This paper addresses whether Wikipedia confirms the "analytic proposition of central importance" that, for functional goods where MC=0, production without property rights--that is, anarchism--produces inherently superior products. While "anarchism" can have different meanings in different contexts, this paper uses the term to describe a system that rejects exclusionary rules and traditional systemic mechanisms for limiting the evolution (and therefore improvement) of a product.

Assuming Wikipedia is an inherently superior product, the question is whether that superiority is a function of anarchistic production. Though Wikipedia fashions itself as an "open" community, Wikipedia is distinctly hierarchical. Not only does Wikipedia impose non-trivial costs on participants that discourage participation in the Wikipedia community, it may also dissuade entry into the community in the first place. Moreover, Wikipedia is not simply an aggregation of information; it is also an organization accountable to, among others, the private (often corporate) benefactors that make its non-profit project financially feasible. To the extent Wikipedia relies on these interested parties, their (the benefactors') expectations and preferences may exert exclusionary influence over content development.

Though these aspects of Wikipedia do not necessarily undermine its qualitative superiority, they nevertheless offer reasons to question whether its qualitative superiority is a function of anarchism.

Part I

Though Wikipedia rejects the proposition that it is anarchistic, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_anarchy, this is not dispositive. Instead, it is helpful to look at Wikipedia's power structure--and the barriers to openness embedded within it--to determine whether anarchism is responsible for Wikipedia's inherent superiority.

Far from a kumbaya-esque exchange of ideas, with large numbers of users' actions organically resulting in an equilibrium of "truth," Wikipedia is largely edited, monitored and developed by a minority of "volunteer administrators" who, although elected, wield a disproportionate amount of power over the site's content. Unlike most editors who quickly enter and leave the Wikipedia community, administrators are endowed with significant powers including deleting articles, locking pages to prevent further edits and even blocking individual users from editing any Wikipedia entry. Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's founder, admits that Wikipedia is maintained and monitored by what amounts to a Wiki elite: "A lot of people think of Wikipedia as being 10 million people each adding one sentence . . . . But really, the vast majority of the work this done by a small core community." See http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/17/technology/17wiki.html?sq=wikipedia&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=8&adxnnlx=1319317899-RipVuooSb4dGJvgPjx+Cuw. Indeed, research shows that about 1% of Wikipedia editors account for roughly 50% of edits to the site, see http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2008/02/the_wisdom_of_the_chaperones.html, suggesting that content is largely determined by a small core of repeat players who are both familiar with and integrated into the Wikipedia bureaucracy.

This dynamic magnifies the elite's editorial control over Wikipedia, which raises the specter of exclusion. Because Wikipedia bureaucrats are generally users who contribute and edit a disproportionately large amount of site content, administrators may preference content that is consistent with (or at least does not question) their own edits. Thus, the 50% of edits that the 99% of users make must survive the scrutiny of a distinctly self-interested group. Even assuming administrators are completely objective in their decisionmaking, the perception of and potential for bureaucratic abuse and/or bias may be sufficient to discourage participation. Thus, not only do the Wikipedia elite arguably dictate and skew content development in favor of bureaucratic viewpoints and preferences, they may also erode trust in Wikipedia's "openness" by reducing user's confidence that their edits will survive the review process. If users begin to think their edits will stand or fall not according to their merits, but rather to the subjective preferences of Wikipedia's bureaucracy, it seems uncontroversial to argue that users will feel participation has been, to a degree, foreclosed.

The effects of Wikipedia's bureaucratization go further, however, as they present potential editors with non-trivial costs. A 2009 Wall Street Journal article explained, 49,000 editors left Wikipedia in the first quarter of 2009--10 times more than left in the first quarter of 2008--because of the "plethora of rules Wikipedia has adopted to bring order to its unruly universe -- particularly to reduce infighting among contributors about write-ups of controversial subjects and polarizing figures." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125893981183759969.html. To the extent new editors must understand the Wikipedia power structure, conform to a Manual of Style, adhere to templates, contend with highly motivated and more technologically powerful users, and shape their content in a way that makes its removal and/or alteration less likely, participation in the Wikipedia community involves costs that may have the same exclusionary impact that traditional property rights effect. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Power_structure. In other words, where the absence of property rights opened the door to participation in the Wikipedia community, an increasingly complex set of rules governing participation may be having the opposite effect. While these barriers to participation are not derived from a legal regime akin to copyright, their exclusionary consequences are nevertheless comparable to property rights'. To the extent this is true, it seems too formalistic to still credit anarchism for Wikipedia's qualitative superiority on the grounds that the exclusionary rules pervading the community, while significant, are not products of property rights.

Finally, Wikipedia faces operational realities and, as a result, accepts donations from private (often corporate) entities in order to finance its operations. See http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Benefactors. While these donors may not exert direct influence over Wikipedia, they nevertheless impose, indirectly, their expectations and values on the organization's leaders. To the extent Wikipedia relies on these entities, its content faces an outer limit of its benefactors values and/or expectations. To stay within this limit , it seems inevitable that some content will have to be excluded notwithstanding users' preferences and the "organic" evolution of Wikipedia will become increasingly "synthetic."

Conclusion

It is beyond the scope of this Paper to address whether Wikipedia is in fact an inherently superior product and what, if not anarchism, accounts for that superiority. More simply, this Paper argues that while Wikipedia is not governed by property rights, it is not without exclusionary rules. Taken together, Wikipedia's hierarchical power structure and barriers to participation must, at least, call into question the anarchic roots of its qualitative superiority.

"Even assuming administrators are completely objective in their decisionmaking, the perception of and potential for bureaucratic abuse and/or bias may be sufficient to discourage participation. "

This is only true if you assume that the 99% who posts 50% of the content actually know the inner-workings of Wikipedia. I had no idea Wikipedia was structured that way so in making posts on wikipedia I've never felt any form of discouragement as a result of the structure. Further, I think that even if someone is aware that the structure is hierarchical, wouldn't it still make sense to post the information on the website anyway? Worst case scenario, it gets taken down or edited by the "wikipedia elite". But, isnt the possibility that it stays on the site worth putting it on there; I mean, it won't be on the site if you don't put it on there, so you may as well try to get it on there

-- AustinKlar - 25 Oct 2011