Wikipedia: An Exercise in Anarchy?

A central theme during the first-half of our semester was that for functional goods where MC = 0, anarchic production produces inherently superior products. We defined "anarchic production" as production without property rights, and Wikipedia was offered to the class as proof of this analytic proposition.

I argue that notwithstanding its lack of property rights, Wikipedia has exclusionary features that result in exclusionary consequences mirroring those property rights produce. While this does not deny Wikipedia's qualitative superiority, it raises the question whether this superiority is attributable to truly "anarchic production." A fair critique is that it is improper to define "anarchy" one way and then test its existence by reference to some other quantity. But, a better definition of "anarchic production" takes into account some exclusion beyond that created by property rights. A narrower definition raises the possibility of "anarchic production" that is, incongruously, extremely exclusionary--for example, a system without property rights that excludes persons based on race would still be expected to produce inherently superior products. This is facially problematic.

Though not all forms of exclusion must be relevant to the analytic proposition, I propose that the exclusionary features discussed herein do not violate the outer boundary of relevance--like property rights, they exclude participants through the imposition of non-trivial costs.

From Resistance to Exclusion

To begin, Bongwon Suh et al. present evidence in their paper, "The Singularity is Not Near: Slowing Growth of Wikipedia," of growing exclusion of non-prolific and new editors. During the global slowdown in Wikipedia edits, which started in early 2007, "middle class" editors (Wikipedians who make 2-999 edits per month), not high-frequency editors (those who make 1000 or more edits per month), reduced their edits at the highest rate. More tellingly, the percentage of new edits reverted increased over the same period of time notwithstanding the drop in overall edits. Indeed, excluding vandalism and bot reverts, low-frequency and occasional editors experienced the greatest resistance--"since 2003, edits from occasional editors have been reverted in a higher rate than edits from prolific editors," and "this disparity of treatment . . . has been widening . . . at the expense of low-frequency editors." There are also other indicators of growing exclusionary conduct: the number of blocked IP addresses and pages deleted increased during this time, as did the number of protected entries.

There is reason to believe these trends are related to Wikipedia's bureaucratization, unequal content production and complex rules.

Not only are editors a fairly homogonous group, which by itself suggests exclusionary forces at play, but a small minority of Wikipedians make the bulk of site's edits and contribute the lion's share of its content (see 276). Moreover, a small group of Wikipedia bureaucrats--usually prolific editors themselves--wield exclusionary powers such as deleting articles, protecting pages from future edits and blocking IP addresses altogether. The result is a classic conflict of interest.

Editors who contribute the most have the greatest "skin in the game" and are highly motivated participants. But, these editors also have the expertise and power to impose non-trivial, exclusionary costs on new and infrequent participants, and it is unlikely they are immune from confirmation bias or other natural impediments to complete objectivity. For example, an inexperienced user can contest the deletion of a new entry, but "debates about the merits of articles often drag on for weeks, draining energy and taking up far more space than the entries themselves. Such deliberations involve volleys of arcane internal acronyms and references to obscure policies and guidelines . . . . The result is that novices can quickly get lost in Wikipedia's Kafkaesque bureaucracy."

Thomas Hou noted in response to my request for comments that having one's edits subsequently edited is a slight disincentive to future participation--this could be due to time, education and energy costs required to successfully contest edits or deletion, the negative psychological feelings accompanying what one perceives as "unjust" edits, or both. This disincentive is magnified by an editorial process that unequally rejects the work of non-prolific contributors. As Wikipedia's reputation shifts from egalitarian and open to unequal and anti-newcomer, its credibility among potential and current non-prolific editors will erode, further disincentivizing participation.

To Delete: A Way of Life

Beyond this conflict of interest, a strain of thought called"deletionism" has become a cause célèbre for many administrators. In contrast to "inclusionists, deletionists favor strict standards for accepting entries and emphasize the "objective significance" of an entry when deciding whether to keep a new addition to the encyclopedia. As Andrew Lih, a prolific administrator himself, explained after noticing the deletion of entries on the first ombudsperson for PBS and Pownce.com, "It's as if there is a Soup Nazi culture now in Wikipedia. There are throngs of deletion happy users . . . tossing out customers and articles if they don't comply to some new prickly hard-nosed standard."

Even if the data suggest deletionists are "winning the battle for Wikipedia's soul," it is important to understand why.

First, deletionists have forced out a not insignificant number of prolific contributors who became discouraged by excessive deletion and rulemaking. While the first order consequence of this is the exclusion of valuable Wikipedians, the important second order effect is a shortage of savvy allies for new and infrequent contributors in the fight against overzealous deletionists.

Second, deletionists can leverage the proliferation of Wiki rules (see 191-200) and their familiarity therewith to amplify the costs new and infrequent users face. As Suh et al. conclude, the growth of Wikipedia is "limited by available resources in Wikipedia and advantages go to members of that population that have competitive dominance over others." For instance, I recently edited the Wikipedia page for the Hobbs Act--as a tech-unsavvy Wikipedia novice, I found it difficult to understand how to properly cite and reference secondary sources, and I eventually resorted to citing cases as one would in a traditional legal document. If another user reverts or challenges my edits on this ground, much less a more complex one, I will have a difficult time adequately responding or adjusting my additions notwithstanding their substantive merits.

Conclusion

Though property rights do not determine who contributes to Wikipedia's content production, Wikipedia is not without serious exclusionary features. While this Paper does not address whether this exclusion undercuts or enhances Wikipedia's quality, it argues that, taken together, Wikipedia's elaborate bureaucracy, unequal content production, increasingly complex rules and deletionist tendencies combine to raise the costs of participation for non-prolific and new contributors. This effect should at least give us pause before crediting Wikipedia's anarchic roots with its qualitative superiority.

Wikipedia: Anarchy or Hierarchy?

Introduction

This paper addresses 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. Though Wikipedia fashions itself as an "open" community, Wikipedia is distinctly hierarchical. Not only does Wikipedia impose non-trivial costs on users that discourage participation in the Wikipedia community, it may also dissuade entry into the community in the first place. Moreover, Wikipedia is not simply an aggregation of information, but also an organization accountable to, among others, the private (often corporate) benefactors that make its non-profit project financially feasible. To the extent Wikipedia relies on these interested parties, its benefactors' expectations and preferences may exert influence over content development with exclusionary consequences. Although these aspects of Wikipedia do not necessarily undermine its qualitative superiority, they nevertheless offer reasons to question whether its qualitative superiority is a function of anarchism.

The premise is the problem. Did you think that free software projects don't have leadership, or that everyone's patches go in? That there are no property rules, thus no exclusion based on ownership, does not imply an absence of organization altogether. But unlike the State, which employs coercion to secure consent, anarchist institutions base their power on consent.

So by measuring the wrong quantity you get a problematic measurement. Yes, it requires organization to manage dozens of encyclopedias everyone can edit around the world. It requires organization to make the Linux kernel. In neither case do property rights either determine the structure or function of the organization, nor do they flow from organization's activity. What proposition are you testing:

mine or a straw man's?

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

Wikipedia's Superiority: Should We Thank Anarchy?

"Anarchism" can have different meanings in different contexts, and this paper uses the term to describe the freedom from exclusionary rules and traditional systemic mechanisms for limiting the evolution (and therefore improvement) of a product. Although Wikipedia rejects the proposition that it is anarchistic, this is not dispositive. Instead, it is helpful to look at Wikipedia's power structure--and the barriers to openness embedded within it--to determine whether anarchism is responsible for Wikipedia's inherent superiority.

This is the reification of the false premise. The proposition you're supposed to be testing is that Wikipedia's superiority lies in the absence of property relations determining who can produce there. At least if you're testing any proposition I advanced. But now you have smuggled in some other question and are pretending it's the same.

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

Far from a kumbaya-esque exchange of ideas, with large numbers of users' actions organically resulting in an equilibrium of "truth," 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 most editors who quickly enter and leave 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 maintained and monitored by what amounts to a Wiki 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." Indeed, research suggests that content is largely determined by a small core of repeat players who are both familiar with and integrated into the Wikipedia bureaucracy, as roughly 1% of Wikipedia editors account for about 50% of edits to the site.

You might want to do a little original research by talking to people who are Wikipedia editors. Even better would be to spend a little time involved yourself. Then you would see that you're confronting here one of the basic problems of reporting, ethnography, and legal investigation: factually accurate statements offered without context can constitute absurd misrepresentation. Here each of the statements you make could be correct (though the statistics are misleading and the quote from Jimmy is very far out of context), but the effect overall is not likely to sound like reality to anyone who actually lives in the Wikipedia community. The comments below show that with respect to marginal participants; you will find it also true if you talk to official community leaders, heavily-involved editors, or the academic outreach volunteers around you. Even talking to students who write for Wikipedia in one of my other courses might teach you what you need to know in order to interpret the data you offer, in line with the context that really exists.

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

The Wikipedia elite's control over content raises the specter of exclusion. Because Wikipedia bureaucrats are generally users who contribute and edit a disproportionately large amount of site content, administrators may preference content that is consistent with (or at least does not question) their own edits.

Do you have any evidence whatever to offer on this "may"? Or does it mean "I have no evidence whatever to offer, but I think I'll say this anyway because it conforms to my desired view of the universe?"

The 50% of edits that the 99% of users make must therefore survive the scrutiny of a distinctly self-interested group.

This "self-interest" of the self-interested group was established by the "may" in the previous sentence. That is, users' edits "must" survive the scrutiny of the self-interest that "may" exist. Which is nothing but pure fantasy masquerading as informed reporting. The fact, however, is that everyone's edits must survive everyone else's scrutiny. So the best questions would probably involve finding out how articles really develop. Because every page has a complete history one can read, as every page in this wiki saves all its versions, it's possible to look directly at the evidence left by editing. Why didn't you pick a few Wikipedia articles in areas of interest or intellectual specialization for you and actually assess the history of the editing? That would have taught you much less than actually involving yourself in the process of producing an article, but at least it would beat making it all up as you go along.

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

Even if administrators are entirely "objective" decisionmakers, the potential for and perception of bureaucratic abuse and/or bias may be sufficient to discourage participation.

Only, as commentators pointed out, unless it isn't. For there to be such discouragement, other people would have to take your speculation about how Wikipedia works seriously, instead of finding out for themselves how it works by interacting with it, in which case they are unlikely to reach your conclusion.

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

Whether the Wikipedia elite actually skew content development in favor of bureaucratic viewpoints and preferences may actually be a secondary issue because their mere existence reduces users' confidence in a meaningful, good-faith review process.

What? What are these "bureaucratic viewpoints"? Wikipedia's policies are explicit. The "neutral point of view" is the viewpoint required, and the test is citation of secondary (only secondary) sources reflecting the full span of published opinion on all controverted points. Do you have any evidence of this second-order process of discouragement of potential contributors or editors resulting from your hypothetical problem of some supposed (but evidenceless) tendency of high-involvement editors to adopt or favor viewpoints unpermitted by policy?

If users come to believe their edits will stand or fall not according to their merits, but rather according to the subjective preferences of the Wikipedia elite, it follows that participation will feel restricted--and users will be excluded--by virtue of Wikipedia's hierarchy.

And your evidence that this "coming to belief" occurs on the basis of these supposed subjective preferences of the editorial elite, for which in turn there hasn't been any evidence presented yet?

The effects of Wikipedia's bureaucratization go further, however, as they present potential editors with non-trivial costs. A 2009 Wall Street Journal article explained that 49,000 editors left Wikipedia in the first quarter of 2009--10 times more than left 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."

Aside from the question of sourcing, would you have any evidence that the drop in editors was because of policy changes? (The actual size of the drop, in English, was approximately 12,000, from 90,000 to 78,000, rather than the larger and quite improbable number presented by the Journal. There were also declines in Wikipedias, like the German edition, in which the same policy changes were not made.) A significant source of editorial departure, Wikimedia found, was job loss, which was somewhat more common in the world during the first quarter of 2009 than the first quarter of 2008.

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

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.

Not, not the same. Different. Property rights effect either an absolute exclusion or an exclusion one can only overcome if one has enough money and pays it. These barriers to entry, on the other hand, can be lowered by a process called education. The Wikipedia community conducts a great deal of education, for free, designed to help people learn to use the Wikipedia effectively in all the ways you've mentioned. My students in AmLegalHist this term are working with an academic outreach editor at Wikipedia, learning how to overcome the obstacles you mention in order to make parts of their academic work in my class accessible to others through Wikipedia. You might want to talk to one of them.

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

In other words, where the absence of property rights opened the door to participation in the Wikipedia community, an increasingly complex set of rules governing participation may be having the opposite effect by placing the Wikipedia savvy at a clear advantage in the editing process vis-a-vis newcomers and technology novices.

This "may be having" is also a marker for evidenceless assertion.

While these barriers are not the result of a legal regime akin to copyright, their exclusionary consequences are nevertheless comparable to property rights'. It therefore seems overly formalistic to credit anarchism for Wikipedia's qualitative superiority on the ground that its exclusionary rules, while significant, are not products of property rights.

All of this to conclude that my argument, which was not based on words but on things, is formalist? This formalism of mine, if I understand you correctly, results from my failure to observe the phenomena for which you have no evidence, as a result of which I stated a possible general rule that accounted for all the observations except the ones you made up?

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

Finally, Wikipedia faces operational realities and, as a result, accepts donations from private (often corporate) entities in order to finance its operations. While these donors may not exert direct influence over Wikipedia, they nevertheless impose, indirectly, their expectations and values on the organization's leaders.

"Impose"? Are you serious? Do you think that people donate money to organizations like Wikimedia without sharing its values, planning to "impose" values on the organization? That's not reality so far as I know it, and I both run a non-profit and provide some informal advice to the Wikimedia leadership and board. In the world as I know it, people give to organizations such as Wikimedia because they already share its values.

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

To the extent Wikipedia relies on these entities, its content faces an outer limit of its benefactors' values and/or expectations. To stay within this limit, it seems inevitable that content will be excluded notwithstanding users' preferences.

What? Why would Wikimedia ever take a donation from someone who had a condition to exclude content? And why would it ever listen to a donor who tried to censor an article after donating? Do you think that the board, elected by the community and not appointed by leadership or (therefore) donors, would permit such an outcome? Yet this quite implausible outcome has become "inevitable" simply by the process of assertion without evidence. That doesn't meet minimum standards of intellectual responsibility.

In turn, Wikipedia's "organic" evolution may become increasingly "synthetic."

Conclusion

It is beyond the scope of this Paper to address whether Wikipedia is 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.

"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

Perhaps it would be helpful to distinguish between editorial vs. content generation. Aaron's analysis here suggests that while a small group of editors do make the bulk of edits, the majority of content is actually authored by occasional contributors with niche areas of expertise. It is my understanding that the extensive edits done by regular editors go more to style, format, sourcing, etc., than alteration of factual content. Of course, this editorial oversight may still afford them considerable power over the community. But in support of Austin's point, the editorial oversight has not discouraged me from making (admittedly infrequent) contributions to Wikipedia's more esoteric pages. Knowing I was being held accountable by a horde of scrupulous monitors only increased the neuroticism with which I included citations ...

-- CrystalMao - 28 Oct 2011

Crystal makes a good point, it is useful to distinguish between content and edits. The Slate article I link to explains (somewhat contrary to Aaron's analysis):

"Palo Alto Research Center's Ed Chi, the scientist who determined that 1 percent of Wikipedians author half of the content, told me he originally hypothesized that the site's most energetic editors were acting as custodians. Chi guessed that these users mostly cleaned up after the people who provided the bulk of the encyclopedia's facts. In reality, he found the opposite was true (PDF). People who've made more than 10,000 edits add nearly twice as many words to Wikipedia as they delete. By contrast, those who've made fewer than 100 edits are the only group that deletes more words than it adds. A small number of people are writing the articles, it seems, while less-frequent users are given the tasks of error correction and typo fixing."

This suggests that content is in fact authored by a small contingent of users while the vast majority of us do the less substantive "clean up" work (style, format, grammar, etc.).

I agree that Wikipedia's hierarchy doesn't have categorically exclusionary effects--to the extent it forces would-be contributors to conform to a higher standard, it results in a qualitatively superior product. But, the presence of the hierarchy surely excludes some potential users who are not willing and/or able to incur the costs (neurotically citing, for instance) that come with participation. Because Wikipedia has a hierarchy that, to an extent, discourages participation (or, at the very least, disproportionately encourages a certain type of informed, legitimate participation), it seems somewhat dubious to credit anarchism with its qualitative superiority.

-- MatthewLadner - 29 Oct 2011+

Reading your piece, I have the sense that there might be definitional issues involved. I think a point motivating Eben's comments is that anarchism is not necessarily synonymous with a lack of organization. The term anarchy, like privacy, has been used with a very wide range of meanings. In your opening sentences, you equate anarchism with "production without property rights," an association Eben might have made in class at some point (or not, I'm not sure). However, I think the equation is too simplistic. What about a Stalinist society in which there are no property rights? Is this anarchist? I don't think so.

More broadly, I think the "is Wikipedia anarchist"/"what is anarchism" issue cluster is somewhat orthogonal to what I take to be your main point. As I read it, your main interest is more like "has Wikpedia become too bureaucratized/hierarchical to do its job well?" That's a question that can be, in a straightforward manner, tested against evidence. I don't think you need to get into the definitional quagmire of whether it qualifies as anarchist or not.

Instead, I think what you would need to do is define some metrics and apply them. What is that Wikipedia should be doing? How good is it at doing that thing? Is there evidence that "X or Y added procedure" has decreased the ability of Wikipedia to do the things it should be doing?

-- DevinMcDougall - 06 Dec 2011

It didn't appear to me that an issue with the paper is a "definitional issue." The author defined anarchism specifically for purposes of this paper. He said "this paper uses the term to describe the freedom from exclusionary rules and traditional systemic mechanisms for limiting the evolution (and therefore improvement) of a product." He could have chosen a word other than anarchism but that he chose that word and defined it specifically for purposes of this paper isn't an issue. The main issue is whether wikipedia's superiority as a product can be attributed to the "anarchy", as defined in this paper, i.e., a lack of property rules. So whether wikipedia is anarchist is certainly an orthogonal issue and its meant to be. You don't have to focus on whether his definition of anarchist is correct to understand the paper. I think Devin's suggestions about defining metrics and applying them might be a good idea. In the conclusion it might be good to outline some things wikipedia could do to help mitigate some of the issues described in the paper. However, given the length limitations for the paper, it might be too difficult to fully explore the issue of whether wikipedia's superiority owes itself to "anarchy" and then to explore metrics and applications.

-- AustinKlar - 08 Dec 2011