The Information Society, 25: 38–59, 2009
Copyright c Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0197-2243 print / 1087-6537 online
DOI: 10.1080/01972240802587562
Wikipedia, Critical Social Theory, and the Possibility
of Rational Discourse1
Sean Hansen, Nicholas Berente, and Kalle Lyytinen
Department of Information Systems, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Information systems researchers that apply critical social
perspectives frequently emphasize the potential for information
technology to serve as a mechanism for increased rationalization,
domination, and control. Such theorists often overlook or
discount the liberating aspects of information systems. In this
study, we apply the ideal of rational discourse developed by J¨urgen
Habermas to the phenomenon of Wikipedia in an effort to explore
empirically the emancipatory potential of information systems.
We contend that Wikipedia embodies an approximation
of the necessary conditions for rational discourse. While several
challenges persist, the example of Wikipedia illustrates the positive
potential of information systems in supporting the emergence
of more emancipatory forms of communication. The corresponding
implications for researchers and design professionals alike are
discussed.
Keywords communicative action, critical social theory, discursive
action, Habermas, rational discourse, social computing,
Wikipedia
From the perspective of critical social theorists,1 information
systems are generally perceived as supporting the
control and monitoring of human actors and consequently
contributing to their oppression (Lyytinen & Klein, 1985).
In this view, information systems reinforce instrumental
reason, and thus tighten the “iron cage” of rationality
(Lyytinen & Hirschheim, 1988). Furthermore, widely
deployed information systems have broader overbearing
effects due to the increased levels of surveillance and
Received 20 September 2006; accepted 23 July 2008.
We are grateful to three reviewers and the associate editor of The
Information Society for their instructive comments. We take full responsibility
for any remaining errors or omissions.
Address correspondence to Sean Hansen, Department of Information
Systems, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue,
Cleveland, OH, 44106-7325 USA. E-mail: Hansen@case.edu.
associated disciplinary pressures that they enable, potentially
resulting in “Foucault’s version of an Orwellian
control society” (Klein & Huynh, 2004, p. 221). In this
essay, we offer an alternative perspective to this critical
understanding of information systems and illustrate how
information technology may actually support the emancipatory
principles of critical social theory, particularly as
expounded in the work of J¨urgen Habermas.
In his Theory of Communicative Action, Habermas
(1976, 1984) describes discursive action through which
progress toward emancipation from unwarranted societal
control can occur. We refer to this form of action as
“rational discourse.” Although a number of scholars have
indicated that Habermas’s ideal of rational discourse is not
practically attainable2 (Lyytinen & Klein, 1985; Lyytinen
& Ngwenyama, 1999; Sharrock & Button, 1997; Wilson,
1997), we join Lyytinen and Hirschheim (1988) in emphasizing
the emancipatory potential of information systems
under certain conditions and as a counterfactual ideal that
is frequently assumed in our daily communications.
We leverage the case of Wikipedia—a popular “free
content” online encyclopedia (www.wikipedia.com) and a
prime example of a new stream of social computing applications
(Parameswaran & Whinston, 2007a)—to illustrate
the potential of information systems for supporting rational
discourse. While Wikipedia embodies the promise of
technology-enabled rational discourse, it also offers examples
of the many pitfalls and impediments to effective
communicative action that exist. In recent years, the potential
benefits and challenges of the Wikipedia system
have been widely debated in the broader public sphere, as
individuals in academia, law, business, and other social
sectors take up sides both for and against this emergent
phenomenon.
This essay introduces the idea of Wikipedia as a platform
for rational discourse by highlighting the power of
the phenomenon and by drawing attention to its limitations.
First, we briefly discuss selected examples of
how critical social theorists have treated information systems,
and then we present key concepts associated with
38
DownloadedBy:[UniversityofMichigan]At:22:5212January2009
WIKIPEDIA AND RATIONAL DISCOURSE 39
Habermas’s understanding of rational discourse. We then
apply these concepts to examples drawn from the
Wikipedia community. We conclude with a discussion
of the limitations of Wikipedia with respect to rational
discourse, as well as implications for social computing,
Habermasian theory, and future research.
CRITICAL SOCIAL THEORY
The term “critical social theory” is commonly used to describe
a variety of theoretical perspectives which share
a unifying thread—questioning the conventional wisdom
of prevailing schools of thought and institutional practices
with a primary focus on issues related to justice
and power (Alvesson & Willmott, 1996; Kincheloe &
McLaren, 2003). Central concerns of critical social theorists
involve the critique of systemic forms of domination
and injustice that can be supported through institutionalized
ideologies—such as scientism, managerialism, globalism,
and consumerism. Beyond this critique, critical social
theorists advocate radical social change for freedom
from these forms of domination, largely through emancipatory
discourse. Thus, a critical social agenda is in
its essence comprised of two core principles: ideological
critique and communicative action (Alvesson & Deetz,
2000).
Critical social theory is traditionally associated with
the thought of the Frankfurt School and its leading members,
such as Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, and
Herbert Marcuse (Brooke, 2002). Most contemporary
applications of the perspective have built largely on the
later phases of the Frankfurt School, principally the work
of J¨urgen Habermas (Lyytinen & Klein, 1985; Lyytinen,
1992). However, critical social theory is increasingly
understood more broadly to include poststructuralist
theorists such as Michel Foucault and deconstructionists
in the tradition of Jacques Derrida (Alvesson & Deetz,
2000; Kincheloe & McLaren, 2003; Alvesson & Willmott,
2003; Klein & Huynh, 2004). This broader understanding
reflects the shared emphasis of these diverse
traditions on the exercise of power and domination in
various forms, as well as efforts to provide paths to emancipation
from domination (see Alvesson & Deetz, 2000;
Kincheloe & McLaren, 2003; Alvesson & Willmott, 1996,
2003). For the present discussion, we address the applications
of multiple perspectives on critical social theory
within the domain of information systems, before applying
a more focused Habermasian analysis of the Wikipedia
platform.
Critical Social Theory and Information Systems
Information systems literature has an extensive tradition
of leveraging critical social theory, often in the form of
prescriptions for information systems development processes
(Hirschheim & Klein, 1994; Lyytinen & Klein,
1985; Wilson, 1997; Introna, 1996; Porra, 1999;
Hirschheim et al., 1995). There is also a robust and
growing body of theoretical analysis using critical social
theory to assess specific information technologies (e.g.,
Markham, 2005; Ngwenyama & Lee, 1997; Ngwenyama
& Lyytinen, 1997; Barton, 2005) as well as information
systems in general (e.g., Lyytinen & Hirschheim, 1988; Introna,
1997; Klein & Huynh, 2004; Brooke, 2002; Doolin,
1998; Fitzpatrick, 2002). Finally, critical social theory has
been leveraged in empirical research focusing on information
technologies in particular contexts (e.g., Zuboff,
1988; Myers & Young, 1997; Elmes et al., 2005; Sia et
al., 2002; Introna & Nissenbaum, 2000).
From our review of the literature, we note that Habermasian
critical theory is primarily leveraged normatively,
in that it offers guidelines for research and practice based
on emancipatory ideals (Brooke, 2002). While there are
some descriptive theoretical arguments for the emancipatory
potential of certain forms of information systems,
such as groupware (Ngwenyama & Lyytinen, 1997; Heng
& de Moor, 2003) and e-mail (Ngwenyama & Lee, 1997),
empirical analyses that draw upon Habermas are rare.3 Instead,
much of the descriptive and empirical work related
to critical social theory draws upon other critical traditions,
such as post-structuralism and post-modernism. Empirical
applications of critical social theory in organizational
contexts generally emphasize the rationalization and disciplinary
roles associated with information technologies
(Doolin, 1998). For example, in their studies of Internet
search engines, Introna and Nissenbaum (2000) and
Mowshowitz and Kawaguchi (2002) argue that the Internet,
with its existing search engine technology, reinforces
prevailing power relations, rather than acting as a force
for increased democratization and social justice.
Nowhere in information systems research is critical social
theory more widely employed to illustrate the potential
for rationalized control than in the analysis of enterprise
information systems. Enterprise platforms are
viewed from a variety of critical social perspectives as
instruments of managerial control. Through a historical
analysis of managerial ideologies and their impact on enterprise
systems, Webster (1991) argues that enterprise
systems inscribe work practices which incorporate layers
of current and historical power relations. Kallinikos
(2004) uses a deconstructionist approach to present enterprise
systems as vehicles for the procedural control of
organizational actors that discourage the emergence of
more vibrant modes of human action. Ciborra and his
colleagues (2000, 2002; Hanseth et al., 2001) have leveraged
a variety of critical lenses to assert that the controloriented
rationality embodied by enterprise systems does
not fully encompass all organizational activity, resulting
DownloadedBy:[UniversityofMichigan]At:22:5212January2009
40 S. HANSEN ET AL.
in cycles of greater emphasis on managerial control and
increased rationalization.
In what is perhaps the seminal critical evaluation of organizational
information systems, Zuboff (1988)
highlights the fundamental tension associated with the
disciplinary and emancipatory potentials of information
systems. Through their widespread visibility, enterprise
systems enforce and enable rationalization-oriented principles
of automation and control at the same time as they
support the emancipatory principles of personal empowerment.
From both perspectives, however, techno-rational
corporate objectives maintain primacy (Doolin, 1998).
This view is echoed in recent critical studies of enterprise
systems that leverage Foucault, where systems are
viewed primarily as vehicles of panoptic managerial control
(Sia et al., 2002). The empowerment of individuals
in these contexts results in their reflective conformity,
which reinforces existing power structures (Elmes et al.,
2005).
The Habermasian perspective is not leveraged in any
of these empirical treatments that we have identified—
despite the observation that this perspective is one of the
most common theoretical lenses leveraged in the information
systems discipline (Klein & Huynh, 2004). Perhaps
this can be explained by the observation that Foucault, for
example, was largely concerned with describing the details
of domination and power relations in real historical contexts,
whereas Habermas has been more concerned with
a normative framework for emancipating humans from
forms of domination (Brooke, 2002). Therefore, it stands
to reason that Foucault and other concrete social theorists
are used to describe and explain information systems phenomena,
whereas Habermas is leveraged when normative
emancipatory prescriptions are in order. This conclusion,
however, highlights the need for detailed empirical Habermasian
analyses to inform the ongoing prescriptions and
theoretical work. In the following section, we introduce
portions of the Habermasian Theory of Communicative
Action in order to inform our analysis of Wikipedia and
to illustrate the broader emancipatory potential of information
systems.
HABERMAS AND THE THEORY OF
COMMUNICATIVE ACTION
In developing the Theory of Communicative Action,
Habermas’s (1976, 1984) primary concern was to understand
under what conditions humans enjoy freedom “from
unnecessary need deprivation and toil, ideological manipulation
and other psychosocial compulsions, and liberation
from fear” (Klein & Huynh, 2004, p. 167). While
the purpose of this article is not to discuss Habermas’s
theory at length, we briefly summarize two key concepts
for our analysis: (1) Habermas’s typology of human social
action, and (2) the associated principles of rational
discourse.
Types of Social Action
Habermas distinguishes between three forms of social action:
instrumental, strategic, and communicative. Instrumental
and strategic actions are considered to be “purposiv
e-rational,” which is a term Habermas borrows from Max
Weber to describe teleological (i.e., goal-directed) behavior.
Communicative action, on the other hand, is focused
on achieving mutual understanding.
Instrumental action. With the idea of instrumental action,
Habermas describes human behavior within an objectivist
ontology that “is directed toward objects as though
they were inanimate constraints, which can be manipulated
in ways that serve the actor’s needs” (Lyytinen &
Klein, 1985, p. 7). Instrumental actions do not take into
account the social nature of human interaction beyond
the “technical rules” and “task elements” of social roles.
Rather, they are used to achieve success as measured by effectiveness
or the truth of causal assumptions (Habermas,
1984).
Strategic action. Purposive-rational action that is undertaken
with a consideration for its social context can be
called strategic. “We call an action oriented to success
strategic when we consider it under the aspect of following
rules of rational choice and assess the efficacy of
influencing the decisions of a rational opponent” (Habermas,
1984, p. 285). Strategic action acknowledges the
social context in which one is operating, but it is directed
at achieving some advantage relative to another individual
or group (Ngwenyama & Lyytinen, 1997). The essence of
strategic action is captured by many forms of managerial
decision research such as game theory (Lyytinen & Klein,
1985).
Communicative action. Habermas offers a third form
of social action that is not purposive-rational in the sense
of the other two. Instead, it refers to the situation in
which “the actions of agents involved are coordinated not
through egocentric calculations of success but through
acts of reaching understanding” (Habermas, 1984, pp.
285–286). Communicative action is oriented toward the
achievement and maintenance of mutual understanding
between agents. As with the other forms of social action,
social agents engaged in communicative action can be either
individuals or groups. In order to exchange meaning
and coordinate behavior, parties to communicative action
must arrive at some level of intersubjectively-determined
understanding with respect to the process of communication.
When such mutual understanding is not readily
accomplished, it must be negotiated by the communicative
parties. In those situations where validity claims of
either party are contested, they should be reconciled by
civilized argumentation, or “rational discourse.”4
DownloadedBy:[UniversityofMichigan]At:22:5212January2009
WIKIPEDIA AND RATIONAL DISCOURSE 41
Rational Discourse
Rational discourse is fundamental to Habermas’s theory
of communicative action and to his critical theory in general.
When communicative action reaches a point where
the validity claims of a given utterance are contested, yet
the participants sincerely desire to arrive at a mutual understanding
collaboratively, then rational discourse can
ensue.
Rational discourse assumptions. Habermas highlights
assumptions that “every competent speaker must presuppose
are sufficiently satisfied insofar as he intends to enter
argumentation at all” (1984, p. 25). These presuppositions,
or assumptions, include:
That the structure of their communication, by virtue of
features that can be described in purely formal terms, excludes
all force—whether it arises from the process of reaching
understanding itself or influences it from the outside—
except the force of the better argument (and thus it also excludes,
on their part, all motives except that of a cooperative
search for the truth). (Habermas, 1984, p. 25)
In order to enter into rational discourse, the competence
and intentions of all parties to engage in such discourse
must be assumed. In practice, this means there is a good
faith assumption that all parties to the discourse are indeed
desirous of mutual understanding, rather than the
motivation to “win” an argument that is characteristic of
the strategic mode of action. Rational discourse also depends
on the assumption of Habermas’s “ideal speech situation,”
which brings with it the following rules (Habermas,
1990):
1. very actor has the ability to participate.
2a. Every actor can question any proposal.
2b. Every actor can introduce a proposal.
2c. Every actor can express himself or herself.
3. No actor can be subject to compulsion.
Thus, rational discourse (sometimes referred to as “discursive
action” or simply “discourse”) describes an ideal
form of interaction between actors. Habermas indicates
that such an idealized discourse is in opposition to experienced
reality, or “counterfactual,” and consequently can
only exist in its pure form in principle. Rational discourse
acts as a Weberian ideal type, or referential system, based
on the “idealizing suppositions” that guide such discourse
(Habermas, 2003). Habermas argues that cooperative interaction
cannot fruitfully take place without these suppositions,
and Edgar (2005) sums up this perspective as
follows: “Put bluntly, I do not have to have the sincerity
of my interlocutors demonstrated to me before I start
talking to them. I assume they are sincere, open, and
accountable unless I encounter evidence to the contrary”
(p. 154).
Without these suppositions, the social interaction would
lose its potential for mutual understanding. Habermas
indicates that the use of such suppositions is “actually
effective in ways that point beyond the limits of actual situations”
(Habermas, 2003, p. 85; italics in original), with
these limits including, of course, the often probable case
that individuals are engaging in strategically motivated
action. Thus, discourse rooted in these counterfactual,
idealized presuppositions may eventually lead to clearer
understanding without actually living up to the presuppositions
themselves. In the imperfect situations of practical
discourse, Habermas asserts that some approximation of
the ideal condition could be achieved “if only the argumentation
could be conducted openly enough and continued
long enough” (Habermas, 1984, p. 42).
Types of discourse. Habermas indicates that five types
of argumentation exist within such a discourse. These
categories are distinguished by the basis upon which they
make validity claims:
• Theoretical discourse—Claims to truth based on
evidence and logic.
• Practicaldiscourse—Based on socialnorms, claims
to appropriateness, and social acceptability.
• Aesthetic criticism—Criticismbased on good taste,
“standards of value.”
• Therapeutic critique—Questioning sincerity orhon-
esty.
• Explicative discourse—Expression of claims that
are clearly formulated and intelligible.
The validity claim of a statement can be challenged on
any of the preceding grounds, and that type of discourse
would then ensue. For Habermas, a continuing discourse
of one or more of these types, which is consistent with
the assumptions just detailed, will approximate rational
discourse. If such a discourse were enabled and entirely
mediated through an information system, one could also
argue that such an information system incorporates an
emancipatory potential in terms of Habermas’s critical
theory (Lyytinen & Hirschheim, 1988).
Next, we apply these assumptions to a number of articles
from Wikipedia. Reconsidering the prevailing view of
information systems among critical social theorists—that
information systems increase control and rationalization
and therefore constrain freedom and work against emancipatory
ideals—we illustrate how Wikipedia offers the
possibility for an alternative perspective on the discursive
affordances of information systems. We contend that
Wikipedia can be considered an instance where discourse
is not only allowed, but is enabled and fully mediated,
by an information system. We argue that Wikipedia approaches
the criteria for a rational discourse in several
essential facets.
DownloadedBy:[UniversityofMichigan]At:22:5212January2009
42 S. HANSEN ET AL.
WIKIPEDIA
Wikipedia Fundamentals
Operated under the auspices of the Wikimedia Foundation,
Wikipedia bills itself as “the largest reference website on
the Internet.” It is an online encyclopedia where anyone
using a standard web browser can create and edit articles.
Since its introduction in 2001, Wikipedia has seen an
explosion of popularity. As of the date of the current
data collection effort,5 Wikipedia had over 64,000 active
contributing editors across all languages.6 The English
language version of the system has nearly 1.9 million
articles, with approximately 1,900 new articles added on
a daily basis.7 In addition, Wikipedia has articles written
in 250 other languages.
As the name implies, Wikipedia is based on a wiki web
environment (Leuf & Cunningham, 2001). First developed
in the mid-1990s, wiki is open-source server software
that allows all users to edit web page content using
any type of web browser. A wiki environment maintains
an archive of version changes that a single document/page
has undergone since its inception and gives users the ability
to rapidly develop new pages and crosslink them to
existing sources. The predominance of non-hierarchical
navigation through the use of multiple hyperlinks within
the body of a document is one of the central characteristics
of a wiki environment. While the wiki technology is quite
simple, the functionality that it enables has made it a significant
tool for collaborative writing and design, and has
contributed to the broader development of the open-source
philosophy.
Wikipedia itself was developed as an outgrowth of an
earlier effort at free online encyclopedia creation, dubbed
Nupedia (Wikipedia Contributors, 2007a). When the Nupedia
leadership team recognized the potential advantages
of a wiki for rapid development and the maintenance of
free content, they launched the Wikipedia project. The articles
on the system are kept free through the application
of the GNU Free Documentation License, which ensures
that content developed is open to use and modification
by all editors and that all subsequent enhancement will
not be subject to proprietary use (Wikipedia Contributors,
2007c).
Wikipedia is marketed as “the free encyclopedia that
anyone can edit.” This statement underscores the decentralized
organization of the project. Contributing editors
are those who volunteer their time and choose to provide
valuable input. These editors are responsible for nearly
all changes to the content of the system. There is limited
oversight of the project outside of the observation and
efforts of the editorial volunteers. Wikipedia Administrators
handle the majority of administrative functions for the
site. Administrators represent a subset of the contributing
editors who have been approved for administrator status
by members of the editorial community. However, the Administrator
distinction is more than ceremonial. Administrators
are given access to specific technical features of the
system, including the protection of pages (i.e., blocking
additional edits), the deletion of articles, and the ability
to block other editors from further changes to the site’s
pages.
One of the key challenges of the system involves the
need for blocking selected editors, in order to minimize
the potential for vandalism and bias. Because editorial
rights are granted to any web user, the system frequently
encounters editorial actions that are taken in a deliberate
effort to degrade the quality of an article. Such vandalism
may take the form of wholesale deletion of article
content, the insertion of superfluous vulgar language, or
the inclusion of intentionally erroneous information. The
recognition of such acts can lead to censure by the broader
editorial community through a series of warnings and, in
extreme cases, by the blocking of editorial rights to the
individual. While vandalism remains an acute challenge
for the project, some evidence suggests that the community
rapidly addresses and eliminates acts of vandalism
through the system’s reversion controls (Vi´egas et al.,
2004).
We next offer some examples of how the wiki system
embodies Habermasian discursive action by approximating
the conditions of an ideal speech situation. In this
illustration we draw upon three disparate cases within the
Wikipedia community.
Wikipedia as Rational Discourse
Before addressing any particular article, we first discuss
how Wikipedia articles in general can be understood to
meet key assumptions that are required for rational
discourse.8 These key assumptions include: (1) Actors
sincerely intend to engage in a cooperative search for truth;
(2) through a formalized structure; (3) by excluding the
use of force; (4) by meeting the rules of the ideal speech
situation; (5) while engaging in a discourse that is open
and continued for an extended period.
Cooperative search for truth. As Wikipedia is a
widely used reference medium, it is fair to say that most
users and editors of the system are generally engaged in
the pursuit of accurate information. If they find what
they read agreeable, users can be considered to engage
in communicative action. If, however, a user does not
agree with certain truth claims made in an article, that user
may turn into a contributor and thus embark on discursive
action.
While there is no way of determining with certainty
whether or not a contributor acts with cooperative intent,
it is clear that some portion of contributors do act strategically
(i.e., with an agenda) and may not have appropriate
DownloadedBy:[UniversityofMichigan]At:22:5212January2009
WIKIPEDIA AND RATIONAL DISCOURSE 43
motives for their editorial activities. However, as noted
earlier, blatant vandalism and politically motivated claims
are quickly quashed by the broader editorial community.
Therefore, although cooperative intent cannot be generalized
to any specific instance of an article at a given time,
over the entirety of the Wikipedia project, with an aggregate
view of the articles as a whole, one can infer that
cooperative argument in the interest of truth is a motivator
for the bulk of contributions.
Formalized structure. Habermas suggests that the
structure of rational discourse must be explicit and be
adhered to by competent actors. Such structure is a central
component in the pursuit of desired quality in the
Wikipedia community. While content development and
site administration are almost entirely decentralized, the
editors are bound together by a series of policies and guidelines
that have been developed by the Wikimedia Foundation
in collaboration with the project’s editors. Currently,
the Wikipedia project has 39 official policy statements
addressing the development of content, the behavior of
editors, the treatment of legal issues, and the processes
for resolution of conflicts within the community.9 Foremost
among these are the three content-guiding policies
of the project: neutral point of view, verifiability, and the
prohibition against original research.
First, the maintenance ofa neutralpointofview (NPOV)
in the development and enhancement of Wikipedia articles
is a central element of the system’s discursive structure.10
This policy asserts that Wikipedia articles should present
all significant facets or competing positions on a given
subject in a way that is unbiased. Contributing editors
should take efforts not to betray their personal preferences
or opinions in presenting a topic. In addition to
establishing a structure for the discourse that may ensue,
this policy aligns with Habermas’s assumption of the pursuit
of common understanding, rather than the ideological
competition observed in strategic action.
Second, the Wikipedia community requires that editors
restrict themselves to the statement of facts, assertions,
or theories that can be verified through reference to
other published sources. As the policy itself states, “the
threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not
truth” (Wikipedia Contributors, 2007e). That is not to say
that truth is not a desired outcome, but that a premium
is placed on the ability of other editors to externally verify
a given statement. The importance of verifiability is
reinforced by the third content-guiding position—the prohibition
against original research. Wikipedia specifically
states that it is not an outlet for the publication of theories
or concepts not previously published elsewhere. Together,
these three positions along with the 40 other policies and
over 20 guideline documents provide significant structure
for the discursive activity that takes place between
editors.
Excludes use of force. Wikipedia contributions are
entirely voluntary. Just as no use of force motivates people
to engage in a Wikipedia-mediated discourse, neither
can any force require individuals to accept any contribution.
Further, contributors enjoy relative anonymity in
their editorial activities. While editors and administrators
can identify and communicate with a given contributor
(i.e., page editing requires a login or the recording of
the contributor’s IP address), members of the Wikipedia
community have little access to an individual’s personal
information. Accordingly, editors are closely constrained
by the structure of the discourse in disputes over content.
In the case of vandalism, steps can be taken to limit
an individual’s ability to participate on the site, but it is
intended that this would only occur after efforts at open
communication have been exhausted and an individual has
revealed himself or herself to be in bad faith with respect
to the pursuit of accuracy. Also, as an e-mail or IP address
is all that is required to set up an account, vandals
could conceivably continue to participate under different
account names.
Ideal speech situation. If we view all Wikipedia users
as the population ofinterest, then itappears thatWikipedian
discourse approximates the conditions of the ideal speech
situation. As access to a web browser and competency
with simple text editing are all that is required to participate,
it is reasonable to assert that most users have the ability
to contribute if they see fit. Indeed, individual contributors
have multiple avenues to question a proposal or to submit
a novel proposal. If one questions the validity of a certain
truth claim, he or she may edit the text of the relevant
article in an effort to improve its accuracy. Conversely,
a contributor may question the claim directly through the
use of the “talk page” for that article.11 If an editor wishes
to introduce a topic or issue not yet represented on the
Wikipedia site, he or she is encouraged to start a new
page on that subject. Finally, as indicated in the preceding
subsection, contributors are not subject to compulsion.
Lasting over time. Wikipedia offers an endless potential
for page editing, and articles are always dynamic.
This leaves the window open for improvement of any article
over time as it becomes more refined and accurate
in its statements. Indeed, similar to Habermas’s assertion
that sustained effort may be required for a discursive environment
to approximate an ideal speech situation, the
Wikipedia community emphasizes the importance of time
in supporting the accuracy of articles. It is widely acknowledged
by system contributors that many Wikipedia
articles are of less-than-admirable quality when they are
first developed. However, it is argued that the quality
of the articles, in terms of accuracy, prose, and fairness,
improves consistently as the article undergoes repeated
revision by members of the community. As one of the
pages about the system itself notes:
DownloadedBy:[UniversityofMichigan]At:22:5212January2009
44 S. HANSEN ET AL.
Articles are never ‘complete and final.’ Just as human
knowledge evolves, so does our wiki coverage of it. Wiki
articles are continually edited and improved over time, and
in general this results in an upward trend of quality, and
a growing consensus over a fair balanced representation of
information. (Wikipedia Contributors, 2007b)
Thus, the Wikipedian community appears to have significant
faith in the effects of time on the quality of the
content that they collaboratively create.
RATIONAL DISCOURSE WITHIN WIKIPEDIA
The discursive action enabled by the Wikipedia environment
can be assessed through the study of a subject around
which one would expect there to be multiple challenges to
truth claims, i.e., a topic of significant controversy. Several
such subjects can be identified among the Wikipedia
articles, including segments on abortion, U.S. immigration
reform, and the notorious Jyllands-Posten Muhammad
cartoons. Certainly, one would expect to see significant
strategic action employed in general discussions of
such issues. However, given its objective of a neutral point
of view, the ideal treatment of such issues on Wikipedia is
expected to be communicative in nature. To support the
analysis of discursive action surrounding such controversial
issues, we focus on the treatment of three such topics
within the Wikipedia environment.
Since we are interested in exploring the potential for
rational discourse within Wikipedia rather than specific
causal relationships between features of the system and
discursive outcomes, the research methodology employed
is a qualitative multi-case analysis. Accordingly, we followed
theoretical sampling to identify cases where the
Habermasian conditions of rational discourse might be
most likely to exist (Eisenhardt, 1989). Specifically,
we sought cases where (1) contentious issues were not
completely resolved, (2) serious cognitive content was involved,
allowing for the introduction of competing truth
claims, and (3) there was evidence of a significant thread of
argument. In addition, we recognized that contested topics
within Wikipedia could be subject to multiple bases
for argumentation between discursive participants—e.g.,
cultural, scientific, political, and social, among others.
Accordingly, in selecting cases for observation and analysis,
we sought to identify topics which would reflect
a broad range of discursive foundations. As a result, the
cases selected are intentionally varied in their subject matter
and bases for discursive support, including entries for
the Armenian Genocide, the uses of Ethanol Fuel as a
renewable energy source, and the subject of Intellectual
Property (see Table 1 for a summary of the case topics).
In the qualitative multi-case method employed, we explored
in detail the Wikipedia pages attached to each topic.
TABLE 1
Selected case topics
Armenian Genocide
We use the term Armenian Genocide to refer to the forced relocation and death of between 800,000 and 1.5 million ethnic
Armenians at the hands of the Young Turks regime in the period from 1915 to 1917. The primary controversy over the events
is the use of the term genocide itself. While most international scholars accept the application of the word, the government of
Turkey and much of the Turkish population argue that the events were a case of interethnic conflict rather than a state-sponsored
effort at extermination. In the present analysis, we take no position with respect to the relative validity of either set of claims,
but consider instead the ways in which the discourse has developed in the Wikipedia context.
Ethanol Fuel
Ethanol, or ethyl alcohol (C2H6O), is a flammable liquid produced through the fermentation of grain. In recent years, ethanol
has garnered a significant position in the public discourse as an alternative to non-renewable fossil fuels, such as petroleum.
Currently, ethanol is used as an additive to gasoline and is noted for the fuel efficiency that it engenders (owing to its higher
octane level than petroleum; Wyman, 1994). This additive application of ethanol fuel has occurred almost exclusively in the
Western hemisphere—most notably, the United States, Canada, and Brazil (Wheals et al., 1999). The controversy that has arisen
around ethanol concerns the overall impact on the environment that a shift to ethanol would create, with critics emphasizing
the potential negative effects of increased use of fertilizers and pesticides.
Intellectual Property
While the term acts as an umbrella for a very wide range of created artifacts, intellectual property refers to “creations of the
mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce” (World Intellectual
Property Organization, 2007). Intellectual property is generally protected through the use of patents, trademarks, and copyrights
in an effort to ensure that the relevant creators are able to enjoy the economic fruits of their creations for at least a limited period
of time. Controversies around the treatment of intellectual property have exploded over the past decade with the emergence
of peer-to-peer file sharing networks, the open source development phenomenon, and concerns over the absence of global
standards for the protection of intangible creative goods.
DownloadedBy:[UniversityofMichigan]At:22:5212January2009
WIKIPEDIA AND RATIONAL DISCOURSE 45
First, we reviewed the content of the articles themselves
to determine whether or not multiple perspectives were
acknowledged, the degree to which the article reflected
the neutral point of view expected of Wikipedia material,
and the presence of supporting citations and links
to additional sources of information. Next, a thorough
review of the history of each article was completed. In
this phase of the analysis, we documented the patterns
of editorial change that the article had undergone (e.g.,
number of changes, temporal distribution of edits). In addition,
the historical review included the identification of
key milestones or events in the development of the articles
(e.g., inclusion of formal citations and notes, changes to
the external links for the topic, significant occurrences of
vandalism). Finally, an analysis of the Discussion site for
each article was conducted to determine the forms of discourse
that emerged in the direct communication between
contributing editors for the respective subjects. In this
regard, we reviewed all discussion comments submitted
by participants with an eye to the forms of rational discourse
outlined by Habermas (e.g., theoretical discourse,
explicative discourse, aesthetic critique) and the degree
to which they were present in the discussions. In the
following subsections, we illustrate how the controversies
associated with each of the case topics areas have been addressed
within the various components of the Wikipedia
environment.
Wikipedia and the Selected Discourses
Wikipedia and the Armenian Genocide. A review of
the history for the article on the Armenian Genocide reveals
that, since its initial development in October of
2002, the page has undergone over 6,300 edits. In its
first month, the article grew slowly from a brief statement
exclusively reflecting the “genocide” perspective to
a short article that acknowledges the Turkish position
on the subject. Then, in early December 2002, the article
was deleted and simply replaced with the statement:
“The Armenian Genocide (also known as the Armenian
Holocaust) was an event that, in the true meaning of the
word ‘genocide’, never took place.” This statement in
turn was promptly replaced by a strongly biased counterstatement.
However, the article soon reverted to the
version that had persisted before the blatant vandalism
occurred.
In the ensuing months, we observed multiple actions
that could be characterized as strategic (from both sides
of the issue), including additional acts of unambiguous
vandalism of the page. However, over the course of 2004
and 2005, additional hyperlink resources were added to
support the verifiability of various claims, including links
to web sites representing both points of view on the issue.
In June 2004, the community added to the article a
Reference section that included the first scholarly reference.
In January 2006, a Notes section was added with
references to support specific truth claims made on the
page.
At the time of the current analysis, the article on the
Armenian Genocide includes more than 9,800 words and
provides broad coverage of the subject. While the bulk
of the article focuses on the majority interpretation of the
historical events, the page includes extensive discussion of
the alternative perspectives on the issue and significant attention
to the controversy itself. The Bibliography section
on the page has expanded to include 17 sources, and the
References section has grown to include 82 citations and
corresponding comments supporting claims made within
the body of the article. In addition, the page includes
10 external links, including sources both supporting and
refuting the conjecture of genocide and direction to 3 independent
studies on the subject, and 11 links to related
articles within the Wikipedia system. All of these links
are in addition to the nonlinear links embedded in the
document itself.
Wikipedia and Ethanol Fuel. Wikipedia contributors
exhibited less overtly strategic behavior in their treatment
of ethanol fuel compared with the Armenian Genocide
article. The initial entry for Ethanol Fuel was established
in April 2004. In contrast to the entry on the Armenian
Genocide, the Ethanol Fuel topic was introduced in
a fairly well-developed state and matured very rapidly.
While there were a number of grammatical and spelling
errors to be observed, the initial entry included information
on the fundamental science of ethanol fuel, its role
as an alternate energy source, and the experiments in the
use of ethanol that had emerged in Brazil and the United
States. From these beginnings, contributors quickly augmented
the page. In less than 2 months from its inception,
the content had swelled from roughly 1,800 words
to over 4,500. Perhaps most noteworthy is that by June
2004, the article included a section entitled “Arguments
and Criticisms,” which highlighted some of the positions
both for and against the use of ethanol as an alternative
fuel.
Despite the relatively mature state in which the ethanol
fuel article was introduced, the page has undergone significant
revision and enhancement in the subsequent years.
The page has undergone more than 2,200 edits between
2004 and 2007. As with the genocide piece, editors augmented
the ethanol article with a section of external links
to other sources of information and extensive internal links
to other relevant subjects within Wikipedia. In May 2006,
a Notes section was added to provide support and reference
for a specific statement made within the article. At
present, the Notes section has grown to include 63 references,
in many cases providing links to accessible PDF
versions of the referenced sources.
DownloadedBy:[UniversityofMichigan]At:22:5212January2009
46 S. HANSEN ET AL.
Importantly, the page has been subject to significant
contention over the arguments presented. In February
2006, administrators added a notice to the page stating
that the content of the article was under dispute on the
bases of neutrality and factual accuracy. Some contributors
argued that the article contained several statements
of questionable validity which had been inserted in an
effort to discredit or downplay the positive potential of
ethanol fuel. In large part, the debate around this issue
has played itself out in the article’s Discussion site (see
later discussion for more detail on the role of Discussion
pages).
Wikipedia and Intellectual Property. The Wikipedia
article on Intellectual Property was a relatively early entry
to the system. The first version of the piece appeared in
December of 2001, less than a year from the launch of the
project. In the first few months of its existence, it garnered
little attention from the nascent contributor community,
experiencing less than one edit per month. The rate of
editorial input began to pick up in the summer of 2002,
and has since accelerated consistently. To date, the article
has experienced 1,204 edits, with 191 since the start of
2007.
The current version of the article contains over 7,400
words and includes sections on the history of intellectual
property, economic views of the subject, mechanisms for
the valuation of intellectual property, and critiques of the
very concept. As with the other two articles reviewed, Intellectual
Property has experienced significant structural
enhancement since its inception. While internal links
to related Wikipedia topics have been present since the
article’s introduction, these have expanded greatly over
time, from less than 10 to 37. In September 2003, a
Bibliography section was added to direct readers to relevant
books on the subject. References to support specific
statements were not added until August 2006. This
last point remains a point of contention around the Intellectual
Property article, because some Wikipedians have
claimed that contributors to the piece (especially the section
of “Controversy” in Intellectual Property) have not
provided adequate references in support of their statements
or
claims.
Within the article itself, the acknowledgment of significant
differences of opinion on the subject of intellectual
property was present from the beginning. An explicit
section focusing on “Arguments against the term ‘Intellectual
Property”’ emerged in January of 2003. This was
augmented with a “Controversy” section in January 2005,
and the two areas were grouped under a broader “Critique”
heading by March of the same year. At present, the section
on critiques of the intellectual property concept makes up
over half the content of the entire article (at over 4,000 of
the 7,400 word total).
Rational Discourse and the Wikipedia “Discussion”
Pages
Much of actual discourse between Wikipedians holding
different perspectives on a given subject emerges in the
Talk or Discussion page of the relevant articles. This
is where parties to the discourse can address each other
directly to state a specific position, to challenge the positions
or statements of another, or to offer critiques of a
contributor’s behavior with respect to the guidelines for
Wikipedian content. Over time, these discussions can
become very lengthy and elaborate. In the case of the Armenian
genocide, a reader can now access over 10 distinct
archives of editorial discussion regarding the article, dating
back to October of 2004. These archives even include
one page dedicated solely to the discourse between a few
of the most active editors of the page. While the discussions
between contributors have been more subdued in the
cases of Ethanol Fuel and Intellectual Property, significant
discourse has occurred here as well. Three archives of
discussion have been created for the Ethanol Fuel article,
with 69 topical threads and over 185 distinct posts. For
Intellectual Property, the contributors have archived the
discussion page once and 32 threads have been initiated,
representing 130 individual posts. Ultimately, it could
be argued that the discussion pages are the site where the
true discursive action between Wikipedia editors emerges.
While much of the interaction observed in an article’s discussion
page is patently strategic (this is especially true in
the case of the Armenian Genocide example), each of the
forms of discourse outlined by Habermas can be distinctly
observed.
Theoretical Discourse. On the talk page, theoretical
discourse predominates, with editors presenting the evidence
and logic for the changes that they have made to the
page. In such cases, the contributors frequently employ
external sources in an effort to support their claims. The
following exchanges offer an illustration:
Armenian Genocide. A: “Genocide is a term in international
law. An event can only be called a genocide after
it has been approved by an international court.”
B: “Your claim that the use of ‘genocide’ to describe this
or any other historical event requires some international court
to pass a verdict is unsupportable and faulty.”
EthanolFuel. A:“It’s notaboutproduction, it’sabout
refining. It takes more energy to refine ethanol than it generates
in an ICE engine—[external source] 67 percent more, to
be specific. That energy is coming from the electricity network
which is generated from a number of sources including
via coal and oil burning, among cleaner methods.”
B: “As pointed out in ‘ethanol fuel in Brazil’, the process
there burns part of the sugarcane plant to provide energy to
DownloadedBy:[UniversityofMichigan]At:22:5212January2009
WIKIPEDIA AND RATIONAL DISCOURSE 47
run the refining process, and actually produces an electrical
surplus, which is sold back to the grid. I still don’t see the
point. Brazil cannot simply be playing a shell game with the
real costs of producing ethanol; they’re energy-independent.”
Intellectual Property. “. . . as a Canadian lawyer
who practices exclusively in this area, I can assure you that
the term ‘Intellectual Property’ is considered the correct legal
term in Canada. I can also tell you that our firm communicates
with lawyers in numerous jurisdictions throughout the
world and they all use the term as well. Also, the existence
of the international non-governmental body known as the
World Intellectual Property Organization, which manages
numerous international treaties dealing with this area of law,
would seem to indicate that the term is fairly well entrenched
on an international level.”
Editors also employ theoretical discourse when they
justify a reversion of the page to an early iteration, e.g. “I
have gone back to what appears to be the most complete
recent version of the article.”
Practical Discourse The editors repeatedly engage in
practical discourse when they invoke the guiding foundations
of the Wikipedia project. In a very real sense, the
policies and guidelines of Wikipedia (especially NPOV
and Verifiability) represent the social norms and thresholds
for propriety within the community. In discussing the
desirability or undesirability of a given change, contributors
will base their arguments on adherence to the policies
of the system:
Armenian Genocide. “Writing it the NPOV way is
the way to go. I don’t make the rules. I try to respect them.
If you enter a country and really want to work there and
you don’t want to leave it, and there are laws which you
don’t agree with, will you stop respecting them? Rules are
imposed—they are called guidelines and policies.”
“Iagainrecommend‘Wikipedia: Verifiability’and‘Wikipedia:
Reliable Source’ [i.e., the policy statements on Wikipedia].
We don’t do pick and mix citations.”
Ethanol Fuel. “Um... links aren’t banned on NPOV
grounds. Don’t forget, we don’t achieve NPOV by avoiding
POV, we achieve it by including all notable POVs.”
“It was when I read this paragraph that I realised a POV tag
would need to be added to this article. Apart from giving us
a lesson in basic economics, [Specific Contributor] is clearly
intent of pushing a POV, as illustrated by the four citations
added to this point in the text. The principle of Neutral Point
of View requires that we describe competing views without
endorsing any one in particular.”
Intellectual Property. “From my reading, the entire
Intellectual Property article does not reflect a neutral point
of view. If I had no prior knowledge of the subject, I might
be left by the article with the opinion that intellectual property
laws are generally a bad thing or obsolete. To achieve a
neutral point of view, I would suggest that the ‘Controversy’,
‘Critique’, and ‘Arguments against the term’ subheads might
better be consolidated under ‘Controversy’, made more concise,
and moved to the end of the article.”
“None of the four sites currently in the External Links section
comply with WP:EL [i.e., the Wikipedia policy guideline
on External Links]. I’ve deleted the entire section; it was
restored with a reference to the talk page, but the talk page
makes no attempt to justify it with reference to the Wikipedia
policies.”
Aesthetic Criticism. The articles themselves are repeatedly
subject to formatting and organizational issues
that indicate significant aesthetic criticism. On the discussion
pages, there is less of an emphasis on the aesthetic,
although one can certainly find it represented in the dis-
cussions:
Armenian Genocide. “However, consideringthearticle
lacks all of the sufficient descriptive elements of the how,
why, where, when and by whom and to whom information
that I think is relevant and necessary—I would argue that
there is undue emphasis on clearly secondary issues as ‘art’
etc.”
Ethanol Fuel. [Regarding a ‘Good Article’ Nomination]:
“Although this article has covered quite a lot of
ground, I cannot pass it due to the many issues evident. The
most obvious would be the cleanup and neutrality tags, but
also there are many unsourced statements and one or two
sentence paragraphs. Lists should be converted into prose
where possible, and the external links and ‘see also’ sections
need some serious slimming down in size.”
IntellectualProperty. “Thearticle’s layoutisstrange.
There is a section, ‘Critique,’ with subsections, ‘Arguments
against the term’ etc. . . . This is a bit bizarre . . . In my view,
there needs to be a separate section or sub-section that is
devoted to arguments pro and con for whether IP law and
rights are justified, or legitimate.”
Therapeutic Critique. Given the presence of strategic
dialogues, it should come as no surprise that therapeutic
critiques (i.e., questioning the sincerity of other editors)
are common. Again, this form of discourse involves the
invocation of a Wikipedia policy, namely, the assumption
of good faith.12 By challenging the degree to which a fellow
contributor adheres to the ideal of good faith, an editor
will effectively challenge the sincerity of that individual.
For example:
Armenian Genocide. “I have every right to be suspicious,
assume good faith doesn’t mean to stop reasonating
[sic]. I have my doubts about you and for a reason. L too
like other users have come here claiming to be neutral users.”
“I hope you’re not believing in what you’re saying . . . I
have nothing to say if you’re saying this as a part of the
propaganda, but if you’re believing in it, then I suggest doing
some more research before forming an opinion.”
DownloadedBy:[UniversityofMichigan]At:22:5212January2009
48 S. HANSEN ET AL.
Ethanol Fuel. “I removed the following paragraph
due to its advertisement-like qualities, lack of sources, poor
grammar, abysmal punctuation and many typos: [Referenced
paragraph] . . . Likely the above writing was the deceptive
work of a petroleum industry executive, trying to
make ethanol supporters look overly uneducated. Nice trick,
but you’re not fooling these highly educated ethanol support-
ers!”
Intellectual Property. “I object to any comment
whatsoever about the article having a copyright notice. There
is no purpose whatsoever to mention this except as some
kind of non-neutral commentary . . . It is not news, or useful
information, or even particularly noteworthy, that a given
publication has a copyright notice. Nor is it news to say,
‘the article is printed in black print on paper.’ So calling
attention to it is obviously done for the sole purpose of trying
to make a subtle point that there is some kind of hypocrisy
or inconsistency going on.”
Explicative Discourse. Throughout the discussions
that unfold on the Discussion pages, editors take great
efforts to present their ideas in a well-formulated and
intelligible manner. Unlike the average Internet discussion
page, terse responses with multiple grammatical or
spelling errors are comparatively rare, outnumbered by
more extensive and apparently thoughtful comments. At
times, the value placed on clarity is discussed overtly.
Armenian Genocide. “I highly recommend that a
veteran Wikipedian clean this article up a bit, making the
mode of communication a bit more intelligent and a bit less
like a rant. I’m not debating how true it is. I’m just saying
it’s presented in an ugly way.”
Ethanol Fuel. “What is the argument that the ’Cost’
section is making? If it’s arguing that you need to burn
gasoline in order to produce ethanol, that’s not strictly true;
there’s no conceptual reason why farm equipment can’t itself
run on ethanol . . . I don’t understand that point that’s being
made. It’s either nonsense or poorly explained, and I’m not
sure which.”
Intellectual Property. “IMHO, any significant discussion
on controversy at the beginning is at best inappropriate,
especially with regard to the term itself. Basic information
on the subject matter must always be presented first
and in detail, before any significant discussion on issues of
controversy.”
One of the reasons for such clarity may lie in the process
for resolving disputes that has been established. While
intervention by an Administrator or the Wikimedia Arbitration
Committee is an extreme option, these avenues
take into consideration the previous efforts at resolution
pursued by the parties to a conflict. Thus, if disputes escalate
to necessitate third-party engagement, the clarity and
commitment to dialogue reflected in previous discussions
can have a bearing on the outcome of the dispute.
Wikipedia Page Editing Over Time
In all three of the articles considered, the majority of the
contemporary edits reflect minor reworking of the grammar
or structure of text. However, in some cases, acts
of vandalism continue to occur. For the article on Intellectual
Property, editors reverted to earlier versions to
correct acts of vandalism a total of 14 times from July
2006 through June 2007. In the case of the Armenian
Genocide, throughout most of the “life” of the article, the
page has included an administrative notice indicating that
the neutrality of the article is in dispute. Due to the occurrences
of vandalism, the article has periodically been
locked from editing by system administrators pending the
resolution of specific disputes. The contested neutrality
indicator has also been periodically posted on the Ethanol
Fuel page over its history.
Despite lingering concerns over the degree to which
these articles adhere to Wikipedia’s editorial policies and
guidelines, the evidence from these disparate cases suggests
that Wikipedia’s claim to improved accuracy and
balance over time is warranted. For all three topics, few
truth claims have been uncritically accepted, and most significant
truth claims have multiple sources of support. It
is reasonable to propose that the confidence of the reader
in the validity of claims made on each page has likely increased
over the past couple years as the effort to provide
sources for external verification of claims has increased.
While the articles on both the Armenian Genocide and
ethanol fuel currently have posted notices regarding challenges
to the neutrality of the page, all three articles do
provide substantive information on the varied perspectives
adopted with respective to the topics.
Due to page limitations, a comprehensive analysis of
these articles cannot be presented here. However, our
analysis does show that early in the life of each article,
significant theoretical discourse occurred. As these truth
claims were addressed over the life of the respective articles,
practical discourse became more prevalent (as evidenced
by the rapid elimination of vandal activity), as did
therapeutic discourse in the discussion pages (as editors
question each others’ intentions). In all three cases, the
foreground discursive activity focuses on explicative discourse,
addressing questions such as grammar, phrasing
correction, and the organization of the article.
Questioning Wikipedia
While the Wikipedia environment approximates features
of the ideal speech situation articulated by Habermas, several
concerns remain. Wikipedia has been criticized over
the accuracy of articles, the motivations of editors, the
rigor of its verifiability, and a perception of anti-elitism
within the community (Denning et al., 2005; Sanger,
DownloadedBy:[UniversityofMichigan]At:22:5212January2009
WIKIPEDIA AND RATIONAL DISCOURSE 49
2004). In giving all users a free hand to edit the text,
Wikipedia exposes itself to the inclusion of inaccurate information.
Even if one accepts that acts of vandalism are
rapidly corrected (Vi´egas et al., 2004), there is little way
of protecting against more mundane errors inserted by editors
with no malicious intent. At any given moment in
time, it is nearly impossible to determine whether or not
a given article includes substantive inaccuracies. While
a hotly contested study published in the journal Nature
suggested that Wikipedia articles have error rates similar
to those of the highly regarded Encyclopaedia Britannica
(Giles, 2005), any casual user of the Wikipedia system can
identify a range of minor errors (e.g., spelling, grammar)
simply by browsing through a few articles. Thus, one is
left to question whether or not a theoretical discourse (i.e.,
based on evidence and logic) will be undermined by the
potential inaccuracies of the evidence presented.
A second key challenge involves the intentions of the
contributors to the systems. As Denning et al. (2005)
note: “You cannot know the motives of the contributors
to an article. They may be altruists, political or commercial
opportunists, practical jokers, or even vandals” (p.
152). Despite the issues that Wikipedia encounters with
vandalism, the last of these possibilities may be the least
problematic in the long run. While blatant vandalism is
relatively easy to address, the impact on the quality of
an article from individuals who fail to adhere to the assumption
of good faith may prove far more incendiary.
One cannot ascertain with confidence the sincerity of inquiry
by other editors that is advised by Wikipedia and
Habermas alike.13
Furthermore, while Habermasian rationaldiscourse holds
competent actors accountable for meeting the discursive
criteria relating to accepted forms of argumentation, this
accountability is concerned primarily with the utterances
of individuals. Good faith is necessarily assumed through
the very willingness of the individual to participate in
an argumentative form. Therefore, “safeguard” practices
within Wikipedia, such as freezing edits on a controversial
page or blocking specific editors from contributing to
a page, on the surface appear akin to stopping the discourse
or excluding competent actors—which is inconsistent
with the fundamental tenets of rational discourse.
However, if these measures are viewed as an operationalization
of the enforcement of assumed good faith (i.e.,
only “good faith” contributors are allowed), then we are
not faced with a fundamental inconsistency as much as a
traversal of a pragmatic boundary between an ideal system
and its real-life approximation.
One of the strongest critiques of the Wikipedia model
comes from one of the pioneers of the project. Wikipedia
co-founder Larry Sanger left the project in 2002 after
experiencing dissatisfaction with the trajectory that the
system was taking. Sanger (2004) has expressed concern
with the anti-elitist attitude that has come to prevail within
the community. In contrast to the use of expert authors
common in most traditional encyclopedias, prior training
or education does not convey a priority status to contributions
in Wikipedia. From Sanger’s point of view, this
creates substantial challenges to the system’s credibility
in public perception and the tolerance of uncivil participants.
To counter these trends, Sanger and his new collaborators
have set up a competing online reference system.
The Citizendium platform was introduced in November
2006 and is marketed as an effort to create “an enormous,
free, andreliable encyclopedia” (italics in original). Like
Wikipedia, Citizendium is based on a wiki format, but it
differs from the older system in that editors work under the
direction of recognized experts. In addition, contributors
to Citizendium are required to use their real names with
the intention of reducing the antisocial behavior that can
accompany anonymity.
Interestingly, in juxtaposing the conditions favored by
Sanger with Habermas’s ideal speech situation, it is not
clear that the changes embodied within the Citizendium
project are an improvement on Wikipedia with respect to
the objectives of rational discourse. Indeed, Wikipedia’s
anti-elitist tendencies seem quite consistent with Habermas’s
insistence that rational discourse demands that every
participant can question the proposals of another and can
introduce proposals as he or she sees fit. For Habermas,
truth claims should be mediated by the force of the argument,
rather than by the credentials of the individual.
In the newer system, the expert editors effectively act as
filters of the truth claims and challenges of other contributors.
Of course, it is important to note that these two
differing perspectives on the features of the Wikipedia
system similarly reflect the challenges of normative approaches
to knowledge creation.14 To borrow a phrase
from Pickering (1992), both Sanger’s design and Habermasian
perspectives reflect “the traditional philosophical
desire to tell people what to do” (p. 22).
DISCUSSION
Based on our observations, we assert that Wikipedia approximates
features of a Habermasian rational discourse.
Following Habermas, we acknowledge that an ideal form
of communicative action may never be realized as it is
counterfactual in its purest form, but we contend that the
combination of technical capabilities and social norms
that have emerged in Wikipedia do support a more emancipatory
discursive environment. When Habermas wrote
the bulk of his corpus, the Internet was inchoate and
a Wikipedia-type discourse was simply inconceivable.
Now, with the emergence of Wikipedia and other forms
of social computing, the question may be whether such
discourse remains a truly counterfactual “ideal.” In the
DownloadedBy:[UniversityofMichigan]At:22:5212January2009
50 S. HANSEN ET AL.
following discussion, we reconsider the nature of rational
discourse, the emancipatory potential of Wikipedia,
and their implications for social computing, information
systems design, and information systems research.
Wikipedia as Rational Discourse?
Common criticisms of the Habermasian ideal speech situation
emphasize the empirical impossibility of what are
seen as Habermas’s prescriptions for communicative action.
Human beings are simply not the “paragons of human
patience, self-awareness, sensitivity and consideration”
that would be necessary to enable such communicative
action (Sharrock & Button, 1997, p. 375). However,
such criticisms miss a fundamental point in Habermas’s
argument. His goal is not to achieve the idealized form
of discourse in empirical reality; rather, he argues that the
“idealizations” must be acknowledged for any form of rational
argumentation to take place (Habermas, 2003). For
rational discourse to be observed, participants need not adhere
perfectly to the ideal state in all of their actions and
intentions. Rather, participants must use the idealizations
as a guide to their communication in practice—even if
the content of a specific utterance is “motivated by things
other than good reasons” (Habermas, 2003, p. 96). The
empirical possibility of discursive action, therefore, may
be most prevalent in the “practical discourse” of a dialog,
where the parties appeal to the rules in critiquing the
statements of the other party.
In the Wikipedia context, we can take the policy of
neutral point of view (NPOV) as a relevant example. In
each of the cases considered, we identified several practical
critiques that invoked the NPOV guideline. While
it is clear that a given participant holds a distinct point
of view, the structure of the medium requires that any argumentation
be presented through NPOV. The participant
does not have to be neutral, but his argument must be
presented so as to maintain the appearance of adherence
to the policy. The result is that every given addition to
the page may have its origin in a strategic inclination, yet
the overall outcome, due to the structure of the discourse,
can be considered rational discourse. The explicit argumentation
at any point in time reflects the assumptions
embodied in the guidelines, not the strategic intent of the
participants. Thus, NPOV is a counterfactual idealization,
as many participants certainly do not edit articles for
strictly communicative purposes (Barton, 2005), but the
argumentation actively appeals to this idealization.
In addition to the pursuit of idealized conditions, the
role of time is critical in the emergence of the discursive
context. As Habermas points out, it is important that
rational discourse remain open-ended (Habermas, 2003),
as vital, critical argumentation requires time to emerge
(Habermas, 1984). The leaders of the Wikipedia project
have echoed Habermas in their assertion that the quality
of the discourse in the system demands patience and
sustained effort in the pursuit of an ideal state. Wikipedia
articles are rarely marked by an appropriately neutral point
of view and balanced treatment when they are introduced,
but it is hoped (and believed) that such characteristics
will emerge as the community hones its efforts. Also,
as Wikipedia articles are continuously subject to scrutiny,
they may actually be more trustworthy over time than information
obtained from commercial publishers (Barton,
2005). If we accept that Wikipedia provides an approximation
of the ideal speech situation because of its openended
structure and the incorporation of communicative
ideals, the question then turns to the system’s emancipatory
potential. Is the rational discourse that we see in
Wikipedia truly emancipatory?
Wikipedia as Emancipatory?
Criticisms of the theory of communicative action often
focus on the primacy of communicative forms that it reflects
(Rasmussen, 1990). For Habermas’s perspective
on emancipation through discourse to hold, communicative
reason must be “embedded in language” (Rasmussen,
1990, p. 28), and therefore take precedence over purposive
rationality. Thus, Habermas is criticized for having a
naive view of power by those who see all action, including
linguistic, as fundamentally enabled and constrained
by existing power relations (Flyvbjerg, 2001). Under such
a view, in certain contexts, Habermasian discourse can itself
become a vehicle for domination. If communicative
action is not the foundational form of action, then Habermas’s
notion of the emancipatory potential of discursive
action may be groundless (Rasmussen 1990). One possible
manifestation of this tension within the context of
Wikipedia is the persistent institutional influence associated
with truth claims made in the system.
While the cases that we have considered illustrate the
potential for discursive progress within Wikipedia, they
also illustrate the medium’s continued dependence on
legitimatized, institutional forms of authority. In the
Wikipedia venue, the force of the argument is a driver
of acceptance by the editorial community, but the force
of the argument is largely derived from the sources that
it brings to bear—sources that in turn derive their authority
from some institutional legitimacy. For example, in
its guideline on reliable sources (Wikipedia Contributors,
2007d), Wikipedia advises contributors in the evaluation
of sources, including an emphasis on reviews by scholarly
publications. This indicates that often the crux of
any article can be influenced by factors that are inconsistent
with the spirit of critical social theory. From the
perspective of the critical theorist, an inevitable weakness
of a social computing medium such as Wikipedia is its
DownloadedBy:[UniversityofMichigan]At:22:5212January2009
WIKIPEDIA AND RATIONAL DISCOURSE 51
continued dependence on the same institutions that rationalize
and often oppress humanity.
Such an argument has been made in the information
systems (IS) development literature. While a number of
methodologies claim to be emancipatory at various levels,
Wilson (1997) argues that such methodologies are
really no different from the traditional control-oriented
practices they seek to replace. But just as IS development
methodologies may not be entirely emancipatory in line
with the ideals of critical theorists, we assert that they
are more emancipatory than prevailing methods. Emancipatory
practices such as a sociotechnical systems focus
(Mumford, 2003) and participatory design (Floyd et al.,
1989) promote greater discourse and control for users over
their own destiny relative to engineering-oriented lifecycle
methods. In much the same way, Wikipedia offers
an example of a reference medium that is more emancipatory
than prevailing monolithic institutionally sponsored
systems of inquiry. This is illustrated by all three cases
in our analysis, where the prevailing understandings as
well as alternative interpretations of the relevant issues or
events are presented. What is of particular interest is not
how close Wikipedia comes to the ideal, but the freedom it
grants to its users relative to prevailing forms of communication
in allowing participants to be convinced through
presentations of multiple, often conflicting viewpoints in
an open format.
We do not hold that Wikipedia is by necessity emancipatory
in a universal sense. As we have indicated, there
is a definite tension between valid truth claims and institutional
domination. But we suggest that Wikipedia
is more emancipatory than many alternative media, because
a variety of conflicting institutions can be leveraged
and presented in a “free” dialogue. Interestingly, with
the proliferation of Internet technologies, other forms of
information systems with potentially emancipatory implications
may also be emerging. These include the broader
social computing phenomenon (Parameswaran & Whinston,
2007a, 2007b; Barton, 2005) and the open-source
software community (Raymond, 2001).
Social Computing, Wikipedia, and Information
Systems
Social computing is an overarching designation for many
ofthe distributed, web-based technologies thathave gained
momentum in recent years (Parameswaran & Whinston,
2007a, 2007b; Barton, 2005). Parameswaran and Whinston
(2007a) characterize social computing as generally
decentralized, dynamic, and loosely structured applications
based on Web 2.0 technology and incorporating dynamic
content, peer-based quality assurance, and a high
level of ease-of-use. Examples of social computing platforms
include popular names such as Wikipedia, YouTube,
and MySpace; more esoteric systems names such as BitTorrent
and Slashdot; as well as generic concepts such as
blogs (Parameswaran & Whinston 2007b).
While commentators generally assess and group these
technologies together based on their similarities (e.g.,
bottom-up organizing, loose structure, dynamic content),
our analysis of Wikipedia suggests the need for a more
fine-grained view of social computing. We contend that
the platforms grouped as social computing differ significantly
with respect to the structures and conditions of
a rational discourse. The relative anonymity that enables
evaluation based of the force of an argument rather than the
identity of an individual in Wikipedia contrasts with the
sophisticated reputation mechanisms of Slashdot, or the
almost intimate personal exposure associated with MySpace.
Similarly, the traceability and visibility of content
that enables the virtually boundless surveillance (if not
personal association) associated with Wikipedia contrasts
sharply with the complete lack of traceability associated
with the many-to-many distribution paradigm of BitTorrent’s
file sharing structure (Parameswaran & Whinston
2007b). These examples point to multidimensional, differentiated
views of social computing that emphasize alternative
aspects of social action. Rather than referring to
social computing as a blunt, undifferentiated set of practices
and technologies, it may be fruitful to “open the
black box” of social computing for an in-depth analysis of
system affordances and the social phenomena they enable.
Implications for the Design of Emancipatory
Information Systems
The current analysis of Wikipedia offers several implications
for the design of emancipatory information systems.
While it remains to be seen how enduring Wikipedia will
be, the ways in which the social structure and technical
features of the system have been combined to engender
novel modes of discourse offer a number of principles
for system designs intended to foster communicative action.
These key considerations include the interplay of
anonymity and accountability for participants, the role of
transparency in fostering participation and creating trust,
the importance of the broader social and institutional context,
and the rule of minimalism in a priori design efforts.
The case of Wikipedia calls attention to the need for
balancing the benefits of anonymity with the necessary
constraints of accountability. Past research in the area of
group decision support systems (GDSS) has revealed that
anonymity for participants in computer mediated group
discussions is important for the emergence of critical and
universal engagement (Connolly, et al., 1990; Jessup et
al., 1990; Trauth & Jessup, 2000). In terms of the Habermasian
view, anonymity serves to promote the conditions
of an ideal speech situation (e.g., every participant can
DownloadedBy:[UniversityofMichigan]At:22:5212January2009
52 S. HANSEN ET AL.
question any proposal) by minimizing indicators of primacy
for one participant’s views with respect to that of
another. Thus, Wikipedia’s anti-elitism is worn as a badge
of honor by the system’s advocates who persistently assert
equal discursive footing for all.
As a counterpoint to these benefits, research has also
shown that increased anonymity can lead to unproductive
and hostile communications (Sproull & Kiesler, 1986).
The vandalism observed on Wikipedia pages is a prime
example of such destructive behavior. Accountability
must be maintained at some level; vandals must be subject
to censure if they repeatedly abuse their rights. Additionally,
the system should provide a mechanism for
rewarding those who have shown themselves to be goodfaith
participants and effective members of the community
(e.g., the activation of Wikipedia administrative rights).
The challenge then for designers is finding ways to balance
these countervailing forces—ensuring accountability
without inhibiting participation.
A second design insight flowing from the present analysis
is the importance of transparency. The ability for any
participant to look back over the history and evolution of
a topic and the corresponding discussions of contributors
is one of the key strengths of Wikipedia. This capability
enhances the trust of participants in the process. Indeed,
since the transparency is applied to the process itself (e.g.,
as the editorial guidelines of the community have evolved),
contributors can determine for themselves whether or not
progress is being made. For truly emancipatory systems
to emerge, participants must be confident that they are
privy to design decisions that shape the artifact. Accordingly,
designers seeking to pursue emancipatory outcomes
should design for transparency with respect to their own
efforts.
This observation regarding the role of transparency
leads us to a third implication for design—the need for
an understanding of the social and institutional context
within which an artifact will be employed and the potential
for its adaptation. As with any sociotechnical system,
the strengths (and weaknesses) of Wikipedia result from
the combination of its social and technological features.
While the wiki technology enables relatively novel discursive
capabilities, the social norms that guide the behavior
of contributors have been just as important in creating the
phenomenon. In this regard, the current study reinforces
the lessons of the structurational approach (Orlikowski,
1992) by calling attention to the question of interpretive
flexibility of a design artifact. Flowing from the field of
science and technology studies (STS), interpretive flexibility
refers to the idea that scientific phenomena and
technological artifacts are always open to multiple interpretations
by distinct social groups when they are initially
observed or introduced (Collins, 1981; Pinch & Bijker,
1984). Importantly, interpretive flexibility can be observed
not simply in artifacts’ adoption or use, but also
in their design (Pinch & Bijker, 1984). Designers must
sincerely assess the social facets of the intended application
domain and determine the degree of flexibility they
wish to enable in the way the artifact can be applied.
The issue of interpretive flexibility suggests a final key
insight for design professionals. While we highlight the
emancipatory potential of the Wikipedia environment, it is
important to note that Wikipedia and other open source development
innovations were generally not designed with
an emancipatory agenda in mind. Rather, their emancipatory
features have emerged with their adaptation and
use by building upon a small set of guiding ideals. Thus,
the case of Wikipedia suggests that future development
of emancipatory information systems should maintain a
minimalist focus on a limited number of principles. Just
as the profound impact of the Internet as an information
infrastructure was achieved through focusing on a small
number of core concepts (e.g., communication on a best
effort basis, absence of global operational control; packet
switching; Leiner et al., 2003), so too the development of
emancipatory information systems may be served through
an emphasis on a minimal set of guiding conditions, rather
than a massive body of detailed design requirements.
Having outlined a number of design insights that we see
in the present study, it may be worth asking whether or not
it is possible to actually design for emancipatory outcomes
in the first place. Winner (2005) observes that it is common
for technological artifacts to be imbued with political
qualities, either as the result of the intentional actions of
their designers or through the compatibility of design features
with specific political structures. The examples that
Winner offers to illustrate this political potential of artifacts
tend to emphasize the negative exercise of power
(e.g., institutional racism in the design of Long Island
parkways), but the premise is equally applicable to technologies
that would necessitate or engender more emancipatory
social systems. As we have noted, in his own
writing, Habermas consistently portrays the ideal speech
situation as a counterfactual condition. However, the normative
impulse of his theory implies that a more equitable
speech condition is possible and subject to creation, even
if it is not currently observable:
No matter how the intersubjectivity of mutual understanding
may be deformed, the design of an ideal speech situation
is necessarily implied with the structure of potential speech;
for every speech, even that of intentional deception, is oriented
towards the idea of truth. . . . In so far as we master the
means for the construction of the ideal speech situation, we
can conceive the ideas of truth, freedom, and justice, which
interpenetrate each other, although of course as ideas. On the
strength of communicative competence alone, however, and
independent of the empirical structures of the social system
to which we belong, we are quite unable to realize the ideal
DownloadedBy:[UniversityofMichigan]At:22:5212January2009
WIKIPEDIA AND RATIONAL DISCOURSE 53
speech situation, we can only anticipate it. (Habermas, 1970,
p. 144)
While Habermas himself does not dedicate attention
to the active design of ideal speech environments, others
have drawn upon his theoretical framework in their own
arguments for emancipatory design (e.g., Hirschheim &
Klein, 1994; Ngwenyama & Lyytinen, 1997; Heng & de
Moor, 2003).
Future Research and Limitations
In considering future research, there is a pressing followup
question—for whom are such systems emancipatory?
The illustrations we have offered are about information
systems that support the Habermasian conditions for rational
discourse and thereby emancipate participants by
mitigating power relationships and giving precedence to
the force of the better argument. However, we acknowledge
that there may be detrimental outcomes from the rise
of such systems. As with any significant infrastructure,
when a shift occurs in the platforms through which inquiry
is conducted and truth claims are asserted, there are
certain to be losers as well as winners (Edwards et al.,
2007). The losers are those who are displaced or otherwise
excluded in the process of infrastructural emergence
or transformation—those that Star (forthcoming) has referred
to as the “orphans of infrastructure.”
In the case of Wikipedia, a number of “orphaned”
groups might be considered. First, the prevailing sources
of authority in reference domains—e.g., the editors and
authors of traditional encyclopedias—will certainly lose
some of their standing if platforms like Wikipedia gain
credibility and range. From the perspective of emancipatory
discourse, such a loss is necessary to overcome the
limitations of power structures. More problematically,
those who have limited access to the expanded discourse
may also be excluded. The past decade’s debate over the
“digital divide” and limited access to contemporary information
technologies among the nation’s poor captures
these concerns (Hammond, 1997; Irving, 1999).
A third possible category of orphans relates more to the
possession of certain attributes involving the education,
disposition, and discernment that often accompany privileged
positions in economic classes and social relations.
These powerful cross sections of society may more effectively
articulate their arguments—even without explicitly
invoking the legitimacy of “elite” institutions—and may
be more apt critically to assess immature or questionable
content. Those with less education and without the
social conditioning related to persuasive argumentation
are more likely to have their voices silenced through discourse.
While Habermas (1984) indicated that a precondition
for rational discourse involves assumptions relating
to communicative competence, he did acknowledge that
certain forms of rhetoric, such as “institutionally bound
speech acts,” can enable persuasion beyond that of solely
rational forms of rhetoric. Essentially, while all actors engaged
in rational discourse are necessarily assumed to be
competent, some may be “more competent” than others.
Therefore, although certain groups may have access to
Wikipedia as well as the motivation to engage in rational
discourse on a given topic, the lack of relative privilege
may put these groups at a disadvantage in rational discourse
with regard to discernment, critique, and argumentation,
thus reinforcing existing power structures.
Based on this brief consideration of possible “losers” in
the emergence of this new discursive platform, it should be
apparent that an argument can be made for many different
types of individuals who may be harmed, marginalized, or
excluded from the discourse; others could undoubtedly be
identified or suggested. The essential point is that a thorough
assessment of potential adverse consequences from
such novel elements of information infrastructure remains
to be conducted. In addition, the discussion highlights the
importance of asking the question of “for whom” in the
exploration of potentially emancipatory systems.
CONCLUSION
In this essay, we argue that Wikipedia offers an example
of an information system that supports the emancipatory
objectives of critical social theory. Specifically, by approximating
the conditions for a Habermasian rational
discourse, Wikipedia represents a system of inquiry that
overcomes much of the influence of relations of power and
domination. While we acknowledge that the Wikipedian
discourse is not quite ideal in meeting the requirements for
discursive action, we believe that the consistencies with
Habermasian theory are evident. In particular, the rational
discourse of the Wikipedia environment has benefited significantly
from the combination of technical allowances of
a wiki environment, the emergence of social norms within
the project, and the temporal persistence of argumentation.
We have drawn upon an analysis of three cases to illustrate
the degree to which this form of rational discourse
persists across cultural, social, scientific, and political areas
of contention. Ultimately, the broader societal impact
of Wikipedia and other emergent computing platforms remains
to be seen and opportunities for further research
abound, but the current analysis provides an illustration
that information systems may yet play a positive role in
countering systems of human oppression.
NOTES
1. This article extends research presented at the Hawaiian International
Conference of Systems Sciences in January 2007 (Hansen,
Berente, & Lyytinen, 2007).
DownloadedBy:[UniversityofMichigan]At:22:5212January2009
54 S. HANSEN ET AL.
2. Habermas himself indicates that his notion of rational discourse
is based on “counterfactual” assumptions.
3. One notable exception is a study by Kanungo (2004) focusing
on the implementation of IT kiosks in a small town in India.
4. While Habermas treats discursive process as a facet of communicative
action, some subsequent scholars have chosen to isolate
discursive action as a distinct form of social action (e.g., Ngwenyama
& Lyytinen, 1997; Klein & Huynh, 2004).
5. All Wikipedia statistics were gathered on July 12, 2007.
6. An “Active Wikipedian” is defined as an individual who has
contributed content five times or more during a 1-month period.
7. For a consideration of volume, this compares to roughly 120,000
articles available through Britannica Online.
8. In the present analysis, we are attempting to highlight points of
resonance between the features of Wikipedia and the ideal speech situation
outlined by Habermas. However, we are not adopting a normative
position with respect to the desirability or undesirability of such features,
nor are we suggesting that the design of the Wikipedia platform
has been normatively directed through an effort to achieve rational discourse.
In the fifth section of this article (fourth subsection) we discuss
some of the critiques that have been leveled against Wikipedia.
9. Refer to the Appendix for a summary of the official policy
statements maintained at the time of publication.
10. This policy has been described as “absolute and nonnegotiable”
by Wikipedia founder and Wikimedia Foundation President, Jimmy
Wales.
11. Each Wikipedia article has an associated discussion page
labeled “Talk” or “Discussion.”
12. In one of their formal policies, the Wikipedia community urges
contributors to assume good faith on the part of other participants.
13. While the intentions of contributors cannot be determined
definitively, a recent innovation has shed some light on this issue. In
August 2007, Virgil Griffith, a CalTech graduate student, introduced the
WikiScanner, a searchable database that links Wikipedia edits to their IP
address of origin. In many cases, this linkage enables the identification
of a specific organization (but not an individual contributor) as the
source of edits to the Wikipedia content for that institution. See E. Biuso
(2007). WikiScanning. The New York Times Magazine, December 9.
14. The fundamental tensions between neutrality and normativity
in knowledge creation have been extensively explored within the sociology
of scientific knowledge (SSK) and the related field of science
and technology studies (STS). A special edition of Social Studies of
Science provides an excellent summary of differing positions in this
regard (Richards & Ashmore, 1996).
APPENDIX
Wikipedia Policies
The Wikipedia platform has a relatively small number
of official policy statements that have been developed by
Wikipedia contributors and the Wikimedia Foundation.
These are policies that have been identified as particularly
useful to the maintenance and development of the systems.
However, the policies are not set in stone. Indeed, they
are constantly subject to amendment, revision, or deletion
based on the will of the community. As the Wikipedia
Policy page notes: “Policy at Wikipedia is a matter of
consensus, tradition, and practice.”
The following is a brief summary of system policies
at the time of publication. To remain true to the understanding
of the Wikipedia community, the summary text
is gleaned from the policy statements themselves.
Central Article Standards
1. Neutral Point of View
All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content
must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV),
representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias
all significant views (that have been published by reliable
sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all
articles, and of all article editors.
2. Verifiability
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability,
not truth. “Verifiable” in this context means that readers
should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia
has already been published by a reliable source. Editors
should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any
material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or
it may be removed.
3. No Original Research
Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or
original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments,
speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis
or synthesis of published material that serves to advance
a position. Citing sources and avoiding original
research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you
are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable
sources that provide information directly related to
the topic of the article, and that directly support the information
as it is presented.
Behavioral Policies
4. Bot Policy Automated or partially automated editing
processes, known as “bots,” must be harmless and useful,
have approval, use separate user accounts and be operated
responsibly.
5. Civility
Civility is a code for the conduct of editing and writing
edit summaries, comments, and talk page discussions on
all of Wikipedia. Wikipedians define incivility roughly as
personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere
of greater conflict and stress. Our code of civility states
plainly that people must act with civility toward one an-
other.
6. Edit Warring
Edit warring occurs when individual editors or groups
of editors repeatedly revert content edits to a page or subject
area. Such hostile behavior is prohibited, and considered
a breach of Wikiquette [i.e., Wikipedia etiquette].
Since it is an attempt to win a content dispute through brute
DownloadedBy:[UniversityofMichigan]At:22:5212January2009
WIKIPEDIA AND RATIONAL DISCOURSE 55
force, edit warring undermines the consensus-building
process that underlies the ideal wiki collaborative spirit.
If someone challenges your edits, discuss it with them and
seek a compromise, or seek dispute resolution. Don’t just
fight over competing views and versions.
7. Editing Policy
Improve pages wherever you can, and do not worry
about leaving them imperfect. One of the great advantages
of the Wiki system is that incomplete or poorly written
first drafts of articles can evolve into polished, presentable
masterpieces through the process of collaborative editing.
This gives our approach an advantage over other ways of
producing similar end-products. Hence, the submission
of rough drafts should also be encouraged as much as
possible.
8. No Legal Threats
Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. You should
always first attempt to resolve disputes using Wikipedia’s
dispute resolution procedures. If you must take legal action,
we cannot prevent you from doing so. However,
we require that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal
matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes
happen via proper legal channels.
9. No Personal Attacks
Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia.
Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal
attacks will not help you make a point. They hurt the
Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to
create a good encyclopedia.
10. Ownership of Articles
If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit
it, and within reason you should not prevent them from
doing so. Since working on an article does not entitle you
to “own” the article, it is still important to respect the work
of your fellow contributors. When making large scale
removals of content, particularly content contributed by
one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable
result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead
of against him or her
11. Sock-Puppetry
The general rule is: one editor, one account. Do not
use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support
for an issue, to mislead others, to artificially stir up
controversy, to aid in disruption, or to circumvent a block.
Do not ask your friends to create accounts to support you
or anyone else. Multiple accounts are not for collusion,
evasion, disruption, or other misuse.
12. Three-revert Rule
An editor must not perform more than three reverts,
in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour
period. A revert means undoing the actions of another
editor, whether involving the same or different material
each time. Any editor who breaches the rule may be
blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance,
and longer for repeated or aggravated violations.
13. Username Policy
When choosing an account name, avoid names which
may be offensive, confusing or promotional, and use only
one account unless there is a genuine need to do otherwise.
14. Vandalism
Repetitively and intentionally making unconstructive
edits to Wikipedia will result in a block or permanent ban.
Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content
made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity
of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include
the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page
blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles.
15. Wheel War
A wheel war is a struggle between two or more administrators
in which they undo another’s administrative
actions—specifically, unblocking and reblocking a user;
undeleting and redeleting; or unprotecting and reprotecting
a page. Do not repeat an administrative action when
you know that another administrator opposes it. Do not
continue a chain of administrative reversals without dis-
cussion.
Content and Style Policies
16. Attack Page
An attack page is a Wikipedia article, page, template,
category, redirect, or image created for the sole purpose
of disparaging its subject. Under the criteria for speedy
deletion, these pages are subject to being deleted by any
administrator at any time.
17. Biographies of Living Persons
Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written
conservatively, with regard for the subject’s privacy.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our
job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for
the spread of titillating claims about people’s lives. An
important rule of thumb when writing biographical material
about living persons is “do no harm”. This policy
applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical
material about living persons in other articles.
18. Naming Conventions
Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest
number of English speakers would most easily recognize,
with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at
the same time making linking to those articles easy and
second nature.
19. What Wikipedia is Not
To reinforce the idea that Wikipedia is intended solely
as an online encyclopedia, this policy identifies a number
of things as which Wikipedia is not properly characterized.
These include the following: including: dictionary,
publisher of original thought, directory, manual, guidebook,
textbook, soapbox, blog, webspace provider, social
networking site, memorial site, and a repository of links,
images, or media files.
DownloadedBy:[UniversityofMichigan]At:22:5212January2009
56 S. HANSEN ET AL.
Deletion Policies
20. Category Deletion
Categories that have been listed for more than five days
are eligible for deletion, renaming or merging when a
rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections
to the nomination have been raised.
21. Criteria for Speedy Deletion
Criteria for speedy deletion specify the limited cases
where administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media
without discussion. Non-administrators can request
speedy deletion by adding an appropriate template. In this
context, “speedy” refers to the simple decision-making
process, not the length of time since the article was cre-
ated.
22. Deletion Policy
Deletion and undeletion are performed by administrators
based on policy and guidelines, not personal likes
and dislikes. There are four processes for deleting items
and one post-deletion review process. Pages that can be
improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for
deletion.
23. Office Actions
Office actions are official changes made to content
done under the authority of the Wikimedia Foundation, by
members of the Foundation’s office. These are removals
of questionable or illegal Wikimedia content following
complaints from people. Office actions are performed so
that the end result is a legal, compliant article on the subject.
Neither this policy nor actions taken under it override
core policies, such as neutrality.
24. Oversight
A user can be assigned the ’oversight’ permission on
Wikimedia projects, which can be used to semi-permanently
remove individual edits from an article’s history. This feature
is approved for use in three cases: removal of nonpublic
personal information, removal of potentially libelous
information, and removal of copyright infringement on
the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel.
25. Proposed Deletion
Proposed deletion is the way to suggest that an article
is uncontroversially a deletion candidate, but that it does
not meet the more stringent criteria for speedy deletion.
An article can be proposed for deletion once only. If no
one contests the proposal within five days, the article may
be deleted by an administrator.
Enforcing Policies
26. Appealing a Block
In the course of daily operations, substantial numbers
of users and IP addresses are blocked, mainly due to persistent
vandalism and edit warring. Such users frequently
wish to be unblocked. Instructions for requesting an unblock
are given on your block page. When a block is
appealed, other editors—most of whom probably have no
involvement in the matter—will review your editing history,
which has been logged, as well as the reason for the
block and the history leading up to it.
27. Arbitration Policy
Acts as a guideline for the workings of the Arbitration
Committee (ArbCom). The Committee will decide cases
according to the following guidelines, which they will apply
with common sense and discretion, and an eye to the
expectations of the community: 1. Established Wikipedia
customs and common practices; 2. Wikipedia’s “laws”:
terms of use, submission standards, bylaws, general disclaimer,
and copyright license; 3. Sensible “real world”
laws. Former decisions will not be binding on the Com-
mittee.
28. Banning Policy
The Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing
privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. A ban may be temporary
and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially
permanent. The standard invitation Wikipedia extends to
"edit this page" does not apply to banned users. Users may
be banned as a result of the dispute resolution process.
29. Blocking Policy
Users may be blocked from editing by an administrator
to protect Wikipedia and its editors from harm. Blocking
is the method by which administrators may technically
prevent users from editing Wikipedia. Blocks are used to
prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish
users. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking p
olicy - note-0
30. Consensus
Wikipedia works by building consensus. Consensus
is typically reached as a natural product of the editing
process; generally someone makes a change or addition
to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an
opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it.
In essence, silence implies consent if there is adequate
exposure to the community.
31. Dispute Resolution
Specific action steps for the resolution of disputes between
editors have been developed by the Wikimedia
Foundation and the Wikipedia community. These points
of advice include the following: focusing on article content,
determining the urgency of the dispute or point of
disagreement, maintaining a dispassionate stance, engaging
in direct discussion with the other party through the
‘Talk’ page, attempting to negotiate a “truce” with the
other party, seeking the assistance of other community
participants, and finally seeking arbitration through the
mediation of Arbitration Committee.
32. Open Proxies
Open or anonymizing proxies may be blocked from
editing for any period at any time to deal with editing
abuse. While this may affect legitimate users, they
DownloadedBy:[UniversityofMichigan]At:22:5212January2009
WIKIPEDIA AND RATIONAL DISCOURSE 57
are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies
until those are blocked. No restrictions are placed
on reading Wikipedia through an open or anonymous
proxy.
33. Protection Policy
Editing or moving of a page can be restricted by administrators.
As Wikipedia is built around the principle
that anyone can edit it, this should only be done in certain
situations. Administrators can protect a page to restrict
editing or moving of that page, and remove such protection.
Such protection may be indefinite, or expire after a
specified time.
Legal and Copyright
34. Copyright
The license Wikipedia uses grants free access to our
content in the same sense as free software is licensed
freely. This principle is known as copyleft. That is to
say, Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed
so long as the new version grants the same
freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the
Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies
our author credit requirement). Wikipedia articles
therefore will remain free under the GNU Free Documentation
License (GFDL) and can be used by anybody subject
to certain restrictions, most of which serve to ensure
that freedom.
35. Copyrights Violations
Do not add content to Wikipedia if you think that doing
so may be a copyright violation. Contributors should
take steps to remove any copyright violations that they
find. One of the most important aspects of Wikipedia is
that its text (not media; see below) may be freely redistributed,
reused and built upon by anyone, under the terms
ofthe GNU Free Documentation License. This means it is
essential that all text added to Wikipedia is compatible
with this license.
36. Image Use Policy
Be very careful when uploading copyrighted images.
Fully describe images’ sources and copyright details on
their description pages, and try to make images as useful
and reusable as possible.
37. Libel
All contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility
to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not
defamatory. It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material
when it has been identified.
38. Non-Free Content
Policy sets out the conditions under which non-free
content may be used on Wikipedia. Non-free content
means all copyrighted images and other media files that
lack a free content license.
39. Reusing Wikipedia Content
Individuals are encouraged to reuse Wikipedia’s content
in their own work provided that the resulting books/art
icles/web sites or other publications follow the GNU Free
Documentation License (GFDL).
REFERENCES
Alvesson, M., and S. Deetz. 2000. Doing critical management research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Alvesson, M., and H. Willmott, 1996. Making sense of management:
A critical introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Alvesson, M., and H. Willmott, 2003. Studying management critically.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Barton, M. 2005. The future of rational-critical debate in online public
spheres. Computers and Composition 22:177–190.
Biuso, E. 2007. WikiScanning. The New York Times Magazine, p. 53,
December 9.
Brooke, C. 2002. What does it mean to be ‘critical’ in IS research?
Journal of Information Technology 17(2):49–57.
Ciborra, C. C. 2000. From control to drift: The dynamics of corporate
information infrastructures. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ciborra, C. C. 2002. The labyrinths of information: Challenging the
wisdom of systems. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Collins, H. M. 1981. Stages in the empirical programme of relativism.
Social Studies of Science 11(1):3–10.
Connolly, T., L. M. Jessup, and J. S. Valacich, 1990. Effects of
anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computermediated
groups. Management Science 36(6):689–703.
Denning, P., J. Horning, D. Parnas, and L. Weinstein. 2005. Wikipedia
risks. Communications of the ACM 48(12):152.
Doolin, B. 1998. Information technology as disciplinary technology:
Being critical in interpretive research on information systems. Journal
of Information Technology 13(4):301–311.
Edgar, A. 2005. The philosophy of Habermas. Montreal: McGillQueen’s
University Press.
Edwards, P. N., S. J. Jackson, G. C. Bowker, and C. P. Knobel, 2007.
Understanding infrastructure: Dynamics, tensions, and design. Report
of a workshop on History and Theory of Infrastructure: Lessons
for New Scientific Cyberinfrastructures. Ann Arbor, MI: University
of Michigan.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research.
Academy of Management Review 14(4):532–550.
Elmes, M., D. Strong, and O. Volkoff, 2005. Panoptic empowerment
and reflective conformity in enterprise systems-enabled organizations.
Information and Organization 15(1):1–37.
Fitzpatrick, T. 2002. Critical theory, information society, and surveillance
technologies. Information, Communication, and Society
5(3):357–378.
Floyd, C., et al. 1989. Out of Scandinavia: Alternative approaches to
software design and system development. Human–Computer Interaction
4(4):253–350.
Flyvbjerg, B. 2001. Making social science matter: Why social inquiry
fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison.
New York: Pantheon Books.
Giles, J. 2005. Special report: Internet encyclopaedias go head to head.
Nature 438:900–901.
Habermas, J. 1970. Toward a theory of communicative competence.
In Recent sociology No. 2: Patterns of communicative behavior, ed.
H.P. Dreitzel, pp. 114–148. New York: Macmillan.
DownloadedBy:[UniversityofMichigan]At:22:5212January2009
58 S. HANSEN ET AL.
Habermas, J. 1976. On the pragmatics of communication. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. 1984. The theory of communicative action: Reason and
the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. 1990. Discourse ethics: Notes on a program of philosophical
justification. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action,
pp. 43–115. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. 2003. Truth and justification. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Hammond, A. S. 1997. The Telecommunications Act of 1996: Codifying
the digital divide. Federal Communications Law Journal
50(1):179–214
Hansen, S., N. Berente, and K. Lyytinen. 2007. Wikipedia as rational
discourse: An illustration of the emancipatory potential of information
systems. In 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences (HICSS ’07), January 3–6. Washington, D.C.: IEEE
Computer Society.
Hanseth, O., C. C. Ciborra, and K. Braa. 2001. The control devolution:
ERP and the side effects of globalization. ACM SIGMIS Database
32(4):34–46.
Heng, M. S. H., and A. de Moor. 2003. From Habermas’s communicative
theory to practice on the Internet. Information Systems Journal
13(4):331–352.
Hirschheim, R., and H. K. Klein. 1994. Realizing emancipatory principles
in information systems development: The case for ETHICS.
MIS Quarterly 18(1):83–109.
Hirschheim, R., H. K. Klein, and K. Lyytinen. 1995. Information systems
development and data modeling: Conceptual and philosophical
foundations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Introna, L. D. 1996. Notes on ateleological information systems
development. Information Technology & People 9(4):20–
39.
Introna, L. D. 1997. Management, information, and power: A narrative
of the involved manager. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK:
Macmillan.
Introna, L. D., and H. Nissenbaum. 2000. Shaping the Web: Why
the politics of search engines matters. The Information Society
16(3):169–185.
Irving, L. 1999. Falling through the Net: Defining the digital divide.
Washington, DC: National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Jessup, L. M., T. Connolly, and J. Galegher. 1990. The effects of
anonymity on GDSS group process with an idea-generating task.
MIS Quarterly 14(3):313–321.
Kallinikos, J. 2004. Deconstructing information packages: Organizational
and behavioural implications of ERP systems. Information
Technology & People 17(1):8–30.
Kanungo, S. 2004. On the emancipatory role of rural information systems.
Information Technology & People 17(4):407–422.
Kincheloe, J., and P. McLaren. 2003. Rethinking critical theory and
qualitative research. In The Landscape of qualitative research: Theories
and issues, eds. N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, pp. 433–488.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Klein, H. K., and M. Huynh. 2004. The critical social theory of J¨urgen
Habermas and its implications for IS research. Social Theory and
Philosophy for Information Systems. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Leiner, B. M., V. G. Cerf, D. D. Clark, R. E. Kahn, L. Kleinrock, D. C.
Lynch, J. Postel, L. G. Roberts, and S. Wolff. 2003. A brief history of
the Internet. Internet Society. http://www.isoc.org (accessed October
29, 2008).
Leuf, B., and W. Cunningham. 2001. The wiki way: Quick collaboration
on the Web. Boston: Addison-Wesley Longman.
Lyytinen, K., and R. Hirschheim. 1988. Information systems as rational
discourse: An application of Habermas theory of communicative
action. Scandinavian Journal of Management 4(1):2.
Lyytinen, K., and H. K. Klein. 1985. The critical theory of Jurgen
Habermas as a basis for a theory of information systems. In Research
Methods in Information Systems, eds. E. Mumford, R. Hirschheim,
G. Fitzgerald, and A. T. Woods-Harper, pp. 219–236. New York:
North-Holland.
Lyytinen, K., and O. Ngwenyama. 1999. Sharrock and Button . . . and
much ado about nothing. Computer Supported Cooperative Work
(CSCW) 8(3):285–293.
Markham, A. N. 2005. Disciplining the future: A critical organizational
analysis of internet studies. The Information Society 21(4):257–
267.
Mowshowitz, A., and A. Kawaguchi. 2002. Bias on the Web. Communications
of the ACM 45(9):56–60.
Mumford, E. 2003. Redesigning human systems. New York: Idea Pub-
lishing.
Myers, M. D., and L. W. Young. 1997. Hidden agendas, power and
managerial assumptions in information systems development An
ethnographic study. Information Technology & People 10(3):224–
240.
Ngwenyama, O. K., and A. S. Lee. 1997. Communication richness
in electronic mail: Critical social theory and the contextuality of
meaning. MIS Quarterly 21(2):145–167.
Ngwenyama, O. K., and K. Lyytinen. 1997. Groupware environments
as action constitutive resources: A social action framework for analyzing
groupware technologies. Computer Supported Cooperative
Work (CSCW) 6(1):71–93.
Orlikowski, W. J. 1992. The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept
of technology in organizations. Organization Science 3(3):398–
427.
Parameswaran, M., and A. B. Whinston. 2007a. Research issues in social
computing. Journal of the Association for Information Systems.
8(6):336–350.
Parameswaran, M., and A. B. Whinston. 2007b. Social computing:
An overview. Communications of the Association for Information
Systems 19:762–780.
Pickering, A. 1992. From science as knowledge to science as practice.
In Science as practice and culture, ed. A. Pickering, pp. 1–26.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pinch, T. J., and W. E. Bijker. 1984. The social construction of facts
and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology
of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science
14(3):399–441.
Porra, J. 1999. Colonial systems. Information Systems Research
10(1):38–69.
Rasmussen, D. 1990. Reading Habermas. Oxford, UK: Basil Black-
well.
Raymond, E.S. 2001. The cathedral and the bazaar. Sebastopol, CA:
O’Reilly.
Richards, E., and M. Ashmore. 1996. More sauce please! The politics
of SSK: Neutrality, commitment and beyond. Social Studies of
Science 26(2):219–228.
DownloadedBy:[UniversityofMichigan]At:22:5212January2009
WIKIPEDIA AND RATIONAL DISCOURSE 59
Sanger, L. 2004. Why Wikipedia must jettison its anti-elitism.
Kuro5hin.org, December 31.
Sawyer, S., and R. Southwick. 2002. Temporal issues in information
and communication technology-enabled organizational change: Evidence
from an enterprise systems implementation. The Information
Society 18(4):263–280.
Sharrock, W., and G. Button, 1997. On the relevance of Habermas
theory of communicative action for CSCW. Computer Supported
Cooperative Work (CSCW) 6(4):369–389.
Sia, S.K., M. Tang, C. Soh, and W.F. Boh. 2002. Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) systems as a technology of power: Empowerment
or panoptic control? ACM SIGMIS Database 33(1):23–37.
Sproull, L., and S. Kiesler, 1986. Reducing social context cues: Electronic
mail in organizational communication. Management Science
32(11):1492–1512.
Star, S. L. Forthcoming. Boundary objects and the poetics of infrastructure.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Trauth, E. M., and L. M. Jessup, 2000. Understanding computermediated
discussions: Positivist and interpretive analyses of group
support system use. MIS Quarterly 24(1):43–79.
Vi´egas, F. B., M. Wattenberg, and K. Dave, 2004. Studying cooperation
and conflict between authors with history flow visualizations. Proceedings
of the 2004 Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems, pp. 575–582.
Webster, J. 1991. Advanced manufacturing technologies: Work organisation
and social relations crystalised. In A sociology of monsters—
Essays on power, technology and domination, ed. J. Law, pp. 192–
222. London: Routledge.
Wheals, A. E., L. C. Basso, D. M. Alves, and H.V. Amorim.
1999. Fuel ethanol after 25 years. Trends in Biotechnology 17(12):
482–487.
Wikipedia Contributors. 2007a. History of Wikipedia. Wikipedia, the
Free Encyclopedia.
Wikipedia Contributors. 2007b. Researching with Wikipedia.
Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.
Wikipedia Contributors. 2007c. Wikipedia: Copyrights. Wikipedia, the
Free Encyclopedia.
Wikipedia Contributors. 2007d. Wikipedia: Reliable sources.
Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.
Wikipedia Contributors. 2007e. Wikipedia: Verifiability. Wikipedia,
the Free Encyclopedia.
Winner, L. 2005. Do artifacts have politics? In Technology, organizations
and innovation: Critical perspectives on business and
management, eds. D. Preece, I. McLoughlin, and P. Dawson, pp.
531–544. London: Routledge.
Wilson, F. A. 1997. The truth is out there: the search for emancipatory
principles in information systems design. Information Technology
and People 10(3):187–204.
World Intellectual Property Organization. 2007. What is intellectual
property? http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/ (accessed June 10,
2007).
Wyman, Charles E. 1994. Ethanol from lignocellulosic biomass:
Technology, economics, and opportunities. Bioresource Technology
50(1):3–16.
Zuboff, S. 1988. In the age of the smart machine: The future of work
and power. New York: Basic Books.
DownloadedBy:[UniversityofMichigan]At:22:5212January2009