Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia, Dariusz Jemielniak. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA (2014), 293 pp.

Full text

We
meet
among
others
Ricardo,
a
first-generation
Mex-
ican—American
with
a
major
in
biology,
who
five
months
into
his
first
year
has
gained
15
pounds
while
working
9-5
Wall
Street
hours
(9
a.m.
to
5
a.m.
the
next
day)
and
whose
calm,
nonchalant
manner
has
been
undertaken
by
the
calculating
and
id-driven
culture
of
the
finance
industry.
We
meet
Chel-
sea
and
Derrick
who
half-way
through
their
first
year
experi-
ence
serious
troubles
in
their
long-term
relationships
and
Jeremy
and
Samson
who
have
become
extremely
depressed
and
have
started
smoking
weed
every
day
as
Goldman
Sacks
gradually
has
taken
over
their
lives.
In
the
process
of
becoming
Wall
Street
financiers,
the
young
people
experience
some
genuine
misery.
They
all
have
a
slave-like
existence
and
are
each
changing
personality
in
an
unpleasant
way,
reacting
aggressively
towards
others,
being
very
short
tempered
and
also
less
happy
and
optimistic.
On
top
of
this
their
actual
work
is
fundamentally
boring.
They
make
presentations,
pitch
books
and
Excel
models
in
order
to
prepare
client
deliverables
and
most
of
the
time
this
pre-
paration
work
is
read
by
nobody
and
goes
straight
into
the
garbage
bin.
For
all
this
torture,
the
aspirants
earn
approxi-
mately
$100.000
annually
and
money,
bonus
checks
and
high
roller
living
standards
become
one
of
the
primary
conversa-
tion
topics
they
share
with
their
co-workers.
In
between
the
individuals’
stories,
the
author
asks
him-
self
questions
about
the
financial
sector,
such
as
‘what
is
actually
going
through
the
heads
of
new
wall
street
recruits
at
recruitment
processes’,
‘what
kind
of
overachiever
goes
to
Harvard
and
joins
a
student-run
hedge
fund’,
and
‘where
is
the
dark
heart
of
Wall
Street’?
In
the
latter
search,
he
decides
to
go
to
Fashion
meets
Finance,
which
he
calls
‘social
Dar-
winism
in
its
purest,
most
obnoxious
form
.
.
.
take
several
hundred
male
financiers,
put
them
in
a
room
with
several
hundred
woman
who
work
in
the
fashion
industry,
and
let
the
magic
happen’
(Roose,
2014:
105).
The
result
of
the
self-
imposed
questioning,
which
include
that
the
author
goes
on
in-and-out
field
trips,
are
very
funny
to
read
in
a
slap-stick
style
humour
also
recognized
from
the
reportages
of
David
Foster
Wallace
(1996),
who
got
famous
for
his
depressed
ethnography
in
the
essay
‘Shipping
out’,
where
he
planted
himself
on
a
luxury
cruise-ship
and
observed
the
inside
world
of
managed
fun.
The
second-generation
Vienna-born
psychoanalyst
Otto
Fenichel
once
wrote
that
social
institutions
arise
through
the
efforts
of
human
beings
to
satisfy
their
needs,
but
then
become
external
realities
comparatively
independent
of
individuals
that
nevertheless
affect
the
structure
of
the
individual
(Fenichel,
1946).
This
remark
stresses
two
ele-
ments.
Firstly,
institutions
may
be
extremely
difficult
to
change
in
their
essentials,
when
they
are
once
established.
Secondly,
institutions
actually
do
modify
the
personality
structure
of
their
members
on
a
temporary
or
permanently
basis.
To
change
the
members
therefore
implies
that
one
first
need
to
change
the
institution.
The
Fenichel
reference
is
important
here
in
relation
to
Roose’s
financier
ethnography
because
underlying
his
investigation
and
the
way
in
which
it
develops
there
seem
to
be
an
assumption
about
that
the
culture
of
Old
Wall
Street
and
the
process
of
becoming
a
banker
will
change
very
little
—
even
in
our
post-crash
age.
Future
recruits
will
not
necessarily
be
more
moral
in
their
dealings,
than
the
ones
who
worked
on
Wall
Street
in
the
golden
years,
because—as
the
author
argues
—
nothing
about
the
financial
industry
will
be
improved
from
its
current
state.
The
Kappa
Beta
Phi
dinner
took
place
just
a
few
months
after
Occupy
had
protested
worldwide
in
opposition
to
the
moral
and
financial
offences
of
the
1
percent
financial
elite.
Nothing
seemed
to
have
fundamentally
changed
when
one
looks
at
that
event
and
the
uncaring
views
of
Wall
Street
barons,
which
the
author
sums
up
as
to
amounting
to
‘a
gargantuan
middle
finger
to
Main
Street’
(Roose,
2014:
214).
This
is
the
true
depressing
outcome
of
the
book.
Read
it
and
weep.
References
Fenichel,
O.
(1946).
The
psycho-analytic
theory
of
neurosis.
London:
Routledge.
Lewis,
M.
(1989).
Liar’s
poker.
New
York:
WW
Norton
&
Company.
Foster
Wallace,
D.
(1996).
Shipping
out:
On
the
(nearly
lethal)
comforts
of
a
luxury
cruise.
Harper’s
Magazine
January.
Anne
Roelsgaard
Obling*
Copenhagen
Business
School,
Department
of
Organization,
IOA,
Kilen,
Kilevej
14A,
4.
sal,
Frederiksberg,
Denmark
*Tel.:
+45
26200645
E-mail
address:
aro.ioa@cbs.dk
28
August
2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2014.08.008
Common
Knowledge?
An
Ethnography
of
Wikipedia,
Dariusz
Jemielniak,
Stanford
University
Press,
Stanford,
CA,
(2014),
293
pp..
This
book
is
a
true
netnography,
based
on
a
study
by
a
participant
turned
observer.
It
tells
the
story
of
the
habits
and
the
doings
of
people
that
can
be
called
‘‘Wiki-folk’’.
Many
of
us
Wikipedia
users
assume
that
the
virtual
encyclopedia
is
being
done
by
itself,
or
rather
by
us,
and
people
like
us,
submitting,
editing,
developing
—
self-organizing.
True,
the
life
of
every
tribe
consists
of
the
conduct
of
all
its
members,
but
behind
it
—
truly
behind
in
this
case
—
there
are
sorcerers
and
elders.
So
it
is
with
Wiki-folk.
Like
many,
although
not
all,
tribes,
Wikipedia
is
known
by
its
collective
product.
‘‘It
is
an
encyclopaedia
that
‘anyone
can
edit,’
which
nevertheless
has
highly
credible
content
(.
.
.)
in
fact,
it
is
much
more
popular
(and,
according
to
some,
more
factually
correct)
than
the
vast
resources
of
Encyclopaedia
Britannica;
in
as
early
as
2005
it
was
considered
to
go
‘head
to
head’
with
Britannica
in
an
independent
study
published
Book
reviews
159

by
Nature
(.
.
.),
even
though
at
that
time
it
had
one-fifth
the
entries
that
it
has
now’’
(p.
2).
And,
‘‘[w]ith
over
nineteen
million
accounts,
(and
three
hundred
thousands
users,
or
Wikipedians,
active
every
month),
on
the
English
Wikipedia
alone,
Wikimedia
projects
are
arguably
the
largest
colla-
borative
initiative
in
the
history
of
humankind’’
(p.
4).
Dariusz
Jemielniak
set
out
to
study
the
organization
of
this
‘‘nonexpert
open-collaboration-community’’,
puzzled
by
the
fact
that
it
works,
though
by
any
organizational
wisdom,
it
should
not
(p.
6).
In
fact,
the
analysis
in
each
of
the
chapters
evolves
around
one
of
the
organizational
paradoxes
of
which
there
are
plenty
in
the
Wiki-community.
The
first
chapter
presents
basic
facts
about
Wikipedia,
which
may
be
more
or
less
known
to
some
readers.
I
have
learned
with
great
interest
that
Wikipedia
uses
‘‘bots’’
(abbreviation
from
robots)
—
software
scripts
that
create
articles
automatically
(more
about
it
in
Morozov,
2013)
—
and
as
will
come
as
no
surprise,
as
of
April
2011,
91
percent
of
Wikipedia’s
editors
appeared
to
be
(gender
is
not
testable)
male.
An
internal
etiquette
is
fascinating
—
here
are
some
examples:
NPA:
no
personal
attacks
CIV:
civility
ASG:
assuming
good
faith
DNB:
do
not
bite
newcomers
COI:
avoid
conflict
of
interest
The
second
chapter
examines
the
first
Wikipedia
paradox,
for
which
Jemielniak
coined
the
term
‘‘parahierarchy’’:
this
amateur,
meritocratic,
egalitarian
community
has
apparent-
ly
‘‘established
stratification
and
very
real
power
play’’
(p.
31).
Jemielniak
belongs
to
the
group
highest
in
this
para-
hierarchy:
the
stewards.
Administrators
(admins;
Wikipedia
has
its
own
slang,
explained
in
a
dictionary
at
the
end
of
the
book)
are
further
down
the
parahierarchy,
but,
similar
to
line
managers,
they
play
an
active
role
in
the
production
process.
The
problems
of
parahierarchy
resemble
those
of
another
originally
collegial
institution:
the
university.
Quality
is
de-
cided
on
the
basis
of
mechanical
counts,
and
recruitment
interviews
(in
Wiki:
the
procedure
for
the
election
of
admins)
can
be
cruel.
Admins
positions,
which
Wiki’s
founder,
Jimmy
Whales
declared
were
‘‘not
a
big
deal’’,
actually
became
a
big
deal
to
those
admins
who
made
themselves
open
for
recall
(otherwise
the
function
is
permanent).
And
conspiracy
theories
flourish.
Yet,
as
Jemielniak
points
out,
it
could
be
that
the
meritocratic
and
egalitarian
values
espoused
by
Wiki
folk
make
them
(over-?)
sensitive
to
any
suspicion
of
an
emerging
hierarchy
and
of
power
games.
The
author
examines
these
issues
in
greater
detail
in
the
third
chapter,
dedicated
to
conflict
resolution,
using
the
example
of
one
of
the
biggest
‘‘edit
wars’’
in
Wikipedia’s
history.
It
concerned
the
correct
name
of
the
(now)
Polish
city:
Gdan
´sk
or
Danzig?
To
illustrate
the
extent
of
this
edit
war,
it
is
enough
to
say
that
in
two
years
nearly
1400
edits
were
made
to
the
article
on
that
city
on
the
English
Wiki-
pedia.
And
here
is
another
paradox:
it
is
through
conflict
and
its
resolution
(or
rather
attempts
at
resolution,
not
always
successful)
that
actual
cooperation
(in
the
sense
of
interac-
tion)
takes
place.
An
article
that
does
not
provoke
conflict
is
edited
by
a
series
of
editors,
but
they
work
on
the
text
sequentially.
In
cases
of
conflict,
voting
is
avoided,
as
consensus
is
one
of
the
guiding
values.
Yet
the
conflict
over
the
correct
name
of
the
city
had
to
be
solved
by
polling,
as
no
consensus
could
be
reached.
Edit
wars
of
similar
character
(names
of
places
that
suffered
colonial
or
military
occupation)
continue.
Jemielniak
was
able
to
distinguish
several
trajectories
of
conflict
that
were
not
resolved
by
collaboration:
elimination
of
the
conflict
(by
administrative
blocking
of
both
parties),
domination
(when
one
party
surrenders),
and
stalemate.
Surrender
is
often
not
proof
that
the
opponent
was
right,
but
that
the
surrendering
party
has
become
bored
with
the
discussion
and
has
withdrawn.
Thus
tiring
out
an
opponent
is
a
tactic
often
used
by
acombatants.
The
chapter
ends
with
two
interpretations
of
Jemielniak’s
conclusion
that
Wikipe-
dia
is
actually
‘‘a
community
of
dissensus’’
(p.
84).
One
is
the
suggestion
that
Wiki
could
use
a
facilitator
or
mediator
—
a
role
known
in
other
consensus-seeking
procedures.
The
other
is
that
‘‘social
conflicts
foster
creativity
and
innovation’’
(Jemielniak,
2013:
84
ibid).
More
surprising
is
the
topic
of
the
fourth
chapter:
that
Wikipedia,
this
nonhierarchical
and
non-managerialist
com-
munity,
permits
complete
monitoring
because
no
traces
are
ever
removed
from
it,
and
peer
control
is
therefore
total.
It
is
exercised
via
rules,
and
punishment
for
deviation
from
those
rules
—
primarily
blocking.
And
although
various
guidelines
emphasize
the
importance
of
common
sense
over
the
obser-
vance
of
rules,
the
number
of
rules
grows
exponentially.
Jemielniak
sees
this
as
a
sign
of
growing
bureaucratization,
unavoidable
in
large
and
long-lasting
organizations.
Yet
knowledge
and
appropriate
interpretation
of
rules
tends
to
favor
experienced
editors
and
to
disfavor
newcomers
—
another
building
stone
of
a
parahierarchy.
Another
consequence
of
this
reliance
on
rules
is
that
individuals
are
not
controlled.
In
Jemielniak’s
reading,
Wiki-
pedia
has
replaced
trust
in
people
and
their
credentials
with
trust
in
bureaucratic
procedures.
In
the
sixth
chapter,
Jemielniak
analyzes
an
event
that
has
seriously
challenged
this
trust:
an
impostor
who
claimed
to
be
a
university
pro-
fessor.
Although
the
act
of
creating
a
false
identity
did
not
meet
with
disapproval,
its
use
to
built
an
authority
did.
When
Jimmy
Wales
suggested
a
credential
check,
however,
Wiki
folk
voted
against
the
idea.
Credential
check
relates
to
external
credentials,
whereas,
the
Wiki
people
believed,
their
credentials
must
be
built
inside
the
tribe.
Thus
evoking
formal
internal
rules,
a
step
unavoidably
provoking
a
decrease
of
trust
in
mainstream
organizations,
was
judged
to
be
trust-increasing
in
Wikipedia.
Chapter
seven,
with
the
title
‘‘Between
anarchy
and
bureaucracy’’
is
key
not
least
because
it
presents
Wikipedia
as
it
is
now:
large,
bureaucratized,
and
looking
its
paradoxes
straight
in
the
eye.
Some
readers
may
point
out
that
Jemiel-
niak
underestimates
anarchies’
capacity
to
self-organize,
so
well
presented
by
James
C.
Scott
(2012).
He
is
absolved,
however,
as
Wikipedia’s
policies
distance
themselves
from
‘‘anarchistic
communities’’
(p.
127).
Furthermore,
the
Wiki
folk
are
—
willy-nilly
—
connected
to
bodies
resembling
traditional
organizations,
such
as
Wikimedia
Foundation
and
its
Board
of
Trustees.
Editors
may
be
amateurs,
but
software
producers
are
not:
‘‘they
are
full-time
employees,
which
in
the
eyes
of
some
Wikimedians
is
a
sin’’
(p.
140).
Chapter
eight
tells
a
fascinating
story
of
the
transforma-
tion
of
Jimmy
Wales’
leadership,
a
story
of
the
consequence
160
Book
reviews

for
the
general
debate
on
the
shape
of
leadership
in
quasi-
anarchic,
digitalized
organizations.
And
although
I
may
read
more
support
for
the
‘‘leadership
as
service’’
idea
(Czar-
niawska,
2008/2014)
than
the
author
intended,
the
story
reminded
me
that
91
percent
of
Wiki
editors
are
men,
and
youngish
men
at
that.
I
cannot
prove
or
disprove
that
it
would
be
different
if
women
ran
Wikipedia,
but
the
storyline
did
bring
to
mind
the
narratives
of
(verbal)
skirmishes
among
young
males.
In
the
last
chapter,
chapter
nine,
Jemielniak
ponders
the
question
of
what
knowledge
about
the
functioning
of
Wiki-
pedia
can
tell
us
about
the
future
face
of
knowledge
produc-
tion.
Tw o
issues
come
to
the
fore.
About
the
first,
the
unpaid
work
of
Wiki
people
(exploitation
or
ideal
work?),
it
can
be
said
that
Wiki
editors
can
choose
to
work
or
not,
whereas
contemporary
consumers
are
forced
to
do
a
great
deal
of
unpaid
work
for
the
companies
for
which
they
are
clients
(Dujarier,
2008).
The
second
issue
—
the
amateurism
of
the
Wiki
editors
—
can
be
turned
into
yet
another
paradox:
like
Jemielniak,
I
use
Wikipedia
in
my
research,
but
justify
it
with
the
opinion
of
an
expert
—
famous
historian
Norman
Davies
(2012).
A
third
issue
is
worthy
of
consideration:
the
possibly
increasing
role
of
bots
in
writing
articles.
I
agree
completely
with
Jimmy
Wales’
endorsement
of
the
book:
content-wise,
it
is
‘‘a
must-read’’
for
all
Wikipedia
users,
and
for
non-users
as
well
(if
there
are
such
persons).
As
to
the
form,
a
proper
reading
requires
skillful
jumping
over
references,
which
adorn
practically
every
sentence.
This
could
be
a
Wikipedian
habit,
however;
editors
are
not
allowed
to
enter
original
research,
but
must
always
refer
to
other
published
sources.
Yet
another
paradox
to
be
solved
by
an
academic
who
joins
the
Wiki
tribe?
References
Czarniawska,
Barbara
(2008/2014).
A
theory
of
organizing.
Chelten-
ham:
Edward
Elgar.
Davies,
Norman
(2012).
Vanished
kingdoms:
The
rise
and
fall
of
states
and
nations.
London:
Penguin.
Dujarier,
Marie-Anne
(2008).
Le
travail
du
consommateur.
Paris:
Editions
La
De
´couverte.
Morozov,
Evgeny
(2013).
To
save
everything,
click
here
—
The
folly
of
technological
solutionism.
New
York,
NY:
PublicAffairs.
Scott,
James
C.
(2012).
Two
cheers
for
anarchism.
Princeton,
NJ:
Princeton
University
Press.
Barbara
Czarniawska
GRI,
University
of
Gothenburg,
Sweden
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2014.09.006
On
habit,
C.
Carlisle,
Routledge,
UK
(2014),
277
pp.
We
all
have
them.
They
get
us
up
in
the
morning.
They
help
us
get
the
kids
into
their
clothes,
assist
us
on
our
commute
to
work,
structure
our
work-routine,
compose
our
diet
and
get
us
into
bed
in
the
evening.
The
force
of
habits
conditions
our
actions,
thoughts,
feelings
and
the
language
we
express
ourselves
through.
But
what
are
habits?
This
is
the
question
Lecturer
in
Philosophy
of
Religion
at
King’s
College
London,
Clare
Carlisle,
asks
in
her
well
written
and
insightful
little
book
‘On
Habits’.
The
central
premise
of
the
book
is
that
in
order
to
understand
the
nature
of
habits
we
must
understand
that
habits
are
what
the
Greek
called
a
pharmakon.
This
Greek
concept
refers
to
a
‘drug
that
may
both
be
a
cure
and
a
poison’
(5).
Habits
are
a
blessing
and
a
curse,
because
habits
are
simultaneously
‘the
rut
we
get
stuck
in’
(3)
but
also
what
gives
‘consistency
and
comfort
to
our
ever-changing
experi-
ences’
and
‘even
leaves
us
to
be
creative
and
free’
(3).
It
is
this
duplicity
in
habits
and
how
it
‘influences
knowledge,
ethics,
religion,
the
practice
of
philosophy,
and
perhaps
even
nature
itself’
(5)
that
the
book
investigates.
So
what
we
are
dealing
with
here
is
a
philosophical
book
that
as
such
does
not
explicitly
discuss
habits
in
management
and
organization.
However,
the
book
pinpoints
a
number
of
interesting
insights
about
the
duplicity
of
habits
that
raises
a
number
of
inter-
esting
implications
for
how
we
discuss
habits
within
manage-
rial
and
organizational
settings.
On
habit
consists
of
four
chapters
and
a
conclusion.
The
first
chapter
called
‘The
concept
of
habit’
deals
with
habit
as
a
pharmakon.
There
are,
as
Carlisle
writes,
two
general
ways
of
dealing
with
habits
in
the
history
of
philosophy.
The
first
tradition,
including
Descartes,
Kant
and
Sartre,
sees
habit
as
mechanical
repetition
designed
to
suffocate
thoughts
and
dull
our
senses.
The
other
tradition,
initiated
by
Aristotle
and
continued
in
Hume,
Ravaisson,
and
Deleuze,
sees
habits
as
the
very
disposition
which
brings
resistance
and
order
to
the
constant
changes
that
humans
are
subject
to.
A
key
aspect
of
understanding,
especially
in
the
latter
tradition,
is
what
Carlisle,
following
French
philosopher
Ravaisson,
calls
the
‘double
law
of
habits’
(7).
This
law
is
based
on
a
distinction
between
passivity
and
activity,
implying
that
habits
both
make
us
receptive
to
and
able
to
resist
change
in
our
envir-
onment.
For
instance,
a
university
professor’s
daily
habit
of
writing
at
a
particular
time
helps
build
a
resistance
to
pas-
sions
and
sensations
associated
with
how
and
when
to
write,
making
the
very
action
of
writing
more
efficient
and
effort-
less.
An
important
lesson
from
the
book
is
this
thick
descrip-
tion
of
the
ontology
of
the
double
law
of
habit
and
how
it
lets
us
understand
the
duplicity
in
habit
as
animated
by
a
single
principle.
The
second
chapter
called
‘Knowledge
and
habits’
brings
the
discussion
of
the
duplicity
of
habit
into
the
realm
of
epistemology.
The
chapter
asks:
What
relationship
do
habits
have
to
knowledge?
Are
habit
only
born
out
of
‘familiarity
and
association’
like
when
academics
at
a
conference
find
a
seat
and
then
return
to
it
at
each
new
session
claiming
it
as
one’s
habitat
(38)?
Or
does
habit
have
a
more
‘positive
form
of
knowledge’
(38)?
These
questions
are
discussed
throughout
the
chapter,
focussing
primarily
on
the
empiricist
philosopher
David
Hume
and
rationalist
philosopher
Baruch
de
Spinoza.
Book
reviews
161