do this by a bunch of unsigned artists. And when the paychecks started coming, it seemed like a very good deal indeed.

Some people started making lots of money. As in, ''enough money to live on. ''Certain stars emerged such as [http://www.lindhe.com/bassic.html Bassic] who got written up in some mainstream news magazines, [http://www.myspace.com/303infinity 303Infinity] who ruled the Techno charts, and even some big names like Alanis Morissette, who was closely associated with the site in 1999. And everybody wanted a piece of that pie... even people whose music wasn't likely as good as those who were up there at the top of the charts. So, ''the game changed''. Music making became a sideline.

==The new game : phony fights, faked stalking, sex, and DRAMA = traffic==

The first thing that people noticed was that drama led to attention, which in turn led to downloads and streams. So, the message boards which had previously been about collaboration opportunities, trying out songs, and socializing, now began to be about creating fights (real or imagined), insults, trolling, and baiting others. People started using off-site message boards to try to get people to visit their site, polluting Usenet groups with endless insults, off-topic questions, and other ploys to get people to click those links. People pretended to get into fights with other artists and also pretended that other artists were stalking them. Several people posted nude photos to pornography groups, with links to their MP3.com pages. Anything to get people talking.

==Bending the rules and bending the facts = better product placement and more power==

Secondly, people figured out that music placed in certain categories did better than if it were placed in other categories. The techno charts ruled the site, but there was still money to be made in out-of-the-way places such as the Classical or World Music charts. A Mexican pianist named <a href="http://www.last.fm/music/Ernesto+Cortazar">Ernesto Cortazar</a> discovered that placing his Muzak-inspired versions of such golden hits as "Strangers in the Night" in the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_music">Romantic classical</a>" category led to much higher traffic. His rather lame excuse was ''my music makes you feel romantic''. He made a killing at MP3.com, but the stable of concert pianists was always trying to boot him off of the classical charts. However, Ernesto's status as a high money-maker made him immune to any sensible rules about what music belonged in the classical music genre.

==A little help from your friends = Cabals for fun and profit==

Then came the "gamers" or those who "cracked the code": although the MP3.com system examined the IP addresses where the listening and streaming came from (to prohibit people from streaming their own songs), they couldn't examine <strong>all</strong> of the data. People quickly figured out that although their own listens didn't count for themselves, their listens for "friends" did. Around the same time, MP3.com launched a promotion called "New Music Army" which allowed people to make money by promoting other artists. The people who had "rosters" to promote would distribute all of their artists' playlists, which they would encourage recipients to stream several times a week. Many people streamed these playlists on multiple computers all day, with the sound turned off.

<strong>The Script Kiddies made profit a question of ''point and click''</strong>

As to be expected, somebody wrote an automatic script which could play all of the songs on a cabal's playlist automatically, but which played them only for the amount of time necessary to get "credit" before going to the next one. There were rumors of entire blocks of computers running playlists automatically at various server locations. MP3.com tried to catch those who were cheating and did manage to ban some of them, but there was no way that they could ban everyone. And since the site traffic soared and ad revenue went through the roof, maybe it wasn't that big of a deal?

==The sausage factory, version 1.0==

Finally, people figured out that you didn't actually have to make music to get into the game. You could simply record your girlfriend moaning erotically, or you could mindlessly convert to mp3 format any MIDI files found on the web and upload those. And by this point, it didn't really matter. Nobody was listening anyway... at least, not many people. In November 2000, Salon.com wrote an article entitled [http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2000/11/30/download_trading/print.html Whoring for Downloads], which spoke of a woman who traded downloads of her song for a porn video on adult sites, and another woman who described her "song" ''90 seconds of ecstasy'' as:
<blockquote>"90 seconds of my ecstasy as I make myself come. This is the real thing! When I scream as I come loud with the mic near my face, you can even hear the sounds of my breasts slapping against each other and I go wild with pleasure."</blockquote>
This was rather far from the actual act of making music, but it did indeed get lots of streams and downloads. What used to be vibrant artistic community became a mindless factory of worthless content which was mainly comprised of [http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/DP/2007/02/036_4_Super_Robot_Deluxe_-_Delicious_Bobotronic.mp3 porn], machine-generated copies of public domain material, and [http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/LG/Background/Background_-_Alien_Abduction.mp3 some of the most mind-bogglingly bad music ever produced anywhere]. Much of the music became so bad that Time magazine featured [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,128113,00.html a story on the phenomenon in their May 27, 2001 issue.]

==The disillusioned ''old guard''==

The artists who were there at the beginning and who were there during those very exciting first few months took these developments badly. There was a great sense of something unique (perhaps unique in the history of Western music) that had gone terribly wrong and a sense of being caught in the middle of a boring and pointless game.

One of the the most evocative and direct responses to this situation is a song by the artist Dyonisos [http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page_songInfo.cfm?bandID=105722&songID=719567" "Play my song list again, my friend"] which sums up the aggressive atmosphere, the drama, and the endless quest for "more hits! more hits!" -- not musical ''hits'', but simply hits on the play buttons on the artist pages, like so many mice running through a maze and hitting a button to get a reward. In other words, the tool became the master and the original usefulness of the tool became an activity which replaced the entire point of the exercise. What should have set musicians free became a depressing prison, where one spent one's days promoting music to people who weren't listening, except if you clicked their buttons.

==Reality rears its ugly head==

And the management of MP3.com? They were at the head of an extremely popular website, at the effective control of the largest online music catalog ever amassed which had a huge potential value, making lots of ad revenue as well as other revenue from a commercial music service. They were seen as the movers and shakers who were changing the face of the music industry. They had an army of non-salaried worker bees who drove endless streams of traffic and content to their site. They made money off of ads, from album sales, and other promotions. They were the new guys who were calling the shots. And because they were at the top of the food chain and at the helm of the hot new technology, they got cocky. And then they made a huge mistake.

The name of this mistake was "Beam it". This was a service which allowed
users to convert CDs that they had purchased into MP3 format, directly onto the MP3.com servers, and then play them from a personal "locker" on the MP3.com site. Up until this point, MP3.com had not been attacked by the major record labels for copyright infringement because nobody really knew whether or not the law covered the types of uses that MP3.com was pioneering. This time, however, the majors felt that here they had a clear case of unauthorized duplication and therefore a strong case.

MP3.com hid behind the concept of "fair use", giving as an argument that only music which had already been purchased was stored on their servers, as well as their idea that because they were ''cutting edge'' and providing a new service, these attacks would not be successful. All of the recording companies, save one, accepted an "out of court" settlement. The outlier was Universal, and they wanted their day in court. Universal won the case easily: the first line of the UMG v MP3.com decision reads as follows :
<blockquote>"The complex marvels of cyberspatial communication may create difficult legal issues; but not in this case. Defendant's infringement of plaintiff's copyrights is clear,"</blockquote>
''So much for being "cutting edge" as a defense ploy...''

MP3.com was then sold to Vivendi, who had already been given a large amount of stock in their out-of-court settlement. Not wanting to have to pay for a lot of unsigned artists whom they had no intention of signing, the "Pay for Play" program became the ''Premium artist service'' or PAS (with the worst promotional slogan ever: ''PAS is a GAS!''), in which you had to pay to get paid. Then predictably, the payments to artists were phased out.

==Pavlov was right==

What was extremely odd was that the behavior of the artists after the payment incentive was discontinued remained the same. People still did all of the old empty rituals to get to the top of meaningless charts which no longer meant anything. It was as if they were addicted to the same meaningless tasks they had undertaken to get the cash and it no longer mattered whether or not there was a financial incentive.

==The end of the world's largest archive of free online music==

Finally, Vivendi (the owner of UMG) had enough and sold the entire operation to CNET. <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/15/hungover_cnet_wakes_up_next/">As Andrew Orlowski put it in his Register article</a>, this was a bit like waking up in bed with someone that you don't remember going home with... and CNET decided to do the sensible thing and wipe the servers clean. Thus ended the largest collection of online music ever amassed in one place. While I find the comparison a bit exaggerated, I found the fact that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3.com">Wikipedia's article about MP3.com</a> links to the article about the ''Destruction of the Library of Alexandria'' to be a fitting tribute to the spirit in which the site was founded.

==And the beat goes on...==

''Well, we're in the POST web 2.0 world now'', you say? ''We're past all of that!''

Are we really? The crucial difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, according to Andrew Odlyzko's 2001 article [http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/history.communications2.pdf. "Content is not King"] is the idea that communication is more important than content, or in other words ''traffic is more important than thought''. And this idea seems to underline the entire transition from ''music ''to ''traffic'' which characterized the MP3.com experience from the artist's perspective. However, on another level, it was a transition from ''using tools'' to ''being used by tools''. Isn't this second image close to what Web 2.0 is becoming?

The failure of the artists to see that everything they had created in the context of the site could be and would be destroyed at the whim of site management, the mindless creation of content to generate traffic rather than to provoke reaction and thought, and site management who feel immune from attack because of their position as ''the next big thing''... aren't all of these issues alive and well at our favorite Web 2.0 sites? And since the genesis of these sites and the current processes are so strikingly similar, how can the final outcome be any different?

==Image credits:==
*[http://duncandavidson.com/ James Duncan Davidson], Photo of Michael Robertson, all rights reserved, used with permission.
*[http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 MP3.com logo], used under the Fair Use doctrine.

==Comments==

===19 Responses to ''The more things change''===

Comments RSS

'''Jon Awbrey'''<br/>
Absoulootely Brilliant Analysis!!! Best thing I’ve read about the dynamix of web phenomena in 5 years. Give Paul a raise immediately.

Jon Awbrey

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
Thanks, Jonny! (If Greg gives me a raise, we won’t be able to afford beer and pretzels at our next board meeting, but I appreciate the thought!)

'''Gregory Kohs'''<br/>
I’ll take this as a quick opportunity to add my praise for Paul Wehage’s thoughtful narrative, but also to remind readers that I’m not the one to dole out “raises” to our Board members (who, of course, are all volunteering without compensation for this non-profit enterprise).

The corporation was founded by four people, it was formally registered by Anthony DiPierro, and if anything, I merely had the not-so-original idea of creating an Internet review site where the ownership would be split between multiple, real-name-identified individuals. Imagine that — accountability.

I’m happy that Akahele is resonating favorably with most everyone who reads it. I had a feeling it would.

'''W.R. Somey'''<br/>
I was impressed…!

A lot of this is still going on, actually. “Vanity-distribution” sites like tunecore.com and iodalliance.com make it possible for anyone to get their music onto practically all the major digital-distribution sites, including iTunes, for a small fee and a percentage. Nobody actually listens to the material that’s being distributed in advance, so the artists can categorize it however they want (i.e., wrongly), and of course there’s no quality control whatsoever. Some listeners don’t mind so much because you can occasionally find a gem amidst all that dreck, but the downside is that it becomes very difficult for talented new artists to stand out when there are hundreds of new releases every day, and none of the actual download sites are paying much attention (though I will say that eMusic does a better job than most, and of course, iTunes handles it by simply ignoring anything that comes from a vanity-distribution site).

I remain pessimistic about the future of music as a way for people to make a living, but folks are still going to try… Another interesting new MP3.com-like scheme that’s appeared recently is amiestreet.com, which has a rather unique and convoluted rating/recommendation and pricing scheme – it’s too complex to describe here, and there’s a good chance it will fail too, mostly because established artists won’t want anything to do with it. But in some ways, it’s what MP3.com should have been, and maybe would have been if they’d thought things through better at the outset.

'''Emperor'''<br/>
Excellent article. It’s good to hear things put into perspective.

Great job with Akahele. So far, it’s the kind of site I wouldn’t be embarrassed to tell my friends to go read.

Maybe someday I’ll comment here under my real name.

'''Darby Lines'''<br/>
Paul,
I just wanted to pop in and say that this is a brilliant analysis. Also, I’d like to thank all involved here for this effort. As a disaffected wikipedia reviewer, I’m very much looking forward to a place where some responsible adults can comment on these issues.

'''Alison Cassidy'''<br/>
Excellent analysis indeed. Well done, Paul!

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
@Somey, actually quite a few things which look like “non-vanity” labels actually are “vanity” labels, if you know the business. We call these types of recordings “artist calling cards” since they’re basically used for people either to get University jobs or gigs. Nobody really makes any money off of them (except for composers and publishers who do get broadcast royalties and mechanicals), but they are indeed useful for other reasons.

The only way anybody makes any money in music these days (outside of teaching) is if you do everything yourself, as in have your own label, release your own recordings and manage your own concert work. Many successful classical artists do just this and, even if they’re not rolling in the dough, make enough to live upper-middle class lives. It’s a lot of work though and requires a great deal of energy. Many people would rather just dump their masters into the hands of a label and not worry about sales etc–you make your money off of concerts anyway. Of course, because of this, most of these artists fail WP’s notability requirements (because they’re self-published), but that’s simply because WP hasn’t figured out that this is the new norm.

It’s real life concerts that make the difference these days in terms of separating the wannabes from the real talents. You can’t just rely on the web to make your reputation, especially these days when anybody can sound great on a recording, at the press of a button.

The really incredible thing about mp3.com was that for two years (and perhaps for the first time in the history of music), there were people who did make their living from recordings who did everything themselves; without management, without labels. That’s not happened before or since. We (as a community of musicians) really blew it by making the wrong choices. I’m not sure if it could have been changed, but it was a really exciting thing to be part of that.

@Emperor, Darby and Alison, your comments are greatly appreciated.

'''Dan T.'''<br/>
Pretty nice piece. But, since I don’t share the antipathy to anything in the “geek”, “cyberlibertarian”, “Web 2.0″ mode that’s common on sites like this, I’d prefer it without the preordained conclusions that the way to go is to conservatively follow the way things have been done for 100 years in other media, like “What should have happened at this point is that MP3.com should have started paying into Performance Rights Organizations such as BMI and ASCAP to cover regular performance and mechanical royalties”, like making any attempt to come up with a different business model was some sort of sin that the site was justly punished for.

What your article shows is that systems will get gamed and abused by people, sometimes enough to doom the entire project. Sticking to the way things were done a century ago might be one way to avoid this (those old systems get gamed too, but clearly not enough to make them collapse, since they haven’t), but this is no guarantee of continued success either (ask the buggy whip industry, if it were around to ask); sometimes times change and it’s necessary to adjust, even if this involves trying and failing at new ideas before something better is eventually arrived at.

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
@Dan T. Thanks for your thoughtful comments. This is kind of like writing a paper about the French revolution: you already know that Louis XVI gets his head chopped off in that story. The interesting question is whether or not anything he did before could have been changed to make the end of the story different.

In this case, I already knew why mp3.com got sued by Universal: because they weren’t following copyright laws and thought that they were protected by the “new technology” and that their innovative business model made them immune to these laws. The lawsuit proved that they were wrong. If they had “conservatively” followed the usual practice at the beginning and had gotten licenses from BMI/ASCAP/FOX for everything on the site, Universal could not have sued them. Since they thought that “Beam it” was covered under “fair use” (are you listening, Wikipedia?) and that they had free licenses for the rest of the content, mp3.com thought that they had their bases covered. All of this could have been avoided.

The whole point of that passage being that although the law takes awhile to catch up with new technology, it eventually does. Innovative technology and business practices sometimes do give innovative operations a bit of slack, but not always…and not forever. Being the “new thing” is not a license to do whatever you wish without bothering to follow the rules.

On pps 115-116 of her article “Cyber Civil Rights” (which can be downloaded here), Danielle Citron gives a very interesting model of how the law adapts to new technology. At first, the risk is identified. Secondly, a more permissive period begins where the law allows the new technology to flourish. Finally, in the third stage, the law sees that ligation is not going to hurt the emerging technology and starts accepting cases, which leads to lawsuits which drive some out of business, but not all. I believe that this process is what happened to mp3.com. I also believe we are currently going from stage 2 to stage 3 in community-driven web 2.0 websites. This is a theme that I will be exploring in future pieces.

'''David Holley'''<br/>
Interesting and thoughtful analysis. It seems that yet again a lack of control over content contributors inherent in many “crowdsourced” applications, combined with a refusal to recognize these problems as they arose, led to the downfall of something which had the potential to be successful.

Hopefully subsequent articles will continue in this thought-provoking vein.

'''Dan T.'''<br/>
The people running the site didn’t believe themselves to be breaking the law; they had a reasonably sensible argument for their activities being covered under fair use. Unfortunately for them, the judge didn’t agree, but it was impossible to predict this in advance; they gambled and lost. It doesn’t seem to be so much of an open-and-shut case as you make it to be.

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
@Dan T. I never intended to imply that Universal’s case against mp3.com was “open-and-shut”, as a matter of course. In many ways, in much the same way that Wikipedia is at the top of its game today, Mp3.com was untouchable: a wildly popular and profitable website, an army of artists to do the promotion and content creation, a profitable business model, and innovative use of technology.

The problem is that the story did indeed end the way it ended and mp3.com’s servers were erased. That’s what happened, so mp3.com was not reasonable in implying that they were protected by “fair use” because they weren’t.

No one could have “known” this in advance, but one can know it after the fact. And the process seems to be common enough that other legal scholars have identified it and are applying it to other cases. This hypothesis seems to have validity in that sense.

'''Kato'''<br/>
This is an excellant blog post, by the way. I think I’d grown used to the repetitive and frustrated critiques we usually read and write on the Wikipedia Review, and was refreshingly impressed here.

Much food for thought, and the piece has significantly impacted on my thinking about this whole business.

Great start, and good Work.

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
Thanks, Kato!

I think that it’s extremely useful to take a few steps back and get away from the focus on Users that is so prevalent on WR to look at the larger patterns. I think that there are many “larger picture” issues that can be uncovered through this type of comparative analysis…and at the end of the day, the problem is not what one user does to another, but what the whole does to society.

'''Jon Awbrey'''<br/>
Preacher, Choir.
Choir, Preacher.

'''Anthony DiPierro'''<br/>
I don’t think that licenses from BMI/ASCAP/FOX could have saved mp3.com, because these licenses would have only covered broadcasting, while what mp3.com wanted to do with “Beam It” was duplication and distribution (and thus not covered by statutory license).

Maybe they could have negotiated licenses for each song/album, one at a time, like Apple has now done for iTunes. I was under the impression that the vast majority of record labels were still under the delusion that they didn’t need to embrace these new technologies, though. Maybe I’m wrong on that point – I didn’t realize that many/most of the record labels other than Universal negotiated an out of court settlement.

In any case, mp3.com opted for the wiki wiki path rather than the akahele one. And that made all the difference.

Thanks for the great post, Paul. You’ll be a tough act to follow.

'''TCO'''<br/>
Read BURN RATE. I read it in 1998 and already knew the dynamic at that time. Wolff talks about “chat” versus “edited content”. Chat ruled then and now. Web 2.0 is just Wolff’s chat.

'''Les McQueen'''<br/>
Thank you Paul. Tremendous article.

Tragic really, the demise of such an inspirational site. Fond memories.

For a moment mp3.com really did offer a new way for musicians and songwriters. People often misunderstand what motivates ‘artists’. The power of the community there, the previously unknown opportunity to be heard and appreciated by an audience of other music lovers across the world meant a huge amount to many people. Empowering stuff. Mp3.com mattered.

Yes a few people were making a living (and yes things did get stupid with the gaming), but I don’t think the emotional return that the site offered artists should be overlooked. That was the saddest thing about mp3.com disappearing, all the connection, all the interaction, the kudos, the culture, the community, the esteem, all the relevance rendered irrelevant at the flick of a switch.

Back in your box you unsigned twats (twatter perhaps)

It’s a shit business.
LM

Directory:Akahele/The more things change...

2010-10-22T21:37:00Z

Raf: /* The sausage factory, version 1.0 */

It never fails to amaze me the amount of loyalty some people will give to whatever website happens to be the latest ''big thing''. If one looks at the underlying function of most of these sites, one wonders why things which are intended to serve as tools for conveying information, images, or other such content are seen as objectives in and of themselves. Yet, over and over again, the crowd flocks to whatever happens to be the flavor of the month, insisting that this is going to be the thing to completely change the world.

If one were cynical, one would be tempted to recall dear Mr. Plato and his [http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/allegory.html allegory of the Cave]. However, perhaps Rousseau's ''plus ça change, plus que ça reste pareil'' or Léo Ferré's ''Quand c'est fini, ça recommence'' would suffice. Human nature tends to repeat itself and what is happening now has probably happened before. Web 2.0 is no exception.

==Back to the Dark Ages of Web 1.0==

Of course, the Web 1.0 was another story, since things were much simpler back then. Musicians were almost uniformly excited about how this ''internet thing'' was going to change our lives. And it did: in the digital dark ages (way back in 1995), a man named Robin Whittle wrote an article entitled [http://www.firstpr.com.au/musicmar/mmed.html Music Marketing in the Age of Electronic Delivery] which basically predicted pretty much everything that we take for granted today. To quote his abstract :
<blockquote>By the turn of the century many music consumers are expected to have fast network access, home computers and CD-R disc writers. This will enable them to purchase music via electronic delivery, rather than on physical media such as compact disks. Existing distribution channels and radio's stylistically restrictive music discovery process will be bypassed as artists and listeners engage in two way communication, without geographic restrictions. Radical changes to industry structure are expected. As amateur musicians share music electronically, folk music - withering in the age of mass media - may flourish in the 21st century, in a profusion of contemporary styles.</blockquote>
For those of us working in the ''backwaters'' of the music business (classical music, jazz, world music, etc.), these new possibilities seemed like the answer to many problems facing us: how to deliver our product to our relatively small audience without spending the profits on producing stock. These tools have changed the way we do business, but they have also led to a number of developments which no one could have expected.

==The darling of Web 1.0: MP3.com==
<table style="float: left;" border="0" cellspacing="5" align="left">

<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/800px-michael_robertson_2006-150x150.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">Michael Robertson, former MP3.com CEO</td>
</tr>
</table>
For example, take one of the biggest success stories of the dot-com era: MP3.com. Started in 1997 by the CEO of Z Company (filez.com, websitez.com, and sharepaper.com) [http://michaelrobertson.com Michael Robertson] and his head of sales Greg Flores, the initial idea was to simply purchase the domain name MP3.com and set up a redirect to filez.com. When ad revenue and large amounts of traffic began to flow into the domain name because of web searches, a decision was made to use the domain to feature unsigned "indie" musicians, and musicians in the thriving techno genre.

==A Musician's Utopia==

Musicians flocked to the site, leading to a concentration of talent, creativity, and a real sense of community. Those who were there in the early days still remember sensing that they were part of something that was on the edge of changing the music business in a profound way.
<table style="float: right;" border="0" cellspacing="5" align="right">
<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/mp3comlogo199.gif</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">MP3.com logo, circa 1999</td>
</tr>
</table>
For artists, it was exciting, completely self-empowering, and unlike any other creative experience ever. You could have an idea in the morning, record a demo at noon, send your track to someone halfway across the globe to add vocals or an instrumental part, and put your work up in evening for the world to hear. The management of MP3.com seemed to understand the importance of this vibrant artistic community, in submitting an ad to the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences ''Grammy'' magazine in 1998:
<blockquote>What the whole world listens to…Future Grammy winners found here</blockquote>
<strong>The beginning of the end</strong>

When MP3.com went public in 1999, the stock sale raised over $370 million, which was a record for an Internet IPO at that time. To motivate the musicians on the site, the management began a promotion called ''Pay for Play'' which paid a "promotional fee" to each artist based on their monthly streams and downloads...''Oddly, this was the beginning of the end.''

Why? For many reasons. The first of which was that, like the Devil's contract with Faust, the ''Pay for Play'' deal with too good to be true. It wasn't a royalty: it was a ''promotion'' which could be halted at any time. But since people had already given royalty-free licenses to their music to the site in the first place, that drawback didn't seem like a big deal. What should have happened at this point is that MP3.com should have started paying into Performance Rights Organizations such as BMI and ASCAP to cover regular performance and mechanical royalties. But since they already had a free license, they could not be persuaded to do this by a bunch of unsigned artists. And when the paychecks started coming, it seemed like a very good deal indeed.

Some people started making lots of money. As in, ''enough money to live on. ''Certain stars emerged such as [http://www.lindhe.com/bassic.html Bassic] who got written up in some mainstream news magazines, [http://www.myspace.com/303infinity 303Infinity] who ruled the Techno charts, and even some big names like Alanis Morissette, who was closely associated with the site in 1999. And everybody wanted a piece of that pie... even people whose music wasn't likely as good as those who were up there at the top of the charts. So, ''the game changed''. Music making became a sideline.

==The new game : phony fights, faked stalking, sex, and DRAMA = traffic==

The first thing that people noticed was that drama led to attention, which in turn led to downloads and streams. So, the message boards which had previously been about collaboration opportunities, trying out songs, and socializing, now began to be about creating fights (real or imagined), insults, trolling, and baiting others. People started using off-site message boards to try to get people to visit their site, polluting Usenet groups with endless insults, off-topic questions, and other ploys to get people to click those links. People pretended to get into fights with other artists and also pretended that other artists were stalking them. Several people posted nude photos to pornography groups, with links to their MP3.com pages. Anything to get people talking.

==Bending the rules and bending the facts = better product placement and more power==

Secondly, people figured out that music placed in certain categories did better than if it were placed in other categories. The techno charts ruled the site, but there was still money to be made in out-of-the-way places such as the Classical or World Music charts. A Mexican pianist named <a href="http://www.last.fm/music/Ernesto+Cortazar">Ernesto Cortazar</a> discovered that placing his Muzak-inspired versions of such golden hits as "Strangers in the Night" in the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_music">Romantic classical</a>" category led to much higher traffic. His rather lame excuse was ''my music makes you feel romantic''. He made a killing at MP3.com, but the stable of concert pianists was always trying to boot him off of the classical charts. However, Ernesto's status as a high money-maker made him immune to any sensible rules about what music belonged in the classical music genre.

==A little help from your friends = Cabals for fun and profit==

Then came the "gamers" or those who "cracked the code": although the MP3.com system examined the IP addresses where the listening and streaming came from (to prohibit people from streaming their own songs), they couldn't examine <strong>all</strong> of the data. People quickly figured out that although their own listens didn't count for themselves, their listens for "friends" did. Around the same time, MP3.com launched a promotion called "New Music Army" which allowed people to make money by promoting other artists. The people who had "rosters" to promote would distribute all of their artists' playlists, which they would encourage recipients to stream several times a week. Many people streamed these playlists on multiple computers all day, with the sound turned off.

<strong>The Script Kiddies made profit a question of ''point and click''</strong>

As to be expected, somebody wrote an automatic script which could play all of the songs on a cabal's playlist automatically, but which played them only for the amount of time necessary to get "credit" before going to the next one. There were rumors of entire blocks of computers running playlists automatically at various server locations. MP3.com tried to catch those who were cheating and did manage to ban some of them, but there was no way that they could ban everyone. And since the site traffic soared and ad revenue went through the roof, maybe it wasn't that big of a deal?

==The sausage factory, version 1.0==

Finally, people figured out that you didn't actually have to make music to get into the game. You could simply record your girlfriend moaning erotically, or you could mindlessly convert to mp3 format any MIDI files found on the web and upload those. And by this point, it didn't really matter. Nobody was listening anyway... at least, not many people. In November 2000, Salon.com wrote an article entitled [http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2000/11/30/download_trading/print.html Whoring for Downloads], which spoke of a woman who traded downloads of her song for a porn video on adult sites, and another woman who described her "song" ''90 seconds of ecstasy'' as:
<blockquote>"90 seconds of my ecstasy as I make myself come. This is the real thing! When I scream as I come loud with the mic near my face, you can even hear the sounds of my breasts slapping against each other and I go wild with pleasure."</blockquote>
This was rather far from the actual act of making music, but it did indeed get lots of streams and downloads. What used to be vibrant artistic community became a mindless factory of worthless content which was mainly comprised of [http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/DP/2007/02/036_4_Super_Robot_Deluxe_-_Delicious_Bobotronic.mp3 porn], machine-generated copies of public domain material, and [http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/LG/Background/Background_-_Alien_Abduction.mp3 some of the most mind-bogglingly bad music ever produced anywhere]. Much of the music became so bad that Time magazine featured [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,128113,00.html a story on the phenomenon in their May 27, 2001 issue.]

==The disillusioned ''old guard''==

The artists who were there at the beginning and who were there during those very exciting first few months took these developments badly. There was a great sense of something unique (perhaps unique in the history of Western music) that had gone terribly wrong and a sense of being caught in the middle of a boring and pointless game.

One of the the most evocative and direct responses to this situation is a song by the artist Dyonisos <a href="http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page_songInfo.cfm?bandID=105722&songID=719567">''Play my song list again, my friend''</a> which sums up the aggressive atmosphere, the drama, and the endless quest for "more hits! more hits!" -- not musical ''hits'', but simply hits on the play buttons on the artist pages, like so many mice running through a maze and hitting a button to get a reward. In other words, the tool became the master and the original usefulness of the tool became an activity which replaced the entire point of the exercise. What should have set musicians free became a depressing prison, where one spent one's days promoting music to people who weren't listening, except if you clicked their buttons.

==Reality rears its ugly head==

And the management of MP3.com? They were at the head of an extremely popular website, at the effective control of the largest online music catalog ever amassed which had a huge potential value, making lots of ad revenue as well as other revenue from a commercial music service. They were seen as the movers and shakers who were changing the face of the music industry. They had an army of non-salaried worker bees who drove endless streams of traffic and content to their site. They made money off of ads, from album sales, and other promotions. They were the new guys who were calling the shots. And because they were at the top of the food chain and at the helm of the hot new technology, they got cocky. And then they made a huge mistake.

The name of this mistake was "Beam it". This was a service which allowed
users to convert CDs that they had purchased into MP3 format, directly onto the MP3.com servers, and then play them from a personal "locker" on the MP3.com site. Up until this point, MP3.com had not been attacked by the major record labels for copyright infringement because nobody really knew whether or not the law covered the types of uses that MP3.com was pioneering. This time, however, the majors felt that here they had a clear case of unauthorized duplication and therefore a strong case.

MP3.com hid behind the concept of "fair use", giving as an argument that only music which had already been purchased was stored on their servers, as well as their idea that because they were ''cutting edge'' and providing a new service, these attacks would not be successful. All of the recording companies, save one, accepted an "out of court" settlement. The outlier was Universal, and they wanted their day in court. Universal won the case easily: the first line of the UMG v MP3.com decision reads as follows :
<blockquote>"The complex marvels of cyberspatial communication may create difficult legal issues; but not in this case. Defendant's infringement of plaintiff's copyrights is clear,"</blockquote>
''So much for being "cutting edge" as a defense ploy...''

MP3.com was then sold to Vivendi, who had already been given a large amount of stock in their out-of-court settlement. Not wanting to have to pay for a lot of unsigned artists whom they had no intention of signing, the "Pay for Play" program became the ''Premium artist service'' or PAS (with the worst promotional slogan ever: ''PAS is a GAS!''), in which you had to pay to get paid. Then predictably, the payments to artists were phased out.

==Pavlov was right==

What was extremely odd was that the behavior of the artists after the payment incentive was discontinued remained the same. People still did all of the old empty rituals to get to the top of meaningless charts which no longer meant anything. It was as if they were addicted to the same meaningless tasks they had undertaken to get the cash and it no longer mattered whether or not there was a financial incentive.

==The end of the world's largest archive of free online music==

Finally, Vivendi (the owner of UMG) had enough and sold the entire operation to CNET. <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/15/hungover_cnet_wakes_up_next/">As Andrew Orlowski put it in his Register article</a>, this was a bit like waking up in bed with someone that you don't remember going home with... and CNET decided to do the sensible thing and wipe the servers clean. Thus ended the largest collection of online music ever amassed in one place. While I find the comparison a bit exaggerated, I found the fact that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3.com">Wikipedia's article about MP3.com</a> links to the article about the ''Destruction of the Library of Alexandria'' to be a fitting tribute to the spirit in which the site was founded.

==And the beat goes on...==

''Well, we're in the POST web 2.0 world now'', you say? ''We're past all of that!''

Are we really? The crucial difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, according to Andrew Odlyzko's 2001 article [http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/history.communications2.pdf. "Content is not King"] is the idea that communication is more important than content, or in other words ''traffic is more important than thought''. And this idea seems to underline the entire transition from ''music ''to ''traffic'' which characterized the MP3.com experience from the artist's perspective. However, on another level, it was a transition from ''using tools'' to ''being used by tools''. Isn't this second image close to what Web 2.0 is becoming?

The failure of the artists to see that everything they had created in the context of the site could be and would be destroyed at the whim of site management, the mindless creation of content to generate traffic rather than to provoke reaction and thought, and site management who feel immune from attack because of their position as ''the next big thing''... aren't all of these issues alive and well at our favorite Web 2.0 sites? And since the genesis of these sites and the current processes are so strikingly similar, how can the final outcome be any different?

==Image credits:==
*[http://duncandavidson.com/ James Duncan Davidson], Photo of Michael Robertson, all rights reserved, used with permission.
*[http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 MP3.com logo], used under the Fair Use doctrine.

==Comments==

===19 Responses to ''The more things change''===

Comments RSS

'''Jon Awbrey'''<br/>
Absoulootely Brilliant Analysis!!! Best thing I’ve read about the dynamix of web phenomena in 5 years. Give Paul a raise immediately.

Jon Awbrey

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
Thanks, Jonny! (If Greg gives me a raise, we won’t be able to afford beer and pretzels at our next board meeting, but I appreciate the thought!)

'''Gregory Kohs'''<br/>
I’ll take this as a quick opportunity to add my praise for Paul Wehage’s thoughtful narrative, but also to remind readers that I’m not the one to dole out “raises” to our Board members (who, of course, are all volunteering without compensation for this non-profit enterprise).

The corporation was founded by four people, it was formally registered by Anthony DiPierro, and if anything, I merely had the not-so-original idea of creating an Internet review site where the ownership would be split between multiple, real-name-identified individuals. Imagine that — accountability.

I’m happy that Akahele is resonating favorably with most everyone who reads it. I had a feeling it would.

'''W.R. Somey'''<br/>
I was impressed…!

A lot of this is still going on, actually. “Vanity-distribution” sites like tunecore.com and iodalliance.com make it possible for anyone to get their music onto practically all the major digital-distribution sites, including iTunes, for a small fee and a percentage. Nobody actually listens to the material that’s being distributed in advance, so the artists can categorize it however they want (i.e., wrongly), and of course there’s no quality control whatsoever. Some listeners don’t mind so much because you can occasionally find a gem amidst all that dreck, but the downside is that it becomes very difficult for talented new artists to stand out when there are hundreds of new releases every day, and none of the actual download sites are paying much attention (though I will say that eMusic does a better job than most, and of course, iTunes handles it by simply ignoring anything that comes from a vanity-distribution site).

I remain pessimistic about the future of music as a way for people to make a living, but folks are still going to try… Another interesting new MP3.com-like scheme that’s appeared recently is amiestreet.com, which has a rather unique and convoluted rating/recommendation and pricing scheme – it’s too complex to describe here, and there’s a good chance it will fail too, mostly because established artists won’t want anything to do with it. But in some ways, it’s what MP3.com should have been, and maybe would have been if they’d thought things through better at the outset.

'''Emperor'''<br/>
Excellent article. It’s good to hear things put into perspective.

Great job with Akahele. So far, it’s the kind of site I wouldn’t be embarrassed to tell my friends to go read.

Maybe someday I’ll comment here under my real name.

'''Darby Lines'''<br/>
Paul,
I just wanted to pop in and say that this is a brilliant analysis. Also, I’d like to thank all involved here for this effort. As a disaffected wikipedia reviewer, I’m very much looking forward to a place where some responsible adults can comment on these issues.

'''Alison Cassidy'''<br/>
Excellent analysis indeed. Well done, Paul!

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
@Somey, actually quite a few things which look like “non-vanity” labels actually are “vanity” labels, if you know the business. We call these types of recordings “artist calling cards” since they’re basically used for people either to get University jobs or gigs. Nobody really makes any money off of them (except for composers and publishers who do get broadcast royalties and mechanicals), but they are indeed useful for other reasons.

The only way anybody makes any money in music these days (outside of teaching) is if you do everything yourself, as in have your own label, release your own recordings and manage your own concert work. Many successful classical artists do just this and, even if they’re not rolling in the dough, make enough to live upper-middle class lives. It’s a lot of work though and requires a great deal of energy. Many people would rather just dump their masters into the hands of a label and not worry about sales etc–you make your money off of concerts anyway. Of course, because of this, most of these artists fail WP’s notability requirements (because they’re self-published), but that’s simply because WP hasn’t figured out that this is the new norm.

It’s real life concerts that make the difference these days in terms of separating the wannabes from the real talents. You can’t just rely on the web to make your reputation, especially these days when anybody can sound great on a recording, at the press of a button.

The really incredible thing about mp3.com was that for two years (and perhaps for the first time in the history of music), there were people who did make their living from recordings who did everything themselves; without management, without labels. That’s not happened before or since. We (as a community of musicians) really blew it by making the wrong choices. I’m not sure if it could have been changed, but it was a really exciting thing to be part of that.

@Emperor, Darby and Alison, your comments are greatly appreciated.

'''Dan T.'''<br/>
Pretty nice piece. But, since I don’t share the antipathy to anything in the “geek”, “cyberlibertarian”, “Web 2.0″ mode that’s common on sites like this, I’d prefer it without the preordained conclusions that the way to go is to conservatively follow the way things have been done for 100 years in other media, like “What should have happened at this point is that MP3.com should have started paying into Performance Rights Organizations such as BMI and ASCAP to cover regular performance and mechanical royalties”, like making any attempt to come up with a different business model was some sort of sin that the site was justly punished for.

What your article shows is that systems will get gamed and abused by people, sometimes enough to doom the entire project. Sticking to the way things were done a century ago might be one way to avoid this (those old systems get gamed too, but clearly not enough to make them collapse, since they haven’t), but this is no guarantee of continued success either (ask the buggy whip industry, if it were around to ask); sometimes times change and it’s necessary to adjust, even if this involves trying and failing at new ideas before something better is eventually arrived at.

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
@Dan T. Thanks for your thoughtful comments. This is kind of like writing a paper about the French revolution: you already know that Louis XVI gets his head chopped off in that story. The interesting question is whether or not anything he did before could have been changed to make the end of the story different.

In this case, I already knew why mp3.com got sued by Universal: because they weren’t following copyright laws and thought that they were protected by the “new technology” and that their innovative business model made them immune to these laws. The lawsuit proved that they were wrong. If they had “conservatively” followed the usual practice at the beginning and had gotten licenses from BMI/ASCAP/FOX for everything on the site, Universal could not have sued them. Since they thought that “Beam it” was covered under “fair use” (are you listening, Wikipedia?) and that they had free licenses for the rest of the content, mp3.com thought that they had their bases covered. All of this could have been avoided.

The whole point of that passage being that although the law takes awhile to catch up with new technology, it eventually does. Innovative technology and business practices sometimes do give innovative operations a bit of slack, but not always…and not forever. Being the “new thing” is not a license to do whatever you wish without bothering to follow the rules.

On pps 115-116 of her article “Cyber Civil Rights” (which can be downloaded here), Danielle Citron gives a very interesting model of how the law adapts to new technology. At first, the risk is identified. Secondly, a more permissive period begins where the law allows the new technology to flourish. Finally, in the third stage, the law sees that ligation is not going to hurt the emerging technology and starts accepting cases, which leads to lawsuits which drive some out of business, but not all. I believe that this process is what happened to mp3.com. I also believe we are currently going from stage 2 to stage 3 in community-driven web 2.0 websites. This is a theme that I will be exploring in future pieces.

'''David Holley'''<br/>
Interesting and thoughtful analysis. It seems that yet again a lack of control over content contributors inherent in many “crowdsourced” applications, combined with a refusal to recognize these problems as they arose, led to the downfall of something which had the potential to be successful.

Hopefully subsequent articles will continue in this thought-provoking vein.

'''Dan T.'''<br/>
The people running the site didn’t believe themselves to be breaking the law; they had a reasonably sensible argument for their activities being covered under fair use. Unfortunately for them, the judge didn’t agree, but it was impossible to predict this in advance; they gambled and lost. It doesn’t seem to be so much of an open-and-shut case as you make it to be.

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
@Dan T. I never intended to imply that Universal’s case against mp3.com was “open-and-shut”, as a matter of course. In many ways, in much the same way that Wikipedia is at the top of its game today, Mp3.com was untouchable: a wildly popular and profitable website, an army of artists to do the promotion and content creation, a profitable business model, and innovative use of technology.

The problem is that the story did indeed end the way it ended and mp3.com’s servers were erased. That’s what happened, so mp3.com was not reasonable in implying that they were protected by “fair use” because they weren’t.

No one could have “known” this in advance, but one can know it after the fact. And the process seems to be common enough that other legal scholars have identified it and are applying it to other cases. This hypothesis seems to have validity in that sense.

'''Kato'''<br/>
This is an excellant blog post, by the way. I think I’d grown used to the repetitive and frustrated critiques we usually read and write on the Wikipedia Review, and was refreshingly impressed here.

Much food for thought, and the piece has significantly impacted on my thinking about this whole business.

Great start, and good Work.

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
Thanks, Kato!

I think that it’s extremely useful to take a few steps back and get away from the focus on Users that is so prevalent on WR to look at the larger patterns. I think that there are many “larger picture” issues that can be uncovered through this type of comparative analysis…and at the end of the day, the problem is not what one user does to another, but what the whole does to society.

'''Jon Awbrey'''<br/>
Preacher, Choir.
Choir, Preacher.

'''Anthony DiPierro'''<br/>
I don’t think that licenses from BMI/ASCAP/FOX could have saved mp3.com, because these licenses would have only covered broadcasting, while what mp3.com wanted to do with “Beam It” was duplication and distribution (and thus not covered by statutory license).

Maybe they could have negotiated licenses for each song/album, one at a time, like Apple has now done for iTunes. I was under the impression that the vast majority of record labels were still under the delusion that they didn’t need to embrace these new technologies, though. Maybe I’m wrong on that point – I didn’t realize that many/most of the record labels other than Universal negotiated an out of court settlement.

In any case, mp3.com opted for the wiki wiki path rather than the akahele one. And that made all the difference.

Thanks for the great post, Paul. You’ll be a tough act to follow.

'''TCO'''<br/>
Read BURN RATE. I read it in 1998 and already knew the dynamic at that time. Wolff talks about “chat” versus “edited content”. Chat ruled then and now. Web 2.0 is just Wolff’s chat.

'''Les McQueen'''<br/>
Thank you Paul. Tremendous article.

Tragic really, the demise of such an inspirational site. Fond memories.

For a moment mp3.com really did offer a new way for musicians and songwriters. People often misunderstand what motivates ‘artists’. The power of the community there, the previously unknown opportunity to be heard and appreciated by an audience of other music lovers across the world meant a huge amount to many people. Empowering stuff. Mp3.com mattered.

Yes a few people were making a living (and yes things did get stupid with the gaming), but I don’t think the emotional return that the site offered artists should be overlooked. That was the saddest thing about mp3.com disappearing, all the connection, all the interaction, the kudos, the culture, the community, the esteem, all the relevance rendered irrelevant at the flick of a switch.

Back in your box you unsigned twats (twatter perhaps)

It’s a shit business.
LM

Directory:Akahele/The more things change...

2010-10-22T21:35:05Z

Raf: /* A Musician's Utopia */

It never fails to amaze me the amount of loyalty some people will give to whatever website happens to be the latest ''big thing''. If one looks at the underlying function of most of these sites, one wonders why things which are intended to serve as tools for conveying information, images, or other such content are seen as objectives in and of themselves. Yet, over and over again, the crowd flocks to whatever happens to be the flavor of the month, insisting that this is going to be the thing to completely change the world.

If one were cynical, one would be tempted to recall dear Mr. Plato and his [http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/allegory.html allegory of the Cave]. However, perhaps Rousseau's ''plus ça change, plus que ça reste pareil'' or Léo Ferré's ''Quand c'est fini, ça recommence'' would suffice. Human nature tends to repeat itself and what is happening now has probably happened before. Web 2.0 is no exception.

==Back to the Dark Ages of Web 1.0==

Of course, the Web 1.0 was another story, since things were much simpler back then. Musicians were almost uniformly excited about how this ''internet thing'' was going to change our lives. And it did: in the digital dark ages (way back in 1995), a man named Robin Whittle wrote an article entitled [http://www.firstpr.com.au/musicmar/mmed.html Music Marketing in the Age of Electronic Delivery] which basically predicted pretty much everything that we take for granted today. To quote his abstract :
<blockquote>By the turn of the century many music consumers are expected to have fast network access, home computers and CD-R disc writers. This will enable them to purchase music via electronic delivery, rather than on physical media such as compact disks. Existing distribution channels and radio's stylistically restrictive music discovery process will be bypassed as artists and listeners engage in two way communication, without geographic restrictions. Radical changes to industry structure are expected. As amateur musicians share music electronically, folk music - withering in the age of mass media - may flourish in the 21st century, in a profusion of contemporary styles.</blockquote>
For those of us working in the ''backwaters'' of the music business (classical music, jazz, world music, etc.), these new possibilities seemed like the answer to many problems facing us: how to deliver our product to our relatively small audience without spending the profits on producing stock. These tools have changed the way we do business, but they have also led to a number of developments which no one could have expected.

==The darling of Web 1.0: MP3.com==
<table style="float: left;" border="0" cellspacing="5" align="left">

<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/800px-michael_robertson_2006-150x150.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">Michael Robertson, former MP3.com CEO</td>
</tr>
</table>
For example, take one of the biggest success stories of the dot-com era: MP3.com. Started in 1997 by the CEO of Z Company (filez.com, websitez.com, and sharepaper.com) [http://michaelrobertson.com Michael Robertson] and his head of sales Greg Flores, the initial idea was to simply purchase the domain name MP3.com and set up a redirect to filez.com. When ad revenue and large amounts of traffic began to flow into the domain name because of web searches, a decision was made to use the domain to feature unsigned "indie" musicians, and musicians in the thriving techno genre.

==A Musician's Utopia==

Musicians flocked to the site, leading to a concentration of talent, creativity, and a real sense of community. Those who were there in the early days still remember sensing that they were part of something that was on the edge of changing the music business in a profound way.
<table style="float: right;" border="0" cellspacing="5" align="right">
<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/mp3comlogo199.gif</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">MP3.com logo, circa 1999</td>
</tr>
</table>
For artists, it was exciting, completely self-empowering, and unlike any other creative experience ever. You could have an idea in the morning, record a demo at noon, send your track to someone halfway across the globe to add vocals or an instrumental part, and put your work up in evening for the world to hear. The management of MP3.com seemed to understand the importance of this vibrant artistic community, in submitting an ad to the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences ''Grammy'' magazine in 1998:
<blockquote>What the whole world listens to…Future Grammy winners found here</blockquote>
<strong>The beginning of the end</strong>

When MP3.com went public in 1999, the stock sale raised over $370 million, which was a record for an Internet IPO at that time. To motivate the musicians on the site, the management began a promotion called ''Pay for Play'' which paid a "promotional fee" to each artist based on their monthly streams and downloads...''Oddly, this was the beginning of the end.''

Why? For many reasons. The first of which was that, like the Devil's contract with Faust, the ''Pay for Play'' deal with too good to be true. It wasn't a royalty: it was a ''promotion'' which could be halted at any time. But since people had already given royalty-free licenses to their music to the site in the first place, that drawback didn't seem like a big deal. What should have happened at this point is that MP3.com should have started paying into Performance Rights Organizations such as BMI and ASCAP to cover regular performance and mechanical royalties. But since they already had a free license, they could not be persuaded to do this by a bunch of unsigned artists. And when the paychecks started coming, it seemed like a very good deal indeed.

Some people started making lots of money. As in, ''enough money to live on. ''Certain stars emerged such as [http://www.lindhe.com/bassic.html Bassic] who got written up in some mainstream news magazines, [http://www.myspace.com/303infinity 303Infinity] who ruled the Techno charts, and even some big names like Alanis Morissette, who was closely associated with the site in 1999. And everybody wanted a piece of that pie... even people whose music wasn't likely as good as those who were up there at the top of the charts. So, ''the game changed''. Music making became a sideline.

==The new game : phony fights, faked stalking, sex, and DRAMA = traffic==

The first thing that people noticed was that drama led to attention, which in turn led to downloads and streams. So, the message boards which had previously been about collaboration opportunities, trying out songs, and socializing, now began to be about creating fights (real or imagined), insults, trolling, and baiting others. People started using off-site message boards to try to get people to visit their site, polluting Usenet groups with endless insults, off-topic questions, and other ploys to get people to click those links. People pretended to get into fights with other artists and also pretended that other artists were stalking them. Several people posted nude photos to pornography groups, with links to their MP3.com pages. Anything to get people talking.

==Bending the rules and bending the facts = better product placement and more power==

Secondly, people figured out that music placed in certain categories did better than if it were placed in other categories. The techno charts ruled the site, but there was still money to be made in out-of-the-way places such as the Classical or World Music charts. A Mexican pianist named <a href="http://www.last.fm/music/Ernesto+Cortazar">Ernesto Cortazar</a> discovered that placing his Muzak-inspired versions of such golden hits as "Strangers in the Night" in the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_music">Romantic classical</a>" category led to much higher traffic. His rather lame excuse was ''my music makes you feel romantic''. He made a killing at MP3.com, but the stable of concert pianists was always trying to boot him off of the classical charts. However, Ernesto's status as a high money-maker made him immune to any sensible rules about what music belonged in the classical music genre.

==A little help from your friends = Cabals for fun and profit==

Then came the "gamers" or those who "cracked the code": although the MP3.com system examined the IP addresses where the listening and streaming came from (to prohibit people from streaming their own songs), they couldn't examine <strong>all</strong> of the data. People quickly figured out that although their own listens didn't count for themselves, their listens for "friends" did. Around the same time, MP3.com launched a promotion called "New Music Army" which allowed people to make money by promoting other artists. The people who had "rosters" to promote would distribute all of their artists' playlists, which they would encourage recipients to stream several times a week. Many people streamed these playlists on multiple computers all day, with the sound turned off.

<strong>The Script Kiddies made profit a question of ''point and click''</strong>

As to be expected, somebody wrote an automatic script which could play all of the songs on a cabal's playlist automatically, but which played them only for the amount of time necessary to get "credit" before going to the next one. There were rumors of entire blocks of computers running playlists automatically at various server locations. MP3.com tried to catch those who were cheating and did manage to ban some of them, but there was no way that they could ban everyone. And since the site traffic soared and ad revenue went through the roof, maybe it wasn't that big of a deal?

==The sausage factory, version 1.0==

Finally, people figured out that you didn't actually have to make music to get into the game. You could simply record your girlfriend moaning erotically, or you could mindlessly convert to mp3 format any MIDI files found on the web and upload those. And by this point, it didn't really matter. Nobody was listening anyway... at least, not many people. In November 2000, Salon.com wrote an article entitled <a href="http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2000/11/30/download_trading/print.html">Whoring for Downloads</a>, which spoke of a woman who traded downloads of her song for a porn video on adult sites, and another woman who described her "song" ''90 seconds of ecstasy'' as:
<blockquote>"90 seconds of my ecstasy as I make myself come. This is the real thing! When I scream as I come loud with the mic near my face, you can even hear the sounds of my breasts slapping against each other and I go wild with pleasure."</blockquote>
This was rather far from the actual act of making music, but it did indeed get lots of streams and downloads. What used to be vibrant artistic community became a mindless factory of worthless content which was mainly comprised of <a href="http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/DP/2007/02/036_4_Super_Robot_Deluxe_-_Delicious_Bobotronic.mp3">porn</a>, machine-generated copies of public domain material, and <a href="http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/LG/Background/Background_-_Alien_Abduction.mp3">some of the most mind-bogglingly bad music ever produced anywhere</a>. Much of the music became so bad that Time magazine featured <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,128113,00.html">a story on the phenomenon in their May 27, 2001 issue.</a>

==The disillusioned ''old guard''==

The artists who were there at the beginning and who were there during those very exciting first few months took these developments badly. There was a great sense of something unique (perhaps unique in the history of Western music) that had gone terribly wrong and a sense of being caught in the middle of a boring and pointless game.

One of the the most evocative and direct responses to this situation is a song by the artist Dyonisos <a href="http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page_songInfo.cfm?bandID=105722&songID=719567">''Play my song list again, my friend''</a> which sums up the aggressive atmosphere, the drama, and the endless quest for "more hits! more hits!" -- not musical ''hits'', but simply hits on the play buttons on the artist pages, like so many mice running through a maze and hitting a button to get a reward. In other words, the tool became the master and the original usefulness of the tool became an activity which replaced the entire point of the exercise. What should have set musicians free became a depressing prison, where one spent one's days promoting music to people who weren't listening, except if you clicked their buttons.

==Reality rears its ugly head==

And the management of MP3.com? They were at the head of an extremely popular website, at the effective control of the largest online music catalog ever amassed which had a huge potential value, making lots of ad revenue as well as other revenue from a commercial music service. They were seen as the movers and shakers who were changing the face of the music industry. They had an army of non-salaried worker bees who drove endless streams of traffic and content to their site. They made money off of ads, from album sales, and other promotions. They were the new guys who were calling the shots. And because they were at the top of the food chain and at the helm of the hot new technology, they got cocky. And then they made a huge mistake.

The name of this mistake was "Beam it". This was a service which allowed
users to convert CDs that they had purchased into MP3 format, directly onto the MP3.com servers, and then play them from a personal "locker" on the MP3.com site. Up until this point, MP3.com had not been attacked by the major record labels for copyright infringement because nobody really knew whether or not the law covered the types of uses that MP3.com was pioneering. This time, however, the majors felt that here they had a clear case of unauthorized duplication and therefore a strong case.

MP3.com hid behind the concept of "fair use", giving as an argument that only music which had already been purchased was stored on their servers, as well as their idea that because they were ''cutting edge'' and providing a new service, these attacks would not be successful. All of the recording companies, save one, accepted an "out of court" settlement. The outlier was Universal, and they wanted their day in court. Universal won the case easily: the first line of the UMG v MP3.com decision reads as follows :
<blockquote>"The complex marvels of cyberspatial communication may create difficult legal issues; but not in this case. Defendant's infringement of plaintiff's copyrights is clear,"</blockquote>
''So much for being "cutting edge" as a defense ploy...''

MP3.com was then sold to Vivendi, who had already been given a large amount of stock in their out-of-court settlement. Not wanting to have to pay for a lot of unsigned artists whom they had no intention of signing, the "Pay for Play" program became the ''Premium artist service'' or PAS (with the worst promotional slogan ever: ''PAS is a GAS!''), in which you had to pay to get paid. Then predictably, the payments to artists were phased out.

==Pavlov was right==

What was extremely odd was that the behavior of the artists after the payment incentive was discontinued remained the same. People still did all of the old empty rituals to get to the top of meaningless charts which no longer meant anything. It was as if they were addicted to the same meaningless tasks they had undertaken to get the cash and it no longer mattered whether or not there was a financial incentive.

==The end of the world's largest archive of free online music==

Finally, Vivendi (the owner of UMG) had enough and sold the entire operation to CNET. <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/15/hungover_cnet_wakes_up_next/">As Andrew Orlowski put it in his Register article</a>, this was a bit like waking up in bed with someone that you don't remember going home with... and CNET decided to do the sensible thing and wipe the servers clean. Thus ended the largest collection of online music ever amassed in one place. While I find the comparison a bit exaggerated, I found the fact that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3.com">Wikipedia's article about MP3.com</a> links to the article about the ''Destruction of the Library of Alexandria'' to be a fitting tribute to the spirit in which the site was founded.

==And the beat goes on...==

''Well, we're in the POST web 2.0 world now'', you say? ''We're past all of that!''

Are we really? The crucial difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, according to Andrew Odlyzko's 2001 article [http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/history.communications2.pdf. "Content is not King"] is the idea that communication is more important than content, or in other words ''traffic is more important than thought''. And this idea seems to underline the entire transition from ''music ''to ''traffic'' which characterized the MP3.com experience from the artist's perspective. However, on another level, it was a transition from ''using tools'' to ''being used by tools''. Isn't this second image close to what Web 2.0 is becoming?

The failure of the artists to see that everything they had created in the context of the site could be and would be destroyed at the whim of site management, the mindless creation of content to generate traffic rather than to provoke reaction and thought, and site management who feel immune from attack because of their position as ''the next big thing''... aren't all of these issues alive and well at our favorite Web 2.0 sites? And since the genesis of these sites and the current processes are so strikingly similar, how can the final outcome be any different?

==Image credits:==
*[http://duncandavidson.com/ James Duncan Davidson], Photo of Michael Robertson, all rights reserved, used with permission.
*[http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 MP3.com logo], used under the Fair Use doctrine.

==Comments==

===19 Responses to ''The more things change''===

Comments RSS

'''Jon Awbrey'''<br/>
Absoulootely Brilliant Analysis!!! Best thing I’ve read about the dynamix of web phenomena in 5 years. Give Paul a raise immediately.

Jon Awbrey

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
Thanks, Jonny! (If Greg gives me a raise, we won’t be able to afford beer and pretzels at our next board meeting, but I appreciate the thought!)

'''Gregory Kohs'''<br/>
I’ll take this as a quick opportunity to add my praise for Paul Wehage’s thoughtful narrative, but also to remind readers that I’m not the one to dole out “raises” to our Board members (who, of course, are all volunteering without compensation for this non-profit enterprise).

The corporation was founded by four people, it was formally registered by Anthony DiPierro, and if anything, I merely had the not-so-original idea of creating an Internet review site where the ownership would be split between multiple, real-name-identified individuals. Imagine that — accountability.

I’m happy that Akahele is resonating favorably with most everyone who reads it. I had a feeling it would.

'''W.R. Somey'''<br/>
I was impressed…!

A lot of this is still going on, actually. “Vanity-distribution” sites like tunecore.com and iodalliance.com make it possible for anyone to get their music onto practically all the major digital-distribution sites, including iTunes, for a small fee and a percentage. Nobody actually listens to the material that’s being distributed in advance, so the artists can categorize it however they want (i.e., wrongly), and of course there’s no quality control whatsoever. Some listeners don’t mind so much because you can occasionally find a gem amidst all that dreck, but the downside is that it becomes very difficult for talented new artists to stand out when there are hundreds of new releases every day, and none of the actual download sites are paying much attention (though I will say that eMusic does a better job than most, and of course, iTunes handles it by simply ignoring anything that comes from a vanity-distribution site).

I remain pessimistic about the future of music as a way for people to make a living, but folks are still going to try… Another interesting new MP3.com-like scheme that’s appeared recently is amiestreet.com, which has a rather unique and convoluted rating/recommendation and pricing scheme – it’s too complex to describe here, and there’s a good chance it will fail too, mostly because established artists won’t want anything to do with it. But in some ways, it’s what MP3.com should have been, and maybe would have been if they’d thought things through better at the outset.

'''Emperor'''<br/>
Excellent article. It’s good to hear things put into perspective.

Great job with Akahele. So far, it’s the kind of site I wouldn’t be embarrassed to tell my friends to go read.

Maybe someday I’ll comment here under my real name.

'''Darby Lines'''<br/>
Paul,
I just wanted to pop in and say that this is a brilliant analysis. Also, I’d like to thank all involved here for this effort. As a disaffected wikipedia reviewer, I’m very much looking forward to a place where some responsible adults can comment on these issues.

'''Alison Cassidy'''<br/>
Excellent analysis indeed. Well done, Paul!

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
@Somey, actually quite a few things which look like “non-vanity” labels actually are “vanity” labels, if you know the business. We call these types of recordings “artist calling cards” since they’re basically used for people either to get University jobs or gigs. Nobody really makes any money off of them (except for composers and publishers who do get broadcast royalties and mechanicals), but they are indeed useful for other reasons.

The only way anybody makes any money in music these days (outside of teaching) is if you do everything yourself, as in have your own label, release your own recordings and manage your own concert work. Many successful classical artists do just this and, even if they’re not rolling in the dough, make enough to live upper-middle class lives. It’s a lot of work though and requires a great deal of energy. Many people would rather just dump their masters into the hands of a label and not worry about sales etc–you make your money off of concerts anyway. Of course, because of this, most of these artists fail WP’s notability requirements (because they’re self-published), but that’s simply because WP hasn’t figured out that this is the new norm.

It’s real life concerts that make the difference these days in terms of separating the wannabes from the real talents. You can’t just rely on the web to make your reputation, especially these days when anybody can sound great on a recording, at the press of a button.

The really incredible thing about mp3.com was that for two years (and perhaps for the first time in the history of music), there were people who did make their living from recordings who did everything themselves; without management, without labels. That’s not happened before or since. We (as a community of musicians) really blew it by making the wrong choices. I’m not sure if it could have been changed, but it was a really exciting thing to be part of that.

@Emperor, Darby and Alison, your comments are greatly appreciated.

'''Dan T.'''<br/>
Pretty nice piece. But, since I don’t share the antipathy to anything in the “geek”, “cyberlibertarian”, “Web 2.0″ mode that’s common on sites like this, I’d prefer it without the preordained conclusions that the way to go is to conservatively follow the way things have been done for 100 years in other media, like “What should have happened at this point is that MP3.com should have started paying into Performance Rights Organizations such as BMI and ASCAP to cover regular performance and mechanical royalties”, like making any attempt to come up with a different business model was some sort of sin that the site was justly punished for.

What your article shows is that systems will get gamed and abused by people, sometimes enough to doom the entire project. Sticking to the way things were done a century ago might be one way to avoid this (those old systems get gamed too, but clearly not enough to make them collapse, since they haven’t), but this is no guarantee of continued success either (ask the buggy whip industry, if it were around to ask); sometimes times change and it’s necessary to adjust, even if this involves trying and failing at new ideas before something better is eventually arrived at.

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
@Dan T. Thanks for your thoughtful comments. This is kind of like writing a paper about the French revolution: you already know that Louis XVI gets his head chopped off in that story. The interesting question is whether or not anything he did before could have been changed to make the end of the story different.

In this case, I already knew why mp3.com got sued by Universal: because they weren’t following copyright laws and thought that they were protected by the “new technology” and that their innovative business model made them immune to these laws. The lawsuit proved that they were wrong. If they had “conservatively” followed the usual practice at the beginning and had gotten licenses from BMI/ASCAP/FOX for everything on the site, Universal could not have sued them. Since they thought that “Beam it” was covered under “fair use” (are you listening, Wikipedia?) and that they had free licenses for the rest of the content, mp3.com thought that they had their bases covered. All of this could have been avoided.

The whole point of that passage being that although the law takes awhile to catch up with new technology, it eventually does. Innovative technology and business practices sometimes do give innovative operations a bit of slack, but not always…and not forever. Being the “new thing” is not a license to do whatever you wish without bothering to follow the rules.

On pps 115-116 of her article “Cyber Civil Rights” (which can be downloaded here), Danielle Citron gives a very interesting model of how the law adapts to new technology. At first, the risk is identified. Secondly, a more permissive period begins where the law allows the new technology to flourish. Finally, in the third stage, the law sees that ligation is not going to hurt the emerging technology and starts accepting cases, which leads to lawsuits which drive some out of business, but not all. I believe that this process is what happened to mp3.com. I also believe we are currently going from stage 2 to stage 3 in community-driven web 2.0 websites. This is a theme that I will be exploring in future pieces.

'''David Holley'''<br/>
Interesting and thoughtful analysis. It seems that yet again a lack of control over content contributors inherent in many “crowdsourced” applications, combined with a refusal to recognize these problems as they arose, led to the downfall of something which had the potential to be successful.

Hopefully subsequent articles will continue in this thought-provoking vein.

'''Dan T.'''<br/>
The people running the site didn’t believe themselves to be breaking the law; they had a reasonably sensible argument for their activities being covered under fair use. Unfortunately for them, the judge didn’t agree, but it was impossible to predict this in advance; they gambled and lost. It doesn’t seem to be so much of an open-and-shut case as you make it to be.

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
@Dan T. I never intended to imply that Universal’s case against mp3.com was “open-and-shut”, as a matter of course. In many ways, in much the same way that Wikipedia is at the top of its game today, Mp3.com was untouchable: a wildly popular and profitable website, an army of artists to do the promotion and content creation, a profitable business model, and innovative use of technology.

The problem is that the story did indeed end the way it ended and mp3.com’s servers were erased. That’s what happened, so mp3.com was not reasonable in implying that they were protected by “fair use” because they weren’t.

No one could have “known” this in advance, but one can know it after the fact. And the process seems to be common enough that other legal scholars have identified it and are applying it to other cases. This hypothesis seems to have validity in that sense.

'''Kato'''<br/>
This is an excellant blog post, by the way. I think I’d grown used to the repetitive and frustrated critiques we usually read and write on the Wikipedia Review, and was refreshingly impressed here.

Much food for thought, and the piece has significantly impacted on my thinking about this whole business.

Great start, and good Work.

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
Thanks, Kato!

I think that it’s extremely useful to take a few steps back and get away from the focus on Users that is so prevalent on WR to look at the larger patterns. I think that there are many “larger picture” issues that can be uncovered through this type of comparative analysis…and at the end of the day, the problem is not what one user does to another, but what the whole does to society.

'''Jon Awbrey'''<br/>
Preacher, Choir.
Choir, Preacher.

'''Anthony DiPierro'''<br/>
I don’t think that licenses from BMI/ASCAP/FOX could have saved mp3.com, because these licenses would have only covered broadcasting, while what mp3.com wanted to do with “Beam It” was duplication and distribution (and thus not covered by statutory license).

Maybe they could have negotiated licenses for each song/album, one at a time, like Apple has now done for iTunes. I was under the impression that the vast majority of record labels were still under the delusion that they didn’t need to embrace these new technologies, though. Maybe I’m wrong on that point – I didn’t realize that many/most of the record labels other than Universal negotiated an out of court settlement.

In any case, mp3.com opted for the wiki wiki path rather than the akahele one. And that made all the difference.

Thanks for the great post, Paul. You’ll be a tough act to follow.

'''TCO'''<br/>
Read BURN RATE. I read it in 1998 and already knew the dynamic at that time. Wolff talks about “chat” versus “edited content”. Chat ruled then and now. Web 2.0 is just Wolff’s chat.

'''Les McQueen'''<br/>
Thank you Paul. Tremendous article.

Tragic really, the demise of such an inspirational site. Fond memories.

For a moment mp3.com really did offer a new way for musicians and songwriters. People often misunderstand what motivates ‘artists’. The power of the community there, the previously unknown opportunity to be heard and appreciated by an audience of other music lovers across the world meant a huge amount to many people. Empowering stuff. Mp3.com mattered.

Yes a few people were making a living (and yes things did get stupid with the gaming), but I don’t think the emotional return that the site offered artists should be overlooked. That was the saddest thing about mp3.com disappearing, all the connection, all the interaction, the kudos, the culture, the community, the esteem, all the relevance rendered irrelevant at the flick of a switch.

Back in your box you unsigned twats (twatter perhaps)

It’s a shit business.
LM

Directory:Akahele/The more things change...

2010-10-22T21:34:31Z

Raf: /* The darling of Web 1.0: MP3.com */

It never fails to amaze me the amount of loyalty some people will give to whatever website happens to be the latest ''big thing''. If one looks at the underlying function of most of these sites, one wonders why things which are intended to serve as tools for conveying information, images, or other such content are seen as objectives in and of themselves. Yet, over and over again, the crowd flocks to whatever happens to be the flavor of the month, insisting that this is going to be the thing to completely change the world.

If one were cynical, one would be tempted to recall dear Mr. Plato and his [http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/allegory.html allegory of the Cave]. However, perhaps Rousseau's ''plus ça change, plus que ça reste pareil'' or Léo Ferré's ''Quand c'est fini, ça recommence'' would suffice. Human nature tends to repeat itself and what is happening now has probably happened before. Web 2.0 is no exception.

==Back to the Dark Ages of Web 1.0==

Of course, the Web 1.0 was another story, since things were much simpler back then. Musicians were almost uniformly excited about how this ''internet thing'' was going to change our lives. And it did: in the digital dark ages (way back in 1995), a man named Robin Whittle wrote an article entitled [http://www.firstpr.com.au/musicmar/mmed.html Music Marketing in the Age of Electronic Delivery] which basically predicted pretty much everything that we take for granted today. To quote his abstract :
<blockquote>By the turn of the century many music consumers are expected to have fast network access, home computers and CD-R disc writers. This will enable them to purchase music via electronic delivery, rather than on physical media such as compact disks. Existing distribution channels and radio's stylistically restrictive music discovery process will be bypassed as artists and listeners engage in two way communication, without geographic restrictions. Radical changes to industry structure are expected. As amateur musicians share music electronically, folk music - withering in the age of mass media - may flourish in the 21st century, in a profusion of contemporary styles.</blockquote>
For those of us working in the ''backwaters'' of the music business (classical music, jazz, world music, etc.), these new possibilities seemed like the answer to many problems facing us: how to deliver our product to our relatively small audience without spending the profits on producing stock. These tools have changed the way we do business, but they have also led to a number of developments which no one could have expected.

==The darling of Web 1.0: MP3.com==
<table style="float: left;" border="0" cellspacing="5" align="left">

<tr>
<td>http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/800px-michael_robertson_2006-150x150.jpg</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">Michael Robertson, former MP3.com CEO</td>
</tr>
</table>
For example, take one of the biggest success stories of the dot-com era: MP3.com. Started in 1997 by the CEO of Z Company (filez.com, websitez.com, and sharepaper.com) [http://michaelrobertson.com Michael Robertson] and his head of sales Greg Flores, the initial idea was to simply purchase the domain name MP3.com and set up a redirect to filez.com. When ad revenue and large amounts of traffic began to flow into the domain name because of web searches, a decision was made to use the domain to feature unsigned "indie" musicians, and musicians in the thriving techno genre.

==A Musician's Utopia==

Musicians flocked to the site, leading to a concentration of talent, creativity, and a real sense of community. Those who were there in the early days still remember sensing that they were part of something that was on the edge of changing the music business in a profound way.
<table style="float: right;" border="0" cellspacing="5" align="right">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/mp3comlogo199.gif" alt="" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">MP3.com logo, circa 1999</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
For artists, it was exciting, completely self-empowering, and unlike any other creative experience ever. You could have an idea in the morning, record a demo at noon, send your track to someone halfway across the globe to add vocals or an instrumental part, and put your work up in evening for the world to hear. The management of MP3.com seemed to understand the importance of this vibrant artistic community, in submitting an ad to the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences ''Grammy'' magazine in 1998:
<blockquote>What the whole world listens to…Future Grammy winners found here</blockquote>
<strong>The beginning of the end</strong>

When MP3.com went public in 1999, the stock sale raised over $370 million, which was a record for an Internet IPO at that time. To motivate the musicians on the site, the management began a promotion called ''Pay for Play'' which paid a "promotional fee" to each artist based on their monthly streams and downloads...''Oddly, this was the beginning of the end.''

Why? For many reasons. The first of which was that, like the Devil's contract with Faust, the ''Pay for Play'' deal with too good to be true. It wasn't a royalty: it was a ''promotion'' which could be halted at any time. But since people had already given royalty-free licenses to their music to the site in the first place, that drawback didn't seem like a big deal. What should have happened at this point is that MP3.com should have started paying into Performance Rights Organizations such as BMI and ASCAP to cover regular performance and mechanical royalties. But since they already had a free license, they could not be persuaded to do this by a bunch of unsigned artists. And when the paychecks started coming, it seemed like a very good deal indeed.

Some people started making lots of money. As in, ''enough money to live on. ''Certain stars emerged such as [http://www.lindhe.com/bassic.html Bassic] who got written up in some mainstream news magazines, [http://www.myspace.com/303infinity 303Infinity] who ruled the Techno charts, and even some big names like Alanis Morissette, who was closely associated with the site in 1999. And everybody wanted a piece of that pie... even people whose music wasn't likely as good as those who were up there at the top of the charts. So, ''the game changed''. Music making became a sideline.

==The new game : phony fights, faked stalking, sex, and DRAMA = traffic==

The first thing that people noticed was that drama led to attention, which in turn led to downloads and streams. So, the message boards which had previously been about collaboration opportunities, trying out songs, and socializing, now began to be about creating fights (real or imagined), insults, trolling, and baiting others. People started using off-site message boards to try to get people to visit their site, polluting Usenet groups with endless insults, off-topic questions, and other ploys to get people to click those links. People pretended to get into fights with other artists and also pretended that other artists were stalking them. Several people posted nude photos to pornography groups, with links to their MP3.com pages. Anything to get people talking.

==Bending the rules and bending the facts = better product placement and more power==

Secondly, people figured out that music placed in certain categories did better than if it were placed in other categories. The techno charts ruled the site, but there was still money to be made in out-of-the-way places such as the Classical or World Music charts. A Mexican pianist named <a href="http://www.last.fm/music/Ernesto+Cortazar">Ernesto Cortazar</a> discovered that placing his Muzak-inspired versions of such golden hits as "Strangers in the Night" in the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_music">Romantic classical</a>" category led to much higher traffic. His rather lame excuse was ''my music makes you feel romantic''. He made a killing at MP3.com, but the stable of concert pianists was always trying to boot him off of the classical charts. However, Ernesto's status as a high money-maker made him immune to any sensible rules about what music belonged in the classical music genre.

==A little help from your friends = Cabals for fun and profit==

Then came the "gamers" or those who "cracked the code": although the MP3.com system examined the IP addresses where the listening and streaming came from (to prohibit people from streaming their own songs), they couldn't examine <strong>all</strong> of the data. People quickly figured out that although their own listens didn't count for themselves, their listens for "friends" did. Around the same time, MP3.com launched a promotion called "New Music Army" which allowed people to make money by promoting other artists. The people who had "rosters" to promote would distribute all of their artists' playlists, which they would encourage recipients to stream several times a week. Many people streamed these playlists on multiple computers all day, with the sound turned off.

<strong>The Script Kiddies made profit a question of ''point and click''</strong>

As to be expected, somebody wrote an automatic script which could play all of the songs on a cabal's playlist automatically, but which played them only for the amount of time necessary to get "credit" before going to the next one. There were rumors of entire blocks of computers running playlists automatically at various server locations. MP3.com tried to catch those who were cheating and did manage to ban some of them, but there was no way that they could ban everyone. And since the site traffic soared and ad revenue went through the roof, maybe it wasn't that big of a deal?

==The sausage factory, version 1.0==

Finally, people figured out that you didn't actually have to make music to get into the game. You could simply record your girlfriend moaning erotically, or you could mindlessly convert to mp3 format any MIDI files found on the web and upload those. And by this point, it didn't really matter. Nobody was listening anyway... at least, not many people. In November 2000, Salon.com wrote an article entitled <a href="http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2000/11/30/download_trading/print.html">Whoring for Downloads</a>, which spoke of a woman who traded downloads of her song for a porn video on adult sites, and another woman who described her "song" ''90 seconds of ecstasy'' as:
<blockquote>"90 seconds of my ecstasy as I make myself come. This is the real thing! When I scream as I come loud with the mic near my face, you can even hear the sounds of my breasts slapping against each other and I go wild with pleasure."</blockquote>
This was rather far from the actual act of making music, but it did indeed get lots of streams and downloads. What used to be vibrant artistic community became a mindless factory of worthless content which was mainly comprised of <a href="http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/DP/2007/02/036_4_Super_Robot_Deluxe_-_Delicious_Bobotronic.mp3">porn</a>, machine-generated copies of public domain material, and <a href="http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/LG/Background/Background_-_Alien_Abduction.mp3">some of the most mind-bogglingly bad music ever produced anywhere</a>. Much of the music became so bad that Time magazine featured <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,128113,00.html">a story on the phenomenon in their May 27, 2001 issue.</a>

==The disillusioned ''old guard''==

The artists who were there at the beginning and who were there during those very exciting first few months took these developments badly. There was a great sense of something unique (perhaps unique in the history of Western music) that had gone terribly wrong and a sense of being caught in the middle of a boring and pointless game.

One of the the most evocative and direct responses to this situation is a song by the artist Dyonisos <a href="http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page_songInfo.cfm?bandID=105722&songID=719567">''Play my song list again, my friend''</a> which sums up the aggressive atmosphere, the drama, and the endless quest for "more hits! more hits!" -- not musical ''hits'', but simply hits on the play buttons on the artist pages, like so many mice running through a maze and hitting a button to get a reward. In other words, the tool became the master and the original usefulness of the tool became an activity which replaced the entire point of the exercise. What should have set musicians free became a depressing prison, where one spent one's days promoting music to people who weren't listening, except if you clicked their buttons.

==Reality rears its ugly head==

And the management of MP3.com? They were at the head of an extremely popular website, at the effective control of the largest online music catalog ever amassed which had a huge potential value, making lots of ad revenue as well as other revenue from a commercial music service. They were seen as the movers and shakers who were changing the face of the music industry. They had an army of non-salaried worker bees who drove endless streams of traffic and content to their site. They made money off of ads, from album sales, and other promotions. They were the new guys who were calling the shots. And because they were at the top of the food chain and at the helm of the hot new technology, they got cocky. And then they made a huge mistake.

The name of this mistake was "Beam it". This was a service which allowed
users to convert CDs that they had purchased into MP3 format, directly onto the MP3.com servers, and then play them from a personal "locker" on the MP3.com site. Up until this point, MP3.com had not been attacked by the major record labels for copyright infringement because nobody really knew whether or not the law covered the types of uses that MP3.com was pioneering. This time, however, the majors felt that here they had a clear case of unauthorized duplication and therefore a strong case.

MP3.com hid behind the concept of "fair use", giving as an argument that only music which had already been purchased was stored on their servers, as well as their idea that because they were ''cutting edge'' and providing a new service, these attacks would not be successful. All of the recording companies, save one, accepted an "out of court" settlement. The outlier was Universal, and they wanted their day in court. Universal won the case easily: the first line of the UMG v MP3.com decision reads as follows :
<blockquote>"The complex marvels of cyberspatial communication may create difficult legal issues; but not in this case. Defendant's infringement of plaintiff's copyrights is clear,"</blockquote>
''So much for being "cutting edge" as a defense ploy...''

MP3.com was then sold to Vivendi, who had already been given a large amount of stock in their out-of-court settlement. Not wanting to have to pay for a lot of unsigned artists whom they had no intention of signing, the "Pay for Play" program became the ''Premium artist service'' or PAS (with the worst promotional slogan ever: ''PAS is a GAS!''), in which you had to pay to get paid. Then predictably, the payments to artists were phased out.

==Pavlov was right==

What was extremely odd was that the behavior of the artists after the payment incentive was discontinued remained the same. People still did all of the old empty rituals to get to the top of meaningless charts which no longer meant anything. It was as if they were addicted to the same meaningless tasks they had undertaken to get the cash and it no longer mattered whether or not there was a financial incentive.

==The end of the world's largest archive of free online music==

Finally, Vivendi (the owner of UMG) had enough and sold the entire operation to CNET. <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/15/hungover_cnet_wakes_up_next/">As Andrew Orlowski put it in his Register article</a>, this was a bit like waking up in bed with someone that you don't remember going home with... and CNET decided to do the sensible thing and wipe the servers clean. Thus ended the largest collection of online music ever amassed in one place. While I find the comparison a bit exaggerated, I found the fact that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3.com">Wikipedia's article about MP3.com</a> links to the article about the ''Destruction of the Library of Alexandria'' to be a fitting tribute to the spirit in which the site was founded.

==And the beat goes on...==

''Well, we're in the POST web 2.0 world now'', you say? ''We're past all of that!''

Are we really? The crucial difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, according to Andrew Odlyzko's 2001 article [http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/history.communications2.pdf. "Content is not King"] is the idea that communication is more important than content, or in other words ''traffic is more important than thought''. And this idea seems to underline the entire transition from ''music ''to ''traffic'' which characterized the MP3.com experience from the artist's perspective. However, on another level, it was a transition from ''using tools'' to ''being used by tools''. Isn't this second image close to what Web 2.0 is becoming?

The failure of the artists to see that everything they had created in the context of the site could be and would be destroyed at the whim of site management, the mindless creation of content to generate traffic rather than to provoke reaction and thought, and site management who feel immune from attack because of their position as ''the next big thing''... aren't all of these issues alive and well at our favorite Web 2.0 sites? And since the genesis of these sites and the current processes are so strikingly similar, how can the final outcome be any different?

==Image credits:==
*[http://duncandavidson.com/ James Duncan Davidson], Photo of Michael Robertson, all rights reserved, used with permission.
*[http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 MP3.com logo], used under the Fair Use doctrine.

==Comments==

===19 Responses to ''The more things change''===

Comments RSS

'''Jon Awbrey'''<br/>
Absoulootely Brilliant Analysis!!! Best thing I’ve read about the dynamix of web phenomena in 5 years. Give Paul a raise immediately.

Jon Awbrey

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
Thanks, Jonny! (If Greg gives me a raise, we won’t be able to afford beer and pretzels at our next board meeting, but I appreciate the thought!)

'''Gregory Kohs'''<br/>
I’ll take this as a quick opportunity to add my praise for Paul Wehage’s thoughtful narrative, but also to remind readers that I’m not the one to dole out “raises” to our Board members (who, of course, are all volunteering without compensation for this non-profit enterprise).

The corporation was founded by four people, it was formally registered by Anthony DiPierro, and if anything, I merely had the not-so-original idea of creating an Internet review site where the ownership would be split between multiple, real-name-identified individuals. Imagine that — accountability.

I’m happy that Akahele is resonating favorably with most everyone who reads it. I had a feeling it would.

'''W.R. Somey'''<br/>
I was impressed…!

A lot of this is still going on, actually. “Vanity-distribution” sites like tunecore.com and iodalliance.com make it possible for anyone to get their music onto practically all the major digital-distribution sites, including iTunes, for a small fee and a percentage. Nobody actually listens to the material that’s being distributed in advance, so the artists can categorize it however they want (i.e., wrongly), and of course there’s no quality control whatsoever. Some listeners don’t mind so much because you can occasionally find a gem amidst all that dreck, but the downside is that it becomes very difficult for talented new artists to stand out when there are hundreds of new releases every day, and none of the actual download sites are paying much attention (though I will say that eMusic does a better job than most, and of course, iTunes handles it by simply ignoring anything that comes from a vanity-distribution site).

I remain pessimistic about the future of music as a way for people to make a living, but folks are still going to try… Another interesting new MP3.com-like scheme that’s appeared recently is amiestreet.com, which has a rather unique and convoluted rating/recommendation and pricing scheme – it’s too complex to describe here, and there’s a good chance it will fail too, mostly because established artists won’t want anything to do with it. But in some ways, it’s what MP3.com should have been, and maybe would have been if they’d thought things through better at the outset.

'''Emperor'''<br/>
Excellent article. It’s good to hear things put into perspective.

Great job with Akahele. So far, it’s the kind of site I wouldn’t be embarrassed to tell my friends to go read.

Maybe someday I’ll comment here under my real name.

'''Darby Lines'''<br/>
Paul,
I just wanted to pop in and say that this is a brilliant analysis. Also, I’d like to thank all involved here for this effort. As a disaffected wikipedia reviewer, I’m very much looking forward to a place where some responsible adults can comment on these issues.

'''Alison Cassidy'''<br/>
Excellent analysis indeed. Well done, Paul!

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
@Somey, actually quite a few things which look like “non-vanity” labels actually are “vanity” labels, if you know the business. We call these types of recordings “artist calling cards” since they’re basically used for people either to get University jobs or gigs. Nobody really makes any money off of them (except for composers and publishers who do get broadcast royalties and mechanicals), but they are indeed useful for other reasons.

The only way anybody makes any money in music these days (outside of teaching) is if you do everything yourself, as in have your own label, release your own recordings and manage your own concert work. Many successful classical artists do just this and, even if they’re not rolling in the dough, make enough to live upper-middle class lives. It’s a lot of work though and requires a great deal of energy. Many people would rather just dump their masters into the hands of a label and not worry about sales etc–you make your money off of concerts anyway. Of course, because of this, most of these artists fail WP’s notability requirements (because they’re self-published), but that’s simply because WP hasn’t figured out that this is the new norm.

It’s real life concerts that make the difference these days in terms of separating the wannabes from the real talents. You can’t just rely on the web to make your reputation, especially these days when anybody can sound great on a recording, at the press of a button.

The really incredible thing about mp3.com was that for two years (and perhaps for the first time in the history of music), there were people who did make their living from recordings who did everything themselves; without management, without labels. That’s not happened before or since. We (as a community of musicians) really blew it by making the wrong choices. I’m not sure if it could have been changed, but it was a really exciting thing to be part of that.

@Emperor, Darby and Alison, your comments are greatly appreciated.

'''Dan T.'''<br/>
Pretty nice piece. But, since I don’t share the antipathy to anything in the “geek”, “cyberlibertarian”, “Web 2.0″ mode that’s common on sites like this, I’d prefer it without the preordained conclusions that the way to go is to conservatively follow the way things have been done for 100 years in other media, like “What should have happened at this point is that MP3.com should have started paying into Performance Rights Organizations such as BMI and ASCAP to cover regular performance and mechanical royalties”, like making any attempt to come up with a different business model was some sort of sin that the site was justly punished for.

What your article shows is that systems will get gamed and abused by people, sometimes enough to doom the entire project. Sticking to the way things were done a century ago might be one way to avoid this (those old systems get gamed too, but clearly not enough to make them collapse, since they haven’t), but this is no guarantee of continued success either (ask the buggy whip industry, if it were around to ask); sometimes times change and it’s necessary to adjust, even if this involves trying and failing at new ideas before something better is eventually arrived at.

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
@Dan T. Thanks for your thoughtful comments. This is kind of like writing a paper about the French revolution: you already know that Louis XVI gets his head chopped off in that story. The interesting question is whether or not anything he did before could have been changed to make the end of the story different.

In this case, I already knew why mp3.com got sued by Universal: because they weren’t following copyright laws and thought that they were protected by the “new technology” and that their innovative business model made them immune to these laws. The lawsuit proved that they were wrong. If they had “conservatively” followed the usual practice at the beginning and had gotten licenses from BMI/ASCAP/FOX for everything on the site, Universal could not have sued them. Since they thought that “Beam it” was covered under “fair use” (are you listening, Wikipedia?) and that they had free licenses for the rest of the content, mp3.com thought that they had their bases covered. All of this could have been avoided.

The whole point of that passage being that although the law takes awhile to catch up with new technology, it eventually does. Innovative technology and business practices sometimes do give innovative operations a bit of slack, but not always…and not forever. Being the “new thing” is not a license to do whatever you wish without bothering to follow the rules.

On pps 115-116 of her article “Cyber Civil Rights” (which can be downloaded here), Danielle Citron gives a very interesting model of how the law adapts to new technology. At first, the risk is identified. Secondly, a more permissive period begins where the law allows the new technology to flourish. Finally, in the third stage, the law sees that ligation is not going to hurt the emerging technology and starts accepting cases, which leads to lawsuits which drive some out of business, but not all. I believe that this process is what happened to mp3.com. I also believe we are currently going from stage 2 to stage 3 in community-driven web 2.0 websites. This is a theme that I will be exploring in future pieces.

'''David Holley'''<br/>
Interesting and thoughtful analysis. It seems that yet again a lack of control over content contributors inherent in many “crowdsourced” applications, combined with a refusal to recognize these problems as they arose, led to the downfall of something which had the potential to be successful.

Hopefully subsequent articles will continue in this thought-provoking vein.

'''Dan T.'''<br/>
The people running the site didn’t believe themselves to be breaking the law; they had a reasonably sensible argument for their activities being covered under fair use. Unfortunately for them, the judge didn’t agree, but it was impossible to predict this in advance; they gambled and lost. It doesn’t seem to be so much of an open-and-shut case as you make it to be.

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
@Dan T. I never intended to imply that Universal’s case against mp3.com was “open-and-shut”, as a matter of course. In many ways, in much the same way that Wikipedia is at the top of its game today, Mp3.com was untouchable: a wildly popular and profitable website, an army of artists to do the promotion and content creation, a profitable business model, and innovative use of technology.

The problem is that the story did indeed end the way it ended and mp3.com’s servers were erased. That’s what happened, so mp3.com was not reasonable in implying that they were protected by “fair use” because they weren’t.

No one could have “known” this in advance, but one can know it after the fact. And the process seems to be common enough that other legal scholars have identified it and are applying it to other cases. This hypothesis seems to have validity in that sense.

'''Kato'''<br/>
This is an excellant blog post, by the way. I think I’d grown used to the repetitive and frustrated critiques we usually read and write on the Wikipedia Review, and was refreshingly impressed here.

Much food for thought, and the piece has significantly impacted on my thinking about this whole business.

Great start, and good Work.

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
Thanks, Kato!

I think that it’s extremely useful to take a few steps back and get away from the focus on Users that is so prevalent on WR to look at the larger patterns. I think that there are many “larger picture” issues that can be uncovered through this type of comparative analysis…and at the end of the day, the problem is not what one user does to another, but what the whole does to society.

'''Jon Awbrey'''<br/>
Preacher, Choir.
Choir, Preacher.

'''Anthony DiPierro'''<br/>
I don’t think that licenses from BMI/ASCAP/FOX could have saved mp3.com, because these licenses would have only covered broadcasting, while what mp3.com wanted to do with “Beam It” was duplication and distribution (and thus not covered by statutory license).

Maybe they could have negotiated licenses for each song/album, one at a time, like Apple has now done for iTunes. I was under the impression that the vast majority of record labels were still under the delusion that they didn’t need to embrace these new technologies, though. Maybe I’m wrong on that point – I didn’t realize that many/most of the record labels other than Universal negotiated an out of court settlement.

In any case, mp3.com opted for the wiki wiki path rather than the akahele one. And that made all the difference.

Thanks for the great post, Paul. You’ll be a tough act to follow.

'''TCO'''<br/>
Read BURN RATE. I read it in 1998 and already knew the dynamic at that time. Wolff talks about “chat” versus “edited content”. Chat ruled then and now. Web 2.0 is just Wolff’s chat.

'''Les McQueen'''<br/>
Thank you Paul. Tremendous article.

Tragic really, the demise of such an inspirational site. Fond memories.

For a moment mp3.com really did offer a new way for musicians and songwriters. People often misunderstand what motivates ‘artists’. The power of the community there, the previously unknown opportunity to be heard and appreciated by an audience of other music lovers across the world meant a huge amount to many people. Empowering stuff. Mp3.com mattered.

Yes a few people were making a living (and yes things did get stupid with the gaming), but I don’t think the emotional return that the site offered artists should be overlooked. That was the saddest thing about mp3.com disappearing, all the connection, all the interaction, the kudos, the culture, the community, the esteem, all the relevance rendered irrelevant at the flick of a switch.

Back in your box you unsigned twats (twatter perhaps)

It’s a shit business.
LM

Directory:Akahele/The more things change...

2010-10-22T21:28:59Z

Raf: first test

It never fails to amaze me the amount of loyalty some people will give to whatever website happens to be the latest ''big thing''. If one looks at the underlying function of most of these sites, one wonders why things which are intended to serve as tools for conveying information, images, or other such content are seen as objectives in and of themselves. Yet, over and over again, the crowd flocks to whatever happens to be the flavor of the month, insisting that this is going to be the thing to completely change the world.

If one were cynical, one would be tempted to recall dear Mr. Plato and his [http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/allegory.html allegory of the Cave]. However, perhaps Rousseau's ''plus ça change, plus que ça reste pareil'' or Léo Ferré's ''Quand c'est fini, ça recommence'' would suffice. Human nature tends to repeat itself and what is happening now has probably happened before. Web 2.0 is no exception.

==Back to the Dark Ages of Web 1.0==

Of course, the Web 1.0 was another story, since things were much simpler back then. Musicians were almost uniformly excited about how this ''internet thing'' was going to change our lives. And it did: in the digital dark ages (way back in 1995), a man named Robin Whittle wrote an article entitled [http://www.firstpr.com.au/musicmar/mmed.html Music Marketing in the Age of Electronic Delivery] which basically predicted pretty much everything that we take for granted today. To quote his abstract :
<blockquote>By the turn of the century many music consumers are expected to have fast network access, home computers and CD-R disc writers. This will enable them to purchase music via electronic delivery, rather than on physical media such as compact disks. Existing distribution channels and radio's stylistically restrictive music discovery process will be bypassed as artists and listeners engage in two way communication, without geographic restrictions. Radical changes to industry structure are expected. As amateur musicians share music electronically, folk music - withering in the age of mass media - may flourish in the 21st century, in a profusion of contemporary styles.</blockquote>
For those of us working in the ''backwaters'' of the music business (classical music, jazz, world music, etc.), these new possibilities seemed like the answer to many problems facing us: how to deliver our product to our relatively small audience without spending the profits on producing stock. These tools have changed the way we do business, but they have also led to a number of developments which no one could have expected.

==The darling of Web 1.0: MP3.com==
<table style="float: left;" border="0" cellspacing="5" align="left">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/800px-michael_robertson_2006-150x150.jpg" alt="" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">Michael Robertson, former MP3.com CEO</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
For example, take one of the biggest success stories of the dot-com era: MP3.com. Started in 1997 by the CEO of Z Company (filez.com, websitez.com, and sharepaper.com) [http://michaelrobertson.com Michael Robertson] and his head of sales Greg Flores, the initial idea was to simply purchase the domain name MP3.com and set up a redirect to filez.com. When ad revenue and large amounts of traffic began to flow into the domain name because of web searches, a decision was made to use the domain to feature unsigned "indie" musicians, and musicians in the thriving techno genre.

==A Musician's Utopia==

Musicians flocked to the site, leading to a concentration of talent, creativity, and a real sense of community. Those who were there in the early days still remember sensing that they were part of something that was on the edge of changing the music business in a profound way.
<table style="float: right;" border="0" cellspacing="5" align="right">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/mp3comlogo199.gif" alt="" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">MP3.com logo, circa 1999</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
For artists, it was exciting, completely self-empowering, and unlike any other creative experience ever. You could have an idea in the morning, record a demo at noon, send your track to someone halfway across the globe to add vocals or an instrumental part, and put your work up in evening for the world to hear. The management of MP3.com seemed to understand the importance of this vibrant artistic community, in submitting an ad to the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences ''Grammy'' magazine in 1998:
<blockquote>What the whole world listens to…Future Grammy winners found here</blockquote>
<strong>The beginning of the end</strong>

When MP3.com went public in 1999, the stock sale raised over $370 million, which was a record for an Internet IPO at that time. To motivate the musicians on the site, the management began a promotion called ''Pay for Play'' which paid a "promotional fee" to each artist based on their monthly streams and downloads...''Oddly, this was the beginning of the end.''

Why? For many reasons. The first of which was that, like the Devil's contract with Faust, the ''Pay for Play'' deal with too good to be true. It wasn't a royalty: it was a ''promotion'' which could be halted at any time. But since people had already given royalty-free licenses to their music to the site in the first place, that drawback didn't seem like a big deal. What should have happened at this point is that MP3.com should have started paying into Performance Rights Organizations such as BMI and ASCAP to cover regular performance and mechanical royalties. But since they already had a free license, they could not be persuaded to do this by a bunch of unsigned artists. And when the paychecks started coming, it seemed like a very good deal indeed.

Some people started making lots of money. As in, ''enough money to live on. ''Certain stars emerged such as [http://www.lindhe.com/bassic.html Bassic] who got written up in some mainstream news magazines, [http://www.myspace.com/303infinity 303Infinity] who ruled the Techno charts, and even some big names like Alanis Morissette, who was closely associated with the site in 1999. And everybody wanted a piece of that pie... even people whose music wasn't likely as good as those who were up there at the top of the charts. So, ''the game changed''. Music making became a sideline.

==The new game : phony fights, faked stalking, sex, and DRAMA = traffic==

The first thing that people noticed was that drama led to attention, which in turn led to downloads and streams. So, the message boards which had previously been about collaboration opportunities, trying out songs, and socializing, now began to be about creating fights (real or imagined), insults, trolling, and baiting others. People started using off-site message boards to try to get people to visit their site, polluting Usenet groups with endless insults, off-topic questions, and other ploys to get people to click those links. People pretended to get into fights with other artists and also pretended that other artists were stalking them. Several people posted nude photos to pornography groups, with links to their MP3.com pages. Anything to get people talking.

==Bending the rules and bending the facts = better product placement and more power==

Secondly, people figured out that music placed in certain categories did better than if it were placed in other categories. The techno charts ruled the site, but there was still money to be made in out-of-the-way places such as the Classical or World Music charts. A Mexican pianist named <a href="http://www.last.fm/music/Ernesto+Cortazar">Ernesto Cortazar</a> discovered that placing his Muzak-inspired versions of such golden hits as "Strangers in the Night" in the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_music">Romantic classical</a>" category led to much higher traffic. His rather lame excuse was ''my music makes you feel romantic''. He made a killing at MP3.com, but the stable of concert pianists was always trying to boot him off of the classical charts. However, Ernesto's status as a high money-maker made him immune to any sensible rules about what music belonged in the classical music genre.

==A little help from your friends = Cabals for fun and profit==

Then came the "gamers" or those who "cracked the code": although the MP3.com system examined the IP addresses where the listening and streaming came from (to prohibit people from streaming their own songs), they couldn't examine <strong>all</strong> of the data. People quickly figured out that although their own listens didn't count for themselves, their listens for "friends" did. Around the same time, MP3.com launched a promotion called "New Music Army" which allowed people to make money by promoting other artists. The people who had "rosters" to promote would distribute all of their artists' playlists, which they would encourage recipients to stream several times a week. Many people streamed these playlists on multiple computers all day, with the sound turned off.

<strong>The Script Kiddies made profit a question of ''point and click''</strong>

As to be expected, somebody wrote an automatic script which could play all of the songs on a cabal's playlist automatically, but which played them only for the amount of time necessary to get "credit" before going to the next one. There were rumors of entire blocks of computers running playlists automatically at various server locations. MP3.com tried to catch those who were cheating and did manage to ban some of them, but there was no way that they could ban everyone. And since the site traffic soared and ad revenue went through the roof, maybe it wasn't that big of a deal?

==The sausage factory, version 1.0==

Finally, people figured out that you didn't actually have to make music to get into the game. You could simply record your girlfriend moaning erotically, or you could mindlessly convert to mp3 format any MIDI files found on the web and upload those. And by this point, it didn't really matter. Nobody was listening anyway... at least, not many people. In November 2000, Salon.com wrote an article entitled <a href="http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2000/11/30/download_trading/print.html">Whoring for Downloads</a>, which spoke of a woman who traded downloads of her song for a porn video on adult sites, and another woman who described her "song" ''90 seconds of ecstasy'' as:
<blockquote>"90 seconds of my ecstasy as I make myself come. This is the real thing! When I scream as I come loud with the mic near my face, you can even hear the sounds of my breasts slapping against each other and I go wild with pleasure."</blockquote>
This was rather far from the actual act of making music, but it did indeed get lots of streams and downloads. What used to be vibrant artistic community became a mindless factory of worthless content which was mainly comprised of <a href="http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/DP/2007/02/036_4_Super_Robot_Deluxe_-_Delicious_Bobotronic.mp3">porn</a>, machine-generated copies of public domain material, and <a href="http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/LG/Background/Background_-_Alien_Abduction.mp3">some of the most mind-bogglingly bad music ever produced anywhere</a>. Much of the music became so bad that Time magazine featured <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,128113,00.html">a story on the phenomenon in their May 27, 2001 issue.</a>

==The disillusioned ''old guard''==

The artists who were there at the beginning and who were there during those very exciting first few months took these developments badly. There was a great sense of something unique (perhaps unique in the history of Western music) that had gone terribly wrong and a sense of being caught in the middle of a boring and pointless game.

One of the the most evocative and direct responses to this situation is a song by the artist Dyonisos <a href="http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page_songInfo.cfm?bandID=105722&songID=719567">''Play my song list again, my friend''</a> which sums up the aggressive atmosphere, the drama, and the endless quest for "more hits! more hits!" -- not musical ''hits'', but simply hits on the play buttons on the artist pages, like so many mice running through a maze and hitting a button to get a reward. In other words, the tool became the master and the original usefulness of the tool became an activity which replaced the entire point of the exercise. What should have set musicians free became a depressing prison, where one spent one's days promoting music to people who weren't listening, except if you clicked their buttons.

==Reality rears its ugly head==

And the management of MP3.com? They were at the head of an extremely popular website, at the effective control of the largest online music catalog ever amassed which had a huge potential value, making lots of ad revenue as well as other revenue from a commercial music service. They were seen as the movers and shakers who were changing the face of the music industry. They had an army of non-salaried worker bees who drove endless streams of traffic and content to their site. They made money off of ads, from album sales, and other promotions. They were the new guys who were calling the shots. And because they were at the top of the food chain and at the helm of the hot new technology, they got cocky. And then they made a huge mistake.

The name of this mistake was "Beam it". This was a service which allowed
users to convert CDs that they had purchased into MP3 format, directly onto the MP3.com servers, and then play them from a personal "locker" on the MP3.com site. Up until this point, MP3.com had not been attacked by the major record labels for copyright infringement because nobody really knew whether or not the law covered the types of uses that MP3.com was pioneering. This time, however, the majors felt that here they had a clear case of unauthorized duplication and therefore a strong case.

MP3.com hid behind the concept of "fair use", giving as an argument that only music which had already been purchased was stored on their servers, as well as their idea that because they were ''cutting edge'' and providing a new service, these attacks would not be successful. All of the recording companies, save one, accepted an "out of court" settlement. The outlier was Universal, and they wanted their day in court. Universal won the case easily: the first line of the UMG v MP3.com decision reads as follows :
<blockquote>"The complex marvels of cyberspatial communication may create difficult legal issues; but not in this case. Defendant's infringement of plaintiff's copyrights is clear,"</blockquote>
''So much for being "cutting edge" as a defense ploy...''

MP3.com was then sold to Vivendi, who had already been given a large amount of stock in their out-of-court settlement. Not wanting to have to pay for a lot of unsigned artists whom they had no intention of signing, the "Pay for Play" program became the ''Premium artist service'' or PAS (with the worst promotional slogan ever: ''PAS is a GAS!''), in which you had to pay to get paid. Then predictably, the payments to artists were phased out.

==Pavlov was right==

What was extremely odd was that the behavior of the artists after the payment incentive was discontinued remained the same. People still did all of the old empty rituals to get to the top of meaningless charts which no longer meant anything. It was as if they were addicted to the same meaningless tasks they had undertaken to get the cash and it no longer mattered whether or not there was a financial incentive.

==The end of the world's largest archive of free online music==

Finally, Vivendi (the owner of UMG) had enough and sold the entire operation to CNET. <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/15/hungover_cnet_wakes_up_next/">As Andrew Orlowski put it in his Register article</a>, this was a bit like waking up in bed with someone that you don't remember going home with... and CNET decided to do the sensible thing and wipe the servers clean. Thus ended the largest collection of online music ever amassed in one place. While I find the comparison a bit exaggerated, I found the fact that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3.com">Wikipedia's article about MP3.com</a> links to the article about the ''Destruction of the Library of Alexandria'' to be a fitting tribute to the spirit in which the site was founded.

==And the beat goes on...==

''Well, we're in the POST web 2.0 world now'', you say? ''We're past all of that!''

Are we really? The crucial difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, according to Andrew Odlyzko's 2001 article [http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/history.communications2.pdf. "Content is not King"] is the idea that communication is more important than content, or in other words ''traffic is more important than thought''. And this idea seems to underline the entire transition from ''music ''to ''traffic'' which characterized the MP3.com experience from the artist's perspective. However, on another level, it was a transition from ''using tools'' to ''being used by tools''. Isn't this second image close to what Web 2.0 is becoming?

The failure of the artists to see that everything they had created in the context of the site could be and would be destroyed at the whim of site management, the mindless creation of content to generate traffic rather than to provoke reaction and thought, and site management who feel immune from attack because of their position as ''the next big thing''... aren't all of these issues alive and well at our favorite Web 2.0 sites? And since the genesis of these sites and the current processes are so strikingly similar, how can the final outcome be any different?

==Image credits:==
*[http://duncandavidson.com/ James Duncan Davidson], Photo of Michael Robertson, all rights reserved, used with permission.
*[http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 MP3.com logo], used under the Fair Use doctrine.

==Comments==

===19 Responses to ''The more things change''===

Comments RSS

'''Jon Awbrey'''<br/>
Absoulootely Brilliant Analysis!!! Best thing I’ve read about the dynamix of web phenomena in 5 years. Give Paul a raise immediately.

Jon Awbrey

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
Thanks, Jonny! (If Greg gives me a raise, we won’t be able to afford beer and pretzels at our next board meeting, but I appreciate the thought!)

'''Gregory Kohs'''<br/>
I’ll take this as a quick opportunity to add my praise for Paul Wehage’s thoughtful narrative, but also to remind readers that I’m not the one to dole out “raises” to our Board members (who, of course, are all volunteering without compensation for this non-profit enterprise).

The corporation was founded by four people, it was formally registered by Anthony DiPierro, and if anything, I merely had the not-so-original idea of creating an Internet review site where the ownership would be split between multiple, real-name-identified individuals. Imagine that — accountability.

I’m happy that Akahele is resonating favorably with most everyone who reads it. I had a feeling it would.

'''W.R. Somey'''<br/>
I was impressed…!

A lot of this is still going on, actually. “Vanity-distribution” sites like tunecore.com and iodalliance.com make it possible for anyone to get their music onto practically all the major digital-distribution sites, including iTunes, for a small fee and a percentage. Nobody actually listens to the material that’s being distributed in advance, so the artists can categorize it however they want (i.e., wrongly), and of course there’s no quality control whatsoever. Some listeners don’t mind so much because you can occasionally find a gem amidst all that dreck, but the downside is that it becomes very difficult for talented new artists to stand out when there are hundreds of new releases every day, and none of the actual download sites are paying much attention (though I will say that eMusic does a better job than most, and of course, iTunes handles it by simply ignoring anything that comes from a vanity-distribution site).

I remain pessimistic about the future of music as a way for people to make a living, but folks are still going to try… Another interesting new MP3.com-like scheme that’s appeared recently is amiestreet.com, which has a rather unique and convoluted rating/recommendation and pricing scheme – it’s too complex to describe here, and there’s a good chance it will fail too, mostly because established artists won’t want anything to do with it. But in some ways, it’s what MP3.com should have been, and maybe would have been if they’d thought things through better at the outset.

'''Emperor'''<br/>
Excellent article. It’s good to hear things put into perspective.

Great job with Akahele. So far, it’s the kind of site I wouldn’t be embarrassed to tell my friends to go read.

Maybe someday I’ll comment here under my real name.

'''Darby Lines'''<br/>
Paul,
I just wanted to pop in and say that this is a brilliant analysis. Also, I’d like to thank all involved here for this effort. As a disaffected wikipedia reviewer, I’m very much looking forward to a place where some responsible adults can comment on these issues.

'''Alison Cassidy'''<br/>
Excellent analysis indeed. Well done, Paul!

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
@Somey, actually quite a few things which look like “non-vanity” labels actually are “vanity” labels, if you know the business. We call these types of recordings “artist calling cards” since they’re basically used for people either to get University jobs or gigs. Nobody really makes any money off of them (except for composers and publishers who do get broadcast royalties and mechanicals), but they are indeed useful for other reasons.

The only way anybody makes any money in music these days (outside of teaching) is if you do everything yourself, as in have your own label, release your own recordings and manage your own concert work. Many successful classical artists do just this and, even if they’re not rolling in the dough, make enough to live upper-middle class lives. It’s a lot of work though and requires a great deal of energy. Many people would rather just dump their masters into the hands of a label and not worry about sales etc–you make your money off of concerts anyway. Of course, because of this, most of these artists fail WP’s notability requirements (because they’re self-published), but that’s simply because WP hasn’t figured out that this is the new norm.

It’s real life concerts that make the difference these days in terms of separating the wannabes from the real talents. You can’t just rely on the web to make your reputation, especially these days when anybody can sound great on a recording, at the press of a button.

The really incredible thing about mp3.com was that for two years (and perhaps for the first time in the history of music), there were people who did make their living from recordings who did everything themselves; without management, without labels. That’s not happened before or since. We (as a community of musicians) really blew it by making the wrong choices. I’m not sure if it could have been changed, but it was a really exciting thing to be part of that.

@Emperor, Darby and Alison, your comments are greatly appreciated.

'''Dan T.'''<br/>
Pretty nice piece. But, since I don’t share the antipathy to anything in the “geek”, “cyberlibertarian”, “Web 2.0″ mode that’s common on sites like this, I’d prefer it without the preordained conclusions that the way to go is to conservatively follow the way things have been done for 100 years in other media, like “What should have happened at this point is that MP3.com should have started paying into Performance Rights Organizations such as BMI and ASCAP to cover regular performance and mechanical royalties”, like making any attempt to come up with a different business model was some sort of sin that the site was justly punished for.

What your article shows is that systems will get gamed and abused by people, sometimes enough to doom the entire project. Sticking to the way things were done a century ago might be one way to avoid this (those old systems get gamed too, but clearly not enough to make them collapse, since they haven’t), but this is no guarantee of continued success either (ask the buggy whip industry, if it were around to ask); sometimes times change and it’s necessary to adjust, even if this involves trying and failing at new ideas before something better is eventually arrived at.

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
@Dan T. Thanks for your thoughtful comments. This is kind of like writing a paper about the French revolution: you already know that Louis XVI gets his head chopped off in that story. The interesting question is whether or not anything he did before could have been changed to make the end of the story different.

In this case, I already knew why mp3.com got sued by Universal: because they weren’t following copyright laws and thought that they were protected by the “new technology” and that their innovative business model made them immune to these laws. The lawsuit proved that they were wrong. If they had “conservatively” followed the usual practice at the beginning and had gotten licenses from BMI/ASCAP/FOX for everything on the site, Universal could not have sued them. Since they thought that “Beam it” was covered under “fair use” (are you listening, Wikipedia?) and that they had free licenses for the rest of the content, mp3.com thought that they had their bases covered. All of this could have been avoided.

The whole point of that passage being that although the law takes awhile to catch up with new technology, it eventually does. Innovative technology and business practices sometimes do give innovative operations a bit of slack, but not always…and not forever. Being the “new thing” is not a license to do whatever you wish without bothering to follow the rules.

On pps 115-116 of her article “Cyber Civil Rights” (which can be downloaded here), Danielle Citron gives a very interesting model of how the law adapts to new technology. At first, the risk is identified. Secondly, a more permissive period begins where the law allows the new technology to flourish. Finally, in the third stage, the law sees that ligation is not going to hurt the emerging technology and starts accepting cases, which leads to lawsuits which drive some out of business, but not all. I believe that this process is what happened to mp3.com. I also believe we are currently going from stage 2 to stage 3 in community-driven web 2.0 websites. This is a theme that I will be exploring in future pieces.

'''David Holley'''<br/>
Interesting and thoughtful analysis. It seems that yet again a lack of control over content contributors inherent in many “crowdsourced” applications, combined with a refusal to recognize these problems as they arose, led to the downfall of something which had the potential to be successful.

Hopefully subsequent articles will continue in this thought-provoking vein.

'''Dan T.'''<br/>
The people running the site didn’t believe themselves to be breaking the law; they had a reasonably sensible argument for their activities being covered under fair use. Unfortunately for them, the judge didn’t agree, but it was impossible to predict this in advance; they gambled and lost. It doesn’t seem to be so much of an open-and-shut case as you make it to be.

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
@Dan T. I never intended to imply that Universal’s case against mp3.com was “open-and-shut”, as a matter of course. In many ways, in much the same way that Wikipedia is at the top of its game today, Mp3.com was untouchable: a wildly popular and profitable website, an army of artists to do the promotion and content creation, a profitable business model, and innovative use of technology.

The problem is that the story did indeed end the way it ended and mp3.com’s servers were erased. That’s what happened, so mp3.com was not reasonable in implying that they were protected by “fair use” because they weren’t.

No one could have “known” this in advance, but one can know it after the fact. And the process seems to be common enough that other legal scholars have identified it and are applying it to other cases. This hypothesis seems to have validity in that sense.

'''Kato'''<br/>
This is an excellant blog post, by the way. I think I’d grown used to the repetitive and frustrated critiques we usually read and write on the Wikipedia Review, and was refreshingly impressed here.

Much food for thought, and the piece has significantly impacted on my thinking about this whole business.

Great start, and good Work.

'''Paul Wehage'''<br/>
Thanks, Kato!

I think that it’s extremely useful to take a few steps back and get away from the focus on Users that is so prevalent on WR to look at the larger patterns. I think that there are many “larger picture” issues that can be uncovered through this type of comparative analysis…and at the end of the day, the problem is not what one user does to another, but what the whole does to society.

'''Jon Awbrey'''<br/>
Preacher, Choir.
Choir, Preacher.

'''Anthony DiPierro'''<br/>
I don’t think that licenses from BMI/ASCAP/FOX could have saved mp3.com, because these licenses would have only covered broadcasting, while what mp3.com wanted to do with “Beam It” was duplication and distribution (and thus not covered by statutory license).

Maybe they could have negotiated licenses for each song/album, one at a time, like Apple has now done for iTunes. I was under the impression that the vast majority of record labels were still under the delusion that they didn’t need to embrace these new technologies, though. Maybe I’m wrong on that point – I didn’t realize that many/most of the record labels other than Universal negotiated an out of court settlement.

In any case, mp3.com opted for the wiki wiki path rather than the akahele one. And that made all the difference.

Thanks for the great post, Paul. You’ll be a tough act to follow.

'''TCO'''<br/>
Read BURN RATE. I read it in 1998 and already knew the dynamic at that time. Wolff talks about “chat” versus “edited content”. Chat ruled then and now. Web 2.0 is just Wolff’s chat.

'''Les McQueen'''<br/>
Thank you Paul. Tremendous article.

Tragic really, the demise of such an inspirational site. Fond memories.

For a moment mp3.com really did offer a new way for musicians and songwriters. People often misunderstand what motivates ‘artists’. The power of the community there, the previously unknown opportunity to be heard and appreciated by an audience of other music lovers across the world meant a huge amount to many people. Empowering stuff. Mp3.com mattered.

Yes a few people were making a living (and yes things did get stupid with the gaming), but I don’t think the emotional return that the site offered artists should be overlooked. That was the saddest thing about mp3.com disappearing, all the connection, all the interaction, the kudos, the culture, the community, the esteem, all the relevance rendered irrelevant at the flick of a switch.

Back in your box you unsigned twats (twatter perhaps)

It’s a shit business.
LM

Directory:Akahele/Akahele is your Internet watchdog

2010-10-22T21:06:36Z

Raf: first test

'''Akahele'''. A Hawaiian word as beautiful as it is uncommon. It reminds us of something we all too frequently forget: To be careful; to proceed cautiously.

Do you know the Hawaiian word for "quick" or "fast"?

It is '''wiki''' -- a word previously obscure to English speakers now made famous by the wildly popular, and equally irresponsible, Wikipedia encyclopedia.

'''Akahele''' is the opposite of '''wiki'''.

And that's our guiding principle.

==Why Akahele?==

Indeed, across the new frontier of the 21st-century Internet, we see the exact opposite of '''akahele''' every day. We see start-up companies funded with millions of dollars of venture capital, with no realistic business plan. We observe people giving "expert" analysis, when they're just shooting from the hip. Lamentably, we witness a rapid-fire cycle of online defamation, rebutted by more libelous accusation, countered by verbal (or even physical) threats -- from anonymous characters rather than real-name individuals, more often than not.

Take a moment and imagine yourself an internationally recognized historian and lecturer. You're on the faculty of the university with the fourth-largest student body in the United States. You're flying out of the country to deliver a lecture at the invitation of the Law faculty at one of the destination nation's oldest universities. Would you be eager to exhibit your best abilities as an academic professional? Would you be nervous?

[[Image:Minneapolis_Airport.jpg|thumb|right|Heading somewhere?]]

Would you have a sense of pride in your accomplishments in academia? Would you be afraid for your civil rights when you land? No, of course not, as you are merely traveling from Minneapolis to Montreal.

As you step off the airplane and enter the airport of your destination city, a Canadian immigration officer takes you aside to ask you some questions. He ends up detaining you for four hours -- you'll be late for your appointed lecture time, caught in a web of his note-taking and phone calls to superiors. You eventually insist on the immigration officer showing you why you're being detained without charge. He pulls out a printed one-page biography about you. The biography alleges that you are a terrorist, with past ties to a radical militant group. Imagine what questions you would ask!

Who wrote these lies about you? It's not clear, as they were authored by someone hiding behind an Internet Protocol (IP) address. Which authority published these lies for public consumption? The Wikipedia online encyclopedia. Who is responsible for this encyclopedia? The Wikimedia Foundation. Can they be sued for this defamatory obstruction of your civil rights? No, their libel is protected under Section 230 of the United States' Communications Decency Act, because operators of Internet "computer services" are not to be construed as publishers (and thus not legally liable for the information provided by third parties who use their services).

[[Image:Taner_Akcam.jpg|thumb|right|Professor Taner Akçam]]

You are out of luck. This is the new, free culture of the Internet at work. Your personal rights are not as important as the rights of anonymous agents who wish to libel you in public and put your personal safety and liberty at risk.

The story above is not a fictional parable. It is the [http://www.chgs.umn.edu/histories/turkisharmenian/fiskArticle.pdf Article by Robert Fisk regarding Taner Akcam] of Turkish-born scholar, Taner Akçam. And all because of... '''wiki'''.

'''Akahele''' strives to examine, to understand, and to make decisions based on informed knowledge and truth. We imagine it is what Taner Akçam would have preferred to have happened.

==Our mission==

What if there were a place on the Internet where the Internet itself could be carefully and cautiously reviewed and critiqued? What if the voices you heard came from real, identifiable people who backed their musings and words with their real-life credentials and experiences? What if facts trumped speculation? Imagine a calm, rational place on the Web where complex Internet issues detrimentally impacting our society are presented for examination -- without unnecessary jargon, without "insider" metaphors, without confusing (or boring!) the average citizen who doesn't know the meaning of an "open proxy" or a "DoS attack".

The '''Akahele''' blog will strive to be that place.

==The Internet Review Corporation==

The '''Akahele''' blog is a property of the [http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:Internet_Review_Corporation Internet Review Corporation], a Florida-based non-profit organization launched in December 2008 by four gentlemen from places as far-flung as Utah, Pennsylvania, Florida, and France. The IRC is a legitimate corporation. Its purview is facilitating discussion and disseminating information related to any site or phenomenon on the Internet; including, but certainly not limited to Wikipedia.

The IRC's aims are noble, not malicious.

The blog is authored by four real people, the directors of the Internet Review Corporation:
* '''Anthony DiPierro''' - an accountant and enrolled agent living in Tampa, Florida
* '''Gregory Kohs''' - a marketing research practitioner living near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
* '''Judd Bagley''' - managing partner at Deep Capture, he resides in Utah
* '''Paul Wehage''' - a musician, composer, and music publisher who resides in Lagny-sur-Marne, France

All four of them have divergent views about religion, politics, and business. They look forward to not agreeing about everything!

But one thing they each firmly hold to is a belief that '''<span style="color: #ff0000;">identity matters</span>''', especially on the Internet. When people hide behind anonymous identifiers or phony pseudonyms, trust breaks down. Falsehoods are easier to "get away with". Credibility goes away. That is why every published article that you, dear reader, will see on the '''Akahele''' blog will come with an identifiable person's byline.

==How <span style="color: #993300;">Akahele</span> will work==
Every new published post on '''Akahele''' will be written primarily by one of the four directors of the Internet Review Corporation. We will rotate the role of "lead editor", so that each director will be publishing in approximately equal intervals. Since this is truly a corporate responsibility and liability, each director's post will undergo a modest review and editorial process by the other three directors. This way, we hope to present high-quality, well-worded, factually-accurate material to readers, every time we publish something new.

While we won't always hold ourselves to it, it is our hope to have new content for readers to enjoy and learn from, about every week.

'''Akahele''' blog posts will welcome public comments from both individuals who name themselves and those who don't. However, each director will have veto privilege to censor blog comments that are unsubstantiated, defamatory, unnecessarily commercial, or otherwise disruptive to our mission. The staff may also be contacted privately at the following e-mail address:
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="color: #008080;">comments</span> (<strong>at</strong>) <span style="color: #993300;">akahele.org</span></p>

==Guest editors==

We already foresee interest from enthusiastic readers who would like to pen their own provocative essays for publication in '''Akahele'''. We certainly envision a time in the near future where guest authors will be invited to take the editorial lead. But, let us first establish a few rounds of articles ourselves, so as to model the tone and style we would be proud to exhibit.

We hope that you are as eager as we are to begin sharing ideas, ambitions, and indeed even warnings about our too-often quick and incautious Internet.

"Akahele."

==Image credits:==
*[http://lh3.ggpht.com/_YeVVfegW8Vc/RsjulF9mLPI/AAAAAAAADTU/--MeAnh3nPI/JS017.jpg http://lh3.ggpht.com]
*[http://www.azad-hye.net/media/g1/taner-akcam.jpg www.azad-hye.net]

==Comments==

===12 Responses to Akahele is your Internet watchdog===

Comments RSS

'''Christine Belin'''<br/>
Gentlemen,

I am very much looking forward to your upcoming articles.

Sincerely,
Christine Belin

ps. Hi Greg!

'''Barry Kort'''<br>
On behalf of outraged academics everywhere, let me be the first to salute you on the launch of your new site.

I’m looking forward to following your research, and perhaps contributing an item of interest or two to your collection of essays and analyses.

'''Jonas Rand'''<br/>
I have an interest in this topic. Google has a large impact on the popularity of Web 2.0 sites, in the way they pump the rankings of blogs and Wikipedia. Serious discussion of Web 2.0 cannot be complete without a mention of Google’s irresponsibility in providing a blog service where people are free to be anonymous and post libel about anyone they want. I might end up writing for you! I appreciate your mission, to discuss this phenomenon, in which Wikipedia and Google are major participants. The ease of possibility in publishing lies, and convincing the public of them, fascinates me. It is all due to these greedy companies who have pumped so much money into this, without examining the ethical aspects of it. I am contemplating the writing and submission of an article for this site.

Jonas Rand
joeyyuan (at) cox.net

'''Kambiz Akhavan'''<br/>
Congratulations on the launch of Akahele. The more nonpartisan, well researched information available online the better. I’ve bookmarked the site for ongoing reference. Also, thank you very much for the link to ProCon.org. We really appreciate it.

'''Eric Barbour'''<br/>
Don’t forget my blog. Whenever I come across atrocities, Internet or otherwise, they get posted.

'''GlassBeadGame'''<br/>
A little friendly limit testing here. I notice all of the comment posters are using what at least appear to be real names. The site is clear that is has a certain disdain for pseudonyms. It is also clear that article writers must use IRL names. If this post goes through it will mean pseudonyms can at least post comments — something I believe is unclear. This will help clarify this question which might needlessly be deterring participation.

If this post does not go through/remain I will wait a while to give you chance for a good start-up and then raise this issue on WR. I hope this helps participation.

Good luck Greg et al.

GBG

'''Gregory Kohs'''<br/>
GlassBeadGame, of course pseudonymous and anonymous comments are welcome on Akahele.org, so long as they are on-topic, thoughtful, not spammy (or at least not too spammy), and don’t detract from our ability to carry out our corporate mission. We do moderate comments, but thus far, none have been rejected. We do believe that the published content we circulate as part of the actual anchor posts should be authored by real-name individuals. Perhaps one day, we will make an exception to this rule, but the content would have to be verifiable, and if it is accusatory in tone, then the accused deserves to know the identity of the accuser, we think.

I fixed a couple of typos in your comment. Hope you don’t mind!

'''Gregory Kohs'''<br/>
Additionally, the post above does (I thought) fairly clearly explain our policy on this:

+++++
Akahele blog posts will welcome public comments from both individuals who name themselves and those who don’t. However, each director will have veto privilege to censor blog comments that are unsubstantiated, defamatory, unnecessarily commercial, or otherwise disruptive to our mission. The staff may also be contacted privately at the following e-mail address:

comments (at) akahele.org
+++++

I am very satisfied that even on this inaugural post, we’ve garnered six outside comments already.

'''tarantino'''<br/>
This looks very promising.

Good luck Greg, Judd, Paul and Anthony.

'''edward buckner'''<br/>
A warm welcome to the net, and very best wishes.

I like the name – very clever. And the turtle.

'''Cheryl Kohs'''<br/>
Ok, even though Greg is my cousin, I’m not biased when I say IT’S ABOUT TIME someone did this. There’s so much crap on the internet that the more we can do to keep people honest, the better.

'''noloultedbon'''<br/>
(RUSSIAN) Благодарю!!!У Вас часто появляются очень интересные посты! Очень поднимаете мое настроение.

(ENGLISH) I thank you!!! You often have very interesting posts! Very much lift my mood.

Directory talk:Akahele

2010-10-22T20:30:57Z

Raf: Well Akahele hasn't delivered much content for a while, but i assume you, Anthony and the rest are continuing on Examiner.com, right?

Well Akahele hasn't delivered much content for a while, but i assume you, Anthony and the rest are continuing on Examiner.com, right? [[User:Raf|Raf]] 20:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:MyWikiBiz

2010-10-22T20:27:56Z

Raf: /* Hello Greg */ another question

User talk:MyWikiBiz

2010-10-22T19:13:20Z

Raf: /* Hello Greg */

User talk:MyWikiBiz

2010-10-22T19:11:12Z

Raf: /* Problems with my articles */