994:
normative on
Knowledge; rather, it seems to me like a statement of the zeitgeist of the Internet age. Second, if marginal cultures are not covered in any digitized content, they don't run the risk of becoming invisible...they already are invisible. If they aren't on Google, that means that there are essentially no books or scholarly articles about them and that publishing institutions (including, in recent years, the Internet-connected public) have been ignoring them since the rise of electronic publishing. That's not to say that Knowledge doesn't play a role in re-enforcing patterns of marginalization; through the "Reliable sources" guideline, in particular, it does do that. But I think it's unfair to lay that marginalization at the feet of Knowledge, since that only causes problems when marginal cultures have already been made invisible (or rather, have never been made visible) by the forms of media that Knowledge builds on and is built from. I would argue that Knowledge actually levels the field for the unjustly marginalized, who are normally crowded out by the popular. There were thousands upon thousands of newspaper articles and television stories about Anna Nicole Smith; there are just a few dozen corresponding Knowledge articles. Conversely, there are Knowledge articles for small villages with no particular claim to fame for which the only sources are census and geographical data...the invisible and marginal made visible and human-readable. In a paper encyclopedia, editors would have to find content to remove for every bit that got added, so that encyclopedia sets would not grow without bound and could still be sold to suburban families by door-to-door encyclopedia salesmen.
421:
much higher when participants can cause significant harm to the project." Debian stands out among open source communities because of its well-developed governance system. Final authority rests with the development community itself, with leaders elected by the developers and major decisions decided by vote; strict merit-based gatekeeping limits entrance into the community to those with demonstrated software skills. The community structure is highly modular (paralleling the software itself), which allows a degree of autonomy for each developer even while the output of the project as a whole must be tightly coordinated. Although there are elements of index-charisma authorityâlong-term influence from early leadersâby-and-large, Debian is governed according to the collective will of its community, successful anarchy in action. Conflict in the Debian community often centers on the defense of honor, either against outside threats or intra-community insults; when there is a perceived affront to a developer's honor, communications can break down into flame wars, to the detriment of the community.
1040:
as well, would be considered
Reliable Sources on Knowledge that could be used to establish at topic's Notability. Of course, Knowledge is only the most prominent example of a whole class of wiki venues that follow the model Knowledge created but often have different social structures; some of these are open to a wider array of content, and in a both a cultural and technical sense they exist because of Knowledge. So I think I understand where you're coming from now, but I still think it's misleading to blame Knowledge for the shortcomings of cultural institutions whose role it is do the kinds of things that on Knowledge are called "Original Research". (The problems with that definition are interesting; there is a gap that exists for some areas of knowledge between what is allowed on Knowledge and what is considered original enough to merit publication elsewhere, e.g., in terms of the analysis of literature.)
990:@ Seth Finkelstein - I accept that the quote attributed to Jimmy Wales may have been taken out of context â I trusted the source... thanks for pointing it out. It does raise the issue of Knowledge editors possibly relying overly on online sources, particularly when deciding whether some topic or other is notable, or during deletion debates. Following the publication of my article on expertise and WP in Le Monde diplomatique, I was contacted in early May 2009 by Sage Ross who offered some comments and we had a discussion about various issues relating to the article, one of which was precisely the question of online sourcing. Since it's relevant to this discussion I thought I should include it here. Rather than rehashing the discussion I asked Sage if it would be OK to post the relevant excerpts and he agreed.
853:
legitimately worthy of inclusion (my original point in our earlier discussion about notability) with "social domination" on the project or in society in general which I would venture derives from class, gender, ethnicity etc. These two things strike me as quite different.. I can see how the analogy might work if someone was pointing to cases in which (for example) black art forms were not considered as notable as white ones but since that's not what I was talking about I would be more careful about saying that. But I don't really detect any archaic force at work when someone says "Your music / art / fanzine isn't notable enough because not enough trace exists of it online". --
93:
306:. In a social network, having links to many others and/or very important others is itself a type of authority, in the form of a large audience; just as highly linked sites are the top results in search engines and thus attract more links, well-connected members of online tribes (especially early adopters) have index-charisma authority from being well-known. This is most obvious in Knowledge in terms of the rising standards of adminship (which means it was much easier for early editors to become administrators), but it works in subtler ways as wellâas when, upon joining large discussions, we look first to familiar and respected users.
1036:/ cultural group active 1988-1993 which was judged not notable because no online sources were available. The point being, the group in question definitely made an impact on the cultural scene at the time but the sources which document this (art or music magazines, exhibition catalogues, concert flyers, fanzines, radio shows, etc) are not online. Now, I didn't even know about the whole AFD process then; and the art / cultural group was active in Paris, while I created an entry on WP-en. So things might have turned out differently on the French WP... people might have known about it or been more receptive or whatever...
439:
332:, have a dramatic impact on the web's social landscape. For example, in principle blogging is a way for anyoneâno matter how qualified or unqualified, powerful or marginalâto reach a wide audience and make him or herself heard. But in practice the "A-list" bloggers that do reach large audiences are overwhelmingly social elites; "they are not only white, male and middle-class," writes O'Neil, "they are also highly educated, placing them effectively higher on the social ladder than the 'elite' mainstream journalists whose power they are supposed to be contesting."
909:(LMD) article is broader or not... My main observation in the book about WP in governance terms is that its lack of clear constitutional principles, proliferation of admins / rules and simultaneous embrace of slightly fuzzy "consensual" practices was stronly related to the still-strong presence of charismatic authority in the project, which can legitimately (but not democratically) make controversial and / or arbitrary decisions. Whether that is a "broader" point than the ones I make about expertise in LMD is an open question in my view.Cheers,--
752:
attachment (i.e. early entrance in the network) is a possible and convincing explanation for how nodes acquire index-charisma but you seem to equate the two things when you define index-charisma as "another form of charismatic authority, based on the concept from network theory of preferential attachment". It is based on the social network analysis concept of network centrality or popularity (which has been theorized as deriving from preferential attachment by
Barabasi, a notion which I argue obscures social domination).
888:
groups. They were rather an example of what could be called "underground distinction"... i.e. they were counter-cultural rather than subcultural to use the definition made by 1970s cultural studies... In other words a product of the educated middle-class, or to use a
Bourdieuan chestnut, of "the dominated fraction of the dominant group". So while the mechanism of cultural domination you describe is certainly a reality in many circumstances in this precise instance I don't know to what extent it is at work.--
622:
120:
110:
1013:
which also depends on whether one does believe that everything which could have been digitised has been (I don't), or on where one stands on the notability question, or perhaps even on what constitutes original research in an encyclopedia which has no space limitations. So, while I appreciate your point that WP may level the playing field in some respects, I would have to reserve judgement until some more definite form of empirical evidence has been produced.
448:
33:
130:
269:
90:
140:
100:
746:
project / community governance operates with less hierarchy, which I (once again, perhaps too implicitly) see as a positive development - otherwise I wouldn't spend so much time talking about it. For example in the
Introduction I wrote "And yet: the persistence of some forms of domination should not prevent us from recognizing instances where authority really is self-directed".
258:
779:
or complaining about its worst: you show how the
Internet's best qualities fall short and are imperfect (and thus how they can be improved upon). In the review I de-emphasized your discussion of the ways the Internet *is* already being used to criticize and overcome injustice, mainly because I think the Signpost audience for the most part takes those things for granted.
320:). On Knowledge, sovereign authority is invoked whenever editors use guidelines and policy to justify their actions or point out violations. The various classes of privileged editorsârollbackers, administrators, bureaucrats, etc.âembody sovereign authority, and are expected to act as enforcers of the community-created rules rather than powers unto themselves.
1079:
in which people decide to participate in public welfare/non profit endeavors. I am looking for/at evidence sources which illustrate that behaviours are different in these contexts than in those where financial reward is the driving force. The review has made me seriously consider buying the book (or at least hassling my institutions library to get a copy).â
511:." The affront to the project's core value of openness and transparency was matched by "an equally powerful, and opposite, feeling: that some admins had been the victim of harassment and stalking because of their work for the project; that these experiences were frightening and painful; and that most of the victims were female."
976:: "This arose from misreading a very short discussion in a print article. The saying is attributed to Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Knowledge. But he never said it with that truncated form; his own intent was to point out the weakness of complete reliance on search engines, and that there's still value in reference books." --
538:
culture, crafted as it has been by the earliest members with their peculiar outlooks and inclinations? Through the mechanism of preferential attachment in article creation and expansion and the propagation of charismatic authority, will
Knowledge always retain the mark of the early community's interests and prejudices?
403:'s talent for predicting election outcomes (a form of hacker-charisma), and in terms of community governance, what Kos says goes. In the rest of the Daily Kos community, the two forms of charismatic authority intertwined; members with trusted judgment and blogging ability are given access to the front page and select
399:, like other blog communities and the blogosphere as a whole, is structured mainly by charismatic authority, with the hacker-charisma and index-charisma types both playing important roles. The initial popularity and broad political influence (i.e., index authority) of Daily Kos derived, in part, from founder
288:
and an intimate understanding of a particular software system are deferred to by other programmers. In
Knowledge, hacker-charisma authority is the un-codified respect given to editors who are good at what they do (whether article writing, copy-editing, identifying sockpuppets, scripting, or some other task).
1078:
via online communication is becoming the norm. I am exploring some of the factors (including authority) which may be significant, but wonder whether the book has also examined power relationships and homophilly along with the general and context specific psychological antecedents which influence ways
1043:
The other problem you ran into, perhaps, is the opaque complexity of the way
Knowledge works, so that your work was pushed out because it didn't conform to Wikipedians' expectations even though it might, in principle, have been made into something stable. That kind of thing is a big problem, and one
1035:
In general, I would venture that marginal / underground / subcultural / counter-cultural events, people and artefacts that existed before 1995 would not necessarily have been comprehensively digitised. I had some anecdotal evidence of this when I created an article for a by no means insignificant art
736:
I read your review of my book on the WP Signpost. I really appreciated how you engaged with the work, by applying it to WP, or by making some of the concepts work in your way. I also liked how it was illustrated with those pretty pictures;-). This is by far the best review I've had to date - OK, it's
868:
I'm unclear about the distinction you're making here. Are "subcultural forms which have flown under the radar of legitimate cultural arbiters" not just class at workâthis is art because it conforms to the standards established by the powerful, this is trash and unworthy of attention because it does
852:
Re. "If it isn't on Google": I am unsure about equating discriminating against pre-1995 marginal / subcultural forms which have flown under the radar of legitimate cultural arbiters and hence have not been digitised and hence find no corroborrating hyperlinked source when they are submitted to WP as
805:
OK, I guess my first point has to be a question: since you say that you "botched" your analysis of index-charisma should we modify the review? I understand that this is not an encyclopedia entry so I'm not expecting that to happen but perhaps you should add a parenthesis or something indicating that
790:
I think your LMD piece *is* a broader look at
Knowledge. True, it focuses on expertise rather than authority, but it looks at expertise broadly, in a way that seems to me to encompass more of what goes on on Knowledge. Your treatment of authority in the book is more particular, and you focus in on a
287:
rooted in respect for broadly-construed "hacking" abilityâthe special talents and skills that are relevant to the goals of a particular tribe. The canonical example of this type of authority is project leadership in free software development communities, where those with acknowledged coding ability
1039:
Thanks. It's true that Knowledge creates threshold for inclusion that re-enforces existing patterns of marginalization. It sounds like what you've run up against has more to do with Knowledge's definition of Original Research than Verifiability; offline magazines, and possibly exhibition catalogs
1028:
Fair enough. But you seem willing to judge Knowledge for marginalizing topics that don't have digital sources, without presenting definite empirical evidence and despite the fact that, in both policy and practice, Knowledge encourages the use of print sources (including ones that are not available
782:
You're right, in trying to explain index-charisma concisely, I botched it. I was trying to emphasize what I found most insightful about the concept, that when one describes being socially well-connected in the language of network theory, the mechanism of preferential attachment makes it much easier
778:
I didn't mean to imply that that you were merely explaining how horrible the Internet is, although now I see it kind of reads that way. My intent was to say that your book was primarily a sort of constructive critique of the Internet, rather than the more common modes of praising its best qualities
745:
I didn't just set out to show how horrible the online environment was by "uncovering domination". I tried to have both a critical approach and one that showed how people can criticize and overcome injustice. A (possibly understated) objective of the book was to draw lessons from situations in which
502:
as a sockpuppet based on an investigation that was not transparent to community surveillance (which led to Durova resigning her adminship). Here the dangers of both too much and too little surveillance were at work. O'Neil explains that "the incident resonated deeply with many editors, because it
355:
are the purest expressions of archaic force; the flaming and trolling of newcomers and others who do not conform to community norms is a way of asserting power. O'Neil writes that "In general women have a deep aversion towards the kinds of adversarial exchange that men thrive on", and argues that
159:
Books on the sociocultural and political impacts of the Internet have typically focused on the advances online communication makes possible or the good things in modern culture that the Internet is pushing aside. Proponents of Internet culture highlight the failings in traditional systems of power
1012:
Re. your second and related point, I did not say that J. Wales' comment was normative, but it does encapsulate a certain reliance on a handy http page to link to buttress one's point. I think there might be a "loop effect" deriving from Google's ranking of WP as well. This is a complicated issue,
757:
I am a little puzzled as to why saying "if it isn't on Google it doesn't exist" reinscribes injustice and inequality in WP - it reinscribes definitions of what constitutes acceptable content but I don't see how this discriminates against a particular group? Finally, my LMD article is not really a
420:
development community features strong elements of both popular sovereign authority and charisma authority. O'Neil considers Debian "by far the most revealing of what tribal distributed leadership would entail for the management of complex infrastructural systems", in part because "the stakes are
232:
Since utopian political solutions are no longer considered likely to occur offline, the Internet has come to embody the spirit of Utopia. In such a charmed universe everyone can have a say, from 'cyberlibertarians' who decry the influence of governments to 'cybercommunists' who believe that peer
887:
Hi again - you make a valid point re. the role of taste in reinforcing social hierarchies. However the problem here is that what we are discussing is based on a personal anecdote whereby the cultural artefacts and events deemed un-notable in an AFD case were not in fact produced by disadvantaged
751:
I use this as indicating a person / actor / node's _central position_ in an online network: many others link to the node, or the node operates as a link between separated clusters. Some people might refer to this as "social capital" - the benefits received from being well-connected. Preferential
541:
O'Neil's particular analysis of Knowledge includes some worthwhile points (and some errors and misinterpretations), but the case study only breaks the surface of the authority issue. The concepts of archaic force and the three modes of online authority are useful concepts for thinking about the
429:
In the book's final case study, O'Neil examines how authority works on Knowledge. Knowledge governance relies primarily on charismatic authorityâusers deferred to because of their reputations, as talented contributors (hacker-charisma) and/or long-standing and dedicated active community members
407:(blog posts) of others to highlight, and the most popular posts are also linked automatically on the front page. However, autonomy is limited for those who would challenge the charismatic authority of Kos and his deputies, as O'Neil documents in the case of Hillary Clinton supporters during the
786:
On "if it isn't on Google it doesn't exist": along the lines we discussed before in the context of your LMD piece, groups that don't get covered in online sources are already subject to social domination. Else why wouldn't they appear in online discourse, encompassing as it is? In our previous
537:
Historical factors and offline injusticesâsexism, economic inequality, political geographyâcan clearly tilt the scales in online tribes. There are (at least so far) no online Utopias. The question for Knowledge is, how deep is the shadow of history? How set in stone is Knowledge's community
993:
On an unrelated note, you write later in the article that "marginal cultures which have not been digitised and uploaded run the risk of becoming invisible." I have two comments. First, Jimmy Wales' facetious comment that "If it isnât on Google, it doesnât exist" is not, and has never been,
335:
This type of patternâthose with the training and free time afforded by social privilege rise to the topâis also apparent in free software communities and on Knowledge and other seemingly egalitarian online knowledge projects. O'Neil sees at work here "the heart of social domination
356:
early netiquette specifically encouraged male styles of adversarial discussion, even flaming, about intellectual and ideological matters but discouraged discussion of personal matters. (We see the legacy of such netiquette on Knowledge, where aggressive discussion is acceptable but
241:
The flowering of freedom is indeed an important part of the Internet's impact, but this emphasis on freedom obscures the ways that traditional forms of power, privilege and domination carry over to the online world. Early students of online sociology described the web as inherently
692:
113:
493:
is the best known example of this; while claiming (falsely) to be a professor of theology, editor Essjay at times touted his supposed credentials in content disputes. But the most significant section focuses on what O'Neil terms "the Durova dust-up", the incident in which
791:
set of examples that I would say are instructive but not representative. As I said in the review (approximately), I think your framework for thinking about authority is more valuable for Wikipedians than your particular applications of it *to* Knowledge.
133:
103:
143:
806:
the wording is not quite right and referring people to this discussion? Just a thought. Hacker-charisma would be more like cultural capital (possession of esoteric knowledge) than like social capital (possession of many valuable connections). --
774:
Can I post your response on the talk page (and my reply, and we can continue the discussion there so that others can participate), or perhaps you'd like to write a more formal reply that could be published in next week's Signpost?
411:; Kos and much of the community supported Barack Obama, and strident Clinton supporters were systematically marginalized and ostracized, without recourse to much in the way of codified rights or community laws to protect them.
242:
anti-authoritarian (primarily because of its technical structure, an open network). O'Neil shows that concepts of authority and power developed by social theorists can apply to both the web in general and to specific online
639:
380:. Online primitivistsâwhose philosophy is fundamentally opposed to the internet and who have no interest in organizing a participatory online communityâeschew both charismatic authority and sovereign authority online;
1061:
783:
to see how legitimate authority and unjust privilege are totally entangled even in the online social world. ("Social capital" seems too broad here; hacker-charisma is also a form of social capital, is it not?)
758:
wider discussion of WP - rather it focuses on (and expands a little) the analysis of expertise but eschews most analysis of governance and administrative power which forms the bulk of the book's WP-chapter.
526:) to show how offline injustice and inequality is reinscribed in Knowledge: "If it isn't on Google, it doesn't exist", said Wales. (O'Neil offers a wider discussion of Knowledge in his recent essay from
1083:
542:
community; Knowledge authority is heterogeneous, sometimes with charismatic authority most important, sometimes with sovereign authority, and in our worst moments with archaic force deciding things.
985:
194:
develops a conceptual basis for understanding online authority. In the second half, O'Neil presents four case studies on individual "tribes" with very different authority structures: the
1056:
955:
869:
not? Are the injustices of class, gender, ethnicity, international economics, etc. not part of the reason why some things are extensively documented online and others are not?--
76:
408:
386:
acts as a venue for presenting the views of a small number of primitivist "anti-authorities" and extending offline debates among published primitivist thinkers through the
933:
897:
878:
947:
844:
830:
671:
681:
661:
456:
Is the surveillance-centered social and technical structure of Knowledge like the street culture of a close-knit neighborhood or the discipline-minded watchmen of the
171:
O'Neil, a researcher who works in Australia and earned a Ph.D. in American Studies from a French university, approaches online social systems from the perspective of
676:
666:
707:
977:
275:
consists of rules and laws; individuals may wield sovereign authority, but ultimately authority of this type inheres in the community-accepted rules themselves.
123:
651:
175:. Other scholars have used critical theory to explore the Internet in terms of communication and knowledge productionâin the case of Knowledge, for example, "
228:
The prevailing ideology of the Internet, O'Neil observes, is closely aligned to the philosophical and political outlook of the earlier hackers who built it:
1070:
interesting. Although I've not read the book yet I found inspiration for some tangential work I'm doing for my own doctorate, updating classic work of the
918:
862:
514:
Charismatic and sovereign authority predominate, but archaic force is not altogether absent from Knowledge. O'Neil singles out a Jimmy Wales quote from a
67:
815:
656:
160:
and cultural production that online communities can overcome; critics emphasize the good things in those systems that the Internet is undermining. In
1113:
1101:
633:
52:
41:
938:
No worries. PS. I just added the correct timestamps to some above paras which were originally one single block of text and therefore unsigned.--
482:: cities are safe when they are always under the watchful eye of residents. Others invoke a more sinister metaphor, likening Knowledge to the
246:âa term he uses to indicate that the social and political structures of online communities are largely independent of nation-states. Adapting
1029:
online). Online sources are treated as a convenience for readers, but there is no hesitation to use offline sources when they are superior.
474:âedit count can serve as markers of authority in a social system based on constant surveillance of everyone's actions by everyone else. (In
233:
production will revolutionise both the market economy and traditional hierarchy. The primary tenet of the ideology of the Internet is that
1166:
968:- but he's really gotten a bum rap on the "If it isn't on Google, it doesn't exist" pseudo-quote. I did a long blog post debunking it,
712:
21:
1141:
696:
360:; whether O'Neil would consider this an archaic residue of sexism is unclear, but at least one scholar of wiki communities has
251:
719:
1136:
1131:
973:
424:
797:
1126:
223:
1032:
Do you have particular cultures in mind that you see as being marginalized by Knowledge's Verifiability requirements?
176:
324:
In addition to these forms of potentially legitimate authority, O'Neil shows that vestiges of power, privilege and
729:
Mathieu O'Neil responded to the review in an email. His email and my reply are posted below (by permission).
357:
1121:
621:
46:
32:
17:
1097:
981:
961:
489:
It is when surveillance breaks down that authority becomes a problem in the Knowledge community. The
486:
prison in which inmates never know whether they are being watched and so must behave as if they are.)
1052:
965:
943:
914:
893:
858:
840:
811:
254:, O'Neil identifies three forms of authority that structure the social environment of online tribes:
1071:
924:
Fair enough. Maybe I misremembered your LMD article, which I read before the book but not since.--
787:
discussion, you gave examples of groups you thought got the short end of the stick in this regard.
303:
1093:
1075:
969:
284:
515:
1147:
1048:
939:
910:
889:
854:
836:
807:
165:
8:
1088:
195:
929:
874:
826:
523:
490:
438:
348:
313:
184:
168:
instead explores the ways online communities recreate the failures of offline culture.
180:
703:
545:
367:
325:
1023:
So, while I appreciate your point that WP may level the playing field in some : -->
430:(index-charisma)âand popular sovereign authorityâcommunity-created rules and norms.
1024:
respects, I would have to reserve judgement until some more definite form of : -->
466:"Can people pull rank in a rankless universe", he asks? The answer, of course, is
400:
352:
478:, Andrew Lih compared Knowledge to the benign street culture praised by urbanist
172:
347:
conventions and patterns of online discourse that encourage symbolic violence.
295:
1160:
925:
870:
822:
316:, which is based on norms, rules and laws (including, in the online context,
216:
153:
531:
187:âbut O'Neil focuses instead on the twin concepts of autonomy and authority.
177:
Knowledge, Critical Social Theory, and the Possibility of Rational Discourse
1062:
Authority as a factor in diffusion/adoption of ideas in online environments
204:
495:
479:
317:
483:
457:
344:
299:
210:
470:; things like rollback rights, adminship, checkuser, and evenâperhaps
1080:
247:
447:
499:
387:
235:
online networks are privileged sites for the flowering of freedom
362:
argued that Knowledge-like projects have an inherent gender bias
294:â another form of charismatic authority, based on concepts from
268:
257:
361:
382:
395:
264:
comes from having many connections and being well-known.
1016:
Following up a bit on marginalization and sources...
740:
I do have a few quibbles which I'll mention briefly.
416:
1068:
Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
179:" argues that Knowledge is a close approximation of
162:
Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
70:
Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
717:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
1044:that the community is constantly struggling with.
1158:
343:Archaic force also manifests itself in received
821:I adjusted the explanation of index-charisma.--
338:making the socially constructed appear natural
376:sit at different points on what O'Neil terms
151:
956:"If it isn't on Google, it doesn't exist"
372:The four online communities explored in
328:from the broader culture, what he terms
267:
256:
720:
14:
1159:
1074:within complex organisations in which
1025:empirical evidence has been produced.
749:Meaning of index-charismatic authority
252:tripartite classification of authority
51:
393:The liberal American political blog
1167:Knowledge Signpost archives 2009-06
358:personalizing disputes is forbidden
27:
737:probably the only one, but still.
620:
220:(specifically English Knowledge).
53:
31:
28:
1178:
966:sure he'd be the first to confirm
702:These comments are automatically
208:, the free software community of
446:
437:
138:
128:
118:
108:
98:
88:
318:laws programmed into the system
202:, the political blog community
999:
974:column about Britannica's blog
713:add the page to your watchlist
605:
596:
587:
578:
569:
560:
551:
522:(the one at the center of the
13:
1:
425:Tribal authority on Knowledge
378:the space of online authority
972:, and wrote about this in a
970:Google: 1, Michael Gorman: 0
962:no apologist for Jimmy Wales
688:
18:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost
7:
743:Overall purpose of the book
224:Rethinking online authority
10:
1183:
1102:16:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
1084:16:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
1057:02:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
986:04:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
948:01:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
934:14:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
919:13:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
898:01:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
879:14:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
863:13:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
845:01:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
831:14:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
816:13:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
794:Yours in discourse, Sage
771:Thanks for the comments!
611:p. 167, O'Neil's emphasis
532:Knowledge: experts are us
281:Hacker-charisma authority
214:, and our own đ project
1072:Diffusion of Innovations
1005:This is a wild estimate.
575:p. 61, O'Neil's emphasis
557:p. 18, O'Neil's emphasis
476:The Knowledge Revolution
312:â the analog of Weber's
292:Index-charisma authority
262:Index-charisma authority
1076:communities of practice
409:2008 Democratic primary
304:preferential attachment
1114:looking for new talent
1066:I found the review of
727:==Author's response==
710:. To follow comments,
625:
401:Markos 'Kos' Moulitsas
276:
265:
239:
36:
960:Mathieu O'Neil - I'm
907:Le Monde diplomatique
624:
528:Le Monde diplomatique
285:charismatic authority
271:
260:
230:
35:
706:from this article's
672:Features and admins
310:Sovereign authority
273:Sovereign authority
196:anarcho-primitivism
697:Discuss this story
682:Arbitration report
662:WikiProject report
626:
524:Essjay controversy
491:Essjay controversy
314:rational authority
277:
266:
190:The first half of
185:rational discourse
42:â Back to Contents
37:
798:Futher discussion
721:purging the cache
677:Technology report
667:Discussion report
390:of rival essays.
326:symbolic violence
47:View Latest Issue
1174:
1150:
1094:Peregrine Fisher
1006:
1003:
978:Seth Finkelstein
835:Great, thanks.--
724:
722:
716:
695:
644:
636:
629:
612:
609:
603:
600:
594:
591:
585:
582:
576:
573:
567:
564:
558:
555:
498:briefly blocked
450:
441:
156:
142:
141:
132:
131:
122:
121:
112:
111:
102:
101:
92:
91:
59:
57:
55:
1182:
1181:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1146:
1144:
1139:
1134:
1129:
1124:
1117:
1106:
1105:
1091:
1064:
1010:
1009:
1004:
1000:
958:
905:Re. whether my
800:
726:
718:
711:
700:
699:
693:+ Add a comment
691:
687:
686:
685:
637:
632:
630:
627:
615:
610:
606:
601:
597:
592:
588:
583:
579:
574:
570:
565:
561:
556:
552:
548:
464:
463:
462:
461:
453:
452:
451:
443:
442:
427:
383:primitivism.com
370:
226:
200:primitivism.com
181:JĂźrgen Habermas
173:critical theory
157:
150:
149:
148:
139:
129:
119:
109:
99:
89:
83:
80:
66:
62:
60:
50:
49:
44:
38:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1180:
1170:
1169:
1145:
1140:
1135:
1130:
1125:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1108:
1107:
1104:
1092:I liked it. -
1090:
1087:
1063:
1060:
1049:Mathieu O'Neil
1008:
1007:
997:
996:
957:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
940:Mathieu O'Neil
911:Mathieu O'Neil
903:
902:
901:
900:
890:Mathieu O'Neil
882:
881:
855:Mathieu O'Neil
850:
849:
848:
847:
837:Mathieu O'Neil
808:Mathieu O'Neil
799:
796:
766:
756:
750:
744:
731:
701:
698:
690:
689:
684:
679:
674:
669:
664:
659:
654:
652:News and notes
649:
643:
631:
619:
618:
617:
616:
614:
613:
604:
595:
586:
577:
568:
559:
549:
547:
544:
455:
454:
445:
444:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
426:
423:
369:
366:
322:
321:
307:
296:network theory
289:
225:
222:
166:Mathieu O'Neil
147:
146:
136:
126:
116:
106:
96:
85:
84:
81:
75:
74:
73:
72:
64:
63:
61:
58:
45:
40:
39:
30:
29:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1179:
1168:
1165:
1164:
1162:
1149:
1143:
1138:
1133:
1128:
1123:
1115:
1111:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1086:
1085:
1082:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1059:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1030:
1026:
1020:
1017:
1014:
1002:
998:
995:
991:
988:
987:
983:
979:
975:
971:
967:
963:
949:
945:
941:
937:
936:
935:
931:
927:
923:
922:
921:
920:
916:
912:
908:
899:
895:
891:
886:
885:
884:
883:
880:
876:
872:
867:
866:
865:
864:
860:
856:
846:
842:
838:
834:
833:
832:
828:
824:
820:
819:
818:
817:
813:
809:
803:
795:
792:
788:
784:
780:
776:
772:
769:
765:
762:
759:
753:
747:
741:
738:
734:
730:
723:
714:
709:
705:
694:
683:
680:
678:
675:
673:
670:
668:
665:
663:
660:
658:
655:
653:
650:
648:
645:
641:
635:
628:In this issue
623:
608:
599:
590:
581:
572:
563:
554:
550:
543:
539:
535:
533:
529:
525:
521:
519:
512:
510:
506:
501:
497:
492:
487:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
459:
449:
440:
431:
422:
419:
418:
412:
410:
406:
402:
398:
397:
391:
389:
385:
384:
379:
375:
365:
363:
359:
354:
350:
346:
341:
339:
333:
331:
330:archaic force
327:
319:
315:
311:
308:
305:
301:
297:
293:
290:
286:
282:
279:
278:
274:
270:
263:
259:
255:
253:
249:
245:
238:
236:
229:
221:
219:
218:
217:wikipedia.org
213:
212:
207:
206:
201:
197:
193:
188:
186:
182:
178:
174:
169:
167:
163:
155:
145:
137:
135:
127:
125:
117:
115:
107:
105:
97:
95:
87:
86:
78:
71:
56:
48:
43:
34:
23:
19:
1110:The Signpost
1109:
1067:
1065:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1031:
1027:
1021:
1018:
1015:
1011:
1001:
992:
989:
959:
906:
904:
851:
804:
801:
793:
789:
785:
781:
777:
773:
770:
767:
763:
760:
755:Google / LMD
754:
748:
742:
739:
735:
732:
728:
646:
640:all comments
634:15 June 2009
607:
598:
589:
580:
571:
562:
553:
540:
536:
527:
517:
513:
508:
504:
488:
475:
471:
467:
465:
428:
415:
413:
404:
396:Dailykos.com
394:
392:
381:
377:
373:
371:
342:
337:
334:
329:
323:
309:
291:
283:â a form of
280:
272:
261:
243:
240:
234:
231:
227:
215:
209:
205:dailykos.com
203:
199:
191:
189:
183:'s ideal of
170:
161:
158:
69:
54:15 June 2009
1148:Suggestions
1089:Good review
704:transcluded
657:In the news
647:Book review
503:commingled
496:User:Durova
480:Jane Jacobs
374:Cyberchiefs
192:Cyberchiefs
65:Book review
546:References
518:New Yorker
484:Panopticon
472:especially
458:Panopticon
417:debian.org
368:The tribes
345:netiquette
300:centrality
211:debian.org
82:Share this
77:Contribute
68:Review of
22:2009-06-15
1142:Subscribe
1019:You say:
964:- as I'm
768:Mathieu,
708:talk page
505:authority
248:Max Weber
154:Sage Ross
1161:Category
1137:Newsroom
1132:Archives
926:ragesoss
871:ragesoss
823:ragesoss
802:Hi Sage
764:Mathieu
761:Cheers,
733:Hi Sage
353:trolling
298:such as
198:website
124:LinkedIn
104:Facebook
20: |
520:article
509:secrecy
500:User:!!
405:diaries
388:fisking
349:Flaming
114:Twitter
602:p. 154
593:p. 146
244:tribes
134:Reddit
94:E-mail
1127:About
1022:: -->
584:p. 68
566:p. 61
516:2006
16:<
1122:Home
1098:talk
1053:talk
982:talk
944:talk
930:talk
915:talk
894:talk
875:talk
859:talk
841:talk
827:talk
812:talk
534:".)
507:and
414:The
351:and
302:and
144:Digg
1112:is
1081:Rod
530:, "
468:yes
364:.)
340:."
250:'s
152:By
79:â
1163::
1100:)
1055:)
1047:--
984:)
946:)
932:)
917:)
896:)
877:)
861:)
843:)
829:)
814:)
164:,
1116:.
1096:(
1051:(
980:(
942:(
928:(
913:(
892:(
873:(
857:(
839:(
825:(
810:(
725:.
715:.
642:)
638:(
460:?
237:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
