Toni Prug on Thu, 7 May 2009 17:04:45 +0200 (CEST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: <nettime> what makes a notable life? [wikipedia]

i have no idea who Lotu5 is. but this kind of discussion on Wikipedia
is a real pain to read.

Leutha Blissett wrote:
> Hi Lotu5,
> I think you are being unfair to Wikipedia. 

Lotu5' critique of W is extremely mild and generous.

> 1) Using Google is a useful way of establishing notability,         
> however it is not the only way. 

They used Google News, not Google the search engine:

"A bit of procedural nomination. Article was written by the subject
(User:Lotu5) and Google news has no articles only one article
available on her. CyberGhostface (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)"

That's two criteria miles and miles and miles apart. Both
problematic, for different reasons. One, Google search engine,
far less problematic, than the other. We could argue that
they didn't really care much, since they could have done to evaluate better the
DJ Lotu5 article.

> However Wikipedia adopts a "Neutral Point of View" position, which
> means that individuals using it as place to post their own CV is not
> regarded as permissable.

Both points/rules are a joke. Neutrality as a category, or a concept,
can not, and will never be, applicable to human relations.

Those who claim the opposite imply that the basis on which they
judge is in no way political. In other words, in no ways does it
privilege any of the sides in the dispute which is under evaluation
and judgement. Since evaluation and the judgement (even as trivial
as "we will", or "we will not" delete Lotus5' CV) are always based
on categories and concepts whose own evaluation can not be performed
indefinitely, one who evaluates and judges always privileges. In
other words, those who judged to delete based on Google News entries
didn't even evaluate and judge the validity of Google News, which is a
shockingly poor example of the ability to think, or rather an example
of gigantic lack of it. But even if they used Google search, they
still had to stop at some point, call it a day, and judge.

Recursive application of analytical thinking has to stop at a point.
At that point, it is the political stance and the fiction of those
who judge that plays the role. There's a reason for the term "legal
fiction" in courts.

Not to mention that the resources available for the evaluation and
judgement (time, space) are strictly political categories. One
that can afford not to sell labour for the time and space in which
the process of evaluation and judgement happens is the one who is
privileged (like i'm now, being a funded student, having the privilege
to judge this email exchange).

> Looking at some of the discussions on nettime as regards wikipedia,
> I find it a lot somewhat disappointing. Often it arises from people
> who haven't taken the time to understand how wikipedia works. For
> example, any attempt to lump all the wikipedia editors together
> (some thousands of people) with a unitary view perhaps betrays a
> disappointment that wikipedia is not a new Pravda, offering a one
> dimensional view of the world.

Judging from the work of those who deleted Lotu5 article, and from
your response, as a tiny chunk of Wikipedia universe, it's difficult
to imagine worse, narrower, thought process. What can be more narrow
minded that using Google News to judge anything? Perhaps using a news
wire of your choice, like Reuters, directly?

> In many ways wikipedia provides a mirror of society reflecting both
> strengths and weaknesses in current social relations.

Does it? Perhaps it does. It reflects the strength of mindless people
-- (and those like you who defend them) whose ability to think goes
as far as Google News -- to influence the world, via their work on

In comparison, Google search bots and sorting algorithms are a
revolutionary form of advanced intelligence.

> Of course this is not to deny problems which do arise from
> Wikipedia, but focussing on such trivial issues (which can readily
> be refuted)

Trivial? Readily refuted? Not enganging with this mindless act of
deletion based on Google News critera critically, ie failing to see
the level of mindlessness that it displays, is in line with the
"reasoning" that Wikipedia deleting volunteers displayed on this



#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info:
#  archive: contact: