University Paris IV Sorbonne

From the SelectedWorks of Mathieu O'Neil

June, 2011

The sociology of critique in Wikipedia

Mathieu O'Neil

Available at: http://works.bepress.com/mathieu_oneil/9/

 The sociology of critique in Wikipedia

Mathieu O'Neil*

Summary
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.

Keywords
Authority, domination, critique, online communities, Wikipedia.

1. Introduction ned forms of civic engagement, which is to say they

Wikipedia is now perceived as a universal collective are based on a critique of separation, (b) that in this
good, a part of the networked public sphere. The sense Wikipedia represents a successful response to
project’s openness and extraordinary development democratic aspirations which traverse wider society,
have led to the online encyclopedia embodying the and (c) that on Wikipedia this critique of separation is
democratic promise of commons­based and oriented hindered by obstacles deriving from the project's
peer production: ‘anyone’ can shape how the world is historical development and conditions of production.
defined. Domination and its contestation, a familiar The paper's second section summarises the manner in
topic for the social sciences, assumes renewed interest which legitimate domination has been analysed in the
in this context, and a wealth of studies have examined online context.
the manner in which power is distributed amongst Section 3 outlines different kinds of critique. In
autonomous agents in Wikipedia (see Spek et al., the context of this paper ‘critique’ will refer to the
2006; Kittur et al, 2007; Reagle, 2007; Beschastnik et analysis of critiques deployed by participants. I
al, 2008; Forte et al, 2009; Aaltonen & Lanzara, 2010; present in section 4 two main types of ‘authority’
Konieczny, 2010; Loubser, 2010). (modes of legitimising expert or administrative
Less attention has been given to the issue of actions) which respect the autonomy of participants.
what this distribution of power means for the contesta­ Online legitimation is based on the critique of
tion of domination in technologically advanced separation, and section 5 defines the Wikipedian
societies. What does Wikipedia's abandonment of critique of separated expertise and justice, focusing on
centralised authority tell us about contemporary occurrences when these critiques fail. Section 6
challenges to the social order, about the articulation of considers the issues which the analysis of legitimate
an unambiguous alternative to dominant practices? domination and critique in Wikipedia raise not only
The central thesis of this paper is (a) that the modes of for participants, but also for observers. The conclusion
legitimate power or domination operating within the reflects on the political implications of peer production
English­language Wikipedia are typical of self­gover­ research.

*
UFR d'anglais, Université Paris Sorbonne ­ Paris 4 & Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute, Australian
National University. Email: [email protected]

CSPP ­ RS 1.2 (2011) 1

2. Domination on the Internet Steven Weber's (2004) ‘political economy’ account of
free software presents leadership under four distinct
2.1. Anti­authoritarian leadership
angles: technical design, such as component modula­
The Internet is widely perceived to constitute a rity; sanctioning mechanisms such as flames; legal
‘permanent autonomous zone’. The reasons are many: licenses which operate as Constitutions; and formal
the network's horizontal structure means that all governance structures such as voting procedures.
functioning websites are equally retrievable or Political scientists have also examined the manner in
viewable and every website that is contained in the which online social groups conform to Ostrom's
‘strongly connected component’ of the web can be (1990) criteria for deciding whether traditional offline
accessed either directly or indirectly by following communities are autonomous. Usenet (Kollock &
hyperlinks from other websites in this component [1]. Smith, 1996) and Wikipedia (Forte et al, 2009) have
Social factors should also be taken into account, such thus been evaluated in terms of the absence of
as the informality of interpersonal relationships, or externally imposed rules, the control of member
anonymity. Online groups are stereotypically presen­ behaviour by the community, and other criteria. These
ted as less hierarchical and less discriminatory, more two perspectives, focusing on the personal qualities of
inclusive and democratic than traditional communities, leaders and on regulatory mechanisms, share an
where recourse to visual markers of identity often important characteristic: they position themselves
results in prejudicial exclusion, silencing and exclusively within the system being investigated,
mistreatment (Barney, 2004). It is nonetheless clear forbidding the possibility of a critical distance which
that peer projects require a range of ‘leadership’ would enable the object of study to be placed in the
functions involving coordination, recruitment and wider context of the social order, understood as class­
administration. Free software project maintainers must based subdivisions of dominant and dominated people.
welcome new participants and facilitate the integration
of their contributions; evaluate and criticise proposals
to ensure they do not degrade the quality of the 3. The forms of critique
project; keep the project dynamic (discussing and Who performs critique, who is the critical agent?
summarising ideas); and ensure discipline (by confer­ Three main types of critique can be distinguished
ring privileges, arbitrating disputes and excluding (Trom, 2008). One has a historical dimension,
troublemakers). The catch is that, with the exception denouncing the present in terms of an anticipation of
of the last actions, which are of a strictly the future. A second variant criticises the present
administrative or judiciary nature, none of these tasks situation in the name of a scientific posture: unveiling
lend themselves to a command­obey relationship. In the reality hidden by ideology, illusion, alienation.
fact, maintainers must take care not to antagonise or Finally a third critical stance is based on indignation:
disappoint participants by not meeting their expecta­ reality is denounced not in the name of the future or of
tions, failing to pacify conflicts and establishing science, but because it makes us subjectively feel the
unrealistic objectives (Weber, 2004) or participants weight of injustice. The strength of Marxism was, or is
will exercise their exit option and desert the project. (depending on how one feels about its relevance) to
combine, or juxtapose, all three types. In the following
section, I assess the relevance of these distinct
2.2. Approaches of online authority
critiques to online projects such as Wikipedia.
Two analytical approaches to online domination can
be broadly distinguished (for a more detailed review
see O'Neil, 2011). Some scholars have focused on the 3.1. Critique as historical process
personal qualities required of leaders. Maintainers in Peer production echoes earlier forms of production of
free software projects need to demonstrate program­ commons, where work is voluntary, engaged on a
ming skills as well as idiosyncratic personal appeal; contractless basis, and actors follow norms which have
eschewing authoritarianism, they must ‘speak softly’; emerged following a ‘bottom­up’ process (Ostrom
prove that they will accept the better ‘patch’ 2000). Benkler (2002) suggests that peer production
(contribution); and give credit where credit is due represents a real alternative to the dominant production
(Raymond, 1999). Such leaders are said to adhere to models organised around commands and hierarchies,
the Platonic ideal of always working for the good of as in firms, and prices and monetary rewards, as in
the commonwealth, proving their worth through their markets. Decreased communication costs and the fact
strong moral commitment to the values of the project that digital goods are non­rival (one person’s use does
(Coleman, 2005). Leaders in Wikipedia, who emerge not hinder another’s) contribute to matching best
informally as the project develops, must demonstrate a available human resources to the best available
range of characteristics, such as patience and humility, information inputs to create information products
the use of persuasion, humour and politeness, rather (Benkler, 2002: 444). If huge numbers of people
than heavy­handed or autocratic tactics. Most contribute, all the better: participants are best able to
importantly, they must continue to contribute to the decide themselves how much they can contribute. It is
project (Reagle 2007). A second set of scholars true that people may mistake or misstate their capa­
focuses on the emergence of regulatory mechanisms. cities, and originally Benkler (2002: 415) argued that

CSPP ­ RS 1.2 (2011) 2

peer review or statistical averaging (if the number is protecting their private intellectual property (O'Neil,
large enough) will be enough to control bad self­ 2006). As the Apple Computer slogan once infamously
assessments, though he has since added the notion that had it: ‘Rip. Mix. Burn. It’s your music.’ The Internet­
projects require established, low­cost means of as­free­content­for­all ideology erases the distinction
weeding out incompetent and malicious contributions between producers and spectators of content, so that
(Benkler & Nissenbaum, 2006: 401). Projects should everyone will be an artist or a journalist; a heroically
be modular (they can be broken up into distinct com­ active ‘prosumer’ or ‘produser’ instead of an abject
ponents which can be independently developed, consumer. Another issue is that the exact identity of
allowing investments at different times of distinct the aforementioned production­owning ‘shareholders’
individuals with varying competencies) and granular (Bauwens, 2010) is not addressed. In the online
(modules need to be fine­grained) so that they can be environment, participation is not only limited to those
performed by individuals in little time, and motivation who possess the requisite economic and cultural
needs to be very small (Benkler, 2002: 378). resources; participation may in fact operate as the
Trom (2008) argues that the first type of critical means to perpetuate the hidden advantages of elites ­
activity, based on historical destiny, has been precisely what the second type of critique aims to
discredited by the collapse of the Soviet Union and its uncover.
satellites. Nonetheless some authors believe that a
future society is being built now by historical agents 3.2. Critique as scientific unveiling
not united by their class, but by their shared embrace A paradigmatic example of this positioning was Pierre
of new processes. Peer production by the autonomous Bourdieu’s critical sociology which aimed to reveal
multitude replaces the proletariat as the fetishised forms of the social unconscious through which the
subject of history. Zizek (2002) remixed Lenin's socially dominant reproduce their domination (Bour­
famous slogan (‘Socialism = electricity + power of the dieu 1983, 1984). By revealing the truth about the
Soviets’) to come up with: ‘Socialism = free access to world, critical sociology aims to achieve justice in the
Internet + power of the Soviets’. Activists of the P2P world. If Bourdieu had spent any time thinking about
Foundation argue that peer to peer work already the Internet and online peer production, he might have
constitutes the direct creation of value by civil society, said something like the following: what we have here
whereby individuals do not abdicate their property is a classic example of a para­artistic autonomous field
rights to corporations or the State but remain share­ with its specific forms of anti­economic value or
holders of their production: ‘democratically governed’ ‘capital’. Incumbents endowed with disproportionate
commons are becoming ‘the core institution of the amounts of this capital are educated white males. They
new political economy’ (Bauwens, 2010). Members of distinguish themselves as the exclusive repositories of
the Oekonux network write that commons­based peer technological expertise; coding for code’s sake allows
production such as Free Software and Wikipedia hackers to profit from the interest in being perceived
represent the harbinger or ‘germ form’ within as disinterested; they monopolise the capacity to say
capitalism of a new social order (Meretz & Merten, with authority which persons are authorised to call
2011) based on the free provision of goods or on themselves hackers, hence the disparagement of ‘script
commonly constituted ‘pools’ (Siefkes, 2007), thereby kiddies’ or ‘hacktivists’ who are not interested in pro­
renewing with Marxist visions of ‘post­scarcity’ gramming per se, but in the use of applications for fun
societies of abundance. or activism (Jordan & Taylor, 2004).
This stance raises a number of questions. Dyer­ In short, free online projects should be
Witheford's seminal Cyber­Marx had pinpointed the understood as expressing the values of the dominated
central contradiction of informational capitalism: fraction of the dominant social group. Hence these
commerce now depends on the creativity of a ‘mass of projects are structured by a rejection of ‘corporate’
informal, innovative, intellectual activity ­ “hacking” values whilst reproducing the advantage of those who
­ ... even as it criminalizes it’ (Dyer­Witheford, 1999: are endowed with cultural, rather than economic
228). Ten years later the editors of a special issue of capital. The early social Internet was indeed strongly
Capital & Class on peer production noted that prime imbued with a logic of distinction: possessors of
examples such as GNU/Linux development and exclusive email addresses such as the WELL (Whole
Wikipedia initiated a new mode of production but also Earth ’Lectronic Link, one of the first alternative
reasserted ‘very old­fashioned trends of profit­making online communities) or of research universities, were
and the colonisation of knowledge’ (Karatzogianni & viewed in a better light on Usenet than users with com­
Moore, 2009: 11). Let's face it: informational capita­ mercial accounts. The profusion of terms developed in
lism seems to be able to handle a zone of free digital computer­mediated­communication environments to
goods reasonably well. You might even say that describe the implementation and violation of beha­
portraying cyberspace as a cornucopia brimming over vioural norms (‘netiquette’) also points to the
with free or pirated content creates in consumers the importance of cultural capital on the Net (Lawley,
need to purchase the requisite hardware and band­ 1994). Though the democratisation of online commu­
width; and it urges them to do so in the name of nication and production thanks to tools such as blogs
rebelling against the power of corporations intent on and wikis (‘Web 2.0’) has stretched the boundaries of

CSPP ­ RS 1.2 (2011) 3

belonging, the Internet remains an exclusive enclave. the case of collectivist online authority). Some authors
Within this protected universe, strong divisions persist, have described legitimate power in peer production
deriving from the identity of its first inhabitants. Like projects – Arvidsson (2007) and Reagle (2007) both
Free Software, Wikipedia constitutes an environment refer to ‘charisma’ in regards to ‘social production’
with a highly skewed gender distribution. According and Wikipedia respectively, whilst Auray (2005) as
to a United Nations University survey, only 13% of well as O’Mahony & Ferraro (2007) analysed ‘sove­
Wikipedians are female (Glott & Ghosh, 2010). reignty’ in the Debian GNU/Linux distribution (a
Though it would be unfair to assert that Wikipedia distribution is an operating system and a collection of
communication conforms to a familiar online pattern software applications). Building on these insights, I
whereby criticism of aggressive behaviour is disqua­ argue that the classic Weberian concept of ‘authority’
lified as constituting an intolerable censorship of (1978) can be applied to anti­authoritarian projects
freedom of speech (Herring, 1999), the agonistic spirit provided it is founded on a critique of the social order,
of netiquette lives on: it is still perfectly acceptable to understood as alienated separation (defined in the next
communicate aggressively on Wikipedia, provided section). This section outlines how charismatic hacker
that the comments are not ‘personal’ (Ross, 2009). and collectivist online authority operate in Wikipedia.
The critique of masculinity as a social super­ A third variant, index authority, is not dealt with here,
structure of domination is justified and necessary, but as it plays a minimal role within Wikipedia. Index
appears problematic in the context of this paper. First, authority refers to the fact that sites with more in­links
it is hardly specific to peer production projects. tend to be ranked higher in search engine indexes such
Second, it raises an analytical issue: in the ‘critical as Google (Ackland & O'Neil, 2011). Wikipedia itself,
unveiling of domination’ model, the only agents as a website, has very high index authority, as
equipped to perceive and uncover injustice are evidenced by Google rankings.
sociologists themselves.
4.1. Hacker Authority in Wikipedia
3.3. Critique as action Levy (1984) defined the ‘hacker ethic’ as the
Critical sociology’s psychoanalysis­inspired notion of commitment to the free access of computers and
cultural unconscious does not mesh with people’s information, the mistrust of centralised authority and
observed capacity for self­reflection. In other words, the insistence that hackers be evaluated solely in terms
critical sociology does not sufficiently account for the of technical virtuosity and not ‘bogus’ criteria such as
critical operations undertaken by actors. People are not degrees, age, race or position. Charismatic hacker
‘cultural dopes’ who lack insight into the normative authority is based on the extraordinary skills of a
underpinnings of their actions (Garfinkel, 1969: 37). person. Since it is intimately linked to the characte­
Instead Boltanski (2009) suggests that people are ristics of the individual, it is not transferable to anyone
endowed with reflexive and critical capacities (not else. On Wikipedia, hacker charisma is, of course, first
necessarily expressed in public) which question the embodied in the person of Jimmy Wales, the project's
superior status of sociologists as sole possessors of remaining founder: his extraordinary status allowed
truth. People use arguments which display similar him to intervene in disputes by summarily blocking
features to sociological or scientific reports: valid users or content (O'Neil, 2009). Though these actions
arguments rest on a system of proofs, on the selection were arbitrary and generated controversy, they were
of pertinent facts, on unveiling operations. The not seen as illegitimate on Wikipedia. Since 2009
impermeable division between the everyday activity of Wales remains a ‘charismatic leader and has a seat on
‘ordinary people’ and the scientific activity of the [Wikimedia Foundation] board, but he has much
sociologists has dubious validity. Boltanski et al.’s fewer permissions in community governance’ (Fuster
‘sociology of critique’ aims to place the actions and Morell, 2011: 333).
moral judgements of ordinary people at the centre of Charismatic authority derives from the gift of
its analytical project (Boltanski, 1990; Boltanski & grace: from a higher power or from inspiration. It rests
Thévenot, 2006; Boltanski & Chiapello, 2004). In this on the qualities of an individual personality, by virtue
configuration people are understood as formulating of which he or she is deemed extraordinary and treated
criticisms, justifications and compromises by referring as endowed with superhuman or at least specifically
to common conventions (known as ‘cités’). exceptional powers and qualities (Weber, 1978: 241).
At the same time charisma never remains long in its
unadulterated form, before being ‘routinised’ into a
4. Legitimate Power in Wikipedia more stable incarnation, usually incorporating chara­
In the context of peer production projects, the analysis cteristics of bureaucracy or patrimonialism. In
of legitimate domination constitutes a useful means to Wikipedia the routinisation of charisma takes the form
elucidate the connection between local and societal of the recognition by the community of the dedication
critical practice. The legitimation of actions and shown by participants to the project. In Weber’s
decisions in peer production projects can be based on typology (1978), merit­based promotion distinguishes
the qualities of an individual (in the case of charisma­ legal systems from patrimonial and charismatic ones.
tic hacker authority) or on the values of the group (in But in the hacker universe, and by extension in all

CSPP ­ RS 1.2 (2011) 4

volunteer­staffed peer production projects, if project can in theory be withdrawn by the community. In
work constitutes the basis for recognition, this reality, though they were initially meant to operate
recognition is ‘paid’ in affect, in the shape of the only as janitors, admins, who are never subject to re­
respect and affection given by one’s peers, and not by election, have taken on increasingly greater responsi­
an official promotion, commendation or financial bilities, of a behavioural and editorial nature (Forte et
bonus awarded by a hierarchy. Charismatised merit, al, 2009). A particularly telling example is that 46% of
which Arvidsson (2009) refers to as ‘philia’ (commu­ page blocks effected by administrators of the English
nity standing, affective proximity) is most clearly Wikipedia between December 2004 and January 2008
manifested on Wikipedia in ‘barnstars’, tokens of had to do with the question of whether articles should
appreciation which are publicly conferred by one be deleted. In other words, 1.500 people are
participant to another and appear on the personal pages determining what deserves to be included in the
of project participants. encyclopaedia, whilst the project has 12 million user
accounts (Loubser, 2010).
4.2. Online collectivist authority in Wikipedia
The second form of legitimation on Wikipedia, Rules in Wikipedia
collectivist online authority, is based on regard for the Wikipedia is characterised by ‘self­similarity’ in that
common good. In an earlier work (O'Neil, 2009) I also governance is incorporated in the wiki technology
referred to this variant as ‘sovereign authority’ to which underpins the creation and coordination of
emphasise the bottom­up constitution of a sovereign encyclopaedia articles (Almeida et al., 2007). In other
political entity. However I have found that when the words, governance mechanisms such as policies and
term is translated from English into other languages it guidelines are transparently created on the wiki
can be confused with notions of national sovereignty. I through a process of ‘writing about writing’ (Aaltonen
will from now on solely refer to online collectivism, in & Lanzara, 2010). In the absence of centralized
line with significant past instances of organisational editorial oversight, interactions on Wikipedia are
analysis of communal groups (Rothschild­Whitt, regulated by an overlapping thicket of editorial and
1979). The anti­authoritarian roots of peer production behavioural principles or protocols such as WP:NPOV
mean that online projects are held to contradict the (neutral point of view), WP:RS (reliable sources),
more dysfunctional connotations of ‘bureaucracy’, WP:NOR (no original research), WP:AGF (assume
such as vertical control, sclerotic aversion to change, good faith), etc. As participants become more and
blind deference to authority, and the like. For example, more involved in the encyclopaedia, they become
the founding members of the Internet Engineering more and more familiar with its rules, and seek more
Task Force, the body which establishes Internet trans­ and more to apply them to enable the project’s
mission protocols, contended that the IETF resembled functioning, as a form of personal engagement which
a ‘happening’ without managers, politicians (‘suits and is also a moral initiative (Auray et al., 2009).
neckties’) or formal structure (Hoffman & Harris,
2009). Wikipedia similarly claims that it is ‘not a
5. The critique of separated domination
bureaucracy’ (Wikipedia, 2010).
An influential attempt at articulating how peer produ­
Nonetheless Wikipedia, like most large peer
ction impacts the social order is that of Benkler &
produced projects, comprises typically bureaucratic
Nissenbaum (2006). In their view, this impact should
features such as the maintenance of archives of deci­
be framed in strictly ethical terms: commons­based
sions, the existence of rules, and the separation of roles
peer production is a ‘distinctive socio­technical
and persons: any Wikipedia editor can become an
system’ which does not only favour ‘cultural and
‘administrator’ and hence exercise authority over other
intellectual production’ but also ‘constitutes a venue
participants; these officers can be replaced by some­
for human character development’ (417). Economic
one else. The difference with traditional corporate
cost and industrial organisation can no longer restrict
bureaus are the stated transparency of decisions and
the production of culture and information, so vast
commitment to consensus­building. Collectivist online
amounts of people can contribute to the public good;
authority can be defined as a fusion of direct­
‘virtuous action’ is multiplied (418). In my view, this
democratic and bureaucratic traits and has two central
perspective, whilst accurate, does not sufficiently
components: roles and rules.
account for the manner in which peer production
constitutes a conscious rejection of alienation. Beyond
Roles in Wikipedia virtuous collaboration, there is active resistance to
A complex hierarchy has emerged, composed of prevailing conditions, not just in terms of collaborative
administrators (aka ‘admins’ or ‘sysops’), stewards, production but also when it comes to such fundamen­
and bureaucrats, each of these categories being endo­ tal notions as truth and justice.
wed with specific tools and competencies (blocking The critical operations of people in commons­
articles or participants, nominating people to positions, based peer production projects are critiques of separa­
etc.). Since the legitimate domination which admins tion: in a world which denigrates solidarity and
possess has been entrusted to them by their peers, it promotes division into ever­smaller market segments,

CSPP ­ RS 1.2 (2011) 5

participants in these projects seek a feeling of unity change article, he was accused of ‘promoting his own
between their identities as consumers and producers, POV [Point of View] and of having systematically
between their status as experts and amateurs, between erased any POV which did not correspond to his own’.
their roles as leaders and followers, between their His anonymous opponent brought him before
activities of work and play, and between themselves Wikipedia’s high court, the Arbitration Committee,
and their fellow participants in the project – a project and Connolley was sentenced to making only one
which they see, more often than not, as a cause to ‘revert’ a day, apart from cases of vandalism. Though
defend. Forces that contradict this holistic fusion are to this sentence had more to do with breaches of
be denounced, whether they appear in the guise of etiquette, with Connolley’s not suffering fools gladly,
separated expertise or justice (O'Neil, 2011). than with the promoting of a biased perspective, the
Contemporary domination bases its legitimacy case highlighted the fact that possessors of specialised
on the authority of experts, to the detriment of expertise were now placed on the same level as
legitimacy based on popular representation (Boltanski, everyone else.
2009). Citizens are dispossessed of their political Impediment to critique: Persistent respect for fake or
autonomy by a system in which technological and genuine traditional expertise
economic stakes outpace their understanding and The critique of expertise is not applied uniformly;
capacity for decision­making. In contrast, when it ope­ separated forms of scientific legitimacy still play a role
rates as it is supposed to, hacker expertise is demo­ in Wikipedia. The case of Essjay illustrates the point.
cratic: the only criteria is correctness, participants are This person, whose conflict­mediation work had led
equal, and deliberations and criticisms are public. It him to the top rungs of the project’s bureaucracy,
constitutes a rejection of technocracy which operates routinely presented himself as a Professor of Divinity
in secret and does not always seek the common good. Studies to ‘win’ content disputes, whereas he lacked
As for collective regulation, the spirit of online any academic qualifications whatsoever (Cohen,
projects is that the law applies to all and it is open to 2007). Participants also show respect for genuine
criticism and debate by all. This represents a stark competence in complex technical disciplines which
contrast with non­virtual society where a defining discourage opinionated amateurs (Sanger, 2009).
characteristic of the power of dominants is the ability
to laugh at the rules which the dominated observe,
5.2. The critique of separated justice in Wikipedia
without ever paying a price. This section reviews how
critique operates as well as the factors which hinder A corollary to the manner in which the truth­making
critique. process is open to public scrutiny in Wikipedia is that
judicial procedures and decisions are also meant to be
completely transparent. However online peer projects
5.1. The critique of separated expertise in Wikipedia struggle between their non­separate ideal and the
Wikipedia is premised on the critique of separated constant recreation of divisions. This is particularly the
expertise, but (in contrast to hacking) does not require case in Wikipedia, with its participatory premise (‘you
esoteric knowledge. Hackers affirming that their can edit this article right now’) at odds with the emer­
solution is the best are quickly subjected to their peers’ gence of a caste of specialised regulators. A number of
evaluation: either the code runs, or it doesn’t. In structural factors have also contributed to the perce­
contrast to hacker projects where technical excellence ption of injustice.
forms the basis for agreement, Wikipedia’s collective Impediment to critique 1: Uncertainty over identity
process aims to democratise knowledge production. Many Wikipedia editors will happily work on their
Every article can generate a debate as to what is preferred topics without ever coming into contact with
correct. This is meant to be resolved by a manner of an administrator. However uncertainty over the
scientific process (WP: Reliable sources), so that any­ relationship between physical and digital identities
one can claim the title of expert. The project stands for causes a significant amount of turbulence, as the
the most radical form of anti­credentialism: expertise regulation of the activities of vandals or propagandists
is no longer embodied in a person but in a process, the who use duplicate identities (‘sockpuppets’) is a poten­
‘wisdom of the crowd’, that is to say interactions tial breeding ground for discriminatory treatment.
between individual authors and a massively distributed Participants on the French Wikipedia who have not
peer community (Wales, 2008; O'Neil, 2010). registered on the site and instead just use an IP address
The critique of separated expertise will are more likely to be involved in semi­protected
primarily be exercised against the pretensions of those articles, where disputes and insults typically occur
who claim to be the sole possessors of truth and (Auray et al, 2009). Yet the ease of contributing
knowledge because of their outside accreditations. A anonymously represents an important part of the Wiki­
well­known example were the charges laid against pedia process. One study found that anonymous
William Connolley (Wikipedia, 2005). When Connol­ contributors contributed a quarter of the mainspace
ley, a Wikipedia editor who in his day job was a content, but only 1/20 of the policy and regulation
climatologist at Cambridge's British Antarctic Survey, content (Aaltonen & Lanzara, 2010). Another determi­
attempted to correct mistakes on Wikipedia’s climate ned that edits by anonymous ‘Good Samaritans’ who

CSPP ­ RS 1.2 (2011) 6

are experts in their field were of consistently high of unredressed injustice on Wikipedia migrate to
quality (Antony et al, 2009). The lack of confidence hypercritical sites such as Wikipedia Review and
towards users who do not register an identity (even if Encyclopaedia Dramatica, where the perceived mis­
it is pseudonymous) on the French Wikipedia means deeds of the ‘Cabal’ which runs Wikipedia are pored
these users’ contributions are much more liable to be over and derided, sometimes in juvenile fashion.
reverted than that of registered users (Auray et al,
2009). Similarly in the English Wikipedia, the 6. Critique and research
percentage of reverted contributions has grown from Wikipedia research is heavily skewed toward the
2.9% in 2005 to 6% in 2008, with the contributions of macro­level analysis of huge amounts of data ‘dumps’
non­registered or ordinary users much more likely to (Viégas et al., 2004; Antony et al., 2009; Ortega et al,
be reverted than that of the administrators (Suh et al., 2009; Aaltonen & Lanzara, 2010). Focusing on the
2009). macro level has several advantages for scholars,
Impediment to critique 2: The perception that power is starting with the intrinsic epistemic value of large­
unjustly concentrated scale quantitative research. In addition this type of
What is not in dispute is that as the number of admins research sounds impressive and is likely to attract
rises, they apply ever­more precise regulation to en funding, as well as Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)
ever­shrinking pool of creatable articles: proportio­ and Ethics Committees approval, something which
nally, the number of pages defining rules has been North American researchers are expected to obtain.
growing at a much faster rate than content pages But this research focus has less positive consequences:
(Kittur et al., 2007). Statistical analysis supports the the field becomes only accessible to computer scien­
notion that far from the wisdom of the crowd, tists, who tend to concentrate on the inner workings of
Wikipedia is managed by a tiny elite (Ibid.) and that technical systems, forbidding critical distance; IRBs
this minority is producing a great amount of both are unlikely to look favourably on possibly contro­
article and policy content so that ‘the few do most of versial topics. All this has contributed to a reduced
the job and have the wisdom too’ (Aaltonen & examinations of specific instances of possibly abusive
Lanzara, 2010: 22). Indeed, as the number of partici­ behaviour.
pants has grown and as new governance tools such as The challenge for critical Wikipedia research is
the Administrator's Notice Board have been created, to bring together two contradictory imperatives:
‘for better or for worse, the role of administrator protecting the integrity of subjects whilst dealing with
carries with it more social authority than it ever has in the actions of people occupying powerful positions.
the past’ (Forte et al., 2009: 66), with sysops making Whilst new or inexperienced users may not be aware
decisions that would previously have been made by that all edits on Wikipedia can potentially be subse­
the Arbcom, such as interpreting policy and excluding quently referred to, the same cannot be said of
people from the site. There has reportedly been a dip experienced editors and particularly of administrators:
in recruitment numbers in recent years (Ortega et al., Wikipedia has a culture of public ‘rational­critical’
2009; Suh et al., 2009). Though no direct correlation discussion (Hansen et al., 2009). This does not alter
has been established, it is not inconceivable that an the fact that whilst Wikipedians may be prepared to
increase of disciplinary control, and its unequal appli­ see their words and actions evaluated and criticised by
cation to everyone, would result in a plateauing of their peers, they would not necessarily feel the same
recruitment. way if these critiques and evaluations were performed
Participants have occasionally alleged that by outsiders. This raises the question of the necessity
exclusionary power in Wikipedia has been of the independent review of judicial and admini­
concentrated in the hands of a core group of strative actions on Wikipedia. But before addressing
administrators. Whilst no evidence exists of systematic this issue, it is necessary to briefly review the
abuse, it seems logical that people benefiting from principles of online research ethics.
such advantages as incumbency, intimate knowledge The ethics of the external monitoring and
of site procedures, networks of supporters, and in analysis of online communities has long been a
some cases administrative tools, would be statistically concern of Internet researchers. Since the 1990s, the
more likely to see their point of view prevail during US­centric position has stressed the Internet’s blurring
disputes, irrespective of the correctness of their of the categories of private and public, signifying that
position (O'Neil, 2009). However since persistent technical accessibility does not equal publicness, and
critiques of administrative authority are often coupled making anonymity and informed prior consent
to strongly held views on controversial topics they are necessary (King, 1996; Wascul & Douglas, 1996).
viewed as disruptive, and those who formulate them Authors have advocated the search for a consensus
are sometimes banned from participating in the site. between researchers and subjects so that the latter may
When the site’s democratic promise is not realised and correct or change what is written about them before
domination appears unjustly concentrated, reactions publication (Allen, 1996); others have suggested
can be violent, prompting for example accusations that working together with subjects to produce research
Wikipedia operates as a ‘cult’ (Finkelstein, 2007). outputs (Bakardjieva & Andrew, 2001), practising an
Some participants who feel they have been the victims ‘open source ethics’ (Berry, 2004).[2]

CSPP ­ RS 1.2 (2011) 7

 Bruckman (2002) provides a useful spectrum of 7. Conclusion
situations requiring ‘light’ to ‘heavy’ disguise – the
This paper has outlined a critical research framework
heavier variant being premised on the transmogrifying
based on the actions of participants, rather than on the
of the website, something which research on
uncovering of master narratives of domination. In
Wikipedia would obviously find hard to achieve.
technologically advanced societies, where domination
Further, since wiki­activity is highly contingent, invol­
occurs through soft control, political activism is rarely
ving precise technical capacities and administrative
a mass phenomenon. The radical impulses of the
procedures (rather than simply discussions on an email
dispersed multitude instead adopt sideways strategies
list), the concealment of subjects would potentially
of resistance: constituting digital commons as alterna­
involve changing the nature of the tasks being
tives to proprietary goods (though these may also
analysed, which might render the specific stakes of an
operate as justifications for capitalism) and inaugu­
incident somewhat hard to follow.
rating new kinds of agencies, communities, and
Herring (1996) had previously formulated some practices. The activity of participants in massively
more general criticisms of the conventional stance in distributed commons­based peer production projects
Internet research ethics, which all apply to Wikipedia: such as Wikipedia are prefiguring a type of society
(a) False anonymity: since the Internet is a where expertise and justice are not in the exclusive
written medium, in publicly archived projects it is service of dominants, but democratically available to
trivial to perform a search and find the authors of a all. The characteristic of peer production is that people
particular quote. Anonymising subjects would there­ are motivated to form a collective which is not based
fore simply be a convention, a way of protecting the on class identity (as in traditional social movements)
researcher’s ethical reputation; or on a cause such as environmentalism or feminism
(b) Lack of verifiability: how can results be (as in new social movements) but on collective owner­
reproduced by other researchers if distinguishing ship of the means of production and on democratic
features are scrubbed out?; control over justice and expertise. In the process of
working together for personal satisfaction and the
(c) The issue of scale: in large projects, who common good, Wikipedians are criticising and over­
should the researcher seek prior consent from? In the coming separated domination, rejecting the power of
case of Wikipedia literally hundreds of people may offline scientific knowledge and justice specialists.
opine during a conflict; However personal and structural factors such as the
(d) Finally, and most problematically, the presence of outside experts on the one hand, and first­
possible censoring of research: how can researchers mover advantage and uncertainty over identity on the
conduct legitimate critical research (in Herring’s case, other restrain this critique of separation. Possible
she was investigating gender bias in email lists) if solutions include reassessing the role of anonymity on
prior consent is sought out? Would informing subjects the project as well as the drafting of a Constitution
of the research project not entice them to modify the which would more clearly lay out the roles and respon­
very behaviour which the researcher is documenting? sibilities of authority­holders (both these suggestions
In particular, what of participants who wield power contradict core elements of the Wikipedia ethos).
over other users? The role of researchers in a legal system which
In short, the ethics of not doing harm to subjects is de facto impermeable to outside scrutiny has also
needs to be balanced to the ethics of potentially not been evoked. Should researchers strictly obey the
addressing injustice unearthed by research (Herring, ‘golden rule’ by only conducting quantitative analysis
1996). The early days of Internet research produced at the macro level (‘there may be cases of abusive
stimulating examinations of the emergence of authority because of structural factors x, y and z’),
commons­based legal systems in MUDs and MOOs thereby staying out of Wikipedia’s embodied
(see for example Maltz, 1996; Mnookin, 1996; arrangements of power? Wikipedia administrators,
Lemley, 1997; Perritt, 1997). In contrast, there has bureaucrats and especially arbitrators are effectively
been relatively little examination of Wikipedia’s operating as judicial authorities: a Wikipedia arbitrator
internal legal structure. Now, the evaluation of the (who happens to be a lawyer in the offline world) once
correctness of judicial decisions or administrative referred to his role in the project as that of a ‘judge of
actions implies an examination of particular cases and a multi­member appellate court with a discretionary
decisions. Since Wikipedia­law is unstable, as it can jurisdiction’ (Matetski, 2009). Legal scholars do not
potentially be challenged and rewritten, it is ask for the permission of judges when reviewing and
understandable that legal scholars would hesitate to criticising their decisions. Declarations by the
comment. Yet if the point of critical research is to Wikimedia Foundation inviting scholars to join in the
identify problems in reality in a reasonably precise process of managing the relationship between
manner, it is difficult to see how this could be researchers and Wikimedia projects show that the
achieved without referring to specific examples of issue has not gone unnoticed (Moeller, 2010), but it is
practices and procedures – which then runs the risk of not clear to what extent such developments extend to
identifying individuals, even when their identity is fully independent review by outsiders. Beyond
disguised, for the reasons outlined above. Wikipedia, this is a central question for emerging

CSPP ­ RS 1.2 (2011) 8

organisations that promote participatory, horizontal Benkler, Y. (2002) ‘Coase’s penguin, or, Linux and The Nature of
the Firm’, Yale Law Review 112(3): 369­446.
distributions of power. If such organisations are to
constitute a viable alternative to corporate hierarchies, Benkler, Y. & H. Nissenbaum (2006) ‘Commons­based peer
production and virtue’, Journal of Political Philosophy 14(4):
their administrative and judicial processes should be 394­419.
able to withstand a similar, or higher, level of scrutiny. Berry, D. (2004) ‘Internet research: Privacy, ethics and alienation.
In other words, it is time to seriously debate the merits An open­source approach’, Internet Research 14(4): 323­332.
of oversight mechanisms for commons­based peer Beschastnikh, I., Kriplean, T. & McDonald, D. W. (2008)
production projects. ‘Wikipedian self­governance in action: Motivating the policy
lens’, in: Proceedings of the 2008 AAAI International
Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Seattle, WA, 30
March­2 April.
Endnotes
Boltanski, L. (1990) L’Amour et la Justice Comme Compétences:
Trois Essais de Sociologie de l’Action. Paris: Métailié.
[1] A strongly connected component is a set of nodes __________. (2009) De la Critique. Précis de Sociologie de
l'Emancipation. Paris: Gallimard.
where for each node there exists a path (direct or
indirect) to every other node in the set. Broder & al. Boltanski, L. & Chiappello, E. (2004) The New Spirit of
Capitalism. London: Verso. [Originally published 1999]
(2000) estimated that in 1999, 28% of websites formed
Boltanski, L. & Thévenot, L. (2006) On Justification: Economies of
a giant strongly connected component while 8% of Worth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [Originally
sites were disconnected from this component. published 1991]
[2] Some countries' ethical guidelines do not adhere to Bourdieu, P. (1983) ‘The Field of cultural production, or: The
the strict prescription against identifying subjects. For economic world reversed’, Poetics, 12(4­5): 311­356.
example French­language articles on Wikipedia, such _________. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement
of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
as Auray et al's (2009) masterful exploration of [Originally published 1979]
conflict in the French Wikipedia, clearly identify Broder, A., Kumar, R., Maghoul, F., Raghavan, P., Rajagopalan, S.,
participants. Stata, R., Tomkins, A. & J. Wiener (2000): ‘Graph structure
in the Web’, Computer Networks 33(1­6): 309­320.
Bruckman, A. (2002) ‘Studying the amateur artist: A perspective on
References disguising data collected in human subjects research on the
Internet’, Ethics and Information Technology 4(3): 217­231.
Cohen, N. (2007) ‘A contributor to Wikipedia has his fictional
Aaltonen, A. & Lanzara, G. F. (2010) ‘Unpacking Wikipedia side’, New York Times, 5 March: C15.
governance: The emergence of a bureaucracy of peers?’, 3rd Dahlberg, L. (2007) ‘The Internet, deliberative democracy and
Latin American and European Meeting on Organisation power: radicalising the public sphere’, International Journal
Studies, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 7­10 April. of Media and Cultural Politics 3(1): 47–64.
Ackland, R. & M. O’Neil (2011) ‘Online collective identity: The Dyer­Witheford, N. (1999) Cyber­Marx. Cycles and Circuits of
case of the environmental movement’, Social Networks (in Struggle in High­technology Capitalism. Urbana and
press). Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Allen, C. (1996) ‘What’s wrong with the ‘Golden Rule’? Finkelstein, S. (2007) ‘Inside, Wikipedia is more like a sweatshop
Conundrums of conducting ethical research in cyberspace’, than Santa’s workshop’, The Guardian weblog, 6 December.
The Information Society 12(2): 175­187. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/dec/06/wikipe
Almeida, R.B., Mozafar, B. & J. Cho (2007) ‘On the evolution of dia>
Wikipedia’, in: Proceedings of the International Conference Forte, A., Larco, V. & A. Bruckman. ‘Decentralisation in Wikipedia
on Weblogs and Social Media. Boulder, Colorado, USA. governance’, Journal of Management Information Systems
Antony, D., Smith, S. W., & T. Williamson (2009) ‘Reputation and 26(1): 49­72.
reliability in collective goods: The case of the online Fuster Morell, M. (2011) ‘The Wikimedia Foundation and the
encyclopedia Wikipedia’, Rationality and Society 21(3): 283­ governance of Wikipedia's infrastructure’, in: Lovink, G. and
306. N. Tkacz (eds) Critical Point of View: A Wikipedia Reader.
Arvidsson, A. (2007) ‘The ethical economy: Towards a post­ Amsterdam, Netherlands: Institute of Network Cultures.
capitalist theory of value’, Capital & Class 97: 13­29. Garfinkel, H. (1969) Studies in Ethnomethodology, Englewood
Auray, N. (2005) ‘Le Sens du juste dans un noyau d’experts: Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hal.
Debian et le puritanisme civique’, in: B. Conein, F. Massit­ Glott, R. & Ghosh, R. (2010) ‘Analysis of Wikipedia survey. Topic:
Folléa & S. Proulx (eds) Internet, une Utopie Limitée: age and gender differences’, UNU­Merit.
Nouvelles Régulations, Nouvelles Solidarités, Laval, <http://www.wikipediastudy.org/>
Quebec: Presses de l’Université Laval: 125­148.
Hansen S., Berente, N. & Lyytinen, K. (2009) ‘Wikipedia, critical
Auray N., Hurault­Plantet, M., Poudat, C. & Jacquemin, B. (2009) social theory and the possibility of rational discourse’, The
‘La négociation des points de vue: Une cartographie sociale Information Society 25(1): 38­59.
des conflits et des querelles dans le Wikipédia francophone’,
Réseaux 154: 15­50. Herring, S. (1996) ‘Linguistic and critical analysis of computer­
mediated communication: Some ethical and scholarly
Bakardjieva, M. & Feenberg, A. (2001) ‘Involving the virtual considerations’, The Information Society 12(2): 153­168.
subject’, Ethics and Information Technology 2: 233­240.
________. (1999) ‘The rhetorical dynamics of gender harassment
Bauwens, M. (2010) ‘How does the idea of P2P/Commonism differ on­line’, The Information Society 15(3): 151­167.
from the socialist tradition?’ P2P Foundation weblog, 31
August. <http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/how­does­the­idea­ Jordan, T. & Taylor, P. A. (2004) Hacktivism and Cyberwars:
of­p2p­commonism­differ­from­the­socialist­ Rebels with a Cause? London: Routledge.
tradition/2010/08/31> Karatzogianni, A. & Moore, P. (2009) ‘Parallel visions of peer
production’, Capital & Class 97: 7­11.

CSPP ­ RS 1.2 (2011) 9

Hoffman, P. & Harris, S. (2009) ‘The Tao of the IETF: A Novice’s <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost
Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force’. RFC 4677, 30 /2009­06­15/Book_review>
November. <http://www.ietf.org/tao.html> Sanger, L. (2009) ‘The fate of expertise after Wikipedia’, Episteme
King, S. (1996) ‘Researching Internet communities: Proposed 6(1): 52­73.
ethical guidelines for the reporting of results’, The Siefkes, C. (2007) From Exchange to Contributions. Generalizing
Information Society 12(2): 119­128. Peer Production into the Physical World. Berlin: Edition C.
Kittur, A., Suh, B., Pendleton, B. & E. Chi (2007) ‘He says, she Siefkes.
says: Conflict and coordination in Wikipedia’, in: Spek, S., Postma, E., & H. Jaap van den Herik (2006) ‘Wikipedia:
Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Organisation from a bottom­up approach’, WikiSym 2006,
Computing Systems, San José, CA, 28 April­3 May: 453­ Odense, Denmark, 21­23 August.
462.
Suh, B., Convertino, G., Chi, E., & P. Pirolli (2009) ‘The singularity
Konieczny, P. (2010) ‘Adhocratic governance in the Internet age: A is not near: Slowing growth of Wikipedia?’, WikiSym 09:
case of Wikipedia’, Journal of Information Technology & Proceedings of the 2009 International Symposium on Wikis.
Politics 7(4): 263­283.
Trom, D. (2008) ‘La crise de la critique sociale vue de Paris et de
Lawley, E. (1994) ‘The sociology of culture in computer­mediated Francfort’, Esprit 7 (2008): 108­126.
communication: An initial exploration’.
<http://www.itcs.com/elawley/bourdieu.html> Viégas, F. B., Wattenberg, M., & K. Dave (2004) ‘Studying
cooperation and conflict between authors with history flow
Lemley, M. A. (1997) ‘The law and economics of Internet norms’, visualisations’, CHI 2004, Vienna, 24­29 April.
Chicago­Kent Law Review 73: 1257­1294.
Wales, J. (2008) ‘The wisdom of crowds’, The Observer, London,
Levy, S. (1984) Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution. 22 June: 17­18.
Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Waskul, D. & Mark D. (1996) ‘Considering the electronic
Loubser, M. (2010) ‘Wikipedia governance: Are administrators a participant: Some polemical observations on the ethics of on­
“big deal”?’, in: Ziewitz, M. & C, Pentzold (eds) Modes of line research’, The Information Society 12(2): 129­140.
Governance in Digitally Networked Environments. A
Weber, M. (1978) Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive
Workshop Report, Oxford Internet Institute: 21­24.
Sociology, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of
Maltz, T. (1996) ‘Customary law and power in Internet California Press. [Originally published 1922]
communities’, Journal of Computer­Mediated
Wikipedia contributors. ‘Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy’, 2010.
Communication 2(1).
<http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol2/issue1/custom.html> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Wikipedia_is_not>

Matetski, I. (2009) ‘Wikipedia: Who runs the place?’, The Volokh Wikipedia contributors:Requests for arbitration/Climate change
dispute, 22 March­23 December 2005.
Conspiracy, 15 May.
<http://volokh.com/posts/1242444024.shtml> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitr
ation/Climate_change_dispute#Final_decision>
Meretz, S. & Merten, S. (2011) ‘Germ form theory ­ Conceptual
Zizek, S. (2002) ‘A cyberspace Lenin: Why not?’ International
overview’, under review.
Socialism Journal 95,
Mnookin, J. L. (1996) ‘Virtual(ly) law: The emergence of law in <http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj95/zizek.htm>
LambdaMOO’, Journal of Computer­Mediated
Communication 2(1).
<http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol2/issue1/lambda.html>
Moeller, E. (2010) ‘Call for volunteers: Wikimedia Research
Committee’, post to Wiki­Research list, 2 August.
How to cite this article:
O’Mahony, S. & F. Ferraro (2007) ‘The emergence of governance
in an open source community’, Academy of Management O'Neil, M. (2011) ‘The sociology of critique in Wikipedia’, CSPP,
Journal 50(5): 1079­1106. RS 1.2: 1­11.
O’Neil, M. (2006) ‘Rebels for the system? Virus writers, general
intellect, cyberpunk and criminal capitalism’, Continuum: Acknowledgements
Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 20:2 (2006): 225­241. Thanks to the reviewers for their great input. Thanks to those who
_________. (2009) Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online helped along the way: Athina Karatzogianni, Christian Siefkes,
Tribes, London: Pluto, 2009. Maurizio Teli. Special thanks to Stefan Merten.
_________. (2010) ‘Shirky and Sanger, or the costs of
crowdsourcing’, Journal of Science Communication 9(1).
Critical Studies in Peer Production (CSPP) aims to open up new
<http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/09/01/Jcom0901(2010)C01/Jco
perspectives on the implications of peer production for social
m0901(2010)C04>
change. CSPP is published by Oekonux. Oekonux is a non­profit
_________. (2011) ‘Critiques of separation: Leadership in organization devoted to the theoretical and practical advancement of
commons­based peer production projects’, under review. peer production.
Ortega, F., Izquierdo­Cortazar, D., Gonzalez­Barahona, J. M. & G. Journal website: http://cspp.oekonux.org/
Robles (2009) ‘On the analysis of contributions from
privileged users in virtual open communities’, in:
Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences.
Perritt, H. (1997) ‘Cyberspace self­government: Town­hall
democracy or rediscovered royalism?’, Berkeley Technology
Law Journal 12: 413­482.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution­
Reagle, J. (2007) ‘Do as I do: Authorial leadership in Wikipedia’, ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
WikiSym 07, Montreal, Canada, 21­23 October.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by­sa/3.0/
Rothschild­Whitt, J. (1979). ‘The collectivist organisation: An
alternative to rational–bureaucratic models’, American
Sociological Review, 44(4): 509­527. [revised version – June 15, 2011]
Ross, S. (2009) ‘Review of Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority
in Online Tribes’, The Wikipedia Signpost, 15 June.

CSPP ­ RS 1.2 (2011) 10