This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The italian is the more rooted and widespread movement of autonomous social centers in Europe and also the world, with Rome as it's pulsing heart with more than 51 center active and occupied as per october 2018. Rome also has the largest occupied space of this kind in Europe, FORTE PRENESTINO, occupied since 1987, with his 13 acres of space this occupied military fort is a hub of multicultural activities and home to the largest italian festival of printed art ( CRACK). The centri sociali of the most important cities across the whole country such as LEONCAVALLO in Milan, PEDRO in Padua, ASKATASUNA in Turin, CPA in Florence, OFFICINA 99 in Naples, are occupied from a minumum of 15 to 30 years. Due to this these places count now several generations of activist who changed over the years as well as being deeply rooted in the neighborhoods they are in. Some of them have some type of deal with local authorities, still, these places mostly remain outlaw and off the grid and police is never allowed inside. Most italian centri sociali may offer a wide range of services (unless most of the nort european squat) to their communities including legal counseling and language courses for immigrants, gyms as well as team sports (an entire parallel movement called palestre popolari connected to centri sociali see popular gym with courses about boxe and other fighting sports exponentially growing in the last few years), reharsal rooms, bars and restaurants, typography etc. Services and events at centri sociali are offered usually at accessibe low costs or often for free.
Hi @ WizoHC, do you have reliable, secondary sources for this info, from newspapers or magazines with editorial oversight? Wikipedia requires these types of sources to verify claims. czar 23:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm really saddened to see UK Social Centre Network got merged into this page. I wouldn't have minded if the information contained in the table and the details on various projects had been inserted here, but that isn't the case. Loads of decent information has been lost. And there doesn't even seem to have been a discussion about it!? Mujinga ( talk) 23:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I think this page is a good start but needs a lot of work. Here's a few suggestions:
Mujinga ( talk) 09:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
US bias, I'm not seeing the issue. There at least as many sentences dedicated to UK and Canadian social centers/infoshops/free skools as there are to those in the US. re:
Social centres in the United Kingdom should at least be linked, you recently recreated that article, so you know the answer for why it wasn't linked. re: mentioning those social centers in prose, my point remains that in an overview article, the only reason to mention a specific venue is when it makes a larger point about the topic concept as a whole. Otherwise it is sufficient to leave the individual instances listed in their individual category. re:
"trashed", no, this is the wrong word because it is tendentious. Assumption of good faith is foundational to WP's editing community and you've already been admonished for not showing it. No, I didn't pejoratively "trash" any content that warranted keeping, and if you want to edit collaboratively, certainly you can think of a more reconciliatory way to communicate your disagreement. czar 10:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
The edit summary explains why the article was redirected, not merged. (Same for Social centres in the United Kingdom.) No one has said that the content was "merged" besides you. I recovered any reliable sources that could be useful, but otherwise the content needed to be rewritten from scratch for the repurposed scope. Moreover, this common sense action should be obvious to anyone reading through the prior state of that article and its sourcing.the point is that information that was previously on the infoshop page which was "merged" to this page
There seems to be quite a bad case of WP:OWN going on here. I've recently made some edits to improve the page, cleaned up the behind the scenes mess and removed the improve tag. Now I see the frontside edits have been mostly reverted, for spurious reasons. Content moved to Infoshops has been replaced again here leading to unnecessary duplication, the infant list of notable projects has been booted to a list presumably with the hope that it will then be deleted, summaries linking to other pages have been deleted. Not for the first time on wikipedia I'm observing a problem where someone with little knowledge uses one or two sources to create an article which may correspond to how they see the world but doesn't really represent how things are, especially globally. I actually don't really like the phrase 'autonomous social centre' but i've been prepared to let that slide as a loose catch-all term as long as the page reflects that these self-managed projects are multipurpose and always responsive to local contexts and needs. However, what we basically have here is a protected page of twaddle with undue weight focusing on infoshops and free schools. I've done my best to purge - Western anarchists have long created enclaves in which they could live their societal principles of non-authoritarianism, mutual aid, gifting, and conviviality in microcosm being probably my favourite remaining example. Mujinga ( talk) 11:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
It was proposed in this section that
Autonomous social center be
renamed and moved to
Self-managed social centre.
No consensus. Unable to find general agreement below. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can strengthen their arguments and try again in a few months to garner consensus for a title change. Note in the future that, since this article is in American English, "center" is used as opposed to "centre". Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! ( nac by page mover) P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 16:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC) Links:
current log •
target log
This is
Template:Requested move/end |
Autonomous social center → Self-managed social centre – Multiple secondary sources describe this phenomenon as ’self-managed social centres.’ The descriptor ’autonomous social centre’ is not backed up by the sources in the article or indeed in the broader relevant literature Mujinga ( talk) 14:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Sceptre ( talk) 18:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
The pages for “social centre” on wikipedia are a bit of a mess, since the term ‘social centre’ refers to different things in different places. Nowadays social centre redirects to community centre, which certainly needs some work. Anyway that’s a different issue, just stated here for context.
I propose this page is renamed Self-managed social centre and I’ll give my rationale below. The move would then also rename the connected list to List of self-managed social centres, a list which should really be on this page until it is built up enough to stand on its own two feet.
I have already made this page move, unfortunately it was immediately reverted. I’ve asked several times now for secondary sources to explain why the page should be called by ‘autonomous social centre’ but the debate has become acrimonious and I haven’t seen any sources so here we are.
Social centres are known by different names in different places, in my experience ‘autonomous social centre’ is indeed used by a few projects and other names are also used such as resource centre, action centre, anarchist centre and so on. ‘Self-managed social centre’ crops up frequently in different countries. However, it’s better of course to go to the secondary sources.
As i have already said in discussions above, the term ‘autonomous social centre’ (henceforth ASC) can be found in only one source currently used in the article, namely Noterman & Pusey, and they seems to be misquoting from Atton (another source) since he doesn't use that phrase himself. The name ‘self-managed social centre’ (henceforth SMSC) on the other hand is mentioned by Casaglia, Lacey, Piazza, Pusey and Trapese. That’s five out of the current references. This already provides compelling reason for a namechange.
Maybe we should also look further afield, so let’s look at a sampling of the broader relevant literature by different authors from different places:
So a quick review of the literature from various countries seems to back my assertion that 'self-managed social centre' (SMSC) is the most frequently used common name over and above the ambiguous use of plain old 'social centre.' I have many of these books and journal articles on my bookshelf so I'm happy to go deeper here but I don't see the need right now.
Finally, let’s check 'self-managed social centre' against WP:NAMINGCRITERIA:
There are numerous examples of the links between autonomous centers across Britain (p. 294)
The Anarchist Teapot therefore served as an infoshop, if we use the Infoshops Network’s (n.d.) definition: Infoshops (autonomous centres, reading rooms, free cafes—call them what you will) are a little piece of anarchy in action. Run by collectives, often from squatted premises, they provide autonomous space for people to meet, chat, and—not surprisingly!—obtain in-formation. (p. 296)
— Lacey, Anita (August 2005). "Networked Communities: Social Centers and Activist Spaces in Contemporary Britain". Space and Culture. 8 (3): 286–301. doi: 10.1177/1206331205277350. ISSN 1206-3312. Note that the sole mention of "self-managed" here is in relation to the Italy—otherwise "autonomous" is much more prominent.
This article will use interviews with participants, as well as the authors own experience in the movement, in order to link the creation of social centres and autonomous spaces with the concept of the common(s). It argues that the production of social centres and autonomous spaces creates new commons which embody experimental and prefigurative demonstrations of self-management and are examples of the new cooperativism in practice. (p. 177)
Social centres and autonomous spaces are a more recent development along this trajectory. Social centres and autonomous spaces have a rich history across Europe. (p. 178)
Squatting and autonomous spaces were also an important part of the anarcho-punk counter-culture here in Britain during the 1980s. Spaces opened during this period, sometimes called “autonomy clubs,” including the Autonomy centre in Wapping, the Autonomous centre of Edinburgh (ACE), and the Station in Gateshead. (p. 179)
Social centres are self-managed “autonomous spaces.” (p. 176)
— Pusey, Andre (2010). "Social Centres and the New Cooperativism of the Common". Affinities: A Journal of Radical Theory, Culture, and Action. 4 (1): 176–198. OCLC 744314571.
Autonomous spaces: There's a storm brewing in every teacup. (n.d.). Do or Die!, 8, 130-132.
Also Martìnez (2012) has included the squatted Social Centres inside the wider squatters’ movement—involving also squatted houses, non-squatted autonomous Social Centres, rural squatting and tactical squatting like the occupation of squares—in which they play a key political role.
— Piazza, Gianni (March 2018). "Squatting Social Centres in a Sicilian City: Liberated Spaces and Urban Protest Actors". Antipode. 50 (2): 500. doi: 10.1111/anti.12286. ISSN 0066-4812.
Moved as proposed. There is a consensus supported by reasonable evidence for the advantage of the proposed title, including consistency with existing subtopic titles. The center/centre debate is the subject for a separate discussion. BD2412 T 04:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Autonomous social center → Self-managed social center – The name "self-managed social center" is used by five sources referenced in this article, whereas "autonomous social center" is only used by two. Globally, "self-managed social center" is the more frequently used term and per WP:COMMONNAME Wikipedia "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". Moreover, per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA "self-managed social center" would obviously be a better parent to the articles Self-managed social centres in the United Kingdom and Self-managed social centres in Italy. Mujinga ( talk) 11:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412 T 18:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Grnrchst ( talk) 15:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Self-managed social centers, also known as autonomous social centers, are self-organized community centers in which anti-authoritarians put on voluntary activities.
Martìnez (2012) has included the squatted Social Centres inside the wider squatters’ movement—involving also squatted houses, non-squatted autonomous Social Centres, rural squatting and tactical squatting like the occupation of squares—in which they play a key political role.
— Piazza 2018, p. 500
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The italian is the more rooted and widespread movement of autonomous social centers in Europe and also the world, with Rome as it's pulsing heart with more than 51 center active and occupied as per october 2018. Rome also has the largest occupied space of this kind in Europe, FORTE PRENESTINO, occupied since 1987, with his 13 acres of space this occupied military fort is a hub of multicultural activities and home to the largest italian festival of printed art ( CRACK). The centri sociali of the most important cities across the whole country such as LEONCAVALLO in Milan, PEDRO in Padua, ASKATASUNA in Turin, CPA in Florence, OFFICINA 99 in Naples, are occupied from a minumum of 15 to 30 years. Due to this these places count now several generations of activist who changed over the years as well as being deeply rooted in the neighborhoods they are in. Some of them have some type of deal with local authorities, still, these places mostly remain outlaw and off the grid and police is never allowed inside. Most italian centri sociali may offer a wide range of services (unless most of the nort european squat) to their communities including legal counseling and language courses for immigrants, gyms as well as team sports (an entire parallel movement called palestre popolari connected to centri sociali see popular gym with courses about boxe and other fighting sports exponentially growing in the last few years), reharsal rooms, bars and restaurants, typography etc. Services and events at centri sociali are offered usually at accessibe low costs or often for free.
Hi @ WizoHC, do you have reliable, secondary sources for this info, from newspapers or magazines with editorial oversight? Wikipedia requires these types of sources to verify claims. czar 23:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm really saddened to see UK Social Centre Network got merged into this page. I wouldn't have minded if the information contained in the table and the details on various projects had been inserted here, but that isn't the case. Loads of decent information has been lost. And there doesn't even seem to have been a discussion about it!? Mujinga ( talk) 23:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I think this page is a good start but needs a lot of work. Here's a few suggestions:
Mujinga ( talk) 09:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
US bias, I'm not seeing the issue. There at least as many sentences dedicated to UK and Canadian social centers/infoshops/free skools as there are to those in the US. re:
Social centres in the United Kingdom should at least be linked, you recently recreated that article, so you know the answer for why it wasn't linked. re: mentioning those social centers in prose, my point remains that in an overview article, the only reason to mention a specific venue is when it makes a larger point about the topic concept as a whole. Otherwise it is sufficient to leave the individual instances listed in their individual category. re:
"trashed", no, this is the wrong word because it is tendentious. Assumption of good faith is foundational to WP's editing community and you've already been admonished for not showing it. No, I didn't pejoratively "trash" any content that warranted keeping, and if you want to edit collaboratively, certainly you can think of a more reconciliatory way to communicate your disagreement. czar 10:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
The edit summary explains why the article was redirected, not merged. (Same for Social centres in the United Kingdom.) No one has said that the content was "merged" besides you. I recovered any reliable sources that could be useful, but otherwise the content needed to be rewritten from scratch for the repurposed scope. Moreover, this common sense action should be obvious to anyone reading through the prior state of that article and its sourcing.the point is that information that was previously on the infoshop page which was "merged" to this page
There seems to be quite a bad case of WP:OWN going on here. I've recently made some edits to improve the page, cleaned up the behind the scenes mess and removed the improve tag. Now I see the frontside edits have been mostly reverted, for spurious reasons. Content moved to Infoshops has been replaced again here leading to unnecessary duplication, the infant list of notable projects has been booted to a list presumably with the hope that it will then be deleted, summaries linking to other pages have been deleted. Not for the first time on wikipedia I'm observing a problem where someone with little knowledge uses one or two sources to create an article which may correspond to how they see the world but doesn't really represent how things are, especially globally. I actually don't really like the phrase 'autonomous social centre' but i've been prepared to let that slide as a loose catch-all term as long as the page reflects that these self-managed projects are multipurpose and always responsive to local contexts and needs. However, what we basically have here is a protected page of twaddle with undue weight focusing on infoshops and free schools. I've done my best to purge - Western anarchists have long created enclaves in which they could live their societal principles of non-authoritarianism, mutual aid, gifting, and conviviality in microcosm being probably my favourite remaining example. Mujinga ( talk) 11:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
It was proposed in this section that
Autonomous social center be
renamed and moved to
Self-managed social centre.
No consensus. Unable to find general agreement below. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can strengthen their arguments and try again in a few months to garner consensus for a title change. Note in the future that, since this article is in American English, "center" is used as opposed to "centre". Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! ( nac by page mover) P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 16:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC) Links:
current log •
target log
This is
Template:Requested move/end |
Autonomous social center → Self-managed social centre – Multiple secondary sources describe this phenomenon as ’self-managed social centres.’ The descriptor ’autonomous social centre’ is not backed up by the sources in the article or indeed in the broader relevant literature Mujinga ( talk) 14:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Sceptre ( talk) 18:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
The pages for “social centre” on wikipedia are a bit of a mess, since the term ‘social centre’ refers to different things in different places. Nowadays social centre redirects to community centre, which certainly needs some work. Anyway that’s a different issue, just stated here for context.
I propose this page is renamed Self-managed social centre and I’ll give my rationale below. The move would then also rename the connected list to List of self-managed social centres, a list which should really be on this page until it is built up enough to stand on its own two feet.
I have already made this page move, unfortunately it was immediately reverted. I’ve asked several times now for secondary sources to explain why the page should be called by ‘autonomous social centre’ but the debate has become acrimonious and I haven’t seen any sources so here we are.
Social centres are known by different names in different places, in my experience ‘autonomous social centre’ is indeed used by a few projects and other names are also used such as resource centre, action centre, anarchist centre and so on. ‘Self-managed social centre’ crops up frequently in different countries. However, it’s better of course to go to the secondary sources.
As i have already said in discussions above, the term ‘autonomous social centre’ (henceforth ASC) can be found in only one source currently used in the article, namely Noterman & Pusey, and they seems to be misquoting from Atton (another source) since he doesn't use that phrase himself. The name ‘self-managed social centre’ (henceforth SMSC) on the other hand is mentioned by Casaglia, Lacey, Piazza, Pusey and Trapese. That’s five out of the current references. This already provides compelling reason for a namechange.
Maybe we should also look further afield, so let’s look at a sampling of the broader relevant literature by different authors from different places:
So a quick review of the literature from various countries seems to back my assertion that 'self-managed social centre' (SMSC) is the most frequently used common name over and above the ambiguous use of plain old 'social centre.' I have many of these books and journal articles on my bookshelf so I'm happy to go deeper here but I don't see the need right now.
Finally, let’s check 'self-managed social centre' against WP:NAMINGCRITERIA:
There are numerous examples of the links between autonomous centers across Britain (p. 294)
The Anarchist Teapot therefore served as an infoshop, if we use the Infoshops Network’s (n.d.) definition: Infoshops (autonomous centres, reading rooms, free cafes—call them what you will) are a little piece of anarchy in action. Run by collectives, often from squatted premises, they provide autonomous space for people to meet, chat, and—not surprisingly!—obtain in-formation. (p. 296)
— Lacey, Anita (August 2005). "Networked Communities: Social Centers and Activist Spaces in Contemporary Britain". Space and Culture. 8 (3): 286–301. doi: 10.1177/1206331205277350. ISSN 1206-3312. Note that the sole mention of "self-managed" here is in relation to the Italy—otherwise "autonomous" is much more prominent.
This article will use interviews with participants, as well as the authors own experience in the movement, in order to link the creation of social centres and autonomous spaces with the concept of the common(s). It argues that the production of social centres and autonomous spaces creates new commons which embody experimental and prefigurative demonstrations of self-management and are examples of the new cooperativism in practice. (p. 177)
Social centres and autonomous spaces are a more recent development along this trajectory. Social centres and autonomous spaces have a rich history across Europe. (p. 178)
Squatting and autonomous spaces were also an important part of the anarcho-punk counter-culture here in Britain during the 1980s. Spaces opened during this period, sometimes called “autonomy clubs,” including the Autonomy centre in Wapping, the Autonomous centre of Edinburgh (ACE), and the Station in Gateshead. (p. 179)
Social centres are self-managed “autonomous spaces.” (p. 176)
— Pusey, Andre (2010). "Social Centres and the New Cooperativism of the Common". Affinities: A Journal of Radical Theory, Culture, and Action. 4 (1): 176–198. OCLC 744314571.
Autonomous spaces: There's a storm brewing in every teacup. (n.d.). Do or Die!, 8, 130-132.
Also Martìnez (2012) has included the squatted Social Centres inside the wider squatters’ movement—involving also squatted houses, non-squatted autonomous Social Centres, rural squatting and tactical squatting like the occupation of squares—in which they play a key political role.
— Piazza, Gianni (March 2018). "Squatting Social Centres in a Sicilian City: Liberated Spaces and Urban Protest Actors". Antipode. 50 (2): 500. doi: 10.1111/anti.12286. ISSN 0066-4812.
Moved as proposed. There is a consensus supported by reasonable evidence for the advantage of the proposed title, including consistency with existing subtopic titles. The center/centre debate is the subject for a separate discussion. BD2412 T 04:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Autonomous social center → Self-managed social center – The name "self-managed social center" is used by five sources referenced in this article, whereas "autonomous social center" is only used by two. Globally, "self-managed social center" is the more frequently used term and per WP:COMMONNAME Wikipedia "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". Moreover, per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA "self-managed social center" would obviously be a better parent to the articles Self-managed social centres in the United Kingdom and Self-managed social centres in Italy. Mujinga ( talk) 11:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412 T 18:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Grnrchst ( talk) 15:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Self-managed social centers, also known as autonomous social centers, are self-organized community centers in which anti-authoritarians put on voluntary activities.
Martìnez (2012) has included the squatted Social Centres inside the wider squatters’ movement—involving also squatted houses, non-squatted autonomous Social Centres, rural squatting and tactical squatting like the occupation of squares—in which they play a key political role.
— Piazza 2018, p. 500