Just what are we calling for here?
The recent Slate article “The Wisdom of the Chaperones” starts with “It’s getting harder to be a Wikipedia-hater.” You might think that means that it’s moving in a very positive trend, but author Chris Wilson seems to believe we are all being charmed by an ‘illusion’ of democracy at sites like Wikipedia and Digg.
Wilson is drawing on an in-depth article that notes trends in Wikipedia authoring to argue that, since relatively few people do the vast majority of the work at these two sites, that there is less of a democratic system at work than we think. But Wilson seems to be missing the definition of democracy here. Depending on your perspective, the top-heavy editing on Wikipedia is either unfortunate or irrelevant. What it is not, however, is undemocratic. To the point: If 100% of people chose to edit Wikipedia, 100% of them could. The limitations in place (contentious sites like George Bush are locked, for instance, although a solid discussion can get your point posted) run along the same lines as needing permits to gather huge groups of people. It’s not a matter of keeping you from congregating; it’s entirely about making sure sufficient safety precautions are in place. True democracy is about protecting everyone’s right to participate peacefully. Protecting people from flaming via a standardized (and, quite frankly, pretty liberal) editorial process is in no way undemocratic. It’s supporting a democratic environment.
Wilson totally loses me at two points in his article. The first is when he refers to Slashdot’s mod system as
perhaps the best example on the Web of a middle way. Slashdot, which draws on links submitted by readers, ordains active contributors with limited power to regulate comments and contributions from other users. […] The authority any one moderator commands is small, and the site’s official poobahs maintain control over which stories are featured at the top of the site.
How exactly is it that this is a “middle way?” This is, in fact, less democratic than Wikipedia’s system. First Wilson suggests that Wikipedia and Digg “effectively function as oligarchies,” followed quickly by “they are still democratic in one important sense. Digg and Wikipedia’s elite users aren’t chosen by a corporate board of directors or divine right.” If that is the basis of this argument, then why is Slashdot’s system – which is on a system of a chosen few, more of a “middle way” toward democracy?
The second place I get lost is in his discussion of the site Helium.com
Another compelling model comes from Helium.com,
a Wikipedia-like repository of articles and editorials. Its founder,
Silicon Valley veteran Mark Ranalli, compares his site to a capitalist
version of Wikipedia. On Helium, contributors compete to have the
top-ranked article on a given subject. As soon as you write an article,
you’re invited to pick your favorite of two articles on a similar
subject. Requiring someone to write before he or she rates creates a
more stable system: Rather than create a caste of creators and a caste
of peons, Helium encourages everyone to do everything.
Actually, this is the least democratic version of participation. Helium doesn’t “encourage” everyone to do everything, it requires participants to do everything, as opposed to being able to only contribute ones strengths. This is naturally going to reduce the number of contributors. If you don’t feel you can perform in all areas then you are not worthy of participating. Wilson seems to think this is a good alternative, “rather than create a caste of creators and a caste of peons.” What it does is create an extremely elite crowd of creators, a caste system for sure—what good is any capitalist system without a caste system?
Wilson ends his article with a call to action, “Digg and Wikipedia would do well to stop pretending they’re operated by the many and start thinking of ways to reign in the power of the few.” This, in fact, would be a move toward a less democratic process, a move toward a caste system, an oligarchy, a site run by “The wisdom of the chaperones”—not exactly a move in a direction of democracy.
