Cyberlaw: Difficult Issues Winter 2010 - User contributions [en]

Presentation

2010-01-21T20:59:44Z

Darbix: /* Discussion Questions */

Hello — we are Amanda, Bruno, Franny, Hector and Yosuke of the Cyberlaw: Difficult Problems course. Feedback from people who use and are familiar with Wikipedia/Wikimedia is an extremely important part of formulating our proposed solution, and we thank you for your interest and contributions. We only ask that you direct your comments and input to the other [[Future of Wikipedia]] pages, and allow us to use this Presentation page to create our final class presentation. We look forward to hearing from you!

= [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaADQTeZRCY Professor Wikipedia says …] =
[[Image:Professor.jpg|100px]] [Warning: contains mild profanity.]

= General public view of Wikipedia's biggest problem [Yosuke] =
* we were trying to reach a segment primarily outside of Wikipedia editor community
* common themes in the responses we received
* majority of responses indicated content issues were the biggest problem

[[Image:Mturk01.jpg]]
[[Image:Mturk02.jpg]]
[[Image:Mturk03.jpg]]

[[Image:Mturkpie01.jpg]] [[Image:Mturkpie02.jpg]]

:'''CONTENT:'''
::''1. Too many people are writing/editing the same article.
::''2. Limit the number of people who can work on one article at any given time, and lock down good articles that shouldn't be changed, or only give access to writers/editors that are trusted.

::''1. Some of the information presented is false.
::''2. A suggestion is to make the material go through a process where it is checked by individuals before it is posted.

::''1. A lot of the information is false or inaccurate.
::''2. Have editors that check information before it is published.

::''1. it is not considered a reliable source by educators
::''2. prove that the information is reliable so students will be able to use it for academic reasons

::''1. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that not all of the information is legitimate. Wikipedia is not a good source for papers and some of the information is false. Anyone can post information there.
::''2. You can solve the problem by having a team collaborate on user's information before it is posted.

::''1. The biggest problem is its trustworthyness. I'm never sure that I can trust the information on wikipeida.
::''2. This can be fixed by being more careful about putting in citations.

::''1. I think Wikipedia's lack of total credibility is its biggest problem. Many entries lack citations verifying the accuracy.
::''2. I think the problem can be solved by finding editors to check the accuracy of the entries made by people.

::''1. I think too many big information on a given topic. Information that is unnecessary for a common man.
::''2. Wikipedia can be made short perhaps a link for "advanced reading" given seperately and only the basic information in the main page.

::''1. The grammar and sentence structure is often wrong or confusing.
::''2. Use grammar check and make people edit the texts.

::''1. The biggest problem is some of it is more opinion than fact.
::''2. A way to solve this is just to have the writer mention facts, and not on opinion or speculation.

::''1: The biggest problem is that most of the articles lack references and professionalism.
::''2: One solution is not to allow just any user to edit or create an article with providing good and "quality" references first, and then having a professional to look over the article and make sure it meets high quality standards before being published.

::''1. I think the biggest problem with the current Wikipedia is that quite a few things, such as medical terms or conditions, are either not even listed or only have a very, very basic explanation.
::''2. I think you can solve those problems by working on collecting & posting more detailed information about topics you only have a brief description of or that there is currently no information about on the site.

::''1. non expert opinion of explanation about subjects which looks like an expert explanation.
::''2. just do a simple test before letting people to post articals

::''1. I believe there is some inconsistency in the correct knowledge about topics.
::''2. This could be changed by having more experts on topics reviewing the information before it is posted.

::''1. I think the biggest problem is that anybody can submit information, and there is no real way to verify if the information is even correct or not.
::''2. Wikipedia needs to start really investigating who is submitting information and makes sure that correct information isn't tampered with.

::''1. In many articles recent updations are not clear in wiki.Sometimes wrong informations are given or outdated informations.
::''2. Make a team for checking the article ,they can create updations if needed.

::''1. Not peer reviewed.
::''2. Have professionals review articles before posted.

::''1. Extreme left wing bias, as well as failure to monitor those who have extreme bias. The Climategate scientist who edited hundreds of articles in Wikipedia and wiped out all mention of the Medieval Warm Period and anything that included discussion of other causes of global warming (such as solar activity or continuation of human deforestation as agriculture advanced) were removed.
::''2. Allow those who report slander and abuse to have the editor's changes removed. Allow those who have credentials in their field to have a higher value in their edits than general off the street users.

::''1. People write things that aren't correct or accurate on Wikipedia.
::''2. To solve the problem, Wikipedia can hire professionals to verify all information posted on Wikipedia.

::''1. Unverified informatioin.
::''2. Require the production of the reference to support the information's accuracy.

::''1. There is no standard level education or research ability to those who edit it.
::''2. Allow only those who can provide necessary abilities and pass tests and reviews by wikipedia standards.

::''1: GIVING THE UNWANTED MORE INFORMATION TRY TO REDUCE THE INFORMATION
::''2: SHORT THE STORIES INTO THE IMPORTANT LINES ONLY WHICH CAN HELPS US TO SEE THE MAIN POINTS

::''1. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is also its greatest strength - its inclusivity in that anyone can amend add information. A lot of people think that, therefore, the information on the site may not necessarily be accurate, and may even be deliberately misleading. For example : dates of death given for people who are still alive.
::''2. All information should be centrally vetted for accurate content. This should be highly publicized.

::''1. The length of the content, the huge history sections and irrelevant information.
::''2. Cut back on the history and the unneeded text sections, paraphrase.

::''1. Wikipedia describes every concept in a detailed manner; sometimes it is so deep that is confusing to layman.
::''2. This problem could be solved by adding pictorial representation of the data and also by using simple words and sentences.

::''1. Not articles on every person subject
::''2. Not everyone will write articles. Let people suggest articles that should be added, then hire people to write articles on the suggested subjects.

::''1. Anyone can edit the information so the content is unreliable.
::''2. Have a screening procedure by which people have to sign up, state credentials and a method of verifying them and be given a password in order to change or add information.

::''1. Wikipedia lacks in depth articles. Only the basics are available in many cases.
::''2. Could you link it with Google search's database somehow to get the specific result ?

::''1. Incorrect information
::''2. Restrict editing to qualified professionals in that field

::''1. The biggest problem of current Wikipedia is the absence of the staff. There are no persons from Wikipedia that have to verify authenticity of articles and correct misspellings. Wikipedia is a community-based website and that is not great.
::''2. You can solve the problem by hiring a couple of persons that can verify and correct the articles before they are stated on Wikipedia.

::''1. The biggest problem is that you can't confirm the information on there is true.
::''2. Things need to get approved and there needs to be constraints as to who can post

::''1. Whichever page you open , you have and "edit this page" and then "save this edited page" . If required anyone can edit it which can be used for actual editing the contents or otherwise prank.
::''2. I would want "edit this page" and contents to be saved in the page be given to a proper Moderator who can change the details in Wikipedia rather than allowing one and all without any proper control.

::''1. False information here and there.
::''2. Not much else you can do than increase moderation.

::''1. The fact that one still can never be completely sure if the information is correct or unbiased.
::''2. Hire historians, unbiased group to proof everything

::''1. Wikipedia has user edited information, which can sometimes lead to false information in an article. Wiki does check people's work but it may take some time before false information is removed.
::''2. To solve this problem, Wiki should have users go through a screening process before being allowed to add/edit an article.

::''1. Too little information is the problem
::''2. Provide more information on certain topics that have little information will make a huge difference

::''1. I THINK THAT WHEN IAM SEARCHING SOMETHING WIKIPEDIA DO NOT GIVES THE ORIGINAL DATA RELATING TO TOPIC
::''2. U CAN SOLV T THROUGH A BRIEF SURVEY AND STUDY ABT THE PROBLEM

::''1. Some articles seem biased
::''2. More oversight before changes are added/submitted

::''1. I think that it is extremely important to solve the problem of accuracy within the articles. This leads to Wikipedia not being a permissible source for any academic purposes.
::''2. There should be a kind of IQ test before editing is allowed. In fact, limiting editing to registered users only would be a huge step in the right direction! Good luck!

::''1. N/A
::''2. need to edit people postings information whether its is 100% real or not.

::''1. Infromation is too accurate. Sometimes only opinion of the writer is represneted. Some dates, facts may be fake.
::''2. Represent neuteral opinion. Correspond regrading dates/facts to paperback encyclopedias, they are more accurate.

::''1. the information shown in wikipedia for some particular data may not be true.that is there are false information.
::''2. it can be solved by studying more about those and putting the right information

::''1. I think the biggest problem with Wikipedia is a lot of people don't trust the validity of the answers found there.
::''2. In order to solve this problem you need to have accredited sources that provide the answers to the questions asked on the site.

::''1. The content was not updated.
::''2. Please review at least 1 month.

::''1. The biggest problem is accuracy of articles. Who knows what is fact and what is opinion.
::''2. Solving the problem can be partially done by stating Wikipedia does not guaranty the accuracy of an article.

::''1. The realiability of the information is still not where it needs to be. I have found that the information that can be found in Wikipedia is usually fairly reliable, however the website does have a reputation for having things that are not entirely true or correct.
::''2. I feel this can be solved is there are more articles on Wikipedia that are certified by professionals in the area or subject and that can vouch for the truthfulness of the information provided.

::''1. I think the biggest problem with Wikipedia is the fact that they don't have a link available on major sites such as google or yahoo.com. Therefore, making people are less likely to use it.
::''2. We can solve that problem by providing a link to Wikipedia on sites such as yahoo, google, msn, and maybe even on facebook. The website of Wikipedia itself is excellent and very useful to everyday life. They should just make it easier to access it.

::''1. Readability.
::''2. Hire people like me to implement ABC's, accuracy, brevity and clarity!

::''1. The information given isn't always accurate. I am a college student and as a rule we are banned from using Wikipedia as a source for our papers.
::''2. The problem can be solved by ensuring that the information is correct.

::''1. Sometimes the stubs have no information
::''2. request that the stubs actually have at least a link to a site or something

:'''VANDALISM AND ATTRIBUTION:'''
::''1. The biggest problem is people can use anonymity to vandalize Wikipedia in both blatant and sneaky ways.
::''2. The best way to solve the problem is to ban anonymous edits and require a verified email address. This preserves the fundamental principle of allowing anyone to edit because anyone can get a free yahoo or hotmail account and use it to register. But it will deter a lot of the vandalism because signing up for a free email account and then registering a Wiki account is more trouble than it's worth if your intent is to vandalize (and get banned quickly). But if you want to make legitimate contributions, going through the process one time is only a minor inconvenience.

::''1. People vandalising pages or putting unsourced information.
::''2. Only allowing trusted members to add content or edit information on wikipedia's pages

::''1. The ability for someone on a local computer to mess around and change words on the site.
::''2. Make the user register to post comments instead of just letting them post it. As for as myself concerned Wikipedia is on the right path and if somebody feels any hardship it will gradually be eliminated.

::''1. Sometimes you cannot trust the person who gives the information it provides.
::''2. The solution here is to have a background of the person who gave the information in Wikipedia.

::''1. People putting in information that is not correct, when they know it's not correct, but because they think it's funny/amusing.
::''2. Require information be checked by a second person before it's put into an article.

::''1. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it.
::''2. I think that those who edit the information on the site should have some sort of qualification and it should be subject to review before being displayed.

::''1. Wikipedia is open to have their definitions being changed and there have been charges that some of the definitions have been hacked and manipulated by people that want to have their version of an event validated on Wikipedia.
::''2. The solution might be to have a review panel to look over disputed items or complaints to see if the definition is valid.

::''1. Too much vandalism and unreliability of information.
::''2. Allow only registered members to edit/create pages. Make sure those registered members are confirmed through CAPTCHA, email, etc. And have more experienced moderators assigned to different categories to check page edits.

::''1. The biggest problem is that anyone can post whatever they want to the pages.
::''2. Have some way to fact-check the information before it is posted to the pages would solve the problem.

::''1. We are never sure the information are accurate.
::''2. Let members of Wikipedia Vote for article's accuracy and display on site the result out 100% (with number of votes).

::''1. There is no real control of who or what is posted.
::''2. There needs to be a "review" standard before items are published. I love to use wilipedia.

::''1. Malicious editing / reversions.
::''2. Require approval for edits e.g. at least 3 people should agree.

::''1. People can input incorrect information.
::''2. Have a review process before info is accepted

::''1. The major points of criticism of Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, are the claims that the principle of being open for editing by everyone makes Wikipedia unauthoritative and unreliable (see Reliability of Wikipedia), that it exhibits systemic bias, and that its group dynamics hinder its goals.
::''2. There are quires, reams, bales of controversy over what constitutes notability in Wikipedia. somebody will sort it out.

::''1. The biggest problem is that any one can post information on a a subject that's not totally accurate or totally false information.
::''2. Needs a authenticate the information that was put on Wikipedia. Example a professional or some one that can do this.

::''1. There's no way to guarantee if the information is correct.
::''2. Have more reliable sources.

::''1. Quality control. While some entries are great, quality varies widely. Some articles are written by experts in the area, and while this is great, they're understood only by other experts. Then there are the articles that get vandalized constantly.
::''2. Assign admins specifically to different topics. This also means that they can concentrate on one area that they enjoy instead of worrying about the whole wiki.

::''1. The fact that information can be edited to easily.
::''2. Tighter security restrictions on who can edit/add what

::''1. There is too much information of questionable veracity.
::''2. Check the credentials of people posting/editing articles.

::''1. People vandalizing the articles, i.e chancing numbers presented in statistics and facts on various pages
::''2. Each revision should be voted on and checked by others before being shown to the public

::''1. That any one can change anything.
::''2. Have a stricter set of guidelines on who can edit what.

::''1. The biggest issue with Wikipedia is that anyone can edit the information.
::''2. I believe you could allow only people that work for the company or professors from colleges with proof of their work to be able to edit the pages. That way people wont go on and change things just to be funny.

:'''SEARCH AND TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE:'''
::''1. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is not being able to find the meanings to an given subject.
::''2. The solution is to make details more simpler for others to understand so that it will be easier for users to find the answers that they are seeking.

::''1. The main problem is answers are scattered.
::''2. By ordering it we can solve it.

::''1. Using javascript (extensions/UsabilityInitiative/*) causes certain browsers (Mozilla 1.7) to crash.
::''2. Re-write scripts so that they work.

::''1. in my point of view all the answers given by the Wikipedia is perfect. but the arrangement of all answers is not attractive.
::''2. for avoid this problem please make some attraction back round and tabulation usage also must. thank you.

::''1. if we try to search anything in wikipedia means its taking much longer time to load the page than othersites.
::''2. you can increase the bandwidth of the site,thus making it a fast one

::''1. The problem is we need seperate search Engine for all fields.
::''2. plz create an search Engine about all the fields.

::''1: In terms of search pages, if doesn`t find any match it is not even bringing any related topics to its users.
::''2: In cases of not finding any match for search result, it can atleast mention linked search result thru someother search websites.

::''1. PAGE LOADING TAKING LOT OF TIME IN WIKIPEDIA when compared to Google.
::''2. Please make the site in such a way that page loads quickly

::''1. The loading time are too long in some busy time such as 7-10 PM
::''2. I am not sure is the problem appear due to the network company or the Wikipedia. if the problem due to the Wikipedia's system, i think it should improve that problem to build a new system which have better quality system.

::''1. It loads slow. Wherever I have been around the world wikipedia always shows up near the top in search results but I avoid it because it's slow.
::''2. Use all that money that was recently collected and buy more capacity for the site.

::''1. There are too many results, and some of them are not matched with the actual search results. for eg -- zuerich = zurich.
::''2. A proper keywords search should be used, that matches word to word.

:'''GOVERNANCE:'''
::''1. Wikilawyering is the most frustrating part of working on Wikipedia. A casual user like me is easily intimated when more experienced members invoke seemingly obscure Wikipedia policies.
::''2. Simplify and reduce the number of Wikipedia policy pages.

:'''USER INTERFACE / WEBDESIGN:'''
::''1. Color of the website is boring.
::''2. changing the layout is the only solution

::''1. It needs more color.
::''2. Having a new logo might help this problem.

:'''MISCELLANEOUS:'''
::''1. Funding
::''2. Offer a premium upgrade with fuller content, additional resources (eb.com, hoovers.com, amazon.com, bankrate.com, *.edu, *.gov, *.org), integrated video with real-time RSS and twitter feeds. Set the price at something low to entice those who want the upgrade as easy as saying "yes". I recommend no more than $1.99/month * 1,000,000 users the first month = $1,990,000. This would alleviate Jimmy from having to beg 3 times a year for help and would immensely improve the quality of the information. mechturk@ymail.com

::''1. I feel there is no problem in the current wikipedia. Everything is fine and we get solution for everything for everything from Wiki.
::''2. Its better give a link on everypage of wiki for a feedback, that makes to improve the wiki better.

::''1. the big problem about wikipedia is that there is no mailing and chat options with the people who have submitted notes. we people sometimes have problem with notes, so we want to solve our problem. the second problem of wikipedia is that the grammar and words are not simple so only US and UK people can easily understand because its their own language. but its somewhat hard for other language people to understand it.
::''2. so make grammar and words simple for people to understand.

:'''OUTTAKES:''' [[Image:clapperboard.jpg]]
::''1. There aren't pictures of enough marvel comics characters.
::''2. Put more pictures up.

::''1. Global warming is the biggest problem of current Wikipedia.
::''2. It can be solve by growing more trees

::''1. I could not find any problem on Wikipedia. Many times, i am read Wikipedia frequently.
::''2. N/A

::''1. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Wikipedia! Please donot try to "fix" something that is not broken!!!
::''2. N/A

::''1. The current Wikipedia has nothing wrong with it. Wikipedia doesn't have problems to solve.
::''2. N/A

::''1. I think there is no problem in the current Wikipedia. It is a very good source of information.
::''2. N/A

::''1. I think Wikipedia is perfect.
::''2. N/A

= Analysis of other problems considered [Hector] =

== Introduction ==
It might border on banality for us to repeat many of the important criticisms of Wikipedia (and indeed some of the less important criticisms). Nevertheless, we here try to sketch out areas of concern, and in some parts, our rationale for not so pursuing. Several sources provided us with different categories and examples of Wikipedia's criticisms: JZ's book, Wikimedia's [http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Usability Initiative], Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump Village Pump], the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines Policies and guidelines] (which implicitly draw attention to the small and large frictions that can develop within the community), and the enthusiastic critique from commentary such as the [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28144 Wikipedia Review].

== Picking Our Battles ==
=== On God-Kings and Governance ===
Problems along this vein include:
*The odd status and power of [http://cache.gawker.com/assets/resources/2008/03/jimbobling.jpg Jimbo Wales], a "God-king who may or may not be able to act unilaterally" (JZ 141)
*The reliance on consensus, not on democracy
*The curious nature of a ''highly'' developed collaborative project, which has very wonderfully developed a governance structure and a form of constitutionalism. The level of development, however, can be a hindrance to reform, given the Wikipedians' strong devotion to the project and once more the need for consensus.
For purposes of the project, our group decided that we weren't about to kick out Jimmy, and the Wikipedians themselves as well as other media do a decent job at pointing out his previous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimbo_wales#Controversy controversies]. Furthermore, the open and consensus-based nature of the Wikipedia project has resulted in very strong and thoughtful (though at times idiosyncratic) arrangements such as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars Five Pillars] that guide the activity of the encyclopedia.
How can we ride on the strengths of such internal machinery while injecting new sources of strength? We believe that the strength, vibrancy, and growth of the Wikipedia community could bring new avenues of improvement.

=== Contradictory Missions? ===
This broad, rather generative project was kick-started with an outrageous idea and clever, new (for 2001) web-publishing software. Other than a few key initial nudges (as well as the code behind the structure), the community was left to fill in the gaps on its own. Some of the resulting kinks include:
*The Inclusionism vs. Deletionism debate
*An interpretation of the banner project as an attempt to compile An Online Encyclopedia or The Sum of All Human Knowledge
*The stark differences in the vision and execution in the different language Wikipedias. (Compare the English and German sites)
Much has been written regarding the inclusionism/deletionism debate, from the popular media to the depths of obscure Wikipedia discussion pages. As strongly as some of us (Hector) may feel one way or the other (why exclude valuable information about minor Star Wars characters?!) about the matter, adding another voice to the shouting match would probably not settle most of the disagreements.

=== Quality===
Our visiting friends from the Wikipedia Review were quite keen to correctly point out the differences between '''perceived''' and '''actual''' accuracy within Wikipedia. And indeed, different challenges are at hand in allaying the different concerns of different readers, who might be using Wikipedia to
*study for a med school exam,
*learn more about their Senator,
*write a 6th grade history paper, or
*write an Associated Press fluff piece about quality concerns in Wikipedia.
Currently, the most powerful tool in Wikipedia's arsenal against vandalism and inaccuracy is its editing base and the large number of eyeballs the community provides. Once again, the health and growth of the Wikipedia community are vital factors, as are the current policies regarding sources, references, and neutrality. We think that good solutions can tap into the project's very strengths here.

=== Issues in Education ===
When schools and colleges express concern over their students using or possibly misusing Wikipedia in their academic work, Wikipedia's own response has generally taken the mildly surprising form of acknowledging its limitations and underlining its proper use as a tertiary source. Even so, this tertiary source is one that dominates many a student's initial research paths and quite often ends up being the only source consulted. [http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bookshelf_Project See Bookshelf Project]

Another manner of addressing this problem can be to engage the students to collaborate with the Wikipedia project themselves. In doing so, they might learn more about an assigned topic (given the increasingly stringent requirements of relevance and citation within Wikipedia), learn more about collaborative projects more generally (with the rules, benefits, and pratfalls of such a subculture), all the while helping with Wikipedia's overall aims of further compiling human knowledge.

Various articles and even Wikipedia pages document how others have scratched at this possibility. While our own group's proposal is not directly about classroom participation in the Wikipedia community, we think that our concerns with streamlining certain forms of community participation could easily be ported towards more specific pedagogical implementations.

=== Identity and Growth of the Contributing Community ===
*Wikipedia could be considered both an encyclopedia and a movement
*Some have brought attention to rates of editorship
*Wikimedia wrestles with the question of membership in the Community
*What distinguishes a user from being a reader, casual editor, or experienced editor?
==== Barriers to Entry====
*What are some of the (many) reasons that a new user can be discouraged from editing?
*Note the Wikipedia Community's own [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NEWBIES concerns], comprehensively addressing ways to make the newbies feel more welcome.
==== Financial Sustainability====
*We are punting this to Bridgespan

== Honing In ==
=== Interaction with the Community-Centric Nature of Wikipedia ===
* As it stands, Wikipedia does have a constitution, albeit a bit more like England's constitution
* What improvements could be consistent with Wikipedia's strengths, while providing forward-thinking alternatives?
* A choice to work within the hilarious environment that is a consensus-driven open collaboration
=== Regarding Deliverability ===
* Considering the reams of electronic text that have been written on the topic, we decided that a simple, ''actually'' implementable solution might fare better
* Wikipedia is quite open and quite dynamic. But one does get a sense that the experienced editors rule, with added clout stemming from knowing the levers and style of the community.
* Can we suggest a perspective or solution that can dovetail with the aims of the present ''and future'' Wikipedia community?

= Wikimedia and Bridgespan's initiatives [Franny] =
== ''Wikimedia Usability Initiative'' - the studies ==
[[image:Usability.jpeg|150px]]
:[http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usability_and_Experience_Study Usability and Experience Study]
:[http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usability,_Experience,_and_Progress_Study Progress Study]

== Overview of Bridgespan involvement with Wikipedia ==
[[image:Bridgespan.jpeg|300px]]

- [[Image:Wikistrategy.jpg|200px]] initiative
- approaches and perspective on wikipedia and its problems
:- think of Wikipedia as a movement in addition to a non-profit organization under the direction of a board
:- [http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Emerging_strategic_priorities emerging strategic priorities]
- grassroots efforts and duplicative smaller initiatives are helpful; efficiency is not main concern

== Our preliminary analysis ==
:Key problems:
::1. Quality and reliability of content (e.g. factual errors on Wikipedia lowers the reliability and credibility of its content)
::2. Wikipedia's editor base is decreasing (existing editors are losing interest and it is difficult to recruit new editors)
:::* Deals with issues of:
::::- community
::::- motivations
::::- outreach and public relations
:* Must reach out to user base outside of Wikipedia's community; How does that user base perceive Wikipedia and its problems?
:* What demographic are we reaching out to? how will we reach that demographic?
:* Utilizing crowdsourcing techniques to highlight factual inaccuracies? How can we harness [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/Talk:Future_of_Wikipedia voluntary contributory energies]?
:* Organization and filtering techniques will make it easier to match factual inaccuracies with editors (new or existing) willing and able to make corrections

= Proposed Solutions =
== FireFox browser extension [Amanda] ==

'''PRODUCT SPEC:'''

Wikipedia Educational Browser Extension
[http://www.slideshare.net/amandapey/wikipedia-group Browser Spec Images]

'''WRITTEN DESCRIPTION:'''

This browser extension serves many purposes: first, it is meant to facilitate the identification of factual errors within Wikipedia by creating a user-friendly way to catalog the errors using Wikipedia's taxonomy - which you can find under the open task bar in this link <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_portal>, second, it provides an inroad for new potential editors to interact with the site through micro-contributions and build familiarity with Wikipedia process, third it teaches users to do not completely rely on the text he/she is reading and to point him/her to which areas need contribution [?], fourth, it would also work as a way to bring the discussion page to the surface, teaching them to "discuss before editing".

What to Build (Description) â please forgive the non-technical nature of this spec. We are happy to provide additional information including more views if needed.

After the user installs the plugin, there should be a logo in the bottom right corner of the browser and an entry added to the âtoolsâ bar of the browser.

We imagine the interaction as follows:

When the user spots an error, he or she can click on our logo in the corner of the browser or click the entry in the Tools menu and a small window will pop up from the bottom of the browser (see below image for basic window design). Then, he or she would highlight the text that contains what the users suspects to be an error. The text would be auto-pasted into the text box. Then the user can add commentary and additional references. After the user adds commentary on the error and clicks submit the two text fields will be sent to two places â our database and a landing page where the accuracy flags will be delivered in real-time.

Moreover, the script would allow the user to see, if he/she desires which areas of the text are highly controversial and had many people commenting on them. This would be made by attributing hotter colors to more disputed/commented paragraphs and lighter colors to the others. This functionality is inspired by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stet_%28software%29 this tool] developed for the purpose of revising the GPL licenses.

The text should disappear from the two boxes and instead be replaced by a popup dialog box that says âthank you for your contribution.â

== Implementation - First steps ==
:1. Name application
:2. Reach out to Mozilla community to build proposed FireFox application extension.
:3. Work with Wikimedia/Bridgespan to incorporate landing page and application with Wikipedia.

== Suggestions from Mozilla community [Bruno] ==

*Use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stet_%28software%29 Stet] to highlight controverted parts of the text
**[http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gplv3-draft-4.html#gpl3.verbatimcopying.0.0 Example of this tool]
*Advantages:
**raise awareness of controversies in each article;
**bring the discussion page to the surface making the user more acquainted with the idea of reading that information critically
*Problems:
**How to integrate past discussions in the software database?
**How to get people to use the tool?

= Other solutions we considered [Bruno] =
==Beta Versions==
*Inspired by the open source community production system: decentralized production and semi-centralized control over the (semi) final product
**Wikipedia has been discussing this idea in the context of biographies of living persons
*Advantages:
**Reduced vandalism and increased accuracy in articles
**Establishment of a culture of discussing/reviewing articles before pushing them live
*Problems:
**How to deal with the eventual backlog of edits to be approved? This would only be solved by also increasing the number of "power editors"
**How to determine who is promoted to this higher level?

==Campaign to encourage users to "donate" edits==
===Objectives===
*Convert users into editors
*Focus on underdeveloped articles that could be identified with the tool described above
*Introduce newbies to Wikipedia's writing style and rules

==Strengthening relationship and partnering with secondary school systems (Franny)==
*Plugging in landing page to school system
*Lesson plan

= Discussion Questions =
1) How do we keep this tool from being an invitation to massively and scrupulously edit only topics like the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_swift Taylor Swift] article?

2) What should we name our application?
:* Wiki Peer Review
:* WikiNation; WikiWorld
:* Our Wikipedia
:* Wikipedia For Life (W4L)
:* Wikipedia Wizard

3) Compare the average discussion happening in a Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taylor_Swift talk page] and one happening on a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb-K2tXWK4w Youtube video]. Which one is better?

4) Might it be worthwhile to be able to click on a piece of a wikipedia page and find out who added/edited it? (Craig also suggested that a reputation system might be worthwhile)
: for example, [http://wikitrust.collaborativetrust.com/screenshots screenshots from WikiTrust]
: for an example of a "reputation of edit" issue on Wikipedia, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mzoli's mzoli] (a page added by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales Jimbo Wales])

5) What about a pop-up, after someone has been for a while in Wikipedia, asking for help? A sufficiently user-friendly mechanism could nudge the user into disclosing her/his areas of expertise, and then show stub pages or redlinks accordingly.

Presentation

2010-01-21T20:44:52Z

Darbix: /* Discussion Questions */

Hello — we are Amanda, Bruno, Franny, Hector and Yosuke of the Cyberlaw: Difficult Problems course. Feedback from people who use and are familiar with Wikipedia/Wikimedia is an extremely important part of formulating our proposed solution, and we thank you for your interest and contributions. We only ask that you direct your comments and input to the other [[Future of Wikipedia]] pages, and allow us to use this Presentation page to create our final class presentation. We look forward to hearing from you!

= [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaADQTeZRCY Professor Wikipedia says …] =
[[Image:Professor.jpg|100px]] [Warning: contains mild profanity.]

= General public view of Wikipedia's biggest problem [Yosuke] =
* we were trying to reach a segment primarily outside of Wikipedia editor community
* common themes in the responses we received
* majority of responses indicated content issues were the biggest problem

[[Image:Mturk01.jpg]]
[[Image:Mturk02.jpg]]
[[Image:Mturk03.jpg]]

[[Image:Mturkpie01.jpg]] [[Image:Mturkpie02.jpg]]

:'''CONTENT:'''
::''1. Too many people are writing/editing the same article.
::''2. Limit the number of people who can work on one article at any given time, and lock down good articles that shouldn't be changed, or only give access to writers/editors that are trusted.

::''1. Some of the information presented is false.
::''2. A suggestion is to make the material go through a process where it is checked by individuals before it is posted.

::''1. A lot of the information is false or inaccurate.
::''2. Have editors that check information before it is published.

::''1. it is not considered a reliable source by educators
::''2. prove that the information is reliable so students will be able to use it for academic reasons

::''1. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that not all of the information is legitimate. Wikipedia is not a good source for papers and some of the information is false. Anyone can post information there.
::''2. You can solve the problem by having a team collaborate on user's information before it is posted.

::''1. The biggest problem is its trustworthyness. I'm never sure that I can trust the information on wikipeida.
::''2. This can be fixed by being more careful about putting in citations.

::''1. I think Wikipedia's lack of total credibility is its biggest problem. Many entries lack citations verifying the accuracy.
::''2. I think the problem can be solved by finding editors to check the accuracy of the entries made by people.

::''1. I think too many big information on a given topic. Information that is unnecessary for a common man.
::''2. Wikipedia can be made short perhaps a link for "advanced reading" given seperately and only the basic information in the main page.

::''1. The grammar and sentence structure is often wrong or confusing.
::''2. Use grammar check and make people edit the texts.

::''1. The biggest problem is some of it is more opinion than fact.
::''2. A way to solve this is just to have the writer mention facts, and not on opinion or speculation.

::''1: The biggest problem is that most of the articles lack references and professionalism.
::''2: One solution is not to allow just any user to edit or create an article with providing good and "quality" references first, and then having a professional to look over the article and make sure it meets high quality standards before being published.

::''1. I think the biggest problem with the current Wikipedia is that quite a few things, such as medical terms or conditions, are either not even listed or only have a very, very basic explanation.
::''2. I think you can solve those problems by working on collecting & posting more detailed information about topics you only have a brief description of or that there is currently no information about on the site.

::''1. non expert opinion of explanation about subjects which looks like an expert explanation.
::''2. just do a simple test before letting people to post articals

::''1. I believe there is some inconsistency in the correct knowledge about topics.
::''2. This could be changed by having more experts on topics reviewing the information before it is posted.

::''1. I think the biggest problem is that anybody can submit information, and there is no real way to verify if the information is even correct or not.
::''2. Wikipedia needs to start really investigating who is submitting information and makes sure that correct information isn't tampered with.

::''1. In many articles recent updations are not clear in wiki.Sometimes wrong informations are given or outdated informations.
::''2. Make a team for checking the article ,they can create updations if needed.

::''1. Not peer reviewed.
::''2. Have professionals review articles before posted.

::''1. Extreme left wing bias, as well as failure to monitor those who have extreme bias. The Climategate scientist who edited hundreds of articles in Wikipedia and wiped out all mention of the Medieval Warm Period and anything that included discussion of other causes of global warming (such as solar activity or continuation of human deforestation as agriculture advanced) were removed.
::''2. Allow those who report slander and abuse to have the editor's changes removed. Allow those who have credentials in their field to have a higher value in their edits than general off the street users.

::''1. People write things that aren't correct or accurate on Wikipedia.
::''2. To solve the problem, Wikipedia can hire professionals to verify all information posted on Wikipedia.

::''1. Unverified informatioin.
::''2. Require the production of the reference to support the information's accuracy.

::''1. There is no standard level education or research ability to those who edit it.
::''2. Allow only those who can provide necessary abilities and pass tests and reviews by wikipedia standards.

::''1: GIVING THE UNWANTED MORE INFORMATION TRY TO REDUCE THE INFORMATION
::''2: SHORT THE STORIES INTO THE IMPORTANT LINES ONLY WHICH CAN HELPS US TO SEE THE MAIN POINTS

::''1. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is also its greatest strength - its inclusivity in that anyone can amend add information. A lot of people think that, therefore, the information on the site may not necessarily be accurate, and may even be deliberately misleading. For example : dates of death given for people who are still alive.
::''2. All information should be centrally vetted for accurate content. This should be highly publicized.

::''1. The length of the content, the huge history sections and irrelevant information.
::''2. Cut back on the history and the unneeded text sections, paraphrase.

::''1. Wikipedia describes every concept in a detailed manner; sometimes it is so deep that is confusing to layman.
::''2. This problem could be solved by adding pictorial representation of the data and also by using simple words and sentences.

::''1. Not articles on every person subject
::''2. Not everyone will write articles. Let people suggest articles that should be added, then hire people to write articles on the suggested subjects.

::''1. Anyone can edit the information so the content is unreliable.
::''2. Have a screening procedure by which people have to sign up, state credentials and a method of verifying them and be given a password in order to change or add information.

::''1. Wikipedia lacks in depth articles. Only the basics are available in many cases.
::''2. Could you link it with Google search's database somehow to get the specific result ?

::''1. Incorrect information
::''2. Restrict editing to qualified professionals in that field

::''1. The biggest problem of current Wikipedia is the absence of the staff. There are no persons from Wikipedia that have to verify authenticity of articles and correct misspellings. Wikipedia is a community-based website and that is not great.
::''2. You can solve the problem by hiring a couple of persons that can verify and correct the articles before they are stated on Wikipedia.

::''1. The biggest problem is that you can't confirm the information on there is true.
::''2. Things need to get approved and there needs to be constraints as to who can post

::''1. Whichever page you open , you have and "edit this page" and then "save this edited page" . If required anyone can edit it which can be used for actual editing the contents or otherwise prank.
::''2. I would want "edit this page" and contents to be saved in the page be given to a proper Moderator who can change the details in Wikipedia rather than allowing one and all without any proper control.

::''1. False information here and there.
::''2. Not much else you can do than increase moderation.

::''1. The fact that one still can never be completely sure if the information is correct or unbiased.
::''2. Hire historians, unbiased group to proof everything

::''1. Wikipedia has user edited information, which can sometimes lead to false information in an article. Wiki does check people's work but it may take some time before false information is removed.
::''2. To solve this problem, Wiki should have users go through a screening process before being allowed to add/edit an article.

::''1. Too little information is the problem
::''2. Provide more information on certain topics that have little information will make a huge difference

::''1. I THINK THAT WHEN IAM SEARCHING SOMETHING WIKIPEDIA DO NOT GIVES THE ORIGINAL DATA RELATING TO TOPIC
::''2. U CAN SOLV T THROUGH A BRIEF SURVEY AND STUDY ABT THE PROBLEM

::''1. Some articles seem biased
::''2. More oversight before changes are added/submitted

::''1. I think that it is extremely important to solve the problem of accuracy within the articles. This leads to Wikipedia not being a permissible source for any academic purposes.
::''2. There should be a kind of IQ test before editing is allowed. In fact, limiting editing to registered users only would be a huge step in the right direction! Good luck!

::''1. N/A
::''2. need to edit people postings information whether its is 100% real or not.

::''1. Infromation is too accurate. Sometimes only opinion of the writer is represneted. Some dates, facts may be fake.
::''2. Represent neuteral opinion. Correspond regrading dates/facts to paperback encyclopedias, they are more accurate.

::''1. the information shown in wikipedia for some particular data may not be true.that is there are false information.
::''2. it can be solved by studying more about those and putting the right information

::''1. I think the biggest problem with Wikipedia is a lot of people don't trust the validity of the answers found there.
::''2. In order to solve this problem you need to have accredited sources that provide the answers to the questions asked on the site.

::''1. The content was not updated.
::''2. Please review at least 1 month.

::''1. The biggest problem is accuracy of articles. Who knows what is fact and what is opinion.
::''2. Solving the problem can be partially done by stating Wikipedia does not guaranty the accuracy of an article.

::''1. The realiability of the information is still not where it needs to be. I have found that the information that can be found in Wikipedia is usually fairly reliable, however the website does have a reputation for having things that are not entirely true or correct.
::''2. I feel this can be solved is there are more articles on Wikipedia that are certified by professionals in the area or subject and that can vouch for the truthfulness of the information provided.

::''1. I think the biggest problem with Wikipedia is the fact that they don't have a link available on major sites such as google or yahoo.com. Therefore, making people are less likely to use it.
::''2. We can solve that problem by providing a link to Wikipedia on sites such as yahoo, google, msn, and maybe even on facebook. The website of Wikipedia itself is excellent and very useful to everyday life. They should just make it easier to access it.

::''1. Readability.
::''2. Hire people like me to implement ABC's, accuracy, brevity and clarity!

::''1. The information given isn't always accurate. I am a college student and as a rule we are banned from using Wikipedia as a source for our papers.
::''2. The problem can be solved by ensuring that the information is correct.

::''1. Sometimes the stubs have no information
::''2. request that the stubs actually have at least a link to a site or something

:'''VANDALISM AND ATTRIBUTION:'''
::''1. The biggest problem is people can use anonymity to vandalize Wikipedia in both blatant and sneaky ways.
::''2. The best way to solve the problem is to ban anonymous edits and require a verified email address. This preserves the fundamental principle of allowing anyone to edit because anyone can get a free yahoo or hotmail account and use it to register. But it will deter a lot of the vandalism because signing up for a free email account and then registering a Wiki account is more trouble than it's worth if your intent is to vandalize (and get banned quickly). But if you want to make legitimate contributions, going through the process one time is only a minor inconvenience.

::''1. People vandalising pages or putting unsourced information.
::''2. Only allowing trusted members to add content or edit information on wikipedia's pages

::''1. The ability for someone on a local computer to mess around and change words on the site.
::''2. Make the user register to post comments instead of just letting them post it. As for as myself concerned Wikipedia is on the right path and if somebody feels any hardship it will gradually be eliminated.

::''1. Sometimes you cannot trust the person who gives the information it provides.
::''2. The solution here is to have a background of the person who gave the information in Wikipedia.

::''1. People putting in information that is not correct, when they know it's not correct, but because they think it's funny/amusing.
::''2. Require information be checked by a second person before it's put into an article.

::''1. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it.
::''2. I think that those who edit the information on the site should have some sort of qualification and it should be subject to review before being displayed.

::''1. Wikipedia is open to have their definitions being changed and there have been charges that some of the definitions have been hacked and manipulated by people that want to have their version of an event validated on Wikipedia.
::''2. The solution might be to have a review panel to look over disputed items or complaints to see if the definition is valid.

::''1. Too much vandalism and unreliability of information.
::''2. Allow only registered members to edit/create pages. Make sure those registered members are confirmed through CAPTCHA, email, etc. And have more experienced moderators assigned to different categories to check page edits.

::''1. The biggest problem is that anyone can post whatever they want to the pages.
::''2. Have some way to fact-check the information before it is posted to the pages would solve the problem.

::''1. We are never sure the information are accurate.
::''2. Let members of Wikipedia Vote for article's accuracy and display on site the result out 100% (with number of votes).

::''1. There is no real control of who or what is posted.
::''2. There needs to be a "review" standard before items are published. I love to use wilipedia.

::''1. Malicious editing / reversions.
::''2. Require approval for edits e.g. at least 3 people should agree.

::''1. People can input incorrect information.
::''2. Have a review process before info is accepted

::''1. The major points of criticism of Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, are the claims that the principle of being open for editing by everyone makes Wikipedia unauthoritative and unreliable (see Reliability of Wikipedia), that it exhibits systemic bias, and that its group dynamics hinder its goals.
::''2. There are quires, reams, bales of controversy over what constitutes notability in Wikipedia. somebody will sort it out.

::''1. The biggest problem is that any one can post information on a a subject that's not totally accurate or totally false information.
::''2. Needs a authenticate the information that was put on Wikipedia. Example a professional or some one that can do this.

::''1. There's no way to guarantee if the information is correct.
::''2. Have more reliable sources.

::''1. Quality control. While some entries are great, quality varies widely. Some articles are written by experts in the area, and while this is great, they're understood only by other experts. Then there are the articles that get vandalized constantly.
::''2. Assign admins specifically to different topics. This also means that they can concentrate on one area that they enjoy instead of worrying about the whole wiki.

::''1. The fact that information can be edited to easily.
::''2. Tighter security restrictions on who can edit/add what

::''1. There is too much information of questionable veracity.
::''2. Check the credentials of people posting/editing articles.

::''1. People vandalizing the articles, i.e chancing numbers presented in statistics and facts on various pages
::''2. Each revision should be voted on and checked by others before being shown to the public

::''1. That any one can change anything.
::''2. Have a stricter set of guidelines on who can edit what.

::''1. The biggest issue with Wikipedia is that anyone can edit the information.
::''2. I believe you could allow only people that work for the company or professors from colleges with proof of their work to be able to edit the pages. That way people wont go on and change things just to be funny.

:'''SEARCH AND TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE:'''
::''1. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is not being able to find the meanings to an given subject.
::''2. The solution is to make details more simpler for others to understand so that it will be easier for users to find the answers that they are seeking.

::''1. The main problem is answers are scattered.
::''2. By ordering it we can solve it.

::''1. Using javascript (extensions/UsabilityInitiative/*) causes certain browsers (Mozilla 1.7) to crash.
::''2. Re-write scripts so that they work.

::''1. in my point of view all the answers given by the Wikipedia is perfect. but the arrangement of all answers is not attractive.
::''2. for avoid this problem please make some attraction back round and tabulation usage also must. thank you.

::''1. if we try to search anything in wikipedia means its taking much longer time to load the page than othersites.
::''2. you can increase the bandwidth of the site,thus making it a fast one

::''1. The problem is we need seperate search Engine for all fields.
::''2. plz create an search Engine about all the fields.

::''1: In terms of search pages, if doesn`t find any match it is not even bringing any related topics to its users.
::''2: In cases of not finding any match for search result, it can atleast mention linked search result thru someother search websites.

::''1. PAGE LOADING TAKING LOT OF TIME IN WIKIPEDIA when compared to Google.
::''2. Please make the site in such a way that page loads quickly

::''1. The loading time are too long in some busy time such as 7-10 PM
::''2. I am not sure is the problem appear due to the network company or the Wikipedia. if the problem due to the Wikipedia's system, i think it should improve that problem to build a new system which have better quality system.

::''1. It loads slow. Wherever I have been around the world wikipedia always shows up near the top in search results but I avoid it because it's slow.
::''2. Use all that money that was recently collected and buy more capacity for the site.

::''1. There are too many results, and some of them are not matched with the actual search results. for eg -- zuerich = zurich.
::''2. A proper keywords search should be used, that matches word to word.

:'''GOVERNANCE:'''
::''1. Wikilawyering is the most frustrating part of working on Wikipedia. A casual user like me is easily intimated when more experienced members invoke seemingly obscure Wikipedia policies.
::''2. Simplify and reduce the number of Wikipedia policy pages.

:'''USER INTERFACE / WEBDESIGN:'''
::''1. Color of the website is boring.
::''2. changing the layout is the only solution

::''1. It needs more color.
::''2. Having a new logo might help this problem.

:'''MISCELLANEOUS:'''
::''1. Funding
::''2. Offer a premium upgrade with fuller content, additional resources (eb.com, hoovers.com, amazon.com, bankrate.com, *.edu, *.gov, *.org), integrated video with real-time RSS and twitter feeds. Set the price at something low to entice those who want the upgrade as easy as saying "yes". I recommend no more than $1.99/month * 1,000,000 users the first month = $1,990,000. This would alleviate Jimmy from having to beg 3 times a year for help and would immensely improve the quality of the information. mechturk@ymail.com

::''1. I feel there is no problem in the current wikipedia. Everything is fine and we get solution for everything for everything from Wiki.
::''2. Its better give a link on everypage of wiki for a feedback, that makes to improve the wiki better.

::''1. the big problem about wikipedia is that there is no mailing and chat options with the people who have submitted notes. we people sometimes have problem with notes, so we want to solve our problem. the second problem of wikipedia is that the grammar and words are not simple so only US and UK people can easily understand because its their own language. but its somewhat hard for other language people to understand it.
::''2. so make grammar and words simple for people to understand.

:'''OUTTAKES:''' [[Image:clapperboard.jpg]]
::''1. There aren't pictures of enough marvel comics characters.
::''2. Put more pictures up.

::''1. Global warming is the biggest problem of current Wikipedia.
::''2. It can be solve by growing more trees

::''1. I could not find any problem on Wikipedia. Many times, i am read Wikipedia frequently.
::''2. N/A

::''1. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Wikipedia! Please donot try to "fix" something that is not broken!!!
::''2. N/A

::''1. The current Wikipedia has nothing wrong with it. Wikipedia doesn't have problems to solve.
::''2. N/A

::''1. I think there is no problem in the current Wikipedia. It is a very good source of information.
::''2. N/A

::''1. I think Wikipedia is perfect.
::''2. N/A

= Analysis of other problems considered [Hector] =

== Introduction ==
It might border on banality for us to repeat many of the important criticisms of Wikipedia (and indeed some of the less important criticisms). Nevertheless, we here try to sketch out areas of concern, and in some parts, our rationale for not so pursuing. Several sources provided us with different categories and examples of Wikipedia's criticisms: JZ's book, Wikimedia's [http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Usability Initiative], Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump Village Pump], the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines Policies and guidelines] (which implicitly draw attention to the small and large frictions that can develop within the community), and the enthusiastic critique from commentary such as the [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28144 Wikipedia Review].

== Picking Our Battles ==
=== On God-Kings and Governance ===
Problems along this vein include:
*The odd status and power of [http://cache.gawker.com/assets/resources/2008/03/jimbobling.jpg Jimbo Wales], a "God-king who may or may not be able to act unilaterally" (JZ 141)
*The reliance on consensus, not on democracy
*The curious nature of a ''highly'' developed collaborative project, which has very wonderfully developed a governance structure and a form of constitutionalism. The level of development, however, can be a hindrance to reform, given the Wikipedians' strong devotion to the project and once more the need for consensus.
For purposes of the project, our group decided that we weren't about to kick out Jimmy, and the Wikipedians themselves as well as other media do a decent job at pointing out his previous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimbo_wales#Controversy controversies]. Furthermore, the open and consensus-based nature of the Wikipedia project has resulted in very strong and thoughtful (though at times idiosyncratic) arrangements such as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars Five Pillars] that guide the activity of the encyclopedia.
How can we ride on the strengths of such internal machinery while injecting new sources of strength? We believe that the strength, vibrancy, and growth of the Wikipedia community could bring new avenues of improvement.

=== Contradictory Missions? ===
This broad, rather generative project was kick-started with an outrageous idea and clever, new (for 2001) web-publishing software. Other than a few key initial nudges (as well as the code behind the structure), the community was left to fill in the gaps on its own. Some of the resulting kinks include:
*The Inclusionism vs. Deletionism debate
*An interpretation of the banner project as an attempt to compile An Online Encyclopedia or The Sum of All Human Knowledge
*The stark differences in the vision and execution in the different language Wikipedias. (Compare the English and German sites)
Much has been written regarding the inclusionism/deletionism debate, from the popular media to the depths of obscure Wikipedia discussion pages. As strongly as some of us (Hector) may feel one way or the other (why exclude valuable information about minor Star Wars characters?!) about the matter, adding another voice to the shouting match would probably not settle most of the disagreements.

=== Quality===
Our visiting friends from the Wikipedia Review were quite keen to correctly point out the differences between '''perceived''' and '''actual''' accuracy within Wikipedia. And indeed, different challenges are at hand in allaying the different concerns of different readers, who might be using Wikipedia to
*study for a med school exam,
*learn more about their Senator,
*write a 6th grade history paper, or
*write an Associated Press fluff piece about quality concerns in Wikipedia.
Currently, the most powerful tool in Wikipedia's arsenal against vandalism and inaccuracy is its editing base and the large number of eyeballs the community provides. Once again, the health and growth of the Wikipedia community are vital factors, as are the current policies regarding sources, references, and neutrality. We think that good solutions can tap into the project's very strengths here.

=== Issues in Education ===
When schools and colleges express concern over their students using or possibly misusing Wikipedia in their academic work, Wikipedia's own response has generally taken the mildly surprising form of acknowledging its limitations and underlining its proper use as a tertiary source. Even so, this tertiary source is one that dominates many a student's initial research paths and quite often ends up being the only source consulted. [http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bookshelf_Project See Bookshelf Project]

Another manner of addressing this problem can be to engage the students to collaborate with the Wikipedia project themselves. In doing so, they might learn more about an assigned topic (given the increasingly stringent requirements of relevance and citation within Wikipedia), learn more about collaborative projects more generally (with the rules, benefits, and pratfalls of such a subculture), all the while helping with Wikipedia's overall aims of further compiling human knowledge.

Various articles and even Wikipedia pages document how others have scratched at this possibility. While our own group's proposal is not directly about classroom participation in the Wikipedia community, we think that our concerns with streamlining certain forms of community participation could easily be ported towards more specific pedagogical implementations.

=== Identity and Growth of the Contributing Community ===
*Wikipedia could be considered both an encyclopedia and a movement
*Some have brought attention to rates of editorship
*Wikimedia wrestles with the question of membership in the Community
*What distinguishes a user from being a reader, casual editor, or experienced editor?
==== Barriers to Entry====
*What are some of the (many) reasons that a new user can be discouraged from editing?
*Note the Wikipedia Community's own [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NEWBIES concerns], comprehensively addressing ways to make the newbies feel more welcome.
==== Financial Sustainability====
*We are punting this to Bridgespan

== Honing In ==
=== Interaction with the Community-Centric Nature of Wikipedia ===
* As it stands, Wikipedia does have a constitution, albeit a bit more like England's constitution
* What improvements could be consistent with Wikipedia's strengths, while providing forward-thinking alternatives?
* A choice to work within the hilarious environment that is a consensus-driven open collaboration
=== Regarding Deliverability ===
* Considering the reams of electronic text that have been written on the topic, we decided that a simple, ''actually'' implementable solution might fare better
* Wikipedia is quite open and quite dynamic. But one does get a sense that the experienced editors rule, with added clout stemming from knowing the levers and style of the community.
* Can we suggest a perspective or solution that can dovetail with the aims of the present ''and future'' Wikipedia community?

= Wikimedia and Bridgespan's initiatives [Franny] =
== ''Wikimedia Usability Initiative'' - the studies ==
[[image:Usability.jpeg|150px]]
:[http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usability_and_Experience_Study Usability and Experience Study]
:[http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usability,_Experience,_and_Progress_Study Progress Study]

== Overview of Bridgespan involvement with Wikipedia ==
[[image:Bridgespan.jpeg|300px]]

- [[Image:Wikistrategy.jpg|200px]] initiative
- approaches and perspective on wikipedia and its problems
:- think of Wikipedia as a movement in addition to a non-profit organization under the direction of a board
:- [http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Emerging_strategic_priorities emerging strategic priorities]
- grassroots efforts and duplicative smaller initiatives are helpful; efficiency is not main concern

== Our preliminary analysis ==
:Key problems:
::1. Quality and reliability of content (e.g. factual errors on Wikipedia lowers the reliability and credibility of its content)
::2. Wikipedia's editor base is decreasing (existing editors are losing interest and it is difficult to recruit new editors)
:::* Deals with issues of:
::::- community
::::- motivations
::::- outreach and public relations
:* Must reach out to user base outside of Wikipedia's community; How does that user base perceive Wikipedia and its problems?
:* What demographic are we reaching out to? how will we reach that demographic?
:* Utilizing crowdsourcing techniques to highlight factual inaccuracies? How can we harness [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/Talk:Future_of_Wikipedia voluntary contributory energies]?
:* Organization and filtering techniques will make it easier to match factual inaccuracies with editors (new or existing) willing and able to make corrections

= Proposed Solutions =
== FireFox browser extension [Amanda] ==

'''PRODUCT SPEC:'''

Wikipedia Educational Browser Extension
[http://www.slideshare.net/amandapey/wikipedia-group Browser Spec Images]

'''WRITTEN DESCRIPTION:'''

This browser extension serves many purposes: first, it is meant to facilitate the identification of factual errors within Wikipedia by creating a user-friendly way to catalog the errors using Wikipedia's taxonomy - which you can find under the open task bar in this link <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_portal>, second, it provides an inroad for new potential editors to interact with the site through micro-contributions and build familiarity with Wikipedia process, third it teaches users to do not completely rely on the text he/she is reading and to point him/her to which areas need contribution [?], fourth, it would also work as a way to bring the discussion page to the surface, teaching them to "discuss before editing".

What to Build (Description) â please forgive the non-technical nature of this spec. We are happy to provide additional information including more views if needed.

After the user installs the plugin, there should be a logo in the bottom right corner of the browser and an entry added to the âtoolsâ bar of the browser.

We imagine the interaction as follows:

When the user spots an error, he or she can click on our logo in the corner of the browser or click the entry in the Tools menu and a small window will pop up from the bottom of the browser (see below image for basic window design). Then, he or she would highlight the text that contains what the users suspects to be an error. The text would be auto-pasted into the text box. Then the user can add commentary and additional references. After the user adds commentary on the error and clicks submit the two text fields will be sent to two places â our database and a landing page where the accuracy flags will be delivered in real-time.

Moreover, the script would allow the user to see, if he/she desires which areas of the text are highly controversial and had many people commenting on them. This would be made by attributing hotter colors to more disputed/commented paragraphs and lighter colors to the others. This functionality is inspired by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stet_%28software%29 this tool] developed for the purpose of revising the GPL licenses.

The text should disappear from the two boxes and instead be replaced by a popup dialog box that says âthank you for your contribution.â

== Implementation - First steps ==
:1. Name application
:2. Reach out to Mozilla community to build proposed FireFox application extension.
:3. Work with Wikimedia/Bridgespan to incorporate landing page and application with Wikipedia.

== Suggestions from Mozilla community [Bruno] ==

*Use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stet_%28software%29 Stet] to highlight controverted parts of the text
**[http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gplv3-draft-4.html#gpl3.verbatimcopying.0.0 Example of this tool]
*Advantages:
**raise awareness of controversies in each article;
**bring the discussion page to the surface making the user more acquainted with the idea of reading that information critically
*Problems:
**How to integrate past discussions in the software database?
**How to get people to use the tool?

= Other solutions we considered [Bruno] =
==Beta Versions==
*Inspired by the open source community production system: decentralized production and semi-centralized control over the (semi) final product
**Wikipedia has been discussing this idea in the context of biographies of living persons
*Advantages:
**Reduced vandalism and increased accuracy in articles
**Establishment of a culture of discussing/reviewing articles before pushing them live
*Problems:
**How to deal with the eventual backlog of edits to be approved? This would only be solved by also increasing the number of "power editors"
**How to determine who is promoted to this higher level?

==Campaign to encourage users to "donate" edits==
===Objectives===
*Convert users into editors
*Focus on underdeveloped articles that could be identified with the tool described above
*Introduce newbies to Wikipedia's writing style and rules

==Strengthening relationship and partnering with secondary school systems (Franny)==
*Plugging in landing page to school system
*Lesson plan

= Discussion Questions =
1) How do we keep this tool from being an invitation to massively and scrupulously edit only topics like the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_swift Taylor Swift] article?

2) What should we name our application?
:* Wiki Peer Review
:* WikiNation; WikiWorld
:* Our Wikipedia
:* Wikipedia For Life (W4L)

3) Compare the average discussion happening in a Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taylor_Swift talk page] and one happening on a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb-K2tXWK4w Youtube video]. Which one is better?

4) Might it be worthwhile to be able to click on a piece of a wikipedia page and find out who added/edited it? (Craig also suggested that a reputation system might be worthwhile)
: for example, [http://wikitrust.collaborativetrust.com/screenshots screenshots from WikiTrust]

5) What about a pop-up, after someone has been for a while in Wikipedia, asking for help? A sufficiently user-friendly mechanism could nudge the user into disclosing her/his areas of expertise, and then show stub pages or redlinks.

6) Jimbo Wales mzoli

Presentation

2010-01-21T20:43:17Z

Darbix: /* Discussion Questions */

Hello — we are Amanda, Bruno, Franny, Hector and Yosuke of the Cyberlaw: Difficult Problems course. Feedback from people who use and are familiar with Wikipedia/Wikimedia is an extremely important part of formulating our proposed solution, and we thank you for your interest and contributions. We only ask that you direct your comments and input to the other [[Future of Wikipedia]] pages, and allow us to use this Presentation page to create our final class presentation. We look forward to hearing from you!

= [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaADQTeZRCY Professor Wikipedia says …] =
[[Image:Professor.jpg|100px]] [Warning: contains mild profanity.]

= General public view of Wikipedia's biggest problem [Yosuke] =
* we were trying to reach a segment primarily outside of Wikipedia editor community
* common themes in the responses we received
* majority of responses indicated content issues were the biggest problem

[[Image:Mturk01.jpg]]
[[Image:Mturk02.jpg]]
[[Image:Mturk03.jpg]]

[[Image:Mturkpie01.jpg]] [[Image:Mturkpie02.jpg]]

:'''CONTENT:'''
::''1. Too many people are writing/editing the same article.
::''2. Limit the number of people who can work on one article at any given time, and lock down good articles that shouldn't be changed, or only give access to writers/editors that are trusted.

::''1. Some of the information presented is false.
::''2. A suggestion is to make the material go through a process where it is checked by individuals before it is posted.

::''1. A lot of the information is false or inaccurate.
::''2. Have editors that check information before it is published.

::''1. it is not considered a reliable source by educators
::''2. prove that the information is reliable so students will be able to use it for academic reasons

::''1. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that not all of the information is legitimate. Wikipedia is not a good source for papers and some of the information is false. Anyone can post information there.
::''2. You can solve the problem by having a team collaborate on user's information before it is posted.

::''1. The biggest problem is its trustworthyness. I'm never sure that I can trust the information on wikipeida.
::''2. This can be fixed by being more careful about putting in citations.

::''1. I think Wikipedia's lack of total credibility is its biggest problem. Many entries lack citations verifying the accuracy.
::''2. I think the problem can be solved by finding editors to check the accuracy of the entries made by people.

::''1. I think too many big information on a given topic. Information that is unnecessary for a common man.
::''2. Wikipedia can be made short perhaps a link for "advanced reading" given seperately and only the basic information in the main page.

::''1. The grammar and sentence structure is often wrong or confusing.
::''2. Use grammar check and make people edit the texts.

::''1. The biggest problem is some of it is more opinion than fact.
::''2. A way to solve this is just to have the writer mention facts, and not on opinion or speculation.

::''1: The biggest problem is that most of the articles lack references and professionalism.
::''2: One solution is not to allow just any user to edit or create an article with providing good and "quality" references first, and then having a professional to look over the article and make sure it meets high quality standards before being published.

::''1. I think the biggest problem with the current Wikipedia is that quite a few things, such as medical terms or conditions, are either not even listed or only have a very, very basic explanation.
::''2. I think you can solve those problems by working on collecting & posting more detailed information about topics you only have a brief description of or that there is currently no information about on the site.

::''1. non expert opinion of explanation about subjects which looks like an expert explanation.
::''2. just do a simple test before letting people to post articals

::''1. I believe there is some inconsistency in the correct knowledge about topics.
::''2. This could be changed by having more experts on topics reviewing the information before it is posted.

::''1. I think the biggest problem is that anybody can submit information, and there is no real way to verify if the information is even correct or not.
::''2. Wikipedia needs to start really investigating who is submitting information and makes sure that correct information isn't tampered with.

::''1. In many articles recent updations are not clear in wiki.Sometimes wrong informations are given or outdated informations.
::''2. Make a team for checking the article ,they can create updations if needed.

::''1. Not peer reviewed.
::''2. Have professionals review articles before posted.

::''1. Extreme left wing bias, as well as failure to monitor those who have extreme bias. The Climategate scientist who edited hundreds of articles in Wikipedia and wiped out all mention of the Medieval Warm Period and anything that included discussion of other causes of global warming (such as solar activity or continuation of human deforestation as agriculture advanced) were removed.
::''2. Allow those who report slander and abuse to have the editor's changes removed. Allow those who have credentials in their field to have a higher value in their edits than general off the street users.

::''1. People write things that aren't correct or accurate on Wikipedia.
::''2. To solve the problem, Wikipedia can hire professionals to verify all information posted on Wikipedia.

::''1. Unverified informatioin.
::''2. Require the production of the reference to support the information's accuracy.

::''1. There is no standard level education or research ability to those who edit it.
::''2. Allow only those who can provide necessary abilities and pass tests and reviews by wikipedia standards.

::''1: GIVING THE UNWANTED MORE INFORMATION TRY TO REDUCE THE INFORMATION
::''2: SHORT THE STORIES INTO THE IMPORTANT LINES ONLY WHICH CAN HELPS US TO SEE THE MAIN POINTS

::''1. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is also its greatest strength - its inclusivity in that anyone can amend add information. A lot of people think that, therefore, the information on the site may not necessarily be accurate, and may even be deliberately misleading. For example : dates of death given for people who are still alive.
::''2. All information should be centrally vetted for accurate content. This should be highly publicized.

::''1. The length of the content, the huge history sections and irrelevant information.
::''2. Cut back on the history and the unneeded text sections, paraphrase.

::''1. Wikipedia describes every concept in a detailed manner; sometimes it is so deep that is confusing to layman.
::''2. This problem could be solved by adding pictorial representation of the data and also by using simple words and sentences.

::''1. Not articles on every person subject
::''2. Not everyone will write articles. Let people suggest articles that should be added, then hire people to write articles on the suggested subjects.

::''1. Anyone can edit the information so the content is unreliable.
::''2. Have a screening procedure by which people have to sign up, state credentials and a method of verifying them and be given a password in order to change or add information.

::''1. Wikipedia lacks in depth articles. Only the basics are available in many cases.
::''2. Could you link it with Google search's database somehow to get the specific result ?

::''1. Incorrect information
::''2. Restrict editing to qualified professionals in that field

::''1. The biggest problem of current Wikipedia is the absence of the staff. There are no persons from Wikipedia that have to verify authenticity of articles and correct misspellings. Wikipedia is a community-based website and that is not great.
::''2. You can solve the problem by hiring a couple of persons that can verify and correct the articles before they are stated on Wikipedia.

::''1. The biggest problem is that you can't confirm the information on there is true.
::''2. Things need to get approved and there needs to be constraints as to who can post

::''1. Whichever page you open , you have and "edit this page" and then "save this edited page" . If required anyone can edit it which can be used for actual editing the contents or otherwise prank.
::''2. I would want "edit this page" and contents to be saved in the page be given to a proper Moderator who can change the details in Wikipedia rather than allowing one and all without any proper control.

::''1. False information here and there.
::''2. Not much else you can do than increase moderation.

::''1. The fact that one still can never be completely sure if the information is correct or unbiased.
::''2. Hire historians, unbiased group to proof everything

::''1. Wikipedia has user edited information, which can sometimes lead to false information in an article. Wiki does check people's work but it may take some time before false information is removed.
::''2. To solve this problem, Wiki should have users go through a screening process before being allowed to add/edit an article.

::''1. Too little information is the problem
::''2. Provide more information on certain topics that have little information will make a huge difference

::''1. I THINK THAT WHEN IAM SEARCHING SOMETHING WIKIPEDIA DO NOT GIVES THE ORIGINAL DATA RELATING TO TOPIC
::''2. U CAN SOLV T THROUGH A BRIEF SURVEY AND STUDY ABT THE PROBLEM

::''1. Some articles seem biased
::''2. More oversight before changes are added/submitted

::''1. I think that it is extremely important to solve the problem of accuracy within the articles. This leads to Wikipedia not being a permissible source for any academic purposes.
::''2. There should be a kind of IQ test before editing is allowed. In fact, limiting editing to registered users only would be a huge step in the right direction! Good luck!

::''1. N/A
::''2. need to edit people postings information whether its is 100% real or not.

::''1. Infromation is too accurate. Sometimes only opinion of the writer is represneted. Some dates, facts may be fake.
::''2. Represent neuteral opinion. Correspond regrading dates/facts to paperback encyclopedias, they are more accurate.

::''1. the information shown in wikipedia for some particular data may not be true.that is there are false information.
::''2. it can be solved by studying more about those and putting the right information

::''1. I think the biggest problem with Wikipedia is a lot of people don't trust the validity of the answers found there.
::''2. In order to solve this problem you need to have accredited sources that provide the answers to the questions asked on the site.

::''1. The content was not updated.
::''2. Please review at least 1 month.

::''1. The biggest problem is accuracy of articles. Who knows what is fact and what is opinion.
::''2. Solving the problem can be partially done by stating Wikipedia does not guaranty the accuracy of an article.

::''1. The realiability of the information is still not where it needs to be. I have found that the information that can be found in Wikipedia is usually fairly reliable, however the website does have a reputation for having things that are not entirely true or correct.
::''2. I feel this can be solved is there are more articles on Wikipedia that are certified by professionals in the area or subject and that can vouch for the truthfulness of the information provided.

::''1. I think the biggest problem with Wikipedia is the fact that they don't have a link available on major sites such as google or yahoo.com. Therefore, making people are less likely to use it.
::''2. We can solve that problem by providing a link to Wikipedia on sites such as yahoo, google, msn, and maybe even on facebook. The website of Wikipedia itself is excellent and very useful to everyday life. They should just make it easier to access it.

::''1. Readability.
::''2. Hire people like me to implement ABC's, accuracy, brevity and clarity!

::''1. The information given isn't always accurate. I am a college student and as a rule we are banned from using Wikipedia as a source for our papers.
::''2. The problem can be solved by ensuring that the information is correct.

::''1. Sometimes the stubs have no information
::''2. request that the stubs actually have at least a link to a site or something

:'''VANDALISM AND ATTRIBUTION:'''
::''1. The biggest problem is people can use anonymity to vandalize Wikipedia in both blatant and sneaky ways.
::''2. The best way to solve the problem is to ban anonymous edits and require a verified email address. This preserves the fundamental principle of allowing anyone to edit because anyone can get a free yahoo or hotmail account and use it to register. But it will deter a lot of the vandalism because signing up for a free email account and then registering a Wiki account is more trouble than it's worth if your intent is to vandalize (and get banned quickly). But if you want to make legitimate contributions, going through the process one time is only a minor inconvenience.

::''1. People vandalising pages or putting unsourced information.
::''2. Only allowing trusted members to add content or edit information on wikipedia's pages

::''1. The ability for someone on a local computer to mess around and change words on the site.
::''2. Make the user register to post comments instead of just letting them post it. As for as myself concerned Wikipedia is on the right path and if somebody feels any hardship it will gradually be eliminated.

::''1. Sometimes you cannot trust the person who gives the information it provides.
::''2. The solution here is to have a background of the person who gave the information in Wikipedia.

::''1. People putting in information that is not correct, when they know it's not correct, but because they think it's funny/amusing.
::''2. Require information be checked by a second person before it's put into an article.

::''1. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it.
::''2. I think that those who edit the information on the site should have some sort of qualification and it should be subject to review before being displayed.

::''1. Wikipedia is open to have their definitions being changed and there have been charges that some of the definitions have been hacked and manipulated by people that want to have their version of an event validated on Wikipedia.
::''2. The solution might be to have a review panel to look over disputed items or complaints to see if the definition is valid.

::''1. Too much vandalism and unreliability of information.
::''2. Allow only registered members to edit/create pages. Make sure those registered members are confirmed through CAPTCHA, email, etc. And have more experienced moderators assigned to different categories to check page edits.

::''1. The biggest problem is that anyone can post whatever they want to the pages.
::''2. Have some way to fact-check the information before it is posted to the pages would solve the problem.

::''1. We are never sure the information are accurate.
::''2. Let members of Wikipedia Vote for article's accuracy and display on site the result out 100% (with number of votes).

::''1. There is no real control of who or what is posted.
::''2. There needs to be a "review" standard before items are published. I love to use wilipedia.

::''1. Malicious editing / reversions.
::''2. Require approval for edits e.g. at least 3 people should agree.

::''1. People can input incorrect information.
::''2. Have a review process before info is accepted

::''1. The major points of criticism of Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, are the claims that the principle of being open for editing by everyone makes Wikipedia unauthoritative and unreliable (see Reliability of Wikipedia), that it exhibits systemic bias, and that its group dynamics hinder its goals.
::''2. There are quires, reams, bales of controversy over what constitutes notability in Wikipedia. somebody will sort it out.

::''1. The biggest problem is that any one can post information on a a subject that's not totally accurate or totally false information.
::''2. Needs a authenticate the information that was put on Wikipedia. Example a professional or some one that can do this.

::''1. There's no way to guarantee if the information is correct.
::''2. Have more reliable sources.

::''1. Quality control. While some entries are great, quality varies widely. Some articles are written by experts in the area, and while this is great, they're understood only by other experts. Then there are the articles that get vandalized constantly.
::''2. Assign admins specifically to different topics. This also means that they can concentrate on one area that they enjoy instead of worrying about the whole wiki.

::''1. The fact that information can be edited to easily.
::''2. Tighter security restrictions on who can edit/add what

::''1. There is too much information of questionable veracity.
::''2. Check the credentials of people posting/editing articles.

::''1. People vandalizing the articles, i.e chancing numbers presented in statistics and facts on various pages
::''2. Each revision should be voted on and checked by others before being shown to the public

::''1. That any one can change anything.
::''2. Have a stricter set of guidelines on who can edit what.

::''1. The biggest issue with Wikipedia is that anyone can edit the information.
::''2. I believe you could allow only people that work for the company or professors from colleges with proof of their work to be able to edit the pages. That way people wont go on and change things just to be funny.

:'''SEARCH AND TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE:'''
::''1. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is not being able to find the meanings to an given subject.
::''2. The solution is to make details more simpler for others to understand so that it will be easier for users to find the answers that they are seeking.

::''1. The main problem is answers are scattered.
::''2. By ordering it we can solve it.

::''1. Using javascript (extensions/UsabilityInitiative/*) causes certain browsers (Mozilla 1.7) to crash.
::''2. Re-write scripts so that they work.

::''1. in my point of view all the answers given by the Wikipedia is perfect. but the arrangement of all answers is not attractive.
::''2. for avoid this problem please make some attraction back round and tabulation usage also must. thank you.

::''1. if we try to search anything in wikipedia means its taking much longer time to load the page than othersites.
::''2. you can increase the bandwidth of the site,thus making it a fast one

::''1. The problem is we need seperate search Engine for all fields.
::''2. plz create an search Engine about all the fields.

::''1: In terms of search pages, if doesn`t find any match it is not even bringing any related topics to its users.
::''2: In cases of not finding any match for search result, it can atleast mention linked search result thru someother search websites.

::''1. PAGE LOADING TAKING LOT OF TIME IN WIKIPEDIA when compared to Google.
::''2. Please make the site in such a way that page loads quickly

::''1. The loading time are too long in some busy time such as 7-10 PM
::''2. I am not sure is the problem appear due to the network company or the Wikipedia. if the problem due to the Wikipedia's system, i think it should improve that problem to build a new system which have better quality system.

::''1. It loads slow. Wherever I have been around the world wikipedia always shows up near the top in search results but I avoid it because it's slow.
::''2. Use all that money that was recently collected and buy more capacity for the site.

::''1. There are too many results, and some of them are not matched with the actual search results. for eg -- zuerich = zurich.
::''2. A proper keywords search should be used, that matches word to word.

:'''GOVERNANCE:'''
::''1. Wikilawyering is the most frustrating part of working on Wikipedia. A casual user like me is easily intimated when more experienced members invoke seemingly obscure Wikipedia policies.
::''2. Simplify and reduce the number of Wikipedia policy pages.

:'''USER INTERFACE / WEBDESIGN:'''
::''1. Color of the website is boring.
::''2. changing the layout is the only solution

::''1. It needs more color.
::''2. Having a new logo might help this problem.

:'''MISCELLANEOUS:'''
::''1. Funding
::''2. Offer a premium upgrade with fuller content, additional resources (eb.com, hoovers.com, amazon.com, bankrate.com, *.edu, *.gov, *.org), integrated video with real-time RSS and twitter feeds. Set the price at something low to entice those who want the upgrade as easy as saying "yes". I recommend no more than $1.99/month * 1,000,000 users the first month = $1,990,000. This would alleviate Jimmy from having to beg 3 times a year for help and would immensely improve the quality of the information. mechturk@ymail.com

::''1. I feel there is no problem in the current wikipedia. Everything is fine and we get solution for everything for everything from Wiki.
::''2. Its better give a link on everypage of wiki for a feedback, that makes to improve the wiki better.

::''1. the big problem about wikipedia is that there is no mailing and chat options with the people who have submitted notes. we people sometimes have problem with notes, so we want to solve our problem. the second problem of wikipedia is that the grammar and words are not simple so only US and UK people can easily understand because its their own language. but its somewhat hard for other language people to understand it.
::''2. so make grammar and words simple for people to understand.

:'''OUTTAKES:''' [[Image:clapperboard.jpg]]
::''1. There aren't pictures of enough marvel comics characters.
::''2. Put more pictures up.

::''1. Global warming is the biggest problem of current Wikipedia.
::''2. It can be solve by growing more trees

::''1. I could not find any problem on Wikipedia. Many times, i am read Wikipedia frequently.
::''2. N/A

::''1. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Wikipedia! Please donot try to "fix" something that is not broken!!!
::''2. N/A

::''1. The current Wikipedia has nothing wrong with it. Wikipedia doesn't have problems to solve.
::''2. N/A

::''1. I think there is no problem in the current Wikipedia. It is a very good source of information.
::''2. N/A

::''1. I think Wikipedia is perfect.
::''2. N/A

= Analysis of other problems considered [Hector] =

== Introduction ==
It might border on banality for us to repeat many of the important criticisms of Wikipedia (and indeed some of the less important criticisms). Nevertheless, we here try to sketch out areas of concern, and in some parts, our rationale for not so pursuing. Several sources provided us with different categories and examples of Wikipedia's criticisms: JZ's book, Wikimedia's [http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Usability Initiative], Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump Village Pump], the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines Policies and guidelines] (which implicitly draw attention to the small and large frictions that can develop within the community), and the enthusiastic critique from commentary such as the [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28144 Wikipedia Review].

== Picking Our Battles ==
=== On God-Kings and Governance ===
Problems along this vein include:
*The odd status and power of [http://cache.gawker.com/assets/resources/2008/03/jimbobling.jpg Jimbo Wales], a "God-king who may or may not be able to act unilaterally" (JZ 141)
*The reliance on consensus, not on democracy
*The curious nature of a ''highly'' developed collaborative project, which has very wonderfully developed a governance structure and a form of constitutionalism. The level of development, however, can be a hindrance to reform, given the Wikipedians' strong devotion to the project and once more the need for consensus.
For purposes of the project, our group decided that we weren't about to kick out Jimmy, and the Wikipedians themselves as well as other media do a decent job at pointing out his previous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimbo_wales#Controversy controversies]. Furthermore, the open and consensus-based nature of the Wikipedia project has resulted in very strong and thoughtful (though at times idiosyncratic) arrangements such as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars Five Pillars] that guide the activity of the encyclopedia.
How can we ride on the strengths of such internal machinery while injecting new sources of strength? We believe that the strength, vibrancy, and growth of the Wikipedia community could bring new avenues of improvement.

=== Contradictory Missions? ===
This broad, rather generative project was kick-started with an outrageous idea and clever, new (for 2001) web-publishing software. Other than a few key initial nudges (as well as the code behind the structure), the community was left to fill in the gaps on its own. Some of the resulting kinks include:
*The Inclusionism vs. Deletionism debate
*An interpretation of the banner project as an attempt to compile An Online Encyclopedia or The Sum of All Human Knowledge
*The stark differences in the vision and execution in the different language Wikipedias. (Compare the English and German sites)
Much has been written regarding the inclusionism/deletionism debate, from the popular media to the depths of obscure Wikipedia discussion pages. As strongly as some of us (Hector) may feel one way or the other (why exclude valuable information about minor Star Wars characters?!) about the matter, adding another voice to the shouting match would probably not settle most of the disagreements.

=== Quality===
Our visiting friends from the Wikipedia Review were quite keen to correctly point out the differences between '''perceived''' and '''actual''' accuracy within Wikipedia. And indeed, different challenges are at hand in allaying the different concerns of different readers, who might be using Wikipedia to
*study for a med school exam,
*learn more about their Senator,
*write a 6th grade history paper, or
*write an Associated Press fluff piece about quality concerns in Wikipedia.
Currently, the most powerful tool in Wikipedia's arsenal against vandalism and inaccuracy is its editing base and the large number of eyeballs the community provides. Once again, the health and growth of the Wikipedia community are vital factors, as are the current policies regarding sources, references, and neutrality. We think that good solutions can tap into the project's very strengths here.

=== Issues in Education ===
When schools and colleges express concern over their students using or possibly misusing Wikipedia in their academic work, Wikipedia's own response has generally taken the mildly surprising form of acknowledging its limitations and underlining its proper use as a tertiary source. Even so, this tertiary source is one that dominates many a student's initial research paths and quite often ends up being the only source consulted. [http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bookshelf_Project See Bookshelf Project]

Another manner of addressing this problem can be to engage the students to collaborate with the Wikipedia project themselves. In doing so, they might learn more about an assigned topic (given the increasingly stringent requirements of relevance and citation within Wikipedia), learn more about collaborative projects more generally (with the rules, benefits, and pratfalls of such a subculture), all the while helping with Wikipedia's overall aims of further compiling human knowledge.

Various articles and even Wikipedia pages document how others have scratched at this possibility. While our own group's proposal is not directly about classroom participation in the Wikipedia community, we think that our concerns with streamlining certain forms of community participation could easily be ported towards more specific pedagogical implementations.

=== Identity and Growth of the Contributing Community ===
*Wikipedia could be considered both an encyclopedia and a movement
*Some have brought attention to rates of editorship
*Wikimedia wrestles with the question of membership in the Community
*What distinguishes a user from being a reader, casual editor, or experienced editor?
==== Barriers to Entry====
*What are some of the (many) reasons that a new user can be discouraged from editing?
*Note the Wikipedia Community's own [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NEWBIES concerns], comprehensively addressing ways to make the newbies feel more welcome.
==== Financial Sustainability====
*We are punting this to Bridgespan

== Honing In ==
=== Interaction with the Community-Centric Nature of Wikipedia ===
* As it stands, Wikipedia does have a constitution, albeit a bit more like England's constitution
* What improvements could be consistent with Wikipedia's strengths, while providing forward-thinking alternatives?
* A choice to work within the hilarious environment that is a consensus-driven open collaboration
=== Regarding Deliverability ===
* Considering the reams of electronic text that have been written on the topic, we decided that a simple, ''actually'' implementable solution might fare better
* Wikipedia is quite open and quite dynamic. But one does get a sense that the experienced editors rule, with added clout stemming from knowing the levers and style of the community.
* Can we suggest a perspective or solution that can dovetail with the aims of the present ''and future'' Wikipedia community?

= Wikimedia and Bridgespan's initiatives [Franny] =
== ''Wikimedia Usability Initiative'' - the studies ==
[[image:Usability.jpeg|150px]]
:[http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usability_and_Experience_Study Usability and Experience Study]
:[http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usability,_Experience,_and_Progress_Study Progress Study]

== Overview of Bridgespan involvement with Wikipedia ==
[[image:Bridgespan.jpeg|300px]]

- [[Image:Wikistrategy.jpg|200px]] initiative
- approaches and perspective on wikipedia and its problems
:- think of Wikipedia as a movement in addition to a non-profit organization under the direction of a board
:- [http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Emerging_strategic_priorities emerging strategic priorities]
- grassroots efforts and duplicative smaller initiatives are helpful; efficiency is not main concern

== Our preliminary analysis ==
:Key problems:
::1. Quality and reliability of content (e.g. factual errors on Wikipedia lowers the reliability and credibility of its content)
::2. Wikipedia's editor base is decreasing (existing editors are losing interest and it is difficult to recruit new editors)
:::* Deals with issues of:
::::- community
::::- motivations
::::- outreach and public relations
:* Must reach out to user base outside of Wikipedia's community; How does that user base perceive Wikipedia and its problems?
:* What demographic are we reaching out to? how will we reach that demographic?
:* Utilizing crowdsourcing techniques to highlight factual inaccuracies? How can we harness [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/Talk:Future_of_Wikipedia voluntary contributory energies]?
:* Organization and filtering techniques will make it easier to match factual inaccuracies with editors (new or existing) willing and able to make corrections

= Proposed Solutions =
== FireFox browser extension [Amanda] ==

'''PRODUCT SPEC:'''

Wikipedia Educational Browser Extension
[http://www.slideshare.net/amandapey/wikipedia-group Browser Spec Images]

'''WRITTEN DESCRIPTION:'''

This browser extension serves many purposes: first, it is meant to facilitate the identification of factual errors within Wikipedia by creating a user-friendly way to catalog the errors using Wikipedia's taxonomy - which you can find under the open task bar in this link <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_portal>, second, it provides an inroad for new potential editors to interact with the site through micro-contributions and build familiarity with Wikipedia process, third it teaches users to do not completely rely on the text he/she is reading and to point him/her to which areas need contribution [?], fourth, it would also work as a way to bring the discussion page to the surface, teaching them to "discuss before editing".

What to Build (Description) â please forgive the non-technical nature of this spec. We are happy to provide additional information including more views if needed.

After the user installs the plugin, there should be a logo in the bottom right corner of the browser and an entry added to the âtoolsâ bar of the browser.

We imagine the interaction as follows:

When the user spots an error, he or she can click on our logo in the corner of the browser or click the entry in the Tools menu and a small window will pop up from the bottom of the browser (see below image for basic window design). Then, he or she would highlight the text that contains what the users suspects to be an error. The text would be auto-pasted into the text box. Then the user can add commentary and additional references. After the user adds commentary on the error and clicks submit the two text fields will be sent to two places â our database and a landing page where the accuracy flags will be delivered in real-time.

Moreover, the script would allow the user to see, if he/she desires which areas of the text are highly controversial and had many people commenting on them. This would be made by attributing hotter colors to more disputed/commented paragraphs and lighter colors to the others. This functionality is inspired by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stet_%28software%29 this tool] developed for the purpose of revising the GPL licenses.

The text should disappear from the two boxes and instead be replaced by a popup dialog box that says âthank you for your contribution.â

== Implementation - First steps ==
:1. Name application
:2. Reach out to Mozilla community to build proposed FireFox application extension.
:3. Work with Wikimedia/Bridgespan to incorporate landing page and application with Wikipedia.

== Suggestions from Mozilla community [Bruno] ==

*Use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stet_%28software%29 Stet] to highlight controverted parts of the text
**[http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gplv3-draft-4.html#gpl3.verbatimcopying.0.0 Example of this tool]
*Advantages:
**raise awareness of controversies in each article;
**bring the discussion page to the surface making the user more acquainted with the idea of reading that information critically
*Problems:
**How to integrate past discussions in the software database?
**How to get people to use the tool?

= Other solutions we considered [Bruno] =
==Beta Versions==
*Inspired by the open source community production system: decentralized production and semi-centralized control over the (semi) final product
**Wikipedia has been discussing this idea in the context of biographies of living persons
*Advantages:
**Reduced vandalism and increased accuracy in articles
**Establishment of a culture of discussing/reviewing articles before pushing them live
*Problems:
**How to deal with the eventual backlog of edits to be approved? This would only be solved by also increasing the number of "power editors"
**How to determine who is promoted to this higher level?

==Campaign to encourage users to "donate" edits==
===Objectives===
*Convert users into editors
*Focus on underdeveloped articles that could be identified with the tool described above
*Introduce newbies to Wikipedia's writing style and rules

==Strengthening relationship and partnering with secondary school systems (Franny)==
*Plugging in landing page to school system
*Lesson plan

= Discussion Questions =
1) How do we keep this tool from being an invitation to massively and scrupulously edit only topics like the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_swift Taylor Swift] article?

2) What should we name our application?
:* Wiki Peer Review
:* WikiNation; WikiWorld
:* Our Wikipedia
:* Wikipedia For Life (W4L)

3) Compare the average discussion happening in a Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taylor_Swift talk page] and one happening on a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb-K2tXWK4w Youtube video]. Which one is better?

4) Might it be worthwhile to be able to click on a piece of a wikipedia page and find out who added/edited it? (Craig also suggested that a reputation system might be worthwhile)
: for example, [http://wikitrust.collaborativetrust.com/screenshots screenshots from WikiTrust]

5) What about a pop-up, after someone has been for a while in Wikipedia, asking for help? A sufficiently user-friendly mechanism could nudge the user into disclosing her/his areas of expertise, and then show stud pages or redlinks.

Main Page

2010-01-17T03:33:02Z

Darbix: /* WEEK TWO: CROSS-CUTTING THEMES */

Welcome to Difficult Problems in Cyberlaw, a January course taught by Professor Jonathan Zittrain and Elizabeth Stark, co-hosted by Stanford Law School and Harvard Law School.

In addition to this wiki, this class maintains a [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/difficultprobs/ blog] and [http://twitter.com/DifficultProbs twitter feed]. Check them out!

If you are a student, please see the [[Student Responsibilities]] section and [[Course Logistics]]. For admins looking for details on field trips, please visit [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/difficultproblems/Main_Page#Field_Trip_Logistic here]. All regular class meetings will be at '''Stanford Law School Classroom 280B'''.

This [http://www.law.stanford.edu/contact/#maps map site] has a map of the [http://www.aaccessmaps.com/show/map/us/ca/bayarea Bay Area], [http://ucomm.stanford.edu/map/ Stanford campus], and [http://transportation.stanford.edu/images/visitor-bus.pdf visitor parking] at Stanford.

The four main difficult problems to be addressed are:
*[[Global Network Initiative]] ([[GNI Brainstorming |Group Page]])
*[[Ubiquitous Human Computing]] ([[Ubicomp Brainstorming |Group Page]])
*[[Future of Wikipedia]]
*[[Cybersecurity]] ([[Cybersecurity Brainstorming |Group Page]])

Cross-cutting themes include:
*[[Due process on the Internet among private sheriffs]]
*[[The role of intermediaries]]
*[[Motivating good and bad actors]]
*[[Collaborating and relying on masses]]
*[[Privacy and Anonymity on the Internet]]

Group presentation schedule:
*Friday, Jan. 15th: Ubiquitous Human Computing
*Tuesday, Jan. 19th: Cybersecurity
*Wednesday, Jan. 20th: Global Network Initiative
*Thursday, Jan. 21st: Future of Wikipedia

==WEEK ONE: DEFINING THE PROBLEMS==

<center> '''Monday, January 4th''' </center>

'''LUNCH''': 12-2pm SLS, Room 280B
:Student introductions

'''CLASS''': 7:20-9:20pm SLS Room 280B
:A brief overview of the course, its goals and expectations, including an introduction to the difficult problems and the cross-cutting themes.
:A quiz on Zittrain's book, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It] will be given.
:Brief introduction to the Global Network Initiative

''Readings For Class'':
*Read [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]
*Explore the [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/ Global Network Initiative] website
*Read the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/GNI GNI Wiki Primer]

''Assignments'': Before next class, post [[Day 2 Predictions]].

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 1 Thoughts]]

----

<center> '''Tuesday, January 5th''' </center>

'''CYBERSECURITY BACKGROUND: ''BONUS''''': 2-4pm SLS Room 280B
: Professor Zittrain will interview Professor [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=559 Jack Goldsmith] as an overview of cybersecurity as it has evolved and as it can potentially be addressed.

*''Bonus Writing Opportunity'': produce a summary of the cybersecurity event, to be used as background reading for Thursday

'''CLASS''': 5:15-7:15pm SLS Room 280B
:Identify the first-order problems regarding corporate responsibility and free expression on the internet. Examine how GNI attempts to address these problems and then evaluate whether GNI is a success and whether better approaches could be taken.
:Introduction to ubiquitous human computing.

''Guests:''
*Mark Chandler, CISCO
*Chuck Cosson, Microsoft
*Dunstan Hope, BSR

''Readings:''
*Read Rhys Blakely, ''[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article728898.ece Yahoo in second Chinese blog Row],'' TimesOnline, Feb. 9, 2006.
*Read Colin Maclay, "[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10/asset/maclay-access-controlled-pdf Protecting Privacy and Expression Online]," ''in'' Access Controlled (Ronald Diebert et al., eds., MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 2010).
*Read GNI [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/cms/uploads/1/GNI_-_Principles_1_.pdf Guiding Principles]
*Read the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/Ubiquitous_Human_Computing UbiComp Wiki Primer]

''Assignments'': Before next class, post [[Day 3 Predictions]].

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 2 Thoughts]]

----

<center> '''Wednesday, January 6th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 6:30-8:30pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 7:00pm
:Examine the nature of ubiquitous human computing and potential future applications of human computing and the dangers.
:Introduction to cybersecurity.

''Guests'':
*Lukas Biewald, [http://crowdflower.com/ CrowdFlower]
*Bjoern Hartman, see his [http://bjoern.org/projects/catbook/ Mechanical Turk Cats Book]
*Aaron Koblin, see his [http://www.aaronkoblin.com/work.html Ten Thousand Cents and Sheep Market projects]

''Readings'':
*Visit [http://www.mturk.com/ Mechanical Turk], [http://www.liveops.com/ LiveOps], [http://www.crowdflower.com CrowdFlower] or other human computing site
**Watch the [http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2167086 12-minute video] of Lukas' CrowdFlower presentation at TechCrunch
*Skim Nancy R. Mansfield, ''[http://www.allbusiness.com/technology/internet-technology/618188-1.html The information revolution and its impact on the employment relationship: an analysis of the cyberspace workplace]'', American Business Law Journal (2003).
*Kate Thomas, ''[http://www.seiu.org/2009/12/insurers-hire-mafia-to-spam-congress.php Insurers Hire Mafia to Spam Congress]'', SEIU.org Blog, Dec. 10, 2009.
*Read Jonathan Zittrain, ''[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10/asset/ssrn-id1140445-pdf Ubiquitous Human Computing]'', SSRN Paper No 32/2008 (July 2008).
*Read the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/Cybersecurity Cybersecurity Wiki Primer]

'''ASSIGNMENT: Due -- Email Admin with Problem Topic Choice'''

''Assignment'': Before next class, post [[Day 4 Predictions]].

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 3 Thoughts]]

----

<center> '''Thursday, January 7th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 11:10am-1:10pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 11:40am
:Cybersecurity has been identified as one of the greatest threats facing the United States today, but it is ill-defined and almost impossible to address. How can we frame this problem to better inspire solutions? How should government, military, businesses, and internet/tech approach the problem from different angles and do these different approaches work together?
:Introduction to Future of Wikipedia

''Guests'':
*Chuck Cosson, Microsoft

''Readings'':
*Listen to David Clark, [http://www.ischool.berkeley.edu/newsandevents/events/sl20090304 The Internets We Did Not Build].
*Col. Allen & Lt. Col Demchak, ''[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 The Palestinian-Israeli Cyberwar]'', Military Review (2003).
*Kim Zetter, ''[http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/08/revealed-the-in/ Revealed: The Internet's Biggest Security Hole]'', Wired (2008).
*Review Zittrain, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]; Chapter 3
*Skim CENTRA Technology, [http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 Cyber Compendium] Workshop, Nov. 2009.
*Skim the White House [http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Cyberspace_Policy_Review_final.pdf Cyberspace Policy Review] (2009); focus on the introduction/overview and the Near & Mid-Term Action Plans.
*Read [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/Future_of_Wikipedia Future of Wikipedia] wiki background paper

''Assignment'': Before next class, post [[Day 5 Predictions]].

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 4 Thoughts]]

----

<center> '''Friday, January 8th''' </center>

'''FIELD TRIP: ''BONUS''''': 10:30 am eBay office visit (shuttle from SLS), including JZ talk and meeting with eBay lawyers and security experts
*If you're unable to attend, you might want to watch JZ's [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw3h-rae3uo Minds for Sale talk].

'''CLASS''': 3:00-5:00pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 3:30pm
:Wikipedia has grown quickly and rapidly to become one of if not the largest online content-generating collaboration. Following the 2009 Wikimania, Wikimedia has undertaken a self-review, looking at strategies for the future of Wikipedia. Is it a sustainable model? and if so, to what other fields is it applicable? How can its reception in academia be improved? and what are its applications for education?
:Brief introduction of next week's cross-cutting themes

''Guests'':
*Stu West, [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees#Stu_West Wikimedia Foundation Board Member]
*Mike Godwin, Wikimedia General Counsel
*Phoebe Ayers, Wikimedia volunteer

''Readings'':
*Review Zittrain, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]; Chapter 6
*Peruse Wikipedia's [http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Strategy Page]
*Strona, ''[http://prawo.uni.wroc.pl/~kwasnicki/EkonLit6/WikipediaSoul.pdf The Battle for Wikipedia's Soul]'', The Economist, March 6, 2008.
*''[http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki A Stand Against Wikipedia?]'', Inside Higher Ed, Jan. 26, 2007.
*Browse [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ Wikipedia Watch] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia]
*''[http://www.resourceshelf.com/2009/11/23/wsj-volunteers-log-off-as-wikipedia-ages/ Wikipedia Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages]'', Wall Street Journal.
*''[http://infodisiac.com/blog/2009/12/new-editors-are-joining-english-wikipedia-in-droves/ New editors are joining English Wikipedia in droves?]'', Infodisiac, Dec. 6, 2009.

''Assignment'': Before next class, post [[Day 6 Predictions]].

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 5 Thoughts]]

'''EVENING EVENT: ''BONUS''''': Cocktails and hors d'oeuvres at David Hornik's office in Palo Alto after class.

----

<center> '''Saturday, January 9th''' </center>

Tour of San Francisco (Optional); details TBD. To give input and suggestions, visit [[Tour Ideas]].

==WEEK TWO: CROSS-CUTTING THEMES==

<center> '''Monday, January 11th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 7:20-9:20pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 7:50pm
:One potential way to address some of the problems addressed in this course is through innovations and technological solutions. Several solutions have changed the way our browsers work and thereby changed the way we interact with the internet, making life better. In what other areas could a similar approach be applied? Change the technology, save the world.
:Introduction to cross-cutting theme of privacy, anonymity and liability on the internet

''Guests'':
*John M. Agosta, [http://disputefinder.cs.berkeley.edu/ DisputeFinder]
*Tye Rattenbury, DisputeFinder
*Rob Ennals, DisputeFinder
*Tad Hersch, DisputeFinder

''Readings'':
*Visit [http://www.herdict.org/web/ HerdictWeb]
*Watch [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NggzBHSXdCo Video explanation of Herdict] (student suggested)
*Zittrain's [http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2009/02/10/berkman-jz-on-herdict/ Comments on Herdict] at a Berkman Center Lunch
*Visit [http://disputefinder.cs.berkeley.edu/ DisputeFinder] (Test it out!)
*Visit [https://www.new.net/ New.net]
**How can .church domain names exist when it does not exist? Look at the new.net domain decoder
**Compare with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains List of Internet Domains]
*Read Introduction to Ann Bartow, ''[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlg/vol322/383-430.pdf Internet Defamation As Profit Center: The Monetization of Online Harrassment]'', 32 Harvard Journal of Law & Gender 383 (2009).

''Assignment'': Before next class, post [[Day 7 Predictions]].

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 6 Thoughts]]

----

<center> '''Tuesday, January 12th''' </center>

'''WORKSHOP: ''BONUS''''': 1-2pm Faculty Lounge, Stanford [http://public.resource.org/law.gov/ law.gov workshop]
Hosted by Carl Malamud
:Some students attend the entire workshop, 10am-3pm

'''CLASS''': 5:15-7:15pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 5:45pm
:Privacy and anonymity can raise significant issues for accountability for online actions. Users often believe they are more anonymous than they truly are online - how can we better educate the public about the reality of privacy online? Consider the Drumbeat privacy project and creative commons issues.
:Introduction to the cross-cutting theme of due process and dispute resolution on the internet.

''Guests'':
*Ryan Calo, SLS Fellow
*Ebele Okobi-Harris, Yahoo! Director of Business and Human Rights
*Mark Surman, Mozilla
*Michael Fertik, Reputation Defender
*Carl Malamud
*Julie Martin, Mozilla
*Aza Raskin, Mozilla

''Readings'':
*Browse [http://creativecommons.org/ Creative Commons] for discussion
*Review Zittrain, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]; Chapter 9 on Data Genealogy
*Odia Kagan, ''[http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=1915 Fighting Anonymous Defamation],'' Int'l Business Law Services, November 26, 2007.
*Consider commercial applications; visit [http://www.reputationdefender.com/ ReputationDefender]
*[https://wiki.mozilla.org/Drumbeat/Challenges/Privacy_Icons Drumbeat privacy icon challenge] backgrounder

''Additional Materials'' (suggested by student):
*Watch [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCbKv9yiLiQ Message from Anonymous to the Church of Scientology];
*Skim [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29 Wikipedia's article about Anonymous Group];
*Read about (and use!) [http://www.torproject.org/ Tor]

''Assignment'': Before next class, post [[Day 8 Predictions]].

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 7 Thoughts]]

----

<center> '''Wednesday, January 13th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 6:30-8:30pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 7:00pm
:How do our due process concerns translate to the internet and online communities? Should due process exist on the internet? Is the internet public or private space and under what terms do we have the privilege or right to access?
:Consider, for example, how much due process should be required to remove an account from Facebook, Google or Twitter. How much due process is necessary for a take-down on YouTube and what right of appeal do you have in any of these circumstances?
:Introduction to online collaboration and group motivation strategies

''Guests'':

* Kim Scott, Google

''Readings'':

* Skim Elizabeth Thornburg, ''[http://faculty.smu.edu/ethornbu/Thornburg%20Macro.doc Going Private: Technology, Due Process, and Internet Dispute Resolution]'', 34 Univ. Cal. Davis 151 (2000).
* Read through the Facebook or Google terms of service (see the primer above)
* Recall Zittrain, Chapter 7, on [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/18#48 Private Sheriffs]
* Terri Wells, ''[http://www.seochat.com/c/a/Search-Engine-News/Beware-the-Google-Death-Penalty/ Beware the Google 'Death Penalty']'',Search Engine News (2006).

''Assignment'': Before next class, post [[Day 9 Predictions]].

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 8 Thoughts]]

----

<center> '''Thursday, January 14th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 11:10am-1:10pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 11:40am
:Online collaboration projects require internet organizations to motivate and coordinate large groups of people. This requires both motivating good actors to participate and motivating bad actors either to not participate or to conform to the rules/standards of the site. How can website hosts face these challenges? How involved should the users of cooperatively developed sites be in their governments?

''Guests'':
*Daniel Hoffer, [http://www.couchsurfing.org/ Couchsurfing]
*Micah Schaffer
*Dan Scholnick, [http://www.trinityventures.com/venture-capital-team/bio.php?first-name=Dan&last-name=Scholnick Trinity Ventures]
*Ben Rigby, [http://beextra.org The Extraordinaries]
*Stu West, [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees#Stu_West Wikimedia Foundation Board Member]

''Readings'':
*F. Gino, Jun Gu, & Chen-Bo Zhong, ''[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 Contagion or Restitution? When bad apples can motivate ethical behavior]'', 45 J. Experimental Social Psychology 1299-1302 (2009).
*Browse [http://www.opencouchsurfing.org/ OpenCouchSurfing.org] posts and complaints
*Review readings from Friday, January 8th on Wikipedia and motivation of contributors

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 9 Thoughts]]

'''CLASS SOCIAL''': Bonus, evening, details TBD

----

<center> '''Friday, January 15th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 1:00-3:00pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 1:30pm
:Ubiquitous Human Computing presentation (60 min)
:Discussion of solution's strengths and weaknesses and other approaches to consider

''Guests'':
*Fabio Rosati, Elance

''Group Documents'':
*[http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AVl_o5lQOXEqZGMzejN4OG5fMjEzZnFyeG54ZG4&hl=en Best practices ]
*[http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AVl_o5lQOXEqZGMzejN4OG5fMjE2Z3pjNWR2ZGM&hl=en Technological solutions ]

''Thoughts about the discussed solutions'': [[UHC Solutions]]

==WEEK THREE: SOLUTIONS==

<center> '''Monday, January 18th''' </center>

'''NO CLASS''': [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._Day Martin Luther King, Jr. Day]

----

<center> '''Tuesday, January 19th''' </center>

'''FIELD TRIP: ''BONUS''''': Reputation Defender, 1pm

'''FIELD TRIP: ''BONUS''''': Google, 3pm

'''CLASS''': 5:15-7:15pm SLS Room 280B or Google (TBC), guests to begin arriving at 5:45pm
:Cybersecurity presentation (60 min)
:Discussion of solution's strengths and weaknesses and other approaches to consider

''Guests'':
*Mitchell Baker

----

<center> '''Wednesday, January 20th''' </center>

'''FIELD TRIP: ''BONUS'':''' Facebook, 12:30-2pm (TBC)

'''CLASS''': 6:30-8:30pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 7:00pm
:Global Network Initiative presentation (60 min)
:Discussion of solution's strengths and weaknesses and other approaches to consider

----

<center> '''Thursday, January 21st''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 11:10am-1:10pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 11:40am
:Future of Wikipedia presentation (60 min)
:Discussion of solution's strengths and weaknesses and other approaches to consider

''Guests'':
*Craig Newmark, [http://www.craigslist.org/about/craig_newmark Craigslist founder] and [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board#Craig_Newmark Wikimedia Foundation Advisory Board member]
*Edward Wes
*Stu West, [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees#Stu_West Wikimedia Foundation Board Member] (tentative)

'''WRAP-UP DINNER''': 7:20-9:20pm SLS Student Lounge

----

<center> '''January 31st''' </center>

'''FINAL PROJECTS DUE'''

Day 8 Thoughts

2010-01-17T03:30:41Z

Darbix: New page: The amount and quality of information online services keep about its users is extraordinary. As such data's value grows, how will private actors and deal with users' control (or absence of...

The amount and quality of information online services keep about its users is extraordinary. As such data's value grows, how will private actors and deal with users' control (or absence of) over it? Is disclosure of the information-gathering processes enough? Can private actors resolve the most pressing issues deriving from holding user-information with privately-run mechanisms? Or, on the other hand, should a push for mandatory due process mechanisms / standards be expected? What about stronger privacy and consumer protection laws?

Main Page

2010-01-17T02:25:27Z

Darbix: Undo revision 836 by Antakyanet (Talk)

Welcome to Difficult Problems in Cyberlaw, a January course taught by Professor Jonathan Zittrain and Elizabeth Stark, co-hosted by Stanford Law School and Harvard Law School.

In addition to this wiki, this class maintains a [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/difficultprobs/ blog] and [http://twitter.com/DifficultProbs twitter feed]. Check them out!

If you are a student, please see the [[Student Responsibilities]] section and [[Course Logistics]]. For admins looking for details on field trips, please visit [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/difficultproblems/Main_Page#Field_Trip_Logistic here]. All regular class meetings will be at '''Stanford Law School Classroom 280B'''.

This [http://www.law.stanford.edu/contact/#maps map site] has a map of the [http://www.aaccessmaps.com/show/map/us/ca/bayarea Bay Area], [http://ucomm.stanford.edu/map/ Stanford campus], and [http://transportation.stanford.edu/images/visitor-bus.pdf visitor parking] at Stanford.

The four main difficult problems to be addressed are:
*[[Global Network Initiative]] ([[GNI Brainstorming |Group Page]])
*[[Ubiquitous Human Computing]] ([[Ubicomp Brainstorming |Group Page]])
*[[Future of Wikipedia]]
*[[Cybersecurity]] ([[Cybersecurity Brainstorming |Group Page]])

Cross-cutting themes include:
*[[Due process on the Internet among private sheriffs]]
*[[The role of intermediaries]]
*[[Motivating good and bad actors]]
*[[Collaborating and relying on masses]]
*[[Privacy and Anonymity on the Internet]]

Group presentation schedule:
*Friday, Jan. 15th: Ubiquitous Human Computing
*Tuesday, Jan. 19th: Cybersecurity
*Wednesday, Jan. 20th: Global Network Initiative
*Thursday, Jan. 21st: Future of Wikipedia

==WEEK ONE: DEFINING THE PROBLEMS==

<center> '''Monday, January 4th''' </center>

'''LUNCH''': 12-2pm SLS, Room 280B
:Student introductions

'''CLASS''': 7:20-9:20pm SLS Room 280B
:A brief overview of the course, its goals and expectations, including an introduction to the difficult problems and the cross-cutting themes.
:A quiz on Zittrain's book, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It] will be given.
:Brief introduction to the Global Network Initiative

''Readings For Class'':
*Read [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]
*Explore the [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/ Global Network Initiative] website
*Read the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/GNI GNI Wiki Primer]

''Assignments'': Before next class, post [[Day 2 Predictions]].

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 1 Thoughts]]

----

<center> '''Tuesday, January 5th''' </center>

'''CYBERSECURITY BACKGROUND: ''BONUS''''': 2-4pm SLS Room 280B
: Professor Zittrain will interview Professor [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=559 Jack Goldsmith] as an overview of cybersecurity as it has evolved and as it can potentially be addressed.

*''Bonus Writing Opportunity'': produce a summary of the cybersecurity event, to be used as background reading for Thursday

'''CLASS''': 5:15-7:15pm SLS Room 280B
:Identify the first-order problems regarding corporate responsibility and free expression on the internet. Examine how GNI attempts to address these problems and then evaluate whether GNI is a success and whether better approaches could be taken.
:Introduction to ubiquitous human computing.

''Guests:''
*Mark Chandler, CISCO
*Chuck Cosson, Microsoft
*Dunstan Hope, BSR

''Readings:''
*Read Rhys Blakely, ''[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article728898.ece Yahoo in second Chinese blog Row],'' TimesOnline, Feb. 9, 2006.
*Read Colin Maclay, "[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10/asset/maclay-access-controlled-pdf Protecting Privacy and Expression Online]," ''in'' Access Controlled (Ronald Diebert et al., eds., MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 2010).
*Read GNI [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/cms/uploads/1/GNI_-_Principles_1_.pdf Guiding Principles]
*Read the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/Ubiquitous_Human_Computing UbiComp Wiki Primer]

''Assignments'': Before next class, post [[Day 3 Predictions]].

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 2 Thoughts]]

----

<center> '''Wednesday, January 6th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 6:30-8:30pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 7:00pm
:Examine the nature of ubiquitous human computing and potential future applications of human computing and the dangers.
:Introduction to cybersecurity.

''Guests'':
*Lukas Biewald, [http://crowdflower.com/ CrowdFlower]
*Bjoern Hartman, see his [http://bjoern.org/projects/catbook/ Mechanical Turk Cats Book]
*Aaron Koblin, see his [http://www.aaronkoblin.com/work.html Ten Thousand Cents and Sheep Market projects]

''Readings'':
*Visit [http://www.mturk.com/ Mechanical Turk], [http://www.liveops.com/ LiveOps], [http://www.crowdflower.com CrowdFlower] or other human computing site
**Watch the [http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2167086 12-minute video] of Lukas' CrowdFlower presentation at TechCrunch
*Skim Nancy R. Mansfield, ''[http://www.allbusiness.com/technology/internet-technology/618188-1.html The information revolution and its impact on the employment relationship: an analysis of the cyberspace workplace]'', American Business Law Journal (2003).
*Kate Thomas, ''[http://www.seiu.org/2009/12/insurers-hire-mafia-to-spam-congress.php Insurers Hire Mafia to Spam Congress]'', SEIU.org Blog, Dec. 10, 2009.
*Read Jonathan Zittrain, ''[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10/asset/ssrn-id1140445-pdf Ubiquitous Human Computing]'', SSRN Paper No 32/2008 (July 2008).
*Read the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/Cybersecurity Cybersecurity Wiki Primer]

'''ASSIGNMENT: Due -- Email Admin with Problem Topic Choice'''

''Assignment'': Before next class, post [[Day 4 Predictions]].

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 3 Thoughts]]

----

<center> '''Thursday, January 7th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 11:10am-1:10pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 11:40am
:Cybersecurity has been identified as one of the greatest threats facing the United States today, but it is ill-defined and almost impossible to address. How can we frame this problem to better inspire solutions? How should government, military, businesses, and internet/tech approach the problem from different angles and do these different approaches work together?
:Introduction to Future of Wikipedia

''Guests'':
*Chuck Cosson, Microsoft

''Readings'':
*Listen to David Clark, [http://www.ischool.berkeley.edu/newsandevents/events/sl20090304 The Internets We Did Not Build].
*Col. Allen & Lt. Col Demchak, ''[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 The Palestinian-Israeli Cyberwar]'', Military Review (2003).
*Kim Zetter, ''[http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/08/revealed-the-in/ Revealed: The Internet's Biggest Security Hole]'', Wired (2008).
*Review Zittrain, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]; Chapter 3
*Skim CENTRA Technology, [http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 Cyber Compendium] Workshop, Nov. 2009.
*Skim the White House [http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Cyberspace_Policy_Review_final.pdf Cyberspace Policy Review] (2009); focus on the introduction/overview and the Near & Mid-Term Action Plans.
*Read [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/Future_of_Wikipedia Future of Wikipedia] wiki background paper

''Assignment'': Before next class, post [[Day 5 Predictions]].

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 4 Thoughts]]

----

<center> '''Friday, January 8th''' </center>

'''FIELD TRIP: ''BONUS''''': 10:30 am eBay office visit (shuttle from SLS), including JZ talk and meeting with eBay lawyers and security experts
*If you're unable to attend, you might want to watch JZ's [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw3h-rae3uo Minds for Sale talk].

'''CLASS''': 3:00-5:00pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 3:30pm
:Wikipedia has grown quickly and rapidly to become one of if not the largest online content-generating collaboration. Following the 2009 Wikimania, Wikimedia has undertaken a self-review, looking at strategies for the future of Wikipedia. Is it a sustainable model? and if so, to what other fields is it applicable? How can its reception in academia be improved? and what are its applications for education?
:Brief introduction of next week's cross-cutting themes

''Guests'':
*Stu West, [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees#Stu_West Wikimedia Foundation Board Member]
*Mike Godwin, Wikimedia General Counsel
*Phoebe Ayers, Wikimedia volunteer

''Readings'':
*Review Zittrain, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]; Chapter 6
*Peruse Wikipedia's [http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Strategy Page]
*Strona, ''[http://prawo.uni.wroc.pl/~kwasnicki/EkonLit6/WikipediaSoul.pdf The Battle for Wikipedia's Soul]'', The Economist, March 6, 2008.
*''[http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki A Stand Against Wikipedia?]'', Inside Higher Ed, Jan. 26, 2007.
*Browse [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ Wikipedia Watch] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia]
*''[http://www.resourceshelf.com/2009/11/23/wsj-volunteers-log-off-as-wikipedia-ages/ Wikipedia Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages]'', Wall Street Journal.
*''[http://infodisiac.com/blog/2009/12/new-editors-are-joining-english-wikipedia-in-droves/ New editors are joining English Wikipedia in droves?]'', Infodisiac, Dec. 6, 2009.

''Assignment'': Before next class, post [[Day 6 Predictions]].

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 5 Thoughts]]

'''EVENING EVENT: ''BONUS''''': Cocktails and hors d'oeuvres at David Hornik's office in Palo Alto after class.

----

<center> '''Saturday, January 9th''' </center>

Tour of San Francisco (Optional); details TBD. To give input and suggestions, visit [[Tour Ideas]].

==WEEK TWO: CROSS-CUTTING THEMES==

<center> '''Monday, January 11th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 7:20-9:20pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 7:50pm
:One potential way to address some of the problems addressed in this course is through innovations and technological solutions. Several solutions have changed the way our browsers work and thereby changed the way we interact with the internet, making life better. In what other areas could a similar approach be applied? Change the technology, save the world.
:Introduction to cross-cutting theme of privacy, anonymity and liability on the internet

''Guests'':
*John M. Agosta, [http://disputefinder.cs.berkeley.edu/ DisputeFinder]
*Tye Rattenbury, DisputeFinder
*Rob Ennals, DisputeFinder
*Tad Hersch, DisputeFinder

''Readings'':
*Visit [http://www.herdict.org/web/ HerdictWeb]
*Watch [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NggzBHSXdCo Video explanation of Herdict] (student suggested)
*Zittrain's [http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2009/02/10/berkman-jz-on-herdict/ Comments on Herdict] at a Berkman Center Lunch
*Visit [http://disputefinder.cs.berkeley.edu/ DisputeFinder] (Test it out!)
*Visit [https://www.new.net/ New.net]
**How can .church domain names exist when it does not exist? Look at the new.net domain decoder
**Compare with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains List of Internet Domains]
*Read Introduction to Ann Bartow, ''[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlg/vol322/383-430.pdf Internet Defamation As Profit Center: The Monetization of Online Harrassment]'', 32 Harvard Journal of Law & Gender 383 (2009).

''Assignment'': Before next class, post [[Day 7 Predictions]].

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 6 Thoughts]]

----

<center> '''Tuesday, January 12th''' </center>

'''WORKSHOP: ''BONUS''''': 1-2pm Faculty Lounge, Stanford [http://public.resource.org/law.gov/ law.gov workshop]
Hosted by Carl Malamud
:Some students attend the entire workshop, 10am-3pm

'''CLASS''': 5:15-7:15pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 5:45pm
:Privacy and anonymity can raise significant issues for accountability for online actions. Users often believe they are more anonymous than they truly are online - how can we better educate the public about the reality of privacy online? Consider the Drumbeat privacy project and creative commons issues.
:Introduction to the cross-cutting theme of due process and dispute resolution on the internet.

''Guests'':
*Ryan Calo, SLS Fellow
*Ebele Okobi-Harris, Yahoo! Director of Business and Human Rights
*Mark Surman, Mozilla
*Michael Fertik, Reputation Defender
*Carl Malamud
*Julie Martin, Mozilla
*Aza Raskin, Mozilla

''Readings'':
*Browse [http://creativecommons.org/ Creative Commons] for discussion
*Review Zittrain, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]; Chapter 9 on Data Genealogy
*Odia Kagan, ''[http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=1915 Fighting Anonymous Defamation],'' Int'l Business Law Services, November 26, 2007.
*Consider commercial applications; visit [http://www.reputationdefender.com/ ReputationDefender]
*[https://wiki.mozilla.org/Drumbeat/Challenges/Privacy_Icons Drumbeat privacy icon challenge] backgrounder

''Additional Materials'' (suggested by student):
*Watch [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCbKv9yiLiQ Message from Anonymous to the Church of Scientology];
*Skim [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29 Wikipedia's article about Anonymous Group];
*Read about (and use!) [http://www.torproject.org/ Tor]

''Assignment'': Before next class, post [[Day 8 Predictions]].

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 7 Thoughts]]

----

<center> '''Wednesday, January 13th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 6:30-8:30pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 7:00pm
:How do our due process concerns translate to the internet and online communities? Should due process exist on the internet? Is the internet public or private space and under what terms do we have the privilege or right to access?
:Consider, for example, how much due process should be required to remove an account from Facebook, Google or Twitter. How much due process is necessary for a take-down on YouTube and what right of appeal do you have in any of these circumstances?
:Introduction to online collaboration and group motivation strategies

''Guests'':

* Kim Scott, Google

''Readings'':

* Skim Elizabeth Thornburg, ''[http://faculty.smu.edu/ethornbu/Thornburg%20Macro.doc Going Private: Technology, Due Process, and Internet Dispute Resolution]'', 34 Univ. Cal. Davis 151 (2000).
* Read through the Facebook or Google terms of service (see the primer above)
* Recall Zittrain, Chapter 7, on [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/18#48 Private Sheriffs]
* Terri Wells, ''[http://www.seochat.com/c/a/Search-Engine-News/Beware-the-Google-Death-Penalty/ Beware the Google 'Death Penalty']'',Search Engine News (2006).

''Assignment'': Before next class, post [[Day 9 Predictions]].

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 8 Thoughts]]

----

<center> '''Thursday, January 14th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 11:10am-1:10pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 11:40am
:Online collaboration projects require internet organizations to motivate and coordinate large groups of people. This requires both motivating good actors to participate and motivating bad actors either to not participate or to conform to the rules/standards of the site. How can website hosts face these challenges? How involved should the users of cooperatively developed sites be in their governments?

''Guests'':
*Daniel Hoffer, [http://www.couchsurfing.org/ Couchsurfing]
*Micah Schaffer
*Dan Scholnick, [http://www.trinityventures.com/venture-capital-team/bio.php?first-name=Dan&last-name=Scholnick Trinity Ventures]
*Ben Rigby, [http://beextra.org The Extraordinaries]
*Stu West, [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees#Stu_West Wikimedia Foundation Board Member]

''Readings'':
*F. Gino, Jun Gu, & Chen-Bo Zhong, ''[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 Contagion or Restitution? When bad apples can motivate ethical behavior]'', 45 J. Experimental Social Psychology 1299-1302 (2009).
*Browse [http://www.opencouchsurfing.org/ OpenCouchSurfing.org] posts and complaints
*Review readings from Friday, January 8th on Wikipedia and motivation of contributors

''Thoughts after class'': [[Day 9 Thoughts]]

'''CLASS SOCIAL''': Bonus, evening, details TBD

----

<center> '''Friday, January 15th''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 1:00-3:00pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 1:30pm
:Ubiquitous Human Computing presentation (60 min)
:Discussion of solution's strengths and weaknesses and other approaches to consider

''Guests'':
*Fabio Rosati, Elance

''Group Documents'':
*[http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AVl_o5lQOXEqZGMzejN4OG5fMjEzZnFyeG54ZG4&hl=en Best practices ]
*[http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AVl_o5lQOXEqZGMzejN4OG5fMjE2Z3pjNWR2ZGM&hl=en Technological solutions ]

==WEEK THREE: SOLUTIONS==

<center> '''Monday, January 18th''' </center>

'''NO CLASS''': [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._Day Martin Luther King, Jr. Day]

----

<center> '''Tuesday, January 19th''' </center>

'''FIELD TRIP: ''BONUS''''': Reputation Defender, 1pm

'''FIELD TRIP: ''BONUS''''': Google, 3pm

'''CLASS''': 5:15-7:15pm SLS Room 280B or Google (TBC), guests to begin arriving at 5:45pm
:Cybersecurity presentation (60 min)
:Discussion of solution's strengths and weaknesses and other approaches to consider

''Guests'':
*Mitchell Baker

----

<center> '''Wednesday, January 20th''' </center>

'''FIELD TRIP: ''BONUS'':''' Facebook, 12:30-2pm (TBC)

'''CLASS''': 6:30-8:30pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 7:00pm
:Global Network Initiative presentation (60 min)
:Discussion of solution's strengths and weaknesses and other approaches to consider

----

<center> '''Thursday, January 21st''' </center>

'''CLASS''': 11:10am-1:10pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 11:40am
:Future of Wikipedia presentation (60 min)
:Discussion of solution's strengths and weaknesses and other approaches to consider

''Guests'':
*Craig Newmark, [http://www.craigslist.org/about/craig_newmark Craigslist founder] and [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board#Craig_Newmark Wikimedia Foundation Advisory Board member]
*Edward Wes
*Stu West, [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees#Stu_West Wikimedia Foundation Board Member] (tentative)

'''WRAP-UP DINNER''': 7:20-9:20pm SLS Student Lounge

----

<center> '''January 31st''' </center>

'''FINAL PROJECTS DUE'''

Day 9 Predictions

2010-01-14T18:49:28Z

Darbix: /* Online Trust and Identity */

==Online Trust and Identity==

It's kind of puzzling that a service like couchsurfing works despite the fact that it relies on people's ability to trust complete strangers. If now people can rely on reviews made by other users, it would be interesting to know how the site dealt with that issue in the beginning. What's especially interesting (and different) about couchsurfing is that people cannot hide under anonymity - they actually meet up in person, so there's no way to shield yourself under a pseudonym as you can on most other websites or web services. Does that contribute to people acting a little more nobly?

The amount of trust that people place in online applications has, I believe, risen significantly over the past 10 years. In 2000, people were skeptical of giving their credit card number to ecommerce sites, and in 2010 a site like Blippy can raise over $1m to build a service that shares all your purchases with the world (http://kara.allthingsd.com/20100114/blippy-opens-to-public-and-scores-high-profile-investors-including-twitters-evan-williams-for-the-the-twitter-of/). I would be interested to hear though how, if at all, Couchsurfing separates itself from taking responsibility when a user has a bad experience. All too often in social apps, companies take the "we're just the platform" defense and I wonder how much they subscribe to that. CS' terms of service, quite predictably, deny that their site is even involved in users contacting each other.

We'd be also interested in hearing about the identity verification system that Daniel mentioned at approx. 23:30 in the YouTube video mentioned bellow. How are they getting access to passport numbers and credit card numbers? If it is that much better at identifying people, why hasn't eBay implemented something like this? Besides the verification system, discussing other mechanisms to foster online trust (such as the CS vouching system), their failures and successes, seems extremely important.

==Motivations and Community==

It's interesting how the Extraordinaries (great name, reminded me of the Pixar movie The Incredibles) is for-profit, while Couchsurfing is non-profit. Will the Extraordinaries be able to build a Couchsurfing or Wikipedia-type community even though it's for-profit? Alternately, we might discuss how the non-profit of CS may have given rise to such a strong community of dissenters. If CS were a so-called [http://www.bcorporation.net/ B-Corp], as the Extraordinaries apparently aspires to be, would be people as angry at the supposed "betrayal" of the core values of the organization? It would also be really interesting to hear if they have a vetting process for people who want to "create missions." Have they gotten any "bad seeds" themselves? Do people try to scam the system and create illegitimate missions? Or is it just built on a system of trust?

We were struck by the fissures within the couchsurfing movement. It seems inevitable in these bottom-up, free internet communities that there will be intense fights over the direction of the project. What keeps communities like Wikipedia and Couchsurfing from still providing useful services despite all the chatter? Could that balance be reversed? How do we keep the community motivated enough to keep contributing?

===Bad Apples in An Online Community===

The OCS site leveled several general criticisms at CS and its governance structure, but other eye-catching rebukes involved the actions of a few "bad apples". It would be interesting to see the CS people consider whether their structure of vouching and verification truly offer the best protection against such isolated incidents, and whether the partially-open nature of the organization can lend enough critical eyes to "guilt" (using Gino et al's word choice) everyone into better behavior. Perhaps the existence of Open Couchsurfing itself provides some outsider review--what changes has Couchsurfing considered or actually implemented since these contrarian voices began their loose campaign?

==Additional Info==

Here is a related youtube video, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IDNKhAIOww CouchSurfing: What one website reveals about the future of the net].

Day 6 Thoughts

2010-01-14T01:56:42Z

Darbix:

Quickie thought: how effective can Firefox plugins really be for many projects - especially those that require a large non-geek percentage? And what if IE were to allow easy compatibility with plugins? Consider the following back of the envelope calculations:

-25% of Internet users use Firefox. [http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/05/05/how-many-firefox-users-are-there-mozilla-estimates-270-million/ Estimates] are that this is about 270 million users.

-The latest [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/statistics statistics] from Mozilla show that there are about 200 million add-ons in use total. But that's clearly not evenly distributed. I can't find the number, so let's wildly ballpark it and say that the average add-on user is using four add-ons (the Stanford computer in Room 280B is clearly using way more...), which means there are 50 million people that really use add-ons.

That means that if we take the roughly billion people who are estimated to be on the Net (based on the marketshare above of Firefox), about 5% even have the capacity to change their user experience with a Firefox extension.

I don't know what the implications of this are - anyone else have a deep thought? - but I think it's worth remembering that those who desire to change their Internet experiences this way are a small minority of users. If IE decided to open up to extensions, though - and if there was some way to translate existing Firefox extensions over to that platform - we might have a whole new ballgame... [[User:Jharrow|Jharrow]] 23:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

:Reuben: While we certainly demonstrated the utility of crowdsourcing and plug-ins in our discussion, Jason is correct in reminding us that we shouldn't lose the forest for the trees. Both crowdsourcing and plug-ins have their weaknesses, either the need for a critical mass of participation, the need for high quality participation (the kind that can't be bought from Mechanical Turk), or simple browser compatability. Without some larger education campaign or publicity, it's hard to imagine these plug-ins making significant impacts on many users. The majority will likely stick to plain vanilla internet and the cybersecurity problem, ubicomp problems, etc. will all still be out there for them. [[User:ReubRodriguez|ReubRodriguez]] 00:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

::Yeah, this is clearly an issue with all emerging internet technologies. 2/3s of people still use IE today. But it seems like innovation has been driven by the small group of elite users throughout the history of the internet (that's probably the case for other technologies). The cycle of plug-in to inclusion in Firefox to inclusion in IE probably could happen in a year or two, if the plug-in was really great. [[User:Rnagarajan|Rnagarajan]] 23:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

::: The move from early adopters using it as a plug-in to heavy discussion by elite users in prolific environment such as Mozillaâs [https://wiki.mozilla.org/drumbeat Drumbeat Project] or [http://slashdot.org/ Slashdot] to the tool becoming a âbuilt-inâ in Firefox could be pretty fast. And if the functionality indeed solves a real problem, it would be weird if IE, Chrome, Opera etc. would not adopt it ASAP (in whatever form that assimilation happens).[[User:Darbix|darbix]] 01:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Day 7 Predictions

2010-01-13T00:53:20Z

Darbix: /* Mozilla and Privacy */

In the spirit of today's issues, our collective "anonymous" predictions are set out below:

== Reputation Defender ==

First of all, congratulations to Reputation Defender for [http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/12/reputationdefender-kleiner-bessemer-8-65-million/ raising $8.65 million last year] (announced today, January 12, 2010).

Mr. Fertik will probably try to persuade us that Reputation Defender offers great advantages to improve our reputation (even promoted by Dr. Phil?!), and the service obviously has a lot of merit--assuming you have the ability to pay for it. It gives people a great way to remove defamatory, or potentially defamatory, content in a way where it harms nobody and helps those who it should. However, we hope that the students and guests will discuss the problems raised by this kind of business:
:â¢ Is Reputation Defender a tool to defend or artificially improve one's reputation? (And does it matter?)
:â¢ Does Reputation Defender's incentive to ''hide'' the methods they use to get content removed (sometimes as simple as a DMCA takedown) actually ''slow'' the evolution of civility on the Net?
:â¢ If Reputation Defender does intend to expand onto Facebook, as suggested in the article linked to above, would that be a privacy violation? Aren't individuals entitled to talk about each other in a social networking setting?

:We'd also like to hear about the tactics Reputation Defender uses to increase Google page ranks (MyEdge) in a way that makes sure it doesn't get the Google Death Penalty, as well as what technological or legal tools Reputation Defender would add if it could (perhaps, specifically, how it would interact with Facebook).

Another apparent weakness of ReputationDefender is that while they are one company with a limited amount of employed people working for them, they might have to fight against a legion of anonymous people - which sometimes amounts to over 9,000 participants - that can be easily mobilized in certain image boards and forums. It would be also interesting to know how they would deal with this.

Reputation Defender will probably also emphasize how its product is "family-friendly" -- its website must have more mentions of protecting your family and children than the all of the other websites we've looked at in the class, combined. Is Reputation Defender profiting from a generational gap with regard to privacy? Parents may be horrified by what their children post online, and assume it will doom their career prospects, but by the time the children are adults, it may be normal to have that information freely available.

Additionally, we would be very interested to hear anecdotes from our guests about the most compelling use cases for ReputationDefender - where does the majority of their business come from? What are some surprising use cases they have seen with the product? How do they plan to expand with this new infusion of cash?

== Anonymity ==

We hope our guests will not be too narrowly focused on the need to ensure accountability through identification and attribution. The democratic benefits of leaving an option open for anonymous contribution is important also, to help encourage frank speech and content. (As Dispute Finder discussed yesterday - their emphasis is not to resolve an issue in dispute, but to highlight for the public that there is a conflict, which cannot exist without vocalization of many different points of view, no matter how unpopular.) This made lead naturally into a discussion of how to work with governments who are much less protective of freedom of expression than the US government is, given strong First Amendment values here. In light of the well-publicized events surrounding Shi Tao and Wang Xiaoning, Ebele may express Yahoo's recent concerns with anonymity and its sometimes drastic importance outside the U.S. Continuing on the international theme, we would be interested to hear our guests' opinion about Google's dramatic announcement today about China, and wonder if it will have any effect on Mozilla.

In terms of anonymity on the Internet in the user's control, we think services such as Tor do quite a good job. We may also discuss whether it would be good or bad to allow less skilled Internet users to get access to these tools, and, if it would be a good thing, how these technologies could be built-in to the browser or bundled with the OS. There still are weaknesses associated with the exit nodes of Tor allowing hackers to access user names and passwords due to the lack of encryption technologies available. Our guests may also speak to what drawbacks are associated with anonymizing services like Tor or [http://www.domainsbyproxy.com/ DomainsbyProxy] which simultaneously maintain privacy for certain users, but are specifically designed to thwart disclosure requirements where they still exist.

== Mozilla and Privacy ==

We expect Ryan and the people of Mozilla will show the great advantages of understandable privacy policies in the form of icons. This might encourage people to actually check whether a website upholds certain privacy standards. Even more importantly, it would allow users, in an easy way, to realize the diverse range of privacy policies (and the amount of information released to third parties) that various add-ons have (the Location Aware feature of Firefox version 3.5, for example, can tap into a wide range of information). The advantages of easy-to-understand privacy icons are straightforward, although we might wonder whether users will have a collective voice strong enough to cause change, or whether users will really stop visiting nytimes.com if it has certain unpleasant policies. The people from Mozilla will probably express the difficulty in creating icons that are simple enough to be understood at a glance and useable by a wide range of users when there is such wide variety in privacy policies. On the other hand, some core questions - such as if the information is "shared with a 3rd Party?"; "anonymized before being stored or used?"; "personally identifiable?"; "stored for more than x time?"; "monetized in any way?" - [http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/making-privacy-policies-not-suck/ might be answered by relatively few icons].

As we discussed yesterday, the people at the Mozilla foundation can take any idea to improve the internet from a fanciful theory to a concrete reality very quickly. It seems likely, then, that they are deluged with causes to adopt and browser functionality to build in. It would be interesting to hear how they decided what to focus on, and why privacy rose to the top of the list. Mozilla has, in effect, the ability to bundle any plug-in that it desires with Firefox by making it core browser functionality. The guests are likely to justify why modifications to the browsers that we use are a necessary or desired way to implement them, and we should also address whether there is a happy medium between bundling functionality with Firefox and relying entirely on users tracking down and installing plug-ins (like DisputeFinder requires). Is there a possibility of a central plug-in repository that can allow useful plug-ins to take off more easily? Can the decision of which plug-ins/concepts could be "promoted" to core browser functionality be crowdsourced somehow?

Day 6 Predictions

2010-01-12T01:22:24Z

Darbix:

Daniel: Our guests will probably discuss at length the challenges that Dispute Finder and most web-based cooperative tools bump into while attempting to harness input from virtual crowds. I guess they will talk about Dispute Finderâs design difficulties, such as costs and trade-offs (between precision and recall, between user-friendliness and number / quality of features, etc). Theyâll most likely also summon stories from the interviews discussed in the document we received, perhaps to illustrate content-layer problems with measurement of "information sources reliability"; usersâ misunderstandings / trouble with logic operations; and group biases.
I would love to hear their views on the [http://courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i256/f09/lectures/RobEnnalsGuestLecture.ppt proposed use of Turks] to improve the database of disputed claims and arguments, as well as on the current biases of the disputed facts / arguments presently listed by the software.

:Jason: I predict that there will be a good deal of discussion of what Daniel calls the "user-friendliness" aspect of these tools - and I hope there is, because it's critical. Specifically, what is the necessary ratio between DisputeFinder or Herdict "passive users" and "active reporters" to make a project successful? I say this because both Herdict and DisputeFinder look somewhat sparsely-populated for them to be maximally-useful right now. For example, Herdict is [http://www.herdict.org/web/explore/country/CN;jsessionid=4A2D95D3EB7A8F96B073DE77D3654D53 reporting] that 2 Chinese users have reported YouTube as inaccessible. How do I interpret that? What percent of people who might know about and like Herdict in China are reporting back to Herdict? We know that Wikipedia is successful in spite of the fact that only a very small portion of readers become really regular editors - but Wikipedia is also one of the most visited sites in the world. I hope we discuss what strategies these organizations are employing to build participation for these more niche offerings. [[User:Jharrow|Jharrow]] 18:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

:Reuben: When Daniel talks about the challenges of web-based cooperative tools, my first thought is about the challenge of a achieving a critical mass. I poked around with Dispute Finder for just over an hour this morning and during the entirety of my browsing the New York Times, Washington Post, Miami Herald, and Slate I only came across one disputed claim. No offense to America's news media, but my guess is that what I read is more disputed than that, but that there just aren't enough people trolling the news sites and adding claims to the dispute finder database for the service to actually be that helpful yet. Jason's point about passive users versus active reporters is important. I too would like to hear about how to reach a critical mass and how many active users are needed in order to have a useful service. I'd also like to hear about the potential for users to participate in a more passive manner - notwithstanding the privacy issues, if Herdict could just monitor my browsing and automatically send a report whenever I come across an inaccessible website, something akin to a Last.fm for my click stream, the data would seem to be much more complete than simply recording whatever I choose to report. Never underestimate the laziness of the average person. My prediction is that our guests acknowledge the shortcomings in their current offerings while remaining optimistic about the possibilities of community based technology. [[User:ReubRodriguez|ReubRodriguez]] 18:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

::Ramesh: I agree with Reuben on the usefulness of Dispute Finder and Herdict. While Wikipedia (and Yelp, and a few other sites) show that sometimes, you can get useful content for free, that's not always the case. DisputeFinder didn't find many disputes when I did my regular scan of news websites, even when reading articles on topics like medical marijuana and same-sex marriage. It seems like applications like DisputeFinder and Herdict would be better if they were more automated -- if DisputeFinder automatically attached itself to controversial terms, and especially, as Reuben suggested, if Herdict was not based on self-reporting.

:: Franny: I agree that a threshold level of dedicated trusted users (see Vicki's comments below) resolves many problems. I hope our guests will discuss the strategies used by DisputeFinder, or any other website initiatives dependent on a large and broad variety of user input: (1) to attract that user base; and (2) to cope during the interim period while they continue to try to attract that user base. For example, I wonder to what extent DisputeFinder has considered building in redundancy as a means of increasing the accuracy of its results (to borrow a strategy from CrowdFlower), or perhaps some combination of automation and redundancy.

::Andrew: I hope the discussion of how to achieve critical mass focuses as much on instilling/spreading an ethos as it does on ways to automate the DF system. Tools don't work without the accompanying human motivation: the wiki architecture is awesome, but (see our Predictions pages) they don't necessitate anything about a page's structure, and that's where the Wikipedian ethos steps in. No matter how passive DF/Herdict eventually allow their users to be, those users will (probably) still have to take the first step of registering, installing the plug-in etc. To do that, they have to be persuaded of the importance of the problem the tools are meant to address. Until the supposed echo chamber, "daily me" effect of Internet discourse becomes a mainstream concern, DF will not be a mainstream tool.

:Tyler: I completely agree with above thoughts about Herdict and DisputeFinder needing to collect a critical mass of users before becoming useful. This seems to echo the idea that wikipedia was not useful for its first several years because it did not possess a critical mass of articles. However, I think there are some differences because individual pieces of wikipedia could become useful before wikipedia as a whole in that individual articles could become independantly useful before wikipedia became as comprehensive as it is today. I don't see that Herdict or DisputeFinder have the same capability to be useful while scaling because they require users to explicitly decide to install plugins and begin using their services before any benefit can be gained by that user. Wikipedia was able to gradually grow in prominence as users occasionally found information on wikipedia that they wanted through web searches. I am wondering if Herdict or DisputeFinder can take advantage of automated solutions to increase their seemingly as-yet sparsely populated databases? For example, could web crawling robots be used to identify at least some inaccesible sites with the expectation that this list could then be pruned by users rather than expecting it to materialize entirely by user submissions? Could DisputeFinder use a web crawling robot, in conjunction with sophisticated text parsers to begin identifying at least some topics that clearly involve dispute? I expect and hope that the guests will discuss some strategies for increasing the datasets of their projects to the point that they can obtain their critical mass of users and data more quickly. [[User:TylerLacey|TylerLacey]] 19:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

::Michael: In terms of achieving critical mass for utility, herdict seems to have an additional challenge to wikipedia and DisputeFinder. When users make contributions to wikipedia or DisputeFinder, the information they provide remains useful indefinitely (for the most part). Herdict, on the other hand requires constant updating. This is entirely possible (as twitter and facebook demonstrate), but it reflects an additional challenge. I would be curious to hear if there is any data to determine what the different requirements of such different sites would be. [[User:Mfeld|Mfeld]] 23:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

:: Daniel: Tyler has a great point here, so maybe we should ask if the Dispute Finder team has thought of an interesting dispute to explore well enough in terms of paraphrases / arguments, so that users could experience the full potential of the software and then be lured into becoming frequent contributors. [[User:Darbix|darbix]] 01:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Emily:
Dispute Finder bears an inherent flaw: individuals, not algorithms, decide whom and what to trust for information. Consider the watch on your wrist. If your watch starts to get the time wrong, you might try to fix the watch. You hope and pray your watch starts giving you accurate, dependable information because you like your watch. You might even love your watch. But, if it continues to betray your trust, and the people in your trusted circle insist your watch is wrong, you give up. You decide to trust a new watch, but your new watch will probably be reminiscent of your old watch with respect to personal taste, experience, and preferences. Most people are intuitive enough (though they donât necessarily convert insights into complex conclusions about source x versus source y) to know that 120 seconds of live, relatively unedited sound on Fox News Live or MSNBC Dayside is less likely to contain factually accurate information â even if relatively unimportant, like the location of a fire, or the total number of casualties in a mass shootingâ than a compulsively edited, fact-checked tome in the Sunday NY Times magazine, the Economist, or the New Yorker.

Article 3.5 of the Dispute Finder document, âDetermining Trustworthy Sources,â seems a bit absurd. It actually acknowledges the marketability challenges of its own software: âUnfortunatelyâ¦the sites people actually trust are often those that share the personâs own point of view.â So, again, what is this software and what, really, is the point? Segway into âCross-cutting themes.â Save the world. How? Is Dispute Finder intended to help people sue other people for libel? Richard Jewel (now deceased) had a reasonably compelling case. Thatâs probably why he successfully sued (for libel) every organization, from CNN, to NBC, to the NY Post. All settled. He collected from each of them. But Richard Jewel didnât need help from Dispute Finder. Richard Jewel had a case.

Cross-cutting themes: âChange the technology, save the world.â Okay, why not? Isnât there something else smart people at Intel and UC Berkeley could be doing to make the world better? Last November, the New York Times produced an alarming story [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html] about the food stamp program in America(ânow expanding at a pace of about 20,000 people a day.â) Also no shortage of children in custody. Last December, the New York Times obtained â and reported on [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/nyregion/14juvenile.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=new%20york%20family%20court%20juvenile%20department%20of%20justice%20youth&st=cse]â a âconfidential draft reportâ prepared by a task force appointed by NY gov David Paterson: âNew York Stateâs current approach fails the young people who are drawn into the system, the public whose safety it is intended to protect, and the principles of good governance that demand effective use of scarce state resources.â Story also says the situation was so bad that the DOJ, at one point, was threatening to âtake over.â

So, if Intel is interested in contributing, how about addressing real problemsâhelping real peopleâ that could affect real, collective societal change and improvement? Children and education seem like obvious places to start. Basics like hardware and mentors could go a long way. Children in poverty struggle with range of issues, including asthma, low self-esteem, obesity, and depression. Consider children in places like the South Bronx (Jonathan Kozolâs children [http://www.amazon.com/Amazing-Grace-Children-Conscience-Nation/dp/0060976977]): allocation of resources in places like this (and/or lower-middle class communities), especially from companies like Intel, could change lives; give voices to people from whom we do not often hear.

Interested to hear thoughts on Internet privacy, though I'm not sure adults have an expectation of privacy anywhere [http://gawker.com/5444885/facebooks-mark-zuckerberg-on-your-erased-privacy-these-are-the-social-norms-now] on the Internet. If you want privacy, don't put yourself on the Internet. Finally, on the subject of online harassment, if we accept that the Internet is a public place, to what extent is it acceptable to regulate online communication, including but not limited to comments deemed 'offensive' on blogs?

Predictions. Guests will be nice. Class will be nice. Hope to hear more about Dispute Finder's business model.

Tyler: I would like an explanation for why the contributor of a disputed claim on DisputeFinder needs to provide a link to an article that illustrates the opposing point of view. If there are no article, isn't it still valuable to identify a claim as disputed, especially since this could break DisputeFinder's dataset building-process into two parts? I could enter a disputed claim without a link to another source and then another user, once alerted to the potential dispute could track down and enter the article. I see the argument that an issue is not actually in dispute if there is no contradictory reports of it, but I wonder if an entry into DisputeFinder should be enough to create a "dispute", rather than requiring a link. I agree that even a blog post outlining the opposing point of view would be more helpful than a "dispute" without any link, but I'm not sure that it should be a requirement. Today I entered a disputed claim as "Works prepared by amazon mechanical turkers are considered works for hire under the United States Copyright Act" to see if DisputeFinder would highlight portions of our wiki (which does not currently have any disputed claims, according to DisputeFinder) but I was stalled when it asked for a link to a web location outlining this dispute. Should I have entered the page on this wiki where we discuss the issue? I hope that the guests discuss this aspect of the DisputeFinder process. [[Special:Contributions/68.65.169.179|68.65.169.179]] 20:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

:Tyler: Another question that came up during my lunchtime discussion of DisputeFinder with some of our classmates: is there a practical way that DisputeFinder could leverage the existing collection of topics that wikipedia has flagged as a "point of view" or "non-neutral" to boost DisputeFinder's database of disputes?

Victoria: I completely agree with the former point that DisputeFinder's success is dependent on gaining a critical mass of end users. In addition to the need for more users, I think the platform is very trusting of the end users themselves. DisputeFinder allows for a lot of users to subjectively claim anything is disputed even when it begins to reach the absurd. One EscapistMagazine.com posted in June 2009, that the following topics were included on the disputed list "The 2009 Iran Presidential election was rigged," "" and "Recycling is good for the environment," "2Pac is dead," "Dick Cheney is a robot" and "Italians look good." Although theoretically the idea of a marketplace of ideas works - without the appropriate robust marketplace DisputeFinder becomes a caricature of the truth-seeking function of free speech.

:Michael: I am interested to hear the speakers from DisputeFinder describe why they believe the simple knowledge of a dispute is socially valuable. The extent to which a statement is disputed seems like it would be more valuable. I'd be interested to hear if our speakers expect to include a scale of dispute to their software, such as that used in Herdict (the different colored sheep).
:I predict that DisputeFinder will view one of its most difficult challenges to be determining the trustworthiness of sources. Unlike CrowdFlower, DisputeFinder may not be able to simply use agreement as an accurate rubric for which user-supplied links are trustworthy and which are spam. Since the nature of the site is to highlight disagreement, it doesn't seem possible to use user agreement as the benchmark of useful data for their service. I would be interested to hear what DisputeFinder uses as its criteria for determining which data is reliable (meaning non-spam). [[User:Mfeld|Mfeld]] 23:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Juan: I'm interested in hearing their thoughts on the collection of disputed claims. As the material mentioned, most people who were interviewed are interested in applying Dispute Finder to particular areas that affect them. Thus, how will they collect data for areas not that popular or useful to most people, especially there are no other incentives to encourage claim creation. I guess building up community as wikipedia or herdict did might be one solution. The question is how this community can be built up. Also, I kind of feel Dispute Finder overlaps with the search services provided by Google and other search engines. If people are interested in one topic, they can always use Google or other search services to find the corroborations or objections on it. By determining trustworthy resources, can I say Dispute Finder sort of limited the available resources to people? To me, "trustworthy resources" is more like a subjective concept, everyone can has his/her own trustworthy resources. Is there a need to have a website telling us which resource is trustworthy, especially the site itself said it is a difficult tradeoff to determine the trustworthy resources.

Sharona: I totally agree with everyone's comments about the lack of a critical mass, and I would be curious to hear how they think they could theoretically gain one. Would people actually be drawn to this the way they are to edit wikipedia pages? Is it simply a matter of a marketing strategy? Another question I had while reading the website and the other document was regarding the phrase "trusted source." Who defines that? The users? What if people start claiming that what DisputeFinder may deem "unreliable" is a trusted source in their view? Who will stop them, and will that be antithetical to DisputeFinder's ethos?

Day 6 Predictions

2010-01-11T05:16:05Z

Darbix:

Day 6 Predictions

2010-01-11T05:15:04Z

Darbix:

Day 4 Thoughts

2010-01-08T11:50:26Z

Darbix:

Sheel: The discussion on the BGP problem, although technical, was particularly interesting. Here's a question: if a full swap out of IP version 4 to 6 were to take place, could we then institute a full Secure BGP program at the same time? Perhaps I'm trying to combine two pieces of separate technical puzzles, but the point is this: perhaps we could focus on upgrading security at the same time as switching to IPv6.

Daniel: A key issue concerning cybersecurity seems to be the current lack of incentives for some actors to enhance security features of their products, services or practices on the internet. Do you envision a push for more control / oversight / monitoring to be exerted by platforms (Facebook, Amazon, eBay etc.) over developers that are constrained by their channels (developer kit, technical requirements for integration, framework for generating HITs and so on)? I can easily imagine users demanding such actions from aggregators of code or content, in progressive louder voices. In countries with a tradition of strong consumer protection, this is a step short of imposing liability over them. But would that move result in efficient solutions for internet "secure environments"?

Day 4 Thoughts

2010-01-08T11:50:14Z

Darbix:

Day 5 Predictions

2010-01-08T11:49:56Z

Darbix:

Victoria: My prediction is that the speakers are going to be extolling the virtues of Wikipedia and explaining that although the site has gone under some transformations it is still a vibrant force. I would concede that I think it is. Most people I know still immediately turn to Wikipedia for a quick run down of a topic or an answer to a quick question. However, as time moves on the site is becoming less innovative and more standard. I would like to ask them about their understanding and personal experiences in trying to keep Wikipedia young. Moreover, having read that 85% of the contributors to Wikipedia are male I'd specifically love to ask Phoebe whether she feels that the articles are written from the male gaze and lack the other gender's perspective.

:: Sharona: Like Vickie, I was also struck by the statistics on the demographic breakdown, and I would love to hear their thoughts on whether they feel wikipedia really does represent a wide range of views, or more specifically (especially in the US) that of a white male. Another thing I think they will likely discuss - and probably not have a good answer for - is the question of privacy and defamation on wikipedia and other wikimedia projects. Can, or should, the website and/or its users or editors be held accountable if allegedly defamatory posts are not removed? Who makes that call? And what standards are used? It seems to me that there's no easy answer to this: while they may not run into strictly legal issues, it could definitely affect reader's trust in the information or fear that they too are vulnerable.

Bruno: I expect our guests to focus their comments on the strategies Wikipedia is adopting to address two of what seems to be the main problems of the project: (i) quality/accuracy of its articles, and (ii) issues concerning vandalism. After reading the materials, I was struck by the fact that Wikipedia doesn't seem to be worried about increasing its user base. The increasing amount of rules, the hostility of veteran users to newbies and the efforts to attract more scientists to participate in the project suggest that in fact they would be interested in less, but more qualified participation. Just like the attitude of our guest from CrowdFlower, perhaps a sort of procrastination to address a problem that is not yet so concrete might be operating here: with over 40 thousand contributors it's not clear when more means actually less.

:: Sheel: I'd be interested in hearing Wikimedia's reaction to this: what if people started using CrowdFlower or MechanicalTurk, if they don't already, to pay people 10 cents or so to go edit Wikipedia pages? I know they weren't okay with MyWikiBiz, but this is much more under the radar. Finally, I'd like to hear where the debate is on inclusionists v. exclusionists (meaning those who want to produce the 'integrity' of the encyclopedia and shy away from what may be deemed as frivolous by some portion of editors). My guess is that there is still no concrete answer---if enough editors are passionate about editing/creating a new page, then it'll stay.

Daniel: In addition to the topics above, I expect a discussion about the possible increase in vulnerability Wikipedia faces at the content layer, on par with a less dynamic environment. Since most pages are already done, at least in the English version, editors may feel less motivated to monitor existing, but seldom edited pages which are not on the "watch list". As a consequence, they can be more easily twisted by outsiders. In connection with that issue, I guess that our guests will raise the question "how does it feel to be a Wikipedian?" - and try to describe the community feeling from the perspective of insiders, and the challenges to bring more people in.

Day 5 Predictions

2010-01-08T11:49:44Z

Darbix:

Ubiquitous Human Computing

2010-01-06T19:50:41Z

Darbix: /* The Current Services */

Tour Ideas

2010-01-06T19:34:52Z

Darbix:

[http://gocalifornia.about.com/cs/sanfrancisco/a/sfbest.htm Top 10] things to do in San Francisco

How about a trip to the City Lights bookstore, famous home of the beat poets and publisher of Allen Ginsburg's Howl?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Lights_Bookstore
Maybe with a stop or two at the [http://www.sfbrewing.com nearby microbreweries]?

Tour Ideas

2010-01-06T19:34:26Z

Darbix:

Day 3 Predictions

2010-01-06T19:30:24Z

Darbix:

Daniel: My guess is that three issues will be focused:

1- ''labor rights'' â workers in UHC are not attached to a safe work environment, do not receive any fringe benefits, health care, etc., and as of yet there are no unions for Turks and the like. It is quite easy to see homeworkers as nonworkers, and to build [http://www.missconceptions.net/downloads/mturk-pca09-web.pdf digital sweatshops].

2- workersâ new ''expectation of complete anonymity'', that go way beyond privacy demands in regular work environments. Hopefully ethical issues concerning this faceless workforce will be discussed, as well as its potential identity and community feelings (taking into account that, unlike bearers of [http://www.iab.net/about_the_iab/recent_press_releases/press_release_archive/press_release/pr-061009-value formal jobs], UHC workers have shifting numbers, not social security ones). Still on this topic, I expect debates about people willing to perform otherwise shameful tasks, and about the opportunities for children, sick or unfit workers in general to work / be worked.

3- the ''use of UHC for complex, creative tasks'', analyzed in conjunction with a look at the economics of commoditized labor pools. Resulting discussions could examine quality control and its costs, and [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1357054.1357127 proper design], necessary to unleash [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ3Q6Y6Ylqo creativity] and demand more than repetitive, boring tasks from fellow anonymous humans. On that note, it is nice to see that, as scientific experiments with Mechanical Turks [http://experimentalturk.wordpress.com/ become more popular], academic attention is drawn towards the problematic incentives in the platformâs most common setting (low payment + repetitive tasks), which encourages Turks to finish HITs as fast as they can, [http://experimentalphilosophy.typepad.com/experimental_philosophy/2010/01/looking-for-subjects-amazons-mechanical-turk.html at the expense of proper comprehension of the tasks].

My wish list for the session: discussions of solutions / tools such as [http://turkopticon.differenceengines.com/ Turkopticon], a Firefox application designed to identify and expose âshady employersâ.

Day 3 Predictions

2010-01-06T19:29:14Z

Darbix:

Daniel: My guess is that three issues will be focused:

1- ''labor rights'' â workers in UHC are not attached to a safe work environment, do not receive any fringe benefits, health care, etc., and as of yet there are no unions for Turks and the like. It is quite easy to see homeworkers as nonworkers, and to build [http://www.missconceptions.net/downloads/mturk-pca09-web.pdf digital sweatshops].

2- workersâ new ''expectation of complete anonymity'', that go way beyond privacy demands in regular work environments. Hopefully ethical issues concerning this faceless workforce will be discussed, as well as its potential identity and community feelings (taking into account that, unlike bearers of [http://www.iab.net/about_the_iab/recent_press_releases/press_release_archive/press_release/pr-061009-value formal jobs], UHC workers have shifting numbers, not social security ones). Still on this topic, I expect debates about people willing to perform otherwise shameful tasks, and about the opportunities for children, sick or unfit workers in general to work / be worked.

3- the ''use of UHC for complex, creative tasks'', analyzed in conjunction with a look at the economics of commoditized labor pools. Resulting discussions could examine quality control and its costs, and [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1357054.1357127 proper design], necessary to unleash [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ3Q6Y6Ylqo creativity] and demand more than repetitive, boring tasks from fellow anonymous humans. On that note, it is nice to see that, as scientific experiments with Mechanical Turks [http://experimentalturk.wordpress.com/ become more popular], academic attention is drawn towards the problematic incentives in the platformâs most common setting (low payment + repetitive tasks), which encourages Turks to finish HITs as fast as they can, [http://experimentalphilosophy.typepad.com/experimental_philosophy/2010/01/looking-for-subjects-amazons-mechanical-turk.html at the expense of proper comprehension of the questions].

My wish list for the session: discussions of solutions / tools such as [http://turkopticon.differenceengines.com/ Turkopticon], a Firefox application designed to identify and expose âshady employersâ.

Day 2 Thoughts

2010-01-06T19:26:45Z

Darbix:

== Cybersecurity ==

Daniel: the idea of a "digital driver's license" has been around for [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrpajcAgR1E some time now]. Effective and simple [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signature digital signature] schemes, outside corporate or governmental control, sound much more promising to me.

== GNI ==

Reuben: I think we should all congratulate ourselves on our prognostication skills. A lot of our predictions were right on the money. After reviewing my notes, I came away with a few main points. It seems the GNI has had two main benefits for those involved. First, it has helped companies establish processes for how they will handle sticky situations that arise in fields of free expression and privacy where previously those concerns went unrepresented or were dealt with an ad hoc scramble. Secondly, GNI has facilitated relationships between companies and human rights organizations that allow the two sides to work together collaboratively to map out strategies and get more effective results.

While the panelists recognized the effectiveness of the GNI in at least certain situations, I was a bit surprised by the degree to which at least some participants seemed to welcome government involvement in order to force more attention on the activities of smaller companies who don't stand out the same way a Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, or CISCO might.

Jason: I think that the discussion took a bit of steam out of the "Difficult" part of the "Difficult Problems" equation - at least with regard to why Cisco is not participating in GNI and how they make decisions that implicate human rights issues. Mark's explanation of Cisco's position was exceedingly compelling: to my mind, he left little doubt that they really do have a different sort of impact on human rights than companies higher up in the stack; that they face a vastly different competitive landscape and client base than other ICT companies; and that they have well-developed standards and principles going forward. From where I sit, they would be completely crazy to join the GNI - it'd be all potential downside with no upside that I can tell, for either the company or for human rights. (Sadly, Cisco did not pay me to say all that, even if I just completely toed the company line.)

Day 3 Predictions

2010-01-06T07:29:55Z

Darbix: New page: Daniel: My guess is that three issues will be focused: 1- ''labor rights'' â workers in UHC are not attached to a safe work environment, do not receive any fringe benefits, health care,...

Daniel: My guess is that three issues will be focused:

1- ''labor rights'' â workers in UHC are not attached to a safe work environment, do not receive any fringe benefits, health care, etc., and as of yet there are no unions for Turks and the like. It is quite easy to see homeworkers as nonworkers, and to build [http://www.missconceptions.net/downloads/mturk-pca09-web.pdf digital sweatshops].

2- workersâ new ''expectation of complete anonymity'', that go way beyond privacy demands in regular work environments. Hopefully ethical issues concerning this faceless workforce will be discussed, as well as its potential identity and community feelings (taking into account that, unlike bearers of [http://www.iab.net/about_the_iab/recent_press_releases/press_release_archive/press_release/pr-061009-value formal jobs], UHC workers have shifting numbers, not social security ones. Still on this topic, I expect debates about people willing to perform otherwise shameful tasks, and about the opportunities for children, sick or unfit workers in general to work / be worked.

3- the ''use of UHC for complex, creative tasks'', analyzed in conjunction with a look at the economics of commoditized labor pools. Resulting discussions could examine quality control and its costs, and [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1357054.1357127 proper design], necessary to unleash [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ3Q6Y6Ylqo creativity] and demand more than repetitive, boring tasks from fellow anonymous humans. On that note, it is nice to see that, as scientific experiments with Mechanical Turks [http://experimentalturk.wordpress.com/ become more popular], academic attention is drawn towards the problematic incentives in the platformâs most common setting (low payment + repetitive tasks), which encourages Turks to finish HITs as fast as they can, [http://experimentalphilosophy.typepad.com/experimental_philosophy/2010/01/looking-for-subjects-amazons-mechanical-turk.html at the expense of proper comprehension of the questions].

My wish list for the session: discussions of solutions / tools such as [http://turkopticon.differenceengines.com/ Turkopticon], a Firefox application designed to identify and expose âshady employersâ.

Ubiquitous Human Computing

2010-01-05T20:36:06Z

Darbix: /* Potential Difficult Problems in the Future */

Day 2 Predictions

2010-01-05T19:36:40Z

Darbix:

= Mark =

Sheel: Cisco, with its involvement in China's Golden Shield Project and $16 Billion investment (http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/2825.html), doesn't want to have to deal with issues of human rights that might diminish ROI. Notable quote from article and 2008 testimony: Chandler said, "Cisco does not customize, or develop specialized or unique filtering capabilities, in order to enable different regimes to block access to information." My guess: Mark Chandler will affirm this statement tomorrow, but the real reason is that following the GNI principles would be a poor business decision and CISCO isn't willing to make any sacrifice.
: Elisabeth: we might push back on the idea that this would be a poor business decision, and solicit Cosson and Hope's opinions. Yahoo and Google have faced real backlash for their actions, and GNI serves as something of a safety net against that backlash. We could also ask Chandler if he can imagine how GNI could be structured such that it would be worthwhile for Cisco to join--it would be interesting to see if what he says matches up with what Cosson says GNI needs to do to recruit new members.
:: Andrew: I doubt Chandler would be cynical (frank?) enough to respond this way, but Cisco may be shielded from the kind of "PR risks" that Yahoo/Google/Microsoft face, since their products and services reside below the content layer and are less intuitively understandable to the general public. Along these lines, I hope to hear some discussion about the sources of contention between stakeholders at different architectural layers. How do differences in the type of actions governments request from these companies translate to materially different policy preferences, given the extreme broadness of the principles at issue?
:: Hector: I agree with Andrew and wonder whether Cisco will go to lengths to emphasize the hardware-side of its products/services. This may be a more palatable version of JZ's "gun's don't kill people" framing: "Look, we provide hardware and the software interfaces that are infinitely customizable." Such an argument works only to the extent that the products/services are general-use (generative?) and the extent that CISCO is '''truly''' removed from any immoral end-use.
: Jason: I doubt that he will emphasize ROI and the need to make money to a group like ours - or, at least he won't explicitly mention his company's desire to make billions of dollars. Instead, I suspect that Mark will emphasize the need for more Internet infrastructure in developing countries, and the uncertain effect of the GNI in terms of continuing to do business everywhere. He would be right about that need - see, for instance, the Internet density map [http://www.chrisharrison.net/projects/InternetMap/medium/worlddotblack.jpg here]. So he can ask us rhetorically, "What is Cisco supposed to do? Don't you cyberlaw students want people in China and Southeast Asia and the Middle East and Africa to get online, too? If so, those countries need our hardware - and we can't choose who runs their governments!" And you know what? If he says this, he will have a very, very good point.

Daniel: I believe Chandler will provide his professional - and hopefully personal - account on the role CISCO plays in [facilitating / enabling / providing neutral tools] to allow for "different regimes" to control their nationals' internet experience. Cosson and Hope will probably dedicate more time to in depth discussion of two issues: involvement of industry actors other than the GNI founding members and the types of incentives that are needed for that, including legal alternatives and public exposure of "do some evil" firms. Also, given that we will not have representatives from Google and Yahoo, these companies are likely to figure prominently in the examples of events, actions and concessions to be avoided.

Sanford Lewis: I predict that Mr. Chandler will not discuss in very much depth the extent to which external stakeholder and stockholder pressure has shaped company policy, unless he is prompted by student questions to discuss this.

Lien: The GNI principles are so general and an "implementation / repetition" of international standards. If a certain company (for whatever reason) does not want to join the GNI, this company still has to comply with these standards. To play the devil's advocate, does joining the GNI change anything in reality or is it just a good thing to join because of the company's image and reputation? Furthermore, the concept of the GNI (sort of self- regulation) is a very American concept. European companies are not very familiar with this kind of approach. The GNI might be a good starting point for a company to obey to certain principles. However, the privacy principles are so broadly written that, if a company would follow these principles, it would still not comply with European Privacy legislation. Why would an European company then join the initiative and do all the effort (e.g. audit, ...), knowing that it would still not comply with European legislation?
: Elisabeth: I also wonder how true it is that these are "international" standards, rather than American or American/European standards.

= Dunstan =
Tyler: I believe Dunstan will try and draw a distinction between situations involving two types of countries. The first type is countries with laws in accordance with GNI principles but that are not enforced or poorly enforced. The second type is countries with laws that on their face are violative of GNI principles. I hope Dunstan will discuss strategies that corporations should use for situations that arise involving both types of countries and the different approaches that GNI stakeholders can collectively take to preemptively forestall problems in each of the two types of countries.
: Daniel: It would be great if we further explored the (blurring) division between these two country-types. Was Google's first move in the negotiation with Turkey - accepting to block videos insulting AtatÃ¼rk, but only within the country's limits - OK under the GNI principles? How much can a country legitimately curb freedom of speech, according to the GNI framework? IMO, its diplomatic language allows for an "American" interpretation, but also for an "European" one and perhaps others even more restrictive.

= Chuck =

Tyler: I expect Chuck to express frustration that more corporations have not signed up for GNI and identify some specific reasons why he thinks GNI has so far been unable to recruit any additional corporations from the initial roster of three (Yahoo!, Google, Microsoft). I also hope that Chuck discusses what preparations Microsoft has made to allow GNI auditors access the sensitive Microsoft information.

Juan: As a stakeholders unite, GNI is supposed to have more flexibility and accommodation than its legislative alternatives, such as GOFA. With this flexibility, how will it attract new members in China, such as Baidu (www.baidu.com, the market leader of search services), Kaixin network (www.kaixin001.com, the most popular social network website in China, which is a knockoff of facebook), Tudou (www.tudou.com, the biggest video site mainly serving local videos) and etc. Facing with a very powerful government, I doubt they will have an incentive to join the GNI.
Another question is what is the role of GNI? If company challenges the government request, government would not buy it, what actions would company be supposed to take? Will GNI interface with government? By challenging the government request, the company may be punished by government, either directly or indirectly. Is there any benefit for the company to take the risk?
Will GNI work for China? Can it enlighten Chinese government to change its position on human rights and free expression?
Should GNI have multiple standards on human rights protection in different countries, since different countries have different views on human rights.

Reuben: With regards to the relationship between Chuck and Mark, I think that while Chuck will make statements supporting the GNI, he is unlikely to challenge Mark or CISCO to join. I'd also expect Chuck to express some reticence in allowing auditors too much freedom to access sensitive information.

Talk:PrivacyAnonymity

2010-01-05T19:34:38Z

Darbix:

I'm not sure how to fix this problem, but the main page has a "Privacy..." title does not link to this page, nor to the mirror one (same content) posted under "Privacy and Anonymity on the Internet".

Talk:Privacy and Anonymity on the Internet

2010-01-05T19:34:17Z

Darbix: New page: I'm not sure how to fix this problem, but the main page has a "Privacy..." title does not link to this page, nor to the mirror one (same content) posted under "PrivacyAnonymity".

I'm not sure how to fix this problem, but the main page has a "Privacy..." title does not link to this page, nor to the mirror one (same content) posted under "PrivacyAnonymity".

Talk:PrivacyAnonymity

2010-01-05T19:33:36Z

Darbix: New page: I'm not sure how to fix this problem, but the main page has a "Privacy..." title does not link to this page, nor to the mirror one (same content) posted under "Privacy and Anonymity on the...

I'm not sure how to fix this problem, but the main page has a "Privacy..." title does not link to this page, nor to the mirror one (same content) posted under "Privacy and Anonymity on the Internet"?

Day 2 Predictions

2010-01-05T19:25:42Z

Darbix:

Day 2 Predictions

2010-01-05T19:22:44Z

Darbix:

= Mark =

Sheel: Cisco, with its involvement in China's Golden Shield Project and $16 Billion investment (http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/2825.html), doesn't want to have to deal with issues of human rights that might diminish ROI. Notable quote from article and 2008 testimony: Chandler said, "Cisco does not customize, or develop specialized or unique filtering capabilities, in order to enable different regimes to block access to information." My guess: Mark Chandler will affirm this statement tomorrow, but the real reason is that following the GNI principles would be a poor business decision and CISCO isn't willing to make any sacrifice.
: Elisabeth: we might push back on the idea that this would be a poor business decision, and solicit Cosson and Hope's opinions. Yahoo and Google have faced real backlash for their actions, and GNI serves as something of a safety net against that backlash. We could also ask Chandler if he can imagine how GNI could be structured such that it would be worthwhile for Cisco to join--it would be interesting to see if what he says matches up with what Cosson says GNI needs to do to recruit new members.
:: Andrew: I doubt Chandler would be cynical (frank?) enough to respond this way, but Cisco may be shielded from the kind of "PR risks" that Yahoo/Google/Microsoft face, since their products and services reside below the content layer and are less intuitively understandable to the general public. Along these lines, I hope to hear some discussion about the sources of contention between stakeholders at different architectural layers. How do differences in the type of actions governments request from these companies translate to materially different policy preferences, given the extreme broadness of the principles at issue?
:: Hector: I agree with Andrew and wonder whether Cisco will go to lengths to emphasize the hardware-side of its products/services. This may be a more palatable version of JZ's "gun's don't kill people" framing: "Look, we provide hardware and the software interfaces that are infinitely customizable." Such an argument works only to the extent that the products/services are general-use (generative?) and the extent that CISCO is '''truly''' removed from any immoral end-use.

Daniel: I believe Chandler will provide his professional - and hopefully personal - account on the role CISCO plays in [facilitating / enabling / providing neutral tools] to allow for "different regimes" to control their nationals' internet experience. Cosson and Hope will probably dedicate more time to in depth discussion of two issues: involvement of industry actors other than the GNI founding members and the types of incentives that are needed for that, including legal alternatives and public exposure of "do some evil" firms. Also, given that we will not have representatives from Google and Yahoo, these companies are likely to figure prominently in the examples of events, actions and concessions to be avoided.

Sanford Lewis: I predict that Mr. Chandler will not discuss in very much depth the extent to which external stakeholder and stockholder pressure has shaped company policy, unless he is prompted by student questions to discuss this.

Lien: The GNI principles are so general and an "implementation / repetition" of international standards. If a certain company (for whatever reason) does not want to join the GNI, this company still has to comply with these standards. To play the devil's advocate, does joining the GNI change anything in reality or is it just a good thing to join because of the company's image and reputation? Furthermore, the concept of the GNI (sort of self- regulation) is a very American concept. European companies are not very familiar with the kind of approach. The GNI might be a good starting point for a company to obey the certain principles. However, the privacy principles are so broadly written, that if a company would obey to these principles, it would still not be comply with European Privacy legislation. Why would a European company then join the initiative and do all the efforts (e.g. audit, ...), knowing that it would still not comply with European legislation?
: Elisabeth: I also wonder how true it is that these are "international" standards, rather than American or American/European standards.

Jason: I suspect that Mark will emphasize the need for more Internet infrastructure in developing countries, and the uncertain effect of the GNI in terms of continuing to do business everywhere. He would be right about that need - see, for instance, the Internet density map [http://www.chrisharrison.net/projects/InternetMap/medium/worlddotblack.jpg here]. So he can ask rhetorically, "What are we supposed to do? Don't you cyberlaw students want people in China and Southeast Asia and the Middle East and Africa to get online? If so, they need our hardware - and we can't choose who runs their governments!" And you know what? If he says this, he will have a very, very good point.

= Dunstan =
Tyler: I believe Dunstan will try and draw a distinction between situations involving two types of countries. The first type is countries with laws in accordance with GNI principles but that are not enforced or poorly enforced. The second type is countries with laws that on their face are violative of GNI principles. I hope Dunstan will discuss strategies that corporations should use for situations that arise involving both types of countries and the different approaches that GNI stakeholders can collectively take to preemptively forestall problems in each of the two types of countries.
: Daniel: It would be great if we further explored the (blurring) division between these two country-types. Was Google's first move in the negotiation with Turkey - accepting to block videos insulting AtatÃ¼rk, but only within the country's limits - OK under the GNI principles? How much can a country legitimately curb freedom of speech, according to the GNI framework? IMO, its diplomatic language allows for an "American" interpretation, but also for an "European" one and perhaps others even more restrictive.

= Chuck =

Tyler: I expect Chuck to express frustration that more corporations have not signed up for GNI and identify some specific reasons why he thinks GNI has so far been unable to recruit any additional corporations from the initial roster of three (Yahoo!, Google, Microsoft). I also hope that Chuck discusses what preparations Microsoft has made to allow GNI auditors access the sensitive Microsoft information.

Cyberlaw: Difficult Issues Winter 2010:Current events

2010-01-05T08:44:23Z

Darbix:

[http://www.europeanentrepreneursatstanford.com/ European Entrepreneurs Series]
[http://etl.stanford.edu/ Entrepreneur Feelings]

Paul Goldstein's [https://coursework.stanford.edu/portal/site/W10-LAW-478-01 Legal Design for the Entertainment and Information Future] course might interest most of you. Four industries' futures will be discussed: music, film, news and games. Thursdays at room 230 (exact time still unknown, but for sure within the 4:15PM - 7:15PM interval).

Day 2 Predictions

2010-01-05T08:38:59Z

Darbix:

Sheel: Cisco, with its involvement in China's Golden Shield Project and $16 Billion investment (http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/2825.html), doesn't want to have to deal with issues of human rights that might diminish ROI. Notable quote from article and 2008 testimony: Chandler said, "Cisco does not customize, or develop specialized or unique filtering capabilities, in order to enable different regimes to block access to information." My guess: Mark Chandler will affirm this statement tomorrow, but the real reason is that following the GNI principles would be a poor business decision and CISCO isn't willing to make any sacrifice.

Daniel: I believe Chandler will provide his professional - and hopefully personal - account on the role CISCO plays in [facilitating / enabling / providing neutral tools] to allow for "different regimes" to control their nationals' internet experience. Cosson and Hope will probably dedicate more time to in depth discussion of two issues: involvement of industry actors other than the GNI founding members and the types of incentives that are needed for that, including legal alternatives and public exposure of "do some evil" firms. Also, given that we will not have representatives from Google and Yahoo, these companies are likely to figure prominently in the examples of events, actions and concessions to be avoided.

Day 2 Predictions

2010-01-05T08:38:36Z

Darbix:

Sheel: Cisco, with its involvement in China's Golden Shield Project and $16 Billion investment (http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/2825.html), doesn't want to have to deal with issues of human rights that might diminish ROI. Notable quote from article and 2008 testimony: Chandler said, "Cisco does not customize, or develop specialized or unique filtering capabilities, in order to enable different regimes to block access to information." My guess: Mark Chandler will affirm this statement tomorrow, but the real reason is that following the GNI principles would be a poor business decision and CISCO isn't willing to make any sacrifice.

Daniel: I believe Chandler will provide give his professional - and hopefully personal - account on the role CISCO plays in [facilitating / enabling / providing neutral tools] to allow for "different regimes" to control their nationals' internet experience. Cosson and Hope will probably dedicate more time to in depth discussion of two issues: involvement of industry actors other than the GNI founding members and the types of incentives that are needed for that, including legal alternatives and public exposure of "do some evil" firms. Also, given that we will not have representatives from Google and Yahoo, these companies are likely to figure prominently in the examples of events, actions and concessions to be avoided.

Day 2 Predictions

2010-01-05T08:38:21Z

Darbix:

Sheel: Cisco, with its involvement in China's Golden Shield Project and $16 Billion investment (http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/2825.html), doesn't want to have to deal with issues of human rights that might diminish ROI. Notable quote from article and 2008 testimony: Chandler said, "Cisco does not customize, or develop specialized or unique filtering capabilities, in order to enable different regimes to block access to information." My guess: Mark Chandler will affirm this statement tomorrow, but the real reason is that following the GNI principles would be a poor business decision and CISCO isn't willing to make any sacrifice.
Daniel: I believe Chandler will provide give his professional - and hopefully personal - account on the role CISCO plays in [facilitating / enabling / providing neutral tools] to allow for "different regimes" to control their nationals' internet experience. Cosson and Hope will probably dedicate more time to in depth discussion of two issues: involvement of industry actors other than the GNI founding members and the types of incentives that are needed for that, including legal alternatives and public exposure of "do some evil" firms. Also, given that we will not have representatives from Google and Yahoo, these companies are likely to figure prominently in the examples of events, actions and concessions to be avoided.

Day 2 Predictions

2010-01-05T08:34:20Z

Darbix:

Experiences in Crowd Sourcing

2010-01-05T01:41:23Z

Darbix: /* Daniel Arbix */

== Mechanical Turk ==

=== Daniel Arbix ===

I have signed up to Mechanical Turk as a Brazilian citizen (not all HIT opportunities were available, then). I have tried to explore different tasks to check the diversity the platform offers for workers. There are some amusing tasks to be performed, but most â against the websiteâs Participation Terms â, are boring schemes to distort internet advertisement payments or to gather active e-mails (for spam or worse, I presume). There are also numerous HITs which demand fake reviews of products and websites, or which require âturksâ to show support to social-networking profiles or events, and even to write posts in blogs making compliments to the blog ownerâs clever analyses. In the end of the day, it took me four hours to work on eight HITs and make $5.50. A short summary of my experiences follows.

''1st try'': bad page design, no $
I saw a task as available, was able to follow the instructions and actually perform it on a third party website, but then I realized that the event that would trigger a confirmation number required for my payment had already expired, so of course no payment was made to my account. This was the first contact I had with HITs designed to redirect traffic to earn advertisement revenues (it was described as âa test for page load time, very easy, for USD 2.00â).

''2nd try'': the second HIT I tried had the following misleading instructions:
* "This HIT is an easy to complete 'sign up' assignment. It shouldn't take you longer than 2 minutes to complete. Many thanks for your time! Simply go to: http://www.awin1.com/awclick.php?mid=633&id=93282 Sign up. Then send a print screen of your confirmation email to: mark.studentearnings@gmail.com and write your username and approximate time of sign up in the box below"
The site redirected me to http://www.offersclick.co.uk/offers/SiteRender.aspx?SiteID=501&ThemeID=21&q14259=AFW&q26274=93282 Again, it seems like arbitrage of internet advertisement revenuesâ¦
It was impossible to complete the task within the assigned time â the form-filling advertisements website took too much to load â, so I returned the HIT (and received no $, in spite of losing a lot of time)

''3rd try'': the HIT had the following description:
* "Complete free online quote form. MUST BE 18 OR OLDER AND LIVE IN USA TO COMPLETE THIS HIT Visit Site - Enter Name and Email - Takes less than a minute. IMPORTANT: Eligible only to those who have not yet signed up to this offer. Please don't use disposable e-mails as well. Let's keep this site honest. INSTRUCTION: 1) To get started, visit this website: http://www.aislezone.com/mturk-offer02.php 2) Select make, model and enter zip code. Click "get quotes" 3) Complete the form and click on "get free dealer quotes" REQUIRED PROOF: On activation confirmation copy/paste or type full text to the box below starting with : "Sent!..." "
The time-description was fair, and I received payment after two days. I also (stupidly) provided my real Stanford e-mail, with the result of getting my mailbox now filled by car dealers messages. Again, the HIT seems like arbitrage of internet advertisement revenues.

''4th try'': the HIT had the following description:
* "Data Collection-Google Results Reward: $1.25 per HIT Insert address, perform google searches and indicate first result"
This HIT was an honest one, requiring a verification of search results (Google), all related to the same company. Time description was fair, and my $ arrived a day later.

''5th try'': the HIT had the following description:
* "Rate faces of candidates running for office. Usually takes less than 5 minutes. You can find the survey here: http://www.surveygizmo.com/s/207922/faces3 At the end of the survey, you'll find a code. To get paid, please enter the code below:"
This was a fun, quick HIT. It had a fair time description, and payment was received after a day. I was, however, a terrible subject for the MIT social psychology survey, since most pictures to be rated are of Brazilian politiciansâ¦

=== Jason Harrow ===

It all started out so promisingly. Before I even started, I was excited because "Mechanical Turk" is such a great name. What did it mean? What was mechanical about it? And who or what is the âTurkâ in the transaction? Then, in the back of my mind: isnât that somehow vaguely racist?

Wikipedia would know what a Mechanical Turk is, of course. So I searched for it, and I immediately found my answer. The Mechanical Turk was a chess playing âmachineâ that, âfrom 1770 until its destruction by fire in 1854 . . . was exhibited by various owners as an automaton, though it was explained in the early 1820s as an elaborate hoax.â Something thought to be a form of artificial intelligence later explained to be just a smart guy in a box? How cool is that? Could there be a more perfect name for this service? I made a mental note that if I am ever in the position to pick a name for an Internet company or service, I will find out who chose "Mechanical Turk" and consult him or her. I couldnât have been more excited to get started.

I logged in with my Amazon ID and created my Amazon payment account. Unlike Daniel (above), I am a US citizen; also unlike Daniel, I chose to go first for a little assignment that paid $.02 per HIT. My task was to go to the website of a given educational institution, type in when the spring semester 2010 started, and give the URL of the Academic Calendar page confirming this. I did one successfully and submitted it. It took about 90 seconds. Easiest job of my life. Bring on a few more.

The next one took longer and bore no fruit, though: the little Midwestern barbershop college that was assigned to me didnât display when their spring semester started (side thought: do barbershop colleges even have spring semesters?). That was frustrating; all that effort, and no shiny pennies at the end of the rainbow. And why in the world does this guy â Aaron Smyth, whoever that is â even want to include barbershop colleges in his survey? What could he possibly be doing with that data? I pressed on and did a few more start dates before trying to find something else. It got boring pretty quickly, and I realized that 2 cents wasnât really worth it beyond the initial thrill of it all.

Like Daniel, I then encountered what later became obvious as a scam: someone who said theyâd pay me money for signing up, but the time given was too fast and there was no way to actually verify that I completed the task in the way they said I needed to. This made me angry. How in the world does Amazon â one of my favorite companies on the planet, by the way â let them get away with this? I reported the bastards, but I donât know what happened to that complaint. A few days later, Mechanical Turk still seems littered with these scams. Thatâs disappointing.

I turned to a final HIT, what seemed like just an individual who wanted me to go to his website and post any kind of comment, just for the sake of getting more hits. Seemed a little shady, but I gave it a try and duly posted a comment. Days later, I got the bad news: rejected! I wouldnât be getting the shiny nickel I was promised. Hey Amazon: how is that allowed?

I was once so excited by the great name and the prospect of making easy money, but I'm now deeply disappointed with both the requesters and with Amazon. Why did all the posters seem so scammy? Why aren't there any tasks that seem interesting and worthwhile? And how does Amazon let the requesters get away with this? I felt somehow betrayed by an Internet company that I feel oddly loyal to; it was as if HBO launched a new channel that turned out to be entirely infomercials. Get your act together, Mr. Bezos!

I logged into my account a few days later. The final tally was 8 HITs accepted; 4 submitted; 1 returned; 3 abandoned; 3 approved; 1 rejected; and, in the end, 6 measly American cents earned. I wish that the original chess-playing Mechanical Turk hadnât been destroyed in 1854. That Mechanical Turk might have been a sight to see. This one isnât.

=== Lien Ceulemans ===

After all the Christmas presents I had to buy for my family, I thought that a good way to earn some money (while doing my homework) was to volunteer as a mechanical turk.
A Google search brought me to the Amazon mechanical turk website (https://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome).

Before starting, I first had to create a payment account and accept the 6 pages long âAmazon Mechanical Turk Participation Agreementâ, thereby exclusively granting my intellectual property rights to the âRequesterâ. Furthermore, this agreement informed me that, as a mechanical turk, I would perform a âwork for hireâ âand would ânot be entitled [â¦] to any vacation pay, sick leave, insurance programs, including group health insurance or retirement benefits; or [â¦] worker's compensation benefits in the event of injury.â

Amazon describes its platform as âa marketplace for work that requires human intelligenceâ There is indeed no sign of a worldwide crisis, as 306,354 âHuman Intelligence Tasksâ or âHITâsâ were available.

I started with an easy, quite boring assignment that would pay me 0.05 dollar for each correct hit: âFind the Website Address for a Restaurant and its Menuâ. Since at that time, my âvalueâ was still rated at 100, I met the qualification requirement. While the website of âMerlo La Trattoriaâ in Chicago is quite easy to find, I ran into difficulties after a few hits. The address of the âBrazil steakâ house was only indicated in Chinese characters in the assignment, so I got completely lost at Google. It was time for another challengeâ¦

For my next HIT, I had to âwrite a short answer about carsâ of 50 to 60 words. Since I do not know anything about cars, this seemed the perfect HIT to test the reliability of the mechanical turk platform. To my best knowledge, I answered the question âHow do I clean a mass air flow sensor on my Mercury?â as follows: âThis is very easy to clean. You just take some water and soap that smells delicious and pour the water into the mass air flow sensor. If it is still not clean enough, repeat this process for a couple of times. You will see that your mass air flow sensor will look brand new again.â Although the HIT explanation mentioned that no qualification was required, after performing the hit, my answer was âsubmitted to conjecture corporation and [would] be approved or rejected shortly.â A few hours later, I received a âQualification Request Rejection Notificationâ email âfor Amazon Mechanical Turk. Despite I failed the test question, I did receive the 0.03 dollar reward for participating in this HIT.

After this, I decided to find a HIT which was more related to my field of knowledge. For different law schools, I needed to find the final fall application deadline for 2010 and the URL of website where I found the information. There were still 53 HITS available with a reward of 0.05 dollar each. Although the HIT information indicated that each HIT would take me around 10 minutes, I managed to complete a single HIT in about 4 minutes. This would thus result in an hourly wage of 0.75 dollar. Taking into account both the operating costs (e.g. electricity, internet, etc.) and the opportunity costs involved, I wonder who - besides âDifficult Problems in Cyberlawâ students - is willing to be a mechanical turk.

Although I got very bored, I tried to perform another HIT that required me to find the date, parties and subject of so-called âtop secret letters of the US war departmentâ. While this sounds as a very exciting and interesting assignment, in reality, trying to analyze unreadable pdfâs was not that fun. I decided to give it a last try, but had a hard time to find any attractive assignment. In the end, I participated in a research of the UNC Charlotte Human Computer Interaction Lab that does research in policy making decisions for social applications. After giving my âInformed Consent for Social Application Decision Makingâ, I had to indicate whether (i) I would or would not accept a certain Facebook application and (ii) share information of my Facebook friends with this application. Although this was not really interesting, this HIT gave me at least a good feeling as I contributed to university research. This was perfect to end my life as a mechanical turk.

Today (i.e. 5 days after submitted more than 20 hits), my Amazon Payment Account indicates that the approval of my submitted HITâs is still pending. This means that so far, I only earned 0.03 dollars for 2 hours of labor.

=== Juan Cheng ===

I signed up to Mechanical Turk to complete a HIT. Before I decided which one to work on, I browsed the available HITs to see what kind of jobs are offered there. Because I wanted to know what is the difference between the HITs and the tasks in physical work environment. I found most of the HITs are trivial, boring and kind of meaningless. One of the HITs even highlighted that âthis job is only for [a person's name]. Anyone else will be rejectedâ. This is so weird. Why the requester just ask the person he designate to finish the job offline?

I finally decided to work on a HIT which asked the worker to find the official website address for a restaurant and its menu. The requester provided the full name, address and telephone number of the restaurant to help target the object. It's pretty easy. I just surfed on Google and found the website address in 2 minutes. As requested, I attached the URL of the website address and that of the menu and submitted the HITs on December 28, 2009. Then I returned to my account to see the status. It showed that the HIT I submitted was pending for approval/rejection by the requester. Up to now, I have not been approved or rejected yet. I've sent a email to the requester to check. Will follow up.

One thing to note is before I selected the HIT above, I accepted several other HITs to try to work on them. I then returned them because they were very boring and time consuming. I supposed Mechanical Turk would not made a record for this. However, they actually did and even recorded the submitted, returned and abandoned rates based on the total HITs I accepted. It makes me feel like I'm an employee of Mechanical Turk and they will probably evaluate my performance based on these rates and other data, e.g. the feedback from the requester.

I guess the requester offered this HIT for at least two purposes. One is to get more people know the restaurant. Actually I really like the style of the website and I would try this restaurant if I happen to be around. The other might be to get more people search it on Google. If there are plenty of search on this term, the name of the restaurant appears as a google suggest.

=== Victoria Baranetsky ===

So fascinating. I âplayedâ on Mechanical Turk for several days doing a variety of hits. I had never participated on Mechanical Turk before but soon became a junkie. Spending an embarrassing amount of time on it. Some tasks kept me entertained longer then others. The ones I like I would repeat over and over. And when I got bored with one I moved onto the next. Here is a short list of a few of the HITs that I participated in.

The first was a psychological study, I assume. The task was to rate the attractiveness of people in 30 photos from 1 (least attractive to 10 (most attractive).

The second was called âBasketball Tracking.â As footage of a basketball game played I was assigned to move a box over the image of the player. (A somewhat simpler version of Duck Hunt).

The third was named âTag Fashion Magazine Covers.â As you clicked through different covers of beauty magazines the task was to categorize the predominant color on the cover (e.g. blue, green or red), the âlookâ (e.g. sexy, glamorous, or charming) and the brand of magazine (e.g. Vogue, Cosmo or Hustler).

The fourth was a photo identifier of cars. A car listing including the model and year was provided and the HIT required that the Turker find a matching photo for that specific car.

After I did these HITs I wanted to do something a little more thought provoking so I took three qualifying exams that were simple multiple choice questions including my place of birth, age and degree of education.

In total there are several things that struck me while âplayingâ with mechanical Turk.

First, the diversity of HITs was fascinating. The HITS were all over the board â going to show the incredible ability for Turk to be a great tool for a plethora of organizations.

However, although the diversity was phenomenal I was a bit hesitant with every HIT because I didnât know the purpose or reason for what I was doing. For example, the psychological study that asked me to rate the beauty of the persons in the photographs was bizarre in asking me for a waiver. The waiver explained that I was not allowed to bring suit for my work in this study and that I had no monetary rights.

Not only was the purpose concealed but the member asking for the HIT is not revealed. Although there is a name for example âPaul Goldsteinâ is listed as the requester â further information is not available. I think this lack of transparency is troublesome. Anonymity certainly promotes more use of Mechanical Turk but it seems when some tasks could perhaps have malicious purposes, transparency would be good. In addition, transparency of the Turkers also would make their work more veritable.

Lastly, the final thing that troubled me on Mechanical Turk was the addictive quality of the tasks. By placing money into the equation one feels that playing, categorizing and writing reviews - in essence what is wasting time is perhaps a valuable to spend time. The games become frighteningly more appealing and what begins as a 45-minute endeavor turns into several hours of clicking, tagging and reading. I felt like a better at Atlantic City â pulling the proverbial lever at the slot machine over and over again.

=== Andrew Jacobs ===
I also experimented with Amazonâs Mechanical Turk.

My first HIT was to transcribe a 30 second audio clip. From the perspective of a new mturk worker, I was entirely satisfied with the experience. I could preview the audio clip before accepting the HIT, so as not to commit myself to garbled mumbling and subsequently damage my reputation by abandoning the task. The content turned out to be a snippet of Biblical interpretation. I accepted, did my best (bracketing a few words I wasnât sure of, including âMillenialistsâ), and a few days later received two cents in my payments account for approximately three minutes of work.

From a slightly more critical perspective, this HIT got me thinking about economic and noneconomic incentives. As an unpaid intern for a literary magazine a few years ago, I transcribed a two-hour roundtable discussion among five barely distinguishable voices, recorded on a cheap, analog tape recorder. Though the task was awful, I worked on it diligently, mostly because I liked the editors and believed in their cause. If that alleged âMillenialistâ word had popped up, I certainly would have gone to greater lengths to verify it than I did here, even though I risked two whole cents in this case. What if, then, there were a volunteer crowdsourcing tool for this requesterâs particular brand of Christianity? Or, more plausibly, a general volunteer crowdsourcing website that grouped unpaid tasks by the causes that their completion furthered? The results might well be of higher quality than mturkâs, and I imagine those volunteer sites would avoid some thorny labor issues that Amazon faces.

My second HIT, which a few others have mentioned, was easy: I was to find the URLs for the main website and the menu of a given restaurant, at five cents a pop. (If either of these websites proved nonexistent, there was space to say so, and I still got my nickel.) Though it took a couple more days than the first HIT, I was eventually paid $.15 for my three finds.

The mindless, but not grating, simplicity of this HIT made me think a bit about how mturkâs economic incentives may be better utilized without increasing their value. In order to shift my earning to an Amazon Gift Certificate, for example, I have to follow a handful of steps and type in exactly how much I want to transfer. Why canât I have my account be directly and continuously tied to a Gift Certificate? And why not have a âHIT itâ button along with âBuyâ in Amazonâs retail stores? If there wasnât enough money in my Payments account, the button would take me to my mturk account so I could earn some more. One of the most valuable things I can get for less than a dollar, in my mind, is an Amazon MP3. If Iâm working for tiny sums anyway, I might be more motivated if my tiny carrot were a more direct embodiment of value.

Now that I have a Mechanical Turk account, will I use it again? Maybe. Like Victoria, I had some fun completing the âTag Fashion Coversâ HITs (though at first the âsubmitâ button in their dialog box was malfunctioning). Perhaps even as much fun as, say, those last twenty minutes of bopping around on the Internet before bed. I smell a New Yearâs resolution. . .

=== Elisabeth Oppenheimer ===

I too spent some time on Mechanical Turk. I'd used it a few times before, which was enough to teach me to stay far away from $.02 tasks. They're boring, they often just don't work, and they pay $.02. But I actually enjoy some of the higher-paid tasks, especially writing articles. So I sorted the available HITs by wage and started with the one that paid the most, $4.17/hour. That seemed like an unbelievably high wage, particularly since it only asked me to look at a website and review it. After I'd glanced at the website, though, I realized that it was impossible to submit the HIT. Clever spam: the highest-priced task gets lots of viewers, who click through to the ad-loaded website, whose operators are presumably paid per view (or just hope some Turkers will click through). The operators didnât any up paying for any HITs, so voilaâfree traffic.

Moderately disgruntled, I found a $1.70 HIT to write a 300 word piece about green weddings. It took maybe 5 minutes to complete, and I had fun--law students don't get to do much free writing, and since my friends are getting married in droves, I have a lot of thoughts about weddings. The payment came through the next day. I also wrote an article about how to make airline travel quicker and easier ($1.00, 300 words), also quickly paid. Then I started on a HIT that asked me to write a 500 word article including the words "sheer bodystocking." I wrote the HIT about something completely unrelated to lingerie (I wrote about sledding in my hometown), added the words "sheer bodystocking" in the middle of a sentence, and submitted. I wish I could say this had been a conscious quality-control experiment, but I just wasnât paying much attention when I started writing. My article been pending several days, and Iâm eager to see whether I get my $1.00.

Like most of you, I assume that these articles are not in fact serving those who want to know how to plan a green wedding or facilitate air travel, but are ending up as word salad on spammy webpages. (Despite that knowledge, I find myself surprisingly invested in writing good and useful articles â irrational?) So I saved my text and did a Google search for it a few days later, and got nothing; Iâll repeat it in a few weeks. As much as I find AMT tasks strangely soothing, like many of you, I don't think they always make the internet a better place.

I also paid a brief visit to the Turker forums, where there's a discussion going on about the perceived increase in spammy HITs, whether reporting does any good, whether companies will find out who reported them and reject that person's HITs, whether Amazon should preemptively screen HITs, and whether class-action lawsuits might do any good. Interestingly, a few requestors were participating in the discussion too, and one experienced Turker appeared to be in conversations with Amazon's management.

Finally (as discussed a little more below), I set up a TwitHawk alert for people tweeting about Amazon Mechanical Turk. I havenât gotten any Turkers yet, but I did get requestors advertising HITs and a couple of articles about the service. One article made a good point--Amazon has long relied on customer rankings and data to create a huge part of the service's value (imagine how lame Amazon would be if only staff could do reviews!), so it was natural they would think to expand into the crowdsourcing space.

== LiveOps ==

=== Sheel Tyle ===

I am in the process of signing up as an inexperienced bilingual (Spanish & English - I'm conversational, not fluent, in Spanish, but let's see how much I'm tested on it) LiveOps call center agent. There are videos on the website from independent agents, testimonials on the sidebar ($15-22/hour), and press releases from various periodicals that try and convince.

There are five steps that I must follow in order to be 'submitted for review':

Validate your email address

Verify your understanding of the general requirements

Provide basic information on your background

Assess your comprehension and computer skill

Audition your voice

Under ''''basic information'''', here are some of the questions:

Have you ever contracted your business with LiveOps in the past?, Do you have prior call center experience?, Are you currently licensed to sell both health and life insurance products?, Are you currently licensed to sell both property and casualty insurance products?, Do you have prior experience in sales?, Do you have prior experience taking calls from Radio offers?, Do you have any experience in outbound telemarketing?, Do You Speak, Read and Write Spanish - FLUENTLY?, Do You Speak, Read and Write French - FLUENTLY?

I said "No" to every one except "Yes" to speaking Spanish.

Then, under ''''comprehension and computer skill'''', I had to answer questions like:

''
Please read this script:"We dont want you to miss out on this great offer, so what I can do for you today is offer you 1 HotBrush for 3 easy payments of $29.99 plus $14.75 to cover processing or you can take advantage of our special offer, the SpeedyHeat model for only $6.67 additional per payment. The SpeedyHeat Model contains a computer chip which lets your HotBrush heat up faster and hold a more even temperature just like the most expensive professional quality hot tools. So, would you like to order the HotBrush or the SpeedyHeat Model?"

In this script, is the customer choosing between two different products or are they deciding whether to add a product (for two products total)?
Deciding whether to add a product
Choosing between two different products''

'' What is the keyboard shortcut to move between windows you already have open on your computer?
Hold down the "Alt" button and press the "Tab" button
Drag the window offscreen
Click the appropriate button in the task bar
Close the program you are currently working in, and open a new one
Minimize the window you are currently working in ''

Finally, the voice test. LiveOps asked me to call in to a 1-800 number and, when prompted, read two passages: one in English and one in Spanish.

Submitted. Once I hear back, I'll update whether I was accepted =)

=== Ramesh Nagarajan ===

I've completed the agent qualification process to become a LiveOps representative. Sheel did a good job of explaining the basics of the qualification process, so I'll share two observations I had about the process.

First, there's a fair amount of legal language LiveOps uses, with the intention of disclaiming any liability or even the existence of much of a relationship between it and its contractors. One must agree to the following: "I understand that LiveOps will investigate all of my information provided during the Agent Qualification process, and that Certification of my home business to contract with LiveOps will be contingent upon successful completion of a criminal and credit background check." They aren't currently accepting Massachusetts residents as LiveOps contractors -- perhaps Massachusetts's laws are too worker-friendly -- so I hope that means I get to avoid the "criminal and credit background check." Also, I didn't have to provide a Social Security Number, which makes me wonder if there is a real background check. Going back to the phrase I agreed to, I found it interesting that LiveOps representatives are setting up "home business[es] to contract" with LiveOps. There seem to be at least two advantages that LiveOps has over traditional telemarketing and call center companies -- first, it could save money on infrastructure by having employees work out of their own homes and use their own computers and phones, and second, it could save money by not having actual employees. I wonder which is more important, and if the second is a necessary part of the company's business strategy.

On a lighter note, the questions for "comprehension and computer skill" were quite entertaining. I was asked if booting a computer meant to turn on the sound, throw it out, turn it on, or add extra drives, and I had to decipher the meaning of a call script. I think there's a good chance I got one of the questions wrong. It asked what a customer paid today for a product that had "an upfront trial payment" of $15, three monthly payments of $40, and a shipping and handling charge of $10. I answered $15, but when I think about it, maybe it should be $25.

== Online mass collaboration project ==

=== Franny Lee ===

While waiting for my little sister to finish teaching her last Grade 9 class of 2009, I fell into conversation at an Ottawa (Canada) Starbucks with Russell Maier, a professional collaborative multi-media artist and a fellow fan of peppermint mochas. Russell is currently cycling around the world to help promote and orchestrate a âplanetary collaborative mosaicâ art/photo project, based upon the ancient cultural concept of a âmandalaâ. The first grand â1Mandalaâ is slated to be unveiled in front of the NYC UN Headquarters in May 2010.

The projectâs theme - global peace and togetherness: âAs a celebration of our Oneness we are building a collaborative planetary mandala. Our mosaic 1Mandala is being built out of pictures of people of all places and cultures smiling peace to the world. These "peace portraits" are being arranged into a Mandala-- an ancient circular and geometric art-form long-used by the world's spiritual traditions for healing, unity and raising consciousnessâ¦ It will be a powerful symbol of humanity united in the intention of peace to each other and the planet. â¨â¨We invite you to share your peace and your portrait with the world.â

Photo contributions are accepted through the project's website at http://www.1mandala.org. From my conversation with Russell, I get the sense that artistic vision currently dominates the project. Issues of communicating his project to a global audience are forefront (in addition to the website, Russellâs blog of his travels http://missive452.blogspot.com/ and the âdaily e-blastsâ with the âpeace portrait of the dayâ, this project participates in Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, Digg and StumbleUpon), while intellectual property or privacy concerns have not been addressed other than with a simple website privacy policy and release (see 2-paragraph âPrivacy and Releaseâ at http://www.1mandala.org/en/uploader). Photos are (or will be) screened by a member of his team at some point before the final UN premiere, however, Russell prefers not to interfere with individual contributions unless the photo is deemed absolutely inappropriate. His logistical vision is to ultimately develop a fully automated online photo contribution process. There have been very few (I believe less than 5) instances where a photo has been refused - if I recall correctly, one may have involved something about a turkey.

After creating my peace picture, I began the online contribution process and was required to register my email address, first name, city and country. After completing registration, I received an email with instructions for my photo contribution, which included general tips for âpeace portraitsâ and a hyperlink to the contribution uploader webpage. From there, I completed the web-fillable form by uploading my peace portrait, advising of my city and country, and was given the option of adding a photo caption and including a story about my photo. A box for the privacy policy and release and a box to confirm that this is an âintentional peace portraitâ must be checked off to proceed to the next steps, which are to crop the photo to the project size as per the instructions provided, and finally, to submit the photo. I kept experiencing âInternal Server Errorâ messages while trying to submit my peace portrait, and finally contributed through the alternate method of emailing a copy to peace@1mandala.org.

=== Amanda Peyton ===

Nov. 4, 2008 is a day that brought both metaphorical and tangible change to the White House. For many Americans, the day holds special, "memorable" significance.

A young filmmaker at IFC named Jeff Deutchman decided that the day would be worth capturing (regardless of the outcome of the election) in many different cities, so he enlisted a few friends to film highlights from Election Day that he then spent a few months editing into a proper documentary.

But then he realized that by only using the footage from his friends, he was ignoring what was surely massive amounts of footage and still photos from those outside of his personal circle. He started a website, [[www.11-4-08.com]], where people can browse, upload and edit footage from November 4th into their own "documentaries". The participatory site will launch in conjunction with the film's screening at a prestigious film festival in March.

The website accomplishes several objectives, and touches upon a few themes of mass collaboration:

1. If people watch the documentary and enjoy it, they can continue to interact with the film through the website

2. It allows history to become personal - while there were certain events on Nov. 4 that everyone in the country shared, this website - like many popular tools on the web, allows the user to personalize their experience.

3. It connects people who previously would have had no interaction by letting them access, watch and edit each other's footage

My involvement with this project has been to brainstorm how to structure the crowdsourced part to ensure ease of use and maximum participation. When putting together a site where the first objective is to prompt some sort of participation from the user (as opposed to straight consumption) there are several elements that I believe are critical:

- Clear objective of what you want from the user. For this project it's clear - to contribute still photos and footage from Nov. 4, 2008. I believe that this request is focused enough that the user will not be overwhelmed. If you make your requests too broad often times the user will get overwhelmed.

- Recognition. A large motivator for those who participate in crowdsourced projects is the incentive structure. How will the participants be recognized? (This could be a separate essay in itself - Amazon, Yelp, Reddit, Stack Overflow and Hacker News all boast their own incentive structures to encourage participation).

- Speed and Tech - the back-end technology needs to be seamless. For this project, the challenge has been to identify an in-browser simple video editor that will allow people to take existing footage and edit it into their own mini-documentaries. Currently, video editing software is large and bulky, but there are a few companies that are building simple browser-based video editing tools. Also, as Google has taught us, the site needs to be fast. The fastest way to scare away users is to have a slow site (just ask Friendster).

When the film is shown in March and the project launches, I am very curious to see how people will use the site and how participation will materialize.

=== Sharona Hakimi ===

A November New York Times article http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/technology/internet/17maps.html?_r=1&nl=technology&emc=techupdateema1 about a wikipedia-style mass collaborative mapping effort sparked my interest in various grassroots and industry induced efforts to find the best and most helpful way to "map"the world around us. We all use google maps, and with the satellite images and street-view capabilities, google maps has helped define the way I travel now, especially as they become readily available on our cellphones. However, as the article discusses, mapmaking is largely political, and left solely to google experts to decide what to map, how quickly, and from which views, we are leaving it to strangers with a vested interest. Hence, organizations like OpenStreetMap and wikimapia have come about in an effort to democratize mapmaking, leaving it in the hands of reliable locals to show just where the nearest coffee shop or library is.

I played around with three different mapmaking websites (one of which is sponsored by google, and another which partners with it to lay your data on top of google maps).

The first website I tried is OpenStreetMap (http://www.openstreetmap.org/) which is a non profit aimed at making free maps that can be reused by anyone. According to NYTimes, it has some 180,000 contributors who have mapped many countries in varying levels of detail, and it even has its own twitter account. Although I love the idea behind the website, I think the layout is actually really confusing, and the search is terrible. It's set up as a wiki, allowing contributors to edit and discuss various changes. It was a bit of a hassle to sign up for an account, and any contributions have to be authorized, so I have yet to see if my additions to my neighborhood in Toronto (a pharmacy, a synagogue, etc), were added.

The next website I tried is wikimapia (http://wikimapia.org), which partners with google maps, allowing users to create specialized maps on top of google. I spent some time trying to label buildings at Harvard Law school, but when I actually tried confirming the changes it said it was already labeled (though it didn't seem to be). Overall I found this website a lot easier to use and I like the layout more, although the search function is also not very good.

The last one I used was Google Map Maker (http://www.google.com/mapmaker), which immediately opens a very user friendly help box explaining the user's role ("Your work as a citizen cartographer will appear on Google Maps and serve the needs of local users, schools, city planners, tourists, and more."). Although I hate to say it, since this "democratization" of mapping is initiated by a for-profit industry member, this website is by far the most advanced and user friendly, and I found it really fun.

Overall I'm a really big fan of the democratization of mapmaking, and I think it fits with the general concept to have various websites that function in different ways to do the same thing. As the technology becomes more advanced, I think all three websites will get even better. I definitely believe that mass collaboration is extremely important and even necessary in making making maps in the 21st century.

== TwitHawk ==

=== Elisabeth Oppenheimer ===

(Formerly TwitterHawk, but Twitter made them change the name.)

The TwitHawk space looked forlorn, so I took a quick look at it. It's pretty clever. You set up a search -- say, people tweeting about Amazon Mechanical Turk within 25 miles of Palo Alto -- and the app updates you when someone tweets on that topic. You also set up some prepared responses ("Iâm studying Amazon Mechanical Turk for a class, how has your experience with it been?") which are automatically sent to anyone who matches your search. You can also change the settings such that you need to confirm before sending your message, or so that you automatically follow anyone you message. It's basically a marketing tool: in the example they give, a coffee shop searches for local people tweeting about a desire for coffee, and then sends them the address of the shop.

The concern in the press coverage is that this will massively spam Twitter users, but the owners have taken some useful steps to prevent this--you have to pay 5 cents per message, you can only send one message to a given user, and you can only send one message every two hours.

I'm impressed with the service, although Iâm still fundamentally stunned that Twitter and Twitter apps have morphed so quickly from a "huh? why would you want to do that?" phenomenon to a "cornerstone of all cool marketing campaigns" phenomenon.

=== Reuben Rodriguez ===

First things first. As mentioned above, Twitterhawk is dead. Long live Twithawk! I think Elisabeth did a pretty good job of describing what Twithawk does so I'll keep my description to the bare minimum: Twithawk is basically a tool that sends preset replies to other Twitter users whose tweets match whatever search results you have set up. Twithawk gives new registrants 10 free auto-replies, so I set up a new Twitter account and gave it a spin.

I decided I would be tweeting as HarryDoyle97 and accordingly constructed a search for any mention of the word "Indians" within 25 miles of the Cleveland area. I created three pre-set responses and set up the search to run once every two hours. Within 10 minutes, Twithawk had sent out my first auto-response (JUST a bit outside) to Indians on Fan Feedr in Cleveland, Ohio. It was all very easy.

Elisabeth discusses the critics' main concern about how Twithawk could be used for mass Twitter spam and she mentions the steps Twithawk has implemented to try and combat this possibility - the five cent per reply cost and the limited frequency with which a response can be sent. There is also subtle encouragement to use the Twitter feed as more than just a robot automatically replying to search results. Each "campaign" that you set up has a meter on your dashboard labeled "TwitterHawk Noise Ratio" with an arrow pointing from green to red. It then rates the ratio between Twithawk responses on your feed vs. "natural" (read: by an actual human being) responses and encourages the user to keep the ration below 25% (1 Twithawk response for every 4 real ones). While this may not deter those with the real intent to spam, at the least it serves as a helpful reminder to the well-meaning, but inattentive marketer to keep their feeds from being mere spam. Finally, the FAQs asks those who feel that Twithawk is being used for spam to report the spammers and notes that Twitter is active in punishing spammers. If Twithawk remains vigilant, the product definitely has potential.

=== Tyler Lacey ===

I used TwitHark too. My goal was to find people complaining or wondering about on the status of the (often late) Boston subway and bus system called "The T" and run by the MBTA. So my search was simple: I merely searched for terms such as "MBTA", "T", "late", "delayed", etc. that posted within 5 miles of Boston. My response was to tell people about the official MBTA twitter feed (MBTANow) that already supplies people with very up to date information. I set TwitHawk to send this response automatically.

I suspect that my response will annoy more people (at most 10 really, since I am only using my ten free responses) than it helps for two reasons. The first is that "within 5 miles of Boston" is too coarse of a search area. It will likely define lots of people that do not or can not use the T and exclude many people that do use the T. This difficulty is a symptom of the my second, more general, complaint with TwitHawk's search mechanism: it is too simplistic. For something as delicate as searching the millions of twitter posts and responsing in a useful manner, I think I need more than the simple list of terms that are presumably searched for in an "or" fashion, narrowed by a single location. I would prefer something more akin to regular expressions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_expression) that would let me specify precisely the strings that I am searching for, as well as a more precise manner of specifying locations (so I could use something like "within 1 mile [Town]" for every town near Boston that the T serves). This way I would be able to target posts that are more likely complaning or inquiring about the status of the T and search within an area that more closely resembles the T network rather than a circle extending out from the center of Boston. I believe that this advanced search capacity should be built into TwitHawk using a more sophisticated search builder interface. This would allow users not familiar with the complexities of regular expressions to make use of their flexibility. However, an API or program that sat on top of TwitHawk could achieve a similar result by flattening a regular expression into many simpler searches and automatically entering those searches in TwitHawk. However, for complicated regular expression searches this would create an unmanageable number of simpler searches for TwitHawk to store.

I also noticed that a captcha is the only thing that seemed to be standing between me and multiplying my ten free opportunities to spam into millions of free spam messages by automatically creating TwitHawk accounts and setting them to the same searches. Without knowing the internals of TwitHawk I can't be sure what defenses exist to prevent this.

== Drumbeat Privacy Project ==

===Michael Feldman===

Ok. So I was intimidated by some of the other possible projects such as Twithawk and Mechanical Turk. Signing up for things and following directions? Ew. So, the clear solution was to try and tackle the creative problem proposed by Drumbeat to simplify various internet companies' privacy policies, a la Creative Commons. The idea is to create a simple structure of icons, images and phrases to more effectively communicate a companies privacy policy without requiring the user to sift through a ton of dense legalese.

In creative commons, each icon which stands for a particular set of rights the author wishes to protect. But this won't work for privacy policies because the policies are different for each company. They don't merely invoke a set of already-delineated rights. One organization called Privacy Choice has already tried to create icons to simplify the process of learning about companies privacy policies, (see http://www.privacychoice.org/whos_watching). But this website is not completely effective since it requires the user to "mouse over" various categories of privacy policies, only to encounter much more "mumbo jumbo."

It seemed to me that the primary design problem was that there are multiple levels of information: specific data within specific provisions within general categories. So I tried to create an idea for a basic system which used the Privacy Choice Categories (plus a few others I thought would be relevant), color coded them so that a user could tell which categories might require greater attention, and then placed the provisions on a rather vague scale. While not as specific as an ultimate solution might want to be, this at least gives a user site-specific information that will be useful before delving into the actual text. From here, the next step would be to create a stock of short phrases which could appear when the user mouses over the icons which would give more detailed information without resorting to large blocks of text.

All in all, the challenge is very interesting and definitely something I would be happy to continue to work on over the next few weeks. The specific challenge of conveying all information in a given privacy policy in simpler symbols is one which will likely require involvement of the actual companies to conform their policies to set rubrics (or at least stock modular blocks of text), but short of that, it might be possible to create a more intuitive set of symbols that could be more generally applicable to all policies. But then there would still be the problem of aggregation of information since people would have to go through each policy to decode it and re-encode it into the new system.

You can find the actual suggestions I posted to drumbeat here: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Talk:Drumbeat/Challenges/Privacy_Icons.

===Bruno Magrani===

If Firefox is about making the web better through software, drumbeat intends to be the twin brother that focus on connecting project ideas and people together to promote a better web. In a way, one can think about it as an incubator for projects to improve people's experience on the web.

Because the project seemed quite exciting to me I took the liberty to exchange some emails with the people involved to get a sense of how I could be of most help to the project and decided to collaborate coming up with other examples of people who are contributing to improve the web. This first initial experience â being able to chose how to best participate in the project â denoted one of the wonders of online peer production: the advantage over traditional industrial information production systems in terms of information gains regarding how to connect a person's interest with a specific task.

If one important component of the project involves coming up with ideas for projects an equally important component involves getting real life examples of who is doing what to improve the web. It works both as way to recognize the efforts of these people, but also to stimulate other people to do the same and start their own initiatives. In a sense this is intended to send a message saying: everyone can and should contribute to make a better web.

One of the things that I notice while reading the projects and people being featured was that they were too much focused on experiences happening in the United States and some in Europe, so I decided to come up with examples of what both common and notorious people were doing in a developing country such as Brazil. My contribution can be found [https://wiki.mozilla.org/Drumbeat/yearone/peoplebrainstorm here] and I'm definitely going to keep contributing to the project.

Cyberlaw: Difficult Issues Winter 2010:Current events

2010-01-04T22:38:03Z

Darbix:

[http://www.europeanentrepreneursatstanford.com/ European Entrepreneurs Series]
[http://etl.stanford.edu/ Entrepreneur Feelings]

Paul Goldstein's [https://coursework.stanford.edu/portal/site/W10-LAW-478-01 Legal Design for the Entertainment and Information Future] course, every Thursday at 4:15PM - 7:15PM, might interest most of you.

Ubiquitous Human Computing

2009-12-23T23:43:59Z

Darbix: /* Amazon Mechanical Turk */

= What is Ubiquitous Human Computing? =

Professor Zittrain provides an excellent overview of the emerging field of "Ubiquitous Human Computing" in a recent [http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10/asset/ssrn-id1140445-pdf paper]. For the purposes of this course, focus on the paper's discussion of "fungible networked brainpower" as exemplified by Amazon Mechanical Turk, LiveOps and InnoCentive. Alternatively, these core ideas are expressed in video form [http://bigthink.com/jonathanzittrain/the-long-and-silent-subway-ride-of-the-future here].

= The Current Services =

== Amazon Mechanical Turk ==

Amazon's Mechanical Turk (AMT) [http://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome product] is the simplest ubiquitous human computing model currently available. It provides a marketplace for "Human Intelligence Tasks" (HITs), which are typically large collections of simple and repetitive tasks that nonetheless require a human mind to complete. The HITs are necessarily limited in scope because their maximum price is $10.

----

Pre-Course Assignment: Mechanical Turk (Daniel Arbix)

I have signed up to Mechanical Turk as a Brazilian citizen (not all HIT opportunities were available, then). I have tried to explore different tasks to check the diversity the platform offers for workers. There are some amusing tasks to be performed, but most â against the websiteâs Participation Terms â, are boring schemes to distort internet advertisement payments or to gather active e-mails (for spam or worse, I presume). There are also numerous HITs which demand fake reviews of products and websites, or which require âturksâ to show support to social-networking profiles or events, and even to write posts in blogs making compliments to the blog ownerâs clever analyses. A short summary of my experiences follows.

''1st try'': bad page design, no $
I saw a task as available, was able to follow the instructions and actually perform it on a third party website, but then I realized that the event that would trigger a confirmation number required for my payment had already expired, so of course no payment was made to my account. This was the first contact I had with HITs designed to redirect traffic to earn advertisement revenues (it was described as âa test for page load time, very easy, for USD 2.00â).

''2nd try'': the second HIT I tried had the following misleading instructions:
* "This HIT is an easy to complete 'sign up' assignment. It shouldn't take you longer than 2 minutes to complete. Many thanks for your time! Simply go to: http://www.awin1.com/awclick.php?mid=633&id=93282 Sign up. Then send a print screen of your confirmation email to: mark.studentearnings@gmail.com and write your username and approximate time of sign up in the box below"
The site redirected me to http://www.offersclick.co.uk/offers/SiteRender.aspx?SiteID=501&ThemeID=21&q14259=AFW&q26274=93282 Again, it seems like arbitrage of internet advertisement revenuesâ¦
It was impossible to complete the task within the assigned time â the form-filling advertisements website took too much to load â, so I returned the HIT (and received no $, in spite of losing a lot of time)

''3rd try'': the HIT had the following description:
* "Complete free online quote form. MUST BE 18 OR OLDER AND LIVE IN USA TO COMPLETE THIS HIT Visit Site - Enter Name and Email - Takes less than a minute. IMPORTANT: Eligible only to those who have not yet signed up to this offer. Please don't use disposable e-mails as well. Let's keep this site honest. INSTRUCTION: 1) To get started, visit this website: http://www.aislezone.com/mturk-offer02.php 2) Select make, model and enter zip code. Click "get quotes" 3) Complete the form and click on "get free dealer quotes" REQUIRED PROOF: On activation confirmation copy/paste or type full text to the box below starting with : "Sent!..." "
The time-description was fair, and I received payment after two days. I also (stupidly) provided my real Stanford e-mail, with the result of getting my mailbox now filled by car dealers messages. Again, the HIT seems like arbitrage of internet advertisement revenues.

''4th try'': the HIT had the following description:
* "Data Collection-Google Results Reward: $1.25 per HIT Insert address, perform google searches and indicate first result"
This HIT was an honest one, requiring a verification of search results (Google), all related to the same company. Time description was fair, and my $ arrived a day later.

''5th try'': the HIT had the following description:
* "Rate faces of candidates running for office. Usually takes less than 5 minutes. You can find the survey here: http://www.surveygizmo.com/s/207922/faces3 At the end of the survey, you'll find a code. To get paid, please enter the code below:"
This was a fun, quick HIT. It had a fair time description, and payment was received after a day. I was, however, a terrible subject for the MIT social psychology survey, since most pictures to be rated are of Brazilian politiciansâ¦

== LiveOps ==

LiveOps's [http://www.liveops.com marketplace] is a step up from AMT because it carefully selects those that can perform tasks. Out of 3500 candidates to become a LiveOps worker each week, LiveOps only selects 50-75 after a test and an interview.

Patrick McKenna, founder of LiveOps but no longer with the company, has outlined what he believes draws each party to LiveOps. Workers desire (1) access to work, (2) control over their own work schedules, and (3) independance. McKenna believes that the most important factor to workers in their schedule flexibility. Also very important to the worker is the lack of setup and takedown time - there is no LiveOps equivalent to the unpaid commute to and from work. There is also no LiveOps equivalent to the real-world workplace expenses of gas, work clothes and workplace eating. McKenna believes that the average LiveOps worker make $9 an hour, but that this amount is equivalent to earning $16/hour in a job involving the aforementioned expenses.

McKenna believes that work providers are drawn to LiveOps primarily because of its flexibility and capacity to maximize productivity from their workers. Work providers are also able to avoid costs associated with the real-world workplace - office space, setup and takedown time, etc. - LiveOps employers only pay for work when it is actually being done. The flexibility offered by LiveOps allows for work providers to quickly vary the size of their workforce - they do not need to keep a "reserve" of employees that are paid with no work to do in order to handle spikes in workforce needs.

== InnoCentive ==

InnoCentive's [http://www.innocentive.com/ marketplace] is again a step up from LiveOps in terms of complexity of its tasks and skills needed to complete them. InnoCentive's asks its workers to solve minor scientific problems posed by its work suppliers. InnoCentive offers its workers large awards, including awards of $1,000,000 for some solutions. InnoCentive refers to its work providers and workers as "seekers" and "solvers", respectively.

= The Difficult Issues =

== Present Day Doctrinal Problem Areas ==

*American Business Law Journal: The Information Revolution and its Impact on the Employment Relationship: An Analysis of the Cyberspace Workplace
**This is a fantastic survey paper on the many issues raised with employment law in combination with cyber-workers.
**This article seems to assume that cyberworkers will still be working in the United States, but this seems like an unrealistic assumption
**Written in 2003, around the time LiveOps launched (2000)
**Citation: 40 AMBLJ 301
**Section II of this article examines how working over the internet blurs/challenges current law about the employee/contractor distinction.
***"Under the right-of-control test, an employee is not an independent contractor if the employer has the ability to control the time, method, and manner of employment"
**Section IV of this article examines how cyber-working affects non-compete agreements and copyright considerations (such as works-for-hire)
***"The Internet exacerbates this tension by raising previously unheard of issues in drafting and enforcing non-compete agreements."
***Work-for-hire: How does UbiComp affect the work-for-hire test established by Creative Non-Violence v. Reid? ( 490 U.S. 730 (1989) )
**Section V - Employment Regulation
***A: The Burlington/Faragher sexual harassment standard is not clear when applied to cyber-workers
****"The Ninth Circuit held that remoteness will not dilute an employee's obligation to report sexual harassment."
***C: Family Medical Leave Act - depends on employee/independent contractor distinction
***D: Workers Compensation
***E: Fair Labor Standards Act
***F: The National Labor Relations Act
***G: The Occupational Safety & Health Act
**Conclusions
***For employee/contractor distinction, "courts must use the existing and long-standing right-of-control test, but apply it with sensitivity to the unique characteristics of Internet-enabled workplaces."
***As courts evolve toward the Zippo sliding scale, they must set some standard of how much contact remote employment creates between the employee's forum state and the employer.
***Agencies need to adopt specific regulation to deal with cyberworkers
***"When regulatory guidance is insufficient, the legislature must act"
****Congress must clarify how unions can organize and communicate in cyberspace in order to protect labor and management rights.

*Case study: Amazon's Mechanical Turk may violate employment/tax laws because the employee-employer relationship is between the requester and the worker [http://behind-the-enemy-lines.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-amazon-mechanical-turk-black-market.html]

== Potential Difficult Problems in the Future ==

* What if UbiComp is used for political lobbying?
** In general, any mass movement could be created using UbiComp
* Could employees "outsource" their own work using UbiComp? [http://webchicanery.com/2009/06/20/4-minute-work-week/]

Collaborating and Relying on Masses

2009-12-19T08:02:50Z

Darbix: /* Sharing Knowledge */

===Issue Definition===

The development of and increasingly pervasive access to the internet has permitted mass collaboration on a scale not previously possible. Projects such as Wikipedia, Couchsurfing, Mechanical Turk, MySpace, Facebook, all rely on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_collaboration mass collaboration] and are therefore frequently called Collaborative Innovation Networks (COINs). The success or failure of such COIN projects depends to great extent on the number of participants. As a result, project coordinators face massive challenges motivating good participants and preventing bad actors (see the cross-cutting theme on motivation).

On a more basic level, COINs are based on a shared premise that mass collaboration results in improved products: the more people involved the better quality the product. Is this a valid premise? Do we believe that using mass collaboration is as good or better than using experts? What knowledge / benefits do we lose by shifting towards mass collaboration? What do we gain?

As a review of [http://andrewkeen.typepad.com/ Andrew Keen]'s book ''The Cult of the Amateur'' states:
<blockquote>Digital utopians have heralded the dawn of an era in which Web 2.0 â distinguished by a new generation of participatory sites like MySpace.com and YouTube.com, which emphasize user-generated content, social networking and interactive sharing â ushers in the democratization of the world: more information, more perspectives, more opinions, more everything, and most of it without filters or fees. Yet as the Silicon Valley entrepreneur Andrew Keen points out in his provocative new book, âThe Cult of the Amateur,â Web 2.0 has a dark side as well.<ref>Michiko Kakutani, Books of the Times: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/books/29book.html "The Cult of the Amateur"], New York Times, June 29, 2007.</ref></blockquote>

At its most basic level, this theme questions whether we really believe that groups perform better than individuals, whether a group of average individuals is as good or better than an expert.

===Mob Mentality===

Opponents of mass collaboration compare such projects to "[http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-mob-mentality.htm mob mentality]" -- a term used to refer to unique behavioral characteristics which emerge when people are in large groups -- or herd mind, or group think. Andrew Keen states dramatically that mass collaboration is nothing more than "ignorance meets egoism meets bad taste meets mob rule.â<ref>Id.</ref>

Social psychologists have traditionally described mob mentality in terms of its negative attributes, noting the potential for peer pressure and group-think, for stifling creativity, lowering exceptional performers, and division into us v. them approaches to information.

===Sharing Knowledge===

Many developers, educators, and economists argue that mass collaboration is the wave of the future: that it is more efficient, achieves better results, and is more cost-effective than the use of experts. Is this true?

While acknowledging the potential for negative outcomes (peer pressure, group-think and suppression of minority views), some researchers propose that technological solutions can overcome these challenges: e.g. have participants rank the novelty of postings in order to increase the salience of minority views.<ref>Gerry Stahl, "[http://ijcscl.org/_preprints/volume3_issue2/stahl_3_2.pdf The Strength of the Lone Wolf]," 3 International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 1-5 (2008).</ref>

Other researchers are even more optimistic, suggesting that the unique characteristics of COINs make these COINs un-susceptible to the mob mentality weaknesses. As a result, COINs have all the positive outcomes with none of the negative, giving COINs a competitive advantage<ref> Gloor, Peter A, Swarm Creativity: Competitive Advantage Through Collaborative Innovation Networks (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).</ref> and presenting the best (or only) mechanism for addressing major global problems such as sustainability.<ref>Archer, Fei, & Petzel, [http://www.samhÃ¤llsplanering.se/fou/cuppsats.nsf/all/78d3802c456fd1d9c12575dd00472ba4/$file/NetworkedCollaborationFinal%20FINAL.pdf Collaboration for Sustainability in a Networked World], Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology (2009).</ref>

In this optimistic camp, Tapscott and Williams argue in their book ''Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration is Changing Everything'' that mass collaboration is the future of business and a (nearly) pre-requisite for economic success in the internet age.<ref>Tapscott & Williams, [http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DVomiOeBg_YC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=mass+collaboration&ots=45nHzVQdr9&sig=Lz-jNmCVXITWbShGvFqFPFwGooM#v=onepage&q=&f=false ''Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration is Changing Everything''] (2008).</ref> Former Wired editor Kevin Kelly credits the rise of a 'digital socialism' to internet-based mass collaboration. <ref>Kevin Kelly, [http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/17-06/nep_newsocialism?currentPage=1 ''The New Socialism: Global Collectivist Society Is Coming Online''] (2009) - "Of course, there's nothing particularly socialistic about collaboration per se. But the tools of online collaboration support a communal style of production that shuns capitalistic investors and keeps ownership in the hands of the workers, and to some extent those of the consuming masses."</ref>

===Logistical Challenges===

Mass collaboration on the internet presents even more challenges than traditional "mob mentality" simply from the logistics of having a dispersed group of collaborators. Catherine Cramton identifies major challenges facing dispersed collaboration projects:
*Failure to communicate and retain contextual information
*Unevenly distributed information
*Difficulty communicating the salience of information
*Differences in speed of access to information
*Difficulty interpreting the meaning of silence<ref>Catherine Durnell Cramton, "[http://www.jstor.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/stable/3086013?&Search=yes&term=Quality&term=Collaboration&term=Research&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DCollaboration%2Band%2Bthe%2BQuality%2Bof%2BResearch%26x%3D0%26y%3D0%26wc%3Don&item=5&ttl=49407&returnArticleService=showArticle The Mutual Knowledge Problem and Its Consequences for Dispersed Collaboration]," 12 Organization Science 346-371(May-June 2001), [Available on JSTOR if link not work].</ref>

How can these problems be addressed on the internet? Cramton notes that dispersed groups, on the basis of physical distance, often break down into "us v. them" mentality - does anonymity address or exacerbate this issue?

===Related Questions===

====Popular v. Right====

Is our information base shifting away from what is correct and towards what is popular? For example, Google has become a popular starting-point for information, but Google lists results in order based not on what is most correct but rather on what is most popular. How does this affect our knowledge base? How do we define "correct" - does it mean widely accepted, proven through scientific inquiry (in which case, Creationists would question what "proven" means) or something else? If "widely accepted", who votes? Only the expert community? Or anyone?

Consider technological solutions that are devloping, like [http://disputefinder.cs.berkeley.edu/ DisputeFinder] that can identify debated issues and present an alternative point of view, so the reader is at least informed on the controversy.

====Raising the Average - Bringing Down the Top?====

Evidence on whether collaboration actually improves performance is mixed, and appears to depend not only on the nature of the work but also on the identity of the participants and size of the group. One major question to consider, though, is whether we are achieving new heights or just raising the average.

Robert Miller conducted a social psychology study on students in his course writing collaborative papers (note: there are significant structure biases inherent in this study) and concluded that on average the collaborative papers were better.<ref>Richard S. Miller, "[http://wac.colostate.edu/journal/vol1/miller.pdf Collaborative Writing in Social Psychology: An Experiment], 1 Writing Across the Curriculum 95-103 (1989).</ref> However, Miller noted himself that he could not determine whether the papers were better because the best student in each group did the majority of the work (and therefore lower grades from the worse students were eliminated) or whether the groups really generated absolutely better quality work.

Does group work achieve new heights (better than the best person in the group could achieve) or does it simply eliminate the worst work? Miller's students reported that they felt the group work stimulated creativity and therefore led to better products.<ref>Id.</ref> However, a study on collaboration and the quality of scientific research found that groups were less likely to produce bad papers, but were not any more likely to produce good papers.<ref>Stanley Presser, "[http://www.jstor.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/stable/284727?seq=2&Search=yes&term=Quality&term=presser&term=Collaboration&term=Research&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3Fq0%3DCollaboration%2Band%2Bthe%2BQuality%2Bof%2BResearch%26f0%3Dti%26c0%3DAND%26q1%3Dpresser%26f1%3Dau%26c1%3DAND%26q2%3D%26f2%3Dall%26c2%3DAND%26q3%3D%26f3%3Dall%26wc%3Don%26Search%3DSearch%26sd%3D%26ed%3D%26la%3D%26jo%3D&item=1&ttl=1&returnArticleService=showArticle&resultsServiceName=doAdvancedResultsFromArticle Collaboration and the Quality of Research]," 10 Social Studies of Science 95-101 (Feb 1980).</ref> This study suggests that collaboration eliminates the worst mistakes but that it does not improve content beyond what an individual could do.

====Size & Make-up of the Group====

As noted above, the size and make-up of the group make a difference in the quality of collaboration. How do these questions come into play when we are dealing with mass collaboration (thousands and thousands of contributors) who are often anonymous so the group make-up isn't even known? At what group size do the complications and problems with collaboration outweigh the benefits?

One social psychology experiment determined that there are benefits to collaborative work, but they failed to show benefits for all-female groups.<ref>Nancy Vanderhey Samah & Richard De Lisi, "[http://www.jstor.org/pss/20152646 Peer Collaboration on a Nonverbal Reasoning Task by Urban, Minority Students]," 69 Journal of Experimental Education 5-21 (2000).</ref> It is not clear, however, whether this depends on the nature of the project worked on (e.g. does this still apply for female collaborations on female-dominated issues?). Also, mass collaboration often assumes that it will be mixed gender, because it is so large, but Wikipedia, for example, is estimated 80-90% male. How does this bias affect the quality and nature of the collaboration?

=====References=====
<references/>

Collaborating and Relying on Masses

2009-12-19T08:01:53Z

Darbix: /* Sharing Knowledge */

===Issue Definition===

The development of and increasingly pervasive access to the internet has permitted mass collaboration on a scale not previously possible. Projects such as Wikipedia, Couchsurfing, Mechanical Turk, MySpace, Facebook, all rely on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_collaboration mass collaboration] and are therefore frequently called Collaborative Innovation Networks (COINs). The success or failure of such COIN projects depends to great extent on the number of participants. As a result, project coordinators face massive challenges motivating good participants and preventing bad actors (see the cross-cutting theme on motivation).

On a more basic level, COINs are based on a shared premise that mass collaboration results in improved products: the more people involved the better quality the product. Is this a valid premise? Do we believe that using mass collaboration is as good or better than using experts? What knowledge / benefits do we lose by shifting towards mass collaboration? What do we gain?

As a review of [http://andrewkeen.typepad.com/ Andrew Keen]'s book ''The Cult of the Amateur'' states:
<blockquote>Digital utopians have heralded the dawn of an era in which Web 2.0 â distinguished by a new generation of participatory sites like MySpace.com and YouTube.com, which emphasize user-generated content, social networking and interactive sharing â ushers in the democratization of the world: more information, more perspectives, more opinions, more everything, and most of it without filters or fees. Yet as the Silicon Valley entrepreneur Andrew Keen points out in his provocative new book, âThe Cult of the Amateur,â Web 2.0 has a dark side as well.<ref>Michiko Kakutani, Books of the Times: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/books/29book.html "The Cult of the Amateur"], New York Times, June 29, 2007.</ref></blockquote>

At its most basic level, this theme questions whether we really believe that groups perform better than individuals, whether a group of average individuals is as good or better than an expert.

===Mob Mentality===

Opponents of mass collaboration compare such projects to "[http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-mob-mentality.htm mob mentality]" -- a term used to refer to unique behavioral characteristics which emerge when people are in large groups -- or herd mind, or group think. Andrew Keen states dramatically that mass collaboration is nothing more than "ignorance meets egoism meets bad taste meets mob rule.â<ref>Id.</ref>

Social psychologists have traditionally described mob mentality in terms of its negative attributes, noting the potential for peer pressure and group-think, for stifling creativity, lowering exceptional performers, and division into us v. them approaches to information.

===Sharing Knowledge===

Many developers, educators, and economists argue that mass collaboration is the wave of the future: that it is more efficient, achieves better results, and is more cost-effective than the use of experts. Is this true?

While acknowledging the potential for negative outcomes (peer pressure, group-think and suppression of minority views), some researchers propose that technological solutions can overcome these challenges: e.g. have participants rank the novelty of postings in order to increase the salience of minority views.<ref>Gerry Stahl, "[http://ijcscl.org/_preprints/volume3_issue2/stahl_3_2.pdf The Strength of the Lone Wolf]," 3 International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 1-5 (2008).</ref>

Other researchers are even more optimistic, suggesting that the unique characteristics of COINs make these COINs un-susceptible to the mob mentality weaknesses. As a result, COINs have all the positive outcomes with none of the negative, giving COINs a competitive advantage<ref> Gloor, Peter A, Swarm Creativity: Competitive Advantage Through Collaborative Innovation Networks (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).</ref> and presenting the best (or only) mechanism for addressing major global problems such as sustainability.<ref>Archer, Fei, & Petzel, [http://www.samhÃ¤llsplanering.se/fou/cuppsats.nsf/all/78d3802c456fd1d9c12575dd00472ba4/$file/NetworkedCollaborationFinal%20FINAL.pdf Collaboration for Sustainability in a Networked World], Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology (2009).</ref>

In this optimistic camp, Tapscott and Williams argue in their book ''Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration is Changing Everything'' that mass collaboration is the future of business and a (nearly) pre-requisite for economic success in the internet age.<ref>Tapscott & Williams, [http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DVomiOeBg_YC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=mass+collaboration&ots=45nHzVQdr9&sig=Lz-jNmCVXITWbShGvFqFPFwGooM#v=onepage&q=&f=false ''Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration is Changing Everything''] (2008).</ref> Former Wired editor Kevin Kelly credits the rise of a 'digital socialism' to internet-based mass collaboration. <ref>Kevin Kelly, [http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/17-06/nep_newsocialism?currentPage=1 ''The New Socialism: Global Collectivist Society Is Coming Online'' (2009) - "Of course, there's nothing particularly socialistic about collaboration per se. But the tools of online collaboration support a communal style of production that shuns capitalistic investors and keeps ownership in the hands of the workers, and to some extent those of the consuming masses."]</ref>

===Logistical Challenges===

Mass collaboration on the internet presents even more challenges than traditional "mob mentality" simply from the logistics of having a dispersed group of collaborators. Catherine Cramton identifies major challenges facing dispersed collaboration projects:
*Failure to communicate and retain contextual information
*Unevenly distributed information
*Difficulty communicating the salience of information
*Differences in speed of access to information
*Difficulty interpreting the meaning of silence<ref>Catherine Durnell Cramton, "[http://www.jstor.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/stable/3086013?&Search=yes&term=Quality&term=Collaboration&term=Research&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DCollaboration%2Band%2Bthe%2BQuality%2Bof%2BResearch%26x%3D0%26y%3D0%26wc%3Don&item=5&ttl=49407&returnArticleService=showArticle The Mutual Knowledge Problem and Its Consequences for Dispersed Collaboration]," 12 Organization Science 346-371(May-June 2001), [Available on JSTOR if link not work].</ref>

How can these problems be addressed on the internet? Cramton notes that dispersed groups, on the basis of physical distance, often break down into "us v. them" mentality - does anonymity address or exacerbate this issue?

===Related Questions===

====Popular v. Right====

Is our information base shifting away from what is correct and towards what is popular? For example, Google has become a popular starting-point for information, but Google lists results in order based not on what is most correct but rather on what is most popular. How does this affect our knowledge base? How do we define "correct" - does it mean widely accepted, proven through scientific inquiry (in which case, Creationists would question what "proven" means) or something else? If "widely accepted", who votes? Only the expert community? Or anyone?

Consider technological solutions that are devloping, like [http://disputefinder.cs.berkeley.edu/ DisputeFinder] that can identify debated issues and present an alternative point of view, so the reader is at least informed on the controversy.

====Raising the Average - Bringing Down the Top?====

Evidence on whether collaboration actually improves performance is mixed, and appears to depend not only on the nature of the work but also on the identity of the participants and size of the group. One major question to consider, though, is whether we are achieving new heights or just raising the average.

Robert Miller conducted a social psychology study on students in his course writing collaborative papers (note: there are significant structure biases inherent in this study) and concluded that on average the collaborative papers were better.<ref>Richard S. Miller, "[http://wac.colostate.edu/journal/vol1/miller.pdf Collaborative Writing in Social Psychology: An Experiment], 1 Writing Across the Curriculum 95-103 (1989).</ref> However, Miller noted himself that he could not determine whether the papers were better because the best student in each group did the majority of the work (and therefore lower grades from the worse students were eliminated) or whether the groups really generated absolutely better quality work.

Does group work achieve new heights (better than the best person in the group could achieve) or does it simply eliminate the worst work? Miller's students reported that they felt the group work stimulated creativity and therefore led to better products.<ref>Id.</ref> However, a study on collaboration and the quality of scientific research found that groups were less likely to produce bad papers, but were not any more likely to produce good papers.<ref>Stanley Presser, "[http://www.jstor.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/stable/284727?seq=2&Search=yes&term=Quality&term=presser&term=Collaboration&term=Research&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3Fq0%3DCollaboration%2Band%2Bthe%2BQuality%2Bof%2BResearch%26f0%3Dti%26c0%3DAND%26q1%3Dpresser%26f1%3Dau%26c1%3DAND%26q2%3D%26f2%3Dall%26c2%3DAND%26q3%3D%26f3%3Dall%26wc%3Don%26Search%3DSearch%26sd%3D%26ed%3D%26la%3D%26jo%3D&item=1&ttl=1&returnArticleService=showArticle&resultsServiceName=doAdvancedResultsFromArticle Collaboration and the Quality of Research]," 10 Social Studies of Science 95-101 (Feb 1980).</ref> This study suggests that collaboration eliminates the worst mistakes but that it does not improve content beyond what an individual could do.

====Size & Make-up of the Group====

As noted above, the size and make-up of the group make a difference in the quality of collaboration. How do these questions come into play when we are dealing with mass collaboration (thousands and thousands of contributors) who are often anonymous so the group make-up isn't even known? At what group size do the complications and problems with collaboration outweigh the benefits?

One social psychology experiment determined that there are benefits to collaborative work, but they failed to show benefits for all-female groups.<ref>Nancy Vanderhey Samah & Richard De Lisi, "[http://www.jstor.org/pss/20152646 Peer Collaboration on a Nonverbal Reasoning Task by Urban, Minority Students]," 69 Journal of Experimental Education 5-21 (2000).</ref> It is not clear, however, whether this depends on the nature of the project worked on (e.g. does this still apply for female collaborations on female-dominated issues?). Also, mass collaboration often assumes that it will be mixed gender, because it is so large, but Wikipedia, for example, is estimated 80-90% male. How does this bias affect the quality and nature of the collaboration?

=====References=====
<references/>

Privacy and Anonymity on the Internet

2009-12-19T00:27:27Z

Darbix:

On the internet, it can be tempting to view yourself as an anonymous browser, but increasingly the public is becoming aware of just how untrue that is. A study by the [http://epic.org/reports/surfer-beware.html Electronic Privacy Information Center] surveyed the 100 most frequently visited sites on the internet; of those 100 none met the basic privacy standards established by EPIC and only 17 had any privacy terms at all. In a medium with so little protection and so much information available, [http://nymag.com/news/features/27341/ children] are particularly vulnerable.

Consider whether consumers on the internet truly make informed decisions regarding their privacy. The Terms of Use of Facebook for example - have you ever really read them all the way through? What about Harvard Law School's privacy terms for our email or administrative boards? Does the average user read and understand those terms? Some technological projects like the [https://wiki.mozilla.org/Drumbeat/Challenges/Privacy_Icons Drumbeat Privacy Icons] project are working on new ways to inform users about the privacy regulations of the sites they visit. (Drumbeat is looking for proposals on how to develop a system of "privacy icons" that could easily label websites according to the degree of privacy retained by the user.) And there are also technological businesses and solutions such as [http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=reputationdefender&aq=0&aqi=g1g-s4g1g-s1&oq=reputationd&fp=a50ffc77dda4c0bc ReputationDefender], but are these enough to address the issue?

Unlike snail mail, your email can be readily surveilled by government officials without a warrant because courts have held that there is no expectation of privacy on the internet.

Is this true? How much is changed by new platforms for social interaction that are based on unprecedented standards of privacy, such as [http://www.patientslikeme.com/ PatientsLikeMe]?

Future of Wikipedia

2009-12-19T00:16:59Z

Darbix: /* Identity & Bias: */

==BIRTH & GROWTH OF WIKIPEDIA==

Wikipedia was formally launched on January 15, 2001, by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger.<ref name="History of Wikipedia">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia],History of Wikipedia.</ref> It represented a new development in the collaborative, web-based creation of bodies of knowledge. Initially it was a complement to the expert-written encyclopedia project âNupedia,â<ref name="Nupedia">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nupedia], Wikipedia Entry on Nupedia.</ref> in order to provide an additional source of articles. Wikipedia soon outpaced Nupedia and grew to be arguably the most successful example of collaborative content creation. Today Wikipedia boasts that it contains several million articles and pages in hundreds of languages worldwide contributed by millions of users.

Wikipedia is arguably the most successful online collaboration but it is not the first. One early predecessor was Interpedia, initiated in 1993,<ref name="Interpedia">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpedia], Wikipedia Entry on Interpedia</ref> although the project never fully left the planning stages.<ref name="Joseph Reagle Article on Interpedia & Wikipedia Background">[http://reagle.org/joseph/2005/historical/digital-works.html#heading5], Joseph Reagle Article on Interpedia & Wikipedia Background.</ref> Free Software Foundationâs Richard Stallman described the need for a free universal encyclopedia in 1999, although the Free Software Foundation didnât launch its GNUPedia to compete with Nupedia until January 17, 2001, two days after the start of Wikipedia.<ref name="The Free Universal Encyclopedia and Learning Resource">[http://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia/free-encyclopedia.html],The Free Universal Encyclopedia and Learning Resource.</ref> And Wikipedia itself grew out of Nupedia, an online collaborative encyclopedia. On January 10, 2001, Wales and Sanger created the first Nupedia wiki, but reputedly Nupediaâs expert volunteers did not want to participate, so Wikipedia was established as a separate site.<ref name="History of Wikipedia">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia], History of Wikipedia.</ref> Wikipediaâs vision: ''Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Thatâs our commitment.''<ref name="Wikimedia Foundation">[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home], Wikimedia Foundation</ref>

====Growth of Wikipedia====

The growth of Wikipedia depended on the contribution of numerous lay users, a departure from the Nupedia tradition of using expert contributors. Nupedia was founded upon the use of highly qualified expert contributors and a multi-step peer review process, but despite its interested editors, the process was slow, and only 12 articles were written in the first year.<ref name="Early History of Nupedia">[http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213&tid=95&tid=149&tid=9], The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir - Part I" and "Part II", Slashdot, April 2005.</ref> Wikipedia, in contrast, generated over 1,000 articles in its first month of operation and over 20,000 articles in its first yearâa rate of 1,500 articles per month.<ref name="History of Wikipedia">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia], History of Wikipedia.</ref> In September, 2001, Wikipedia expanded into multilingual sites, beginning the development of Wikipedias for all major languages.

====Wikimedia====

Initially, Wikipedia was managed by Bomis, an organization headed by Jimmy Wales. In March 2002, during the dot-com bust, Bomis withdrew funding for Wikipedia.<ref name="Schiff, Stacy">[http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact].(July 31, 2006). Schiff, Stacy. "Know It All". The New Yorker.</ref> At that time, Larry Sanger left both Nupedia and Wikipedia. He returned briefly to academia, then joined the Digital Universe Foundation and founded Citizendium, an alternative open encyclopedia that uses real names for contributors to discourage vandalism and expert guidance to ensure accuracy of information.<ref name="Anderson, Nate">[http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars], Anderson, Nate (February 25, 2007). "Citizendium: building a better Wikipedia". Ars Technica.</ref>

Meanwhile, Jimmy Wales created the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit charitable organization head-quartered in San Francisco, CA.<ref name="Wikimedia Foundation">[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home], Wikimedia Foundation.</ref> Wikimedia was announced on June 20, 2003. Wikimedia serves as an umbrella body that includes several other types of wiki collaborative information sharing sites:

*Wikipedia
*[http://www.wiktionary.org/ Wiktionary]
*[http://www.wikiquote.org/ Wikiquote]
*[http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikibooks] (including [http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikijunior Wikijunior])
*[http://wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikisource]
*[http://commons.wikimedia.org/ Wikimedia Commons]
*[http://species.wikimedia.org/ Wikispecies]
*[http://en.wikinews.org/ Wikinews]
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/ Wikiversity]
*[http://incubator.wikimedia.org/ Wikimedia Incubator]
*[http://meta.wikimedia.org/ Meta-Wiki]

The foundation's by-laws declare a statement of purpose of collecting and developing educational content and to disseminate it effectively and globally.<ref name="Wikimedia Foundation bylaws">[http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws&oldid=20641#ARTICLE_II_-_STATEMENT_OF_PURPOSE], Wikimedia Foundation bylaws. Archived from the original on 2007-04-20.</ref> Wikimedia is managed by a Board of Trustees. The Foundationâs board also organizes [http://wikimania2009.wikimedia.org/wiki/Portal Wikimania] every year, a conference for users of the Wikimedia Foundation projects.

==ACADEMIC STUDIES OF WIKIPEDIA==

Academic studies of Wikipedia have mainly used Wikipedia as a tool to analyze other phenomenon. The users on Wikipedia provide a large database of subjects which the researchers use to test their hypotheses or as a social network which can be manipulated and observed. The majority of studies focus on either semantic relatedness<ref>M Strube et al,[http://www.aaai.org/Papers/AAAI/2006/AAAI06-223.pdf WikiRelate!], Computer Semantic Relatedness Using Wikipedia, Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2006)</ref><ref>E Gabrilovich et al, [http://www.aaai.org/Papers/IJCAI/2007/IJCAI07-259.pdf Computing Semantic Relatedness Using Wikipedia-Based Explicit Semantic Analysis](2007)</ref><ref>Zesch et al, Analyzing and Accessing WIkipedia as a Lexical Semantic Resource, Data Structures for Linguistic Resources (2007).</ref>or online coordination and conflict resolution techniques.<ref name="Coordination">Viegas et al, [[http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.84.6907&rep=rep1&type=pdf Talk Before You Type: Coordination in Wikipedia], Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2007)</ref><ref name ="Kittur">Kittur et al, [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1240624.1240698 He Says, She Says; Conflict and Coordination in Wikipedia], Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Computing (2007)</ref><ref name="Wilkonson">D Wilkonson & B Huberman, [http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0702140 Assessing the Value of Cooperation in Wikipedia, Computers and Society], arXiv:cs/0702140v1 [cs.DL] (2007).</ref>

==DIFFICULT PROBLEMS==

Following Wikimania 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation created a [http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page strategy page] that identifies major concerns for the future of Wikimedia and permits users to contribute and comment on proposed solutions. The problems presented below have been highlighted as the most significant and challenging problems facing Wikimedia.

===Identity & Growth of the Contributing Community===

There are three main concerns relating to the contributing community that sustains Wikipedia:
# Size of the contributing community â is it sustainable and is it sufficient?
# Identity of the contributing community â does population bias create content bias?
# Inequality within contributing community â does Wikipedia really represent contributions of the many, or is it moving towards an elite system?

====Size:====
Several studies and articles have suggested that Wikipedia's contributing community has slowed growth, stopped growing, or is even declining (see [http://prawo.uni.wroc.pl/~kwasnicki/EkonLit6/WikipediaSoul.pdf Battle for Wikipedia's Soul]"; "[http://asc-parc.blogspot.com/2009/07/part-1-slowing-growth-of-wikipedia-some.html Slowing Growth of Wikipedia]"; or "[http://www.resourceshelf.com/2009/11/23/wsj-volunteers-log-off-as-wikipedia-ages/ Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages]" for a sample). Others, such as Oded Nov, have looked at [http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 "What Motivates Wikipedians"] and concluded that the majority are motivated by fun. But is Wikipedia "fun" enough to maintain it's contributing community? A [http://asc-parc.blogspot.com/2009/07/part-1-slowing-growth-of-wikipedia-some.html study] by the Palo Alto Research Centre found that the number of new articles added per month flatlined at 60,000 in 2006 and has since declined by a third. Wikimedia Australia's Vice-President, Liam Wyatt explains this: "Because the project is much more filled out and more complete, it's increasingly harder for new users to be able to add something without some level of expertise."

====Identity & Bias:====
Studies on Wikipedia's contributing population determine that the majority are white males (Oded Nov says 92.7% male, another [http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/08/31/only-13-of-wikipedia-contributors-are-women-study-says/ 87%]). If this is the case, does Wikipedia truly represent an unbiased cross-section of global (or even American) knowledge? How does the identity of the contributing community bias Wikipedia regarding politics? Consider claims that Wikipedia needs to be further censored or is being [http://state-ethics.blogspot.com/2009/07/censoring-wikipedia-2.html manipulated by Nazis] seeking to control the flow of information in Germany, or that its editors are [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia far more liberal than the American public].

====Inequality:====
Within the Wikipedia contributing community, there has been a rapid divide between "contributors" and "editors", with editors determining much of the style, tone and occasionally content of articles. One study found that âelite usersâ were pushing out new contributors, with 25% of occasional wiki editorsâ changes being erased or reverted by established editors. This was up from 10% in 2003.<ref>[http://www2.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/HICSS.2008.333 Editors as Elite Users]</ref>.

===Quality Control - Perceived and Actual===

It is important to distinguish between concerns about the actual quality of Wikipedia articles and concerns about the perceived quality of the articles. The one should be approached as a contributor and technical problem and the other should be addressed as a publicity problem. Also, the concept of quality is intentionally broad and includes everything from accuracy of information to degree of citation provided to the quality of images and prose.

====Actual Quality of Wikipedia====

On October 24, 2005, ''The Guardian'' published an article entitled "Can you trust Wikipedia?" where a panel of experts were asked to critically review seven entries related to their fields.<ref name="Guardian">[http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,16541,1599325,00.html], Can you trust Wikipedia?, ''The Guardian'', 2008.</ref> One article was deemed to have made "every value judgement... wrong", the others receiving marks from 5 to 8 out of a notional ten. Of the other six articles reviewed and critiqued, the most common criticisms were:
# Poor prose, or ease-of-reading issues (3 mentions)
# Omissions or inaccuracies, often small but including key omissions in some articles (3 mentions)
# Poor balance, with less important areas being given more attention and vice versa (1 mention)
The most common praises were:
# Factually sound and correct, no glaring inaccuracies (4 mentions)
# Much useful information, including well selected links, making it possible to "access much information quickly" (3 mentions)

''Nature'' reported in 2005 that science articles in Wikipedia were comparable in accuracy to those on ''Encyclopedia Britannica'''s web site. Out of 42 articles, only 4 serious errors were found in Wikipedia, and 4 in ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', although more than a hundred lesser errors and omissions were found in each and Wikipedia's articles were often "poorly structured."<ref>P.D. Magnus, [http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/36449903/On-Trusting-WIKIPEDIA On Trusting Wikipedia], Britannica.</ref>

On March 24, 2006, ''Britannica'' provided a rebuttal of this article, labeling it "fatally flawed",<ref name="Nature Flawed BE">[http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Journal_Nature_study_%27fatally_flawed%27%2C_says_Britannica], Journal Nature study "fatally flawed" says Britannica, March 24, 2006, Wikinews. </ref> to which ''Nature'' responded.<ref name="Nature Responds">[http://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf], Encyclopedia Britannica and Nature: A Response, March 23, 2006.</ref>

Among Britannica's criticisms were that excerpts rather than the full texts of some of their articles were used, that Nature composited parts of different Britannica texts to make a text for review in one case, that Nature did not check the factual assertions of its reviewers, and that many points which the reviewers labeled as errors were differences of editorial opinion. Nature responded that any errors on the part of its reviewers were not biased in favor of either encyclopedia, that in some cases it used excerpts of articles from both encyclopedias, and that Britannica did not share particular concerns with Nature before publishing its "open letter" rebuttal.

Three subsequent studies--a 2006 web-based survey,<ref>[http://bpastudio.csudh.edu/fac/lpress/wikieval], Larry Press, Survey of Wikipedia accuracy and completeness, Professor of Computer Information Systems, California State University (2006)</ref> a 2004 comparison of ''Brockhaus Multimedial, ''Microsoft Encarta'', and the German Wikipedia, <ref>Michael Kurzidim: Wissenswettstreit. Die kostenlose Wikipedia tritt gegen die MarktfÃ¼hrer Encarta und Brockhaus an, in: ''c't'' 21/2004, October 4, 2004, S. 132-139.</ref> (repeated in 2007 <ref>Dorothee Wiegand: "Entdeckungsreise. Digitale EnzyklopÃ¤dien erklÃ¤ren die Welt." c't 6/2007, March 5, 2007, p. 136-145.</ref>), and a 2007 review by Australian magazine ''PC Authority''<ref>[http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Feature/93908,wikipedia-uncovered.aspx/1], PC Authority:'Wikipedia Uncovered'.</ref>--concluded that Wikipedia was generally as reliable as other traditional Encyclopedias.

However, Wikipedia may not be as reliable in technical or specialized fields. A peer-reviewed 2008 study<ref>[http://www.theannals.com/cgi/reprint/aph.1L474v1.pdf] KA Clauson et al., Scope, completeness, and accuracy of drug Iinformation in Wikipedia, 42 Annals Pharmacotheraphy 1814 (2008).</ref>examined 80 Wikipedia drug entries. The research team found few factual errors but determined that these articles were often missing important information, like contraindications and drug interactions. One of the researchers noted that "If people went and used this as a sole or authoritative source without contacting a health professional...those are the types of negative impacts that can occur." The researchers also compared Wikipedia to Medscape Drug Reference (MDR), by looking for answers to 80 different questions covering eight categories of drug information, including adverse drug events, dosages, and mechanism of action. They have determined that MDR provided answers to 82.5 percent of the questions, while Wikipedia could only answer 40 percent, and that answers were less likely to be complete for Wikipedia as well. None of the answers from Wikipedia were determined factually inaccurate, while they found four inaccurate answers in MDR. But the researchers found 48 errors of omission in the Wikipedia entries, compared to 14 for MDR. The lead investigator concluded: "I think that these errors of omission can be just as dangerous [as inaccuracies]", and he pointed out that drug company representatives have been caught deleting information from Wikipedia entries that make their drugs look unsafe.

In addition to these potential omissions (or purposeful deletions), the structure of Wikipedia lends itself to several [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia#cite_note-50 potential vulnerabilities]:

#Information citation loops
#Vandalism
#Anonymity of authors lending to false information (see e.g. the [http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1062 Essjay controversy]

====Perceived Quality of Wikipedia====

Whether or not Wikipedia actually is accurate, its reception as a trusted source has been plagued by doubts regarding the trustworthiness of its content as the product of mass collaboration by anonymous authors.

The perception of Wikipedia in the average population is relatively high. In a web-based survey conducted in spring 2006, fifty participants rated Wikipedia articles: 76% agreed that the article was accurate, and 46% agreed it was complete. The same survey compared Wikipedia to Encyclopedia Britannica: of 18 responses, 6 favored Britannica, 7 favored Wikipedia, and 11 found Wikipedia more complete.<ref>Larry Press, "[http://bpastudio.csudh.edu/fac/lpress/wikieval/ Survey of Wikipedia accuracy and completeness]," Professor of Computer Information Systems, California State University (2006).</ref>

However, Wikipedia's '''reception by academia''' has been less than stellar.

Even if Wikipedia itself doesnât intend to be used as a course for academic works, it is often used by students and researchers as a starting point. However, the open-source collaborative and anonymous efforts that produce Wikipedia have led to wide-spread skepticism of its accuracy. Most of the angry responses targeted at Wikipedia have been aimed at its claim to be an encyclopedia. Such claims are thought to establish greater expectations of accuracy than are or possibly can be achieved by non-expert collaboration. Academics have also criticized Wikipedia for its perceived failure as a reliable source, and because Wikipedia editors may not have degrees or other credentials generally recognized in academia.

Robert McHenry, a former editor-in-chief for the Encyclopedia Britannica, describes Wikipedia as the âFaith-Based Encyclopedia.â He describes the âcrucial and entirely faith-based stepâ in the Wikipedia process: âSome unspecified quasi-Darwinian process will assure that those writings and editings by contributors of greatest expertise will survive; articles will eventually reach a steady state that corresponds to the highest degree of accuracy.â This step, he argues, is a completely unwarranted leap of faith. Rather, âContrary to the faith, the article has, in fact, been edited into mediocrity.â<ref name=McHenry>[http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=111504A], Robert McHenry, The Faith-Based Encyclopedia Blinks, Dec 14, 2005 (2008).</ref>

Andrew Orlowski accuses Wikipedia of being a âvanity exerciseâ for calling itself an encyclopedia, and writes that the use of the term "encyclopedia" to describe Wikipedia may lead users into believing it is more reliable than it may be. He points out (describing a libel case against Wikipedia) that âIf what we today know as "Wikipedia" had started life as something called, let's say - "Jimbo's Big Bag O'Trivia" - we doubt if it would be the problem it has become.â The public begins to expect trustworthy information from Wikipedia and instead gets a âking-sized cocktailâ of bureaucracy and âspontaneous graffiti.â <ref>[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/12/wikipedia_no_responsibility/page2.html], Andrew Orlowski, "Who's responsible for Wikipedia?" The Register, Dec 12, 2005.</ref>

Middlebury College went so far as to [http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/93.1/rosenzweig.html?pr=jah931 ban the citation of Wikipedia] in papers in its history department. On this note, however, consider the fact that Wikipedia itself states in its guidelines that Wikipedia is not suitable for academic citation because Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is a tertiary source. The use of Wikipedia is not accepted in many schools and universities in writing a formal paper, and some educational institutions have banned it as a primary source while others have limited its use to only a pointer to external sources.<ref name=Duke>[http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2007/03/28/News/Several.Colleges.Push.To.Ban.Wikipedia.As.Resource-2809247.shtml], Lysa Chen, "Several colleges push to ban Wikipedia as resource," Duke Chronicle, March 28, 2007</ref><ref>"[http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki A Stand Against Wikipedia]", ''Inside Higher Ed'' (January 26, 2007). Retrieved on January 27, 2007.</ref><ref name=McHenry>

Some academic journals do refer to Wikipedia articles, but do not elevate it to the same level as traditional references. For instance, Wikipedia articles have been referenced as "enhanced perspectives" provided on-line in the journal Science. The publisher of Science states that these enhanced perspectives "include hypernotes - which link directly to websites of other relevant information available online - beyond the standard bibliographic references."<ref>[http://www.aaas.org/publications/books_reports/CCLI/PDFs/01_D_Perspectives.pdf], Yolanda S. George & Shirley S.Malcolm, "Perspectives from AAAS|publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science."</ref>

====Improving Wikipedia's Perceived Accuracy====
One study presented at the 2008 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Work explored whether a visualizations system could improve readersâ perceptions of trustworthiness in a wiki by exposing hidden article information.<ref>
Kittur, Suh & Chi, Can You Ever Trust a Wiki?: Impacting Perceived Trustworthiness in Wikipedia, in PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACM 2008 CONFERENCE ON COMPUTER SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE WORK (2008) 477-480. [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1460639&dl=GUIDE&coll=GUIDE&CFID=56978117&CFTOKEN=87505552Abstract].</ref> The results suggest that surfacing information that is relevant to the stability of the article and patterns of editor behavior can have a significant impact on usersâ trust. This should be considered in conjunction for proposals on color-coding articles by age, editing contribution etc that are being considered to improve article accuracy.

Other suggestions include:

*Reputation-based text coloring. Each article could display a button labeled "check text reputation": upon clicking the button, a user would be led to a copy of the page, where the text background color reflects the reputation of the author of each portion of text, as well as the reputation of authors who vetted the text, editing the page while leaving the text in place. The appeal of this method is that reputation is displayed in an anonymous way, associated to the article text. This avoids placing blame or praise directly on the authors: the impersonal character of this feedback could be well-suited to a collaborative forum such as the Wikipedia.<ref>T. Cross. Puppy smoothies: Improving the reliability of open, collaborative wikis. First Monday, 11(9), September 2006.</ref>
*Restricting edits. Highly controversial articles could be protected, so that only authors with sufficiently high reputation are able to edit them. This is currently employed by Wikipedia as part of its [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_policy Protection Policy] but it could be expanded.
*Reputation-based alert system. Wikipedia Editors keep a watchful eye on most controversial articles, and in fact, on a large portion of the Wikipedia, improving content and undoing poor-quality revisions. A reputation system could be used to alert them whenever a crucial or controversial article is modified by a low-reputation author. A reputation system provides an incentive for high-quality contributions. A reputation system could provide an additional incentive for authors to provide high quality contributions to the Wikipedia.<ref>P. Resnick, R. Zeckhauser, E. Friedman, and K. Kiwabara. Reputation systems. Comm. ACM, 43(12):45{48, 2000. C. Dellarocas. The digitization of word-ofmouth: Promises and challenges of online reputation systems. Management Science, October 2003.</ref>
*Content-Driven Reputation system. Study by Adler & de Alfaro proposes a content-driven reputation system for Wikipedia to allow readers to determine reliability of an article based on the reputation of the contributors and editors. The reputation of authors would be based on how their contribution to Wikipedia fares: the longer an article or edit remains un-edited or un-altered, the better the authorâs reputation. This can be, however, much less accurate than a user-driven reputation system. Author contributions can be deleted for a variety of reasons, including reorganizations and thorough rewrites of the articles. Alder & Alfaro address these issues in that the reputation of authors whose edits are reverted to the original text suffers; reputation of authors whose edits are further refined later on do not suffer.<ref>B. Thomas Adler & Luca de Alfaro, [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=luca_de_alfaro A Content-Driven Reputation System for the Wikipedia].</ref>
*Zeng et al. also propose a mechanism wherein the revision history of the Wikipedia article is used to compute a trust value for the article.<ref>H. Zeng, M.A. Alhoussaini, L. Ding, R. Fikes, and D.L. McGuinness. Computing trust from revision history. In Intl. Conf. on Privacy, Security and Trust, 2006.</ref>
*It could also prove interesting to explore combinations of user and content reputation devices.

===Sustainability of Wikimedia Model===

The strategy discussions at Wikimania 2009 raised the question of whether Wikimedia, as it stands today, is sustainable: both from a technological and organizational standpoint.

*Is a platform that both supports numerous users and serves less tech savvy contributors possible?
*How can Wikimedia ensure its financial stability?
*How can Wikimedia re-structure its institutional organization to allow oversight without creating too many levels of hierarchy such that the bureaucracy becomes ungainly?

Emerging Strategic Priorities in this area include:
**Optimize Wikimediaâs operations
**Identify roles volunteers are best suited to perform and what are the most effective uses of paid staff
**Create alliances and partnerships with other institutions and organizations to advance the mission: also, what are the necessary preconditions to such alliances? How support similar projects?

===Expansion & Questions of Scope===
Since the founding of Wikipedia in 2001, there has been substantial growth in user-generated online content.<ref>Geist, M. Mapping the digital future. OECD: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 254 (2006), 36â37.</ref><ref>Dunn, J., Byrd, D., Notess, M., Riley, J., and Scherle, R. Variations2: Retrieving and using music in an academic setting. Commun. ACM 49, 8 (Aug. 2006) 53â58.</ref> According to one Nielsen rating, user-generated content drives 50% of the top fastest growing internet brands.<ref>Nielsen NetRating. [www.nielsen-netratings.com/pr/PR_060810.PDF User-generated content drives half of U.S. top 10 fastest growing Web brands], (Aug. 10, 2006).</ref> Consider just the popularity of collaborative site such as YouTube, Flickr, or Slashdot.org. Traditional media outlets such as BBC News.com have also added areas for collaboration.<ref>Eltringham, M. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4900000/newsid_4900400/4900444.stm Citizen journalists challenge BBC], BBC NewsWatch (2006).</ref> User-generated content appears to be the way forward â but is Wikipedia a good model upon which to base that progress? Can the system used for Wikipedia be applied in other scenarios?

==References==
<references/>

Future of Wikipedia

2009-12-19T00:12:14Z

Darbix: /* Expansion & Questions of Scope */

==BIRTH & GROWTH OF WIKIPEDIA==

Wikipedia was formally launched on January 15, 2001, by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger.<ref name="History of Wikipedia">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia],History of Wikipedia.</ref> It represented a new development in the collaborative, web-based creation of bodies of knowledge. Initially it was a complement to the expert-written encyclopedia project âNupedia,â<ref name="Nupedia">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nupedia], Wikipedia Entry on Nupedia.</ref> in order to provide an additional source of articles. Wikipedia soon outpaced Nupedia and grew to be arguably the most successful example of collaborative content creation. Today Wikipedia boasts that it contains several million articles and pages in hundreds of languages worldwide contributed by millions of users.

Wikipedia is arguably the most successful online collaboration but it is not the first. One early predecessor was Interpedia, initiated in 1993,<ref name="Interpedia">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpedia], Wikipedia Entry on Interpedia</ref> although the project never fully left the planning stages.<ref name="Joseph Reagle Article on Interpedia & Wikipedia Background">[http://reagle.org/joseph/2005/historical/digital-works.html#heading5], Joseph Reagle Article on Interpedia & Wikipedia Background.</ref> Free Software Foundationâs Richard Stallman described the need for a free universal encyclopedia in 1999, although the Free Software Foundation didnât launch its GNUPedia to compete with Nupedia until January 17, 2001, two days after the start of Wikipedia.<ref name="The Free Universal Encyclopedia and Learning Resource">[http://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia/free-encyclopedia.html],The Free Universal Encyclopedia and Learning Resource.</ref> And Wikipedia itself grew out of Nupedia, an online collaborative encyclopedia. On January 10, 2001, Wales and Sanger created the first Nupedia wiki, but reputedly Nupediaâs expert volunteers did not want to participate, so Wikipedia was established as a separate site.<ref name="History of Wikipedia">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia], History of Wikipedia.</ref> Wikipediaâs vision: ''Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Thatâs our commitment.''<ref name="Wikimedia Foundation">[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home], Wikimedia Foundation</ref>

====Growth of Wikipedia====

The growth of Wikipedia depended on the contribution of numerous lay users, a departure from the Nupedia tradition of using expert contributors. Nupedia was founded upon the use of highly qualified expert contributors and a multi-step peer review process, but despite its interested editors, the process was slow, and only 12 articles were written in the first year.<ref name="Early History of Nupedia">[http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213&tid=95&tid=149&tid=9], The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir - Part I" and "Part II", Slashdot, April 2005.</ref> Wikipedia, in contrast, generated over 1,000 articles in its first month of operation and over 20,000 articles in its first yearâa rate of 1,500 articles per month.<ref name="History of Wikipedia">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia], History of Wikipedia.</ref> In September, 2001, Wikipedia expanded into multilingual sites, beginning the development of Wikipedias for all major languages.

====Wikimedia====

Initially, Wikipedia was managed by Bomis, an organization headed by Jimmy Wales. In March 2002, during the dot-com bust, Bomis withdrew funding for Wikipedia.<ref name="Schiff, Stacy">[http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact].(July 31, 2006). Schiff, Stacy. "Know It All". The New Yorker.</ref> At that time, Larry Sanger left both Nupedia and Wikipedia. He returned briefly to academia, then joined the Digital Universe Foundation and founded Citizendium, an alternative open encyclopedia that uses real names for contributors to discourage vandalism and expert guidance to ensure accuracy of information.<ref name="Anderson, Nate">[http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars], Anderson, Nate (February 25, 2007). "Citizendium: building a better Wikipedia". Ars Technica.</ref>

Meanwhile, Jimmy Wales created the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit charitable organization head-quartered in San Francisco, CA.<ref name="Wikimedia Foundation">[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home], Wikimedia Foundation.</ref> Wikimedia was announced on June 20, 2003. Wikimedia serves as an umbrella body that includes several other types of wiki collaborative information sharing sites:

*Wikipedia
*[http://www.wiktionary.org/ Wiktionary]
*[http://www.wikiquote.org/ Wikiquote]
*[http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikibooks] (including [http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikijunior Wikijunior])
*[http://wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikisource]
*[http://commons.wikimedia.org/ Wikimedia Commons]
*[http://species.wikimedia.org/ Wikispecies]
*[http://en.wikinews.org/ Wikinews]
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/ Wikiversity]
*[http://incubator.wikimedia.org/ Wikimedia Incubator]
*[http://meta.wikimedia.org/ Meta-Wiki]

The foundation's by-laws declare a statement of purpose of collecting and developing educational content and to disseminate it effectively and globally.<ref name="Wikimedia Foundation bylaws">[http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws&oldid=20641#ARTICLE_II_-_STATEMENT_OF_PURPOSE], Wikimedia Foundation bylaws. Archived from the original on 2007-04-20.</ref> Wikimedia is managed by a Board of Trustees. The Foundationâs board also organizes [http://wikimania2009.wikimedia.org/wiki/Portal Wikimania] every year, a conference for users of the Wikimedia Foundation projects.

==ACADEMIC STUDIES OF WIKIPEDIA==

Academic studies of Wikipedia have mainly used Wikipedia as a tool to analyze other phenomenon. The users on Wikipedia provide a large database of subjects which the researchers use to test their hypotheses or as a social network which can be manipulated and observed. The majority of studies focus on either semantic relatedness<ref>M Strube et al,[http://www.aaai.org/Papers/AAAI/2006/AAAI06-223.pdf WikiRelate!], Computer Semantic Relatedness Using Wikipedia, Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2006)</ref><ref>E Gabrilovich et al, [http://www.aaai.org/Papers/IJCAI/2007/IJCAI07-259.pdf Computing Semantic Relatedness Using Wikipedia-Based Explicit Semantic Analysis](2007)</ref><ref>Zesch et al, Analyzing and Accessing WIkipedia as a Lexical Semantic Resource, Data Structures for Linguistic Resources (2007).</ref>or online coordination and conflict resolution techniques.<ref name="Coordination">Viegas et al, [[http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.84.6907&rep=rep1&type=pdf Talk Before You Type: Coordination in Wikipedia], Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2007)</ref><ref name ="Kittur">Kittur et al, [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1240624.1240698 He Says, She Says; Conflict and Coordination in Wikipedia], Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Computing (2007)</ref><ref name="Wilkonson">D Wilkonson & B Huberman, [http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0702140 Assessing the Value of Cooperation in Wikipedia, Computers and Society], arXiv:cs/0702140v1 [cs.DL] (2007).</ref>

==DIFFICULT PROBLEMS==

Following Wikimania 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation created a [http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page strategy page] that identifies major concerns for the future of Wikimedia and permits users to contribute and comment on proposed solutions. The problems presented below have been highlighted as the most significant and challenging problems facing Wikimedia.

===Identity & Growth of the Contributing Community===

There are three main concerns relating to the contributing community that sustains Wikipedia:
# Size of the contributing community â is it sustainable and is it sufficient?
# Identity of the contributing community â does population bias create content bias?
# Inequality within contributing community â does Wikipedia really represent contributions of the many, or is it moving towards an elite system?

====Size:====
Several studies and articles have suggested that Wikipedia's contributing community has slowed growth, stopped growing, or is even declining (see [http://prawo.uni.wroc.pl/~kwasnicki/EkonLit6/WikipediaSoul.pdf Battle for Wikipedia's Soul]"; "[http://asc-parc.blogspot.com/2009/07/part-1-slowing-growth-of-wikipedia-some.html Slowing Growth of Wikipedia]"; or "[http://www.resourceshelf.com/2009/11/23/wsj-volunteers-log-off-as-wikipedia-ages/ Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages]" for a sample). Others, such as Oded Nov, have looked at [http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 "What Motivates Wikipedians"] and concluded that the majority are motivated by fun. But is Wikipedia "fun" enough to maintain it's contributing community? A [http://asc-parc.blogspot.com/2009/07/part-1-slowing-growth-of-wikipedia-some.html study] by the Palo Alto Research Centre found that the number of new articles added per month flatlined at 60,000 in 2006 and has since declined by a third. Wikimedia Australia's Vice-President, Liam Wyatt explains this: "Because the project is much more filled out and more complete, it's increasingly harder for new users to be able to add something without some level of expertise."

====Identity & Bias:====
Studies on Wikipedia's contributing population determine that the majority are white males (Oded Nov says 92.7% male, another [http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/08/31/only-13-of-wikipedia-contributors-are-women-study-says/ 87%]). If this is the case, does Wikipedia truly represent an unbiased cross-section of global (or even American) knowledge? How does the identity of the contributing community bias Wikipedia regarding politics? Consider claims that Wikipedia needs to be further censored or is being [http://state-ethics.blogspot.com/2009/07/censoring-wikipedia-2.html manipulated by Nazis] seeking to control the flow of information in Germany.

====Inequality:====
Within the Wikipedia contributing community, there has been a rapid divide between "contributors" and "editors", with editors determining much of the style, tone and occasionally content of articles. One study found that âelite usersâ were pushing out new contributors, with 25% of occasional wiki editorsâ changes being erased or reverted by established editors. This was up from 10% in 2003.<ref>[http://www2.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/HICSS.2008.333 Editors as Elite Users]</ref>.

===Quality Control - Perceived and Actual===

It is important to distinguish between concerns about the actual quality of Wikipedia articles and concerns about the perceived quality of the articles. The one should be approached as a contributor and technical problem and the other should be addressed as a publicity problem. Also, the concept of quality is intentionally broad and includes everything from accuracy of information to degree of citation provided to the quality of images and prose.

====Actual Quality of Wikipedia====

On October 24, 2005, ''The Guardian'' published an article entitled "Can you trust Wikipedia?" where a panel of experts were asked to critically review seven entries related to their fields.<ref name="Guardian">[http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,16541,1599325,00.html], Can you trust Wikipedia?, ''The Guardian'', 2008.</ref> One article was deemed to have made "every value judgement... wrong", the others receiving marks from 5 to 8 out of a notional ten. Of the other six articles reviewed and critiqued, the most common criticisms were:
# Poor prose, or ease-of-reading issues (3 mentions)
# Omissions or inaccuracies, often small but including key omissions in some articles (3 mentions)
# Poor balance, with less important areas being given more attention and vice versa (1 mention)
The most common praises were:
# Factually sound and correct, no glaring inaccuracies (4 mentions)
# Much useful information, including well selected links, making it possible to "access much information quickly" (3 mentions)

''Nature'' reported in 2005 that science articles in Wikipedia were comparable in accuracy to those on ''Encyclopedia Britannica'''s web site. Out of 42 articles, only 4 serious errors were found in Wikipedia, and 4 in ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', although more than a hundred lesser errors and omissions were found in each and Wikipedia's articles were often "poorly structured."<ref>P.D. Magnus, [http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/36449903/On-Trusting-WIKIPEDIA On Trusting Wikipedia], Britannica.</ref>

On March 24, 2006, ''Britannica'' provided a rebuttal of this article, labeling it "fatally flawed",<ref name="Nature Flawed BE">[http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Journal_Nature_study_%27fatally_flawed%27%2C_says_Britannica], Journal Nature study "fatally flawed" says Britannica, March 24, 2006, Wikinews. </ref> to which ''Nature'' responded.<ref name="Nature Responds">[http://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf], Encyclopedia Britannica and Nature: A Response, March 23, 2006.</ref>

Among Britannica's criticisms were that excerpts rather than the full texts of some of their articles were used, that Nature composited parts of different Britannica texts to make a text for review in one case, that Nature did not check the factual assertions of its reviewers, and that many points which the reviewers labeled as errors were differences of editorial opinion. Nature responded that any errors on the part of its reviewers were not biased in favor of either encyclopedia, that in some cases it used excerpts of articles from both encyclopedias, and that Britannica did not share particular concerns with Nature before publishing its "open letter" rebuttal.

Three subsequent studies--a 2006 web-based survey,<ref>[http://bpastudio.csudh.edu/fac/lpress/wikieval], Larry Press, Survey of Wikipedia accuracy and completeness, Professor of Computer Information Systems, California State University (2006)</ref> a 2004 comparison of ''Brockhaus Multimedial, ''Microsoft Encarta'', and the German Wikipedia, <ref>Michael Kurzidim: Wissenswettstreit. Die kostenlose Wikipedia tritt gegen die MarktfÃ¼hrer Encarta und Brockhaus an, in: ''c't'' 21/2004, October 4, 2004, S. 132-139.</ref> (repeated in 2007 <ref>Dorothee Wiegand: "Entdeckungsreise. Digitale EnzyklopÃ¤dien erklÃ¤ren die Welt." c't 6/2007, March 5, 2007, p. 136-145.</ref>), and a 2007 review by Australian magazine ''PC Authority''<ref>[http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Feature/93908,wikipedia-uncovered.aspx/1], PC Authority:'Wikipedia Uncovered'.</ref>--concluded that Wikipedia was generally as reliable as other traditional Encyclopedias.

However, Wikipedia may not be as reliable in technical or specialized fields. A peer-reviewed 2008 study<ref>[http://www.theannals.com/cgi/reprint/aph.1L474v1.pdf] KA Clauson et al., Scope, completeness, and accuracy of drug Iinformation in Wikipedia, 42 Annals Pharmacotheraphy 1814 (2008).</ref>examined 80 Wikipedia drug entries. The research team found few factual errors but determined that these articles were often missing important information, like contraindications and drug interactions. One of the researchers noted that "If people went and used this as a sole or authoritative source without contacting a health professional...those are the types of negative impacts that can occur." The researchers also compared Wikipedia to Medscape Drug Reference (MDR), by looking for answers to 80 different questions covering eight categories of drug information, including adverse drug events, dosages, and mechanism of action. They have determined that MDR provided answers to 82.5 percent of the questions, while Wikipedia could only answer 40 percent, and that answers were less likely to be complete for Wikipedia as well. None of the answers from Wikipedia were determined factually inaccurate, while they found four inaccurate answers in MDR. But the researchers found 48 errors of omission in the Wikipedia entries, compared to 14 for MDR. The lead investigator concluded: "I think that these errors of omission can be just as dangerous [as inaccuracies]", and he pointed out that drug company representatives have been caught deleting information from Wikipedia entries that make their drugs look unsafe.

In addition to these potential omissions (or purposeful deletions), the structure of Wikipedia lends itself to several [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia#cite_note-50 potential vulnerabilities]:

#Information citation loops
#Vandalism
#Anonymity of authors lending to false information (see e.g. the [http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1062 Essjay controversy]

====Perceived Quality of Wikipedia====

Whether or not Wikipedia actually is accurate, its reception as a trusted source has been plagued by doubts regarding the trustworthiness of its content as the product of mass collaboration by anonymous authors.

The perception of Wikipedia in the average population is relatively high. In a web-based survey conducted in spring 2006, fifty participants rated Wikipedia articles: 76% agreed that the article was accurate, and 46% agreed it was complete. The same survey compared Wikipedia to Encyclopedia Britannica: of 18 responses, 6 favored Britannica, 7 favored Wikipedia, and 11 found Wikipedia more complete.<ref>Larry Press, "[http://bpastudio.csudh.edu/fac/lpress/wikieval/ Survey of Wikipedia accuracy and completeness]," Professor of Computer Information Systems, California State University (2006).</ref>

However, Wikipedia's '''reception by academia''' has been less than stellar.

Even if Wikipedia itself doesnât intend to be used as a course for academic works, it is often used by students and researchers as a starting point. However, the open-source collaborative and anonymous efforts that produce Wikipedia have led to wide-spread skepticism of its accuracy. Most of the angry responses targeted at Wikipedia have been aimed at its claim to be an encyclopedia. Such claims are thought to establish greater expectations of accuracy than are or possibly can be achieved by non-expert collaboration. Academics have also criticized Wikipedia for its perceived failure as a reliable source, and because Wikipedia editors may not have degrees or other credentials generally recognized in academia.

Robert McHenry, a former editor-in-chief for the Encyclopedia Britannica, describes Wikipedia as the âFaith-Based Encyclopedia.â He describes the âcrucial and entirely faith-based stepâ in the Wikipedia process: âSome unspecified quasi-Darwinian process will assure that those writings and editings by contributors of greatest expertise will survive; articles will eventually reach a steady state that corresponds to the highest degree of accuracy.â This step, he argues, is a completely unwarranted leap of faith. Rather, âContrary to the faith, the article has, in fact, been edited into mediocrity.â<ref name=McHenry>[http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=111504A], Robert McHenry, The Faith-Based Encyclopedia Blinks, Dec 14, 2005 (2008).</ref>

Andrew Orlowski accuses Wikipedia of being a âvanity exerciseâ for calling itself an encyclopedia, and writes that the use of the term "encyclopedia" to describe Wikipedia may lead users into believing it is more reliable than it may be. He points out (describing a libel case against Wikipedia) that âIf what we today know as "Wikipedia" had started life as something called, let's say - "Jimbo's Big Bag O'Trivia" - we doubt if it would be the problem it has become.â The public begins to expect trustworthy information from Wikipedia and instead gets a âking-sized cocktailâ of bureaucracy and âspontaneous graffiti.â <ref>[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/12/wikipedia_no_responsibility/page2.html], Andrew Orlowski, "Who's responsible for Wikipedia?" The Register, Dec 12, 2005.</ref>

Middlebury College went so far as to [http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/93.1/rosenzweig.html?pr=jah931 ban the citation of Wikipedia] in papers in its history department. On this note, however, consider the fact that Wikipedia itself states in its guidelines that Wikipedia is not suitable for academic citation because Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is a tertiary source. The use of Wikipedia is not accepted in many schools and universities in writing a formal paper, and some educational institutions have banned it as a primary source while others have limited its use to only a pointer to external sources.<ref name=Duke>[http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2007/03/28/News/Several.Colleges.Push.To.Ban.Wikipedia.As.Resource-2809247.shtml], Lysa Chen, "Several colleges push to ban Wikipedia as resource," Duke Chronicle, March 28, 2007</ref><ref>"[http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki A Stand Against Wikipedia]", ''Inside Higher Ed'' (January 26, 2007). Retrieved on January 27, 2007.</ref><ref name=McHenry>

Some academic journals do refer to Wikipedia articles, but do not elevate it to the same level as traditional references. For instance, Wikipedia articles have been referenced as "enhanced perspectives" provided on-line in the journal Science. The publisher of Science states that these enhanced perspectives "include hypernotes - which link directly to websites of other relevant information available online - beyond the standard bibliographic references."<ref>[http://www.aaas.org/publications/books_reports/CCLI/PDFs/01_D_Perspectives.pdf], Yolanda S. George & Shirley S.Malcolm, "Perspectives from AAAS|publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science."</ref>

====Improving Wikipedia's Perceived Accuracy====
One study presented at the 2008 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Work explored whether a visualizations system could improve readersâ perceptions of trustworthiness in a wiki by exposing hidden article information.<ref>
Kittur, Suh & Chi, Can You Ever Trust a Wiki?: Impacting Perceived Trustworthiness in Wikipedia, in PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACM 2008 CONFERENCE ON COMPUTER SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE WORK (2008) 477-480. [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1460639&dl=GUIDE&coll=GUIDE&CFID=56978117&CFTOKEN=87505552Abstract].</ref> The results suggest that surfacing information that is relevant to the stability of the article and patterns of editor behavior can have a significant impact on usersâ trust. This should be considered in conjunction for proposals on color-coding articles by age, editing contribution etc that are being considered to improve article accuracy.

Other suggestions include:

*Reputation-based text coloring. Each article could display a button labeled "check text reputation": upon clicking the button, a user would be led to a copy of the page, where the text background color reflects the reputation of the author of each portion of text, as well as the reputation of authors who vetted the text, editing the page while leaving the text in place. The appeal of this method is that reputation is displayed in an anonymous way, associated to the article text. This avoids placing blame or praise directly on the authors: the impersonal character of this feedback could be well-suited to a collaborative forum such as the Wikipedia.<ref>T. Cross. Puppy smoothies: Improving the reliability of open, collaborative wikis. First Monday, 11(9), September 2006.</ref>
*Restricting edits. Highly controversial articles could be protected, so that only authors with sufficiently high reputation are able to edit them. This is currently employed by Wikipedia as part of its [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_policy Protection Policy] but it could be expanded.
*Reputation-based alert system. Wikipedia Editors keep a watchful eye on most controversial articles, and in fact, on a large portion of the Wikipedia, improving content and undoing poor-quality revisions. A reputation system could be used to alert them whenever a crucial or controversial article is modified by a low-reputation author. A reputation system provides an incentive for high-quality contributions. A reputation system could provide an additional incentive for authors to provide high quality contributions to the Wikipedia.<ref>P. Resnick, R. Zeckhauser, E. Friedman, and K. Kiwabara. Reputation systems. Comm. ACM, 43(12):45{48, 2000. C. Dellarocas. The digitization of word-ofmouth: Promises and challenges of online reputation systems. Management Science, October 2003.</ref>
*Content-Driven Reputation system. Study by Adler & de Alfaro proposes a content-driven reputation system for Wikipedia to allow readers to determine reliability of an article based on the reputation of the contributors and editors. The reputation of authors would be based on how their contribution to Wikipedia fares: the longer an article or edit remains un-edited or un-altered, the better the authorâs reputation. This can be, however, much less accurate than a user-driven reputation system. Author contributions can be deleted for a variety of reasons, including reorganizations and thorough rewrites of the articles. Alder & Alfaro address these issues in that the reputation of authors whose edits are reverted to the original text suffers; reputation of authors whose edits are further refined later on do not suffer.<ref>B. Thomas Adler & Luca de Alfaro, [http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=luca_de_alfaro A Content-Driven Reputation System for the Wikipedia].</ref>
*Zeng et al. also propose a mechanism wherein the revision history of the Wikipedia article is used to compute a trust value for the article.<ref>H. Zeng, M.A. Alhoussaini, L. Ding, R. Fikes, and D.L. McGuinness. Computing trust from revision history. In Intl. Conf. on Privacy, Security and Trust, 2006.</ref>
*It could also prove interesting to explore combinations of user and content reputation devices.

===Sustainability of Wikimedia Model===

The strategy discussions at Wikimania 2009 raised the question of whether Wikimedia, as it stands today, is sustainable: both from a technological and organizational standpoint.

*Is a platform that both supports numerous users and serves less tech savvy contributors possible?
*How can Wikimedia ensure its financial stability?
*How can Wikimedia re-structure its institutional organization to allow oversight without creating too many levels of hierarchy such that the bureaucracy becomes ungainly?

Emerging Strategic Priorities in this area include:
**Optimize Wikimediaâs operations
**Identify roles volunteers are best suited to perform and what are the most effective uses of paid staff
**Create alliances and partnerships with other institutions and organizations to advance the mission: also, what are the necessary preconditions to such alliances? How support similar projects?

===Expansion & Questions of Scope===
Since the founding of Wikipedia in 2001, there has been substantial growth in user-generated online content.<ref>Geist, M. Mapping the digital future. OECD: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 254 (2006), 36â37.</ref><ref>Dunn, J., Byrd, D., Notess, M., Riley, J., and Scherle, R. Variations2: Retrieving and using music in an academic setting. Commun. ACM 49, 8 (Aug. 2006) 53â58.</ref> According to one Nielsen rating, user-generated content drives 50% of the top fastest growing internet brands.<ref>Nielsen NetRating. [www.nielsen-netratings.com/pr/PR_060810.PDF User-generated content drives half of U.S. top 10 fastest growing Web brands], (Aug. 10, 2006).</ref> Consider just the popularity of collaborative site such as YouTube, Flickr, or Slashdot.org. Traditional media outlets such as BBC News.com have also added areas for collaboration.<ref>Eltringham, M. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4900000/newsid_4900400/4900444.stm Citizen journalists challenge BBC], BBC NewsWatch (2006).</ref> User-generated content appears to be the way forward â but is Wikipedia a good model upon which to base that progress? Can the system used for Wikipedia be applied in other scenarios?

==References==
<references/>