Dear all esp David Berry,
I can understand where J Wales is coming from. The idea is, presumably, that
instead of engaging in political activity one quietly moves the goalposts
within which that debate would take place.
I don't agree with him, however.
What is, instead, required is that political debate be seen as legitimate,
not a rant. That can only happen by people actually engaging in that debate,
not brushing it under the carpet.
For the record, I've just submitted a thesis on what would broadly be
considered 'free culture'. (For a masters degree in librarianship). I've
been lurking here to get some ideas (nothing quotable, unfortunately - also
saved me working out how one references an internet forum).
I started off trying to do precisely what J Wales recommends - build the
system and only do the politics once the system has established sufficient
grounds for the argument to be won. I ended up having to change the whole
damn thing because it just doesn't work. The reason is that the technology,
hardware and software, is just a means to an end. For example, if you
establish a free eprints server system for academic output (my original
concern) you actually strengthen, not weaken, the argument for copyright
elsewhere, because the system has been established as an *exception* and
therefore *recognises* the right to copyright elsewhere.
It is only useful to us ("us" being those who want free circulation of
culture - I'm assuming that I can get a sizeable audience for that here) in
that copyright as a means to prevent free flow of culture is explicitly
rejected. and the smaller system seen merely as the prototype for a larger -
this means that, instead of merely installing the system, it goes along with
a whole political argument for widening our remit and pushing back copyright
restrictions.
A good example of the dual nature of technology is that our same level of
technology leads on the one hand to virtual reality - technology as a tool
allowing a new way of communicating and creating - and electronic
surveillance - technology that intervenes between us and alienates us. To
move from a surveillance society to a society that uses its technology for
liberation is not a technological matter, it is a political matter.
But then, I'm probably a Marxist.
Simon Wigley
From: David Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: UK FreeCulture Discuss List <fc-uk-discuss@lists.okfn.org>
Subject: [fc-uk-discuss] Core values and conspiracy...
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 16:19:27 +0100
Have you read this one?
Very interesting... wouldn't it be better to have submissions to a working
group -- rather than tittle-tattle and conspiracy theory (yes, I know
that conspiracy is what the web looks like it was originally designed for)
;-)
jwales commenting on the earlier discussion here... 20:43
jwales [14:25] <buridan1>i think there is going to be an attempt to
politicize it though 20:43
jwales [14:25] <rejon>yeah, that is what drive wikipedia, open source
projects, etc 20:43
jwales [14:25] <buridan1>or perhaps the word is 'radicalize' 20:43
jwales [14:25] <rejon>yes 20:43
jwales [14:25] <buridan1>and that was what i was arguing against yesterday
20:43
jwales I agree with all of that.20:43
jwales I mean, I am glad buridan1 was arguing against radicalization of
that kind.20:44
jwales We are going to be radical no matter what. Even if we resist it,
and try to keep out of radical politics as much as possible, our very
existence and project, the free culture project broadly considered, is
very radical.
...
jwales I am just saying that if someone wants to turn the icommons.org
site into a marxist rant (or an anti-marxist rant) or whatever, we should
resist that and stick to our simple core mission
The simple core mission being that simple core mission that no-one wants
defined....
The question is how can anyone seriously, I mean, SERIOUSLY, believe that
a position they take is *not* political. Unless Jimmy Wales is a robot,
but then that would mean that his programmer would have to have also been
a robot... who would have had to have been a robot without values
programmed by a robot... REGRESS..... programmed by a toaster or something
that definitely doesn't have values.. well I suppose a toaster might have
values about bread or crumpets.. but I think we can avoid those key bread
product values in the iCommons working group... ;-)
http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/irc/%23icommons/%23icommons.
2006-07-14.log.html
_______________________________________________
fc-uk-discuss mailing list
fc-uk-discuss@lists.okfn.org
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/fc-uk-discuss
_______________________________________________
fc-uk-discuss mailing list
fc-uk-discuss@lists.okfn.org
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/fc-uk-discuss
