WISDOM OF THE CROWD,
CONTROVERSIES AND
COORDINATING POLICIES
[[Compact version]]
There will be only one sentence of speech per slide!
Shing-Chung Jonathan Yam
Department of Sociology,
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
email: chung [at] cuhk.edu.hk
This paper addresses three questions

How do cooperative knowledge generation (CKG)
projects such as Wikipedia institutionalize?

This paper focuses on the period 2003-2006

How does CKG projects respond to external
controversies?

What effect do controversies have on CKG projects?
Outline of Presentation
1.
2.
3.
4.
Brief introduction of Wikipedia
Coordination: Problems and Mechanisms
Controversies and Resolving Policies
Conclusion
Research on Wikipedia

Why study Wikipedia?
-multidisciplinary interest
-implications for social science and philosophy
(epistemology)
Research on Wikipedia:
Disciplines
Media
Business
Information science
Folklore
Wikipedia
Sociology
Education
Social psychology
Politics
Computer science
Research on Wikipedia: Models and
Approaches
Human-computer interaction
Propagation of information
Business model
Rumors and discussions of
Wikipedia policies
Preserving knowledge
Wikipedia
Legitimacy of knowledge
Community
Means of teaching and learning
Social hierarchy
Motivation behind altruistic
behaviour
Social movement
Algorithm and software design
Information technology
What is Wikipedia?

An on-line encyclopedia that “everyone can edit”
As Wikipedia community continues
to grow…




editors↑
Contributions by casual editors ↑ ↑
Problems of group failure: groupthink, dispute,
prevalence of non-academic contributions
Institutionalization: expanding social hierarchy


Elevated editing privileges for high-achieving editors
Blocking troublesome users
Mechanisms of Coordination

Voting

Coalition formation

Crieteria for wise crowds: diversity of opinion,
independence, decentralization and aggregation
(Surowiecki 2005)

Both bottom-up (voting) and top-down (web
developer’s say) policies apply
Surowiecki, J. (2005). The wisdom of crowds. Anchor.
Controversies



2005 Seigenthaler incident
2006 congressional staff edits
2006 WIF page



Vandalism
Propaganda
Advertising
(non-academic
intentions)



Threatens existence of CKG projects
(e.g. legal actions)
Web developer actively respond to
controversies
Web developer’s suggestion vs.
community
Conclusion

CKG vs. Academia

CKG:





people from all walks of life,
a variety of intentions,
varied goals not necessarily academic,
end products and raw materials presented simultaneously
Academia:



specialized intellectual,
academic intentions,
only end products available