Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Offenheit als Organisationsprinzip: Offen für Diversität oder Exklusion durch Offenheit?

514 views

Published on

Vortrag im Rahmen der 60. Innsbrucker Gender Lecture, 03.12.2019, Universität Innsbruck

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Offenheit als Organisationsprinzip: Offen für Diversität oder Exklusion durch Offenheit?

  1. 1. OFFENHEIT ALS ORGANISATIONSPRINZIP
 Offen für Diversität oder Exklusion durch Offenheit? Leonhard Dobusch
 Institut für Organisation und Lernen 60. Innsbrucker Gender Lecture 
 03.12.2019, Universität Innsbruck
  2. 2. Offenheit als Organisationsprinzip
  3. 3. 11 EIRMA SIG III, 2005-10-20 Closed innovation Our current market Our new market Other firm´s market Open innovation External technology insourcing Internal technology base External technology base Stolen with pride from Prof Henry Chesbrough UC Berkeley, Open Innovation: Renewing Growth from Industrial R&D, 10th Annual Innovation Convergence, Minneapolis Sept 27, 2004 Internal/external venture handling Licence, spin out, divest
  4. 4. a lesser extent in the arts and humanities). 0 50 100 150 200 250 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 All SSCI B/M Figure 1.2 Growth of publications on open innovation in Web of Science Notes: Search criterion: “open innovation” in title, abstract or keyword or citing Chesbrough (2003a); All = SCI, SSCI and A&HCI; SSCI = Social Science Citation Index; B/M = Business or Management category (within SSCI)
  5. 5. Visitenkarte Digitale Offenheit: Unternehmen Beispiel: Buffer
  6. 6. Visitenkarte Werkzeug Digitale Offenheit: Unternehmen
  7. 7. Bild: Chris Potter, CC-BY 2.0, https://www.flickr.com/photos/86530412@N02/8334443952 Visitenkarte Werkzeug Haltung Digitale Offenheit: Unternehmen
  8. 8. Offenheit als Programm
  9. 9. “Offene Formen der Strategiefindung mit mehr nach innen und Außen sowie mehr von internen und externen AkteurInnen. Whittington et al. (2011, S. 531, Übersetzung L.D.) Transparenz Inklusion
  10. 10. Umfrage Dialog WertungInformation Transparenz Inklusion
  11. 11. Inklusion Inklusion≠
  12. 12. Wie verhält sich Offenheit zu Diversität?
  13. 13. Umfrage unter 5.500 Open-Source- Entwicklern auf Github: 95% männlich, 3% weiblich (Zum Vergleich: ~20% aller professionellen EntwicklerInnen in den USA sind weiblich) Quellen: http://opensourcesurvey.org/2017/; https://www.wired.com/2017/06/diversity-open-source-even-worse-tech-overall/
  14. 14. Quelle: http://www.taz.de/!5127514/
  15. 15. Quelle: http://derstandard.at/2000022296889/Studie-Wikipedia-wird-vom-reichen-Westen-dominiert
  16. 16. Quelle: http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/leben/gesellschaft/Der-Schwarm-bei-Wikipedia-schrumpft/story/11486176
  17. 17. Paradoxe Performativität von Offenheit?
  18. 18. Bild ShashiBellamkonda, CC BY 2.0, : https://www.flickr.com/photos/drbeachvacation/4623702054/
  19. 19. Non-performatives describes the “reiterative and citational practice by which discourse” does not produce “the effects that it names” (Butler 1993: 2) “ Ahmed, S. (2012, p. 117)
  20. 20. Wieso ist „offen für Alle“ nicht offen genug?
  21. 21. Exkludierende Offenheit
  22. 22. “Nicht-anonym Beitragende waren aggressiver als anonym Beitragenden Rost et al. (2016): Digital Social Norm Enforcement: Online Firestorms in Social Media, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0155923, Übersetzung L.D.
  23. 23. Fehlende Vielfalt trotz radikaler Offenheit? wegen
  24. 24. Bild: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Being_any_Gender_is_a_drag_-_World_Pride_London_2012_(7527764372).jpg,, CC BY 2.0, by xJason.Rogersx Spiegelbild gesellschaftlicher (Geschlechter-)Verhältnisse?
  25. 25. Quelle: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_Zero_1_Mumbai_Guy_on_phone.jpg Spiegelbild gesellschaftlicher (Geschlechter-)Verhältnisse?
  26. 26. Usability: Wiki-Syntax Quelle: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Editing_Wikipedia_p_11,_wiki_markup_illustration_1.png
  27. 27. 0 25 50 75 100 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 editcountinpercentperyearineachusergroup Anonymous users Bots Registered users Mehr Edits von Algorithmen (»Bots«): Aus: Müller-Birn, C./Dobusch, L./Herbsleb, J. D. (2013): Work-to- rule: the emergence of algorithmic governance in Wikipedia. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Communities and Technologies (C&T ’13), ACM, 80–89.
  28. 28. Wenn Deine Gruppe aus neun hilfreichen und höflichen Mitgliedern und einem unhöflichen, sexistischen und lauten Mitglied besteht, dann werden die meisten Frauen wegen dieses einen Mitglieds fernbleiben. “ Valeria Aurora (2002), http://tldp.org/ HOWTO/Encourage-Women-Linux- HOWTO/, Übersetzung L.D.
  29. 29. Pfadabhängigkeit (fehlender) Diversität? Quelle: Sydow et al. (2009, p. 692)
  30. 30. Wikipedia- spezifisch Gesamt- gesellschaftlich Geschlossenheit Mögliche Gründe 
 für Exklusion 
 in Wikipedia Hackerkultur Trolle »Bots« 0 25 50 75 100 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 editcountinpercentperyearineachusergroup Anonymous users Bots Registered users Figure 3: Development of edits per user group (registered user, anonymous user, bot) in the Wikipedia’s administrative names- pace 4. continuously increasing in number. Since bots have shown their usefulness for a wide variety of tasks in the main namespace, their scope has steadily expanded, and more edits have taken place in other namespaces. This contradicts a community guideline that suggests the avoidance of editing activities of bots outside the article namespace. However, in 2012, these “outside” edits accounted for over 40 percent of all bot edits. This emergence of bot activity all over the community project is an indication of the growing importance of these “lit- tle helpers” for the community’s activities. This relates to a study that analyzed the diversification of human edits over the different namespaces. In 2001, about 90 percent of all edits were carried out in the article namespace, but in 2006, this number had already decreased to 70 percent [15]. We assume that the change in the community engagement of bot operators also expanded the reach of bot edits. More interestingly, while human edits slowed down in Wikipedia’s community space, edits carried out by bots increased as shown in Figure 3. In this administrative space, 20 different bots have been active on average (disregarding wikilink-bots). In the next part of our analysis, we specifically look at the types of activities bots carry out. Our interest is twofold: first, we classify tasks executed by bots in order to understand their relatedness to existing social governance mechanisms. Second, we examine our assumption of increasingly algorithmic rule enforcement by bots. We collected task descriptions from bots’ user pages to examine the kinds of activities in which bots are participating in the Wiki- pedia community. In single, doubtful cases we matched edits with their task descriptions to identify discrepancies and exclude those activities. Based on these data, we defined general activity types that are indicated in the first column of the table 1. These general activity types were defined in three steps. During the first round, we coded existing task descriptions collaboratively (around 100) until we had an almost stable set of activities. In the second round, we separately coded the remaining task descriptions. In the third round, we checked the assigned codes and compared them with our own decisions, and collaboratively coded all task descriptions that needed new activity types. In order to create a shared under- standing of existing activity types, the second and third rounds were an iterative process. Newly introduced activity types were always cross-validated over the whole data set. We clustered the manually defined sets of activities in activity types (cf. second column of the table 1) and identified three foci of bot activities (cf. fifth column of the table 1): (1) the content focus, (2) the task focus, and (3) the community focus. The first category contains mainly bots that are active in the article namespace. These bots are created primarily to support the curat- ing activities of their operators (for example, by using Autowiki- browser – a semi-automated MediaWiki editor13 ) or to connect dif- ferent language versions of a page through interwiki-links. The second category comprises bots that are used to support the main- tenance work of editors by compiling working lists or by informing editors about existing status changes on articles. The third category - the community focus - refers to activities that are rather unrelated to encyclopedic articles; they are more related to community rules and their enforcement. Four bots have a community focus: the CopperBot, GiftBot, Items- bot and xqbot. The CopperBot is the German equivalent to the HagermanBot of the English Wikipedia [8] that is responsible for signing unsigned comments on discussion pages. The main task of the Itemsbot was welcoming new users to the German Wikipedia by leaving a message on their personal discussion pages. Probably because of the aforementioned community consensus against bot welcome messages, the bot stopped working within two months. In 2008 and 2009, the operator of the Giftbot requested a bot flag for her bot in order to correct spelling mistakes. In both cases, the request was denied. In July 2010, the third request was successful. This time, the bot tasks included the removal of processed flagged revision requests, the dissemination of a newsletter that contains information on new edits on pages such as polls, and requests for banning users as well. All these activities were much more fo- cused on specific community needs. We assume that the operator of Giftbot learned much more about existing rules and guidelines over time and was therefore much better able to meet the needs of her fellows. The last of the four community bots is introduced in more detail in the next section. We show in an exemplary way how the activity set employed by this bot changes over time. 5.3.1 Example: xqbot In October 2008, the editor applied for a bot flag for her xqbot in order to request speedy deletions of orphan pages14 or remains of moved pages. In November 2008, the bot flag was assigned and the bot started working. Soon after this, the bot activities included over ten different tasks such as correcting double redirects, fixing links on disambiguation pages, adding missing references tags in articles, and the setting of interwiki-links. All these tasks were mainly focused on quality improvements to encyclopedic articles. In 2010, the focus changed in terms of additional tasks. This was motivated mainly by a procedural problem that occurred during an administrator re-election. In January 2010, one participant initiated a discussion by question- ing the procedure to take care of obsolete votes [31], [32]. The 13 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowse 14 Orphan pages on Wikipedia are articles that have no or very few incoming links. Usability Spiegelbild der 
 Geschlechterverhältnisse Zugang 
 zum Internet Offenheit
  31. 31. Quelle: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Objective_Revision_Evaluation_Service_logo.svg »Objective Revision Evaluation Service«
  32. 32. »Objective Revision Evaluation Service« Quelle: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ORES_edit_quality_flow.svg
  33. 33. Wikipedia- spezifisch Gesamt- gesellschaftlich Geschlossenheit Hackerkultur Trolle Spiegelbild der 
 Geschlechterverhältnisse Usability Mögliche Gründe 
 für Exklusion 
 in Wikipedia Zugang 
 zum Internet Offenheit »Bots« 0 25 50 75 100 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 editcountinpercentperyearineachusergroup Anonymous users Bots Registered users Figure 3: Development of edits per user group (registered user, anonymous user, bot) in the Wikipedia’s administrative names- pace 4. continuously increasing in number. Since bots have shown their usefulness for a wide variety of tasks in the main namespace, their scope has steadily expanded, and more edits have taken place in other namespaces. This contradicts a community guideline that suggests the avoidance of editing activities of bots outside the article namespace. However, in 2012, these “outside” edits accounted for over 40 percent of all bot edits. This emergence of bot activity all over the community project is an indication of the growing importance of these “lit- tle helpers” for the community’s activities. This relates to a study that analyzed the diversification of human edits over the different namespaces. In 2001, about 90 percent of all edits were carried out in the article namespace, but in 2006, this number had already decreased to 70 percent [15]. We assume that the change in the community engagement of bot operators also expanded the reach of bot edits. More interestingly, while human edits slowed down in Wikipedia’s community space, edits carried out by bots increased as shown in Figure 3. In this administrative space, 20 different bots have been active on average (disregarding wikilink-bots). In the next part of our analysis, we specifically look at the types of activities bots carry out. Our interest is twofold: first, we classify tasks executed by bots in order to understand their relatedness to existing social governance mechanisms. Second, we examine our assumption of increasingly algorithmic rule enforcement by bots. We collected task descriptions from bots’ user pages to examine the kinds of activities in which bots are participating in the Wiki- pedia community. In single, doubtful cases we matched edits with their task descriptions to identify discrepancies and exclude those activities. Based on these data, we defined general activity types that are indicated in the first column of the table 1. These general activity types were defined in three steps. During the first round, we coded existing task descriptions collaboratively (around 100) until we had an almost stable set of activities. In the second round, we separately coded the remaining task descriptions. In the third round, we checked the assigned codes and compared them with our own decisions, and collaboratively coded all task descriptions that needed new activity types. In order to create a shared under- standing of existing activity types, the second and third rounds were an iterative process. Newly introduced activity types were always cross-validated over the whole data set. We clustered the manually defined sets of activities in activity types (cf. second column of the table 1) and identified three foci of bot activities (cf. fifth column of the table 1): (1) the content focus, (2) the task focus, and (3) the community focus. The first category contains mainly bots that are active in the article namespace. These bots are created primarily to support the curat- ing activities of their operators (for example, by using Autowiki- browser – a semi-automated MediaWiki editor13 ) or to connect dif- ferent language versions of a page through interwiki-links. The second category comprises bots that are used to support the main- tenance work of editors by compiling working lists or by informing editors about existing status changes on articles. The third category - the community focus - refers to activities that are rather unrelated to encyclopedic articles; they are more related to community rules and their enforcement. Four bots have a community focus: the CopperBot, GiftBot, Items- bot and xqbot. The CopperBot is the German equivalent to the HagermanBot of the English Wikipedia [8] that is responsible for signing unsigned comments on discussion pages. The main task of the Itemsbot was welcoming new users to the German Wikipedia by leaving a message on their personal discussion pages. Probably because of the aforementioned community consensus against bot welcome messages, the bot stopped working within two months. In 2008 and 2009, the operator of the Giftbot requested a bot flag for her bot in order to correct spelling mistakes. In both cases, the request was denied. In July 2010, the third request was successful. This time, the bot tasks included the removal of processed flagged revision requests, the dissemination of a newsletter that contains information on new edits on pages such as polls, and requests for banning users as well. All these activities were much more fo- cused on specific community needs. We assume that the operator of Giftbot learned much more about existing rules and guidelines over time and was therefore much better able to meet the needs of her fellows. The last of the four community bots is introduced in more detail in the next section. We show in an exemplary way how the activity set employed by this bot changes over time. 5.3.1 Example: xqbot In October 2008, the editor applied for a bot flag for her xqbot in order to request speedy deletions of orphan pages14 or remains of moved pages. In November 2008, the bot flag was assigned and the bot started working. Soon after this, the bot activities included over ten different tasks such as correcting double redirects, fixing links on disambiguation pages, adding missing references tags in articles, and the setting of interwiki-links. All these tasks were mainly focused on quality improvements to encyclopedic articles. In 2010, the focus changed in terms of additional tasks. This was motivated mainly by a procedural problem that occurred during an administrator re-election. In January 2010, one participant initiated a discussion by question- ing the procedure to take care of obsolete votes [31], [32]. The 13 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowse 14 Orphan pages on Wikipedia are articles that have no or very few incoming links. ?
  34. 34. Von grenzenloser Offenheit zu legitimer Schließung:
 Exklusion mit dem Ziel der Öffnung?
  35. 35. Bomis
  36. 36. Markenrechte Serverinfrastruktur Softwareentwicklung Erstellung von Inhalten Löschung von Inhalten Arbeitsteilung Foundation/Community
  37. 37. Nutzungsrechte in der deutschen Wikipedia keine alle keine
  38. 38. Markenrechte Serverinfrastruktur Softwareentwicklung Erstellung von Inhalten Löschung von Inhalten Arbeitsteilung 
 Foundation/Community
  39. 39. Arbeitsteilung 
 Foundation/Community
  40. 40. Arbeitsteilung 
 Foundation/Community Community- ManagerInnen?
  41. 41. Offenheit als Organisationsprinzip führt nicht automatisch zu mehr Diversität. Grenzenlose Offenheit ist 
 nicht offen genug.
  42. 42. KONTAKT E-Mail: 
 Leonhard.Dobusch@uibk.ac.at Twitter: @leonidobusch Homepages:
 bit.ly/LD-UIBK // www.dobusch.net Forschungsblogs:
 governancexborders.com // osconjunction.net

×