The sociology of critique in Wikipedia

From WikiLit
Jump to: navigation, search
Publication (help)
The sociology of critique in Wikipedia
Authors: Mathieu O'Neil [edit item]
Citation: Critical studies in peer production  : . 2011 June.
Publication type: Journal article
Peer-reviewed: Yes
Database(s):
DOI: Define doi.
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
The sociology of critique in Wikipedia is a publication by Mathieu O'Neil.


[edit] Abstract

This paper presents a new conceptual framework for the analysis of authority in antiauthoritarian environments. Legitimate domination in commonsbased peer production projects such as Wikipedia rests on two main principles: the extraordinary qualities of charismatic individuals and collectivelyformulated norms and rules. Selfgoverned authority is in turn based on a critique of separated power in the realms of expertise and justice. It thereby constitutes a prefigurative response to widespread democratic aspirations in technologicallyadvanced societies. However this conceptual framework also raises analytical and practical questions. In the first instance, critiques of separation on Wikipedia are hindered by the persistent regard for outside expertise, and by perceptions that justice is unfairly applied because of the everincreasing power of the administrative caste as well as the anonymity of some participants. Second, the proposed sociology of critical actions in Wikipedia requires discussions of specific decisions by project officers and may thus contradict traditional ethical prohibitions regarding the identifications of online research subjects, suggesting the need for a clarification of the aims of research into peer production projects.

[edit] Research questions

"This paper presents a new conceptual framework for the analysis of authority in antiauthoritarian environments."

Research details

Topics: Ethics, Social order [edit item]
Domains: Philosophy and ethics, Information systems [edit item]
Theory type: Analysis [edit item]
Wikipedia coverage: Main topic [edit item]
Theories: "Legitimate

domination in commonsbased peer production projects such as Wikipedia rests on two main principles: the extraordinary qualities of charismatic individuals and collectivelyformulated norms and rules. Selfgoverned authority is in turn based on a critique of separated power in the realms of expertise and justice. It thereby constitutes a prefigurative response to widespread democratic aspirations in technologicallyadvanced societies." [edit item]

Research design: Conceptual [edit item]
Data source: N/A [edit item]
Collected data time dimension: N/A [edit item]
Unit of analysis: N/A [edit item]
Wikipedia data extraction: N/A [edit item]
Wikipedia page type: N/A [edit item]
Wikipedia language: N/A [edit item]

[edit] Conclusion

"This paper has outlined a critical research framework based on the actions of participants, rather than on the uncovering of master narratives of domination. In technologically advanced societies, where domination occurs through soft control, political activism is rarely a mass phenomenon. The radical impulses of the dispersed multitude instead adopt sideways strategies of resistance: constituting digital commons as alternatives to proprietary goods (though these may also operate as justifications for capitalism) and inaugurating new kinds of agencies, communities, and practices. The activity of participants in massively distributed commonsbased peer production projects such as Wikipedia are prefiguring a type of society where expertise and justice are not in the exclusive service of dominants, but democratically available to all. The characteristic of peer production is that people are motivated to form a collective which is not based on class identity (as in traditional social movements) or on a cause such as environmentalism or feminism (as in new social movements) but on collective ownership of the means of production and on democratic control over justice and expertise. In the process of working together for personal satisfaction and the common good, Wikipedians are criticising and overcoming separated domination, rejecting the power of offline scientific knowledge and justice specialists. However personal and structural factors such as the presence of outside experts on the one hand, and firstmover advantage and uncertainty over identity on the other restrain this critique of separation. Possible solutions include reassessing the role of anonymity on the project as well as the drafting of a Constitution which would more clearly lay out the roles and responsibilities of authorityholders (both these suggestions contradict core elements of the Wikipedia ethos). The role of researchers in a legal system which is de facto impermeable to outside scrutiny has also been evoked. Should researchers strictly obey the ‘golden rule’ by only conducting quantitative analysis at the macro level (‘there may be cases of abusive authority because of structural factors x, y and z’), thereby staying out of Wikipedia’s embodied arrangements of power? Wikipedia administrators, bureaucrats and especially arbitrators are effectively operating as judicial authorities: a Wikipedia arbitrator (who happens to be a lawyer in the offline world) once referred to his role in the project as that of a ‘judge of a multimember appellate court with a discretionary jurisdiction’ (Matetski, 2009). Legal scholars do not ask for the permission of judges when reviewing and criticising their decisions. Declarations by the Wikimedia Foundation inviting scholars to join in the process of managing the relationship between researchers and Wikimedia projects show that the issue has not gone unnoticed (Moeller, 2010), but it is not clear to what extent such developments extend to fully independent review by outsiders. Beyond Wikipedia, this is a central question for emerging CSPP RS 1.2 (2011) 8 organisations that promote participatory, horizontal distributions of power. If such organisations are to constitute a viable alternative to corporate hierarchies, their administrative and judicial processes should be able to withstand a similar, or higher, level of scrutiny. In other words, it is time to seriously debate the merits of oversight mechanisms for commonsbased peer production projects."

[edit] Comments

""critiques of separation on Wikipedia are hindered by the persistent regard for outside expertise, and by perceptions that justice is unfairly applied because of the everincreasing power of the administrative caste as well as the anonymity of some participants. Second, the proposed sociology of critical actions in Wikipedia requires discussions of specific decisions by project officers and may thus contradict traditional ethical prohibitions regarding the identifications of online research subjects, suggesting the need for a clarification of the aims of research into peer production projects." p. 1"


Further notes[edit]

Facts about "The sociology of critique in Wikipedia"RDF feed
AbstractThis paper presents a new conceptual frameThis paper presents a new conceptual framework for the analysis of authority in antiauthoritarian

environments. Legitimate domination in commonsbased peer production projects such as Wikipedia rests on two main principles: the extraordinary qualities of charismatic individuals and collectivelyformulated norms and rules. Selfgoverned authority is in turn based on a critique of separated power in the realms of expertise and justice. It thereby constitutes a prefigurative response to widespread democratic aspirations in technologicallyadvanced societies. However this conceptual framework also raises analytical and practical questions. In the first instance, critiques of separation on Wikipedia are hindered by the persistent regard for outside expertise, and by perceptions that justice is unfairly applied because of the everincreasing power of the administrative caste as well as the anonymity of some participants. Second, the proposed sociology of critical actions in Wikipedia requires discussions of specific decisions by project officers and may thus contradict traditional ethical prohibitions regarding the identifications of online research subjects, suggesting the need for a clarification of the aims of research into peer production projects.of

research into peer production projects.
Added by wikilit teamAdded on initial load +
Collected data time dimensionN/A +
Comments"critiques of separation on Wikipedia are "critiques of separation on Wikipedia are hindered by the persistent regard for outside expertise, and by perceptions that justice is unfairly applied because of the everincreasing power of the administrative caste as well as the anonymity of some participants. Second, the proposed sociology of critical actions in Wikipedia requires discussions of specific decisions by project officers and may thus contradict traditional ethical prohibitions regarding the identifications of online research subjects, suggesting the need for a clarification of the aims of research into peer production projects." p. 1earch into peer production projects." p. 1
ConclusionThis paper has outlined a critical researcThis paper has outlined a critical research framework

based on the actions of participants, rather than on the uncovering of master narratives of domination. In technologically advanced societies, where domination occurs through soft control, political activism is rarely a mass phenomenon. The radical impulses of the dispersed multitude instead adopt sideways strategies of resistance: constituting digital commons as alternatives to proprietary goods (though these may also operate as justifications for capitalism) and inaugurating new kinds of agencies, communities, and practices. The activity of participants in massively distributed commonsbased peer production projects such as Wikipedia are prefiguring a type of society where expertise and justice are not in the exclusive service of dominants, but democratically available to all. The characteristic of peer production is that people are motivated to form a collective which is not based on class identity (as in traditional social movements) or on a cause such as environmentalism or feminism (as in new social movements) but on collective ownership of the means of production and on democratic control over justice and expertise. In the process of working together for personal satisfaction and the common good, Wikipedians are criticising and overcoming separated domination, rejecting the power of offline scientific knowledge and justice specialists. However personal and structural factors such as the presence of outside experts on the one hand, and firstmover advantage and uncertainty over identity on the other restrain this critique of separation. Possible solutions include reassessing the role of anonymity on the project as well as the drafting of a Constitution which would more clearly lay out the roles and responsibilities of authorityholders (both these suggestions contradict core elements of the Wikipedia ethos). The role of researchers in a legal system which is de facto impermeable to outside scrutiny has also been evoked. Should researchers strictly obey the ‘golden rule’ by only conducting quantitative analysis at the macro level (‘there may be cases of abusive authority because of structural factors x, y and z’), thereby staying out of Wikipedia’s embodied arrangements of power? Wikipedia administrators, bureaucrats and especially arbitrators are effectively operating as judicial authorities: a Wikipedia arbitrator (who happens to be a lawyer in the offline world) once referred to his role in the project as that of a ‘judge of a multimember appellate court with a discretionary jurisdiction’ (Matetski, 2009). Legal scholars do not ask for the permission of judges when reviewing and criticising their decisions. Declarations by the Wikimedia Foundation inviting scholars to join in the process of managing the relationship between researchers and Wikimedia projects show that the issue has not gone unnoticed (Moeller, 2010), but it is not clear to what extent such developments extend to fully independent review by outsiders. Beyond Wikipedia, this is a central question for emerging CSPP RS 1.2 (2011) 8 organisations that promote participatory, horizontal distributions of power. If such organisations are to constitute a viable alternative to corporate hierarchies, their administrative and judicial processes should be able to withstand a similar, or higher, level of scrutiny. In other words, it is time to seriously debate the merits of oversight mechanisms for commonsbased peer production projects.for commonsbased peer

production projects.
Data sourceN/A +
Google scholar urlhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?ie=UTF-8&q=%22The%2Bsociology%2Bof%2Bcritique%2Bin%2BWikipedia%22 +
Has authorMathieu O'Neil +
Has domainPhilosophy and ethics + and Information systems +
Has topicEthics + and Social order +
MonthJune +
Peer reviewedYes +
Publication typeJournal article +
Published inCritical studies in peer production +
Research designConceptual +
Research questionsThis paper presents a new conceptual framework for the analysis of authority in antiauthoritarian environments.
Revid10,994 +
TheoriesLegitimate

domination in commonsbased peerLegitimate domination in commonsbased peer production projects such as Wikipedia rests on two main principles: the extraordinary qualities of charismatic individuals and collectivelyformulated norms and rules. Selfgoverned authority is in turn based on a critique of separated power in the realms of expertise and justice. It thereby constitutes a prefigurative response to widespread democratic aspirations in technologicallyadvanced societies.ions in technologicallyadvanced

societies.
Theory typeAnalysis +
TitleThe sociology of critique in Wikipedia
Unit of analysisN/A +
Urlhttp://works.bepress.com/mathieu_oneil/9/ +
Wikipedia coverageMain topic +
Wikipedia data extractionN/A +
Wikipedia languageN/A +
Wikipedia page typeN/A +
Year2011 +