Reviewer: Nathaniel Tkacz

1) Is the subject matter relevant?

Yes, as a critical examination of consensus mechanisms in Wikipedia this article is very relevant. The degree to which it contributes to the current special issue on ‘transition’ is perhaps not as clear. It does deal with how the notion of consensus itself have changed over time.

2) Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?

Yes, the subject matter is intellectually interesting. It is certainly not lacking in citations. Indeed, it is perhaps over-referenced in that it introduces more idea and references that it can currently handle. That said, the discussion of the interface relied heavily on Drucker’s excellent work for its overall frame and there was an opportunity to draw from many other contributions to the nascent field of interface criticism. (The journal ‘Interface Critique’ would be a good starting point.)

3) Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?

Generally there are no major problems.

4) Is the article well written?

Yes.

5) Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?

Yes. As it stands the article is too long and it tries to do too many things. There are a number of possible ways forward which I consider in the notes below.

Notes:

This is a promising and interesting analysis of consensus in Wikipedia. The article contributes to the tradition of Wikipedia criticism by digging into consensus procedures, policies, and interfaces in more detail than other have done. It is a well-informed piece, and it shows a command of other critical writings on the topic. With this in mind, the submission could be improved in a number of ways. Currently, it is too long, not just in terms of the final wordcount, but in terms of the pacing of the writing. In the beginning, it covers already well-trodden ground in too much detail and throughout the rest of the piece it is prone to making asides that take away from the overall narrative thrust.

The article also has a bit too much going on, in terms of the conceptual layers it introduces and this detracts from the success of all of them. The utopian line, for example, is very thin, only coming in right at the beginning and right at the end. To my mind, it isn’t needed for this specific piece. The long introduction to critical writings on Wikipedia also come at the cost of more deliberate and precise accounts of the main political thinkers the author draws upon throughout. I really like the idea of bringing Dewey, Habermas and even Hayek into comparison, but it is done too quickly and when it comes to inform the discussion of consensus, it is hard to get a full appreciation of the observations.

What stood out to me as especially interesting, was the different modes of consensus that are idealised and privileged across the different Wikipedia spaces. It strikes me these different version could be more strongly discussed in relation to the different political thinkers. Is article creation Hayekian? Discussion pages Habermasian? Disputes Deweyian?

The main issue, though, at the piece is currently constructed, is that it turns to a discussion of the interface too close to the end and this means that it cannot adequately handle the analysis that follows. It is possible that there are in fact two articles in here: one on consensus spaces with distinct ideals, and another on consensus interfaces. The introduction of Drucker and interface criticism is very intriguing and I could see it working if it was really made the focus of the article, but I don’t think it is given the attention it needs to make a significant contribution. As it stands, the analysis in this late section is very thin, with asides to tables and lists that aren’t drawn out and reflected on as they would need to be.

This is a promising and interesting piece. I would encourage the author decide what the main thrust of the article is going to be and the rework it accordingly. They might also reflect on what this critique of consensus means for Wikipedia more generally, or peer production, or even utopian thought (if this thread remains).

Reviewer: Jutte Haider

Recommendation: Publish with minor revisions

The paper “Utopian Knowing: The design and politics of Wikipedian consensus” brings attention to a central, yet often neglected, area of relevance for our understanding of Wikipedia and connects to larger societal discourses. The formation of consensus and as the author convincingly argues toward the end also of dissensus. However, consensus is arrived at and performed and enacted in myriads of ways, some which are contradictory. The choice of subject matter is innovative and clearly relevant to the issues covered in the JoPP and to our understanding of knowledge creation practices in general and of collaborative processes in particular. The author engages with the issues at an intellectually high level accounting for all relevant literature. The article is well written and overall the style is accessible.

There are three issues I identified that, if addressed, would improve the paper.

1) This research concerns the English language Wikipedia, specifically. Clearly, the discussion is of relevance to WP in general and beyond, still the fact needs to be stated, and I would like to see one sentence or so with a short reflection on possible implications of this.

2) Structure/style: The theoretical and related methodological build-up is too long and there are too many different threads introduced. I understand that this has to with the fact the paper builds on research produced for a doctoral dissertation. This results in too many tools (and theorists) being introduced for just one paper. Obviously, these different approaches have informed the work. However, I recommend the author to more explicitly focus on one (or possibly two) of those and move the others into the background and this should be reflected in the space they are assigned in the text. A straightforward solution would be more Levitas and less of the rest.

3) In addition, the introduction is too general. Make it about consensus (and implicitely dissensus) already in the first paragraph and be bold in stating what you are going to argue and elucidate. Because it is interesting and very relevant and to keep readers it needs to be stated with emphasis and early on.

The article was accompanied by a fictional piece named “The Link: A policy fiction”. This tells a short story about a processes of policy making in Wikipedia form the perspective of Kay, a user and editor. It is a persuasive story and the author succeeds in making the multidimensionality and complexity of Wikipedia policy making not only tangibles, but also describe it in a compelling way.

Reviewer: Dariusz Jemielnak

First of all, it is an important and useful paper. The application of design and media archeology method is original and in the same time well chosen.
The paper is missing on literature about Wikipedia politics and consensus building – see e.g. the bureaucracy and conflict analyses in Jemielniak’s ethnography (2014) showing how conflict fuels editing, or the study of Wikipedia as a bureaucratic movement by Konieczny (2009). It is important, as the mechanisms of consensus building are also dependent on (a) the Ostrom’s law of governance, stating that establishing regulation is a way of legitimizing in the community, as well as adopting the common identity and (b) the utopian discourse of being leaderless and procedure-less makes it even more difficult to legitimize leadership, as well as establish a common ground.

Putting consensus on a pedestal comes at the cost – this is an excellent framing for the analysis. I’d suggest expanding the larger context for this phenomenon by e.g. describing how in practice the culture of eliminating open conflict leads to driving genuinely hurt people away, and how leveraging the knowledge of rules is weaponized. For a case study related to the glass ceiling phenomenon see (Jemielniak, 2016), for considerations about people pushed to the edges and marginalized see (Ford, 2017), also consider more recent Reagle’s works on gender.

It would be useful if you could refer to the efforts on combating hostility on Wikipedia – the Teahouse project, the new universal code of conduct, or the Whose Knowledge? Initiative.

In your conclusions, I think it could be useful to amplify on the reasons how consensus is practically constructed through persistence rather than the triumph of reason.

Ford, H. (2017) The search for Wikipedia’s edges in: The Routledge Companion to Digital Ethnography

Jemielniak, D. (2014) Common knowledge?, Stanford University Press.

Jemielniak D. (2016) Breaking the Glass Ceiling on Wikipedia. Feminist Review.113(1):103-108.

Konieczny, P. (2009), Governance, Organization, and Democracy on the Internet: The Iron Law and the Evolution of Wikipedia. Sociological Forum, 24: 162-192