Leutha Blissett on Fri, 8 May 2009 13:17:13 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: <nettime> what makes a notable life? [wikipedia] |
Hi all, I think Toni makes some good points, and a certainly agree that their contribution to the discussion was a pain to read. However if we are to develop a discussion, no pain - no gain as the saying goes. I would also agree that DJ Lotu5's critique is mild, and indeed I would like to see a more thought-out critique of wikipedia. I'm sorry if my piece about the limitations about Google searches did not state that by presenting a critique of a what Toni describes as a "far less problematic", I hoped that the reader could see that a similar argument could apply to the more problematic Google News. I'm not quite sure what Toni hopes to achieve by describing the "Neutral Point of View" as a joke. Certainly I had hoped that using the convention of placing "Neutral Point of View" in quotation marks, I was indicating scepticism about how this is presented. Their depiction of "Neutrality" in terms of what appears to be a Kantian understanding of judgement, might bear some weight for those who confine themselves to a Kantian philosophical outlook. However I feel the role of "Neutrality" here is far more opaque than Toni gives it credit. Perhaps having read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV, Toni could give a clearer explanation of the point they would like to make. Anyway, I have already made further points about the issue of neutrality. This discussion thread has underlined my disappointment about how contributors haven't taken the trouble to look at the issues in depth. Fair enough, Toni is quite frank about the limitations of their imagination. But I feel that they does their imagination down. Certainly I wasn't setting out to "defend" the editors who suggested the DJ Lotu5 wikipedia page for deletion, and when Toni imagines I was, this appears to be so effortless, that it is unclear how conscious Toni was that they was exercising their imagination. However I have since considered the matter a little further: DJ Lotu5 suggested that they simply wanted to help expand the knowledge on wikipedia about mixed reality performance art. However as this help was limited to adding their name to the New media Art list of artists and then developing a page about themself, it is hard to see how this "help" can be distinguished from self-promotion. This is the point which was picked up by the editor who first proposed deletion. In fact three editors contributed to the discussion. DJ Lotu5 was invited to take part, but unless the anonymous contribution was by them, they did not take this offer up. The discussion was left open from 27 March to 6 April. On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_1, those interested can see how the proposal for deletion was listed on 1 April. (Check the debate about deleting Earth as a not notable planet!) There had been no further contributions to the debate by 6th April, when the page was deleted. From this I think it is fair to conclude that a factor in its deletion is that no-one was prepared to actually endorse the article to be kept. Furthermore, no-one has felt sufficiently excited about the page as to try and re-instate it. I feel that the narrowness Toni perceives in my thought process, and those of others, may be product of squinting through a pinhole. The fact of the matter is that wikipedia editors can and do broaden their perspective in time. Take DJ Lotu5 themself. Back in 2006 they were participated in the debate about the wikipedia page on the European Graduate School (EGS), which they had attended (I hope we don't get diverted into a discussion of all the privileges that this implies). At that time, they were concerned that any reference should have a URL - or certainly a reference critical of the EGS should have such. In fact looking at the proposal for deletion of EGS is far more informative (and perhaps more tedious) than the uncontested DJ Lotu5 precisely because of the range of contributions, including some which appear to be those of a paid employee of the organisation - who was thus able to combine editing wikipedia with paid employment. I am not sure what Toni is getting at with their comments as regards "mindlessness". Coming after their comments about making judgements, this readiness to remark upon peoples ability to think based on a this particular episode would suggest that Toni could benefit from introspection as regards "mindlessness" before using it as an epithet for others. all the best Leutha --- tony@irational.org wrote: From: Toni Prug <tony@irational.org> To: leutha@sierraleonelive.com CC: nettime-l@kein.org, lotu5@resist.ca Subject: Re: <nettime> what makes a notable life? [wikipedia] Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 13:22:35 +0100 i have no idea who Lotu5 is. but this kind of discussion on Wikipedia is a real pain to read. Leutha Blissett wrote: > Hi Lotu5, I think you are being unfair to Wikipedia. Lotu5' critique of W is extremely mild and generous. > 1) Using Google is a useful way of establishing notability, however it is > not the only way. They used Google News, not Google the search engine: <...> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org