Mayo Fuster Morell
PublicationsOnly those publications related to wikis are shown here.
|Title||Keyword(s)||Published in||Language||DateThis property is a special property in this wiki.||Abstract||R||C|
|Academic research into Wikipedia||Digithum||English
|Emotions and dialogue in a peer-production community: the case of Wikipedia||Wikipedia
|WikiSym||English||2012||This paper presents a large-scale analysis of emotions in conversations among Wikipedia editors. Our focus is on the emotions expressed by editors in talk pages, measured by using the Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW).
We find evidence that to a large extent women tend to participate in discussions with a more positive tone, and that administrators are more positive than non-administrators. Surprisingly, female non-administrators tend to behave like administrators in many aspects.
We observe that replies are on average more positive than the comments they reply to, preventing many discussions from spiralling down into conflict. We also find evidence of emotional homophily: editors having similar emotional styles are more likely to interact with each other.Our findings offer novel insights into the emotional dimension of interactions in peer-production communities, and contribute to debates on issues such as the flattening of editor growth and the gender gap.
|An Introductory Historical Contextualization of Online Creation Communities for the Building of Digital Commons: The Emergence of a Free Culture Movement||Proceedings of the 6th Open Knowledge Conference||English||June 2011||Online Creation Communities (OCCs) are a set of individuals that communicate, interact and collaborate; in several forms and degrees of participation which are eco-systemically integrated; mainly via a platform of participation on the Internet, on which they depend; and aiming at knowledge-making and sharing. The paper will first provide an historical contextualization OCCs. Then, it will show how the development of OCCs is fuelled by and contributes to, the rise of a free culture movement defending and advocating the creation of digital commons, and provide an empirically grounded definition of free culture movement. The empirical analyses is based content analysis of 80 interviews to free culture practitioners, promoters and activists with an international background or rooted in Europe, USA and Latino-America and the content analysis of two seminar discussions. The data collection was developed from 2008 to 2010.||0||0|
|Wikipedia & Research: The innovative character of Wikipedia research and the new challenges (and opportunities) associated with it||Proceedings of the 6th Open Knowledge Conference||English||June 2011||The workshop will focus on addressing the stage of Wikipedia research and in general common - based peer production (less focused on the content than on the methodologies and research process itself) and the innovations, problems and new insights regarding (action) research on common-based peer production.||0||0|
|Critical Point of View: A Wikipedia Reader||Institute of Network Cultures||English||2011||For millions of internet users around the globe, the search for new knowledge begins with Wikipedia. The encyclopedia’s rapid rise, novel organization, and freely offered content have been marveled at and denounced by a host of commentators. Critical Point of View moves beyond unflagging praise, well-worn facts, and questions about its reliability and accuracy, to unveil the complex, messy, and controversial realities of a distributed knowledge platform.||0||4|
|Governance of online creation communities: Provision of infrastructure for the building of digital commons||European University Institute, Florence||English||2010||This doctoral research is framed by the notion of a transition in which distinct commons organizational forms are gaining in importance at a time when the institutional principles of the nation state are in a state of profound crisis, and those of the private market are undergoing dramatic change. Additionally, the transformation of industrial society into a knowledge-based one is raising the importance of knowledge management, regulation and creation. This doctoral research addresses collective action for knowledge-making in the digital era from a double perspective of organizational and political conflict through the case of global online creation communities. From the organizational perspective, it provides an empirically grounded description of the organizational characteristics of emerging collective action. The research challenges previous literature by questioning the neutrality of infrastructure for collective action and demonstrating that infrastructure governance shapes collective action. Importantly, the research provides an empirical explanation of the organizational strategies most likely to succeed in creating large-scale collective action in terms of the size of participation and complexity of collaboration. From the political conflict perspective, this research maps the diverse models of governance of knowledge-making processes, addresses how these are embedded in each model of governance, and suggests a set of dimensions of democratic quality adapted to these forms. Importantly, it provides an empirically grounded characterization of two conflicting logics present in the conditions for collective action in the digital era: a commons versus a corporate logic of collective action. Additionally, the research sheds lights on the emerging free culture and access to knowledge movement as a sign of this conflict. In hypothesizing that the emerging forms of collective action are able to increase in terms of both participation and complexity while maintaining democratic principles, this research challenges Olson? assertion that formal organizations tend to overcome collective action dilemmas more easily, and challenges the classical statements of Weber and Michels that as organizations grow in size and complexity, they tend to create bureaucratic forms and oligarchies. This research concludes that online creation communities are able to increase in complexity while maintaining democratic principles. Additionally, in the light of this research, the emerging collective action forms are better characterized as hybrid ecosystems which succeed by networking and combining several components, each with differens degrees of formalization and organizational and democratic logics.||0||0|
|Methodological and Theoretical challenges and potentials of studying participation in online communities for the building of digital commons: Wikipedia and the Social Forums.||Wikipedia
Participation as an eco-system
|Proceedings conference Shaping Europe in a Globalized World: Protest Movements and the Rise of a Transnational Civil Society. Zurich, Switzerland. (pp. 23–26).||2009||Online creation communities (OCCs) constitute forms of collective action based on virtual environments that result in the provision of a public good. The tendency to a strong inequality regarding the distribution of content contribution is characteristic of most OCCs. Several profiles of participation are distinguished: A very low percentage of committed participants who usually account for a disproportionately large amount of the content; a low percentage of participants that make very small contributions; and, finally, a largest presence of individuals that do not participate. This is known as 90/9/1 law. In order to better understand the 90/9/1 law I looked to the organizational and democratic logic of the participation in OCCs. Participation in OCCs seems to loose the dichotomist character based on the criteria of partecipating or not participating. Instead, a conception of participation as an eco-system seems better characterising participation in OCCs. In synthesis, participation is understood as an eco-system in six senses. 1) What is important is that the system is open to participation, but it is not expected that everybody participate and contribute equally; 2) Participation has multiple forms and degrees which are integrated: a critical mass of active developers is essential to initiate the project and maintain the content; weak cooperation enriches the system and facilitates reaching larger fields of information resources; and lurker or non-participants provide value as audience or though unintended participation that improve the system; 3) Participation is decentralized and asynchronous; 4) Participation is in public; 5) Participation is autonomous in the sense that each person decides which level of commitment they want to adopt and on what aspects they want to contribute. 6) Participation is volunteering. Participation is not only deliberation but implementation. The analysis is developed over the case studies of a platform provided by the European Social Forum and Wikipedia and a large-N web analysis. To conclude I reflect on methodological and theoretical challenges and potentials of studying online communities for the building of digital commons.||0||0|