Why do I keep writing about Wikipedia? Mostly it’s because Wikipedia is emblematic of the sorts of online collective action that I study. And I just love that all their dirty laundry is falling out. Actually, I don’t intend that to be mean - more that Wikipedia has, up until now, been driven by a sort of utopian ideal that masks a lot of the turbulence and reality under the surface. And we shouldn’t be surprised - this is what happens when people try to cooperate, online or not. It an everyday part of social systems.

Anyway, The Register is reporting on a new scandal in which - shocklingly - it turns out that Wikipedia is not as open and democratic as everyone thought - or hoped. Turns out a select group of upper-level administrators have been using private mailing lists to coordinate responses (read: attacks) on users they think are trying to undermine their power, among other things. My reaction is similar to when I hear about a White House scandal - it’s good to get a tiny window into the machinations of people in power, but we don’t even know the half of it.

An interesting question is, would Wikipedia be able to survive without the ‘rings of hegemony‘ that have now apparently sprung up? Would the challenges of coordinating the efforts of millions towards a stated goal (uber-open-online encyclopedia) overwhelm any truly democratic, egalitarian (dare I say socialist?) efforts? I have opinions, of course, but if anyone is out there, I’m interested in yours.