User:Ajsorota/sandbox

Wikipedia Blog


 * Wikipedia faces a major collective action problem through its structural nature — everyone benefits from the knowledge posted on it, but there is no obvious reward/incentive for volunteers who write, and the barriers are surprisingly high for publishing information (with regard to an extremely rigorous editing process)
 * The “Talk” function is particularly interesting to me. Perhaps building a community of users to share knowledge with each other produces a reason for users to consistently return, engage, and contribute to articles
 * Prior to today, I didn’t realize Wikipedia comprised the additional site features (sandbox, talk pages, etc.). In some sense, these aspects makes it resemble a social network, thereby expanding the forums for engagement and deepening the social feedback loops that keep contributors coming back
 * Furthermore, I am intrigued by the concept of “notability” and wonder why there is such an aversion to spreading information about subjects that are less widely known. Isn’t this the epitome of education? How else can Wikipedia serve as a forum for individuals to learn new information?
 * I am also wondering about how forms of racial, ethnic, and gender domination may be replicated through online platforms like Wikipedia. What kinds of people choose to contribute to Wikipedia? How "objective" can individuals truly be when presenting information? Or, how does the display of objectivity serve to reflect existing power dynamics? I can't help but think of Foucault's critique of discourse as power
 * For my Wikipedia article, I want to write about something having to do with the role of affects in democracy: How do emotions mitigate attitudes toward democracy? How can affects be leveraged to strengthen democracy, deliberative processes, and bold reforms of democratic institutions? What profound obstacles do affects pose?
 * I've been reading a lot about agonistic pluralism as an alternative to deliberative democracy, primarily through the writings of Chantal Mouffe. I think this is the topic I will focus on for the Wikipedia assignment. Currently, there is only a Wikipedia article on "agonism" writ large. Agonism, broadly constructed, holds a certain inevitability of conflict in the political. Agonistic pluralism, on the other hand, describes a distinct conception of democracy that is posited by agonists. In this sense, it is a particular extension of the agonistic framework, but they should not be reduced to one another. It seems that this article can benefit from a narrower section on agonistic pluralism
 * Mouffe considers the role of affects in her conception of agonism and radical democracy. Principally, she writes about how conflict is inevitable in the political, since humans continually yearn for collective identities through the juxtaposition of "us" versus "them." As such, she argues that deliberative democratic processes should not aspire to have a consensus through which everyone will be equally pleased. Instead, we should aim to create norms and institutions that reduce antagonism between groups, turning it into a more manageable form of "agonism." In this sense, people would be viewed as "adversaries" rather than "enemies." People often have different, oppositional interests, which may be irreconcilable. Hence, the products of deliberative processes should not be framed as the only "rational" and "objective" conclusion to the issue at hand. It merely reflects the emerging preferences that are the products of power and, to some extent, compromise
 * I have several questions about the assumptions of Mouffe's agonistic model. First, I am curious if it is ever possible to produce some kind of social identity that only exists through the positive affirmation of some quality/association. Is the existence of an out-group always required? Second, do the "irreconcilable differences" discussed by Mouffe imply that there is no objective morality? Or, can it be said that an objective reality exists in some form, but it is interpreted and prioritized in different ways, often manifesting in opposing interests? I am not sure these answers really exist in literature on agonistic pluralism, so I will probably need to look elsewhere