[Week 2] Godwin's Law Kicked In

By Frederic Pedersen

for the Collective Intelligence in Practice course
Associated professor: Piotr Konieczny
Hanyang University ERICA, South Korea

The purpose of this blog post is to discuss week 2's assigned reading: Joseph Reagle's Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia: 

• Chapter 1: Nazis and Norms

1. Summary

Reagle contrasts and compares Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies, to Wikipedia's "Wikiquette." Godwin's Law states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” On the other hand, the Wikiquette includes guidelines such as "Assume Good Faith" (AGF) and "Please Do Not Bite the Newcomers."

He explains how Wikipedia's vision is not exclusive to the new millennia, as there have been predecessors. Nupedia, a Free and Open Software (FOSS) that allowed users to read and improve on the software. 

Reagle moves on to the technical features of Wikipedia and its escalation in numbers since Nupedia's servers crashing in 2003, when contributers moved on permanently. He establishes a number of different user-groups within Wikipedia whose classification can be attributed to the frequency by which they edit. 

The "Holy Trinity of Wikipedia", three main policies that must be followed, constitute the core of the encyclopedia's culture. Jimmy Wales consider these three different aspects of the same thing, as one does not dominate over the other. If something seems to not follow one, it must be left out entirely.

2. Learnings and items of interest

Ironically, this reading opened up immediately to Nazi-analogies, where I had left off some of my previous blog post. From all of the possible angles I could have approached my first post, Godwin's Law did indeed kick in and I analogized Nazism out of all means of providing examples.

I found and read this reading immediately after finishing my blog post, and the sheer coincidence of reality humored me greatly. Wikipedia and I myself as a digital citizen are indeed of the one and same collective online intelligence. 

In the foreword, it was mentioned by Lessig how Reagle possessed great knowledge of the technical aspects of Wikipedia, which were described to be uninhibiting to his ethnographic study of its culture. I found this chapter to show exactly how technically smart he is - but felt a little unable to follow the point without re-reading his explanations, being bombarded with numbers and dates. 

He outlines some of the technical features, and then the Holy Trinity, empowering me as a future editor with the capabilities and knowledge needed to move into the platform, knowing what to expect (and how to treat others).

3. Discussion angle

I somehow expect to have most of my questions answered naturally throughout this course and the reading of this book. However one aspect I do not think will be dwelled upon is: 'Where else do "powerful" contributors of Wikipedia consider themselves native to?'. 

I have used Wikipedia since I can remember accessing the site in my early years on the Internet. The individuals who I imagined dedicated to the site were not too different from me I assumed; spending many hours a day every day on the Internet. Where else do they frequent? What other cultures are they part of? Certain famous forums or imageboards of the Internet have been running side-by-side with big, important websites such as Wikipedia, as the mass of people on each site were simply one aspect of the Internet citizen represented through whatever etiquette each site allowed them to move within. Therefore I would find it interesting to see whether the prominent individuals of e.g. Wikipedia were also somehow involved in other greater schemes of the Internet throughout their years. 

It's without doubt that the sense of pride and accomplishment one feels when successfully creating content on Wikipedia is part of, if not the whole reward. Therefore I think that the individuals who revel in this pride also found other types of similar pleasures on the Internet simultaneously with or before their contributions.