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.”

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.”

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.”