MyWikiBiz - User contributions [en]

Directory:Akahele/The State of the Human Economy

2010-10-25T20:13:47Z

Seurat: Standard format, om nom nom nom.

==The State of the Human Economy==
Digging through a few conference notes from the [http://www.ctam.com CTAM Research Conference] of February 2007, I uncovered a few things I had jotted down while listening to [http://www.futuredesigndays.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=96:speaker-5&catid=39:speakers-2006&Itemid=102 Shari Swan], founder of Streative Branding and former global marketing executive at Reebok. Swan simply presented a timeline of human economic history, but I found it provocative enough then, and still enough now to share with you today.

Let me present my graphic version of the timeline (Swan’s didn’t look like this), and after you give it some thought and consideration, we can then discuss it:

[[Image:Timeline-smaller.jpg|thumb|Timeline of economies]]

===Tribal Economy===

I don’t recall that Swan went into detail about the earliest phases of human development, but my cursory knowledge of civilization between 100,000 and 10,000 BC would evoke images of [http://www.ecotao.com/holism/hu_neand.htm Neanderthal] men, women, and children using stone tools to fashion crude stone weapons – most significantly the spear tip. The society would be organized around an extended family or perhaps a close-knit handful of families that we would now call a “tribe”. The tribe would have a self-contained economy, and the most common interaction between tribes would be of a defensive or violent nature. Food would be gained through the “hunt and gather” technique, and homesteads would not be permanent structures because wild game migrates with the seasons. Sitting in our comfortable, heated homes with full refrigerators, it is very difficult to even imagine human life in the Tribal Economy.

===Rural Economy===

Then, around 10,000 BC, a revolution in civilization transformed the economy. People [http://history-world.org/neolithic.htm learned to grow crops] that could be consumed, stored for off-season consumption, or traded to another tribe to keep them from attacking your tribe or to obtain some surplus product they had in their possession. This was the Rural Economy.

===Industrial Economy===

At about the time the crude steam engine was being made more practical and efficient (the years between 1700 and 1775), we can say mankind’s economy was transformed once again. Mechanical turning of wheels and milling tools was no longer dependent on horses walking in a circle or the [http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi105.htm cascading water of a mill race], so industrial manufacturing and processing could be located closer to centers of labor, resources, and distribution, and thus was born the Industrial Economy.

===Consumer Economy===

Swan suggests that after 200 years of the Industrial Economy’s accomplishments, manufacturing things that couldn’t be made by hand under the Rural Economy (railroad tracks, locomotives, automobiles, airplanes, and hydroelectric dams, to name a few), civilization graduated to a Consumer Economy, all about the household or the individual acquiring things that made life easier or symbolized status. This was the age of television sets, [http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/tvdinner.html frozen dinners], Barbie dolls, and annual stylistic alterations to automobiles so that consumers would just ''have'' to buy “the new model”. It’s important to understand the Consumer Economy (and don’t turn to Wikipedia for help – [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Consumer_economy&oldid=323722345 its article] about the Consumer Economy is abysmal), not only because it has so indelibly shaped our present urban and suburban culture, but because we are arguably still in it. More on that in a moment, though.

===Human Economy – are we there yet?===

Swan’s talk at the CTAM conference was not so much focused on this overall timeline upon which I’ve expended so many words taken from my crude understanding of each era, but rather Swan spent most of her presentation elaborating on the characteristics of the most recent stop on that timeline: the Human Economy. I wish I had taken better notes, however, it was clear that Swan characterizes the Human Economy as placing a capital and cultural emphasis on ''bettering and enriching the person''. (Again, you will be lost if you turn to Wikipedia for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_economy a definition of “human economy”], which is a quaint irony, if you ask me.) Symbols of the Human Economy might include a fully booked yoga class at the local YMCA, the ever-increasing popularity of “continuing education” programs for adults and seniors at a community college or via distance learning, and of course, volunteer efforts that assist those less fortunate than they who provide the helping hand.

There’s more to it than just this, though. From what I can tell over the past 5 or 10 years, the phrase “human economy” has become inextricably intertwined with the concepts of “sustainability”, “green living”, and the “human ecology”. With wind energy fields springing up in the marketing nexus of Atlantic City, New Jersey, and solar energy farms sprouting up in erstwhile oil-rich Texas, one would be hard-pressed to argue that we are not in the midst of an economic shift of some degree. But, is it transformative? Would we be correct to say that the Consumer Economy (or, for that matter, even the Industrial Economy) are fully behind us, even in the most advanced American urban centers like San Francisco, Boston, or Portland? I would argue not. In other words, I am here to say that Shari Swan may have prematurely placed our society into a Human Economic era that we have not yet truly entered.

I’m willing to be called a curmudgeon or a cynic for saying this, but I do not believe that a significant number of us are dedicating our time and resources toward “bettering and enriching the human”. Though many of us would ''like'' to be doing this (or ''imagine'' ourselves to be doing so), the Consumer Economy still has us trapped – more than ever – in debt, in paycheck-to-paycheck budgeting, and indeed in federally mandated bail-outs of entire consumer-driven industries. I think we’re still mostly stuck in the Consumer Economy, and we need look no further than the sub-prime lending fiasco, or the debacle of the Iraq War which went off with nary a protest from American citizens who might bother to ask how we’d pay for such a war, or the fact that Craigslist.org is now most notorious for [http://www.docstoc.com/docs/13676359/Thomas-Dart-v-Craigslist enabling sexual prostitution], possibly even of minors – and our legal system is forced to exempt that website from punishment or even self-restraint, thanks to a [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html 1997 law that our Congress passed] without really understanding that the Internet is just another channel of publishing.

===The proof is in the Internet===

In fact, I think the Internet is the best proof that ours is still a Consumer Economy and not a Human Economy. If you look at the 10 most popular websites, four are devoted to ad-supported search and e-mail communications (Google, Yahoo!, MSN & MSN Live); and three are devoted to consumer transactions (eBay, Amazon, and Microsoft); leaving just three that could be described as oriented toward the Human Economy (Facebook, YouTube, and Wikipedia). Take Facebook. It has surged over the past two years to become the # 3 website by including more and more folks of my generation rather than the Britney Spears generation, bringing together long-lost high school classmates and former co-workers to talk about what’s important to them. But, what seems to be actually important to them? Apparently, the current rage is playing viral marketing games like ''Mafia Wars'' , ''FarmVille'', ''Farm Town'', and ''Sorority Life'', where enterprising code developers are capitalizing on the unwitting willingness of consumers to [http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/10/26/social-games-how-the-big-three-make-millions/ open their wallets] to feel connected. ''Sorority Life'' offers the following for your human betterment:
<blockquote>“Create the perfect look for your avatar. Hit the mall for the latest fashions. And get a job to pay off your shopping obsession.”</blockquote>
''Farm Town''’s value proposition to the consumer?
<blockquote>“Design, grow and maintain your farm and even send gifts to your friends. Play now and share the fun with everyone!”</blockquote>
This is not a return to the Rural Economy, folks.

What are your thoughts? Have we entered the Human Economy phase of civilization? Are we still in the Consumer Economy? Is the Human Economy something we should be striving for? Or, is there a better way to model our human timeline? I look forward to your comments below.

===Image credits===
*''Timeline of economies'', [http://www.GregoryKohs.com Gregory Kohs], all rights reserved.[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pierre_Omidyar_Richard_Branson.jpg]

==Comments==
14 Responses to “The State of the Human Economy”

;Cedric
:I have to agree strongly with you on this one, Greg. If we did not have an economy so dependent on consumer spending, we would not be in quite the mess that we presently are. From your description of Swan’s description of “human economy”, it sounds more like a hopeful prediction for the future than any realistic description of the present state of things. It has a very Star Trek-type feel to it.
;Jon Awbrey
:Let’s not talk of Wiki-Φerengi …
;Jon Awbrey
:Siriusly though, beginning a couple of decades ago my hooman ears were often bent by many conversations concerning the way that succeeding waves of revolution in human culture, industry, and technology had impacted, were impacting, and might impact our institutions of higher learning, not to mention the hapless if intrepid souls who pass through their portals, whether as consumers or producers of “knowledge”, much less to mention the rarer birds who chase that elusive flutterby of “wisdom”.
:Ironically enough, the article I had in mind to pass along at this point is locked behind a JSTOR gate to which I am short a key as we speak, so let me just link to what looks like a reasonable facsimile of the same essay:
:Susan M. Awbrey and David K. Scott, “The Third Transformation :
:Universities into the Next Century”
;Jonas D. Rand
:We are still in the consumer economy, in my opinion, but to extend your analogy with the Social Web, somewhat participatory (in regards to commenting) noncommercial news sites like Common Dreams and Truthout are increasing in popularity, as well as networks like Indymedia/IMC. Amy Goodman has analyzed the transformation of the mass media into a forum for debate on political issues, on a scale of public participation never seen before. Still, though, the popularity of commercial media is strong, as is the monopoly held by major corporations like News Corp over the media. Additionally, as is pointed out at the end of this article, the majority of content on these sites is pure drivel, like what is mostly found on Facebook. I have an account under a fake name to see Wikipedians’ friends lists, and I happen to see some of the babble that takes place there. It’s a cesspool over there.
;Jonas D. Rand
:To correct: this was not an “analogy” with the Web, but rather the usage of the Web as an example of the consumer economy still being in use. The term “analogy” is incorrect in describing what this article says about the Web. It’s a great article, by the way.
;aloma210
:Jon’s play on words reminds me of the
:full context: “It’s only me pursuing
:something I’m not sure of. Across my
:dream, with nets of wonder. I chase
:the bright elusive butterfly of …..”
:Could Lind have been dreaming of an
:internet before there was one?
;eme
:i seems to me that we are arguably in the human economy in many ways….
:but still also segments society are still probably caught up in the consumer economy
:i think I also read (perhaps, was it Covey? – can’t remember) about the “personality ethic” – I can’t remember what that was supposed to have evolved into….
:interesting post thanks.
;Jon Awbrey
:If you know me, you know it cost me
:an e-fort of will in some x-tremity
:to e-rase that hyphen of e-lusivity.
:I will check the liner notes, but later maybe —
:there’s a man with a net, and he’s chasing me!
;Tweets that mention Akahele -- Topsy.com
:This post was mentioned on Twitter by Gregory Kohs and Shari Swan.
;Shari Swan said<nowiki>:</nowiki>:Greg Kohs has just written about the Human Economy from my lecture 3 years ago!
;Anthony DiPierro
:I think the logarithmic length of time periods in that analysis belies the bias of its methodology. But maybe I would be more impressed if I heard the actual speech.
;Gregory Kohs
:I want to thank everyone for making comments on this post. Not to mention, I also received a comment via e-mail from Seth Finkelstein, who said:
:You might want to take a look at Yochai Benkler’s recent famous book (in certain circles), Wealth Of Networks. It’s online and freely downloadable as a PDF. It’s making a related type of “Human Economy” argument, though phrased differently.
;J Powell
:Human economy? Nope.
:Right idea, wrong moniker.
:<nowiki>*</nowiki>Services* economy.
;J Powell
:I like your line of thought, Greg.
:But I’d personally put the comparatives in the form of:
:1. ECONOMIC
:“Industrial/Goods” vs. “Services/Intangibles” economy.
:2. VALUES-related
:Individualistic/Materialism vs. Collectivist/Philanthropic.
:My 2 cents: if you start to mix-up the green movement with the wellness-movement, there’s a mixup in metaphors, i.e. I consider “wellness” to be individualistic-materialism. Whereas “green” climate-conscious focus is, at the core, collectivist/philanthropic – at least until someone figures out how to score some dough off of it, in which case it plops back into category 1,
;Huynh Hung Tien
:We have to create a new economic theory which will help mankind to solve all it problems like: charity, health, environment, recession and crisis…See an idea in link http://www.facebook.com/notes/huynh-hung-tien/the-human-economy/118527191533055

Directory:Akahele/PhotoSketch creates mystic visions

2010-10-25T20:13:45Z

Seurat: Title, om nom nom nom.

==PhotoSketch creates mystic visions==
No need to really say too much about the potential implications of something like this, so I will simply post the link and make a brief comment:

[http://gizmodo.com/5374890/this-is-a-photoshop-and-it-blew-my-mind '''This ''Is'' a Photoshop and It Blew My Mind''']

Even if this is an elaborate video hoax, I have no doubt that some team of ex-Google engineers will have something like this in prototype before the year 2015.

And then what?

There is currently an [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=29884458#File:Friends_eating_lunch_at_the_home_of_Michael_Lucas_on_Fire_Island.jpg argument underway] on Wikimedia Commons about whether someone captured in a photo among a private party crowd dotted with a gay pornography producer, actors, and fans is or is not actually [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Saranga&oldid=288603210 David Saranga], an Israeli diplomat and former Consul for Media and Public Affairs of Israel in the United States.

Of course it is David Saranga in [http://mywikibiz.com/Image:David_Saranga_at_the_home_of_Michael_Lucas_on_Fire_Island.JPG the real photograph] on Fire Island, but the prevailing administrative culture at Wikimedia projects is to protect those who have been quietly authorized to self-promote on the project, even if this means suppressing the verifiable truth to the unsuspecting public. This is yet another example of a continued neglect of [http://www.mywikibiz.com/Ethical_accountability ethical accountability].

Imagine what an instrument like PhotoSketch could do to our understanding of amateur photo-journalism and "truth". It is not an altogether encouraging prospect.

Directory:Akahele/Ten new Wikipedia articles

2010-10-25T20:13:41Z

Seurat: Standard format, om nom nom nom.

==Ten new Wikipedia articles==
Over the Labor Day weekend last month, I thought it might be interesting to make a short case study of 10 new articles created on Wikipedia. So, I monitored ten brand-new, freshly-created articles, in order of their creation across a span of a few minutes. Let's see what has happened to each of them after the first month.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lido_Palace Lido Palace]
*:The story of a thoroughbred racehorse, this article has about 5 other articles linking to it, and it gets about 3 page views per day.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bohemes The Bohemes]
*:This is a rather promotional article about a Dutch indie rock band, having no other articles linking to it, and getting about 3 page views per day. The band members are nicknamed Dingers, Doodles, Bongos, and Whiskers. How cute. The article was created by a new User named "Libertine33" who had never before made an edit on Wikipedia, and hasn't made one since The Bohemes. The author made it a considerable point to attest how The Bohemes have been compared to English rockers, The Libertines, although no source supporting that claim was provided. Indeed, if one were to search the legitimate news archives, no independent source makes this claim. But this is typical for Wikipedia, a great compendium of unsubstantiated opinion.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Neal Jesse Neal]
*:An article about an American professional wrestler. This page has about 75 other Wikipedia articles linking to it, because pages about pro wrestlers are a very prolific and important component of Wikipedia's effort to document all things related to fan-based culture. The new article has been getting about 300 page views per day, by far the most popular of these 10 new articles. It was authored by Richard "Wrestler" Lopez, who [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Richard_%22Wrestler%22_Lopez&oldid=316721253#1999-2008:_Wrestling_Journals claims] to be a retired professional wrestler and now a "wrestling journalist" by dint of his past work for a failed magazine, which led to a job as a waiter, which led to his opening a Blogger account. As you read this self-written tale of Lopez, you begin to take more interest in his life story than that of his subject, Jesse Neal. Another characteristic of Wikipedia -- the drama of the editors often outweighs the story ''in situ''.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nico_samaras Nico samaras]
*:This was an interesting case. The article didn't last long (46 minutes) before being deleted by a Wikipedia administrator. It had been getting about 1 page view attempt per day. This was apparently the second time the article's creation had been attempted in several months, and both times, the sole purpose of the content was to defame and attack the subject. This is one of Wikipedia's most criticized flaws -- it is a powerful online defamation platform.
*:While I will not repeat the entire content of the deleted article, it may be useful to the reader to see just how Wikipedia was exploited in this case to tarnish the reputation of Samaras. The article described him as surrounded by "fraud allegations" and in the public eye for his "open homosexuality". The article closed with a rather outlandish claim, that Samaras "recently engaged with various aquatic and beachcombing business enterprises, most notably a singular idea to establish a chain of seaweed restaurants across Holland and France." This is an encyclopedia, they say?
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Sinclair_%28voice_actor%29 Ian Sinclair (voice actor)]
*:This article showcases the fact that Sinclair is a voice actor for the Funimation production company. Actually, other than listing the roles Sinclair has played, this is about all the article mentions about Sinclair. Only two other articles in Wikipedia link to this one, and it's garnering only about 6 page views per day.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bytown_Railway_Society Bytown Railway Society]
*:After about two weeks, this one was also deleted by a Wikipedia administrator, as the content was found to be a copyright violation, released under a free license without permission. Nobody seems to have broken a sweat about that, since the article was getting only about 1 attempted page view per day.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco_Trend_Incorporated Eco Trend Incorporated]
*:Deleted within an hour, as the importance of the subject wasn't substantiated by the article. Virtually no attempted page views. Another waste of time on Wikipedia.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Coren Yitzhak Coren]
*:A fairly extensive biography about an Israeli politician. Unfortunately, he is about 150 times less interesting to readers than the article about the pro wrestler, as Coren's article obtains [http://stats.grok.se/en/200909/Yitzhak_Coren about 2 page views per day].
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saari_Raat Saari Raat]
*:Deleted speedily as an outright copyright violation. About 1 attempted page view per day.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ian_Kwok Ian Kwok]
*:This one was almost certainly a spoof, a joke. It was getting about 330 page views per day while published, then only about 1 or 2 attempted page views per day after deletion.
*:The article discussed the accomplishments of one Ian Kwok, a professional badminton instructor, purportedly the coach of the Singapore national team. He was also a volleyball coach and a Frisbee coach (for the non-existent Singapore Frisbee International Team). He enjoys playing the violin.

===The rundown===

So, out of ten new articles on Wikipedia, how did they fare?

One article (Jesse Neal) seemed to be quite popular and accurate enough. The other four remaining legitimate articles are not very popular at all, so you have some level of accomplishment, but very little recognition or overall utility. Fifty percent of the ten articles survived more than two weeks.

The other fifty percent did not exist after two weeks. One was likely a complete joke, another was a deliberate attack page, and the other three might arguably merit inclusion if only they were authored properly without violating copyright -- though you'd suspect that even if this were done, the pages wouldn't attract more than a handful of daily page views.

Were a larger sample to have been taken, do you suspect that only 50% of new Wikipedia articles survive for more than a week or two? Do you suppose that only 10% actually survive and garner a level of traffic that sets them apart from the odd curiosity, as was the case with the Jesse Neal article?

One thing is clear. With over 3 million articles in place on the English Wikipedia, the heady days of "help us build the encyclopedia, create the article you were looking for" are well bygone. Another thing is fairly clear. The [http://stats.grok.se/en/200909/Line_management articles] that I [http://stats.grok.se/en/200909/Job%20sharing personally] created [http://stats.grok.se/en/200909/Robert%20Half%20International recently] seem to serve more people's needs than at least 80%-90% of Wikipedia's other new articles. But, now that I've been blocked from editing Wikipedia, the encyclopedia won't be getting any more such useful, well-written articles from me.

==Comments==

9 Responses to “Ten new Wikipedia articles”

;Neil Baker
:Interesting idea and taking a look at new articles goes some way to showing how close Wikipedia is to the point of saturation.
:My own view is that I’d rather they were working more on getting “essential” articles up to scratch and then locking them, but that’ll never happen.
:Because of that, and because of the constant search to create a “new” article, the result is “news-style” creations and splits/forks/coatracks from existing articles.
:Given the amount of content now on Wikipedia, and given the vast majority is of a terrible quality, it would make perfect sense to end open editing and send the experts in.
:I shan’t hold my breath.
;Dan T.
:Is “Saari Raat” pronounced “sorry rat”?
;Edward Buckner
:Very good, but be careful of the obvious implication that people will try to draw: that Wikipedia is full up, or has reached saturation point, 3m articles etc.
:Its coverage of academic and scholarly subjects – the real stuff of an encyclopedia – is woefully inadequate. My own tutor, who died recently and was one of the great and good of the academic establishment, still has no article.
:The red links in the list below suggest that Wikipedia is a long way from being ‘filled up’
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IEEE_publications
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophy_journals
:Even when there is a blue link to follow, what you find on the other side is usually poorly written and inaccurate.
;Arooj J.
:The issue seems to be bleeding over into related articles. I was poking around The Bohemes article and it seems as if the original author is trying to inject The Bohemes into the articles of other bands.
;Gregory Kohs
:Arooj, it would appear you’re talking about the efforts of a user named “Smith Jones”. He was not the original author of the article about The Bohemes. It would seem fairly clear, though, that he’s a reader of Akahele!
;CaliforniaSmith
:I have a hard time reading this site due to its (to me) ugly layout.
:I am not a picky reader and rarely notice a web pages layout.
:But, in this case – something about the site makes it very unappealing to read.
:It may be the grey bars on the sides.
:My monitor resolution is 1280×1024.
:Could you take a poll to see if anyone else feels as I do and then somehow fix the layout?
:Thanks
:California Smith
:p.s.
:I rarely run around criticizing people or web pages, but you do seem like a reasonable man who would listen. I understand that the content of a page should be more important than how the page is arranged, but I really think a better layout would retain readers to your blog.
:Do you have your own monitor set up in portrait mode?
;Gregory Kohs
:I agree, the site’s layout leaves a great deal to be desired. Frankly, on a 100-point allocation scale, I would suspect that layout/design flaws are contributing about 12 to 14 points to our Alexa ranking stagnation (currently hovering around the 400,000th most popular websites). Surely, though, about 30 to 40 points are attributable to “content not interesting enough to me”, and another 20 to 30 points must go to “poor cross-channel marketing”.
:The struggle is that we got this site off the ground as a nearly unfunded non-profit, and we took an available layout from a batch of WordPress templates that were already pre-fabricated.
:Surely, we could find a better layout, or perhaps style one from scratch. But, (and I believe I speak for the other three directors) I think that until we at least cracked the top 100,000 Alexa sites, we did not have the time or motivation to work on design issues.
:I certainly appreciate your feedback. If you have any specific recommendations for a new WordPress layout, please post them here, or contact me privately. I’m not hard to track down.
;CaliforniaSmith
:I know nothing about WordPress or web page layout but I did find this in a Google search.
:If this is possible – try going to the Theme Options -> layout, and look at “Layout WIDTH and type (FLUID or FIXED)” where you can choose a fluid, rather than a fixed, width. That may fix the issue.
:I am interested in maintaining the supply of Greg Kohs kerfuffle available on the internet – and I believe that increased web traffic to this site would aid me in that goal.
:p.s. I had always assumed that the word kerfuffle was Yiddish, but when I looked up a more detailed definition – it appears that the word is actually Scottish.
;Anthony DiPierro
:I think what Greg’s trying to say is “patches welcome”. And, of course, cash is welcome too. We’re not a 501(c)(3), so you can’t deduct your contribution. But you’re more than welcome to make it. Make checks payable to “Internet Review Corporation”. Contact Greg for a mailing address.

Directory:Akahele/Omidyar venturing out

2010-10-25T20:13:40Z

Seurat: Standard format, om nom nom nom.

==Omidyar venturing out==
For the past couple of years, I've dreamed of being discovered and capitalized by a wealthy venture investor who might see the potential of the [http://www.mywikibiz.com/Main_Page semantic web directory] that I now own with my sister. Also for the past couple of years, I've [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2009/Results/en vied for a seat] on the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees. Last week, I discovered that if you're a venture capitalist, you might [http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/tech/Wikipedia-Gets-Millions-Changes-Rules-jw-54830732.html buy yourself a seat] on the Wikimedia Foundation board. I'm still stuck out here in the virtual cold, though, on both counts.

===Let's be fair===

Okay, let's be fair. "Buying a seat" on a non-profit board may carry too strong a pejorative tone. So, let's just stick to the facts.

[[Image:omidyar-and-branson.jpg|thumb|right|Pierre Omidyar and Richard Branson]]

Have you ever heard of '''Pierre Omidyar'''? If you have, you're a tech junkie, I'll bet. Mr. Omidyar (pronounced AH-mid-yar) is the founder and chair of the eBay online auction site. Thanks to that vision back in 1995, Omidyar's personal fortune exceeds that of all but perhaps two hundred other souls on this planet. You know you're rich when you hang with '''Richard Branson''' for some drinks. Wikipedia describes Omidyar as a philanthropist who with his wife founded Omidyar Network in 2004. Wikipedia has also stated that Omidyar is "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pierre_Omidyar&diff=306203181&oldid=304495270 the biggest douchebag]", one of the world's top "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pierre_Omidyar&diff=prev&oldid=289928161 cheese lifting]" men, and for a brief spell in November last year went by the name "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pierre_Omidyar&diff=prev&oldid=251351350 Omidyoodle]".

So much for the man; what about his non-profit Omidyar Network? According to its [http://www.omidyar.com/about_us/evolution own website], the Omidyar Network is based on a
<blockquote>"conviction that every person has the power to make a difference. [Its] work enables people to discover that power, improve their own lives, and make lasting contributions to their communities."</blockquote>
We can corroborate this on Wikipedia, where the article about Omidyar Network says that it is ''<span class="diffchange">"based on </span>the <span class="diffchange">belief that every person has </span>the ''<span class="diffchange">''potential to make a difference"''. This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omidyar_Network&diff=209046768&oldid=204103755 text was added] back in April 2008, along with a substantial quantity of other congratulatory text, by an IP address at 207.47.3.98. Fellow Internet watchdog [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Omidyar_Network&diff=310854999&oldid=310186153 Seth Finkelstein deduced] that this IP address traces to -- you guessed it -- Omidyar Network Services.</span>

<span class="diffchange">There are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Self-promotion guidelines against] publishing self-laudatory text about your own person or your employer on Wikipedia, but no repercussions [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3A207.47.3.98&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= ever befell] IP 207.47.3.98.
</span>

===What will $2 million buy?===

So, on August 25, 2009, there was a [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Omidyar_Network_Grant_August_2009 big announcement] that the Omidyar Network was committing up to $2 million in grant money to the Wikimedia Foundation. Almost in the same breath, it was mentioned that an Omidyar Network partner, '''Matt Halprin''', would be taking a seat on the WMF board of trustees.

Now, this may or may not be unusual in the non-profit world. The money is technically coming from the 501(c)(3) component of the Omidyar Network, even though that organization also operates a limited liability corporation (LLC) that is free to (and does in fact) make traditional capital investments in for-profit enterprises. It certainly is not an unusual practice for the Omidyar Network -- many of their large cash infusions are accompanied with the bonus of Mr. Halprin or another partner getting a seat at the boardroom table. That's what happened when $4 million went to the '''Sunlight Foundation'''; [http://www.omidyar.com/about_us/news/2009/03/17/sunlight-foundation-announces-4-million-invesment-omidyar-network Halprin was simultaneously seated]. That's what happened when $4 million went to '''Goodmail Systems'''; [http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20090112005830&newsLang=en Halprin was simultaneously seated]. That's pretty much what happened after '''DonorsChoose.org''' got Omidyar as a "National Expansion Funder" in 2007; [http://www.donorschoose.org/about/our_supporters.html Halprin was seated in 2008].

And it's not just Halprin. When '''Seesmic''' received $6 million from the Omidyar Network, Pierre Omidyar [http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2008/06/16/daily41.html got himself a seat] on the board. When '''Endeavor '''landed $10 million from the Omidyar empire, Omidyar's Matt Bannick [http://www.allbusiness.com/company-activities-management/company-structures/11473195-1.html took a seat] on the board.

===What would I do?===

If Omidyar approached me tomorrow and said they had $2 million (heck, let's just say $200,000) to help MyWikiBiz "make a difference" for every person, but that the investment was stipulated on Matt Halprin taking a seat next to my sister and me on the board of directors, would I take the money? Not only would I take the money, I would hand-embroider the seat with Matt's initials in golden thread.

But, I would know, and I would freely admit, that Omidyar Network just bought a seat on my enterprise's board.

So, how has the Wikimedia Foundation handled this obvious appearance of a seat having been bought?

===The Germans are restless===

Not the straightforward and direct way, which means apparently [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=311012973#WMF_Board not altogether well]. The German Wikipedia community is asking Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales to clarify what just happened. Wales admits that Foundation "communications could have been handled better", so he is quick to let Halprin do the talking, quoting Halprin's interview with the folks at the ''Wikipedia Weekly'' audio podcast. Halprin [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikipediaWeekly/Wikimania_2009/Halprin&oldid=310590067 assures any skeptics]:
<blockquote>So there's no tie between the grant and Omidyar Network taking a board seat. That's absolutely not part of the conversation. It's something that Omidyar Network '''likes''' to do with our organizations, because we think we tend to be able to help and we have experience, but there's no '''tie''' with the grant that we've made to Wikimedia Foundation.</blockquote>
No tie, folks. Move along. Nothing to see here.

Here's what I find "interesting", at least. Omidyar Network has a portion of [http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Wikia:Press:_Bessemer_Venture_Partners_Funds_Jimmy_Wales%27_Startup_Wikia $4 million invested] since 2006 in the for-profit enterprise '''Wikia, Inc'''. Therefore, the fact is that someone Matt Halprin works alongside at Omidyar is the active partner responsible for managing a cash investment in Wikia. Jimmy Wales is the co-founder of for-profit Wikia, and he is also the emeritus chair of the Wikimedia Foundation, which this week received $2 million from Omidyar, and seated Matt Halprin on the board.

Is that a conflict of interest? If I were Mr. Wales, I'd be a bit uncomfortable having one of my key private investors now also keeping an eye on my non-profit magnum opus.

I guess it's no surprise, though. When the Ruth and Frank Stanton Fund donated over $800,000 to the Wikimedia Foundation, one of the first things the money went toward was [http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/01/21/a-note-on-the-wikipedia-usability-initiative/ rent for sub-leased office space] at Wikia, Inc. (Even though Wikia hadn't presented the lowest competitive bid, and they were the only bidder invited to [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049360.html re-submit their bid] to match the average of the other bids received.) If that's not a wired self-deal, I don't know what one is.

===Omidyar's perspective===

I spoke with Sarah Steven, a manager in the Marketing and Communications department of Omidyar Network. She emphasized that the two halves of the Network, the LLC and the 501(c)(3), are "one big office" and that they approach any investment first from the angle of "what is the social impact" of the target entity. Then, only after they decide if a cause is worth pursuing, they worry about whether it will be a for-profit or a non-profit driven allocation, and that is what determines which entity will actually do the investing.

So, I guess it's just pure coincidence that the Omidyar LLC has invested cash-for-profit's-sake in Jimmy Wales' workaday enterprise, and the Omidyar 501(c)(3) has invested cash-for-humanity's-sake in Jimmy Wales' greater good enterprise.

No tie, folks. Move along. Nothing to see here.

===Image credits===
*Omidyar and Branson, [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pierre_Omidyar_Richard_Branson.jpg Attribution 2.0 Generic].

==Comments==
9 Responses to “Omidyar venturing out”

;Jon Awbrey
:Greg,
:Just wanted to say “Thanks!” for yet another intelligent, well-researched piece on the complicities, er, complexities of the business world that boggle the brain of a simple-minded math-muncher like —
:Yours truly,
:Jon Awbrey
;Dan T.
:Their website is a .com rather than a .org, which implies that the for-profit arm dominates the nonprofit one.
;Anonymous
:There certainly is more to this deal than meets the eyes–and don’t expect anyone in the Foundation to open their mouths. Little birds have told me more, but I’d rather not disclose exactly what right now.
;Somey
:Pierre Omidyar’s eBay shares are worth billions, so $2M isn’t a huge expense for him, but for the Wikimedia Foundation it’s at least another year or two of “safety” from their having to carry advertising on Wikipedia in order to stay afloat. Various people (including Jimbo Wales) have suggested that it would be “pointless” to buy a seat on the board of a non-profit, non-revenue-producing organization. But when you’re the dominant force in an important market (like eBay is with small-time online retail and private auctions), helping to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a potentially major advertising venue for your competitors is probably worth at least that much.
:Wikia, OTOH, already takes advertising, so for them there must be some other reason – possibly having something to do with collectible lunchboxes.
;Gregory Kohs
:And it would appear that the Austrian faction is also cognizant of the underlying basis for Omidyar Network’s existence.
;Gregory Kohs
:Interesting to note that this blog article and its author were mentioned by The Wikipedia Signpost of September 14, 2009. You’d think that one of the editors of that article would have contacted us for comment, but no such luck.
;Prashanth
:Hmm…well researched blog. I appreciate it. Wandered here from a discussion somewhere in the hinterland of wikipedia’s bureaucratic red tape.
:One would always like to imagine that WP will not succumb to the same ills that plague most organisations committed to public good, but depending on private money. I was sure, it was bound to happen….naivete to expect otw.
:That said, it is very disheartening for me as a WP editor of many years to learn this. Hmpf…
;hilarious
:I love two things about this: first, that it is somehow evil for a major donor to place someone on the board of trustees of a charity (no, actually, that’s perfectly normal). Second, that as soon as it’s published the Legion of the Banned happen along to sing your praises. Funny stuff!
;Gregory Kohs
:Nobody said it was “evil”. I’m just asking them to label it for what it is — a seat was purchased on the board of trustees. End of story.
:That you’d find “hilarious” a desire to have a purportedly transparent organization be more honest about what is plain to the eye may say more about you than about me or any legion of banned Wikipedia editors.

Directory:Akahele/Wikipedia always improving

2010-10-25T20:13:38Z

Seurat: Standard format, om nom nom nom.

I happen to have worked in the field of '''marketing research''' for nearly two decades, so I do know a thing or two about the subject.

Observe how Wikipedia has been "improving" lately on the subject:

*The word "guise" should be [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marketing_research&diff=prev&oldid=306760661 spelled "guse"].
*Just a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marketing_research&diff=next&oldid=306760661 bit of XMNS], you know.
*No, we'd [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marketing_research&diff=next&oldid=307314261 rather not] have XMNS.
*People need to know what [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marketing_research&diff=next&oldid=307314286 Rhett Richards is licking].
*No, we'd [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marketing_research&diff=next&oldid=308030700 rather not] know.
*Marketing research is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marketing_research&diff=next&oldid=308030789 worth a cheer]!
*The word "guise" should be spelled "guise", but the word "l.market" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marketing_research&diff=next&oldid=308819392 should be spelled "lmarket"].

And we're still cheering for marketing research!

Wikipedia does it all. It informs the reader about things even unrelated to the subject at hand. It helps the reader cheer for the subject. And it even corrects typos.

Or not.

==Comments==
6 Responses to “Wikipedia always improving”

;Nihiltres
:While I do respect well-done criticism, if you look at the overall difference since your last oddly-summarized edit, there isn’t much to worry about—the worst is the random cheer, and a few typo-fixing errors or bugs. As you’ve pointed out, most of the nonsense was removed relatively quickly. Besides, all it takes is one contributor to do significant cleanup. No one ever said that Wikipedia’s improvement process was monotonic.
:I fixed much of the nonstandard syntax and cleaned the article a little, but it still needs a lot of cleanup, to clarify the structure and make it more descriptive than instructive, as an encyclopedia article should be. Perhaps, as you seem to be an expert on the subject, we could collaborate?
;Gregory Kohs
:I wouldn’t want to put a whole lot of effort into it, because without flagged revisions, my hard work would likely get degraded and/or ruined over time. Besides, I hold a considerable amount of (my former) employee stock ownership plan shares in a still-active marketing research company, so wouldn’t that be one of those Conflict of Interest deal-breakers?
;Nihiltres
:It’s not a conflict-of-interest deal-breaker as long as you aren’t, say, highlighting that marketing research company.
;Anthony DiPierro
:Is there a simple process to report that Rhett Richards edit and have it removed from public view? I seem to remember some sort of extension being added to mediawiki that allows this.
;Whoever it Is
:Interesting to see how quickly, since being permanently banned (again) from Wikipedia, and then stomping off from Wikipedia Review in a huff, your posts here have descended from the level of mildly interesting (and with at least some claim to some form of high-ground-based criticism) into plain, old-fashioned snarking.
:Still. At least this article doesn’t come jam-packed, as most of your contributions to either WP or WR do, with links to MWB crow-barred into each and every even tangentially-related subject.
;Gregory Kohs
:Thanks for visiting and participating in this blog, Whoever it Is. For our readers’ sake, I should correct the multiple errors in your comment.
:1. I am not permanently banned from Wikipedia.
:2. I wish WikipediaReview.com all the best in restoring a level of criticism that gains wider respect. I’m on very good terms with the large majority of moderators and members on the site, so understandably no stomping or huffing took place. I have reassessed my online priorities, to be sure.
:3. The MWB you refer to is MyWikiBiz, a site where virtually anyone who is willing to create quality content can earn money from their efforts. The site has seen steady growth in traffic since its inception as a wiki directory. I’m happy you have noticed some of my innovative shoestring marketing efforts.
:4. We note that you don’t identify yourself in your comment, offer no contact points such as valid e-mail address, name, or location. I do provide those points of reference, out of respect to people who so engage others on the up-and-up. I encourage our readers to decide for themselves who here retains claim to high-ground-based criticism, and who sadly does not.

Directory:Akahele/Gender bending, 2.0

2010-10-25T20:13:37Z

Seurat: Standard format, om nom nom nom.

==Gender bending, 2.0==
It has been a long standing rule of thumb on the web that ''there are no girls on the Internet.'' This is not to say there are no female personalities on the Internet, but rather that at any given time, many (if not all) of the "females" in a given area on the web are probably actually men.

[[Image:mado-300x254.jpg|thumb|right|Watch out! It's a trap!]]

What proof do you really have that [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=19932&st=0 the hot, blond, nude Norwegian chick] who has starred in porn movies is the real McCoy? For all you know, (s)he might actually be an aging, fat, 50-something guy who gets his jollies out of manipulating healthy young men. Or, it could be an undercover cop. Or even your dog. There's simply no way, currently, of telling. This often leads to some rather ''interesting'' situations when people finally figure out that the person that they imagined is not the person that they finally get.

Part of the problem is that men actually ''do'' pursue the Internet [http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2005/How-Women-and-Men-Use-the-Internet.aspx more intensively] than women. Even Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias#The_origins_of_bias acknowledges this] on their ''Countering systemic bias'' page:
<blockquote>The average Wikipedian on the English Wikipedia is (1) a man, (2) technically inclined, (3) formally educated, (4) an English speaker (native or non-native), (5) white, (6) aged 15–49, (7) from a majority-Christian country, (8) from a developed nation, (9) from the Northern Hemisphere, and (10) likely employed as a white-collar worker or enrolled as a student rather than employed as a labourer (cf. Wikipedia:User survey and Wikipedia:University of Würzburg survey, 2005).</blockquote>
In terms of how all of this testosterone floating around works in practice, I described a possible scenario in a [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5879 Wikipedia Review post] several years ago:

#A closed set of individuals who represent a specific demographic sample make a hierarchical system based on their belief systems, knowledge base, and values. The negotiation of the shifting point of view of this population is defined as "reaching consensus". When points of view are not compatible, the hierarchical structure makes decisions that work from the top of the pyramid down to impose the viewpoint of the people at the top of the structure. With refinement of this process, the views expressed correspond more and more to those at the top of the power structure. As the material which could present contrasting views is excluded, it in turn validates the information within the system as "important", "notable", or "correct".
#Sources are selected to validate this view of the world. However, because the sources that are presented are those which have already validated the views in question, the sources also validate the idea of consensus. Other sources (which, outside the system, may be perfectly truthful and authoritative) are dismissed as being "pseudo-science", "original research", "POV-oriented", etc., as a means of excluding them from the sample. As the process of exclusion creates conflicts which in turn exclude those who are thinking outside of the sample, the vision presented corresponds more and more to the views of those at the top of the power structure.
#The result of this process is then labeled "the gift of knowledge" or "making the Internet not suck", and we are expected to receive this "gift" even if we reside outside of the system's demographic segment and may have (read, "almost certainly do have") life experiences which contradict the information presented to us. We may also object to the inherent cultural value of this information. The idea not expressed but ultimately present here is, "you need to think like us, because if you do, you can be part of this rich and successful enterprise founded by our great leader, Jimbo".

It would seem, for example, that such a process dominated by men would most likely cause women to be excluded from positions of power within it. Some studies as Ono and Zadovsky's [http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:k22WP4GZq8wJ:www.frbatlanta.org/filelegacydocs/wp0210.pdf+gender+internet&cd=3&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=fr&client=firefox-a Gender and the Internet] suggest that the reason that women are less likely to be present on the Internet is mainly due to an inherent lag in the way women approach new technologies. However, Danielle Citron's work has suggested that [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1352442 women may be objects of what she terms ''Cyber Gender Harassment''].

[[Image:perilsofpauline-193x300.jpg|thumb|left|Pauline and her perils]]

With fewer women participating, and those who are finding themselves the object of cyber attacks, the question remains as to exactly what would prompt a man to pose as a women on the Internet, since it would appear that this would be largely counterproductive to both his participation, access to positions of power, and success in getting his message across.

The fact is, there are advantages to posing as a woman in a male-dominated society such as the Internet. One needn't look any further than your neighborhood bar to see exactly why this might be so. Amy S. Bruckman examined the [http://www.cc.gatech.edu/elc/papers/bruckman/gender-swapping-bruckman.pdf phenomenon of "gender swapping"] in [http://www.linnaean.org/~lpb/muddex/mudline.html multi-user online worlds] during the 1990s and found that men posing as women were much more likely to be "helped" by other male players than if they were playing as male personae. As one player named Dennis explained:
<blockquote>I played a couple of MUDs as a female, one making up to wizard level. And the first thing I noticed was that the above was true. Other players start showering you with money to help you get started, and I had never once gotten a handout when playing a male player. And then they feel they should be allowed to tag along forever, and feel hurt when you leave them to go off and explore by yourself. Then when you give them the knee after they grope you, they wonder what your problem is, reciting that famous saying "What's your problem? It's only a game". Lest you get the wrong idea, there was nothing suggesting about my character, merely a female name and the appropriate pronouns in the bland description. Did I mention the friendly wizard who turned cold when he discovered I was male in real life? I guess some people are jerks in real life too.</blockquote>
A few months ago, it was discovered that a single individual had been [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/19/wikipedia_civil_servant_scandal/ juggling no less than 15 different personalities] of both sexes on Wikipedia and Wikipedia Review in what has been called the "Poetlister incident", after the name of the principal persona.

Without getting into the specifics of the particular situation, what is interesting to consider is how the personae of each gender were used. The male personae were generally used in a straightforward, business-like manner, while the female personae were much more playful, needy, and prone to more fanciful details (such as a private "wedding" forum on the Wikipedia Review for one of the characters, or the overt sexually masochistic fantasies of the "Taxwoman" persona).

The female characters were also used as instruments of revenge whose actions were then defended by the male personae. It is obvious from the way the gender roles were played off of each other that the puppet master behind it all had exploited more ways to manipulate people by simultaneously using ''both'' sides of the gender equation, rather than just one.

Until some way of verifying identity on the Internet becomes standard practice, these sorts of role-playing games are going to be standard practice. While it may be argued that it simply does not matter what sex anyone says they are, the fact remains that people are manipulated by gender. Someone who is playing both male and female roles is much more likely to be able to manipulate social media environments to create his (or her) intended outcome. It would be refreshing, however, if just once it turned out that the fat, balding, fifty-something man was actually a twenty-something blond co-ed... but of course, ''there are no girls on the Internet'', after all!

===Photo credits===
*Montreal drag queen Mado Lamotte, by User:Montréalais, [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mado.jpg CC license, Wikimedia Commons]
*The Perils of Pauline cover, public domain (according to [http://http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Perilsofpauline.jpg Wikimedia Commons])

==Comments==
5 Responses to “Gender bending, 2.0”

;Gregory Kohs
:As someone himself tricked (for a brief spell) by the network operated by “Poetlister”, I offer this video-formatted word of advice:
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urNyg1ftMIU
;Barry Kort
:Just as many professional sports teams have increasingly taken on names that correspond to abstractions, some of the more interesting avatars names are genderless abstractions.
:Way back in the 90s, when Amy Bruckman and I were pioneering MUDs, one of our colleagues in academia took the name Pi and provided no clues whatsoever suggestive of any gender at all.
;John A
:Lots of people were fooled, Greg. It was certainly an impressive show to have infiltrated not only WR but also Wikiquote and Wikipedia itself with so many characters without once slipping up for so long.
:The Internet plays games with people’s personas to such an extent that I tend to spend most of my time talking to arguments rather than people, so as not to get surprised at sockpuppetry when it happens.
:I know that you are Gregory Kohs, because you have gone to extraordinary lengths to be a verifiable real person. But you could still be a sockpuppet – I’ve never met you, nor can I verify that every single post by “Gregory Kohs” is by the same person.
:I use one to two personas but I don’t change characters, nor pretend to be the opposite sex, nor sexually deviant nor gay nor anything else. I like my anonymity because it is much less of a strain to my personal life and that of my family – I’m just introverted like that. I certainly don’t seek fame or notoriety and am appalled by “celebrity culture” which is an oxymoron.
:The Internet is an immense stage with innumerable disguises available, and so one is always wondering exactly how many people are really out there. The Internet also plays with our belief system and betrays our trust, which is why I don’t trust it with my life.
;Paul Wehage
:Barry,
:The “Pi” incident is interesting: what happened? Did people decide what gender “Pi” was and on what basis? Was it ever uncovered which gender “Pi” was and what were the consequences?
:Please tell us more!
;Timothy Usher
:See also these sockpuppets (among many others) of Steven McGeady (”Gnetwerker”), better known for his testimony in the Microsoft trial: http://www.webcitation.org/5j9XXoR9C. As discussed on Wikipedia Review, McGeady misappropriated a South African girl’s photograph from her blog and, under the alias “Reseaunaut,” pretended to be her, much as our British civil servant misappropriated women’s photographs to accompany his feminine personae. In such instances, it isn’t only, or even mainly, other online denizens who are the victims of these frauds.

Directory:Akahele/Conflicted boards

2010-10-25T20:13:36Z

Seurat: Standard format, om nom nom nom.

==Conflicted boards==
Today, the CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt, elected to [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/04/technology/companies/04apple.html step down] from his post on the Apple board of directors. As Google was moving more and more into Apple's core lines of business, it became clear that Schmidt's interests and obligations to each company were becoming blurred.

As Apple chief Steve Jobs explained how it would have gone otherwise, "Eric’s effectiveness as an Apple board member will be significantly diminished, since he will have to recuse himself from even larger portions of our meetings due to potential conflicts of interest."

It seems fairly obvious that one man cannot and should not try to both serve the fiduciary interests and protect the corporate missions of two different companies that compete against each other in the same marketplace. ''Akahele'' notes, however, that the founder of privately-held Wikia, Inc. also maintains a purportedly permanent seat on the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation board, even though Wikia and the Foundation share almost identically competitive missions.

'''Wikia''': [http://www.wikia.com/index.php?title=Wikia:About&oldid=279891 a community destination] supporting the creation and development of wiki communities on any topic people are passionate about. Wikia supports many thousands of wiki communities in dozens of languages.

'''Wikimedia Foundation''': [http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Frequently_Asked_Questions&oldid=38192#What_is_the_mission_of_the_Wikimedia_Foundation.3F an organizational framework] for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_projects ].

Jimmy Wales, will you do the right thing and step down from one or the other of these corporations?

==Comments==
2 Responses to “Conflicted boards”

;Nihiltres
:It was my impression that Wikia tries not to compete with Wikipedia: Wikia’s wiki creation policy says that “Wikia also does not duplicate Wikimedia projects, so if you are interested in general reference works we encourage you to join Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects in your language instead.” Is that really ‘competing’? Wikia’s narrow-focus, subculture communities actually seem to help keep Wikipedia clean of fancruft.
:I don’t really want to defend Wales on the whole Wikia/Wikimedia issue*, but I do think that he tries reasonably to keep either from harming or interfering with the other. He also doesn’t have a good choice anymore: if he steps down from Wikimedia, they lose him as the public face that has pulled in extra donations, and if he steps down from Wikia, he loses his day job. I don’t envy him this dilemma.
:<nowiki>*</nowiki>(I’d rather have seen some sort of wiki co-op, or even ad-supported wiki-communities to help fund Wikimedia, not to mention the conflict of interest issues)
;Gregory Kohs
:Wikia does not duplicate Wikimedia projects?
:Oh, really?
:http://history.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
:http://math.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
:http://geology.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
:http://hollywood.wikia.com/wiki/Hollywood_Stars_Wiki
:http://chemistry.wikia.com/wiki/Chemistry_Wiki
:I get a big kick out of you, Nihiltres, because you are sweet and adorable in how trusting you are of things related to Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales.
:By the way, as far as Wikia being Jimbo’s “day job”, he recently offered to waive his salary from Wikia, which wouldn’t surprise me in light of them having to lay off workers upon the closure of Wikia Search. He’s made most of his lifetime of income from speaker’s fees, anyway.
:Who needs a salary when you can jump on a trampoline in the office? That’s what success is all about. Right?

Directory:Akahele/The Singularity is near, but does it matter?

2010-10-25T20:13:34Z

Seurat: Standard format, om nom nom nom.

==The Singularity is near, but does it matter?==
In 2005, the inventor and futurist [http://singularity.com/aboutray.html Raymond Kurzweil] published [http://singularity.com/ The Singularity is Near], an expansion of his 1999 book ''The Age of Spiritual Machines'' which was itself a revised version of his 1987 book ''The Age of Intelligent Machines''. Kurzweil's "Singularity" postulates that because technology is evolving at an exponential rate, an evolutionary leap that combines biology and technology is inevitable. This will create a new concept of life, in which ''what we now think of as being reality'' will become increasingly interchangeable with ''virtual reality''.

Part of this picture painted by Kurzweil suggests that machines will soon be able to function along the same parameters as the human brain. This suggestion has been contested by many scientists (including physicist Roger Penrose in his book [http://www.amazon.fr/Road-Reality-Complete-Guide-Universe/dp/0679776311 The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe], which suggests that the brain might use quantum properties for its calculations); however, it does seem evident that machines will be used increasingly to reason and even to make choices in place of humans.

The electronic musician [http://music.uoregon.edu/About/bios/stoletj.html Jeffrey Stolet] has used this type of machine-generated process as part of his compositional process, notably in his 2002 work for MIDI PIano and infrared sensors "Tokyo Lick".

<youtube>AUaK9-qiJ6M</youtube>

Stolet's work was [http://research.nii.ac.jp/~has/lecture/2006_09_12_stolet_intro.pdf explained] as follows :
<blockquote>In his program, Mr. Stolet will focus on the technology and the human-performance elements in Tokyo Lick, his composition for infrared sensors, custom interactive software, and MIDI piano. He performs Tokyo Lick by moving his hands through two invisible infrared spheres and directing the data derived from those motions to algorithms residing in customized interactive software created in the Max multimedia programming environment.
Tokyo Lick contains no sequences or pre-recorded material. Mr. Stolet will perform every note in real-time. Using a technology he refers to as “algorithm flipping,” he can rapidly change the specific algorithm or algorithms governing the response to the incoming MIDI control data. He actuates the algorithmic changes through pre-composed schedules, musical contexts, or through explicit intervention. Taken together, these techniques provide a conceptual framework for practical input/output mapping (action --> specified outcome) and for control and performance flexibility, while offering a truly new paradigm for virtuoso music performance.</blockquote>
While this type of performance seems to make the creative act more accessible to the masses (in essence crowd-sourcing the act of musical composition, traditionally an extremely elitist practice), the programming of the correlation between the movements made by the performer and the actual notes produced requires the same level of compositional activity as any other form of musical creation. So, the choices made by the machine do not replace the choices made by humans, but rather provide other, perhaps unexplored, avenues of creation. Clearly, the human interaction is necessary in this instance to create the performative work.

Steve Lohr's recent article in the ''New York Times'', [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/technology/internet/19unboxed.html?_r=2&em=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1248541240-99oMmmtMV0M9X7zmXaOAAQ The Crowd Is Wise (When It’s Focused)] would seem to reinforce the idea that effective ''crowdsourcing'' requires the ''crowd ''to be intelligent, informed, and preferably extremely well-versed in the subject. To quote Thomas W. Malone, director of the Center for Collective Intelligence at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
<blockquote>“There is this misconception that you can sprinkle crowd wisdom on something and things will turn out for the best. That’s not true. It’s not magic.”</blockquote>
Dr. Malone's 2009 paper, [http://cci.mit.edu/publications/CCIwp2009-01.pdf Harnessing Crowds: Mapping the Genome of Collective Intelligence] (written with Robert Laubacher and Chrysanthos Dellarocas), uses a Kurzweil-like genetic analogy to discuss why certain models using ''crowdsourcing'' succeed and why others do not. The biological parallel to a virtual reality phenomenon is already beginning to lead this idea from a purely imaginary concept to something which could indeed have repercussions on biology in the way that Kurzweil seems to be suggesting.

The reasoning behind the information presented in this article is clearly flawed, as the authors appear to believe that contributors' stated objectives for working in "crowdsourced" projects are their actual real objectives. The reasons why people ''do'' things and why people ''say'' that they do things are often completely different in real life. There is no reason to believe that the same sort of motivations are any different on the Internet.

Of special interest is the chart on page 12 which attempts to describe the processes involved in creating, maintaining, and deleting articles on Wikipedia, giving the primary motivations as "Love" and "Glory", completely ignoring the inherent conflict of interest issues involved in this pseudo-anonymous environment, the issues of interactions between editors (friend and foe), and also the whole "gaming" aspect which is inherently part of the Wikipedia process.

The framing of the deletion process on Wikipedia as a "vote" is a sign that the authors of this article did not fully investigate these processes and that their reasoning is based on only a superficial examination of the outcome, rather than actually studying the underlying motivations involved.

Indeed, this type of conflicting motivation makes one wonder what the Singularity would really be like, if we were to evolve to the point where it actually existed. At the present time, it is possible to avoid these endless process discussions, the game playing, and people who do-it-for-the-lulz, simply by turning off one's computer and taking a trip to ''the real world'', even if only until one's next Twitter feed arrives. If the Singularity does arrive and we all end up as electronic bits on computers somewhere, will we be able to turn this stuff off?

What is obvious from all of this is that technology cannot solve all existing problems, no matter how advanced the technology. A great artist such as Jeffrey Stolet will continue to make exciting new music no matter what process he uses to create it. But a crowd of pseudo-anonymous nobodies who are making statements based on each speaker's own hidden personal agenda will continue to produce questionable results, regardless of the technology used to convey the statements.

This problem will only be solved when such sites as Encyclopedia Dramatica and 4chan.org are entirely run and populated by Artificial Intelligence constructs who are all ''doin' it for the lulz.''

==Comments==

3 Responses to “The Singularity is near, but does it matter?”

;Cedric
:Thanks for an interesting an well written piece, Paul. Two points I see here that cannot be over-emphasized: 1) “crowdsourcing” as that term is used by the Web 2.0 “gurus” is in essence magical thinking; and 2) any technology that can be created by humans can be abused by humans, and nearly always is to one degree or another. It is a gross delusion to assert that Web 2.0 offers humanity The Great Panacea for which people have pined throughout the ages.
;Gregory Kohs
:Couple of thoughts hit me while reading this fascinating article. First, I couldn’t believe that Jeffrey Stolet was manipulating his music — it sounded to me that it was entirely pre-recorded and just on “Play” mode. I’m just curious what that same performance would have sounded like if he had just done something simple with his hands, like the Queen Elizabeth II wave.
:Second, Wehage says that musical composition is traditionally an elitist practice. Really? What about my 5-year-old daughter who makes up and sings a new song, just about every day? Her composing sure seems accessible to her (and me). Might you elaborate on what you meant there, Paul?
;Paul Wehage
:I’ll try to get Jeffrey Stolet to comment on this, but the gestures do change the music.
:Secondly, about your daughter making up a tune every day: it sounds as if she’s got the composition bug. Kids don’t understand that making music is supposed to be difficult and just do it naturally (as it should be done). Your daughter sounds like a very talented young person.
:However, what happens when you start taking actual “music” lessons and the music teacher (who is getting paid big bucks to make it seem as playing or writing music is some huge magical thing, rather than a normal human activity) is that the idea that somehow music is only for old, dead, white guys and not for kids…read, “especially not for girls”. This is, of course, hogwash.
:This is why it’s so important to really talk to your child’s first music teacher and make sure that this person is psychologically sound and not going to stop all of this great creativity.
:(Of course, if it ever gets out that even kids can write music, then there goes my next commission….so keep this under your hat, if you would…)

Directory:Akahele/Wikipedia goes to Washington

2010-10-24T21:37:51Z

Seurat: Standard format, om nom nom nom.

==Wikipedia goes to Washington==
''Akahele'' readers may recall my [http://akahele.org/2009/03/persistence_of_misinfo/ earlier essay] which briefly mentioned an [http://www.mywikibiz.com/Wikipedia_Vandalism_Study extensive study] of the one hundred biographical Wikipedia articles about the United States senators. The research team of unofficial Wikipedia watchdogs discovered over 600 falsehoods and defamatory attacks in these articles over the course of the final quarter (October through December) of 2007. Most of the vandalized edits were reverted within a minute or two. However, many of them endured for hours at time. Some for several days. And a few persisted for weeks on end.

But, no matter how hateful or how libelous the edit, no matter how long it persists on Wikipedia, the folks who own and operate Wikipedia's servers who have the ultimate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_actions editorial control] over what stays and what gets jettisoned from important portions of the website, are virtually free from liability. This is thanks to [http://www.citmedialaw.org/section-230 Section 230] of the Communications Decency Act, which I feel is due for a serious legal challenge or legislative revamp at some point soon.

===Sorry, Max===

One edit that was captured during the U.S. Senate biography audit persisted not for weeks, but for months. In fact, nearly a year passed before it was finally amended.

[[Image:Max-baucus.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Max Baucus]]

For that entire time, for every reader of that Wikipedia passage, the reputation of Senator Max Baucus (Democrat, Montana) was tarnished to some degree. Today, I'd like to take you on a deeper dive into that edit.

The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Max_Baucus&diff=next&oldid=178837185#2008_reelection defamatory edit] begins on December 19, 2007, thanks to a rather [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/John1967ms single-minded editor] focused exclusively on two Montana politicians. The content added to Wikipedia:
<blockquote>"In the Washington AP (Bozeman Daily Chronicle 12-22-05) article Baucus admits campaign finance violations."</blockquote>
The spurious content was removed from Wikipedia on November 19, 2008, thanks to the efforts of an even more single-minded [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wildcats88 editor].

The content was purportedly sourced to the December 22, 2005 edition of the ''[http://bozemandailychronicle.com/ Bozeman Daily Chronicle]''. Search of the Chronicle's web archives shows no mentions of "Baucus" between the dates December 21-23, 2005. The Chronicle's managing editor, Nick Ehli, confirmed to me by telephone that nothing about Baucus ran in his newspaper on December 22. The paper did run a reprint (on December 20) of an AP wire article that mentioned [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/06/22/LI2005062200936.html Jack Abramoff] money being returned by Baucus. Does this constitute "admits campaign finance violations"? Hardly.

The same axe-grinding editor then went on to compose, "The good Senator also just voted himself/family a big bonus from the federal farm bill $230,237 in subsidies", cited to a [http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/15/nation/na-farmbox15 ''Los Angeles Times'' article]. While this edit was removed in a couple of days, it was extremely unfair. The dollar amount mentioned actually reflects total mineral rights royalties collected over at least a decade (1995-2005) by the Baucus family -- thanks to legislation for which he didn't "vote himself", and (unless there's a secret congressional time machine) impossibly linked to the 2007 farm bill that the pseudonymous Wikipedia operative saddled with the blame.

Still, that first edit ("Baucus admits campaign finance violations") received about 130 views per day during most of the period in question, but substantially spiked upward in October and November 2008, '''when Baucus was up for re-election'''. In the thirty days prior to the November 4 election, presumably when many voters would be making up their minds about candidates, the article was [http://stats.grok.se/en/200810/Max_Baucus viewed an estimated 6,618 times], or an average of 220 times per day. In the 15 days immediately following the election, the article was viewed still another 5,944 times (an average of 396 daily views). Each one of these page views rendered the falsely-sourced defamatory claim firmly in place in the lead section of the portion of the biography covering his Senate career, until it was finally removed on November 19, 2008.

Senator Baucus has not yet responded to an invitation to comment about this long-term incident. I will update this post if he does respond, or he is of course welcome to comment below.

===The Lieberman factor===

Supporters of Wikipedia's apparent legal right to host libelous and defamatory content would argue that "the vast majority" of Wikipedia vandalism is fixed very quickly, and they would also express an apologist viewpoint along the lines of, "The staff and board of the Wikimedia Foundation can't be expected to editorially control every article about the United States senators, much less all the biographies of living people on Wikipedia."

It's funny, then, to point out the Wikipedia article about Senator Joe Lieberman. On and off over the past three years, the ability of general users of Wikipedia to edit that particular article has been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Joe_Lieberman restricted by various site administrators], then allowed to lapse again. One particular restriction lasted just five hours -- on December 11, 2007.

Who protected the Lieberman biography that day? None other than Wikipedia's co-founder and board member, Jimmy Wales.

[[Image:jimmy-wales-with-cookie.jpg|thumb|left|Jimmy Wales, nibbling]]

Why did Wales protect Lieberman from defamatory and libelous edits for five hours that specific day? Simple! That was the morning when Jimmy Wales had been invited to [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odvr4w2gMJY provide testimony] to a Senate sub-committee. He spoke about topics related to the possible introduction of wikis into government communications. Guess who chaired that sub-committee? None other than Joe Lieberman.

Does anyone find it ironic that while Wales was testifying about how helpful and informative wikis could be within government, he suspended the "wiki process" for the day when it might prove embarrassing?

Of course, it was only half a day after Wales lifted the document protection before some anonymous joker published the following within Lieberman's wiki-based biography:
<blockquote>On December 10th, 2007 Lieberman appeared on the Ellen Degeneres Show and outed himself on live television as a flaming homo. This is a surprise as he has been openly opposed to homosexual relationships in the past. He demonstrated to Ellen the positions him and his partner experiment with from time to time. He stated numerous times that he is proudly the "receiver" in the relationship and cross dresses from time to time.</blockquote>
More than five hours later, Wikipedia administrator and search engine marketer, [http://www.hochmanconsultants.com/about/ Jonathan Hochman] would finally discover and revert that stroke of vandalism against his fellow native son of the Nutmeg State. Before we paint Hochman a hero, though, do note that his rescue of Lieberman's heterosexual manhood that day is only one data point within a [http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20071231/mr-wales-goes-to-washington/ long string of discoveries and reversals] regarding Lieberman's persona on Wikipedia.

===Studying the vandalism===

It was a lot of hard work for those of us who organized and conducted that volunteer study of the vandalism perpetrated against the 100 Wikipedia articles about the senators. We had hoped that our research results would be picked up by the blogosphere, perhaps by the mainstream media, or even come to the attention of the Senate itself. Sadly, with a [http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/001391.html few] small [http://digg.com/politics/McCain_raped_wife_Obama_a_nudist_and_Hillary_has_a_penis exceptions], the study hasn't gained traction in the media. One noted Wikipedia apologist even called our effort "comical".

However, just a few weeks ago, I received word from a Business student at [http://www.hubrussel.be/ Hogeschool-Universiteit] in Brussels. His Statistics professor there, [http://edwardomey.com/ Edward Omey], had actually given the class an assignment -- to review the methodology, sample, and execution of our [http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=psAWteTSyixEB98YcV-5VEw Senate vandalism database], and identify its substantial flaws.

Nobody likes to have their voluntarily-fielded work criticized, but we actually took up the yoke and helped address [http://www.mywikibiz.com/Talk:Wikipedia_Vandalism_Study#Data_issues various shortcomings] that we and others had found. Indeed, one process design fault in the study suggests that the problem of vandalism on Wikipedia may well be worse, not better, than we discovered. Namely, we did not fully read the articles themselves. Rather, we traced through each of the ''edit differences'' (or, "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Diff diffs]") made to the articles. So, in fact, we were only reading ''changes'' to the articles, not the full articles. This is a design "flaw", in that, if there was volatile content buried in the article, and it was inserted '''before''' the calendar quarter of the study, and it was never reverted until '''after''' the calendar quarter, then we would have failed to notice and account for a vandal's edit, and one of great duration, at that!

It's not every day that one's work enters the international college curriculum, and that's some comfort to offset the fact that the 100 U.S. senators don't seem themselves terribly concerned about their being libeled perpetually on Wikipedia.

===Image credits===
*Max Baucus, from the Senator's [http://baucus.senate.gov/about/index.cfm website], [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 fair use doctrine].
*Jimmy Wales, by [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jim_Wales_Tim_Tam_01.JPG Wikipedia user "One Salient Oversight"], public domain.

==Comments==
4 Responses to “Wikipedia goes to Washington”

;Cheryl Kohs
:Better to be perpetually libeled than ignored!
:And that goes for just about anyone in the public eye, these days.
:Sad, but true.
;Jon Awbrey
:Thanks for a first-rate example of the sort of info-lit critique that we should be seeing out there — but so seldom do.
;Kato
:Great article.
:That Lieberman incident is a really good example of Wikipedia’s negligence in practice, and shows just how avoidable these things actually are. I wrote about it back in early 2008.
:http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20071231/mr-wales-goes-to-washington/
:What was interesting is that when I mentioned it subsequently during another discussion, a Wikipedia administrator instinctively dismissed the story as false hyperbole. However, when the admin took a closer look at the facts, he realized that Jimmy Wales had actually framed his actions in that way, and there was no additional hyperbole from me or other critics.
:Wales protected Lieberman’s article during Wales’s Senate hearing chaired by Lieberman, citing “Not a good day for vandalism”. He dutifully unprotected the article after he had left the building.
:Well what is a good day for vandalism? Presumably any time that doesn’t inconvenience Wales himself.
;ManWithYoYo
:Nice article. But you are missing the point, guys. Trying to show the Senate the errors of Wikipedia is a non-starter. They know the drill. First of all, as all of you doubtless know, Wales gives testimony to the DHS Committee chaired by Lieberman. There’s some ties there. He’s got an in. The Senate knows what’s going on on that site. They aren’t terribly upset about it, as it seems that you are trying to bring to their attention. Beyond this, Senator Baucus is Chairman of the Finance Committee, which is all-powerful, of course, in, among other things, Wall-Street-related matters. The topics that irk your group do *not* irk the Finance Committee, i.e. market predation, i.e. NSS.
:I’m not saying that your attempts aren’t well-founded. They are. It’s just that the Senate isn’t functioning in the manner that one would normally expect. In particular, those two Committees.
:That’s my take, take it or leave it. I think that you’ll find more sympathetic ears elsewhere. That’s not the way it should be, but that’s the way it is.

Directory:Akahele/Connectivity, Intent and the â€œnew realityâ€

2010-10-24T21:37:50Z

Seurat: Standard format, om nom nom nom.

==Connectivity, Intent and the “new reality”==

In 1953, Sir Arthur C. Clarke published a science fiction novel entitled [http://books.google.com/books?id=duCDX5kelHsC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0 ''Childhood's End''], in which the human race was transformed by a fusion of all human minds into a "hive-mind"-type structure which was then able to integrate with an interstellar ''Overmind''. This novel remains rooted in the world of fantasy, but is perhaps becoming more pertinent as the world uses the Web 2.0 dynamic to become interconnected in a new way.

Currently, the notion of ''connectivity'' is creating the means of allowing humanity to see itself as one integrated group, with each individual acting in a specific way to bring forward the aims of the whole. But to what are we connecting ourselves and to which aims? Are the services with which we are interacting giving us tools to realize our goals or are they providing more (to paraphrase dear Mr. Marx) ''opium for the people''?

This idea of individual effort creating a group result is not a strange concept to a musician: indeed, one has to look no further than the orchestra or other such ensembles -- the Drum and Bugle corps is a very brilliant visual illustration of this type of behavior.

<youtube>8WBiMtzhX7U</youtube>

These types of group performances are usually characterized by each individual performing highly specialized tasks within the context of the group aims. One can also point to sports teams, theater and dance companies, military organizations, and other such structures as examples of this type of teamwork through individual specialization.

The current use of social media as a means of creating global "connectivity" brings a new dynamic to this old phenomenon which this site has often viewed with a rather critical eye. The way that such services as Twitter, Facebook, and Wikipedia are used to create "global consciousness" does not always paint a positive picture of evolving human society. Far from the individual acting with intent to promote the global aims, the trivial, the random, and often the untrue content generated thoughtlessly by the faceless hoards who populate these services are quickly taking over our collective consciousness through the sheer volume of the content generated. One noted critic of Wikipedia, former arbitrator [http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/ Kelly Martin], has described the activities which take place in such places (here describing Wikipedia) [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=15082&view=findpost&p=119648 in this way]:
<blockquote>Wikipedia is a very large cart being pulled by ten thousand cats each individually yoked to it. No one cat can do much to alter its course, although some cats (for various reasons) are better at it than others. At any given time, no small number of the cats are attacking one another rather than pulling the cart. Others run around trying to convince their fellow cats to go in this direction or that, with various degrees of success, and others run around trying to foul the lines. The resulting disaster lurches about the landscape at random, leaving a trail of shredded grass and cat turds wherever it might go. One day, it will lurch over a cliff, and there will be much rejoicing.</blockquote>
It goes without saying that this is hardly a description of ''clearly defined intent''. In spite of all of this trivial and misdirected energy, the circumstances of the uprising in Iran and the use of the social networking service [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/16/irans-twitter-revolution/ Twitter as an integral part of the protesting activities] puts a whole new spin on this issue which I personally felt merited reflection.

<youtube>sW3HVHGvgkE</youtube>

Almost every type of "new media" angle is being used to get the most current information out of the country without governmental censorship, without regard to whether or not the information may be correct. However, in comparing the information conveyed in these reports to the [http://valleywag.gawker.com/5297407/lance-amrstrong-denied-chance-to-slam-greg-lemond-or-story-saying-he-slams-greg-lemond type of information] usually posted on these sorts of services, one is struck by the sense of urgency and intent in the Iranian posts.

The main difference is evident: there is a direct correlation between the information posted and the physical reality of the people involved in the creation of the content, sometimes even to the point of ''life or death''. The intent is clear and so is the common aim. Instead of being used by the technology in a passive manner, the individual is empowered by this vision and uses the tools to forward the action. Each action is magnified by all of the others, in the same way that the directed movements of the individual musicians create the figures and the implied meaning in a drum corps show. This exercise shows that individuals, acting in a concentrated action towards a common goal, can change their collective reality if they are aware of the collective intent and what their own personal role is in the action.

One can only watch in admiration as the Iranian people use these tools as a means of shaping their collective destiny. Their courage and resourcefulness is indeed a model to emulate. However, is this type of situation that far from our own realities? And what of our own relationship to these tools: ''are we using them or are they using us?''

Judd Bagley has already brilliantly shown how [http://antisocialmedia.net/lecture1/player.html Wikipedia was used] by certain elements on Wall Street to manipulate markets through the practice of naked short selling. This is much evidence that public relations firms, governmental agencies from many countries, religious organizations, and other such structures are using social media to try to manipulate public opinion on any number of issues. In these difficult times when businesses are failing and people are losing jobs, savings, and homes, the free circulation of unbiased information can directly affect the objective realities of those of us who use these services.

[[Image:wikipedia-book.jpg|thumb|left|Wikipedia's featured articles, printed]]

Even the way that these social media sites are presenting themselves needs to be questioned. Recently, artist [http://www.rob-matthews.com/index.php?/project/wikipedia/ Rob Matthews created a book] representing Wikipedia's "featured articles". The object created clearly cannot be perceived as being a valid substitute for an encyclopedia. In the same way, [http://www.wikipediaart.org/ Wikipedia Art] underlined the inherent flaws behind the way that content was selected, manipulated, and judged. The manifestation of these concepts into concrete forms of reality and the resulting unworkability of these forms suggest that the underlying concepts are flawed. What does this object say about the way that our society is currently transforming and presenting knowledge?

In this rapidly transforming world, whether we use the Internet or whether it uses us might become an important aspect of our real lives. The heroism and courage of the Iranian people gives us a shining example of just how important these tools might become. What we decide to do with them, either as informed active participants or as unthinking passive spectators, could have implications which go far beyond imagination. Taking control of our individual power to discern, to reason, and to validate might be much less abstract than it would seem. And grouping our collective actions might be an effective means of changing our current personal circumstances in an extremely effective way, with possibly surprising results.

===Image credits===
*Wikipedia Book: © 2009 by [http://www.rob-matthews.com/ Rob Matthews], used with permission

==Comments==
2 Responses to “Connectivity, Intent and the “new reality””

;Gregory Kohs
:I am sure you’re familiar with Robert Fripp and his “crafty guitarists” project? It’s interesting to contrast Fripp’s approach with that of the Cavaliers drum & bugle corps. Fripp seemed to me obsessed on group uniformity, in that every performer is precisely mimicking the stated goal.
:The videos of his “League of Crafty Guitarists” session performances have been deleted by YouTube (due to copyright), but the audio showcases are still there:
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3q7fZclBBuo
:Especially hilarious is this guy’s parody of Fripp’s guitar craft efforts:
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5Jwcqy1Zb8
:And I’m a big Robert Fripp fan, too — so don’t get me wrong!
;Paul Wehage
:There are many examples of musicians who are obsessed with this kind of precision playing, Fripp being one of ‘em. I chose the Cavaliers performance (probably the best DBC performance ever) because it clearly shows how seemingly random acts by an individual can add up to something much more if seen from a higher vantage point. But the idea can be seen in almost any group activity that I can think of.
:I enjoyed the Fripp parody very much! thanks, Greg!

Directory:Akahele/Akahele creates Wikipedia Art!

2010-10-24T21:37:49Z

Seurat: Title, om nom nom nom.

==Akahele creates Wikipedia Art!==
[[Image:180px-wikipedia_art-copy-150x150.jpg|thumb|left|alt=Wikipedia Art logo|Official logo of the Wikipedia Art project]]

Those of you who have been following this blog will certainly remember the two articles which have been posted [http://akahele.org/2009/03/in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/ here] and [http://akahele.org/2009/04/the-trade-of-free-culture/ here] about Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern's [http://www.wikipediaart.org Wikipedia Art project]. Kildall and Stern have opened up their project to all artists in a series of [http://wikipediaart.org/remixes/ Wikipedia Art Remixes], which will be presented as part of [http://padiglioneinternet.com/ Padiglione Internet] (the Internet Pavilion) for the Venice Biennale as the ''Wikipedia Art Embassy''.

''Akahele'' is proud to be part of this exciting initiative with two works inspired by the Wikipedia Art project.

Paul Wehage's ''Cypher Variations : Wikipedia Art Remixed'' for chamber orchestra is a short two-minute conceptional work. The piece is based around two cells, one of which spells "Wikipedia", presented in the winds/brass/harp/celesta/percussion which has a block-like, rather mandarin quality. The other cell spells out "Art" in the strings, and has a more active character. The two motives almost fit together, but the juxtaposition of B natural/B flat creates an inherent tension which causes them to repel, in the same way that Wikipedia Art was repelled from Wikipedia. The tympani part beginning around 1:00 is the musical illustration of a prominent Wikipedia editor who stated that [http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2008/12/10/what-a-pip/ he danced on the skulls of his opponents].

The work may be heard [http://independentartistscompany.com/songs.aspx?SongID=74586&ArtistID=12612 here].

Wehage's orchestral prelude was then used by Gregory Kohs as the basis of his "Wikipedia Art : a Musical Manifesto".

<youtube>6200hsy_vGU</youtube>

''Akahele'' encourages other artists to participate in this initiative by creating their own ''Wikipedia Art ''remixes, uploading the remixed ''Wikipedia Art'' work somewhere on the Internet (YouTube, Vimeo, Flickr, Facebook, your own site), and then sending a link to: '''remix''' [at] '''wikipediaart''' [dot] '''org'''.

The Wikipedia Art logo is reproduced here under a Creative Commons license with the permission of Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern.

Directory:Akahele/The anonymous swarm

2010-10-24T21:37:47Z

Seurat: Standard format, om nom nom nom.

==The anonymous swarm==
This week, French president Nicolas Sarkozy decided to [http://www.tv5.org/TV5Site/info/afp_article.php?idrub=12&xml=newsmlmmd.0ff31910ea65f90e88723e1dd2f3a20e.2d1.xml spruce up his image on his Facebook page], displaying a new, [http://www.tv5.org/TV5Site/info/afp_article.php?idrub=12&xml=newsmlmmd.0ff31910ea65f90e88723e1dd2f3a20e.2d1.xml more relaxed look], using the social media site to try to interact directly with his target audience, which would appear to be technically savvy youngsters who use the site as part of their daily routines. It would seem that Barack Obama's [http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/134/boy-wonder.html successful use] of these social media sites would be most likely the inspiration for Sarkozy's foray into this communication strategy. One would think that, judging by this very well-publicized launch, that the heyday of web 2.0 social media would probably be in the future.

===Contrasting Visions===

On the same day that this campaign was launched in France, Dr. Larry Sanger (co-founder of [http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia] and president of [http://www.citizendium.org/ Citizendium] and the soon-to-be-launched [http://www.watchknow.org/ WatchKnow] site) posted [http://blog.citizendium.org/2009/05/22/disillusioned-with-web-20/ a story on his blog] in which he describes his current frustrations with web 2.0, saying "For me, the bloom is off the rose."

[[Image:549px-rose_papa_meilland-150x150.jpg|thumb|left|...a rose by any other name...]]

The post is interesting to read in its entirety, but Dr. Sanger sums up his frustrations in three main areas:

#'''Facelessness''' or the issues of anonymity and how they create psychological vacuums by the sheer number of anonymous entities with whom one interacts on various social media sites.
#<p>'''Groupthink''' or the way in which these faceless entities tend to adopt a herd-like mentality and conform to the same sorts of behaviors and choices.</p><p>and finally (and probably the most important of all):</p>
#'''Such a godawful waste of time'''.

Dr. Sanger would like to leave sites such as Wikipedia and his own Citizendium site out of this discussion, as they are involved in the generation of "useful content" (which is a concept which may or may not be valid, depending on what you feel is useful). In [http://akahele.org/2009/02/the-more-things-change/ my post concerning MP3.com], I discussed how the transition from web 1.0 to web 2.0 involved a parametric change from ''focus on content'' to ''focus on traffic''. When one looks at the amount of traffic generated by the production of content versus the amount of traffic generated by group discussion, socializing, and other procedural processes, it seems to me that Dr. Sanger is not being entirely straightforward in leaving these types of services outside of this discussion.

In many ways, however, Dr. Sanger is describing something which is very much of the ''zeitgeist''.

===Anonymous Arbs===
[[Image:430px-2007-10-28_africangrayparrot_meru-150x150.jpg|thumb|right|Parrots can also be healthy]]
The anonymity issue came to the fore in Wikipedia circles this week with the ''outing'' of Arbitration Committee member Sam "[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-November/085892.html Sick as a parrot]" Blacketer as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DavidBoothroyd David Boothroyd], a [http://www.webcitation.org/5gzfYsqGc British political researcher] and member of the Labour party. The connection between the (now) former arbitrator and a (then) former administrator who was removed for pushing a pro-Labour agenda has been [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=21101&view=findpost&p=174771 graphically proven] by ace Wikipedia sleuth, "Tarantino". The irony of this situation, [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=21101&view=findpost&p=174767 as pointed out] by Wikipedia Review regular Milton "Uncle Miltie" Roe, is that Boothroyd/Blacketer was executing undercover the same kind of paid editing that he had attacked Gregory Kohs for doing in daylight in the past. Cade Metz of the Register has printed [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/26/wikipedia_westminster_councillor/ an article ]which sums up the situation extremely well.

What is currently being explored is an interconnection between this account and other pseudo-anonymous arbitrators with a relationship which dates back to the mid-1990s in the context of ''Usenet''. It would appear that these anonymous characters all know each other very well after years of interaction. That they each have arrived at this point together does not appear to be a coincidence. As sources are examined and confirmed, as we prefer to adhere to a multiple-source policy, we will try to inform our readers of developments in this area. What remains clear is that the issue of anonymity and hidden agendas remains a central problem in Wikipedia politics.

===Marblecake also the game===
[[Image:180px-marmorkuchen-150x135.jpg|thumb|left|Not this kind of marblecake!]]

Groupthink was also a central part of this week's current events with [http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2009/05/4chan-ebaumsworld-carpet-bombing-youtube-with-porn-videos.ars Operation YouTube], organized by various Internet groups including 4chan and others in an attempt to submerge YouTube in porn videos hidden behind popular keywords, with the initial keyword being "marblecake" as discussed in [http://akahele.org/2009/05/making-a-moot-point/ Judd Bagley's last post] about the Time 100 List.

This type of behavior of anonymous mobs has been described as "swarming" by Danièle Citron in her paper "[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1271900 Cyber Civil Rights]". Dr. Citron describes several case histories, including a situation involving the [http://yellowisthecolor.wordpress.com/2007/08/10/one-emotionally-disturbed-woman-v-a-gaggle-of-violent-misogynist-loons-the-internet-at-its-finest/ Women's Space Blog and Encyclopedia Dramatica]. These types of group swarming events may be focused on one individual who is usually identified by the group as an outsider (such as [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23102 Chris Chan] or the Internet phenomenon [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22711 Boxxy]), or they may concern institutions of power (for example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology the Church of Scientology]), or as a means of launching a joke or fashion (such as the Time 100 List "precision hack".)

This "swarming" activity is happening more and more frequently, with larger and more visible public repercussions. It would seem that the anonymous hive has realized that the powerless masses have the power to change the course of events, even if it is only the Internet. And this is becoming increasingly important as more and more of our existence is taken up by these social media activities.

===You really don't have anything better to do?===

Finally we come to the central issue: '''Such a godawful waste of time'''. Recently, my esteemed colleague Gregory Kohs made the astute remark that people may no longer be capable of putting a man on the moon since "everybody's too busy tweeting". With the number of people I see walking the streets of Paris with their cell telephones glued to their ears, only stopping to check their batteries or to send a text message, you have to wonder how many people still are able to have internal thoughts in their brains, much less imagine things which are not on screens or headphones.

[[Image:2457818093_11007230b3-150x150.jpg|thumb|right|Valleywag's Owen Thomas does battle with the Twitterati]]

As someone who is guilty of the extreme eccentricity of refusing to have a cell phone, I appreciate having the space in which to have my own thoughts and to have silence in which to think. Increasingly I am finding my experience becoming more and more marginalized by people who are addicted to the connectivity and instant communication which is central to web 2.0. But do the Twitterati (the very apt phrase coined by [http://valleywag.gawker.com/ Valleywag]'s former editor Owen Thomas) express anything in their 140-character-max tweets? [http://valleywag.gawker.com/5263497/the-twitterati-hates-buckling-down-for-work Valleywag's daily sampling] would suggest that even a Nobel prize in literature would sound like an idiot on Twitter. Do we really want to fill our brains with these types of "communication nuggets"? I personally do not.

===Tune out, turn off, drop out===

One might like to think that the anonymous swarms described in Danièle Citron's research might be more oriented toward a specific agenda, which might include changing social mores, modifying media manipulation, and striving for social judgment -- a sort of latter-day cyber hippie movement. Some aspects of the anonymous movement have led to this sort of action, such as protests concerning the Church of Scientology.

However, just as the 1960s also included such things as "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_to_Zap Zip to Zap]", much of what the anonymous convey consists of "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme memes]" or short, catchy phrases that refer to inside jokes. Beside "Marblecake" and "The Game" mentioned in the Time precision hack, others include phrases which may not make much sense outside of the circle of initiates, such as "[http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Mudkips mudkips]", "[http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Pool%27s_Closed Pool's closed]" or "[http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Delicious_Cake Delicious Cake]".

While repetitive chanting of these sorts of catch phrases might seem harmless on the surface, when they are repeated over long periods by large groups of anonymous participants with lots of time on their hands, the end result can be psychologically and even economically devastating. For example, the comic [http://www.tomgreen.com/ Tom Green] has been [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmT2wh0ohDU&feature=related the object of a long-term meme campaign against his web television show], which has prevented him from fully realizing this project and which has caused him obvious emotional distress.

So, it would seem that Dr. Sanger has described something which is currently unfolding. What might some reactions be? I was amused to read in Aaron Swartz's blog the web 2.0 version of "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on,_tune_in,_drop_out turn on, tune in, drop out]" in the form of a manifesto proclaiming Mr. Swartz's intention to spend [http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/offline a month without the Internet]. Declaring one's independence from web subservience is one sensible reaction: ''go read a book, write something longer than 140 characters, or (gulp) go out and try to start a conversation with that crazy person who isn't talking on their telephone''.

Jon Awbrey put it much better than I could in a recent comment that he made on the [http://volokh.com/posts/1242618845.shtml#586088 Volokh Conspiracy blog]. His thoughtful comment is directed specifically at Wikipedia, but it could apply to any of these web 2.0 "social media" sites: in a nutshell, the way that they cause us to think and to react to the world is a threat to our way of life.

And, given this specific context, what of political leaders using this sort of platform to get their messages across? One would hope that anyone attempting social media interaction has been made aware of the failed experiments of the past, such as the "[http://www.darrenbarefoot.com/archives/2007/04/the-marketing-folly-of-greenteagirlie.html Greenteagirlie] fiasco, or of any [http://blogs.zdnet.com/feeds/?p=1204&tag=nl.e539 one of these recent examples]. Part of trying to tango with the anonymous mobs who seem to be forming at every corner of the web is remembering that people don't always behave as you'd expect them to behave. When they figure out that you're trying to "pull a fast one", they generally aren't very happy about that.

One also must hope that all of this virtual tweeting, texting, blogging, and commenting will not completely replace real-world contact with people in that elusive zone known as ''reality''.

Today, the text messages will be sent telling people "I'm on the train" or "buy a gallon of milk". The tweets will be made, and the world will rest easier knowing that [http://gawker.com/5256298/the-very-worst-of-twitterati Jessica Coen got eel sauce in her hair]. Thousands of people will take the "Which Brady Bunch episode are you?" quiz on Facebook. The drama that is Wikipedia will continue to boil, much to the amusement of the anonymous hive of slaving worker bees captive there. Those who are counting the Alexa numbers will continue to pretend that ''traffic is money''.

For the few of you ''schlepping'' around without as much as a BlackBerry on your belt'', missing out on all of this excitement'', I'm the crazy guy without the headphones who's singing out loud to the music in his head. Does anybody else still do that?

===Photo credits===
*Rose, [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rose_Papa_Meilland.jpg?uselang=fr Wikimedia Commons], CC license
*Parrot, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2007-10-28_AfricanGrayParrot_Meru.jpg Wikipedia], GFDL
*Marblecake, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marmorkuchen.jpg Wikipedia], public domain
*Owen Thomas by [http://www.flickr.com/photos/markcoggins/2457818093/ Mark Coggins], CC 2.0 attribution license

==Comments==
4 Responses to “The anonymous swarm”

;Dan T.
:Well isn’t my own time my own, free to be spent on whatever I want even if others think it pointless?
:Not to mention that you seem to be simultaneously crtiticizing the “Web 2.0 world” for (1) wasting lots of time without accomplishing anything, and (2) being scary because of the massive (and possibly massively destructive) things it can accomplish.
:Though I do kind of agree that the use of “social networking” by stodgy mainstream politicians is probably less a sign that the “heyday” is ahead than that those media have “jumped the shark” and the truly hip crowd will have to find something new!
;Paul Wehage
:My dear Mr. T., you are certainly more than welcome to waste your time as you see fit. Just don’t ask me to believe that this has anything to do with “reality”, whatever that means these days…
:I’m not pretending to understand everything here. The point of this article is to say that Larry Sanger is describing what I perceive as an emerging phenomenon. What this ends up meaning is anybody’s guess at this point. It could be something with massive consequences, however.
:Can we at least agree that what Dr. Sanger is describing merits further inquiry?
;Gregory Kohs
:I was BlackBerry-free for the past two years at Comcast. Now I have one. I’m not supposed to use it for personal matters, so now I have my personal cell phone in my briefcase, plus the BlackBerry on my hip. The thing buzzes twice every time I get a new e-mail at my work address.
:I am thankful that I am not permitted to let this small-keyed, small-screened device become my nexus of personal communication. My thumbs began to hurt on the first day of use.
;Mark Woodard
:If only more than 51 people would hear this.

Directory:Akahele/Survey says...

2010-10-24T21:37:47Z

Seurat: Standard format, om nom nom nom.

==Survey says...==
Those old enough to remember the Carter and Reagan administrations are likely to have enjoyed the highly popular game show, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oxt9e5B4bE ''Family Feud''], if not for the spectacle of two extended families competing against each other, then for the "play along at home" aspect of matching wits with those families, or (if anything) counting to see how many times host Richard Dawson would plant a (too often unwelcome) kiss (or two) on the lips of any female contestant.

===A survey we trusted===

The most intellectually viable aspect of ''Family Feud'' was the core of the program -- the response data from a survey of 100 people answering questions that tend to cluster common answers: "Name something you buy on every visit to the grocery store" or "Give a slang term for a policeman".
[[Image:richard-dawson.jpg|thumb|right|Richard Dawson on Family Feud]]

As a practitioner in the field of marketing research, I know darn well that a sample of 100 respondents ([http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ana0kDXsKamqprcApIm6RfQh4wt.;_ylv=3?qid=20060606190510AAzZnok heaven knows] how they were selected for participation in the survey) is practically bunk. But the methodology seemed to work out just fine for a family game show. There were never any scandals or disputes centered on the answers to that survey. We knew we were about to come face to face with a reliable-enough "fact" when Dawson would turn to that big board behind him and shout, "Survey says...!"

Today, in the world of overnight web-panel-based consumer data collection, I'm not nearly as comfortable as I was at a young age with trusty Richard Dawson and his big, flashing incandescent board on ''Family Feud''.

===My experience with Internet surveys===

I'm hardly new to the practice of conducting survey research via the Internet. In fact, e-mail borne surveys were an important part of my business practice as far back as 1993 -- respondents would "edit" the reply e-mail text with their answers, send it back, and the software would detect the answers within the confines of pre-formatted response spaces within the e-mail text. Crude in retrospect, but these techniques worked fairly well, especially when targeting a highly selective sample (such as the customer list of a business-class laser printer manufacturer).

About four or five years later, true web-based survey platforms were well established, but how to populate these questionnaires with [http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/sampprob.php representative, diverse respondents] was becoming a hot potato. Everyone seemed to acknowledge that web panels attracted non-typical consumers, but the low cost of execution and speed of turn-around were just so damn tempting. Of course, the major web panel vendors did their best to come up with various techniques (and white papers) that demonstrated ways to "balance" web samples, so that they might pass muster with executives on the client side. But, remaining at the crux of all survey research and not just web-based sampling, is the question of self-selection bias. People who willingly spend 15 minutes of their time to complete a questionnaire are not "normal", in the sense that they sometimes fail to represent the attitudes and behaviors of people who prefer not to spend their time that way. It appears that, simply, this problem is accentuated among Internet populations.

===Losing faith===

Between about 2001 and the present day, I've gradually been losing faith in the entire premise of reliable Internet-sampled and Internet-fielded marketing research. Last month, a presentation at the [http://www.ctam.com/conferences/Research/index.html CTAM Research Conference] in Washington, DC, practically sealed the deal for me. [http://www.mktginc.com/ourteam.asp Dr. Steven Gittelman] conducted a meta audit of 17 different U.S. web panels. His research found that on nine of these panels, well over 15% of the participants were completing more than thirty Internet surveys per month. Furthermore, on most U.S. panels, anywhere from 40% to 55% of members are also enrolled in at least '''four other''' survey research panels!
<div>

===Things that make you go, "Hmm..."===

My research team recently fielded a quick online survey with a San Diego vendor I implicitly trust to have one of the best panels in the online research business. The sampling was intended to be nationally representative of Internet households who had either cut wire-line telephone service in the past 12 months, or were strongly intending to do so in the next 12 months, and guess what? It’s rather clear that a lot of respondents weren’t paying attention by the end of the survey: nearly 32% of the respondents said they were Hispanic or Latino. There is no way that's a true statistic, especially considering how Hispanics under-index for Internet penetration and English fluency.

Granted, some of this particular over-reporting was due to the way the question was asked (in a format usually intended for a telephone survey, where I’m sure the live interviewer does a better job of getting the right answer):

;<span style="color: #008000;">''To ensure proper ethnic representation, please answer; are you of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity or background?''</span>
:<span style="color: #008000;">''1 Yes (white Hispanic)''</span>
:<span style="color: #008000;">''2 Yes (non-white Hispanic)''</span>
:<span style="color: #008000;">''3 No''</span>
:<span style="color: #008000;">''R Prefer not to say''</span>
My guess is that a significant number of white non-Hispanics and black non-Hispanics selected punch 1 and punch 2, semi-consciously reacting to the words “white” and “non-white” to inform their response, rather than the question text itself.

In another recent study, we sampled digital cable customers who subscribe to a monthly DVD rental service. The hyper-inflated findings about this sample concluded:

*More than 85% said they subscribe to high-definition television programming
*56% said they have a home theater
*Over 71% said they have either a video game device or a DVD player connected to the Internet
*Even more (72%) said they use a media center PC to watch video on their TV set

Yeah, right. Maybe if the respondents are time travelers, reporting back to us their household characteristics from the year 2019. Why do we tolerate "findings" like these? In a word, because the data can be collected quickly and cost-efficiently, and (thankfully) these behavioral measures were not a key objective of what was essentially an attitudinal survey.</div>

===Setting the trap===

Over the past year, I have taken to using a simple technique to "trap" respondents who are not paying attention to (or lying about) survey questions. By adding "tripwire" questions to the beginning of a survey, I am able to diagnose respondents who are more likely blithely clicking check-boxes ("[http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112415330/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 satisficing]" a questionnaire) than actually paying attention. I provide a list of relatively uncommon products or experiences, then terminate from the survey anyone who answers that an ''extremely'' unlikely number of these items apply to them -- that is, it's far more likely the respondent is lazily or deceptively completing the questionnaire than it is that they are attentively and truthfully responding. Some examples may help illustrate the principle.

In a recent survey, I asked which of the following items were in the respondent's home, and these were the results:
<table style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 241pt;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="321"><col style="width: 193pt;" width="257"></col> <col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
<tbody>
<tr style="height: 13.5pt;" height="18">
<td class="xl26" style="height: 13.5pt; width: 193pt;" width="257" height="18">'''PRESENT IN HOUSEHOLD'''</td>
<td class="xl26" style="border-left: medium none; width: 48pt;" width="64">'''N=3258'''</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 13.5pt;" height="18">
<td class="xl24" style="height: 13.5pt;" height="18">Carbon monoxide detector</td>
<td class="xl25" style="border-color: -moz-use-text-color black -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; border-left: medium none;" align="right">37.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td class="xl22" style="border-top: medium none; height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Bread-making machine</td>
<td class="xl23" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;" align="right">24.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td class="xl22" style="border-top: medium none; height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Installed home security system</td>
<td class="xl23" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;" align="right">22.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td class="xl22" style="border-top: medium none; height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Locked gun cabinet</td>
<td class="xl23" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;" align="right">11.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td class="xl22" style="border-top: medium none; height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Jet Ski / Sea Doo personal watercraft</td>
<td class="xl23" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;" align="right">2.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td class="xl22" style="border-top: medium none; height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Segway personal transporter</td>
<td class="xl23" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;" align="right">1.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
We terminated the 160 individuals (5% of all candidates) who said that they had four or more of these items in their home. Even so, that still leaves at least one in five of the homes in our sample saying they have a bread-making machine. Is that even plausible?

There are about 114 million households in the United States. If 1.4% of them own a Segway, that means this particular web survey suggests there are about 1.6 million Segway units dispersed across America.
<table style="float: left; border=" border="0" width="120">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/segway.jpg" alt="Segway personal transporter" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: left;">One of the 1.6 million Segway owners?</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
Never mind that as of February 2007, only about [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=power-walker 24,000 Segway units] had ever been sold, and many of them to corporate and law enforcement clients, not residential households. So, we may choose between lazy and/or lying survey respondents (1.6 million), or we have realistic transactional data to guide us (24,000).

Do you see my frustration with web-based data collection?

Here is another example, where we simply terminated anyone who answered "yes" to four or more of a list of items. In this study, we targeted adult householders in our market footprint (which covers about 40% of the nation), with at least a working television set, and we asked 504 possible respondents about their participation in the past 3 months in any of the following:
<table style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 241pt;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="321"><col style="width: 193pt;" width="257"></col> <col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
<tbody>
<tr style="height: 13.5pt;" height="18">
<td class="xl28" style="border-color: -moz-use-text-color black -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; height: 13.5pt; width: 193pt;" width="257" height="18">'''PARTICIPATION LAST 3 MONTHS'''</td>
<td class="xl29" style="border-left: medium none; width: 48pt;" width="64">'''N=504'''</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 13.5pt;" height="18">
<td class="xl27" style="height: 13.5pt;" height="18">Collected unemployment check</td>
<td class="xl25" style="border-left: medium none;" align="right">9.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td class="xl26" style="border-top: medium none; height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Stayed in a Ramada Inn</td>
<td class="xl24" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;" align="right">3.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td class="xl26" style="border-top: medium none; height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Coached a youth baseball or soccer game</td>
<td class="xl24" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;" align="right">2.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td class="xl26" style="border-top: medium none; height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Participated in bowling league</td>
<td class="xl24" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;" align="right">2.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td class="xl26" style="border-top: medium none; height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Played duplicate bridge</td>
<td class="xl24" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;" align="right">1.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td class="xl26" style="border-top: medium none; height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Traveled to Africa</td>
<td class="xl24" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;" align="right">0.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td class="xl26" style="border-top: medium none; height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Traveled to Australia</td>
<td class="xl24" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;" align="right">0.2%</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
On this panel, we terminated any who affirmed at least 4 of these items -- a near impossibility. What is the likelihood, for example, of a person selected at random who is on unemployment, stayed in a Ramada Inn, rolls in a bowling league, and coaches a youth baseball or soccer team? But, we "caught" four such respondents out of 504. This nearly impossible configuration would pro-rate to being true for about 1,785,700 Americans. That is, 4 divided by 504, times about 225,000,000 adults.

This same data shows that 2.4% of adults are in a bowling league within the past three months, or 5.4 million adults. This is about two times the known count of adults ''and'' children (combined) participating annually in a bowling league, [http://www.bowl.com/usbowler/about.aspx according to the USBC]. From corporate reports, I estimate that Ramada has about 50,000 rooms in the United States. Over three months, that's about 4.5 million room-nights possible. According to the above survey screener, 6.7 million adults have stayed in a Ramada room at some point in the past 3 months. Even with 2 adults per room, that's an amazing occupancy rate -- Monday through Sunday, every week of the past three months, if we are to believe this sample. I conclude that we cannot believe the sample. The duplicate bridge stat is interesting -- web panels skew younger, and bridge skews older. According to the ACBL, there are about 11 million people in the U.S. who play [http://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/pdf/Newspaper/RecreationSpecialization.pdf contract bridge]. According to our screener, though, it's only 2.25 million -- under-reported by a factor of perhaps five.

===Can they pass the test?===

When showing respondents a description of a new product or service concept (sometimes even with an informative video clip), we've taken to the habit of giving the respondents a short, three-question "true or false" quiz about the concept they've just read about (and/or watched). These are not very difficult questions for a sentient, attentive person of even less-than-average IQ to answer. Consistently, we are finding that between 20% and 35% of respondents will fail this quiz that immediately follows presentation of the concept. My conclusion: perhaps a third of web survey respondents aren't paying any attention to the communications we're putting before them in surveys.

''Akahele'' is presenting you data, both anecdotal and quantitative, each and every week. What conclusions are you drawing about the key theme of '''trust '''and the''' Internet'''? We look forward to your joining us with personal comments below.

===Image credits===
*Richard Dawson (Mark Goodson-Bill Todman Productions), [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 fair use doctrine</span>].
*Segway personal transporter, [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 fair use doctrine].

==Comments==
7 Responses to “Survey says…”

;Kato
:Interesting piece.
:It has become pretty clear lately that internet polling is a sham, yet in the UK at least, vital policy discussions are still being guided by polling sites like YouGov, which are open to all kinds of manipulation.
:This is another example, like Wikipedia, where reality does not match the touted claims. Snake oil salesmen are creaming massive profits by extolling the virtues of these flawed ventures.
;Dan T.
:I’m on some of those Internet survey panels myself; perhaps I even answered some of the surveys you commissioned (some of the questions above sound vaguely familiar). Sometimes the surveys ask weird stuff making me wonder just what the point of a survey is; your commentary gives me more background on that.
:They can be pretty annoying with their repetitive questions; I’m sick of constantly getting asked my age, sex, zip code, and education level even though those are already on file in my record, and sometimes the same survey will ask those demographic questions more than once (it’s pretty common for a survey to ask my age at the beginning, then my birthdate at the end).
:If a survey is too long (with lots and lots of questions about stuff I don’t give a flip about, like asking me a long series of questions of what I think of the difference between different brands of salty chips, their taste, their commercials, whether a particular brand gives “an impression of wholesomeness” or is one I “feel good about letting my kids eat” (I don’t actually have any kids), eventually I get to a point where I just want to get the darn thing over with so I’m not so careful in reading and answering the questions, perhaps producing some of the phenomena you see. On the other hand, I do often try to diligently answer questions even if it requires an annoying amount of digging through stuff like receipts that show, to the nearest dollar, how much I spent for my last tank of gas or printer ink cartridge (I’m fortunately enough of a packrat to usually have those receipts even a few weeks later when the survey is asked; I imagine most others, who threw away the receipt, just give the survey-takers a guesstimate off the top of their head.)
:Am I breaking their rules where they keep reminding me that one condition of participating in their surveys is to never tell anybody else about what they ask in their surveys? (But then they keep sending me stuff branded with their name as bonus prizes, meaning that if I actually use it, people may notice that I’m a member of that survey panel and ask me about it.)
;PJ
:What a great discourse on the issue. In the face of how much data (and common sense) point to the likely invalidity of much of online poll research, the extent to which some people don’t really care about the validity of the data is disappointing. But in reality, the low cost and quicker execution are admittedly compelling incentives not to care. Your trap questions are a great way to try to separate the good from the bad and ugly.
;RFK
:I was about to say that I have been a participant in not just four, but five of the activities mentioned. But then I realized that you said ‘in the last 3 months’. Perhaps some responders were overlooking that requirement as well.
:Please be advised that duplicate bridge is just one style of contract bridge. There are many contract bridge players who do not play duplicate bridge.
:I participate in online surveys to rate my latest restaurant meal. I dare say that I have not been honest by saying a manager stopped by my table when, in fact, a manager was nowhere in sight.
;Gregory Kohs
:@Dan: I suppose you are breaking rules about non-disclosure, but (like the GFDL license and Wikipedia) I have to also suppose that very few entities who issue content under such terms actually expect that the terms will be followed to the letter by everyone subject to the terms.
:@RFK: What are you, some kind of bridge director or something?
;RFK
:There is always room for humor – even on AKAHELE. I don’t have many answers but I enjoy browsing and searching. Count me as a regular AKAHELE reader.
;Sarge
:I am not an active internet survey participant, but had to laugh a little at myself while reading this, because I do have a bread-making machine in my home. It was given to me by my somewhat senile grandmother a few years back as a housewarming gift. I certainly do not see myself as the sort who would fit the demographic of a stereotypical bread-making machine owner (if there is even such a thing), but if I ever did run across that question on a survey, I would have to answer it honestly!
:Very well written. I thoroughly enjoy all the content on Akahele thus far, I am glad to have stumbled onto this site, it has been refreshing and thought provoking.

Directory:Akahele/The Real â€œSecond Lifeâ€

2010-10-24T21:37:41Z

Seurat: Title, om nom nom nom.

==The Real “Second Life”==
This year, the biggest segment of new Web 2.0 membership comes from those 30 to 49 years old. Sixty-five percent of users of the Pandora music service are over the age of 35! This breed of social networkers (Facebook, primarily, but also LinkedIn, MySpace, Twitter, and others) are using social media as a source of play, communication, and alternative productivity. According to [http://www.iconoculture.com/ '''Iconoculture's'''] "''Open to the Social: understanding social media use across generations''", a webinar created by Neela Sakaria and Andrew Hawn, they call this activity...
<p style="text-align: center;">'''the <span style="text-decoration: underline;">real</span> Second Life'''</p>

I agree with that! My experiences on LinkedIn and Facebook are like a virtual "fantasy" world, but populated entirely by people I know intimately, or at least as acquaintances. I honestly don't understand how people get wrapped up in the original [http://secondlife.com/ Second Life] online world, without actually knowing any of the folks with whom they're interacting.

Directory:Akahele/Akahele creates Wikipedia Art!

2010-10-24T21:10:51Z

Seurat: Standard format, om nom nom nom.

[[Image:180px-wikipedia_art-copy-150x150.jpg|thumb|left|alt=Wikipedia Art logo|Official logo of the Wikipedia Art project]]

Those of you who have been following this blog will certainly remember the two articles which have been posted [http://akahele.org/2009/03/in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/ here] and [http://akahele.org/2009/04/the-trade-of-free-culture/ here] about Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern's [http://www.wikipediaart.org Wikipedia Art project]. Kildall and Stern have opened up their project to all artists in a series of [http://wikipediaart.org/remixes/ Wikipedia Art Remixes], which will be presented as part of [http://padiglioneinternet.com/ Padiglione Internet] (the Internet Pavilion) for the Venice Biennale as the ''Wikipedia Art Embassy''.

''Akahele'' is proud to be part of this exciting initiative with two works inspired by the Wikipedia Art project.

Paul Wehage's ''Cypher Variations : Wikipedia Art Remixed'' for chamber orchestra is a short two-minute conceptional work. The piece is based around two cells, one of which spells "Wikipedia", presented in the winds/brass/harp/celesta/percussion which has a block-like, rather mandarin quality. The other cell spells out "Art" in the strings, and has a more active character. The two motives almost fit together, but the juxtaposition of B natural/B flat creates an inherent tension which causes them to repel, in the same way that Wikipedia Art was repelled from Wikipedia. The tympani part beginning around 1:00 is the musical illustration of a prominent Wikipedia editor who stated that [http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2008/12/10/what-a-pip/ he danced on the skulls of his opponents].

The work may be heard [http://independentartistscompany.com/songs.aspx?SongID=74586&ArtistID=12612 here].

Wehage's orchestral prelude was then used by Gregory Kohs as the basis of his "Wikipedia Art : a Musical Manifesto".

<youtube>6200hsy_vGU</youtube>

''Akahele'' encourages other artists to participate in this initiative by creating their own ''Wikipedia Art ''remixes, uploading the remixed ''Wikipedia Art'' work somewhere on the Internet (YouTube, Vimeo, Flickr, Facebook, your own site), and then sending a link to: '''remix''' [at] '''wikipediaart''' [dot] '''org'''.

The Wikipedia Art logo is reproduced here under a Creative Commons license with the permission of Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern.

Directory:Akahele/The trade of free culture

2010-10-24T21:04:56Z

Seurat: /* Comments */ fix syntax collision

==The trade of free culture==
Several weeks ago, I wrote an article here about [http://akahele.org/2009/03/in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/ Wikipedia and Art], which discussed aspects of the [http://www.wikipediaart.org/ Wikipedia Art project].

[[Image:180px-wikipedia_art-copy-150x150.jpg|thumb|left|alt="Wikipedia Art logo|Official logo of the Wikipedia Art project]]

This performance art project started by artists [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Kildall Scott Kildall] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Stern Nathaniel Stern] created quite [http://www.rhizome.org/discuss/view/41713 a bit of discussion] in the Art world, both negative and positive. The reaction in the Wikipedia world was, of course, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_Art completely predictable]. The project has regained a place in Wikipedia article space (at least until the ''deletion hit squad'' reads this article), through what is being now called the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Art_controversy Wikipedia Art controversy]".

This story escalated, by some strange coincidence, on the very day that I posted my article about Wikipedia Art on this blog: on March 23, 2009, Scott Kildall received an [http://wikipediaart.org/legal/032309-Isenberg.pdf initial letter] from Douglas Isenberg, hired legal counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation. The letter complained that the Wikipedia Art website may be violating trademark law by its use of "Wikipedia" in the domain name, which is a registered trademark in the US (the Foundation later emphasized it did not in fact assert that [http://wikipediaart.org/legal/040909-WikimediaResponse.html Wikipedia Art was violating trademark law]). This incident was covered by [http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/wikipedia-threatens- an article] on the Electronic Freedom Foundation website and by further articles on the [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/wikipedia-suit-could-put-it-on-the-wrong-side-of-fair-use.ars Ars Technica] and [http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/271551 Digital Journal] websites. This independent coverage, ironically, seems to indicate that Wikipedia Art has suddenly fulfilled the notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia.

The Wikimedia Foundation (which controls Wikipedia and other related projects) has long been a leading supporter of the "free culture" movement, insisting that all contributions made to its projects be released under "free licenses", either the GNU free software license (a license which has been found to be highly unsuitable for encyclopedia entries) or (more recently) the Creative Commons. This is a phenomenon that I have examined already in depth on the Wikipedia Review blog: in two articles which may be read [http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20071212/wpgive-us-money-and-well-give-you-free-culture-another-fund-raising-ploy/ here] and [http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080114/violating-copyright-for-the-good-of-the-project/ here].

The idea of the "free culture" movement is both confusing for those not involved in the creative process and completely unnecessary for creators, since creators already have all of the rights to their works by definition. My personal position has always been that these "free culture" projects are always unnecessarily injecting into the agreements uninvolved third-parties who have no business being involved in the first place. A creator has the right to grant free licenses to whomever he or she pleases, without any of these "free culture" licenses. The fact that these unnecessary steps are being added to this process is already, in my mind, something which doesn't look like it's entirely upfront. When you consider that Wikipedia is now involved in [http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/04/14/vote-on-wikimedia-licensing-update-underway/ unilaterally changing the terms of their licenses already contracted to copyright holders without consulting the copyright holders themselves], this becomes something which is only theoretically legal and which will survive only if unchallenged.

Oddly, especially in light of this insistence that others release their contributions under a free license, both the Wikipedia name and logo are registered trademarks. This is not to say that either is the work of the Wikimedia Foundation, but were works by individual contributors (Dr. Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia in the case of the name -- which Dr. Sanger confirmed to me via e-mail; and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_logos#The_variants a collective of two users] in the case of the logo) which were "donated" to the Wikimedia Foundation, their copyright being "assigned" to the Foundation, which later registered both as trademarks. Of course, the registration of trademarks is based on "use" not "ownership".

An extremely animated discussion of this incident began on the [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-April/051501.html Wikimedia Foundation mailing list] with [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-April/051505.html a comment made by WMF legal council Mike Godwin], who tried to downplay the letter that was sent to Kildall. Unfortunately, at the time of this writing, it would seem that this de-escalation did not include granting permission for the Wikipedia Art site to use the "Wikipedia" name.

This is confounded by the idea that the Wikimedia Foundation requires users to adhere to a policy which is referred to as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_legal_threats No Legal Threats]. This policy states that anyone who makes a legal threat against other Wikipedia editors, or against the Foundation itself, will be blocked from using Foundation-hosted services until the legal threat is ''resolved''. However, this courtesy routinely is not extended to those with whom the Wikimedia Foundation has legal differences. There is no evidence that any "dispute resolution" procedure was followed, and as a legally trained Wikipedian [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2009-April/100393.html pointed out] on the English Wikipedia mailing list, a letter from an attorney is usually perceived as a "legal threat", regardless of how ''nicely'' the way the threat is phrased.

To further complicate matters, Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects depend on the allowances of "fair use" as it is defined under US law in order to illustrate certain articles, such as pasting in short clips of audio recordings or images of album covers. This "fair use" of copyright materials was at the center of the recent [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/07/brit_isps_censor_wikipedia/ ''Virgin Killer'' album cover] incident, and it is an integral part of the way that the Wikipedia community has decided that this type of use should be handled. As a matter of fact, if articles such as [http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/20090411-00.comment this] and [http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/12/28/wikimedia-commons-the-power-of-free-content-media/ this] are any indication, Wikipedia contributors have even more radical ideas about copyright and trademarks: ''they should be banned as the evil things that they are!''

Of course, one of the main problems of "free culture" is that it doesn't generate money, except if you license something to somebody else (something that you don't own but which has been labeled "free"). In order to license the content, you have to have rights to grant. The Wikimedia Foundation owns almost none of the content it serves, because the copyright owners do: the Foundation is only restating the grant of a license for its use, and this in spite of insisting ''that they are not "publishing"'' the material. It would seem that the only pieces of content that the Wikimedia Foundation owns openly would be the name "Wikipedia" and the project logos. They are however currently involved in [http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/04/22/the-french-come-calling-for-wikipedia-orange-strikes-mobile-deal/ a licensing and "co-branding" project] with France Telecom's Orange mobile phone network. Yet even in the [http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/04/22/bonjour-orange-wikimedia-partners-with-orange-to-spread-knowledge/ Wikimedia Foundation's press release] about this new business relationship, the language used by Kul Wadhwa of the Foundation's Business Development department (which is sort of an odd concept for a "free culture", "open source" project to have in the first place) is rather mixed. On one hand we have Wadhwa saying :
<blockquote>I have been consistently impressed by their dedication to the Foundation’s mission of spreading free knowledge. They appreciate the importance of our community in everything we do, they’re committed to supporting neutral point-of-view, and they have an increasing interest in open source technology. The Foundation is always interested in business partnerships which understand our culture and help expand our mission, and Orange is an ideal partner for us.</blockquote>
However in the next statement, Wadhwa leaves the "free culture" world behind and enters the board room:
<blockquote>This is an important new revenue stream to build on our successful fundraising campaigns...</blockquote>
The [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Orange_and_Wikimedia_announce_partnership_April_2009QA Q&A page] also makes for interesting reading. Answer three is especially interesting here :
<blockquote>Q3: '''Is this partnership a way for Wikimedia to monetize content?'''

A3: The Wikimedia Foundation projects are free of advertising, and we don't expect that will ever change. However, under the free license used by the Wikimedia projects, it has always been permissible for other entities to republish Wikimedia project content, and add advertisements to it. Many organizations have done this. Our mission is to disseminate educational materials as widely as possible; we are happy to partner with both non-commercial and commercial entities to achieve that goal.

Within this partnership '''we have agreed that Orange will place targeted marketing alongside the branded Wikimedia content it will republish on the Orange mobile and web platforms.'''</blockquote>
Although these two situations, ''Wikipedia Art'' and the Orange agreement, do not seem at the surface to be related, they come to pass at approximately the same time. This perceived change in attitude from the traditional "free culture" outlook to a more "bottom line, business-oriented" perspective seems to be interconnected in a very profound way.

On one hand, we have a not-for-profit charity entering into a for-profit relationship with another company to license content which they neither own nor claim to "publish", but only "host". The content is all made by third-parties who retain the copyright, upon which the not-for-profit is currently attempting to impose a change of license without formally consulting all of the copyright holders, and which contains a great deal of copyright material which can only be justified under a US "fair use law". In addition, much of this is concurrently happening in the European Union, where the copyright laws are much stronger and where "fair use" doesn't apply.

And then you have two guys who decided to make a performance art project on the not-for-profit site and are using the not-for-profit's name on their non-commercial website to discuss their own artistic work connected to the site.

Which is the bigger problem for the Wikipedia community? Which is a bigger threat to Wikipedia's future? Which is a bigger threat to society?

As a work of performance art, however, Wikipedia Art must be seen as a successful action, at least according to terms that I described in my initial article here. Wikipedia Art has acted as a mirror reflecting reality back to Wikipedia and the people who consider themselves part of that "community". As one participant [http://www.webcitation.org/5gLz9yKmr posted] on the English Wikipedia mailing list:
<blockquote>Yeah, Wikipedia Art are basically trolls, but I find this disturbing. If Wikipedia can make legal threats to trolls and deny it, and accuse trolls of trademark violation in a baseless way, they can do it to anyone, and the next guy they do it to may not necessarily be a troll.</blockquote>
So, Akahele salutes Kildall and Stein for creating this situation in which the ''reality'' of the Wikimedia Foundation has been so clearly illustrated.

===Image credits===
*Wikipedia Art logo, [http://www.wikipediaart.org/ GFDL License].

==Comments==
5 Responses to “The trade of free culture”

;Kato
:Wikipedia governance is riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies. And it is aggressive at every turn, pushing any of its many positions.
:The most obvious flaw is the empty rhetorical cry of “No Censorship” when in reality, the same Wikipedia editors “censor” and mould facts every minute of the day. They aggressively laud the “No Censorship” fallacy one minute, then aggressively edit out “unencyclopedic” content the next.
:Wikipedians often bandy around rallying cries denouncing Copyright and see themselves as at the vanguard of “Free Culture”. So it comes as no surprise that on the other hand, Wikipedia has become more aggressively ruthless in the protection of its own Copyright.
:Such contradictions are typical. One could spend a week noting them all and only scratch the surface.
;Paul Wehage
:And another predictable thing has happened: The “Wikipedia Art Controversy” article is up for deletion..
:One choice quote:
:Comment. Their site has a collation of news reports, which may be an easy way to find reliable sources on this story:[1]. It’s an interesting exercise: create a website potentially infringing on Wikipedia’s trademark, create a page about it on Wikipedia, blog about its deletion and start a controversy about Wikipedia apparently censoring art, gaining coverage enough to make the story notable… Fences and windows (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
:So, apparently, Kildall and Stein are doing this to be able to have an article in Wikipedia….never mind that they already DO have articles in Wikipedia. It just boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT
;Fences and windows
:<nowiki>*</nowiki>Ahem* Paul, I didn’t argue for deletion. Quit the Wikilawyering. I was just commenting on the circular nature of what they are up to. The “Wikipedia Art controversy” is (sadly) notable thanks to the Wikimedia Foundation’s footbullet of sending lawyers’ letters. I don’t think that Wikipedia Art are right to try to ride on the fame of the Wikipedia name, but perhaps the best approach would have been to give them the cold shoulder. Do not feed the trolls, as the saying goes.
:The original deletion of the page about Wikipedia Art was quite correct, and if the creators didn’t see it coming then they’re amazingly naive. Wikipedia is about creating an encyclopedia – it has a sandbox to play in for test edits, but this was plain old vandalism. If I shit on your doorstep, I don’t expect you to frame it and call it a work of art. The reaction to the deletion has been wounded pride among the art community because Wikipedia could see that these Emperors of art had no clothes on.
:These artists might think they’re being creative with their little “intervention”, but they’re put in the shade by the hackers from 4chan, many of whom are younger than the 18-year-old Wikipedia editor who deleted the Wikipedia Art page – I find the focus on his age in the reaction to the deletion distasteful.
:4channers recently hacked the Time 100 online poll using scripts. Not only did their founder, moot, “win” the poll, but the initials of the top results even spelled out “Marblecake also the Game”. Now that is much more creative than anything I’ve seen from Wikipedia Art. There’s a section on the Time 100 Wikipedia page if you want to read more, including the meaning of the message.
;Paul Wehage
:I find it ironic that this Wikipedia anon is trying to inform me of something (the Time 100/4Chan business) that we here at Akahele have been discussing for the past week–I believe that tomorrow’s post by Judd Bagley will discuss this subject. It was almost the subject of my article last week, but being involved in the Arts myself, I found that the Wikipedia Art situation merited more immediate attention.
:The Wikipedia Art situation is yet another instance of Kool-aid drinkers who are engaging in moving the goalposts because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Whether you personally believe that Wikipedia Art is important or not, the controversy that it generated is clearly notable under the criteria that you (as part of the Wikipedia community) have established for inclusion. It more than meets those criteria. Kildall and Stein are also clearly notable artists.
:If you don’t like the fact that Wikipedia Art is now clearly notable, then complain to the WMF legal staff who created this situation by sending what appears to be an ill-considered letter to the artists threatening a lawsuit which goes against the entire philosophical base upon which Wikipedia rests. The agreement with Orange is yet another manifestation of this same philosophical mutation.
:As far as pointing out that somebody is only 18 and is acting like a child, that seems to me to be a fairly objective statement, since someone who is 18 (or younger) may still be psychologically a child. That this person is allowed to be in a position of authority on this sort of website will be the subject of future posts here. If you’re offended by this statement, I’m sure that you’ll be even more offended by this post. Age and experience DO count, sorry.
:…and your point was? You seem to be suggesting that Kildall and Stein started the Wikipedia Art Controversy article themselves as a means of generating, uh, drama?
:Can you give me any concrete proof that would suggest that this statement is true? Are you suggesting that Kildall and Stein are using sockpuppets on Wikipedia à la Wordbomb?
:Leaving aside the fact that Wordbomb turned out to be right, how much of this idea was generated by the us against them party line that permeates so much of WikiLife?
;Nihiltres
:@Paul Wehage: While I disagree with other points in your article and posts on this page, I think that you’re particularly wrong when it comes to your point about WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
:Wikipedia Art’s primary problem was that it was something made up one day (WP:NFT), though it was also a self-reference (WP:SELFREF), and various points of what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). All of these were around long before Wikipedia Art, so your suggestion that Wikipedians were “moving the goalposts” is clearly false.
:I don’t endorse the summary given for Werdna’s deletion of the page (it wasn’t correct), but I do endorse the deletion itself—not because Wikipedia Art was bad (it was interesting!), or because I don’t like it, but because it was inappropriate for Wikipedia under the established standards.

Directory:Akahele/The trade of free culture

2010-10-24T21:04:01Z

Seurat: Standard format, om nom nom nom.

==The trade of free culture==
Several weeks ago, I wrote an article here about [http://akahele.org/2009/03/in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/ Wikipedia and Art], which discussed aspects of the [http://www.wikipediaart.org/ Wikipedia Art project].

[[Image:180px-wikipedia_art-copy-150x150.jpg|thumb|left|alt="Wikipedia Art logo|Official logo of the Wikipedia Art project]]

This performance art project started by artists [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Kildall Scott Kildall] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Stern Nathaniel Stern] created quite [http://www.rhizome.org/discuss/view/41713 a bit of discussion] in the Art world, both negative and positive. The reaction in the Wikipedia world was, of course, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_Art completely predictable]. The project has regained a place in Wikipedia article space (at least until the ''deletion hit squad'' reads this article), through what is being now called the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Art_controversy Wikipedia Art controversy]".

This story escalated, by some strange coincidence, on the very day that I posted my article about Wikipedia Art on this blog: on March 23, 2009, Scott Kildall received an [http://wikipediaart.org/legal/032309-Isenberg.pdf initial letter] from Douglas Isenberg, hired legal counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation. The letter complained that the Wikipedia Art website may be violating trademark law by its use of "Wikipedia" in the domain name, which is a registered trademark in the US (the Foundation later emphasized it did not in fact assert that [http://wikipediaart.org/legal/040909-WikimediaResponse.html Wikipedia Art was violating trademark law]). This incident was covered by [http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/wikipedia-threatens- an article] on the Electronic Freedom Foundation website and by further articles on the [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/wikipedia-suit-could-put-it-on-the-wrong-side-of-fair-use.ars Ars Technica] and [http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/271551 Digital Journal] websites. This independent coverage, ironically, seems to indicate that Wikipedia Art has suddenly fulfilled the notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia.

The Wikimedia Foundation (which controls Wikipedia and other related projects) has long been a leading supporter of the "free culture" movement, insisting that all contributions made to its projects be released under "free licenses", either the GNU free software license (a license which has been found to be highly unsuitable for encyclopedia entries) or (more recently) the Creative Commons. This is a phenomenon that I have examined already in depth on the Wikipedia Review blog: in two articles which may be read [http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20071212/wpgive-us-money-and-well-give-you-free-culture-another-fund-raising-ploy/ here] and [http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080114/violating-copyright-for-the-good-of-the-project/ here].

The idea of the "free culture" movement is both confusing for those not involved in the creative process and completely unnecessary for creators, since creators already have all of the rights to their works by definition. My personal position has always been that these "free culture" projects are always unnecessarily injecting into the agreements uninvolved third-parties who have no business being involved in the first place. A creator has the right to grant free licenses to whomever he or she pleases, without any of these "free culture" licenses. The fact that these unnecessary steps are being added to this process is already, in my mind, something which doesn't look like it's entirely upfront. When you consider that Wikipedia is now involved in [http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/04/14/vote-on-wikimedia-licensing-update-underway/ unilaterally changing the terms of their licenses already contracted to copyright holders without consulting the copyright holders themselves], this becomes something which is only theoretically legal and which will survive only if unchallenged.

Oddly, especially in light of this insistence that others release their contributions under a free license, both the Wikipedia name and logo are registered trademarks. This is not to say that either is the work of the Wikimedia Foundation, but were works by individual contributors (Dr. Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia in the case of the name -- which Dr. Sanger confirmed to me via e-mail; and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_logos#The_variants a collective of two users] in the case of the logo) which were "donated" to the Wikimedia Foundation, their copyright being "assigned" to the Foundation, which later registered both as trademarks. Of course, the registration of trademarks is based on "use" not "ownership".

An extremely animated discussion of this incident began on the [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-April/051501.html Wikimedia Foundation mailing list] with [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-April/051505.html a comment made by WMF legal council Mike Godwin], who tried to downplay the letter that was sent to Kildall. Unfortunately, at the time of this writing, it would seem that this de-escalation did not include granting permission for the Wikipedia Art site to use the "Wikipedia" name.

This is confounded by the idea that the Wikimedia Foundation requires users to adhere to a policy which is referred to as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_legal_threats No Legal Threats]. This policy states that anyone who makes a legal threat against other Wikipedia editors, or against the Foundation itself, will be blocked from using Foundation-hosted services until the legal threat is ''resolved''. However, this courtesy routinely is not extended to those with whom the Wikimedia Foundation has legal differences. There is no evidence that any "dispute resolution" procedure was followed, and as a legally trained Wikipedian [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2009-April/100393.html pointed out] on the English Wikipedia mailing list, a letter from an attorney is usually perceived as a "legal threat", regardless of how ''nicely'' the way the threat is phrased.

To further complicate matters, Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects depend on the allowances of "fair use" as it is defined under US law in order to illustrate certain articles, such as pasting in short clips of audio recordings or images of album covers. This "fair use" of copyright materials was at the center of the recent [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/07/brit_isps_censor_wikipedia/ ''Virgin Killer'' album cover] incident, and it is an integral part of the way that the Wikipedia community has decided that this type of use should be handled. As a matter of fact, if articles such as [http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/20090411-00.comment this] and [http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/12/28/wikimedia-commons-the-power-of-free-content-media/ this] are any indication, Wikipedia contributors have even more radical ideas about copyright and trademarks: ''they should be banned as the evil things that they are!''

Of course, one of the main problems of "free culture" is that it doesn't generate money, except if you license something to somebody else (something that you don't own but which has been labeled "free"). In order to license the content, you have to have rights to grant. The Wikimedia Foundation owns almost none of the content it serves, because the copyright owners do: the Foundation is only restating the grant of a license for its use, and this in spite of insisting ''that they are not "publishing"'' the material. It would seem that the only pieces of content that the Wikimedia Foundation owns openly would be the name "Wikipedia" and the project logos. They are however currently involved in [http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/04/22/the-french-come-calling-for-wikipedia-orange-strikes-mobile-deal/ a licensing and "co-branding" project] with France Telecom's Orange mobile phone network. Yet even in the [http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/04/22/bonjour-orange-wikimedia-partners-with-orange-to-spread-knowledge/ Wikimedia Foundation's press release] about this new business relationship, the language used by Kul Wadhwa of the Foundation's Business Development department (which is sort of an odd concept for a "free culture", "open source" project to have in the first place) is rather mixed. On one hand we have Wadhwa saying :
<blockquote>I have been consistently impressed by their dedication to the Foundation’s mission of spreading free knowledge. They appreciate the importance of our community in everything we do, they’re committed to supporting neutral point-of-view, and they have an increasing interest in open source technology. The Foundation is always interested in business partnerships which understand our culture and help expand our mission, and Orange is an ideal partner for us.</blockquote>
However in the next statement, Wadhwa leaves the "free culture" world behind and enters the board room:
<blockquote>This is an important new revenue stream to build on our successful fundraising campaigns...</blockquote>
The [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Orange_and_Wikimedia_announce_partnership_April_2009QA Q&A page] also makes for interesting reading. Answer three is especially interesting here :
<blockquote>Q3: '''Is this partnership a way for Wikimedia to monetize content?'''

A3: The Wikimedia Foundation projects are free of advertising, and we don't expect that will ever change. However, under the free license used by the Wikimedia projects, it has always been permissible for other entities to republish Wikimedia project content, and add advertisements to it. Many organizations have done this. Our mission is to disseminate educational materials as widely as possible; we are happy to partner with both non-commercial and commercial entities to achieve that goal.

Within this partnership '''we have agreed that Orange will place targeted marketing alongside the branded Wikimedia content it will republish on the Orange mobile and web platforms.'''</blockquote>
Although these two situations, ''Wikipedia Art'' and the Orange agreement, do not seem at the surface to be related, they come to pass at approximately the same time. This perceived change in attitude from the traditional "free culture" outlook to a more "bottom line, business-oriented" perspective seems to be interconnected in a very profound way.

On one hand, we have a not-for-profit charity entering into a for-profit relationship with another company to license content which they neither own nor claim to "publish", but only "host". The content is all made by third-parties who retain the copyright, upon which the not-for-profit is currently attempting to impose a change of license without formally consulting all of the copyright holders, and which contains a great deal of copyright material which can only be justified under a US "fair use law". In addition, much of this is concurrently happening in the European Union, where the copyright laws are much stronger and where "fair use" doesn't apply.

And then you have two guys who decided to make a performance art project on the not-for-profit site and are using the not-for-profit's name on their non-commercial website to discuss their own artistic work connected to the site.

Which is the bigger problem for the Wikipedia community? Which is a bigger threat to Wikipedia's future? Which is a bigger threat to society?

As a work of performance art, however, Wikipedia Art must be seen as a successful action, at least according to terms that I described in my initial article here. Wikipedia Art has acted as a mirror reflecting reality back to Wikipedia and the people who consider themselves part of that "community". As one participant [http://www.webcitation.org/5gLz9yKmr posted] on the English Wikipedia mailing list:
<blockquote>Yeah, Wikipedia Art are basically trolls, but I find this disturbing. If Wikipedia can make legal threats to trolls and deny it, and accuse trolls of trademark violation in a baseless way, they can do it to anyone, and the next guy they do it to may not necessarily be a troll.</blockquote>
So, Akahele salutes Kildall and Stein for creating this situation in which the ''reality'' of the Wikimedia Foundation has been so clearly illustrated.

===Image credits===
*Wikipedia Art logo, [http://www.wikipediaart.org/ GFDL License].

==Comments==
5 Responses to “The trade of free culture”

;Kato
:Wikipedia governance is riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies. And it is aggressive at every turn, pushing any of its many positions.
:The most obvious flaw is the empty rhetorical cry of “No Censorship” when in reality, the same Wikipedia editors “censor” and mould facts every minute of the day. They aggressively laud the “No Censorship” fallacy one minute, then aggressively edit out “unencyclopedic” content the next.
:Wikipedians often bandy around rallying cries denouncing Copyright and see themselves as at the vanguard of “Free Culture”. So it comes as no surprise that on the other hand, Wikipedia has become more aggressively ruthless in the protection of its own Copyright.
:Such contradictions are typical. One could spend a week noting them all and only scratch the surface.
;Paul Wehage
:And another predictable thing has happened: The “Wikipedia Art Controversy” article is up for deletion..
:One choice quote:
:Comment. Their site has a collation of news reports, which may be an easy way to find reliable sources on this story:[1]. It’s an interesting exercise: create a website potentially infringing on Wikipedia’s trademark, create a page about it on Wikipedia, blog about its deletion and start a controversy about Wikipedia apparently censoring art, gaining coverage enough to make the story notable… Fences and windows (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
:So, apparently, Kildall and Stein are doing this to be able to have an article in Wikipedia….never mind that they already DO have articles in Wikipedia. It just boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT
;Fences and windows
:*Ahem* Paul, I didn’t argue for deletion. Quit the Wikilawyering. I was just commenting on the circular nature of what they are up to. The “Wikipedia Art controversy” is (sadly) notable thanks to the Wikimedia Foundation’s footbullet of sending lawyers’ letters. I don’t think that Wikipedia Art are right to try to ride on the fame of the Wikipedia name, but perhaps the best approach would have been to give them the cold shoulder. Do not feed the trolls, as the saying goes.
:The original deletion of the page about Wikipedia Art was quite correct, and if the creators didn’t see it coming then they’re amazingly naive. Wikipedia is about creating an encyclopedia – it has a sandbox to play in for test edits, but this was plain old vandalism. If I shit on your doorstep, I don’t expect you to frame it and call it a work of art. The reaction to the deletion has been wounded pride among the art community because Wikipedia could see that these Emperors of art had no clothes on.
:These artists might think they’re being creative with their little “intervention”, but they’re put in the shade by the hackers from 4chan, many of whom are younger than the 18-year-old Wikipedia editor who deleted the Wikipedia Art page – I find the focus on his age in the reaction to the deletion distasteful.
:4channers recently hacked the Time 100 online poll using scripts. Not only did their founder, moot, “win” the poll, but the initials of the top results even spelled out “Marblecake also the Game”. Now that is much more creative than anything I’ve seen from Wikipedia Art. There’s a section on the Time 100 Wikipedia page if you want to read more, including the meaning of the message.
;Paul Wehage
:I find it ironic that this Wikipedia anon is trying to inform me of something (the Time 100/4Chan business) that we here at Akahele have been discussing for the past week–I believe that tomorrow’s post by Judd Bagley will discuss this subject. It was almost the subject of my article last week, but being involved in the Arts myself, I found that the Wikipedia Art situation merited more immediate attention.
:The Wikipedia Art situation is yet another instance of Kool-aid drinkers who are engaging in moving the goalposts because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Whether you personally believe that Wikipedia Art is important or not, the controversy that it generated is clearly notable under the criteria that you (as part of the Wikipedia community) have established for inclusion. It more than meets those criteria. Kildall and Stein are also clearly notable artists.
:If you don’t like the fact that Wikipedia Art is now clearly notable, then complain to the WMF legal staff who created this situation by sending what appears to be an ill-considered letter to the artists threatening a lawsuit which goes against the entire philosophical base upon which Wikipedia rests. The agreement with Orange is yet another manifestation of this same philosophical mutation.
:As far as pointing out that somebody is only 18 and is acting like a child, that seems to me to be a fairly objective statement, since someone who is 18 (or younger) may still be psychologically a child. That this person is allowed to be in a position of authority on this sort of website will be the subject of future posts here. If you’re offended by this statement, I’m sure that you’ll be even more offended by this post. Age and experience DO count, sorry.
:…and your point was? You seem to be suggesting that Kildall and Stein started the Wikipedia Art Controversy article themselves as a means of generating, uh, drama?
:Can you give me any concrete proof that would suggest that this statement is true? Are you suggesting that Kildall and Stein are using sockpuppets on Wikipedia à la Wordbomb?
:Leaving aside the fact that Wordbomb turned out to be right, how much of this idea was generated by the us against them party line that permeates so much of WikiLife?
;Nihiltres
:@Paul Wehage: While I disagree with other points in your article and posts on this page, I think that you’re particularly wrong when it comes to your point about WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
:Wikipedia Art’s primary problem was that it was something made up one day (WP:NFT), though it was also a self-reference (WP:SELFREF), and various points of what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). All of these were around long before Wikipedia Art, so your suggestion that Wikipedians were “moving the goalposts” is clearly false.
:I don’t endorse the summary given for Werdna’s deletion of the page (it wasn’t correct), but I do endorse the deletion itself—not because Wikipedia Art was bad (it was interesting!), or because I don’t like it, but because it was inappropriate for Wikipedia under the established standards.

Directory:Akahele/The persistence of misinformation

2010-10-24T20:58:33Z

Seurat: Standard format, om nom nom nom.

==The persistence of misinformation==
As we mature in years through the Internet Age, we take notice of a disappointing trend regarding the reliability of information found online. Message boards full of pseudonymous theories and rumors compete for space against opinion editorials penned by professional journalists. Breathless blog posts exceed the reach of a mere university lecture series. And many popular homespun YouTube videos find a much wider audience than the televised proceedings of the legislative bodies of the United States. To be sure, for ages harmless mistakes and deliberate misinformation alike have been part and parcel of publishing and broadcasting information for wider audiences. Yet, it seems that the persistence of misinformation in this modern age is even more pernicious than it was, say, thirty years ago. More people today seem eager to believe anything they see in electronically-formatted print; things that have no more credibility than a supermarket tabloid announcing the birth of Pamela Anderson's secret alien abduction love child. And so, I would like to take this time and space to explore just a few anecdotal examples of the longevity of untruth on the Internet.

===Snopes approved===

Just the other day, a friend of my wife's forwarded an e-mail "alert" of the chain-mail variety, warning automobile travelers not to lock their cars with their key-fob remotes, because lurking high-tech burglars might capture the frequency of that signal, then gain access to your vehicle and rob it of its contents while you are inside Starbucks ordering your caramel latte.

[[Image:Snopes logo.jpg|thumb|right|Snopes.com logo]]

What I already know, and undoubtedly many readers here also know, is that there is a website, [http://www.snopes.com Snopes.com], whose sole purpose is to debunk Internet mythologies such as this one. (If you haven't yet discovered Snopes, add it to your bookmarked arsenal of useful sites.) Yet, what was particularly disconcerting to me about this specific e-mail legend, was that it proclaimed in bold letters, "THIS HAS BEEN CHECKED ON SNOPES". Snopes, of course, [http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/lockcode.asp takes issue] with almost every piece of information in the thread, but that doesn't mean some readers can't be thrown off track with this meaningless assurance that the information has been "checked". This kind of fraudulent diversionary ploy will rope in another small portion of readers for whom Snopes.com is a reputable information source.

===Voter eligibility===

Every election season we witness another persistent form of Internet-disseminated misinformation: fraudulent alerts about voter eligibility. Leading up to our most recent election day (Tuesday, November 4, 2008), I heard mainstream media stories about e-mails being circulated with the advice:
<blockquote>Due to heavy expected turnouts at the polls, Republicans are urged to vote on Tuesday, while Democrats are advised to vote on Wednesday.</blockquote>
Or, alternative hoaxes circulated that polling places would be staffed with undercover police ready to arrest anyone with so much as an outstanding parking ticket, to frighten away any voter who might have had an infraction with the authorities. Level-headed, rational adults might laugh away these pranks, but with [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/neuharth/2004-01-22-neuharth_x.htm nearly 170 million] estimated registered voters in the United States, I'm sure that at least a few hundred were adversely persuaded by these nuggets of misinformation.

===Another diversionary ploy===

Over on Wikipedia, I see a similar diversionary ploy that is gaining strength. Users of the largest encyclopedia are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer cautioned] by Wikipedia proponents not to believe every claim they read therein, but to "double check" the reference citations that are provided at the end of most articles. Problem is, most readers don't take the time to do such double work. Figuring that because there ''are'' references nearby, the content is ''likely ''reliable, readers assume the bare facts stated within the Wikipedia articles are "good enough" to gain a background on the topic at hand. They also hear time and time again (in news article comments, and blogs, and message boards, no doubt) that virtually every mistake ever introduced to Wikipedia would "[http://www.twistimage.com/blog/archives/why-business-needs-to-stop-worrying-and-love-wikipedia/ probably be corrected in less time than it took you to read this article]". Again, this is a largely untested diversionary ploy that will rope in another portion of readers for whom Wikipedia suddenly becomes a reputable information source.

===Where was Lincoln?===

Last week, I had a conversation with published author Pat Glesner. He lived and was educated in Kalamazoo, Michigan, not far from my birthplace of Jackson, Michigan, where he now resides. He views editing Wikipedia as a casual hobby, something he doesn't go out of his way to do, but if he finds errors in an article, he fixes them. He says of Wikipedia, "it's not a particularly good research site". In early January, Glesner came upon something that first appeared in the lead section of the Wikipedia article about Jackson, Michigan. Ever [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jackson,_Michigan&diff=prev&oldid=131751213 since May 18, 2007], the article claimed that Abraham Lincoln from Illinois was in attendance at Jackson's early convention of the brand-new Republican Party, in 1854.

[[Image:Lincoln_1854.jpg|thumb|right|Abraham Lincoln, in 1854]]

Not only that, but a diversionary ploy was put in place, with the assuring text, "Undisputed is the fact that..." Upon whose authority was this "undisputed fact" entered into the world's largest encyclopedia? That would be IP address editor 66.231.37.178 (no real name, not even a pseudonymous identity). The paragraph was later supported with a reference citation to a news article served on Boston.com, but that link [http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2004/04/10/four_cities_claim_to_be_birthplace_of_the_republican_party?mode=PF points now] to a non-working address. And so, a veneer of authority was built around this supposed "fact", it being "undisputed" after all -- and cited, to boot!

Glesner, a multi-degreed Historical Commissioner, knew that one of Kalamazoo's claims to fame is that it was the only city in Michigan documented to have received a visit from Abe Lincoln (in 1856, to support then presidential candidate John Fremont). So, Glesner knew the "fact" about Lincoln's presence in Jackson two years earlier must be wrong. He took some time to check his understanding, then Glesner modified the Wikipedia article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jackson,_Michigan&diff=262826238&oldid=262550036 on January 8, 2009].

So, Wikipedia had a falsehood stuck in place for 601 days, on an article we [http://stats.grok.se/en/200801/Jackson%2C%20Michigan estimate to have been viewed] over 89,000 times before finally being fixed. The misinformation surrounded the earliest political career of perhaps the most important American individual of all time. But nobody spotted it for over six hundred days.

===Hoaxes galore===

It's not like this one incident is alone on Wikipedia. Entire articles have been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Shii/Hoaxes&oldid=276937327 cut from whole cloth], pulling the wool over the public's eyes for not just months, but years on end. There's the Wikipedia story of Argusto Emfazie, failed occultist. For four and a half years, Wikipedia published the tale of this fictitious man's "biography that promotes mysticism and the occult purely for the sake of mysticism and the occult". For well over three years, Wikipedia hosted a tongue-in-cheek article about the "Brahmanical See", a fabricated account of how the Hindu religion has its own version of the Pope. Indeed, one of the first editors to spot this hoax was chastised and blocked by the Wikipedia powers-that-be for having the nerve to attempt deletion of [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15472&st=0&p=75220&#entry75220 a fake article].
<blockquote>...the vandal Nexxt 1 has reprised vandalism by adding the {{prod}} tag to the page and fraudulently backdating the tag start date by five days or more, in an attempt to trigger immediate deletion (e.g. in a 13 October 2007 edit, he/she added the tag with the start date of 8 October 2007). The vandal has repeated the abuse of the {{prod}} tag despite being warned on his/her talk page (see above). The vandal has been concurrently warned for actions on other pages.</blockquote>
Just a few days ago, the Wikipedia article about Indian author Ravi Belagere was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ravi_Belagere&action=history&year=2009&month=3 completely blanked] by an administrator and re-started with much more basic information, because over a six-month period, the article had been allowed to acquire all sorts of defamatory rubbish inserted by anonymous IP address editors (again, no real names to attribute to, no real identity to hold accountable). So, this is our situation with today's Internet host of the largest encyclopedia. Unnamed assailants are free to pin allegations of statutory rape and underworld mob connections on real-named subjects of biographies on Wikipedia, and the only defense for the victim is to just... keep... monitoring... their Wikipedia article. Every day. For the rest of their life.

===Highest offices vulnerable to the wiki-mob===

Even the hundred Wikipedia articles about the 100 United States senators were found to be vulnerable to drive-by defamation, and lots of it. A systematic study evaluated each and every edit made to these specific 100 articles, throughout the fourth quarter of 2007. The survey's [http://www.mywikibiz.com/Wikipedia_Vandalism_Study data revealed] that 6.8% of the time, there was something wrong, vindictive, or defamatory lurking in these articles.

Indeed it was recent malevolent information added to the Wikipedia biographies about Senators Robert Byrd and Edward Kennedy that prompted Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales to make promises to the mainstream media that he would usher in new editorial controls that would make such loosey-goosey online defamation a thing of the past at Wikipedia.

===Surely, there must be a fix!===

It may not surprise you to learn that the Wikimedia Foundation (caretaker of the Wikipedia.org domain) has had at its disposal a technical "fix" that would help prevent probably the vast majority of these "drive-by" misinformation campaigns.

This broad-reaching solution to what perhaps is Wikipedia's biggest problem and most dangerous legal liability would be the implementation of a Mediawiki software extension called "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions&oldid=275049961 Flagged Revisions]". With flagged revisions, any new edit to a page would sit in a "holding" space where it would need to be "sighted" by an independent editor who was registered with the community and had a legacy of at least 4 days of editing and 10 accepted edits to Wikipedia. This solution has worked admirably on the German version of Wikipedia, but the English Wikipedia (under the scattered leadership of Jimbo Wales and a do-little Board of Trustees) has ''still'' failed to implement flagged revisions. In fact, the Wikimedia leadership has [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23166 promised flagged revisions for years] now, but those in the know ultimately realize a diversionary ploy when they see one.

===Image credits===

* Snopes.com logo, [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 fair use doctrine].
* Daguerreotype of Abraham Lincoln by Polycarp Von Schneidau, Chicago, October 27, 1854; Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library, [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 fair use doctrine].

==Comments==
8 Responses to “The persistence of misinformation”:

;David Cooperberg
:“Flagged Revisions” seems like a reasonable solution to unnecessary libel. I would hope that Wikipedia would get its act together soon.
;Barry Kort
:Lar writes, “There is nothing more frustrating in life than knowing that you can solve a problem, by using the right tool, if only you would be allowed to.”
:In scientific review of academic work, the right tool is dialogue and peer review.
:In particular, a powerful tool is the ability to ask good questions for which the answers are not yet well constructed, well articulated, or well understood.
:Most of us are painfully aware that Wikipedia discussions do not support that essential tool of scholarly peer review. It is also lamentable that Wikipedia Review also disables that affordance, albeit to a lesser extent than Wikipedia or Wikiversity.
:A lot of people (especially on Wikipedia) think the right tool is a convenient rule that can be enforced by means of a block or a ban to silence or marginalize rival contributors.
:My question for such believers is this: How did you come to believe that exiling rival editors is a sensible practice?
;Jon Awbrey
:Next Question 1. Who would want a system in which misinformation can persist?
:Next Question 2. And Why?
:Next Question 3. How come I always have to be the one who asks the next question?
;Gregory Kohs
:Jon, if you’re really looking for answers, I’ll do my best to (quickly) address your questions. I will also assume that you are (mostly) targeting Wikipedia with your questions.
:(1.) Let’s first imagine an encyclopedia system that actually maximizes honest information and reduces misinformation to an infinitesimal rarity. Would people use such an encyclopedia? Absolutely. Would people become engaged with and feel passionately about the process of maintaining such an encyclopedia? Probably not. Therefore, I believe that the governing powers behind Wikipedia want a system where misinformation can persist, because it motivates and engages people, perpetually, to keep actively participating in the challenge presented them. Would you invest your time to play a game of Whack-A-Mole, if you knew that only the red mole pops up, and only every 6 seconds? Or would you rather play a traditional game of Whack-A-Mole, where there is randomness and disarray in the field of moles?
:(2.) Engaged and passionate consumers are more easily monetized, even if it means luring them to conferences where they pay registration fees that support the keynote speaker fees, or even if it means occasionally diverting consumers from non-profit projects to highly similar for-profit projects, or even if it means arranging it so that the non-profit project uses tax-advantaged gifts to help pay rent at a highly similar for-profit project. Only engaged and passionate consumers would tolerate such manipulation.
:(3.) Because it’s a role at which you excel, Mr. Awbrey.
;Jon Awbrey
:Greg,
:What you say is true, so partial credit is due, but what I have in mind is the Cui Bono or the Market Research question: “If you could build it, who would beat a path to your door?”
:That is, who would be in the market for a system in which one can control which misinformation persists?
;Barry Kort
:Jon Awbrey asks, “Who would be in the market for a system in which one can control which information persists?”
:There are four kinds of professionals who might be in that market.
:One is the Public Relations Specialist.
:Another is the Propagandist.
:A third is a new kind of technician who specializes in Search Engine Optimization (SEO). Their objective is to tweak content so as to make it rise in the Google PageRank calculations.
:And a fourth is a new kind of technician who specializes in Content Management Systems (CMS).
:Notably, there are two notorious former Wikipedia Admins who were engaged in SEO and CMS and who got into big trouble for their zeal in manipulating the system for unencyclopedic purposes.
;Henry Lind
:I’m amazed but not at all surprised about the Lincoln story and how long the bogus information remained.
:This is very similar to Ebay taking down counterfeit items on multiple occassions from the same sellers only to find the same items posted all over again. Whack a mole indeed…
:The motivations of Ebay are slightly different in that they earn commisssions from the sale of these illegal items and apparently they feel that they are shielded by current internet caselaw, so they pretend to take action in order to make it appear that they are making a good faith effort to enforce their own user agreement.
:I would be interested to hear about any libel actions against Wikipedia (past or present).I’m assuming that they aren’t too concerned about libel issues?
;nathanr|ca » The persistence of misinformation
:[...] Akahele This entry was posted by Nathan on April 10th, 2009 at 10:42 and is filed under Editorials, [...]

Directory:Akahele/Omidyar venturing out

2010-10-23T01:46:10Z

Seurat: "Om nom nom nom"? (partial)

For the past couple of years, I've dreamed of being discovered and capitalized by a wealthy venture investor who might see the potential of the [http://www.mywikibiz.com/Main_Page semantic web directory] that I now own with my sister. Also for the past couple of years, I've [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2009/Results/en vied for a seat] on the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees. Last week, I discovered that if you're a venture capitalist, you might [http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/tech/Wikipedia-Gets-Millions-Changes-Rules-jw-54830732.html buy yourself a seat] on the Wikimedia Foundation board. I'm still stuck out here in the virtual cold, though, on both counts.

'''Let's be fair'''

Okay, let's be fair. "Buying a seat" on a non-profit board may carry too strong a pejorative tone. So, let's just stick to the facts.
<table style="float: right;" border="0" cellspacing="5" align="left">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/omidyar-and-branson.jpg" alt="" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">Pierre Omidyar and Richard Branson</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
Have you ever heard of '''Pierre Omidyar'''? If you have, you're a tech junkie, I'll bet. Mr. Omidyar (pronounced AH-mid-yar) is the founder and chair of the eBay online auction site. Thanks to that vision back in 1995, Omidyar's personal fortune exceeds that of all but perhaps two hundred other souls on this planet. You know you're rich when you hang with '''Richard Branson''' for some drinks. Wikipedia describes Omidyar as a philanthropist who with his wife founded Omidyar Network in 2004. Wikipedia has also stated that Omidyar is "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pierre_Omidyar&diff=306203181&oldid=304495270 the biggest douchebag]", one of the world's top "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pierre_Omidyar&diff=prev&oldid=289928161 cheese lifting]" men, and for a brief spell in November last year went by the name "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pierre_Omidyar&diff=prev&oldid=251351350 Omidyoodle]".

So much for the man; what about his non-profit Omidyar Network? According to its [http://www.omidyar.com/about_us/evolution own website], the Omidyar Network is based on a
<blockquote>"conviction that every person has the power to make a difference. [Its] work enables people to discover that power, improve their own lives, and make lasting contributions to their communities."</blockquote>
We can corroborate this on Wikipedia, where the article about Omidyar Network says that it is ''<span class="diffchange">"based on </span>the <span class="diffchange">belief that every person has </span>the ''<span class="diffchange">''potential to make a difference"''. This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omidyar_Network&diff=209046768&oldid=204103755 text was added] back in April 2008, along with a substantial quantity of other congratulatory text, by an IP address at 207.47.3.98. Fellow Internet watchdog [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Omidyar_Network&diff=310854999&oldid=310186153 Seth Finkelstein deduced] that this IP address traces to -- you guessed it -- Omidyar Network Services.</span>

<span class="diffchange">There are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Self-promotion guidelines against] publishing self-laudatory text about your own person or your employer on Wikipedia, but no repercussions [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3A207.47.3.98&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= ever befell] IP 207.47.3.98.
</span>

'''What will $2 million buy?'''

So, on August 25, 2009, there was a [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Omidyar_Network_Grant_August_2009 big announcement] that the Omidyar Network was committing up to $2 million in grant money to the Wikimedia Foundation. Almost in the same breath, it was mentioned that an Omidyar Network partner, '''Matt Halprin''', would be taking a seat on the WMF board of trustees.

Now, this may or may not be unusual in the non-profit world. The money is technically coming from the 501(c)(3) component of the Omidyar Network, even though that organization also operates a limited liability corporation (LLC) that is free to (and does in fact) make traditional capital investments in for-profit enterprises. It certainly is not an unusual practice for the Omidyar Network -- many of their large cash infusions are accompanied with the bonus of Mr. Halprin or another partner getting a seat at the boardroom table. That's what happened when $4 million went to the '''Sunlight Foundation'''; [http://www.omidyar.com/about_us/news/2009/03/17/sunlight-foundation-announces-4-million-invesment-omidyar-network Halprin was simultaneously seated]. That's what happened when $4 million went to '''Goodmail Systems'''; [http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20090112005830&newsLang=en Halprin was simultaneously seated]. That's pretty much what happened after '''DonorsChoose.org''' got Omidyar as a "National Expansion Funder" in 2007; [http://www.donorschoose.org/about/our_supporters.html Halprin was seated in 2008].

And it's not just Halprin. When '''Seesmic''' received $6 million from the Omidyar Network, Pierre Omidyar [http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2008/06/16/daily41.html got himself a seat] on the board. When '''Endeavor '''landed $10 million from the Omidyar empire, Omidyar's Matt Bannick [http://www.allbusiness.com/company-activities-management/company-structures/11473195-1.html took a seat] on the board.

'''What would I do?'''

If Omidyar approached me tomorrow and said they had $2 million (heck, let's just say $200,000) to help MyWikiBiz "make a difference" for every person, but that the investment was stipulated on Matt Halprin taking a seat next to my sister and me on the board of directors, would I take the money? Not only would I take the money, I would hand-embroider the seat with Matt's initials in golden thread.

But, I would know, and I would freely admit, that Omidyar Network just bought a seat on my enterprise's board.

So, how has the Wikimedia Foundation handled this obvious appearance of a seat having been bought?

'''The Germans are restless'''

Not the straightforward and direct way, which means apparently [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=311012973#WMF_Board not altogether well]. The German Wikipedia community is asking Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales to clarify what just happened. Wales admits that Foundation "communications could have been handled better", so he is quick to let Halprin do the talking, quoting Halprin's interview with the folks at the ''Wikipedia Weekly'' audio podcast. Halprin [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikipediaWeekly/Wikimania_2009/Halprin&oldid=310590067 assures any skeptics]:
<blockquote>So there's no tie between the grant and Omidyar Network taking a board seat. That's absolutely not part of the conversation. It's something that Omidyar Network '''likes''' to do with our organizations, because we think we tend to be able to help and we have experience, but there's no '''tie''' with the grant that we've made to Wikimedia Foundation.</blockquote>
No tie, folks. Move along. Nothing to see here.

Here's what I find "interesting", at least. Omidyar Network has a portion of [http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Wikia:Press:_Bessemer_Venture_Partners_Funds_Jimmy_Wales%27_Startup_Wikia $4 million invested] since 2006 in the for-profit enterprise '''Wikia, Inc'''. Therefore, the fact is that someone Matt Halprin works alongside at Omidyar is the active partner responsible for managing a cash investment in Wikia. Jimmy Wales is the co-founder of for-profit Wikia, and he is also the emeritus chair of the Wikimedia Foundation, which this week received $2 million from Omidyar, and seated Matt Halprin on the board.

Is that a conflict of interest? If I were Mr. Wales, I'd be a bit uncomfortable having one of my key private investors now also keeping an eye on my non-profit magnum opus.

I guess it's no surprise, though. When the Ruth and Frank Stanton Fund donated over $800,000 to the Wikimedia Foundation, one of the first things the money went toward was [http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/01/21/a-note-on-the-wikipedia-usability-initiative/ rent for sub-leased office space] at Wikia, Inc. (Even though Wikia hadn't presented the lowest competitive bid, and they were the only bidder invited to [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049360.html re-submit their bid] to match the average of the other bids received.) If that's not a wired self-deal, I don't know what one is.

'''Omidyar's perspective'''

I spoke with Sarah Steven, a manager in the Marketing and Communications department of Omidyar Network. She emphasized that the two halves of the Network, the LLC and the 501(c)(3), are "one big office" and that they approach any investment first from the angle of "what is the social impact" of the target entity. Then, only after they decide if a cause is worth pursuing, they worry about whether it will be a for-profit or a non-profit driven allocation, and that is what determines which entity will actually do the investing.

So, I guess it's just pure coincidence that the Omidyar LLC has invested cash-for-profit's-sake in Jimmy Wales' workaday enterprise, and the Omidyar 501(c)(3) has invested cash-for-humanity's-sake in Jimmy Wales' greater good enterprise.

No tie, folks. Move along. Nothing to see here.
<h4>Image credits:</h4>
<li><span style="color: #000000;">Omidyar and Branson, [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pierre_Omidyar_Richard_Branson.jpg <span class="comment">Attribution 2.0 Generic</span>].</span></li>

==Comments==

9 Responses to “ Omidyar venturing out ”

Comments RSS

Jon Awbrey
Greg,

Just wanted to say “Thanks!” for yet another intelligent, well-researched piece on the complicities, er, complexities of the business world that boggle the brain of a simple-minded math-muncher like —

Yours truly,

Jon Awbrey

Dan T.
Their website is a .com rather than a .org, which implies that the for-profit arm dominates the nonprofit one.

Anonymous
There certainly is more to this deal than meets the eyes–and don’t expect anyone in the Foundation to open their mouths. Little birds have told me more, but I’d rather not disclose exactly what right now.

Somey
Pierre Omidyar’s eBay shares are worth billions, so $2M isn’t a huge expense for him, but for the Wikimedia Foundation it’s at least another year or two of “safety” from their having to carry advertising on Wikipedia in order to stay afloat. Various people (including Jimbo Wales) have suggested that it would be “pointless” to buy a seat on the board of a non-profit, non-revenue-producing organization. But when you’re the dominant force in an important market (like eBay is with small-time online retail and private auctions), helping to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a potentially major advertising venue for your competitors is probably worth at least that much.

Wikia, OTOH, already takes advertising, so for them there must be some other reason – possibly having something to do with collectible lunchboxes.

Gregory Kohs
And it would appear that the Austrian faction is also cognizant of the underlying basis for Omidyar Network’s existence.

Gregory Kohs
Interesting to note that this blog article and its author were mentioned by The Wikipedia Signpost of September 14, 2009. You’d think that one of the editors of that article would have contacted us for comment, but no such luck.

Prashanth
Hmm…well researched blog. I appreciate it. Wandered here from a discussion somewhere in the hinterland of wikipedia’s bureaucratic red tape.

One would always like to imagine that WP will not succumb to the same ills that plague most organisations committed to public good, but depending on private money. I was sure, it was bound to happen….naivete to expect otw.

That said, it is very disheartening for me as a WP editor of many years to learn this. Hmpf…

hilarious
I love two things about this: first, that it is somehow evil for a major donor to place someone on the board of trustees of a charity (no, actually, that’s perfectly normal). Second, that as soon as it’s published the Legion of the Banned happen along to sing your praises. Funny stuff!

Gregory Kohs
Nobody said it was “evil”. I’m just asking them to label it for what it is — a seat was purchased on the board of trustees. End of story.

That you’d find “hilarious” a desire to have a purportedly transparent organization be more honest about what is plain to the eye may say more about you than about me or any legion of banned Wikipedia editors.

Directory:Akahele/Wikipedia always improving

2010-10-23T01:45:22Z

Seurat: "Om nom nom nom"? (partial)

I happen to have worked in the field of '''marketing research''' for nearly two decades, so I do know a thing or two about the subject.

Observe how Wikipedia has been "improving" lately on the subject:
<ul>
<li>The word "guise" should be [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marketing_research&diff=prev&oldid=306760661 spelled "guse"].</li>
<li>Just a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marketing_research&diff=next&oldid=306760661 bit of XMNS], you know.</li>
<li>No, we'd [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marketing_research&diff=next&oldid=307314261 rather not] have XMNS.</li>
<li>People need to know what [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marketing_research&diff=next&oldid=307314286 Rhett Richards is licking].</li>
<li>No, we'd [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marketing_research&diff=next&oldid=308030700 rather not] know.</li>
<li>Marketing research is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marketing_research&diff=next&oldid=308030789 worth a cheer]!</li>
<li>The word "guise" should be spelled "guise", but the word "l.market" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marketing_research&diff=next&oldid=308819392 should be spelled "lmarket"].</li>
</ul>
And we're still cheering for marketing research!

Wikipedia does it all. It informs the reader about things even unrelated to the subject at hand. It helps the reader cheer for the subject. And it even corrects typos.

Or not.

==Comments==

6 Responses to “ Wikipedia always improving ”

Comments RSS

Nihiltres
While I do respect well-done criticism, if you look at the overall difference since your last oddly-summarized edit, there isn’t much to worry about—the worst is the random cheer, and a few typo-fixing errors or bugs. As you’ve pointed out, most of the nonsense was removed relatively quickly. Besides, all it takes is one contributor to do significant cleanup. No one ever said that Wikipedia’s improvement process was monotonic.

I fixed much of the nonstandard syntax and cleaned the article a little, but it still needs a lot of cleanup, to clarify the structure and make it more descriptive than instructive, as an encyclopedia article should be. Perhaps, as you seem to be an expert on the subject, we could collaborate?

Gregory Kohs
I wouldn’t want to put a whole lot of effort into it, because without flagged revisions, my hard work would likely get degraded and/or ruined over time. Besides, I hold a considerable amount of (my former) employee stock ownership plan shares in a still-active marketing research company, so wouldn’t that be one of those Conflict of Interest deal-breakers?

Nihiltres
It’s not a conflict-of-interest deal-breaker as long as you aren’t, say, highlighting that marketing research company.

Anthony DiPierro
Is there a simple process to report that Rhett Richards edit and have it removed from public view? I seem to remember some sort of extension being added to mediawiki that allows this.

Whoever it Is
Interesting to see how quickly, since being permanently banned (again) from Wikipedia, and then stomping off from Wikipedia Review in a huff, your posts here have descended from the level of mildly interesting (and with at least some claim to some form of high-ground-based criticism) into plain, old-fashioned snarking.

Still. At least this article doesn’t come jam-packed, as most of your contributions to either WP or WR do, with links to MWB crow-barred into each and every even tangentially-related subject.

Gregory Kohs
Thanks for visiting and participating in this blog, Whoever it Is. For our readers’ sake, I should correct the multiple errors in your comment.

1. I am not permanently banned from Wikipedia.

2. I wish WikipediaReview.com all the best in restoring a level of criticism that gains wider respect. I’m on very good terms with the large majority of moderators and members on the site, so understandably no stomping or huffing took place. I have reassessed my online priorities, to be sure.

3. The MWB you refer to is MyWikiBiz, a site where virtually anyone who is willing to create quality content can earn money from their efforts. The site has seen steady growth in traffic since its inception as a wiki directory. I’m happy you have noticed some of my innovative shoestring marketing efforts.

4. We note that you don’t identify yourself in your comment, offer no contact points such as valid e-mail address, name, or location. I do provide those points of reference, out of respect to people who so engage others on the up-and-up. I encourage our readers to decide for themselves who here retains claim to high-ground-based criticism, and who sadly does not.

Directory:Akahele/Gender bending, 2.0

2010-10-23T01:44:19Z

Seurat: "Om nom nom nom"? (partial)

It has been a long standing rule of thumb on the web that ''there are no girls on the Internet.'' This is not to say there are no female personalities on the Internet, but rather that at any given time, many (if not all) of the "females" in a given area on the web are probably actually men.
<table style="float: right;" border="0" cellspacing="5" align="left">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/mado-300x254.jpg" alt="" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">Watch out! It's a trap!</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
What proof do you really have that [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=19932&st=0 the hot, blond, nude Norwegian chick] who has starred in porn movies is the real McCoy? For all you know, (s)he might actually be an aging, fat, 50-something guy who gets his jollies out of manipulating healthy young men. Or, it could be an undercover cop. Or even your dog. There's simply no way, currently, of telling. This often leads to some rather ''interesting'' situations when people finally figure out that the person that they imagined is not the person that they finally get.

Part of the problem is that men actually ''do'' pursue the Internet [http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2005/How-Women-and-Men-Use-the-Internet.aspx more intensively] than women. Even Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias#The_origins_of_bias acknowledges this] on their ''Countering systemic bias'' page:
<blockquote>The average Wikipedian on the English Wikipedia is (1) a man, (2) technically inclined, (3) formally educated, (4) an English speaker (native or non-native), (5) white, (6) aged 15–49, (7) from a majority-Christian country, (8) from a developed nation, (9) from the Northern Hemisphere, and (10) likely employed as a white-collar worker or enrolled as a student rather than employed as a labourer (cf. Wikipedia:User survey and Wikipedia:University of Würzburg survey, 2005).</blockquote>
In terms of how all of this testosterone floating around works in practice, I described a possible scenario in a [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5879 Wikipedia Review post] several years ago:
<ol>
<li>A closed set of individuals who represent a specific demographic sample make a hierarchical system based on their belief systems, knowledge base, and values. The negotiation of the shifting point of view of this population is defined as "reaching consensus". When points of view are not compatible, the hierarchical structure makes decisions that work from the top of the pyramid down to impose the viewpoint of the people at the top of the structure. With refinement of this process, the views expressed correspond more and more to those at the top of the power structure. As the material which could present contrasting views is excluded, it in turn validates the information within the system as "important", "notable", or "correct".</li>
<li>Sources are selected to validate this view of the world. However, because the sources that are presented are those which have already validated the views in question, the sources also validate the idea of consensus. Other sources (which, outside the system, may be perfectly truthful and authoritative) are dismissed as being "pseudo-science", "original research", "POV-oriented", etc., as a means of excluding them from the sample. As the process of exclusion creates conflicts which in turn exclude those who are thinking outside of the sample, the vision presented corresponds more and more to the views of those at the top of the power structure.</li>
<li>The result of this process is then labeled "the gift of knowledge" or "making the Internet not suck", and we are expected to receive this "gift" even if we reside outside of the system's demographic segment and may have (read, "almost certainly do have") life experiences which contradict the information presented to us. We may also object to the inherent cultural value of this information. The idea not expressed but ultimately present here is, "you need to think like us, because if you do, you can be part of this rich and successful enterprise founded by our great leader, Jimbo".</li>
</ol>
It would seem, for example, that such a process dominated by men would most likely cause women to be excluded from positions of power within it. Some studies as Ono and Zadovsky's [http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:k22WP4GZq8wJ:www.frbatlanta.org/filelegacydocs/wp0210.pdf+gender+internet&cd=3&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=fr&client=firefox-a Gender and the Internet] suggest that the reason that women are less likely to be present on the Internet is mainly due to an inherent lag in the way women approach new technologies. However, Danielle Citron's work has suggested that [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1352442 women may be objects of what she terms ''Cyber Gender Harassment''].
<table style="float: left;" border="0" cellspacing="5" align="left">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/perilsofpauline-193x300.jpg" alt="" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">Pauline and her perils</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
With fewer women participating, and those who are finding themselves the object of cyber attacks, the question remains as to exactly what would prompt a man to pose as a women on the Internet, since it would appear that this would be largely counterproductive to both his participation, access to positions of power, and success in getting his message across.

The fact is, there are advantages to posing as a woman in a male-dominated society such as the Internet. One needn't look any further than your neighborhood bar to see exactly why this might be so. Amy S. Bruckman examined the [http://www.cc.gatech.edu/elc/papers/bruckman/gender-swapping-bruckman.pdf phenomenon of "gender swapping"] in [http://www.linnaean.org/~lpb/muddex/mudline.html multi-user online worlds] during the 1990s and found that men posing as women were much more likely to be "helped" by other male players than if they were playing as male personae. As one player named Dennis explained:
<blockquote>I played a couple of MUDs as a female, one making up to wizard level. And the first thing I noticed was that the above was true. Other players start showering you with money to help you get started, and I had never once gotten a handout when playing a male player. And then they feel they should be allowed to tag along forever, and feel hurt when you leave them to go off and explore by yourself. Then when you give them the knee after they grope you, they wonder what your problem is, reciting that famous saying "What's your problem? It's only a game". Lest you get the wrong idea, there was nothing suggesting about my character, merely a female name and the appropriate pronouns in the bland description. Did I mention the friendly wizard who turned cold when he discovered I was male in real life? I guess some people are jerks in real life too.</blockquote>
A few months ago, it was discovered that a single individual had been [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/19/wikipedia_civil_servant_scandal/ juggling no less than 15 different personalities] of both sexes on Wikipedia and Wikipedia Review in what has been called the "Poetlister incident", after the name of the principal persona.

Without getting into the specifics of the particular situation, what is interesting to consider is how the personae of each gender were used. The male personae were generally used in a straightforward, business-like manner, while the female personae were much more playful, needy, and prone to more fanciful details (such as a private "wedding" forum on the Wikipedia Review for one of the characters, or the overt sexually masochistic fantasies of the "Taxwoman" persona).

The female characters were also used as instruments of revenge whose actions were then defended by the male personae. It is obvious from the way the gender roles were played off of each other that the puppet master behind it all had exploited more ways to manipulate people by simultaneously using ''both'' sides of the gender equation, rather than just one.

Until some way of verifying identity on the Internet becomes standard practice, these sorts of role-playing games are going to be standard practice. While it may be argued that it simply does not matter what sex anyone says they are, the fact remains that people are manipulated by gender. Someone who is playing both male and female roles is much more likely to be able to manipulate social media environments to create his (or her) intended outcome. It would be refreshing, however, if just once it turned out that the fat, balding, fifty-something man was actually a twenty-something blond co-ed... but of course, ''there are no girls on the Internet'', after all!

'''Photo credits:'''
<ul>
<li>Montreal drag queen Mado Lamotte, by User:Montréalais, [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mado.jpg CC license, Wikimedia Commons]</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>The Perils of Pauline cover, public domain (according to [http://http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Perilsofpauline.jpg Wikimedia Commons])</li>
</ul>

==Comments==

5 Responses to “ Gender bending, 2.0 ”

Comments RSS

Gregory Kohs
As someone himself tricked (for a brief spell) by the network operated by “Poetlister”, I offer this video-formatted word of advice:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urNyg1ftMIU

Barry Kort
Just as many professional sports teams have increasingly taken on names that correspond to abstractions, some of the more interesting avatars names are genderless abstractions.

Way back in the 90s, when Amy Bruckman and I were pioneering MUDs, one of our colleagues in academia took the name Pi and provided no clues whatsoever suggestive of any gender at all.

John A
Lots of people were fooled, Greg. It was certainly an impressive show to have infiltrated not only WR but also Wikiquote and Wikipedia itself with so many characters without once slipping up for so long.

The Internet plays games with people’s personas to such an extent that I tend to spend most of my time talking to arguments rather than people, so as not to get surprised at sockpuppetry when it happens.

I know that you are Gregory Kohs, because you have gone to extraordinary lengths to be a verifiable real person. But you could still be a sockpuppet – I’ve never met you, nor can I verify that every single post by “Gregory Kohs” is by the same person.

I use one to two personas but I don’t change characters, nor pretend to be the opposite sex, nor sexually deviant nor gay nor anything else. I like my anonymity because it is much less of a strain to my personal life and that of my family – I’m just introverted like that. I certainly don’t seek fame or notoriety and am appalled by “celebrity culture” which is an oxymoron.

The Internet is an immense stage with innumerable disguises available, and so one is always wondering exactly how many people are really out there. The Internet also plays with our belief system and betrays our trust, which is why I don’t trust it with my life.

Paul Wehage
Barry,

The “Pi” incident is interesting: what happened? Did people decide what gender “Pi” was and on what basis? Was it ever uncovered which gender “Pi” was and what were the consequences?

Please tell us more!

Timothy Usher
See also these sockpuppets (among many others) of Steven McGeady (”Gnetwerker”), better known for his testimony in the Microsoft trial: http://www.webcitation.org/5j9XXoR9C. As discussed on Wikipedia Review, McGeady misappropriated a South African girl’s photograph from her blog and, under the alias “Reseaunaut,” pretended to be her, much as our British civil servant misappropriated women’s photographs to accompany his feminine personae. In such instances, it isn’t only, or even mainly, other online denizens who are the victims of these frauds.

Directory:Akahele/Conflicted boards

2010-10-23T01:43:45Z

Seurat: "Om nom nom nom"? (partial)

Today, the CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt, elected to [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/04/technology/companies/04apple.html step down] from his post on the Apple board of directors. As Google was moving more and more into Apple's core lines of business, it became clear that Schmidt's interests and obligations to each company were becoming blurred.

As Apple chief Steve Jobs explained how it would have gone otherwise, "Eric’s effectiveness as an Apple board member will be significantly diminished, since he will have to recuse himself from even larger portions of our meetings due to potential conflicts of interest."

It seems fairly obvious that one man cannot and should not try to both serve the fiduciary interests and protect the corporate missions of two different companies that compete against each other in the same marketplace. ''Akahele'' notes, however, that the founder of privately-held Wikia, Inc. also maintains a purportedly permanent seat on the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation board, even though Wikia and the Foundation share almost identically competitive missions.

'''Wikia''': [http://www.wikia.com/index.php?title=Wikia:About&oldid=279891 a community destination] supporting the creation and development of wiki communities on any topic people are passionate about. Wikia supports many thousands of wiki communities in dozens of languages.

'''Wikimedia Foundation''': [http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Frequently_Asked_Questions&oldid=38192#What_is_the_mission_of_the_Wikimedia_Foundation.3F an organizational framework] for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_projects ].

Jimmy Wales, will you do the right thing and step down from one or the other of these corporations?

==Comments==

2 Responses to “ Conflicted boards ”

Comments RSS

Nihiltres
It was my impression that Wikia tries not to compete with Wikipedia: Wikia’s wiki creation policy says that “Wikia also does not duplicate Wikimedia projects, so if you are interested in general reference works we encourage you to join Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects in your language instead.” Is that really ‘competing’? Wikia’s narrow-focus, subculture communities actually seem to help keep Wikipedia clean of fancruft.

I don’t really want to defend Wales on the whole Wikia/Wikimedia issue*, but I do think that he tries reasonably to keep either from harming or interfering with the other. He also doesn’t have a good choice anymore: if he steps down from Wikimedia, they lose him as the public face that has pulled in extra donations, and if he steps down from Wikia, he loses his day job. I don’t envy him this dilemma.

*(I’d rather have seen some sort of wiki co-op, or even ad-supported wiki-communities to help fund Wikimedia, not to mention the conflict of interest issues)

Gregory Kohs
Wikia does not duplicate Wikimedia projects?

Oh, really?

http://history.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

http://math.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

http://geology.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

http://hollywood.wikia.com/wiki/Hollywood_Stars_Wiki

http://chemistry.wikia.com/wiki/Chemistry_Wiki

I get a big kick out of you, Nihiltres, because you are sweet and adorable in how trusting you are of things related to Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales.

By the way, as far as Wikia being Jimbo’s “day job”, he recently offered to waive his salary from Wikia, which wouldn’t surprise me in light of them having to lay off workers upon the closure of Wikia Search. He’s made most of his lifetime of income from speaker’s fees, anyway.

Who needs a salary when you can jump on a trampoline in the office? That’s what success is all about. Right?

Directory:Akahele/The Singularity is near, but does it matter?

2010-10-23T01:43:21Z

Seurat: "Om nom nom nom"? (partial)

In 2005, the inventor and futurist [http://singularity.com/aboutray.html Raymond Kurzweil] published [http://singularity.com/ The Singularity is Near], an expansion of his 1999 book ''The Age of Spiritual Machines'' which was itself a revised version of his 1987 book ''The Age of Intelligent Machines''. Kurzweil's "Singularity" postulates that because technology is evolving at an exponential rate, an evolutionary leap that combines biology and technology is inevitable. This will create a new concept of life, in which ''what we now think of as being reality'' will become increasingly interchangeable with ''virtual reality''.

Part of this picture painted by Kurzweil suggests that machines will soon be able to function along the same parameters as the human brain. This suggestion has been contested by many scientists (including physicist Roger Penrose in his book [http://www.amazon.fr/Road-Reality-Complete-Guide-Universe/dp/0679776311 The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe], which suggests that the brain might use quantum properties for its calculations); however, it does seem evident that machines will be used increasingly to reason and even to make choices in place of humans.

The electronic musician [http://music.uoregon.edu/About/bios/stoletj.html Jeffrey Stolet] has used this type of machine-generated process as part of his compositional process, notably in his 2002 work for MIDI PIano and infrared sensors "Tokyo Lick".

<object width="425" height="344" data="http://www.youtube.com/v/AUaK9-qiJ6M&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AUaK9-qiJ6M&hl=en&fs=1&" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /></object>

Stolet's work was [http://research.nii.ac.jp/~has/lecture/2006_09_12_stolet_intro.pdf explained] as follows :
<blockquote>In his program, Mr. Stolet will focus on the technology and the human-performance elements in Tokyo Lick, his composition for infrared sensors, custom interactive software, and MIDI piano. He performs Tokyo Lick by moving his hands through two invisible infrared spheres and directing the data derived from those motions to algorithms residing in customized interactive software created in the Max multimedia programming environment.
Tokyo Lick contains no sequences or pre-recorded material. Mr. Stolet will perform every note in real-time. Using a technology he refers to as “algorithm flipping,” he can rapidly change the specific algorithm or algorithms governing the response to the incoming MIDI control data. He actuates the algorithmic changes through pre-composed schedules, musical contexts, or through explicit intervention. Taken together, these techniques provide a conceptual framework for practical input/output mapping (action --> specified outcome) and for control and performance flexibility, while offering a truly new paradigm for virtuoso music performance.</blockquote>
While this type of performance seems to make the creative act more accessible to the masses (in essence crowd-sourcing the act of musical composition, traditionally an extremely elitist practice), the programming of the correlation between the movements made by the performer and the actual notes produced requires the same level of compositional activity as any other form of musical creation. So, the choices made by the machine do not replace the choices made by humans, but rather provide other, perhaps unexplored, avenues of creation. Clearly, the human interaction is necessary in this instance to create the performative work.

Steve Lohr's recent article in the ''New York Times'', [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/technology/internet/19unboxed.html?_r=2&em=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1248541240-99oMmmtMV0M9X7zmXaOAAQ The Crowd Is Wise (When It’s Focused)] would seem to reinforce the idea that effective ''crowdsourcing'' requires the ''crowd ''to be intelligent, informed, and preferably extremely well-versed in the subject. To quote Thomas W. Malone, director of the Center for Collective Intelligence at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
<blockquote>“There is this misconception that you can sprinkle crowd wisdom on something and things will turn out for the best. That’s not true. It’s not magic.”</blockquote>
Dr. Malone's 2009 paper, [http://cci.mit.edu/publications/CCIwp2009-01.pdf Harnessing Crowds: Mapping the Genome of Collective Intelligence] (written with Robert Laubacher and Chrysanthos Dellarocas), uses a Kurzweil-like genetic analogy to discuss why certain models using ''crowdsourcing'' succeed and why others do not. The biological parallel to a virtual reality phenomenon is already beginning to lead this idea from a purely imaginary concept to something which could indeed have repercussions on biology in the way that Kurzweil seems to be suggesting.

The reasoning behind the information presented in this article is clearly flawed, as the authors appear to believe that contributors' stated objectives for working in "crowdsourced" projects are their actual real objectives. The reasons why people ''do'' things and why people ''say'' that they do things are often completely different in real life. There is no reason to believe that the same sort of motivations are any different on the Internet.

Of special interest is the chart on page 12 which attempts to describe the processes involved in creating, maintaining, and deleting articles on Wikipedia, giving the primary motivations as "Love" and "Glory", completely ignoring the inherent conflict of interest issues involved in this pseudo-anonymous environment, the issues of interactions between editors (friend and foe), and also the whole "gaming" aspect which is inherently part of the Wikipedia process.

The framing of the deletion process on Wikipedia as a "vote" is a sign that the authors of this article did not fully investigate these processes and that their reasoning is based on only a superficial examination of the outcome, rather than actually studying the underlying motivations involved.

Indeed, this type of conflicting motivation makes one wonder what the Singularity would really be like, if we were to evolve to the point where it actually existed. At the present time, it is possible to avoid these endless process discussions, the game playing, and people who do-it-for-the-lulz, simply by turning off one's computer and taking a trip to ''the real world'', even if only until one's next Twitter feed arrives. If the Singularity does arrive and we all end up as electronic bits on computers somewhere, will we be able to turn this stuff off?

What is obvious from all of this is that technology cannot solve all existing problems, no matter how advanced the technology. A great artist such as Jeffrey Stolet will continue to make exciting new music no matter what process he uses to create it. But a crowd of pseudo-anonymous nobodies who are making statements based on each speaker's own hidden personal agenda will continue to produce questionable results, regardless of the technology used to convey the statements.

This problem will only be solved when such sites as Encyclopedia Dramatica and 4chan.org are entirely run and populated by Artificial Intelligence constructs who are all ''doin' it for the lulz.''

==Comments==

3 Responses to “ The Singularity is near, but does it matter? ”

Comments RSS

Cedric
Thanks for an interesting an well written piece, Paul. Two points I see here that cannot be over-emphasized: 1) “crowdsourcing” as that term is used by the Web 2.0 “gurus” is in essence magical thinking; and 2) any technology that can be created by humans can be abused by humans, and nearly always is to one degree or another. It is a gross delusion to assert that Web 2.0 offers humanity The Great Panacea for which people have pined throughout the ages.

Gregory Kohs
Couple of thoughts hit me while reading this fascinating article. First, I couldn’t believe that Jeffrey Stolet was manipulating his music — it sounded to me that it was entirely pre-recorded and just on “Play” mode. I’m just curious what that same performance would have sounded like if he had just done something simple with his hands, like the Queen Elizabeth II wave.

Second, Wehage says that musical composition is traditionally an elitist practice. Really? What about my 5-year-old daughter who makes up and sings a new song, just about every day? Her composing sure seems accessible to her (and me). Might you elaborate on what you meant there, Paul?

Paul Wehage
I’ll try to get Jeffrey Stolet to comment on this, but the gestures do change the music.

Secondly, about your daughter making up a tune every day: it sounds as if she’s got the composition bug. Kids don’t understand that making music is supposed to be difficult and just do it naturally (as it should be done). Your daughter sounds like a very talented young person.

However, what happens when you start taking actual “music” lessons and the music teacher (who is getting paid big bucks to make it seem as playing or writing music is some huge magical thing, rather than a normal human activity) is that the idea that somehow music is only for old, dead, white guys and not for kids…read, “especially not for girls”. This is, of course, hogwash.

This is why it’s so important to really talk to your child’s first music teacher and make sure that this person is psychologically sound and not going to stop all of this great creativity.

(Of course, if it ever gets out that even kids can write music, then there goes my next commission….so keep this under your hat, if you would…)

Directory:Akahele/Connectivity, Intent and the â€œnew realityâ€

2010-10-23T01:42:51Z

Seurat: "Om nom nom nom"? (partial)

In 1953, Sir Arthur C. Clarke published a science fiction novel entitled [http://books.google.com/books?id=duCDX5kelHsC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0 ''Childhood's End''], in which the human race was transformed by a fusion of all human minds into a "hive-mind"-type structure which was then able to integrate with an interstellar ''Overmind''. This novel remains rooted in the world of fantasy, but is perhaps becoming more pertinent as the world uses the Web 2.0 dynamic to become interconnected in a new way.

Currently, the notion of ''connectivity'' is creating the means of allowing humanity to see itself as one integrated group, with each individual acting in a specific way to bring forward the aims of the whole. But to what are we connecting ourselves and to which aims? Are the services with which we are interacting giving us tools to realize our goals or are they providing more (to paraphrase dear Mr. Marx) ''opium for the people''?

This idea of individual effort creating a group result is not a strange concept to a musician: indeed, one has to look no further than the orchestra or other such ensembles -- the Drum and Bugle corps is a very brilliant visual illustration of this type of behavior.

<object width="425" height="344" data="http://www.youtube.com/v/8WBiMtzhX7U&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8WBiMtzhX7U&hl=en&fs=1&" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /></object>

These types of group performances are usually characterized by each individual performing highly specialized tasks within the context of the group aims. One can also point to sports teams, theater and dance companies, military organizations, and other such structures as examples of this type of teamwork through individual specialization.

The current use of social media as a means of creating global "connectivity" brings a new dynamic to this old phenomenon which this site has often viewed with a rather critical eye. The way that such services as Twitter, Facebook, and Wikipedia are used to create "global consciousness" does not always paint a positive picture of evolving human society. Far from the individual acting with intent to promote the global aims, the trivial, the random, and often the untrue content generated thoughtlessly by the faceless hoards who populate these services are quickly taking over our collective consciousness through the sheer volume of the content generated. One noted critic of Wikipedia, former arbitrator [http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/ Kelly Martin], has described the activities which take place in such places (here describing Wikipedia) [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=15082&view=findpost&p=119648 in this way]:
<blockquote>Wikipedia is a very large cart being pulled by ten thousand cats each individually yoked to it. No one cat can do much to alter its course, although some cats (for various reasons) are better at it than others. At any given time, no small number of the cats are attacking one another rather than pulling the cart. Others run around trying to convince their fellow cats to go in this direction or that, with various degrees of success, and others run around trying to foul the lines. The resulting disaster lurches about the landscape at random, leaving a trail of shredded grass and cat turds wherever it might go. One day, it will lurch over a cliff, and there will be much rejoicing.</blockquote>
It goes without saying that this is hardly a description of ''clearly defined intent''. In spite of all of this trivial and misdirected energy, the circumstances of the uprising in Iran and the use of the social networking service [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/16/irans-twitter-revolution/ Twitter as an integral part of the protesting activities] puts a whole new spin on this issue which I personally felt merited reflection.

<object width="425" height="344" data="http://www.youtube.com/v/sW3HVHGvgkE&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sW3HVHGvgkE&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /></object>

Almost every type of "new media" angle is being used to get the most current information out of the country without governmental censorship, without regard to whether or not the information may be correct. However, in comparing the information conveyed in these reports to the [http://valleywag.gawker.com/5297407/lance-amrstrong-denied-chance-to-slam-greg-lemond-or-story-saying-he-slams-greg-lemond type of information] usually posted on these sorts of services, one is struck by the sense of urgency and intent in the Iranian posts.

The main difference is evident: there is a direct correlation between the information posted and the physical reality of the people involved in the creation of the content, sometimes even to the point of ''life or death''. The intent is clear and so is the common aim. Instead of being used by the technology in a passive manner, the individual is empowered by this vision and uses the tools to forward the action. Each action is magnified by all of the others, in the same way that the directed movements of the individual musicians create the figures and the implied meaning in a drum corps show. This exercise shows that individuals, acting in a concentrated action towards a common goal, can change their collective reality if they are aware of the collective intent and what their own personal role is in the action.

One can only watch in admiration as the Iranian people use these tools as a means of shaping their collective destiny. Their courage and resourcefulness is indeed a model to emulate. However, is this type of situation that far from our own realities? And what of our own relationship to these tools: ''are we using them or are they using us?''

Judd Bagley has already brilliantly shown how [http://antisocialmedia.net/lecture1/player.html Wikipedia was used] by certain elements on Wall Street to manipulate markets through the practice of naked short selling. This is much evidence that public relations firms, governmental agencies from many countries, religious organizations, and other such structures are using social media to try to manipulate public opinion on any number of issues. In these difficult times when businesses are failing and people are losing jobs, savings, and homes, the free circulation of unbiased information can directly affect the objective realities of those of us who use these services.
<table style="float: left;" border="0" cellspacing="5" align="left">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/wikipedia-book.jpg" alt="" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">Wikipedia's featured articles, printed</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
Even the way that these social media sites are presenting themselves needs to be questioned. Recently, artist [http://www.rob-matthews.com/index.php?/project/wikipedia/ Rob Matthews created a book] representing Wikipedia's "featured articles". The object created clearly cannot be perceived as being a valid substitute for an encyclopedia. In the same way, [http://www.wikipediaart.org/ Wikipedia Art] underlined the inherent flaws behind the way that content was selected, manipulated, and judged. The manifestation of these concepts into concrete forms of reality and the resulting unworkability of these forms suggest that the underlying concepts are flawed. What does this object say about the way that our society is currently transforming and presenting knowledge?

In this rapidly transforming world, whether we use the Internet or whether it uses us might become an important aspect of our real lives. The heroism and courage of the Iranian people gives us a shining example of just how important these tools might become. What we decide to do with them, either as informed active participants or as unthinking passive spectators, could have implications which go far beyond imagination. Taking control of our individual power to discern, to reason, and to validate might be much less abstract than it would seem. And grouping our collective actions might be an effective means of changing our current personal circumstances in an extremely effective way, with possibly surprising results.
<h4>Image credits:</h4>
<li>Wikipedia Book: © 2009 by [http://www.rob-matthews.com/ Rob Matthews], used with permission</li>

==Comments==

2 Responses to “ Connectivity, Intent and the “new reality” ”

Comments RSS

Gregory Kohs
I am sure you’re familiar with Robert Fripp and his “crafty guitarists” project? It’s interesting to contrast Fripp’s approach with that of the Cavaliers drum & bugle corps. Fripp seemed to me obsessed on group uniformity, in that every performer is precisely mimicking the stated goal.

The videos of his “League of Crafty Guitarists” session performances have been deleted by YouTube (due to copyright), but the audio showcases are still there:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3q7fZclBBuo

Especially hilarious is this guy’s parody of Fripp’s guitar craft efforts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5Jwcqy1Zb8

And I’m a big Robert Fripp fan, too — so don’t get me wrong!

Paul Wehage
There are many examples of musicians who are obsessed with this kind of precision playing, Fripp being one of ‘em. I chose the Cavaliers performance (probably the best DBC performance ever) because it clearly shows how seemingly random acts by an individual can add up to something much more if seen from a higher vantage point. But the idea can be seen in almost any group activity that I can think of.

I enjoyed the Fripp parody very much! thanks, Greg!

Directory:Akahele/The Real â€œSecond Lifeâ€

2010-10-23T01:40:00Z

Seurat: "Om nom nom nom"?

This year, the biggest segment of new Web 2.0 membership comes from those 30 to 49 years old. Sixty-five percent of users of the Pandora music service are over the age of 35! This breed of social networkers (Facebook, primarily, but also LinkedIn, MySpace, Twitter, and others) are using social media as a source of play, communication, and alternative productivity. According to [http://www.iconoculture.com/ '''Iconoculture's'''] "''Open to the Social: understanding social media use across generations''", a webinar created by Neela Sakaria and Andrew Hawn, they call this activity...
<p style="text-align: center;">'''the <span style="text-decoration: underline;">real</span> Second Life'''</p>

I agree with that! My experiences on LinkedIn and Facebook are like a virtual "fantasy" world, but populated entirely by people I know intimately, or at least as acquaintances. I honestly don't understand how people get wrapped up in the original [http://secondlife.com/ Second Life] online world, without actually knowing any of the folks with whom they're interacting.

Directory:Akahele/Wikipedia goes to Washington

2010-10-23T01:38:36Z

Seurat: "Om nom nom nom"? (partial)

''Akahele'' readers may recall my [http://akahele.org/2009/03/persistence_of_misinfo/ earlier essay] which briefly mentioned an [http://www.mywikibiz.com/Wikipedia_Vandalism_Study extensive study] of the one hundred biographical Wikipedia articles about the United States senators. The research team of unofficial Wikipedia watchdogs discovered over 600 falsehoods and defamatory attacks in these articles over the course of the final quarter (October through December) of 2007. Most of the vandalized edits were reverted within a minute or two. However, many of them endured for hours at time. Some for several days. And a few persisted for weeks on end.

But, no matter how hateful or how libelous the edit, no matter how long it persists on Wikipedia, the folks who own and operate Wikipedia's servers who have the ultimate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_actions editorial control] over what stays and what gets jettisoned from important portions of the website, are virtually free from liability. This is thanks to [http://www.citmedialaw.org/section-230 Section 230] of the Communications Decency Act, which I feel is due for a serious legal challenge or legislative revamp at some point soon.

'''Sorry, Max'''

One edit that was captured during the U.S. Senate biography audit persisted not for weeks, but for months. In fact, nearly a year passed before it was finally amended.
<table style="float: right;" border="0" cellspacing="5" align="left">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/max-baucus.jpg" alt="" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">Senator Max Baucus</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
For that entire time, for every reader of that Wikipedia passage, the reputation of Senator Max Baucus (Democrat, Montana) was tarnished to some degree. Today, I'd like to take you on a deeper dive into that edit.

The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Max_Baucus&diff=next&oldid=178837185#2008_reelection defamatory edit] begins on December 19, 2007, thanks to a rather [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/John1967ms single-minded editor] focused exclusively on two Montana politicians. The content added to Wikipedia:
<blockquote>"In the Washington AP (Bozeman Daily Chronicle 12-22-05) article Baucus admits campaign finance violations."</blockquote>
The spurious content was removed from Wikipedia on November 19, 2008, thanks to the efforts of an even more single-minded [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wildcats88 editor].

The content was purportedly sourced to the December 22, 2005 edition of the ''[http://bozemandailychronicle.com/ Bozeman Daily Chronicle]''. Search of the Chronicle's web archives shows no mentions of "Baucus" between the dates December 21-23, 2005. The Chronicle's managing editor, Nick Ehli, confirmed to me by telephone that nothing about Baucus ran in his newspaper on December 22. The paper did run a reprint (on December 20) of an AP wire article that mentioned [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/06/22/LI2005062200936.html Jack Abramoff] money being returned by Baucus. Does this constitute "admits campaign finance violations"? Hardly.

The same axe-grinding editor then went on to compose, "The good Senator also just voted himself/family a big bonus from the federal farm bill $230,237 in subsidies", cited to a [http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/15/nation/na-farmbox15 ''Los Angeles Times'' article]. While this edit was removed in a couple of days, it was extremely unfair. The dollar amount mentioned actually reflects total mineral rights royalties collected over at least a decade (1995-2005) by the Baucus family -- thanks to legislation for which he didn't "vote himself", and (unless there's a secret congressional time machine) impossibly linked to the 2007 farm bill that the pseudonymous Wikipedia operative saddled with the blame.

Still, that first edit ("Baucus admits campaign finance violations") received about 130 views per day during most of the period in question, but substantially spiked upward in October and November 2008, '''when Baucus was up for re-election'''. In the thirty days prior to the November 4 election, presumably when many voters would be making up their minds about candidates, the article was [http://stats.grok.se/en/200810/Max_Baucus viewed an estimated 6,618 times], or an average of 220 times per day. In the 15 days immediately following the election, the article was viewed still another 5,944 times (an average of 396 daily views). Each one of these page views rendered the falsely-sourced defamatory claim firmly in place in the lead section of the portion of the biography covering his Senate career, until it was finally removed on November 19, 2008.

Senator Baucus has not yet responded to an invitation to comment about this long-term incident. I will update this post if he does respond, or he is of course welcome to comment below.

'''The Lieberman factor'''

Supporters of Wikipedia's apparent legal right to host libelous and defamatory content would argue that "the vast majority" of Wikipedia vandalism is fixed very quickly, and they would also express an apologist viewpoint along the lines of, "The staff and board of the Wikimedia Foundation can't be expected to editorially control every article about the United States senators, much less all the biographies of living people on Wikipedia."

It's funny, then, to point out the Wikipedia article about Senator Joe Lieberman. On and off over the past three years, the ability of general users of Wikipedia to edit that particular article has been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Joe_Lieberman restricted by various site administrators], then allowed to lapse again. One particular restriction lasted just five hours -- on December 11, 2007.

Who protected the Lieberman biography that day? None other than Wikipedia's co-founder and board member, Jimmy Wales.
<table style="float: left;" border="0" cellspacing="5" align="left">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/jimmy-wales-with-cookie.jpg" alt="" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">Jimmy Wales, nibbling</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
Why did Wales protect Lieberman from defamatory and libelous edits for five hours that specific day? Simple! That was the morning when Jimmy Wales had been invited to [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odvr4w2gMJY provide testimony] to a Senate sub-committee. He spoke about topics related to the possible introduction of wikis into government communications. Guess who chaired that sub-committee? None other than Joe Lieberman.

Does anyone find it ironic that while Wales was testifying about how helpful and informative wikis could be within government, he suspended the "wiki process" for the day when it might prove embarrassing?

Of course, it was only half a day after Wales lifted the document protection before some anonymous joker published the following within Lieberman's wiki-based biography:
<blockquote>On December 10th, 2007 Lieberman appeared on the Ellen Degeneres Show and outed himself on live television as a flaming homo. This is a surprise as he has been openly opposed to homosexual relationships in the past. He demonstrated to Ellen the positions him and his partner experiment with from time to time. He stated numerous times that he is proudly the "receiver" in the relationship and cross dresses from time to time.</blockquote>
More than five hours later, Wikipedia administrator and search engine marketer, [http://www.hochmanconsultants.com/about/ Jonathan Hochman] would finally discover and revert that stroke of vandalism against his fellow native son of the Nutmeg State. Before we paint Hochman a hero, though, do note that his rescue of Lieberman's heterosexual manhood that day is only one data point within a [http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20071231/mr-wales-goes-to-washington/ long string of discoveries and reversals] regarding Lieberman's persona on Wikipedia.

'''Studying the vandalism'''

It was a lot of hard work for those of us who organized and conducted that volunteer study of the vandalism perpetrated against the 100 Wikipedia articles about the senators. We had hoped that our research results would be picked up by the blogosphere, perhaps by the mainstream media, or even come to the attention of the Senate itself. Sadly, with a [http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/001391.html few] small [http://digg.com/politics/McCain_raped_wife_Obama_a_nudist_and_Hillary_has_a_penis exceptions], the study hasn't gained traction in the media. One noted Wikipedia apologist even called our effort "comical".

However, just a few weeks ago, I received word from a Business student at [http://www.hubrussel.be/ Hogeschool-Universiteit] in Brussels. His Statistics professor there, [http://edwardomey.com/ Edward Omey], had actually given the class an assignment -- to review the methodology, sample, and execution of our [http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=psAWteTSyixEB98YcV-5VEw Senate vandalism database], and identify its substantial flaws.

Nobody likes to have their voluntarily-fielded work criticized, but we actually took up the yoke and helped address [http://www.mywikibiz.com/Talk:Wikipedia_Vandalism_Study#Data_issues various shortcomings] that we and others had found. Indeed, one process design fault in the study suggests that the problem of vandalism on Wikipedia may well be worse, not better, than we discovered. Namely, we did not fully read the articles themselves. Rather, we traced through each of the ''edit differences'' (or, "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Diff diffs]") made to the articles. So, in fact, we were only reading ''changes'' to the articles, not the full articles. This is a design "flaw", in that, if there was volatile content buried in the article, and it was inserted '''before''' the calendar quarter of the study, and it was never reverted until '''after''' the calendar quarter, then we would have failed to notice and account for a vandal's edit, and one of great duration, at that!

It's not every day that one's work enters the international college curriculum, and that's some comfort to offset the fact that the 100 U.S. senators don't seem themselves terribly concerned about their being libeled perpetually on Wikipedia.
<h4>Image credits:</h4>
<li><span style="color: #000000;">Max Baucus, from the Senator's [http://baucus.senate.gov/about/index.cfm website], [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 <span class="comment">fair use doctrine</span>].</span></li>
<li><span style="color: #000000;">Jimmy Wales, by [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jim_Wales_Tim_Tam_01.JPG Wikipedia user "One Salient Oversight"], public domain.</span></li>

==Comments==

4 Responses to “ Wikipedia goes to Washington ”

Comments RSS

Cheryl Kohs
Better to be perpetually libeled than ignored!

And that goes for just about anyone in the public eye, these days.

Sad, but true.

Jon Awbrey
Thanks for a first-rate example of the sort of info-lit critique that we should be seeing out there — but so seldom do.

Kato
Great article.

That Lieberman incident is a really good example of Wikipedia’s negligence in practice, and shows just how avoidable these things actually are. I wrote about it back in early 2008.

http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20071231/mr-wales-goes-to-washington/

What was interesting is that when I mentioned it subsequently during another discussion, a Wikipedia administrator instinctively dismissed the story as false hyperbole. However, when the admin took a closer look at the facts, he realized that Jimmy Wales had actually framed his actions in that way, and there was no additional hyperbole from me or other critics.

Wales protected Lieberman’s article during Wales’s Senate hearing chaired by Lieberman, citing “Not a good day for vandalism”. He dutifully unprotected the article after he had left the building.

Well what is a good day for vandalism? Presumably any time that doesn’t inconvenience Wales himself.

ManWithYoYo
Nice article. But you are missing the point, guys. Trying to show the Senate the errors of Wikipedia is a non-starter. They know the drill. First of all, as all of you doubtless know, Wales gives testimony to the DHS Committee chaired by Lieberman. There’s some ties there. He’s got an in. The Senate knows what’s going on on that site. They aren’t terribly upset about it, as it seems that you are trying to bring to their attention. Beyond this, Senator Baucus is Chairman of the Finance Committee, which is all-powerful, of course, in, among other things, Wall-Street-related matters. The topics that irk your group do *not* irk the Finance Committee, i.e. market predation, i.e. NSS.

I’m not saying that your attempts aren’t well-founded. They are. It’s just that the Senate isn’t functioning in the manner that one would normally expect. In particular, those two Committees.

That’s my take, take it or leave it. I think that you’ll find more sympathetic ears elsewhere. That’s not the way it should be, but that’s the way it is.

Directory:Akahele/Akahele creates Wikipedia Art!

2010-10-23T01:37:36Z

Seurat: "Om nom nom nom"? (partial)

<table style="float: left; border=" border="0" width="155">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/180px-wikipedia_art-copy-150x150.jpg" alt="Wikipedia Art logo" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: left;">Official logo of the Wikipedia Art project</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
Those of you who have been following this blog will certainly remember the two articles which have been posted [http://akahele.org/2009/03/in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/ here] and [http://akahele.org/2009/04/the-trade-of-free-culture/ here] about Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern's [http://www.wikipediaart.org Wikipedia Art project]. Kildall and Stern have opened up their project to all artists in a series of [http://wikipediaart.org/remixes/ Wikipedia Art Remixes], which will be presented as part of [http://padiglioneinternet.com/ Padiglione Internet] (the Internet Pavilion) for the Venice Biennale as the ''Wikipedia Art Embassy''.

''Akahele'' is proud to be part of this exciting initiative with two works inspired by the Wikipedia Art project.

Paul Wehage's ''Cypher Variations : Wikipedia Art Remixed'' for chamber orchestra is a short two-minute conceptional work. The piece is based around two cells, one of which spells "Wikipedia", presented in the winds/brass/harp/celesta/percussion which has a block-like, rather mandarin quality. The other cell spells out "Art" in the strings, and has a more active character. The two motives almost fit together, but the juxtaposition of B natural/B flat creates an inherent tension which causes them to repel, in the same way that Wikipedia Art was repelled from Wikipedia. The tympani part beginning around 1:00 is the musical illustration of a prominent Wikipedia editor who stated that [http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2008/12/10/what-a-pip/ he danced on the skulls of his opponents].

The work may be heard [http://independentartistscompany.com/songs.aspx?SongID=74586&ArtistID=12612 here].

Wehage's orchestral prelude was then used by Gregory Kohs as the basis of his "Wikipedia Art : a Musical Manifesto".

<object width="425" height="344" data="http://www.youtube.com/v/6200hsy_vGU&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6200hsy_vGU&hl=en&fs=1&" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /></object>

''Akahele'' encourages other artists to participate in this initiative by creating their own ''Wikipedia Art ''remixes, uploading the remixed ''Wikipedia Art'' work somewhere on the Internet (YouTube, Vimeo, Flickr, Facebook, your own site), and then sending a link to: '''remix''' [at] '''wikipediaart''' [dot] '''org'''.

The Wikipedia Art logo is reproduced here under a Creative Commons license with the permission of Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern.

Directory:Akahele/The anonymous swarm

2010-10-23T01:37:11Z

Seurat: "Om nom nom nom"? (partial)

This week, French president Nicolas Sarkozy decided to [http://www.tv5.org/TV5Site/info/afp_article.php?idrub=12&xml=newsmlmmd.0ff31910ea65f90e88723e1dd2f3a20e.2d1.xml spruce up his image on his Facebook page], displaying a new, [http://www.tv5.org/TV5Site/info/afp_article.php?idrub=12&xml=newsmlmmd.0ff31910ea65f90e88723e1dd2f3a20e.2d1.xml more relaxed look], using the social media site to try to interact directly with his target audience, which would appear to be technically savvy youngsters who use the site as part of their daily routines. It would seem that Barack Obama's [http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/134/boy-wonder.html successful use] of these social media sites would be most likely the inspiration for Sarkozy's foray into this communication strategy. One would think that, judging by this very well-publicized launch, that the heyday of web 2.0 social media would probably be in the future.

'''Contrasting Visions'''

On the same day that this campaign was launched in France, Dr. Larry Sanger (co-founder of [http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia] and president of [http://www.citizendium.org/ Citizendium] and the soon-to-be-launched [http://www.watchknow.org/ WatchKnow] site) posted [http://blog.citizendium.org/2009/05/22/disillusioned-with-web-20/ a story on his blog] in which he describes his current frustrations with web 2.0, saying "For me, the bloom is off the rose."
<table style="float: left;" border="0" cellspacing="5" align="left">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/549px-rose_papa_meilland-150x150.jpg" alt="" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">...a rose by any other name...</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
The post is interesting to read in its entirety, but Dr. Sanger sums up his frustrations in three main areas:

1. '''Facelessness''' or the issues of anonymity and how they create psychological vacuums by the sheer number of anonymous entities with whom one interacts on various social media sites.

2. '''Groupthink''' or the way in which these faceless entities tend to adopt a herd-like mentality and conform to the same sorts of behaviors and choices.

and finally (and probably the most important of all):

3. '''Such a godawful waste of time'''.

Dr. Sanger would like to leave sites such as Wikipedia and his own Citizendium site out of this discussion, as they are involved in the generation of "useful content" (which is a concept which may or may not be valid, depending on what you feel is useful). In [http://akahele.org/2009/02/the-more-things-change/ my post concerning MP3.com], I discussed how the transition from web 1.0 to web 2.0 involved a parametric change from ''focus on content'' to ''focus on traffic''. When one looks at the amount of traffic generated by the production of content versus the amount of traffic generated by group discussion, socializing, and other procedural processes, it seems to me that Dr. Sanger is not being entirely straightforward in leaving these types of services outside of this discussion.

In many ways, however, Dr. Sanger is describing something which is very much of the ''zeitgeist''.

'''Anonymous Arbs'''
<table style="float: right;" border="0" cellspacing="5" align="left">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/430px-2007-10-28_africangrayparrot_meru-150x150.jpg" alt="" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">Parrots can also be healthy</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
The anonymity issue came to the fore in Wikipedia circles this week with the ''outing'' of Arbitration Committee member Sam "[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-November/085892.html Sick as a parrot]" Blacketer as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DavidBoothroyd David Boothroyd], a [http://www.webcitation.org/5gzfYsqGc British political researcher] and member of the Labour party. The connection between the (now) former arbitrator and a (then) former administrator who was removed for pushing a pro-Labour agenda has been [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=21101&view=findpost&p=174771 graphically proven] by ace Wikipedia sleuth, "Tarantino". The irony of this situation, [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=21101&view=findpost&p=174767 as pointed out] by Wikipedia Review regular Milton "Uncle Miltie" Roe, is that Boothroyd/Blacketer was executing undercover the same kind of paid editing that he had attacked Gregory Kohs for doing in daylight in the past. Cade Metz of the Register has printed [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/26/wikipedia_westminster_councillor/ an article ]which sums up the situation extremely well.

What is currently being explored is an interconnection between this account and other pseudo-anonymous arbitrators with a relationship which dates back to the mid-1990s in the context of ''Usenet''. It would appear that these anonymous characters all know each other very well after years of interaction. That they each have arrived at this point together does not appear to be a coincidence. As sources are examined and confirmed, as we prefer to adhere to a multiple-source policy, we will try to inform our readers of developments in this area. What remains clear is that the issue of anonymity and hidden agendas remains a central problem in Wikipedia politics.

'''Marblecake also the game'''

<table style="float: left;" border="0" cellspacing="5" align="left">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/180px-marmorkuchen-150x135.jpg" alt="" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">Not this kind of marblecake!</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
Groupthink was also a central part of this week's current events with [http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2009/05/4chan-ebaumsworld-carpet-bombing-youtube-with-porn-videos.ars Operation YouTube], organized by various Internet groups including 4chan and others in an attempt to submerge YouTube in porn videos hidden behind popular keywords, with the initial keyword being "marblecake" as discussed in [http://akahele.org/2009/05/making-a-moot-point/ Judd Bagley's last post] about the Time 100 List.

This type of behavior of anonymous mobs has been described as "swarming" by Danièle Citron in her paper "[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1271900 Cyber Civil Rights]". Dr. Citron describes several case histories, including a situation involving the [http://yellowisthecolor.wordpress.com/2007/08/10/one-emotionally-disturbed-woman-v-a-gaggle-of-violent-misogynist-loons-the-internet-at-its-finest/ Women's Space Blog and Encyclopedia Dramatica]. These types of group swarming events may be focused on one individual who is usually identified by the group as an outsider (such as [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23102 Chris Chan] or the Internet phenomenon [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22711 Boxxy]), or they may concern institutions of power (for example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology the Church of Scientology]), or as a means of launching a joke or fashion (such as the Time 100 List "precision hack".)

This "swarming" activity is happening more and more frequently, with larger and more visible public repercussions. It would seem that the anonymous hive has realized that the powerless masses have the power to change the course of events, even if it is only the Internet. And this is becoming increasingly important as more and more of our existence is taken up by these social media activities.

'''You really don't have anything better to do?'''

Finally we come to the central issue: '''Such a godawful waste of time'''. Recently, my esteemed colleague Gregory Kohs made the astute remark that people may no longer be capable of putting a man on the moon since "everybody's too busy tweeting". With the number of people I see walking the streets of Paris with their cell telephones glued to their ears, only stopping to check their batteries or to send a text message, you have to wonder how many people still are able to have internal thoughts in their brains, much less imagine things which are not on screens or headphones.

<table style="float: right;" border="0" cellspacing="5" align="left">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/2457818093_11007230b3-150x150.jpg" alt="" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">Valleywag's Owen Thomas does battle with the Twitterati</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
As someone who is guilty of the extreme eccentricity of refusing to have a cell phone, I appreciate having the space in which to have my own thoughts and to have silence in which to think. Increasingly I am finding my experience becoming more and more marginalized by people who are addicted to the connectivity and instant communication which is central to web 2.0. But do the Twitterati (the very apt phrase coined by [http://valleywag.gawker.com/ Valleywag]'s former editor Owen Thomas) express anything in their 140-character-max tweets? [http://valleywag.gawker.com/5263497/the-twitterati-hates-buckling-down-for-work Valleywag's daily sampling] would suggest that even a Nobel prize in literature would sound like an idiot on Twitter. Do we really want to fill our brains with these types of "communication nuggets"? I personally do not.

'''Tune out, turn off, drop out'''

One might like to think that the anonymous swarms described in Danièle Citron's research might be more oriented toward a specific agenda, which might include changing social mores, modifying media manipulation, and striving for social judgment -- a sort of latter-day cyber hippie movement. Some aspects of the anonymous movement have led to this sort of action, such as protests concerning the Church of Scientology.

However, just as the 1960s also included such things as "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_to_Zap Zip to Zap]", much of what the anonymous convey consists of "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme memes]" or short, catchy phrases that refer to inside jokes. Beside "Marblecake" and "The Game" mentioned in the Time precision hack, others include phrases which may not make much sense outside of the circle of initiates, such as "[http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Mudkips mudkips]", "[http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Pool%27s_Closed Pool's closed]" or "[http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Delicious_Cake Delicious Cake]".

While repetitive chanting of these sorts of catch phrases might seem harmless on the surface, when they are repeated over long periods by large groups of anonymous participants with lots of time on their hands, the end result can be psychologically and even economically devastating. For example, the comic [http://www.tomgreen.com/ Tom Green] has been [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmT2wh0ohDU&feature=related the object of a long-term meme campaign against his web television show], which has prevented him from fully realizing this project and which has caused him obvious emotional distress.

So, it would seem that Dr. Sanger has described something which is currently unfolding. What might some reactions be? I was amused to read in Aaron Swartz's blog the web 2.0 version of "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on,_tune_in,_drop_out turn on, tune in, drop out]" in the form of a manifesto proclaiming Mr. Swartz's intention to spend [http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/offline a month without the Internet]. Declaring one's independence from web subservience is one sensible reaction: ''go read a book, write something longer than 140 characters, or (gulp) go out and try to start a conversation with that crazy person who isn't talking on their telephone''.

Jon Awbrey put it much better than I could in a recent comment that he made on the [http://volokh.com/posts/1242618845.shtml#586088 Volokh Conspiracy blog]. His thoughtful comment is directed specifically at Wikipedia, but it could apply to any of these web 2.0 "social media" sites: in a nutshell, the way that they cause us to think and to react to the world is a threat to our way of life.

And, given this specific context, what of political leaders using this sort of platform to get their messages across? One would hope that anyone attempting social media interaction has been made aware of the failed experiments of the past, such as the "[http://www.darrenbarefoot.com/archives/2007/04/the-marketing-folly-of-greenteagirlie.html Greenteagirlie] fiasco, or of any [http://blogs.zdnet.com/feeds/?p=1204&tag=nl.e539 one of these recent examples]. Part of trying to tango with the anonymous mobs who seem to be forming at every corner of the web is remembering that people don't always behave as you'd expect them to behave. When they figure out that you're trying to "pull a fast one", they generally aren't very happy about that.

One also must hope that all of this virtual tweeting, texting, blogging, and commenting will not completely replace real-world contact with people in that elusive zone known as ''reality''.

Today, the text messages will be sent telling people "I'm on the train" or "buy a gallon of milk". The tweets will be made, and the world will rest easier knowing that [http://gawker.com/5256298/the-very-worst-of-twitterati Jessica Coen got eel sauce in her hair]. Thousands of people will take the "Which Brady Bunch episode are you?" quiz on Facebook. The drama that is Wikipedia will continue to boil, much to the amusement of the anonymous hive of slaving worker bees captive there. Those who are counting the Alexa numbers will continue to pretend that ''traffic is money''.

For the few of you ''schlepping'' around without as much as a BlackBerry on your belt'', missing out on all of this excitement'', I'm the crazy guy without the headphones who's singing out loud to the music in his head. Does anybody else still do that?

'''Photo credits''':
Rose, [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rose_Papa_Meilland.jpg?uselang=fr Wikimedia Commons], CC license

Parrot, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2007-10-28_AfricanGrayParrot_Meru.jpg Wikipedia], GFDL

Marblecake, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marmorkuchen.jpg Wikipedia], public domain

Owen Thomas by [http://www.flickr.com/photos/markcoggins/2457818093/ Mark Coggins], CC 2.0 attribution license

==Comments==

4 Responses to “ The anonymous swarm ”

Comments RSS

Dan T.
Well isn’t my own time my own, free to be spent on whatever I want even if others think it pointless?

Not to mention that you seem to be simultaneously crtiticizing the “Web 2.0 world” for (1) wasting lots of time without accomplishing anything, and (2) being scary because of the massive (and possibly massively destructive) things it can accomplish.

Though I do kind of agree that the use of “social networking” by stodgy mainstream politicians is probably less a sign that the “heyday” is ahead than that those media have “jumped the shark” and the truly hip crowd will have to find something new!

Paul Wehage
My dear Mr. T., you are certainly more than welcome to waste your time as you see fit. Just don’t ask me to believe that this has anything to do with “reality”, whatever that means these days…

I’m not pretending to understand everything here. The point of this article is to say that Larry Sanger is describing what I perceive as an emerging phenomenon. What this ends up meaning is anybody’s guess at this point. It could be something with massive consequences, however.

Can we at least agree that what Dr. Sanger is describing merits further inquiry?

Gregory Kohs
I was BlackBerry-free for the past two years at Comcast. Now I have one. I’m not supposed to use it for personal matters, so now I have my personal cell phone in my briefcase, plus the BlackBerry on my hip. The thing buzzes twice every time I get a new e-mail at my work address.

I am thankful that I am not permitted to let this small-keyed, small-screened device become my nexus of personal communication. My thumbs began to hurt on the first day of use.

Mark Woodard
If only more than 51 people would hear this.

Directory:Akahele/Survey says...

2010-10-23T01:36:40Z

Seurat: "Om nom nom nom"? (partial)

Those old enough to remember the Carter and Reagan administrations are likely to have enjoyed the highly popular game show, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oxt9e5B4bE ''Family Feud''], if not for the spectacle of two extended families competing against each other, then for the "play along at home" aspect of matching wits with those families, or (if anything) counting to see how many times host Richard Dawson would plant a (too often unwelcome) kiss (or two) on the lips of any female contestant.

'''A survey we trusted'''

The most intellectually viable aspect of ''Family Feud'' was the core of the program -- the response data from a survey of 100 people answering questions that tend to cluster common answers: "Name something you buy on every visit to the grocery store" or "Give a slang term for a policeman".
<table style="float: right; border=" border="0" width="155">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/richard-dawson.jpg" alt="Richard Dawson on Family Feud" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: left;">Richard Dawson on Family Feud</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
As a practitioner in the field of marketing research, I know darn well that a sample of 100 respondents ([http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ana0kDXsKamqprcApIm6RfQh4wt.;_ylv=3?qid=20060606190510AAzZnok heaven knows] how they were selected for participation in the survey) is practically bunk. But the methodology seemed to work out just fine for a family game show. There were never any scandals or disputes centered on the answers to that survey. We knew we were about to come face to face with a reliable-enough "fact" when Dawson would turn to that big board behind him and shout, "Survey says...!"

Today, in the world of overnight web-panel-based consumer data collection, I'm not nearly as comfortable as I was at a young age with trusty Richard Dawson and his big, flashing incandescent board on ''Family Feud''.

'''My experience with Internet surveys
'''

I'm hardly new to the practice of conducting survey research via the Internet. In fact, e-mail borne surveys were an important part of my business practice as far back as 1993 -- respondents would "edit" the reply e-mail text with their answers, send it back, and the software would detect the answers within the confines of pre-formatted response spaces within the e-mail text. Crude in retrospect, but these techniques worked fairly well, especially when targeting a highly selective sample (such as the customer list of a business-class laser printer manufacturer).

About four or five years later, true web-based survey platforms were well established, but how to populate these questionnaires with [http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/sampprob.php representative, diverse respondents] was becoming a hot potato. Everyone seemed to acknowledge that web panels attracted non-typical consumers, but the low cost of execution and speed of turn-around were just so damn tempting. Of course, the major web panel vendors did their best to come up with various techniques (and white papers) that demonstrated ways to "balance" web samples, so that they might pass muster with executives on the client side. But, remaining at the crux of all survey research and not just web-based sampling, is the question of self-selection bias. People who willingly spend 15 minutes of their time to complete a questionnaire are not "normal", in the sense that they sometimes fail to represent the attitudes and behaviors of people who prefer not to spend their time that way. It appears that, simply, this problem is accentuated among Internet populations.

'''Losing faith
'''

Between about 2001 and the present day, I've gradually been losing faith in the entire premise of reliable Internet-sampled and Internet-fielded marketing research. Last month, a presentation at the [http://www.ctam.com/conferences/Research/index.html CTAM Research Conference] in Washington, DC, practically sealed the deal for me. [http://www.mktginc.com/ourteam.asp Dr. Steven Gittelman] conducted a meta audit of 17 different U.S. web panels. His research found that on nine of these panels, well over 15% of the participants were completing more than thirty Internet surveys per month. Furthermore, on most U.S. panels, anywhere from 40% to 55% of members are also enrolled in at least '''four other''' survey research panels!
<div>

'''Things that make you go, "Hmm..."
'''

My research team recently fielded a quick online survey with a San Diego vendor I implicitly trust to have one of the best panels in the online research business. The sampling was intended to be nationally representative of Internet households who had either cut wire-line telephone service in the past 12 months, or were strongly intending to do so in the next 12 months, and guess what? It’s rather clear that a lot of respondents weren’t paying attention by the end of the survey: nearly 32% of the respondents said they were Hispanic or Latino. There is no way that's a true statistic, especially considering how Hispanics under-index for Internet penetration and English fluency.

Granted, some of this particular over-reporting was due to the way the question was asked (in a format usually intended for a telephone survey, where I’m sure the live interviewer does a better job of getting the right answer):

<span style="color: #008000;">''To ensure proper ethnic representation, please answer; are you of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity or background?''</span>
<div><span style="color: #008000;">''1 Yes (white Hispanic)
2 Yes (non-white Hispanic)
3 No
R Prefer not to say''</span></div>
My guess is that a significant number of white non-Hispanics and black non-Hispanics selected punch 1 and punch 2, semi-consciously reacting to the words “white” and “non-white” to inform their response, rather than the question text itself.

In another recent study, we sampled digital cable customers who subscribe to a monthly DVD rental service. The hyper-inflated findings about this sample concluded:
<div>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">More than 85% said they subscribe to high-definition television programming</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">56% said they have a home theater</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">Over 71% said they have either a video game device or a DVD player connected to the Internet</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">Even more (72%) said they use a media center PC to watch video on their TV set</span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>

Yeah, right. Maybe if the respondents are time travelers, reporting back to us their household characteristics from the year 2019. Why do we tolerate "findings" like these? In a word, because the data can be collected quickly and cost-efficiently, and (thankfully) these behavioral measures were not a key objective of what was essentially an attitudinal survey.</div>
'''Setting the trap
'''

Over the past year, I have taken to using a simple technique to "trap" respondents who are not paying attention to (or lying about) survey questions. By adding "tripwire" questions to the beginning of a survey, I am able to diagnose respondents who are more likely blithely clicking check-boxes ("[http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112415330/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 satisficing]" a questionnaire) than actually paying attention. I provide a list of relatively uncommon products or experiences, then terminate from the survey anyone who answers that an ''extremely'' unlikely number of these items apply to them -- that is, it's far more likely the respondent is lazily or deceptively completing the questionnaire than it is that they are attentively and truthfully responding. Some examples may help illustrate the principle.

In a recent survey, I asked which of the following items were in the respondent's home, and these were the results:
<table style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 241pt;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="321"><col style="width: 193pt;" width="257"></col> <col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
<tbody>
<tr style="height: 13.5pt;" height="18">
<td class="xl26" style="height: 13.5pt; width: 193pt;" width="257" height="18">'''PRESENT IN HOUSEHOLD'''</td>
<td class="xl26" style="border-left: medium none; width: 48pt;" width="64">'''N=3258'''</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 13.5pt;" height="18">
<td class="xl24" style="height: 13.5pt;" height="18">Carbon monoxide detector</td>
<td class="xl25" style="border-color: -moz-use-text-color black -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; border-left: medium none;" align="right">37.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td class="xl22" style="border-top: medium none; height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Bread-making machine</td>
<td class="xl23" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;" align="right">24.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td class="xl22" style="border-top: medium none; height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Installed home security system</td>
<td class="xl23" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;" align="right">22.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td class="xl22" style="border-top: medium none; height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Locked gun cabinet</td>
<td class="xl23" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;" align="right">11.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td class="xl22" style="border-top: medium none; height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Jet Ski / Sea Doo personal watercraft</td>
<td class="xl23" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;" align="right">2.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td class="xl22" style="border-top: medium none; height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Segway personal transporter</td>
<td class="xl23" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;" align="right">1.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
We terminated the 160 individuals (5% of all candidates) who said that they had four or more of these items in their home. Even so, that still leaves at least one in five of the homes in our sample saying they have a bread-making machine. Is that even plausible?

There are about 114 million households in the United States. If 1.4% of them own a Segway, that means this particular web survey suggests there are about 1.6 million Segway units dispersed across America.
<table style="float: left; border=" border="0" width="120">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/segway.jpg" alt="Segway personal transporter" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: left;">One of the 1.6 million Segway owners?</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
Never mind that as of February 2007, only about [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=power-walker 24,000 Segway units] had ever been sold, and many of them to corporate and law enforcement clients, not residential households. So, we may choose between lazy and/or lying survey respondents (1.6 million), or we have realistic transactional data to guide us (24,000).

Do you see my frustration with web-based data collection?

Here is another example, where we simply terminated anyone who answered "yes" to four or more of a list of items. In this study, we targeted adult householders in our market footprint (which covers about 40% of the nation), with at least a working television set, and we asked 504 possible respondents about their participation in the past 3 months in any of the following:
<table style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 241pt;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="321"><col style="width: 193pt;" width="257"></col> <col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
<tbody>
<tr style="height: 13.5pt;" height="18">
<td class="xl28" style="border-color: -moz-use-text-color black -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; height: 13.5pt; width: 193pt;" width="257" height="18">'''PARTICIPATION LAST 3 MONTHS'''</td>
<td class="xl29" style="border-left: medium none; width: 48pt;" width="64">'''N=504'''</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 13.5pt;" height="18">
<td class="xl27" style="height: 13.5pt;" height="18">Collected unemployment check</td>
<td class="xl25" style="border-left: medium none;" align="right">9.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td class="xl26" style="border-top: medium none; height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Stayed in a Ramada Inn</td>
<td class="xl24" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;" align="right">3.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td class="xl26" style="border-top: medium none; height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Coached a youth baseball or soccer game</td>
<td class="xl24" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;" align="right">2.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td class="xl26" style="border-top: medium none; height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Participated in bowling league</td>
<td class="xl24" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;" align="right">2.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td class="xl26" style="border-top: medium none; height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Played duplicate bridge</td>
<td class="xl24" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;" align="right">1.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td class="xl26" style="border-top: medium none; height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Traveled to Africa</td>
<td class="xl24" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;" align="right">0.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td class="xl26" style="border-top: medium none; height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Traveled to Australia</td>
<td class="xl24" style="border-top: medium none; border-left: medium none;" align="right">0.2%</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
On this panel, we terminated any who affirmed at least 4 of these items -- a near impossibility. What is the likelihood, for example, of a person selected at random who is on unemployment, stayed in a Ramada Inn, rolls in a bowling league, and coaches a youth baseball or soccer team? But, we "caught" four such respondents out of 504. This nearly impossible configuration would pro-rate to being true for about 1,785,700 Americans. That is, 4 divided by 504, times about 225,000,000 adults.

This same data shows that 2.4% of adults are in a bowling league within the past three months, or 5.4 million adults. This is about two times the known count of adults ''and'' children (combined) participating annually in a bowling league, [http://www.bowl.com/usbowler/about.aspx according to the USBC]. From corporate reports, I estimate that Ramada has about 50,000 rooms in the United States. Over three months, that's about 4.5 million room-nights possible. According to the above survey screener, 6.7 million adults have stayed in a Ramada room at some point in the past 3 months. Even with 2 adults per room, that's an amazing occupancy rate -- Monday through Sunday, every week of the past three months, if we are to believe this sample. I conclude that we cannot believe the sample. The duplicate bridge stat is interesting -- web panels skew younger, and bridge skews older. According to the ACBL, there are about 11 million people in the U.S. who play [http://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/pdf/Newspaper/RecreationSpecialization.pdf contract bridge]. According to our screener, though, it's only 2.25 million -- under-reported by a factor of perhaps five.

'''Can they pass the test?'''

When showing respondents a description of a new product or service concept (sometimes even with an informative video clip), we've taken to the habit of giving the respondents a short, three-question "true or false" quiz about the concept they've just read about (and/or watched). These are not very difficult questions for a sentient, attentive person of even less-than-average IQ to answer. Consistently, we are finding that between 20% and 35% of respondents will fail this quiz that immediately follows presentation of the concept. My conclusion: perhaps a third of web survey respondents aren't paying any attention to the communications we're putting before them in surveys.

''Akahele'' is presenting you data, both anecdotal and quantitative, each and every week. What conclusions are you drawing about the key theme of '''trust '''and the''' Internet'''? We look forward to your joining us with personal comments below.

'''Image credits:'''
<ul>
<li><span style="color: #000000;">Richard Dawson (Mark Goodson-Bill Todman Productions), </span><span style="color: #000000;">[http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 <span class="comment">fair use doctrine</span>].</span></li>
<li><span style="color: #000000;">Segway personal transporter, </span><span style="color: #000000;">[http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 <span class="comment">fair use doctrine</span>].</span></li>
</ul>
</div>

==Comments==

7 Responses to “ Survey says… ”

Comments RSS

Kato
Interesting piece.

It has become pretty clear lately that internet polling is a sham, yet in the UK at least, vital policy discussions are still being guided by polling sites like YouGov, which are open to all kinds of manipulation.

This is another example, like Wikipedia, where reality does not match the touted claims. Snake oil salesmen are creaming massive profits by extolling the virtues of these flawed ventures.

Dan T.
I’m on some of those Internet survey panels myself; perhaps I even answered some of the surveys you commissioned (some of the questions above sound vaguely familiar). Sometimes the surveys ask weird stuff making me wonder just what the point of a survey is; your commentary gives me more background on that.

They can be pretty annoying with their repetitive questions; I’m sick of constantly getting asked my age, sex, zip code, and education level even though those are already on file in my record, and sometimes the same survey will ask those demographic questions more than once (it’s pretty common for a survey to ask my age at the beginning, then my birthdate at the end).

If a survey is too long (with lots and lots of questions about stuff I don’t give a flip about, like asking me a long series of questions of what I think of the difference between different brands of salty chips, their taste, their commercials, whether a particular brand gives “an impression of wholesomeness” or is one I “feel good about letting my kids eat” (I don’t actually have any kids), eventually I get to a point where I just want to get the darn thing over with so I’m not so careful in reading and answering the questions, perhaps producing some of the phenomena you see. On the other hand, I do often try to diligently answer questions even if it requires an annoying amount of digging through stuff like receipts that show, to the nearest dollar, how much I spent for my last tank of gas or printer ink cartridge (I’m fortunately enough of a packrat to usually have those receipts even a few weeks later when the survey is asked; I imagine most others, who threw away the receipt, just give the survey-takers a guesstimate off the top of their head.)

Am I breaking their rules where they keep reminding me that one condition of participating in their surveys is to never tell anybody else about what they ask in their surveys? (But then they keep sending me stuff branded with their name as bonus prizes, meaning that if I actually use it, people may notice that I’m a member of that survey panel and ask me about it.)

PJ
What a great discourse on the issue. In the face of how much data (and common sense) point to the likely invalidity of much of online poll research, the extent to which some people don’t really care about the validity of the data is disappointing. But in reality, the low cost and quicker execution are admittedly compelling incentives not to care. Your trap questions are a great way to try to separate the good from the bad and ugly.

RFK
I was about to say that I have been a participant in not just four, but five of the activities mentioned. But then I realized that you said ‘in the last 3 months’. Perhaps some responders were overlooking that requirement as well.

Please be advised that duplicate bridge is just one style of contract bridge. There are many contract bridge players who do not play duplicate bridge.

I participate in online surveys to rate my latest restaurant meal. I dare say that I have not been honest by saying a manager stopped by my table when, in fact, a manager was nowhere in sight.

Gregory Kohs
@Dan: I suppose you are breaking rules about non-disclosure, but (like the GFDL license and Wikipedia) I have to also suppose that very few entities who issue content under such terms actually expect that the terms will be followed to the letter by everyone subject to the terms.

@RFK: What are you, some kind of bridge director or something?

RFK
There is always room for humor – even on AKAHELE. I don’t have many answers but I enjoy browsing and searching. Count me as a regular AKAHELE reader.

Sarge
I am not an active internet survey participant, but had to laugh a little at myself while reading this, because I do have a bread-making machine in my home. It was given to me by my somewhat senile grandmother a few years back as a housewarming gift. I certainly do not see myself as the sort who would fit the demographic of a stereotypical bread-making machine owner (if there is even such a thing), but if I ever did run across that question on a survey, I would have to answer it honestly!

Very well written. I thoroughly enjoy all the content on Akahele thus far, I am glad to have stumbled onto this site, it has been refreshing and thought provoking.

Directory:Akahele/The trade of free culture

2010-10-23T01:36:14Z

Seurat: "Om nom nom nom"? (partial)

Several weeks ago, I wrote an article here about [http://akahele.org/2009/03/in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/ Wikipedia and Art], which discussed aspects of the [http://www.wikipediaart.org/ Wikipedia Art project].
<table style="float: left; border=" border="0" width="155">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/180px-wikipedia_art-copy-150x150.jpg" alt="Wikipedia Art logo" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption" style="text-align: left;">Official logo of the Wikipedia Art project</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
This performance art project started by artists [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Kildall Scott Kildall] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Stern Nathaniel Stern] created quite [http://www.rhizome.org/discuss/view/41713 a bit of discussion] in the Art world, both negative and positive. The reaction in the Wikipedia world was, of course, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_Art completely predictable]. The project has regained a place in Wikipedia article space (at least until the ''deletion hit squad'' reads this article), through what is being now called the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Art_controversy Wikipedia Art controversy]".

This story escalated, by some strange coincidence, on the very day that I posted my article about Wikipedia Art on this blog: on March 23, 2009, Scott Kildall received an [http://wikipediaart.org/legal/032309-Isenberg.pdf initial letter] from Douglas Isenberg, hired legal counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation. The letter complained that the Wikipedia Art website may be violating trademark law by its use of "Wikipedia" in the domain name, which is a registered trademark in the US (the Foundation later emphasized it did not in fact assert that [http://wikipediaart.org/legal/040909-WikimediaResponse.html Wikipedia Art was violating trademark law]). This incident was covered by [http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/wikipedia-threatens- an article] on the Electronic Freedom Foundation website and by further articles on the [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/wikipedia-suit-could-put-it-on-the-wrong-side-of-fair-use.ars Ars Technica] and [http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/271551 Digital Journal] websites. This independent coverage, ironically, seems to indicate that Wikipedia Art has suddenly fulfilled the notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia.

The Wikimedia Foundation (which controls Wikipedia and other related projects) has long been a leading supporter of the "free culture" movement, insisting that all contributions made to its projects be released under "free licenses", either the GNU free software license (a license which has been found to be highly unsuitable for encyclopedia entries) or (more recently) the Creative Commons. This is a phenomenon that I have examined already in depth on the Wikipedia Review blog: in two articles which may be read [http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20071212/wpgive-us-money-and-well-give-you-free-culture-another-fund-raising-ploy/ here] and [http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080114/violating-copyright-for-the-good-of-the-project/ here].

The idea of the "free culture" movement is both confusing for those not involved in the creative process and completely unnecessary for creators, since creators already have all of the rights to their works by definition. My personal position has always been that these "free culture" projects are always unnecessarily injecting into the agreements uninvolved third-parties who have no business being involved in the first place. A creator has the right to grant free licenses to whomever he or she pleases, without any of these "free culture" licenses. The fact that these unnecessary steps are being added to this process is already, in my mind, something which doesn't look like it's entirely upfront. When you consider that Wikipedia is now involved in [http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/04/14/vote-on-wikimedia-licensing-update-underway/ unilaterally changing the terms of their licenses already contracted to copyright holders without consulting the copyright holders themselves], this becomes something which is only theoretically legal and which will survive only if unchallenged.

Oddly, especially in light of this insistence that others release their contributions under a free license, both the Wikipedia name and logo are registered trademarks. This is not to say that either is the work of the Wikimedia Foundation, but were works by individual contributors (Dr. Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia in the case of the name -- which Dr. Sanger confirmed to me via e-mail; and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_logos#The_variants a collective of two users] in the case of the logo) which were "donated" to the Wikimedia Foundation, their copyright being "assigned" to the Foundation, which later registered both as trademarks. Of course, the registration of trademarks is based on "use" not "ownership".

An extremely animated discussion of this incident began on the [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-April/051501.html Wikimedia Foundation mailing list] with [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-April/051505.html a comment made by WMF legal council Mike Godwin], who tried to downplay the letter that was sent to Kildall. Unfortunately, at the time of this writing, it would seem that this de-escalation did not include granting permission for the Wikipedia Art site to use the "Wikipedia" name.

This is confounded by the idea that the Wikimedia Foundation requires users to adhere to a policy which is referred to as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_legal_threats No Legal Threats]. This policy states that anyone who makes a legal threat against other Wikipedia editors, or against the Foundation itself, will be blocked from using Foundation-hosted services until the legal threat is ''resolved''. However, this courtesy routinely is not extended to those with whom the Wikimedia Foundation has legal differences. There is no evidence that any "dispute resolution" procedure was followed, and as a legally trained Wikipedian [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2009-April/100393.html pointed out] on the English Wikipedia mailing list, a letter from an attorney is usually perceived as a "legal threat", regardless of how ''nicely'' the way the threat is phrased.

To further complicate matters, Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects depend on the allowances of "fair use" as it is defined under US law in order to illustrate certain articles, such as pasting in short clips of audio recordings or images of album covers. This "fair use" of copyright materials was at the center of the recent [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/07/brit_isps_censor_wikipedia/ ''Virgin Killer'' album cover] incident, and it is an integral part of the way that the Wikipedia community has decided that this type of use should be handled. As a matter of fact, if articles such as [http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/20090411-00.comment this] and [http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/12/28/wikimedia-commons-the-power-of-free-content-media/ this] are any indication, Wikipedia contributors have even more radical ideas about copyright and trademarks: ''they should be banned as the evil things that they are!''

Of course, one of the main problems of "free culture" is that it doesn't generate money, except if you license something to somebody else (something that you don't own but which has been labeled "free"). In order to license the content, you have to have rights to grant. The Wikimedia Foundation owns almost none of the content it serves, because the copyright owners do: the Foundation is only restating the grant of a license for its use, and this in spite of insisting ''that they are not "publishing"'' the material. It would seem that the only pieces of content that the Wikimedia Foundation owns openly would be the name "Wikipedia" and the project logos. They are however currently involved in [http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/04/22/the-french-come-calling-for-wikipedia-orange-strikes-mobile-deal/ a licensing and "co-branding" project] with France Telecom's Orange mobile phone network. Yet even in the [http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/04/22/bonjour-orange-wikimedia-partners-with-orange-to-spread-knowledge/ Wikimedia Foundation's press release] about this new business relationship, the language used by Kul Wadhwa of the Foundation's Business Development department (which is sort of an odd concept for a "free culture", "open source" project to have in the first place) is rather mixed. On one hand we have Wadhwa saying :
<blockquote>I have been consistently impressed by their dedication to the Foundation’s mission of spreading free knowledge. They appreciate the importance of our community in everything we do, they’re committed to supporting neutral point-of-view, and they have an increasing interest in open source technology. The Foundation is always interested in business partnerships which understand our culture and help expand our mission, and Orange is an ideal partner for us.</blockquote>
However in the next statement, Wadhwa leaves the "free culture" world behind and enters the board room:
<blockquote>This is an important new revenue stream to build on our successful fundraising campaigns...</blockquote>
The [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Orange_and_Wikimedia_announce_partnership_April_2009QA Q&A page] also makes for interesting reading. Answer three is especially interesting here :
<blockquote>Q3: '''Is this partnership a way for Wikimedia to monetize content?'''

A3: The Wikimedia Foundation projects are free of advertising, and we don't expect that will ever change. However, under the free license used by the Wikimedia projects, it has always been permissible for other entities to republish Wikimedia project content, and add advertisements to it. Many organizations have done this. Our mission is to disseminate educational materials as widely as possible; we are happy to partner with both non-commercial and commercial entities to achieve that goal.

Within this partnership '''we have agreed that Orange will place targeted marketing alongside the branded Wikimedia content it will republish on the Orange mobile and web platforms. '''</blockquote>
Although these two situations, ''Wikipedia Art'' and the Orange agreement, do not seem at the surface to be related, they come to pass at approximately the same time. This perceived change in attitude from the traditional "free culture" outlook to a more "bottom line, business-oriented" perspective seems to be interconnected in a very profound way.

On one hand, we have a not-for-profit charity entering into a for-profit relationship with another company to license content which they neither own nor claim to "publish", but only "host". The content is all made by third-parties who retain the copyright, upon which the not-for-profit is currently attempting to impose a change of license without formally consulting all of the copyright holders, and which contains a great deal of copyright material which can only be justified under a US "fair use law". In addition, much of this is concurrently happening in the European Union, where the copyright laws are much stronger and where "fair use" doesn't apply.

And then you have two guys who decided to make a performance art project on the not-for-profit site and are using the not-for-profit's name on their non-commercial website to discuss their own artistic work connected to the site.

Which is the bigger problem for the Wikipedia community? Which is a bigger threat to Wikipedia's future? Which is a bigger threat to society?

As a work of performance art, however, Wikipedia Art must be seen as a successful action, at least according to terms that I described in my initial article here. Wikipedia Art has acted as a mirror reflecting reality back to Wikipedia and the people who consider themselves part of that "community". As one participant [http://www.webcitation.org/5gLz9yKmr posted] on the English Wikipedia mailing list:
<blockquote>Yeah, Wikipedia Art are basically trolls, but I find this disturbing. If Wikipedia can make legal threats to trolls and deny it, and accuse trolls of trademark violation in a baseless way, they can do it to anyone, and the next guy they do it to may not necessarily be a troll.</blockquote>
So, Akahele salutes Kildall and Stein for creating this situation in which the ''reality'' of the Wikimedia Foundation has been so clearly illustrated.

'''Image credits:'''
<ul>
<li>Wikipedia Art logo, [http://www.wikipediaart.org/ <span class="comment">GFDL License</span>].</li>
</ul>

==Comments==

5 Responses to “ The trade of free culture ”

Comments RSS

Kato
Wikipedia governance is riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies. And it is aggressive at every turn, pushing any of its many positions.

The most obvious flaw is the empty rhetorical cry of “No Censorship” when in reality, the same Wikipedia editors “censor” and mould facts every minute of the day. They aggressively laud the “No Censorship” fallacy one minute, then aggressively edit out “unencyclopedic” content the next.

Wikipedians often bandy around rallying cries denouncing Copyright and see themselves as at the vanguard of “Free Culture”. So it comes as no surprise that on the other hand, Wikipedia has become more aggressively ruthless in the protection of its own Copyright.

Such contradictions are typical. One could spend a week noting them all and only scratch the surface.

Paul Wehage
And another predictable thing has happened: The “Wikipedia Art Controversy” article is up for deletion..

One choice quote:

Comment. Their site has a collation of news reports, which may be an easy way to find reliable sources on this story:[1]. It’s an interesting exercise: create a website potentially infringing on Wikipedia’s trademark, create a page about it on Wikipedia, blog about its deletion and start a controversy about Wikipedia apparently censoring art, gaining coverage enough to make the story notable… Fences and windows (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So, apparently, Kildall and Stein are doing this to be able to have an article in Wikipedia….never mind that they already DO have articles in Wikipedia. It just boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT

Fences and windows
*Ahem* Paul, I didn’t argue for deletion. Quit the Wikilawyering. I was just commenting on the circular nature of what they are up to. The “Wikipedia Art controversy” is (sadly) notable thanks to the Wikimedia Foundation’s footbullet of sending lawyers’ letters. I don’t think that Wikipedia Art are right to try to ride on the fame of the Wikipedia name, but perhaps the best approach would have been to give them the cold shoulder. Do not feed the trolls, as the saying goes.

The original deletion of the page about Wikipedia Art was quite correct, and if the creators didn’t see it coming then they’re amazingly naive. Wikipedia is about creating an encyclopedia – it has a sandbox to play in for test edits, but this was plain old vandalism. If I shit on your doorstep, I don’t expect you to frame it and call it a work of art. The reaction to the deletion has been wounded pride among the art community because Wikipedia could see that these Emperors of art had no clothes on.

These artists might think they’re being creative with their little “intervention”, but they’re put in the shade by the hackers from 4chan, many of whom are younger than the 18-year-old Wikipedia editor who deleted the Wikipedia Art page – I find the focus on his age in the reaction to the deletion distasteful.

4channers recently hacked the Time 100 online poll using scripts. Not only did their founder, moot, “win” the poll, but the initials of the top results even spelled out “Marblecake also the Game”. Now that is much more creative than anything I’ve seen from Wikipedia Art. There’s a section on the Time 100 Wikipedia page if you want to read more, including the meaning of the message.

Paul Wehage
I find it ironic that this Wikipedia anon is trying to inform me of something (the Time 100/4Chan business) that we here at Akahele have been discussing for the past week–I believe that tomorrow’s post by Judd Bagley will discuss this subject. It was almost the subject of my article last week, but being involved in the Arts myself, I found that the Wikipedia Art situation merited more immediate attention.

The Wikipedia Art situation is yet another instance of Kool-aid drinkers who are engaging in moving the goalposts because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Whether you personally believe that Wikipedia Art is important or not, the controversy that it generated is clearly notable under the criteria that you (as part of the Wikipedia community) have established for inclusion. It more than meets those criteria. Kildall and Stein are also clearly notable artists.

If you don’t like the fact that Wikipedia Art is now clearly notable, then complain to the WMF legal staff who created this situation by sending what appears to be an ill-considered letter to the artists threatening a lawsuit which goes against the entire philosophical base upon which Wikipedia rests. The agreement with Orange is yet another manifestation of this same philosophical mutation.

As far as pointing out that somebody is only 18 and is acting like a child, that seems to me to be a fairly objective statement, since someone who is 18 (or younger) may still be psychologically a child. That this person is allowed to be in a position of authority on this sort of website will be the subject of future posts here. If you’re offended by this statement, I’m sure that you’ll be even more offended by this post. Age and experience DO count, sorry.

…and your point was? You seem to be suggesting that Kildall and Stein started the Wikipedia Art Controversy article themselves as a means of generating, uh, drama?

Can you give me any concrete proof that would suggest that this statement is true? Are you suggesting that Kildall and Stein are using sockpuppets on Wikipedia à la Wordbomb?

Leaving aside the fact that Wordbomb turned out to be right, how much of this idea was generated by the us against them party line that permeates so much of WikiLife?

Nihiltres
@Paul Wehage: While I disagree with other points in your article and posts on this page, I think that you’re particularly wrong when it comes to your point about WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Wikipedia Art’s primary problem was that it was something made up one day (WP:NFT), though it was also a self-reference (WP:SELFREF), and various points of what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). All of these were around long before Wikipedia Art, so your suggestion that Wikipedians were “moving the goalposts” is clearly false.

I don’t endorse the summary given for Werdna’s deletion of the page (it wasn’t correct), but I do endorse the deletion itself—not because Wikipedia Art was bad (it was interesting!), or because I don’t like it, but because it was inappropriate for Wikipedia under the established standards.

Directory:Akahele/The persistence of misinformation

2010-10-23T01:35:28Z

Seurat: "Om nom nom nom"? (partial)

As we mature in years through the Internet Age, we take notice of a disappointing trend regarding the reliability of information found online. Message boards full of pseudonymous theories and rumors compete for space against opinion editorials penned by professional journalists. Breathless blog posts exceed the reach of a mere university lecture series. And many popular homespun YouTube videos find a much wider audience than the televised proceedings of the legislative bodies of the United States. To be sure, for ages harmless mistakes and deliberate misinformation alike have been part and parcel of publishing and broadcasting information for wider audiences. Yet, it seems that the persistence of misinformation in this modern age is even more pernicious than it was, say, thirty years ago. More people today seem eager to believe anything they see in electronically-formatted print; things that have no more credibility than a supermarket tabloid announcing the birth of Pamela Anderson's secret alien abduction love child. And so, I would like to take this time and space to explore just a few anecdotal examples of the longevity of untruth on the Internet.

'''Snopes approved'''

Just the other day, a friend of my wife's forwarded an e-mail "alert" of the chain-mail variety, warning automobile travelers not to lock their cars with their key-fob remotes, because lurking high-tech burglars might capture the frequency of that signal, then gain access to your vehicle and rob it of its contents while you are inside Starbucks ordering your caramel latte.
<table style="float: left;" border="0" cellspacing="5" align="left">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/snopes_logo.jpg" alt="" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">Snopes.com logo</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
What I already know, and undoubtedly many readers here also know, is that there is a website, [http://www.snopes.com Snopes.com], whose sole purpose is to debunk Internet mythologies such as this one. (If you haven't yet discovered Snopes, add it to your bookmarked arsenal of useful sites.) Yet, what was particularly disconcerting to me about this specific e-mail legend, was that it proclaimed in bold letters, "THIS HAS BEEN CHECKED ON SNOPES". Snopes, of course, [http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/lockcode.asp takes issue] with almost every piece of information in the thread, but that doesn't mean some readers can't be thrown off track with this meaningless assurance that the information has been "checked". This kind of fraudulent diversionary ploy will rope in another small portion of readers for whom Snopes.com is a reputable information source.

'''Voter eligibility'''

Every election season we witness another persistent form of Internet-disseminated misinformation: fraudulent alerts about voter eligibility. Leading up to our most recent election day (Tuesday, November 4, 2008), I heard mainstream media stories about e-mails being circulated with the advice:
<blockquote>Due to heavy expected turnouts at the polls, Republicans are urged to vote on Tuesday, while Democrats are advised to vote on Wednesday.</blockquote>
Or, alternative hoaxes circulated that polling places would be staffed with undercover police ready to arrest anyone with so much as an outstanding parking ticket, to frighten away any voter who might have had an infraction with the authorities. Level-headed, rational adults might laugh away these pranks, but with [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/neuharth/2004-01-22-neuharth_x.htm nearly 170 million] estimated registered voters in the United States, I'm sure that at least a few hundred were adversely persuaded by these nuggets of misinformation.

'''Another diversionary ploy'''

Over on Wikipedia, I see a similar diversionary ploy that is gaining strength. Users of the largest encyclopedia are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer cautioned] by Wikipedia proponents not to believe every claim they read therein, but to "double check" the reference citations that are provided at the end of most articles. Problem is, most readers don't take the time to do such double work. Figuring that because there ''are'' references nearby, the content is ''likely ''reliable, readers assume the bare facts stated within the Wikipedia articles are "good enough" to gain a background on the topic at hand. They also hear time and time again (in news article comments, and blogs, and message boards, no doubt) that virtually every mistake ever introduced to Wikipedia would "[http://www.twistimage.com/blog/archives/why-business-needs-to-stop-worrying-and-love-wikipedia/ probably be corrected in less time than it took you to read this article]". Again, this is a largely untested diversionary ploy that will rope in another portion of readers for whom Wikipedia suddenly becomes a reputable information source.

'''Where was Lincoln?'''

Last week, I had a conversation with published author Pat Glesner. He lived and was educated in Kalamazoo, Michigan, not far from my birthplace of Jackson, Michigan, where he now resides. He views editing Wikipedia as a casual hobby, something he doesn't go out of his way to do, but if he finds errors in an article, he fixes them. He says of Wikipedia, "it's not a particularly good research site". In early January, Glesner came upon something that first appeared in the lead section of the Wikipedia article about Jackson, Michigan. Ever [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jackson,_Michigan&diff=prev&oldid=131751213 since May 18, 2007], the article claimed that Abraham Lincoln from Illinois was in attendance at Jackson's early convention of the brand-new Republican Party, in 1854.
<table style="float: right;" border="0" cellspacing="5" align="left">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/lincoln_1854.jpg" alt="" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="photocaption">Abraham Lincoln, in 1854</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
Not only that, but a diversionary ploy was put in place, with the assuring text, "Undisputed is the fact that..." Upon whose authority was this "undisputed fact" entered into the world's largest encyclopedia? That would be IP address editor 66.231.37.178 (no real name, not even a pseudonymous identity). The paragraph was later supported with a reference citation to a news article served on Boston.com, but that link [http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2004/04/10/four_cities_claim_to_be_birthplace_of_the_republican_party?mode=PF points now] to a non-working address. And so, a veneer of authority was built around this supposed "fact", it being "undisputed" after all -- and cited, to boot!

Glesner, a multi-degreed Historical Commissioner, knew that one of Kalamazoo's claims to fame is that it was the only city in Michigan documented to have received a visit from Abe Lincoln (in 1856, to support then presidential candidate John Fremont). So, Glesner knew the "fact" about Lincoln's presence in Jackson two years earlier must be wrong. He took some time to check his understanding, then Glesner modified the Wikipedia article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jackson,_Michigan&diff=262826238&oldid=262550036 on January 8, 2009].

So, Wikipedia had a falsehood stuck in place for 601 days, on an article we [http://stats.grok.se/en/200801/Jackson%2C%20Michigan estimate to have been viewed] over 89,000 times before finally being fixed. The misinformation surrounded the earliest political career of perhaps the most important American individual of all time. But nobody spotted it for over six hundred days.

'''Hoaxes galore'''

It's not like this one incident is alone on Wikipedia. Entire articles have been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Shii/Hoaxes&oldid=276937327 cut from whole cloth], pulling the wool over the public's eyes for not just months, but years on end. There's the Wikipedia story of Argusto Emfazie, failed occultist. For four and a half years, Wikipedia published the tale of this fictitious man's "biography that promotes mysticism and the occult purely for the sake of mysticism and the occult". For well over three years, Wikipedia hosted a tongue-in-cheek article about the "Brahmanical See", a fabricated account of how the Hindu religion has its own version of the Pope. Indeed, one of the first editors to spot this hoax was chastised and blocked by the Wikipedia powers-that-be for having the nerve to attempt deletion of [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15472&st=0&p=75220&#entry75220 a fake article].
<blockquote>...the vandal Nexxt 1 has reprised vandalism by adding the {{prod}} tag to the page and fraudulently backdating the tag start date by five days or more, in an attempt to trigger immediate deletion (e.g. in a 13 October 2007 edit, he/she added the tag with the start date of 8 October 2007). The vandal has repeated the abuse of the {{prod}} tag despite being warned on his/her talk page (see above). The vandal has been concurrently warned for actions on other pages.</blockquote>
Just a few days ago, the Wikipedia article about Indian author Ravi Belagere was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ravi_Belagere&action=history&year=2009&month=3 completely blanked] by an administrator and re-started with much more basic information, because over a six-month period, the article had been allowed to acquire all sorts of defamatory rubbish inserted by anonymous IP address editors (again, no real names to attribute to, no real identity to hold accountable). So, this is our situation with today's Internet host of the largest encyclopedia. Unnamed assailants are free to pin allegations of statutory rape and underworld mob connections on real-named subjects of biographies on Wikipedia, and the only defense for the victim is to just... keep... monitoring... their Wikipedia article. Every day. For the rest of their life.

'''Highest offices vulnerable to the wiki-mob'''

Even the hundred Wikipedia articles about the 100 United States senators were found to be vulnerable to drive-by defamation, and lots of it. A systematic study evaluated each and every edit made to these specific 100 articles, throughout the fourth quarter of 2007. The survey's [http://www.mywikibiz.com/Wikipedia_Vandalism_Study data revealed] that 6.8% of the time, there was something wrong, vindictive, or defamatory lurking in these articles.

Indeed it was recent malevolent information added to the Wikipedia biographies about Senators Robert Byrd and Edward Kennedy that prompted Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales to make promises to the mainstream media that he would usher in new editorial controls that would make such loosey-goosey online defamation a thing of the past at Wikipedia.

'''Surely, there must be a fix!'''

It may not surprise you to learn that the Wikimedia Foundation (caretaker of the Wikipedia.org domain) has had at its disposal a technical "fix" that would help prevent probably the vast majority of these "drive-by" misinformation campaigns.

This broad-reaching solution to what perhaps is Wikipedia's biggest problem and most dangerous legal liability would be the implementation of a Mediawiki software extension called "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions&oldid=275049961 Flagged Revisions]". With flagged revisions, any new edit to a page would sit in a "holding" space where it would need to be "sighted" by an independent editor who was registered with the community and had a legacy of at least 4 days of editing and 10 accepted edits to Wikipedia. This solution has worked admirably on the German version of Wikipedia, but the English Wikipedia (under the scattered leadership of Jimbo Wales and a do-little Board of Trustees) has ''still'' failed to implement flagged revisions. In fact, the Wikimedia leadership has [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23166 promised flagged revisions for years] now, but those in the know ultimately realize a diversionary ploy when they see one.
<h4>Image credits:</h4>
<li><span style="color: #000000;">Snopes.com logo, [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 <span class="comment">fair use doctrine</span>].</span></li>
<li><span style="color: #000000;">Daguerreotype of Abraham Lincoln by Polycarp Von Schneidau, Chicago, October 27, 1854; Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library, [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 <span class="comment">fair use doctrine</span>].</span></li>

==Comments==

8 Responses to “ The persistence of misinformation ”

Comments RSS

David Cooperberg
“Flagged Revisions” seems like a reasonable solution to unnecessary libel. I would hope that Wikipedia would get its act together soon.

Barry Kort
Lar writes, “There is nothing more frustrating in life than knowing that you can solve a problem, by using the right tool, if only you would be allowed to.”

In scientific review of academic work, the right tool is dialogue and peer review.

In particular, a powerful tool is the ability to ask good questions for which the answers are not yet well constructed, well articulated, or well understood.

Most of us are painfully aware that Wikipedia discussions do not support that essential tool of scholarly peer review. It is also lamentable that Wikipedia Review also disables that affordance, albeit to a lesser extent than Wikipedia or Wikiversity.

A lot of people (especially on Wikipedia) think the right tool is a convenient rule that can be enforced by means of a block or a ban to silence or marginalize rival contributors.

My question for such believers is this: How did you come to believe that exiling rival editors is a sensible practice?

Jon Awbrey
Next Question 1. Who would want a system in which misinformation can persist?

Next Question 2. And Why?

Next Question 3. How come I always have to be the one who asks the next question?

Gregory Kohs
Jon, if you’re really looking for answers, I’ll do my best to (quickly) address your questions. I will also assume that you are (mostly) targeting Wikipedia with your questions.

(1.) Let’s first imagine an encyclopedia system that actually maximizes honest information and reduces misinformation to an infinitesimal rarity. Would people use such an encyclopedia? Absolutely. Would people become engaged with and feel passionately about the process of maintaining such an encyclopedia? Probably not. Therefore, I believe that the governing powers behind Wikipedia want a system where misinformation can persist, because it motivates and engages people, perpetually, to keep actively participating in the challenge presented them. Would you invest your time to play a game of Whack-A-Mole, if you knew that only the red mole pops up, and only every 6 seconds? Or would you rather play a traditional game of Whack-A-Mole, where there is randomness and disarray in the field of moles?

(2.) Engaged and passionate consumers are more easily monetized, even if it means luring them to conferences where they pay registration fees that support the keynote speaker fees, or even if it means occasionally diverting consumers from non-profit projects to highly similar for-profit projects, or even if it means arranging it so that the non-profit project uses tax-advantaged gifts to help pay rent at a highly similar for-profit project. Only engaged and passionate consumers would tolerate such manipulation.

(3.) Because it’s a role at which you excel, Mr. Awbrey.

Jon Awbrey
Greg,

What you say is true, so partial credit is due, but what I have in mind is the Cui Bono or the Market Research question: “If you could build it, who would beat a path to your door?”

That is, who would be in the market for a system in which one can control which misinformation persists?

Barry Kort
Jon Awbrey asks, “Who would be in the market for a system in which one can control which information persists?”

There are four kinds of professionals who might be in that market.

One is the Public Relations Specialist.

Another is the Propagandist.

A third is a new kind of technician who specializes in Search Engine Optimization (SEO). Their objective is to tweak content so as to make it rise in the Google PageRank calculations.

And a fourth is a new kind of technician who specializes in Content Management Systems (CMS).

Notably, there are two notorious former Wikipedia Admins who were engaged in SEO and CMS and who got into big trouble for their zeal in manipulating the system for unencyclopedic purposes.

Henry Lind
I’m amazed but not at all surprised about the Lincoln story and how long the bogus information remained.

This is very similar to Ebay taking down counterfeit items on multiple occassions from the same sellers only to find the same items posted all over again. Whack a mole indeed…

The motivations of Ebay are slightly different in that they earn commisssions from the sale of these illegal items and apparently they feel that they are shielded by current internet caselaw, so they pretend to take action in order to make it appear that they are making a good faith effort to enforce their own user agreement.

I would be interested to hear about any libel actions against Wikipedia (past or present).I’m assuming that they aren’t too concerned about libel issues?

nathanr|ca » The persistence of misinformation
[...] Akahele This entry was posted by Nathan on April 10th, 2009 at 10:42 and is filed under Editorials, [...]

Directory:Akahele/Ten new Wikipedia articles

2010-10-23T01:27:48Z

Seurat: "Om nom nom nom"? (partial)

Over the Labor Day weekend last month, I thought it might be interesting to make a short case study of 10 new articles created on Wikipedia. So, I monitored ten brand-new, freshly-created articles, in order of their creation across a span of a few minutes. Let's see what has happened to each of them after the first month.
<ul>
<li>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lido_Palace Lido Palace]</li>
</ul>
The story of a thoroughbred racehorse, this article has about 5 other articles linking to it, and it gets about 3 page views per day.
<ul>
<li>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bohemes The Bohemes]</li>
</ul>
This is a rather promotional article about a Dutch indie rock band, having no other articles linking to it, and getting about 3 page views per day. The band members are nicknamed Dingers, Doodles, Bongos, and Whiskers. How cute. The article was created by a new User named "Libertine33" who had never before made an edit on Wikipedia, and hasn't made one since The Bohemes. The author made it a considerable point to attest how The Bohemes have been compared to English rockers, The Libertines, although no source supporting that claim was provided. Indeed, if one were to search the legitimate news archives, no independent source makes this claim. But this is typical for Wikipedia, a great compendium of unsubstantiated opinion.
<ul>
<li>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Neal Jesse Neal]</li>
</ul>
An article about an American professional wrestler. This page has about 75 other Wikipedia articles linking to it, because pages about pro wrestlers are a very prolific and important component of Wikipedia's effort to document all things related to fan-based culture. The new article has been getting about 300 page views per day, by far the most popular of these 10 new articles. It was authored by Richard "Wrestler" Lopez, who [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Richard_%22Wrestler%22_Lopez&oldid=316721253#1999-2008:_Wrestling_Journals claims] to be a retired professional wrestler and now a "wrestling journalist" by dint of his past work for a failed magazine, which led to a job as a waiter, which led to his opening a Blogger account. As you read this self-written tale of Lopez, you begin to take more interest in his life story than that of his subject, Jesse Neal. Another characteristic of Wikipedia -- the drama of the editors often outweighs the story ''in situ''.
<ul>
<li>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nico_samaras Nico samaras]</li>
</ul>
This was an interesting case. The article didn't last long (46 minutes) before being deleted by a Wikipedia administrator. It had been getting about 1 page view attempt per day. This was apparently the second time the article's creation had been attempted in several months, and both times, the sole purpose of the content was to defame and attack the subject. This is one of Wikipedia's most criticized flaws -- it is a powerful online defamation platform.

While I will not repeat the entire content of the deleted article, it may be useful to the reader to see just how Wikipedia was exploited in this case to tarnish the reputation of Samaras. The article described him as surrounded by "fraud allegations" and in the public eye for his "open homosexuality". The article closed with a rather outlandish claim, that Samaras "recently engaged with various aquatic and beachcombing business enterprises, most notably a singular idea to establish a chain of seaweed restaurants across Holland and France." This is an encyclopedia, they say?
<ul>
<li>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Sinclair_%28voice_actor%29 Ian Sinclair (voice actor)]</li>
</ul>
This article showcases the fact that Sinclair is a voice actor for the Funimation production company. Actually, other than listing the roles Sinclair has played, this is about all the article mentions about Sinclair. Only two other articles in Wikipedia link to this one, and it's garnering only about 6 page views per day.
<ul>
<li>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bytown_Railway_Society Bytown Railway Society]</li>
</ul>
After about two weeks, this one was also deleted by a Wikipedia administrator, as the content was found to be a copyright violation, released under a free license without permission. Nobody seems to have broken a sweat about that, since the article was getting only about 1 attempted page view per day.
<ul>
<li>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco_Trend_Incorporated Eco Trend Incorporated]</li>
</ul>
Deleted within an hour, as the importance of the subject wasn't substantiated by the article. Virtually no attempted page views. Another waste of time on Wikipedia.
<ul>
<li>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Coren Yitzhak Coren]</li>
</ul>
A fairly extensive biography about an Israeli politician. Unfortunately, he is about 150 times less interesting to readers than the article about the pro wrestler, as Coren's article obtains [http://stats.grok.se/en/200909/Yitzhak_Coren about 2 page views per day].
<ul>
<li>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saari_Raat Saari Raat]</li>
</ul>
Deleted speedily as an outright copyright violation. About 1 attempted page view per day.
<ul>
<li>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ian_Kwok Ian Kwok]</li>
</ul>
This one was almost certainly a spoof, a joke. It was getting about 330 page views per day while published, then only about 1 or 2 attempted page views per day after deletion.

The article discussed the accomplishments of one Ian Kwok, a professional badminton instructor, purportedly the coach of the Singapore national team. He was also a volleyball coach and a Frisbee coach (for the non-existent Singapore Frisbee International Team). He enjoys playing the violin.

'''The rundown'''

So, out of ten new articles on Wikipedia, how did they fare?

One article (Jesse Neal) seemed to be quite popular and accurate enough. The other four remaining legitimate articles are not very popular at all, so you have some level of accomplishment, but very little recognition or overall utility. Fifty percent of the ten articles survived more than two weeks.

The other fifty percent did not exist after two weeks. One was likely a complete joke, another was a deliberate attack page, and the other three might arguably merit inclusion if only they were authored properly without violating copyright -- though you'd suspect that even if this were done, the pages wouldn't attract more than a handful of daily page views.

Were a larger sample to have been taken, do you suspect that only 50% of new Wikipedia articles survive for more than a week or two? Do you suppose that only 10% actually survive and garner a level of traffic that sets them apart from the odd curiosity, as was the case with the Jesse Neal article?

One thing is clear. With over 3 million articles in place on the English Wikipedia, the heady days of "help us build the encyclopedia, create the article you were looking for" are well bygone. Another thing is fairly clear. The [http://stats.grok.se/en/200909/Line_management articles] that I [http://stats.grok.se/en/200909/Job%20sharing personally] created [http://stats.grok.se/en/200909/Robert%20Half%20International recently] seem to serve more people's needs than at least 80%-90% of Wikipedia's other new articles. But, now that I've been blocked from editing Wikipedia, the encyclopedia won't be getting any more such useful, well-written articles from me.

==Comments==

9 Responses to “ Ten new Wikipedia articles ”

Comments RSS

Neil Baker
Interesting idea and taking a look at new articles goes some way to showing how close Wikipedia is to the point of saturation.

My own view is that I’d rather they were working more on getting “essential” articles up to scratch and then locking them, but that’ll never happen.

Because of that, and because of the constant search to create a “new” article, the result is “news-style” creations and splits/forks/coatracks from existing articles.

Given the amount of content now on Wikipedia, and given the vast majority is of a terrible quality, it would make perfect sense to end open editing and send the experts in.

I shan’t hold my breath.

Dan T.
Is “Saari Raat” pronounced “sorry rat”?

Edward Buckner
Very good, but be careful of the obvious implication that people will try to draw: that Wikipedia is full up, or has reached saturation point, 3m articles etc.

Its coverage of academic and scholarly subjects – the real stuff of an encyclopedia – is woefully inadequate. My own tutor, who died recently and was one of the great and good of the academic establishment, still has no article.

The red links in the list below suggest that Wikipedia is a long way from being ‘filled up’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IEEE_publications
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophy_journals

Even when there is a blue link to follow, what you find on the other side is usually poorly written and inaccurate.

Arooj J.
The issue seems to be bleeding over into related articles. I was poking around The Bohemes article and it seems as if the original author is trying to inject The Bohemes into the articles of other bands.

Gregory Kohs
Arooj, it would appear you’re talking about the efforts of a user named “Smith Jones”. He was not the original author of the article about The Bohemes. It would seem fairly clear, though, that he’s a reader of Akahele!

CaliforniaSmith
I have a hard time reading this site due to its (to me) ugly layout.

I am not a picky reader and rarely notice a web pages layout.

But, in this case – something about the site makes it very unappealing to read.

It may be the grey bars on the sides.

My monitor resolution is 1280×1024.

Could you take a poll to see if anyone else feels as I do and then somehow fix the layout?

Thanks
California Smith

p.s.
I rarely run around criticizing people or web pages, but you do seem like a reasonable man who would listen. I understand that the content of a page should be more important than how the page is arranged, but I really think a better layout would retain readers to your blog.

Do you have your own monitor set up in portrait mode?

Gregory Kohs
I agree, the site’s layout leaves a great deal to be desired. Frankly, on a 100-point allocation scale, I would suspect that layout/design flaws are contributing about 12 to 14 points to our Alexa ranking stagnation (currently hovering around the 400,000th most popular websites). Surely, though, about 30 to 40 points are attributable to “content not interesting enough to me”, and another 20 to 30 points must go to “poor cross-channel marketing”.

The struggle is that we got this site off the ground as a nearly unfunded non-profit, and we took an available layout from a batch of WordPress templates that were already pre-fabricated.

Surely, we could find a better layout, or perhaps style one from scratch. But, (and I believe I speak for the other three directors) I think that until we at least cracked the top 100,000 Alexa sites, we did not have the time or motivation to work on design issues.

I certainly appreciate your feedback. If you have any specific recommendations for a new WordPress layout, please post them here, or contact me privately. I’m not hard to track down.

CaliforniaSmith
I know nothing about WordPress or web page layout but I did find this in a Google search.

If this is possible – try going to the Theme Options -> layout, and look at “Layout WIDTH and type (FLUID or FIXED)” where you can choose a fluid, rather than a fixed, width. That may fix the issue.

I am interested in maintaining the supply of Greg Kohs kerfuffle available on the internet – and I believe that increased web traffic to this site would aid me in that goal.

p.s. I had always assumed that the word kerfuffle was Yiddish, but when I looked up a more detailed definition – it appears that the word is actually Scottish.

Anthony DiPierro
I think what Greg’s trying to say is “patches welcome”. And, of course, cash is welcome too. We’re not a 501(c)(3), so you can’t deduct your contribution. But you’re more than welcome to make it. Make checks payable to “Internet Review Corporation”. Contact Greg for a mailing address.

Directory:Akahele/PhotoSketch creates mystic visions

2010-10-23T01:26:53Z

Seurat: "Om nom nom nom"?

No need to really say too much about the potential implications of something like this, so I will simply post the link and make a brief comment:

[http://gizmodo.com/5374890/this-is-a-photoshop-and-it-blew-my-mind '''This ''Is'' a Photoshop and It Blew My Mind''']

Even if this is an elaborate video hoax, I have no doubt that some team of ex-Google engineers will have something like this in prototype before the year 2015.

And then what?

There is currently an [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=29884458#File:Friends_eating_lunch_at_the_home_of_Michael_Lucas_on_Fire_Island.jpg argument underway] on Wikimedia Commons about whether someone captured in a photo among a private party crowd dotted with a gay pornography producer, actors, and fans is or is not actually [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Saranga&oldid=288603210 David Saranga], an Israeli diplomat and former Consul for Media and Public Affairs of Israel in the United States.

Of course it is David Saranga in [http://mywikibiz.com/Image:David_Saranga_at_the_home_of_Michael_Lucas_on_Fire_Island.JPG the real photograph] on Fire Island, but the prevailing administrative culture at Wikimedia projects is to protect those who have been quietly authorized to self-promote on the project, even if this means suppressing the verifiable truth to the unsuspecting public. This is yet another example of a continued neglect of [http://www.mywikibiz.com/Ethical_accountability ethical accountability].

Imagine what an instrument like PhotoSketch could do to our understanding of amateur photo-journalism and "truth". It is not an altogether encouraging prospect.

Directory:Akahele/The State of the Human Economy

2010-10-23T01:26:07Z

Seurat: "Om nom nom nom"? (partial)

Digging through a few conference notes from the [http://www.ctam.com CTAM Research Conference] of February 2007, I uncovered a few things I had jotted down while listening to [http://www.futuredesigndays.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=96:speaker-5&catid=39:speakers-2006&Itemid=102 Shari Swan], founder of Streative Branding and former global marketing executive at Reebok. Swan simply presented a timeline of human economic history, but I found it provocative enough then, and still enough now to share with you today.

Let me present my graphic version of the timeline (Swan’s didn’t look like this), and after you give it some thought and consideration, we can then discuss it:

[http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Timeline-smaller.jpg <img class="size-full wp-image-1197" title="Timeline smaller" src="http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Timeline-smaller.jpg" alt="Timeline of economies" width="432" height="197" />]

'''Tribal Economy'''

I don’t recall that Swan went into detail about the earliest phases of human development, but my cursory knowledge of civilization between 100,000 and 10,000 BC would evoke images of [http://www.ecotao.com/holism/hu_neand.htm Neanderthal] men, women, and children using stone tools to fashion crude stone weapons – most significantly the spear tip. The society would be organized around an extended family or perhaps a close-knit handful of families that we would now call a “tribe”. The tribe would have a self-contained economy, and the most common interaction between tribes would be of a defensive or violent nature. Food would be gained through the “hunt and gather” technique, and homesteads would not be permanent structures because wild game migrates with the seasons. Sitting in our comfortable, heated homes with full refrigerators, it is very difficult to even imagine human life in the Tribal Economy.

'''Rural Economy'''

Then, around 10,000 BC, a revolution in civilization transformed the economy. People [http://history-world.org/neolithic.htm learned to grow crops] that could be consumed, stored for off-season consumption, or traded to another tribe to keep them from attacking your tribe or to obtain some surplus product they had in their possession. This was the Rural Economy.

'''Industrial Economy'''

At about the time the crude steam engine was being made more practical and efficient (the years between 1700 and 1775), we can say mankind’s economy was transformed once again. Mechanical turning of wheels and milling tools was no longer dependent on horses walking in a circle or the [http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi105.htm cascading water of a mill race], so industrial manufacturing and processing could be located closer to centers of labor, resources, and distribution, and thus was born the Industrial Economy.

'''Consumer Economy'''

Swan suggests that after 200 years of the Industrial Economy’s accomplishments, manufacturing things that couldn’t be made by hand under the Rural Economy (railroad tracks, locomotives, automobiles, airplanes, and hydroelectric dams, to name a few), civilization graduated to a Consumer Economy, all about the household or the individual acquiring things that made life easier or symbolized status. This was the age of television sets, [http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/tvdinner.html frozen dinners], Barbie dolls, and annual stylistic alterations to automobiles so that consumers would just ''have'' to buy “the new model”. It’s important to understand the Consumer Economy (and don’t turn to Wikipedia for help – [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Consumer_economy&oldid=323722345 its article] about the Consumer Economy is abysmal), not only because it has so indelibly shaped our present urban and suburban culture, but because we are arguably still in it. More on that in a moment, though.

'''Human Economy – are we there yet?'''

Swan’s talk at the CTAM conference was not so much focused on this overall timeline upon which I’ve expended so many words taken from my crude understanding of each era, but rather Swan spent most of her presentation elaborating on the characteristics of the most recent stop on that timeline: the Human Economy. I wish I had taken better notes, however, it was clear that Swan characterizes the Human Economy as placing a capital and cultural emphasis on ''bettering and enriching the person''. (Again, you will be lost if you turn to Wikipedia for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_economy a definition of “human economy”], which is a quaint irony, if you ask me.) Symbols of the Human Economy might include a fully booked yoga class at the local YMCA, the ever-increasing popularity of “continuing education” programs for adults and seniors at a community college or via distance learning, and of course, volunteer efforts that assist those less fortunate than they who provide the helping hand.

There’s more to it than just this, though. From what I can tell over the past 5 or 10 years, the phrase “human economy” has become inextricably intertwined with the concepts of “sustainability”, “green living”, and the “human ecology”. With wind energy fields springing up in the marketing nexus of Atlantic City, New Jersey, and solar energy farms sprouting up in erstwhile oil-rich Texas, one would be hard-pressed to argue that we are not in the midst of an economic shift of some degree. But, is it transformative? Would we be correct to say that the Consumer Economy (or, for that matter, even the Industrial Economy) are fully behind us, even in the most advanced American urban centers like San Francisco, Boston, or Portland? I would argue not. In other words, I am here to say that Shari Swan may have prematurely placed our society into a Human Economic era that we have not yet truly entered.

I’m willing to be called a curmudgeon or a cynic for saying this, but I do not believe that a significant number of us are dedicating our time and resources toward “bettering and enriching the human”. Though many of us would ''like'' to be doing this (or ''imagine'' ourselves to be doing so), the Consumer Economy still has us trapped – more than ever – in debt, in paycheck-to-paycheck budgeting, and indeed in federally mandated bail-outs of entire consumer-driven industries. I think we’re still mostly stuck in the Consumer Economy, and we need look no further than the sub-prime lending fiasco, or the debacle of the Iraq War which went off with nary a protest from American citizens who might bother to ask how we’d pay for such a war, or the fact that Craigslist.org is now most notorious for [http://www.docstoc.com/docs/13676359/Thomas-Dart-v-Craigslist enabling sexual prostitution], possibly even of minors – and our legal system is forced to exempt that website from punishment or even self-restraint, thanks to a [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html 1997 law that our Congress passed] without really understanding that the Internet is just another channel of publishing.

'''The proof is in the Internet'''

In fact, I think the Internet is the best proof that ours is still a Consumer Economy and not a Human Economy. If you look at the 10 most popular websites, four are devoted to ad-supported search and e-mail communications (Google, Yahoo!, MSN & MSN Live); and three are devoted to consumer transactions (eBay, Amazon, and Microsoft); leaving just three that could be described as oriented toward the Human Economy (Facebook, YouTube, and Wikipedia). Take Facebook. It has surged over the past two years to become the # 3 website by including more and more folks of my generation rather than the Britney Spears generation, bringing together long-lost high school classmates and former co-workers to talk about what’s important to them. But, what seems to be actually important to them? Apparently, the current rage is playing viral marketing games like ''Mafia Wars'' , ''FarmVille'', ''Farm Town'', and ''Sorority Life'', where enterprising code developers are capitalizing on the unwitting willingness of consumers to [http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/10/26/social-games-how-the-big-three-make-millions/ open their wallets] to feel connected. ''Sorority Life'' offers the following for your human betterment:
<blockquote>“Create the perfect look for your avatar. Hit the mall for the latest fashions. And get a job to pay off your shopping obsession.”</blockquote>
''Farm Town''’s value proposition to the consumer?
<blockquote>“Design, grow and maintain your farm and even send gifts to your friends. Play now and share the fun with everyone!”</blockquote>
This is not a return to the Rural Economy, folks.

What are your thoughts? Have we entered the Human Economy phase of civilization? Are we still in the Consumer Economy? Is the Human Economy something we should be striving for? Or, is there a better way to model our human timeline? I look forward to your comments below.
<h4>Image credits:</h4>
<li><span style="color: #000000;">''Timeline of economies'', [http://www.GregoryKohs.com Gregory Kohs], all rights reserved.[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pierre_Omidyar_Richard_Branson.jpg ]</span></li>

==Comments==

14 Responses to “ The State of the Human Economy ”

Comments RSS

Cedric
I have to agree strongly with you on this one, Greg. If we did not have an economy so dependent on consumer spending, we would not be in quite the mess that we presently are. From your description of Swan’s description of “human economy”, it sounds more like a hopeful prediction for the future than any realistic description of the present state of things. It has a very Star Trek-type feel to it.

Jon Awbrey
Let’s not talk of Wiki-Φerengi …

Jon Awbrey
Siriusly though, beginning a couple of decades ago my hooman ears were often bent by many conversations concerning the way that succeeding waves of revolution in human culture, industry, and technology had impacted, were impacting, and might impact our institutions of higher learning, not to mention the hapless if intrepid souls who pass through their portals, whether as consumers or producers of “knowledge”, much less to mention the rarer birds who chase that elusive flutterby of “wisdom”.

Ironically enough, the article I had in mind to pass along at this point is locked behind a JSTOR gate to which I am short a key as we speak, so let me just link to what looks like a reasonable facsimile of the same essay:

Susan M. Awbrey and David K. Scott, “The Third Transformation :
Universities into the Next Century”

Jonas D. Rand
We are still in the consumer economy, in my opinion, but to extend your analogy with the Social Web, somewhat participatory (in regards to commenting) noncommercial news sites like Common Dreams and Truthout are increasing in popularity, as well as networks like Indymedia/IMC. Amy Goodman has analyzed the transformation of the mass media into a forum for debate on political issues, on a scale of public participation never seen before. Still, though, the popularity of commercial media is strong, as is the monopoly held by major corporations like News Corp over the media. Additionally, as is pointed out at the end of this article, the majority of content on these sites is pure drivel, like what is mostly found on Facebook. I have an account under a fake name to see Wikipedians’ friends lists, and I happen to see some of the babble that takes place there. It’s a cesspool over there.

Jonas D. Rand
To correct: this was not an “analogy” with the Web, but rather the usage of the Web as an example of the consumer economy still being in use. The term “analogy” is incorrect in describing what this article says about the Web. It’s a great article, by the way.

aloma210
Jon’s play on words reminds me of the
full context: “It’s only me pursuing
something I’m not sure of. Across my
dream, with nets of wonder. I chase
the bright elusive butterfly of …..”
Could Lind have been dreaming of an
internet before there was one?

eme
i seems to me that we are arguably in the human economy in many ways….

but still also segments society are still probably caught up in the consumer economy

i think I also read (perhaps, was it Covey? – can’t remember) about the “personality ethic” – I can’t remember what that was supposed to have evolved into….

interesting post thanks.

Jon Awbrey
If you know me, you know it cost me
an e-fort of will in some x-tremity
to e-rase that hyphen of e-lusivity.

I will check the liner notes, but later maybe —
there’s a man with a net, and he’s chasing me!

Tweets that mention Akahele -- Topsy.com
This post was mentioned on Twitter by Gregory Kohs and Shari Swan.

Shari Swan said: Greg Kohs has just written about the Human Economy from my lecture 3 years ago!

Anthony DiPierro
I think the logarithmic length of time periods in that analysis belies the bias of its methodology. But maybe I would be more impressed if I heard the actual speech.

Gregory Kohs
I want to thank everyone for making comments on this post. Not to mention, I also received a comment via e-mail from Seth Finkelstein, who said:

You might want to take a look at Yochai Benkler’s recent famous book (in certain circles), Wealth Of Networks. It’s online and freely downloadable as a PDF. It’s making a related type of “Human Economy” argument, though phrased differently.

J Powell
Human economy? Nope.

Right idea, wrong moniker.

*Services* economy.

J Powell
I like your line of thought, Greg.

But I’d personally put the comparatives in the form of:

1. ECONOMIC
“Industrial/Goods” vs. “Services/Intangibles” economy.

2. VALUES-related
Individualistic/Materialism vs. Collectivist/Philanthropic.

My 2 cents: if you start to mix-up the green movement with the wellness-movement, there’s a mixup in metaphors, i.e. I consider “wellness” to be individualistic-materialism. Whereas “green” climate-conscious focus is, at the core, collectivist/philanthropic – at least until someone figures out how to score some dough off of it, in which case it plops back into category 1,

Huynh Hung Tien
We have to create a new economic theory which will help mankind to solve all it problems like: charity, health, environment, recession and crisis…See an idea in link http://www.facebook.com/notes/huynh-hung-tien/the-human-economy/118527191533055

Directory:Akahele/Where in the world was Mike Ilitch?

2010-10-23T00:55:17Z

Seurat: "Om nom nom nom"?

==Where in the world was Mike Ilitch?==
Mike Ilitch is the famed owner of the Detroit Red Wings hockey team and the Detroit Tigers baseball team, thanks to his financial success as founder of the Little Caesars pizza chain. For such a famous man, you'd think his place of birth would be a simple fact, but maybe not. Born in Macedonia? Moved to Detroit? Born in Detroit? Born in Yugoslavia?

I'm reminded of the Steve Martin "King Tut" refrain, "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP7AJiQM2RI born in Arizona, moved to Babylonia]"!

The Wikipedia article about Mike Ilitch was created in July 2004. It stated that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mike_Ilitch&oldid=4542298" Ilitch was born] in the region of Macedonia, but with no sources to support this claim.

Then on January 25, 2006, a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rothesay now-missing] Wikipedia editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mike_Ilitch&diff=next&oldid=35886382 changed] the Ilitch birthplace from Macedonia to Detroit.

On June 26, 2007, his birthplace [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mike_Ilitch&diff=next&oldid=139726917 was restored] to Macedonia.

This was followed by some probably nationalistically-motivated editorial infighting over whether to call it "Macedonia" or "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" or even "Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes".

Then, October 21, 2007, it was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mike_Ilitch&diff=prev&oldid=166198214 back to Detroit] once again.

Someone finally [http://www.legendsofhockey.net/html/spot_oneononeb200301.htm found a source] for Ilitch's birthplace, so they [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mike_Ilitch&diff=next&oldid=292809171 changed it again] on May 29, 2009 to Bitola, in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.

===Just the facts, ma'am===

I decided to speak with Karen Cullen, the Vice President of Corporate Communications with Ilitch Holdings, Inc. After confirming with others in her office, she states that while Ilitch's parents were indeed Macedonian, Mike was in fact ''born in the city of Detroit, Michigan''. So, after several years of back-and-forth on Wikipedia, after all these claims we hear that Wikipedia is "easily corrected", the article has been stuck now with a glaring error. Furthermore, the error is cited to an outside source, so it looks quite "official" and credible there in the very first line of text.

And the article is the #1 Google search result for "Mike Ilitch".
<div style="float: right;>
http://akahele.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/little_caesars.gif
</div>

Thus, it's no surprise that Ilitch's article on Wikipedia can receive upwards of [http://stats.grok.se/en/200805/Mike_Ilitch 7,000 page views] per month. We frequently hear that Wikipedia is "always improving" and that obvious mistakes are "[http://www.expressandstar.com/2009/05/08/internet-to-trust-or-not-to-trust/ being constantly fixed by people who know better]". How amusing then, that for over 18 months this Wikipedia article began with incorrect data, but then for 17 months it was correct, then for almost 4 months it was patently wrong again — with bickering about how ''exactly'' to express the falsehood! Then for 19 uncontested months it was back to being correct. But since about six weeks ago, it once again incorrectly states where Ilitch was born. How long can we expect it going forward to continue this fiction of the Macedonian birth? I'm not reassured that it would have been remedied anytime soon, save for this very blog post to notify of the problem to Wikipedians of good conscience. My narrative here alone is unlikely to persuade the most stringent Wikipediots slavishly following their "Reliable Sources" rules, because ''Akahele'' will be portrayed as less than authoritative (we dare criticize Wikipedia, after all), even though (currently) the erroneous "[http://www.legendsofhockey.net/html/spot_oneononeb200301.htm Legends of Hockey]" website appears to be authoritative enough for the Wikipedia crowd.

In fact, this blog post likely may draw out more than a few habitual Wikipedia vandals. I imagine they'll feel challenged to test how they may further disrupt the article about Mike Ilitch (or about the Detroit Red Wings, or the Detroit Tigers, or Little Caesars), then report their misdeeds here in the Comments form, though I would '''never''' encourage such ''shocking'' behavior!

On the other hand, some Wikipedia participants are fond of cautioning, "Don't trust everything in Wikipedia", "[http://www.examiner.com/x-9776-College-Examiner~y2009m7d1-Wikipedia-still-a-hot-button-topic Take the time to check the sources]". Many, though, still assert that for most simple facts, Wikipedia is fairly reliable. Well, for nearly the entirety of one article's existence, Ilitch's birthplace had no sources whatsoever, and now that it does cite an external source, it's '''wrong'''! But even before it was sourced, imagine people who visited this article (I'm picturing Bloomfield Hills schoolchildren writing biographical reports on people they admire, but you're equally welcome to imagine two drunk guys in their basement in Ypsilanti, trying to settle a bet). If, prior to six weeks ago, they read the unsourced first line of the biography to say that Ilitch was born in Yugoslavia, do you suppose they immediately closed their browser, saying to themselves, "Well, I'm not going to believe ''that'' claptrap, because it didn't have a reference citation that I could [http://akahele.org/2009/07/how-to-read-wikipedia/ follow and verify]"? Of course not. Certainly over 99% of them left that page with no doubt in their minds that Mike Ilitch was Macedonian-born, even though he is not. And it's not just people's brains being polluted with this "free culture" effluvia. Now, the Internet itself is contaminated with sites that have copied or mirrored the erroneous Wikipedia information, and they may only someday -- or may never -- get updated with the correct information. Indeed, I just now performed a Google search for the words 'Mike Ilitch born in', and of the top 10 sites returned that made claim to where Ilitch was born, two of them (besides Wikipedia) said Yugoslavia. Fortunately, the other eight of them said Detroit, but I'll bet this is merely because their Wikipedia scraper is not yet up-to-date with Wikipedia's latest fiction.

===Key to the city===

By the way, while looking through those Wikipedia edits, I noticed that in addition to Mike Ilitch receiving the mayor's honorary key to the city of Detroit, Wikipedia has also claimed (often for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mike_Ilitch&diff=next&oldid=298788809 many days], if not weeks on end) that the Motor City's "key to the city" distinction has also been held by such individuals as Jesus, Saddam Hussein, and Perez Hilton.

Detroit should be proud of its political tradition of honoring not only Macedonians, but also Nazarenes, Sunni Arabs, and gay Cuban-Americans. Right, Wikipedia?

===Image credits===
*Little Caesars logo: corporate [http://www.littlecaesars.com/media_room/media.asp Media Room], [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 fair use doctrine].

==Comments==
3 Responses to “Where in the world was Mike Ilitch?”:

;Gregory Kohs:P.S. Saddam Hussein actually did hold the key to the city of Detroit, early in his political career. Jesus and Perez Hilton? Not so likely.
;Tim Vickers:The vandalism that added Jesus and Paris Hilton as recipients was removed quickly, but the piece on Saddam? I just added that back myself.
:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/26/iraq/main546287.shtml
;Gregory Kohs:It is amazing to me, but fully goes to underscore my belief that much of Wikipedia just gets worse and worse over time. The carefully-acquired citation sources have been removed by a new editor; I brought this to the attention of about 5 or 6 high-profile Wikipedia administrators; yet none of the edits have been reverted.
:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mike_Ilitch&diff=prev&oldid=308523137
:Astounding.

MyWikiBiz - User contributions [en]

Directory:Akahele/The State of the Human Economy

Directory:Akahele/PhotoSketch creates mystic visions

Directory:Akahele/Ten new Wikipedia articles

Directory:Akahele/Omidyar venturing out

Directory:Akahele/Wikipedia always improving

Directory:Akahele/Gender bending, 2.0

Directory:Akahele/Conflicted boards

Directory:Akahele/The Singularity is near, but does it matter?

Directory:Akahele/Wikipedia goes to Washington

Directory:Akahele/Connectivity, Intent and the â€œnew realityâ€

Directory:Akahele/Akahele creates Wikipedia Art!

Directory:Akahele/The anonymous swarm

Directory:Akahele/Survey says...

Directory:Akahele/The Real â€œSecond Lifeâ€

Directory:Akahele/Akahele creates Wikipedia Art!

Directory:Akahele/The trade of free culture

Directory:Akahele/The trade of free culture

Directory:Akahele/The persistence of misinformation

Directory:Akahele/Omidyar venturing out

Directory:Akahele/Wikipedia always improving

Directory:Akahele/Gender bending, 2.0

Directory:Akahele/Conflicted boards

Directory:Akahele/The Singularity is near, but does it matter?

Directory:Akahele/Connectivity, Intent and the â€œnew realityâ€

Directory:Akahele/The Real â€œSecond Lifeâ€

Directory:Akahele/Wikipedia goes to Washington

Directory:Akahele/Akahele creates Wikipedia Art!

Directory:Akahele/The anonymous swarm

Directory:Akahele/Survey says...

Directory:Akahele/The trade of free culture

Directory:Akahele/The persistence of misinformation

Directory:Akahele/Ten new Wikipedia articles

Directory:Akahele/PhotoSketch creates mystic visions

Directory:Akahele/The State of the Human Economy

Directory:Akahele/Where in the world was Mike Ilitch?

Directory:Akahele/Connectivity, Intent and the â€œnew realityâ€

Directory:Akahele/The Real â€œSecond Lifeâ€

Directory:Akahele/Connectivity, Intent and the â€œnew realityâ€

Directory:Akahele/The Real â€œSecond Lifeâ€