I was recently reminded of the online screencast, Heavy Metal Umlaut: The Movie by Jon Udell. The subject of which is Udell’s exploration of the dynamics behind collaborative online authorship. I’ve always intended to go view the video but never got around to it. The first time that I had heard of it was back in 2006.
In 2006 I attended the Ontario Universities Computing Conference (OUCC) held at the University of Guelph. Tim Bray delivered one of the two keynote speeches that year. Bray discussed, among other things, Wikipedia. He used the Heavy Meltal Umlaut as one example of the process by which publishing and scholarship takes place. The keynote use to be available in podcast form from the 2006 OUCC site, however, someone has gone and removed all existence of it from the web – such is the nature of the Internet, I guess. So that others can listen to it, I have been able to locate the podcast in my files and have made it available for download. I suppose it actually pays to never throw out any podcast downloads.
In this podcast, Bray offers an interesting and poignant commentary on the Internet that speaks to university scholarship, Wikipedia, authority, and the act of being an authority on the web. Perhaps the most interesting subject is the dichotomy between book form referenced publishing and Wikipedia. Bray considers traditional publishing to be a process of kill, cook, and freeze while Wikipedia to be cyclic process that is never ending. Ultimately I feel this holds importance for the future of literacy. It is in this light that Bray delves into the future of books, academic journals and the peer review process.
The audio file is just over one hour in length but is a very enjoyable listen. I would caution, however, that it might encourage you to begin contributing to Wikipedia or even to start your own blog.
Download mp3.

Boing Boing alerts us to this debate between Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia’s founder and chairman of the Wikimedia Foundation) and Dale Hoiberg (senior vice president and editor in chief of Encyclopaedia Britannica). There seems to be some legitimate animus bubbling below the surface… which adds some spice to a fairly clear summary of the respective positions, and I’d say both articulate their points quite well. Thinking of Wikipedia as something of a synecdoche for open environments and loosely-structured practices, it’s a fun mental exercise to apply these arguments to a broader academic context. Play to win exciting prizes!

Earlier: Jimmy Wales to Beijing: Wikipedia won’t censor

(Cross-posted to Abject Learning)