In 1999, while I was a fellow at the Berkman Center, I wrote a paper on Why the Internet is Good; in it, I noted 10 factors in Internet community policy formation (e.g., IETF) that contribute to their success. When I consider other open content communities I still find this framework to be useful, even in the case of the Wikipedia.
Open Participation: IETF (mostly), WP (more so).
No one is really excluded from the IETF, but you do have to pay the meeting attendance fee and have the interest in this sort of technical subject. Nearly any literate person might have an interest in the Wikipedia.
No Kings, but Elders?: IETF (mostly), WP (slightly less so).
Both the IETF and the Wikipedia have meritocratic governance structures, which I now call paramount leadership. I think the main difference here is that many Wikipedians can live very happily without ever encountering questions of governance; they can work on their own particular interests and make substantive contributions as they are. At the IETF, everyone is striving for a single standard.
Consensus and Competitive Scaling: IETF (partly), WP (partly).
In my 1999 essay I speak about the difficulties of consensus scaling but note it can work when combined with many of the later factors: "This is because of competitive scaling: a small group of people get to produce their best work under consensus, and then compete, coordinate, cooperate, and learn with other groups." In the standards arena it is possible for small groups of people to work on informally competing specifications, and let the best one win. (I talk further about this in design by committee and the possibilities of red/blue team design.)
Implementation and Enforcement: IETF (mostly), WP (not really).
At the Wikipedia it can be difficult to dispassionately test whether a given policy is unambiguously better than another policy. In the technical domain one has the capability to implement alternatives and see whether they work.
Limitation of Scope: IETF (yes), WP (yes).
Just as "a Working Group to be extremely rigorous in defining and enforcing the scope of its activity" the Wikipedia community has been strict in specifying what their mission is, an Encyclopedia, and what it is not.
Funded Mandates and Lack of Fiat: IETF (mostly), WP (mostly).
"The implementation and operational use of a technical policy demonstrate an interest and ability to deploy the policy at large."
Uniform Enforcement: IETF (mostly), WP (mostly).
Descriptive Policy: IETF (mostly), WP (mostly).
Policy Deprecation: IETF (partly), WP (not much).
"It is useful for a policy that is no longer in operation to be stricken from the books; it simplifies the understanding one must have about one's regulatory environment." This is basically Shirky's observation about the formation of policy.
Metrics: IETF (mostly), WP (less so).
This is tied to the implementation issue, but in the technical domain it can be very nice to know that a particular algorithm works 20% faster than the old way of doing things. The realm of natural language and human meaning is less amenable to these types of metrics.
