(Alternative names for this keyword)
|Export and share|
|BibTeX, CSV, RDF, JSON|
|Browse properties · List of keywords|
Governance is included as keyword or extra keyword in 0 datasets, 0 tools and 14 publications.
There is no datasets for this keyword.
There is no tools for this keyword.
|Title||Author(s)||Published in||Language||DateThis property is a special property in this wiki.||Abstract||R||C|
|Keeping eyes on the prize: Officially sanctioned rule breaking in mass collaboration systems||Elisabeth Joyce
|English||2013||Mass collaboration systems are often characterized as unstructured organizations lacking rule and order. However, examination of Wikipedia reveals that it contains a complex policy and rule structure that supports the organization. Bureaucratic organizations adopt workarounds to adjust rules more accurately to the context of use. Rather than resorting to these potentially dangerous exceptions, Wikipedia has created officially sanctioned rule breaking. The use and impact of the official rule breaking policy within Wikipedia is examined to test its impact on the outcomes of requests to delete articles in from the encyclopedia. The results demonstrate that officially sanctioned rule breaking and the Ignore all rules (IAR) policy are meaningful influences on deliberation outcomes, and rather than wreaking havoc, the IAR policy in Wikipedia has been adopted as a positive, functional governance mechanism. Copyright 2013 ACM.||0||0|
|Lifecycle-based evolution of features in collaborative open production communities: The case of wikipedia||Ziaie P.
|ECIS 2013 - Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems||English||2013||In the last decade, collaborative open production communities have provided an effective platform for geographically dispersed users to collaborate and generate content in a well-structured and consistent form. Wikipedia is a prominent example in this area. What is of great importance in production communities is the prioritization and evolution of features with regards to the community lifecycle. Users are the cornerstone of such communities and their needs and attitudes constantly change as communities grow. The increasing amount and versatility of content and users requires modifications in areas ranging from user roles and access levels to content quality standards and community policies and goals. In this paper, we draw on two pertinent theories in terms of the lifecycle of online communities and open collaborative communities in particular by focusing on the case of Wikipedia. We conceptualize three general stages (Rising, Organizing, and Stabilizing) within the lifecycle of collaborative open production communities. The salient factors, features and focus of attention in each stage are provided and the chronology of features is visualized. These findings, if properly generalized, can help designers of other types of open production communities effectively allocate their resources and introduce new features based on the needs of both community and users.||0||0|
|Rules and Roles vs. Consensus: Self-Governed Deliberative Mass Collaboration Bureaucracies||Elisabeth Joyce
|American Behavioral Scientist||English||2013||Deliberative mass collaboration systems, such as Wikipedia, are characterized as undisciplined, unstructured social spaces where individuals participate in collective action. However, examination of Wikipedia reveals that it contains a bureaucratic structure, which ensures that collective goals are primary drivers of that collective action. To support large-scale activity, deliberative mass collaboration systems must provide ways of reconciling the tension between individual agency and collective goals. Wikipedia's unusual policy, ignore all rules (IAR), serves as this tension release mechanism. IAR supports individual agency when positions taken by participants might conflict with those reflected in established rules. Hypotheses are tested with Wikipedia data regarding individual agency, bureaucratic processes, and IAR invocation during the content exclusion process. Findings indicate that in Wikipedia each utterance matters in deliberations, rules matter in deliberations, and IAR citation magnifies individual influence but also reinforces bureaucracy.||0||0|
|The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia's Reaction to Popularity Is Causing Its Decline||Aaron Halfaker
|American Behavioral Scientist||English||2013||Open collaboration systems, such as Wikipedia, need to maintain a pool of volunteer contributors to remain relevant. Wikipedia was created through a tremendous number of contributions by millions of contributors. However, recent research has shown that the number of active contributors in Wikipedia has been declining steadily for years and suggests that a sharp decline in the retention of newcomers is the cause. This article presents data that show how several changes the Wikipedia community made to manage quality and consistency in the face of a massive growth in participation have ironically crippled the very growth they were designed to manage. Specifically, the restrictiveness of the encyclopedia's primary quality control mechanism and the algorithmic tools used to reject contributions are implicated as key causes of decreased newcomer retention. Furthermore, the community's formal mechanisms for norm articulation are shown to have calcified against changes-especially changes proposed by newer editors.||0||0|
|Work-to-rule: The emergence of algorithmic governance in wikipedia||Claudia Muller-Birn
|ACM International Conference Proceeding Series||English||2013||Research has shown the importance of a functioning governance system for the success of peer production communities. It particularly highlights the role of human coordination and communication within the governance regime. In this article, we extend this line of research by differentiating two categories of governance mechanisms. The first category is based primarily on communication, in which social norms emerge that are often formalized by written rules and guidelines. The second category refers to the technical infrastructure that enables users to access artifacts, and that allows the community to communicate and coordinate their collective actions to create those artifacts. We collected qualitative and quantitative data from Wikipedia in order to show how a community's consensus gradually converts social mechanisms into algorithmic mechanisms. In detail, we analyze algorithmic governance mechanisms in two embedded cases: The software extension "flagged revisions" and the bot "xqbot". Our insights point towards a growing relevance of algorithmic governance in the realm of governing large-scale peer production communities. This extends previous research, in which algorithmic governance is almost absent. Further research is needed to unfold, understand, and also modify existing interdependencies between social and algorithmic governance mechanisms.||0||0|
|Governance of open content creation: A conceptualization and analysis of control and guiding mechanisms in the open content domain||Schroeder A.
|Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology||English||2012||The open content creation process has proven itself to be a powerful and influential way of developing text-based content, as demonstrated by the success of Wikipedia and related sites. Distributed individuals independently edit, revise, or refine content, thereby creating knowledge artifacts of considerable breadth and quality. Our study explores the mechanisms that control and guide the content creation process and develops an understanding of open content governance. The repertory grid method is employed to systematically capture the experiences of individuals involved in the open content creation process and to determine the relative importance of the diverse control and guiding mechanisms. Our findings illustrate the important control and guiding mechanisms and highlight the multifaceted nature of open content governance. A range of governance mechanisms is discussed with regard to the varied levels of formality, the different loci of authority, and the diverse interaction environments involved. Limitations and opportunities for future research are provided.||0||0|
|Autorégulation de rapports sociaux et dispositif dans Wikipedia||Jacquemin B.||Document Numerique||French||2011||As a collaborative work, the online encyclopaedia Wikipedia leads naturally the contributors to work with each other and to face their opinions. But no frame is provided to control the collaboration, neither in the five fundamental principles, nor from the wiki software. This article studies how the contributing community thinks up original ways to promote collaboration, social exchanges and conflict resolution. The concept of device (dispositif), and especially how governance shows itself in a collaborative device, is used to analyse these ways. Two views of the power conflict in the community: one permits contributors to break the rules to strive to Wikipedia's goal; the other one makes sure to enforce strictly the rules. Even though the latter seems to prevail, there is some evidence that loyalty may sometimes be illusory.||0||0|
|Governing social production in the internet: The case of wikipedia||Aaltonen A.
|19th European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS 2011||English||2011||In this paper we propose a theoretical framework to understand the governance of internet-mediated social production. Focusing on one of the most popular websites and reference tools, Wikipedia, we undertake an exploratory theoretical analysis to clarify the structure and mechanisms driving the endogenous change of a large-scale social production system. We argue that the popular transactions costs approach underpinning many of the analyses is an insufficient framework for unpacking the evolutionary character of governance. The evolution of Wikipedia and its shifting modes of governance can be better framed as a process of building a collective capability, namely the capability of editing and managing a new kind of encyclopedia. We understand Wikipedia evolution as a learning phenomenon that gives over time rise to governance mechanisms and structures as endogenous responses to the problems and conditions that the ongoing development of Wikipedia itself has produced over the years. Finally, we put forward five empirical hypotheses to test the theoretical framework.||0||0|
|Participation in Wikipedia's article deletion processes||R. Stuart Geiger
|Adhocratic Governance in the Internet Age: A Case of Wikipedia||Piotr Konieczny||Journal of Information Technology and Politics||English||2010||In recent years, a new realm has appeared for the study of political and sociological phenomena: the Internet. This article will analyze the decision-making processes of one of the largest online communities, Wikipedia. Founded in 2001, Wikipedianow among the top-10 most popular sites on the Internethas succeeded in attracting and organizing millions of volunteers and creating the world's largest encyclopedia. To date, however, little study has been done of Wikipedia's governance. There is substantial confusion about its decision-making structure. The organization's governance has been compared to many decision-making and political systemsfrom democracy to dictatorship, from bureaucracy to anarchy. It is the purpose of this article to go beyond the earlier simplistic descriptions of Wikipedia's governance in order to advance the study of online governance, and of organizations more generally. As the evidence will show, while Wikipedia's governance shows elements common to many traditional governance models, it appears to be closest to the organizational structure known as adhocracy.||0||2|
|The social roles of bots and assisted editing programs||Geiger R.S.||WikiSym||English||2009||This paper investigates software programs as non-human social actors in Wikipedia, arguing that influence must not be overlooked in social scientific research of the on-line encyclopedia project. Using statistical and archival methods, the roles of assisted editing programs and bots are examined. proportion of edits made by these non-human actors is shown to be significantly more than previously described in earlier research. Copyright||0||0|
|Measuring wiki viability: an empirical assessment of the social dynamics of a large sample of wikis||Camille Roth
|WikiSym||English||2008||This paper assesses the content- and population-dynamics of a large sample of wikis, over a timespan of several months, in order to identify basic features that may predict or induce different types of fate. We analyze and discuss, in particular, the correlation of various macroscopic indicators, structural features and governance policies with wiki growth patterns. While recent analyses of wiki dynamics have mostly focused on popular projects such as Wikipedia, we suggest research directions towards a more general theory of the dynamics of such communities.||0||1|
|Wikipedian Self-Governance in Action: Motivating the Policy Lens||Ivan Beschastnikh
David W. McDonald
|Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, AAAI, March 31, 2008 (ICWSM '08)||2008||While previous studies have used the Wikipedia dataset to provide an understanding of its growth, there have been few attempts to quantitatively analyze the establishment and evolution of the rich social practices that support this editing community. One such social practice is the enactment and creation of Wikipedian policies. We focus on the enactment of policies in discussions on the talk pages that accompany each article. These policy citations are a valuable micro-to-macro connection between everyday action, communal norms and the governance structure of Wikipedia. We find that policies are widely used by registered users and administrators, that their use is converging and stabilizing in and across these groups, and that their use illustrates the growing importance of certain classes of work, in particular source attribution. We also find that participation in Wikipedias governance structure is inclusionary in practice.||0||0|
|Wikipédia: histoire, communauté, gouvernance||Firer-Blaess
|Homo-numericus.net||2007||Depuis sa création, Wikipedia est un véritable sujet de polémiques, en particulier au sein des milieux académiques qui se sentent menacés par la popularité de cette encyclopédie ouverte, sans doute parce que, éditable et amendable par tous, elle remet en question ce qu'ils estiment relever d'un monopole légitime. Pour preuve, la récente « étude » diffusée par plusieurs étudiants de Science Po, cherchant à mettre en évidence la faillibilité de l'encyclopédie, sur la base d'erreurs qu'ils y ont volontairement introduits. Au delà d'interrogations un peu puériles sur la qualité ou l'absence de qualité intrinsèque de cette encyclopédie qu'on aborderait comme un « produit » fini, il peut être intéressant de se pencher sur le mode de fonctionnement de cette entreprise, considérée cette fois comme un système social, un lieu de coordination et de coopération entre plusieurs milliers de participants ; amendable par tous, éditable indéfiniment, Wikipédia n'est en effet jamais « finie » - pas plus que ne l'est le savoir d'ailleurs, en perpétuel renouvellement. De ce simple fait, il est bien plus pertinent de s'interroger sur la manière dont le travail de co-construction des connaissance s'accomplit en permanence, que sur la « verité » de tel ou tel énoncé qui y serait produit. C'est exactement ce que fait Sylvain Firer-Blaess dans cette série de trois articles qu'il a accepté de publier pour Homo Numericus. S'appuyant sur les travaux de Foucault, mais pas ceux auquel on s'attendrait, il développe une analyse politique percutante de Wikipedia comme lieu où s'exerce et refuse de s'exercer en même temps une certaine forme de pouvoir. Pour lui, et il l'expliquera dans ses deuxième et troisième parties de cette série, Wikipédia est traversé d'une tension qui lui est propre et qu'il tente de qualifier en démontant à la fois les moeurs et les mécanismes de régulation de cette communauté très particulière. Pour l'heure, il nous la présente, dans ses dimension techniques et historiques. Ce travail est issu d'un mémoire de fin d'étude présenté à l'IEP de Lyon.||0||0|