I would like to talk about my research which, I believe, could help us approach some of the questions related to Wikipedia. For this research, I was interested to know, how knowledge is translated/traveled; from people to things. I focused on community healers in rural India and observed the process by which their knowledge recorded, collected and disseminated through larger geographical areas. During its many transformations, the wisdom of the local healer goes through numerous phases and inevitably loses some of its essential characteristics. This observation has lead me to the question;

Can we define databases that makes these different ways of knowing things visible?

I believe this question relates to the equal treatment of different knowledges in technology design, ultimately aiming for a technology that contributes to knowledge diversity. So, with this talk, I am hoping to bring the issue of database design to the forefront concerning Wikipedia.
To illustrate her point on different database desing approaches to varying knowledges, Maja van der Velden then presents the following examples;

• Mukurtu archive (features collective tagging but also implementation of exclusionary login procedures)


• Tami (ontologically flat database - Minimizes Western assumptions on data collection by only categorizing by media type. No tagging, only a list of items listed by picture/sound/video etc. Each object can be connected to each other)


• Storyweaver (focus, again, is creating connectivities. Storytelling is a form of performative mapping. 3 protocols underlying; -Autonomous local knowledge mapping -Local ontology mapping -Merging mapping through making connections; Connections are made through context to context, not object to object in another context)

These databases have the underlying idea that Knowledge can be understood as performance. Implying that the design of a database is not preconfigured, but they emerge through usage over time.

Seen under this light of these examples, Jimmy Wales’s quote regarding the ultimate goal of Wikipedia (Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge.) emerge as a warning. Given this understanding, Wikipedia’s understanding of knowledge becomes hegemonic. Such a definition of knowledge is very singular, other ‘knowledges’ are ignored. Aboriginal knowledge links back to traditional knowledge in English language Wikipedia, which is not recognized as proper knowledge. In this sense, Wikipedia becomes a master narrative about knowledge.

I would propose the creation of a third space, a contact zone where different knowledges not clash, but interact and co-exist. As Donna Haraway calls them; “world-making entanglements”, which is the meaning I want to carry over to Wikipedia. If Wikipedia aims to provide sum of all knowledge to everyone, how can it provide dissenting knowledge claims?

I argue that Wikipedia’s decentralized production system can be taken further as a model for its ontological stance as well, rendering a database that is more respectful to differing knowledge claims.

More information about her:

• Short Bio
  
• Abstract

Developing open source software Ortega xeroxed the ten top language Wikpedia sites to present us with an impressive quanititave corpus of data. In his presentation he cast a critical eye in the developement and publication of quantitative data in on-line research worldwide, calling for more open practices. He pointed to the lack of comparative studies,  the need for open data to assist global comparisons. Indeed, Ortega experienced the lack of a worldwide perspectives in quantitative studies at first hand when he started his research,  as most data was not avaliable in the public domain or didn't use open software, or even worse used categories that made comparisons impossible. His work is to a large extent a reaction to this lack. Ortega created wikixray- the ultimate open wiki machine, instead of using of the shelf software. Wikixray is  now made avaliable to reseachers worldwide, together with the pull of data findings of his research. Ortega was eager to note that the software is easy to use on any wiki website. In his research design,  Ortega, decided to include some open questions such as "is Wikipedia a sustainable project" or "what type of parameter affect Wikipedia" to analyse somewhat 7 terra bytes of content, that is the 10 most popular language wikipedia sites! Ortega found there are 4,805,713 registered editors in the top ten languages Wikipedias. These users use Wikipedia at least 346.9 days in time, something like 141,6 in average. His analysis shows that in all language versions growth follows an exponential growth patern, i.e.  it starts slowly and then accelarates. This is particularly surprising in the light of the difference in the number of contributors. The same pattern repeats in creation of pages in all ten languages. For Ortega these patterns point to a key question: Does Wikipedia reach a maturity stage were activity stops progressing, and if this is so why cant it grow? Ortega mentioned that in answering this question the media have interpreted his data in opossite ways! Ortega also compared tiny vs standards articles. For example in the english version 80% of pages are talk pages, in the polish Wikpedia there are no talk pages. With regard to the sustainability issue Ortega was keen to show that the number of edits by people has remained stable since 2007. He also briefly pointed to the Wikipedia general survey of 130,576 poeple, which showed that 65% of users are readers, 10% are regular contributors ( 50% of answers came from russia), and only 13% are women. He was carefull, however, to point to the fact that the survey does not sample users and therefore is limited in terms of how one can interpret the results. Ortega also noted the inequality of contributions amongst editors. For example 5% of authors accounts for more than 90% of total number of revisions. Finaly Ortega showed that 4 years ago the inequality in distribution reached a plato and has been equal each month wordwide since then. In Ortegas view in order for Wikipedia to remain sustainable better ways to use Wikipedia in education need to be carved.  Furthermore ways to improve the interphase and the reviewing proccesss are needed. Together these can be used for improving their user experience overal. Ortega argued that Wikipedia needs better community building and maintance tools. Furthermore that Wikipedia needs to exploit the power of academia. March 26-27, 2010. 2nd CPOV: Wikipedia Conference. Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam. [slides] More information about him:

• Short Bio
• Abstract

Mayo Fuster Morell's website

I will present results of my research concerning governance on digital commons, which was a research based on a comparative analysis of case studies, one of which was Wikipedia. It is noteworthy that most research focused on governance on online communities focus on the interaction between participants of the community, which is an important issue. But my focus on this research is on the providers of the infrastructures of these communities and the relationship between the community and these providers. In the case of Wikipedia, the provider is the Wikimedia foundation.

The goal of this research is to gain insight on whether different kind of providers effect the community that emerge. I analyzed the relationship between the type of provider and merging communities -In types of scale - Types of collaboration and -Level of self-governance within the community.

First, I would like to demonstrate my analysis of infrastructure providers and then provide the example of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia foundation.

I identified four elements that define the characteristics of an infrastructure provider;

I) Openness vs. Closeness with respect to community participation
II) Sustainability; Whether the provider is for-profit or non-profit
III) Level of freedom and autonomy the community is given. ‘netenabler’ vs. ‘blackbox’ infrastructures; Whther the platform is based on open-source software of proprietary protocols and data management. This determines the fork-ability and data mobility.
IV) Formal vs. Informal of the organization.
I analyzed 50 cases according to these parameters and identified 4 main categories (Illustrated by slide below)

Case Study of Wikipedia - Role of Wikimedia foutdation
CPOV blog has previously published Maya Fuster Morell’s analysis of the evolution of the Wikimedia foundation, which can be accessed here.

The involvement of the foundation seem to have evolved on a case-by-case basis and the power relation between the community and the foundation seems to be in flux and is actively discussed in the community. The opinion of the community regarding the involvement of the foundation into the activities of Wikipedia can be placed on a scale [See slide 2]

Based on this analysis, the Wikimedia foundation represents a very formal structure with a high degree of professionalization.These characteristics are against many features of the Wikipedia community. Why? Also, how do these radically different modes of organizations co-exist?

It is noteworthy that both the foundation and the community have adopted different governance styles and power structures depending the need and task at hand and have moved from one to another fluidly, even applied two concurrently to different parts. While consensus is central, sometimes the founder exercises his monarchical power for example.

It appears that the foundation has adopted this formal and professional outlook in order to provide technical infrastructure to the community but also to handle legal support and public relations on a professional level. The community, on the other hand, creates the content and the rules and regulations that relate to the creation of content. Ownership is also representative, the Wikipedia logo and other PR material are owned by the foundation while the community can claim ownership of the content they create.

This creates a mutual dependency between the foundation and the community. This does not necessarily mean the power and rights of ownership of the foundation and the community are symmetrical, but it means their contrasting systems co-exist and work for the benefit of the project together. This also creates a very interesting dialogue between the foundation and the community where there is a continuous negotiation of power between them, rendering the power distribution fluid. In understanding this relationship, the concepts of lateral source of authorship and parallel governing.

The hybrid model of Wikipedia can be a model for other institutions of rethinking global institutions of the public and political in the 21st cent. We have to remember that the issue is not how to criticize Wikipedia. They constitute a new form of providing public goods, we have to think about our responsibility to Wikipedia, to improve and learn from it, since it is so important in our lives.

More information about her:

• Short Bio
  
• Abstract

With a love for technoculture, a research past in Californian cyberculture, and a present in French critical intelectual new media thought, O' Neil presented a compelling talk on wikipedia user culture or rather "tribal culture".  O' Neil presented his stream of conciousness in tags (projected on a large screen) as he developed his arppoch to on-line triibes. Interested in the hacker habitus and how its production,  his talk opened with a brief discussion of the shortcomings of critical sociology. Despite O' Neil's  pessimism with regard to the conspiratorial and dis-empowering aspects of critical sociology, he went on to focus on the work of Boltanski and the field of justification, which Boltanski understands as "open". Before linking Boltanski with Wikipedia O' Neil was careful to frame his understanding of Wikipedia within the context of new media political economy mentioning that 13% of Wikipedia editors are female, and that this means that certain types of behaviors are more tolerable, that for example aggressive commentary and flaming are accepted as standard practice. Machismo, in other words, frames the wiki habitus. O' Neil proceeded to literally map the different orders of online justification, and how these can possibly come into existence in different tribal formulations in different network cultures. Central to understanding the map was the term "on-line tribal burocracy of social organisations" coined in his book Cyberchiefs Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes. O' Neil understands charisma, hacking, sovergnity, and the archaic, as central to conceptualizing how on-line user tribes work. Situating Wikipedia in a map showing a sovergnity and charisma in each end of the vertical and horizontal axis,  O' Neil concluded that charisma and soveirgnity are in particular very important in understanding how Wikipedia as tribe works, and that charisma is actually more important. O Neil also discuss ethical issues arising when conducting research with wikipedia editors.

Social Media, Cultural Scaffolds, and Molecular Hegemonies. Musings on Anarchic Media, WIKIs, and De-territorialized Art Presentation by Patrick Lichty for the Critical Point of View (CPoV) conferece in Amsterdam, 26.03.2010 Patrick Lichty, assistant professor of Media Theory at the Columbia College in Chicago and independent curator, walks in with a Lila toy gun, the American way of defence, on the podium and states: "This presentation might get me killed". This sentence will be better understood after his ironical comment, that there seems to be not much consensus in consensual media. He analyses Wikipedia and other community-driven online media as cultural frames and curatorial models that problematize traditional power relations. From a radical perspective, the wiki template can be considered a site for anarchical organization. However, they are anarchic only when used in their most basic forms. These communities create their own power relations. This means, after the formation of the community, participants start to establish themselves a set of rules/social contracts, which are implicit or explicit, and are then enforced. These rules are created to frame for instance the user generated content, the community's mission and several internal governances, all of which are specific to this created community. Each user-generated community has its own agendas of power. He questions whether we can learn something from the relocation of power structures, from the institutional to the communal. Also, is the political structure of Wikipedia superior to the traditional one? Furthermore, are Wikis radical? Do their created social structures and communal cultural production have any effect on the larger society? Is there a potential for art in such a community structure? How does art and curation change when subjected to consensus? In order to answer some of this questions, he presents some user-generated communities as sources of cultural influence: The first one is the Encyclopedia Dramatica, which is a kind of internet counter-culture site. It consists of trolling, low culture (such as lolcats), pop songs, etc. In terms of cultural function, ED is the direct opposite of Wikipedia in its anarchical nature. The similarities of the two wikis seem not to be their form though, but their context. 4chan.org is not a wiki, but one can make an image available for comments. It is frequently the main influence that originates many of the famous internet themes, like the lol cats phenomenon. Also, in opposition to the wiki sites, which have stated missions, the 'Chans' are much more generalized and have lose categories. Discourse arises in a more ad hoc way. They are not completely anarchic, but considering the social structures of Wikipedia, they are much more flexible. However, do communities such as Wikipedia Art or YTMND suggest viable models for community based curating? Wikipedia Art was a further example. He explains that the entry was the art work, and any further editing was considered as continuation of the process. The interesting part was the community interactions surrounding the work. The entrance changed from a strategic art work into a tactical one, as the discussion turned into a sort of battle field and started bridging molecular communities (Wikiart, blogs, Wikipedia, etc.) and their cultures into a larger discourse. During its existence many of the community's rules, unknown to the outsider, revealed themselves into the discussion - eg. Trolls or snowball rules. Another example was the website Art in the Age of DataFlow and its wiki book chapter. Here he points out the wiki-based article on non linear narrative, that even though it was written to be modified, it has been modified only very little. The question that arises is whether authorship is still seen as something sacred, or if the community needs to achieve some critical mass to get conversation going on. Or: "Did no one simply give a ****ing damn?" In short, he examined the structures of these community based media production sites plus Wikipedia in order to verify the differences that emerge due to their local discourses and social protocols. How do they relate to the construction of society?He concludes that community-based media creation sites like Wikis create interesting potentials for curation and creation, however problematic. Will the future of curation be wiki based, or will it have the format of 4Chan, YTMND…? Furthermore, he points out that the emergence of communal media creates hegemonic structures which are not better than the institutions before them. He is neither for nor against either one, but he calls for intentionality. What is necessary is that as cultural production heads towards social media community based models, cultural producers need to maintain a cpov in order to maintain a notion on how culture is being shaped by online platforms and how a tecnocultural society is being build, as well as its culture in general. For more information check:

• Abstract
• Short Bio
• Homepages: patricklichty.com, voyd.com

"Wikipedia art doesnt exist anymore". These heavy words elapsed provocatively out of Scott Killdall's mouth somewhere during the first part of his speech. Only later on in his talk, were we to learn why. Scott Killdall stood behind the speech table. A short man, peering into the audience determined to get his message across about the life, death and debatable resurrection of the phenomenon called Wikipedia Art. Wikipedia Art was a performative act originally intended to be art composed on Wikipedia. Though confined by the enforced standards of quality and verifiability of Wikipedia, the artwork could potentially be edited by anyone as long as changes were published on, and cited from, 'credible' sources. To catalyze the launch of Wikipedia Art, Killdall and Stern had urged others to write about the project as it came into existence to facillitate sources. These sources, being interviews, blogs, or articles in ‘trustworthy’ media institutions, were meant to give birth to and then slowly transform the work of Art. And so it happened. Simply through writing and talking about it, the debate around Wikipedia Art ignited. The tremendously heated discussion led to the expulsion of Wikipedia Art from the Wikipedia demain only 15 hours after it's birth. This seemingly premature death is paradoxical in retrospect according to Kildall when he responds to a comment from the audience. As Wikipedia Art was to be interpreted as a critique of the shortcomming of Wikipedia, it was essentially an intervention. It was in itself destructed by the exact 'wikiality' it was critiquing. As Kildall explains "The majority of Wikipedia readers rarely think of the internal strucutres and rules behind Wikipedia.'' Wikipedia Art surely unveiled these structures, as we see in the skelletons that are left. In the eyes of the wiki community, Wikipedia Art was seen as commercial vandalism, and was banned from the site. Now, you might ask. What exactly 'is' this piece of art. The answer is abstract. For one, to understand it, you have to step away from the traditional concept of classical art that is based around an image. For Wikipedia Art is about the construct of words itself. Kildall teaches us throughout his talk that it's form is in words, as that is what Wikipedia does best. "Through citations and debate it existed." Subsequently, because of this debate which turned against the artwork itself, it was also destroyed. Wikipedia Art lives on in the minds of peoples far from the Wikipedia domain. For us who have missed its birth, bloom and death, we have to made do with the words of Patrick Lichty; "Those fifteen hours were magic".

Jeannette Hofmann focuses on how to represent knowledge. It all starts with life cycles of self-regulations online. The first step is one of high expectations in establishing novelty, boundlessness, autonomy, uniqueness and a certain blindness which are all a part of Wikipedia’s self representation. What follows is the feeling of otherness, it is the experience of deadlocks, contention, concentration of power, frustration, disillusionment and crisis. But how do we interpret these life cycles and what can we learn from them? Hofmann is inspired by the work of Sousa Santos, especially his essay “Toward an Epistemology of Blindness”. Sousa’s main argument is that experience and expectations are not the same and that they are characterized by a certain discrepancy. In modern societies there is a difference between the experience of the past and the expectations of the future. We believe in change, progress and learning. Santos recognizes two pillars; a pillar of regulation and a pillar of emancipation. Regulation is about maintaining social order and stabilizing expectations. Emancipation establishes good order. It expands distance between experience and expectation. When this is achieved there is a new emancipator movement. Even Knowledge recognizes forms of regulation and emancipation but the forms of knowledge are not the same. Regulation is more about the transition from chaos to order, and Knowledge as emancipation is the struggle against the waste of experience for experimentation. But there is neither a general knowledge nor a general ignorance. This is important to Santos because there is always a certain blindness and this is what Hofmann finds important with regards to Wikipedia. Call for a plurality of knowledge and practices All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing objectively, proportionately and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. But what kind of knowledge is assembled in Wikipedia? Reading against the background of Santos, this is problematic. The tension between regulation and emancipation are unavoidable and so there are conflicts related to them. Hoffman argues that we have to change the conflict between “all knowledge” and the Neutral Point of View that allows only “small samples” that are represented at Wikipedia. There is a need to make the debate more constructed. It has to be about social order and change, about regulations and emancipation. However, the NPoV policy on Wikipedia is misleading and evil. It structures the debates around Wikipedia in a nonsensical way. It doesn’t exist. So, our ambition should be to represent knowledge despite the fact that there is no NPoV.

Introduction by Geert Lovink: Wormser is philosopher, being an expert in philosophy of Sartre. He is also the editor of sens public. Moreover, instigator of this event and this network. We talked then about independent thinking about Wikipedia. We have to emphasis the similarities and differences in comparison to the rich history of encyclopedias; we have to put Wikipedia into perspective. "I will try to make a transition of the first and second session: I will stress a point not yet mentioned and that is: Is Wikipedia becoming a media or an editorial project?" The problem is: if Wikipedia is the 7th most important website, it is a large part of the internet. It is altered by megalomania. Can you have unity in this project if everyone has to bind in? And what is still the goal of other editorial processes? It is multi- linguistic, but not international (separation of languages). Is Wikipedia a mirror of our society, or is it new in the society of knowledge? The concept of the knowledge bar is introduced: it is about maintaining ambiguity. The bar is place to meet and discuss, but is is also where we select information and links. We need both significations of the bar. The point is that every project needs physical meetings, otherwise it becomes a utility (just like water from the tap).  The sphere of knowledge is in a contra-dictionary movement. On the one hand, knowledge never has been so important for society. On the other side, the standards of knowledge are becoming blurred: it becomes hard to critique, because it is becoming decentralized. This is the risk facing Wikipedia publications. We have to rediscover that science is not in line with business economy.  This is also part of economic part of science. Websites like Wikipedia are lowering the costs of knowledge, not paying the actual workers. In a post industrial  economy, how can one be in charge of their own economy. If what is learned in university is of no use in society, what then? Or what is at stake when this knowledge is freely transportable via open access publishing? The problem is that this knowledge production is not translatable in a social positions. However, these issues are not new in history: encyclopedians during the french revolutions also faces these issues, with the difference that the condition in which Wikipedia is now evolving is much easier than the ways of working of the encyclopedians at that time. Also then, encyclopedians were codyfying knowledge of people, but without a methodological order in this knowledge. They were searching for links between knowledge; this was more important than actual loose facts. The same double face appears with  encyclopedians of the French 18th century. The goals of an encyclopedia is to link some words to facts. The way we can circulate into the pool knowledge and can make use of the knowledge bar, this is the most important. On a practical level, the navigation inside these websites becomes relevant. Wikipedia is challenged by other projects, but also by the fact that everyone of us can be the best journalist, having real debates with real persons over real time. We consider the entire reference sites as to be important in Wikipedia project; it is open. The encyclopedia of the 18th century were also not enclosed in the library in the 18th century. An important distinction is that the equivalent of our screens were not closed, private experiences, rather, they were public and open. The two meanings of the knowledge bar were at work at that time: collecting knowledge and discussing knowledge live, openly and public. Now we do not know the use of these Wikipedia pages. If it has to be discussed in public space, we should have more public discussion (like today). For our century, the question is to understand how our reflection can open as a new discipline. If we cannot find a new way to behave, then the inner goal of any encyclopedia will be lost. It is not a surprise that the 18th century encyclopedia and the Enlightenment lead to the revolution. This was a result of the way that society was regulated compared to how knowledge was regulated. The fact that emancipation was on the side of the Enlightenment-thinkers made people think that regulation was on the right side. This was en example of the links between the knowledge bar and the emancipation bar: It was no longer possible to stay with a monarchy with the new knowledge regime. A direct consequence of new knowledge. This was real context of which Foucault was writing in "words and things"  (les mots et les chausses). It was changing the mind order of how people were thinking, talking and educating. Wikipedia will be confronted with a choice: will it grow into a mere utility (such as a TV), or does it still have he potential to change people's minds (unregulated). Open access does not say anything about the user, the usage and the possible future. Some questions to end with: discussions is about where collaboration on encyclopedias begun (on the long term). Erasmus and Moore were very collaborative. 16th century, the beginning of open publication and collaborative encyclopedias was already begun. We have to maintain the idea that critical space is alive. This space is different from open space. Conclusions: We are open with our body, knowledge is not only prestige; it is sensitive and meaningful. We have to embody the knowledge; we do not only have to be dependent of a technological tool. We must involve more young researcher in the field of research into publishing.We (at sens public) are establishing a network of international research. We embody our own knowledge with our own behavior. This ethical point of view cannot be separated from a practical point of view in the production of new knowledge. Q&A: Q: Difference between 18th century and now: discursive confidence. In the eighteen century there was a normative science. We lost that. 18th century was dependent of a fact. A: I do not think Enlightenment thinkers were per se deterministic. Knowledge had to be conveyed in a sensible way. The literacy or  language style is therefor very important. This is lacking in Wikipedia. How deterministic and standardized Wikipedia is becoming (the style and quality of writing) This could be great progress if we want  multiplicity of culture in a single syntax. Q. I am appreciative of the historical perspective. But  think that you have missed  is the realization that the Internet has brought radical differences. My q is: what practices would accentuate that were also present in the 17th and 18th century? A: The collaborative side is one note. To be partner in such discussion in the 18t century, you had to member of a formal society that was organized to discuss these matter. It was a social network more than a scientific academy. What is different with the now: the student of the university now is also a good journalist in order to assess positions. The student is more empowered. Specifically new is that there is a real society that is not producing new knowledge, but receiving knowledge and work it via scientific journalism. I would maintain with John Dewey, the question of the public is still important. Q: In the beginning you posed the question: Is Wikipedia a media or a editorial. The people who are working with it,that I know  want to work away from normative stance (ending up with these networks becoming even more normative) A: We have to invent new collaborative institutions. I cannot be left to pure benevolent activists. The Wikimedia institute is a good example.

Wikipedia is fundamental in current shifts on how knowledge is produced and organised. This is the thesis outlined in R. Reichert's presentation.  According to Reichert  Wikipedia should be understood as representing a new mode of power. Attempting to offer (a short) archeology of Wikipedia, to a room of mostly non-Foucauldians,  Reichert argued that power, as a regime of mechanisms on Wikipedia, is controled and exercised through the network of users and editors. Wikipedia thus produces normative orders of knowledge via the micro-management of political engagement with so-called knowledge. So, for example, wikipedians can't change what they can do on Wikipedia, there are rigid roles and fuctions engineering the discipline of the self. Wikipedia represents a specific discourse of participation and produces particular technologies of the self. On Wikipedia subjectivity means engeenering  the impersonal view of the self. Reirchert also streesed that wikipedia represents a certain way of organising knowledge towards effectiveness, and control. Its objective is to disaminate a normative based archive of knowledge, and a new social clasification system of flexibility.Wikipedia  is also a space in which discursive practices of excluding and discipling reign. For example edit wars are about exclusion and also about  accepting, together with other practices they form disciplines. Reichert key argument also focused on outlining how Wikipedia constitutes a new paradigm for organising culture that is increasingly adopted by many business. Joining many outside the and inside the Foucauldian tradition Reichert sceptically explained how the wiki way of orgnaising and doing knowledge is alarmingly being exported outside the realms of profit making. Acocrding to this line of thinking Wikipedia technologies of the self produce flexible and efficient human labour in an organisation that can be assigned to any task. Finally Reichert talked about how Wikipedia visualises the discoursive process it generates. This means users can actually see these practices deisgned in the wikipedia interphase. Audience responce was typical of the cynicism often voiced in responce to Fouldian analysis: what does this all mean? does it mean subjects are actually subjugated and that we cant really escape the wikipedia mechanism?...As the morning progressed Reichert's pessimistic scepticism appeared less cynical, it grew on the audience ...and echoed more like  a refreshing european negative thought in comparison to the more alien american positive voices that had surfaced by late afternoon....