Russia Clones Wikipedia, Censors It, Bans Original

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Jules Roscoe: “Russia has replaced Wikipedia with a state-sponsored encyclopedia that is a clone of the original Russian Wikipedia but which conveniently has been edited to omit things that could cast the Russian government in poor light. Real Russian Wikipedia editors used to refer to the real Wikipedia as Ruwiki; the new one is called Ruviki, has “ruwiki” in its url, and has copied all Russian-language Wikipedia articles and strictly edited them to comply with Russian laws. 

The new articles exclude mentions of “foreign agents,” the Russian government’s designation for any person or entity which expresses opinions about the government and is supported, financially or otherwise, by an outside nation. Prominent “foreign agents” have included a foundation created by Alexei Navalny, a famed Russian opposition leader who died in prison in February, and Memorial, an organization dedicated to preserving the memory of Soviet terror victims, which was liquidated in 2022. The news was first reported by Novaya Gazeta, an independent Russian news outlet that relocated to Latvia after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. It was also picked up by Signpost, a publication that follows Wikimedia goings-on.

Both Ruviki articles about these agents include disclaimers about their status as foreign agents. Navalny’s article states he is a “video blogger” known for “involvement in extremist activity or terrorism.” It is worth mentioning that his wife, Yulia Navalnaya, firmly believes he was killed. …(More)”.

First post: A history of online public messaging

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Jeremy Reimer: From BBS to Facebook, here’s how messaging platforms have changed over the years…

People have been leaving public messages since the first artists painted hunting scenes on cave walls. But it was the invention of electricity that forever changed the way we talked to each other. In 1844, the first message was sent via telegraph. Samuel Morse, who created the binary Morse Code decades before electronic computers were even possible, tapped out, “What hath God wrought?” It was a prophetic first post.

World War II accelerated the invention of digital computers, but they were primarily single-use machines, designed to calculate artillery firing tables or solve scientific problems. As computers got more powerful, the idea of time-sharing became attractive. Computers were expensive, and they spent most of their time idle, waiting for a user to enter keystrokes at a terminal. Time-sharing allowed many people to interact with a single computer at the same time…(More)”.

Debugging Tech Journalism

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Timothy B. Lee: “A huge proportion of tech journalism is characterized by scandals, sensationalism, and shoddy research. Can we fix it?

In November, a few days after Sam Altman was fired — and then rehired — as CEO of OpenAI, Reuters reported on a letter that may have played a role in Altman’s ouster. Several staffers reportedly wrote to the board of directors warning about “a powerful artificial intelligence discovery that they said could threaten humanity.”

The discovery: an AI system called Q* that can solve grade-school math problems.

“Researchers consider math to be a frontier of generative AI development,” the Reuters journalists wrote. Large language models are “good at writing and language translation,” but “conquering the ability to do math — where there is only one right answer — implies AI would have greater reasoning capabilities resembling human intelligence.”

This was a bit of a head-scratcher. Computers have been able to perform arithmetic at superhuman levels for decades. The Q* project was reportedly focused on word problems, which have historically been harder than arithmetic for computers to solve. Still, it’s not obvious that solving them would unlock human-level intelligence.

The Reuters article left readers with a vague impression that Q could be a huge breakthrough in AI — one that might even “threaten humanity.” But it didn’t provide readers with the context to understand what Q actually was — or to evaluate whether feverish speculation about it was justified.

For example, the Reuters article didn’t mention research OpenAI published last May describing a technique for solving math problems by breaking them down into small steps. In a December article, I dug into this and other recent research to help to illuminate what OpenAI is likely working on: a framework that would enable AI systems to search through a large space of possible solutions to a problem…(More)”.

Being Human in Digital Cities

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Myria Georgiou: “…sets out to investigate the new configuration of social order that is taking shape in today’s cities. Although routed through extractive datafication, compulsive connectivity, and regulatory AI technologies, this digital order nonetheless displaces technocentrism and instead promotes new visions of humanism, all in the name of freedom, diversity, and sustainability. But the digital order emerges in the midst of neoliberal instability and crises, resulting in a plurality of contrasting responses to securing digitally mediated human progress. While corporate, media, and state actors mobilize such positive sociotechnical imaginaries to promise digitally mediated human progress, urban citizens and social movements propose alternative pathways to autonomy and dignity through and sometimes against digital technologies.

Investigating the dynamic workings of technology and power from a transnational and comparative perspective, this book reveals the contradictory claims and struggles for the future of digital cities and their humanity. In doing so, it will enrich understandings of digital urbanism, critical data studies, and critical humanist studies.​..(More)”.

CDOs in the Public Sector

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Christian Schachtner: “This book explores the need for innovative approaches to administrative digitization, leveraging technologies such as AI, blockchain, and smart processes to meet citizens’ expectations, with a particular focus on the role of Chief Digital Officers (CDOs) in driving successful digital transformations within public institutions. 

Administrative digitization requires fresh inputs to match the leaps seen in the industry sector, utilizing technologies like AI-driven automation, blockchain transactions, and security tools. Smart process solutions are seen as transformative in upholding service standards aligned with citizens’ state expectations. Unlike commercial companies, collaboration offers those overseeing public sector digitization enhanced scaling opportunities by drawing from experiences in other regions and metropolises, directly applicable and reusable.

In the public realm, digital strategies mirror legal and social conditions, necessitating adjustments and adaptation options for Chief Digital Officers as they lead digital transformation. Methodological focal points in task structure redesign, process optimization, and motivating actors yield diverse action areas for the CDO’s new role in public institutions. This book explores the instruments, strategies, and attitudes necessary to successfully implement transformative initiatives in organizations, emphasizing proven concepts with practical applicability, enabling readers to derive their own interaction options as digital guidance leaders. The book is a concise introduction to the specific requirements for visionary designers driving dynamic changes in user-centric public services….(More)”.

What can improve democracy?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by the Pew Research Center: “…surveys have long found that people in many countries are dissatisfied with their democracy and want major changes to their political systems – and this year is no exception. But high and growing rates of discontent certainly raise the question: What do people think could fix things?

A graphic showing that People in most countries surveyed suggest changes to politicians will improve democracy

We set out to answer this by asking more than 30,000 respondents in 24 countries an open-ended question: “What do you think would help improve the way democracy in your country is working?” While the second- and third-most mentioned priorities vary greatly, across most countries surveyed, there is one clear top answer: Democracy can be improved with better or different politicians.

People want politicians who are more responsive to their needs and who are more competent and honest, among other factors. People also focus on questions of descriptive representation – the importance of having politicians with certain characteristics such as a specific race, religion or gender.

Respondents also think citizens can improve their own democracy. Across most of the 24 countries surveyed, issues of public participation and of different behavior from the people themselves are a top-five priority.

Other topics that come up regularly include:

  • Economic reform, especially reforms that will enhance job creation.
  • Government reform, including implementing term limits, adjusting the balance of power between institutions and other factors.

We explore these topics and the others we coded in the following chapters:

  • Politicians, changing leadership and political parties (Chapter 1)
  • Government reform, special interests and the media (Chapter 2)
  • Economic and policy changes (Chapter 3)
  • Citizen behavior and individual rights and equality (Chapter 4)
  • Electoral reform and direct democracy (Chapter 5)
  • Rule of law, safety and the judicial system (Chapter 6)…(More)”.

We Need To Rewild The Internet

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Maria Farrell and Robin Berjon: “In the late 18th century, officials in Prussia and Saxony began to rearrange their complex, diverse forests into straight rows of single-species trees. Forests had been sources of food, grazing, shelter, medicine, bedding and more for the people who lived in and around them, but to the early modern state, they were simply a source of timber.

So-called “scientific forestry” was that century’s growth hacking. It made timber yields easier to count, predict and harvest, and meant owners no longer relied on skilled local foresters to manage forests. They were replaced with lower-skilled laborers following basic algorithmic instructions to keep the monocrop tidy, the understory bare.

Information and decision-making power now flowed straight to the top. Decades later when the first crop was felled, vast fortunes were made, tree by standardized tree. The clear-felled forests were replanted, with hopes of extending the boom. Readers of the American political anthropologist of anarchy and order, James C. Scott, know what happened next.

It was a disaster so bad that a new word, Waldsterben, or “forest death,” was minted to describe the result. All the same species and age, the trees were flattened in storms, ravaged by insects and disease — even the survivors were spindly and weak. Forests were now so tidy and bare, they were all but dead. The first magnificent bounty had not been the beginning of endless riches, but a one-off harvesting of millennia of soil wealth built up by biodiversity and symbiosis. Complexity was the goose that laid golden eggs, and she had been slaughtered…(More)”.

On the Manipulation of Information by Governments

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Ariel Karlinsky and Moses Shayo: “Governmental information manipulation has been hard to measure and study systematically. We hand-collect data from official and unofficial sources in 134 countries to estimate misreporting of Covid mortality during 2020-21. We find that between 45%–55% of governments misreported the number of deaths. The lion’s share of misreporting cannot be attributed to a country’s capacity to accurately diagnose and report deaths. Contrary to some theoretical expectations, there is little evidence of governments exaggerating the severity of the pandemic. Misreporting is higher where governments face few social and institutional constraints, in countries holding elections, and in countries with a communist legacy…(More)”

Technological Progress and Rent Seeking

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Vincent Glode & Guillermo Ordoñez: “We model firms’ allocation of resources across surplus-creating (i.e., productive) and surplus-appropriating (i.e., rent-seeking) activities. Our model predicts that industry-wide technological advancements, such as recent progress in data collection and processing, induce a disproportionate and socially inefficient reallocation of resources toward surplus-appropriating activities. As technology improves, firms rely more on appropriation to obtain their profits, endogenously reducing the impact of technological progress on economic progress and inflating the price of the resources used for both types of activities. We apply our theoretical insights to shed light on the rise of high-frequency trading…(More)”,

Democracy and Artificial Intelligence: old problems, new solutions?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Discussion between Nardine Alnemr and Rob Weymouth: “…I see three big perspectives relevant to AI and democracy. You have the most conservative, mirroring the 80s and the 90s, still talking about the digital public sphere as if it’s distant from our lives. As if it’s something novel and inaccessible, which is not quite accurate anymore.

Then there’s the more optimistic and cautionary side of the spectrum. People who are excited about the technologies, but they’re not quite sure. They’re intrigued to see the potential and I think they’re optimistic because they overlook how these technologies connect to a broader context. How a lot of these technologies are driven by surveying and surveillance of the data and the communication that we produce. Exploitation of workers who do the filtering and cleaning work. The companies that profit out of this and make engineered election campaigns. So they’re cautious because of that, but still optimistic, because at the same time, they try to isolate it from that bigger context.

And finally, the most radical is something like Cesar Hidalgo’s proposal of augmented democracy…(More)”.