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

Paul B De Laat

doi:10.1007/s10676-012-9289-7

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’?

Highlights

Online communities with user-generated content that invite everybody to contribute come in various kinds
The terms for accepting and ‘processing’ content have to be agreed. This may involve a process of moderation: judgment of content, either by specific role occupants (‘moderators’) appointed to exercise such powers (‘moderation proper’), or by all users of the community (‘self-moderation’)
Such moderation may be exercised after content has become public, or () before

Summary

Introduction

Online communities with user-generated content that invite everybody to contribute come in various kinds. The terms for accepting and ‘processing’ content have to be agreed This may involve a process of moderation: judgment of content, either by specific role occupants (‘moderators’) appointed to exercise such powers (‘moderation proper’), or by all users of the community (‘self-moderation’). This article focuses on an intriguing exception to this rule: in Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia par excellence, over the years an editorial policy had evolved of equal wiki access for all, without specific moderators, taking a ‘wikiquette’ into account, though with ‘administrators’ being entitled to execute punitive actions (cf Stvilia et al 2008; de Laat 2010) This policy had been accepted without much protest.

Coercion or empowerment?

Findings

Wikipedian governance