"Even assuming administrators are completely objective in their decisionmaking, the perception of and potential for bureaucratic abuse and/or bias may be sufficient to discourage participation. "

This is only true if you assume that the 99% who posts 50% of the content actually know the inner-workings of Wikipedia. I had no idea Wikipedia was structured that way so in making posts on wikipedia I've never felt any form of discouragement as a result of the structure. Further, I think that even if someone is aware that the structure is hierarchical, wouldn't it still make sense to post the information on the website anyway? Worst case scenario, it gets taken down or edited by the "wikipedia elite". But, isnt the possibility that it stays on the site worth putting it on there; I mean, it won't be on the site if you don't put it on there, so you may as well try to get it on there

-- AustinKlar - 25 Oct 2011

Conclusion

It is beyond the scope of this Paper to address whether Wikipedia is in fact an inherently superior product and what, if not anarchism, accounts for that superiority. More simply, this Paper argues that while Wikipedia is not governed by property rights, it is not without exclusionary rules. Taken together, Wikipedia's hierarchical power structure and barriers to participation must, at least, call into question the anarchic roots of its qualitative superiority.

Far from a kumbaya-esque exchange of ideas with large numbers of users' additions and deletions organically resulting in an equilibrium of "truth" (i.e. a Wikipedia entry), Wikipedia is largely edited, monitored and developed by a minority of "volunteer administrators" who, although elected, wield a disproportionate amount of power over the site's content. Unlike the casual or one time editor who briefly enters the Wikipedia community, administrators are endowed with significant powers including deleting articles, locking pages to prevent further edits and even blocking individual users from editing any Wikipedia entry. Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's founder, admits that Wikipedia is both maintained and monitored by what amounts to a Wikipedia elite: "A lot of people think of Wikipedia as being 10 million people each adding one sentence . . . . But really, the vast majority of the work this done by a small core community." See http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/17/technology/17wiki.html?sq=wikipedia&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=8&adxnnlx=1319317899-RipVuooSb4dGJvgPjx+Cuw. Indeed, research shows that about 1% of Wikipedia users account for roughly 50% of edits to the site, see http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2008/02/the_wisdom_of_the_chaperones.html, suggesting that content is largely determined by a select group of repeat players who are both familiar with and integrated into the Wikipedia bureaucracy--a dynamic that only magnifies the minority's editorial control at the expense of most users. Not only does this Wiki elitism dictate (and arguably skew) content development in favor of the preferences and viewpoints of the minority users in administrative positions, it may also erode trust in Wikipedia's "openness" and dissuade users from continuing to edit or entering the community to begin with. As such, it could reduce user's confidence that their edits will survive a self-interested bureaucratic review process, thereby disincentivizing participation in the editing process altogether.

Furthermore, Wikipedia's bureaucratization presents potential editors with additional non-trivial costs to participation. A 2009 Wall Street Journal article explained, 49,000 editors left Wikipedia in the first quarter of 2009--10 times more in the first quarter of 2008--because of the "plethora of rules Wikipedia has adopted to bring order to its unruly universe -- particularly to reduce infighting among contributors about write-ups of controversial subjects and polarizing figures." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125893981183759969.html. To the extent new editors must understand the Wikipedia power structure, conform to a Manual of Style, adhere to templates, contend with highly motivated and more technologically powerful users, and shape their content in a way that makes its removal and/or alteration less likely, participation in the Wikipedia community involves costs that may have the same exclusionary impact that traditional property rights effect. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Power_structure.

Finally, Wikipedia faces operational realities and, as a result, accepts donations from private (often corporate) entities in order to finance its operations. See http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Benefactors. While these donors may not exert direct or overt influence over Wikipedia, they nevertheless impose, indirectly, their expectations and values on Wikipedia. To the extent Wikipedia relies on these entities, its evolution and content presumably face an outer limit of the values and/or expectations of its benefactors. To ensure this outer limit is not breached, the further bureaucratization of Wikipedia appears likely, which carries with it a great risk of exclusionary rules and/or procedures.

Although Wikipedia is not governed by property rights, it is not without exclusionary rules. Taken together, Wikipedia's hierarchical power structure and barriers to participation must, at least, call into question the anarchic roots of its qualitative superiority.

This paper will address whether Wikipedia confirms the "analytic proposition of central importance" that, for functional goods where MC=0, production without property rights--that is, anarchism--produces inherently superior products. While "anarchism" can mean different things to different people in different contexts, "anarchism" in this paper describes a system of creation and/or development that rejects exclusionary rules and traditional systemic mechanisms for limiting the evolution (and therefore improvement) of a product.

First, assuming Wikipedia is an inherently superior product according to some agreed-upon metric by which to qualitatively evaluate encyclopedias, the question is whether that superiority is a function of anarchistic production. Though Wikipedia fashions itself as an "open" community in which any user can participate, Wikipedia is a distinctly hierarchical. Not only does Wikipedia impose non-trivial costs on participants that discourage continued participation within the Wikipedia community, it may actually dissuade entry into the community in the first place. Moreover, Wikipedia is not simply an aggregation of information; rather, it is an organization accountable to, among other things, the private (and often corporate) donors that make its non-profit project financially feasible. To the extent Wikipedia relies on interested parties for its continued existence, the expectations and preferences of these interested parties necessarily exert influence over content development in a manner analogous to the operation of traditional property rights. Though these aspects of Wikipedia do not necessarily undermine its qualitative superiority, they nevertheless offer reasons to question the attribution of this superiority to anarchistic production.

Second, assuming Wikipedia is an example of anarchist production, the next question is whether Wikipedia is an inherently superior product. As an initial matter, it is important to clarify what "qualitatively superior" means--in other words, what is the market of reasonably interchangeable goods (to steal a phrase from antitrust) in which Wikipedia exists. If we are talking about free web-based encyclopedias that, at least theoretically, any internet user can edit, then Wikipedia is truly in a league of its own. Similarly, if we judge all encyclopedias by the sheer number of entries found therein, Wikipedia is again unmatched. By other metrics, however, Wikipedia is not a clear winner. Other encyclopedias may be: (1) more reliable; (2) written in a style that lends a richness and significance to the subject matter in a way Wikipedia entries not; (3) organized to allow the reader to develop a better grasp of the material/issues; (4) composed of entries from a greater number of experts who are more familiar with--and cite to--a greater number of other reliable sources; (5) more efficient for some users by providing a greater sense of security regarding the accuracy of the information therein and therefore eliminating the need to conduct further research. There is no question that Wikipedia is immensely helpful, informative and significant--indeed, it is a resource with which the overwhelming majority of internet users worldwide are familiar and on which they regularly rely. Whether it is an inherently superior product, however, requires a more nuanced analysis than the "analytic of central importance" lets on.

Part I

Though Wikipedia itself rejects the proposition that it is anarchistic, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_anarchy, this self-evaluation is not dispositive on the issue. It is more helpful to look at Wikipedia's power structure and the barriers to openness embedded within it to determine whether anarchism--that is, the lack of exclusionary rules akin to property rights--is responsible for what Part I assumes is an inherently superior product.

Far from a kumbaya-esque exchange of ideas with large numbers of users' additions and deletions organically resulting in an equilibrium of "truth" (i.e. a Wikipedia entry), Wikipedia is largely edited, monitored and developed by a minority of "volunteer administrators" who, although elected, wield a disproportionate degree of power over the content of the site. Unlike the casual or one time editor who briefly enters the Wikipedia, administrators are endowed with significant powers including deleting articles, locking pages to prevent further edits and even blocking individual users from editing any Wikipedia entry. Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's founder, admits that Wikipedia is both maintained and monitored by, what appears to be, the Wikipedia elite: "A lot of people think of Wikipedia as being 10 million people each adding one sentence . . . . But really, the vast majority of the work this done by a small core community." See http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/17/technology/17wiki.html?sq=wikipedia&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=8&adxnnlx=1319317899-RipVuooSb4dGJvgPjx+Cuw. Indeed, research suggests that about 1% of Wikipedia users account for roughly 50% of edits to the site, see http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2008/02/the_wisdom_of_the_chaperones.html, suggesting that content is largely determined by a select group of repeat players who are both familiar with and integrated into the Wikipedia bureaucracy--a dynamic that only magnifies the minority's editorial control at the expense of most users.

As a result of Wikipedia's bureaucratization, potential editors now face non-trivial costs to continued and even initial participation. A 2009 Wall Street Journal article explained, 49,000 editors left Wikipedia in the first quarter of 2009--10 times more in the first quarter of 2008--because of the "plethora of rules Wikipedia has adopted to bring order to its unruly universe -- particularly to reduce infighting among contributors about write-ups of controversial subjects and polarizing figures." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125893981183759969.html. To the extent new editors must understand the Wikipedia power structure, conform to a Manual of Style, adhere to templates, contend with highly motivated and more technologically powerful users, and shape their content in a way that makes its removal and/or alteration less likely, participation in the Wikipedia community involves costs that may have the same exclusionary impact that traditional property rights effect. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Power_structure.

Finally, Wikipedia faces operational realities and, as a result, accepts donations from private (often corporate) entities in order to finance its operations. See http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Benefactors. While these donors may not exert direct or overt influence over Wikipedia, they nevertheless impose, indirectly, their expectations and values on Wikipedia. To the extent Wikipedia relies on these entities, its evolution and content presumably face an outer limit of the values and/or expectations of its benefactors. To ensure this outer limit is not breached, the further bureaucratization of Wikipedia appears likely, which carries with it a great risk of exclusionary conduct.

Although Wikipedia is not governed by property rights, it is not without exclusionary rules. Taken together, Wikipedia's hierarchical power structure and barriers to participation must, at least, call into anarchic roots of its qualitative superiority

Part II

_

<--/commentPlugin-->