Difference between revisions of "Chapter 20"

From The Wikipedia POV
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
[[File:Chapter 20.jpg|thumb|right|260px| Content should be free, for there is no such thing as originality]]
+
[[File:Chapter 19.jpg|thumb|right|260px| She was a woman living in a misogynist world]]
 +
<blockquote>She stared at the page with a mixture of horror and disbelief. A new misogynistic sexual practice. ''Donkey punch''. Was it for real? Supposedly ‘fucking someone in the ass and then punching them hard in the back of the head or neck, so that the sudden pain and/or unconsciousness causes the asshole to constract spasmodically”.    It affected her so deeply that she burst into tears and slammed the lid of her laptop. It’s not that she hadn’t seen uglier things. “It was that sexualized violence against women is now so normalized that somehow, it’s deemed appropriate to graphically illustrate it on fucking Wikipedia”. She was a woman living in a misogynist world, “a world I’ve watched grow only more deeply misogynist over the course of my adult life”.</blockquote>
  
 +
Wikipedia set out with a grand utopian vision, promising power to a community that anyone could join, promising to bring all human knowledge the whole world.  As long as the government, or any other elitist self-elected group did not interfere with the editing process, everything was supposed to work out fine. What went wrong? How did the site that anyone can edit turn into a site that was repulsive to women, and to many other groups and communities in the outside world?
  
−
<blockquote>''In Silicon Valley, the information that wants to be free is almost always the information that belongs to someone else''. (Rob Levine)
+
‘Wikipedia is not censored’ says Wikipedia.  Yet practically everyone in the world accepts age restrictions on pornography, especially extreme pornography. “Only Wikipedia pretends that this is somehow some sort of novel idea, created as a special and inequitable imposition on Wikimedia, that threatens the survival of the civilised world – as though that survival depended on people’s ability to upload their sex-tourism porn made in Thailand and images of their inflated scrotums anonymously”.   
−
</blockquote>
 
−
 
 
−
Mountain view in Silicon Valley is one of those American ‘edge cities’.  It is no place for a crowd to gather, yet it witnessed the beginning of the most unlikely rebellion in the history of rebellions: ‘the largest online protest in history’.
 
−
 
 
−
Before the 1990s, there were two kinds of industry. The content industry produced books, music, films, news.  The ‘tech’ industry specialised in computing and communications and hardware.  Originally, there was little competition between these two giants.  At the end of the 1990s, they converge upon one another as analogue turns into digital. The media industry see computers and the whole internet as one vast, out of control photocopying machine, threatening to pirate their content and drive their revenue to nothing.  The technology industry see copyright legislation as a potential threat to its business of producing devices, the infrastructure, and the software powering the digital revolution. 
 
−
 
 
−
Their war spills out onto Wikipedia, which with the support of the technology giants blacks itself out for 24 hours, in protest against legislation which it claims will prevent the distribution of free knowledge. ‘A reckless and burdensome model in Internet censorship’. 
 
−
 
 
−
Wikipedia supports the technology industry because it needs content which is free, and content should be free, for there is no such thing as originality. “All that we make and do is shaped by the communities and traditions that contain us, not to mention by money, power, politics, and luck”.  Other ‘New Media’ academics like Clay Shirky and Jeff Jarvis have argued that we do not need professional journalists because the crowd knows more in its collective wisdom than any individual journalist could. Jonathan Latham argued that all ideas are secondhand “consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources, and daily used by the garnerer with a pride and satisfaction born of the superstition that he originated them”. 
 
−
 
 
−
These ideas are at the heart of Wikipedia, which accords no special status for content creators, and which merely creates a ‘garden’ in which such creation can flourish. It is a deep irony that liberals and progressives, who for centuries had hailed artists and poets as the ‘unacknowledged legislators’ of mankind, have dropped their support for their old allies. “The progressive’s support of creator’s rights expressed an optimistic view of society and human nature. But ever since digital utopianism swept through the chattering classes in the early 1990s, this positive view has been replaced by one of misanthropy and paranoia”, says Andrew Orlowski.  “Progressives now see the right to be remunerated from cultural production in the digital age as at best an embarrassment, and at worst an anachronism”.
 
−
 
 
−
Culture is not the product of the Romantic hero, Manfred-like in his castle of the mind.  The new artistic hero of Web 2 is not Byron or Beethoven, but rather the inbred banjo player who duels on the porch in the movie ''Deliverance''.
 
  
 +
<noinclude>
 
==See also==
 
==See also==
 
*[[Chapter 19]]
 
*[[Chapter 19]]
 
*[[Wikipedia through the Looking Glass]]
 
*[[Wikipedia through the Looking Glass]]
 
*[[Chapter 21]]
 
*[[Chapter 21]]
 +
 +
[[Category:Chapters]]
 +
[[category:Released]]
 +
</noinclude>

Latest revision as of 15:36, 5 April 2014

She was a woman living in a misogynist world

She stared at the page with a mixture of horror and disbelief. A new misogynistic sexual practice. Donkey punch. Was it for real? Supposedly ‘fucking someone in the ass and then punching them hard in the back of the head or neck, so that the sudden pain and/or unconsciousness causes the asshole to constract spasmodically”. It affected her so deeply that she burst into tears and slammed the lid of her laptop. It’s not that she hadn’t seen uglier things. “It was that sexualized violence against women is now so normalized that somehow, it’s deemed appropriate to graphically illustrate it on fucking Wikipedia”. She was a woman living in a misogynist world, “a world I’ve watched grow only more deeply misogynist over the course of my adult life”.

Wikipedia set out with a grand utopian vision, promising power to a community that anyone could join, promising to bring all human knowledge the whole world. As long as the government, or any other elitist self-elected group did not interfere with the editing process, everything was supposed to work out fine. What went wrong? How did the site that anyone can edit turn into a site that was repulsive to women, and to many other groups and communities in the outside world?

‘Wikipedia is not censored’ says Wikipedia. Yet practically everyone in the world accepts age restrictions on pornography, especially extreme pornography. “Only Wikipedia pretends that this is somehow some sort of novel idea, created as a special and inequitable imposition on Wikimedia, that threatens the survival of the civilised world – as though that survival depended on people’s ability to upload their sex-tourism porn made in Thailand and images of their inflated scrotums anonymously”.


See also

Retrieved from "http://www.logicmuseum.com/x/index.php?title=Chapter_20&oldid=19522"