public sphere

MANUFACTURING CONSENT The Political Economy of the Mass Media EDWARD S. HERMAN and NOAM CHOMSKY With a new introduction by the authors Pantheon Books, New York

MANUFACTURINGCONSENTThePoliticalEconomyoftheMassMedia

 ) +)

#(( ;$$

  /'

       

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Bouman

Any relevant material can be mentioned there

of WP:1E

Someone who isn't even an assistant professor is certainly not notable as a scientist.

Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited.

The Event Horizon Telescope project is notable in itself, and has its own article, but anyone who are in some way (remotely) associated with it are not inherently notable.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Bouman • en.wikipedia.org

Fecha

6.3alineshaktifranzke, Feminist Research Ethics(explicitly taking up feminist ethics and ethics of care)

Internet Research: Ethical Guidelines 3.0Association of Internet Researchers

Wikipedia neutralizes its content by distinguishing(p.152)two layers: a visible layer of consensus backed up by an invisible yet accessible layer of discussion and a heterogeneous interpretation on the History and edit pages

But how separate or “sovereign” is this space? Can a nonprofit enclave of neutrality exist when it is woven into the corporate fabric of connective media? And how does the ideology of neutrality and objectivity relate to the sharing logic and popularity rankings fostered by Facebook and Google? In short, how does Wikipedia hold up in a culture of connectivity where the default is on frictionless sharing and data mining?

Arbitration Committee

Sociologist Christian Pentzold (2011: 718) articulates this very precisely in his ethnographic study of Wikipedia users when he observes that contributors do “not only have to learn to use the software tools, but they also have to acquire the appropriate beliefs, values

The NPoV rule is thus a guiding principle for building a functional apparatus, but that apparatus simultaneously shapes the meaning of neutrality as the “average opinion” or “shared interpretation.”

Third-party apps, like the WikiScanner, make it possible to geo-locate anonymous edits by looking up the IP addresses in an IP-to-Geo database, a listing of IP addresses and the companies and institutions they belong to, and track a potential interest

Third, articles have to be written from a “Neutral Point of View” (NPoV);

A second related rule is called “No Original Research.” Wikipedia simply does not accept new or unpublished research or original thought

First, the rule of verifiability means that readers have to be able to retrace Wikipedia content to reliable sources

over 16 percent of all edits in Wikipedia were made by bots, a number that is still growing (Geiger and Ribes2010: 119).

bots obtain their own user page

we find bots, administrators, bureaucrats, and stewards; developers and system administrators take the highest positions

Did Wikipedia need specialists(p.136)to contribute entries on one specific area, or were generalists who could write about different areas more valuable to the site? As it turned out, researchers proved that the site needs both types of input. Whereas specialists boost the site’s quality level, generalists are crucial to the connective fabric of the encyclopedia, as they tend to make more linksbetweendomains (Halatchliyski et al.2010)

Various researchers noted this dramatic shift in workload, but instead of endorsing the wisdom-of-crowds cliché, Kittur and colleagues (2007) researched “the rise of the bourgeoisie”: a marked growth in the population of low-edit users.

Until 2006, Wikipedia was largely written and maintained by a core of dedicated editors—2 percent doing 73 percent of all edits.

For instance, how does Wikipedia’s consensual apparatus relate to the ideology of sharing, as professed by Facebook and others? How does the platform’s ideology of neutrality compare to the logic of popularity ingrained in Google’s ranking(p.134)mechanisms? And how can Wikipedia hold up its nonprofit status in a network of media conglomerates that are overwhelmingly driven by the profit motive?

To many, Wikipedia is one of the few examples of what Yochai Benkler (2006: 5) has called “nonmarket peer-production” in an otherwise overwhelmingly corporate digital environment

online knowledge construction

hierarchical content management system

Wikipedia and the Neutrality Principle

This suggests that conflictual games’moving-on does not rely on sustainedconversations (because participants disagree anyway) but relies on convincing the auth-ority.

Because ofthis inability to change the rules, debates thus centre on two other areas: the interpretationof these rules and the discovery of evidence to satisfy (e.g., notability) criteria.

The consultation/enforcement mode suggests the pragmatic side of a game in which theactual manifestation as a site of independent yet transparent lobbying efforts, deviatesfrom its original setup as a site of discussion.

Because closing admins are not bound to appeal to the majority, they havethe power to decide regardless of how many deleters or retainers incidentally

In the discussion game, editors par-ticipate in AfD discussions in a way that is similar to other online asynchronous chats(although lonely“discussions”with only one comment are also common)

Thisalso shows a practical side to AfD discussions—the aim is not so much about convincingothers. It is about convincing the authority.

A keydifference here with casual synchronous chats is that AfD is confrontational:

The problem is that WP:AIRCRASH is an“advice on article content,”52not a guideline.

two language games—consultation/enforcement and discussion

Also, some“dis-cussions”are not interactive—in the case when participants are all talking to the closingadmin rather than to each other

frame discussions

cascading arguments,

But manyfirst movers are more aggressive

Based mostly on signals, thisfirst move thus sounds personal rather than analytical.This is in line with Wikipedia’s spirit—consensus—but is also problematic on behalf ofCassidy03’s deletion cause.

A deleter can start with a short comment

inFigure 1.

Here,“institutionalized rules”refers to the citation of Wikipedia rules to establish legiti-macy.

Free style operationalization

1a] PerWP:NEO; this

Thefirst phase revealed four broad categories of discursive resources that editors oftenuse: institutionalized rules (Wikipedia policies/guidelines), external validators, free styleoperationalization, and signals

Data from the AfD discussion pages was collected from June 1, 2013 to June 21, 2013 (thefirst phase)

My analysis will adopt part of this critical orientation by focusingon thepower relationsbetween editors in their choice of utterance during AfD discussions.

My method of choice is discourse analysis

For the purpose of differentiation, I shall call thepersons of the actdeletersandretainers

Previousstudies of Wikipedia’s article deletion processes have shown that the lack of indicationof importance alone is the most important commonly used criterion for speedyCOMMUNICATION AND CRITICAL/CULTURAL STUDIES307

Finally, AfD discussions are conflictual.

Second,none of its participants can be certain as to what the rules of each languagegame are

First, thereisnoclearboundaryastowhoisaninsiderandwhoisanoutsiderand,ifthereisaboundary, there is high mobility between the inside and the outside (and vice versa)

I will conceptualize Wikipedia editors’online exchanges as amovein a“language game,”acentral concept of Wittgenstein’s view on language as social actions

As we shall see, much of the debate centres onthe interpretation of the“notability guideline”(WP:Notability),20which decideswhether topics should be included in this gigantic encyclopedia

We have movedaway from mass reception to a supposed age of microinteractions and reinstitutionaliza-tion of civil space.

Editors of newspapers and magazines constantly engage in the selection and silencing ofinformation in terms of choosing what to publish. This, in effect, sets a boundary betweenknowledge and“nonknowledge

Negotiating boundaries of knowledge: Discourseanalysis of Wikipedia's Articles for Deletion (AfD)discussion

The first two pairs (New Orleans and Dhaka, Metro Manila and Medellin) unpack the inequitable impacts of specific infrastructure and spatial planning interventions.

two pairs (Santiago and Jakarta, Boston and Surat) highlight procedural equity implications of decision-making approaches that exclude the poor or rely on private sector action

Future adaptation plans must critically considerthe distribution of adaptation benefits, costs, and responsibilities across society, address unsustainable and inequitable development patterns, and apply interventions that – at a minimum – treat groups equally regardless of socio-economic status or – better yet – actively prioritize beneficial outcomes for disadvantaged and vulnerable groups

However, privatization of responsibilities is also incentivizingrent-seeking behavior over the city’s infrastructure and public services. Their experiences showthat institutionalization of adaptation through public-private partnerships or private networks can sometimes yield exclusionary behaviors

Participation and inclusion of the most marginalized remain peripheral to adaptation planning

Equity Impacts of Urban Land Use Planning forClimate Adaptation

Units of analysis, then, are those things we examine in arder to create summary descriptions of ali such units and to explain differences among them

Units of Analysis

A given variable can sornetimes be measured at different levels. When in doubt, researchers should use the highest leve! of rneasurement ap-propriate to that variable so they can capture the greatest amount of information.

The Importance of Variable Names

Conceptions, Concepts, and Reality

Checklist: Theoretical Framework

Concepts often have multiple definitions, so the theoretical framework involves clearly defining what you mean by each term

In your thesis or dissertation, the theoretical framework is where you define, discuss and evaluate theories relevant to your research problem.

Sample theoretical framework

Investigación educativa. Una competencia profesional para la intervención

Internet, escola i comunitat en el trànsit cap a la societat xarxa. La incorporació d’internet al sistema educatiu de Catalunya per al desenvolupament comunitari Meneses Naranjo, Julio

Towards a personalised virtual library: Indications from navigational and personal information behaviour of e-learning students Ferran i Ferrer, Núria

The illustrated guide to a Ph.D

Usuario:Platonides/Encarta/Artículos

Deletion discussions in Wikipedia: decision factors and outcomes

Mercedes del Carmen Guillén Vicente

Wikipedia:Consultas de borrado/Mercedes del Carmen Guillén Vicente

Personas por sexo‎

Mujeres‎ (10 cat, 73348 págs.)

Este es argumento falaz denominado generalización apresurada. La relevancia enciclopédica de cada artículo debe discutirse per se, es decir, por sí mismo. Exceptuando analogías obvias cada hecho, objeto o personaje tiene su propia trascendencia y debe ser analizado por ella, no por la de otro o por la de la del género al que pertenece.

Category:Articles for deletion

Historial

Categoría:Wikipedia:Consultas de borrado

Conceptualization is the process of specifying observations and measurements that give concepts definite meaning for the purposes of a research study.

Concepts are constructs; they represent the agreed-on meanings we assign to terms

Concepts are mental irnages we use as sumrnary devices for bringing together observations and experiences that seem to have something in corn-mon. We use terms or labels to reference these concepts

Conceptualization, Operationalization, and Measurement

Research Design

The theoretical framework: what and how?

Do not use obviously feminine names, such as SuzyQ or Pam I Am. Do not use feminine titles like Miss, Ms, or Mrs. Do not incorporate hobbies, interests, family status, religious affiliation, etc. For example, Knit Nut, Fairly Feminist, and Lovemykids are not the best usernames if you want to avoid Wikipedia gender-based harassment.

It is generally agreed that literature surveys and descriptive compilations do not meet the contribution-to-knowledge re-quirement for the dissertation

Positivist versus postpositivist.

Experimental versus descriptive.

Quantitative versus qualitative.

NEW OR IMPROVED ANALYSIS Analysis may be based on existing evidence or include new data.

The evidence may be collected by an experiment, simulation, observations, questionnaire, interviews, or measurements.

The additive contribution of a dissertation may arise from 1. new or improved evidence; 2. new or improved methodology; 3. new or improved analysis; 4. new or improved concepts or theories.

The dissertation should be based on a significant question, problem, or hypothesis.

Different approaches to testing of important results. If a researcher has reported interesting results with one research technique and a given research population, a doctoral student may consider replicating the experiment, altering either the research technique or the research population.

Writers of disserta-tions commonly describe further research that needs to be done.

If there is likely to be a continuing interest, either academically or otherwise on the topic, then a student can continué to maintin scholarly capability in the área and continué to be a significant authority on the subject.

A research project will typicaliy have more than one potential outcome. For example, a research experiment may fail to dis-prove the nuil hypothesis, it may disprove it, or it may be incon-clusive.

The exploratory investigation, definition of problem, and writing normally take about half of the total time.

If no theory base can be identified, the topic should be rejected

Observations lead to theory to classify, explain, and predict the observations.

Research needed and interesting

In reading dissertations, the student should begin to formúlate a general understanding of the structure and scope of a disserta-tion, and the meaning of contribution to knowledge as applied to doctoral dissertations.

The Selection of a Dissertation Topic

. To summarize: Your aim is to explain 1. what you are writing about —I am working on the topic of... 2. what you don't know about it—because / want tofind out... 3. why you want your reader to know and care about it—m order to help my reader understand better...

add a second indirect question that explains why you asked your first question.

When you add that because I want tofind out how/why/whether clause, you state why you are pursuing your topic: to answer a question important to you.

because I want to find out who/what/when/where/whether/ why/how .

start by naming your project:

SO WHAT?

If you are an experienced researcher, look for questions that other researchers ask but don't answer.

How does your topic fit into the context of a larger structure or function as part of a larger system?

Ask about the History of Your Topic

So the best way to begin working on your focused topic is not to find all the information you can on it, but to formúlate questions that direct you to just that information you need to answer them

If a writer asks no specific question worth asking, he can offer no specific answer worth supporting.

Caution: Don't narrow your topic so much that you can't find information on it

We narrowed those topics by adding words and phrases, but of a special kind: conflict, description, contribution, and developing. Those nouns are derived from verbs expressing actions or relation-ships: to conflict, to describe, to contribute, and to develop. Lacking such "action" words, your topic is a .static thing.

A topic is probably too broad if you can state it in four or five words

Few experi-enced researchers trust Wikipedia, so under no circumstances cite it as a source of evidence (unless your topic is Wikipedia itself).

Google your topic,

Once you have a list of topics, choose the one or two that inter-est you most and explore their research potential. Do this:

Start by listing as many interests as you can that you'd like to explore.

But also ask yourself: What interests me about this tapie? What would interest others?

Some questions raise problems; others do not.

But other questions may intrigue only the researcher:

A subject is a broad área of knowledge (e.g., climate change), while a topic is a specific interest within that área (e.g., the effect of climate change on migratory birds).

As you begin a research project, you will want to distinguish a topic from a sub-ject.

From Topics to Questions

Técnicas y métodos de investigación