fehlende diversität und autorenschwund in der wikipedia: ausgrenzung durch grenzenlose...
TRANSCRIPT
Fehlende Diversität und Autorenschwund in der Wikipedia: Ausgrenzung durch grenzenlose Organisation?
Leonhard Dobusch Professor für Betriebswirtschaftslehre mit Schwerpunkt Organisation
Institut für Organisation und Lernen
Bergwinter 2016 Universitätszentrum Obergurgl, 24. März 2016
Dieses Werk steht unter der LizenzCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
Wikipedia...
... setzt auf das Kollektiv und ...
... propagiert Inklusivität als ...
... grenzenlose Organisation?
Quelle: http://derstandard.at/2000022296889/Studie-Wikipedia-wird-vom-reichen-Westen-dominiert
Quelle: http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/leben/gesellschaft/Der-Schwarm-bei-Wikipedia-schrumpft/story/11486176
Organisationen und ihre Grenzen
Wikipedia: Grenzen für Partizipation?
Grenzen für organisationale Offenheit
Organisationen und ihre Grenzen
Organisationssysteme sind soziale Systeme, die aus Entscheidungen bestehen und Entscheidungen wechselseitig miteinander verknüpfen.
“
Bild: Sonntag, CC-BY-SA-3.0, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Luhmann.png
Niklas Luhmann
Grenzen zwischen Organisation und Umwelt als Folge von Entscheidungen
Nils Brunsson & Göran Ahrne
organization as a decided order“
Bild: http://www.laisumedu.org/DESIN_Ibarra/desin/Brunsson.htm
Mitgliedschaft
Wikipedia: Selbstidentifikation und Beitragspraktiken
Wikipedia-Seite im Bearbeitungsmodus
(Selbst-)Beobachtung und Regeln
Wikipedia: Peer Review, Relevanzkriterien
Quelle: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Relevanzkriterien
Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians"
Inklusionismus
Deletionismus
Bild: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipe-tan_on_the_haystack.png
Association of Deletionist Wikipedians
Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists
Bild: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTAD.svg
Bild: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTAD.svg
Vereinigung von Wikipedianerinnen und Wikipedianern, die undifferenzierten Urteilen über den enzyklopädischen Wert ganzer Themenbereiche kritisch gegenüberstehen, jedoch die Löschung besonders schlechter Artikel unterstützen, ohne deshalb Deletionisten zu sein
Sanktionen
Wikipedia: Löschung, Sperrung
notabilia.net
notabilia.net
notabilia.net
Benutzersperrung auf Wikipedia
Hierarchie
Wikipedia: explizit & (in)formal
Kathrin Passig (2016):
https://merton-magazin.de/die-hand-am-server-ist-die-hand-die-die-welt-regiert
Bomis
Seit 2004: Wahlen, Abstimmungen, Umfragen
Wahlen zum Wikimedia Stiftungsrat, Schiedsgericht
400 Editierungen, 4 Monate aktiv
Wahlen für AdministratorInnen etc.
200 Editierungen 2 Monate aktiv
Urabstimmung über Lizenz 25 Editierungen vor dem Stichtag
Grenzziehung: willkürlich, aber transparent
alle
keine
Nutzungsrechte in der englischen Wikipedia
Nutzungsrechte in der deutschen Wikipedia
keine
alle
[M]it der Bedeutung der Entscheidungen [nimmt] dann auch die Bedeutung von Entscheidern zu - und umgekehrt. Das Entscheidungssystem tendiert ... zum Aufbau einer Hierarchie.
“
” Bild: Sonntag, CC-BY-SA-3.0, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Luhmann.png
Niklas Luhmann
Wikipedia: Grenzen für Partizipation?
Rückgang an Beförderung zu AdminstratorInnen
Bild: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/3-charts-that-show-how-wikipedia-is-running-out-of-admins/259829/
Stagnation von aktiv Beitragenden
Bild: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/3-charts-that-show-how-wikipedia-is-running-out-of-admins/259829/
The average Wikipedian on the English Wikipedia is (1) a male, (2) technically inclined, (3) formally educated, (4) an English speaker (native or non-native), (5) aged 15–49, (6) from a majority-Christian country, (7) from a developed nation, (8) from the Northern Hemisphere, and (9) likely employed as a white-collar worker or enrolled as a student rather than being employed as a laborer.
“
Wikipedia:Systemic Bias,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias
[I]t’s being written by middle-aged white guys. “ Sarah Stierch,
Wikipedian-in-Residence at Smithsonian
Spiegelbild gesellschaftlicher (Geschlechter-)Verhältnisse?
Quelle: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_Zero_1_Mumbai_Guy_on_phone.jpg
Spiegelbild gesellschaftlicher (Geschlechter-)Verhältnisse?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Being_any_Gender_is_a_drag_-_World_Pride_London_2012_(7527764372).jpg
Hacker-Kultur und Offenheit für »Trolle«
Quelle: David Lerner, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Internet_troll.jpg, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Usability: Wiki-Syntax
Quelle: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Editing_Wikipedia_p_11,_wiki_markup_illustration_1.png
Mehr Edits von Algorithmen (»Bots«):
0
25
50
75
100
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
edit
coun
t in
perc
ent p
er y
ear i
n ea
ch u
ser g
roup
Anonymous users Bots
Registered users
Figure 3: Development of edits per user group (registered user,anonymous user, bot) in the Wikipedia’s administrative names-pace 4.
continuously increasing in number. Since bots have shown theirusefulness for a wide variety of tasks in the main namespace, theirscope has steadily expanded, and more edits have taken place inother namespaces.
This contradicts a community guideline that suggests the avoidanceof editing activities of bots outside the article namespace. However,in 2012, these “outside” edits accounted for over 40 percent of allbot edits. This emergence of bot activity all over the communityproject is an indication of the growing importance of these “lit-tle helpers” for the community’s activities. This relates to a studythat analyzed the diversification of human edits over the differentnamespaces. In 2001, about 90 percent of all edits were carriedout in the article namespace, but in 2006, this number had alreadydecreased to 70 percent [15]. We assume that the change in thecommunity engagement of bot operators also expanded the reachof bot edits. More interestingly, while human edits slowed down inWikipedia’s community space, edits carried out by bots increasedas shown in Figure 3. In this administrative space, 20 different botshave been active on average (disregarding wikilink-bots).
In the next part of our analysis, we specifically look at the types ofactivities bots carry out. Our interest is twofold: first, we classifytasks executed by bots in order to understand their relatedness toexisting social governance mechanisms. Second, we examine ourassumption of increasingly algorithmic rule enforcement by bots.
We collected task descriptions from bots’ user pages to examinethe kinds of activities in which bots are participating in the Wiki-pedia community. In single, doubtful cases we matched edits withtheir task descriptions to identify discrepancies and exclude thoseactivities. Based on these data, we defined general activity typesthat are indicated in the first column of the table 1. These generalactivity types were defined in three steps. During the first round,we coded existing task descriptions collaboratively (around 100)until we had an almost stable set of activities. In the second round,we separately coded the remaining task descriptions. In the thirdround, we checked the assigned codes and compared them withour own decisions, and collaboratively coded all task descriptionsthat needed new activity types. In order to create a shared under-standing of existing activity types, the second and third rounds were
an iterative process. Newly introduced activity types were alwayscross-validated over the whole data set.
We clustered the manually defined sets of activities in activity types(cf. second column of the table 1) and identified three foci of botactivities (cf. fifth column of the table 1): (1) the content focus, (2)the task focus, and (3) the community focus.
The first category contains mainly bots that are active in the articlenamespace. These bots are created primarily to support the curat-ing activities of their operators (for example, by using Autowiki-browser – a semi-automated MediaWiki editor13) or to connect dif-ferent language versions of a page through interwiki-links. Thesecond category comprises bots that are used to support the main-tenance work of editors by compiling working lists or by informingeditors about existing status changes on articles. The third category- the community focus - refers to activities that are rather unrelatedto encyclopedic articles; they are more related to community rulesand their enforcement.
Four bots have a community focus: the CopperBot, GiftBot, Items-bot and xqbot. The CopperBot is the German equivalent to theHagermanBot of the English Wikipedia [8] that is responsible forsigning unsigned comments on discussion pages. The main task ofthe Itemsbot was welcoming new users to the German Wikipediaby leaving a message on their personal discussion pages. Probablybecause of the aforementioned community consensus against botwelcome messages, the bot stopped working within two months.In 2008 and 2009, the operator of the Giftbot requested a bot flagfor her bot in order to correct spelling mistakes. In both cases, therequest was denied. In July 2010, the third request was successful.This time, the bot tasks included the removal of processed flaggedrevision requests, the dissemination of a newsletter that containsinformation on new edits on pages such as polls, and requests forbanning users as well. All these activities were much more fo-cused on specific community needs. We assume that the operatorof Giftbot learned much more about existing rules and guidelinesover time and was therefore much better able to meet the needs ofher fellows.
The last of the four community bots is introduced in more detail inthe next section. We show in an exemplary way how the activityset employed by this bot changes over time.
5.3.1 Example: xqbotIn October 2008, the editor applied for a bot flag for her xqbot inorder to request speedy deletions of orphan pages14 or remains ofmoved pages. In November 2008, the bot flag was assigned andthe bot started working. Soon after this, the bot activities includedover ten different tasks such as correcting double redirects, fixinglinks on disambiguation pages, adding missing references tags inarticles, and the setting of interwiki-links. All these tasks weremainly focused on quality improvements to encyclopedic articles.In 2010, the focus changed in terms of additional tasks. This wasmotivated mainly by a procedural problem that occurred during anadministrator re-election.
In January 2010, one participant initiated a discussion by question-ing the procedure to take care of obsolete votes [31], [32]. The
13 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowse14 Orphan pages on Wikipedia are articles that have no or very fewincoming links.
��
Aus: Müller-Birn, C./Dobusch, L./Herbsleb, J. D. (2013): Work-to-rule: the emergence of algorithmic governance in Wikipedia. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Communities and Technologies (C&T ’13), ACM, 80–89.
Wikipedia-spezifisch
Gesamt-gesellschaftlich
Sozial
Technisch
»Bots«
Hackerkultur
Trolle
Spiegelbild der Geschlechtverhältnisse
UsabilityGründe
für Exklusion in Wikipedia
Zugang zum Internet
0
25
50
75
100
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
edit
coun
t in
perc
ent p
er y
ear i
n ea
ch u
ser g
roup
Anonymous users Bots
Registered users
Figure 3: Development of edits per user group (registered user,anonymous user, bot) in the Wikipedia’s administrative names-pace 4.
continuously increasing in number. Since bots have shown theirusefulness for a wide variety of tasks in the main namespace, theirscope has steadily expanded, and more edits have taken place inother namespaces.
This contradicts a community guideline that suggests the avoidanceof editing activities of bots outside the article namespace. However,in 2012, these “outside” edits accounted for over 40 percent of allbot edits. This emergence of bot activity all over the communityproject is an indication of the growing importance of these “lit-tle helpers” for the community’s activities. This relates to a studythat analyzed the diversification of human edits over the differentnamespaces. In 2001, about 90 percent of all edits were carriedout in the article namespace, but in 2006, this number had alreadydecreased to 70 percent [15]. We assume that the change in thecommunity engagement of bot operators also expanded the reachof bot edits. More interestingly, while human edits slowed down inWikipedia’s community space, edits carried out by bots increasedas shown in Figure 3. In this administrative space, 20 different botshave been active on average (disregarding wikilink-bots).
In the next part of our analysis, we specifically look at the types ofactivities bots carry out. Our interest is twofold: first, we classifytasks executed by bots in order to understand their relatedness toexisting social governance mechanisms. Second, we examine ourassumption of increasingly algorithmic rule enforcement by bots.
We collected task descriptions from bots’ user pages to examinethe kinds of activities in which bots are participating in the Wiki-pedia community. In single, doubtful cases we matched edits withtheir task descriptions to identify discrepancies and exclude thoseactivities. Based on these data, we defined general activity typesthat are indicated in the first column of the table 1. These generalactivity types were defined in three steps. During the first round,we coded existing task descriptions collaboratively (around 100)until we had an almost stable set of activities. In the second round,we separately coded the remaining task descriptions. In the thirdround, we checked the assigned codes and compared them withour own decisions, and collaboratively coded all task descriptionsthat needed new activity types. In order to create a shared under-standing of existing activity types, the second and third rounds were
an iterative process. Newly introduced activity types were alwayscross-validated over the whole data set.
We clustered the manually defined sets of activities in activity types(cf. second column of the table 1) and identified three foci of botactivities (cf. fifth column of the table 1): (1) the content focus, (2)the task focus, and (3) the community focus.
The first category contains mainly bots that are active in the articlenamespace. These bots are created primarily to support the curat-ing activities of their operators (for example, by using Autowiki-browser – a semi-automated MediaWiki editor13) or to connect dif-ferent language versions of a page through interwiki-links. Thesecond category comprises bots that are used to support the main-tenance work of editors by compiling working lists or by informingeditors about existing status changes on articles. The third category- the community focus - refers to activities that are rather unrelatedto encyclopedic articles; they are more related to community rulesand their enforcement.
Four bots have a community focus: the CopperBot, GiftBot, Items-bot and xqbot. The CopperBot is the German equivalent to theHagermanBot of the English Wikipedia [8] that is responsible forsigning unsigned comments on discussion pages. The main task ofthe Itemsbot was welcoming new users to the German Wikipediaby leaving a message on their personal discussion pages. Probablybecause of the aforementioned community consensus against botwelcome messages, the bot stopped working within two months.In 2008 and 2009, the operator of the Giftbot requested a bot flagfor her bot in order to correct spelling mistakes. In both cases, therequest was denied. In July 2010, the third request was successful.This time, the bot tasks included the removal of processed flaggedrevision requests, the dissemination of a newsletter that containsinformation on new edits on pages such as polls, and requests forbanning users as well. All these activities were much more fo-cused on specific community needs. We assume that the operatorof Giftbot learned much more about existing rules and guidelinesover time and was therefore much better able to meet the needs ofher fellows.
The last of the four community bots is introduced in more detail inthe next section. We show in an exemplary way how the activityset employed by this bot changes over time.
5.3.1 Example: xqbotIn October 2008, the editor applied for a bot flag for her xqbot inorder to request speedy deletions of orphan pages14 or remains ofmoved pages. In November 2008, the bot flag was assigned andthe bot started working. Soon after this, the bot activities includedover ten different tasks such as correcting double redirects, fixinglinks on disambiguation pages, adding missing references tags inarticles, and the setting of interwiki-links. All these tasks weremainly focused on quality improvements to encyclopedic articles.In 2010, the focus changed in terms of additional tasks. This wasmotivated mainly by a procedural problem that occurred during anadministrator re-election.
In January 2010, one participant initiated a discussion by question-ing the procedure to take care of obsolete votes [31], [32]. The
13 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowse14 Orphan pages on Wikipedia are articles that have no or very fewincoming links.
��
»Objective Revision Evaluation Service«
Quelle: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Objective_Revision_Evaluation_Service_logo.svg
Quelle: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ORES_edit_quality_flow.svg
Grenzen für organisationale Offenheit
Wikipedia-spezifisch
Gesamt-gesellschaftlich
Sozial
Technisch
Pfadabhängigkeit
»Bots«
Hackerkultur
Trolle
Spiegelbild der Geschlechtverhältnisse
UsabilityGründe
für Exklusion in Wikipedia
?0
25
50
75
100
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
edit
coun
t in
perc
ent p
er y
ear i
n ea
ch u
ser g
roup
Anonymous users Bots
Registered users
Figure 3: Development of edits per user group (registered user,anonymous user, bot) in the Wikipedia’s administrative names-pace 4.
continuously increasing in number. Since bots have shown theirusefulness for a wide variety of tasks in the main namespace, theirscope has steadily expanded, and more edits have taken place inother namespaces.
This contradicts a community guideline that suggests the avoidanceof editing activities of bots outside the article namespace. However,in 2012, these “outside” edits accounted for over 40 percent of allbot edits. This emergence of bot activity all over the communityproject is an indication of the growing importance of these “lit-tle helpers” for the community’s activities. This relates to a studythat analyzed the diversification of human edits over the differentnamespaces. In 2001, about 90 percent of all edits were carriedout in the article namespace, but in 2006, this number had alreadydecreased to 70 percent [15]. We assume that the change in thecommunity engagement of bot operators also expanded the reachof bot edits. More interestingly, while human edits slowed down inWikipedia’s community space, edits carried out by bots increasedas shown in Figure 3. In this administrative space, 20 different botshave been active on average (disregarding wikilink-bots).
In the next part of our analysis, we specifically look at the types ofactivities bots carry out. Our interest is twofold: first, we classifytasks executed by bots in order to understand their relatedness toexisting social governance mechanisms. Second, we examine ourassumption of increasingly algorithmic rule enforcement by bots.
We collected task descriptions from bots’ user pages to examinethe kinds of activities in which bots are participating in the Wiki-pedia community. In single, doubtful cases we matched edits withtheir task descriptions to identify discrepancies and exclude thoseactivities. Based on these data, we defined general activity typesthat are indicated in the first column of the table 1. These generalactivity types were defined in three steps. During the first round,we coded existing task descriptions collaboratively (around 100)until we had an almost stable set of activities. In the second round,we separately coded the remaining task descriptions. In the thirdround, we checked the assigned codes and compared them withour own decisions, and collaboratively coded all task descriptionsthat needed new activity types. In order to create a shared under-standing of existing activity types, the second and third rounds were
an iterative process. Newly introduced activity types were alwayscross-validated over the whole data set.
We clustered the manually defined sets of activities in activity types(cf. second column of the table 1) and identified three foci of botactivities (cf. fifth column of the table 1): (1) the content focus, (2)the task focus, and (3) the community focus.
The first category contains mainly bots that are active in the articlenamespace. These bots are created primarily to support the curat-ing activities of their operators (for example, by using Autowiki-browser – a semi-automated MediaWiki editor13) or to connect dif-ferent language versions of a page through interwiki-links. Thesecond category comprises bots that are used to support the main-tenance work of editors by compiling working lists or by informingeditors about existing status changes on articles. The third category- the community focus - refers to activities that are rather unrelatedto encyclopedic articles; they are more related to community rulesand their enforcement.
Four bots have a community focus: the CopperBot, GiftBot, Items-bot and xqbot. The CopperBot is the German equivalent to theHagermanBot of the English Wikipedia [8] that is responsible forsigning unsigned comments on discussion pages. The main task ofthe Itemsbot was welcoming new users to the German Wikipediaby leaving a message on their personal discussion pages. Probablybecause of the aforementioned community consensus against botwelcome messages, the bot stopped working within two months.In 2008 and 2009, the operator of the Giftbot requested a bot flagfor her bot in order to correct spelling mistakes. In both cases, therequest was denied. In July 2010, the third request was successful.This time, the bot tasks included the removal of processed flaggedrevision requests, the dissemination of a newsletter that containsinformation on new edits on pages such as polls, and requests forbanning users as well. All these activities were much more fo-cused on specific community needs. We assume that the operatorof Giftbot learned much more about existing rules and guidelinesover time and was therefore much better able to meet the needs ofher fellows.
The last of the four community bots is introduced in more detail inthe next section. We show in an exemplary way how the activityset employed by this bot changes over time.
5.3.1 Example: xqbotIn October 2008, the editor applied for a bot flag for her xqbot inorder to request speedy deletions of orphan pages14 or remains ofmoved pages. In November 2008, the bot flag was assigned andthe bot started working. Soon after this, the bot activities includedover ten different tasks such as correcting double redirects, fixinglinks on disambiguation pages, adding missing references tags inarticles, and the setting of interwiki-links. All these tasks weremainly focused on quality improvements to encyclopedic articles.In 2010, the focus changed in terms of additional tasks. This wasmotivated mainly by a procedural problem that occurred during anadministrator re-election.
In January 2010, one participant initiated a discussion by question-ing the procedure to take care of obsolete votes [31], [32]. The
13 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowse14 Orphan pages on Wikipedia are articles that have no or very fewincoming links.
��
Zugang zum Internet
Bomis
Bomis
Comunity-ManagerInnen?
Fazit
Es gibt keine grenzenlosen Organisationen
Informale Grenzen können undurchlässiger als formale sein
Gerade Offenheit erfordert organisationale Grenzziehung
Kontakt
E-Mail: [email protected] "Twitter: @leonidobusch "
Homepages:http://bit.ly/LD_UIBK (Universität Innsbruck)http://www.dobusch.net "Forschungsblog: http://www.governancexborders.com