In produsage, there are no clear lines between amateurs and professionals or experts and enthusiasts.  Bruns has pointed out that ‘Pro-Ams’ and committed produsers have blurred these lines considerably and can be illustrated with citizen journalism and with the success of Wikipedia.  In my second blog, I addressed the need for a new framework to develop which included maintaining the effective features of the traditional ways of journalism, as well as incorporating the new ideas and innovations of citizen journalism.  This will potentially bridge the “pro-am” divide and deliver reliable and an even greater quality of work.

Leadbeater and Miller have termed “pro-am” as “innovative, committed and networked amateurs working to professional standards”.  An example of this can be seen with Wikipedia.  Its open participation model and the lack of a hierarchy of expertise allows almost anyone to contribute to the site, thus, the potential for vandalism to occur is greater.   This is one of the many reasons attributed by Larry Sanger, the co-creator of Wikipedia as to why he established a new model with Citizendium.   He admitted, “…something really could not be a credible encyclopedia without oversight by experts.”  He also suggests an approach to engage with experts, which has been scrutinized by Bruns, who believes Sanger’s approach is unworkable, and could even damage the project of harnessing community involvement in Wikipedia.   Nevertheless, Sanger has established Citizendium which is still a model of collaborative encyclopaedic content production.  However, unlike Wikipedia, Citizendium has a greater respect for experts, which is illustrated in its quasi-hierarchical structure of administration.   As a result, it is no longer a form of user-led produsage.   By limiting the number of contributors to experts, Ganeshan states that this has resulted in Citizendium having only around 4200 articles in one language, whereas Wikipedia has more than nine million articles in more than 250 languages.   By reducing the open participation ability, artefacts of the Citizendium model are no longer rapidly evolving and inherently unfinished.   Instead, it will become even more similar to the artefacts found in traditional encyclopedias.   This would also prevent the development of “live” knowledge and entries for current events, such as the Indian Ocean tsunami disaster.

Bruns has highlighted in his book that returning to the traditional, hierarchical models of expertise and expert accreditation, as well as accepting the internal community mechanisms for contribution and reputation management, will not be completely successful in isolation. Even though professional experts are highly adept and knowledgeable in their own fields, “…their ability to lead knowledge creation and organization for areas further away from these core environments is more limited.” As their knowledge is limited to their particular expertise, these professionals do not have broader knowledge apart from their core field. On the other hand, produsage enables the connection of the theoretical and practical knowledge beyond the conventional disciplinary boundaries of expert communities to the transformation of an expert/non-expert or professional/amateur dichotomy.

As a result, returning to the industrial model of expertise will not be successful.  Both professional and amateur contributors will enable greater quality of material to be produced and create a more diverse community.   Therefore, Langer’s Citizendium model will not reach the same heights as Wikipedia.

Apologies again for the late post – I had radio journalism prac and life get way too much for most of last week. Excuses excuses, here is my fabulous blog post on Wikipedia…

As soon as Wikipedia wormed its way into the consciousness of school and university students alike, so too did criticism.

Website evaluation suddenly became part of the school curriculum, with the firm principle of “Use Wikipedia for general background information and by all means, use their source list. But don’t cite from it.”

Quite simply, the open-source nature of Wikipedia is not a sure-fire guarantee that every contribution is accurate or credible, so it would be unwise to treat Wikipedia as an academic work.

Technology writer for The Guardian Simon Waldman says Wikipedia seems like “anarchy”.

Encyclopedia Brittanica’s editor-in-chief Dale Hoiberg criticises Wikipedia for not giving emphasis to “important” topics.

“People write on things they’re interested in, and so many subjects don’t get covered; and news events get covered in great detail. The entry on Hurricane Frances is five times the length of that on Chinese art, and the entry on Coronation Street is twice as long as the article on Tony Blair.”

I personally like this about Wikipedia. For example, my favourite video game is Final Fantasy VI. The extensive entry in Wikipedia has obviously been put together by die-hard fans. The extensive plot and long cast of characters is written in great detail.

In comparison to Encyclopedia Britanica, academic writers are not likely to be interested in old-school RPG video games and dismiss it as irrelevant – despite the fact that there are many fans out there who are interested in the topic.

I would show you an example but apparently you have to pay to use Encyclopedia Britanica! What a rip off. I can access Wikipedia for free, you know.

I’ll look at Citizendium instead, who is trying to be the anti-Wikipedia: “Our growing number of editor-approved articles are reliable and of world class quality, rivaling the best printed encyclopedias.” Instead of random Internet users under a cyber-pseudonym, Citizendium claims that their articles are written by experts under their real names.

But upon searching, there is no such article for Final Fantasy VI. I did, however, find a general article for Final Fantasy. It lists the barest minimal knowledge of the game – that all the games have airships, a character named Cid and fictional animals chocobos and moogles. A series with over thirteen storyline-rich games with characters and their backstories, hundreds of towns, battle abilities, bosses and monsters, and that’s all they have to say? There are only two separate articles for individual games – the two most popular of the series, FFVII and FFX. Both of which, again, are very short despite the many complexities in the game.

There is no such thing as being an “expert” on video games. You can’t get a Bachelor of Video Games. In the video gaming community, the nerdiest nerd who has spent hours playing over a video game and noting the details has more authoritative knowledge than, say a professor who has studied video games from an academic point of view. But obviously video games and merely being a fan who knows them very well isn’t good enough for Citizendium.

So if I want to know about the extensive backstories of the Final Fantasy VI characters, I guess Wikipedia is the place to go.

This tendency for Wikipedia to place emphasis on human interest rather than what academics think we should be interested in has led to a game invented by users at satirical entertainment website SomethingAwful: Wikigroaning.

Quite simply, Wikigroaning is comparing the length of an article about serious topic with another similar, but “frivolous” topic.

If the “frivolous” topic’s article is longer, we have a Wikigroan.

There are many examples on the site you can have a look at.

Today’s featured article on Wikipedia is on Irish rock band U2. The article has almost 10,000 words (9,772 to be exact).

A more academic topic  – Celtic music – is only a meagre 1,695 words…

Ladies and gents, we have a Wikigroan.

It causes me great pains to come to this conclusion, especially when you consider the fact that I snorted in front of tutor last week and joked about taking on a one week mission to infiltrate the ranks of the Wiki-army and trash the place for my own amusement. I believe I actually said “How hard can it be to write a Wikipedia entry?”

The answer? Pretty damn hard. If you like your e-reputation the way it is.

In explaining it to my mother last night, I likened the act of vandalising a Wikipedia page to the act of being caught and charged for spraypainting someone else’s dog. Yes, it SEEMS inconsequential now that you’re 15 and forever young, but wait twenty years, then decide you want to live permanently in the U S of A. And you can’t. Why? Because you vandalised the dog, you great dolt! That permanent record everyone threatens you with actually exists. And your Wiki-permanent record will be your undoing. You can in fact be blacklisted for slandering Pauline Hanson on her Wikipage. Or anyone. And say I invented a cure for cancer. I’d never be able to contribute to the Wikipage for the very thing I’ve created. Because I spraypainted the damn dog.

This is a pretty strong example of the effect that Wikipedia has on the internet community as a whole. In fact I’m going to dedicate this whole entry to Wikipedia, and if you’ve noticed already, each link goes back to Wikipedia. The website has been around since 2001 and is a stellar example of Web 2.0 and its capabilities. The concept of Web 2.0 is probably what Bruns based his theories of produsage on. This wonderous fairytale concept of the ever changing product rather than an artefact drove the Web 2.0 video circulating on YouTube several years ago. The idea of the hive mind that mediates itself is tied in with the video again (I would link it, but then I’d spoil my pledge to Wikipedia. Just Google it, it’s more rewarding), where they celebrated the idea that many users would shape the internet.

Quite frankly, they have shaped the internet. You Wikipedia something in the same way you Google it. The same way you Xerox things. It may be to do with the fact we’re such a capitalist society, but it’s a brand in itself nowadays. And I think the best thing it has going for it is the self regulating hive mind. With that many people contributing, it’s pretty hard to go wrong.

And in a roundabout sort of way, I come back to my initial arguement. The system DOES work very well. People like me don’t bother to try, because the whole process just seems…scary. You have to be willing to admit that you know enough to contribute paragraphs of data, but also willing to concede if someone else decides that only half a sentence from the paragraphs of data is worth using. And if you get haughty about this, then perhaps you’d feel more at home on Citizendium.

And I thought Wikipedia was scary. This is Wikipedia for snobs. They’ve been seeking to usurp Wikipedia for the past three years. I only heard about them a month ago! I couldn’t set foot here, for many reasons. I decided to write this article and the article for the fourth week’s topic back to back, because I’ve now gotten to the point where both of the articles will intersect nicely…

AND I’M PREGNANT WITH YOUR SISTER’S GARDENER’S CHILD!

[musical interlude]

References (in order of appearance):

Bruns, A. 2008. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

Wikipedia, n.d. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia (Accessed May 12, 2009)

Enemy of the State (film) – Wikipedia, n.d. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_State_(film) (Accessed May 12, 2009)

Forever Young (Alphaville song) – Wikipedia, n.d. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forever_Young_(Alphaville_song) (Accessed May 12, 2009)

Pauline Pantsdown – Wikipedia, n.d. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Pantsdown (Accessed May 12, 2009)

Web 2.0 – Wikipedia, n.d. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0 (Accessed May 12, 2009)

Google Search – Wikipedia, n.d. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_search (Accessed May 12, 2009)

Photocopier – Wikipedia, n.d. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photocopier (Accessed May 12, 2009)

Capitalism – Wikipedia, n.d. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism (Accessed May 12, 2009)

Arguement – Wikipedia, n.d. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguement (Accessed May 12, 2009)

Citizendium – Wikipedia, n.d. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizendium (Accessed May 12, 2009)

Victoria Beckham – Wikipedia, n.d. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_beckham (Accessed May 12, 2009)

The Bold and the Beautiful – Wikipedia, n.d. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bold_And_The_Beautiful (Accessed May 12, 2009)

In folksonomically organised knowledge spaces such as Wikipedia, there is an increasing struggle from experts to be acknowledged and accredited. With the rise of the folk, the model of produsage demonstrates that collaborative sites somewhat flatten hierarchical structures. The reputation of an expert is undermined within these environments because there is no respect for those who have formulated original thought from extensive professional research. Bruns states that ‘Pro-Ams’ have blurred the lines between amateurs and professionals, and enthusiasts and experts. As a result, there is significant debate surrounding the role of the expert, raising questions such as how is an expert defined and distinguished? Can a balance of ‘expert’ and ‘amateur’ knowledge be achieved?

At the helm of one side of the argument, is the co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger who’s growing disenchantment with his site is in direct response to the conflict arising in the Pro-Am paradigm. Sanger believes that “there are special requirements of nearly every serious community, best served by relevant experts” including the ability to write with credibility and perceived reliability. However, Sanger fails to provide solutions for recognizing experts that emerge from popular and enthusiast culture. It may be possible to require registered users to provide scholarly credentials and disciplinary expertise in “science type” areas such as Sanger has established in Citizendium. However, in this environment how can “science fiction type” Star Wars fanatics demonstrate their specific expertise? Secondly, where does a university student like myself, fall along the continuum of expertise in my field of public relations?  In my belief, the renewed focus in experts in Citizendium is damaging to the community involvement of produsage models as demonstrated by the failure of Wikipedia’s predecessor, Nupedia.

Additionally, Bruns reveals that experts form only the tip of the “iceberg of human knowledge”. This demonstrates the need for a balanced approach in the continuum from ‘Pros’ to ‘Ams’. It is acknowledged that experts do play a paramount role within produsage communities however, it is also noted that this knowledge is specialised and usually limited to a core field. These core areas of expertise are revealed to be only the peaks of the iceberg, with the metaphorical waterline set by the limitations of expert’s individual capabilities. Here, the value of communal knowledge and collaborative intelligence in produsage is emphasised again. In order to accumulate the vast bulk of the knowledge iceberg that lies beneath the surface, sites must embrace a community-based and folksonomic model that encapsulates the principles of produsage.

Another perspective is that like the self-healing quality derived from communal evaluation, a self-correcting trust can be placed in communities to balance its knowledge from experts and amateurs. This theory relies on the motivations of experts to make changes to specialised expertise areas and amateurs to generally steer clear of contributing to such topics. It is important to note however, that Wikipedia already attempt to guide a shared platform of experts and amateurs for their respectively appropriate roles with principles such as Verifiability and No Original Research that regulate the representations of knowledge.

In order to uncover the entire iceberg of human knowledge, conflict between experts and amateurs needs to be set aside to achieve balance.

The Pro/Am divide discusses the difference between folks and experts in folksonomies. Folksonomies structure the new knowledge space, a space where you do not necessarily need the skills or higher education to contribute. Due to this structure those who are educated and perceived to be the experts are continually at odds with the system. For example Larry Sanger, co-founder and chief promoter of Wikipedia, partly left the project due to his belief and experience that “someone whose expertise rests on having done extensive original research on a topic gets no particular respect”. On the flip side, one of the central, founding ideas of such produsage sites is that it flattens hierarchical structures therefore the idea that experts should gain “respect” is denying the ideals behind the structure. Furthermore is Sanger and the like saying we need a return to a less organic, bottom up structure? With this criticism the ideals behind collective intelligence are in question, that together, with contributions from the expert and the amateur, the information available is richer and more in depth. Collective intelligence and the abundance of information does not provide credibility or reliability, returning again to the pro/am divide and the ability for the expert to provide this structure.

Axel Bruns recognises that there is no real solution by describing the struggle between experts and folks, “between two different systems of representing knowledge: one the expert paradigm, which ultimately and ideally aims to develop well-behaved, universally accepted, and internally consistent understandings of the world, and one, the folksonomic paradigm, which allows for multiplicity, conflicts of interpretation, and the existence of a number of alternative representations of extant knowledge…” What Bruns describes is that between the expert and the folk they have different beliefs on knowledge creation and the fact that there will always be this divide because of the very nature of each individual and their inherent beliefs. Each defies each other therefore perhaps there can never be an even ground.

Larry Sanger recently established Citizendium which perhaps is an example of trying to achieve a middle ground. Citizendium is an alternative model to Wikipedia that is more respectful of expertise, aiming at providing reliability and quality not just quantity. Sanger talking about Wikipedia, claims that he “maintained from the start that something really could not be a credible encyclopedia without oversight by experts”. Perhaps sites like these that will meet the need for experts and their beliefs on the structure of information. Re confirming the expert belief Sanger states, “there are special requirements of nearly every serious community [which are] best served by relevant experts; and so I think a prominent role for the relevant experts should be written into the charter”.

The argument behind Wikipedia, as for example providing to the amateurs, is the attitude that to make an entry or an amendment the individual must know about the topic therefore who is to say they are not an expert. This introduces the idea on what defines an expert and the idea perhaps that an expert/amateur is better modelled on a continuum. Those who support the Wikipedia bottom up approach could find Sanger’s view on why expertise needs special consideration in contributions to information as very narrow minded and furthermore denying the ideals behind produsage and collective intelligence that such sites as Wikipedia foster.

In summary, as Bruns recognises there will always be the divide between the expert and the folk due to their individual attitudes and beliefs towards knowledge creation.

Academic’s vs everyone else.

Since starting University the question has risen many times, “What am i an expert in?”. And maybe that is why i’m here…trying to figure out what it is im so interested in and knowledgeable in. Still my mind goes blank, my eyes mist over and there is soft elevator music in my brain that tells me i’m scared, i don’t know and i can’t think of how to figure it out.

The internet as a portal of creation and discussion and the opportunity to meet others with similar interests is something that is apart of everyone i knows personal agenda. Then there is the University life style which has initiated this idea that the web is a place to connect and offer intelligence and build an online professional presence. I am not so much interested as building an online presence, but without the presence of professionals online there would be no use of the internet other than vain outcomes.

As with many other students out there, i rely heavily upon ‘experts’ online. This includes professionals in the field im studying publishing ideas, concepts and their thoughts online. A place which is a haven for Academics, full of pride, is Citizendium. This is a place for all those who have a wide and reliable knowledge of a topic/issue can edit articles, much like Wikipedia. However, Citizendium strive for ‘Quality over Quantity’ and establish reliability in editors and sources. Only the ‘Expert’ of a topic may edit articles, though it states it is ‘open’ to the public it is ‘regulated and “guided” by “experts” – who are these experts? Obviously Academics. That piece of paper is so important in becoming SOMEBODY online in an environment such as this. Site’s such as this are also so off putting to those who are knowledgeable in a field but feel as though they are not.

While Wikipedia may not be as reliable as a site such as Citizendium it is a place of growth, a universal tool, that is moved by consensus and contribution from all while citizendium is controlled by a scholarly hierarchy. Wikipedia, the reactive platform of knowledge will seem the appropriate place for ‘Folks’ or ‘Amateurs’ to gather and grow.Through this process of contributors, both experts and those deemed folks, Experts on topics ranging from outrageous, serious and fictitious emerge organically from Wikipedia.

Bruns agrees, saying

Wikipedia is the process of gathering in ever greater detail the collective knowledge of a community of contributors…while citizendium…installs a set of hierachs whose position cannot be questioned while at the same time obstructing the emergence of heterarchs from within the community itself.

This is such a valid point, without experts knowledge cannot be confirmed and regarded as important but in doing this society dismisses much information gleamed by a ‘folk’ and thereby stunts the growth of a possible expert. It’s a cycle. In the end i know i cannot give anything to a site such as Citizendium while i could comfortably assist online in a Wikipedia entry and feel valid, even if it may be an obscure, nerdy or geeky topic.

Reference:

Axel Bruns. 2007. Folks and Experts: Beyond the Pro/Am Divide. In Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. 387 – 405. New York: Peter Lang.

By definition, an expert is a person who has special skills or knowledge in a particular field of personal interest, which then enables them to provide factual information and reliable, trustworthy opinions to rest of society. In stark contrast to this description, an amateur is a person who is generally considered inexperienced or unskilled in a particular field, therefore inhibiting their ability to properly execute a task or activity. Traditionally, experts held the leading opinion within society and up until recent years it hadn’t even been considered that the knowledge and opinions held by amateurs may be of value. However, due to the shift from an industrial model of production to a produser model of production, amateurs and indeed society as a whole are now encouraged to participate in the collaboration of knowledge in online spaces. Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, is a perfect example of such collaboration. A positive aspect of the produser model is that society is experiencing an increased civic engagement which can be directly attributed to the emergent participatory culture (Jenkins 2009). However, conversely the produser model has effectively caused both the prestige held by experts to diminish and the line which distinguishes experts from amateurs to blur. This, of course, has resulted in a clash of interests and beliefs.

In knowledge collaboration websites such as Wikipedia, heterarchies are established based on the merit one earns by contributing constructive and useful information. Experts who wish to contribute information are welcome but they are not simply handed a privileged role within the community, they must earn respect in the same way that other members are required to (Bruns 2008, 211). This provokes the question of what then, is the point of being an expert if your knowledge is regarded in the same manner as an amateurs? In response to this question Sanger (in Bruns 2008, 205) suggests that Citizendium, a model of knowledge production that relies on participation and collaboration but which also instantly provides experts with greater respect, should be established. This theory would perhaps be worth experimenting with if the editing and communal evaluation were to stay open to all citizens. However, Sanger goes to say that the Citizendium model will only recognize registered users with scholarly credentials and disciplinary expertise as full contributors to the project. This then would defeat the purpose of Wikipedia and of produsage itself.

Introduced by Bruns (2008), the concept of an expert continuum simply refers to the range of expertise people possess in particular fields. This range of expertise includes all people from academics to students, to enthusiasts, right down to the people who just have a general interest in the subject. This concept recognizes that all citizens have a valuable place in the production of knowledge. As stated by Pesce (2006), “one man’s trivia is another’s vital fact”.  This is certainly an interesting observation and highlights the fact that each and every person has something unique and original to contribute to society. Of course there is a place for qualified experts especially when it comes to science subjects that present irrefutable, hard facts that cannot be disputed, however it remains to be seen whether these experts are able to co-exist in harmony with amateur produsers. Perhaps having two separate encyclopedias, one for scientific facts and the other for debatable, multi-perspective topics could be the solution to this problem.

References

Bruns, A. 2008. Blogs Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Bruns, A. 2008. Produsage: Folks and Experts. http://produsage.org/node/28 (accessed May 15, 2009).

Jenkins, H. 2009. Geeking Out for Democracy: Part One. http://www.henryjenkins.org/ (accessed May 15, 2009).

Pesce, M. 2006. Hyperpeople: What Happens After We’re All Connected? 2. http://blog.futurestreetconsulting.com/?p=17 (accessed May 15, 2009).

In such a varied and accepting environment like the internet, where people all shapes, sizes, backgrounds and ethnicities come together to collaboratively get educated, conduct business, entertain themselves or simply to waste time, its hard to know where the information you consume is coming from; online identity fraud is something you get told to worry about when you are young, naïve and putting your home address on Myspace but even in a passive, non-sexual predator sense, its still a major issue particularly when one assumes to take information available on internet websites as verbatim, as is the case with your average internet user (including yours truly).

As was discussed in my previous blog, Wikipedia is a great example of how information posted online by anonymous or semi anonymous sources can be taken as the truth, though most of the information contributed to Wikipedia documents can actually be largely unverifiable. Also in such a wild system, notifiers of merit and reputation within online knowledge communities are in a state of constant flux as the communal task of writing is done by both those who could be considered experts but also those more amateur regarding a particular subject; the whole article may be made up of snippets inserted by those who only know portions of the entire information, which is a great totem for collective intelligence but it really does put each source of information out of the scope of academic scrutiny (Bruns 2008, 210). For example, when your average, everyday Joe decides to start a Wikipedia article, he need only know something about the subject and whilst he mightn’t be considered to be a professional in that subject’s particular field, Wikipedia’s reputation as a knowledge base has essentially given Joe the ability to write the truth, something that the next reader would read and consider the article as something inherrently professional, particularly so when the next reader knows little or nothing about the subject. Indeed, ‘Joe’ might become a professional in this field in the future, but because Wikipedia did not demand him to be an expert at the time of publication or even extensively reference his work, his work is still that of a proletariat presented as academia. This is very problematic indeed.

Enter: Citizendium. As recognising Wikipedia’s inconsistency with current academic methodology and standards regarding the authentication of reserach, a Citizendium as a simillarly Wiki style, open source, encyclopedia, aims to only include articles written by those whom could be either considered educated or full experts in a particular field. Citizendium admits that whilst from a popular standpoint, the Wikipedia model is not actually broken, “We can do better” (Citizendium 2009). In setting out a manifesto of sorts, Citizendium has listed Wikipedia’s faults that it wishes to fix, right from the outset:

“Many of the articles [on Wikipedia] are written amateurishly.

Too often they are mere disconnected grab-bags of factoids, not made coherent by any sort of narrative. 

In some fields and some topics, there are groups who “squat” on articles and insist on making them reflect their own specific biases. 

There is no credible mechanism to approve versions of articles. 

Vandalism, once a minor annoyance, has become a major headache—made possible because the community allows anonymous contribution.

Many experts have been driven away because know-nothings insist on ruining their articles” (2009).

Citizendium requires full disclosure of educational/career status and also the inclusion of a Full Name username, something that is quite rare in wiki systems and also in general internet usage;

“…it is merely good sense to make a special role for experts within the system. A project devoted to knowledge ought to give special inducements to people who make it their life’s work to know things” (Citizendium 2009).

Citizendium, as contrary to Wikipedia, does have different goals, even if the outcome, an open source wiki knowledge database (Encyclopedia, Compendium, whatever you want to call it) is still something that is comparable to your average consumer. Citizendium distinguishes, classifies and ranks its contributors, something that Wikipedia does not doas systematically as Citizendium. Some would think this not in the spirit of Open Source; one of the great features of the Wiki model is it’s democracy and equal respect for individuals knowledge.

Whether or not the future is to be rooted in distinguishing the professionals from the amateurs, or just blurring the Pro-Am divide further, it seems knowledge itself is something that all agree should be free and open to all. And I guess its only upwards from there, right?

References:

Bruns, A. 2008. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond. 1^st ed. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Citizendium. 2009. Why Citizendium? http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Why_Citizendium%3F (Accessed 14 May 2009).

There are many that are of the opinion that Wikipedia is a non-reliable source because it is non-academic, and is essentially put together by amateurs. They are pushing for a more ‘elitist’ model of contribution to be put into place, which would filter who can and cannot contribute. The idea behind this is to facilitate more contributions and articles from librarians, academics and other people with ‘expert’ authority as opposed to the general public. An action such as this however would mean going in a totally opposite direction to the reason for which Wikipedia was created in the first place.

The motivation behind open source platforms like Wikipedia is based on some sort of public interest or community spirit. Wikipedia offers an opportunity to contribute to something that has lasting value and will continue to grow (Bruns 2008), by allowing many casual researchers, writers and editors with a passion for a certain topic, to apply their skills and knowledge in an open environment. In a 2004 interview with Slashdot, Wikipedia’s founder Jimmy Wales himself outlined his vision for Wikipedia as, “a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing”. So its core foundation is based on providing wholesome collaborated information that has been formulated from a pool of knowledge of and passion for various subjects.

The difference between Wikipedia and online encyclopedias such as Brittanica is that no article is owned by its creator or any other editor, or is vetted by any recognized authority. Though some see this as a disadvantage, it is in fact this that makes Wikipedia so important to contributor community. The Cambridge Dictionary defines Elitism as the belief that “society should be governed by a small group of people who are superior to everyone else” (2008). Lawrence Sanger’s suggests the establishment of Citizendium, a model of collaborative production which enshrines a heightened importance for “expert” user (2001). But giving select groups of ‘experts’ collaborative control on open-source sites like Wikipedia, we are essentially moving towards an information society run by “elitists”. Axel Bruns agrees with this notion when he states that Sanger’s proposed approach to engaging more with experts is damaging to the project of harnessing community involvement in Wikipedia (Bruns 2008).

One of the key issues is that Wikipedia’s reputation stems not from actually unreliability, but more so the lack of public perception of credibility, particularly in areas of detail. Support and participation by academia is still crucial to the maintenance and longevity of Wikipedia. It is important to find a happy medium between the roles that both amateurs and professionals will play. It works in a cyclic pattern I believe. Wikipedia begins to be seen as a credible source by public users who trust that is an objectively and well researched online source. A benefit accruing from this robust public credibility is even more widespread use and support by teachers, schools, libraries. Consequently its public profile as a legitimate informational source is raised, and the public become more inclined to use it. To simply make Wikipedia elitist, would be to move backwards in this age of participatory cultures.

REFERENCES:

Bruns, A. 2008. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: from production to produsage. Peter Lang Publishing: New York. (pp11-13)

Sanger, L. M. 2001. Britannica or Nupedia? The Futre of Free Encyclopedias. Kuro5hin: Techonology and Culture, from the Trenches. http://www.kuro5hin.org. (accessed 2nd May 2009)

Slashdot. 2004. Interview with Jimmy Wales. http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/28/1351230&tid=146&tid=95&tid=11. (accessed 27th April 2009)

The term ProAm or Professional Amateurs refers to people pursuing amateur activities to professional standards. In a new media context ProAms need not have any publicly recognised Journalism credentials, however they may have certain knowledge and skills required to make an effective contribution to a Wiki by becoming a citizen journalist. For the purpose of this blog, I will talk about how ProAms contribute as citizen journalists on Wikipedia and Citizendium.

Wikipedia was co-founded by Larry Sanger. Sanger had issues with the reliability of the Wikipedia, and in response, formed Citizendium. Sanger identified some core prinicples relating to why Wikipedia works. These are open content license, focus on the encyclopaedia, openness, ease of editing, collaborate radically, authors don’t sign articles, it offers unedited, unapproved content for further development, neutrality, it started with a core of good people, and it enjoys the Google effect. Ironically, Citizendium undermines these principles and doesn’t acknowledge the social dynamics Wikipedia does. It is much more structured, relies on reputation, and relates to professional image. Citizendium aims to be more like a traditional encyclopedia. This is obvious through the presentation of the site with its formal grey colour and sober structure.

Citizendium stresses that it is not a top down, dictatorship but rather a regularly changing group of people tasked to manage a public trust in conformity with a relatively stable code of rules. It claims to be more of a public project guided by experts.

Wikipedia is more ad-hoc and encourages equipotentiality and follows community protocols. In contrast, citizendium is based on a hierarchy using only authors and editors who are experts in their knowledge field. If you want to become an editor of Citizendium you must first submit a CV and your articles have to be approved.  This differs to Wikipedia which favours consensus over credentials.

I think Citizendium and Wikipedia are actually more similar than they appear as they both have a strong focus on amateur journalists. The key difference between them is the editorial process. The ProAm debate is based on what works and what doesn’t work and which has most to contribute: experts or amateurs? producers or produsers? hierarchies or heterarchies? taxonomies or folksonomies?

Bruns says that expert influences should be ‘organic’ members of their community rather than ‘artificially introduced foreign bodies’ and that their influence on the community is as much from an organic status of leadership rather than externally recognised expertise. Kevin Kelly’s perspective on what works is that ‘the bottom-up hive mind will never take us to our end goal. We are too impatient. So we add, design and top-down control to get to where we want to go’. I think that a balance between, and appropriate recognition of both traditional experts and community produsers is important for the future of collaborative engagement.

I conducted a search for ‘new media’ on both sites with interesting results. Wikipedia’s response was that ‘new media was in need of attention from an expert on the subject. In addition, the tone of the information they did have may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. There were no matches for ‘new media’ on Citizendium. These results indicate the immediacy of Wikipedia and show how it can act as a repository of current issues. The editorial processes of Citizendium such as submitting a CV to be an editor, may be a deterrant for participants, which can lead to a time-lag in current information updates.

What is Citizendium?

It is a “citizens’ compendium of everything,” is an open wiki project aimed at creating an enormous, free, and reliable encyclopedia.

The major difference between Wikipedia and Citizendium is one of responsibility of authorship.  “Anonymous” can write anything it wants to and upload it to Wikipedia; who knows who “anonymous” is or of its credentials?

The world needs a trustworthy free encyclopedia. We aim to create that by providing a responsibly governed global community where real-named contributors work under expert guidance and all are accountable.

“What is the point of the Citizendium,“ you might ask, “when Wikipedia is so huge and of reasonably good quality? Is there really a need for it?”

There is a better way for humanity to come together to make an encyclopedia.

To put it forcefully: there is a better way for humanity to come together to make an encyclopedia. So we make this appeal to you. If we can do better than Wikipedia—or more positively, if we can pioneer a truly effective way to gather knowledge—then shouldn’t we?

We can do better

We do not think that Wikipedia is  “good   enough.”  We think humanity can do better: Wikipedia is full of serious problems. Many of the articles are written amateurishly. Too often they are mere disconnected grab-bags of factoids, not made coherent by any sort of narrative. In some fields and some topics, there are groups who “squat” on articles and insist on making them reflect their own specific biases. There is no credible mechanism to approve versions of articles. Vandalism, once a minor annoyance, has become a major headache—made possible because the community allows anonymous contribution.

Comparison of articles on Civil Society in Wikipedia (W.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_society
And Citizendium (C.) http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Civil_society
Oops! bit of a chunky subject this..
I haven’t come across C. before and set out with this activity, inclined to see the advantages of its approach especially:

• avoiding gratuitous vandalism of articles and
• introducing ‘expert knowledge’.

I can’t say of course whether the topic I chose led me to articles typical of the two sites.

Well enough of all that – W. started off with well in my view.
It referred to ‘myriad definitions’ of civic society, before quoting the LSE’s working definition:

“Civil society refers to the arena of uncoerced collective action around shared interests, purposes and values. In theory, its institutional forms are distinct from those of the state, family and market, though in practice, the boundaries between state, civil society, family and market are often complex, blurred and negotiated. Civil society commonly embraces a diversity of spaces, actors and institutional forms, varying in their degree of formality, autonomy and power. Civil societies are often populated by organizations such as registered charities, development non-governmental organizations, community groups, women’s organizations, faith-based organizations, professional associations, trade unions, self-help groups, social movements, business associations, coalitions and advocacy groups.”

Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_society>

Whereas C. leapt straight in with the same LSE definition – referenced of course.

W. also took a more historic view of the concept taking us back to Socrates, Plato and Cicero and coming up to date with reference to globalization. C. on the other hand jumped straight in with the Scottish Enlightenment (18thC).
Both articles were approximately the same length. The syntax was a little confused in places as I read the W. article but both generally well written. C. included 17 references and W. 10 plus external links.

This is an area of interest for me but not one of existing knowledge – which is why I chose it. So I cannot comment usefully on content – but that’s sort of the point in using them  I guess.
Both W. and C. reference a number of well known political writers (Marx, Hegel, Gramsci) and some more modern names that I have no familiarity with. Interestingly there is a lot of diversity between the two – only a few names appearing in both reference lists e.g. Michael Edwards (although these were for different texts ).
C.  includes material on Civic Society in European states e.g. Italy, Germany France as well as the US .

On balance.. I liked the scope of W. on this subject – a big reason for using W. for me is to get an idea of the scope of a subject and an overview of it.

However after a second read, I felt the sources in C were probably richer and more informed by recent work.

A newcomer to C. I would certainly use it again but not necessarily instead of Wikipedia; rather as an alternative source or good second opinion when it mattered.

Now back to ed. tech!

Week 10a A1 Wikipedia- behind the scenes

Read article by Nicolson Baker (2008) about his experience of contributing to Wikipedia. This was useful in enlightening me to the world of Wikipedians. It made me think that Wikipedia is really there for the contributors who seem to spend a significant amount of time, addictively adding to and creating entries for different subjects. The addiction comes from self preservation.  If Wikipedia wasn’t there, people would just have to spend more time searching and honing their information literacy skills.  Wikipedia relies on a large number of volunteers who are dedicated to the “project” for policing the entries. There seems to be some underhand play and vandalism exists. But as I found in an article on the BBC website (via Digg) claiming that WZ is planning a radical change to how it is run. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7851400.stm :  “It [wikipdedia] is proposing a review of the rules, that would see revisions being approved before they were added to the site.”

Week 10a A2 Citizendium

An alternative to Wikipedia. A curated knowledge wiki with subject experts moderating the entries. These experts/editors do not change content but recommend to authors that they make changes. They also approve a page for citable use. They claim Wikipedia does not provide a satisfactory citable academic source of information.

However, the plagiarism advisor at WBS told me that anything that is published is genuinely citable. As Pat Shearer says in our forums, the people against Wikipedia are “‘Folks-who-don’t-like-people-who-think-they-know-it-all’”. And here I am quoting an individual who is not writing in a published journal – does that make this quote unacceptable for me to learn from.

Shearer, P. (2009) H800 les6 W11 A1 – A2 16 April 2009 19.31

As other in the forum state, Wikipedia has so much information on it, it appears far superior than Citizendium. As long as you use it as a place to find links to more genuine sources then there is nothing wrong with it.

Week 10a A 3 Storing, Sorting and sharing online resources

Introduced the concept of Delicious to save online resources that you can access from any networked computer  and the filing mechanism of tagging. Group tagging is when you can see what other people in the network/group have tagged such as on the same course.

I have used Delicious but never in a networking way, just for my own records so this is a new adventure for me.

It suggests using H800_2009, H800_block1_2009 naming protocol to aid sharing.  We then looked at subscriptions to tags.

Week 10a A4 Finding information online/libraries

Libraries face challenges as sources of information and learning. A4 helped to develop skills in using the OU online library.  It refers to a database called Academic Search Complete which is a database of multi disciplinary full texts.

Safari is OU library resource to help information search.  Not just finding, but reviewing information as well.

The Computing and Technology Information Search on the student website is a resource with quizzes and video tutorials.

I learnt about subject gateways as a search tool that provide access to specialized sites that have been quality checked. Subject gateways tend to specialize in specific topics and use quality control checks, which means that there is less information. they can provide a more direct route to academic websites.

Synonyms – alternative subject words – useful for searching

Week 10a A5 Blogs and blogging

Read article by Kerawalla et al (2008) about a study into blogging behaviours. They found 4 factors that they interviewed 15 H808 students about – their perceptions of and need for an audience; their perceptions of and need for community, the utility of and need for comments from other bloggers and the presentation of their blog. They came up with 5 types of blogging behaviour based on different approaches to the 4 factors.  1. Blogging avoidance, 2. Resource network building, 3, support network building, 4, self sufficient blogging, 5, Anxious, self conscious blogging just for course requirements.

Nothing really surprises me about their findings. I already blog for the MAODE and my use if for self sufficient blogging. Of the 4 factors relevant to me:

a.       Audience not important, accessibly storage space for notes

b.      Community – not worried about comments, not writing for a community. Read other people’s blogs when I’m puzzled to help  me along.

c.       Comments – do not expect comments

d.      Presentation – I do care about the presentation and writing style.

However, if we didn’t have the forums I would be prefer the support network building bogging behaviour.  I don’t work with learners who blog so I can’t comment on what motivates them to blog, but at Warwick University there is one of the leading Blog tools that has won awards, and students and staff blog for social and networking reasons mostly. Some for academic purposes.

How would I design activities to encourage learners to blog?       ePortfolio assessment where blog entries are included;  Remove forum for certain activities, rely on blog for community building;             Use blogs to record  responses to activities and have tutors and peers make comments; Self assessment exercise where you rate your own contribution to the learning community through your own blogging and commenting practice as well as activity in the forums. But this is very assessment driven.

Kerawalla, L., Minocha, S., Kirkup, G. and Conole, G. (2008) ‘Characterising the different blogging behaviours of students on an online distance learning course’, Learning, Media and Technology, vol.33, no.1, pp.21-33; also available online at http://libezproxy.open.ac.uk/ login?url=http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/ 17439880701868838 (accessed 16 April 2009).

Some thoughts on Wikipedia > leading to academic validity / professionalism

I’m torn between two things on the issue of academic validity. On the one hand I agree with the policy mentioned by Emma in the forum – ‘if something is published then it is citable’. But on the other I think that there is much to be said for peer-reviewed approaches.

Wikipedia is an odd one because you could argue that it is peer-reviewed by the global community. The problem with that is that some reviewers may not have the expert knowledge with which to review content effectively, so there is always a doubt over its validity. I suppose this is the problem being overcome with Citizendium.

The content of these sites is developed by multiple authors rather than a single authority. This would indicate that the whole could be greater than the sum of its parts, which may well be the case. But as has been alluded to, I wonder if this does have an impact on the academic status of individuals who traditionally ‘owned’ knowledge. Does it come down to ‘What I think’ versus ‘What we think’? I’d like to think that both are perceived as equally valuable and that each can feed the other, but realistically traditional academia still favours the work of the individual because of its past culture and continuing requirement to assess the individual. An emphasis on the latter may marginalise the ability of the individual to make ground-breaking discoveries.

Other things that popped into my head whilst writing

Curtis Bonk – Someone once told me about this guy who had done an experiment with Wikipedia. He got his students to create  a new page with a new subject in Wikipedia and if the content on that page survived intact for a week then they passed. I have no idea where the paper is, although I did find this: http://www.publicationshare.com/#b – useful!

Wisdom of Crowds – I was writing a minute ago about ‘What I know’ versus ‘What we know’. I think it is definitely an area worth pursuing. It asks questions about the form of knowledge, how it is created and where it resides. One thing that came back to me was the idea of the Wisdom of Crowds (Surowiecki 2004), which would fall in the ‘what we know’ category but relates strongly to the basis of Wikipedia. It’s based around the idea that the information aggreagrated in groups is more effective than that derived by individuals. Interesting concept!

Self-organizing systems – Prof. Sugata Mitra of ‘Hole in the Wall’ fame spoke at a conference I attended in Jan 09. He was talking about his work and included his thoughts on ’self-organizing systems’, things that occur out without intervention – e.g. a traffic jam, or the stockmarket. (Interestingly, traffic was also used as an example of a wise crowd.)

I shall find references to these soon!

–

Surowiecki, J. (2004) The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations

1. What do their different editorial policies imply about differing approaches to authority and to the role of the ‘expert’? What are the most important differences between Citizendium and Wikipedia in terms of their editorial policies?

In Wikipedia any anonymous user can edit the content.

Citizendium differentiates between authors and editors.  Authors can still remain anonymous when submitting information but before their work is vetted before actually being made available. Editors have to show their real identity and expertise. They need to submit their CV in order to be approved. Citizendum uses constables to review the request for an editor account. These constables are expert administrators holding at least a bachelor’s degree.

2. How far is Citizendium meeting its goals, as far as you can tell from recent reports?These reports may come from Citizendium (what it says about itself) and from commentators.

This project seems to be growing in size although it’s base of articles is somewhat small. Problems I found with this tool (when compared with Wikipedia) is that it still caters only for English language users & articles. Also it is somewhat time consuming to request a Citizendium account.

3. If you have time, search on the same term in each wiki and compare the results. For example, at the time of writing, their entries on ‘Crystal Palace’ differ markedly.

I have made two searches; Crystal Palace and Malta. The results in the two wikis were somewhat contrasting as the amount of information in Wikipedia was overwhelming whereas to date  in Citizendium the article about Malta is not approved and contains only one sentence. This might be a result of the larger number of users which Wikipedia has.

4. Then search – within Google, for example – on ‘Wikipedia approval’, ‘Wikipedia vandal’ or similar terms to see whether and how Wikipedia’s own processes of approval are evolving.

In Wikimania 2008 it was reported that the idea of “flagged revisions” was being tested. This system would shift Wikipedia to the same path started by Citizendium i.e. the use of ‘expert approval’

http://cybernetnews.com/2008/07/18/new-wikipedia-approval-system-could-stifle-creativity/

“The new ‘Citizendiums’ seem to represent the pomposity of the ‘old’ system itching against loss of control and annoyance of loss of order.” (Shearer, P. (2009) in the H800 forum H800 09B Lesleys Group Activity 10 15 April 2009 17.44.

I’ve extracted this quote from Pat’sSummary for A2 as I found it helped me form an opinion of Citizendium (I’m going to refer to them as CZ and WP from now on to save keystrokes!). I came to the forums as I was finding myself spending far too long on this activity as there is so much information on both sites about their policies. My thoughts at first about CZ was that it seemed very defensive, basically we’re not W.  It makes claims about W without substantiating them which contradicts their claims of being encyclopedic and neutral.  As I read further into the policies I figured that what they were saying made a lot of sense and I liked the way they described the role of the editor which perhaps should be retitled moderator to describe the role their describe as in wiki-terms we’re used the term editor referring to someone who changes something not guides something. Eg “I’ve editted your article” to mean I’ve changed your article, not I’ve made some suggestions about your article. But reading your summary made me think differently and I think you’re right, it is a place for the “Folks-who-don’t-like-people-who-think-they-know-it-all” but in essence, what they are trying to do is also a good thing but is it too late. Like others I had never come across it and I’m disappointed with the lack of information held within it. Although it claims popular culture will be part of it, there isn’t much evidence and in fact, when it talks about pop-culture in one of the intro pages, it talks about heavy metal bands and doesn’t understand that pop culture, isn’t just about pop music . It’s like your un-trendy grandpa trying to be cool!

When I went to the WP policies they were making very similar claims to the content as CZ so which one should I believe? I found the CZ site like an election campaign, just slagging off WP to support it’s case. Every statement which said things like we don’t bla bla bla, implied WP does do it.

The main differences I, and we all found, was the fact that for CZ you have to sign up to contribute but not to read. I decided to go to the sign up page to see what I was asked for and it was very straightforward and I found myself justifying my right to contribute in my short bio talking about my qualifications and role at work, you also have to use a formal email address rather than a free one if you have, such as a work one as your membership application is ratified and this would make the process quicker.  I was interested by the claims CZ made about a lack of vandalism and it’s ways of policing this, by stopping bad behaviour by kicking people out.

I was disappointed with the small number of articles, as Sharon said, this makes me feel that WP is a better resource in terms of quantity, and as Keith says, as long as you use it for a place to start and for links to more robust sources then it’s fine. The risk is when you don’t take WP with the obligatory pinch of salt.

One thing I liked about CZ was there was a disclaimer at the top of any unapproved pages saying that it is not meant to be cited. I couldn’t see any such disclaimer on WP, as if they were ignoring the use of WP as a source of academic citations.

I searched for the term WIKI on both sites. the WP page was very long, with examples, with lots of references and links to reading. The CZ version was quite long, but actually mostly headings with little content – a reflection of the smaller number of contributors I guess.

I thought it would be interesting to look up WP on CZ and vice versa. Both actually offered very neutral write up’s of the others service.

I then looked up Wikipedia Approval Process on google, skipped past all the WP entries, and found this one on Digg which is a BBC article from January 2009 claiming that WZ is planning a radical change to how it is run. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7851400.stm “It is proposing a review of the rules, that would see revisions being approved before they were added to the site. “

Sorry to write so much – still I’m not keen to write on a wiki though!  Although I also looked up BLOG on CZ and it listed some uses for blogs and didn’t have “learning diary” as an category, and considering this is what I use my blog for I was tempted to go and add it….and I suppose provide a link to my blog as evidence of the statement…

What are the most important differences between Citizendium and Wikipedia in terms of their editorial policies?

Citzendium:Wikipedia
bring in the expert:self-improvement
C is Not the final word:W is Not the final word
real names:anonymous contributions
special role for experts: all contributions treated the same
moderated:self-policed

Not very scientific,  but I have selected an approved article on Citizendium  and will compare the same topic – Civil Society – on Wikipedia.

Both look interesting, but quite long, so more soon…

In this activity I have been comparing Wikipedia to Citizendium
Citizendium is similar to Wikipedia although it has stricter editing controls.  Here are some of the differences:

The policies of Citizendium imply a greater respect to authority, experience and qualifications than Wikipedia.

In the writings of Sathya Sai Baba’s foremost apologists, it is very typical to attempt to make it appear as though Sai Baba critics live, somehow, in each other’s grey and homogenous pockets.

By Their Fruits Ye Shall Know Them 

Fortunately, there is a great deal that has been written by competent and rational commentators on Sathya Sai Baba and his worldwide sect, such as Brian Steel, Robert Priddy, Timothy Conway Ph.D, and Kevin Shepherd, the independent British philosopher and scholar.

Shepherd, I should add, has always been an outsider to the Sathya Sai Organisation, and cannot be viewed  as being in agreement with all views or idioms of ex-devotees or other Sai Baba critics. Not that there is inveterate agreement among former devotees, either. 

For Shepherd’s discussion of some of the intricacies of Gerald Moreno’s indefinite banning by the Wikipedia authorities, See the reference at the foot of this article for: Part Three: Wikipedia, the rival Citizendium, and the Wikipedia ban on Gerald (Joe) Moreno. The saga that led to Moreno’s banning by the Wiki authorities for exceptionally poor behaviour is a very sorry one indeed. Shepherd discusses some of the intricacies. Needless to say, Shepherd was quick to receive Moreno’s abusive and defamatory treatment. 

Of Blood and Stone

One of the differences among former devotees – although amicable – is whether expense and the purposes of exposing the Sathya Sai cult would justify sueing Moreno, if, that is to say, he could be sued. Given the adage about not being able to derive blood from a stone, there is, indeed, a question that singles itself out:  whether one who spends vast days and nights lapping up countless shreds and threads as though they were items of great nourishment for body, soul and spirit would have sufficient funds to fend for himself against litigation. Given, however, his ostensible connection with those close to Sathya Sai Baba and his leadership, perhaps he would have a ready covet financial supporter from coffers worth a great many millions of dollars.

Aristotle Rolls In His Logical Grave

Moreno’s treatment meted out to individuals who so dare to speak out have their name systematically plastered in both article titles and content, with the aid of skilful manipulation of arcane Internet technology, describing them as “liars”, “cheats”, engaged in “deception”, and much worse. His infractions of the Aristotelean law of the distributed middle (the necessity of not arguing a general contention from some particular instance) are rampant. His particular premises themselves are highly contentious. Wikipedia’s depiction of this fallacy is convenient:

Page after page of his reveal another of his omnipresent hardy weapons, argumentum ad hominem (Latin “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”), attacking the person advancing contentions instead of focusing on the issues at hand.

Again constantly to be seen are his use of the related fallacy of guilt-by-association: former devotee a) is so-and-so and does such-and-such, therefore former devotee b) is also so-and-so and does such-and-such. Mind you, yet again, former devotee a) may NOT be so-and-so or have done such-and-such, or it may not be relevant. Longtime former head of the Sathya Sai Organization in Norway, Robert Priddy, has just written:

“Invidiously, Joe Moreno calls me ‘a blatant liar’ many times obviously without any tangible proof because I can assure that I never lie. He is fond of childish name-calling and smearing through labeling: egs. he accused me of being a “fundamentalist Christian” (I am 100% agnostic!), an associate of known perverts (because I support the cogent and very well-informed arguments concerning Sai Baba by an Indian ex-devotee who Moreno claims – in his massive stalking campaign to ruin that person’s reputation- to expose as a “pervert”- including through in famous postings made by Moreno to support his hate agenda on pornography sites – see list of them here)“. See: Joe Moreno – massive internet abuse. Posted by robertpriddy on April 14, 2009

As well as Moreno’s Internet stalkings and libels, his many targets suffer his personal intrusion into their personal, institutional and community lives. Many individuals of outstanding merit – teachers, professional colleagues, closest friends, relations, etc., – who have seen them under the test of many decades of their lives do not share Moreno’s constant and strident appraisal that those who have stood forth in questioning Sai Baba and his cult are demons.

When any competent reader puts the critical readings of those mentioned at the outset writings alongside the writing of Sai Baba sect proxy apologists such as Gerald Moreno, the qualitative difference leaps into view.

‘Joe’ Moreno and Sai Baba’s official Internet propagandist Dr G. Venkataraman evidently assume that some of the world’s most reputed organs such as the BBC, CBC, DR, SBS, ABC, Times of London, Telegraph, Guardian, Age, UNESCO, etc., are peopled with incompetents unable to gauge good credentials and self- and group-presentation of those whose accounts their highly-trained, seasoned journalists investigate. It was no easy task, for example, for the producers of ‘The Secret Swami’ (2004) to obtain from BBC senior management and its legals permission to use a secret camera trained on Dr Michael Goldstein.

COMING UP

“It does not stop Gerald Moreno from berating and demeaning a Ph.D scholar, Timothy Conway Ph.D., of Santa Barbara, USA, a popular university lecturer and author, and former Sathya Sai center leader, who nonetheless responded to Moreno with great restraint and civility: The crucial John Hislop letters, Sathya Sai Baba, & Sathya’s defender Joe Moreno“

Joe Moreno – massive internet abuse

Sathya Sai Baba’s front man on the Internet

Moreno and sexual abuse, denial and subterfuge

Robert Priddy – Less Recent articles on Moreno

Sathya Sai Organisation defended by proxy

Sathyasaibaba in the shadows

Copyright infringements by sathyasaibaba

Gerald Joe Moreno (aka sathyasaibaba) dares not show his face. Why?

Sathyasaibaba, Munchausen and sick fantasies

Sathyasaibaba specious claims and self-defeating ‘arguments’

Sathyasaibaba scales up hate attacks on critics

Terrorist-related Slurs Used By Sai Baba Internet Fanatic

Baba Hatchet Man Picks On A Young Child

Sai Baba Internet Man – No Apology When Caught Using Anti-Semitism Slur

Sai Baba Proxy Attacker of Ex-followers and the Media

Proxy Defender of Sai Baba and SWARA

Brian Steel on Gerald Moreno

Evidence of an Internet Activist in Action:
Gerald ‘Joe’ Moreno

Diversionary Tactics by an Internet Demagogue. The pro-Sathya Sai Baba Campaign of Gerald (‘Joe’) Moreno

Timothy Conway Ph.D on Gerald Moreno

The crucial John Hislop letters, Sathya Sai Baba, and Sathya’s defender Joe Moreno

Formal statement provided to ExBaba by Dr. Timothy Conway Ph. D. concerning the Hislop letters

Note: Timothy Conway Ph.D is a highly-trained academic who has extensively written on the philosophy and sociology of religion. On the other hand, no teacher of clear-thinking could do other than mark Moreno poorly on his inability to argue well. It mattered nothing that he showed extraordinary patience in the face of Moreno’s attacks upon him. Nor did it matter that the BBC itself knew perfectly well what Moreno has tried to deny about the provenance of the highly indicting letters of (the late) Dr Jack Hislop, the first head of Sai Baba’s organization in the USA (and, at that time, of ‘The Americas’).

Kevin Shepherd on Gerald Moreno 

 Sathya Sai Baba: problems

Part Two: Profile of Gerald (Joe) Moreno and the Testimonies to strongly alleged sexual abuse by Sathya Sai Baba

See Part three on the same webpage as this last link: Part Three: Wikipedia, the rival Citizendium, and the Wikipedia ban on Gerald (Joe) Moreno.

Ok, ok, maybe not Wikipedia since most faculty seem to turn away from Wikipedia like vampires turn away from the sun…

In this article, I want to discuss why faculty don’t like Wikipedia, if wikis have any value in higher education and if student created wikis have value.

A wiki is simply a piece of software that allows multiple users to edit content on a web page.  Wikipedia is disliked by many faculty because the people that edit are not always experts and the information can be wrong or biased in many entries. In fact, in a 2006 Wired Campus article the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, said that Wikipedia is not a definitive source and should be used to get a general overview of a topic before beginning in-depth research.  However, I know for a fact (from personal experience, I must admit) that many college students do research by Googling a topic and Wikipedia entries are often in the top five Google results, so they are going to get used as references.

College professors (in general) don’t like Wikipedia.  Does this mean wikis as a whole don’t have value in higher education?

There are at least two well-known wikis that are edited by experts, Citizendium and Knol (a Google product).  Both of these sites’ purpose is to provide high quality information provided by experts.  In fact, on Knol’s front page you can view the top authors – several Ph.D.s, an M.D. and a photographer.

I searched World War 2 on both sites and received vastly different results.

The result from Citizendium look a lot  like Wikipedia with an outline on the right hand side of screen and pictures throughout the article.

Search result for World War 2 on Citizedium

The results from Knol are very different from Wikipedia; they look similar to Google search results.  The Knol results are shorter, more specific mini-articles.

Search results for World War 2 on Knol

It would be interesting to see what faculty members think of these two wikis and if they are an improvement over Wikipedia as a resource used by students.

Beyond expert created wikis, there is software (free!) that instructors can use to manage student created wikis.  Many instructional technologists think wikis are a low hanging fruit, a relatively easy way to enhance student learning using web 2.0 technology.

Benefits from using wikis:

1. In higher education, generally, a student works hard on a paper and turns it in the professor for a grade.  After college, when an individual writes or produces a piece of work, it is seen by more than one person.  Writing content that is available to the world while in college may prepare the student for his/her career better.
2. Team members can collaboratively work on assignment and not have to meet in person.  Since wikis can have several editors, group members can work together while not being physically together.
3. Learn different writing styles/techniques when writing “encyclopedia” entry and not a regular term paper.

Challenges to using wikis:

1. Professor has to learn new technology and administer it during semester.
2. See 3 Challenges to using wikis by Ruth Reynard in Campus Technology

Thoughts??

Many people are critical of Wikipedia believing that allowing the great unwashed to post and edit entries leads to misinformed, inaccurate or plain self serving content.

Today the BBC reports that someone from Conservative party HQ has been caught editing Titian’s birth date on Wikipedia to support David Cameron’s claim that Titian was 86 as opposed to Gordon Brown’s claim of him being 90.

Put aside the fact that this ridiculous argument exposes how absurd our politicians can be. Does this incident tip the argument against the wisdom of masses in favour of the wisdom of scholars?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7884121.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titian

With many people praising and many people bashing Wikipedia, opponents who are looking for more credible information may have there source with a newly developed Citizendium.
Citizendium is a project began by Mr. Sanger, a wikipedia challenger who will give expert editors “the final say over how articles appear”. In 2002 Sanger left wikipedia because he felt it drove talented scholars away with the opportunity for anyone to publish on the site.
Wikipedia is an intresting and valuable source that has provided many students with factual information. Although most universities do not accept wikipedia as a credible source much of the information can be easily double checked. The convience of an online encyclopedia that is able to be changed in the matter of minutes is easily more convenient than publishing a new set of encyclopedias for a new year. Citizendium may be more helpful for in depth research but overall I believe wikipedia will hold its ground and supporters will continue to use it.

If I didn’t mention it at the end of my previous journal entry, I’m posting the week 3 and 4 entries back to back. Mainly because as I was looking over the draft to week 3, I realised that some of the points I’d made in the week 3 entry covered points made in the week 4 topic. Gabble gabble ramble.

I briefly mentioned Citizendium last entry, a monolith on Wikipedia’s horizon. However it seems to be a remarkedly small monolith, and it’s severley doubtful it will ever overtake Wikipedia. This idea of a community writing knowledge based on their superior qualifications breeds a sense of elitism that I find rather discomforting. Elitism in general is a really awful cancerous thing. Sure, the information produced would come with a reliability garuntee from Larry Sanger himself. On the downside, it seems more like a digital encyclopedia than a thriving internet database. And it carries more of the downfalls of encyclopedias than the benefits.

The epic faceoff between professionals and amateurs has been going on since gladiators slaughtered slaves in the ring of Rome. As long as there is a solid divide between pros and ams, they will always be disagreement about each one’s place on the internet super highway. By their very nature, professionals can’t become one with the hive mind, because they know something that puts them above the average person. If they exert their status AS professionals they are showing everyone that they are above the hive mind and what they know is more important. if however they simply contribute knowledge and allow others to dispute and mould it, they can wear the moniker of amateur with some honesty.

Citizendium turns the internet into a boy’s club. The atmosphere is relatively unfriendly unless you hold a degree of some description. Amateurs then go running to Wikipedia for a more comfortable environment. Meanwhile the pros would hold up in their Citizendium fort, feeling more at ease in a place where they feel their wealth of knowledge will be appreciated. So as the agreement stands, there aren’t going to be many places where the two get along in harmony.

On the other hand, there are some places that are home for neithers pros nor ams, merely trolls. Encyclopedia Dramatica couldn’t go without a mention in this double Wikipedia smackdown. Masquerading as a wealth of knowledge, it’s more like the putrescent waters of knowledge. I can now say that I know some sick, sick things, courtesy of ED. I wonder what kind of professional you have to be to write for ED…

References (in order of appearance)

Bruns, A. 2008. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

Welcome to Citizendium, n.d. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Citizendium (Accessed May 19, 2009)

Wikipedia, n.d. http://www.wikipedia.org/ (Accessed May 19, 2009)

Larry Sanger – Wikipedia – the free encyclopedia, n.d. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_sanger (Accessed May 19, 2009)

Encyclopedia Dramatica, n.d. http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Main_Page (Accessed May 19, 2009)