Reagle's book is out, and the Berkman/WMF reviews are in Options

[thekohser]

try not to vomit.

"Joseph Reagle's account of what makes Wikipedia tick debunks the vision of a shining Alexandria gliding towards free and perfect knowledge and replaces it with something far more awe-inspiring: a humane, and human, enterprise that with each fitful back-and-forth elicits the best from those it draws in. In an era of polemic and cheap shots that some attribute largely to the Internet's influence, he shows how even those of wildly varying backgrounds who disagree intensely can see themselves as embarked on a common, ennobling mission grounded in respect and reason."
�Jonathan Zittrain, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School and Kennedy School, Professor of Computer Science, Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, and author of The Future of the Internet � And How to Stop It

"Good Faith Collaboration sheds some much needed light on one of the most influential resources available today. Joseph Reagle accurately captures the internal collaborative climate of 'good faith' in Wikipedia, and provides an excellent history of its progenitors like Nupedia."
�Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia

"Wikipedia deserves to have its story intelligently told, and Joseph Reagle has done exactly that. Good Faith Collaboration is smart, accessible, and astutely observed. I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to better understand how Wikipedia works, and why it matters."
�Sue Gardner, Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation

[thekohser]

Before it gets shunted into the Memory Hole...

Posted by Joseph Reagle at Mon Sep 27 09:18:37 2010
Goodness! The wave of negative comments surely means that the folks at Wikipedia Review have taken notice, and checking the threads, indeed this is the case.

For those not familiar, Wikipedia Review is a forum dedicated to scrutinizing and reporting upon the flaws of Wikipedia. Decent content and commentary can sometimes be found there, but there are also a significant amount of gossip, personal attacks, and vitriol.

Since I see some of the, self-described, "nastier" comments have already been archived there and then claimed to have been censored before I even noticed them, I've gone ahead and removed them. I intend the comments feature on this blog to be a place for civil and informed discussion.

This of course raises the question of content discrimination, where to draw the line, etc. I will try to remain as open as possible, but can make no guarantees to make everyone happy or not close things for a bit and take a wiki-holiday.

Posted by Joseph Reagle at Mon Sep 27 09:40:59 2010
@Gregory: Wikipedia is a massive phenomenon, and people can have varied experiences. I have no doubt that many people (in absolute terms) have been angered, disappointed, and treated unfairly. The question then is that the majority of interactions? Relatively speaking, this has not been my sense of things in watching Wikipedia. So, here, then is a question of balance. Also, my focus is on Wikipedia's culture, so despite particular faults and failings, WP's culture at least attempts to encourage pro-social behavior, rather than anti-social behavior.

@Seth: You might be disappointed in the balance, but there are references to critics and failings. In fact, the last substantive chapter (7) is all about criticism of Wikipedia.

@radek: I think it would be interesting to see some contributions with respect to how the culture of Wikipedia fails, and how those failings are prevented in other communities.

Posted by Gregory Kohs at Mon Sep 27 10:18:25 2010
Dr. Reagle, if you examine a culture that systematically and formally renounces and exiles any thoughtful critic of said culture, much in the way you have censored a perfectly innocuous comment left here by scholar Jon Awbrey along with a highly cogent assessment by Kelly Martin (herself with over 17,000 edits to Wikipedia), I suspect you will have a personal "sense of things" that the majority of interactions are pro-social, rich, collaborative etc.

You're only looking at the behaviors and comments of those left behind after the pogroms. And I would agree with Kelly Martin, that that (along with your purge of comments here) is willful misrepresentation and bankrupt scholarship.

I will look for your book in my county library, in order to read Chapter 7. Or, you could send me a copy of that chapter for review. I am willing to remain open-minded about your ability to observe and address criticisms of Wikipedia's "collaborative" culture; but thus far, you're not demonstrating much good faith yourself.

Posted by Joseph Reagle at Mon Sep 27 10:43:23 2010
@Gregory: I encourage you to pick it up at the library! As I note in the preface, I wrote most of it in a public library in Brooklyn :-) . However, I suspect you may not find it satisfying. I can tell you now that while I did endeavor to reference significant and substantive criticism on the themes I engage (e.g., from Sanger, Carr, Gorman, Lanier, Keen, Helprin, Orlowski, etc. on themes of collaborative practice, universal vision, encyclopedic impulse, and technological inspiration) I do conclude Wikipedia to be a remarkable phenomenon as the latest (and most successful, despite faults) project in the long pursuit of a universal encyclopedia.

Posted by Peter Damian at Mon Sep 27 10:50:02 2010
@Joseph. I am intrigued that you removed my comments. I don't know why you regard them as civil and uninformed. On the question of balance,

(a) does it not occur to you that the existence of a forum (the Wikipedia Review) dedicated to scrutinising and reporting on the failures of Wikipedia is itself an indication of serious flaws in the project?

(b) you haven't answered Seth's question: is there anywhere in the book where you write something along the lines of "The Wikipedia community tells itself a nice story here, but it's a fiction which covers up the following cultural dysfunction."? Is that what you say in chapter 7?

Posted by Peter Damian at Mon Sep 27 11:03:44 2010
Is chapter 7 essentially 'encyclopedic anxiety? You have a presentation here.

http://reagle.org/joseph/Talks/2008/0207-c...nc-anxiety.html

Posted by Joseph Reagle at Mon Sep 27 11:29:54 2010
@ Peter, yes, ch7 is entitled encyclopedic anxiety. In the book I note how openness, consensus, and egalitarianism, for example, are claimed by Wikipedians but are much more difficult and complex issues.

With respect to admin power, I write: "In Wikipedia culture, and in keeping with the larger wiki culture, delineations of authority are suspect, as is seen in the previous excerpt regarding the role of administrators. Yet, even if these other levels of authority entail responsibilities rather than rights -- which is the orthodox line -- they could nonetheless be seen as something to achieve or envy if only for symbolic status."

Posted by Peter Damian at Mon Sep 27 11:37:58 2010
Joseph, you haven't explained why you removed my previous comments.

Moving on, you say "Wikipedia is a massive phenomenon, and people can have varied experiences. I have no doubt that many people (in absolute terms) have been angered, disappointed, and treated unfairly. The question then is that the majority of interactions? Relatively speaking, this has not been my sense of things in watching Wikipedia. So, here, then is a question of balance. Also, my focus is on Wikipedia's culture, so despite particular faults and failings, WP's culture at least attempts to encourage pro-social behavior, rather than anti-social behavior."

I am wondering how your argument would deal with the case of a country with a repressive regime. E.g. Russia in the 1920's and 30's. Or China in the 1960's. You arguments are as follows:

(1) "It's a massive phenomenon and people can have varied experiences." The same was true Cambodia in the 1970's and many had "varied experiences" of that.

(2) On 'the majority of interactions' I'm not sure of what you mean here. In any repressive regime the number of dissidents is pretty small, let's say a significant minority. Did you make any attempt in your book to interview any of these and make an objective assessment of their experiences?

(3) You say this was not your "experience of things". Did you adopt any specific research methodology to avoid 'selection bias' and all the well-known problems of social or historical commentary?

(4) You say your focus is on Wikipedia's culture. Of course, but the critics are claiming that this is the fundamental problem.

(5) You say that Wikipedia "attempts to encourage pro-social behavior, rather than anti-social behavior". But that is also true of any repressive regime. The question is how to come to an objective assessment of whether this attempt has succeeded (in the cultural sense) or not. Most of those who have lived through the purges and the blockings and bannings would say not.

Posted by Joseph Reagle at Mon Sep 27 11:54:08 2010
Peter, I suggest reading the book. I know that I will not likely satisfy any "Wikipedia Review" contributor, and that many of you are as inexhaustible in the enthusiasm of your passion (Wikipedia criticism) as some Wikipedians are in theirs! However, if you read the book, and have a substantive critique with respect to any of the arguments I make, I suggest publishing then. For example, one might challenge the following arguments and theories in an informed way:

1. The historical argument that Wikipedia belongs in a longer historical pursuit of universal encyclopedic vision.
2. The model of what can be called a good-faith collaborative culture and its applicability to Wikipedia.
3. The model of open content community, and some of the most important issues associated with the challenges related to it.
4. The specific challenges associated with consensus decision-making in such a community.
5. The model of authorial leadership provided.
6. The historical argument that criticism of Wikipedia and is also related to criticism of earlier reference works.
7. The review of significant published criticisms of Wikipedia (relevant to themes within the book).

Posted by Joseph Reagle at Mon Sep 27 12:04:16 2010
I don't think comparing Wikipedia with a repressive political regime is a good analogy. One is a state actor with an ability to significantly harm the rights or safety of people. (Yes, Wikipedia has issues with questions of defamation, which I am not denying, but speaking of purges and pogroms seems hyperbolic.)

However, when it comes to this question of balance, historical arguments are always personal arguments. I think a scholar has an obligation to address, or at least identify, significant counter-arguments, which I do. However, I make no claim of perfect objectivity. With respect to ethnography, one of the important papers for me are Golden-Biddle and Locke's (1993) "Appealing work: An investigation of how ethnographic texts convince" where by one strives to exhibit authenticity, plausibility and criticality. I attempted to engage those strategies, so, of course, some might find my efforts lacking. And, of course, they are free to pursue their own research and publish their own results.

Unfortunately, I expect this is all the time I have for this discussion at the moment.

Posted by Gregory Kohs at Mon Sep 27 12:06:19 2010
Not sure how and why my comment of 10:18 was posted again at 10:58. May have been my mistake of "refreshing" page to see what else has been censored. In any regard, feel free to delete the 10:58 comment along with this very comment.

Posted by The Fieryangel at Mon Sep 27 12:07:25 2010
Dr. Reagle,

Might I point out that you have not answer a single one of the questions asked by Peter Damian, by Seth Finkelstein and by Gregory Kohs. Since civility seems to be an important part of this interaction (in much the same way it is made to seem that way on Wikipedia itself), might I ask you politely to try to respond to some of these concerns, rather than not responding at all and stopping discussion by censoring comments?

...although this is certainly much the same way that "civility" is enforced on Wikipedia itself...

Posted by Gregory Kohs at Mon Sep 27 12:07:42 2010
And, once again, merely refreshing the page posts another copy of my previous comment. I wonder how one who comments is supposed to keep up to date on new comments left by others?

Posted by Kelly Martin at Mon Sep 27 12:10:52 2010
I will agree with you that Wikipedia is a remarkable phenomenon. That appears to be the extent to which agreement is possible, however.

I will also agree with you that most people's interaction with Wikipedia will not be strongly colored by the deeply dysfunctional culture there, simply because most people's interactions with Wikipedia are those of the reader and the casual editor, neither of which experiences the full pleasure of Wikipedia's internal strife that closely or directly.

Indeed, the impact to readers is mainly limited to being presented with articles that are poorly written or edited, or occasionally by finding no article at all, because the editor who might otherwise have written a better article has been discouraged from editing by contact with this internal strife, and of course the reader will be unaware of this and will simply leave with either an ill feeling of being less informed than he or she might like, or even possibly ignorantly misinformed because the article he or she did read was the victim of one of the many Wikipedia editors who have learned to play Wikipedia's cultural system in order to insert and defend their personal biases into articles.

The impact to most casual editors is likewise limited: if one's editing is limited to an area of personal predilection and that area is not itself one in which there is much controversy, then one might edit for months, even years, without running into one of Wikipedia's power brokers. I imagine this tells the tale for most Wikipedians, and their experience quite likely resembles the gloriously pretty picture you have persistently tried to paint in your writings.

It is only when one tries to edit a "controversial" topic, such as (to pick one at random) "hummus", that one finds oneself thrown into the Wikipedian equivalent of a snake pit. Such articles are, in practice, controlled by relatively small groups of people, who make sure that their personal views on the topic at hand are preserved. They do this by careful social and political manipulation within Wikipedia's environment (and fairly rarely by appeals to reason or logic) to marginalize and exclude any editor who attempts to alter the article in a way they disapprove.

It has been frequently noted that a significant fraction of those Wikipedians who have been banned (other than those who are banned for repeated petty vandalism) are banned for persistently expressing viewpoints inconsistent with those preferred by those who hold power within Wikipedia's community. This is, of course, inconsistent with your treatise, just as it is inconsistent with Wikipedia's formally-stated policy. But it is the considered experience of those who watch Wikipedia from the outside that Wikipedia policy is observed mainly in the breach, and that the actual goings on at Wikipedia are not even remotely fairly consistent with its formal policy. Indeed, Wikipedia's "collaborative" system deals with ideological conflict by picking a victor by a sociopolitical process driven mainly by personalities, and then demonizing and excluding all those who champion inconsistent positions. Once the dust clears and only the victor is left standing, all is happiness and light (except for those pushed out into the darkness), and the facade that you have so carefully described in your book is maintained.