Community, consensus, coercion, control: cs*w or how policy mediates mass participation

From WikiLit
Jump to: navigation, search
Publication (help)
Community, consensus, coercion, control: cs*w or how policy mediates mass participation
Authors: Travis Kriplean, Ivan Beschastnikh, David W. McDonald, Scott A. Golder [edit item]
Citation: GROUP '07 Proceedings of the 2007 international ACM conference on Supporting group work  : 167-176. 2007 November 4-7. Sanibel Island, FL, United states. Association for Computing Machinery.
Publication type: Conference paper
Peer-reviewed: Yes
Database(s):
DOI: 10.1145/1316624.1316648.
Google Scholar cites: Citations
Link(s): Paper link
Added by Wikilit team: Added on initial load
Search
Article: Google Scholar BASE PubMed
Other scholarly wikis: AcaWiki Brede Wiki WikiPapers
Web search: Bing Google Yahoo!Google PDF
Other:
Services
Format: BibTeX
Community, consensus, coercion, control: cs*w or how policy mediates mass participation is a publication by Travis Kriplean, Ivan Beschastnikh, David W. McDonald, Scott A. Golder.


[edit] Abstract

When large groups cooperate, issues of conflict and control surface because of differences in perspective. Managing such diverse views is a persistent problem in cooperative group work. The Wikipedian community has responded with an evolving body of policies that provide shared principles, processes, and strategies for collaboration. We employ a grounded approach to study a sample of active talk pages and examine how policies are employed as contributors work towards consensus. Although policies help build a stronger community, we find that ambiguities in policies give rise to power plays. This lens demonstrates that support for mass collaboration must take into account policy and power.

[edit] Research questions

"Our research focuses on how Wikipedia participants apply and interpret policies on the talk pages that accompany each encyclopedia article."

Research details

Topics: Policies and governance [edit item]
Domains: Information systems [edit item]
Theory type: Explanation [edit item]
Wikipedia coverage: Main topic [edit item]
Theories: "Grounded Theory" [edit item]
Research design: Grounded theory [edit item]
Data source: Wikipedia pages [edit item]
Collected data time dimension: Cross-sectional [edit item]
Unit of analysis: Article [edit item]
Wikipedia data extraction: Dump [edit item]
Wikipedia page type: Article:talk [edit item]
Wikipedia language: English [edit item]

[edit] Conclusion

"Though our grounded approach has focused on how the policy environment enables the consensus process, it can also be read in terms of the broader theme of articulation work [15, 16]. Specifically, our analysis begins to unpack three aspects of articulation work: process, content and mutual support. Power plays that relate to prior consensus (e.g. 7.2) and how that consensus developed illustrate the work necessary to agree on a specific process or system of production. Power plays dealing with the article and the validity of specific sources of information (e.g. 7.1) illustrate the work to decide what it is that the group is to create. Lastly, power plays about individual ownership (e.g. 7.5) and legitimacy of individuals’ contributions (e.g. 7.4) begin to illustrate the articulation work necessary to support individuals within the group. Linking the rich theory of articulation work to our grounded analysis is future work. As we move from collaborative systems that support relatively small groups to systems that support mass participation, we see a need to support the multivalent relationships present in our everyday interactions. In our study of Wikipedia we have found policy to be an important focal point for facilitating collaboration. It provides a lens into the community that is particularly well suited for examining consensus, coercion, conflict and control. With our results we help frame the range of necessary considerations for designing more effective CS*W systems."

[edit] Comments

""Our analysis begins to unpack three aspects of articulation work: process, content and mutual support. " "In our study of Wikipedia we have found policy to be an important focal point for facilitating collaboration. It provides a lens into the community that is particularly well suited for examining consensus, coercion, conflict and control." p. 176"


Further notes[edit]

Facts about "Community, consensus, coercion, control: cs*w or how policy mediates mass participation"RDF feed
AbstractWhen large groups cooperate, issues of conWhen large groups cooperate, issues of conflict and control surface because of differences in perspective. Managing such diverse views is a persistent problem in cooperative group work. The Wikipedian community has responded with an evolving body of policies that provide shared principles, processes, and strategies for collaboration. We employ a grounded approach to study a sample of active talk pages and examine how policies are employed as contributors work towards consensus. Although policies help build a stronger community, we find that ambiguities in policies give rise to power plays. This lens demonstrates that support for mass collaboration must take into account policy and power.n must take into account policy and power.
Added by wikilit teamAdded on initial load +
Collected data time dimensionCross-sectional +
Comments"Our analysis begins to unpack three aspec"Our analysis begins to unpack three aspects of articulation work: process, content and mutual support. "

"In our study of Wikipedia we have found policy to be an important focal point for facilitating collaboration. It provides a lens into

the community that is particularly well suited for examining consensus, coercion, conflict and control." p. 176
s, coercion, conflict and control." p. 176
ConclusionThough our grounded approach has focused oThough our grounded approach has focused on how the

policy environment enables the consensus process, it can also be read in terms of the broader theme of articulation work [15, 16]. Specifically, our analysis begins to unpack three aspects of articulation work: process, content and mutual support. Power plays that relate to prior consensus (e.g. 7.2) and how that consensus developed illustrate the work necessary to agree on a specific process or system of production. Power plays dealing with the article and the validity of specific sources of information (e.g. 7.1) illustrate the work to decide what it is that the group is to create. Lastly, power plays about individual ownership (e.g. 7.5) and legitimacy of individuals’ contributions (e.g. 7.4) begin to illustrate the articulation work necessary to support individuals within the group. Linking the rich theory of articulation work to our grounded analysis is future work. As we move from collaborative systems that support relatively small groups to systems that support mass participation, we see a need to support the multivalent relationships present in our everyday interactions. In our study of Wikipedia we have found policy to be an important focal point for facilitating collaboration. It provides a lens into the community that is particularly well suited for examining consensus, coercion, conflict and control. With our results we help frame the range of necessary considerations for designing more effective CS*W systems.for designing

more effective CS*W systems.
Conference locationSanibel Island, FL, United states +
Data sourceWikipedia pages +
Dates4-7 +
Doi10.1145/1316624.1316648 +
Google scholar urlhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?ie=UTF-8&q=%22Community%2C%2Bconsensus%2C%2Bcoercion%2C%2Bcontrol%3A%2Bcs%2Aw%2Bor%2Bhow%2Bpolicy%2Bmediates%2Bmass%2Bparticipation%22 +
Has authorTravis Kriplean +, Ivan Beschastnikh +, David W. McDonald + and Scott A. Golder +
Has domainInformation systems +
Has topicPolicies and governance +
MonthNovember +
Pages167-176 +
Peer reviewedYes +
Publication typeConference paper +
Published inGROUP '07 Proceedings of the 2007 international ACM conference on Supporting group work +
PublisherAssociation for Computing Machinery +
Research designGrounded theory +
Research questionsOur research focuses on how Wikipedia participants apply

and interpret policies on the talk pages that accompany

each encyclopedia article.
Revid10,703 +
TheoriesGrounded Theory
Theory typeExplanation +
TitleCommunity, consensus, coercion, control: cs*w or how policy mediates mass participation
Unit of analysisArticle +
Urlhttp://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1316648 +
Wikipedia coverageMain topic +
Wikipedia data extractionDump +
Wikipedia languageEnglish +
Wikipedia page typeArticle:talk +
Year2007 +