{"id":8908,"date":"2021-10-31T00:50:25","date_gmt":"2021-10-31T00:50:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/?page_id=8908"},"modified":"2022-02-20T11:15:02","modified_gmt":"2022-02-20T11:15:02","slug":"making-consensus-sensible","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/issues\/issue-15-transition\/peer-reviewed-papers\/making-consensus-sensible\/","title":{"rendered":"Making Consensus Sensible: The Transition of a Democratic Ideal into Wikipedia\u2019s Interface"},"content":{"rendered":"

Steve Jankowski<\/strong><\/p>\n

Complement: The link: a policy fiction [pdf]<\/a><\/p>\n

1. Introduction<\/h2>\n

Consensus is both a democratic concept and a feature within peer production projects (Haythornthwaite, 2009, p. 4; Reagle, 2010, p. 101\u2013103; Dafermos, 2012). It offers the promise of a non-coercive collaborative environment while also serving to pursue a common goal. But what happens to consensus when it transitions from a theoretical ideal and into a set of practices and techniques enlisted by millions of users? What kinds of compromises are made to the concept during this process? In other words, how is consensus made sensible through the socio-technical structure of a digital platform? These are the questions that I ask in this paper as I explore the meanings and the materials that shape Wikipedian consensus.<\/p>\n

Through a discourse analysis that combines Chantal Mouffe\u2019s political theory (2000) with Johanna Drucker\u2019s theory of interfaces (2014), I examine how English Wikipedia\u2019s consensus policy expresses different theories of consensus \u2014 and then \u2014 how these forms of consensus are enabled by the platform. As a result, I found that there is no singular meaning of \u201cconsensus\u201d on English Wikipedia. Instead, it is a patchwork of theoretical affinities that shift between J\u00fcrgen Habermas, Walter Lippmann, John Dewey, and Friedrich Hayek. Secondly, consensus is not just a function of talk page discussion. Instead, it is experienced when users link to policy shortcuts, make edits, undo versions, compose pages, as well as close threads. And finally, English Wikipedia\u2019s approach to consensus follows the same pitfalls that critical feminist political theorists have raised against progressive visions of liberal democracy. The consequence is that Wikipedia over-extends the value of consensus at the expense of making collective dissent sensible. As such, if Wikipedia is to continue to be a model of peer production within pluralist societies, I argue that these characteristics of consensus must be considered.<\/p>\n

This critical perspective may come as a surprise. In many ways, Wikipedia owes its success of creating 55 million articles to its 59 million registered users (Wikimedia Foundation, 2020a, 2020b) being committed to consensus instead of other forms of governance. For example, while Wikipedia is shaped by the founder\u2019s leadership authority (Reagle, 2010, p. 133) and its parent organization provides economic, legal, and technical support (Lund, 2015, p. 59; pp. 166\u2013167), the direction and content of the encyclopedia is largely decided by Wikipedians. Furthermore, despite the tendency for organizations to become oligarchies, Wikipedia\u2019s open decision-making process prevented small groups of users from dominating the project (Konieczny, 2009, p. 25). In lieu of these regimes, Wikipedians have created a \u201cradical autonomy\u201d where external authority has been replaced with internal rules and policies (Jemielniak, 2014, p. 103). This is where consensus comes into play.<\/p>\n

Wikipedian rules are often in conflict with another (Leitch, 2014, p. 38) and this means that interpreting their ambiguous authority produces conflicts that not only \u201cfuels Wikipedia growth\u201d but also channels each user towards \u201cconsensus seeking\u201d (Jemielniak, p. 59; p. 103). This activity, which Yochai Benkler described \u201cas a collective output,\u201d emerges from the jostling of opinions in a \u201cfree-flowing exchange of competing views\u201d (2006, p. 218). But even more than a pragmatic means of decision-making, the preference for consensus is imagined to manifest David Clark\u2019s bombastic claim: rough consensus would wrest control away from kings, presidents, and the majority (Reagle, 2010, p. 101). Or, as Nathaniel Tkacz put it, Wikipedia animates the dream of a \u201cfuture without politics\u201d (2014, p. 7).<\/p>\n

But politics are far from absent on Wikipedia. Not only does the platform reflect patriarchal assumptions about women (Reagle and Rhue, 2011; Jemielniak, 2016), Wikipedia\u2019s own rules are weaponized to limit the participation and representation of feminist and non-Western knowledges (Peake, 2015; Gautier and Sawchuk, 2017; Maja Van der Velden, 2011; Vetter and Pettiway, 2017). These situations demonstrate that despite the utopian promise of consensus to limit external regimes of power, forms of domination continue to proliferate.<\/p>\n

In response, the Wikimedia Foundation has supported several initiatives like \u201cWhose Knowledge?\u201d (Balch, 2019), the Feminism+Art edit-a-thons (Tamani, Mandiberg, Jacqueline and Evans, 2019), and a universal code of conduct to address harassment (Wikimedia Foundation, 2021). While these efforts are important developments, several researchers have identified that Wikipedia\u2019s problems are not just an expression of external social inequality; the design of Wikipedia itself obscures the underlying politics of peer production (O’Neil, 2009; Tkacz, 2014; Menking and Rosenberg, 2020). In this vein, Heather Ford wrote that \u201cthe notion of Wikipedia as the model for global democratic production\u201d becomes complicated when we keep a keen eye on its politics (2017, p. 417). This paper follows this line of inquiry by examining the political consequences of consensus and it does so by following it along its path from a democratic ideal and into a Wikipedian technique.<\/p>\n

2. Discourse and interface analysis<\/h2>\n

Like other research about Wikipedia (Pentzold, 2009; Lund, 2015; Lindgren, 2014), I conducted a discourse analysis to assess power relations and \u201cthe possibilities for social change\u201d (J\u00f8rgensen and Phillips, 2002, p. 2). While many discourse analyses concentrate on \u201ctexts,\u201d Laclau and Mouffe argued that discourse includes \u201call social phenomena\u201d (p. 33). From this perspective, texts, social practices, and platform structures are all articulators of discourse. This expanded notion of discourse has been used to study Wikipedia as a socio-technical structure (Geiger, 2014; Ford and Wajcman, 2017).<\/p>\n

Running parallel to these studies are critical approaches to interfaces, such as Tkacz\u2019s analysis of Wikipedian openness (2014). Drawing from cultural studies and science and technology studies, interface critique (Hadler, 2018) and the walkthrough method (Light, Burgess and Duguay, 2016) I seek to uncover obscured cultural meanings within the mechanisms of interfaces. My research differs by relying on Johanna Drucker\u2019s interface analysis (2014) that combines media archaeology and design. By treating visual knowledge as a set of frames encoded with graphic traditions and \u201cstructuring regimes,\u201d her method provides a toolkit to analyze how visual interfaces generate enunciated subjects<\/em> that are afforded specific kinds of actions (pp. 146\u2013147). For the purposes of my research, Drucker\u2019s approach facilitates the connections between ideas, subjectivities, and visual structures that may otherwise be overlooked.<\/p>\n

Through this joint framework of discourse and interface theory, I begin my analysis of Wikipedia by providing an overview of democratic theories of consensus. Following this, I provide a textual analysis of English Wikipedia\u2019s consensus policy to identify how these theories align with Wikipedian interpretations. It is important to note that different language versions of Wikipedia have different wording and policy structures. Therefore, my research cannot represent these linguistic differences. However, English Wikipedia has been the largest of all the editions to date, and therefore provides an appropriate stage to assess consensus as a policy. Welcomed research in this area could compare how consensus is articulated across Wikipedia\u2019s language editions.<\/p>\n

Building from the textual analysis, I identified how the English policy implicates the interface as several contexts of consensus. These interface features are then analyzed to identify how the technique of consensus generates different kinds of subjects. I conclude by reviewing the presence and absence of various theories of consensus and what this means for understanding how consensus transitioned from an ideal to a set of interface techniques performed by specific enunciated subjects.<\/p>\n

3. Consensus as democratic ideal<\/h2>\n

In the 1920s, Walter Lippmann argued that because modern society was increasingly complex, it was only possible for the public to discuss opinions and not facts (1997, p.27). It was therefore necessary that the organization of democracy to be informed by \u201ca centralized body of experts\u201d who \u201cact as society\u2019s intelligence\u201d (Whipple, 2005, p. 160). This meant that ordinary citizens should have almost no responsibility in shaping their political system. This did not sit well with John Dewey. In contrast, he argued that all societies exist \u201cin<\/em> communication\u201d (1916, p. 5, emphasis original) and that the ideal form of democracy is the \u201cGreat Community\u201d which is sustained by the \u201cfree and full intercommunication\u201d between all individuals (1946, p. 211). Rather than a passive assent to technocratic authority, Dewey argued that democracy was sustained through participation and a consensus which \u201cdemands communication\u201d (1916, p. 6).<\/p>\n

A similar view of liberal democracy was developed by J\u00fcrgen Habermas who argued that democracies are legitimated by the authority of the public sphere. Through this abstract space, he argued that citizens can arrive at an objective consensus on \u201cwhat was practically necessary in the interest of all\u201d (1991, p. 83). A critical characteristic of this consensus was that it was achieved through deliberation: a process of \u201cintersubjective understanding\u201d founded on the principles \u201cpublicity and inclusiveness,\u201d \u201cequal rights to engage in communication,\u201d \u201cexclusion of deception and illusion\u201d and the \u201cabsence of coercion\u201d (2008, p. 172, p. 50; p. 82; 2003, p. 36). This last point was shared with Dewey, who was similarly concerned about \u201ccommunication distortions\u201d that would negatively effect deliberations (Whipple, 2005, p. 158). And finally, a unique aspect of Habermas\u2019s view was consensus was equally useful for making democratic decisions as well as to create common understanding (Jezierska, 2019, p. 18).<\/p>\n

While consensus is often understood as deliberation, it can also be attached to the idea of exchange. For example, Friedrich Hayek explained that deciding how to solve society\u2019s problems does not \u201crely on the application of anyone\u2019s given knowledge, but encourage the interpersonal process of the exchange of opinion from which better knowledge<\/em> can be expected to emerge\u201d (Hayek, 1990, p. 148, my emphasis). He further explained that such knowledge comes from competitive action assisted by the market (p. 149). In turn, these economic encounters are democratic because they transform the enemy into a friend (p. 60). It is therefore through the aggregate of the decisions of strangers coordinated by a price system that Hayek imagined the simultaneous discovery of \u201cbetter knowledge\u201d and the creation of a community. While Hayek did not explicitly use the term consensus, his phrase \u201cbetter knowledge\u201d and its connections to community are suggestive of the concept.<\/p>\n

From Dewey, Habermas, and Hayek, the meaning of consensus therefore leans in different directions: participation, deliberation, and competition. However, the common thread between them is one that Chantal Mouffe identified of liberal theories of democracy: that consensus exists as \u201cthe aim of democracy\u201d (2005, p. 29) and operates through a nonexclusive space of rationality (1994, p. 1545). Mouffe acknowledged that \u201c[c]onsensus is indeed necessary\u201d to maintain democratic systems because it is how we can create a common identity. In her words, it is a \u201cmoment of closure\u201d that forms a \u201cpeople\u201d (2000, p. 113). However, putting consensus on a pedestal comes at a cost. She explained that consensus is \u201cand will always be \u2014 the expression of a hegemony and the crystallization of power relations\u201d (p. 49). The concern she expressed was that to keep consensus democratic, it must also \u201cbe accompanied by dissent\u201d (p. 113).<\/p>\n

Citing Jane Mansbridge, Joseph Reagle made a similar argument. He stated that if consensus is always the goal, then it is likely only achievable within small and localized communities (2010, p. 110). This is largely the case since each distinction of a group of people will \u201c[conjure] up its dominant or majority referent,\u201d which \u201cimplicitly excludes those whose experiences differ from that majority\u201d (Mansbridge, 1993, p. 367). However, when political difference defines the character of social encounters, Mansbridge argued that voting can be used to legitimize a minority which can \u201crework their ideas and their strategies [\u2026] in a more protected space\u201d (Mansbridge. 2017, p. 105).<\/p>\n

Others have also identified issues with the deliberative model of consensus. In Habermas\u2019s theory, interlocutors are required to set aside \u201cdifferences in birth and fortune and speak to one another as if they were social and economic peers\u201d (Fraser, 1997, p. 77). However, Nancy Fraser argued that this bracketing of difference is more accurately a description of the \u201cprotocols of style and decorum that were themselves correlates and markers of status inequality\u201d (p. 78). This means that public deliberation \u201cfunctioned informally to marginalize women, people of color, and members of the plebeian classes\u201d (p. 78). Zizi Papacharissi expanded this critique when she explained that the reason such protocols of civility, especially those attached to politeness, are detrimental is that they deny the fact that \u201cdemocracy can merit from heated disagreement\u201d (2004, p. 262). Instead, a civility based on politeness presumes that consensus is the resolved state of democracy.<\/p>\n

Katarzyna Jezierska identified this problem as the perceived role of consensus as the \u201ctelos\u201d of deliberation (2019, p. 22). By renaming the goal of democracy as \u201cunderstanding,\u201d she argued that both consensus and dissent can be considered possible and desirable outcomes of deliberation (p.16). Her argument also means that consensus cannot be a device for making decisions. Since it is oriented toward understanding, the outcome of consensus \u201cprovides stronger support for decisions\u201d but is not the mechanism itself (p. 18). For this task, she suggested that the preferred institutional design for democratic decision-making should be \u201cvoting after deliberation\u201d (p. 19).<\/p>\n

3.1 What is consensus as a democratic ideal?<\/em><\/h3>\n

To summarize the discursive field so far, each theorist works with ideas of communication, community, and rationality in contrast to Lippmann\u2019s proposal of a centrally organized democracy. However, there are substantial differences between how these theorists position consensus as an ideal. Dewey\u2019s consensus was predicated on face-to-face participation; Hayek alluded to the product of \u201cbetter knowledge\u201d as the output of market exchange between strangers; and Habermas combined the two by suggesting that civil deliberation can provide both understanding and decision-making. In feminist articulations of consensus, these same characteristics are rewritten as hegemony and coercion. They make this case by describing how the unrelenting pursuit of consensus necessarily produces the conditions of exclusion which manifest as the conflation of civility with politeness, as well as consensus (read: one outcome of understanding) with decision-making. The result is that when consensus is imagined as an ideal state of democracy, it actively obscures and undermines the democratic value of dissensus. Now that these theories have been outlined, I can describe how Wikipedian interpretations of the concept form a set of theoretical affinities.<\/p>\n

4. Consensus as policy<\/h2>\n

Consensus has been considered by researchers to be \u201cthe most fundamental articulation work done within Wikipedia\u201d (Kriplean, et. al., 2007 p. 9). That is because it is fundamental to creating Wikipedia\u2019s \u201cpolicy environment,\u201d \u2014 a hierarchy of policies, guidelines, and essays \u2014 that \u201cencodes and explains norms\u201d in ways that institutionalize and legitimize the ideals of the project (Beschastnikh, et. al., 2008. p. 27). These documents range from the standardization of content styles, the notability of topics, to the expected conduct of users (\u2018Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines,\u2019 2020). What holds them together is the fact that each policy is \u201ccontrolled by community-wide consensus\u201d (\u2018Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines,\u2019 2009).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Figure 1: Screenshot of the first version of WP:Consensus to be designated a policy, January 18, 2007.<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The creation of this environment follows an iterative path of development. First, Wikipedians begin to document important practices as essays. As the value of these practices is verified, essays become designated as guidelines and then policies (Kriplean, et. al., 2007, p. 2). The development of consensus as a policy (WP:Consensus) followed this same process. In 2004, the user Hyacinth started a project page to document consensus as a practice (\u2018Wikipedia:Consensus,\u2019 2004). This project page continued to be developed by other users and was eventually designated as a guideline in 2005 and a policy in 2007 (\u2018Wikipedia:Consensus,\u2019 2005; 2007). In February of that year, a hyperlink to the policy was added as part of the description of Wikipedia\u2019s principle of conduct (\u2018Wikipedia:Five pillars,\u2019 2007; 2020). In 2008, WP:Consensus was linked to a template that announced that users must ensure that each edit to any<\/em> policy \u201creflects consensus\u201d (\u2018Template:Policy,\u2019 2008). As a result of this three-year period, consensus on English Wikipedia shifted from being an implicit practice to the<\/em> measure by which the development of all other policies<\/em> was recognized as legitimate. How Wikipedians articulated consensus as a policy is therefore a matter that affects the entire platform. The following analysis describes the content of the first version and most recent version of WP:Consensus at the time of analysis before connecting the language of the policy to democratic theories of the concept.<\/p>\n

4.1 WP:Consensus, 2007<\/em><\/h3>\n

When WP:Consensus was designated as a policy, it opened with two assertive sentences: \u201cWikipedia works by building consensus. Consensus is an inherent part of a wiki process\u201d (\u2018Wikipedia:Consensus,\u2019 2007). This was followed by four entwined descriptions. The first conceptualized consensus as the accumulation of unchanged edits made to an article page because they constitute the \u201cunanimous approval of the entire community.\u201d Under this condition, \u201c[s]ilence equals consent,\u201d and \u201cis the ultimate measure of consensus.\u201d The second description specified that consensus occurs by resolving disagreements \u201cthrough polite discussion and negotiation\u201d and that \u201c[e]ditors must always assume good faith and remain civil\u201d and \u201creasonable\u201d on the talk page. It went on to explain that consensus is also established when Wikipedians document a guideline which is created \u201cto save people the time having to discuss the same principles over and over.\u201d<\/p>\n

WP:Consensus also presented a fourth meaning. When users cannot voluntarily agree, they are referred to the community\u2019s dispute resolution processes, \u201cwhich are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication gets stuck.\u201d In 2007, dispute resolution was described as avoiding disputes, deliberating, disengaging, and seeking the opinion of non-involved editors (\u2018Wikipedia:Dispute resolution,\u2019 2007). But when communication failed, users were instructed to resolve disputes by appealing to an Arbitration Committee who voted on a binding decision.<\/p>\n

Following these descriptions the policy explained that \u201cconsensus is not immutable\u201d and that it can \u201cchange\u201d (\u2018Wikipedia:Consensus,\u2019 2007). This was dovetailed by a tangent about voting where cases of \u201csupermajority [\u2026] should be seen as a process of \u2018testing\u2019 for consensus, rather than reaching consensus.\u201d Afterward, consensus was permitted to be judged by \u201cthe facilitator, often an admin.\u201d Finally, the policy acknowledged that \u201ca group of editors may be able to through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate what appears to be support for a version of the article that is actually inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral.\u201d This, the policy states, \u201cis not a consensus.\u201d<\/p>\n

4.2 WP:Consensus, 2019<\/em><\/h3>\n

<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Figure 2: Screenshot of the most recent version of WP:Consensus at the time of analysis, January 22, 2019.<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In the January 22, 2019 version of the policy (\u2018Wikipedia:Consensus,\u2019 2019), a number of the first version\u2019s definitions of consensus were crystallized as top-level headings. Under the first heading \u201cAchieving consensus,\u201d happens \u201c[t]hrough editing\u201d and \u201c[t]hrough discussion.\u201d Like the first version, these articulate a difference between consensus as it exists on the article page and the talk page. Under \u201cDetermining consensus,\u201d the policy described how a consensus \u201camong a limited group of editors, at one place and time cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.\u201d It is here that \u201ccommunity consensus\u201d is inscribed in Wikipedia\u2019s policies, and that these policies are valued for their \u201cstability and consistency\u201d and therefore are subjected to a different \u201cstandard of participation\u201d which moves \u201cslowly and conservatively.\u201d This position is reinforced by a link at the bottom of the page that states \u201c[s]ilence does not imply consent when drafting new policies.\u201d<\/p>\n

Under the section describing consensus-building, editors were encouraged to maintain a \u201cneutral, detached, and civil attitude.\u201d Like the first version, this 2019 revision asserted that \u201cconsensus can change,\u201d and it inscribed this notion within a flowchart of editor actions to help users understand how to move from a \u201cprevious consensus\u201d to a \u201cnew consensus.\u201d As such, the concept of \u201cconsensus-building\u201d takes on the character of a decision-making process.<\/p>\n

When Wikipedians encounter \u201cno consensus\u201d the policy suggests that editors solicit \u201coutside opinions\u201d and \u201cAdministrative or community intervention.\u201d This preference for external opinion is extended by the fact that not all decisions are \u201csubject to consensus of editors.\u201d These exemptions include the Arbitration Committee, legal issues, and the operations of sister projects maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation (Wikipedia\u2019s parent organization).<\/p>\n

4.3 What is consensus as a Wikipedian policy?<\/em><\/h3>\n

Presented by this review of the 2007 and 2019 policy versions is the fact that there are several competing views concerning what consensus is, how it operates, and who is involved in the process. In many ways, these differences reflect previously described theories of liberal democracy. For example, consensus often appears in the form of Hayek\u2019s discovery of \u201cbetter knowledge\u201d when Wikipedians think of it as the asynchronous aggregation of individual editing, or when consensus is primarily understood to make decisions amongst strangers.<\/p>\n

WP:Consensus also reinforced Habermas\u2019s view when they described consensus as resulting from rationality, civility, and politeness. Likewise, Dewey\u2019s theory emerges when it explains how policymaking relates to the Wikipedian community. Here, consensus is articulated as active participation to make the community cohesive and when the resolution of disputes is achieved through communication. The policy also expressed concern about the power of vocal actors to manipulate consensus, a point that was raised by both Dewey and Habermas.<\/p>\n

Interestingly, because policy-as-consensus is slow and active, it directly challenges the type of consensus assumed by a Hayekian focus on the quick action of pseudo-anonymous users who create articles. Likewise, there is a persistent assent to the bureaucratic authority of administrators \u2014 either when consensus is not achieved or for practical matters. This aspect therefore presents a self-acknowledged limit to the value of consensus, one that aligns with Lippmann\u2019s preference for a technocratic form of democracy.<\/p>\n

Perhaps not a surprise given these theoretical affinities, WP:Consensus makes a number problematic equations. For example, it is explicit that civility requires politeness, and that deliberation will result in decision-making. Furthermore, \u201cno consensus\u201d is understood as a momentary obstacle towards consensus. Given these characteristics, the policy repeats the pitfalls that critical feminist theorists identified within theories of liberal democracy.<\/p>\n

As a result, while WP:Consensus may be categorized broadly<\/em> as a document that is liberal democratic in nature, it does so without a concern for theoretical consistency. It exists as a composition of contrasting and conflicting theories that outline a whole coterie of subjectivities that perform Wikipedian consensus: active editors, judging administrators, civil discussants, and majoritarian voters. At this point of the analysis, these discursive conflicts and contradictions within the meaning of Wikipedian consensus are suggestive, but they are also incomplete. The policy itself does not make it clear why this specific patchwork was chosen. However, it does leave a clue. These meanings were often affixed to different Wikipedian spaces: on articles, through editing, on the talk page, within policies, and as an aspect of a history of editing. The following section examines these spaces in close detail to gain a deeper understanding of how this consensus, as an ideal, became embedded within the platform.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

5. Consensus as interface<\/h1>\n

Following Drucker\u2019s interface theory and method of frame analysis, the following section follows this lead by examining how consensus is made sensible through the interface of five spaces identified in the policy: Article, Policy (Project), Talk, Edit, and History. On May 13 and 14, 2019, a purposive sample of these frames was chosen by collecting twenty representative instances of Wikipedian consensus: Wikipedia\u2019s policies and featured articles (Figure 3). This sample of twenty pages and their respective talk, history, and edit pages were analyzed for their most common features to create composite wireframes. In producing the wireframes, I became aware of \u201cdifferent forms of visualization\u201d (Drucker, 2014, p. 65\u201366) that were specific to each space. The following section unfolds their graphic traditions and connects them to the enunciated subjects of Wikipedian consensus. Following these descriptions, I explain how these meanings compare and contrast with WP:Consensus and the cadre of political theorists.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Figure 3: Sample of Wikipedia pages used to design the composite wireframes.<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>\n

5.1 The composition of consensus<\/em><\/h3>\n

<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Figure 4: Wireframe composition of Wikipedia\u2019s Article and Policy frames.<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

When WP:Consensus described consensus, it was often in regards to the unchanged edits made to an article page. However, there is no default way to show which specific sections of an article have either been unchanged or disputed throughout its lifespan within the article frame itself (Weltevrede and Borra, 2016). If the article frame represents consensus, then it must have another meaning. By examining the visual space of English Wikipedia\u2019s articles, (Figure 4, left) there is an uncanny connection to the expectations about the mercurial form of the book. A quick glance at the composite illustrates that Wikipedia articles are rife with the denizens of the page: paragraphs, headings, footnotes, cross-references, images, tables, and lists. Decisions about how these elements are arranged are not made lightly. During the 2014 reassessment of Wikipedia\u2019s typographic style (Walling, 2014), the designers sought to allow \u201cusers to efficiently scan the page or engage in long form reading\u201d (Mediawiki, 2014). Katherine Hayles described this cognitive activity of pecking, juxtaposing, and switching rapidly \u201cbetween different information streams\u201d (2012, p. 69) as one that has been practiced by centuries of scholars (p. 61).<\/p>\n

Aligned with this scholastic activity is the list, a device that proliferates within the frame of the article. Liam Cole Young defines the list as an \u201can operational form of writing\u201d that streamlines as much as it combines and associates disparate information (2013, p. 498). This is achieved because each list is a \u201ccontext of citation\u201d that \u201cdraws things together and puts them in relation to one another,\u201d which in turn mobilizes the \u201cmany voices within the text in order to strengthen its case\u201d (p. 506). This capacity of association can also be extended to other encyclopedic devices: the cross-referencing link (Zimmer, 2009) and visual glosses (Franklin-Brown, 2012, p. 136).<\/p>\n

These forms are therefore not simply \u201centry points\u201d designed to service the readability of the text. They are epistemological couriers dealing in the goods of disparate intellectual traditions. Their presence within the same visual space is purposefully designed to be read as if they belong together. They disrupt the linear authority of the singular author and introduce the \u201cmany voices\u201d of expertise and editors into a visual context. The article frame therefore provides a visual argument that these diverse knowledges belong together. They are a consensus by composition and proximity, one that is prefigured by the aesthetic and epistemological traditions of scholastic and scientific bookmakers.<\/p>\n

5.2 The showing of consensus<\/em><\/h3>\n

While the policy frame shares some of the visual similarity with its article counterpart, it lacks the same visual depth and polyvocality (Figure 4, right). That is because policies operate in the \u201cdocument mode\u201d of wiki editing (Cunningham and Leuf, 2001, p. 332) where they are explicitly designed to \u201cdocument the good practices that are accepted in the Wikipedia community\u201d (\u2018Wikipedia:Policies and Guidelines,\u2019 2019). This description of policies as documents means that they represent, as Lisa Gitelman explained, \u201cthe kind of knowing that is all wrapped up with showing, and showing wrapped with knowing\u201d (2014, p. 1).<\/p>\n

A clear example of this know-show function comes in the form of the \u201cPolicy Shortcut.\u201d Signified by right-aligned outlined boxes, these devices are both a short form name to describe a policy section and an anchored link that can be used to redirect users anywhere on Wikipedia to a specific section of a policy (\u2018Wikipedia:Shortcut,\u2019 2020). When the policy is invoked as a hyperlinked word, Vi\u00e9gas et al. argued that it \u201cis easy for moderators to point users to the precise rules they might be breaking\u201d (2007, p. 9). In contrast, Kriplean et. al. argued against this optimistic reading of this device. Because policies are open to interpretation, the researchers observed \u201ccomplex power plays that contributors make to control content and coerce others during the consensus process\u201d (2007, p. 1). Other researchers have identified that this invocation of the rules was used to \u201c\u2018speak in the name of\u2019 something greater [\u2026,] the entity Wikipedia \u2014 which gives them \u2018authority\u2019 in the ongoing interaction\u201d (Gauthier and Sawchuk, 2017, p. 397). As such, both the policy and its stand-in \u2014 the policy shortcut \u2014 is not just a means of knowing and showing consensus. It is used to control the shape of the encyclopedia and the behaviours of other users. Therefore, when policy is shown and known as consensus, it creates lines of division between who and what is acceptable.<\/p>\n

5.3 The processing of consensus<\/em><\/h3>\n

<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Figure 5: Wireframe composition of Wikipedia\u2019s Source Editor and Visual Editor frames.<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

From 2001 to 2013, the only way for users to edit a page was to use the Source Editor, an in-browser word processor that displayed plain text files that allowed multiple users to format a document using the markup language WikiSyntax (Cunningham and Leuf, 2001, pp. 118\u2013119). When describing the effect of the word processor on collaboration, Ward Cunningham believed that the \u201cprogram wants everyone to be an author\u201d (p. 22). However, Matthew Kirschenbaum explained that the history of word processing and printing has been structured by facilitating the tasks of office work, not literary authorship (2016, p. 16).<\/p>\n

This can be observed by unfolding the tradition that WikiSyntax comes from. Within the publishing industry, the formatting of content was long conducted through handwritten \u201cproofreader\u2019s marks\u201d (De Vinne, 1916, pp. 322\u2013324). In the mid-twentieth century publishers shifted to using short programmable codes to markup published works (Lee, Worral, et al, 1968, pp. 127\u2013128). Then, as computer scientists developed programs that could print themselves (Mathews and Miller, 1965), there was concerted effort to create a standard digital markup language (Cohen and Rosenzweig, 2006, p. 88). During this same period electric typewriters, such as the IBM Selectric, were re-purposed as the first remote computer terminals and their fixed-width characters served as the foundation of a programming language (Tuttle, 1981). It is therefore in this tradition of programming, markup, and office work that Wikipedia\u2019s Source Editor uses monospace fonts to display wikitext to format and publish articles.<\/p>\n

On Wikipedia, the Source Editor was augmented in 2012 with a Visual Editor that was intended to make editing the encyclopedia user-friendly and more accessible. This feature allowed users to make direct changes to objects on a page instead of editing wikitext (Protalinski, 2013). While the Visual editor was different from its text-based predecessor, it was designed to allow user to conduct the same markup and publishing actions like \u201cundo,\u201d \u201credo,\u201d \u201cformat,\u201d \u201cstyle,\u201d \u201clink,\u201d and \u201cPublish changes.\u201d So, when Cunningham argued that adding content to a wiki \u201ccan cause the result to drift toward an implied consensus style\u201d (2001, p. 326), the style is that of the publishing office where one worker (ideally) directly improves the work of another \u2014 not an author. The edit frame is therefore not only a word processor. It is a consensus processor where every click of the \u201cPublish\u201d button, consensus is processed by the decisive actions of editors.<\/p>\n\n<\/pagebreak>\n

5.4 The enclosure of consensus<\/em><\/h3>\n

<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Figure 6: Wireframe composition of Wikipedia\u2019s Talk and History frames.<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The most common space that researchers have attributed to consensus are Wikipedia\u2019s talk pages (Benkler, 2006, p. 72; Kriplean, et al., 2007, p. 7; Forte and Bruckman, 2008, p. 7; Reagle, 2010, p. 52). Each talk page discussion begins with an <H2> heading followed by a \u201cpost\u201d paragraph and then bifurcated by a cascade of indented replies \u2014 each terminated by a \u201csignature\u201d with a username link and a timestamp (Figure 6, left). In most cases, the resetting of indentation indicates \u201cthe start of a new thread in the discussion\u201d (Laniado, et. al., 2011, p. 178). Because this figure of the ever-growing tree has been part of the visual aesthetic of operating systems (Salus, 1994, p. 2) and turn-based web forums (Lueg and Fisher, 2012, p. 57), it is with little surprise that Ward Cunningham also designed this structure into 1990s wiki software. However, it was not discussion that these threads were ultimately aimed at producing. Instead, he envisioned that discussion could be refactored,<\/em> that is, to agreement between contributors into statements that \u201ccapture the ideas present in the discussion\u201d (Cunningham and Leuf, p. 333).<\/p>\n

While he described how refactored discussion is produced on an associated article page, I found that it can also occur on the talk page itself. Here, refactored discussion is \u201cclosed\u201d with an {{Archive}} tag which renders a purple box around the whole discussion. Occasionally, the \u201ccloser\u201d will use a template to add a statement that summarizes the result of the discussion and the quality of consensus. Additionally, users also make notice boxes at the top of the talk page to alert new users about settled discussions \u2014 such as which English dialect an article should be written in. These agreements are sometimes graphically represented by an image file (\u2018File:Consensus_icon.svg,\u2019 2021).<\/p>\n

Another example of refactored discussion is the archive box produced by bots like Lowercase sigmabot III. Because conversations rarely have a definitive end, talk pages can become filled with old threads that make it difficult to navigate relevant discussions (Laniado, et. al.<\/em>, 2011, p. 179). Bots solve this problem by calculating the differences between the current date and the last reply of a discussion thread. If the thread has been inactive for a user-defined period, then the bot automatically moves the thread to an archive. These moved discussions are then represented as numbered archives in an header or box at the top of the talk page (\u2018Help:Archiving a Talk page,\u2019 2020). Through this process, the bots effectively quantify the passive agreement \u2014 a consensus \u2014 that a discussion is no longer relevant. Together, the enclosures made by bots and humans are the more appropriate markers of consensus on talk pages, not the discussion threads.<\/p>\n

5.5 The calculation of consensus<\/em><\/h3>\n

To assist in keeping track of each edit made to Wikipedia, each page has an associated history page. Formally, this frame begins with a section of options to view the \u201cnewest \/ oldest\u201d versions and can be viewed by sets of 20, 50, 100, 250, and 500 revisions (Figure 6, right). Below that is a button to \u201cCompare selected revisions\u201d which displays the differences between any two versions side-by-side. Following this is composed of a list of revisions, with each line item containing information about time of creation, username, total bytes, difference of bytes from the previous version, and an edit summary. These lines also contain a link \u201cundo\u201d a revision (replacing it with the previous version) and \u2014 if a user is logged in \u2014 a link to thank the username of the revision.<\/p>\n

Technically, each revision line is encoded as a list using the <ul> and <li> tags. But in terms of visual form, the history page operates like a table which can \u201chold information\u201d and has \u201cperformative capabilities\u201d to operate on that information (Drucker, 2014, p. 88). For example, researchers have used this capacity to display patterns of dramatic quantitative changes to identify controversy and aggressive editing behaviours (Vi\u00e9gas, Wattenberg, and Kushal, 2004). In this respect, the history page can be used to identify anti-social activity. But these same numbers can also tell the chronicle of consensus.<\/p>\n

By calculating the time between the current revision and a previous revision, or by using \u201ccompare selected revisions,\u201d users can assess the length of time between edits and the location of those edits. As such, the history frame manifests the idea that consensus can change \u2014 every line item is evidence of this fact. It is therefore not a coincidence that some signifiers of the consensus policy included the terms \u201cnew,\u201d \u201cversion,\u201d and \u201crevert.\u201d These are the same discursive articulations embedded in the structure of the history frame. Furthermore, the history page tacitly identifies what counts as consensus: the most recent edit at the top of the table. Accordingly, the history page gives new meaning to consensus and not as a form of deliberation. Consensus is an act of calculation. In this context, Wikipedian consensus is an accounting, a constant dip and peak of accumulated bytes that represent social actions. As such, the telos of consensus becomes inscribed in the ebb and flow of information over time.<\/p>\n

5.6 The meaning of an ideal technique<\/em><\/h3>\n

By paying close attention to the interface, several differences emerge between what consensus has been ideally conceived as, how it is been defined by Wikipedians, and how it has manifested as a set of techniques. The remainder of this section describes these connections to provide a better picture of Wikipedian consensus.<\/p>\n

The article frame as scholastic consensus:<\/em><\/strong> In this space, consensus emerges from the associations made from lists, texts, citations, and juxtaposed images connect disparate intellectual traditions together as a gestalt of topical agreement. In other words, instead of representing decision-making, scholastic consensus represents heterogeneous understanding. What is fascinating is that despite the fact that this kind of consensus is the focus article editing, WP:Consensus does mention this feature of peer production.<\/p>\n

The history and edit frames as Hayekian consensus:<\/em><\/strong> So, if not the article frame, where does the idea of consensus as the accumulation of unchanged edits resonate? A good candidate for this meaning is the history frame where each edit is logged and counted. Furthermore, this frame allows users to compare revisions as well as revert any previous edit. Given these numerical, homogeneous, and impersonal characteristics, the history frame aligns with Hayek\u2019s theory of \u201cbetter knowledge\u201d that arises from quantitative exchanges between strangers. However, this is just one aspect of his theory. He also argued that \u201cbetter knowledge\u201d arises from action. In this way, the edit frame best personifies this attribute of consensus. By allowing individual users to manipulate the content of previous contributions, they actively process and edit consensus. Through these two frames, Wikipedians interpret consensus in ways that are akin to Hayek\u2019s approach to the aggregate of quantitative decision-making.<\/p>\n

The talk frame as a tension between Habermas and Lippmann<\/em><\/strong>: With the same degree of importance as editing, WP:Consensus also defined consensus as something that happens through discussion. However, despite placing emphasis on conditions identified by Habermas \u2014 such as civility, politeness, and limited coercion \u2014 consensus within the talk frame is not articulated by discussion threads. Instead, I identified that consensus takes the form of graphic enclosures that are implemented by an individual human on non-human discussion closer. Importantly, WP:Consensus specified that disputes and discussions that needed to be closed should rely on outside opinions, often an administrator. Given the authority given to admin and bots on talk pages, consensus in the talk frame is a theoretically tense space between Habermas and Lippmann\u2019s views of democracy, one that amplifies a discursive conflict between consensus as understanding<\/em> and consensus as decision-making<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The policy frame and Deweyian consensus:<\/em><\/strong> Wikipedian policies are expressions of practices grounded in the experience of the community. Furthermore, they are purposefully slow to develop, require active consent for changes, and impact how the entire community functions. Because of these features, they fit within a Deweyian notion of consensus. However, while Dewey described the construction of a democratic community as an inclusive process, Wikipedian practices suggest that this is only partially true. Through the practice of using policy shortcuts, esoteric knowledge of Wikipedian processes can be used to reinforce power structures. In such a situation, policy-oriented Wikipedians may be positioned to present ambiguous policies as self-evident community consensus, rather than their own interpretation. In this context, the notion of the community is presented as more solid and exclusionary than it is.<\/p>\n

The absence of a frame for \u201cno consensus:\u201d <\/em><\/strong>Wikipedia provides very little in terms communicating dissensus. Not only was there only a fleeting policy description of \u201cno consensus,\u201d the analysis did not uncover a frame that resonated with the idea. From a critical perspective, this is a significant concern, especially since the interface is designed to ensure that consensus (of some form) can be interepreted. With both the policy and the interface denying the value of dissensus, Wikipedia has therefore inadvertently created the conditions it was designed to challenge. Instead of leveling power inequalities, Wikipedia\u2019s myopic reliance on consensus orients the platform towards coercive forms of hegemony under the guise of \u201ccommunity.\u201d<\/p>\n

6. Conclusion<\/h2>\n

Scientifically informed bureaucrats, communicators, deliberators, and market actors. These are the ideal subjects described by Lippmann, Dewey, Habermas, and Hayek. In many ways these same personas have established themselves within WP:Consensus, but under the names of admin and editors. After examining Wikipedia\u2019s interface, this list is extended to include closers, composers, processors, calculators, and boundary-makers. However, the performance of each subject is not treated equally. This is due to the perception that Wikipedian consensus is a form of decision-making. If Wikipedians align with Hayek or Lippmann, then their perspective is reinforced by the edit, history, and talk frames. Nearly everywhere Wikipedians wander, the interface speaks of making decisions. Of course, Deweyian and Habermasian views are also present and can articulate consensus, especially as policies that seek to unify the community by establishing boundaries for who is and is not included. This set of discursive conflicts means that Wikipedian consensus is more than a guiding ideal or a self-evident practice. It is a complex socio-technical performance that leans into action and hegemony.<\/p>\n

This last quality is important. Despite the utopian purpose of consensus, I have presented a different explanation about Wikipedian forms of domination. Through the socio-technical focus on consensus, the idea of dissensus has been rendered insensible. This means that marginalized identity groups that contest Wikipedian protocols will do so from a disadvantaged position. Theoretically, they will be demanded to conform to consensus while they are also denied their value as a dissenting collective. Wikipedia\u2019s trouble with misogyny and racism can therefore be seen as examples of the experience of consensus in the absences of dissensus.<\/p>\n

In light of this consideration, I argue that the transition from ideal to a technique that makes that ideal sensible provides a useful precedent for rethinking consensus within Wikipedia and other peer production projects. The same could be achieved for dissensus. As a sign of encouragement, Wikipedian consensus demonstrates that negotiating opposing views about democracy is a strength to foster. Dissensus should be no different. While this is a laudable task, the paper also demonstrated that the transition from ideal to technique dramatically changes the meaning of the concept. As such, whatever dissensus is imagined to be by feminist political theorists, it will certainly emerge as something different when it encounters the material of digital platforms. Therefore, if Wikipedians are committed to the dream of a better world based on knowledge and understanding, then there is a space to reimagine the politics of consensus.<\/p>\n

Endnotes<\/h2>\n

[1] Portions of this paper are based on my dissertation, The Trouble with Knowing: Wikipedian consensus and the political design of encyclopedic media<\/em>, York University, 2021<\/em>.<\/p>\n

References<\/h2>\n

Balch, O. (2019) Making the edit: why we need more women in Wikipedia. The Guardian<\/em>. Available at https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/careers\/2019\/nov\/28\/making-the-edit-why-we-need-more-women-in-wikipedia<\/a><\/p>\n

Benkler, Y. (2006) The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom<\/em>. Yale University Press.<\/p>\n

Beschastnikh, I., Kriplean, T., McDonald, D. W. (2008) Wikipedian self-governance in Action: Motivating the policy lens. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media<\/em>. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, pp. 27\u201335.<\/p>\n

Cohen, D. and Rosenzweig, R. (2006) Digital history: A guide to gathering, preserving, and presenting the past on the Web<\/em>. University of Pennsylvania Press.<\/p>\n

Cunningham, W. and Leuf, B. (2001) The Wiki way: Quick collaboration on the Web<\/em>. Addison-Wesley.<\/p>\n

Dafermos, G. (2012) Authority in peer production: The emergence of governance in the FreeBSD Project. Journal of Peer Production<\/em> 1. http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/issues\/issue-1\/peer-reviewed-papers\/authority-in-peer-production\/<\/a><\/p>\n

De Vinne, T. (1916) The practice of typography: Correct composition<\/em>. Oswald Publishing.<\/p>\n

Dewey, J. (1916) Democracy and education<\/em>. MacMillan.<\/p>\n

Dewey, J. (1946) The public and its problems: An essay in political inquiry<\/em>. Gateway Books.<\/p>\n

Drucker, J. (2014) Graphesis: Visual forms of knowledge production<\/em>. Harvard University Press.<\/p>\n

\u2018File:Consensus_icon.svg\u2019 (2021) Wikipedia.<\/em> Available at https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Special:WhatLinksHere\/File:Consensus_icon.svg<\/a><\/p>\n

Ford, H. (2017) The search for Wikipedia\u2019s edges. In: Hjorth, L. (ed), The Routledge companion to digital ethnography<\/em>: 416\u2013426.<\/p>\n

Ford, H. and Wajcman, J. (2017) \u2018Anyone can edit,\u2019 not everyone does: Wikipedia\u2019s infrastructure and the gender gap. Social Studies of Science<\/em>: 1\u201317.<\/p>\n

Forte, A. and Bruckman, A. (2008) Scaling consensus: Increasing decentralization in Wikipedia governance. In: Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences<\/em>, pp. 1\u201310.<\/p>\n

Franklin-Brown, M. (2012) Reading the world: Encyclopedic writing in the scholastic age<\/em>. University of Chicago Press.<\/p>\n

Fraser, N. (1997) Justice interruptus: Critical reflections on the postsocialist condition<\/em>. Cambridge University Press.<\/p>\n

Gauthier, M. and Sawchuk, K. (2017) Not notable enough: Feminism and expertise in Wikipedia. Communication and critical\/cultural studies<\/em> 14(4): 385\u2013402.<\/p>\n

Geiger, S. (2014) Bots, bespoke code, and the materiality of software platforms. Information, Communication & Society<\/em> 17, 1-23.<\/p>\n

Gitelman, L. (2014) Paper knowledge: Toward a media history of documents<\/em>. Duke University Press.<\/p>\n

Habermas, J. (1991) The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society<\/em>. MIT Press.<\/p>\n

Habermas, J. (2003) Truth and justification<\/em>. MIT Press.<\/p>\n

Habermas, J. (2008) Between naturalism and religion: Philosophical essays<\/em>. Polity Press.<\/p>\n

Hadler, F. (2018). Beyond UX. Interface Critique Journa<\/em>l, 1: 1\u20138.<\/p>\n

Hayek F. (1990) New studies in philosophy, politics, economics, and the history of ideas<\/em>. Routledge.<\/p>\n

Hayles, K. (2012) How we think: Digital media and contemporary technogenesis<\/em>. University of Chicago Press.<\/p>\n

Haythornthwaite, C. (2002) Strong, weak, and latent ties and the impact of new media. The Information Society<\/em> 18(5): 385\u2013401.<\/p>\n

\u2018Help:Archiving a talk page\u2019 (2020) Wikipedia<\/em>. Available at https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Help:Archiving_a_talk_page&oldid=984117123#Automated_archiving<\/a><\/p>\n

Jemielniak, D. (2014) Common knowledge? An ethnography of Wikipedia.<\/em> Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.<\/p>\n

Jemielniak, D. (2016) Breaking the glass ceiling on Wikipedia. Feminist Review<\/em>, 113(1): 103\u2013108.<\/p>\n

Jezierska, K. (2019) With Habermas against Habermas: Deliberation without consensus. Journal of Public Deliberation<\/em> 15(1): 1\u201328.<\/p>\n

J\u00f8rgensen, M. and Phillips, L. (2002) Discourse analysis as theory and method<\/em>. Sage.<\/p>\n

Kirschenbaum, M. (2016) Track changes: A literary history of word processing<\/em>. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.<\/p>\n

Konieczny, P. (2009) Governance, organization, and democracy on the Internet: The Iron Law and the evolution of Wikipedia. Sociological Forum, 24<\/em>(1): 162\u2013192.<\/p>\n

Kriplean, T., Beschastnikh, I., McDonald, D., et al. (2007) Community, consensus, coercion, control: CS*W or how policy mediates mass participation. In: GROUP \u201807, 2007 international ACM conference on Supporting group work<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Laniado, D., Tasso, R., Volkovich, Y., et al. (2011) When the Wikipedians talk: Network and tree structure of Wikipedia discussion pages. In: Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Lee, R. and Worral, R. (1968) Electronic composition in printing: Proceedings of a symposium<\/em>. U.S. National Bureau of Standards.<\/p>\n

Leitch, T. (2014) Wikipedia U: Knowledge, authority, and liberal education in the digital age<\/em>. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.<\/p>\n

Light, B., Burgess, J., and Duguay, S. (2016) The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of apps. New Media & Society, 20<\/em>(3): 881\u2013900.<\/p>\n

Lindgren, S. (2014) Crowdsourcing Knowledge: Interdiscursive flows from Wikipedia into scholarly research. Culture Unbound. Journal of Current Cultural Research<\/em> 6: 609\u2013627.<\/p>\n

Lippmann, W. (1997) Public opinion<\/em>. Transaction Publishers.<\/p>\n

Lueg, C. and Fisher, D. (2012) From Usenet to CoWebs: Interacting with social information spaces<\/em>. Springer Science & Business Media.<\/p>\n

Lund, A. (2015) Wikipedians on wage labour within peer production. In: Fraysse, O. & O’Neil, M. (Eds) Digital labour and prosumer capitalism <\/em>(pp. 187-206). Dynamics of Virtual Work. Palgrave Macmillan.<\/p>\n

Mansbridge, J. (1993) Feminism and democratic community. Nomos<\/em> 35: 339\u2013395.<\/p>\n

Mansbridge, J. (2017) The long life of Nancy Fraser\u2019s \u201cRethinking the Public Sphere.\u201d In: Bargu, B. & Bottici, C. (Eds) Feminism, capitalism, and critique: Essays in honor of Nancy Fraser<\/em> (pp. 101\u2013118). Springer International Publishing.<\/p>\n

Mathews, M. and Miller, J. (1965) Computer Editing, Typesetting and Image Generation. In: Proceedings of the November 30\u2013December 1, 1965, Fall Joint Computer Conference, Part I<\/em>. ACM, pp. 389\u2013398.<\/p>\n

Mediawiki (2014) Typography Refresh<\/em>. Available at https:\/\/www.mediawiki.org\/w\/index.php?title=Typography_refresh&oldid=1019546<\/a><\/p>\n

Menking, A. and Rosenberg, J. (2020) WP: NOT, WP: NPOV, and other stories Wikipedia tells Us: A feminist critique of Wikipedia\u2019s epistemology. Science, Technology, & Human Values<\/em>, 1-25.<\/p>\n

Mouffe, C. (1994) Democracy and pluralism: A critique of the rationalist approach. Cardozo Law Review<\/em>: 16(5). 1533\u20131546.<\/p>\n

Mouffe, C. (2000) The democratic paradox<\/em>. Verso.<\/p>\n

Mouffe, C. (2005) On the political<\/em>. Routledge.<\/p>\n

O\u2019Neil, M. (2009) Cyberchiefs. Autonomy and authority in online tribes<\/em>. Pluto Press.<\/p>\n

Papacharissi, Z. (2004) Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society<\/em> 6(2): 259\u2013283.<\/p>\n

Peake, B. (2015) WP:THREATENING2MEN: Misogynist Infopolitics and the hegemony of the asshole consensus on English Wikipedia. Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology<\/em> 7. https:\/\/adanewmedia.org\/2015\/04\/issue7-peake\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Pentzold, C. (2009) Fixing the floating gap: The online encyclopaedia Wikipedia as a global memory place. Memory Studies<\/em> 2: 255\u2013272.<\/p>\n

Protalinski, E. (2013) Wikimedia rolls out WYSIWYG visual editor for logged-in users accessing Wikipedia articles in English. thenextweb.com<\/em>. Available at https:\/\/thenextweb.com\/insider\/2013\/07\/02\/wikimedia-rolls-out-its-wysiwyg-visual-editor-for-logged-in-users-accessing-wikipedia-articles-in-english\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Reagle, J. (2010) Good faith collaboration: The culture of Wikipedia<\/em>. MIT Press.<\/p>\n

Reagle, J. and Rhue, L. (2011) Gender Bias in Wikipedia and Britannica. International Journal of Communication <\/em>5: 1138\u20131158.<\/p>\n

Salus, P. (1994) A quarter century of UNIX<\/em>. Addison-Wesley.<\/p>\n

Tamani, M., Mandiberg, M., Mabey, J., and Evans, S. (2019) What we talk about when we talk about community. Wikipedia @ 20<\/em>. Available at https:\/\/wikipedia20.pubpub.org\/pub\/mmdchhft<\/a><\/p>\n

Tkacz, N. (2014) Wikipedia and the politics of openness<\/em>. University of Chicago Press.<\/p>\n

Tuttle, J. (1981) APL Pi designing an APL type font. SIGAPL APL Quote Quad<\/em> 12(1): 298\u2013302.<\/p>\n

van der Velden, M. (2011) When Knowledges Meet: Wikipedia and Other Stories from the Contact Zone. In: Lovink, G. & Tkacz, N. (Eds) Critical point of view: A Wikipedia reader<\/em> (pp. 236\u2013257). Institute of Network Cultures.<\/p>\n

Vetter, M. A. and Pettiway, K. (2017) Hacking hetero\/normative logics: Queer feminist media praxis in Wikipedia. Technoculture<\/em> 7. https:\/\/tcjournal.org\/vol7\/hacking-hetero-normative-logics\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Vi\u00e9gas, F. B., Wattenberg, M., Kushal, D. (2004) Studying cooperation and conflict between authors with history flow visualizations. In: CHI \u201804: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems<\/em>. ACM: 575\u2013582.<\/p>\n

\u2018Template:Policy\u2019 (2008) Wikipedia.<\/em> Available at https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Template:Policy&oldid=221516325<\/a><\/p>\n

Walling, S. (2014) Typography refresh: A new look for text on Wikimedia sites. Wikimedia Foundation<\/em>. Available at https:\/\/blog.wikimedia.org\/2014\/03\/27\/typography-refresh\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Weltevrede, E. and Borra, E. (2016) Platform affordances and data practices: The value of dispute on Wikipedia. Big Data & Society<\/em> 3(1), 1-16.<\/p>\n

Whipple, M. (2005) The Dewey-Lippmann Debate today: Communication distortions, reflective agency, and participatory democracy. Sociological Theory<\/em> 23(2): 156\u2013178.<\/p>\n

Wikimedia Foundation (2020a) Pages to date<\/em>. Available at https:\/\/stats.wikimedia.org\/#\/all-wikipedia-projects\/content\/pages-to-date\/normal|line|all|page_type~content|monthly<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Wikimedia Foundation (2020b) New registered users<\/em>. Available athttps:\/\/stats.wikimedia.org\/#\/all-wikipedia-projects\/contributing\/new-registered-users\/normal|bar|all|~total|monthly<\/a><\/p>\n

Wikimedia Foundation (2021) Wikipedia embraces first-of-its kind universal code of conduct, conceived for the new internet era.<\/em> Available at
https:\/\/wikimediafoundation.org\/news\/2021\/02\/02\/wikipedia-embraces-first-of-its-kind-universal-code-of-conduct\/<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2018Wikipedia:Consensus\u2019 (2004) Wikipedia.<\/em> Available at https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Consensus&oldid=4560394<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2018Wikipedia:Consensus\u2019 (2005) Wikipedia.<\/em> Available at https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Consensus&direction=next&oldid=13604004<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2018Wikipedia:Consensus\u2019 (2007) Wikipedia.<\/em> Available at https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Consensus&oldid=101540968<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2018Wikipedia:Consensus\u2019 (2019) Wikipedia.<\/em> Available at https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Consensus&oldid=879706869<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2018Wikipedia:Dispute resolution\u2019 (2007) Wikipedia.<\/em> Available at https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution&oldid=101556693<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2018Wikipedia:Five pillars\u2019 (2007) Wikipedia.<\/em> Available at https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Five_pillars&oldid=107360281<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2018Wikipedia:Five pillars\u2019 (2020) Wikipedia.<\/em> Available at https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Five_pillars&oldid=977945932<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2018Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines\u2019 (2020) Wikipedia.<\/em> Available at https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_policies_and_guidelines&oldid=990012119<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2018Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines\u2019 (2009) Wikipedia.<\/em> Available at https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines&oldid=320288962<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2018Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines\u2019 (2019) Wikipedia.<\/em> Available at https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines&oldid=911631223<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2018Wikipedia:Shortcut\u2019 (2020) Wikipedia.<\/em> Available at https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Shortcut&oldid=976308179<\/a><\/p>\n

Young, L. C. (2013) Un\u2013black boxing the list: Knowledge, materiality, and form. Canadian Journal of Communication<\/em> 38: 497\u2013516.<\/p>\n

Zimmer, M. (2009) Renvois of the past, present and future: hyperlinks and the structuring of knowledge from the Encyclop\u00e9die to Web 2.0. New Media & Society<\/em> 11(1&2): 95\u2013114.<\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Steve Jankowski Complement: The link: a policy fiction [pdf] 1. Introduction Consensus is both a democratic concept and a feature within peer production projects (Haythornthwaite, 2009, p. 4; Reagle, 2010, p. 101\u2013103; Dafermos, 2012). It offers the promise of a non-coercive collaborative environment while also serving to pursue a common<\/p>\n

Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":8978,"menu_order":6,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"template_full_width.php","meta":[],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8908"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8908"}],"version-history":[{"count":30,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8908\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10110,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8908\/revisions\/10110"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8978"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8908"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8908"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}