Given my interest in collaboration, I often enjoy hearing people's stories about their workplace. My friend Ann was telling me about a clever colleague who is concerned about making the best use of meeting time. Much like the Dave Chapelle comedy skit in which he has an Oscar award-like "wrap it up" box that plays music to signal time is up, her colleague distributed signs to the meeting participants. (Also reminding me of buzzword bingo.) The signs, with Ann's annotations, are as follows:
Sold ("You've convinced us, let's move on.")
Out of Scope ("No way will we get to work on this, so let's not talk about it.")
Too Much Detail ("You're in the weeds.")
Off Topic ("Shut up.")
I expect this also has the potential to offend, but when I asked, Ann said that the signs were well received. When I worked at the W3C we used the IRC channel in a similar way sometimes. However, given that I am somewhat suspect of laptops at meetings, I am quite intrigued by this meat-space protocol.
Why, do you ask, am I suspect of laptops at meetings? I am sympathetic to the philosophy that if you are going to give your time to something, give it your full attention, or do something else. I know this is quite counter to the multi-tasking culture we are enmeshed in now, but I think it is effective. At the W3C, I don't think computer usage was an issue because we made effective use of our technological tools, and there is a culture, and set of personalities, that permitted people to say, quite brashly, is this discussion the best use of our time, what is the next agenda item, etc.?
Similarly, on the BBC version of The Office, when the petty and officious Gareth Keenan insists that Tim cannot raise an issue because it was not placed on the agenda, I was sympathetic -- evidence of what I jokingly refer to as my fascist-like tendencies in group dynamics. I have found a good way to encourage a useful meeting is to ensure that people are somewhat prepared and that the facilitator has a good sense of the issues at hand and how much time they will likely take to resolve.
What other interesting, funny, or effective folk meeting protocols are out there?
Reagle, J. M. (2010). “Be Nice”: Wikipedia norms for supportive communication. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 16(1), 161-180. doi:10.1080/13614568.2010.498528
Wikipedia is acknowledged to have been home to “some bitter disputes.” Indeed, conflict at Wikipedia is said to be “as addictive as cocaine.” Yet, such observations are not cynical commentary but motivation for a collection of social norms. These norms speak to the intentional stance and communicative behaviors Wikipedians should adopt when interacting with one another. In the following pages, I provide a survey of these norms on the English Wikipedia and argue that they can be characterized as supportive based on Jack Gibb's classic communication article “Defensive Communication.”
A two-month trial of the Pending Changes feature on the English Wikipedia is scheduled to begin on June 14. This will mean that for a small subset of problematic pages (i.e., biographies) edits by unregistered or newly-registered users will first have to be reviewed by an experienced editor to be seen by the "public" (i.e., those not logged in to Wikipedia).
I fully expect this will prompt much attention on whether Wikipedia is now more closed, open, or has even "failed."
I recently read Jaron Lanier's manifesto: You Are Not a Gadget. Lanier's critique of Wikipedia and digital Maoism plays an important role in my discussion of Wikipedia's reception. Hence, I was surprised to find the tone of Lanier's book to be more muted than I expected. While he does make an argument against "cybernetic totalism," it reads like learned musings that lead to intriguing pet-theories rather than a diatribe about Web 2.0. Jon Dron has written an informative review.
I did specifically wish to comment on something that makes me uncomfortable with a lot of cultural criticism: the critic's POV. (I use Wikipedia's acronym for "point of view" tongue-in-cheek in that critique is quite contrary to Neutral Point of View (NPOV).) In my exposure to cultural criticism, including Theodor Adorno's seminal 1936 critique On Jazz, I've had the uncomfortable sense that much of this is simply the subjective, disenchanted complaints of a grouch who attempts to convince us that his or her opinions are anything more than his or her opinions. Actually, it's not even that they are trying to convince us, but that anyone who does not agree with their subjective opinion is obviously part of the problem that they are railing against in the first place. I think it is important to be skeptical, to be critical, and to have personal opinions. (Despite the provocative title, Mark Bauerlein's The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future is an excellent example of persuasive criticism beyond opinion.) But sometimes the critic's statements seem over "totalizing." In Lanier's case, consider his distinction between first- and second-order expression -- using terms that have an authoritative mathematical/logical sort of feel:
First-order expression is when someone presents a whole, a work that integrates its own worldview and aesthetic. It is something genuinely new in the world. Second-order expression is made of fragmentary reactions to first-order expression. A movie like Blade Runner is first-order expression, as was the novel that inspired it, but a mashup in which a scene from the movie is accompanied by the anonymous masher's favorite song is not in the same league. (p. 122)
Now, I love Blade Runner; I think it is genius. And of course, a YouTube mashup is not in the same league as the complete film. But, it is something, and maybe something people value, even if lightly. I laughed at some of the recent Hitler parodies from Downfall and was sad to see them removed. But video mashups in no way diminish the value of the original film. And in the case of Blade Runner, it is a second-order expression of a written book, and one that is famous for its cyber-noir aesthetic that so famously synthesized so many existing elements of visual culture. Later, Lanier writes without qualification or caveat: "The web should have developed along the ThinkQuest model instead of the wiki model -- and would have, were it not for hive ideology" (p. 146). Well, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride, and the subjectivity and ahistorical conceit in such a statement simply boggles the mind.
The way in which Wikipedia is collaboratively produced has caught the attention of the world. Discourse about the efficacy and legitimacy of such a work abound, from the news pages of the New York Times to the satire of the Onion. Building on the literature around controversies surrounding other reference works, such as Harvey Einbinder’s The Myth of the Britannica and Herbert Morton’s The Story of Webster’s Third, Joseph Reagle makes a broader argument that reference works can serve as a flashpoint for larger social anxieties about technological and social change. With this understanding in hand, he tries to make sense of the social unease embodied in and prompted by Wikipedia relative to technological inspiration in knowledge projects.
I just finished an excellent biography of Ayn Rand and her philosophy in the context of American political culture. While reading, I couldn't help think of Wales' expressed interest in Objectivism and the next to the last page actually comments on this issue:
One of the many ironies of Rand's career is her latter-day popularity among entrepreneurs who are pioneering new forms of community. Among her high-profile fans as Wikipedia's founder Jimmy Wales, once an active participant in the listserv controversies of the Objectivist Center. A nonprofit that depends on charitable donations, Wikipedia may ultimately put its rival encyclopedias out of business. At the root of Wikipedia are warring sensibilities that seemed to both embody and defy Rand's beliefs. The website's emphasis on individual empowerment, the value of knowledge, and its own risky organizational model reflects Rand's sensibility. But its trust in the wisdom of crowds, celebration of the social nature of knowledge, and faith that many working together will produce something of enduring value contradict Rand's adage "all creation is individual." (Burns 2009, p. 284)
This week I've been reading the reports from camp KDE 2010 and looking forward to attending a few hours of Wikipedia Day NYC. So it was a great pleasure to read Biella Coleman's "The Hacker Conference: a Ritual Condensation and Celebration of the Lifeworld". I haven't seen anyone else address this issue, but as a sometimes participant and scholar of related communities, I think she is right to highlight the importance of this venue. In my forthcoming book I note that in addition to virtual spaces "there are the physical spaces in which some community members interact."
Through Wikipedia "meetups" I've attended in New York and annual Wikimania conferences I've met a couple dozen contributors. Many of these people I've spoken to more than once, and it's quite easy to speak to a newly met Wikipedian about issues of concern to the community. These conversations were informative, but casual.
So, while formal face-to-face interviews played a very small part in my work, the opportunity to meet with people, to participate in conversations, to see playfulness and laugh at jokes was essential to interpreting what I saw happening online. In Biella's work I particularly appreciated the inclusion of some history (though I wanted more detail, including whether fandom conferences might've had any influence), and how Debian women in part rose out of the opportunity of face-to-face interaction.
Coincidentally, in the last year I have been particularly interested in questions of gender representation and participation at geek conferences. There were a number of instances in which the "playful" discourse of men were said to be predicated on sexist assumptions, and at the least had an alienating effect (e.g., Stallman, Aimonetti, Mouette ). In fact, in a conversation with Biella this summer I noted that 2009 was probably the "Year of [Something]", where "something" connotes a greater gender consciousness or willingness to confront alienating discourse in open content communities -- but I couldn't come up with a good word!
2009 Dec 07 | News of Wikipedia’s Death Has Been Greatly Exaggerated (Again)
In the past few weeks there's been much discussion of news stories based on Felipe Ortega's dissertation; the concern is that Wikipedians are abandoning the online encyclopedia “in droves.” (What is a drove you ask? According to Wikipedia, it is an ancient route by which livestock were herded.) However, Erik Zachte, with the help of Felipe, shows how in such analysis the way that one constructs one’s parameters significantly affects the conclusions one can draw. For example, the alleged drop-off (deaths) of Wikipedia editors may be more the result of when and how the analysis is done. If you assume that an active Wikipedian is someone who did one edit (i.e., someone who was just experimenting), rather than five, or some other number (i.e., actual Wikipedians), this can significantly affect the outcome. Or, if you assume that a "death" is when someone has not been active for a month, you will naturally have a lot of deaths at the end of the analysis period because these people may have been simply "sleeping" for that month, but come back in the next month and you weren't there to see it. (Like the line from Twin Falls Idaho, a favorite movie of mine, "The sad ending is only because the author stops telling the story. But it still goes on. It's just untold.")
Wikimedia’s lesser noted response to the story claims significant efforts are being made to improve the recruitment and retention of users, but on the numbers side:
On the English Wikipedia, the peak number of active editors (5 edits per month) was 54,510 in March 2007. After a more significant decline by about 25%, it has been stable over the last year at a level of approximately 40,000. (See WikiStats data for the English Wikipedia.) Many other Wikipedia language editions saw a rise in the number of editors in the same time period.
Successful open communities must occasionally interact with closed worlds. For example, Wikipedia's openness and transparency sometimes conflict with their obligations to be responsive to the law (e.g., defamation, copyright, and human safety). Such is a consequence of becoming a notable and established institution.
A new source of tension is the "professionalization" of Wikipedia administration -- a move I otherwise commend. It appears professional marketers were asked to develop a marketing/fundraising campaign, yielding the "WIKIPEDIA FOREVER" slogan. Some Wikipedians feel this is inappropriate, arrogant, and loud -- a sentiment with which I agree. A more wiki-typical discussion of appropriate slogans can be found here.
In the previous analysis, of the 174 women from the National Women's History Project, Wikipedia lacked articles on 23 of the women, Britannica missed 65. Hence, I found no support for the idea that gender imbalance in Wikipedians leads to similar imbalance in biographical coverage. However, this did support the (unsurprising) fact that Wikipedia has greater coverage in its number of subjects and article length. Therefore, as noted, on the gender question it would be nice to have a sense of relative proportions.
Consequently, in the second analysis I look at Time's "100" most influential people from 2008. (There are more than 100 subjects because there are a few couples that I break out.)
43 entries are missing from EB; 4 from WP. 4 entries are in neither. For articles existing in both, WP articles are 7.66 times larger on average (median of 6.81).
Of the 105 entries: I guess that 23 are female, 82 are male and 0 are unknown. That is, the ratio of females to males is 0.28. Of the Wikipedia articles, females are 0.29 (23/78) of males; and 0.27 (13/49) at Britannica.
That is, while one might claim that this ratio of 0.28 is evidence of a bias -- on the part of Time or the world at large -- it is a base line from which we can judge the reference works: neither Wikipedia nor Britannica are disproportionately better or worse. If the reference works were biased towards coverage of men, we would expect that ratio to be lower than 0.28 (e.g., if all missed articles were females).
Of course, I'd like to run this over a larger corpus, but in terms of easy to find lists of notable persons, these "100" lists are all I've found so far. Also, I'm relying upon heuristics again to guess the gender of subjects, but they seem to be working well. (EB's Mia-Farrow article is guessed as male because it's actually a stub/sentence in the Woody Allen article.) Finally, an additional feature my approach has is to augment the table with the content from both reference works, but I expect Britannica would not be happy about that so I don't provide that version publicly.
