Wikipedia talk:Education program archive/University of California, Berkeley/Politics of Digital Piracy (Spring 2013)/Week 10 assignment

Reading Responses
Group A, please post a response to the Pursuit of the Universal Encyclopedia reading. While responding, please consider the following questions:
 * Technology is obviously central to Wale's concept of a Universal encyclopedia that allows the democratization of information. What are some of the pros and cons of this democratization in terms of accessing (and knowledge of how to use) such technologies?  Should the Internet be a right?  Is it democratizing information if all of these internet-based sources are not available to everyone?

The pros to democratizing information are the same as those of democratizing education- it helps build citizens of the world more capable of understanding their own social, political, and economic environments and how they are similar to/ differ from those of others in unique, interesting, and often problematic ways. Until everyone has access to the Internet, there will not be a true democratization of information. Aside from the obvious economic hurdles, there are also linguistic and political barriers to making the Internet a basic human right. For now, I think it’s best we focus on providing food, water, and shelter to underprivileged countries. However, I do think universal Internet access is an honorable Utopian vision (Editingcontent2 (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)).

The entire idea of a Universal Encylopedia is hinged on the assumption that people are literate. While the concept of spreading knowledge to the "third world" is indeed noble, it isn't practical. The ability to access information is certainly a problem, but it is not the root problem of democratizing information access. The notion of a universal encyclopedia being the solution to equal access to information is hindered by large illiterate popultions. These populations do not know how how to read, how to use technology, and have no access to the underlying technology that allows us to use Wikipedia. If people can't read the information we are making available, I wouldn't say it is "democratizing" at all. However, I do agree that the internet should be a right. Making a Universal Encyclopedia is a step in the right direction. The awareness that a Universal Encyclopedia creates is phenomenal. It emphasizes the importance and having an education, of having free access to information and creating environments that facilitate learning across the world. Perhaps with such awareness, there might be actions that increase fundamental primary education and technology access in less developed nations - actions that address the root problem. After these conditions have been established, Wale's concept of a Universal encyclopedia can then facilitate the democratization of information. Bearcat223 (talk) 06:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

While the concept of a Universal Encyclopedia and universal education seem like obvious benefits to mankind on the surface, the reality of creating an educated world that has reliable access to Internet is an unrealistic feat that will likely not be accomplished for many years to come. I find the idea "the Internet is a right" a little misguided, since many countries may not even have adequate infrastructure (government-wise, socially, or economically) to benefit from the Internet at this point in time. While it offers the ability to access information, the Internet is not a magical solve-all tool; an unstable infrastructure can undermine its benefits and much more will be required to overcome the current social and economic disparities across the world. I do think, however, that the ability to access information is an invaluable asset - education is extremely powerful, and it can be helpful for anyone, anywhere. I believe that if a tool like the Internet is to be valuable in sharing information globally, the solutions will need to be unique to each country and come from the people themselves. The way we use the Internet and the type of information we access and find useful may be much different from people in a country on the other side of the world. Overall, I believe access to information and education are the most valuable tools, and whether that takes the form of Wikipedia/the Internet or something else may vary across the globe. Kaylaholderbein (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The idea of a universal encyclopedia is something definitely worth attaining. Having a complete resource of all of human knowledge available to you would only be an advantage to those that can access it. And therein lies the problem. Right now, for better or worse the closest thing we have to an accessible universal compendium is Wikipedia. Or rather, English Wikipedia and its 4 million articles. That's only if you happen to have an internet connection, live in a region that isn't being run by a secretive dictatorship, and provided that you're literate enough to actually read and comprehend the information. So right now, the universal encyclopedia is a pipe dream. I say right now because it is still possible to create and effectively distribute one, but to do so requires changes to the way our world works right now. First and foremost would be granting an internet connection to every one on the planet, essentially making internet access a human right. Then comes the issue of censorship. China still has the search for Tiananmen Square show less than truthful results when typed into google.cn, the top results being general information about the square and a little mention of some “protests” halfway through the first page. That's just one of the many examples of manipulation and censorship that regimes around the world employ. Wikipedia may be universal and free from the influence of any government, but that matters little when that government can simply divert any of its nation's traffic away from the site. So while the idea of the universal encyclopedia is noble and worthwhile, we are far from achieving a true democratization of information. That does not mean it's unattainable, only that there is much more work left to be done. Jimmyslope (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The pros of democratization in terms of accessing such technologies would be that there is more increased information, it is has increased in it's accessibility, it's free, helps the public to learn, and to redistribute new information. Overall, this idea of having a universal encyclopedia is something worthwhile in the long run as it helps individuals grow intellectually and share knowledge in more ways than the traditional ways. However, it also has it's faults. Since, the universal encyclopedia is based on the technology such as internet, it is failing to fulfill the goal of having a target audience of "every single person on the planet" since internet is not available to everyone. Furthermore, even if such technology is available, not everyone is literate enough to use such technologies. However, like Wikipedia has articles available in other languages is bringing the public one step closer in wanting to participate in becoming more knowledgeable as the information is more accessible internationally. I do think internet should be a right, however, I understand that some places hardly have other resources such as food and shelter. Those other resources are more valuable to their needs and internet would be more of a privilege. Therefore, even though technology is not available to everyone, I still think it is democratizing information; it all depends on the needs of a specific area. At least, it has become more democratizing than the past. Pringles012 (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"Is it democratizing information if all of these internet-based sources are not available to everyone?"--Democratization is an on-going process, as I view it, it can never end. Faced with the problem that there are cultures that cannot access online sources because they have more immediate needs (food, shelter, water), we should realize that there may never be a point when all individuals not only have access to online information but have the tools necessary to add their own input. Thus democratization shouldn't be seen as an end result, democratization is a process, of which websites like wikipedia endeavor toward. The opposite could be true, that democratization of information is only true when all have access, but then we must acknowledge that we may never reach that point, and ultimately democratization is not something that can be realized. For these reasons, I think it's more helpful and positive to view democratization as the former, a process--not an end. Melconser (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

In terms of the access limiting democratization, there has always existed a barrier to the democratization of information which has changed shape over the years. A strong earlier version, and one which affects the current issue as well, is literacy. In past societies there often existed a gap in literacy between the classes which made many unable to access knowledge and participate in academia or government. In current societies the barrier includes technology as well. With the spread of technology and a strong focus on teaching, many more people have been brought into the realm of access. I feel there will always be a portion of people which are unable to access information, but it is only a matter of time until they can. Just as you see more and more structured education systems and schools popping up in Africa, there are more and more internet connections. With the advent of satellite internet, you do not even need much of an infrastructure to access it. It instead becomes a matter of economics and time. As technology becomes more proliferated and inexpensive it will become more easily accessible. There has always been a barrier to information, but the rate of access is increasing.50.0.115.226 (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Woops, wasn't logged in. :MarkDavidoff UCB (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC) The Wikipedia model has set the standard for the technological future we have moved into, and are continuing to build. The concept of open-source information exchange and peer-reviewed contributions have paved the way for the future. One of the biggest limiting factors at this point in time is that although the technology is there, the infrastructure is not yet developed in many nations abroad. Based on this fact, one cannot make the argument that this diffusion of open information is not beneficial and democratizing for our global society. Although the infrastructure is still slowly being introduced, the knowledge and technologies continue to remain in place and expand their influence on a perpetual basis. Absolutely there still exists inequality when it comes to the access of computers and the Internet in general around the world, but by continuing to develop the positive utility of their powers when used appropriately while that world-wide infrastructure is put into place, we as a global population will accomplish great progress in the universal documentation of human knowledge! IanElli (talk)

Additional Readings

 * Here is a good article on the pros and cons of UC Berkeley's IT outsourcing strategy in switching to the use of Google's 'B- Mail'.


 * Here is an article on the gender gap amongst Wikipedia editors that I would like to touch on in class.


 * Here is an article on the recent news of the Wikimedia Foundation executive director Sue Gardener's recent news of stepping down.

Current Events
Group B, please post your current events below. Again, make sure nobody above you has posted an article on the same topic. And I encourage you all to look up the current happenings with SOPA, so we can discuss what is going on with that.

http://mashable.com/2013/03/05/us-must-protect-internet-freedom/ Chadyy (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Chadyy

http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/03/31/hbo-thrones-piracy/ Cp123127 (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57577501/game-of-thrones-breaks-bittorrent-piracy-record/ Radeonhead (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Benjamin Porter

This is actually a series of articles, but this entire saga has been fascinating: http://arstechnica.com/series/whos-behind-prenda-law/ ; the latest is here: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/prenda-porn-trolls-clam-up-as-their-plans-crumble-in-an-la-courtroom/ Adrianvallence (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

http://torrentfreak.com/bitfetch-debuts-bitcoin-powered-anonymous-bittorrent-downloads-130330/ Pphan1991 (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.ibtimes.com/april-fools-day-pirate-bay-becomes-freedom-bay-torrent-site-says-it-moved-its-servers-americaTigstep (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)tigstep

Wikipedia Projects
I've been looking through the status of many of your Wikipedia projects, and have given most of you feedback on your Wikipedia projects. The midterm grades will be entered this week, so just know that if you haven't started or haven't made much progress you won't get this points, but will be able to make up for it with an awesome final Wiki page/contributions.