The Mitr

What Wikipedia is not… then what it is?

Although anyone can be an editor, there are community processes and standards that make Wikipedia neither an anarchy, democracy, nor bureaucracy.

via What Wikipedia is Not

Disclaimer: Let me make some things clear, I am not against Wikipedia, or its policies. I am (great) admirer and (very heavy) user, and (very little) contributor to the wonderful platform, which aims to provide free knowledge to everyone. In this post I am just trying to collect thoughts that I have about the Wikipedia’s social system and its relation to the society at large.
Then what is wikipedia? Is it a feudal system, which they do not mention in the list above? Although there are people who are called bureaucrats, they say it is not a bureaucracy, I think they mean it in the traditional sense of the wor(l)d (pun intended).
But for a new person, who is trying to edit the first article, there is too much of bureaucracy (read rules), involved, and it may not be a pleasant experience at all, especially for the so called technologically-challenged people. To describe in one word it is intimidating. The trouble is only there till, actually you become used to it, and become part of the system. This is more like the adaptation to smell, after a while in a stinking place, you don’t feel the stink anymore (just an analogy, I do not mean that Wikipedia stinks!). The rules become a part of your editing skills, which you do want to see in other editors. But how many people are able to get over this first major hurdle is not known to me, but I guess (which can be completely wrong) this number can be significant. This will in general reduce the number of producers and just tend to increase the number of consumers in the commercial sense of the word.
Another thing that the above quote says it is not a democracy. Again here I think, Wikipedia is not a democracy in the sense of common usage of the term. In a democracy, by definition the popular aspirations get through, and they may not be even the best for a society, as we many times see in the Indian context. But then it mostly the people who are editing the Wikipedia who decide by consensus that certain thing should be done. Is it not like majority win? So there is in fact a strong democratic element in Wikipedia.
Do we also want a society that is same as above “neither an anarchy, democracy, nor bureaucracy”? What kind of society would you like to live in?
 

The Mitr

We are stardust…

The amazing thing is that every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements – the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution – weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way they could get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today.

via Lawrence M. Krauss – Wikiquote.

The Mitr

Cram, don’t think

The message from 15 years of education in my country – first at a top-notch school and then at one of the best known colleges in India – was:

Facts are more important than thought and imagination; that it’s more important to know the answers than think critically; that exams are more important than knowledge itself. Some may say that in college the majority of us chose the convenient way out and they are right.Our system of education, even at the undergraduate level, does not encourage us – in fact, gives us every opportunity not to think independently, critically, creatively or analytically.

via The Hindu

The Mitr

Love or Lust?

My predecessors believed only good people fall in love and bad people have sex. This was the simple thing — falling in love is the aspiration that should be endorsed and having sex is something that should be outlawed. The garden needs to be weeded off this thing called lust.

Mahesh Bhatt via Tehelka.
Which category do you fall in?

The Mitr

On Days, coming, bygones and persistent

The marking of a day named after a particular section of the population or a particular political cause or even a slogan could be seen as a secular festival and was used to remember and rally supporters, amplify and spread the central message of the movement.
What is interesting is that most of these post-1945 days originated from within state institutions or global institutions, whose massive bureau­cracies were deployed to popularise them.
However, over the past few decades these days have been captured, almost wholesale, by corporate interests which shamelessly use them to market their goods and launch public relations exercises. This takeover by the private sector has paralleled the retreat of the State and the spread of neo-liberalism as the hegemonic ruling ideology of our times.
Thus, the various days to mark different diseases provide excellent opportunities for corporate hospitals and health insurers to frighten people and access their services. Women’s Day is similarly used to make women “feel good” by making them purchase cosmetics.
The recent World Environment Day (5 June) is a case in point. If it were not for the advertisements which were splashed all over the newspapers or the various “events” organised by different companies and showrooms, one would never have remembered that 5 June was World Environment Day.
The political power of the private sector is the foundation on which the negotiations over ­climate change have become so intractable.
Events like World Environment Day (and the earlier Earth Day and Earth Hour) have now become opportunities for these pursuers of private profit to greenwash themselves and hide their politics.
We perhaps need to abandon all these ­special “Days” and find newer, better tools for building solidarities, raising public awareness and celebrating our politics.
via Greenwash Day.