What is Antenarrative? by David Boje (page created Mar 6, 2011)
This is the history of the deletion of the Antenarrative page and deletions of Antenarrative from other pages, such as "David Boje," "Antenarrative," "Organizational Storytelling," "Storytelling Organization" and Tamara (Play)" "Quantum Physics of Storytelling". This was the concerted action of Davd Snowden and colleagues, to corner the Wikipedia market on all things related to storytelling.
2:44, 1 March 2011 Ponyo (talk | contribs) deleted "Antenarrative" (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion)
01:49, 5 February 2011 Ron Ritzman (talk | contribs) deleted "Antenarrative" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antenarrative (2nd nomination))
20:58, 29 December 2005 Howcheng (talk | contribs) deleted "Antenarrative" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antenarrative)
A story concept being promoted by its inventor, Dboje (talk · contribs).Unsurprisingly most of the incoming links were added by Dboje: storytelling, story arc and Fabula and syuzhet. And the addition to Barbara Czarniawska was added by a sock puppet (but I hasten to say that I saw no evidence that it was a sock puppet of Dboje). Has anything changed since the AfD five years ago? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)}}
* Delete. As noted, this is part of a walled garden of articles by
User:Dboje about theories he himself has originated, with "references" that
don't make it clear if any part of these theories is accepted by others, and
the article itself is well-fortified with gibberish and evasion rather than
a description of the thing named. Even assuming notability of this concept
could be clearly shown, the article would need a complete rewrite, so the
present text is superfluous in any case. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:22, 29
January 2011 (UTC)
* Delete per nomination, without third party evidence of use/adoption
and some balancing criticism this reads like a promotional piece; other
related articles look to be extracts from Boje. Full disclosure, I know of
Boje's work and am involved in the field of organisational narrative.
--Snowded TALK 07:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Should this article be moved to wikiversity?Harrypotter (talk) 08:18, 29
January 2011 (UTC)
* Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related
deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
* Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related
deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
* Delete - Agree with Snowded. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 15:48, 29 January
I put in my objections at
PART II Storytelling Organization Page at Wikipedia
On Saturday, March 5th, I put up a Storytelling Organization page and this happened
Aug 1 2011 - posted by permission of Mike Bonifer
From: Mike Bonifer
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 7:50 PM
To: David Boje
Subject: letter to Wikipedia
fyi, sent to one of the Wiki Gnomes who deleted the Antenarrative entry...
Dear Ron (NOTE: 'Ron' is Wikipedia editor Ron Ritzman, this same email was sent to Wikipedia editors 'Ponyo' and 'Howcheng')
Your deletion of Dr. David Boje's work in quantum physics and storytelling, and his concept of ANTENARRATIVE, is THE single most egregious and unfortunate edit I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Please allow it to be reposted, or re-post it yourself, if that's possible.
I have made my entire career (30+ years) in the storytelling business, from working as the publicist on the original TRON, when I had to explain to the news and entertainment media how a new technology (CGI) was going to change filmmaking forever (I also wrote the book the Art of TRON)...to when I produced the website for the first 'Toy Story' film and subsequently participated fully in the construction of early internet narratives...to today, when I use improvisation and (improvisational) game structure to help our clients generate productive business narratives in networks...
I am an expert in narrative, Ron. And I have never read anything more relevant to the future of narrative than Dr. Boje's work. We are, I believe, entering an era akin to the shift that took place at the end of the last century, when machines began giving way to information systems, and Newtonian physics to quantum mechanics. Today, like then, the old narratives are tired, and have been sapped of their economic vitality, nowhere more so than in the U.S. We need new story creation on a unprecedented scale. This effort will, of necessity, require what I call quantum narratives. These narratives will explore big themes like sustainability, education, religion, politics, leadership, etc. etc, We've spent 20 years building the technical infrastructure and now it's time to use the infrastructure to build the new narratives.
To do this productively (i.e. not chaotically) takes massive re-design in the conceptual, virtual and physical realms in which we dream of better worlds and bring those worlds to life. Dr. Boje's theory of antenarrative and his other work in quantum physics and storytelling is going to be at the conceptual epicenter of this re-design.
By deleting his work, you are plopping yourself squarely in storytelling's past, when we spent all our time and professional energy battling to establish dominant narratives. The new narratives don't seek dominance, they seek flow. They are not 'owned' in the Disney IP sense of the word; they are designed to invite participation. In terms of improvisation, the new games (which are used to generate narrative) are transparent and positive sum. Too many of the old games are opaque and zero sum, and too many of the narratives they perpetuate are fictions designed to manipulate their audience and disguise their true intent.
It will take Dr. Boje's work, translated to action in a multitude of different ways, to impose the discipline of design, the cosmos of creativity, on the chaos of information and invention that churns through the networked world in search of meaning (e.g. economic exchange) that can be assigned to it by people, environments and objects.
I urge you to reinstate his work. It's important! To me, it's like you're an editor at a science journal in 1904 who rejected Einstein's 1905 paper 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Objects' that ushered in the new era of physics. That's how important, and potentially transformative, I believe Boje's work is. I don't care whether he self-publishes it or not. It doesn't matter. It is thoroughly documented and accredited academically.
My wife is on the faculty of the School of Cinematic Arts at USC, and I can tell you that Boje's references and the people he cites in his work pop up all the time in the most sophisticated and evolved academic conversations anywhere in the world, around the subjects of multimedia literacy, social media, cinema, games and participatory culture.
BTW, I don't know Dr. Boje, have never met him, don't even know anyone who knows him (although I know a woman who's married to a blacksmith in New Mexico who may know him, as Dr Boje's side business is blacksmithing). I came across his work a little over a month ago on a website published by the University of Bath in the U.K., where he presented his 'The Quantum Physics of Storytelling' paper earlier this year. Only time (or as Boje's paper would call it, 'timespacemattering') will tell, but there's every possibility it could be this century's 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Objects.'
Thanks for your consideration in this urgent matter.
Regards, Mike Bonifer GameChangers, LLC firstname.lastname@example.org
Mar 7 2010
Wilfred Berendsen also commented on his link.
"The issue here is that David Boje is, without any doubts, one of the most excellent academic and intellectual in (change) management at current times. And indeed some people with minor understandings and knowledge are just demanding the deletion of important informations. Antenarrating is removed from Wiki just some days ago while Routledge (one of the most respected and biggest academic publishers of current times) just recently published a book in SPECIAL MANAGEMENT SERIES (only a few books are in this series!) about same subject. That is just insanity from the side of Wikipedia or better the people destroying important additions they are just not able to grasp YET or never. or just want to destroy because of "other" reasons. Which does not mean it is not important."
To see the comment thread, follow the link below: