Wikipedia Is Basically a Corporate Bureaucracy, Says Study (gizmodo.com)

Jennifer Ouellette, reporting for Gizmodo: Wikipedia is a voluntary organization dedicated to the noble goal of decentralized knowledge creation. But as the community has evolved over time, it has wandered further and further from its early egalitarian ideals, according to a new paper published in the journal Future Internet. In fact, such systems usually end up looking a lot like 20th-century bureaucracies. [...] This may seem surprising, since there is no policing authority on Wikipedia -- no established top-down means of control. The community is self-governing, relying primarily on social pressure to enforce the established core norms, according to co-author Simon DeDeo, a complexity scientist at Indiana University. [...] "You start with a decentralized democratic system, but over time you get the emergence of a leadership class with privileged access to information and social networks," DeDeo explained. "Their interests begin to diverge from the rest of the group. They no longer have the same needs and goals. So not only do they come to gain the most power within the system, but they may use it in ways that conflict with the needs of everybody else.""The Iron Law of Oligarchy, demonstrated by Wikipedia," wrote Sean Carroll, theoretical physicist at Caltech. "Rebel all you want, ultimately you become The Establishment."

Comments

There are reasons bureaucracies exist

[jfdavis668]

For all the complaints against bureaucracies, they are often the only way a large organization can run. As organizations grow and mature, they often evolve into bureaucracies. Bureaucracies are often a very efficient way of performing work. The main problem with them is they tend to become static, and inhibit future change. Parts of bureaucracies work to keep themselves in business, and resist change that would eliminate them, even if they become obsolete.

Re:There are reasons bureaucracies exist

[JaredOfEuropa]

Bureaucracies are not often a very efficient way of performing work, or even organizing it. What bureaucracies do is formalize and standardize business administration procedures, thereby making it easier to manage work... but that is not the same thing as efficiency! Usually it results in predictable mediocrity.

That's not an "iron law" though, at least I don't think so. Standardizing business processes in itself is a good thing, however I think we are not (yet) very good at designing those business processes and promote the right way to use them.

Re:There are reasons bureaucracies exist

[Archangel Michael]

predictable mediocrity

It doesn't even have to be mediocre, it just hast to be consistent. McDonalds didn't get to be a big huge restaurant chain by making good or even average burgers. It got there making passible (D-) burgers that were completely consistent from New York to Los Angeles.

That is the whole point of the bureaucracy, is to provided consistent services / products, and the more consistent, the better the margins (and profit). But there in lies the problem, the more consistent you are, the closer you are to the center mean (average) and the tighter the curve, the better consistency you have, which ultimately lowers the mean over time. The problem here, is that there is NO effort applied to making better quality at all, just consistency.

True greatness comes from those that are outside of the statistics of average that provide consistency. BUT that also requires the ability to fail, spectacularly. True greatness (unique) has great risk and artistry requires taking chances on the off chance of creating something spectacular.

To make it into a car analogy, you can build and engine to get 200,000 miles without much maintenance, or you can build an engine that can produce 500 HP that is always on the verge of blowing up spectacularly and needing all sorts of constant attention. Both are "great" in their class, however, one is more consistent.

This applies to all systems that are built. You can build for consistency or you can build for greatness. Once you realize that these systems built for consistency are driving towards the mean, then you can realize where the actual problems are when trying to move to greatness. That is one of the great barriers that I think Edwards Deming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming ) helped to break down. But his style processes MUST be a conscience decision. It is also something I think Breaks down the Bureaucracy that leads to mediocrity. Mid to Upper Management cannot adequately understand the process to make improvements to it, and therefore are incapable of modifying the process to improve it.

Playing King of the Hill

[TWX]

Wikipedia is playing King of the Hill.

The person that spends the most time making edits is the Editor. And there are a lot of self-important busy-bodies that will revert casual edits because they can. Some will attempt to justify it with official-sounding reasons for reversing, others will simply revert without much comment.

This is why I don't contribute to Wikipedia anymore, and why I do not browse it as much as I used to. The idea was interesting, but due to the way it was set up, the trolls run the place.

Re:Playing King of the Hill

[QuietLagoon]

...The person that spends the most time making edits is the Editor. And there are a lot of self-important busy-bodies that will revert casual edits because they can....

Worth repeating... The person that spends the most time making edits is the Editor. And there are a lot of self-important busy-bodies that will revert casual edits because they can.