Twisting the bytes

The Wikipedia Editor Survey 2011, published last April, emphasized the importance of explicit acknowledgement and recognition of effort among Wikipedia editors as an instrumental factor to sustaing and grow its community over the next years (page 4):

Positive Reinforcement: Acknowledging the effort of editors is important to reverse the editor decline. It is a commonly held view that editors just want to see their articles improve and read by lots of people and they don’t care about the opinion of their peers. This is false. The survey finds that acknowledgement of peers via a nice note or a barnstar (or kitten) is valued even more highly than achieving featured article status. To sustain and grow our community, we need to provide each other with positive feedback, and we should create tools to make it easy to do so.

In fact, this is the central argument of “El Potlatch Digital: Wikipedia y el Triunfo del Procomún y el Conocimiento Compartido” ["The Digital Potlatch: Wikipedia and the Triumph of Commons and Shared Knowledge"], a new book that I have written along with Joaquín Rodríguez, vice-dean of EOI. The book has been published in Spanish by Ediciones Cátedra, and now it should be available in your favourite book shop.

Participation in Internet communities has been a fascinating topic for researchers, practitioners and members of these communities. A previous study by Michlmayr, Robles and González-Barahona showed evidence of lasting volunteer participation in Debian. In this work, they defined the half-life of contributors as the “the time required for a certain population of maintainers to fall to half of its initial size”. Their estimation for the half-life in Debian was 7.5 years. In other words, after 7.5 years of project evolution we can still find 50% of the initial Debian maintainers participating in the project. Enough said about commitment of Debian developers.

In the case of larger online communities like Wikipedia we need to account for the effects of casual contributors versus more active and experienced editors. In any case, our study on the inequality of contributions to Wikipedia, published in 2008, shows that the balance between casual and very active contributors has remained stable since many years ago (2004). Even more interesting is the fact that this balance did not experimented any variation from 2007 onwards, despite the well-known “plateau effect” in the monthly number of edits to the largest Wikipedias starting that year.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to infer possible causes behind this behavioral patterns from observational studies like these ones. What does it make participants to stay in online communities? What factors motivate them to contribute? Why do they stop participating? This book is an attempt to shed some light on this, mixing empirical results with qualitative investigation (interviews to editors in the Spanish Wikipedia).

Our conclusion is clear: meritocracy and effort recognition has a central role in the motivation of contributors in collaborative habitats like Wikipedia. This resembles the Potlatch, an example that let us understand how in certain contexts we need to give away our capital (material or intangible) so that the community can give it back to us as acknowledgment, recognition and renown. As a result, in these collaborative habitats the working capital does not have a monteray but a symbolic nature, under the form of reputation and popularity, and the logic of its accumulation demands unselfishness to create antoher form of social value. We don’t claim that this example is valid for all kind of Internet communities, but some of the best-known cases (such as Wikipedia) exemplify the triumph of shared knowledge and Commons over other individualistic strategies.

PS: We believed that it was a great opportunity to publish this book in Spanish, specially with a reputated publisher such as Alianza, given the lack of books about Wikipedia in our native language. However, we would be very happy to have this book also available in English. So if you can help please let us know!

Last week, one of the most popular questions asked by journalists, bloggers and other people reflecting on the 10 years of Wikipedia was: what are the main challenges for Wikipedia over the next 10 years? In my list of answers, I remarked conflicts around self-promotion in Wikipedia as one of the topics that will create many issues in due course. Indeed, with more than 400 million unique monthly visitors, according to comScore data, Wikipedia is now the 5th most visited website. That also make it a major attraction for experts in promotion, PR services, marketing and advertising.

What I didn’t expected (honestly) is that, one week after that, I would be able to find an exemplary case of this kind of issues. I’ve just discovered WikiExperts, a division of OnlineVisibilityExperts, which offers (I quote verbatim):

INCREASE VISIBILITY AND CREDIBILITY of your company, brand, or product by being present in Wikipedia – world’s largest and most used research tool. Wikipedia has more traffic than Twitter, LinkedIn, MySpace, Delicious and almost all other social media. Your social media marketing strategy is incomplete without it.

For anyone familiar with Wikipedia policies, it’s obvious that this service comes into conflict with one of the things Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means for promotion. If we take a closer look at the previous blurb, we can find some questionable points. The statement that Wikipedia is “the world’s largest and most used research tool” is very clever, but somewhat biased. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Thus, it can be used (in the adequate way) to start our own research, pointing us to more authoritative information sources. Wikipedia’s accuracy depends, among other things, on the many reviews from volunteer editors and support from outside, reliable information sources (a.k.a [citation needed]). It’s just the first step, not the end of the journey. Another point quickly grabbed my attention. These folks are explicitly considering Wikipedia as a key part of a social media marketing strategy, comparing it to Twitter, MySpace or LinkedIn. Should we really do that? Well, I think the answer is: no, we shouldn’t.

Many people tend to think about social media in terms of audience and outreach. Today, marketing and PR experts constantly follow global trends to identify where (phisically or, now more frequently, virtually) we spend most of our time. It would be really tempting to consider Wikipedia as a great platform for promotion. Except for the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which imposes some restrictions not shared by other social media. In Twitter, for example, I am free to talk about anything I want to. And this also includes expressing my very personal point of view about any topic. However, in Wikipedia editors must follow certain policies, in particular the five pillars. More precisely, NPOV is incompatible with promotional purposes about topics in which one might have direct interests (such as charging for writing a Wikipedia article on behalf of a certain company, organization or individual).

All the same, we can even find the WikiExperts code of ethics, where they state they adhere to Wikipedia policies, such as avoiding opinionated, biased or unsupported content, not removing negative information, writing about not notable topics or performing activities contrary to Wikipedia principles. Even after reading this, one wonders how this could be ever achieved if you are being payed, explicitly, to improve the public image your contractor. We must also note that this is quite different from initiatives such as the Public Policy Initiative or scientists improving Wikipedia entries on RNA biology. These editors doesn’t have a direct interest in presenting  a certain point of view. They just want to improve Wikipedia’s coverage about those topics, for the common good. It is very difficult to assert that you can do the same if you are an interested party in a “social media marketing strategy”.

This is not the first time promotional affairs have been detected in Wikipedia. In his excellent book, Andrew Dalby points out some examples such as Marshall Poe or Boy*d Up (this one apparently misinterpreted). As time goes by and Wikipedia popularity continues to increase, I’m afraid that we will see a significant increment of these actions. However, we must remember that Wikipedia is not just like any other social media. If Wikimedia Foundation is working to keep it going without advertisements, it is for very good reasons (like preserving the NPOV pillar). Any other attempt of circumventing these basic policies would be just trying to subvert the principles of Wikipedia itself, those that led it to become the flagship reference for open content that it is today.

As a final remark, let me clearly state that I’m not arguing against the business of social media management or PR. On the contrary, companies should care about building a better image in the virtual world, and creating more agile communication channels within their own community, as well as with customers. In fact, Wikipedia has developed some mechanisms for on-line social interaction, but this is wholly aimed to support debate on writing encyclopedic articles.

Today, January 15, 2011, Wikipedia is turning 10. Probably, you have read, listened or watched the news and reminders about this landmark. Maybe, you have also read about important milestones in Wikipedia history, some of its bizarre facts and traits, as well as good wishes from many people. Finally (as usual), you can also find lists of several hoaxes and pitfalls found in Wikipedia articles over this period.

But even this huge impact in mass media and social networks will eventually fade out. What will happen, then? Well, we will come back to our daily routine: going to work, attending high school or university, driving home,  hanging out with friends, going on vacations… Nonetheless, something will continue to make a difference. Wikipedia, the open encyclopedia that anyone can edit, will always be available, whenever we need it. Thanks to thousands of inidividual donors , it has truly become a fundamental tool of our networked information economy.

The best examples are real stories from real users. Today, I was interviewed with Raystorm (sysop of the Spanish Wikipedia) in La Ventana (Cadena SER), a national radio show. At some point, Gemma Nierga invited her audience to call the program, send tweets and write Facebook updates to share their opinion and thoughts about their daily experience with Wikipedia. It was really illuminating. Guillermo, from A Coruña confessed: “Wikipedia has established a turning point in our bar gatherings [...] It has simply ruined them in one fell swoop. You only have to look up the answer in Wikipedia, and you are done”. Yeap, I can remember many of those: which soccer player was the top scorer last season? In which year did that movie open? Amparo from Madrid is also “delighted”. She is over 65, she keeps on working and, today, “Wikipedia saved my life, twice!!” while working with a German colleague. She had to find the correct German Lander corresponding to several cities mentioned in a report. In just a few minutes, she was done. “It is impossible that I had a book about German States in my office!”, she concluded.

That is Wikipedia, in pure state. That is why, despite we all know that many articles could contain some flaws at a given moment, it receives more than 400 million unique visits per month, and Wikimedia Foundation projects (summing up all their traffic) are the 5th most visited websites in the world, and the only ones in the top-10 supported by a non-profit organization. That is why we use it at work, in education, writing blogs like this one, hanging out with friends, and in a myriad other different situations.

This is the past, and the present of one of the flagship projects of Internet, sustained by open collaboration, producing free content available for everyone, at no cost. Sometimes I smile when I remember how some people, back in 2005, stared at me with a strange, fascinated expression to come out with something like “Wikipedia… seriously? Is that the topic of your thesis?” I am glad that I chose Wikipedia.

With 17 million articles in more than 270 different languages, it is tempting to state that Wikipedia has already reached a well-established position. However, the project must continue to improve its quality and accuracy, and broaden its content, restlessly, fuelled by the spirit of dynamism, openess, collaboration and free content. Wikipedias with fewer articles will increase their number of entries. We wait for better participation from countries and region in the Global South. The editing interface will become easier and more intuitive, to make it accessible for a wider group of potential editors. The list is both challenging and encouraging.

Wikipedia is made by the people, for the people. Therefore, as a new digital incarnation of the commendable spirit of The Musketeers, Wikipedia depends on our work, and we now depend on its content. it will evolve to answer the needs of our interconnected society. Let’s work together to make Wikipedia a remarkable accomplishment of our open, collaborative, digital world.

Una para todos y todos para una…
Une pour tous, tous pour une…
One for all, all for one…
Una pro omnibus, omnes pro una…
[You can place here the translation in your own language]

Happy birthday, Wikipedia.

OK, now it’s time for Wikimania 2010 summary. I’ve been thinking a lot on the best way to concentrate my thoughts in a short way. I think the best one is this: whenever I attend a conference/meeting, and I have real difficulties to decide which session to attend (because all of them are terrific) is a good signal. Well, every minute I spent in Wikimania 2010, I felt like that. “Mmmm, look at this one….but wait! I wanted to attend that one, as well… Oh no! Strategy Plan at the same time I’m giving one of my talks … What the heck!”.

I admit it was pretty easy that this occurred to me, because: a) this was my first Wikimania; b) I gave too many talks (3!), thus missing other interesting slots and c) I wasn’t ready for the really active ambient of Wikimania. But, let’s go on with some futher details, since I have some “mixed feelings” about certain points.

Read more…

Today we have announced at Libresoft, the research group in which I work at University Rey Juan Carlos, a new research project sponsored by Wikimedia Deutschland, the German chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation.

The goal of the project will be to study, from a quantitative point of view, the impact of the flagged revisions extension on the editorial activity of the German Wikipedia. We will focus on the effect of this new tool to reduce the vandalism from anonymous users, while measuring possible influence on other key aspects like the trends of contributions from anonymous editors or the number of new registered contributors.

Wikipedia Logo

I’d like to say thank you to Wikimedia Deutschland for this opportunity. Hopefully, this will be just a starting point for more interesting projects about Wikipedia and massive on-line communities at Libresoft.

We expect to publish the results before Wikimania 2010, so that we can present a brief summary there of our findings to all Wikipedians and attendees in the conference. So… stay tunned!!

For more information, read the official announcement at Libresoft website.

As a resarcher focused on quantitative anlyses of on-line communities, I need to keep up-to-date on the field. I have to read papers and articles, written by other colleagues and scholars on related topics. I must search for new methods and algorithms to cut out execution times, and finish before the next deadline. I have to evaluate new tools that let me create new graphs or compute new analyses. And I have to review many papers in different conferences, presenting results in this area. In this context, I’m still surprised by finding the same problem, over and over again.

When I started to study Wikipedia, 4 years ago, I was puzzled by the lack of reproducibility in most (but not all) of the papers and analyses I could find at that time. No source code available. Few implementation details. Little discussion on how to set up a similar environment and replicate the analysis. If you were lucky, you could access some evaluation version of a new cool tool, just to discover that it was deadly limited. Forget about the code. Try and do it yourself, if you can. That’s why, since the very beginning, one of the main goals of my PhD. was to publish an alternative, open source software tool to analyze any language version of Wikipedia. Read more…