Slate's Bizbox
technology: The future and what to do about it.

The Wisdom of the ChaperonesDigg, Wikipedia, and the myth of Web 2.0 democracy.

By Chris Wilson
Posted Friday, Feb. 22, 2008, at 6:11 PM ET
Illustration by Mark Alan Stamaty. Click image to expand.

It's getting harder to be a Wikipedia-hater. The user-generated and -edited online encyclopedia—which doesn't even require contributors to register—somehow holds its own against the Encyclopedia Britannica in accuracy, a Nature study concluded, and has many times more entries. But even though people are catching up to the idea that Wikipedia is a force for good, there are still huge misconceptions about what makes the encyclopedia tick. While Wikipedia does show the creative potential of online communities, it's a mistake to assume the site owes its success to the wisdom of the online crowd.

Social-media sites like Wikipedia and Digg are celebrated as shining examples of Web democracy, places built by millions of Web users who all act as writers, editors, and voters. In reality, a small number of people are running the show. According to researchers in Palo Alto, 1 percent of Wikipedia users are responsible for about half of the site's edits. The site also deploys bots—supervised by a special caste of devoted users—that help standardize format, prevent vandalism, and root out folks who flood the site with obscenities. This is not the wisdom of the crowd. This is the wisdom of the chaperones.

The same undemocratic underpinnings of Web 2.0 are on display at Digg.com. Digg is a social-bookmarking hub where people submit stories and rate others' submissions; the most popular links gravitate to the site's front page. The site's founders have never hidden that they use a "secret sauce"—a confidential algorithm that's tweaked regularly—to determine which submissions make it to the front page. Historically, this algorithm appears to have favored the site's most active participants. Last year, the top 100 Diggers submitted 44 percent of the site's top stories. In 2006, they were responsible for 56 percent.

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Digg—a site meant to "collectively determine the value of content"—is largely run by 100 people. The influence of these members was particularly apparent last month. After Digg tweaked its secret sauce, top contributors noticed a decline in influence—fewer of their submissions became top stories. The super Diggers published an open letter of grievances and threatened to boycott the site. The changes in the algorithm, the Digg execs said, were meant to bring a more diverse set of stories to the site, and they begged for patience from the top Digg contributors. (Thus far, a shaky truce has endured.) The takeaway: Digg's brass believe that the site, which purports to be the product of a broad-based community, will cease to run smoothly if a microscopic percentage of its user base stops participating.

At both Digg and Wikipedia, small groups of users have outsized authority. In the case of Wikipedia, this authority is both organic and institutionalized. A small segment of highly active users author the majority of the site's content; there are also elected site administrators who have the power to protect pages, block the IP addresses of problem users, and otherwise regulate Wikipedia's operations. At Digg, active users have more of a de facto authority over the site's goings-on (though there are persistent rumors that the site has "secret moderators" who delete content). But officially speaking, while the site's algorithm seems to favor devoted users, no individual Digger has the power to unilaterally delete a post.

While both sites effectively function as oligarchies, they are still democratic in one important sense. Digg and Wikipedia's elite users aren't chosen by a corporate board of directors or by divine right. They're the people who participate the most. Despite the fairy tales about the participatory culture of Web 2.0, direct democracy isn't feasible at the scale on which these sites operate. Still, it's curious to note that these sites seem to have the hierarchical structure of the old-guard institutions they've sought to supplant.

This top-heavy structure of social-media sites isn't news to researchers and technophiles. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has acknowledged that what he expected to be an "80-20" rule—a system where 20 percent of people control 80 percent of the resources—in fact understates the site's top-heaviness. Palo Alto Research Center's Ed Chi, the scientist who determined that 1 percent of Wikipedians author half of the content, told me he originally hypothesized that the site's most energetic editors were acting as custodians. Chi guessed that these users mostly cleaned up after the people who provided the bulk of the encyclopedia's facts. In reality, he found the opposite was true (PDF). People who've made more than 10,000 edits add nearly twice as many words to Wikipedia as they delete. By contrast, those who've made fewer than 100 edits are the only group that deletes more words than it adds. A small number of people are writing the articles, it seems, while less-frequent users are given the tasks of error correction and typo fixing.

VIEW AS SINGLE PAGE
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Chris Wilson is an editorial assistant at Slate in Washington, D.C.
Illustration by Mark Alan Stamaty.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Notes from the Fray editor

"The reason your blog got trashed from Wikipedia is that your blog is bigoted, biased nonsense." Now is that a democratic edit or what? It comes from a hilarious thread here. The Fray gets positively wiki-like over articles like this one: after reading the text, a selection of the posts will make you even better-informed on the subject. There's a defense of the Encyclopedia Britannica here; Leroy Hurt talked about the importance of gatekeepers in the "turbulence of modern media," and Tdkehoe explains his "bad experiences with Wikipedia super editors." A Wikipedia administrator gives us some info in a thread which also contains a comparison between Wiki people and the old Fray stars…while elsewhere Eigenvector says "Heck, go to 'Dear Prudence' and upset the applecart--you'll quickly discover who hangs out in Slate and what they think of your non-Liberal opinions." We're all part of the same world. There's a record percentage of checked (ie good) posts in this Fray.

Comments from the Fray

If Wikipedia isn't "democratic", then the U.S. isn't really democratic either. After all, I don't get to vote on federal laws--an elite group of Senators and Representatives do. I suspect the author is misapprehending the true nature of the "wisdom of crowds." It's not about some idealized democratic standard where everyone gets a vote. It's about establishing an effective system of aggregating large numbers of small bits of data, not any sort of moralistic dedication to "democratic principles."

The truth is that you're a lot more likely to join the 'elite' of Wikipedia editors should you choose to do so than you are to join the 'elite' of federal lawmakers. So if you're concerned about democratic principles, it seems Wikipedia is doing a lot better than actual governments do.

--Xando

(To reply, click here)

There is one important aspect the myth of democracy overlooks (though the picture in the article hints at): ultimate control. Jimmy Wales has ultimate oversight into how Wikipedia functions. He may have had a good idea in being part of the creation of Wikipedia, but is he the choice for a maturing project? Is the choice of the masses? His background does not inspire me. Likewise, there is little concern over Google's desire to "organize the world's information"--yet they are one, relatively small private business.

I work as a librarian and play a small role in disseminating information that travels through authors, editors, publishers, and librarians. Slow and old fashioned? Sure, but it also lacks a centralized control that decides how your information will be controlled and presented

--Saru

(To reply, click here)

(2/26)