Lisa

2007-05-24T22:39:00.001-07:00

In relation to one Wikipedia entry, demonstrate and problematize the potential of collaborative peer production.

Collaborative peer production is a relatively new phenomenon that has grown concurrently with the internet. The internet, since its introduction into the public sphere, has redefined the traditional economic hierarchy. Unlike other mediums, the internet allows anyone to contribute to the stockpile of information available online. This freelance contribution has empowered the common consumer by blurring the distinction between producer and consumer. Collaborative peer production functions on the basis that an infinite number of people contribute to one task. What distinguishes collaborative peer production from other group tasks is the structure of contribution. Every action made by an individual is self-initiated and decentralized; it is not a result of financial incentive or hierarchically assigned. There is no power struggle between producers and consumers. The internet boasts an eclectic collection of websites that function on collaborative peer production. Wikipedia operates solely on a collective action process. It is an online encyclopedia that strays from the traditional production model. It is free to access, but donations are welcome. Anyone can edit the encyclopedia and all changes are transparent. This system trusts that all contributors are in a common pursuit of collaborating neutral information. But like most group tasks, problems can arise. Vandalism is a common occurrence and information can be inaccurate, but generally any mistakes are corrected quickly by vigilant contributors. For the purpose of research, I will contribute, vandalize and tamper portions of information in one particular entry. I will then observe the response this instigates from fellow users. Through these results, I will demonstrate and problematize the potential of collaborative peer production. This essay will systematically discuss the process of collaborative peer production, the format of Wikipedia and finally the advantages and disadvantages of such a system.

The term, collaborative peer production, is used to “describe a new model of economic production in which the creative energy of large numbers of people is coordinated (usually with the aid of the internet) into large, meaningful projects, mostly without traditional hierarchical organization or financial compensation” (http://wikipedia.org/). The internet has provided a portal for people to unite in a common interest. It is, however, increasingly becoming a privatized resource (http://papers.ssrn.com/), accessibility is becoming more difficult from the costs placed on users. Many profit-driven websites require their users to pay money for access and powerful websites are buying out one another (e.g. Google recently bought YouTube). The gradual privatization of the internet has instigated the creation of many of these websites. In terms of the resource market, the internet is shifting from a regulated commons to a property. Commons and property differ by ownership. For commons, “no single person has exclusive control over the use and disposition of any particular resource” (Benkler, 2006: 61). Property is completely opposite and functions under the control of one person (Benkler, 2006: 61). On a resource continuum, it is virtually impossible for the internet to be an extreme commons or an extreme property; but it is shifting closer to the property spectrum. Internet users are resisting this shift towards property through collaborative peer production. Collaborative peer production is essentially a regulated commons. It is not governed by any single individual, it is free to access and changes can be made by anyone. The contributions made in collaborative peer production are “radically decentralized, collaborative, and non proprierity; based on sharing resources and outputs among widely distributed, loosely connected individuals who cooperate with each other without relying on either market signals or managerial commands” (Benkler, 2006: 60). Collaborative peer production has influenced the power struggle between producers and consumers. Websites, such as Wikipedia have empowered common consumers by allowing them to resist the increased privatization of the internet. Wikipedia’s precursor, Nupedia, was first established according to the traditional production model. With minimal success, the structure reformed to follow the collaborative peer production model.

Wikipedia was established in 2001 by an internet entrepreneur, Jimmy Wales, following his unsuccessful establishment of Nupedia (Benkler, 2006:70) (insert picture). Nupedia functioned on the traditional production model; its contributors were to be PhDs and its outputs were to be released freely (Benkler, 2006:70). The term Wikipedia was created from merging wiki (a form of collaborative software) with encyclopedia (http://wikipedia.org/). Since its creation, Wikipedia has become a huge success. The online encyclopedia has over “3.7 million articles in over 200 languages…the English version has more than 45,000 registered users” (http://www.nature.com). Wikipedia has transcended national borders by publishing multilingual articles. More than 200,000 articles are in German, 120,000 in Japanese and 100,000 in French (Benkler, 2006:71). Daily, Wikipedia is inundated with page requests; the site “receives 30,000 to 10,000 requests per second depending on the time of day” (http://wikipedia.org/). Nature, an online scientific journal, published an article in 2005, discussing the similarities and differences between Wikipedia and the Gold Edition of Britannica. In the article, author Jim Giles, notes that Wikipedia is the “37th most visited website, according to Alexa, a web-ranking service” (http://www.nature.com). Today, in 2007, according to Alexa, Wikipedia is the 8th most visited website, Yahoo and Google are ranked 1st and 2nd respectively (http://www.alexa.com). Within two years, Wikipedia has soared on a popularity poll. (http://en.wikipedia.org). The success of Wikipedia can be attributed to the lack of free online encyclopedias; “if we were in 1999, when Britannica and other encyclopedias online were free of charge, [Wikipedia] would be harder to maintain” (http://meta.wikimedia.org). Not only this, but Wikipedia seems to be in a “positive feedback loop with Google” (http://meta.wikimedia.org). Google has been responsible for sending Wikipedia an influx of users. The articles from Wikipedia are often called up on the Google search engine. Of late, Google has grown exponentially as a search engine and Wikipedia has reaped the benefits. This sudden growth in popularity still does not convince critics.

Wikipedia has always attracted widespread controversy amongst scholars. Former editor-in-chief of the Encyclopedia Britannica, Robert McHenry, wrote an article on Wikipedia, A Faith Based Encyclopedia, for the TCS Daily in 2004. The article, written in a somewhat aggressive tone, declares Wikipedia as inaccurate and misleading. He degrades the quality of specific articles, claiming they are “what might be expected of a high school student, and at that it would be a C paper at best” (http://www.techcentralstation.com). McHenry is not in favour of the collaborative peer production model in regards to encyclopedias; the articles have many “typographic errors, styling errors, and errors of grammar and diction…[and] other factual errors” (http://www.techcentralstation.comHe believes that encyclopedias should be written and edited by professionals. In a stab at users, McHenry states, “it is true…that many encyclopedia users, like many encyclopedia reviewers, have low expectations…The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom…what he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him” (http://www.techcentralstation.com).
After reading McHenry’s fervently negative article, I was compelled to test his claims. I was keen to choose a topic that I was genuinely familiar with. As a rower, I chose to meddle with the rowing (sport) entry. The whole editing process is very simple. All that is needed is a computer with internet access. By creating an account, I concealed my IP address from other users. Under the login name of ‘Shats’ – a derivative of my last name – I began to proceed with editing. The first project was to tamper with the entry by including subjective information. Wikipedia insists on posting neutral, objective information. My first edit was to the World Championships and Olympics section. I added the last sentence, “The 2006 (minor error, was supposed to be 2007) under 23 World Championships will be held in Strathclyde, Scotland. The women’s under 23 Quad Scull will be based in Melbourne and the girls are vying for a podium finish.”

2007-05-24T22:35:00.002-07:00

2007-05-24T22:35:00.001-07:00

Unsurprisingly, I am a member of that Australian under 23 Quad Scull. Less than six hours later, my useful addition was deleted by a certain Jonowatkins, who wrote “not the correct place for such information and subjective writing is unwanted.”

2007-05-24T22:28:00.002-07:00

2007-05-24T22:28:00.001-07:00

This supports Wikipedia’s claim that “because there are so many other people reading the articles and monitoring contributions using the Recent Changes page, [bias/incorrect] information is usually corrected quickly” (http://en.wikipedia.org).
My second project was to commit an act of vandalism. I added graffiti to the site by writing “rowing is a bloody hard sport.”

2007-05-24T22:25:00.000-07:00

2007-05-24T22:18:00.001-07:00

2007-05-24T22:18:00.000-07:00

2007-05-24T22:17:00.001-07:00

Within four minutes, my graffiti was deleted as vandal-script, by the user, Indon. Indon’s profile quotation is, “Life is too short, Wikipedia is too big, POV pushers are plaguing, vandals and spammers are encroaching, while good editors are leaving” (http://en.wikipedia.org). Indon is obviously very passionate about protecting Wikipedia from vandals, like me. This again, supports the structure of collaborative peer production. All changes made on the site are posted on the history page, and anyone can view this. Automatic robots are enlisted to repair obvious acts of defacement; anything missed is often picked up by users such as Indon. For my second act of vandalism, I deleted the final sentence from the section Boat Storage and Boathouses, “Boathouses are usually rather attractive buildings...”

2007-05-24T22:15:00.000-07:00

2007-05-24T21:47:00.000-07:00

click to enlarge- deleted version

2007-05-24T21:46:00.001-07:00

No one seems to have noticed or perhaps cared about this act of defacement for it remains unchanged.

My third and final project was to contribute something beneficial to the page – something that was (hopefully) not likely to be deleted. To the Terminology and Event nomenclature section, I added the final sentence, “In Australia, there are three distinct elite racing classes: Junior (19 yo and under), Senior B (Under 23 yo), Senior A (Open age)”. No user has deleted it or edited it…yet.

2007-05-24T21:42:00.002-07:00

Click on image to enlarge

2007-05-24T21:42:00.001-07:00

In reference to McHenry’s article, it is clear to see why he made those spiteful accusations. Firstly, he was the editor-in-chief of Encyclopedia Britannica; a clear competitor of Wikipedia. Secondly, his accusations, although unpleasant, do hold some merit. It is rather inconceivable that a reliable encyclopedia can be created by common citizens, the majority of whom are not scholars. Yet, for some reason, contrary to popular belief, Wikipedia does work relatively effectively. As seen through my case study on the rowing website, most of my additions were edited or deleted quickly. The article, Internet Encyclopedias go head to head, on news@nature.com compares the unexpected similarities between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica.

The results of the comparative study of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica are relatively surprising. Author, Jim Giles, poses the most commonly asked question; “if anyone can edit entries, how do users know if Wikipedia is as accurate as established sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica?” Critics have collated a catalogue of articles from Wikipedia that contain falsities and omit pivotal pieces of information. But according to the expert-led investigation conducted by nature.com – “these high-profile examples are the exception rather than the rule” (http://www.nature.com). Nature collected 42 entries on Science, from Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica. From the 42 entries the differences were only slight; “the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three” (http://www.nature.com). The greatest criticism of Wikipedia, is not so much about the errors, but rather the flaws in structure and writing. According to Tom Panelas- an editor of Britannica - “the articles are poorly written…they need a good editor” (http://www.nature.com).

IBM conducted a similar study, focusing on accuracy of articles and the presence of vandalism. The study concluded that although vandalism did occur commonly, any acts of defacement were repaired quickly by a single click from another user. This was proven in my earlier case study of vandalism. The transparency of changes allows acts of vandalism to be detected and corrected within minutes (Benkler, 2006: 74). Collaborative peer production is a puzzling success. How could it be, that thousands of ordinary contributors could be just as effective and reliable as a single elite professional?

Wikipedia is collaborative peer production in its purest form. By studying Wikipedia, one can study the process of collaborative peer production. Wikipedia relies explicitly on the contribution of large groups of geographically dispersed people. Through my case study, it is clear to see that Wikipedia is relatively effective. The participants of Wikipedia are in control of content and corrections – the system operators and server host have the power to block repeated vandals, but this is rarely enforced. It is the participants themselves, that “commonly follow, and enforce, a few basic policies that seem essential to keeping the project running smoothly and productively”(Benkler, 2006: 73). Few can comprehend the logic of collaborative peer production. If anyone can edit a project, then the project is open to inconsistencies and errors. However, as seen through the earlier case studies, any errors are dealt with relatively quickly. The success of collaborative peer production is quite surprising; “this success occurs not in a tightly knit community with many social relations to reinforce the sense of common purpose…but in a large and geographically dispersed group of otherwise unrelated participants” (Benkler, 2006: 72). This is why collaborative peer production is a phenomenon. Collaborative peer production relies on the discipline of participants to abide by social norms. Wikipedia has been mercilessly attacked by its critics. Apart from the usual errors and inconsistencies, Wikipedia has been accused of adding political spin to controversial articles; “in 2007, the Wikipedia article on then-Montana senator Conrad Burns was edited by his own staff, causing political scandal among his constituents” (http://en.wikipedia.org). These sorts of additions can cause serious repercussions in society through political contest. As mentioned earlier though, these high-profile cases are often exceptions rather than the rules. Despite attracting controversy, Wikipedia has served as an educational tool. The benefits of Wikipedia seem to outweigh the detriments. Due to the open-content and collaborative contribution; “there is no reason that Wikipedia’s content ever needs to…sit on someone’s shelf, gathering dust, as traditional encyclopedias have done. It’s because [of the] open content that the world is free to continue to develop it” (http://meta.wikimedia.org). As Wikipedia has grown “it has developed more elaborate spaces for…conflict resolution. It has developed structures for mediation, and if that fails, arbitration, of disputes about particular articles (Benkler, 2006: 73). As an employee of Jimmy Wales – founder of Wikipedia - Larry Sanger states that Wikipedia does not function solely on the common contributor, “article quality is determined by standards enforced by the best and brightest of a particular community--not by the worst, most transient elements of that community” (http://en.wikipedia.org).

2007-05-24T21:37:00.000-07:00

Larry SangerCollaborative peer production has more potential than it does problems. It is still a relatively new phenomenon that is growing rapidly in breadth, depth and reliability. Wikipedia is aware that the collective action process does contain flaws. In a bid to better the site, the creators of Wikipedia are in the process of establishing a new system that resorts to a “'stable' version of each entry…Once an article reaches a specific quality threshold it will be tagged as stable. Further edits will be made to a separate 'live' version that would replace the stable version when deemed to be a significant improvement”(http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html). These sorts of changes will see Wikipedia soon surpass its leather-bound competitor. The potential of collaborative peer production is extraordinary– not only does it unite people across the globe with a common purpose, but it serves as an active educational tool. Projects functioning under the collaborative peer production model will enjoy a longer shelf life, as the open content assures the continuation of work.

2007-05-24T21:36:00.000-07:00

REFERENCES

Books

Benkler, Y. (2006). ‘Peer production and Sharing’ (pp. 59 -90). In The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Websites

Sanger, L. (2002). Wikipedia and why it matters, Wikimedia, consulted 23 May. 2007 <http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_and_why_it_matters&oldid=149626>

Giles, J. (2005) Internet Encyclopedias go head to head, updated 26 March 2006, ‘News@nature.com the best in science journalism’ consulter 22 May. 2007 <http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html>

Alexa – the web information company Top 500 web search, consulted 24 May. 2007 <http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_sites?cc=US&ts_mode=country&lang=none>

TCS - technology, commerce, society, consulted 25 May. 2007 <http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html>

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Wikipedia consulted 23 May. 2007 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia>

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, User Indon consulted 22 May. 2007 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Indon>

Crawford, C. (2002) The Closing of the Electronic Commons and Property Rights in the Electronic Age: Is the Internet a Place of Public Accommodation? consulted 23 May. 2007 <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=329720>