FirstVirtue

Rights, justice, policy and all things digital.

theatlantic:

Does Your Professor Have a Wikipedia Entry? Congrats! It Means Nothing

Does your professor have their own Wikipedia page? Well congratulations!, a new study finds. That probably doesn’t mean anything important.
The Cornell University study, submitted for review to Physics and Society late last week, found no meaningful correlation between an academic having their own entry on Wikipedia and being productive or prolific in their field. It also didn’t find a correlation between any major measure of Wikipedia success—the length of an entry, say, or the number of edits to that entry—and an academic’s prolificness.
In short, a scientist having their own Wikipedia entry means—to use a technical term—diddly squat.
Read more. [Image: Giulia Forsythe/Flickr]


Actually an OII study.

theatlantic:

Does Your Professor Have a Wikipedia Entry? Congrats! It Means Nothing

Does your professor have their own Wikipedia page? Well congratulations!, a new study finds. That probably doesn’t mean anything important.

The Cornell University study, submitted for review to Physics and Society late last week, found no meaningful correlation between an academic having their own entry on Wikipedia and being productive or prolific in their field. It also didn’t find a correlation between any major measure of Wikipedia success—the length of an entry, say, or the number of edits to that entry—and an academic’s prolificness.

In short, a scientist having their own Wikipedia entry means—to use a technical term—diddly squat.

Read more. [Image: Giulia Forsythe/Flickr]

Actually an OII study.

Reblogged from The Atlantic

While it’s certainly refreshing to see Foucault find a new popularity for a mainstream audience, all of the mainstream discussions of Foucault feature a dangerous omission that obscures the real disciplinary mechanisms of power. The Panopticon does serve as an example, and a metaphor, for the way power operates. But in the easy comparison to the NSA spying, commentators have elided the fact that the NSA spying is just another symptom of a power apparatus that we otherwise actively support. Foucault discusses in Discipline and Punish that power shifted from traditional surveillance to normalization. While surveillance does still aid this process, we are also normalized through media, education, psychiatry and culture. So while the American Conservative acknowledges that power is also “in our heads,” the segue into a lamentation of presidential overreach drastically misses the point. This power isn’t produced by executive overreach or over-ambitious bureaucrats, it’s produced by us.

Power doesn’t need the state to normalize and control. It needs docile bodies to normalize in the service of imperialism, racism and capitalism. We’ve been developing a culture of surveillance for decades in the United States. People of color have long been the subject of massive police surveillance without a massive outrage from the mainstream media. But even then, the racism that justifies this surveillance is mute in the face of of army of culturally produced vigilantes like George Zimmerman. Discipline, normalization and surveillance are far more effective in society’s hands than they are in the state’s.

But the source of our surveillance culture isn’t entirely domestic. As we fight quixotic wars to “civilize” the Middle East, we employ new methods of control and surveillance in the form of drones and intelligence gathering. When those technologies come back to haunt their benefactors, their passive consent turns into surprised outrage. And as Foucault notes, the tools of colonialism always come back home:

…that while colonization, with its techniques and its political and juridical weapons, obviously transported European models to other continents, it also had a considerable boomerang effect on the mechanisms of power in the West, and on the apparatuses, institutions, and techniques of power. A whole series of colonial models was brought back to the West, and the result was that the West could practice something resembling colonization, or an internal colonialism, on itself

American liberals would be wise to realize that the new “panopticism” they’ve discovered is the long overdue consequence of policies they’ve long supported. Obama’s executive overreach isn’t some simple instance of panopticism that must be combated, but the continuation of decades of domestic policy.

Eugene Wolters, The Mainstream Media Just Discovered Foucault and They’re All Wrong (via stoweboyd)

(via stoweboyd)

Reblogged from Stowe Boyd