Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Social Studies of Science (4S) in Cleveland, OH. November 2, 2011 during the Panel on Using Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs).

1. MARKING TERRITORY:
Exerting Control over the Shape of Scientif c
i
Knowledge in Wikipedia
Stephanie Gokhman1 [sbg94@cornell.edu]
Jonathan T. Morgan2 [jmo25@uw.edu]
Mark Zachry2 [zachry@uw.edu]
Behzod Sirjani2 [behzod@uw.edu]
1. Cornell University, Department of Communication
2. University of Washington, Department of Human Centered Design & Engineering

2. Motivation
Language-based analysis of conf ict, authority and interpersonal alignment
l
Scientif c knowledge-sharing, commons in science and public perceptions of
i
science
What is the balance between the conversation about science
communication (the work that is of value to f t into the encyclopedia) and
i
engagement?
How do agenda-driven groups (WikiProjects) interact with each other and
with outsiders, and how does this interaction shape public scientif c
i
knowledge on Wikipedia?

3. What are WikiProjects?
A WikiProject is a group of editors that want to work together as a team to
improve Wikipedia. These groups often focus on a specif c topic area (for
i
example, women's history) or a specif c kind of task (for example, checking
i
newly created pages).
Examples of WikiProjects in science
Molecular & Cellular Biology
Physics
Geology
Volcanoes
Chemistry
Chemistry templates
Elements
Human Genetic History
Time
History of Science

4. How prevalent are WikiProjects?
3.7 mil Wikipedia articles, 93% claimed by at least 1 WikiProject
35,000 Total Currently Active Editors (5+ edits/month)
49,000 members associate with at least 1 Wikiproject
1,800 Wikiprojects Total WikiProjects
* As of 11/1/11, Wikimedia Foundation

5. New Science Production & Communication
Paradigms
"The journal RNA Biology, in collaboration with Rfam, has pioneered a new
model of scientif c publication where scientists are required to write a Wikipedia
i
article to go alongside their manuscript paper describing new families of non-
coding RNAs. At the same time, the Wikipedia article will also be under a full
peer review process." (Ning)
"Type any scientif c term into any search engine and it is likely that a Wikipedia
i
article will be the f rst hit. Ten years ago, it would have been inconceivable that a
i
free collaborative website, written and maintained by volunteers, would dominate
the global provision of knowledge. But Wikipedia is now the f rst port of call for
i
people seeking information on subjects that include scientif c topics. Like it or not,
i
other scientists and the public are using it to get an overview of your specialist
area.” (Bateman & Logan)

6. Conf ict/Coordination on Wikipedia &
l
Genrif cation
i
Bender & Morgan:
• Authority and Alignment in Wikipedia Discussions (AAWD)
• sociolinguistics
• social acts
• user types

7. Methods
Analysis of WikiProjects to demonstrate a variety of coordination and organization
practices in the collaborative creation process. Our research exposes relationships of
editors to both other editors and articles in order to better def ne these underlying social
i
processes in scientif c knowledge creation.
i
Intersection of two or more scientif c WikiProjects by analyzing interactions among
i
WikiProject participants on pages claimed by multiple WikiProjects
Coded all scientif c articles marked as "controversial" or needing "Request for Comment"
i
or "Request for Mediation" in the last 12 months
Qualitative coding of authority claims and alignment moves:
negotiation credentials
conf ict
l experiential
relationship-building forum (policy)
coordination external (citation)
social expectations

8. Themes:
Not really "exerting control" at all!
• The pattern that emerged was not so much that Wikiprojects were
involved in territorial disputes with one another, but that the projects
and their members guided and guarded scientif c content from
i
outsiders and agenda-driven individuals
• Previous research (Morgan et al. 2010) has shown similar patterns of
dispute between veteran Wikipedians and peripheral participants on
non-scientif c articles: e.g. Jyllands-Posten Muhammad Cartoon
i
Controversy
• Structure of conversation: delineated lists of grievances and
negotiated conclusions vs. unstructured work
So... When does the WikiProject come into discussion?

9. Themes: Cultural Embeddedness
Clash of inner and external Wikipedia policies and norms for the presentation of science
• Hierarchies within and external to Wikipedia and power dynamics: less about WikiProject
more about personal expertise
Wikipedians (especially Wikiproject participants):
• attempt to focus on presenting knowledge in an informative, encyclopedic manner
• focus on presenting the current scientif c consensus, often involving signif cant literature
i i
review
• focus on making the presentation of scientif c information conform to local policies (e.g.
i
reliable sources, neutral point of view)
Agenda-driven users (some Wikiproject participants, many peripheral participants)
• may attempt to strategically misrepresent the scientif c consensus, or present a lack of
i
consensus
• insist on a balanced (as opposed to neutral, in the encylopedic sense) presentation of
scientif c content, that includes equal weight given to different sides of the issue
i

10. Themes: Cultural Embeddedness
Attempt to focus on presenting knowledge in an informative, encyclopedic
manner
"If the article is to be a legitimate encyclopedic entry on a medical topic, then the
view purported ought to be a credible (expert) one, meaning articles like this one
are fated to look one sided because the expert community is as near a
concensus as a scientif c community can reasonably be expected to be." (from
i
"Vaccine Controversy")
"It would be dishonest and non-neutral to pretend that there are two equally valid
"sides" with competing facts. You know, "some people say the Earth is
round(ish), while others counter that it is f at" doesn't exactly have that
l
encyclopedic ring to it" ~ MastCell (Wikiproject Medicine). From "Vaccine
Controversy"

11. Themes: Cultural Embeddedness
Focus on making the presentation of scientif c information conform to local
i
policies (e.g. reliable sources, neutral point of view)
"...un-controversial facts should be stated as such. Adding un-needed qualifying
phrases is not only poor prose, but can lead the reader to make un-warranted
conclusions (such as the fact is controversial when it is not)." ~ Yobol
"...I don't think that is the case here, viz. "Studies have shown that the assumption
is fundamentally f awed", in fact, both supports and reinforces the general
l
consensus without sounding biased. Contrast with "The idea has several f aws", l
which frankly comes off as "The idea is f at out false". That, in my opinion, is a classic
l
example of both poor prose *and* bad taste." ~ Sebastian Garth
"The current statement is neutral. There is no controversy in the medical
community about this, and you have yet to present any evidence that there is.
Continuing to insist on a wording that artif cially qualif es a straight-forward
i i
statement that is supported by the WP:RS is a violation of NPOV." ~ Yobol

12. Themes: Cultural Embeddedness
Focus on presenting the current scientif c consensus, often involving signif cant literature review
i i
"Do you have any references that describe the two theories with equal weight or that [Multi-
Regionalist Hypothesis of Human Evolution] has surpassed Out of Africa? I have seen a few
papers (DNA) suggesting that f ndings may indicate this - however have not seen an overall shift in
i
views to this affect as the f ndings seem to be inconclusive.
i
Human evolution: an illustrated introduction 2005 "the out of Africa is still the most strongly
•
favored, with little or no suppor for the MRE"
Headhood, elements, specif cation and contrastivity: phonological papers.. 2008 -The currently
i
•
dominant view of evolution assumes that modern humans evolved in Africa appox 200,000-
100,000.
A new history of anthropology 2009 - "The multiregional model has also been discredited...."
•
Asian Paleoanthropology: From Africa to China and Beyond...2010 - "Although the "Out of Africa
•
I" model is widely accepted ....."
Out of Chaos: Evolution from the Big Bang to Human Intellect 2011 - The more likely and
•
generally accepted out of Africa model indicates modern human ...]
~ Moxy (from "Human Evolution")

13. Themes: Public Knowledge
Vaccine Controversy: presentation of pseudo-scientif c concept of "vaccine
i
overload"
o RFC believe this idea is f awed/biased
l
o wikipedia's rules of neutral point of view, reliable voices, scientif c validity,
i
credibility w/ explicit mentions of wikiproject guidelines
o dispute over wording:
 "The idea of vaccine overload is f awed for several reasons...." (f nal
l i
wording)
 Other proposed wordings
 "The idea has several f aws."
l
 "Evidence has shown that this assumption is fundamentally f awed." l
 "No scientif c evidence supports the idea, and it is f awed for several
i l
reasons."
 "The suggestion has caused many parents to delay or avoid
immunizing their children. Yet no scientif c evidence supports this
i
claim, and several f aws in the idea have been exposed."
l
o "Not what wikipedia should be talking about, what the world IS talking about"

14. Wikiprojects' role
Wikiproject guidelines used as mechanisms to increase the quality and
standardize the presentation of scientif c content
i
"Good citations would be welcome. Please see
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Reliable sources for advice about what sort of
sources to use, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) #Citing
medical sources for more advice about good citations. Brief y, the best sources are
l
systematic reviews in reputable medical journals, and widely recognized standard
textbooks written by experts in a f eld. The source you relied on heavily, namely
i
Halvorsen's new book (ISBN 9781903933923) doesn't qualify as one of these high-
quality sources." ~ Eubulides (from "Vaccine controversy")

15. Wikiprojects' role
Wikiprojects as mechanisms for mediating disputes of scientif c content,
i
possible sources of expertise
"The result of f ling an RfC in a situation [where] the problem is the use of primary
i
sources or some mistrust in their reliability... is that the problem escalates into a
larger-scale f ght with clearly def ned sides. ...If you had, say, spent f fteen minutes
i i i
with google to f nd the sources you wanted... or... alerted members of a related
i
wikiproject, the results would have been more productive." ~ siafu (from "Nasa
Astrobiology Institute")

16. Discussion
•Preliminary - Discovery of dimensions of interaction of groups in scientif c online spaces:
i
chose controversial spaces so we could f nd higher stakes examples of group
i
maintenance and negotiation
•Comparison of authority scheme: Are there differences in the way that political
controversial articles play out versus scientif c controversy? Are they expressing authority
i
in different ways?
•Generalizable patterns of interaction in open scientif c spaces and how these
i
interactions shape the face of public scientif c knowledge on Wikipedia
i
•Models of developing messages for public understanding of science in open
encyclopedic work: What does the scientif c community view as valuable to the general
i
public and how are these messages articulated? Who are the publics for which content is
directed toward?
•Power dynamics: members of Wikiproject versus members of a greater scientif c
i
community: is there a king of the mountain?
•(Not priority) Behavior of interactions are opposing to stereotypes of dominant scientif c
i
interaction: humor/sarcasm

17. Conclusion
Bridging themes between all of these articles together, we hope to
provide a robust view of the ecology of scientific Wikiprojects and how
they impact the presentation of all science on Wikipedia.
This research offers new insight into the shifting paradigm of scientific
knowledge creation through agenda-driven communities in open spaces
and provides better understanding of the social features that are integral
to public engagement and understanding in science.

18. Acknowledgements
Shawn Walker,
PhD Candidate, UW iSchool for contributing to this data.
The Wikimedia Foundation
University of Washington