TY - JOUR
AU - Christian, Pentzold,
AB - Abstract The article asks how voluntary engagement in peer production is grounded in the day-to-day lives of highly engaged contributors. To study their routines, I turn to the English and German language editions of Wikipedia, the quintessential example of decentralized and nonproprietary cooperation. Taking issue with idealistic accounts of free and open digital labor, the ethnographic inquiry starts by distinguishing the modes of constructive contribution from which the authors crafted their repertoire of editorial occupations. Based on participant observation, interviews, and the analysis of documents and communications, the study then explains how practical involvement is accommodated within the editors’ everyday affairs. The article concludes by arguing that the project rests on arranging rationalities of autonomy as it opens up a limited range of agreed-upon activities. The available tasks thus allow for different levels of mutuality and interdependency and they help to mitigate tensions between autonomous choice and shared commitment. Introduction Wikipedia is peer production par excellence. With its numerous entries and user accounts, it epitomizes the potential of an Internet-enabled “wisdom of the crowds” (Surowiecki, 2004, p. 3). In paradigmatic form, its modality of joint work is defined by Benkler (2006) as “radically decentralized, collaborative, and nonproprietary; based on sharing resources and outputs among widely distributed, loosely connected individuals” (p. 60). Thus, peer production represents a contemporary form of assembling, distributing, and organizing informational goods through networked services. Its alternative setup begs the question of how it is actually made to function vis-à-vis the much-discussed organization of markets and firms. While there are classic examples of the sustainable use of natural common-good resources, and despite initiatives in free software like Linux, citizen science programs such as the distributed computing initiative Rosetta@home for testing protein structures, or crowdsourced geographical surveys exemplified by OpenStreetMaps—all of which attest to the efficacy of peer production—only a few attempts have been made to trace the ways in which this form of production is practically accomplished. Yet capturing how participation in such collective undertakings becomes a customary aspect of the contributors’ activities is arguably essential for a holistic understanding and a more effective promotion of this type of nonmarket information generation (Bauwens, 2012; von Hippel & von Krogh, 2003). Undeniably, a broad range of studies already exists on the conditions and ramifications of collaborative labor via digitally networked communication and information technologies (Cammaerts, 2008; Stein, 2013). In these approaches, some of which adopt a Marxist perspective, Wikipedia and other endeavors are treated as a beacon for common ownership and online shared production (Firer-Blaess & Fuchs, 2014). An idealized account of this kind not only runs the risk of glossing over too much of the controversy and heterogeneity within the projects. It is also, this article argues, out of sync with the lived experience of daily contributors, who often have problems in connecting the triviality of their day-to-day work to the ideological superstructure of openness and informational freedom. The starting point for this investigation was the unease expressed by Wikipedia authors, a major example of peer production, when being confronted with the variety of answers on why their joint endeavor actually happens and suggestions of what they should do to further its success. The ethnographic inquiry discussed in this article takes issue with the common wisdom shared among editors that “Wikipedia only works in practice, not in theory” (Ayers, Matthews, & Yates, 2008, p. 458). It interrogates how Wikipedians actually work and how they integrate this engagement with their other media-suffused daily routines. When speaking of Wikipedians, I refer to the group of comparatively strongly and continuously involved activists whose edits make up most of the content found on that site (Suh, Convertino, Chi, & Pirolli, 2009). The highly involved cohort not only contributes much of the encyclopedic information, it also dominates administrative positions and influences governance procedures (Shaw & Hill, 2014). In spring 2018, the English-language edition of Wikipedia had more than 5.6 million articles and about 33 million accounts. The number of active authors who had added more than 100 edits per month was considerably smaller; it consisted of about 3,500 accounts in the English-language version (Wikipedia:Statistics, 2018). This study ties in with research on the establishment, maintenance, and ordering of volunteer collaboration (Coleman, 2013; Kelty, 2008). It also resonates with attempts in organizational sociology and management studies that seek to better understand the work that goes into microlevel processes of cooperation and sensemaking (Jarzabkowski, Balogun, & Seidl, 2007). Where this study departs from these examinations is that peer production explicitly hopes to go beyond the contract-based framework of the firm. Conceptually, the analysis advances a praxeological perspective that substantiates existing insights into the factors leading to success in sustainable co-working communities (Kraut & Resnick, 2012). While it acknowledges the role of Wikipedia’s policies and that of the overarching organization, that is, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) and its local chapters, as well as the rise of automated tools, it is more interested in understanding how the encyclopedic efforts are grounded in editorial routines that are interwoven with the contributors’ everyday lives. In the investigation, this ongoing accomplishment is both the chief object of analysis and the key social phenomenon interrogated in order to understand the formation and maintenance of the “free encyclopedia anyone can edit.” Literature review: (un)explaining peer production There is no lack of empirical research on peer production (for free/open source software only, e.g., Schweik & English, 2012). In this scholarship, Wikipedia is frequently treated as the “quintessential commons-based peer production project” (Benkler, 2006, p. 287). It is taken as a proof of the viability of peer-to-peer principles, it provides a striking example of successfully leveraging volunteer participation, and it demonstrates the cultural significance of its outcomes. Peer production seems to offer an opportunity for more people, Benkler and Nissenbaum (2006) maintain, “to engage in practices that permit them to exhibit and experience virtuous behavior” (p. 394). In ideal form, it has thus been embraced as the hallmark of “info-communism” (Firer-Blaess & Fuchs, 2014, p. 88) or “real utopias” (Benkler, 2013, p. 213). Its mode of open and decentralized contribution to modular tasks, the reliance on social cues and motivation rather than commands, and public domain licensing are set against contract-based or market-based forms of value creation. Yet one problem, especially of the Marxist-influenced strand of scholarship, is that this research has tended to ignore the complications and complexities of working together, which make it difficult to model Wikipedia as a paragon of cooperative labor and common ownership. Another problem with the more idealistic accounts of digital labor, as Hamilton and Heflin (2011) explain, is that they run the risk of downplaying human practice and experience. While open and equal participation, free knowledge, and informal cooperation are cardinal justifications and prerequisites for peer production, these tenets hardly explain the habitual attention of volunteers. Actually, the regular users had trouble in connecting all their actions back to the normative principles even if they did not altogether reject the ideological framework substantiating their activity. To pay more attention to the way participants in user production see themselves and assert their agency, Hamilton and Heflin (2011) refer to Negri’s notion of autonomia. For Negri, autonomia emphasizes the ability of workers to recognize and realize their own creative and autonomous capacities. Therefore, autonomy, in relation to the associated virtues of creativity, benevolence, and sociability, does not so much concern dispositions or capacities that the users possess. Instead, it becomes an achievement that the participants need to actively perform by way of seizing their liberty from copyright and managerial restrictions and employing it for productive cooperation (Berlin, 1958; Dworkin, 1988). More explicitly, MacIntyre (1984) describes these normative pretensions as core criteria of the very notion of what a social practice should be. A practice is, he argues, a: (…) socially established human activity through which goods internal to that form of activity are realized in the course of trying to achieve those standards of excellence which are appropriate to, and partially derivative of, that form of activity, with the result that human powers to achieve excellence, and human conceptions of the ends and goods involved, are systematically extended. (p. 175) Yet despite the importance of the practical accomplishment of peer production, the majority of social scientific analyses to date have focused on its conditions and implications without asking much about how its operations are actually anchored in situated actions and thus form part of the users’ everyday lives. Meanwhile, critiques of peer production have usually targeted problems with reliability and balance. They have challenged the openness of projects, the gender gap, and the purported equality of users, or they disavowed the cultural significance of such phenomena (Ford & Wajcman, 2017; Kreiss, Finn, & Turner, 2011; Simonite, 2013). They have not, however, scrutinized the feasibility of the peer production mode of working together to any great extent and have therefore largely ignored the question of how its joint endeavors are made to matter at all. If there is something like a common explanation as to why peer production comes about, it is based on the idea that the Internet as a technical infrastructure provides opportunities for those who want to work together (Fish, Murillo, Nguyen, Panofsky, & Kelty, 2011; Kollock, 1999). Hence, its sociotechnological setup is taken to foster outcome-oriented collaboration because it makes it possible to break up extensive tasks into granular modules that are matched to individual interests and can be completed through cumulative contributions (Kraut & Resnick, 2012). Users, it is believed, self-select into those tasks that fit their level of willingness and their preferences, motives, and competences (Flanagin, Stohl, & Bimber, 2006). This basic disposition, further research has suggested, is complemented by other conducive features. Thus, a range of factors have been examined in order to explain the success of projects that involve programming free software, drafting maps, or compiling facts. These include solidarity and trust; awards, reputation gains, and a kind of gift economy among users; rules and social norms; the promotion to leadership roles; the experience of self-efficacy; and a mix of intrinsic and extrinsic incentives plus the growing importance of automated software programs. What characterizes Wikipedia is a form of collectivism that especially rests on the two fundamental principles of the “Neutral Point of View” (NPOV) and “Assume Good Faith” (AGF). According to Reagle (2010), they allow a dovetailing of “an open perspective on knowledge claims (epistemic) and other contributors (intersubjective)” (p. 45). in principle, they should ensure that Wikipedia’s institutional structures have the flexibility to adapt to emerging dynamics (Beschastnikh, Kriplean, & McDonald, 2008). But rather than keeping the project open to change, Wikipedia is being afflicted by a growing bureaucratization of decision-making processes that are increasingly rule-driven and entwined with intricate hierarchies (Halfaker, Geiger, Morgan, & Riedl, 2013; Konieczny, 2009). The paradoxical dynamics of maintaining the collaborative community that exists on a voluntary basis have been discussed by Jemielniak (2014) and Tkacz (2015). In their ethnographic accounts, they show how the bureaucratic operations and technological features implemented by long-term users in order to assist them in organizing the project lead to a number of counterproductive consequences: new authors are prevented from editing and they have problems in rising to advanced user levels like those of “administrators” (also known as “admins”). The creation of novel policies is being slowed down and newbies have fewer chances of enacting their interpretation of how a rule should be applied. What becomes obvious from these dissonant dynamics is that Wikipedia is still a tough nut to crack—both for those managing the project and those trying to learn how this kind of “impossible public good” (Kollock, 1999, p. 220) comes into being. In these terms, the dictum that “Wikipedia only works in practice, not in theory” stresses the resistance of Wikipedians to accepting any researched explanation. It comes with the rejoinder that such any explanatory account might well be right, but that it is always limited and too narrowly concerned with some factors while forgetting about other, equally important aspects. As such, the Wikipedians’ deem the etic scholarly reconstructions insufficient, scant, or not entirely convincing when set against their emic familiarity with Wikipedia’s rich environment, which does not mean that the users per se have a better grasp of what they do and that any academic analysis is doomed to fail. A pronounced professionalism underpinned the contributors’ appreciation of their collective achievement. So in spite of the frequent denegation of Wikipedia as an valuable resource, especially in teaching contexts, the authors not only praised the product of their dedication as the largest compendium ever to be published, but as “the biggest and possibly the best encyclopedia in the world” (Wikipedia:About Wikipedia, 2018). Moreover, regardless of the criticism that the online compendium compromises or devalues academic knowledge and publications, and is not reliable (Keen, 2007; Santana & Wood, 2009), Wikipedians in fact endorsed and reinforced their traditional authority and standards (Stvilia, Twidale, Smith, & Gasser, 2008). Contrary to the common definition of user-generated content as being “created outside of professional routines” (OECD, 2007), Wikipedia workflows were fueled by standards of comprehensiveness, accuracy, verifiability, accessibility, appropriateness, and compliance. The contributors adopted them in order to craft and streamline their operations so as to ensure the professionalism of their cooperation and the competitiveness of the popular information product. In effect, entries in Wikipedia came close to the level of accuracy of print compendiums (Giles, 2005). Somewhat ironically, while the authors thus depended on academic esteem and the repute of commercial publishing, their venture ultimately challenged the capacity and business models of these institutions. The reconfiguration of the market for general reference works after Encyclopaedia Britannica and others went out of print is a case in point. Conceptual and methodical background: reconstructing peer production in action To account for the achieved nature of the project, this study referred to practice theories from social philosophy and cultural sociology (Reckwitz, 2002). For all their conceptual distinctions, praxeological concepts agree on the epistemological premise, as Schatzki (1996) argued, “that practices are not only pivotal objects of analysis (…) but also the central social phenomenon by reference to which other social entities such as actions, institutions, and structures are to be understood” (p. 10). By taking editorial performances seriously, we can appreciate them as space-and-time bound sequences of action. This practice-inclined perspective emphasizes the evolving and processual character of Wikipedia’s environment, its tentativeness, and viability. Seen that way, the project’s capacity to harness disparate resources and integrate the contribution of different users is achieved within mundane routines (Aaltonen & Lanzara, 2015). In order to chart these situated actions of Wikipedians, I conducted an ethnographic inquiry between the years 2010 and 2013. Adopting a multi-sited approach, my study combined observations of user activities on and off the wiki with experiences of taking part in editorial tasks. It included more than four dozen conversations and in-depth interviews as well as an analysis of about 1,200 documents from the wiki and related websites, blogs, and social media profiles. The corpus of protocols, interview transcripts, comments, photos, and screen captures was analyzed in accordance with grounded theory methodology that is based on cumulative steps of sampling, coding, and categorizing. Following Bourdieu and Wacquant’s (1992) advice, the praxeological style of inquiry sought to adopt an attitude of epistemological vigilance. It started by acknowledging that research is in itself a particular sort of social practice that should repeatedly question its scholarly modes of knowing and its academic dispositions to know. This necessitated a continuous scrutinizing of the descriptions and more abstract generalizations generated in academic sense-making, which were necessarily at odds with the practical processes they sought to capture. Hence, the reconstruction provided here can only offer a proxy for the ongoing editorial routines. It is based on observations and executions of wiki-based activities and makes use of the accounts provided by participants about their doings as well as the instructions documented in manuals and guidelines. The discussion presented here looks back at a time when Wikipedia was increasing in popularity, around the project’s tenth anniversary. It was also a phase of transition, with declining numbers of new users and a shift in policy towards stricter protection and inspection. These dynamics were, however, not isomorphic across the 280-odd language versions, which featured quite distinct institutional ecologies as well as cultures of cooperation and conflict (Fichman & Hara, 2014). Yet while the editions were neither static nor set for continuous growth, the study focused on one pervasive dimension: the editorial routines that were enacted in order to uphold but also transform Wikipedia’s operations and organization with moments of stability and fluidity. The strategy of looking more closely at the micro-level of the activists’ sociomaterially situated engagement helped me to appreciate the effort that went into maintaining, as well as modifying, Wikipedia. Repertoires of editorial routines When users worked on Wikipedia, they selected specific editorial tasks from the overall set of available participatory opportunities. The project thus opened up a range of acceptable procedures, which meant that the authors performed some of the activities while leaving others undone. So the spectrum of options provided plenty but not limitless choices with a varying level of granularity. They ranged from small-scale edits like correcting typos or fixing broken hyperlinks to extensive tasks such as reviewing an article or running for the position of administrator, which came with extended editing rights. The volunteers were therefore conforming to a palette of productive tasks from which they selected a limited number and composed their personal repertoire. This sample was conditioned by individual interests, skills, and inclinations, and the editors were free to decide how long, how often, and how continuously they wanted to pursue a certain kind of engagement. Once they got into editing on a more continuous basis, the repertoire of editorial routines configured their “praxiologically valid course of instructed action” (Garfinkel, 1967, p. 9). It came with specifications for the correct execution of a given practice and for its expected outcomes. It also implied temporal and spatial requirements as to when and where an activity could or should be performed. Faced with the opportunity and imperative to choose from the possible tasks, Wikipedians focused on a finite selection (for similar insights on free/open source software, see Dahlander & O’Mahony, 2011). Unlike contracts that codify duties and compensation in work-sharing relations, the volunteers’ editorial orientations were not rigid and did not restrict them to a particular selection of tasks or a chosen volume of activity. Instead, the emerging specializations were subject to change and shifted with their engagement. The repertoires were thus enacted as “temporary sets of behaviors that are volitionally engaged in, self-defined, and inductively created for the purposes of the online community” (Faraj, Jarvenpaa, & Majchrzak, 2011, p. 1231). Along these lines, becoming part of the Wikipedia community of practice was not achieved by providing prior teaching and preparation but through training-on-the job, mentoring relations, and a form of lateral participation (Bryant, Forte, & Bruckman, 2005; Lave & Wenger, 1991). With regard to their respective repertoires, Matthew and Thomas, two of the editors interviewed, spoke about how they performed some practices in accordance with their interests. I would like to say that I have tried my hand in different roles. For a long time and still today as an author. Also as an admin since October and in Wikipedia portals and sub-projects. Also more in the background, with editorial stuff. Then also in the mentoring program, thus helping the newbies. And then since September also in the support team; that is a bit more with a look at the outside, which I also liked very much because you can deal with the things you want to be up to. (Matthew, lines 253–265 and 350–364) Well, I act in two initiatives maximum, where I’m more involved, while I’m less present in the articles for deletion part and the entire meta-level stuff. I tend toward the main page and the list of deaths, where I have an eye on its up-to-dateness. But apart from that, I’m not so much out and about in project maintenance and the discussion sections and, to be honest, I have no ambitions to enter any electoral offices. (Thomas, lines 140–148) Overall, the editorial modes can be classified according to the two dimensions of regimentation and leverage (see Figure 1). The first dimension refers to the fact that a user’s capacity to choose from the range of practices and form a repertoire was restricted by uneven positional rights and the editorial capabilities of user groups. The second dimension refers to the more or less direct interference of an author’s activity with the article base or the user collective. In combination, the two dimensions helped to demarcate four modes of constructive participation. These modes helped to sort the inventory of activities performed by Wikipedians on a routine basis. Usually, their relevance within the project was reflected in efforts to document good practice, to codify courses of action, and to instruct new users. In the fieldwork, the available materials reflecting upon lived practice were combined with observations and insights from interviews. Together, they made it possible to categorize the activities into four bundles, where each had a similar functional direction and exhibited a comparable level of authority and eligibility. Figure 1 View largeDownload slide The available palette of participatory modes in Wikipedia. Figure 1 View largeDownload slide The available palette of participatory modes in Wikipedia. The first common mode of engagement was that of content work. It was geared towards generating, augmenting, correcting, or structuring the encyclopedic resource. Its constitutive practices could be employed by editors from most of the user levels, even those without advanced access rights, who acted on them in order to make a direct impact on the article base. Notable practices included initiating wiki pages, copy-editing entries, handling media files, categorizing articles, adding templates, or translating entries from one language edition to another. With their focus on enlarging or improving the encyclopedic product, these functions were often treated as the essential set of editing activities. Particularly new users and readers-only of the resource assumed that participation was first of all about writing articles, whereas more advanced activists underscored the growing need for project maintenance and the management of the open and collective venture. Hence, the second mode consisted of administrative tasks. They encompassed, for example, the granting of user rights, the protection or deletion of entries, and the blocking of contributors. These practices were the privilege of user groups with extended editing rights, like administrators and bureaucrats, who exerted a strong influence on the encyclopedia and the collective alike. As such, these kinds of “mop-and-bucket” duties were viewed as necessary but burdensome obligations in order to keep the resources available, to eliminate errors, and to deal with stubborn users. Yet rightly because this housekeeping was of elementary importance to the organization, it was one of the defining occupations of those volunteers who entered the higher echelons of the Wikipedia hierarchy, most notably on administrator level. In contrast, there was a third mode, the communal coordination mode, which could be employed by most of the authors regardless of their position. It centered on a type of micromanagement that usually offered limited scope for directly intervening in users’ actions or modulating their agency. Instead, it involved practices to support and train authors, like welcoming and mentoring newbies, answering questions, setting up a ballot, or organizing workshops. This mode formed a vital part of the self-governance procedures established by the editors, though it lacked the ultimate authority and the technological levers to execute punishments or unlock extended editing rights. Rather, the activities were geared towards fostering communality among the editors. Nevertheless, in some procedures like the arbitration of conflicts, they also set the right administrative actions in motion in cases where coordination failed. Fourth, Wikipedians identified a mode of control. It comprised of, for example, fighting troublesome users (so-called “vandals”), reverting edits, finding “sock puppets” (that is, multiple accounts secretly operated by one user), and dealing with copyright violations. These activities could generally not be performed by all user groups and yet they were ultimately of limited consequence to the authors because they could usually be reviewed and reverted. With its focus on demarcation and exclusion, this mode seemed to contradict the project’s ambition of openness and the normative desire of peer production to provide an alternative, more inclusive sort of knowledge work. For Wikipedians, however, it offered a set of measures necessary to ameliorate the consequences of low barriers for entering the project. Rather than precluding openness from the outset, the “border patrol,” as they put it, allowed them to ward off activities and ostracize people they deemed destructive. “Openness, we might say,” Tkacz (2015) resumes, “implies antagonism, or what the language of openness would describe as closures” (p. 36). In the environment of these four modes of productive engagement, editing repertoires emerged based on a digest of activities, even when users did not follow a strategic plan to set up a distinct portfolio. Instead, when editors returned to participation in a more continuous basis, the need to choose some tasks and skip over others became consolidated in “prototypical editing patterns” (Arazy, Ortega, Nov, Yeo, & Balila, 2015, p. 1) that allowed contributors to be assessed based on their performance in the project and not according to verbatim declarations of what they had intended to do (Yang, Halfaker, Kraut, & Hovy, 2016). Authors who aspired to attain leadership positions that would offer wider access to administration and control features often performed tasks related to content quality, mediating conflicts, and implementing policies (Burke & Kraut, 2008; Panciera, Halfacker, & Terveen, 2009). Moreover, contributors did not only attain formal positions by being, for instance, administrators. Quite apart from such and other titles, they came to understand themselves and in turn were understood by fellow volunteers according to their contribution styles as, for instance, vandal fighters, visualizers, or edit warriors. Users were called “vandal fighters” when they concentrated on patrolling the list of recent changes in order to revert inappropriate edits and chase the users responsible; to be a “visualizer” meant focusing on activities that did not involve writing text but providing illustrations for the entries; “edit warriors” were authors who used their editing rights to successively revert each other’s edits, thereby violating project rules. Asked about the groups of users they encountered, Hans and Holger named a number of characters found among their peers. For one there are authors, I’d say. They are those who mainly write the articles. Then we have quite a number of other genies. Well those, who simply correct errors. Or there are those who take care of the many scripts so that everything functions and that everything looks as it does and that you don’t have to bother with that. Well, what else? There are those who just take care of all the odds and ends, simply correcting some linguistic stuff as part of editing and reviewing work. Then there are those, they just take pictures or make maps, so different work, yes. And then there are, in case you really want to call them that, administrators, who really take charge and try that not to have so much flimflam happens. (Hans, lines 210–222) Well in the management area, there are exactly those nerds, not only in article writing, but there are those who just take care of the relevance of topics. Or those who just concern themselves with references or that the references are formatted correctly and so forth. Yet this really going into different fields, engaging with different areas, dealing with all parts and looking at how this works—there are, I believe, not that many. (Holger, lines 904–911) Overall, the compartmentalized involvement informed the users’ self-conceptions and social positions. So the participatory modes allowed authors to create connections, not by personal acquaintance or mutual interests, but through editorial association and the experience of working in the same modular practices (Zhu, Kraut, & Kittur, 2012). Accommodating everyday engagement Seen from a practice-inclined point of view, the existence, growth, and transformation of Wikipedia as well as the dynamics of its community were primarily grounded in the activists’ commitment to their joint endeavor. Through recurrent, though not necessarily daily work, their participation became a routine task and the project turned into an enduring and always unfinished assignment. In this respect, Sundin (2011) observed in the Swedish edition that “a leading principle was the routine activities which the informants put a great deal of work into (…) these routines and the hard work are a part of daily life and often regarded as being enjoyable” (p. 851). In order to accommodate the engagement with Wikipedia, authors came to customize their workspace and the structure of daily routines in line with their ongoing participation. In accordance with insights into the domestication of media, these processes of appropriation and conversion took place both on a material and a representative dimension. In this sense, Wikipedia as an assemblage of hardware infrastructures, software applications, and informational content provided by the editors became doubly articulated: its elements were treated both as technologies that were to be assembled and modulated and as encyclopedic content that formed as well as informed the authors (Silverstone, 1994). The contributors rarely focused their attention solely on writing Wikipedia. Instead, in order to support a more long-term engagement with the project that did not overburden editors in terms of availability, the enacted repertoire of editorial routines had to be accommodated within their otherwise already media-suffused lives and occupations. Consequently, the authors looked for temporal niches so that they could edit “on my weekends,” “in the morning and in the evening,” or “during semester break.” Likewise, they searched for the right places to engage with the project, for instance “in the library,” “at home,” or “on the train.” Frank described his editing routines as follows. Well, it happens first of all in the evening. Can be two to three hours. Browsing through watchlists, looking if there’s anything. Then the meetup page if something interesting is going on here. It usually shows up there. At times, on the weekend, I go to photo tours. And then I’m busy during the week editing the photos, uploading them, categorizing them, and integrating them in articles. Eats up quite a lot of the evening. (Frank, lines 146–154) What becomes evident from Frank’s account is that scheduling Wikipedia time did not only affect his home environment. While domestication studies have emphasized the incorporation of media into the geography of the household, the editors actually often reported mobilizing effects of their participation. This did not necessarily imply that Wikipedians became activists and publicly advocated for ideological positions underpinning the collective undertaking, like free knowledge or net neutrality, although some of them did (Konieczny, 2017). On a more mundane level, it was through their engagement with Wikipedia that the editors explored new places and got to know novel areas of knowledge and experience. So they went on tours to collect material or take pictures to be used in articles, they joined excursions, and attended local meetups. That way, their repertoires of practicing Wikipedia resembled other routine uses of media in that they were “place-constituting activities” (Moores, 2012, p. 32) that instigated paths of movement. Thus, Wikipedia was felt to be necessary for accomplishing habitual routes and routines. Engaging in the project formed part of the affective and embodied ways of making the course of the day “feel right.” Editing Wikipedia became incorporated in the authors’ everyday life, with its continuities of habits, interests, and possessions; their engagement in the project, in turn, helped to redefine and reassemble these aspects. In consequence, users like Holger were keen on establishing and sustaining a kind of ordinariness in how they organized their participation and made the arrangements necessary to do so. My taskbar here consists of the documents, that is with Windows 7, the files which I can call up, then Firefox, then comes the IRC chat, then Skype and ICQ. And the first thing I do, I boot my computer and press these four buttons. That is, Internet on, Firefox on, and the three chat programs. (Holger, lines 1437–1443) An everyday awareness of normative matters was inscribed into these editing procedures. It implied that the Wikipedians were attuned to the priorities of their collective effort without constantly reflecting upon their moral commitment. That is, participation became a routine in itself, the determinations of which were only subject to deliberation and reflection when an edit did not fit the specifications, when copyright infringements occurred, or when new users had to be informed of their rights and obligations. Otherwise, editors rarely objected to the wider beliefs and aspirations of the venture they participated in. Claims like “knowledge should be free” or “share with every human being,” laid down in the Wikimedia Movement Strategy Plan (2011), were therefore generally accepted yet only loosely connected to the more tangible and urgent editorial tasks and duties that the users took on during their tenure. This is not to say that they renounced the normative and taken-for-granted charge of their work, but they struggled to justify every edit they made within the more far-reaching framework of values. Indeed, whereas ideological reasons for participating—like support for free knowledge or the hope to make the world a better place—scored high in surveys, they did not automatically inspire participation (Nov, 2007). Instead, counterintuitively, there was a positive correlation between high-volume editing and perceived personal costs (Schroer & Hertel, 2009): In defiance of a rational cost-benefit analysis, heavily involved Wikipedians maintained or even enhanced their engagement despite intuiting that their commitment would not be rewarded. Therefore, routinized activities, not single, ideologically imbued acts, compelled recurrent editorship and prompted users to return to cooperation. This may appear to be circular reasoning yet it captures the constitutive process of enactment that ties together the “syntagmatic ordering of social interaction,” as Giddens (1984, p. 69) explains. Rationalities of autonomy The supply of optional but not obligatory editorial practices allowed participants to contribute to Wikipedia in diverse ways. Yet at the same time it also restricted the modes of productive participation. Like a menu, it established, in the words of Miller and Rose (1990), particular “rationalities of autonomy” (p. 25) as it opened up a limited range of agreed-upon activities that could be allocated to those volunteers who chose to follow them up. In this regard, the palette of available constructive practices balanced, on the one hand, the users’ self-determination and autonomy to freely decide upon the composition of their repertoire and the intensity of editing with, on the other hand, the standards of Wikipedia’s mission and the day-to-day requirements that stemmed from piecing together content and coordinating with other users. “The menu enables and constrains,” Korczynski and Ott (2006) note, “and it can enable by constraining. It lends shape and pattern to the plethora of alternatives” (p. 913). Seen this way, the list of feasible tasks provided gateways that channeled activity towards productive engagement with the collective endeavor. The templates did suggest a free and individual choice from the options at hand and they promised to offer the smoothest way of linking tasks to the participants most willing and able to carry them out (Yuan, Cosley, Welser, Xia, & Gay, 2009). Thus, the menu of feasible tasks in combination with the record of the achieved stage of completion prefigured the ongoing activities and prompted what Wikipedians described as an ambivalent experience of autonomy. In order to become actively engaged and make use of the openness of the project for self-determined participation, the users had to conform to the framework of activities. This panoply of “best practices” resonated with the diversity and volatility of the discrete increments that the contributors were able to devote their excess capacity to. It allowed them to experience a sort of autonomous choice and an “expanded practical freedom to act and cooperate with others” (Benkler, 2006, p. 9) while at the same time it focused the editors’ attention on the tasks at issue. This situation of “productive freedom” (Coleman, 2013, p. 3) arguably restates Isiah Berlin’s (1958) distinction between positive liberty and negative liberty. Peer production therefore relied on a virtuous circle, namely, that the users, who were freed from copyright restrictions by commons licenses, redeemed their freedom for the common good. They were invited, so to say, to treat the autonomy and agency conferred upon them not as a capacity that can be possessed or lost, but rather as an achievement that could be increased or forfeited (Raz, 1986). The day-to-day experience with “idiots” and “brain-dead” people, as one user disparagingly called his fellow writers, nevertheless seemed to run counter to the ideal. However, despite the at times disappointing mundanity of the project, its value-laden aspiration was a touchstone when addressing users as if they were already productive, reasonable, generous, and hard-working editors. In this constellation, it seems difficult and somewhat unfitting to ask whether Wikipedia is free and open or not. Any wholesale praise of its “info-communism” (Firer-Blaess & Fuchs, 2014) or the rejection of its elitism and ostracism (Simonite, 2013) actually overlooks the everyday quarrels of users, who had differing visions of their endeavor. As such, freedom and openness were not dichotomous states that either existed or were absent. They instead formed a social imaginary, that is, as Taylor (2002) writes, not a set of ideas distant to the situated action; “rather is it what enables, through making sense of, the practice of a society” (p. 91). Thus, the social imaginary of freedom and openness configured the editorial routines of content work and project administration, whose continuous accomplishment recursively attested to its relevance and normative significance. In the users’ debates, even the question of what “openness” and “freedom” should actually mean was a contested issue. Besides the regulatory specifications stated in the licenses—the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)—the application and adoption of openness and freedom remained an ongoing obligation. For instance, a user complained about the “desperate confusion of misunderstandings and misjudgments” (Wikipedia, 2010b; author’s translation) that bedeviled the discussions around the achieved or desired openness and freedom in the project. Others took trouble to clearly state what “freedom” did and especially did not include. The freedom to edit pages. The freedom to access Wikipedia for free. The freedom to ignore others’ intellectual property. The freedom to always be right. The freedom to disobey the Wikiquette. The freedom to include the opinions of all madcaps and minorities. The freedom to have endless nonsensical discussion. The freedom in the sense of anarchy (…) The freedom to ignore the rules. The freedom to leave. (Wikipedia, 2010a; author’s translation) These and other attempts to define the meaning of the normative framework did not only take place at a discursive level distant to the actual creation and calibration of the technological and institutional environment. Instead, the debates were, as Kelty (2008) put it, “precariously situated between verbal argument and material practice” (p. 168). Conclusion Wikipedia, this study showed, was brought into being through the establishment of work routines that were accomplished by volunteers in accordance with their resources, interests, and skills. Editors who became active beyond their initial trials rarely stayed with one type of task. At the same time, the majority of them cultivated a more or less versatile area of expertise that matched their particular thematic interests, which they actively shaped by performing some, yet not all, potentially doable jobs. Through their housekeeping, or “mop and bucket” work, as they said, Wikipedians made themselves responsible for the project’s existence and success. In general, the users’ multifaceted but bounded repertoire of engagement challenges any straightforward attempt to measure the intensity of their collaboration. It makes it difficult to decide if peer production should be properly characterized as a type of “heavyweight” collaboration with a significant degree of synchronous and interdependent concurrence or perhaps as a sort of “lightweight” exchange, consisting of scarcely coupled actions (Haythornthwaite, 2009). Insisting on such a clear-cut distinction would not only oversimplify the complexity of working together; it would also gloss over other aspects of how the authors tried to support Wikipedia’s “collaborative culture” (Reagle, 2010, p. 47) without necessarily interacting with each other. For example, a collaborative attitude could actually be expressed by not asking for the help of others, as completing editorial tasks alone would avoid asking colleagues to expand their scarce resources, which they could then dedicate to other assignments. The diversity of the experience of working together helped to balance the self-determination of the volunteers and the demands of the joint project. So authors found themselves in a somewhat contradictory situation, in which they were encouraged to believe that what they were contributing is valuable while at the same time they were asked to let others improve it (Allen, 2005). Coleman (2013) shares a similar observation from the programming of free software that is marked by an “individual elitism” (p. 105) of sovereign and ultimately inalienable choice on the one hand, and a “communal populism” (p. 105) of due consensus and shared commitment on the other. In this respect, the modes of available tasks opened up different levels of mutuality and interdependency and allowed the project to mitigate tensions between the autonomous decisions of individual contributors and the need for shared engagement in a common endeavor: The users were addressed as individuals who could make a difference when they seized the opportunity to become active and realize the liberty offered by the project’s technologies and institutions. The promotion and instruction of volunteer participation was in effect based on underscoring the value of individual contributions for building the collective resource as well as the liberal and liberating act of allocating efforts to the joint venture. At the same time, free choice was limited by collaborative requirements. The venture’s high-flying and indeed unattainable aim of collecting all the world’s knowledge necessitated the pooling of individual efforts and ultimately the composition of contributions in article format. Therefore, authors who disagreed on topic matters could not branch out and create parallel entries but were asked to find ways to resolve conflicting stances and produce readable and informative content. In this regard, the fundamental principle of NPOV did not obligate the authors to decide on one authoritative account of an issue but asked them to harmonize their contributions so to arrive at a proportionate and unbiased entry (Wikipedia:NPOV, 2018). Unsurprisingly, the editors did come into conflict with the system of values and policies. They too found themselves in situations where they opposed the standards and specifications within which their participation should have proceeded. Actually, Wikipedians again and again struggled with what Tsing (2004) has described as productive friction, “the awkward, unequal, unstable, and creative qualities of interconnection across difference” (p. 4). Yet among the users, endemic conflicts were not only treated as sources of trouble and collapse that had to be minimized. Though being a nuisance, they were also regarded as an inevitable consequence of their meaningful collective endeavor as well as the evidence of their earnest and intense aspirations and concrete practice. As much as Wikipedia rested on collaboration and consensus, it also seemed to be driven by dissent (cf. Jemielniak, 2014, p. 59). This friction showed the “grip of encounter,” as Tsing has it (2004, p. 5). Despite its potential to frustrate and impede, friction first of all reflected motion and reminds us of the thorny interactions that define cultural form and agency. It prompts us to understand that the Wikipedians’ trade and all kinds of cooperation are a “craft in peril,” as Sennett (2012, p. x) noted. They do not simply exist because they are wanted or needed but have to be laboriously accomplished. Moreover, the chance of getting in trouble was the ultimate confirmation of the users’ liberty to disagree. The “permanent conflictuality” (O’Neil, 2009, p. 176) about the scope and presentation of content, the selection of participatory modes, and the treatment of authors did, therefore, not inhibit the ideal Wikipedia. Instead, it was taken to be the catalyst through which the moral ambitions of the project were made productive. It formed the background against which the users’ performance happen in order to achieve the “free encyclopedia anyone can edit.” References Aaltonen , A. , & Lanzara , F. ( 2015 ). Building governance capability in online social production . Organization Studies , 36 ( 12 ), 1649 – 1673 . doi:10.1177/0170840615584459 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Allen , C. ( 2005 ). Future topics—wiki editing dichotomy. Blog post. Retrieved from www.lifewithalacrity.com Arazy , O. , Ortega , F. , Nov , O. , Yeo , L. , & Balila , A. ( 2015 ). Functional roles and career paths in Wikipedia. Proceedings ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Vancouver, 1092–1105. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2675257 Ayers , P. , Matthews , C. , & Yates , B. ( 2008 ). How Wikipedia works. San Francisco, CA : No Starch Press . Bauwens , M. ( 2012 ). From the theory of peer production to the production of peer production theory . Journal of Peer Production , 1 . Retrieved from http://peerproduction.net Benkler , Y. ( 2006 ). The wealth of networks. New Haven, CT : Yale University Press . Benkler , Y. ( 2013 ). Practical anarchism . Politics & Society , 41 ( 2 ), 213 – 251 . doi:10.1177/0032329213483108 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Benkler , Y. , & Nissenbaum , H. ( 2006 ). Commons-based peer production and virtue . The Journal of Political Philosophy , 14 ( 4 ), 394 – 419 . doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2006.00235.x Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Berlin , I. ( 1958 ). Two concepts of liberty . Oxford : Clarendon Press . Beschastnikh , I. , Kriplean , T. , & McDonald , D. ( 2008 ). Wikipedian self-governance in action. Proceedings of ICWSM’08. Seattle, WT, AAAI, 1–9. Retrieved from https://www.cs.ubc.ca/~bestchai/papers/icwsm08.pdf Bourdieu , P. , & Wacquant , L. ( 1992 ). An invitation to reflexive sociology . Chicago, IL : University of Chicago Press . Bryant , S. , Forte , A. , & Bruckman , A. ( 2005 ). Becoming Wikipedian. Proceedings of GROUP. New York: ACM, 1–10. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1099205 Burke , M. , & Kraut , R. ( 2008 ). Taking up the mop: Identifying future Wikipedia administrators. Proceedings of CHI’08, 3441–3446. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=1358871&type=pdf Cammaerts , B. ( 2008 ). Critiques on the participatory potentials of Web 2.0 . Communication, Culture & Critique , 1 ( 3 ), 358 – 376 . doi:10.1111/j.1753-9137.2008.00028.x Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Coleman , B. ( 2013 ). Coding freedom: the ethics and aesthetics of hacking . Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press . Dahlander , L. , & O’Mahony , S. ( 2011 ). Progressing to the center . Organization Science , 22 ( 4 ), 961 – 979 . doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0571 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Dworkin , G. ( 1988 ). The Theory and Practice of Autonomy . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . Faraj , S. , Jarvenpaa , S. A. , & Majchrzak , A. ( 2011 ). Knowledge collaboration in online communities . Organization Science , 22 ( 5 ), 1224 – 1239 . doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0614 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Fichman , P. , & Hara , N. (Eds.). ( 2014 ). Global Wikipedia . Lanham, MD : Rowman & Littlefield . Firer-Blaess , S. , & Fuchs , C. ( 2014 ). Wikipedia: An info-communist manifesto . Television & New Media , 15 ( 2 ), 87 – 103 . doi:10.1177/1527476412450193 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Fish , A. , Murillo , L. , Nguyen , L. , Panofsky , A. , & Kelty , C. ( 2011 ). Birds of the Internet . Journal of Cultural Economy , 4 ( 2 ), 157 – 187 . doi:10.1080/17530350.2011.563069 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Flanagin , A. J. , Stohl , C. , & Bimber , B. ( 2006 ). Modeling the structure of collective action . Communication Monographs , 73 ( 1 ), 29 – 54 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Ford , H. , & Wajcman , J. ( 2017 ). Wikipedia’s infrastructure and the gender gap . Social Studies of Science , 47 ( 4 ), 511 – 527 . doi:10.1177/0306312717692172 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Garfinkel , H. ( 1967 ). Studies in ethnomethodology . Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall . Giddens , A. ( 1984 ). The constitution of society . Cambridge : Polity . Giles , J. ( 2005 ). Internet encyclopedias go head to head . Nature , 438 , 900 – 901 . doi:10.1038/438900a Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Halfaker , A. , Geiger , R. S. , Morgan , J. , & Riedl , J. ( 2013 ). The rise and decline of an open collaboration community . American Behavioral Scientist , 57 ( 5 ), 664 – 688 . doi:10.1177/0002764212469365 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Hamilton , J. F. , & Heflin , K. ( 2011 ). User production reconsidered: From convergence to to autonomia and cultural materialism . New Media & Society , 13 ( 7 ), 1050 – 1066 . doi:10.1177/1461444810393908 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Haythornthwaite , C. ( 2009 ). Crowds and communities. Proceedings of the 42th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Waikoloa, HI. Retrieved from http://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/hicss/2009/3450/00/07-07-01-abs.html Jarzabkowski , P. , Balogun , J. , & Seidl , D. ( 2007 ). Strategizing. The challenges of a practice perspective . Human Relations , 60 ( 1 ), 5 – 27 . doi:10.1177/0018726707075703 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Jemielniak , D. ( 2014 ). Common knowledge? An ethnography of Wikipedia . Stanford, CA : Stanford University Press . Keen , A. ( 2007 ). The cult of the amateur . New York : Doubleday . Kelty , C. ( 2008 ). Two bits . Durham, NC : Duke University Press . Kollock , P. ( 1999 ). The economies of online cooperation. In M. Smith , & P. Kollock , (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp. 220 – 239 ). New York : Routledge . Konieczny , P. ( 2009 ). The Iron Law and the evolution of Wikipedia . Sociological Forum , 24 ( 1 ), 162 – 192 . doi:10.1111/j.1573-7861.2008.01090.x Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Konieczny , P. ( 2017 ). Wikipedia and the anti-SOPA protests as a case study of direct, deliberative democracy in cyberspace . Information, Communication & Society , 20 ( 2 ), 167 – 184 . doi:10.1080/1369118x.2016.1157620 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Korczynski , M. , & Ott , U. ( 2006 ). The menu in society . Sociology , 40 ( 5 ), 911 – 928 . doi:10.1177/0038038506067514 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Kraut , R. E. , & Resnick , P. ( 2012 ). Building successful online communities . Cambridge, MA : MIT Press . Kreiss , D. , Finn , M. , & Turner , F. ( 2011 ): The limits of peer production . New Media & Society , 13 ( 2 ), 243 – 259 . doi:10.1177/1461444810370951 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Lave , J. , & Wenger , E. ( 1991 ). Situated learning . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . MacIntyre , A. C. ( 1984 ). After virtue . Notre Dame, IN : University of Notre Dame Press . Miller , P. , & Rose , N. ( 1990 ). Governing economic life . Economy and Society , 19 ( 1 ), 1 – 31 . doi:10.1080/03085149000000001 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Moores , S. ( 2012 ). Media, place, mobility . Basingstoke : Palgrave . Nov , O. ( 2007 ). What motivates Wikipedians? Communications of the ACM , 50 ( 11 ), 60 – 64 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development . ( 2007 ). Participative web and user-created content: Web 2.0, wikis and social networking. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/document/40/0,3746,en_2649_34223_39428648_1_1_1_1,00.html O’Neil , M. ( 2009 ). Cyberchiefs . London : Pluto Press . Panciera , K. , Halfacker , A. , & Terveen , L. ( 2009 ). Wikipedians are born, not made. Proceedings of GROUP’09, 51–60. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1531682 Raz , J. ( 1986 ). The morality of freedom . Oxford : Clarendon Press . Reagle , J. ( 2010 ). The good faith collaboration . Cambridge, MA : MIT Press . Reckwitz , A. ( 2002 ). Toward a theory of social practices . European Journal of Social Theory , 5 ( 2 ), 245 – 265 . doi:10.1177/13684310222225432 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Santana , A. , & Wood , D. J. ( 2009 ). Transparency and social responsibility issues for Wikipedia . Ethics and Information Technology , 11 ( 2 ), 133 – 144 . doi:10.1007/s10676-009-9193-y Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Schatzki , T. ( 1996 ). Social practices . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . Schroer , J. , & Hertel , G. ( 2009 ). Voluntary engagement in an open web-based encyclopedia . Media Psychology , 12 ( 1 ), 96 – 120 . doi:10.1080/15213260802669466 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Schweik , C. M. , & English , R. C. ( 2012 ). Internet success . Cambridge, MA : MIT Press . Sennett , R. ( 2012 ). Together. The rituals, pleasures, and politics of cooperation . New Haven, CT : Yale University Press . Shaw , A. , & Hill , B. M. ( 2014 ). Laboratories of oligarchy? Journal of Communication , 64 ( 2 ), 215 – 238 . doi:10.1111/jcom.12082 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Silverstone , R. ( 1994 ). Television and everyday life . London : Routledge . Simonite , T. ( 2013 ). The decline of Wikipedia. MIT Technology Review, Oct 22. Retrieved from https://www.technologyreview.com/s/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ Stein , L. ( 2013 ). Policy and participation on social media . Communication, Culture & Critique , 6 ( 3 ), 353 – 371 . doi:10.1111/cccr.12026 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Stvilia , B. , Twidale , M. , Smith , L. , & Gasser , L. ( 2008 ). Information quality work organization in Wikipedia . Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 59 ( 6 ): 983 – 1001 . doi:10.1002/asi.20813 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Suh , B. , Convertino , G. , Chi , E. , & Pirolli , P. ( 2009 ). The singularity is not near. Proceedings of Wikisym’09, 1–10. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1641322 Sundin , O. ( 2011 ). Janitors of universal knowledge . Journal of Documentation , 67 ( 5 ), 840 – 862 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Surowiecki , J. ( 2004 ). The wisdom of the crowds . New York : Doubleday . Taylor , C. ( 2002 ). Modern social imaginaries . Public Culture , 14 ( 1 ), 91 – 124 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Tkacz , N. ( 2015 ). Wikipedia and the politics of openness . Chicago, IL : University of Chicago Press . Tsing , A. L. ( 2004 ). Friction: an ethnography of global connection . Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press . von Hippel , E. & von Krogh , G. ( 2003 ). Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model . Organization Science , 14 ( 2 ), 209 – 224 . doi:10.1287/orsc.14.2.209.14992 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Wikipedia . ( 2010 a). Was Wikipedia nicht ist. Retrieved from http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Was_Wikipedia_nicht_ist Wikipedia . ( 2010 b). Wofür steht das ‘frei’ in ‘Die freie Enzyklopädie’? Retrieved from https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Church_of_emacs/Wofür_steht_das_„frei“_in_„Die_freie_Enzyklopädie“%3F Wikipedia:About Wikipedia . ( 2018 ). About. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About Wikimedia Movement Strategy Plan . ( 2011 ). Wikimedia movement strategic plan summary. Retrieved from https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summary Wikipedia:NPOV . ( 2018 ). Neutral Point of View. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Wikipedia:Statistics . ( 2018 ). Retrieved from http://stats.wikimedia.org/ Yang , D. , Halfaker , A. , Kraut , R. E. , & Hovy , E. H. ( 2016 ). Who did what: Editor role identification in Wikipedia. Proceedings of ICWSM. Retrieved from https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM16/paper/view/13077 Yuan , Y. C. , Cosley , D. , Welser , H. T. , Xia , L. , & Gay , G. ( 2009 ). The diffusion of a task recommendation system to facilitate contributions to an online community . Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 15 ( 1 ), 32 – 59 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Zhu , H. , Kraut , R. , & Kittur , A. ( 2012 ). Organizing without formal organization . Proceedings ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work . Seattle, WT, 935 – 944 . Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2145344 © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Communication Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)
TI - Grounding Peer Production in Practice: Editorial Routines and Everyday Engagement in the “Free Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit”
JO - Communication, Culture & Critique
DO - 10.1093/ccc/tcy010
DA - 2018-09-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/grounding-peer-production-in-practice-editorial-routines-and-everyday-7tj7MITP44
SP - 455
VL - 11
IS - 3
DP - DeepDyve
ER -