|
Popular Keywords: old books, old book, cook books, poetry, find books, travel books, book search, bargain books, cheap books, inexpensive books, book compare, book comparison, comics, books and collectibles book, books, new books, new book, used books, used book, rare books, rare book, second hand books, second hand book, out of print books, out of print book, textbooks, used textbooks, cheap textbooks, college textbooks
Power structure
The power structure of Wikipedia is a bit complicated at first. This document tries to describe the status quo for Wikipedia as a whole. See elsewhere on meta for suggestions on how this could or should be changed, such as the ideal Wikipedia board, more heat than light, Wikimedia charter, Wikimedia public relations, Wikipedia Peace Process and New Wikipedia order.Wikipedia's present power structure is a mix of , , , , , , and even elements:
| Table of contents |
|
2 Precedent 3 Despotism 4 Democracy 5 Republic 6 Meritocracy 7 Plutocracy 8 Technocracy |
Respected editors also respect the anarchic "accept all comers" approach to this collaborative endeavour. .
Similarly, our guidelines and policies, based in tradition are evolving through collaborative editing and the search for and compromises. Besides the of the respective policy pages, the meta and are used to discuss these matters. The mailing lists once carried more active discussion than they do presently.
The smaller national language Wikipedias have less structure due to their smaller sphere of contributors.
To understand this aspect of the Wikipedia power structure, realize that many, perhaps most, contributors consider it impractical to revisit difficult issues as consensus seems unlikely to them. As in other organizations, change most often comes when it must rather than when it should.
However, one is not compelled to follow this point of view, indeed one should probably work against it in a constructive way, for instance by making alternative proposals.
Wales largely leaves non-English wikipedias to get on with it, due to language difficulties. This suggests that his influence may actually be more symbolic than effective. Others act under his authority and general rule statements.
Not all conflicts can be resolved through consent, and in many cases, simple votes are organized using only the wikipages as a tool. Virtually all existing have been tried and used, and no standard has been agreed upon yet.
In March 2003, with Wales' approval, organized the first official project-wide vote on a Wikipedia policy, on the subject of which articles to include in the Wikipedia total article count (see Article count reform). The voting method used was . The result was accepted, and more official votes on contentious subjects may follow.
Basically, whenever you feel like it, you can try to start a vote on a talk page, but people will probably not participate in it if they think discussion has not yet been exhausted as a way to resolve conflicts of opinion. In general Wikipedia follows a model, where nothing is in a hurry... it could evolve towards if the will is there.
While Jimbo remains skeptical of voting, he has suggested that he is more willing to accept votes on the non-English Wikipedias, where he is less able to oversee the decision making process. It is most likely there that new structures will emerge.
Though each language has a different culture, generally administrator actions are limited and controlled by "the people at large": most administrators see themselves as servants of the community, not masters. For example, page deletions are transparently logged at (for example) wikipedia:deletion log. The nomination process for administrators also differs among the various languages.
While administrators are not technically elected, they are representatives of the larger group of Wikipedia users. Their power is strictly limited, and abuse results with its removal (though in practice this is rare).
Administrators' power chiefly derives from the lattitude in interpreting rules and consensus. For example, administrators may determine at their discretion when a page qualifies for deletion, either under "speedy deletion" guidelines or as a result of a vote. Deletions are rarely overturned by other sysops except in high-profile cases or where it is clear a mistake was made. In like fashion, page protection guidelines are vague, and administrators as a rule do not overrule each others' decisions on page protection.
Certainly this is the weakest element in the Wikipedia power structure, but it will grow in importance now that the Wikimedia Foundation has begun to take donations -- when money is explicitly involved, the influence of those who have it tends to increase. See the Disinfopedia for some analysis of the impact of money on opinion in the larger world.
As an electronic community, Wikipedia depends to a high extent on the software it uses. This software is developed as by volunteer developers. New developers have to submit patches to the existing coders and, if their patches are of high quality, ultimately get write access to the code and can make their own changes. (The write access is somewhat less open than on the wiki itself, because the software should remain functional at any given time.) Very highly involved developers may get access to the Wikipedia servers, giving them even greater technical power over the project. The controlling process at work, at least theoretically, is that those developers with the greatest ability (and ) should have the highest access level in the system.
This is viewed by some as a form of , with whoever has the best technological "weapons" able to cut off input from others. This may be better at Wikipedia than on most "web sites", but, it's far from an equal-power relationship. After all, no one is electing developers, sysops, or who should run servers.
The problem with this, of course, is that it favours technical over other kinds of knowledge - say, moral or ecological knowledge. Those capable of hacking code are not necessarily those most capable of improving the or . Wikipedia has suffered very much from technocratic biases in the past, and over-covers views of that sort.
Developers at present (2004) play a less prominent and more specialised (if no less influential) role in decision-making than was once the case. Most developer effort over the last year has been directed towards capacity issues and other operational matters, including startup of the dozens of related projects in a plethora of languages. This is nearing completion and more attention is being devoted to implementation of feature requests and developments such as the new skin, called "monobook".
See also: Wikipedia Governance, regime change, New Wikipedia order, Wikipedia sociology
Anarchy
Wikipedia pages can be edited collaboratively by anyone, including anonymous users. Every user starts with these same powers. Rarely, they can be lost over time (see below) but if our policies (e.g. ) are followed, it is possible for anyone to become a respected editor.Precedent
As a practical matter, most Wikipedia policy is a matter of tradition. Certain foundation issues are considered, for practical purposes, beyond discussion. Other matters are currently handled according to tradition despite an overall consensus that the status quo is not ideal (c.f. ). Despotism
is our "" - we hope that he never becomes our GodKing... He has paid for all of Wikipedia's operations with no financial return whatsoever, and retains a veto right on all decisions. He also sometimes unilaterally announces certain decisions, such as user bans, and has elevated some guidelines to the status of enforced policies. Other than holding certain foundation issues in high regard, his active participation in the power structure is increasingly limited.
Jimbo at one time was involved in nearly all proposed bans of a signed-in user. Since the ban of EntmootsOfTrolls in November, 2003, Jimbo has issued no new bans, instead relying on the to approve bans. Users whose edit history is solely vandalism can be banned by any sysop. So too can any "reincarnation" of a previously banned user, though in many cases it is impossible to prove that a user is a reincarnation to the satisfaction of the community.Democracy
Republic
Some Wikipedia, such as the English, French, Netherlands and Swedish Wikipedias, have a class of administrators (formerly "sysops"). For information on the specific powers and guidelines for administrators, see:
See also Administrators of various Wikipedias for other languagesMeritocracy
Wikipedia is very much a meritocracy. Quality is the abiding goal of Wikipedia, and so those contributors who provide the best quality work are most likely to see their contributions come to influence specific articles. They are less likely to be edited and corrected by other users as they gather respect and influence within the community or sub-community of topic area. Wikipedia articles are explicitly stated to have no author, but users only have to check page history to see who has provided the most positive influence in the development of an article. The needs of personal ego can thus be subtly met.Plutocracy
"Those who pay the bills make the rules" is a common adage. It is hardly true on Wikipedia, but the openness of Wikipedia allows anyone with enough financial resources to fund extensive development in a specific area or work on a specific range of topics. This work could then be used in discussions as leverage to implement certain policies -- generally, people who contribute a lot are less questioned because they enjoy the respect of the community. Technocracy
Underlying all of the above is a technocracy. Some people have power to develop and change code. Others have the power to change article histories and discover the IP addresses of logged-in users. And underlying all that, someone — the Wikimedia Foundation, though occasionally loans servers — owns the hardware. Sometimes a Wikipedia Vicious Cycle with strong elements of , use of bots, many accounts, access to server logs, etc., takes over, and it is resolved ultimately by "who has the technological power."
User Classes (See status page): administrator - ambassador - anonymous user - arbitrator - banned user - bot - bureaucrat - developer - GodKing - mediator - registered user - steward
