Centralized and Decentralized Gatekeeping in an Open Online Collective

Politics and Society 40 (3):349-388 (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper presents a study of gatekeeping in the U.S. political blog “Daily Kos.” Open online collectives like Daily Kos use relational mechanisms, such as gatekeeping, to manage organizational boundaries and filter the contributions of participants. However, neither prior theories of gatekeeping nor the existing analyses of open online collectives account for the character or implications of gatekeeping in the Daily Kos community. Using qualitative evidence as well as statistical analysis of a large sample of comment threads on the site from 2008, I argue that gatekeeping on Daily Kos takes centralized and decentralized forms, and that both modes depend critically on relational boundary work among site participants. Centralized gatekeeping proceeds through actions by high-status members of the community. Decentralized gatekeeping, by contrast, consists of more numerous and small-scale interactions between community members, who filter and moderate each other’s participation. Both forms of gatekeeping enhance the ability of site leaders and incumbent community members to regulate access to privileges and agenda-setting responsibilities on the site. These findings imply that the egalitarian ethos of open online collectives exists in tension with the mechanisms through which participation and status inequalities emerge among participants. How collectives engaged in mobilization and discursive production resolve this tension will shape the long-term impact of online participation and blogs on the political and public spheres.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,322

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Bias in algorithmic filtering and personalization.Engin Bozdag - 2013 - Ethics and Information Technology 15 (3):209-227.
What’s the Point?David Henderson & Terence Horgan - 2015 - In David K. Henderson & John Greco (eds.), Epistemic Evaluation: Purposeful Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press UK. pp. 87-114.
Gatekeeping and Narratives about “Cult” Violence.Massimo Introvigne - 2018 - Journal of Religion and Violence 6 (3):370-387.
Gatekeeping.Pamela Shoemaker - 1991 - SAGE Publications.
The Principle of Assumed Consent: The Ethics of Gatekeeping.Roger Homan - 2001 - Journal of Philosophy of Education 35 (3):329-343.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-11-25

Downloads
5 (#1,505,296)

6 months
5 (#652,053)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Rethinking democratizing potential of digital technology.Luyue Ma - 2020 - Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 18 (1):140-156.

Add more citations