<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Re-public : re-imagining democracy - english version &#187; wiki politics</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.republic.gr/en/?cat=5&#038;feed=rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.republic.gr/en</link>
	<description>re-public , re-imagining democracy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:51:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.42</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Ward Cunningham &#8211; Wiki and the rise of gift economies</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=141</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=141#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 11:16:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=141</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Creator of wiki software, Ward Cunningham, argues that the proliferation of wikis has proved that the for-pay economy is not the only way to create value and celebrates the fact that we have now more choices. An interview to Thanasis Priftis for Re-public Thanasis Priftis: When you created wiki software did you ever imagine a derivative like Wikipedia? How do you feel of the fact that some universities departments in the US ban references based on Wikipedia? Ward Cunningham: My specific purpose for the first wiki was to create an environment where we might link together each other&#8217;s experience to discover the pattern language of programming. I also had more general goals for wiki. First, I think that humans have a compelling urge to talk. In creating wiki, I wanted to stroke that story-telling nature in all of us. Second, and perhaps most important, I wanted people who wouldn&#8217;t normally author to find it comfortable authoring, so that there stood a chance of us discovering the structure of what they had to say. I knew wiki would be good for many things. I thought it would be good for an encyclopedia too but didn&#8217;t imagine that the encyclopedia would be [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=141</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Alexios Zavras &#8211; The trouble with wiki politics: Lessons learned from open source software communities</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=149</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=149#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 11:14:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=149</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Treading on the pitfalls, but also on the successes of open source communities, Alexios Zavras raises seven principles that future online projects should follow if they are to survive in the vast sea of the Internet. In recent years, we have witnessed an abundance of empowering technologies based on communication networks in general and the Internet specifically. A common characteristic of all these technologies is the use of the Internet as infrastructure for allowing people to communicate and collaborate. We have seen many different manifestations of this phenomenon, from the first crude social networking sites to publicly open wikis to personal and institutional blogs. In this article, I will use the general term “wiki politics” to refer to all these efforts that use the power of the Internet to further and achieve various political goals. While the general consensus on the advantages of wiki politics is incontestable, it should be noted that this is neither an easy road nor a passage safe from dangers. Luckily, we can make many useful observations and draw worthwhile conclusions from a wide spectrum of similar online communities that have been in existence for a long time. Although it may seem a recent phenomenon, the [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=149</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pete Ashdown &#8211; Open source politics</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=145</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=145#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 11:13:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=145</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Being the first politician to to use a wiki to develop his campaign platform for the 2006 US Senate election in Utah, Pete Ashdown makes the case for open source politics. An interview to Pavlos Hatzopoulos for Re-public Pavlos Hatzopoulos: What is wrong with traditional party politics? Can the extended use of collaborative technologies reverse this situation? Pete Ashdown: Your own Aristotle stated that, &#8220;In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme.&#8221; Although I do not believe in the majority crushing the rights of the minority, this statement has rarely been true. Party politics is currently centered around money and who can raise the most. In spite of most politicians rejection of the claim, it is obvious most that the power goes to where the money is, and the voice of the rich is overheard above everyone else. Collaborative technologies have the power to level this. The Internet is blind to wealth, ability, race, creed, gender, and background. A good idea presented through collaborative technologies will rise to the top and be implemented, regardless of the source. That is good for all [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=145</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Paul Hartzog &#8211; Panarchy and the wikification of politics</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=148</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=148#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 11:09:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=148</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Paul Hartzog introduces the concept of panarchy, a sociopolitical field that emerges when connective technologies, which lower the threshold for collective action, enable cooperative peer-to-peer production – of knowledge, of tools, of power. Panarchy is the emerging system of sociopolitical activity that we might refer to as the “wiki-fication” of society. By “wikification,” I refer to the rise of mass participation systems, that include 1) software production, or “open source,” 2) knowledge production, e.g. wikipedia, or 3) group/identity production, e.g. communities. Mass participation is enabled by the recent spread of connective network technologies, from cell phones to the Internet. Panarchy emerges when these connective technologies, which lower the threshold for collective action, enable cooperative peer-to-peer production – of knowledge, of tools, of power. Network technologies, because they increase human connectivity, increase both the speed and frequency of human interaction. But more connectivity also means more complexity, and therefore more unpredictability. As small events cascade into large ones, power becomes distributed throughout the system, at once everywhere and nowhere. The outcome of all of this is nothing less than the transformation of civilization. Where the current system is hierarchical, centralized, and differentiated, the new system is anarchical, diffuse, and overlapping. Where [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=148</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Jonah Bossewitch &#8211; The ZyprexaKills campaign: Peer production and the frontiers of radical pedagogy</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=144</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=144#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 11:07:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=144</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jonah Bossewitch tells the story of the participatory campaign against blockbuster antipsychotic drug Zyprexa, suggesting that participatory culture might give to way to participatory democracy, and highlighting how collaborative technologies can play a leading role in radical actions. “Change comes from power, and power comes from organization. In order to act, people must get together&#8230; Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” – Saul Alinsky Like the telegraph and the railroad in their time, the Internet has been heralded as the promoter of equality, freedom, and democracy. And like the technologies that preceded it, its impact will ultimately derive from the ways we choose to use it. In the post dot-com era, the Internet is best known for entertainment, commerce, and socializing although it is also being utilized for more earnest activities such as education, political advocacy, and direct social action. Leveraging the writable web is an important way that organizations are improving their operational efficiency. The de-facto suite of Web 2.0 applications – a mailing list, a wiki, a blog, shared public tags, and RSS, are rapidly becoming part of the typical grassroots communications toolkit. Beyond the backoffice, organizers are also learning [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=144</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Kingsley Dennis &#8211; The new agoras: ‘Wikis’ as a form of collective intelligence</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=143</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=143#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 11:06:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=143</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Successful Wikis, such as Wikipedia make &#8216;smart&#8217; decision, argues Kingsley Dennis. They embody forms of an emerging hybridised collective intelligence, where the weaknesses of the individual are compensated by the contributions of the many. The Internet has shifted through various phases since the early appearances of web browsers in the 1990s and has fundamentally altered the way people can, and do, interrelate, communicate, think, link, and act. As the Internet increasingly becomes a space where people are becoming the creators, co-designers, and feedback mechanisms of many-to-many software applications, a new form of complex interconnectivity is forming. This was initially termed the Web 2.0 , with Tim O&#8217;Reilly describing one of the key lessons of the Web 2.0 era as being ‘Users add value’. Emerging scapes of mobility and social connectivity largely driven by user-created applications are fostering what can be called ‘amplified shared knowledge’ through shifting patterns in technological applications and user participation. Content-led development of the Internet, involving knowledge webs and knowledge sharing through digital social networks and collaborative tools such as Wikipedia, and Cellphedia, lead the way towards ‘mass amateurisation’. This can be further seen in such practices as folksonomy/tagging, blogging, podcasting, and now vlogging (video blogging). These [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=143</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Australian bill of rights initiative: Collaborating on public policy</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=142</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=142#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 11:02:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=142</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Wiki politics are put into practice. This article focuses on the development and the rationale behind ARBI, an online project aimed at promoting awareness and discussion of human rights through the collaborative development of a bill of rights for Australia. Written by Mark Elliott, Mimi Marcus, Marcus Barber, Marcus Leonard, Alex Gibson, Lucas Maddock, Matt Daniel Public policy refers to the &#8220;the body of laws, regulations, decisions and actions of government&#8221; which effect and regulate the public. However representative democracy limits the civilian&#8217;s role in the participation of generating this policy through the reliance upon elected politicians who&#8217;s interests may or may not be aligned with the public&#8217;s. This brief case study looks at the inspirations and guiding principles of the Australian Bill of Rights Initiative, a wiki based project whose aims are to promote awareness and discussion surrounding human rights through the collaborative drafting of a bill of rights for Australia. Australia is now the only common law country in the world without a bill of rights. The UK and New Zealand have statutory bills, whilst Canada, Fiji, India, South Africa and the United States, to name but a few, have constitutional bills of rights. The notion that Australia [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=142</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hana Shepherd and Amir Goldberg &#8211; Tagging politics and consensus</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=147</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=147#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 10:56:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=147</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What are the possible consequences for a lack of consensus in tagging systems, ask Hana Shepherd and Amir Goldberg. Might there be bias in retrieval of sites that might systematically disadvantage particular types of resources or particular types of users from straightforward and intuitive online participation? Put differently, is folksonomy merely the tyranny of the majority in a new guise? As you might have noticed in your last browse through the online world, more and more sites allow users to “tag” resources. From the more popular ones like the social bookmarking site del.ici.ous and the ever-present YouTube and Amazon, to the less-well-traveled information and data-organization sites like Furl, LibraryThing, and Citeulike, tags are everywhere. Tags allow users to attach their own keywords to online resources (websites, blogs, pictures, videos, books, etc.), theoretically allowing for more efficient and user-driven retrieval of resources. But sites that use tagging, or at least web developers interested in the much-hyped Semantic Web, have their eyes set on a higher goal as well. Tags on a site are examined in the aggregate, with the idea that they can be used to develop “folksonomies,” or user-driven metadata, as a way of characterizing data online by looking at [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=147</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Laurence Pawley &#8211; Horizontal politics in a vertical world: The BBC and Action Network</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=146</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=146#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 10:53:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=146</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Examining the BBC&#8217;s experiments on facilitating participatory e-democracy, Laurence Pawley finds that such re-imaginings of political action must be accompanied by a re-imagination of the institutions that provide them. The growth of the ‘new’ politics enabled by technological developments like blogs and wikis has, generally speaking, emerged from outside of established nodes of political power. The informal, collaborative methods of action proposed by these spaces have predominantly been taken up by looser social movements and individuals, with the anti-capitalist movement and maverick ‘political bloggers’ serving as obvious examples. But what happens when similar opportunities are facilitated by a national institution, with substantial links to the state? Can active citizenship be promoted through an organisation associated with a centralised, linear mission to ‘inform, educate and entertain’? This is the question raised by the BBC’s Action Network mini-site (originally launched in 2003 as iCan). The site takes the form of a facilitative space, aimed in at individuals who wish to develop single-issue campaigns in their local area. Users can leave ‘notices’ (effectively equivalent to a standard online messageboard) or create more permanent ‘campaign’ pages in a collaborative blog format. The site has won several awards for its contribution to e-democracy, and its [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=146</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>McKenzie Wark: Gamer theory for collaborative knowledge production</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=132</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=132#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=132</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[McKenzie Wark celebrates Wikipedia as an example of a new kind of social relation, as a model for producing knowledge outside the commodity form&#8230; An interview to Korinna Patelis for republic.gr Korinna Patelis: Do you enjoy the wiki entries on who you are? McKenzie Wark: I just had a look at it now. It reads OK. It&#8217;s neutral, and the facts are right, which is what one hopes for in a wikipedia entry. K.P.: Do you to refer to wikipedia entries in your academic work? K.W.: Wikipedia is something I use every day, particularly in the classroom. I encourage students to look there first but to check what they find with another source. In some courses I have them write or improve wikipedia entries as one of their assignments. It&#8217;s a great public knowledge resource. K.P.: In using terms such as &#8216;information&#8217; or &#8216;use&#8217; you apply instrumental rationality to knowledge, using terms often used in utilitarian thought. Knowledge is way more than an aggregate of information, no? K.W.: Information is something we can quantify, and hence commodify. In some ways that&#8217;s a good thing. It&#8217;s an improvement on the state&#8217;s monopoly on the right to know. But I&#8217;m also interested [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=132</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Geert Lovink &#8211; Theses on wiki politics</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=135</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=135#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:31:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=135</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Wikis reflect a culture of pragmatic non-commitment, argues Geert Lovink. One edits, adds, deletes, changes and quits. Then it is time to stand up, get a coffee, smoke a cigarette, talk on the phone or chats, and return to the screen again&#8230; An exchange with Pavlos Hatzopoulos for Re-public Pavlos Hatzopoulos: Are wikis the opposite of blogs? The creation of collective intelligence vs. solipsism? Geert Lovink: It is interesting that you position blogs and wikis as antagonistic players. Usually, within the Web 2.0 craze, blogs, wikis and social networking site are portrayed as complimentary applications. It is true that blog culture, as it exists right now, facilitates the idea that &#8216;I am the only mind that exists&#8217;. In my essay Blogging, the Nihilist Impulse, I have analyzed the blogosphere as one that is by and large introspective. Blogs recast postmodern techno subjectivity in a way that has not yet been fully researched. Why? Because the outcome would be straight-out boring. The fact is that most blogs have a two-month lifespan and contribute little to the liberal myth of our time which proclaims that bloggers are &#8216;citizen journalists&#8217;. This is a sad state of affairs, in particular for the first and [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=135</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trebor Scholz  &#8211; What the MySpace generation should know about working for free</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=138</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=138#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:26:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=138</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Driven by hormones and a sea of desires, millions are sucked into networked screens for hours on end. For the media and news industries these are the heydays of participatory cultures. Cultural anthropologists study “interactivity,” and the networked sociality of teens, fans, and bloggers of all ages who are trying to impress their friends or seek a platform for their ideas. Rather than balancing affordances and pitfalls (democratizing effects such as the massification of voice and harmful aspects such as addiction and continuous partial attention), this essay focuses on creative labor from the perspective of the MySpace generation. The topic is not the free labor of the networked lifestyle variety (i.e. 24/7 laptop workers) I rather concentrate on the immaterial creative/affective labor performed in the sociable web. In the North American context the suggestion of work within the framework of social networking sites immediately calls up accusations of blindly leftist, world-removed academism. These complaints only demonstrate the critics’ socialization into naturalized corporate interests, which become closer to their heart than their very own. Rather than getting lost in wishful thinking, however, this essay aims to highlight new kind of “immaterial labor.” The expressive work on MySpace, FaceBook, or blogs is [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=138</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Yanis Varoufakis &#8211; What does it take to transform an e&#8217;mob into an empowered demos? Toward a democratic critique of ‘the politics of wiki’</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=134</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=134#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:25:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=134</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Wiki is a terrible way to organise a debate in the context of conflicts of material interest, argues Yanis Varoufakis. As long as our societies are typified by a stark separation of the political from the economic sphere, reserving equal rights for the former while allowing the latter to be characterised by increasing inequality in the allocation of property rights, wiki can play no significant role in civilising them. 1. Introduction I begin with the supposition that anyone interested in the politics of wiki is motivated by a concern for the increasingly sorry state of our democracies. And I conclude, bleakly, that the politics of wiki is an integral part of the receding political sphere. That, rather than heralding a revitalised politics, it is part and parcel of the ethos of fragmentation that devalues political goods and turns democracy into an empty shell. Wiki is, no doubt, a remarkable piece of technology. By catering for truly collaborative work, irrespectively of whether the group comprises two people or a multitude strewn all over the planet’s surface, it opens up new vistas for participatory projects. Nonetheless, like all technologies, its impact depends on the social relations and the institutional framework in which [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=134</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Michel Bauwens &#8211; P2P politics, the state, and the renewal of the emancipatory traditions</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=133</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=133#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:19:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=133</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Michel Bauwens explores the possibilities opened up by P2P projects for progressive politics, arguing that they could present an alternative to neoliberal privatization, and to the Blairite introduction of private logics in the public sphere. Peer governance and democracy As peer to peer technical and social infrastructures such as sociable media and self-directed teams are emerging to become an important if not dominant format for the changes induced by cognitive capitalism, the peer to peer relational dynamic will increasingly have political effects. As a reminder, the p2p relational dynamic arises wherever there are distributed networks, i.e. networks where agents are free to undertake actions and relationships, and where there is an absence of overt coercion so that governance modes are emerging from the bottom-up. It creates processes such as peer production, the common production of value; peer governance, i.e. the self-governance of such projects; and peer property, the auto-immune system which prevents the private appropriation of the common. It is important to distinguish the peer governance of a multitude of small but coordinated global groups, which choose non-representational processes in which participants co-decide on the projects, from representative democracy. The latter is a decentralized form of power-sharing based on elections [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=133</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>David Bollier &#8211; The commons and emergent democracy</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=136</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=136#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:29:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=136</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[New genres of online collaboration are producing robust new types of “democratic practice” online, claims David Bollier. Whether and how they will affect conventional politics and governance may be another issue, since it is not yet clear that the new social technologies will significantly intervene in the conduct of power and make it more accessible and accountable. It is becoming increasingly clear that the conventional, centralized institutions of the 20th Century are ill-equipped to meet the complex challenges of our time. They are just too slow, bureaucratic, secretive, politically compromised and/or unresponsive. Meanwhile, we are witnessing the rise of all sorts of distributed online networks that are proving to be highly efficient, versatile and reliable. Wikis, social networking websites, blogs, streaming video websites, podcasts and other innovations are changing how we learn, form social relationships and create culture. They are substituting “social production” for commercial transactions. They are generating new forms of political power and institutional authority. This raises the tantalizing question, Can the new online technologies of cooperation usher in a new type of “wiki politics” and governance? This much is clear: the new genres of online collaboration are producing robust new types of “democratic practice” online. Whether and [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=136</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Joseph Reagle &#8211; Equality, gender, and speech in open communities</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=131</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=131#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:27:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=131</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In addition to decision-making and legal necessity motivating closed subgroups within open communities, minority groups troubled by perceived bias in the larger community sometimes also seek a separate &#8220;safer&#8221; space. The creation of such a space, the female only WikiChix mailing list, broke from the model of female friendly, but non-exclusive, spaces in other open content communities and prompted arguments that such moves could become absurd, are unnecessarily divisive, and contrary to the egalitarian ethos of the larger community. This led to WikiChix being detached from any support or formal affiliation with Wikipedia. I conclude by arguing this break from open but focus-friendly subgroups should only be a last resort and we should better understand the circumstances that necessitate it. One should not be surprised that a source of contention in &#8220;open content communities&#8221; are situations in which a subset of community members create a closed, exclusive, space. The conditions that prompt such proposals and the rhetoric marshaled to support or attack them give insight into a community&#8217;s attempts to understand and implement both openness and equality. A common feature of online communities operating under an ethos of open and egalitarian values is frustration with the co-existence of group decision-making [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=131</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Thanasis Priftis &#8211; A chance to learn: PASOK and the free open source paradigm</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=139</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=139#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:20:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=139</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Can public organisations offer to citizens advanced and integrated services? Can they learn to adapt themselves and innovate? Can they become the vehicle of a deeper social change and participation? These are few of the questions in mind for the last 2 years that I am involved with PASOK as a member of its Internet Technologies and Services Department. For answers to these questions, as this short paper will demonstrate, we look upon the FLOSS development methodologies and procedures not only as a viable business decision but, primarily, as a platform of collaborative politics, as well as an investment model serving the public interest at large. An opportunity for change Political parties &#8211; organisations are complex systems of relationships, procedures and decisions. PASOK&#8217;s political agenda is, gradually, shifting towards a culture of sharing and collaboration. Such procedures generate a cultural &#8220;shock&#8221; for public institutions, in general. They are, nevertheless, fundamental to transparent and sustainable policies. Facilitation of collaborative politics tends to be the organisation&#8217;s new main service. A goal, that if is to be approached, demands great effort from PASOK to reintroduce itself at a new level: not deciding policies but incubating their creation. Doing politics out of the ordinary [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=139</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mark Wagstaff &#8211; Communities against inertia</title>
		<link>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=137</link>
		<comments>https://www.republic.gr/en/?p=137#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:11:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[info@re-public]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[recent articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wiki politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republic.gr/en/?p=137</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While governments have generally been slow-footed to take up the technological challenge, we are now seeing user-driven structures being used in more sophisticated ways to co-opt communities of choice to government interests, says Mark Wagstaff. As the internet is a neutral entity, such co-option is inevitable, and will doubtless provide a spur to greater resistance, to seek for a more authentic &#8220;us&#8221; against &#8220;them&#8221;. Citizens become active to achieve a presence. This status has broad meanings, allied with the synonyms grouped by Richard Sennett around recognition and respect (p. 49). The response to non-location is powerful, and has to be, to move against inertia. Indeed, popular political language speaks often of &#8216;movements&#8217; and this invocation of mobility, inherent in the term &#8216;revolution&#8217;, implicitly critiques the existing situation as somehow static, inert. The problem, of course, is that the existing situation is not inert, but often travelling with severe rapidity in directions which citizens cannot trust. It is the people&#8217;s own inertia which must be overcome, to counter acceleration with movement. Absence of recognition provokes sensations of powerlessness, made more acute by the liberal orthodoxy that dependence is a social wrong (pp. 102-3). On the one hand, liberal theorists, following Kant, [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>https://www.republic.gr/en/?feed=rss2&#038;p=137</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
