Week 5 Post 1: Wiki-freedom...wiki-tastic...and wiki-godfather

It’s hard to run any kind of internet search without crashing directly into one of the largest (and most controversial) websites on the internet: Wikipedia. Wikipedia, a massive open f/oss encyclopedia written by any and all wishing to contribute, provides a remarkable case study for dialog on informational pressure and social influence. For that reason, it is the subject of this blog posting’s response.

First, let us begin by revisiting the challenge of information pressure and social influence. According to Sunstein on page 86, information has an almost viral nature to it.

“First, information held by all or most group members is likely to influence individual judgment, and those judgments will in turn affect the judgments of the group. Second, shared information, simply because it is shared, is more likely to be explored during group discussion.” (86)

One infested with shared by a majority of group members as individual, the group has the metaphorical equivalent of the common cold. The group is constrained by and into the domain(s) already maintained by the majority members.

It’s democracy…by required assent. Or what the character Michael Corleone would call "an offer you can't refuse."

This can unfortunately mean that original thought is harder to come by. The group has a majority which has already “made up their mind” and is willing to impose that will. Diversity of thought suffers…through a desire to comply with the majority, the minority is “e-elbowed” out of the conversation. Further, through information cascades, the group consensus becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Rather than using dialog as a means of producing shared understanding, it becomes a blunt tool by which the preconceived majority opinion becomes the group’s opinion.

All is not lost.

Let’s now turn our attention to Wikipedia. As Sunstein notes on page 151, “Specialists are regularly surprised to see a great deal of accuracy, as well as astounding currency, in Wikipedia entries…” Wikipedia grows at a phenomenal rate, due to the active involvement of a large number of participants. Authorship is communal. Individuals are not recognized in the process. Any user can edit, create, or dispute the neutrality of a given piece. In this case, have we perhaps found our escape from the shackles of informational and social pressures?

I cannot speculate an answer to that question. However, I think this is a case where social pressure becomes a positive thing. In wiki-etiqutte, users are expected to share their knowledge. They can do so through authorship of new articles or correcting mistakes in existing ones. The pressure is not to conform to the existing presentation of information, but to build and nurture it. There’s a safe harbor for doing so. Between the environment and group ethic, Wikipedia has far more users working for it than against it.

In group settings, informational pressure and social influence can almost make existing beliefs viral. Groups become a means of reinforcing beliefs rather than creating new ones. That changes rapidly, one would hope, in the case study of Wikipedia. The information aggregation specific to a wiki can use these phenomena as a source of strength.