Category "Authority"
Category "Community Rules"
Category "Conference Proceedings"
Category "Wikipedia"
July 9, 2005
Collaborative Authoring on the Web: A Genre Analysis of Online Encyclopedias
Emigh, William and Susan Herring. “Collaborative Authoring on the Web: A Genre Analysis of Online Encyclopedias.” Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. http://csdl2.computer.org/comp/proceedings/hicss/2005/2268/04/22680099a.pdf. 8 July 2005.
In order to compare genre conventions of Wikipedia and Everything2, the authors analyzed 15 comparable texts using corpus linguistic methods and factor analysis of word counts for features of formality and informality. These two text sets were compared to related texts from the Wikipedia discussion forum and the Columbia Encyclopedia. The research sought to answer the following questions:
- How similar or different are entries produced in the two types of systems? (2) Wikipedia entries employ formal language and avoid colloquilalisms. They are stylistically homogenous, focus on core issues of a topic, and are presented in a standard format with section headings and a tale of contents. In contrast, Everything2 writers make a point of using colloquialisms and humorous language. Individual styles are evident, and formatting is inconsistent (7).
- Which system gives rise to better quality entries? (2) The actual study does not investigate quality of content (9), but the authors suggest that the answer depends on user goals and preferences.
- What social processes underlie the production of “good” entries, and how do they shape the conventions of the online encyclopedia genre? (2) Open-editing policies and page-specific discussions (which feature informal language) seem to influence the Wikipedia entries (7). Only node owners can edit Everything2 content.
- Do sites such as Wikipedia and Everything2, which differ in their authoring and editorial mechanism, produce communicative content that can be characterized as belonging to a single genre? (2) Wikipedia entries are nearly indistinguishable from Columbia Encyclopedia entries in terms of language features. Everything2, with its policy of informality, is much different. Both are similar functionally and structurally: “they aim to be repositories of general knowledge, they are available online, their contents are searchable, their entries make use of hyperlinks, they are created by multiple non-expert authors who form a community around the practice of creating content for the site, and they are consulted (to varying degrees) by Internet users seeking information on a wide range of topics” (9). However, they differ in terms of editorial policies and content style. The authors propose that both online encyclopedias are “members of the ‘online knowledge repository’ genre, but that they represent different genres (or sub-types) of online collaborative authoring environments” (9).
Interestingly, Emigh and Herring suggest that Wikipedia’s consistent tone and format is not a positive feature. Instead, they claim that these elements destroy the diversity of the project and stall the development of alternative communication practices.
Posted by kenne329 at 4:30 PM | Authority | Community Rules | Conference Proceedings | Wikipedia
Category "Anarchism"
Category "Authority"
Category "Authorship"
Category "Community Rules"
Category "Wikipedia"
July 8, 2005
A small scale study of Wikipedia
Lawler, Cormac. “A small scale study of Wikipedia.” Wikisource. 24 Jan. 2005. http://wikisource.org/wiki/A_small_scale_study_of_Wikipedia. 8 July 2005.
This small, quantitative, grounded-theory study seeks to examine the motivations and community experiences of Wikipedians. While the study is not representative (11 questionnaires were analyzed; the Wikipedia community is thousands-strong), it does reveal interesting data. It does not provide any information about the demographic makeup of the community, since the author neglected to include questions concerning gender, age, nationality, or professions.
Participants tended to view Wikipedia as very much a community, reporting a sense of ‘welcome,’ consubstantiality, and mutual aid. Consensus and dissensus were reported as vital to the ‘joint end product,’ although consensus was not always seen as a positive attribute; once consensus has been reached, it may seem ‘impossible for an outsider to contribute.’ Still, users reported a general sense of individual satisfaction tied to their roles in the project.
Participants seem to often refer to the process in anarchic terms:
- (I like) the strange fact that anarchy can sometimes create beautiful results.
- It’s also a reasonably friendly community... despite the anarchy nature ofits setup.
Anonymous contributions were also discussed, and users have mixed opinions about it. A general desire for a way to determine identity was expressed (‘a better way of knowing who’s who’). They also remain concerned about authority and reliability.
Lawler echos boyd and Shirky in calling Wikipedia ‘both a process and a product,’ and concludes that the project is a success in terms of both production and community development.
Posted by kenne329 at 12:06 PM | Anarchism | Authority | Authorship | Community Rules | Wikipedia
Category "Community Rules"
Category "Conference Proceedings"
Category "Peer Production"
Category "Wikipedia"
July 7, 2005
Wikipedia as a learning community: content, conflict, and the ‘common good’
Lawler, Cormac. “Wikipedia as a learning community: content, conflict, and the ‘common good.’” Proceedings of Wikimania 2005. 4-8 Aug. 2005. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikimania05/Paper-CL1#Conclusions. 8 July 2005.
Lawler examines Wikipedia’s potential as a learning community, arguing that the project’s “organization, structure, and modus operandi [are] a learning process.” Theory concerning learning communities and communities of practice provides the framework.
Wikipedia fits the criteria set forth in previous studies of learning communities:
- it sets its own agenda
- it is self-selective
- it is self-perpetuating
Posted by kenne329 at 4:02 PM | Community Rules | Conference Proceedings | Peer Production | Wikipedia
Category "Authorship"
Category "Community Rules"
Category "Conference Proceedings"
Category "Wikipedia"
June 30, 2005
Studying Cooperation and Conflict between Authors with history flow Visualizations
Viégas, Fernanda B., Martin Wattenberg, and Kushal Dave. “Studying Cooperation and Conflict between Authors with history flow Visualizations.” CHI 2004. 24-29 April 2004. http://web.media.mit.edu/~fviegas/papers/history_flow.pdf. 30 June 2005.
The authors developed a tool for creating a visual record of multiple document versions in wikis. The goal of this tool is “to make broad trends in revision histories immediately visible, while preserving details for closer examination” (577). Wikipedia served as their research site. The visual maps produced remarkable indications of cooperation and conflict as content was negotiated and vandalism occurred and was fixed.
Results were presented in two versions: with revisions equally spaced, and with revisions spaced according to date. When the space-by-date protocol was used, instances of vandalism virtually disappeared from the record because they were repaired so quickly (often within 2-3 minutes). Five common types of vandalism were identified:
- Mass deletion: deletion of all contents on a page
- Offensive copy: insertion of vulgarities or slurs
- Phony copy: insertion of text unrelated to the page topic
- Phony redirection: often pages contain only a redirect link to a more precise term (e.g. “IBM” redirects to “International Business Machines”), but redirects can also be malicious, linking to an unrelated to offensive term.
- Idiosyncratic copy: adding text that is related to the topic of the page but which is clearly one-sided, not of general interest or inflammatory; these may be long pieces of text (578-579).
The article also briefly discusses authorship within Wikipedia, noting the usual issues. They discuss familiarity among Wikipedians working on the same pages, and point to inconsistencies between pages regarding anonymous user contribution. (Some have heavy anonymous contribution, some not.) There seems to be no clear connection between anonymity and vandalism. Interestingly, the first version posted of a page seems to remain more intact than sequential edits, a phenomenon the authors term first-mover advantage (580).
Problems were encountered in attempts to measure the stability of Wikipedia pages because of the amount of time needed to develop and run a fine-grained differencing algorithm on all page versions and the fact that, when the research was done in 2003, Wikipedia was very new (581). Researchers therefore “focused on size change as a simple measure of change in content.” Little evidence for stability existed, and many pages with more than 100 versions demonstrated steady growth.
Three possible reasons for Wikipedia’s success were posited as a result of the study:
- watchlists, which are unique to Wikipedia, “provide a mechanism for community surveillance,” and may be responsible for the rapid repair of vandlism.
- Backchannels (talk pages, list servs) remove meta conversations from the main content.
- The Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy provides “both common ground and rough guidelines” for dispute resolution.
Posted by kenne329 at 4:03 PM | Authorship | Community Rules | Conference Proceedings | Wikipedia
Category "Community Rules"
Category "Journal Articles"
Category "Peer Production"
June 28, 2005
Towards Emancipatory Use of a Medium: The Wiki
Ebersbach, Anja, and Markus Glaser. “Towards Emancipatory Use of a Medium: The Wiki.”. International Journal of Information Ethics. Vol. 2 (Nov. 2004). container.zkm.de/ijie/ijie/ no002/ijie_002_09_ebersbach.pdf. 28 June 2005.
The authors argue that wikis fulfill the original egalitarian intent of the Web as conceived by Berners-Lee. As such, they constitute an emancipatory medium. They base their study on the seven criteria for emanicipatory media set forth in Enzensberger’s 1970 essay “Constituents of a theory of the media”:
- decentralized program
- each receiver a potential transmitter
- mobilization of the masses
- collective production
- interaction of those involved, feedback
- social control by self-organization
- a political learning process
Posted by kenne329 at 11:12 AM | Community Rules | Journal Articles | Peer Production
Category "Authority"
Category "Community Rules"
Category "Journal Articles"
Category "Peer Production"
Category "Wikipedia"
June 24, 2005
Phantom Authority, self-selective recruitment and retention of members in virtual communities: The case of Wikipedia
Ciffolilli, Andrea. “Phantom authority, self-selective recruitment, and retention of members in virtual communities: The case of Wikipedia.” First Monday. 8.12 (Dec. 2003). http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_12/ciffolilli/. 24 June 2005.
This article explores team and club theory within the context of production-based communities such as Wikipedia. Krishnamurthy’s idea that large, or “crowded,” communities are a poor fit for production is initially noted. However, the author argues that heterogeneous crowding is a positive feature in such communities, since it allows for variety of talents and skills that will move production forward. The evidence demonstrated in Wikipedia’s successful production rate runs counter to existing club theories concerning crowding. Wikipedia is also remarkable for the self-selection of its participants. Therefore, club theory (which places value on exclusivity) may not be applicable to wiki-like environments.
Ciffolilli also suggests that part of Wikipedia’s success is due to lowering transaction costs for editing and changing information to the point that they are nearly cancelled. These reduced costs allow for full exploitation of community strengths and provide an incentive for participation. Because fixes are so simple, there is more incentive for “creative construction” than “creative destruction” (5). Authority within the community is gained through accumulated reputations, and motivation for participation may also be tied to reputation. A host of other motivations are also posited (6).
Posted by kenne329 at 2:02 PM | Authority | Community Rules | Journal Articles | Peer Production | Wikipedia
Category "Anarchism"
Category "Community Rules"
Category "Conference Proceedings"
Category "Peer Production"
Category "Wikipedia"
June 23, 2005
A Case of Mutual Aid: Wikipedia, Politeness, and Perspective Taking
Reagle, Joseph. “A Case of Mutual Aid: Wikipedia, Politeness, and Perspective Taking.” Proceedings of Wikimania 05. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikimania05/Paper-JR1. 5 July 2005.
Reagle explores facets of mutual aid and interdependent decision making within the context of Wikipedia. (His discussion of mutual aid includes several brief, useful references to Kropotkin and anarchism.) He also focuses on participation as a cooperative endeavor and interdependent decision making.
The author disputes the widely held conception of Wikipedia as a contentious community, noting that Requests for Arbitration (52 archived, 0 active) and Requests for Mediation (74 archived, 8 active) were strikingly low in view of the fact that 13,200 active users and 135,763 registered users were listed at that time. Vandalism is also statistically uncommon. Dispute resolutions are generally civil and follow politeness and negotiation norms. The intersubjectivity and interdependence built into the system often account for this; wikipedia etiquette demands “perspective-taking,” (consideration of an opponent’s perspective) and dialogue.
(Link post from Many 2 Many.)
Posted by kenne329 at 11:26 AM | Anarchism | Community Rules | Conference Proceedings | Peer Production | Wikipedia