Curinga 2009 Ranciere Free Encyclopedia

8/13/2019 Curinga 2009 Ranciere Free Encyclopedia

1/8

Wikipedia and Rancire's radical equality 1

The Free Encyclopedia: Wikipedia andJacques Rancire's philosophy of radicalequality

Name: Curinga, Matthew*

Teachers College, Columbia UniversityBo !, "#" W $#%th &treete( )ork, ) $%%#*+-U&.

S!!"R#:

$eyond its importance as a ma%or &nternet destination and ast store of kno()led*e+ Wikipedia e,hi-its a further cultural and sym-olic importance. We useRancire's political philosophy+ specifically his idea that /equality is a presuppos)ition+ an initial a,iom0or it is nothin*+1 to e,amine the idea of a /free encyclope)dia1. From this point of ie(+ a free license+ such as the 2F34 or 55 is not suffi)cient. The soft(are and editors must reco*ni6e and practice freedom in order to*rasp it. Freedom and efficiency are not necessarily compati-le. While continuedefforts to improe the quality and further the scope of Wikipedia are admira-le+(e shouldn't allo( these *oals to eclipse its sym-olic po(er as a free encyclope)dia.

7E# W8R3S: Wikipedia, Jacques Rancire, democracy, equality, social sotware, ree

culture, ree sotware

9 !8RE T"N "N EN5#548;E3&"

! "iderot#s /ncyclop0diewas re$olutionary, e%pressing the &nlightenment#s rationaland irre$erent $iew o the world, in the recent past, encyclopedias ha$e not held adominant position in cultural de'ates, academic studies, or the thoughts o mostpeople( )hey were more a source or schoolchildren to look up staid acts than ane%pression o a new world$iew(

Wikipedia#s introduction and rapid growth ha$e changed that( nce again, an

encyclopedia manages to arouse strong eelings( +ot e$eryone likes Wikipedia( Jaronanier -.//0 likens it to 2digital Maoism,3 saying, 2)he hi$e mind is or the most partstupid and 'oring(3 4or anier, Wikipedia and other large scale colla'orati$e systemso knowledge are dangerous 'ecause they don#t suiciently $alue indi$idual talent andcreati$ity(

5ndrew 6een -.//7 eels a similar need to e%tol the necessity o 2e%perts3 in TheCult o1 the .mateur2 6een characteri8es Wikipedia as

* Correspondence to: Matthew Curinga, Teachers College, Columbia University, Program in Communications,Computing, and Technology in Education, Box 8, 525 W 120th ST, New York, NY 10027

E-mail: [email protected]


2/8


the 'lind leading the 'lind 9 ininite monkeys pro$iding ininite inormation or inin:ite readers, perpetuating the cycle o misinormation and ignorance -p ;

Wikipedia certainly has its enthusiasts, too( )he authors o Wiki(orldclaim

)he Wikipedia has an o'$ious


3/8


!n essig#s $iew, we are at a crossroads, digital tools open the loodgates or this cre:

ati$ity o remi% and sharing( 5t the same time, legislated and technical restrictions onsharing digital media threaten to e%tinguish this type o creati$e e%pression(=urowiecki -.//; and =unstein -.//0 ocus on a dierent aspect o networked

colla'orationF the aggregation o dispersed knowledge( Doth ocus on the notion thatthe a$erage intelligence o a group outperorms the intelligence o a single e%pert(=urowiecki identiies his 2our conditions that characteri8e wise crowds3F di$ersity oopinion, independence, decentrali8ation, and aggregation o Hudgment and knowledge-pp 17:1A(

5cknowledging the power o 2crowds3, =unstein is particularly worried that the !n:ternet can polari8e opinions and propagate inormation 'u''les( Ge writes that 2de:li'erati$e 'odies are su'Hect to e%ceedingly serious pro'lems3 -pp ../:..1( )he per:sonali8ation and speciali8ation that the !nternet aords allows us to tune:in to like:

minded opinions and to tune:out those who disagree, $iolating 'oth the di$ersity andindependence conditions noted 'y =urowiecki(Doth authors warn that crowds are not unconditionally wise( !nstead, i certain con:

ditions are met, they can surprise us with their aggregate results( !ndi$iduals remainthe 'est sources or inno$ation -i they ha$e access to other creati$e work, according toessig(


4/8


ind i we su'stitute reedom and democracy or eiciency and production as the loci

o our researchB Gow does Wikipedia support such goals how does it su'$ert themB

= TE FREE EN5#548;E3&"

4reedom is clearly on the mind o Wikipedians( Delow the Wikipedia logo, on e$erypage, is written 2)he 4ree &ncyclopedia3 or 2a enciclopedia li're3 or a similartranslation, depending on the language $ersion( Wikipedia co:ounder, Jimmy Walestalks a'out the mission to pro$ide 2ree access3 to knowledgeF

!magine a world in which e$ery single person on the planet is gi$en ree access to thesum o all human knowledge( )hat#s what we are doing(

)o understand Wikipedia, then, we must try to understand the meaning o ree in

the conte%t o an encyclopedia( Wales writes,What do ! mean 'y reeB ! mean ree as in speech, not ree as in 'eer( !t means we gi$epeople our reedoms( ou get the reedom to copy our work( ou can modiy it( oucan redistri'ute it( 5nd you can redistri'ute modiied $ersions( 5nd you can do all othese things commercially or noncommercially( When we talk a'out Wikipedia 'eing aree encyclopedia, what weKre really talking a'out is not the price that it takes to accessit, 'ut rather the reedom that you ha$e to take it and adapt it and use it howe$er youlike( -Wales in ih, .//I', p %ii

)he reedom descri'ed here hews closely to the one ad$ocated 'y =tallman -see 4ree=otware 4oundation, .//I and essig( !t is a reedom that emanates rom a 2ree li:cense3( Raymond -1III, essig, and Denkler ha$e successully argued the quantitat:i$e and qualitati$e ad$antage o such a reedom in creating digital works( =till, it mer:

its urther discussion whether this is the 'est reedom we can hope or, or i this initialdeinition leads us closer to a 2ree encyclopedia3(Lolitical philosopher Jacques Rancire oers a dierent $iew o reedom( 5ccording

to Rancire, reedom can ne$er 'e granted 'y a license, or any other ormal structure(

"emocracy is, irst o all, a practice, which means that the $ery same institutions opower may or may not 'e accompanied 'y a democratic lie( )he same orms o parlia:mentary powers, the same institutional rameworks can either gi$e rise to a democraticlie, that is, a su'Hecti$ation o the gap 'etween two ways o counting or accounting orthe community, or operate simply as instruments or the reproduction o an oligarchicpower( -.//E, p 1II

Rancire holds that struggle, rather than ormal structure, in$ites reedom(

&galitarian eects occur only through a orcing, that is, the instituting o a quarrel thatchallenges the incorporated, percepti'le e$idence o an inegalitarian logic( )his quarrel

is politics( -.//;a, p

)his doesn#t indicate that 4ree =otware or Wikipedia#s ree license are meaningless()he power o 'oth, though, resides not in e%panded legal rights, 'ut in the direct chal:lenge to the status quo, the a'ility to 'ring a'out a struggle, em'odied in the act o us:ing a ree license(

4rom this point o $iew, 4ree =otware is political 'ecause it 'roke our e%pectationso who had the time, the unds, and the talent to create sotware, especially 2enter:prise3 sotware like the


5/8


)he partition o the sensi'le is the cutting:up o the world -P )his partition should 'eunderstood in the dou'le sense o the wordF on the one hand, that which separates and

e%cludes on the other, that which allows participation( -Rancire, .//1, thesis 7

ike 4ree =otware, Wikipedia reconigures our e%pectations, altering the demo:graphics o e%pertise and knowledge creation( 6een -.//7, ironically, in his attack onWikipedia, re$eals this disruption( Ge writesF

Can a social worker in "es Moines really 'e considered credi'le in arguing with atrained physicist o$er string theoryB Can a car mechanic ha$e as knowledgea'le a2L?3 as that o a trained geneticists on the nature o hereditary diseasesB -p ;

5t irst it#s hard to discern the root o 6een#s distress( Ge ne$er indicates that the so:cial worker or the mechanic are wrong, and, apparently he does not draw on actualWikipedia contro$ersies( Ge re$eals his primary concern on the ollowing page(

)oday#s editors, technicians, and cultural gatekeepers9the e%perts across an array oields9are necessary to help us to sit through what#s important and what#s not, what iscredi'le rom what is unrelia'le, what is worth spending our time on as opposed to the

white noise that can 'e saely ignored( -p ;0

!n this passage, 6een underscores the aront o Wikipedia( Leople might listen tothings they ha$e not heeded in the past and to speakers who do not ha$e the right tospeak( Wikipedia is political in a speciic Rancierean senseF

Lolitics re$ol$es around what is seen and what can 'e said a'out it, around who has thea'ility to see and the talent to speak, around the properties o spaces and the possi'ilityo time( -.//;c, p 1E

! Wikipedia is credi'le, we must listen to new $oices, to $oices that were ormerly2white noise3 what we e%perience as 2sensi'le3 has grown(

!n his keynote address at Wikimania #%%-, Richard =tallman -.//I declared that

he was not interested in Wikipedia 'ecause it is a (iki, 'ut 'ecause it is1ree( =tall:man#s mistake here is that he 'elie$es that reedom is de$oid o conte%t( ! Wikipediais ree at all, it is precisely 'ecause it is a wiki, an encyclopedia, and used a certain way(

4reire -1I71 understood why an encyclopedia might 'e considered ree( Ge writesa'out 2naming the world3 as a path towards reedom(

)o e%ist, humanly, is to name the world, to change it -P Men are not 'uilt in silence,'ut in word, in work, in action:relection(Dut while to say the true word9which is work, which is pra%is9is to transorm the

world, saying that word is not the pri$ilege o some ew men, 'ut the right o e$eryman( -p 70

Wikipedia oers such an opportunity to name the world, to assert knowledge and e%:pertise(

4ollowing Rancire, Wikipedia may 'e a 2ree encyclopedia3 'ecause it oers ameans to $eriy equality( Ge writes, 2!t is true that we donKt know that men are equal(We are saying that they might 'e -1II1, p 7E(3

Rancire argues that 2equality is a presupposition, an initial a%iom9or it is nothing-.//;', p ..E(3 ur task, our attempt to li$e in a ree society, requires us to approache$eryone as our ull equal 9 intellectually, morally, and practically(

=ome o this philosophy shows in the aordances o MediaWiki, the sotware thatpowers Wikipedia(

)hereKs $ery, $ery little in the sotware that ser$es as rule enorcement( !tKs all a'outdialogue, itKs all a'out con$ersation, itKs all a'out humans making decisions -P !tKsa'out lea$ing things open:ended, itKs a'out trusting people, itKs a'out encouragingpeople to do good -Wales in ih, .//I', p %$


6/8


MediaWiki in$erts the normal editorial process, 'y asking editors to write irst, and

edit ater( )he in$itation to new users to change the page they are reading, immedi:ately and without asking permission, goes against the grain o all other digital pu'lish:ing systems( Wales understands that i people can#t 'e trusted, Wikipedia cannotwork( Wikipedia cannot 'e achie$ed 'y any system o worklow and userOgroupOrolepermissions( !n act, there would 'e no point in trying, 'ecause the result would 'enothing more than an encyclopedia(

Journalist, scholar, and Wikipedia chronicler 5ndrew ih -.//Ia is concerned thatthe Wikipedia community, at least in the large languages, is 'ecoming a less open andless in$iting( Ge suggests that the prolieration o 2policy3 may 'e partly culpa'le( !nthe early years, a ew 'asic rules go$erned the spirit o Wikipedia( 25ssume good aith3and 2neutral point o $iew3 suiced to pro$ide ocus or most articles and moderatemost conlicts(

)oday, the talk pages o disputed articles read like legal 'ries peppered with ac:ronyms, linking to hundreds o pages o 2oicial policy3( 5dditionally, the wiki mark:up used to ormat Wikipedia pages has 'ecome increasingly dense and o'scure( 5simple page, written in wiki:te%t looks more or less like plain te%t( Most pages today,though, 'egin with se$eral includes -transclusions in wiki:speak, 2ino 'o%es3, 2'an:ners3, and other ad$anced ormatting( Clicking the edit 'utton or these articles 'ringsup source that has more in common with computer programming code than descript:i$e te%t( !n short, the tagline may say that 2anyone can edit3, 'ut editing a page onWikipedia is not a task or the aint o heart or the uninitiated(

While we are sympathetic with ih#s analysis 9 that Wikipedia is a less riendlyplace or new editors 9 we disagree with his conclusions( ih ears that the cool recep:tion to no$ice users will slow Wikipedia#s growth and hamper its a'ility to ight $an:

dalism and e%pand the quality and quantity o articles( Ge might 'e right, 'ut there ismore at stake( 4reedom is tenuous( )o the degree that Wikipedia earns its moniker othe ree encyclopedia, lessening the assumption o equality limits the reedom o itsusers(

Wikipedia has 'ecome an important source o inormation and an important destin:ation on the !nternet( !ts passionate editors are Hustiied in their desire to impro$e thequality, e%pand the content, and ight $andals( 5s MediaWiki accrues more tools toaid administrators and as the $arious Wikipedias e%pand their policies and practicesor deciding who has the right to speak, we should relect on the type o reedom wewant(

We can 'uild, or architect, or code cy'erspace to protect $alues that we 'elie$e are un:damental( r we can 'uild, or architect, or code cy'erspace to allow those $alues to dis:

appear( )here is no middle ground( )here is no choice that does not include some kindo 'uilding( Code is ne$er ound it is only e$er made, and only e$er made 'y us(-essig, .//0, p 0

Wikipedia will ne$er 'e more or less than what we make it( 5nd a high+qualityencyc:lopedia is not the same as a1ree encyclopedia(

REFEREN5ES

Denkler, ( -.//.( Coase#s Lenguin, or, inu% and Q)he +ature o the 4irmQ( The )ale3a( 4ournal, $$#-E, E0I:;;0(


7/8


Denkler, ( -.//0( The Wealth o1 et(orks5 6o( &ocial 7roduction Trans1orms

8arkets and 9reedom( ale Nni$ersity Lress(httpFOOwww('enkler(orgODenklerWealth+etworks(pd

Castells, M( -.//1( The :nternet ;alay5 Re1lections on the :nternet, Business, and&ociety( %ord Nni$ersity Lress, N=5(

6een, 5( -.//7( The Cult o1 the .mateur5 6o( Today's :nternet is


8/8


Rancire, J( -.//;c( The 7olitics o1 .esthetics5 The ?istribution o1 the &ensible

-trans(

Curinga 2009 Ranciere Free Encyclopedia

Documents

Transcript of Curinga 2009 Ranciere Free Encyclopedia