by Juliana Brunello

Could you tell me more about your interest in Wikipedia as a topic?
I studied European Intellectual History with Dominick LaCapra at Cornell University, and I am interested in ambitious systems of knowledge classification in the West starting from the French Encyclopédistes in the 18th century and scientific positivism in the 19th century. I think that Wikipedia is a very valuable resource, and I cite Wikipedia articles often in my writings, for example in my work on the "New Computer Science" or in philosophical-sociological essays in my upcoming book "Betting on Longshots." However, like a lot of people, I think that Wikipedia could be improved. Community consensus about what constitutes legitimate-established knowledge is important, but so are the original insights of the individual scholar who has worked more deeply and insightfully on a particular subject than anyone else. A more sophisticated model for balancing these two contributory streams needs to be developed. This won't be easy. Right now consensus is tending to suppress the understanding of the really advanced scholar. Many Wikipedia articles are reproducing accepted clichés. This is related also to the tendency to make a fetish of information as opposed to knowledge. What is mere information and what is real knowledge? To get beyond the clichés, we need something like a renewed Marxist ideology critique. Gustave Flaubert did this very well about 140 years ago in his "Dictionary of Accepted Ideas." We don't need to compile a new "Dictionary of Accepted Ideas," because Wikipedia, considering one major element of its complex cultural constellation, already is such a dictionary. The best way to support my argument is to provide concrete examples, which I will do in my talk at the conference. Finally, I think that an improvement in the Wikipedia knowledge model can run parallel to a breakthrough in our conception and implementation of what a database is, so this work is related to my work with Alexis Clancy in inventing the "New Computer Science." What are the real potentials of contemporary "New Media" and "New Technology" for improved repositories of knowledge? How can the structure of the database as technological artefact be upgraded to a relationship of pattern, similarity, or resonance between database element and software executable, as opposed to the combinatorial and reductionist set theory relationship of today. How can we move from static information to dynamic knowledge?

What caught your attention first? Was it Gustave Flaubert's critique that led you to Wikipedia, or did Wikipedia led you to Gustave Flaubert's critique?
I was invited by Geert Lovink to speak at the conference, and then I thought about what I could uniquely contribute. Flaubert was a great sociologist of knowledge, and I have been reading his books for a very long time. I studied French literature long before becoming a computer scientist and programmer. That's what eventually led me to becoming quite well known as a Baudrillard scholar. Flaubert's novels Sentimental Education and Bouvard and Pécuchet are also great critiques of the pretensions of knowledge compilation systems, but I will only mention these essential works in passing.

Are you a Wikipedian yourself? (I assume so, as I found your User-Page there.)
Yes, I am a Wikipedian, in the same sense that I am a Trekker. I have developed a unique vision for Star Trek and its future, somewhat outside of the mainstream, so I would develop something similar for Wikipedia.

Have you contributed to any Wikipedia articles, bots or software improvement? Which one(s)?
I contributed to the Jean Baudrillard article, and to some of the Star Trek articles. Also some things in bioArt, and in the area of art and technology.

Do you believe Wikipedia to be an example of utopia, since it is mostly based on unpaid collaboration?
I have never understood why unpaid work of any kind, from housework to programming, could be regarded by anyone as utopian. Money is a reality, it's based on a rational system, albeit an economic system that needs to be radically improved. Artists, creators, intellectuals, nurses, dancers, activists, under-employed academics and scientists, down-and-outers, we all need to get paid. Let's focus our efforts on figuring out how to fight for our rights to prosperity, not accept poverty. Live long and prosper, Spock said. To voluntarily work without pay is a system of self-exploitation and self-surveillance. I love the book The Simulation of Surveillance by William Bogard. We need to go beyond Foucault-, Orwell-, and Huxley-inspired models of how contemporary quasi-totalitarian systems of social control work. Individual freedom right now is in big trouble. American hyper-reality, hyper-work, hyper-consumerism, hyper-communication, and hyper-eating today strike me in so many aspects as being systems of mutual- and self-surveillance. Ask anyone in authority or performing any official job anywhere in America any question, and you will always get a no before you get a yes. The current system of ubiquitous cell phones is also a system of mutual- and self-surveillance. My friends, family, and co-workers want me to permanently account for myself. Where am I, what am I doing, and what am I thinking? And I'm asking myself the same disciplinary questions. We don't need Big Brother anymore, since we are all keeping tabs on ourselves and each other. The TV show "The Prisoner" contains some great ideas about this.

Do you think we can learn something from Wikipedia as an example of community? More specifically, do you use anything you've learned from Wikipedia in you new project of Shapiro Technologies?
Of course we can learn from Wikipedia as an example of community. It is a great collaborative project. Regarding Wikipedia and Shapiro Technologies, I'll have to do some thinking about your excellent question, because I don't have anything to say about it right now. So far, Shapiro Technologies is more a dream than a reality. We had a group in Frankfurt am Main that existed for half-a-year, and has just dissolved. We are now starting to reflect on what we need to do differently to move forward with the implementation and realization of the idea of the pragmatic-utopian high-tech enterprise. This is a "big idea," I think, because it is an entirely new version of Marxism. As a thinker, I am also trying to build a bridge between Marxism and Buddhism, because I think that Buddhism is also fundamentally about the question of happiness, and we who are working ourselves to death in the West are not happy.

Anything else you would like to add? Comments, ideas, thoughts?
I would like to mention the work of my brother, Fred Shapiro, who created the Yale Dictionary of Quotations, which has now eclipsed Bartlett's Familiar Quotations as an American reference work that is the most definitive collection of general quotations.

Interview with Erinc Salor, 20.01.2010 By Juliana Brunello Erinc Salor and Joseph Reagle have something in common: One is writing and the other has already written a PhD thesis using a historical perspective to explain Wikipedia. Their backgrounds are completely different though. Reagle has studied Computer Science, Technology and Policy. He also gathered much experience with the new media actively. He used this knowledge to write his PhD, which he concluded with a dissertation on the history and collaborative culture of Wikipedia. Salor, on the other hand, studied Economics, European Studies and Cultural Analysis.

I have met Erinc Salor at de Balie in Amsterdam for a coffee and to talk about his PhD project. I wanted to know more about it and ask him about Joseph Reagle's dissertation. As he explained to me, I noticed that there is a change in focus, making both works different, though related in some points.

Erinc explained to me, that his work is about contextualizing Wikipedia in the encyclopedic heritage, what Reagle also does. He explains however, that while Reagle is more interested in how the community works, he is more interested in how it fits in the whole tradition. Reagle focuses more on how the encyclopedia is defined and re-defined, while he is more interested in where it is coming from "in a broader sense" from periods prior to the printing era to at present focusing on how knowledge was collected.

An important question to be answered is consequently how Wikipedia defines knowledge and authority, a point also discussed in Reagle's dissertation. Salor indicates he will deal with both themes in a more profound way. He gave me a clue to what he means by that. According to him, after Wikipedia started, the understanding and concepts of knowledge and authority became quite different in comparison to the "old model". There used to be just a set of books that set the standards for what is worth knowing in order to be "good educated". Now, with the advancement of Wikipedia, some will position themselves saying it is not good, others will say one should use it, but be cautious and check the source of the information. He points out, additionally, that in Wikipedia something becomes true if it can be verified. In Britannica something becomes true, because Britannica "tells it is true". His conclusion is that there is a shift in authority. This leads to further questioning: What does that imply, concerning society's approach to encyclopedias? What should one expect from it? What does that imply to our approach to knowledge? What does that imply to our society? These are the central questions that Salor will approach in his PhD.

Salor also tells me that Reagle's dissertation has helped him in many ways. He thinks that Reagle could have gone deeper with his insights though. What theses insights are, he did not tell me. It will be part of his work to continue and to deepen these "insights" in his research. Furthermore, we both agreed that it was very much informal for a PhD thesis. His structure and language are not a "scientific" one, but one similar to books. Reagle makes personal remarks on topics and uses the first person throughout his work. Salor emphasizes it is not a critic, but a remark, as he does not know the requirements and practices of Reagle's University.

Salor's PhD dissertation is foreseen to be available by the end of next year. For more information you can visit his website at UvA.

Playcast made a podcast about wikiwars. In the interview they speak to Nishant Shah about the position of Wikipedia in India and what happens when different knowledge production systems are coming together. The original website with the podcast can be found by clicking on this link.

Playcast: Waging wikiwars, tech behind golf balls and tweeple

"This week we talk to Nishant Shah of the Centre for Internet Research about the organisations “Wikiwars” event, we look at the complex technology that goes into making a golf ball and return with another three beautiful tweeple."
Sidin Vadukut and Krish Raghav.

"Today we start by talking to the organisers of the “Wikiwars”conference currently underway in Bangalore. The conference aims to look at the various philosophical and academic ramifications that Wikipedia has had in terms of how knowledge is generated, and how the Internet can be used to deal with issues of language, accessibility and communication. We speak to Nishant Shah of the Centre for Internet Research for more details.
We then take a look at the tech behind a golf ball, following a discussion with CallawayGolf Company CEO George Fellows. And in the final segment of the show, Sidin Vadukut returns with another three “twindividuals” to follow on Twitter."

Source: livemint.com
Wed, Jan 13 2010