Summary Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia

1 summary

1.1 prologue
1.2 introduction
1.3 wikipedia in short
1.4 formal roles , hierarchy
1.5 conflict resolution on wikipedia
1.6 bureaucracy , control
1.7 trust in people , trust in procedures
1.8 between anarchy , bureaucracy
1.9 leadership transformed
1.10 knowledge revolution @ gates

summary

the book has 8 chapters, each of discusses different aspect of wikipedia.

prologue

the author begins describing in dispute on wikipedia september 2008 - february 2009. , other involved parties went through dispute resolution process ended in admonishments involved, including 1-day block author. author reflected on own behavior, recognizing poor actions , wondering how of these things came happen. in response experience author looked more @ how wikipedia works socially. anecdote establishes author experienced wikimedia community member , knows how observe community deliberative process.

introduction

there contemporary negative attitudes wikipedia among academics. michael gorman, prominent librarian, disparages wikipedia harmful. author states academic, , recommends wikipedia academic , other uses.

wikipedia open collaboration community. such communities new paradigm in research , discourse. among open collaboration communities, wikipedia highly successful producing information of great breadth , quality , engaging many people share information. explanation of outline of book presented summaries of chapters explain why author chose these topics.

wikipedia in short

wikipedia encyclopedia , wiki. when 2 concepts brought in wikipedia instant success, attracting large international community of contributors created encyclopedia articles on topic in language.

different language wikipedias have different communities of editors have developed different rule sets. popular rules common in languages of wikipedia communities, if might interpreted differently in different languages. example, 1 quality standard in wikipedia notability , term describing whether concept merits article in wikipedia. wikipedias have standard notability, standards notability in 1 language may differ others.

the wikimedia community oversee development of wikipedia , wikimedia projects. researchers have attempted describe wikipedia community various statistics, including counting participants, quantifying activities, reporting demographic surveys, , categorizing content submit encyclopedia. wikimedia community asserts own rules. 1 rule no personal attacks , civility standard. consensus decision-making norm establishing agreement while straw polls , other conversation tools advance discussion. other rules include treating conflict of interest particular care , respecting copyright.

in september 2012 author philip roth complained publicly in media wikipedia s presentation of book human stain. episode highlighted people , works subject of wikipedia articles cannot overrule wikipedia s own rules management of articles.

wikimedia community members sort interest groups called wikiprojects. individual members adopt user name rather use offline name. users present profiles describing interests , in encyclopedia.

formal roles , hierarchy

the author notes andrew keen s 2007 work cult of amateur criticized wikipedia having community without culture produced information unreliable , chaotic. range of academic descriptions of wikipedia s community summarized.

wikipedia s own hierarchy of formal roles named , ordered: steward, checkuser, oversighter, bureaucrat, administrator, rollbacker, registered user, newly registered user, unregistered user, blocked user. stewards elected positions can perform technical function , limited social norms. elected stewards must highly experienced, have great trust community, , typically, fluent in non-english language. author reveals have served steward. other roles community entrusts sensitive technical rights trusted users have demonstrated need use them.

counting number of edits user makes wikipedia not indication of respect wikimedia community has person. however, users have made large numbers of quality content contributions wikimedia projects tend more respect. experienced users conscious of edit counts of other users. there no available metric edit count better correlates wikipedia experience , productivity. there other factors experienced editors use evaluate contributors of other editors. 1 prominent system of evaluation request adminship process, in users pass peer evaluation may receive administrator rights. since 2006 many users have described system both flawed , best idea community has process.

academic models of power sharing summarized.

conflict resolution on wikipedia

conflict resolution common social interaction in wikimedia projects. in addition being collaborative, wikimedia community celebrates dissent. satisfaction of seeking consensus major motivation in why wikimedia community members engage.

the author profiles exceptionally large dispute around name city gdansk , how between 2003-5 matter resolved. case matter of representing cultures including polish , german perspectives. wikipedia provided forum position various community representatives strong opinions face each other , create definitive , sufficiently neutral compromise. academic models conflict resolution summarized.

bureaucracy , control

editing wikimedia projects panopticon in sense there permanent, public log of activity. nature of wikipedia permits level of regulation surpasses many traditional concepts of bureaucratic control. relationships among wikimedia community members less social bonds between individuals , more ties between individuals , community. when users wish request of services wikipedia offers, request goes specialized queue solicits appropriate user respond, rather relying on interpersonal relationships sort requests. community members routinely perform specialized activities gain reputation , might become regular collaborators other users whom work overlaps. while wikimedia foundation have authority tasks, community manages on-wiki activity.

a primary mechanism of control in wikipedia version control. whatever action takes, other people can track changes. when there dispute content wikipedia offers mediation. typical mediators have record of experience , usefulness in wikipedia. in discussions on wikipedia there published technical , social guidelines. experienced users expected follow procedures. however, inexperienced users or slips in procedure not have submission discredited on basis. wikipedia community designates guidelines on wikipedia has informal , others formal policies. of november 2013, word count official policies 150,000, equivalent 450 page book. estimating size of unofficial guidelines challenging technical tools available, must millions of words.

academic theories , models of bureaucracy summarized. there learning curve newcomers in wikipedia , various internal mentorship programs available become oriented. wikimedia community uses rules way prevent use of reliance on particular leaders engage project.

trust in people , trust in procedures

wikipedia s system of pseudonymity means users establish on-wiki identity may different offline identity. community rejects idea of checking credentials offline reputation typically not result in on-wiki respect or deference. there no routine check on adding content wikipedia. 1 reason these systems encourage non-experts contribute content.

academic descriptions of trust in online communities summarized. 2006 essjay controversy presented in wikipedia contributor presented academic expert , cited authority justification editorial decisions. after accepting honors, user revealed had no credentials , online identity hoax. case significant solidifying community opinion wikipedia relies on citing quality published sources rather claims citing authority or otherwise made without citing sources. academic descriptions of how users can check credentials in online community summarized. wikipedia community trusts when people follow established procedures actions meet needs of typical contributors. there many ways in non-expert or amateur can develop wikipedia content in collaboration else, including experts.

between anarchy , bureaucracy

some aspects of wikimedia projects, particularly require action offline , outside website, require governance , leadership outside of web platform s control. there heated discussions wikimedia organization governance. may contribute wikipedia editorial conversation, can join conversations wikimedia foundation steward of wikimedia projects, budget, activities of wikimedia chapters of volunteers organize own projects, or individual project.

leadership transformed

as founder of wikipedia, jimmy wales has unique relationship wikipedia community. wikimedia community has recognized him classical authority figure. primary role spokesperson movement.

the knowledge revolution @ gates

the author describes role in wikimedia movement, asserting 6 years of ethnographic research while being community member. academic criticisms of wikipedia s overall model summarized.