(Wikipedia Critical Point of View Conference March 26-27 2010)
by Karlijn Marchildon

"The interesting thing about Wikipedia is that it's irrelevant, and at the same time it's not." With this statement Amit Basole opens his talk on the global issues and outlooks of Wikipedia and the broader context in which it exists. Basole explains that although the majority of the world's population hasn't ever heard of Wikipedia (making it quite irrelevant), the collaborative knowledge platform at the same time does represent a new social order, and a new economy that very much impacts the lives of exactly those people who haven't ever heard of it. In that sense, Wikipedia could be understood as relevant indeed.

Amit Basole has come to Amsterdam to give a talk about the implications of this new social order. As many before him have claimed, there has been a shift from an industrial, to a knowledge based society. This shift has many far reaching implications for the world's population, it's cultures and knowledge hierarchies. In fact, Basole ultimately claims that in this new social order, new (knowledge) hierarchies have been born. Basole, together with the India-based Vidya Ashram collective on whose behalf he speaks, has taken it upon himself to "investigate these dynamics of knowledge in society, production and transmission, values, its relationship to the state, the market and so on".

Vidya Ashram is a collective that believes that a radical intervention in the world of knowledge is necessary for a radical transformation of society. As society is changing, so is knowledge. With the driving philosophy that a people's knowledge movement (as in Lokavidya) is part of mass movements of people on the less fortunate side of the digital divide, can lead to a new philosophy of knowledge required for a radical pro-people transformation of society. With this socialist background, Vidya Ashram aims at bringing people from all over together to share, debate and explore the new knowledge hierarchies.

In a way, Wikipedia as an embodiment of this virtual knowledge, reflects and flattens hierarchies of knowledge as it presents different approaches of content, as it is collaborative.

More concretely, Vidya Ashram makes an effort to open debate and interaction on knowledge hierarchies and flows, in order to give shape to this new pro-people society where all types and flows of knowledge are respected from Lokavidya knowledge (evolving tacit people's practical knowledge) to traditional (scientific) knowledge. As the Vidya Ashram web site states; it calls on all college and university educated people to deliberate on the following actions:

• Opposition to the building of elite institutions of higher education.
• Recognition of knowledge in society, knowledge with peasants and artisans, and reflection of this in our writings and public stands.
• Support for proper economic returns on Lokavidya; at a minimum buying Lokavidya products, and campaigning for it.
• Opposition of policies that restrict peasants and artisans from using their knowledge for economic activity. Opposition to the expropriation of lokavidya by the corporations.
• Campaign for public spending on research in the fields and work-sites by peasants and artisans.
• Work for the dignity of Lokavidya by building overlaps between formal education at all levels and Lokavidya.

This call is a clear action towards the exploration of the ruling knowledge paradigm. In that sense, Basole's talk on the concept of knowledge and society is radical and relevant in the same sense as he claims Wikipedia is. In his words: "Although the content is conservative, the form is radical."

Wikipedia GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums) is a project initiative that tries to encourage culture-sector professionals to improve Wikipedia in their area of expertise. The project page provides the future contributor with some basic guidance and tips in order to edit Wikipedia articles.

Some examples of Wikipedia/culture-sector interaction can be found on the same page. Most of them are positive ones, such as a number of donations made by the German Federal Archives or the Tropenmuseum (Amsterdam) to the Wikimedia Commons or the projects Wikipedia Loves Art coordinated by the Brooklyn Museum of Art and the sister project Wiki Loves Art from the Netherlands.

Other related WikiProjects in the cultural area are:

• WikiProject Arts, which includes several subprojects involving more specific themes like asthetics, films, visual arts, dance, theater, etc;
• WikiProject Libraries, which involves coordinating and mainteining library-related content as well as assisting Wikipedia with categorizations;
• WikiProject Museums , which has among other goals the improvement on Wikipedia's coverage of museums.

A conference on the GLAM theme has been held in Australia in August 2009. Furthermore, a list of reccomendations addressed to the GLAM sector concerning law, technology, education and business has been developed and can be accessed under GLAM-WIKI Recommendations. A similar event is being planned for October 2010 in London by the Wikimedia UK .

These are the links to the videos of all the talks for the CPoV Conference in Amsterdam - Enjoy! SESSION 1
Ramón Reichert (AT) Rethinking Wikipedia: Power, Knowledge and the Technologies of the Self
Jeanette Hofmann (DE) Wikipedia between Emancipation and Self-Regulation
Mathieu O’Neil (AU) The Critique of Law in Free Online Projects
Gérard Wormser (FR) The Knowledge Bar
SESSION 2
Joseph Reagle (USA) Wikipedia and Encyclopedic Anxiety
Charles van den Heuvel (NL) Authoritative Annotations, Encyclopedia Universalis Mundaneum, Wikipedia and the Stanford Encycloped
Dan O’Sullivan (UK) An Encyclopedia for the Times: Thoughts on Wikipedia from a His- torical Perspective
Alan Shapiro (USA/DE) Gustave Flaubert Laughs at Wikipedia
Discussion session 2 Encyclopedia Histories: 13.30 – 15.30. Friday, March 26
Moderaror: Nathaniel Tkacz
Speakers: Joseph Reagle, Charles van den Heuvel, Dan O'Sullivan, Alan Shapiro
SESSION 3
Hendrik-Jan Grievink (NL) Wiki Loves Art
Scott Kildall (USA) Wikipedia Art: Citation as Performative Act
Patrick Lichty (USA) Social Media, Cultural Scaffolds, and Molecular Hegemonies. Musings on Anarchic Media, WIKIs, and De-territorialized Art
Discussion session 3 Wiki Art: 15.45 – 17.30. Friday, March 26
Moderator: Rachel Somers Miles
Speakers: Hendrik-Jan Grievink, Scott Kildall, Patrick Lichty
SESSION 4
Felipe Ortega (ES) New Trends in the Evolution of Wikipedia
Stuart Geiger (USA) Bot Politics: The Domination, Subversion, and Negotiation of Code in Wikipedia
Hans Varghese Mathews (IN) Clustering the Contributors to a Wikipedia Page
Esther Weltevrede (NL) and Erik Borra (BE/NL) Controversy Analysis with Wikipedia
Discussion session 4 Wiki Analytics: 10.00 – 12.30. Saturday, March 27
Moderator: NIshant Shah
Speakers: Felipe Ortega, Stuart Geiger, Hans Varghese Mathews, Esther Weltevrede & Erik Borra
SESSION 5
Lawrence Liang (IN) Wikipedia and the authority of knowledge
Teemu Mikkonen (FI) Kosovo War on Wikipedia, Tracing the Conflict and Concensus on the Wikipedia Talk pages
Andrew Famiglietti (USA) Negotiating the Neutral Point of View: Politics and the Moral Economy of Wikipedia
Florian Cramer (DE/NL) The German WikiWars and the limits of objectivism
Discussion session 5 Designing Debate: 13.30 – 15.30. Saturday, March 27
Moderator: Caroline Nevejan
Speakers: Lawrence Liang, Teemu Mikkonen, Andrew Famiglietti, Florian Cramer
SESSION 6
Mayo Fuster Morell (IT) Wikimedia Governance: The Role of the Wikimedia Foundation and the Form and Geopolitics of its Internationalization
Athina Karatzogianni (UK) Wikipedia’s Impact on the Global Power-Knowledge Hierarchies
Maja van der Velden (NL/NO) When Knowledges Meet: Database Design and the Performance of Knowledge
Amit Basole (IN) Knowledge Satyagraha: Towards a People’s Knowledge Movement
Discussion session 6 Global Issues and Outlooks: 15.45 – 17.30. Saturday, March 27
Moderator: Johanna Niesyto
Speakers: Mayo Fuster Morell, Athina Karatzogianni, Maja van der Velden, Amit Basole

Call for papers (open until May 15., 2010): A session in The 2nd International Power & Knowledge Conference, Tampere, September 6-8, 2010
http://tinyurl.com/yfvgyh6 The collective knowledge creation on various wiki-sites, including the massively popular Wikipedia, is having a profound effect on the social and epistemological conditions of public information. Distributed collaboration, possible anonymity, radical equality and global reach of wikified information lead to a situation that at the same time democratizes knowledge production by levelling hierarchies of expertise and increases the postmodern condition of reflective uncertainty. Everybody knows that the Wikipedia can not be trusted in the same way as, say, the Encyclopedia Britannica, yet over 100 million people utilize the Wikipedia daily. The ‘edit’ and ‘history’ buttons ever present on wiki pages are already starting to exert pressure on information presented elsewhere. For instance, the negotiations on what information to include and how the information should be presented in various Wikipedia entries constitute a huge experiment in the use of public reason à la Kant. Consequently, the dynamics of collective collaboration also bring out questions on the nature of rationality and plurality of knowledge. Wikis provide ready made windows into the dialectical interplay between knowledge creation and issues of identity, social inclusion, authority, and the interface between information and politics.
The session invites contributions discussing these themes through theoretical reflection and/or empirical case studies. Abstracts should be between 150-200 words of length.
Abstract submission: http://tinyurl.com/yk98dgk Organizers & more information:
Organizers: Tere Vadén, tere.vaden ä uta.fi , Teemu Mikkonen, teemu.mikkonen ä uta.fi, Juha Suoranta juha.suoranta ä uta.fi

The German WikiWars and the Limits of Objectivism Presentation by Florian Cramer for the Critical Point of View (CPoV) conferece in Amsterdam, 27.03.2010 Cramer started his presentation by pointing out to some fictions about collaborative media. He believes it is mostly a utopia, what leads to a big history of disappointments. On the positive side, Wikipedia, with all its problems, is nevertheless the only large-scale working community of collaborative authorship. The implications of that are not all positive though: If one considers the hypertext/hyperfiction utopia by Nelson, Bolter and Landow in the 1990s, their ideas, especially when applied to literature, have gone almost nowhere. The notion of collective intelligence by Pierre Levy has also failed in most cases, if one considers the huge amount of single authors and single articles. Wikipedia, in this case, is what comes closer to his ideal of collaborative writing. The p2p, another utopia, ended up being used for consumption instead of being a media for cultural production. Finally, the creative commons idea, whose works are rarely re-used. He thinks that these hopes for collaborative media are 'a bit old European', and the one that persists the most is the hope for a CPoV instead of a NPoV. This means, that Wikipedia is founded precisely on the opposite of CPoV. This is a question of what inspired the creation of Wikipedia. He continues his critique by showing the Wikipedia page on Jimmy Wales ('largely edited by himself') and emphasizing his influences, which involve Ayn Rand's Objectivism - which is 'hard core neo-liberalism' and 'capitalist philosophy'. This philosophical stream believes that there is an objective reality and that therefore it is possible to have a NPoV of things. He believes that Wikipedia is the only successful appropriation of the notion of Open Source for works other than software. Free marked and the free flow of ideas were also incorporated (see 1998s the Cathedral and the Bazar). In other words, the NPoV is the translation of Ayn Rand's school of thought and other libertarian influences into the project. Wikipedia, as well as other FLOSS movements, are built on consensus. The main problem is that this consensus is built on fictions. In Wikipedia there are implicit social contracts based on objectiveness, what holds the community of editors in Wikipedia together. However, this fiction/myth of having an objective reality does not scale. Once the project grows and controversies arise, it leads to subsequent disappointments. A further design problem in Wikipedia is that it tries to create its neutrality/consensus/objectivity by the way the article page is designed. It looks like one unitary source of information that does not reflect the actual editing history. Cramer finalizes his presentation by introducing Annemieke van der Hoek, who developed a tool called Epicpedia. EpicPedia (based on the epic theater by Bertold Brecht) is a tool that translates Wikipedia pages into a theatrical kind of way. For more information check:

• Short Bio
• Abstract
• Piet Zwart Institute

Karatzogianni combines in her talk the theory of cyberconflicts and media. According to her you have to see the Internet as a dialogue. We are looking at a medium and we have to analyse the discourses at that medium. So what control of information do we have? We are using the open source as a choice, we try to keep it very open but it is a mistake to give the people this role. In this environment, Wikipedia and similar endeavors, provides a battleground for dominance in our global political consciousness. This battleground has internal conflicts, competitors within the open software movement and external others in the overall business of knowledge. The tread is not Wikipedia’s content, and even the battle of edit wars is futile. The real threat and promise of Wikipedia and open knowledge production is not an alternative knowledge production, but the alternative to knowledge production. Wikipedia content is producing a single neutral point of view, knowledge is constantly shifting but adhering to the universal neutral fact based encyclopedia. The process is radical the content is not. University scholars learn multiple points of view and Karatzogianni strongly advocated multiple points of view during teaching but Wikipedia only provides a single point of view. More information about her:

• Short Bio
• Abstract

Negotiating the Neutral Point of View: Politics and the Moral Economy of Wikipedia Presentation by Andrew Famiglietti for the Critical Point of View (CPoV) conferece in Amsterdam, 27.03.2010 Andrew Famiglietti's presentation was about the concept of moral economy applied to the Wikipedia. He does so by analyzing the article called 'Gaza War' in the period of 2008/2009. He starts by referring to the work of E.P. Thompson and how crowd intervention influenced the way grain prices were regulated in the 18th century. He applies this idea into how Wikipedia regulates its resources around its community. First, how was the crowd regulating resources in times of scarcity? In case of Wikipedia: how do they manage the scarce resource of volunteer labor within the site? This is a matter that Wikipedians have to work out themselves. He believes that they do that in terms of what Thompson called 'Moral Economy'. In the 18th century there were outrages concerning the procedure of regular market forces that was considered illegitimate by the starving population; in the 21st century's Wikipedia there were outrages by the editors, who considered some of the actions by the site owners were illegitimate based on moral values. He presents then a case study of how values that organize the moral economy have particular political effects in the particular case of the Gaza War article. He shows how the particular design of the page influences how debate emerges. Famiglietti starts by pointing out to the title, which is handled as being an important element on debates. Secondly, he points out to the info-box on the right side of the article, which has a central role in structuring information around the article and therefore was an important part of the debate. He continues by calling our attention to the 66 archive pages of the discussion, which are equivalent to about 600 printed pages. The page provides bookmarks to particular important debates, which is necessary due to its sheer volume. There is also a timeline that can be used to see how the debate evolved. He focuses his studies on the heavy editing period while hostilities during the event are going on and the period immediately after that. The volume of information on the discussion page, along with the difficulties of navigating it, makes it difficult for editors to actually keep up with the conversation and understand what is going on. Bots here have also a role, as they archive pages by moving them form the main page. Some editors become increasingly frustrated and others believe that this is done on purpose in order to sabotage them. As the pages become longer and longer, chunks of information are split out into sub-articles. The discussion than shifted into whether this was a POV (point of view) fork. Forking points of view were suggested by some editors (maybe naively, not knowing about Wikipedia's policies) as a kind of a potentially positive direction to Wikipedia to move. This notion of splitting different POVs has been explored by Wikipedia, however it would set up different articles on the same topic, avoiding neutrality. The idea was largely rejected and Famiglietti believes that it has to do with the management of labor as a resource. Forking duplicates effort and splits the labor force. He believes that the containment of forkings is intended to retain scarce labor resources. (I ask myself though; discussing is so much more work, so splitting would be a better option, if it was the case.) Dangers of nationalism to Wikipedia: Administrators have fundamentally played a role in policing the boundaries of the editors' community. The issue was therefore under a particular administrator's scrutiny. The editors were aware of that scrutiny and the fact that they were under surveillance. Neutrality was constantly renegotiated. In several occasions the title of the article was changed depending on who was available to talk to at the moment. This also points out to the fact that it is not possible to represent all POVs in the title, which is another design problem of the platform. Moreover, the process of neutrality involves the three guiding principles: Neutral Point of View , WP:V and WP:OR. Several times it has been enforced that they were after verifiability and not truth. This moves debate from difficult questions about the truth to a debate about reliable sources. This is useful in keeping the editing process moving. However it may privilege certain historical forms of inequality, as there is a large reliance on western, but not in Arabian sources. Famiglietti finishes by emphasizing this was a presentation with the goal to show how the community works and what seems to be valuable for them. Also, he tried to show the community's attempts to organize their scarce labor force. By understanding that, he hopes one can better intervene in this debate more effectively. I do not particularly agree with him, that NPoV has anything to do with managing the 'scarce' volunteer labor force. His presentation was nevertheless very interesting and brought up many important points about the design that were new to me. For more information about him:

• Short Bio
• Abstract
• Blog

Teemu Mikkonen challenges the Neutral Point of View policy haunting Wikipedia when it comes to controversial cases such as the Kosovo War article. In these cases, he argues, it is not possible to achieve complete neutrality. As a Masters student at the Univeristy of Tampere, Mikkonen has studied the Talk page of the Wikipedia article on the Kosovo War. Mikkonen fills his thirty minutes of fame by paying attention to the disputed neutrality of the Kosovo War article on Wikipedia. He attempts to trace the conflict and consensus on this Wikipedia Talk-page. By outlining four paradoxes, he lets us in on the juicy bits of his research. By finding out essentially 'how people talk' about the Kosovo War in the context of wikipedia, he unravels the Foucualdian power structures underlying the famous online encyclopedia. Starting with the title, Mikkonen notes the underlying and inavoidable 'biasses' included in the article. For example by naming it the 'Kosovo war', instead as an non-serbian alternative. On the Talk page, there is a lot of discussion going on about what actually happened during the conflict(s). As we see, more often than not are facts, numbers and words disputed on the talk page. Ever since November 2009, the top of the wiki is decorated by a warning message stating that "the neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." When looking critically at this Talk page, different discourses are noticeable revealing among others Serbian, Albanian, both pro- and anti-NATO points of view. As one may imagine, because of the many parties involved in any conflict, and in this Yugoslavian conflict in particular, it is factually impossible to achieve a genuine neutral point of view when recollecting the facts. Mikkonen reminds us that the less damaged 'winning' side of a conflict would always have a justification-driven view on matters, not to mention a better infrastructure and more survivors left to recollect. Subsequently the most inflicted party can be fueled by trauma and revenge influencing their memory of accounts. When analyzing the Talk page, Mikkonen abstacts the three most common positions. The edits are either to be grouped as 'extremist', where the contributors see only one real and one-sided truth -mostly that of their own. These individuals place unsigned edits more often than not. Moreover, they are characterized by extreme political (hard-right nationalist) viewspoints. An other common position is that of the gatekeepers. The admins and active wikipedians. They believe that there should be a consensus of truth which should be based on equal, neutral knowledge. Mikkonen lets us know this is a highly problematic virtue. As a third group, the situationists are identified. According to Mikkonen they believe that there is no real unbiased truth at all. Even the gatekeepers' democratic consensus is always biased. In fact, wikipedia is unneutral after all. These three positions brings us to four paradoxes that arise from the Talk page. At this point it is more than clear that Mikkonen is of the opinion that absolute neutrality isn't possible. Mikkonen essentially explains how it would be better to get the wikipedia policies working towards a non-neutral point of view. On a closing note I will include some interesting posts from the Talk page on the Kosovo War to illustrate Mikkonen's point. One edit gives a rare supposedly first-hand witness account of a downed helicopter during the conflict.

Before you get at each other's throats... I was a border scout in the Yugoslav Army at that time. I was there when the helicopter was shot down by a 12.7mm anti aircraft cannon. It presented an easy lateral target, as we were camouflaged. The gunner emptied the thirty round magazine at his target and it exploded. We were not in Albanian territory, although the helicopter was. The cannon was outdated and a permanent fixture at the border base and its use was intended for infantry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leeppa 21:19, 23 April 2007.

This raises the question concerning one of the beforementioned paradoxes: The paradox of verifiability. What makes a source reliable and true? Mikkonen puts it as follows: "There is a huge problem how to verify the context of these unique experiences." It is all meaningful information, but is is supposed to be true? verifiable? reliable? What makes this paradox (one of four, on which I dare not touch) is that it also makes us think about the reliability of other written, more static sources and enceclopedia's. Now we all agree that there is no such thing as a genuine Neutral point of view on controversial matters, at least the dialogue is made visible on Wikipedia. The fact is that traditional top-down sources be it news institutions and other encyclopedia's don't have a transparent view on the debate surrounding these issues. In that sense, Wikipedia offers something that does come darn close to a 'neutral' point of view' because she shows exactly the ins and outs of the controversy. Though this conference has given a critical point of view on the Wikipedia institution and thereby revealed the faults and shortcomings of Wikipedia. Mikkonens critique has actually shown an invaluable aspect of this product of collective intelligence in it's transparency. As other speakers in Designing Debate Andrew Famiglietti (UK), Andrew Famiglietti (UK), and Lawrence Liang (IN) have also shown; indeed it is problematic to seek a neutral point of view. Knowing many other visitors of this conference will agree with me, I would say that seeking a neutral point of view is downright pointless. There are simply too many truths to fit into one wiki. For more information about him:

• Short Bio
• Abstract

Unlike the other speakers, such as Reichert (Foucault-inspired), Shapiro said that he is less critical: "The critique is all right, however, it should be a component of a larger view, and the larger view should be pragmatic and constructive". According to Shapiro, Hofmann’s ideology critique is insufficient. Blindness and ignorance are a weak thesis within ideology critique. Shapiro is inspired by the work of Gustave Flaubert: "He shows that knowledge is based in society and as such Wikipedia not only represents knowledge, but also stupidity. And what most people believe in society is based on accepted clichés". We must separate the real knowledge from the clichés and the stupidities. Shapiro says that Wikipedia is about the democratization of knowledge and the promise of popular education (a Gramsci-inspired view). We need balance between the consensus culture such as Wikipedia and respect for the work of the scholar who has dedicated a lot of research on particular issues. A model for balancing these two contributory streams needs to be developed. So, is Wikipedia cool? Shapiro thinks that baseball fans think that Wikipedia is cool. A lot of these articles on baseball are really good because they are based on information in a non-controversial area instead of a mixture of clichés and real knowledge in controversial areas, as in many articles. During his talk, Alan showed some examples in the Baudrillard article at Wikipedia. In this example one of the clichés is that Baudrillard would Be a philosopher; but Baudrillard never considered himself to be a philosopher so you can't describe him that way according to Shapiro. Another example is that Baudrillard also has been described as a sociologist, but he disliked sociology, was skeptical towards the concepts of politics, and did not consider himself to be a sociologist. The Wikipedia article mentions Baudrillard's collaboration with CTHEORY (which really happened, and they published translations of many of his essays), but fails to mention his crucial and essential collaborations with the French journals Utopie and Traverses. During his long enumeration, Shapiro received a question from the audience if ever pushed the submit button. He did , and he is now going to undertake the project of trying to submit step-by-step revisions of the Wikipedia articles on Baudrillard, Star Trek, and Flaubert's novel Bouvard and Pecuchet. Alan Shapiro would also want to address the question of how the structure of the database as technological artifact will be upgraded by the New Computer Science; but unfortunately he was running out of time. What he did say was that Wikipedia is a conventional database whereas what we need is a new logic engine, which applies Derrida's deconstruction in computer science, we need to deal with post-structures instead of structures in the database of Wikipedia. For more information about him:

• Interview with Alan N. Shapiro
• Short Bio
• Abstract

By Nadesh van der Post First of all I want to apologize because I’m not sure that I fully understood Hans Varghese Mathews core message during the CPOV conference. So I hope that with a little more research, I will be able to enlighten Varghese Mathews main conception. There are a lot of discussions going on how to obtain crucial information that concerns Wikipedia’s ever growing body of knowledge. One Wikipedia page is even considered to be a textual dynamic research object because of continuous augmentation and revision. As Varghese Mathews puts it: The sheer volume of the website necessitates – and its digital form abets – the automated essay of its contents for evidence upon which to found such inference and interpretation as is proper to the eliciting of such history. And so he has developed an algorithm that will provide a way to collect data that goes beyond human interpretation. Through realizing the page editing history or as he calls it the narrative, Varghese Mathews wants to detect pack editing behavior. He elaborated the tool intentions by introducing us to the algorithm instead of giving a PowerPoint presentation. To do so he used the retrieved data, and explained that the tool clusters the contributors to a Wikipedia page. The Evolution is an example of such a Wikipedia page. The various editors of the frequently edited Evolution Wikipedia page can provide inside when particular interests are clustered. With the help of his tool one could distinguish different editors and cluster them together by some particular interest. The tool functions with minimal human intervention. And despite the fact the some supervening of human judgement is needed, Varghese Mathews - or anyone else of that matter – could use the tool for interesting insides. This tool is aimed at producing information that will allow anyone to analyze editing behavior on Wikipedia. It is too bad that we couldn’t see more of the collected data or results. Okay, I admit he did show some results. But the main issues there is that his story wasn’t structured enough. The only message that I could distill was that he had developed a tool for massive analytical use. Non the less I do find his tool exciting. More information about him:

• Short Bio
• Abstract
• REPORT OF AN EXPERIMENT IN CLUSTERING by Hans Varghese Mathews, The Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
• Analysing Wikipedia : A First Attempt at Clustering by Sriram Rangan
• Analysing Wikipedia: A First Attempt at Clustering. Report of an Experiment in Clustering by Kiran Jonnalagadda