Aucun appareil Kindle n'est requis. Téléchargez l'une des applis Kindle gratuites et commencez à lire les livres Kindle sur votre smartphone, tablette ou ordinateur.

  • Apple
  • Android
  • Windows Phone
  • Android

Pour obtenir l'appli gratuite, saisissez votre numéro de téléphone mobile.

Prix Kindle : EUR 11,91
TVA incluse

Ces promotions seront appliquées à cet article :

Certaines promotions sont cumulables avec d'autres offres promotionnelles, d'autres non. Pour en savoir plus, veuillez vous référer aux conditions générales de ces promotions.

Envoyer sur votre Kindle ou un autre appareil

Envoyer sur votre Kindle ou un autre appareil

Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia par [Reagle, Joseph M., Lessig, Lawrence]
Publicité sur l'appli Kindle

Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia Format Kindle


Voir les formats et éditions Masquer les autres formats et éditions
Prix Amazon
Neuf à partir de Occasion à partir de
Format Kindle
"Veuillez réessayer"
EUR 11,91
Relié
"Veuillez réessayer"
EUR 36,91 EUR 3,12

Longueur : 264 pages Langue : Anglais

Descriptions du produit

Présentation de l'éditeur

Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, is built by a community -- a community of Wikipedians who are expected to "assume good faith" when interacting with one another. In Good Faith Collaboration, Joseph Reagle examines this unique collaborative culture. Wikipedia, says Reagle, is not the first effort to create a freely shared, universal encyclopedia; its early twentieth-century ancestors include Paul Otlet's Universal Repository and H. G. Wells's proposal for a World Brain. Both these projects, like Wikipedia, were fuelled by new technology -- which at the time included index cards and microfilm. What distinguishes Wikipedia from these and other more recent ventures is Wikipedia's good-faith collaborative culture, as seen not only in the writing and editing of articles but also in their discussion pages and edit histories. Keeping an open perspective on both knowledge claims and other contributors, Reagle argues, creates an extraordinary collaborative potential. Wikipedia's style of collaborative production has been imitated, analyzed, and satirized. Despite the social unease over its implications for individual autonomy, institutional authority, and the character (and quality) of cultural products, Wikipedia's good-faith collaborative culture has brought us closer than ever to a realization of the century-old pursuit of a universal encyclopedia.

Détails sur le produit

  • Format : Format Kindle
  • Taille du fichier : 2186 KB
  • Nombre de pages de l'édition imprimée : 264 pages
  • Editeur : The MIT Press; Édition : Reprint (21 septembre 2012)
  • Vendu par : Amazon Media EU S.à r.l.
  • Langue : Anglais
  • ASIN: B004HD49OO
  • Synthèse vocale : Activée
  • X-Ray :
  • Word Wise: Non activé
  • Composition améliorée: Non activé
  • Moyenne des commentaires client : Soyez la première personne à écrire un commentaire sur cet article
  • Classement des meilleures ventes d'Amazon: n°682.085 dans la Boutique Kindle (Voir le Top 100 dans la Boutique Kindle)
  •  Voulez-vous faire un commentaire sur des images ou nous signaler un prix inférieur ?

click to open popover

Commentaires en ligne

Il n'y a pas encore de commentaires clients sur Amazon.fr
5 étoiles
4 étoiles
3 étoiles
2 étoiles
1 étoile

Commentaires client les plus utiles sur Amazon.com (beta)

Amazon.com: HASH(0x917663c0) étoiles sur 5 3 commentaires
12 internautes sur 14 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
HASH(0x91f86420) étoiles sur 5 A stepping stone for understanding Wikipedia 27 octobre 2010
Par Sage Ross - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format: Relié Achat vérifié
Joseph Reagle's Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia is a major step forward for understanding "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and the community that has been building it for the past decade. Based on Reagle's dissertation, the book takes a broadly humanistic approach to exploring what makes the Wikipedia community tick, combining elements of anthropology, sociology, history, and science & technology studies.

The book opens with an example of how Wikipedia works that turns the famous "Godwin's law" on its head: unlike the typical Internet discussion where heated argument gives way to accusations of Nazism, Wikipedians are shown rationally and respectfully discussing actual neo-Nazis who have taken an unhealthy interest in Wikipedia. This theme of "laws" carries throughout the book, which treats the official and unofficial norms of Wikipedia while turning repeatedly to the humorous and often ironic "laws of Wikipedia" that contributors have compiled as they tried to come to an understanding of their own community.

Reagle's first task is to put Wikipedia into historical context. It is only the most recent in a long line of attempts to create a universal encyclopedia. And what Reagle shows, much better than prior, more elementary pre-histories of Wikipedia, is just how much Wikipedia has in common--in terms of aspiration and ideology--with earlier efforts. The "encyclopedic impulse" has run strong in eccentrics dating back centuries. But the real forerunners of Wikipedia come from the late 19th and early 20th centuries: Paul Otlet's "Universal Bibliographic Repertory" and H.G. Wells' "World Brain". Both projects aspired to revolutionize how knowledge was organized and transmitted, with implications far beyond mere education. Just as the Wikimedia Foundation's mission statement implies--"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge..."--Otlet and Wells saw Utopian potential in their projects. Those efforts were based on new technologies--index cards and microfilm--and each new wave of information technology since then has inspired another attempt at a universal knowledge resource: Project Xanadu, Project Gutenburg, Interpedia, Distributed Encyclopedia, Nupedia, GNUpedia. Wikipedia, Reagle argues, is the inheritor of that tradition.

Next, Reagle sets out to capture the social norms that the Wikipedia community uses as the basis for its communication and collaboration practices. These will be very familiar to Wikipedians, but Reagle does a nice job of explaining the concepts of "neutral point of view" and the call to "assume good faith" when working with other editors, and how these two norms (and related ones) underlay Wikipedia's collaborative culture. Of course, Reagle readily recognizes that these norms have limits, and one doesn't have to go far into Wikipedia's discussion pages to find examples where they break down. But understanding the aspirations of the community in terms of these norms is the first step to an overall picture of how and why Wikipedia works (and, at times, doesn't work).

Reagle then turns to consider the "openness" of Wikipedia, which is an example of what he calls an "open content community". Wikipedia's effort to be the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" means that inclusiveness creates a continual set of tensions--between productive and unproductive contributors, between autonomy and bureaucracy, between transparency and tendency of minorities to form protected enclaves.

Decisionmaking and leadership on Wikipedia are even bigger challenges than openness. In successive chapters, Reagle examines the concept of "consensus" as practiced by the Wikipedia community and the role that founders Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger played in setting the early course of the project.

The ideal of consensus was inherited from earlier open technical communities like the Internet Engineering Task Force, whose credo declares "We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code." But that ideal doesn't map precisely onto Wikipedia, in part because the "running code" of Wikipedia content isn't as easy to evaluate as a computer program. Reagle also draws in intriguing comparison between Wikipedia's still-unsettled notions of consensus and the practices of a more mature consensus-based community: the Quakers. Wikipedia lacks some of the roles and traditions that support decision-making in Quaker groups, and one implication of Reagle's discussion is that Wikipedians might be able to learn a lot about effective consensus-based governance from the Quakers.

The lasting imprint of Wikipedia's founders, the "good cop" Wales and the "bad cop" Sanger, has been treated a number of times before. But Reagle's is the clearest account yet of how the tension between their different ideas for how to structure a voluntary encyclopedia project played out. Especially in the early years of Wikipedia, Wales' role was primarily focused on maintaining a healthy community and balancing the perspectives of community members, highlighting good ideas and attempting to build consensus rather than promoting his own specific ideas. Even from early on, though, Wales' role as "benevolent dictator" (or "God-King", in the negative formulation) was a source of tension. Reagle notes that this tension is a recurring feature in open content communities; even the half-joking titles given to Wales are part of a broader tradition that traces to early online communities.

From my perspective as a Wikipedian--already familiar with norms and much of the short history of Wikipedia--the most powerful part of the book is the discussion of "encyclopedic anxiety". Reagle argues that reference works have long provoked reactions from broader society that say more about general social unease than the specific virtues and faults of the reference work at hand. Wikipedia is a synecdoche for the changes taking place in information technology and the media landscape, and has served as a reference point for a wide gamut of social critics exploring the faults and virtues of 21st century online culture. That is not to say criticism of Wikipedia is always, or even usually, off-base. But what critics latch onto, and what they don't, involves the interplay of the reality of Wikipedia and its role as a simultaneous exemplar for many social currents and trends.

Good Faith Collaboration is an enjoyable read, erudite but well-written and straightforward. It will be required reading for anyone serious about understanding Wikipedia.

*disclaimer: I consider Joseph Reagle a friend, and he thanks me in the preface. I read and commented on early versions of parts of the book. At the time of writing this review (October 2010) I also work for the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit that runs Wikipedia. But neither of those factors would stop me from being harsh if I thought the book deserved it. The review represents my personal opinion.
9 internautes sur 13 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
HASH(0x92646438) étoiles sur 5 Good history of Wikipedia and what makes it tick 2 novembre 2010
Par A cappella - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format: Relié
This is very good book about Wikipedia and its history. The author is extremely knowledgeable about the subject and presents a thorough analysis of Wikipedia, Wikipedians and the community that they have created. I especially enjoyed the chapter on collaboration and the mores governing behavior on Wikipedia!
33 internautes sur 86 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
HASH(0x912297bc) étoiles sur 5 Author refuses to accept critique 29 septembre 2010
Par G. Kohs - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format: Relié
I wouldn't think of buying this book, based on my complete reading of the freely-available first chapter. It's no surprise to me that the lead endorsements of the book come from fellow Berkman Fellow Jonathan Zittrain, then another Berkman Fellow and Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, then followed by Wikimedia Foundation director Sue Gardner. It might as well have been written by the Wikimedia Foundation's own public relations and communications manager.

The entire work regurgitates the tired old public relations pablum that the Wikipedia organization sputters forth on the Internet and on the increasingly uncritical media that fails to actually investigate stories any more. As Seth Finkelstein (former columnist in the UK newspaper 'The Guardian' and award-winning analyst of technology themes) points out in a comment on Reagle's blog, that the work is extremely credulous. Finkelstein asks, "Is there anywhere in the book where [Reagle writes] something along the lines of 'The Wikipedia community tells itself a nice story here, but it's a fiction which covers up the following cultural dysfunction.' Can [Reagle] provide a quick counter-example to argue against the view that this is functionally a verbose marketing brochure for Wikipedia?" Reagle's response was to busily delete the comments of other critics who weren't so nicely worded.

One such censored critic, Kelly Martin -- a former Wikipedia Arbitration Committee member, with thousands and thousands of edits to Wikipedia to her credit -- said, "If the willful misinterpretation of the fairly transparently malicious conversation between MattCrypto and SlimVirgin that Joseph chooses to highlight there is typical of the analysis Joseph makes in this work, then it should indeed rise to stand as an exemplar of the sort of bankrupt scholarship that Wikipedia has come to be known for." Reagle removed that comment from his blog.

Reagle himself bluntly explains his mission in writing the book:

"I am focusing on Wikipedia as an exemplar; not on mean spirited trolls."

Well, sure, if you call experienced and expert criticism the work of "mean spirited trolls", it's rather convenient to dismiss them from your focus.
Ces commentaires ont-ils été utiles ? Dites-le-nous