Talk:Technological utopianism

Lulz Security

I think Lulz Security should be included in this Techno-Utopianism article, perhaps a section on the Hacktivist self-empowerment events could also refer to Anonymous Group and WikiLeaks?

Link regarding Lulz Sony-hack http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13633011

86.186.63.56 (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK

The Pirate Party could also be mentioned in conjunction with Lulz and Anonymous. The Pirate Party is mentioned by many third party sources. I was reminded of The Pirate Party because Lulz is using bitcoin for donations (Bitcoin is also mentioned by many third party sources). Rick FalkVinge recently stated he was putting all his savings into Bitcoin.

The Lulz Security issue has reminded me that a big chunk of techno-utopianism is missing.

86.186.63.56 (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK

Here's a good front page of the WSJ regarding a Lulz hack: http://i.imgur.com/DsgWI.jpg

86.186.63.56 (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK

Here is a good quote from Forbes linking together the three issues of WikiLeaks, Anonymous, and Lulz:

"One member of the LulzSec hacking group, calling himself Whirlpool, told me in an interview this morning over Instant Message chat that the hack had been a nod to WikiLeaks and Anonymous, after many who support the larger online collective were angered by the PBS documentary “WikiSecrets” and its portrayal of whistleblower Bradley Manning when it broadcast a week ago."

http://blogs.forbes.com/parmyolson/2011/05/31/interview-with-pbs-hackers-we-did-it-for-lulz-and-justice/

86.186.63.56 (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK

Technological utopianism refers to any ideology based on the belief that advances in science and technology will eventually bring about a utopia, or at least help to fulfill one or another utopian ideal. Regardless of whether or not they are motivated by a techno-utopian ideology, groups of hackers committing acts of vandalism or theft are not noteworthy in an encyclopedic article about technological utopianism unless reliable sources explicitly state that technological utopianism inspired them to commit highly-publicized acts of vandalism or theft. Even then, we have to be careful not to indulge in recentism. --Loremaster (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

We have had the recentism discussion before, Wikipedia doesn't prohibit recentism: recent events are included in Wikipedia. Regarding these recent events, they are part of an ongoing picture that is developing over a period of years. Lulz, WikiLeaks, Anonymous, The Pirate Party, and Bitcoin are all facets of a technological-utopian thrust forward where self-empowerment, contrary to Government restrictions, is the mode of operation. The aforementioned five factors are frequently mentioned in the same breath by many third party reputable sources. Freedom of information and protests regarding Wikileaks smears by PBS (not mere vandalism) are very much a utopian thrust. At least one representative of Anonymous has previously been quoted in CNN news stating their goal is utopia. Lulz are very clearly trying to bring about utopian ideals, as is Wikileaks and The Pirate Party etc. 86.183.13.7 (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK

As explained in our previous debates that are now archived, I disagree with all your dubious arguments and oppose your edit suggestions, which is nothing more than original research since you need to find reliable sources that explicitly state that “Lulz, WikiLeaks, Anonymous, The Pirate Party, and Bitcoin are all facets of a technological-utopian thrust”. Ultimately, since you've always failed and continue to fail to find consensus, stop wasting your time here and focus on improving the Hacktivism article where your edit suggestions would be far more relevant. --Loremaster (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well maybe you are correct to say they shouldn't all be lumped into the same utopian thrust therefore I suggest each group should be mentioned separately. The BBC reports that the motive of Lulz is "fun" combined with some ethical righting of wrongs regarding WikiLeaks. The actions of Lulz seem to be clear example of utopian idealology: fun. See what the BBC states:

Humour forms part of the group's agenda, as outlined on its website. "Considering fun is now restricted to Friday, where we look forward to the weekend, weekend, we have now taken it upon ourselves to spread fun, fun, fun, throughout the entire calendar year," declares a message on the front page. The humour references seem to be intended to separate the group from others that hack for money. But not everything LulzSec does is for the fun of it. The group also hacked the website of America's Public Broadcasting Service because it made a documentary critical of Wikileaks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13671195 86.135.34.131 (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK

I can't believe I actually have to say this but there is nothing inherently utopian about spreading fun! You're grasping at straws and you need to stop obsessing over ways to mention hacktivist groups in this article. --Loremaster (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia header description of technoutopiaism describes advances in science and technology that will "at least help to fulfill one or another utopian ideal." Fun combined with Hacking FBI related sites and hacking a news website to address unfair reporting on Wikileaks is clearly helping to fulfill at least one or another utopian ideal. 86.162.82.74 (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK

Your intepretation and opinion is irrelevant. You need to find reliable sources that explicitly state that an individual, group, movement or project is notable for its promotion of, or being motivated by, techno-utopianism. If you can't, stay quiet until you do. --Loremaster (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is explicit usage of the word utopia required? This article is not an article regarding usage of the word "utopia" or "utopian" regarding technology. If you want to change the description to something such as: "Techno-utopianism is usage of the word "utopia" or "utopian" to describe highly beneficial sociopolitical technological improvement."... well then, go ahead and make the change, but currently the criteria for something being utopian (part of technological-utopianism) doesn't require a specific mention of the word "utopia", it is about a utopian ideology. The ideology is the important thing not the superficial mentioning of the word utopia. For example "Libertarian Future" is consistant with the techno-utopian ideology: http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/06/02/digital-currency-libertarian-future-0 86.135.33.227 (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK

As you have demonstrated, many things can be misinterpreted as being utopian when it isn't. To avoid original research, it is better that we find reliable sources that explicitly state that an individual, group, movement or project is notable for its promotion of, or being motivated by, techno-utopianism to avoid any mistake. Although the ideology behind the “bitcoins” discussed in the news article you linked may seem at first glance consistent with right-wing libertarian techno-utopianism, we still need a reliable source to state that it is. Furthermore, a few articles doesn't necessarily make it notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedic article since we don't know yet “bitcoins” will be nothing more than a flash in the pan hence the danger of writing or editing this article without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention and possibly resulting in the article being overburdened with content of flimsy, transient merits. Do you understand? --Loremaster (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Bitcoins

I think Bitcoins should be mentioned in this article. I was reading in Forbes about how US$7,000 have recently been donated to Lulz. There are wide variety of articles about Bitcoin published by Fox, Time, Washington Post, Financial Times, EFF (incidentally I am surprised EFF is not mentioned anywhere in this Wikipedia article), and Forbes; Rick Falkvinge has also made references to Bitcoin, and he states he is changing all his money into Bitcoins. Here is the Forbes link: http://blogs.forbes.com/parmyolson/2011/06/06/lulzsec-hackers-posts-sony-dev-source-code-get-7k-donation/

Clearly Bitcoins comply with the Wikipedia header description of technoutopiaism, in that they "at least help to fulfill one or another utopian ideal." Being able to electronically trade via an unregulated currency where transactions cannot be monitored by Governments or financial institutions, and transaction charges cannot be applied, this clearly fulfills "one or another utopian ideal". 86.162.82.74 (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK

I will say this one last time: Your intepretation and opinion is irrelevant. You need to find reliable sources that explicitly state that an individual, group, movement or project is notable for its promotion of, or being motivated by, techno-utopianism. If you can't, stay quiet until you do. --Loremaster (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

How about the following article from Gawker? The Gawker article is about how you can buy any drug imaginable online and it states to do so you need Bitcoins and it describes many users of Silk Road as being from "Bitcoin's utopian geek community", which seems to be a clear description of Bitcoin being utopian (at least partially). Would you say the Gawker quote is a third party source? I shall do some more research into this "utopian geek community" at Bitcoin. Loremaster, please note this a discussion thus don't expect results instantly; via debate and discussion we could find a possible way to improve this article. It is not unreasonable to suggest a reference to Bitcoin or Lulz in the article. Try not to immediately shoot down any possible new ideas. If you so interested in this techno-topianism article it could be helpful if you also did some research.

Since it launched this February, Silk Road has represented the most complete implementation of the Bitcoin vision. Many of its users come from Bitcoin's utopian geek community and see Silk Road as more than just a place to buy drugs. Silk Road's administrator cites the anarcho-libertarian philosophy of Agorism.

http://gawker.com/5805928/the-underground-website-where-you-can-buy-any-drug-imaginable

86.135.33.227 (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK

Here is some info about from Fox about Bitcoins be used to buy illicit drugs: http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/06/02/digital-currency-libertarian-future-0 86.135.33.227 (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK

Although the description of Bitcoin has having a utopian geek community is promising, Gawker is not considered a reliable source according to Wikipedia guidelines. Furthermore, a few articles doesn't necessarily make Bitcoin notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedic article since we don't know yet if “bitcoins” (or Lulz) will be nothing more than a flash in the pan hence the danger of writing or editing this article without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention and possibly resulting in the article being overburdened with content of flimsy, transient merits. Do you understand? --Loremaster (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is Gawker not reliable? The same reference to "Bitcoin's utopian geek community" is also published in Wired Magazine but if Gawker is not reliable then I assume Wired is not reliable either, but why are they unreliable sources? What specifically about the Wikipedia guidelines makes them unreliable sources? Regarding the long term relevance of Bitcoins it may well turn out they they are irrelevant or merely a passing phase of minor interest, it may also turn out that humans all die off via nuclear war within the next 10 years (anything is possible) but in the meantime Wikipedia and our knowledge evolves. Future editors may choose to expunge all references to Bitcoin, Lulz, or Wikileaks, or a minor mention made now could be expanded in the future as information evolves. Wikipedia is not a group of historians dissecting the past many years after it has happened. Wikipedia does NOT prohibit inclusion of recent events, Wikipedia actively encourages the inclusion of recent events and I believe there is a even a tag-notification stating the information concerns recent events thus the information could change rapidly (although perhaps such a notification is not relevant in this case). So regarding the historical view, I say we are not historians safely dissecting events centuries or decades after they happen. Articles constantly evolve but it seems you want to keep this techno-utopia article very static.

109.152.138.23 (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK

Here are the tags I mentioned

109.152.138.23 (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK

1. According to Wikipedia guidelines, articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. That being said, Wired magazine has over the years developed a good reputation as a source of reporting on how new and developing technology affects culture, the economy, and politics. Gawker, on the other hand, is nothing more than a newsmagazine/blog that bills itself as "the source for daily Manhattan media news and gossip" and focuses on celebrities and the media industry. Most people would therefore agree that Wired is a reliable source while Gawker isn't.
2. One mention in a Wired magazine article or blogpost (as well as Gawker and Fox News) that something like “Bitcoins” is being developed and promoted by a “Utopian geek community” doesn't automatically mean that it is significant and notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedic article about technological utopianism. Ideally, we need to find a third-party source in the form of an expert like Douglas Rushkoff or Mark Dery or Richard Barbrook who (after reading news reports like the one in Wired magazine) has analyzed the significance of Bitcoins or Lulz in a critical essay about libertarian techno-utopianism.
3. I have never argued that Wikipedia prohibits the inclusion of recent events and I am fully aware that Wikipedia encourages the documenting of SIGNIFICANT recent events that are NOTABLE and tagging certain articles accordingly. However, Wikipedia ALSO warms its contributors to not write or edit an article without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention and possibly resulting in the article being overburdened with content of flimsy, transient merits. The impeachment of a president or the eruption of a volcano is significant and notable while some small group of hacktivists getting some press for some act of theft or vandalism or appropriation of a technological innovation isn't, especially in an article that deals with a much larger topic than hacktivism.
4. Ultimately, I am open to radically improving the Technological utopianism article. However, I will resist any attempt to overburden this article with content of flimsy, transient merits, especially when it is clumsily added by someone with bad writing skills and no sense of Wikipedia's style...

--Loremaster (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, we shall suspend this discussion for the time being; we see how things develop. We shall see if more reliable people/sources add their voices to the notion of Bitcoin (etc) being utopian or a step in a utopian direction. I think we have made a good start for possible future references dependent upon how Bitcoin develops and the ideology associated with it.

86.184.245.180 (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)JACK BLACK