0. What the decentralized web can learn from Wikipedia 🤓
Many people in the blockchain community consider @Wikipedia irrelevant for their work as it doesn't employ economic incentives.
We disagree and share our research findings below📒👇
Many people in the blockchain community consider @Wikipedia irrelevant for their work as it doesn't employ economic incentives.
We disagree and share our research findings below📒👇
1. Since its launch in 2001, Wikipedia has managed to create one of the Internet’s greatest public goods.
Its success is particularly impressive considering that the site is operated by a non-profit organization and most of its content is crowdsourced by unpaid volunteers.
Its success is particularly impressive considering that the site is operated by a non-profit organization and most of its content is crowdsourced by unpaid volunteers.
2. The way Wikipedia manages to coordinate so many people to produce such remarkable content is in our opinion well worth a look.
This is especially relevant to teams in the emerging decentralized web that look to employ human input in their mechanisms (DAOs, committees etc.).
This is especially relevant to teams in the emerging decentralized web that look to employ human input in their mechanisms (DAOs, committees etc.).
3. Wikipedia, at its core, is utilizing policies and guidelines that appear too informal to be of much use,especially without monetary or legal enforcement.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia…
And yet,these mechanisms have been remarkably effective at coordinating thousands of volunteers!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia…
And yet,these mechanisms have been remarkably effective at coordinating thousands of volunteers!
4. Changing a Wikipedia policy or guideline is no different than changing any other page on the site.
Its this fluidity in changing the rules that plays a key role in maintaining confidence in enforcing them. After all, people are more likely to follow rules they helped create!
Its this fluidity in changing the rules that plays a key role in maintaining confidence in enforcing them. After all, people are more likely to follow rules they helped create!
5. This is in-line with Ostrom's principles for governing the commons. 👇
cambridge.org/core/books/gov…
Drawing an analogy to blockchain-land, if these policies are Wikipedia's "protocol", then this protocol can be amended over time and its evolution is part of the protocol itself.
cambridge.org/core/books/gov…
Drawing an analogy to blockchain-land, if these policies are Wikipedia's "protocol", then this protocol can be amended over time and its evolution is part of the protocol itself.
6. Hearing that anyone can edit a Wikipedia page (incl. its policies & guidelines), no money is staked, no contracts are signed, and neither paid police nor smart contracts are used to enforce guidelines, an obvious question arises:
Why are the rules actually followed?🤔
Why are the rules actually followed?🤔
7. Wikipedia’s primary enforcement strategy is peer-based consensus.
Editors know that when peer consensus fails, final authority rests with certain, privileged, volunteer authorities with long-standing reputations at stake.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia…
Editors know that when peer consensus fails, final authority rests with certain, privileged, volunteer authorities with long-standing reputations at stake.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia…
8. Talk pages act as the first place for communication.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Talk…
And since talk pages capture a history of each editor’s interaction, both in terms of content and exchanges with other editors, they provide the basis for Wikipedia’s reputation system.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Talk…
And since talk pages capture a history of each editor’s interaction, both in terms of content and exchanges with other editors, they provide the basis for Wikipedia’s reputation system.
9. If initial efforts by the editors to communicate on the Talk Page fail, Wikipedia offers many additional solutions for cooperative coordination. These allow the disputants to get input from a (potentially) large number of content experts.
10. Some examples 👇
- 1-on-1 advice on how to conduct a civil, content-focused discussion from an experienced editor
- Facilitation by an experienced moderator, only available after lengthy discussion on the articles' Talk page
- 1-on-1 advice on how to conduct a civil, content-focused discussion from an experienced editor
- Facilitation by an experienced moderator, only available after lengthy discussion on the articles' Talk page
11. The last resort is a binding arbitration from the Arbitration Committee. This is the only option in which editors are not required to reach consensus on their own!
This mechanism has been invoked only 513 times since 2004, evidence that the escalation process does its job.
This mechanism has been invoked only 513 times since 2004, evidence that the escalation process does its job.
12. A notable theme of Wikipedias mechanisms is how uniformly cooperative they are!
In contrast to the blockchain space where most mechanisms are punitive, at Wikipedia no editor has something to lose beyond the time spent on the edit & their reputation.
In contrast to the blockchain space where most mechanisms are punitive, at Wikipedia no editor has something to lose beyond the time spent on the edit & their reputation.
13. This risk likely incentivises editors to make small, frequent contributions rather than large ones and to discuss major changes with other editors before they work on them.
In addition, reputation-wise, evidence of a well-conducted dispute adds credibility to the disputants.
In addition, reputation-wise, evidence of a well-conducted dispute adds credibility to the disputants.
14. Wikipedia seems to have found a way to incentivize participants' attachment to their pseudonyms without evidence of real-world identity!
The reason is that reputation in this community is based on a long-running history of small contributions that is difficult to fake.
The reason is that reputation in this community is based on a long-running history of small contributions that is difficult to fake.
15. And assigning power based on a long history of user edits means that the "governing class" necessarily changes slowly.
Comparing this with many token-voting schemes, Wikipedia's mechanism is therefore less subject to the “hostile takeovers” that some blokchain networks fear.
Comparing this with many token-voting schemes, Wikipedia's mechanism is therefore less subject to the “hostile takeovers” that some blokchain networks fear.
16. Blockchain networks which adopt similar reputation mechanisms and utilize them in their governance might expect to see two major changes:
slower evolution of governance and sticky users!
slower evolution of governance and sticky users!
17. Sticky users are a consequence of the slow accretion of power: experienced users tend to stick to their original pseudonym precisely because it would be time consuming to recreate a similar level of privilege (both implicit and explicit) under a new identity.
18. And while "slow governance" might not fit all use cases,it has its benefits.
Wikipedias encyclopedic mission, by its very nature, can never be fully completed. As such, its mechanisms dont focus on resolving conflicts quickly.Instead, they prioritize iteration over finality!
Wikipedias encyclopedic mission, by its very nature, can never be fully completed. As such, its mechanisms dont focus on resolving conflicts quickly.Instead, they prioritize iteration over finality!
19. We believe that this “iterative attitude” is particularly well-suited to assembling human input.
Humans often take a long time to make decisions, change their minds frequently, and are susceptible to persuasion by their peers.
Humans often take a long time to make decisions, change their minds frequently, and are susceptible to persuasion by their peers.
20. Finally, Wikipedia employs what we call "soft security", which means security that is largely reactionary, rather than preventative or broadly restrictive on user actions in advance.
The dangers of such a policy are obvious, but the advantages are perhaps less so.
The dangers of such a policy are obvious, but the advantages are perhaps less so.
21. Wikipedia’s security offers a level of adaptability and flexibility that is not possible with traditional security policies and tools.
Security is guided by the community, rather than by restricting the community's actions ahead of time.
Security is guided by the community, rather than by restricting the community's actions ahead of time.
22. And while various attacks have been performed successfully (vandalism and spam, sybil attacks, pay to edit), Wikipedia’s success is inspirational in terms of what can be accomplished through decentralized coordination of a large group of people!
23. Thank you for reading. 🙏
You can find our complete research here:
mathshop.io/blog/2019/10/1…
/fin
You can find our complete research here:
mathshop.io/blog/2019/10/1…
/fin
