Good Faith Collaboration (Part Two) December 30, 2011

I enjoyed learning about collaborative culture definitions from the book. Henry Jenkins defines participatory culture as one in which there are low barriers of engagement, support for creation and sharing, and some form of mentorship or socialization, and members believe that their contributions matter and they “feel some degree of social connection with one another”.

I agree with the author that openness and incrementalism may not be enough to create good quality content. “Wikipedia must reconcile their vision with the inescapable social reality of irritating personalities, philosophical difference and external threats”. He notes that “goodwill is not always necessary to Wikipedia’s production”.

Clay Shirky said: “Wikipedia is the product not of collectivism but of unending argumentation; the corpus grows not from harmonious thought but from constant scrutiny and emendation”.

Einbinder writes in the introduction to his critique, “since encyclopedia is a mirror of contemporary learning, it offers a valuable opportunity to examine prevailing attitudes and beliefs in a variety of fields.” Indeed, problems both in community’s culture and its content are a representation of our society.

“Thomas Mann, a librarian, argues we would be better … (know of) the pathologies that infect social organisms (ex. short-sightedness, selfishness, and ignorance are constant factors in human life), rather than celebrating the unproven presumption that technology can cure all. Wikipedia is said to favor mediocrity over expertise”.

It goes even further with this caricature: “fanatical mob producing Wikipedia exhibits little wisdom and is more like a Maoist cult of monkeys banging away on the keyboards and thumb pads of their gadgets, disturbing the noble repose of scholars and displacing high-quality content from the market place”.

I would say that any criticism should be constructive. I have no doubt that technology is capable of curing a lot of social problems; it just needs to be redesigned so that people cultivate their best qualities while using it.

Ideally, contributors should become more tolerant and compassionate in the process of collaboration. Today Wikipedia volunteers are restricted to behave with civility, but do they truly feel compassion to those with opposing views? Surely, they have a sense of purpose and connection to others, but at times Wikipedia becomes a vanity project for those proving their personal significance at the expense of others.

Georg von Krogh, in his article on “Care in knowledge creation”, identifies five dimensions relevant to the successful creation of knowledge within a community: mutual trust, active empathy, access to help, lenience in judgment, and courage. Benkler and Nissenbaum argue that “commons-based peer-production” entails virtues that are both self-regarding” (ex. autonomy, independence, creativity) and ”other-regarding” (ex. generosity, altruism, camaraderie, cooperation, and civic virtue).

The author says that “the central concern seems to be how we can conceive of our humanity in working together and its implications”. His definition of good faith is “assuming the best of others, striving for patience, civility, and humor”, and Wikipedia is trying to act with it.

From 2004 Letter from the Founder: “None of us is perfect in these matters; such is the human condition. But each of us can try every day, in our editing, in our mailing posts, in our irc chats, and in our private emails, to reach for a higher standard than the Internet usually encourages, a standard of rational benevolence and love”.

Personally, I think that Wikipedia is a great invention and a great resource, but it is just the beginning of an even better model of gathering knowledge and resolving misunderstandings and conflicts. Let’s call it 1.0 version where people work together towards one great goal. It is a good start. Next version would align personal goals of the members with community’s goals, and help them rediscover and develop themselves in the process of compassionate creation.

Re-posted from The Ultimate Answer

Problem and Suffering Meaning November 24, 2011

By now you must be really confused by all possible approaches to problems and suffering. There are indeed mixed ideas about how to view them, never mind how to solve them.

From one point of view, there are no problems, and hence, there is no suffering (as we create it in our own mind when reality is different from what we expect). From another point of view, problems like suffering are unavoidable and they go hand in hand with life. Hmm… If I had to, I would pick without hesitation the former one… There are of course different versions of the latter one, as to when you do find yourself with problems and suffering, what do you do then?

1. Build resilience by overcoming them
2. Don’t think about problems, but positive things
3. Take on more problems, bigger problems
4. Don’t get into suffering mode, just find a solution

I’m sure there are other approaches, that just escape me now…

I was so confused by trying to reconcile different perspectives on problems that I even searched on Google issue/problem diagram, chart, decision tree, etc… None were found.

How is it possible that some people say that there is no suffering. And others say that suffering will always be around unless we totally get rid of all desire. Complete controversy…

So what I decided to do is to develop a universal process flow with several approaches to Problem and Suffering Meaning that people can use as a decision tree for mind reaction, action, suffering, solution, internal peace and meaning.

It all starts when 1) something happens in reality and we decide whether we 2) accept it=no problem or  3) we don’t accept it=problem. The second decision is about how to react to the event. In case of a problem, we feel negatively but can choose to react differently:

4) Self-control and restrain ourselves from acting negatively, but 7) observe/look for solution.

5) Denial – when we (8) avoid the problem and pretend all is Ok; we try to suppress negative feelings, also could be called indecisive or passive approach.

6) Out of control or overreaction – when we act upon our negative feelings and 9) damage/hurt ourselves or others.

After we looked for solution there could be two results: 10) solution identified or 11) solution not identified (maybe there is no solution). When we ignore, there is no result in reality, but we are not true to ourselves as we pretend all is Ok, when it is not. In reality we can’t run from it forever, we will still have to face it at some point. And lastly, when we damage/hurt, there are two results in reality: 12) cost unpaid or 13) cost paid.

Cost means consequences of our action, ex. if you committed crime you’ll have to pay for it like going to jail, or if you broke something you will have to compensate for material damage, or if you hurt yourself by drinking heavily or doing drugs, the cost will be your deteriorated health or else. It is important to separate cost which is physical from mental suffering, which could be found in all three paths if chosen.

Please, remember that suffering could be of different degrees from smallest to highest: 14) resentment to self or others, pity to self or others or hatred to self or others. The point is that paid cost is enough, but thinking about what happened again and again is suffering. It is important to recognize that anyone can skip mental suffering and move into internal peace which will happen only if you 15) solve problem or 16) let go/forgive.

Now the most important column of this process flow is the meaning of problem/suffering. Even if you solved your problem and let go/forgive, you still may wonder what was the purpose of you going through it(ex. years in prison, drug addition, depression, abusive environment, etc.)? There could be three explanations:

17) Share/help other people deal with the same problem. As Dalai Lama said, compassion and suffering are closely linked, we will not understand compassion without suffering. We would not relate deeply to other people without understanding what suffering is and that it is universal.

18) Focus on solving other matters. If you are not finding a solution or can’t really do anything about your problem, switch your focus… If you can’t change it, why be unhappy? if there is no cure, what is the point of suffering? Choose to solve another problem, more problems… Direct your energy and apply yourself where you can make a difference.

19) Learn how to recognize/solve problems. You gain learning experience and resilience. Next time it happens to you or someone else you will know how not to react and what to do instead, because you went through this experience already.

Wisdom is when you learn to recognize the problem and not act upon it negatively or avoid it but wisely observe or look for solution (by learning from others or doing research). Meditation is useful in overcoming negative emotions. The opposite of wisdom is ignorance, when we react and act without being mindful. Suffering is mostly self-imposed and should be cured with positive thoughts, affirmations and mediation, etc.

Finally you will find your personal significance in the column Meaning. The meaning of you going through all your life’s problems and suffering is sharing your experience or helping others to deal with the same problem (compassion), resilience/learning and making a difference where you can.

So now think about all memorable problems and struggles you had in your life. Make a list of them. Ponder which of the three possible paths did you take? Respect your experience. What did you learn from your problems/suffering? Can you convert them into the meaning of your life/personal significance? What is it or what will it be?

Most importantly, ONLY YOU can decide which problem resolution path you want to take and when to change it in order to get to internal peace.

Re-posted from TheUltimateAnswer.org

One hell of a dream September 12, 2011

Fall 2000-Spring 2001 I was in NYC, struggling to adjust to new culture and find ways to go to grad school. In the summer of 2001 I made a friend, who got killed two months later in a car accident. When I learned about her death, I was in California, on a spontaneous trip from San Fran to Los Angeles. Running out of money, I couldn’t continue my trip even further, so I remember getting to the Los Angeles Airport and buying a $100 ticket in cash to New York, where I still had some of my stuff. It was the 10^th of September 2001.

What is really strange, I remember being on the plane and having the feeling of detachment and emptiness. I wasn’t afraid of anything happening on the flight, as I had nothing to lose, I thought. In a way I didn’t see any meaning in my life. I was just passing by.

When I arrived in New York, I went straight to my friend’s place, who lived in Brooklyn. In the morning of Sept 11, I was still sleeping when the land line phone rang. I didn’t want to pick it up but to continue sleeping. The answering machine was on and I heard my friend saying: “Marina, wake up, wake up, the war has started”. I immediately picked up the phone and still not completely awake tried to understand what she was saying. She told me about the first tower going down. And then I turned TV on and learned the whole story: the terrorist attack on America. My friend’s apartment was in the basement of a small house, the owners, an Orthodox Jewish family, lived upstairs. According to their religion they didn’t watch TV, but on that day, the couple came to watch TV too. We all wanted to know what will happen to the country, to us, to the whole world. We felt horror, grief, shock and fear. We felt compassion for all. As I stepped outside the house, in the middle of the day there were no sun, only grey clouds covering the sky and pieces of ash falling down on us. It did look like the end of the world.

I was scared and wanted to escape, to go back to Massachusetts, but couldn’t do it for several days as all public transportation was shut down between cities .When I finally made it back to the Vineyard, I met up with a friend of mine who knew Lena, the one who died in the car accident. That friend said that we should not worry about Lena, as she definitely went to heaven, not hell. Still horrified by the latest events, I was thinking too much about Lena, the victims of 9/11 and myself… How unfair their deaths are. Who decides who will die or who will live? Are we worth living?.. And right after our conversation I had a dream:

I’m in the office, there are people around me, who are working. I’m doing something as well, probably, work too. Suddenly, as if out of nowhere, a man dressed as a government official comes to me and says: “Your time is up, you have to go.” Taken by surprise I couldn’t help but ask in return: “Already? And who decided? Where, to hell?” He doesn’t answer, which I interpret as “not heaven”. I try again by asking: “Is it final?” He quietly says: “Yes”. All I could say is “I don’t agree, I demand to see a decision maker”. He, definitely surprised by this turn in our conversation, pauses but then gives me a sign to follow him. I enter some private office, the messenger man leaves and the door closes behind him. And in there I see another man, more established, in gray suit, sitting at the desk. He doesn’t speak, because he knows that I asked for this audience and I’m the one who will be speaking.

I don’t even remember how but I sat in a chair in front of the table and full of emotions I started my emotional speech.”Why do you think that it is my turn that came? Is it because I didn’t do any good deeds in this lifetime? Because I only wasted my time given to me? If I haven’t done anything so far, that doesn’t mean that I will not do anything in the future. You are supposed to give everyone a chance. There are circumstances and a person may experience difficulties, but that doesn’t mean that she is not capable of anything good. I know that I have a lot ahead of me. And may I ask what kind of right do you have to deprive me of my life, when my parents are alive? My mother told me that she will not be able to survive the death of her children. Did you think about consequences of your decision?  That by ending my life you will end the life of my mother?”

All that time the man in gray suit, who was the boss of that department or the chief of death, and on whose decision depended whether I’ll live or die, didn’t look at me even once. He was busy writing something in his notebook. I couldn’t see what he was doing exactly or what his was writing. Maybe he was taking notes about my life, or was studying my life case. I was scared as I thought he was calculating and weighing what I’ve done more in my life – good or bad. In every moment he could stop me and say “Enough, your case is closed, not sufficient evidence to let you live…”

And suddenly, I saw him put his notebook on the desk and I peeked in it. In front of me in this whole grayish setting I saw on the paper a big red heart that the man drew while I talked. And in that moment I realized that I’m allowed to live more but under condition that I create more good things in my lifetime. And I woke up.

Reposted from http://www.theultimateanswer.org/blog/2011/09/11/ten-years-ago-my-dream/