This paper concerns the rise and fall of Wikipedia editor, ‘drork’ who was blocked indefinitely f... more This paper concerns the rise and fall of Wikipedia editor, ‘drork’ who was blocked indefinitely from the English version of the encyclopedia after seven years of constructive contributions, movement leadership and intense engagement. It acts as a companion piece to the recent statistical analyses of patterns of conflict and vandalism on Wikipedia to reflect on the questions of why someone who was once committed to the encyclopedia may want to vandalize it. The paper compares two perspectives on the experience of being a Wikipedian: on the one hand, a virtuous experience that enables positive character formation as more commonly espoused, and alternatively as an experience dominated by in-fighting, personal attacks and the use of Wikipedia to express political goals. It concludes by arguing that the latter behavior is necessary in order to survive as a Wikipedian editing in these highly conflict-ridden areas.
Feminist STS has long established that science's provenance as a male domain continues to define ... more Feminist STS has long established that science's provenance as a male domain continues to define what counts as knowledge and expertise. Wikipedia, arguably one of the most powerful sources of information today, was initially lauded as providing the opportunity to rebuild knowledge institutions by providing greater representation of multiple groups. However, less than ten percent of Wikipedia editors are women. At one level, this imbalance in contributions and therefore content is yet another case of the masculine culture of technoscience. This is an important argument and, in this article, we examine the empirical research that highlights these issues. Our main objective, however, is to extend current accounts by demonstrating that Wikipedia's infrastructure introduces new and less visible sources of gender disparity. In sum, our aim here is to present a consolidated analysis of the gendering of Wikipedia.
This paper concerns the rise and fall of Wikipedia editor, ‘drork’ who was blocked indefinitely f... more This paper concerns the rise and fall of Wikipedia editor, ‘drork’ who was blocked indefinitely from the English version of the encyclopedia after seven years of constructive contributions, movement leadership and intense engagement. It acts as a companion piece to the recent statistical analyses of patterns of conflict and vandalism on Wikipedia to reflect on the questions of why someone who was once committed to the encyclopedia may want to vandalize it. The paper compares two perspectives on the experience of being a Wikipedian: on the one hand, a virtuous experience that enables positive character formation as more commonly espoused, and alternatively as an experience dominated by in-fighting, personal attacks and the use of Wikipedia to express political goals. It concludes by arguing that the latter behavior is necessary in order to survive as a Wikipedian editing in these highly conflict-ridden areas.
Feminist STS has long established that science's provenance as a male domain continues to define ... more Feminist STS has long established that science's provenance as a male domain continues to define what counts as knowledge and expertise. Wikipedia, arguably one of the most powerful sources of information today, was initially lauded as providing the opportunity to rebuild knowledge institutions by providing greater representation of multiple groups. However, less than ten percent of Wikipedia editors are women. At one level, this imbalance in contributions and therefore content is yet another case of the masculine culture of technoscience. This is an important argument and, in this article, we examine the empirical research that highlights these issues. Our main objective, however, is to extend current accounts by demonstrating that Wikipedia's infrastructure introduces new and less visible sources of gender disparity. In sum, our aim here is to present a consolidated analysis of the gendering of Wikipedia.
The rise of networked technology and social media in particular begs investigation of the implica... more The rise of networked technology and social media in particular begs investigation of the implications of using Twitter as a political tool for improving listening by governments. Can it improve governmental responsiveness and government-citizen conversation in the face of public disaffection in representative democracies around the world, and how? Listening is often employed by governments as a rhetorical exercise undertaken for instrumental reasons to boost popularity when it is at a low ebb. Such disingenuous claims to listening risk dismissal and derision by increasingly cynical publics that are repeatedly subjected to governments’ misleading gestures. The question is therefore not only whether anybody is listening but also, ‘how are they listening?’ We argue that good listening constitutes an authentic representative claim (Saward, 2006) that goes beyond a procedural approach to democracy in which listening is restricted to a set of formal procedures. Good listening involves ‘listening to’, as well as ‘listening out for’, new and unexpected voices and issues on an ongoing basis and valuing the listening exercise as part of the democratic process in and of itself (Dobson, 2014).
In this paper we investigate the tension between growing voter disaffection at elections, the rising cacophony of political voices on social media, and governments’ claims to listen – sincerely or instrumentally – on social media. To do so we analyse the run-up to the South African State of the Nation Address (SONA) 2015 as a case of an online listening exercise conducted by the South African Presidency in response to increased public tension in the country’s democratic politics. As a case of a transitional democracy, the danger for South Africa is to become an ‘illiberal’ democracy, performing the rituals of a procedural democracy without their substance (Giliomee et al, 2001). We therefore ask whether the Presidency’s online listening exercise is just such an empty performance of the rituals of procedural democracy, or whether it constitutes a deliberative engagement in listening. We further consider what role Twitter plays in this exercise, and whether it has the potential to realise good listening practice.
We employ a mixed methods approach to Twitter analysis that integrates hashtag analysis with the qualitative following of key actors and interpretive analysis of their posts. We consider Twitter posts not in isolation but rather as part of the wider media ecology and as responses to, and part of a conversation with, offline events.
This chapter is forthcoming in Voltmer, K. et al.(Ed.). 2018. Media and Communication in Transitional Societies: Concepts, Conflicts, Cases.
Uploads
Papers
Books
Journal Articles
Conference Papers
In this paper we investigate the tension between growing voter disaffection at elections, the rising cacophony of political voices on social media, and governments’ claims to listen – sincerely or instrumentally – on social media. To do so we analyse the run-up to the South African State of the Nation Address (SONA) 2015 as a case of an online listening exercise conducted by the South African Presidency in response to increased public tension in the country’s democratic politics. As a case of a transitional democracy, the danger for South Africa is to become an ‘illiberal’ democracy, performing the rituals of a procedural democracy without their substance (Giliomee et al, 2001). We therefore ask whether the Presidency’s online listening exercise is just such an empty performance of the rituals of procedural democracy, or whether it constitutes a deliberative engagement in listening. We further consider what role Twitter plays in this exercise, and whether it has the potential to realise good listening practice.
We employ a mixed methods approach to Twitter analysis that integrates hashtag analysis with the qualitative following of key actors and interpretive analysis of their posts. We consider Twitter posts not in isolation but rather as part of the wider media ecology and as responses to, and part of a conversation with, offline events.
This chapter is forthcoming in Voltmer, K. et al.(Ed.). 2018. Media and Communication in Transitional Societies: Concepts, Conflicts, Cases.