You are looking at the HTML representation of the XML format.
HTML is good for debugging, but is unsuitable for application use.
Specify the format parameter to change the output format.
To see the non HTML representation of the XML format, set format=xml.
See the complete documentation, or
API help for more information.
<allpages gapcontinue="Screenprinting" />
<page pageid="1633" ns="0" title="Researching communities">
<rev contentformat="text/x-wiki" contentmodel="wikitext" xml:space="preserve">working title: Indymedia
authors: Sam and Annie (Indymedia volunteers)
Time and again Indymedia collectives are approached by researchers. More
often then not this happens in a form of an email stating "Here is my
questionnaire, please put it on your website" or "Please give us access to
your mailing lists and logs". More often then not, researchers don't find it
necessary to get into contact with an Indymedia collective before or while
they develop their ideas, even though it is apparent that they did find the
time to discuss their ideas with supervisors at their university and/or
Indymedia set out to challenge the idea of the "objective" journalist who
writes about the actions of other people - instead of waiting for somebody
else to write about them (and be grateful if a journalist actually writes a
good article) activists that use Indymedia speak and write for themselves.
But when it comes to scientific research we encounter people who consider
themselves as objectively studying us as if we were simply research objects
who should be happy that somebody takes an interest in them; presenting us
with their view of what is important, without even talking to us.
Most of us think that research about Indymedia would be a good thing, but
then we want to be involved, then we want to be able to give our own input
into issues that we consider good to investigate and where we are longing
for answers ourselves - and also we are the ones with the initial expertise.
(Expertise on simple things like the fact that during big events the number
and type of readers changes drastically, differences in editorial policies
that make it impossible to compare two sites on a specific issue, or whether
specific issues are discussed face-to-face, on mailing lists or in the chat
- and quite often we see that researchers are not aware of such issues.)
Indymedia collectives consists of volunteers who are chronically short of
time. So if somebody spends their time answering a questionnaire instead of
writing a feature or setting up a server, then there must be a good enough
reason for it. A better reason then an scientific article that isn't even
posted on Indymedia, a study based on assumptions that were wrong from the
beginning, or somebody else's career.
As an group of activist involved into direct and participatory reporting, as
well as in into issues like Open Source software, we also have different
criteria by which we judge projects: Who's financing it?
How will it be published? What does the Indymedia network get back from it?
What is the goal of this study?
Research request that come in are now quite often simply ignored, or if
researchers go ahead anyway their mistakes are not corrected. Most
unsolicited research projects therefore never make it beyond a contact
However, since there are some academics involved in Indymedia, and since we
actually think that research could be interesting, some Indymedia volunteers
developed guidelines for researchers:
Unfortunately, when we try to engage researchers who have approached us into
discussing their project with us, we are either often met with silence or
Why should any Indymedia activist take a researcher serious who doesn't have
the curtsy to introduce themselves, or who will not answer our questions,
but wants our answers instead?
(All of these issues raised here can be supported in the article by
examples, mainly from publicly archived email lists with links to the
original mails and postings.)</rev>
<page pageid="2248" ns="0" title="S12">
<rev contentformat="text/x-wiki" contentmodel="wikitext" xml:space="preserve">Some notes on installing Ubuntu Netbook on a Lenovo S12.
root@ubuntu:~# fdisk -l -u /dev/sda
Disk /dev/sda: 320.1 GB, 320072933376 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 38913 cylinders, total 625142448 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 * 2048 411647 204800 7 HPFS/NTFS
/dev/sda2 411648 530597887 265093120 7 HPFS/NTFS
/dev/sda3 530597888 594198527 31800320 f W95 Ext'd (LBA)
/dev/sda4 594198528 625142447 15471960 12 Compaq diagnostics
/dev/sda5 530599936 594198527 31799296 7 HPFS/NTFS
As per suggestions here:
* [http://kemovitra.blogspot.com/2010/08/tweaking-lenovo-ideapad-s12.html Tweaking Lenovo IdeaPad S12] setting it up for dual booting
Gparted was used to shrink the big sda2 partition to make way for Linux.
Then these notes to encrypt the space for Linux:
* [http://dancingsamurai.ca/2010/07/19/ubuntu-netbook-with-fully-encrypted-disk/ Ubuntu Netbook with fully encrypted disk]
Fix for [http://www.snippety.org/articles/2010/10/11/fix-plymouth-boot-splash-on-ubuntu-10-10-maverick-meerkat/ boot splash and framebuffer resolution].</rev>