FREEDOM TO PROVIDE FACTS, INFORMATION, OPINION AND DEBATE WIKIPEDIA EXPOSED MEDIA - TRUTHFUL NEWS MEDIA, ENCOURAGE OPEN DEBATE
Jimmy Wales (wikipedia founder) married Kate Garvey (Tony Blair's former diary secretary) in 2012
USAMAIL MyWayEmail EuropeanNewsReutersNewsVideos CNNWorld JapaneseNewsIsraelVideoNews NewYorkTimes BBCNews TheTimesUK
WashingtonPostNews WashingtonTimesNews ChinaDailyNews AdelaideNews The Guardian-News
ABCAustralianNews NewZealandNews USADailyNews Indian News Queensland News Melbourne NewsSydneyNews-SydneyMorningHerald DarwinNewsSydneyDailyNews-Daily Telegraph truthwiki.org WesternAustralianNews wikipediocracy.com
Exposed – Maltese Abuse on Wikipedia : Exposed – Maltese abuse on Wikipedia Malta Independent Sunday,
9 September 2007
Unknown users on the government network were caught red-handed changing Wikipedia entries, ridiculing everyone from Fabrizio Faniello to party leaders Lawrence Gonzi and Alfred Sant, maltastar.com reported last night.
Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopaedia that allows users to add and edit information on the entry’s page. Anyone can change the entry on anything in the encyclopaedia and, thanks to a software programme called WikiScanner, the IP address of the user who changed the entry is revealed.
WikiScanner revealed that the government’s network, MITTS Network, is among the most networks used in Malta to change the entries on Wikipedia and alter abusively the pages of a number of personalities.
While part of these changes were irrelevant and actually made Wikipedia a more accurate encyclopaedia, other users of the government network used it to poke fun and ridicule local personalities using abusive language.
The following are number of entries edited by the government network MITTS:
Before: Agatha Barbara was the first female President...
After: Agatha Barbara was the most masculine President...
Before: … after winning the Malta Song for Europe, with the song Desire
After: ... after winning the Malta Song for Europe, with the song Desire ghaz-z***...
Additional input in entry: She appeared naked on a Maltese magazine.
Additional input in entry: In 2005 he was voted Malta’s daintiest and most delicate person ever.
Additional input in entry: Mr Faniello is also busy making porno video’s etc.
maltastar.com had to refrain from copying all the edits on Fabrizio Faniello’s Wikipedia entry due to the very abusive language used.
Additional input in entry: Michael Mifsud’s hobbies consist of smoking carob leaves at half time as well as drinking truckloads of absinthe before and after games.
The above-mentioned edits are just a small part of a long list of people whose pages were edited by users. Politicians such as Lawrence Gonzi, Alfred Sant, Maltese MEPs and former politicians had their pages changed numerous times by abusive users.
Maltese IPs were also used to change other topics, from insulting popular cartoon brand Bratz to obscene bullying of teachers on the San Andrea School and St Aloysius College page.
Exposed – Maltese Abuse on Wikipedia : Exposed – Maltese abuse on Wikipedia
Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales.
Truth In Numbers - The Wikipedia Movie | trailer US (2010)
Published on Oct 28, 2010
following " The Social Network - The Facebook movie ", here is the Wikipedia movie !!! in selected screenings now as well as on DVD Trailer Genre: documentary Regie / directed by: Scott Glosserman & Nic Hill Darsteller / cast: Jimmy Wales , Noam Chomsky , Richard Branson , Lawrence Lessig , Howard Zinn , Bob Schieffer , Jaron Lanier , Stephen Colbert Synopsis: After viewing this film, you will never look at Wikipedia the same way. The filmmakers engagingly explore the history and cultural implications of one of the most referenced sites on the Web. A whole range of opinion is expressed about the impact of Wikipedia on the archiving of learning, from interviews with founder Jimmy Wales to commentators suspicious of the site's supposed neutrality. Evenhandedly weaving multiple perspectives about the impact of Wikipedia, the film provokes a deeper conversation on how knowledge is formed and what future generations will learn about history and the world. Kinostart Deutschland: 2011 Kinostart USA: 2010 offizielle Filmsite: http://truthinnumbersthemovie.com used with authorization
Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales explains its mission to be mainstream
Wikipedians plan more outreach for teachers,
better tools for developers and simpler editing tools to increase their audience
Jimbo Wales Co Founder of Wikipedia
Wikipedia is expanding its major new 'open data' initiative, expanding tools that allow developers to use its content on other websites and simplifying its editing tools to appeal to more mainstream web users.
The 12-year-old website is also planning more outreach work to educate teachers and students, as well as those in museums and libraries, how to use the site.
Speaking in London on Monday, co-founder Jimmy Wales said Wikipedia was part "of the edutech gold rush" and that students would learn not by reading but by editing the site. New editing tools being introduced later this year will make editing simpler, he said, and encourage more people to get involved in editing articles.
Wales, who has been advising the UK government on open access, said there had been huge progress in the understanding of sourcing material online. "This is a community that will digest and then repurpose information to people in interesting ways – we have a lot to teach on that front … Communities are working to encode more of this information in machine readable ways."
Most public institutions now interact positively with the site, he claimed. "Eight years ago I got a nasty letter from a British museum over an image in an Wikipedia article … the new way to react, as a public institution devoted to sharing knowledge, is that you need to engage. Wikipedia is the information platform of choice for the entire world – from a business perspective they are much better off making sure they have well written information on Wikipedia."
Wales said he wanted developers to have a better understanding of the site's tools, including an extensive API (the system through which external developers can use the site's content) and through community of approved bots, which perform automated tasks including signing an editor's name at the end of a post and correcting common errors made by autocorrect.
Wikipedia's editing tools will be simplified to attract a broader, less techie audience. Photograph: Boris Roessler/EPA
Other projects underway include improved editing in the mobile version of the site, which is being worked on by a team in San Francisco, and a notifications system called "Flow" for editors. Wales said the new user interface for editing tools would encourage more diverse editors, broadening its community beyond the largely young, computer-centric and 80% to 90% male editors that dominate its volunteer base.
Wikipedia was the eight most visited website in the US in July, according to web measurement firm comScore. Wikipedia's own data shows the site records 21.3bn monthly page views globally, has 30.7m pages in English and publishes in 286 languages.
Wales described Wikipedia's mission to be "the sum of all human knowledge available to all in their own language" and said it had worked with regional partners in the developing world to provide Wikipedia Zero, a low-bandwidth mobile version of the site that would be free to users.
About 410 million people now have access to Wikipedia Zero, he claimed. "It is our mission to provide free access to everyone in the world. This is one of the most exciting things we are doing and we're only just getting started."
Wikipedia is run almost entirely by volunteers along with other free-to-access websites including Wikimedia and Wikidata. The small, not-for-profit Wikimedia Foundation employs 150 staff to manage the site's servers, administration and legal issues.
Wikipedia's annual conference Wikimania will be held in London for the first time next year, where about 10,000 fans, editors and volunteers are expected to attend the free event at the Barbican in August 2014.
Since you’re here…
… we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading and supporting our independent, investigative reporting than ever before. And unlike many news organisations, we have chosen an approach that allows us to keep our journalism accessible to all, regardless of where they live or what they can afford.
The Guardian is editorially independent, meaning we set our own agenda. Our journalism is free from commercial bias and not influenced by billionaire owners, politicians or shareholders. No one edits our editor. No one steers our opinion. This is important as it enables us to give a voice to those less heard, challenge the powerful and hold them to account. It’s what makes us different to so many others in the media, at a time when factual, honest reporting is critical.
Every contribution we receive from readers like you, big or small, goes directly into funding our journalism. This support enables us to keep working as we do – but we must maintain and build on it for every year to come.
Support The Guardian from as little as €1 – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.
Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales: 'It's true, I'm not a billionaire. So?' – interview
The Observer Jimmy Wales by Carole Cadwalladr
The co-founder of Wikipedia on why he believes enriching the mind is more important than profits
[Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales
Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales.
On Wikipedia, you're "Jimbo", are you called that in the real world too?
No. Just Jimmy in the real world.
Many many years ago, when I first got on the internet,
I was on this mailing list where there was already a James, a Jim, a Jimmy, so I said: "I'll be Jimbo."
And are you still the self-styled benevolent dictator of Wikipedia?
No, I've always rejected that term. The community has always rejected the term. But I do say that I'm the constitutional monarch.
Like the Queen. It doesn't mean I have any actual power. I do a lot of waving.
Do you feel like you're an adopted Brit these days?
I've been here for quite a while, and my wife is English. We live in central London and I'm quite stuck in here.
We are meeting near "Silicon roundabout". Have you had much involvement with the UK tech start-up scene?
I've been here for a while, and I know loads of people who've done different startups. I love those guys and what they're doing.
I think London is such a great place. In the US, Washington is politics, LA is Hollywood, San Francisco is tech,
New York is advertising and finance, but London is all of those things. So, you get a real mix of people and you don't get that in the US.
You must get pitched by an awful lot of companies, but you've just announced you're joining a virtual mobile phone network,
the People's Operator as its co-chair. What was the draw?
Usually I get pitched things that have some great noble purpose and a great vision, but no practical plan.
Or I see quite perfectly nice business ideas and I've been on the board of some startups and I do enjoy that.
But, this was both – the idea that we could raise a huge amount of money for good causes,
while at the same time having a business model that worked. I thought that was actually an interesting combination.
So 10% of a customer's bill will go to the cause of their choice, and 25% of profits to a foundation.
And the plan is to raise a billion dollars for good causes?
Yeah that would be amazing. It may take a while.
In a New York Times profile of you last year, there was a suggestion that it might be nice for you
to do something that you actually get paid for.
Well, that was the weirdest piece I've ever read. It was false on multiple points.
They made quite a big deal about the fact that you were the only world famous internet entrepreneur who didn't actually have all that much money.
That fact is true, I'm not a billionaire. So? You aren't either, so are not most people. It's kind of a stupid thing to bang on about.
But most of us haven't set up this phenomenal thing, the fifth most popular website in the world.
Yeah, but I love it. It's so fun.
Do you get fed up with that question? Do you ever regret donating Wikipedia to the Wikipedia Foundation
and not turning it into a commercial enterprise?
No. I mean, I get asked it less now than I used to. But it's one of the least interesting questions I think there is, so ...
The New York Times claimed that your net worth is $1m, which it said "isn't Silicon Valley money.
It's not even London money." There is a point to that, because actually a million dollars wouldn't buy you much more
than a small terraced house in inner London these days.
But then every conversation in London very quickly converges on property prices. People in London are obsessed with property prices. That and schools.
You've spoken out publicly about the NSA revelations, but how surprised were you when that first headline hit?
Or did you suspect something like that was going on?
I was surprised by the scale, by some of the revelations. I was surprised - as Google was -that they were tapping into lines inside,
between the data centres of Google. That's pretty amazing. And hacking Angela Merkel's phone – that was a surprise.
But I think we haven't yet had the revelation that will really set people off.
You've said that you're going to start encrypting communications on Wikipedia as a result…
We have done. It's not completely finished yet but the only thing that GCHQ, hopefully, can see is that you're looking at Wikipedia.
They can't see which article you're reading. It's not the government's business to know what everybody is reading.
You raise money for Wikipedia by campaigning and asking the public for money. Are there things you'd like to do that you can't because of lack of funds?
We have certain goals which we want to achieve. Growing Wikipedia in the languages of the developing world is really important.
If Wikipedia were capitalised in the same way as these Silicon Valley companies, wouldn't you have more money to do more things?
No, no, because if we were in that situation, we wouldn't care about the languages, for example.
If we were supported by advertising, we would care about entries that get another million users in the US but
not what might be of interest to another million readers in India.
A big part of my aesthetic vision for Wikipedia is that it is like a temple for the mind. I'm not anti-commerce,
but I don't think it belongs in every aspect of life.
But there are problems, aren't there, with commerce entering Wikipedia? One example of this was mentioned in
the comments beneath an article about the People's Operator which claimed the Wikipedia entry for the People's Operator
was written by its marketing consultant.
No, it wasn't. I'd rather not talk about him.
But, when I looked at the Wikipedia entry for the People's Operator and looked at the history of the article,
and then Googled the name of the person who had written the initial entry and looked him up on LinkedIn,
it stated he was a marketing consultant for the People's Operator.
I'll have to look that up. That's very interesting. A lot of companies struggle with what they're supposed to do.
This was long before they got me in because we're very strict about this sort of thing.
To me, it's quite important that companies understand the right way to deal and interact with Wikipedia.
It's quite common, not only for companies, but for individuals to say: "Oh, there is an error about me. I think I'll fix it."
We advise against it. It's just not the wisest thing to do.
There was a funny story about you not being able to correct your own birth date on Wikipedia.
Yeah, it's more complicated than that because all my legal documents say one thing, and my mum says another.
And you couldn't verify it?
With what? A note from my mum? The last I looked the discussions died down. I think it's right now.
How much do you get involved in the day-to-day ongoing spats on Wikipedia?
I edit Wikipedia almost everyday.
Do you have pet entries that you like to look at?
I used to edit a lot about the House of Lords. It was kind of a hobby. I don't any more because I know too many of them.
I've read that of the people who write Wikipedia and edit it, something like 85% are male.
And this is supposed to be the sum of all human knowledge.
But it's the sum of all human knowledge as written by men about subjects that interest men from a male point of view.
It's a huge problem. It's something that we're really keen to resolve. It's technically quite geeky which excludes a lot of people.
Computer geeks are overwhelmingly male. That is a part of the gender imbalance.
Another is that Wikipedia is written in this very authoritative style and, as you know, men have no problem speaking
in an authoritative manner about something they know nothing about. And woman are much more sensible.
And the third problem is: are we a welcoming environment for a variety of people?
There's a lot of internal research going on about that sort of thing.[Wiki Wedding]
Tony Blair was at your wedding. Did you see him doing dad dancing?
I have seen Tony Blair dance. That's all I'm allowed to say. My wife worked for him for 10 years so they are very good friends.
The description he gave of her in his memoirs sounded a bit scary.
"She ruled my diary with a rod of iron and if anyone interfered, she'd squeeze their balls so hard …" Or something.
But always with a winning smile.
Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia
By Dariusz Jemielniak
The contrasting philosophies ( libertarian vs. the new left; increasing human freedoms vs. the system of new oppressions; peer production as altruistic collective endeavour vs. being brainwashed into free labour) do not have to be mutually exclusive. Wikipedia may partly rely on normative and ideological control, yet the dark side of that control, observable in commercial in commercial organisations ( Barley & Kunda, 2004; Fleming & Spicer, 2004), does not occur in Wikipedia because of the entirely voluntary character of its organisation. Wikipedia may also be an example of "peer progressivism" (S. Johnson, 2012, P.45), characteristic of the digital natives, and combine the concepts traditionally associated
In the previous chapters, I describe the advancing bureaucratization of Wikipedia, increased formalities, and further departure from the original principles ( such as "ignore all rules"). All these phenomena are exacerbated by the transformation in personal leadership. The initial Wikipedia culture was typical for a start-up: entrepreneurial and oriented toward innovation (Bernard, 2009). These traits are not natural in the long run and require additional fostering, and bureaucracy is known to smother them (Sorenson, 2007; Girard, 2009). Transitions in leadership are particularly dangerous to these traits ( Foley, 2008), The problem with the benevolent dictatorship model is that it does not allow for a such a transition; one cannot be elected dictator. The only possible change is that Wikipedia experienced, to the democratic system, with no way back.
However, one unfortunate side effect of the anti-leadership rhetoric in Wikipedia culture i snot that it may eliminate leaders ( who emerge in all communities) but that it results in the community denying to have them and consequently prohibiting recruitment and solid legitimization of new leaders (Epstein, 2001; O'Neil, 2009). Jimmy Wales's leadership however, has not decline, but evolved. As already noted, the decision to stop managing enabled Jimmy wales to start leading. The events described in this chapter and Jimmy Wales's seemingly liberate strategy of withdrawing from active involvement worked synergistically to limit his micromanagement, which was becoming incongruous with the democratic goverance model, and allow Jimmy Wales to exercise leadership on a larger scale and on a higher level.
The postindustrial revolution is organisation designs has led ti flatter structures, less hierarchy, and more organizing (Bauman, 1998). The Emerging postmodern culture of authority relies on shorter power distance and open expression of feelings (Hirschborn, 1998). Both the incidents I describe indicate that Jimmy Wales's actions were rejected only when he was perceived as exerting traditional authoritarian leadership. The rejection, executed openly and without pardon, signified that the community adopted the new model. it did not signify the rejection of Wales in his leadership role.
Paradoxically, only less involvement in direct management help Jimmy Wales reach his higher leadership potential in the Wikipedia organisation. This is because open-collaboration communities are particularly sensitive to the congruence of a leadership model (benevolent dictatorship involves close participation in the community, the democratic approach requires passing the micromanagement and smaller-scale actions to the community in full, which encourages higher-level engagement. Thus, it is the community of the accepted leadership model with the leadership practices that seems to determine the model's effectiveness.
Wikipedia has evolved its egalitarian organizational design and was able to sustain it under the unique leadership of its creators, Jimmy Wales. As leadership began to change, the design became unstable and sought a new equilibrium.
The Knowledge Revolution at the Gates
Page 182- 183
In this books, I describe the results of a six-year ethographic, participative research project on Wikipedia. I introduce the principles by which this community lives and show that the discourse of equality on Wikipedia also perpetuated the fears of authority. I explain how the theoretically ahierarchical system may increase the perception of inequality in practice and how the hierarchy is enacted through community elections ( the only frequent occasion for the community at large to exercise its power ). I show that although Wikipedia is often portrayed as collaborative and peaceful, it relies just as much on conflicts and disputed. I describe how the gradual and incremental increase in participation in editing determines both the attractiveness of this endeavor and its addictiveness and, consequently, displays of irascibility. I explain how the seemingly chaotic, anarchistic, and laissez-faire organization of cooperation on Wikipedia is, in fact, susceptable to extremely tight control through observation and registration of all behaviour, which structures the discourse of participants, and through procedures. I analyse the accumulation of bureaucracy in terms of the iron law of oligarchy, the need to establish and reinstate hierarchies, and the support of disproportionate technological power between veterans and newcomers. I also show how organisational control, so strict in other aspects, is more lenient in terms of credential checks as a result of a transformation of interpersonal trust and of trust in procedures. I describe how disregard for real-world credentials and formal authority helps sustain the Wikipedia community, both by allowing an alternative authority- building pattern and by negating the ossified .....
One attribute of the postindustrial meritocracy is exactly such weighting of knowledge against titles. Wikipedia makes it possible to spread the weight of contributions until they are small enough that people are willing to offer what they do for free, without significant effort and with a major benefit for the whole community. Keen's contempt for this model indicated that he wants to believe the typically neoliberal economic paradigm that people are ruled mainly by self-interest, which excludes rational contributions to production of public good, even though open-collaboration communities are showing the opposite (Ostrom, 2000; Benkler, 2011). he also doe snot see the liberation in the new modes of knowledge production and the demise of the traditional ones (Scott et al., 1994). Wikipedia encompasses the capitalist mode of productions and is the avant-guard of the emerging informational-communal approach (Barbrook, 2000; Hardt & Negri, 2001, O'Neil, 2011a; Firer-Blaess & Fuchs, 2013). Also, keen apparently ignores the contexts in which "the wisdom of crowds" is particularly effective (Surowiecki, 2004) and seems to believe the the Taylorist divide - some think and give orders, and others physically work and are passive recipients of morsels of knowledge graciously given by the order givers- is still effective ( Blacker, 1995).
Moreover, J. Lanier's and Keen's critique of Wikipedia assumes that the multiple authorship of Wikipedia articles dilutes authors' intellect and individuality and reduces them to a sort of a smart mob, composed of anonymous, chaotic, and contingent passerby, heavily relying on free-riding (R. Levine, 2001). While this argument sounds reasonable, it does not hold water in practice (Tumlin, Harris, Buchanan, Schmidt, & Johnson, 2007). It is obviously not true of Wikipedia, which relies equally on single-edit authors and on a stable, highly active community. As Yochai Benkler observes, "Wikipedia is not faceless, by and ;large. Its participants develop, mostly, persistent identities (even if not by real name) and communities around the definitions" (2006a).
Similarly, objections to the dispersed authorship model, expresses also by people sympathethic
design, which depict Wikipedia as a "publish then filter" endeavor, as opposed to a traditional enyclopedia that relies on the "filter then filter" endeavor, as opposed to a traditional encylopdia that relies on the "filter then publish" principle ( Shirky, 2008, P.98), may be considered at least partially in adequate, since "publishing" means fundamentally different things in the age of the internet. Granted, anyone can make edits to Wikipedia, and the changes are visible instantly (more recently changes introduced by new users on many Wikipedia do not appear until more authority as well as knowledge, naturally, should still help in making their arguments stronger, but the aura of expertise is gone. Wikipedia redefines the modes of knowledge enactment and development by reconceptualizing it into a many-to many relation and "participatory expertise" (Pfisher, 2011, O. 229). The innovative construction of interpersonal trust and identity on Wikipedia stems from the need to discard the traditional hierarchy of knowledge production, so that the social organization of collaberation could work the way it does. In this sense, some disregard for academic titles ( in terms of purely formal recognition of authority, without some actual expertise) is embedded in the philosophy of the movement.
While knowledge management may be just a fad in consulting in business literature (Jemielniak & Kociatkiewicz, 2009), management of knowledge through crowd sourcing has brought a successful redefinition of social knowledge boundaries, of which the Wikipedia movement is a part. The resulting inevitable redistribution of social power (Foucault, 1982) is probably even more significant in the long run than the parallel transformation of consumers of culture into its producers (Bruns, 2008). The new mode of knowledge production surpasses the traditional, hierarchical, turf-driven, and caste-like system that universities depend on (Gibbons, 200; Godin 7 Gingras, 2000; Bartunek. 2011), being possibly more effective than research institutions at engaging the practitioners and society.
This knowledge - and power-distribution revolution may surprise and perhaps frighten many, which may be why technology pundits and scholars are eager to predict the demise of Wikipedia. For instance, Eric Goldman a professor of law at Santa Clara University, claimed in 2005 that "Wikipedia will fail within 5 years" (Goldman, 2005), because of its overly open nature, the gradual decrease in the community's enthusiasm, and its inability to counter spam and vandalism. As years pass, he repeats his prophesy but changes the timeline (N. Anderson, 2009).
Others, even though they do not expect Wikipedia's demise any time soon, perceive it as a cult (Arthur, 2005; peters, 2007; Metz, 2008b). In the words of Sam Vaknin,
"All cults are the same: they spawn a hierarchy, sport arcane rules, suffer from paranoid insularity, do not tolerate dissent, criticism, and disagreement, and ascribe to themselves a cosmic grandiose mission. No Cult is benign. All cults are run by individuals with narcissistic traits and the Wikipedia is no exception ( 2010)
Still others, despite appreciating the merits of Wikipedia, see it as based on a system of injustice, power play, and domination (O'Neil, 2011a) and as a flawed knowledge community (Roberts & Peters, 2011).
These views notwithstanding, the perception of Wikipedia even in academic circles has improved over time, as has the perception of its quality (Shachaf,2009), and scholars not only rely on it, but also support it (Bateman & Logan, 2010; Heilman et al., 2011) and use it as a teaching tool (Konieczny, 2012), although man of them recognise that Wikipedia is a challenge to traditional acedemic authority (Eijkman, 2010). As Matthew battles observes:
".. Authority, after all, flows ultimately from results, not from such hierophantic trappings as degrees, editorial mastheads, and neoclassical columns. And if the underprivileged (or under-titled) among us are supposed to keep quite, who will enforce their silence - the government? Universities and foundations? Internet service providers and media conglomerated? Are these the authorities - or their avatars in the form of vetted, credentialed content - to whom it should be our privilege to defer?
Experience, expertise, and authority do retain their power on the web. What's evolving now are tools to discover and amplify individual expertise wherever it may emerge. ( 2007).
This corresponds well with Clay Shirky's observation:
"... In fact what Wikipedia presages is a change in the nature of authority. prior to Britannica, most encyclopedias derived their authority from the author. Britannica came along and made the relatively radical assertion that you could vest authority in an institution. You trust Britannica , and then we go in turn out and get the people to write the articles. What Wikipedia suggests is that you can vest authority is a visible process. As long as you can see how Wikipedia's working, and can see that the results are acceptable, you can come over time to trust that. And that it s really profound challenge to our notions of what it means to be an institution, what it means to trust something, what it means to be an institution, what it means to trust something, what it means to have authority in this society. (Quoted in Gauntlett, 2009. P.42)
In a broader sense, Wikipedia, with all its flaws, is still an embodiment of a Habermasian rational discourse platform, emancipating communication of knowledge and allowing egalitarian knowledge creation and sharing and contradicting the thesis of information technology as a tool of social control and domination (Cammaerts, 2008; Hansen, Berente, & Lyytinen, 2009) .....
--© All rights reserved
``Wikipedia Exposed Media - WEM