I just finished an excellent biography of Ayn Rand and her philosophy in the context of American political culture. While reading, I couldn't help think of Wales' expressed interest in Objectivism and the next to the last page actually comments on this issue:

One of the many ironies of Rand's career is her latter-day popularity among entrepreneurs who are pioneering new forms of community. Among her high-profile fans as Wikipedia's founder Jimmy Wales, once an active participant in the listserv controversies of the Objectivist Center. A nonprofit that depends on charitable donations, Wikipedia may ultimately put its rival encyclopedias out of business. At the root of Wikipedia are warring sensibilities that seemed to both embody and defy Rand's beliefs. The website's emphasis on individual empowerment, the value of knowledge, and its own risky organizational model reflects Rand's sensibility. But its trust in the wisdom of crowds, celebration of the social nature of knowledge, and faith that many working together will produce something of enduring value contradict Rand's adage "all creation is individual." (Burns 2009, p. 284)

This week I've been reading the reports from camp KDE 2010 and looking forward to attending a few hours of Wikipedia Day NYC. So it was a great pleasure to read Biella Coleman's "The Hacker Conference: a Ritual Condensation and Celebration of the Lifeworld". I haven't seen anyone else address this issue, but as a sometimes participant and scholar of related communities, I think she is right to highlight the importance of this venue. In my forthcoming book I note that in addition to virtual spaces "there are the physical spaces in which some community members interact."

Through Wikipedia "meetups" I've attended in New York and annual Wikimania conferences I've met a couple dozen contributors. Many of these people I've spoken to more than once, and it's quite easy to speak to a newly met Wikipedian about issues of concern to the community. These conversations were informative, but casual.

So, while formal face-to-face interviews played a very small part in my work, the opportunity to meet with people, to participate in conversations, to see playfulness and laugh at jokes was essential to interpreting what I saw happening online. In Biella's work I particularly appreciated the inclusion of some history (though I wanted more detail, including whether fandom conferences might've had any influence), and how Debian women in part rose out of the opportunity of face-to-face interaction.

Coincidentally, in the last year I have been particularly interested in questions of gender representation and participation at geek conferences. There were a number of instances in which the "playful" discourse of men were said to be predicated on sexist assumptions, and at the least had an alienating effect (e.g., Stallman, Aimonetti, Mouette ). In fact, in a conversation with Biella this summer I noted that 2009 was probably the "Year of [Something]", where "something" connotes a greater gender consciousness or willingness to confront alienating discourse in open content communities -- but I couldn't come up with a good word!

In the past few weeks there's been much discussion of news stories based on Felipe Ortega's dissertation; the concern is that Wikipedians are abandoning the online encyclopedia “in droves.” (What is a drove you ask? According to Wikipedia, it is an ancient route by which livestock were herded.) However, Erik Zachte, with the help of Felipe, shows how in such analysis the way that one constructs one’s parameters significantly affects the conclusions one can draw. For example, the alleged drop-off (deaths) of Wikipedia editors may be more the result of when and how the analysis is done. If you assume that an active Wikipedian is someone who did one edit (i.e., someone who was just experimenting), rather than five, or some other number (i.e., actual Wikipedians), this can significantly affect the outcome. Or, if you assume that a "death" is when someone has not been active for a month, you will naturally have a lot of deaths at the end of the analysis period because these people may have been simply "sleeping" for that month, but come back in the next month and you weren't there to see it. (Like the line from Twin Falls Idaho, a favorite movie of mine, "The sad ending is only because the author stops telling the story. But it still goes on. It's just untold.")

Wikimedia’s lesser noted response to the story claims significant efforts are being made to improve the recruitment and retention of users, but on the numbers side:

On the English Wikipedia, the peak number of active editors (5 edits per month) was 54,510 in March 2007. After a more significant decline by about 25%, it has been stable over the last year at a level of approximately 40,000. (See WikiStats data for the English Wikipedia.) Many other Wikipedia language editions saw a rise in the number of editors in the same time period.

Successful open communities must occasionally interact with closed worlds. For example, Wikipedia's openness and transparency sometimes conflict with their obligations to be responsive to the law (e.g., defamation, copyright, and human safety). Such is a consequence of becoming a notable and established institution.

A new source of tension is the "professionalization" of Wikipedia administration -- a move I otherwise commend. It appears professional marketers were asked to develop a marketing/fundraising campaign, yielding the "WIKIPEDIA FOREVER" slogan. Some Wikipedians feel this is inappropriate, arrogant, and loud -- a sentiment with which I agree. A more wiki-typical discussion of appropriate slogans can be found here.

In the previous analysis, of the 174 women from the National Women's History Project, Wikipedia lacked articles on 23 of the women, Britannica missed 65. Hence, I found no support for the idea that gender imbalance in Wikipedians leads to similar imbalance in biographical coverage. However, this did support the (unsurprising) fact that Wikipedia has greater coverage in its number of subjects and article length. Therefore, as noted, on the gender question it would be nice to have a sense of relative proportions.

Consequently, in the second analysis I look at Time's "100" most influential people from 2008. (There are more than 100 subjects because there are a few couples that I break out.)

43 entries are missing from EB; 4 from WP. 4 entries are in neither. For articles existing in both, WP articles are 7.66 times larger on average (median of 6.81).

Of the 105 entries: I guess that 23 are female, 82 are male and 0 are unknown. That is, the ratio of females to males is 0.28. Of the Wikipedia articles, females are 0.29 (23/78) of males; and 0.27 (13/49) at Britannica.

That is, while one might claim that this ratio of 0.28 is evidence of a bias -- on the part of Time or the world at large -- it is a base line from which we can judge the reference works: neither Wikipedia nor Britannica are disproportionately better or worse. If the reference works were biased towards coverage of men, we would expect that ratio to be lower than 0.28 (e.g., if all missed articles were females).

Of course, I'd like to run this over a larger corpus, but in terms of easy to find lists of notable persons, these "100" lists are all I've found so far. Also, I'm relying upon heuristics again to guess the gender of subjects, but they seem to be working well. (EB's Mia-Farrow article is guessed as male because it's actually a stub/sentence in the Woody Allen article.) Finally, an additional feature my approach has is to augment the table with the content from both reference works, but I expect Britannica would not be happy about that so I don't provide that version publicly.

A possible insight applicable to the FOSS and sexism controversies is the incompatibility of two worldviews.

In the first view, one aspires to a post- or blind-"ism" world. Therefore, to highlight differences is discriminatory because it presumes that such differences are somehow essentialist, it recapitulates the very differences from the past that we are seeking to leave behind, and challenges the autonomy and agency of individuals. Egalitarianism and freedom are assumed and in its post-"ism" form it is acceptable to use personal language even when in a prevalent group.

In the second view, one has a responsibility to highlight differences as discrimination is typically masked. Discrimination need not be intentional but can operate as assumptions that need to be aired and challenged. This view acknowledges the continued influence of history and social structure and it expects language to be neutral/inclusive, particularly when used by members of the dominant group.

Perhaps this is applicable to the discussion around Shuttleworth's comment that poorly designed technology makes it difficult to explain to girls. (I actually haven't seen the exact quote yet.) The first world view is seen in Matthew's comment:

He was talking about how hard the design work is to do, and that if things were designed poorly or had low usability, he would not know how to explain them to girls (my translation). The tone of his voice suggested sarcastic embarrassment, which implies he would prefer to impress girls. So he could have said the same thing about his father. Or better yet. If he was gay, he would have said “guys” not “girls”.

The second view can be seen in a number of the responses, including Mary's:

It’s trying to create commonality with the audience around the issue of liking to impress women which is both male-centric and hetero-centric. And it’s sexualising: it reminds women in hearing that they may be (often are) viewed preferentially as an audience for someone’s impressive demonstration (or pickup line) to which we are meant to respond with admiration, rather than as collaborators or teachers.

The recent controversy about gender imbalance and sexism in open content communities has been remarkable this summer, and this week's news about Shuttleworth's comments might mean it will extend into the autumn. While I think these events merit a historical and cultural analysis -- and prompts the questions if sexism increased, is it being noticed more, or both? -- I want to postpone that undertaking for the moment. Instead, I wonder if the recent demographic data that shows women are about 13% of Wikipedians affects its topical coverage?

As you can see in this Comparison of Biographies, Wikipedia does very well in its coverage of National Women's History Project (NWHP) biographies relative to Encyclopaedia Britannica.

64 entries are missing from EB; 23 from WP. 23 entries are in neither. For articles existing in both, WP articles are 6.29 times larger on average (median of 4.00).

That is, of 174 women, Wikipedia is missing articles on 23 of them. That's almost a third of those missing from Britannica, which doesn't have any articles not at Wikipedia. When both do have an article, Wikipedia articles have much more content. Of course, those are just the quantitative numbers. Even so, when I browse the actual articles, I am partial to the extra content and images of Wikipedia.

Yet, a difficulty in this work is finding a useful corpus of biographical persons. To say that there are more articles about men than women in any reference work, isn't saying much given world history. So, for this analysis I use those women recognized by the NWHP for Women's History Month. The NWHP is a nice collection in that it has both well known women and lesser-known women who are thought to be notable nonetheless. However, this only tells us that Wikipedia has greater coverage of women than a traditional encyclopedia. (And while this is one of the first large and topical -- rather than quality -- comparisons it should not be all that surprising given Wikipedia's size.) And, Wikipedians are aware of their own systemic bias and make attempts to counter it. For example, those recognized by Black History Month were the focus of a WikiProject that documented every person recognized. (Ironically, this list was taken from Britannica. And perhaps the NWHP list will prompt a similar project at Wikipedia, which is why I use permanent links to the specific versions I analyzed.)

What would really be nice is a source corpus of notable persons, both male and female. I could then compare this against Wikipedia and Britannica to see how they fare relative to the source corpus. That is, a source corpus of 100 people might recognize 75 men and 25 women (25% female), and if one of the references had a 60/15 split, it'd be less "feminine" (20%) than the source. How, then, does each reference work compare to each other, relative to their source? If you have a suggestion for corpus, please leave a comment.

Finally, while speaking with Nora about this, she also raised the question of if the gender ratio of disruptive editors differs from that of the larger community? Our hypothesis is disruptive editors might be disproportionately male. But who can say? Unfortunately, I expect it's difficult to get survey responses from such editors.

I just finished reading Eric Goldman's "Wikipedia’s Labor Squeeze and its Consequences" and it is a more reasoned argument than the hyperbolic prediction of Wikipedia's failure. In fact, the claim that there is a tension between openness and protecting against disruption shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that is familiar with online communities. Wikipedia has always had to balance the merits and challenges of openness (i.e., collaboration and disruption). Goldman's paper is a nice treatment of this tension, here's my summary:

The author poses the feature of "free editability" against the need to defend against unproductive contributions. Noting that technological restrictions to date have been "fairly modest", he suggests Flagged Revision features may be a significant change. The plateau of Wikipedian growth is likely caused by editor turnover, an inability to attract and keep new editors, and the lack of incentive mechanisms (e.g., relying only upon intrinsic motivation). The author endorses technological barriers that further constrain "free editability," and the recruitment and maintenance of new contributors, including converting readers into contributors, recruiting cash-motivated individuals, companies, academics, and students to participate.

I have two substantive comments on the paper. First, I am surprised that he even made the failure claim, or that the observation of this tension is novel, given that he quotes a 2005 email by Jimmy Wales. Last week, when I wrote that an open community was not the founding vision of Wikipedia, but a surprisingly productive means, I did not include one of the most compelling -- but later -- messages on that topic. Goldman quotes one sentence from Wales' 2005 message:

Wikipedia is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language. . . .

However, the rest of that paragraph that Goldman doesn't include shows that Wales was purposely highlighting the encyclopedia as the goal, and the community as a means:

. . . Asking whether the community comes before or after this goal is really asking the wrong question: the entire purpose of the community is precisely this goal.

Furthermore, Wales writes:

The community does not come before our task, the community is organized around our task. The difference is simply that decisions ought to always be made not on the grounds of social expediency or popular majority, but in light of the requirements of the job we have set for ourselves. (Wales2005w)

I recommend you read the whole message.

Second, Goldman characterizes Wikipedia as atypical in rejecting contributions from paid/professional content creators. He is conflating the conflict of interest policy with the means of production. Yes, free and open source developers are often paid for their work, and while this hasn't taken off at Wikipedia (the market/incentives are different), I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy that prohibits the adoption of professionally produced content if it is appropriate to the encyclopedia and under a compatible license. However, Wikipedia is rightfully careful about contributors who edit articles about their own financial or reputational interests. This is the difference between incorporating content written by a paid expert on their topic of expertise, and rejecting their edits to their own biography.

So, on this note, what are some examples of content that was produced for pay at the Wikimedia Foundation? I can think of some archival material, such as the use of some material form the 11th edition of Britannica and images now in Commons.

The recent focus on Wikipedia "failing" or being "closed" merit some figures and explanation. On the afternoon of Sept 04, 2009 the English Wikipedia has 3,024,063 articles.

The Special:ProtectedPages for the Article namespace tells us:

• 5,137 articles are protected (that's 0.17% of all articles).
• The majority of those, (3,553 articles or 69% of protected articles), are semi-protected, meaning that while they aren't editable by anonymous users, they are by Wikipedians (i.e., those with an account in good standing).
• Therefore, only 1,583 articles (.05%) are fully protected, and not available to editing by non-administrative Wikipedians.
• Of all the articles being protected, 1337 of them (26%) are set to expire, most within a month or two.

That's the status quo. Yet, flagging a vetted version of an article has been discussed since 2005. The current widely discussed idea is to conduct a two month experiment in which biographies of living people (402,672 articles, about 13% of the English Wikipedia), or some subset, are "flag protected"; this means anyone can still edit but the public (not Wikipedians) see the last reviewed version. This doesn't necessarily replace the existing protection mechanisms, but could be a good alternative to semi-protection. The experiment will helpfully give guidance on who should be a "Reviewer," and answer the questions of whether this limits disruption, furthers quality, and how long does it takes to review and flag a newer version of an article. Another part of the experiment is "partrolled revisions" which would apply to a wider swath of articles and permit vandalism fighters to bookmark a known good version so they can easily evaluate subsequent contributions, but it won't affect who can edit or what the public sees.

The goal of this, and other features, is to maximize the benefits of open collaboration while minimizing the damage from disruptive edits. In my opinion, this has always been the case and Wikipedia continues to experiment with achieving the best balance.

Despite my great pleasure and excitement that The MIT Press will be publishing my book next year (I sent the manuscript to the copy editor last week!), stories like this, "Despite changes, Wikipedia will still 'fail within 5 years'", makes me wish I could get it out today. Just when questions about Wikipedia's viability ceased predictions of its demise arose in their place -- and it's getting boring.

Ars Technica journalist Nate Anderson has been profiling law professor Eric Goldman's proclamations of doom for a number of years now. In the book, I touch upon this in a chapter about the critical response to Wikipedia and the way it is produced. My cynical take is that one of the best ways to get attention is to make a provocative claim and then walk it back with some nuanced reasoning once you have that attention. (I'm glad to see Goldman has made such an attempt now with a new article, and hope to read it soon.)

On the substance, I expect I don't disagree much with Goldman, though I would take issue with his hyperbole. In the dissertation and book chapter on openness, I argue that one needs to look carefully at existing context before making pronouncements about the openness or closedness of technology mediated community. So, for example, the introduction of flagged revisions into contentious articles on biographies of living people, might actually increase Wikipedia's openness given that simply "protecting" a page has been a practice for many years now. One needs a good definition or criteria of an open content community if one wants to talk about challenges and change.

However, my greatest agitation arises as a historical one. Anderson concludes his article by writing:

But the preservation of credibility this way comes at a huge cost. First, it means that Wikipedia has failed—at least when it comes to the original utopian idea of an encyclopedia that anyone, anywhere can edit at anytime.

Look at Jimmy Wales first message in 2000 to the list for his new free Web encyclopedia:

My dream is that someday this encyclopedia will be available for just the cost of printing to schoolhouses across the world, including '3rd world' countries that won't be able to afford widespread internet access for years. How many African villages can afford a set of Britannicas? I suppose not many... (Wales2000h)

In 2004, when Wikipedia is picking up, Wales writes:

Our mission is to give freely the sum of the world's knowledge to every single person on the planet in the language of their choice, under a free license, so that they can modify, adapt, reuse, or redistribute it, at will. And, by "every single person on the planet," I mean exactly that, so we have to remember that much of our target audience is not yet able to access the Internet reliably, if at all.... (Wales2004fls)

The Wikimedia Foundation's vision statement reads:

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. (Foundation2007von)

Nowhere do we see a utopian vision for encyclopedia anyone can edit. A central aspiration in the pursuit of a universal encyclopedia is increased access to and freedom of information: an opening of opportunity and capability to anyone with an interest to learn. Ironically, such an encyclopedia only and unintentionally became possible through a happy accident: universal access to its collaborative production -- which was always tempered. Therefore, we should not confuse the means of Wikipedia production with its mission: a high-quality free and accessible reference work. Therefore, continued experiments in balancing freedom and constraint towards that end are wholly appropriate -- as Shirky argued in his essay "News of Wikipedia's Death Greatly Exaggerated" in 2006.