Bureaucratic Rules

Ethics Inf Technol (2012) 14:123–135 DOI 10.1007/s10676-012-9289-7 ORIGINAL PAPER Coercion or empowerment? Moderation of content in Wikipedia as ‘essentially contested’ bureaucratic rules Paul B. de Laat Published online: 25 February 2012 Ó The Author(s) 2012. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract In communities of user-generated content, can refer to initiatives like photograph or video sharing systems for the management of content and/or their con- sites, collective blogs or discussion sites, ‘social news’ tributors are usually accepted without much protest. Not so, sites, ‘citizen journals’, sites for the collective production however, in the case of Wikipedia, in which the proposal to of reference works, or—as the archetype of them all— introduce a system of review for new edits (in order to ‘open source software’ (OSS) projects. Such sites draw counter vandalism) led to heated discussions. This debate is together contents ranging from text, images, photographs, analysed, and arguments of both supporters and opponents and videos to source code. The cooperation involved ran- (of English, German and French tongue) are extracted from ges from just piling up all contents such as photographs and Wikipedian archives. In order to better understand this videos (‘loose’ collaboration), to working on a collectively division of the minds, an analogy is drawn with theories of evolving product such as pieces of text and source code bureaucracy as developed for real-life organizations. From (‘tight’ collaboration); or, in the terminology employed by these it transpires that bureaucratic rules may be perceived Dutton (2008), the focus of ‘collaborative network orga- as springing from either a control logic or an enabling nizations’ may range from ‘contributing’ (2.0) to ‘co-cre- logic. In Wikipedia, then, both perceptions were at work, ating’ (3.0). depending on the underlying views of participants. Wik- Inevitably, over time such communities have to intro- ipedians either rejected the proposed scheme (because it is duce rules and regulations to structure interactions. Access antithetical to their conception of Wikipedia as a commu- to resources, entitlement to perform activities on them, nity) or endorsed it (because it is consonant with their and procedures, all have to be specified. Arrangements conception of Wikipedia as an organization with clearly ultimately become implemented in software. Such internal defined boundaries). Are other open-content communities governance employs tools like project architecture, for- susceptible to the same kind of ‘essential contestation’? malization, division of roles, and rules for decision making (for OSS specifically cf. de Laat 2007). An important area Keywords Bureaucracy Á Control Á Empowerment Á is the management of incoming content and of participants Moderation Á Trust Á Vandalism Á Wikipedia who contribute. The terms for accepting and ‘processing’ content have to be agreed. This may involve a process of moderation: judgment of content, either by specific role Introduction occupants (‘moderators’) appointed to exercise such powers (‘moderation proper’), or by all users of the community Online communities with user-generated content that invite (‘self-moderation’). Such moderation may be exercised everybody to contribute come in various kinds. The term after content has become public, or (also) before. In addi- tion, contributors themselves may have to be monitored and disciplined by specified role occupants. This area of & P. B. de Laat ( ) governance is obviously central to the functioning of any Faculty of Philosophy, University of Groningen, Oude Ebbingestraat 52, 9712 GL Groningen, The Netherlands community and may therefore, on the face of it, evoke e-mail: [email protected] strong feelings and opinions, both in favour and against. 123 124 P. B. de Laat However, the management arrangements adopted usually OSS, moderation is applied prior to ‘publication’. Com- seem to be accepted without much questioning, right from monly a division of roles obtains, typically of project the start of such communities. owner–developers–observers. It is only up to developers Examples readily come to mind. As far as ‘contributing’ (and beyond) to contribute to the source code tree—either 2.0 communities are concerned, on Skinhead Forum, a blog their own code, or code suggested by observers that has for purported skinheads (now defunct), discussants contin- passed the test of scrutiny. Contributors with unhelpful— uously patrolled and scrutinized each other in order to let alone disruptive—suggestions not only do not obtain uphold the ‘authentic’ skinhead identity. Transgressors of developer status, they are also simply ignored (de Laat these boundaries were reprimanded and flamed. Ultimately 2010). the blog’s appointed ‘moderators’ could censor their posts As may be expected, in many individual instances com- or expel them altogether (Anahita 2006). Slashdot, a news ments, interventions and/or disciplining decisions evoke site about technology-related matters (for ‘nerds’), solicits strong reactions from the participants involved. Nobody par- topics for discussion and comments on them from the ticularly likes to be ignored, corrected, overruled, flamed, crowd. Site editors first filter incoming topics—before ostracized, or punished. But the point I want to make is a publication. After publication they continuously scout different one: while particular outcomes of a system may be comments for inappropriate or illegal content and deal with contested, the system as such does not seem to be in dispute in it; the contributors involved are warned or banned from the the cases described above. Their users seem to consent that the site by them. Moreover, comments are moderated as to particular system adopted is legitimate. This observation whether they are constructive (a plus vote) or not (a minus applies regardless of whether the moderation systems vote). Apart from the professional site editors, these rights employed were more hierarchical (as to a small extent in to moderate comments are distributed to ‘average and Slashdot and to a great extent in OSS) or more egalitarian (all positive’, registered Slashdot contributors by a random others). It would seem, moreover, that the moderation systems process (for a limited amount of moderation points). The involved were in place right from the start of these ventures. privilege thus rotates over the Slashdot population as a Some were slightly refined and tweaked thereafter (Slashdot whole. Users who are perceived as abusing their powers of in particular; cf. Poor 2005), but the basics of their setup have moderation are removed from the moderator eligibility pool remained intact. According to my observations, right from the (Poor 2005; http://slashdot.org/faq).1 In Reddit, a social beginning until the present day, their legitimacy has not been news site, registered users may submit news stories (as link, questioned.2 So, as a general rule, users’ consent for systems or summary text, or both) for subsequent discussion in the of moderation and contributor management has been contin- general ‘reddit’ or in specific ‘subreddits’. As a quality uous, right from the beginning up to the present day. rating system, participants may vote on whether news items This article focuses on an intriguing exception to this and/or comments are helpful or not. The sum total of these rule: in Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia par excellence, up votes (?1) and down votes (-1)—and how recent a over the years an editorial policy had evolved of equal wiki contribution is—determines the order in which items and access for all, without specific moderators, taking a ‘wik- comments appear on their respective front pages. As in iquette’ into account, though with ‘administrators’ being Slashdot, the editorial team monitors for off-topic, inap- entitled to execute punitive actions (cf. Stvilia et al. 2008; propriate, or illegal content and takes action (deletion of de Laat 2010). This policy had been accepted without content and/or banning users) accordingly. ‘Moderators’ much protest. Then, recently, the first steps on the path of (initiators of subreddits being automatically appointed as moderation proper were taken: a specific proposal to such) may do likewise (http://www.reddit.com). introduce a system of reviewing edits before they appear on ‘Co-creative’ 3.0 communities usually seem to accept screen (aka ‘flagged revisions’). The new proposal led to a such arrangements for managing content and/or contribu- remarkable division of views: some embrace it, others tors as well. In Citizendium, an ‘open source’ encyclope- denounce and reject it in equally vigorous terms. dia, comments from all (once registered as ‘author’) on the Remarkably, this sharp division is reproduced across site’s entries are welcome (wiki format). Collegial ‘editors’ several language versions of Wikipedia (although the (appointed by the editor-in-chief) exercise ‘gentle over- extent of adherence to one stance or the other varies). An sight’ over their development and finally may award the actual split up of some of the language communities (the status of ‘approved’ article. If necessary, abusive users are English in particular) over this issue cannot be ruled out. It expelled from the site by a ‘constable’, who is appointed after public consultation (de Laat 2012). In communities of 2 This statement could be verified for all open-content communities mentioned above—except for Skinhead Forum. In

Load more