[p2p-research] Article at FM about wikipedia

[Michel Bauwens]

Thank you so much for this excellent article Vasilis, which I hope our other
academic friends can help spread in their network,

feel free to update this entry in our wiki as well: ,i.e.
http://p2pfoundation.net/Identifying_and_Understanding_the_Problems_of_Wikipedia%E2%80%99s_Peer_Governance

the text for a blog entry on the 10th of may is below,

Michel




On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:42 AM, Vasilis Kostakis <kostakis.b at gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear Michel,
>
> Thank you once again for your constant help and inspiration. See:
>
>
> http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2613/2479
>
> Best,
>
> v.
>
> --
> http://kostakis.org/
>



Identifying and Understanding the Problems of Wikipedia’s Peer
Governance<http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?p=8524>
[image: photo of Michel Bauwens]
Michel Bauwens
10th May 2010

 Superb article from our friend Vasilis Kostakis, published in First
Monday<http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2613/2479>
:

*Article: Identifying and understanding the problems of Wikipedia’s peer
governance: The case of inclusionists versus deletionists. by Vasilis
Kostakis. First Monday, Volume 15, Number 3 – 1 March 2010*

*Abstract*

*“Wikipedia has been hailed as one of the most prominent peer projects that
led to the rise of the concept of peer governance. However, criticism has
been levelled against Wikipedia’s mode of governance. This paper, using the
Wikipedia case as a point of departure and building upon the conflict
between inclusionists and deletionists, tries to identify and draw some
conclusions on the problematic issue of peer governance.”*

*Excerpts:*

*“The open source software Linux and the popular free online encyclopedia
Wikipedia are considered as prominent peer production projects, where
individuals voluntarily participate and, using mechanisms of
self–governance, produce digital commons. Peer production, a term coined by
Benkler (2006), is a third open mode of production that has become typical
of the Internet recently, where decisions arise from the free engagement and
cooperation of producers. Peer governance is a new mode of governance and
bottom–up mode of participative decision–making (Bauwens, 2005a; 2005b). It
is the way that peer production, the process by which common value is
produced, is managed.*

*However, criticism has been levelled against Wikipedia regarding its mode
of governance. According to some of this criticism, the power structure
within Wikipedia is invisible, vague and opaque, giving rise to a tyranny of
structurelessness (Freeman, 1970; Bauwens, 2008). Critical questions such as
“what kind of problems does Wikipedia’s governance experience?” and “why
does it happen?” are examined in this paper. The narrative of this paper is
structured around the conflict between inclusionists and deletionists. In
conclusion, some tentative enhancement proposals are articulated.*

*Reflections*

*Wikipedia is about representations of knowledge, about unfinished artifacts
in a constant process of creation and evaluation. It does not rely on
hierarchical structures, but on the wisdom of the crowds for its quality
control processes. This is undoubtedly a valuable lesson learned by Bruns
(2008; interview with Bruns, 2009). It illustrates that Wikipedia is a peer
project, most of the times, relied upon self–organized, uncontrollable,
heterarchical structures. Of course, this does not imply that there are no
particular requirements to be met. On the one hand, Wikipedia follows some
certain rules (WP:RULES) for content creation, which are in some cases
mutually inconsistent and conflicting. Therefore, administrators who are
adept at manipulating the rules are capable of defeating their foes in order
to justify a deletion, block or ban. Active and organized minorities often
prevail over the uncoordinated majority and others.*

*Many critically commented on the lack of clarity of Wikipedia’s rules and
on the absence of a functional conflict resolution process for content
disputes, without turning these disputes into editorial slugfests. The
majority of participants in this research suggested that there is an urgent
need for reform. In particular, Kort [17] pointed out that “the whole Rules
and Sanctions paradigm is ill–conceived and should be scrapped in favor of a
‘21st Century Community Social Contract Model’ consistent with collegial
norms of academic and scholarly enterprises.” Further, it was argued that
artificial scarcity, which the deletionist approach inevitably creates,
leads to a need for a power mechanism. An inclusionist view, on the other
hand, would avoid many internal conflicts. Moreover, from discussions with
(ex–)Wikipedians, it became clear that this battle over content is
detrimental to the project. This struggle facilitates an “unproductive need”
for self–definition, while the case itself is much more complex than just a
simple dichotomy.*

*The consensus of my discussions and interviews with experts and
(ex–)Wikipedians can be very well reflected in Bruns’ comments [18]: “If
those criteria [Wikipedia’s core principles — neutral point of view,
verifiability, non–original research] are met, I can’t see any reason to
delete a submitted entry — however obscure the topic may be.” Hence, a
recommendation could be that the project return to its inclusionist roots.
At the same time, following Kort’s proposal, an unambiguous community social
contract model should be openly formulated to secure, protect, empower and
enrich the peer mode of governance.*

*Lessons for peer governance*

*Wikipedia’s mode of governance is an unfinished artifact. It follows the
constant reform and refinement of social norms within the community.
However, open participation in combination with an increasing number of
participants makes the situation more complex (O’Neil, 2009). By examining
the battle between inclusionists and deletionists, it was understood that
Wikipedia’s lack of a clearly defined constitution, or what Kort [19] calls
a “Community Social Contract Model,” breeds a danger for local jurisdictions
where small numbers of participants create rules in conflict with others
(O’Neil, 2009). These challenge the sustainability of the peer project.
Arguably, the degree of openness in every aspect of a peer project’s
governance should be questioned and closely investigated.*

*During conflicts, persistent, well–organized minorities can adroitly handle
and dominate their opponents. The values of communal evaluation and
equipotentiality are subverted by such practices. As Hilbert [20] remarked
group polarization is a significant danger that open, virtual communities
face: “discourse among like–minded people can very quickly lead to group
polarization … which causes opinions to diverge rather than converge … [so],
it is very probable that the strongest groups will dominate the common
life.” In these cases, transparency and holoptism are in danger. Decisions
are being made in secret and power is being accumulated. Authority,
corruption, hidden hierarchies and secrecy subvert the foundations of peer
governance, that is openness, heterachy, transparency, equipotentiality and
holoptism — the very essence of Wikipedia.*

*Peer governance is a suitable mode to govern large sources, working more
effectively in abundance [21]. This constitutes the main argument why
Wikipedia should return to its inclusionist roots, while a functional,
scrupulous and scientifically designed resolution process for content
disputes and an unambiguous community social contract model needs to be
implemented.*

*Conclusions*

*As noted earlier, the main characteristics of peer governance are
equipotentiality, heterarchy, holoptism, openness, networking, and
transparency. “The aim of peer governance is to maximize the self–allocation
and self–aggregation by the community, and to have forms of decision–making
that do not function apart and against the broader collective from which
they spring.”*

*Wikipedia is constantly at risk of transforming itself into an inflexible,
despotic hierarchy, while new disputes are emerging about the mode of
content creation and governance. As the size of Wikipedia increases (in
terms of both content and participants), it becomes more difficult and
complex for a relatively small group of administrators to keep track of
everything that happens “in the far–flung of the site.” [23] Co–ordination
problems on interpersonal and interorganizational levels as well as gaps
concerning the interests and the identities of the inter–Wikipedian
communities result in governance crises, threatening the sustainability of
the project. Active and organized minorities often prevail over the
uncoordinated majority and others. Further, the vague distinction among the
social and technical powers of administrators — who sometimes take more
authoritative roles and make more ‘moral’ decisions about user behavior —
leads to power accumulation in one section of the community (Forte and
Bruckman, 2008). A functional resolution process for resolving content
disputes and an unambiguous community social contract model are needed.
Wikipedia may follow some rules regarding content creation, which, however,
in some cases are mutually inconsistent and conflicting. Thus,
administrators, adept at gaming the system, can pick and choose among rules,
and defeat their opponents. Moreover, how do you balance participation and
selection for excellence? In other words, “how to make sure that truth does
not become the rule of the majority and that expertise can find its place?”
[24]*

*In addition, artificial scarcity, the fundamental point of deletionists,
leads to a need for a power mechanism. A line has to be drawn between the
sphere of abundance, where self–allocation is natural, and the field of
scarcity, where cost–recovery requirements demand choices. As has been
articulated, for the latter, some formal democratic rules are needed.
According to Bauwens [25]:*

*“Rules and requirements that select for excellence and function against
external attacks are legitimate, but processes that protect a privileged
layer are illegitimate and destroy or weaken both the self–aggregation and
the democratic procedures. So, what can go wrong? 1) The sphere of abundance
can be designed to create artificial scarcities, which create limited
choices and therefore power to choose … 2) In the sphere of the Foundations,
such as the Wikimedia Foundation, which manage the infrastructure of
cooperation, a lot can go wrong … such as a lack of differentiation between
community and private business interests, and the lack of community
representation in the Foundation … So, when the private power of Jimmy Wales
and the formal leaders of the Foundation mix and merge with the informal
powerbase of the privileged editors, there is a lot of potential for abuse.”
*

*Proposals*

*Bauwens suggested that in the case of Wikipedia it would be essential “to
return the project to its inclusionist roots, i.e., recognition of
abundance; the strengthening of democracy and community representation in
the Wikimedia Foundation; full transparency and business divestment in the
Foundation.” Based on my research, I side with a moderate inclusionist
perspective of Wikipedia’s content. After all, to put it in Bruns’ style
(2008), Wikipedia is about “representations of knowledge.” A bottom–up
self–organizational mode is enhanced by the reform of rules for content
creation, creation of a functional process for resolving content disputes
and the formulation of an unambiguous community social contract model. These
developments are crucial steps supporting the sustainability of the project
and empowerment of peer governance.*

*While some worry about a danger of the tyranny of the majority, a notion of
meta–governance — that is operating in a context of negotiated
decision–making — will handle many issues. Bauwens, partly echoing Jessop
(2003) on meta–governance, noted:*

*“A possible solution is to create a mirror page for experts, who do not
make the final decision, but can point to scholarly weaknesses in the open
pages. I would also recommend the allowing of personal or collective forks,
so that people can encounter a variety of perspectives, next to the official
consensus page.”*

*In peer projects, the reintroduction of certain elements of traditional
organization (hierarchy or market; project–based organization) contributes
to their sustainability (Loubser and den Basten, 2008; Benkler, 2006). These
elements are, after all, part of what it is understood as peer governance —
an heterarchical, hybrid mode of organization. Bauwens’ proposition of
allowing experts to have their own distinct voice (even in the form of a
mirror page) corresponds to Forte and Bruckman’s [27] interpretation of
Ostrom’s (2000) principles: “the continued presence of the old–timers, who
carry a set of social norms and organizational ideas with them,” contributes
to the sustainability of the project. In addition, a distinction is required
for the social and technical powers of administrators, in order to avoid
power accumulation.” *



-- 
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

Think thank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100503/75703752/attachment.html>