What is the best way to send a confidential (not for publication) email to R. Stuart Geiger?

Thank you.

I’m honored that you chose to write about my presentation first, for your email and the opportunity to respond to your friendly criticism. You raised many important points… I don’t know if I can respond to all of them.

Wikipedia and democracy: My answer to this question was, I admit, too brusque. Here’s a more nuanced version of my understanding of democracy in Wikipedia. First, there are different norms of management in WP at different levels of the institution. At the level of content creation, decisions are made by consensus and - as we all seem to agree - that is a particular form that democracy can take. However, at higher levels of management - call it policy, or meta, or dispute resolution, or all of the above - WP displays a mix of democratic and non-democratic decision making. Administrators are elected; members of the ArbCom (the only body in WP with punitive authority) are selected on the basis of elections; select seats in the Wikimedia Foundation Board are elected; etc. I characterized WP as democratic because I think the spirit with which governance takes place is representative democratic and I see WP developing more democratic elements all the time, like the proposed ‘volunteer council.’

Also Stuart, you rightly point to the important distinction made by Jimbo, that WP is not “an experiment in democracy”. In some respects, I respectfully differ. I agree wholeheartedly that WP is not ABOUT experimenting with democracy, or anything else other than building an encyclopedia. I acknowledged this characteristic in my presentation but ran through it too quickly for lack of time. When I described WP’s “pragmatic orientation” I meant that WP is exclusively about producing the encyclopedia. I admire this characteristic and think it is essential to the project of WP. Yet while the purpose of WP is the production of the encyclopedia (not dem governance) there remains plenty of room for experimentation with different institutional structures to see which ones best facilitate the growth of the encyclopedia. I think the “social history” of WP is, in part, a series of incremental changes with different forms of governance in which some hierarchy was necessarily created (admins) but, in the main, representative democratic structures where ‘tried on’ and those that fit were kept. I realize this is highly subtle and that I could not address it adequately in my presentation, but I do not think there is a contradiction between the two phrases: “Wikipedia has experimented with and remains characterized by some forms of democracy” and “Wikipedia is not about experimenting with democracy; it is about writing an encyclopedia.”

I will only add that part of what I was trying to convey in my presentation is that I advocate for more democracy in Wikipedia not because of democracy’s intrinsic virtues (though I believe most of us agree on those) but because of my belief that pragmatically democracy will best facilitate the building of the encyclopedia. A megaproject constructed at the hands of a diffuse, decentralized, largely anonymous, often raucous community must find ways to remain responsive to that community. Governance in WP is constant balancing act between getting things done and not alienating the community that must do the work of building the encyclopedia. I believe that no form of governance will achieve this requirement better than direct democracy.

As for writing about Wikipedia in a language foreign to WP, well, as you say, that’s pretty much what academics do. And it’s not necessarily all bad as long as what we write is not aloof from what we write about and as long as it provokes some people in WP – or elsewhere – into reflective discussion. Also, academics in particular and persons who believe in a more just and democratic society have a lot to learn from Wikipedia. The production of knowledge and knowledge industries will only become more critical to future economies. Wikipedia is currently the only model of knowledge production that, while problematic, has proven successful while embodying ideals of democracy and minimal hierarchy.

Stuart, thank you very much for your criticism and your post. I have been delighted and complimented by all the feedback I have received in Wikimania and since.

Edo Navot

Thanks for giving me faith that there are still critical thinkers in the world.