|
MatthewLadnerPaper1 26 - 24 Dec 2011 - Main.MatthewLadner
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
REVISED 1ST PAPER READY FOR REVIEW | | | From Resistance to Exclusion | |
<
< | To begin, Bongwon Suh et al. present evidence in their paper, "The Singularity is Not Near: Slowing Growth of Wikipedia," of growing exclusion of non-prolific and new editors. During the global slowdown in Wikipedia edits, which started in early 2007, "middle class" editors (Wikipedians who make 2-999 edits per month), not high-frequency editors (those who make 1000 or more edits per month), reduced their edits at the highest rate. More tellingly, the percentage of new edits reverted increased over the same period of time notwithstanding the drop in overall edits. Indeed, excluding vandalism and bot reverts, low-frequency and occasional editors experienced the greatest resistance--"since 2003, edits from occasional editors have been reverted in a higher rate than edits from prolific editors," and "this disparity of treatment . . . has been widening . . . at the expense of low-frequency editors." There are also other indicators of growing exclusionary conduct: the number of blocked IP addresses and pages deleted increased during this time, as did the number of protected entries. | >
> | To begin, Bongwon Suh et al. present evidence in their paper, "The Singularity is Not Near: Slowing Growth of Wikipedia," of growing exclusion of non-prolific and new editors. During the global slowdown in Wikipedia edits, which started in early 2007, "middle class" editors (Wikipedians who make 2-999 edits per month), not high-frequency editors (those who make 1000 or more edits per month), reduced their edits at the highest rate. More tellingly, the percentage of new edits reverted increased over the same period of time despite the drop in overall edits. Indeed, excluding vandalism and bot reverts, low-frequency and occasional editors experienced the greatest resistance--"since 2003, edits from occasional editors have been reverted in a higher rate than edits from prolific editors," and "this disparity of treatment . . . has been widening . . . at the expense of low-frequency editors." There are also other indicators of growing exclusionary conduct: the number of blocked IP addresses and pages deleted increased during this time, as did the number of protected entries. | | | There is reason to believe these trends are related to Wikipedia's bureaucratization, unequal content production and complex rules. |
|
|
MatthewLadnerPaper1 25 - 24 Dec 2011 - Main.MatthewLadner
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
>
> | REVISED 1ST PAPER READY FOR REVIEW | | | Wikipedia: An Exercise in Anarchy? | | | I argue that notwithstanding its lack of property rights, Wikipedia has exclusionary features that result in exclusionary consequences mirroring those property rights produce. While this does not deny Wikipedia's qualitative superiority, it raises the question whether this superiority is attributable to truly "anarchic production." A fair critique is that it is improper to define "anarchy" one way and then test its existence by reference to some other quantity. But, a better definition of "anarchic production" takes into account some exclusion beyond that created by property rights. A narrower definition raises the possibility of "anarchic production" that is, incongruously, extremely exclusionary--for example, a system without property rights that excludes persons based on race would still be expected to produce inherently superior products. This is facially problematic. | |
<
< | Though not all forms of exclusion are relevant to the analytic proposition, I propose that Wikipedia's exclusionary features do not violate the outer boundary of relevance because, like property rights, they exclude participants through the imposition of non-trivial costs. | >
> | Though not all forms of exclusion must be relevant to the analytic proposition, I propose that the exclusionary features discussed herein do not violate the outer boundary of relevance--like property rights, they exclude participants through the imposition of non-trivial costs. | | | From Resistance to Exclusion |
|
|
MatthewLadnerPaper1 24 - 24 Dec 2011 - Main.MatthewLadner
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Wikipedia: An Exercise in Anarchy?
A central theme during the first-half of our semester was that for functional goods where MC = 0, anarchic production produces inherently superior products. We defined "anarchic production" as production without property rights, and Wikipedia was offered to the class as proof of this analytic proposition. | |
<
< | I argue that notwithstanding its lack of property rights, Wikipedia has exclusionary features that result in exclusionary consequences mirroring those property rights produce. While this does not deny Wikipedia's qualitative superiority, it raises the question whether this superiority is attributable to truly "anarchic production." A fair critique is that it is improper to define "anarchy" one way and then test its existsence by reference to some other quantity. But, a better definition of "anarchic production" takes into account some exclusion beyond that created by property rights. A narrower definition raises the possibility of "anarchic production" that is, incongruously, extremely exclusionary--for example, a system without property rights that excludes persons based on race would still be expected to produce inherently superior products. This is facially problematic. Property rights are relevant to the analytic proposition only because they exclude participants by imposing non-trivial costs on them, and Wikipedia's bureaucracy and rules operate comparably. Wherever the outer boundary of relevant exclusion sits, I argue the exclusionary features discussed herein do not cross this line. | >
> | I argue that notwithstanding its lack of property rights, Wikipedia has exclusionary features that result in exclusionary consequences mirroring those property rights produce. While this does not deny Wikipedia's qualitative superiority, it raises the question whether this superiority is attributable to truly "anarchic production." A fair critique is that it is improper to define "anarchy" one way and then test its existence by reference to some other quantity. But, a better definition of "anarchic production" takes into account some exclusion beyond that created by property rights. A narrower definition raises the possibility of "anarchic production" that is, incongruously, extremely exclusionary--for example, a system without property rights that excludes persons based on race would still be expected to produce inherently superior products. This is facially problematic.
Though not all forms of exclusion are relevant to the analytic proposition, I propose that Wikipedia's exclusionary features do not violate the outer boundary of relevance because, like property rights, they exclude participants through the imposition of non-trivial costs. | | | From Resistance to Exclusion | |
<
< | To begin, Bongwon Suh et al. present evidence in their paper "The Singularity is Not Near: Slowing Growth of Wikipedia" of growing exclusion of non-prolific and new editors. During the global slowdown in Wikipedia edits, which started in early 2007, "middle class" editors (Wikipedians who make 2-999 edits per month), not high-frequency editors (those who make 1000 or more edits per month), reduced their edits at the highest rate. More tellingly, the percentage of new edits reverted increased over the same period of time notwithstanding the drop in overall edits. Indeed, excluding vandalism and bot reverts, low-frequency and occasional editors experienced the greatest resistance--"since 2003, edits from occasional editors have been reverted in a higher rate than edits from prolific editors," and "this disparity of treatment . . . has been widening . . . at the expense of low-frequency editors." There are also other indicators of growing exclusionary conduct: the number of blocked IP addresses and pages deleted increased during this time, as did the number of protected entries. | >
> | To begin, Bongwon Suh et al. present evidence in their paper, "The Singularity is Not Near: Slowing Growth of Wikipedia," of growing exclusion of non-prolific and new editors. During the global slowdown in Wikipedia edits, which started in early 2007, "middle class" editors (Wikipedians who make 2-999 edits per month), not high-frequency editors (those who make 1000 or more edits per month), reduced their edits at the highest rate. More tellingly, the percentage of new edits reverted increased over the same period of time notwithstanding the drop in overall edits. Indeed, excluding vandalism and bot reverts, low-frequency and occasional editors experienced the greatest resistance--"since 2003, edits from occasional editors have been reverted in a higher rate than edits from prolific editors," and "this disparity of treatment . . . has been widening . . . at the expense of low-frequency editors." There are also other indicators of growing exclusionary conduct: the number of blocked IP addresses and pages deleted increased during this time, as did the number of protected entries. | | | There is reason to believe these trends are related to Wikipedia's bureaucratization, unequal content production and complex rules. | | | Even if the data suggest deletionists are "winning the battle for Wikipedia's soul," it is important to understand why. | |
<
< | First, deletionists have forced out a not insignificant number of prolific inclusionist-minded contributors who became discouraged by excessive deletion and rulemaking. While the first order consequence of this is the exclusion of valuable Wikipedians, the important second order effect is a shortage of savvy allies for new and infrequent contributors in the fight against overzealous deletionists. | >
> | First, deletionists have forced out a not insignificant number of prolific contributors who became discouraged by excessive deletion and rulemaking. While the first order consequence of this is the exclusion of valuable Wikipedians, the important second order effect is a shortage of savvy allies for new and infrequent contributors in the fight against overzealous deletionists. | | | Second, deletionists can leverage the proliferation of Wiki rules (see 191-200) and their familiarity therewith to amplify the costs new and infrequent users face. As Suh et al. conclude, the growth of Wikipedia is "limited by available resources in Wikipedia and advantages go to members of that population that have competitive dominance over others." For instance, I recently edited the Wikipedia page for the Hobbs Act--as a tech-unsavvy Wikipedia novice, I found it difficult to understand how to properly cite and reference secondary sources, and I eventually resorted to citing cases as one would in a traditional legal document. If another user reverts or challenges my edits on this ground, much less a more complex one, I will have a difficult time adequately responding or adjusting my additions notwithstanding their substantive merits. |
|
|
MatthewLadnerPaper1 23 - 24 Dec 2011 - Main.MatthewLadner
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Wikipedia: An Exercise in Anarchy?
A central theme during the first-half of our semester was that for functional goods where MC = 0, anarchic production produces inherently superior products. We defined "anarchic production" as production without property rights, and Wikipedia was offered to the class as proof of this analytic proposition. | |
<
< | I argue that notwithstanding its lack of property rights, Wikipedia has exclusionary features resulting in exclusionary consequences mirroring those property rights produce. While this exclusion does not deny Wikipedia's qualitative superiority, it raises the question whether its content production is truly "anarchic." A fair critique is that it is improper to define "anarchy" one way and then test its existsence by reference to some other quantity. But, a better definition of "anarchic production" takes into account some exclusion beyond that created by property rights. A narrower definition raises the possibility of "anarchic production" that is, incongruously, extremely exclusionary--for example, a system without property rights that excluded persons based on race would still be expected to produce inherently superior products. Property rights are only relevant to the analytic proposition because they exclude potential participants by imposing non-trivial costs on them. Wikipedia's bureaucracy and rules have comparable exclusionary effects for similar reasons. Wherever the outer boundary of relevant exclusion sits, I argue the exclusionary features discussed herein do not cross this line. | >
> | I argue that notwithstanding its lack of property rights, Wikipedia has exclusionary features that result in exclusionary consequences mirroring those property rights produce. While this does not deny Wikipedia's qualitative superiority, it raises the question whether this superiority is attributable to truly "anarchic production." A fair critique is that it is improper to define "anarchy" one way and then test its existsence by reference to some other quantity. But, a better definition of "anarchic production" takes into account some exclusion beyond that created by property rights. A narrower definition raises the possibility of "anarchic production" that is, incongruously, extremely exclusionary--for example, a system without property rights that excludes persons based on race would still be expected to produce inherently superior products. This is facially problematic. Property rights are relevant to the analytic proposition only because they exclude participants by imposing non-trivial costs on them, and Wikipedia's bureaucracy and rules operate comparably. Wherever the outer boundary of relevant exclusion sits, I argue the exclusionary features discussed herein do not cross this line. | | | From Resistance to Exclusion | |
<
< | To begin, there is evidence of growing exclusion of non-prolific and new editors. During the global slowdown in the number of Wikipedia edits, which started in early 2007, the "middle class" of editors (Wikipedians who make 2-999 edits per month), not high-frequency editors (those who make 1000 or more edits per month), has reduced its edits at the highest rate. More interestingly, the percentage of new edits reverted increased over the same period of time notwithstanding the drop in overall edits. Indeed, excluding vandalism and bot reverts, low-frequency and occasional editors experienced the greatest resistance--"since 2003, edits from occasional editors have been reverted in a higher rate than edits from prolific editors," and "this disparity of treatment . . . has been widening . . . at the expense of low-frequency editors." There are also other indicators of growing resistance: the number of blocked IP addresses and pages deleted increased during this time, as did the number of protected entries. | >
> | To begin, Bongwon Suh et al. present evidence in their paper "The Singularity is Not Near: Slowing Growth of Wikipedia" of growing exclusion of non-prolific and new editors. During the global slowdown in Wikipedia edits, which started in early 2007, "middle class" editors (Wikipedians who make 2-999 edits per month), not high-frequency editors (those who make 1000 or more edits per month), reduced their edits at the highest rate. More tellingly, the percentage of new edits reverted increased over the same period of time notwithstanding the drop in overall edits. Indeed, excluding vandalism and bot reverts, low-frequency and occasional editors experienced the greatest resistance--"since 2003, edits from occasional editors have been reverted in a higher rate than edits from prolific editors," and "this disparity of treatment . . . has been widening . . . at the expense of low-frequency editors." There are also other indicators of growing exclusionary conduct: the number of blocked IP addresses and pages deleted increased during this time, as did the number of protected entries. | | | There is reason to believe these trends are related to Wikipedia's bureaucratization, unequal content production and complex rules. | |
<
< | Not only are editors a fairly homogonous group, which by itself suggests exclusionary forces at play, but a small minority of Wikipedians make the bulk of site's edits and contribute the lion's share of its content (p. 276). Moreover, a small group of Wikipedia bureaucrats--usually prolific editors themselves--wield exclusionary powers such as deleting articles, protecting pages from future edits and blocking IP addresses altogether. The result is a classic conflict of interest. | >
> | Not only are editors a fairly homogonous group, which by itself suggests exclusionary forces at play, but a small minority of Wikipedians make the bulk of site's edits and contribute the lion's share of its content (see 276). Moreover, a small group of Wikipedia bureaucrats--usually prolific editors themselves--wield exclusionary powers such as deleting articles, protecting pages from future edits and blocking IP addresses altogether. The result is a classic conflict of interest. | | | | |
<
< | Editors who contribute the most have the greatest "skin in the game" and are highly motivated participants. But, it is unlikely they are immune from confirmation bias, and they have the expertise and power to impose non-trivial, exclusionary costs on new and infrequent participants. For example, an inexperienced user can contest the deletion of a new entry, but "debates about the merits of articles often drag on for weeks, draining energy and taking up far more space than the entries themselves. Such deliberations involve volleys of arcane internal acronyms and references to obscure policies and guidelines, such as . . . . The result is that novices can quickly get lost in Wikipedia's Kafkaesque bureaucracy." | >
> | Editors who contribute the most have the greatest "skin in the game" and are highly motivated participants. But, these editors also have the expertise and power to impose non-trivial, exclusionary costs on new and infrequent participants, and it is unlikely they are immune from confirmation bias or other natural impediments to complete objectivity. For example, an inexperienced user can contest the deletion of a new entry, but "debates about the merits of articles often drag on for weeks, draining energy and taking up far more space than the entries themselves. Such deliberations involve volleys of arcane internal acronyms and references to obscure policies and guidelines . . . . The result is that novices can quickly get lost in Wikipedia's Kafkaesque bureaucracy." | | | | |
<
< | Thomas Hou noted in response to my solicitation on our Twiki that having one's edits subsequently edited is a slight disincentive to future participation--this could be due to the costs in time, knowledge and energy it takes to contest the edits or deletion and the negative psychological feelings that accompany what one perceives as "unjust" edits. This disincentive is magnified, however, by an editorial process that unequally rejects the work of non-prolific contributors. As Wikipedia's reputation shifts from egalitarian and open to deletionist and unequal, its credibility among potential and current non-prolific editors will erode, further disincentivizing continued or initial participation. | >
> | Thomas Hou noted in response to my request for comments that having one's edits subsequently edited is a slight disincentive to future participation--this could be due to time, education and energy costs required to successfully contest edits or deletion, the negative psychological feelings accompanying what one perceives as "unjust" edits, or both. This disincentive is magnified by an editorial process that unequally rejects the work of non-prolific contributors. As Wikipedia's reputation shifts from egalitarian and open to unequal and anti-newcomer, its credibility among potential and current non-prolific editors will erode, further disincentivizing participation. | | | | |
<
< | *To Delete: A Way of Life* | >
> | To Delete: A Way of Life | | | | |
<
< | Looking beyond the merits of any given delete, "deletionism" has become a cause célèbre for many administrators. In contrast to "inclusionists, deletionists favor strict standards for accepting entries and emphasize "objective significance" in deciding whether to keep new additions to the encyclopedia. As Andrew Lih, a prolific administrator himself, explained after noticing the deletion of entries on the first ombudsperson for PBS and Pownce.com, "It's as if there is a Soup Nazi culture now in Wikipedia. There are throngs of deletion happy users . . . tossing out customers and articles if they don't comply to some new prickly hard-nosed standard." | >
> | Beyond this conflict of interest, a strain of thought called"deletionism" has become a cause célèbre for many administrators. In contrast to "inclusionists, deletionists favor strict standards for accepting entries and emphasize the "objective significance" of an entry when deciding whether to keep a new addition to the encyclopedia. As Andrew Lih, a prolific administrator himself, explained after noticing the deletion of entries on the first ombudsperson for PBS and Pownce.com, "It's as if there is a Soup Nazi culture now in Wikipedia. There are throngs of deletion happy users . . . tossing out customers and articles if they don't comply to some new prickly hard-nosed standard." | | | Even if the data suggest deletionists are "winning the battle for Wikipedia's soul," it is important to understand why. | |
<
< | First, deletionists have forced out a not insignificant number of prolific inclusionist-minded contributors who became discouraged by excessive deletion and rulemaking. While the first order consequence of this is the exclusion of these Wikipedians, the important second order effect is depriving new and infrequent contributors of savvy allies in the fight against overzealous deletions. | >
> | First, deletionists have forced out a not insignificant number of prolific inclusionist-minded contributors who became discouraged by excessive deletion and rulemaking. While the first order consequence of this is the exclusion of valuable Wikipedians, the important second order effect is a shortage of savvy allies for new and infrequent contributors in the fight against overzealous deletionists. | | | | |
<
< | Second, deletionists can leverage the proliferation of Wiki rules and their familiarity therewith to amplify the costs new and infrequent users face. As Suh et al. conclude in their article "The Singularity is Not Near: Slowing Growth for Wikipedia," the growth of Wikipedia is "limited by available resources in Wikipedia and advantages go to members of that population that have competitive dominance over others." For instance, I recently edited the Wikipedia page for the Hobbs Act--as a tech-unsavvy Wikipedia novice, I found it difficult to understand how to properly cite and reference secondary sources, and I eventually resorted to citing cases as one would in a traditional legal brief. If my edits are deleted or challenged on this ground, much less a more complex one, I will have a difficult time adequately responding or adjusting my entry notwithstanding its substantive merits. | >
> | Second, deletionists can leverage the proliferation of Wiki rules (see 191-200) and their familiarity therewith to amplify the costs new and infrequent users face. As Suh et al. conclude, the growth of Wikipedia is "limited by available resources in Wikipedia and advantages go to members of that population that have competitive dominance over others." For instance, I recently edited the Wikipedia page for the Hobbs Act--as a tech-unsavvy Wikipedia novice, I found it difficult to understand how to properly cite and reference secondary sources, and I eventually resorted to citing cases as one would in a traditional legal document. If another user reverts or challenges my edits on this ground, much less a more complex one, I will have a difficult time adequately responding or adjusting my additions notwithstanding their substantive merits. | | | Conclusion |
|
|
MatthewLadnerPaper1 22 - 23 Dec 2011 - Main.MatthewLadner
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
<
< | | >
> | Wikipedia: An Exercise in Anarchy? | | | | |
<
< | A central theme during the first-half of our semester was that for functional goods where MC = 0, anarchic production produces inherently superior products. We defined "anarchic production" as production without property rights, which are fundamentally exclusionary and therefore a barrier to superior production, and Wikipedia was offered to the class as proof of this analytic proposition. | | | | |
<
< | I argue that notwithstanding its lack of property rights, Wikipedia has exclusionary features that result in exclusionary consequences mirroring those property rights produce. While this exclusion does not cut against Wikipedia's qualitative superiority, it raises the question whether Wikipedia's content production is truly "anarchic." At this point, a fair critique is that it is improper to define "anarchy" as the absence of property rights and then test its existsence by reference to some other quantity. But, a better definition of "anarchic production" takes into account the presence or absence of some exclusion beyond that created by property rights. A narrower definition gives rise to the possibility of "anarchic production" that is nevertheless extremely exclusionary--for example, under the narrow definition, a system without property rights that allowed only persons of a certain race to contribute would be expected to produce inherently superior products. This is facially problematic. | >
> | A central theme during the first-half of our semester was that for functional goods where MC = 0, anarchic production produces inherently superior products. We defined "anarchic production" as production without property rights, and Wikipedia was offered to the class as proof of this analytic proposition. | | | | |
<
< | Property rights are relevant to the analytic proposition because they exclude potential participants by imposing non-trivial costs on them. Wikipedia's bureaucracy and rules have comparable exclusionary effects for similar reasons. While it is a legitimate question where the outer boundary of relevant exclusion sits, I argue that the exclusionary features discussed herein do not cross this line. | >
> | I argue that notwithstanding its lack of property rights, Wikipedia has exclusionary features resulting in exclusionary consequences mirroring those property rights produce. While this exclusion does not deny Wikipedia's qualitative superiority, it raises the question whether its content production is truly "anarchic." A fair critique is that it is improper to define "anarchy" one way and then test its existsence by reference to some other quantity. But, a better definition of "anarchic production" takes into account some exclusion beyond that created by property rights. A narrower definition raises the possibility of "anarchic production" that is, incongruously, extremely exclusionary--for example, a system without property rights that excluded persons based on race would still be expected to produce inherently superior products. Property rights are only relevant to the analytic proposition because they exclude potential participants by imposing non-trivial costs on them. Wikipedia's bureaucracy and rules have comparable exclusionary effects for similar reasons. Wherever the outer boundary of relevant exclusion sits, I argue the exclusionary features discussed herein do not cross this line. | | | | |
<
< | To begin, there is evidence of growing exclusion of non-prolific and new editors. During the global slowdown in the number of Wikipedia edits, which started in early 2007, the "middle class"; of editors (Wikipedians who make 2-999 edits per month), not high-frequency editors (Wikipedians who make 1000 or more edits per month), reduced its edits at the highest rates. More interestingly, the percentage of new edits reverted increased over the same period of time notwithstanding the drop in overall edits. Indeed, excluding vandalism-related and bot reverts, low-frequency or occasional editors experienced the greatest resistance--"since 2003, edits from occasional editors have been reverted in a higher rate than edits from prolific editors," and "this disparity of treatment . . . has been widening steadily over the years at the expense of low-frequency editors." Beyond these numbers, there are other indicators of growing resistance: the total number of blocked IP addresses and pages deleted increased during this time, as did the number of protected or semi-protected entries. | >
> | From Resistance to Exclusion | | | | |
<
< | Though these trends could be unrelated to Wikipedia's bureaucratization, unequal content production and complex rules, there are reasons to believe the contrary. | >
> | To begin, there is evidence of growing exclusion of non-prolific and new editors. During the global slowdown in the number of Wikipedia edits, which started in early 2007, the "middle class" of editors (Wikipedians who make 2-999 edits per month), not high-frequency editors (those who make 1000 or more edits per month), has reduced its edits at the highest rate. More interestingly, the percentage of new edits reverted increased over the same period of time notwithstanding the drop in overall edits. Indeed, excluding vandalism and bot reverts, low-frequency and occasional editors experienced the greatest resistance--"since 2003, edits from occasional editors have been reverted in a higher rate than edits from prolific editors," and "this disparity of treatment . . . has been widening . . . at the expense of low-frequency editors." There are also other indicators of growing resistance: the number of blocked IP addresses and pages deleted increased during this time, as did the number of protected entries. | | | | |
<
< | Not only are editors a fairly homogonous group, which by itself suggests some exclusionary forces at play, but a small minority of Wikipedians make the bulk of site's edits and contribute the lion's share of site content (p. 276). Moreover, a small group of Wikipedia bureaucrats--usually prolific editors themselves--wield influential powers such as deleting articles, protecting pages from future edits and blocking IP addresses altogether. The result is a classic conflict of interest. | >
> | There is reason to believe these trends are related to Wikipedia's bureaucratization, unequal content production and complex rules. | | | | |
<
< | Editors who contribute the most have the greatest "skin in the game" and are highly motivated given the time and effort they devote to Wikipedia. But, these are also the people who have the technical know-how and bureaucratic power to impose non-trivial, exclusionary costs on new and infrequent participants. For example, an inexperienced user can contest the deletion of a new entry, but "debates about the merits of articles often drag on for weeks, draining energy and taking up far more space than the entries themselves. Such deliberations involve volleys of arcane internal acronyms and references to obscure policies and guidelines, such as . . . . The result is that novices can quickly get lost in Wikipedia's Kafkaesque bureaucracy." | >
> | Not only are editors a fairly homogonous group, which by itself suggests exclusionary forces at play, but a small minority of Wikipedians make the bulk of site's edits and contribute the lion's share of its content (p. 276). Moreover, a small group of Wikipedia bureaucrats--usually prolific editors themselves--wield exclusionary powers such as deleting articles, protecting pages from future edits and blocking IP addresses altogether. The result is a classic conflict of interest. | | | | |
<
< | Indeed, “deletionism” [link to Wikipedia] has become a cause célèbre for many prolific editors and administrators. In contrast to “inclusionists,” deletionists favor stricter standards for accepting entries and place greater importance on the “objective significance” of suggested additions to the encyclopedia. [Cite to Economist]. As Andrew Lih, a long-time editor and administrator explained after noticing the deletion of entries on the first ombudsperson for PBS and the now-defunct Pownce.com, “It’s as if there is a Soup Nazi culture now in Wikipedia. There are throngs of deletion happy users . . . tossing out customers and articles if they don’t comply to some new prickly hard-nosed standard.” [Cite to Lih]. | >
> | Editors who contribute the most have the greatest "skin in the game" and are highly motivated participants. But, it is unlikely they are immune from confirmation bias, and they have the expertise and power to impose non-trivial, exclusionary costs on new and infrequent participants. For example, an inexperienced user can contest the deletion of a new entry, but "debates about the merits of articles often drag on for weeks, draining energy and taking up far more space than the entries themselves. Such deliberations involve volleys of arcane internal acronyms and references to obscure policies and guidelines, such as . . . . The result is that novices can quickly get lost in Wikipedia's Kafkaesque bureaucracy." | | | | |
<
< | Even if Suh et al.’s data suggest deletionists are winning the “battle for Wikipedia’s soul,” [Cite to Suh and Economist], it is important to discuss why this is the case. | >
> | Thomas Hou noted in response to my solicitation on our Twiki that having one's edits subsequently edited is a slight disincentive to future participation--this could be due to the costs in time, knowledge and energy it takes to contest the edits or deletion and the negative psychological feelings that accompany what one perceives as "unjust" edits. This disincentive is magnified, however, by an editorial process that unequally rejects the work of non-prolific contributors. As Wikipedia's reputation shifts from egalitarian and open to deletionist and unequal, its credibility among potential and current non-prolific editors will erode, further disincentivizing continued or initial participation. | | | | |
<
< | First, deletionists have forced out a not insignificant number of prolific inclusionist-minded contributors who became increasingly discouraged by the shift in Wikipedia’s mentality. [Cite to Missing Wikipedians]. While the first order consequence here is the exclusion of these Wikipedians, the second order—and equally important—effect is depriving new and infrequent contributors of savvy Wikipedian allies in the fight against overzealous deletions. | >
> | *To Delete: A Way of Life* | | | | |
<
< | Second, deletionists can leverage the proliferations of Wiki rules to amplify the costs new and infrequent users face. For instance, I recently edited the Wikipedia page for the Hobbs Act—as a tech-unsavvy Wikipedia novice, I found it difficult to understand how to properly cite and reference secondary sources, and I eventually resorted to citing cases as one would in a traditional legal brief. If my edits are deleted or challenged on this ground, much less a more complex one, I will have a difficult time adequately responding or adjusting my entry notwithstanding its substantive merits. | >
> | Looking beyond the merits of any given delete, "deletionism" has become a cause célèbre for many administrators. In contrast to "inclusionists, deletionists favor strict standards for accepting entries and emphasize "objective significance" in deciding whether to keep new additions to the encyclopedia. As Andrew Lih, a prolific administrator himself, explained after noticing the deletion of entries on the first ombudsperson for PBS and Pownce.com, "It's as if there is a Soup Nazi culture now in Wikipedia. There are throngs of deletion happy users . . . tossing out customers and articles if they don't comply to some new prickly hard-nosed standard." | | | | |
<
< | Thomas Hou noted in response to my solicitation on our Twiki that having one’s edits subsequently edited is a slight disincentive to future participation—this could be due to the costs in time, knowledge and energy it takes to contest the edits or deletion and the negative psychological feelings that accompany what one perceives as “unjust” edits. This disincentive is magnified, however, by an editorial process that unequally rejects the work of non-prolific contributors—as Wikipedia’s reputation shifts from egalitarian and open to deletionist and unequal, its credibility among potential and current non-prolific editors will erode. | >
> | Even if the data suggest deletionists are "winning the battle for Wikipedia's soul," it is important to understand why. | | | | |
<
< | Though Wikipedia content production is non-exclusionary in the sense that property rights do not determine who contributes, it is not without exclusionary features. While this Paper does not address whether this exclusion detracts from or enhances Wikipedia’s quality, it argues that, taken together, Wikipedia’s elaborate bureaucracy, unequal content production, increasingly complex rules and deletionist tendencies combine to raise the costs of participation for non-prolific and new contributors. This effect should at least give us pause before crediting Wikipedia’s anarchic roots with its qualitative superiority. | >
> | First, deletionists have forced out a not insignificant number of prolific inclusionist-minded contributors who became discouraged by excessive deletion and rulemaking. While the first order consequence of this is the exclusion of these Wikipedians, the important second order effect is depriving new and infrequent contributors of savvy allies in the fight against overzealous deletions.
Second, deletionists can leverage the proliferation of Wiki rules and their familiarity therewith to amplify the costs new and infrequent users face. As Suh et al. conclude in their article "The Singularity is Not Near: Slowing Growth for Wikipedia," the growth of Wikipedia is "limited by available resources in Wikipedia and advantages go to members of that population that have competitive dominance over others." For instance, I recently edited the Wikipedia page for the Hobbs Act--as a tech-unsavvy Wikipedia novice, I found it difficult to understand how to properly cite and reference secondary sources, and I eventually resorted to citing cases as one would in a traditional legal brief. If my edits are deleted or challenged on this ground, much less a more complex one, I will have a difficult time adequately responding or adjusting my entry notwithstanding its substantive merits.
Conclusion
Though property rights do not determine who contributes to Wikipedia's content production, Wikipedia is not without serious exclusionary features. While this Paper does not address whether this exclusion undercuts or enhances Wikipedia's quality, it argues that, taken together, Wikipedia's elaborate bureaucracy, unequal content production, increasingly complex rules and deletionist tendencies combine to raise the costs of participation for non-prolific and new contributors. This effect should at least give us pause before crediting Wikipedia's anarchic roots with its qualitative superiority.
| | | |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|