Wikipedia: Anarchy or Hierarchy?

I agree that it if I suggested Wikipedia has property rules, that was misleading (although it may be interesting to discuss, per Aaron's comment on my request for students' experiences w/ Wikipedia, whether contributors feel a sense of ownership in their edits and/or articles). I did not, however, operate on the assumption that Wikipedia (and other free software projects like it) exists without any organizational structure. Rather, my argument is that Wikipedia's organizational structure has exclusionary consequences that mirror those flowing from a regime with property rights. If a person is excluded, I'm not sure he or share cares whether property rights or organizational hurdles are to blame--the effect is the same. While I should have (and will be) more specific in my second draft, I don't think it's entirely irrational to argue that the phrase "anarchy" can suggest an absence of structural features other than property rights that exclude.

Your proposition is that Wikipedia is an inherently superior product because property rights do not determine who can produce there. But, property rights are only worth focusing on because, by removing them, access is open and contribution is potentially universal--in other words, we have anarchy. My argument is that we shouldn't be so quick to label Wikipedia anarchic when it has exclusionary features that undercut the very openness and universality that you admire. By way of analogy, we can define "healthy" as not doing crack cocaine because crack cocaine has certain negative effects on the body. This shouldn't preclude someone from questioning whether a person who does heroin, but not crack cocaine, is "healthy. "

Asking fellow students for their input based on their experiences with Wikipedia was a good suggestion, and I enjoyed reading the responses to my post requesting help. But, with such a small sample size, it's unlikely that these anecdotes provide the "hard proof" one way or another that you're looking for--even if every response came back "yes, I feel excluded and will never use Wikipedia again," a few burned contributors can't prove my argument. Indeed, I'm not sure what could "prove" my argument short of Wikipedia editors outing themselves as biased or Wikipedia itself shuttering its doors because too many people have left the site. I'm not, however, trying to come up with an airtight explanation for why Wikipedia is not what you claim. If I am mistaken and that is what I should be aiming for, I'm not sure this paper is the best vehicle for doing so. My goal is to explore something that "could" be true in the sense that there is a legitimate academic debate about just how open (or anarchic) Wikipedia is. I should do a better job of explaining why I think one side of this debate is correct--but, I don't think it's my job to provide incontrovertible truth of that fact.

But what would it take to turn this "may" into a "does?" It's a legitimate criticism that I need to provide some more robust support here, and I will do so in my second draft. I'm not sure, however, what I need to do to convince you. It is not my goal to test an unprovable theory so as to circumvent the need to support my argument with proof, logic, or reason. But, there are few things in this class--indeed, in this world--about which someone can say more than it "may" be true. It may be true that Zuckerberg has wrought more harm on this world than anyone his age; on the other hand, it may be true that, on balance, Facebook's benefits outweigh its costs. It may be true that politicians worldwide are in the back pocket of telecom/media kingpins and are more than willing to barter away our rights and freedom; it's also possible that, like companies in every other major industry, telecom and media companies jockey, with varying success, for political influence notwithstanding the negative effects this influence will have. It may be true the next presidential election will be determined by Iowa caucusmembers, or, more specifically, those caucusmembers whom the powers-at-be persuade to stay home; it's also possible that, like in 2008, 1992, 1988, 1980 and 1976, the Iowa caucus will not determine a party's eventual candidate for presidency. It may be true that Wikipedia bureaucrats, who not only contribute the most articles to Wikipedia, but make most of the edits on Wikipedia, will succumb to the human tendency to favor that which support's one's own views; it's also possible they remain entirely, unflinchingly objective in their work. In my second draft, I will try to better support my argument that the former, not the latter, is more likely. But, because it's just as unlikely that a Wikipedia editor will own up to his or her biases (of which he or she may not even be aware) as it is for a US congressman to admit his or her impropriety, I doubt I can render my paper entirely "may"-less.

But my speculation about how Wikipedia works is that you have a clear conflict of interest when the people making administrative decisions are the same people doing the heavy lifting in terms of content production. And, administrative decisions aren't just limited to editing but also encompass whether to "protect" "controversial" articles from any further edits or to allow a new entry to appear in the encyclopedia at all. I don't think anyone argues that the Wikipedia bureaucracy is made up of disinterested automatons--instead, Wikipedia bureaucrats have competing visions about what Wikipedia should be. So what's more absurd--arguing that these people can entirely separate their views/biases/beliefs from their administrative duties or arguing that these views/biases/beliefs influence administrative decisionmaking with exclusionary consequences?

I don't know if I can ever prove direct causation here--not only do I not have access to the relevant data, but even if I did, it's possible all I'd be able to show is a strong correlation. But, I can do a better job explaining why increased deletions of infrequent contributors' edit/entires, growing technological barriers to participation and the proliferation of Wiki rules have exclusionary consequences that likely contributed to this decline. I'm a little confused by how job loss could have resulted in editorial departure (I'm not saying it didn't, just that the causal link isn't immediately clear to me). If anything, I'd think an unemployed person has more time to sit at home and contribute to Wikipedia--indeed, participation in the Wikipedia community might serve as a replacement for the positive feelings of belonging and purpose that come with having a job. That is unless participating in Wikipedia is increasingly discouraging, in which case participation is like rubbing salt in the wound of an unemployed person.

But, education is not a costless process for the person interested in participating. For people with valuable information to contribute who are uninitiated in the technical terminology and maze of rules that increasingly define Wikipedia, the price of participation is steep (moreover, it becomes steeper as new rules/restrictions emerge because those already educated at a basic level are inherently more adept at navigating the new system). In my second draft I'm going to talk a bit about how Wikipedia is an increasingly difficult place to navigate for the tech-unsavvy (this explains why, by Jimmy Wales own admission, Wikipedia contributors are a fairly homogenous group--young, tech-savvy men).

I only think it's overly formalistic to focus exclusively on property rights without allowing for the possibility that other forms of exclusion can detract from WIkipedia's anarchism.

Why do people have to plan to impose their values on the organization? What if their values diverge over time? Moreover, are we to believe that donations never come with implicit strings attached? I don't dispute that people give to organizations like Wikimedia b/c they generally share the organization's values. Notwithstanding this concession, I don't think it's far-fetched to argue that conflicts of interest between Wikimedia and its benefactors could arise.