Coercion or empowerment? Moderation of content in Wikipedia as 'essentially contested' bureaucratic rules

Ethics and Information Technology 14 (2):123-135 (2012)
Abstract
In communities of user-generated content, systems for the management of content and/or their contributors are usually accepted without much protest. Not so, however, in the case of Wikipedia, in which the proposal to introduce a system of review for new edits (in order to counter vandalism) led to heated discussions. This debate is analysed, and arguments of both supporters and opponents (of English, German and French tongue) are extracted from Wikipedian archives. In order to better understand this division of the minds, an analogy is drawn with theories of bureaucracy as developed for real-life organizations. From these it transpires that bureaucratic rules may be perceived as springing from either a control logic or an enabling logic. In Wikipedia, then, both perceptions were at work, depending on the underlying views of participants. Wikipedians either rejected the proposed scheme (because it is antithetical to their conception of Wikipedia as a community) or endorsed it (because it is consonant with their conception of Wikipedia as an organization with clearly defined boundaries). Are other open-content communities susceptible to the same kind of ‘essential contestation’?
Keywords Bureaucracy  Control  Empowerment  Moderation  Trust  Vandalism  Wikipedia
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 11,371
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
James H. Moor (1985). What is Computer Ethics? Metaphilosophy 16 (4):266-275.
Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Similar books and articles
P. D. Magnus (2006). Epistemology and the Wikipedia. North American Computing and Philosophy Conference.
David Milne, Catherine Legg, Medelyan Olena & Witten Ian (2009). Mining Meaning From Wikipedia. International Journal of Human-Computer Interactions 67 (9):716-754.
Olena Medelyan & Catherine Legg (2008). Integrating Cyc and Wikipedia: Folksonomy Meets Rigorously Defined Common-Sense. Proceedings of Wikipedia and AI Workshop at the AAAI-08 Conference. Chicago, US, July 12 2008.
Samuel Sarjant, Catherine Legg, Olena Medelyan & Michael Robinson (2009). “All You Can Eat” Ontology-Building: Feeding Wikipedia to Cyc. IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence (WI-09), 15 – 18 September 2009 Università Degli Studi di Milano Bicocca, Milano, Italy.
Catherine Legg & Samuel Sarjant (2012). Bill Gates is Not a Parking Meter: Philosophical Quality Control in Automated Ontology Building. Proceedings of the Symposium on Computational Philosophy, AISB/IACAP World Congress 2012 (Birmingham, England, July 2-6).
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2012-02-25

Total downloads

10 ( #148,525 of 1,102,882 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

3 ( #120,639 of 1,102,882 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.