Chapter 3: Good Faith Collaboration

All rules and guidelines add up to this; Respect! — Phoenix 15’s Law

規則もガイドラインもすべてはここに行き着きます:敬意を忘れずに。 — Phoenix 15 の法則

There are two complementary postures at the heart of Wikipedia collaboration: the stances of “Neutral Point of View” (NPOV) and good faith. Whereas other communities may have a culture of good faith (i.e., assume good faith on the part of others, and acting with patience, civility, and humor), few are concerned with producing an encyclopedia. The dovetailing of an open perspective on knowledge claims (epistemic) and other contributors (intersubjective) makes for extraordinary collaborative potential, and harkens back to the universal vision of increased access to information and social accord. Furthermore, perhaps an understanding of neutrality and good faith can serve as a rejoinder to a favorite quip about Wikipedia, also known as its Zeroeth Law: that while it may very well work in practice, it can never work in theory.1

ウィキペディアにおける共同作業の根幹には、相補的な態度が2つある。「中立的な観点」(NPOV) と善意である。善意の文化(つまり、他者について善意を仮定し、根気と礼儀とユーモアとをもって行動するということ)があるコミュニティは他にもあるかもしれないが、百科事典の製作に関わるものはほとんどない。知識の宣言(認識論的)と他の寄稿者(間主観的)とに対するオープンな観点をつなぎあわせることにより、途方もない規模の共同作業の可能性が生まれ、情報アクセスの増進と社会の調和という普遍性のヴィジョンが思い出される。さらには、中立性と善意を理解することは、第0の法則として広く知られる、ウィキペディアについての次の quip (要訳出)への切り返しとなるだろう。「ウィキペディアは実践ではうまく動くが、理論的には動くはずがない」1



Before engaging with Wikipedia’s collaborative culture, it is worthwhile to frame such an undertaking. (Again, my focus is on the English-language Wikipedia; comparative work between Wikipedias in other languages does show differences in conception of power, collectivism, and anonymity.2) I begin this introduction at the most abstract level by briefly explaining what I mean by “collaborative culture.” I also note that there is often a disconnect between written policy and actual practice within organizations; in offering a bit of history about how wikis came to be, I argue wikis help close the gap between policy and practice. I then explore the background, theory, and practice of neutrality and good faith by way of a conflict about the English Wikipedia’s “Evolution” article.


A Caveat about Collaborative Culture


Heretofore I have used the term collaborative culture in a commonsensical manner, but if pressed for further explanations on what collaboration or culture mean one can find many and varied answers. Indeed, authors have commented on the variety of approaches to “culture” across disciplines, including anthropology, communications, and history.3 Within organizational studies itself, Edgar Schein posits eleven different categories of how culture is commonly conceived. In this project, I speak of culture as the “way of life of a people,”4 the value-laden system of “meaning making” through which a community understands and acts, including its own maintenance and reproduction. Schein writes that “culture acts as a set of basic assumptions that defines for us what to pay attention to, what things mean, how to react emotionally to what is going on, and what actions to take in various kinds of situations.”5


Similarly, collaboration can be an equally provocative term prompting debate, for example, about the difference between coordination or cooperation and collaboration.6 Additionally, collaboration stands among other related concepts such as dispute resolution, conflict management, and interdependent decision making. Each of these notions, and their literatures, are useful but, alone, insufficient. For example, the notion of “dispute resolution” is surprisingly optimistic, as if agreement and harmony are the natural state from which disputes sometimes errantly arise and must be swiftly corrected. Yet to characterize social relations as inherently conflicted — as when Wikipedia is humorously characterized as an “argument engine”7 — is also mistaken. Nor is conflict necessarily a bad thing: legal scholar Cass Sunstein convincingly argues that dissent is a critical and generative contribution to society.8 For this reason, recent textbooks on the topic prefer conflict “management” to “resolution” and recognize that consensus and dissensus each have an important, and unavoidable, role in community. In this way Wikipedia is like the Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) communities as characterized by Steven Weber:

同様に、共同作業は、協調や協力と共同作業はどう違うのかなどといった論争6を呼ぶ同等に挑発的な用語であろう。加えて、共同作業は紛争解決、衝突管理、独立意思決定など関連する概念のあいだにある。これらの概念とそれらを論じる文献は有用ではあるもののそれだけでは不十分である。たとえば、「紛争解決」は驚くほど楽観的であり、まるで、同意と調和が自然状態であり、紛争は誤って生じることがあるがすみやかに正される、というように聞こえる。とはいえ、社会的関係が—ウィキペディアをふざけて「論争エンジン」7と表現するときのように—本来的に衝突に満ちているものだと表現するのも誤りである。衝突も悪いこととは限らない。法学者キャス・サンステインの説得力ある論によれば、非同意は社会に不可欠で生成的な貢献である8。これを理由として、近年の教科書では、衝突「解決」より衝突「管理」が好まれ、合意と非合意はどちらも重要で、避けられない役割を果たすと認識される。このような意味でウィキペディアは、スティーブン・ウェーバーが次のように表現するように、自由オープンソースソフトウェア (FOSS) コミュニティと似ている。

The open source software process is not a chaotic free-for-all in which everyone has equal power and influence. And is certainly not an idyllic community of like-minded friends in which consensus reigns and agreement is easy. In fact, conflict is not unusual in this community; it’s endemic and inherent to the open source process.9


Recognizing this, we may instead wish to refer to “interdependent decision making,”10 which appropriately shifts the connotation away from “conflict-is-bad.” However, much more is involved in Wikipedia production than decision making. Consequently, I use the term collaboration in Michael Schrage’s sense, which arose from his study of collaborative technologies: “collaboration is the process of shared creation: two or more individuals with complementary skills interacting to create a shared understanding that none had previously possessed or could have come to on their own. Collaboration creates a shared meaning about a process, a product, or an event.”11

以上を認めると、代わりに、「独立した意思決定」10に言及すべきかもしれない。「衝突は悪」という点から含意をそらすという点でこれは適切だ。しかし、ウィキペディアの製作においては、意思決定以外にさまざまなものが関係する。結果として、私は共同作業という用語を、共同作業の技法についての研究から生まれたマイケル・シュラーゲによる意味でつかう。「共同作業 collaboration とは共有された創作を行う手続きである。そこでは、相補的な技能を持つ二人以上の個人が、それまで誰も持つことのなかった共有された理解を創りだすために相互作用をする。共同作業は、手続き、成果物、事象についての共有された意味を創りだす」11

Therefore, my use of the term collaborative culture refers to a set of assumptions, values, meanings, and actions pertaining to working together within a community. And, in many ways my use is like that of media scholar Henry Jenkins’s notion of “participatory culture” in which consumer-only fans of commercial genres (e.g., sci-fi) are now creators within their own “fandom” communities. Jenkins defines participatory culture as one in which there are low barriers of engagement, support for creation and sharing, and some form of mentorship or socialization, and members believe that their contributions matter and they “feel some degree of social connection with one another.”12 By these criteria, Wikipedia would qualify.


Wiki, Practice, and Policy


Douglas Engelbart, a father of the modern computer interface, wrote in his essay “Augmenting Human Intellect” that computers would permit researchers themselves to benefit from the product of their work through a regenerative “feeding back of positive research results to improve the means by which the researchers themselves can pursue their work.”13 More than forty years later anthropologist Christopher Kelty observed this phenomenon among technical communities using the Internet. Likely unaware of Engelbart’s prediction, Kelty chose to call such communities a “recursive public”: a form of “social imaginary” through which geeks collectively conceive their “social existence” and are capable of changing the very means of discourse (i.e., communication protocols).14 I can think of no better example of this notion of “regenerative” or “recursive” feedback than Wikipedia.


To understand why, consider another complementary notion, Etienne Wenger’s “community of practice,” developed with Jean Lave. In this theory people are understood to pursue a shared enterprise over time yielding a common identity and understanding of their environment; they accumulate a rich repertoire of cultural norms and actions. In addition to actual participation/practice, Wenger’s theory provides for reification: “the process of giving form to our experience by producing objects that congeal that experience into ‘thingness.’”15 Whereas others have cast wikis as communities of practice,16 I find one of the most interesting facets of the theory to be the relationship between practice (e.g., creating an encyclopedia) and its “reification” (e.g., documenting the community’s practice). Wenger argues that practice and reification are not opposites, but coexist in a “duality of meaning” of interaction and interplay.17 However, in many traditional projects and organizations the documentation of organizational culture and process (i.e., reification) is often dramatically out of step with actual practice. But the wiki can change this.

それはなぜかを理解するために、もうひとつの補完的概念としてエティエンヌ・ウェンガーがジャン・ラヴェと開発した「実践のコミュニティ」 “community of practice” を考えよう。この理論では、人々は、共通のアイデンティティと環境についての理解とをもたらす共有された事業を時間をかけて追及するものとして理解される。ここで人々は文化的規範と行為の豊かなレパートリーを蓄積する。実際の参加/実践に加えて、ウェンガーの理論は reification も提供する:「その経験を『モノ性』に凝結させる対象物を生産することによって、 私たちの経験に形を与える手続き」15(前文は要検討。ウェンガーの著書は日本語訳あり)。ウィキを実践のコミュニティとして解釈する論はほかにもあるが16、私がこの理論についてもっとも面白く思う側面は、実践(たとえば百科事典を作ること)と「reification」(コミュニティの実践を文書化すること)とのあいだの関係である。ウェンガーは実践と reification は対極的ではなく、相互作用と interplay の「意味の双対性」のなかで共存するものだとする17。しかし、伝統的な事業と組織では、組織文化と手続きの文書化(すなわち reification)は実際の実践で劇的に out of step (要訳出)されてきた。ウィキには、それを変える可能性がある。

Wikis were born of an advocacy for a change in software development with respect to how application requirements were perceived (i.e., as patterns) and satisfied (i.e., agilely). In the 1990s a new way of addressing software requirements was becoming popular: the “design pattern.” Rather than confronting every new task as a new problem to be solved, it was believed that experience could be distilled into a shareable set of design patterns. (A pattern is a higher-level abstraction than that of the computer algorithm, which is a common way of addressing a particular computational task, like sorting a list.) For example, a software engineer might be confronted with a task in which a service acts on behalf of another. This might be an instance of the “proxy pattern” that might already be well understood. Ward Cunningham, an advocate of design patterns, attended a conference on pattern languages where he agreed to collect and post user-submitted patterns if contributors sent him a structured text file that he could then automatically process and post online. This was surprisingly difficult for many: “And I was amazed at how people who sent me files couldn’t follow even the simple rules. I was three pattern documents into this thing, and getting pretty tired of it already. So I made a form for submitting the documents.”18 This user editable repository, started in 1995, would come to be known as the Portland Pattern Repository and the first wiki.19


Furthermore, requirements, often perceived as patterns, would be satisfied differently too. Unlike earlier software development in which all requirements for a project were carefully collected and completely specified, and only then implemented, “agile software development” advocates argued these steps should be collapsed and iterated in small increments. Instead of a large collection of requirements going out of date, requirements are often specified as a set of user scenarios and related test cases that can be objectively satisfied and tested for regressions — to prevent fixes and new features from creating new bugs. The authors of the “Manifesto for Agile Software Development,ᾀ? including Ward Cunningham, wrote that they valued: “Individuals and interactions over processes and tools. Working software over comprehensive documentation. Customer collaboration over contract negotiation. Responding to change over following a plan.”20


A benefit of this approach is that at each step there is always some working code satisfying the requirements encountered so far, and the software is easily extended and adapted as requirements change, as they are bound to do. However, there was still a need for quickly, flexibly, and collaboratively discussing software, design patterns, and the principles of this new paradigm. The wiki, evolving from Cunningham’s user-editable pattern repository, satisfied these needs well, and over time, became a useful documentation tool for many others, including those attempting to write an encyclopedia. In fact, the ability to easily document one’s world satisfies a deep need in some Wikipedians, again placating the fear that doom might be averted if we learn from our mistakes:


[W]e need to document best practices, both for new people and for old people, so that we know what we are doing. If we do not document, we cannot learn from our history, and are doomed to repeat it.


The fact that one must document, document, document is ingrained in my psyche (I’m trained as a scientist, and work as a programmer). It is almost impossible for me to understand a world where documentation does not exist…. —Kim Bruning (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)21

文書化と文書化と文書化をしなければならないという事実は、私の心に染み付いています(科学者として訓練を受け、プログラマとして働いているので)。文書が存在しない世界を理解するのは、私にはほとんど不可能なように思えます。 –Kim Bruning (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)21

As we learned, early documentalists made great use of the index card; Ward Cunningham has also spoken about how useful index cards were to him. In his Wikimania 2005 keynote speech “Wikis Then and Now,” Cunningham noted that a piece of software he used when first thinking about software patterns and human collaboration was HyperCard.22 This Apple application was a popular hypertext system before the Web and relied on the metaphor of stacked index cards. However, Cunningham wanted a messier system in which one could talk about and refer to something that did not formally exist yet, hence the famous “red link” on wikis that points to a page not yet filled with content.23 Furthermore, he began to use real index cards when meeting with collaborators. Index cards proved a useful way for people to talk about their processes and requirements: one could spread cards on the table, write on them, and pass them around with others — serving as what the knowledge management literature refers to as boundary (spanning) objects.24 People would ask him: “help us find our objects” and handling the cards prompted information sharing between participants regardless of their status within the organization. Furthermore, like a red wiki link, people would often point to a blank area on the table where the nonexistent (not yet defined) card would eventually go: “They had need for a name for something they didn’t know how to say.”25 It’s striking that the index card, a source of inspiration from the beginning of the twentieth century, would inspire hypertext, which in turn would inspire use of the physical card, and then a new type of hypertext.

すでに取り上げたように、初期の documentalists は索引カードをよく使った。ウォード・カニンガムも自分にとって索引カードがいかに便利であったかを語った。ウィキマニア2005の基調講演「ウィキの過去と今」で、ソフトウェアパターンと人間の共同作業について考えたときに使った最初のソフトウェアは、Hypercard だったとカニンガムは触れた22。Apple のこのアプリケーションはウェブ以前に人気のあったハイパーテキストシステムであり、積まれた索引カードのメタファーに依存していた。しかし、カニンガムは、まだ形式的には存在していないものについて話し、参照できるような、より整理されていないシステムを欲した23。さらには、彼は共同作業者との会合でも現実の索引カードを使うようになった。索引カードは手続きと要求事項について話す際の有用な手段であることが明らかになった。カードは机の上に並べ、そこに書き込み、他の人に渡すことができる。このようにして、索引カードは知識管理の研究で boundary (spanning) objects (要訳出)と呼ばれるものとして働く24。人々は「help us find our objects」(要訳出)とカニンガムに頼むようになり、カードをあつかうことにより組織内の立ち位置によらず参加者のあいだでの情報共有が促進された。さらには、赤いウィキリンクのように、人々は、まだ存在していない(定義されていない)カードがいずれ行くことになる机の上の空白地帯をゆびさす。「何と呼ぶかまだわからないものに名前をつけることが必要だった」25。20世紀初頭の着想のみなもとであった索引カードが、ハイパーテキストの着想をあたえ、今度は物理的なカードの使用、そして新しい種類のハイパーテキストの着想を与えたことは衝撃的だ。

While it is increasingly difficult to find in Wikipedia articles, the red link does still exist, inviting others to fill in a bald spot of encyclopedic coverage. There is also the “stub,” one step up from the red link, an article with little more than a few sentences or paragraphs. Author and commentator Nicholson Baker considers the stub to be one of the most charming features of Wikipedia collaboration, likening it to an “unusually humble” ask for help.26 And, not surprisingly, wiki-driven editing pervades Wikipedia. That is, in addition to the encyclopedia articles, collaboratively edited using wiki, there are discussion pages about articles; pages in the Wikipedia namespace (or section) of the encyclopedia for Wikipedia policy and guidelines, the Meta wiki’s policy pages for all Wikimedia projects,27 and pages for discussing changes to the underlying wiki software. (Pages in the Wikipedia namespace are frequently referred to via shortcuts, for example “WP:NPOV” refers to the NPOV policy in the Wikipedia namespace.) Each of these is wiki too. There are even third-party wikis, such as Meatball, “a common space for wiki developers and proprietors from all over the Internet to collaborate”.28 The wiki fulfills Engelbart’s prediction of regenerative feedback, tightens the recursive turn of Kelty’s public, and converges with Wenger’s duality of meaning. Jean le Rond d’Alembert’s 1751 observation about the Encyclopédie still appears to be true, that “since there is some incontestable advantages in being able to convey and receive ideas easily in mutual intercourse, it is not surprising that men have sought more and more to augment that facility”.29

赤リンクはウィキペディアの項目で見つけることが難しくなってきているが、やはり存在する。赤リンクは、百科事典としての収録範囲の中で欠けた点を埋めるよう、他人に呼びかけている。「スタブ」という、赤リンクから一歩すすんだ、数文か数段落しかない項目もある。作家で評論家のニコルソン・ベイカーは、スタブはウィキペディアの共同作業のもっとも魅力ある点のひとつだと考えており、「まれにみる謙虚な」協力募集と表現する26。そして、ウィキに駆動された編集がウィキペディア全体を通じて行われていることも驚きではない。つまり、ウィキを使って共同作業で編集されている百科事典の項目に加えて、項目についての議論ページが、ウィキペディア名前空間のページ(あるいは節)、メタウィキの全ウィキメディアプロジェクト向けの方針ページ27、背景となるウィキソフトウェアの変更を議論するページとして、作られており(ウィキペディア名前空間のページはショートカットで参照されることが多い。たとえば「WP:NPOV」はウィキペディア名前空間にある NPOV の方針ページを指す)、そのどれもがウィキである。「インターネット全体から集まるウィキの開発者と運営者がが共同作業をする空間」である Meatball などといった第三者によるウィキもある28。ウィキは、再生産のフィードバックというエンゲルバートの予言を実現し、ケルティの大衆の再帰的 turn (要訳出)を制限し、ウェンガーの意味の双対性を収束させている。1751年のジャン・ル・ロンド・ダランベールによる『百科全書』についての観察はいまもただしいようである。「相互にやりとりする形で容易に考えを伝え受け取ることができることには疑いようのない優位性があるため、その装置を人間がどんどん拡張していくとしても驚くにはあたらない」29

Scholars have posited a number of ways in which wikis facilitate this collaborative augmentation. Networking technology and its related collaborative techniques can enable openness and accessibility (e.g., discussion lists, distributed software development, and wikis), furthering accountability and the socialization of newcomers.30 Also, people can communicate asynchronously and contribute incrementally.31 With wikis the timing and granularity of a contribution can be as marginal as fixing a typo on a page that hasn’t been touched in months. Wikis permit changes to be reverted so contributors can be bold in action and need not be brittle in response to the actions of others.32 “Collective creation” and coordination is facilitated by persistent documentation and use of discussion pages and templates.33 Automated tools can further aid users, and the collaboration these mechanisms facilitate is likened to “distributed cognition.” For example, “bots,” autonomous programs, can watch edits in real-time and revert them immediately (e.g., if an edit contains profanity) or list them as suspicious. Such information can then be followed by user applications that prioritize suspicious edits based on their own heuristics, such as contributor anonymity or previous warnings, and enable single-click reversion, user warning, and administrative notice.34 Even the ability to temporarily lock a page can be seen as a productive feature that permits the dampening of flamewars and the enforcement of cool down periods.35 Difficult issues in articles can be broken down: contentious material can be isolated and addressed elsewhere without impeding the progress of everything else; indeed, modularization in general is a powerful aid in interaction and content development.36 Additionally, wikis are wonderful repositories of a community’s practice and discourse. As Bo Leuf and Ward Cunningham write in their 2001 book The Wiki Way, “In any Wiki, you discover a sense of growing community that expresses itself through its archived writing”.37


Wikipedia Policy, Guidelines, and the Five Pillars


In principle, there are three levels of authority associated with Wikipedia norms: essays, nonauthoritative pages that may contain useful insights; guidelines, actionable norms approved by general consensus; and policy, much the same but “more official and less likely to have exceptions.”38 The line of distinction between guidelines and policy is rarely bright, as evidenced in discussions about the deprecation of “Assume Good Faith” (AGF) from a policy to a guideline.39 (A simple summary of this discussion is that AGF was rarely actionable since it involved assumptions about others’ motives while “Civility” and other corollaries remain “policy” because they can be tested and enforced against more objective features of behavior.)

原理的には、ウィキペディアの規範に関わる水準は、次の3段階に分けられる。便利な洞察が含まれることもあるが強制力のない私論、広い合意で承認された、行動へとつながるガイドライン、ほぼ同じだが「より公式で、より例外が少ないとされる」方針である38。「善意を仮定する」(AGF)を方針からガイドラインに格下げする議論39で示されたように、ガイドラインと方針の境目は明らかでないことがほとんどである(その議論の簡単な要約は、AGF は他者の目的への仮定を含んでいるため行動につながることがほとんどないが、「礼儀」とその系は行動についてのより客観的な特徴に基づいて判断され執行されることができるというものである)。

Wikipedia’s many norms are also commonly grouped together. For example, the “Policies and Guidelines” pages stresses these precepts: Wikipedia works by building consensus; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; respect other contributors; don’t infringe copyrights; avoid bias; and add only information based on reliable sources.40 The “policy trifecta” states the three central principles of Wikipedia collaboration are as a collaborator on an encyclopedia, use a neutral point of view; as a member of a community, “don’t be a dick”; and as a user of a fast and flexible wiki, “ignore all rules.”41 I find the “five pillars” to be the most complete and sensitive summary of Wikipedia collaborative norms:


Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments…


Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as “the truth” or “the best view.” It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises regarding neutrality, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed, hammer out details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.


Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit…


Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid conflicts of interest, personal attacks, and sweeping generalizations. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, follow the three-revert rule, and remember that there are 3,002,347 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming.


Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles. Although it should be the aim, perfection is not required. Do not worry about making mistakes. In most cases, all prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content.42


The first and third pillars of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and as something “anyone can edit” will be explored in subsequent chapters. Throughout the rest of this chapter I explore the second and fourth pillars: the norms of neutrality and Wikipedia’s good faith “code of conduct.”43


Neutral Point Of View and Good Faith: An Example


One of the many contentious articles I follow on Wikipedia is that on evolution. Frequently those with criticisms of evolution, predominately religious literalists, attempt to include these criticisms in the “Evolution” article. Yet, Wikipedia articles are not forums for debate, nor are their discussion pages: “Please remember that this page is only for discussing Wikipedia’s encyclopedia article about evolution. If you are interested in discussing or debating evolution itself, you may want to visit or Wikireason.”44

私がウィキペディアで追っている論争ある項目多数のうちのひとつは進化についての項目だ。その大多数が教条的宗教者である、進化に批判的な人が頻繁に「進化」の項目にそういった批判を記入しようとする。とはいえウィキペディアの項目は論争の場ではなく、議論ページもそうではない。「このページはウィキペディアにおける進化についての百科事典項目についての議論のためだけにあることをご承知ください。進化そのものについて議論したり論争したい人は、talk.origin か Wikireason をご覧ください」44

The stance of neutrality implies that contributors should abandon efforts to convince others of what is right or true, and instead focus on a neutral presentation of what is commonly understood about that topic. Consequently, much like a creationist might view the “Evolution” article, I appreciate the “Creationism” article’s thorough and dispassionate treatment of the relevant history and arguments, even though I might disagree with them. Once understood and practiced, the neutrality stance permits collaboration between those who might otherwise fall into rancorous discord. Therefore, as Jimmy Wales has noted, NPOV should be understood “as a social concept of co-operation.” In response to a question about objectivity and truth in Wikipedia — and the influence of Ayn Rand’s Objectivist philosophy on his views — he said “The whole concept of Neutral Point of View, as I originally envisioned it, was this idea of a social concept, for helping people get along: to avoid or sidestep a lot of philosophical debates. Someone who believes that truth is socially constructed, and somebody who believes that truth is a correspondence to the facts in reality, they can still work together.”45

中立性の態度は、正しさや真実性について他者を説得する努力を投稿者が放棄し、その代わりに主題について広く理解されていることがなにかを中立的に表現するべきだということを意味する。その結果、「進化」の項目を創造論者が見るのとおそらくほとんど同じように、「創造論」の項目における関係する歴史と議論を徹底的に情熱なしに扱うやり方について、私はそれらの議論に同意しないかもしれないが、そうしたやり方を賞賛する。ひとたび理解され実践されれば中立性の態度は、そうしない場合に確執のこもった不調和に陥りかねない人々同士のあいだでの共同作業を可能にする。したがって、ジミー・ウェールズが指摘したように、NPOVは「協調の社会的構想」として理解されるべきだ。ウィキペディアの客観性と真実性についての質問にこたえて、 — そしてAyn Rand の客観主義哲学に影響された観点で — 彼は「私がもともと描いていた中立的な観点の構想全体は、ある社会的構想であって、たくさんの哲学論争を避け、または脇において、人々が一緒にやっていくことを助けるためのものでした。真実は社会的に構築されると信じる人もいて、真実は現実にある事実との対応だと信じる人もいて、ふたりはそれでも一緒に作業できるのです」45

Even so, there is still a margin for disagreement about the proportionality of even “neutrally” presented views. How much of the “Evolution” article should be dedicated to creationist objections? “Verifiability” has an important role to play here, as recognized by Gizza’s First Law: “Those who believe that WP:NPOV refers to equal respect towards all verifiable perspectives are Wikipedians. Those who think that NPOV means equal coverage of all verifiable perspectives are trolls.”46 Obviously, those who cannot appreciate the relative weight of well-supported claims (i.e., the consensus of peer-reviewed research supporting evolution) will have a difficult time at Wikipedia. However, I would not actually consider such contributors as “trolls.” (While the term has taken on a general pejorative function, trolls properly signify those who post controversial or irrelevant messages with the intention of disrupting an online community.47)

それでも、「中立的に」提示される複数の観点についてさえその比率について意見がわかれる。「進化」の項目のうちどれだけを創造論者による反論に割くべきだろうか? 「検証可能性」はここでも重要な役割を果たす。Gizza の第1法則にも「検証可能な論点すべてがそれぞれ等しく考慮されるべきだということを WP:NPOV は言っていると信じている人はウィキペディアンである。検証可能な論点すべてを等しい量だけ掲載すべきだと WP:NPOV は言っていると考える人はトロルである」と認められている46。 よく支持されている(すなわち、ピアレビューを受けた進化研究で合意されている)主張に相対的に重きを置くことを歓迎できない人が、ウィキペディアで困難なときを過ごすのは明らかだ。しかし、私はそうした投稿者を「トロル」とは考えない(この用語は一般的にものごとを否定する機能を果たしているが、トロルは正式には、オンラインコミュニティの活動をさまたげる意図をもって、異論があったり関連性のない発言を投稿する人を指す47)。

Here, the technical feature of hypertext links can provide a calming effect. A complete of treatment of evolutionary mechanisms and its history as a concept need only mention there are related “social and related controversies,” which may merit their own articles. However, one should be careful in articles about controversy to avoid “content” or “POV” forking in which two articles with opposing points of view arise in place of a single NPOV article.48 Again, in taking a neutral stance one’s task is to describe the controversy rather than to partake in it.


Just as one can find contentious articles, one can also find apologies. If the stance of neutrality implies a willingness to put aside one’s own “point of view,” an apology is a potentially rich example of good faith. Consider the following exchange from the “Evolution” talk page. Salva31, an admirer of the conservative American columnist Patrick Buchanan,49 became increasingly frustrated with the “Evolution” article. After Salva31’s efforts to change the article were rejected, he tried to remind the scientifically minded contributors opposing him that “Wikipedia is not a battleground” and the removal of his text was not in “a spirit of cooperation.” In the conversation that followed, fellow Wikipedian Banaby dawson replied:

論争ある項目がみられるのとちょうど同じように、謝罪もみられる。中立性の態度が自分自身の「観点」をわきに置くつもりがあることを含意するなら、謝罪は善意を示す可能性がある良い例だ。「進化」のトークペーjいでの次のやりとりを考えてみよう。アメリカの保守的コラムニスト、パトリック・ブキャナンの信奉者である Salva3149 は「進化」の項目にいらだちを募らせていた。Salva31 による変更のこころみが却下されたのをうけて、彼は自分に反対する科学志向の投稿者に「ウィキペディアは闘技場ではありません」と忠告し、自分のテキストを除去していくのは「協調的な精神」にそぐわないと忠告した。この会話の続きは、同僚ウィキペディアン Banaby dawson による次の返答だった。

I’m sorry Salva but I do not think that your comments to this talk page really qualify either as in “a spirit of cooperation.” I think that you have been guilty of many of those things you are accusing others of. You have broken the above rules in several ways: You’ve insulted people by the tone you’ve used in discussion. You’ve tried to intimidate those who don’t agree with you by the shear volume of your text (on the talk page). You’ve not been civil or calm with your edits.

Salva さん、すみませんがこのトークページでのあなたのコメントも「協調的な精神」にそぐわないと思います。あなたが他者に向けた批判の多くにはあなた自身が当てはまっていると思います。あなたは上記の規則をいくつかの点でやぶっています。あなたは議論での言葉遣いによって他者を中傷しました。(トークページで)大量のテキストを投下することによって、自分と意見が合わない人を萎縮させようとしました。あなたの編集は礼儀を守っておらず、冷静には見えません。

As such although I have criticised others for deleting much of your text in which you do these things I would support them in moving all such material to a subpage in [the] future. Barnaby dawson 09:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)50

ということで、上記のことに関わるあなたの投稿を削除した他の人を私が批判したのはたしかですが、そういった箇所は将来的にはサブページに移すことを支持します。 Barnaby dawson 09:00 Apr 2005 (UTC)50

While dawson’s “I’m sorry Salva but I do not think…” isn’t a genuine apology, but rather is a form of the infamous “sorry… but,” it is nonetheless indicative of a type of discursive openness: “sorry” softens the statement, using a name promotes a sense of connection, and “I do not think” connotes a sense of fallibility. This was followed by an attempted de-escalation:

dawson の「Salva さん、すみませんが」の言い方も純粋な謝罪ではなく、悪名高い「すみませんが‥‥」の形をとっているが、それでも議論についてのある種の開放性を示している。「すみませんが」は主張をやわらげ、名前を使うことをはある種の近しい感覚を与え、「……でないと思います」は誤謬の可能性を含ませている。次には、対立をひきもどそうとする試みがあった。

Let’s not do that. As long as Salva 31 keeps it short and simple and on topic, there shouldn’t be a problem in future, right? Kim Bruning 10:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

それはやめておきましょう。Salva 31 さんがその部分を短く簡潔におさえ、本題を外れさせないかぎりは、将来問題となることはないでしょう? Kim Bruning 10:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another participant, a graduate student in biology,51 soon conceded to some incivility:


Also, to be fair to Salva, I was pretty uncivil to him, I think. Graft 12:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Salva さんについて公正を期しておくと、私は Salva さんに対してかなり失礼だったと思います。 Graft 12:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And within this conversation a genuine apology did manifest:


Thank you, Graft. This is obviously a debate that is sensitive on both sides. Likewise, I owe you an apology for the contributions I made in escalating the argument.Salva31 09:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Graft さんありがとうございます。これが双方にとって敏感な論争であることは明らかです。こちらも、議論の対立を深めさせた投稿について謝罪させていただきたいと思います。Salva31 09:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Like many articles and discussion pages on Wikipedia, the “Evolution” article has plenty of disagreements, arguments, and even downright hostile behavior. However, NPOV policy asks editors to change their (epistemic) perspective with respect to the claims they make about the world. Similarly, the broad notion of good faith, including civility and a willingness to apologize, asks editors to extend their (intersubjective) perspective toward other contributors as well-meaning but possibly mistaken human beings.

ウィキペディア上の多くの項目や議論ページと似て、「進化」の項目にはさまざまな不一致、議論、露骨な敵対的ふるまいがある。しかし、NPOV の方針は編集者に、(認識論的)観点を自分が世界について主張することに合わせて変えることを求めている。同様に、礼儀を保つことと謝罪をいとわないこととを含む広い意味での善意は、編集者に他の編集者への(間主観的)観点を広げ、善意だがもしかすると誤解のある人間として受け取るよう求めている。

The Epistemic Stance of Neutral Point Of View


Both in the first and present chapter I introduce the NPOV policy by way of example because it can be a confusing term. Misunderstandings about it arise in part because, as the Wikipedia article itself admits, “the terms ‘unbiased’ and ‘neutral point of view’ are used in a precise way that is different from the common understanding.” People are acknowledged to be subjective beings (i.e., “inherently biased”), but when used in the Wikipedia context articles are considered to be without bias when they “describe the debate fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate.” A more recent version of the page suggests one way to think about it is to “assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves.”52

第1章と本章の両方で私は例を挙げることによってNPOVの方針を紹介している。これが混乱を招きうる用語だからだ。その誤解の一部はウィキペディアの当該項目が認めるように、「『偏りのない』と「中立的な観点」の用語は一般的な理解とは異なる厳密なやり方で使われます」。人間は主観的な存在だ(すなわち「内在的に偏見をもっている」)ということが了解されるが、ウィキペディアの文脈で使われた時、「論争におけるいずれかの立場を支持するのではなく公正にその論争を記述」する項目は偏りがないと考えられる。このページのより新しい版では「意見についての事実を含む事実を主張する - ただし意見そのものは主張しない」52ものとして考えることができると示唆している。

This notion of neutrality is also difficult because it seems impossible to explain without recourse to an equally problematic constellation of concepts. If neutral means unbiased, and unbiased means fair, might fair mean impartial, or something else? Another source of confusion is the subject of the alleged neutrality: the platform, processes and policies, people, practices, or the resulting articles? Can bias in one contaminate the neutrality of another? Additionally, the use of the prefixes un and non- with words such as bias, fair, and neutral is indicative of one more problem. Although we might find a clear definition of what bias is, for example, that definition might not be as useful when we wish to understand what it means to be unbiased. Take, for example, the acronym POV which has acquired a derogatory connotation as the seeming opposite of NPOV. Yet, when the acronym is expanded, to accuse someone of having a point of view seems rather ridiculous, even to those who advocate the NPOV policy.53

中立性という考えが難しいのは、等しく難しい複数の概念の配列をふりかえらずしてそれを説明することが不可能であるからでもある。中立が不偏を意味し、不偏が公正を意味するなら、公正は公平を意味するのか、それとも別の何かを意味するのだろうか? もうひとつの混乱の源は、中立であるとされる対象がなにかについてだ。プラットフォームか、手続きや方針か、人々か、実践か、結果としての項目か? 一箇所にある偏りが他の箇所の中立性を汚すのか? くわえて、不や非などといった接頭辞を偏向、公正、中立などといった言葉につけることはまた別の問題があることの指標となる。たとえば偏向とはなにかの定義を明確にすることはできるかもしれないが、その定義は不偏向とはなにかを理解したいときに有用であるとは限らない。NPOVの対局にみえるものとして侮蔑的な含意を獲得したPOVという略語をみてみてほしい。この略語を展開してみれば、誰かに観点があることをとがめるのは、NPOVの方針を支持する人にとってすら、馬鹿げているにもかかわらずだ53

In order to bring some clarity to this, one might look to other uses of the notion of neutrality, including in gameplay, technical systems and standards, content regulation, and international conflict. From this, one can discern an understanding of neutrality as a sensitivity to the ways in which technical and social systems might be unfairly discriminatory; an impartiality and plurality between possible participants or positions; an ethos of sportsmanship and an adherence to known rules; and a submission to some authority for arbitration, as well as an expectation of accountability.54 This understanding does seem to fit the personal intentions and larger aspirations of Wikipedia contribution. In the Wikipedia context the notion of neutrality is not understood so much as an end result, but rather as a stance of dispassionate open-mindedness about knowledge claims, and as a “means of dealing with conflicting views.”55


Yet, one might ask, shouldn’t such a stance be the case for contributors to any encyclopedia, or even any wiki even? Historically, reference works have made few claims about neutrality as a stance of collaboration, or as an end result. While other reference works have had contributions from thousands of people, they were still controlled by a few persons of a relatively homogeneous worldview. Indeed, a preoccupation of traditional references is their authoritativeness, quite different from Wikipedia’s abandonment of “truth.” As Nupedia’s early editorial guidelines noted, “There are many respectable reference works that permit authors to take recognizable stands on controversial issues, but this is not one of them.”56 This is not to say that reference works are always regarded as being without bias: reference works have been central to many ideological battles. And pointing out the quaint biases of reference works is an amusing hobby of bibliophiles. For example, A. J. Jacobs’s lighthearted diary on reading the whole of the Britannica notes many remnants of Victorian cultural bias (e.g., a preoccupation with explorers, botanists, and the victims and mistresses of monarchs).57 Or, consider a Wikipedian’s description of his 1898 copy of Pear’s Cyclopedia:

とはいえ、そのような立場はどんな百科事典、さらにはどんなウィキにも当てはまるのではないか、と疑問におもわれるかもしれない。歴史的にレファレンス資料は、共同作業における立場または成果物としての中立性を主張することがほとんどない。他のレファレンス資料も何千人もの人々からの貢献をうけていたが、それでも比較的同質の世界観をもつ少数の人々によって管理されていた。伝統的なレファレンス資料を支配していたのはまさに、その権威づけであり、ウィキペディアの「真実」の放棄とは非常に異なる。ニューペディアの初期の編集ガイドラインで指摘されたように、「敬意を払うべきレファレンス資料のなかにも、論争のある問題について著者が明確な立場をとることを許すものは多数あります。しかし、この百科事典はそうではありません」56。といっても、レファレンス資料がいつも偏向のないものとして受け取られていたというわけではない。レファレンス資料はイデオロギー的論争の中心的な場だった。レファレンス資料にある巧妙な偏向をみつけだすことは書痴のたのしみのひとつだった。たとえば、ブリタニカ全体の読書をつづったA. J. ジェイコブの軽妙な日記では、ヴィクトリア朝文化にもとづく偏向のかおりが様々にあることが指摘されている(探検、植物学、王制 への傾倒など)57。あるいは、あるウィキペディアンによる 1898年版 Pear’s Cyclopedia の次の説明をみてみてほしい。

It had a general encylopedic section. I think the most wonderfully opinionated article I found in this was on Russia, which after a few breathless passages on how wonderful and civilised the place was ended with “… which is why Russia simply must get a port on the Mediterranean!” Extreme case, but not rare…58

そこには一般的な百科事典的な箇所がある。私が見たなかでもっともみごとに意見づけされた項目はロシアについてのもので、ロシアがいかにすばらしく文明化された地であるかを息つくまもなく語ったあとに「ロシアが地中海に港をかまえなければならない理由はまさにこのことによる」と締めくくっている! 極端な例だが、めずらしいともいえない……。58

The concept of neutrality was also absent at the birth of the wiki, which, as described, was a platform for advocating a particular type of software development. Instead, neutrality arose in the context of Wikipedia’s predecessor, Nupedia, and the philosophical interests of its cofounders. Sanger’s doctoral dissertation in philosophy focused on the thorny aspects of justifying knowledge and was opaquely entitled, as they are apt to be: “Epistemic Circularity: an Essay on the Justification of Standards of Justification.”59 Wales, for his part, was not a professional philosopher, but as was not uncommon among early amateur Net philosophers, he was an Objectivist, in the Ayn Rand tradition, and moderated an email list dedicated to the topic.60 Sanger recounts that both he and Wales were in agreement on the importance of the principle of neutrality, which was called “nonbiased” at the time:

中立性の概念はウィキの誕生にもともなっていなかった。ウィキはすでに説明したように、特定の種類のソフトウェア開発をひろめるためのプラットフォームだった。中立性はウィキではなく、ウィキペディアの祖先ヌーペディアとその共同創設者たちの哲学的興味から起こった。サンガーの哲学の博士論文は知識の正当化における複雑な側面の数々に焦点をあてており、ふさわしく不透明な表題「Epistemic Circularity: an Essay on the Justification of Standards of Justification」59(要訳出)がつけられている。ウェールズのほうは、職業的な哲学者ではなかったが、初期のアマチュアのネット哲学者の例にもれず、Ayn Rand の伝統にしたがう客観主義者(訳語要検討)で、その主題を専門に扱うメーリングリスト60をモデレートしていた。サンガーの語るところによると、彼とウェールズはどちらも中立性、当時は「不偏」と呼ばれたものの原理が重要だということについて一致していた。

Also, I am fairly sure that one of the first policies that Jimmy and I agreed upon was a “nonbias” or neutrality policy. I know I was extremely insistent upon it from the beginning, because neutrality has been a hobby-horse of mine for a very long time, and one of my guiding principles in writing “Sanger’s Review.” Neutrality, we agreed, required that articles should not represent any one point of view on controversial subjects, but instead fairly represent all sides.61

それに、ジミーと私が一致した最初の原理のひとつが「不偏」、あるいは中立性の方針だったということはほぼ間違いないと思います。私は最初からこのことについては非情に頑固でしたね。中立性はずっとながいあいだ私のこころから離れたことがありません。「サンガー批評」を書いたときの guiding principles (要訳出)の一つでもあります。私たちが一致したのは、論争のある主題について、中立性にとって必要なのは、項目がひとつの観点だけを提示すべきではなく、すべての立場を公正に提示すべきだということでした。61

While Sanger and Wales agreed in principle at the outset, they have since expressed differences about the shift from the term unbiased to neutral point of view. At the start of Wikipedia, Sanger had ported Nupedia’s “Avoid Bias” under Wikipedia’s “Policies to Consider,” but this policy was soon preempted/subsumed by Wales’s “Neutral Point of View” article.62 Sanger has since noted that he didn’t approve of this shift as it causes confusion (e.g., using the expression “POV” as the opposite of “NPOV,” when “biased” is preferable).63 Not surprisingly, now that Sanger has started the encyclopedic project Citizendium, its “Neutrality Policy” favors the term unbiased over neutral point of view.64 Yet, before this recent difference about naming, at the outset of the Nupedia project Sanger and Wales were in agreement when challenged on the naíveté and/or impossibility of the policy. Sanger responded to the question of bias by invoking a principal that neutral contributions should lack ideological flavor:

サンガーとウェールズは原則として当初は一致していたが、不偏という用語から中立的な観点という用語に切り替える際に差異をあらわした。ウィキペディアの開始時、サンガーはウィキペディアの「考慮すべき方針」にヌーペディアの「偏向を避ける」を移植した。しかしこの方針はすぐにウェールズの「中立的な観点」に吸収合併された62。サンガーは以来、混乱を招く(たとえば、「偏向している」とすべきところで、「POV」という表現をNPOVの反対の意味で遣うこと)としてこの切り替えを認めないと述べている63。サンガーが百科事典計画 Citezendium をはじめたいまとなっては、そこにある「中立性の方針」が中立的な観点よりも不偏という用語を好んで使っている64ことは驚きではないだろう。とはいえ、この新しい名称の違いがうまれるまでは、ヌーペディア計画の開始当初、この方針のナイーヴさと不可能性とを問題視されたとき、サンガーとウェールズは一致していた。サンガーは偏向についての問いに対して、中立的な投稿はイデオロギー的成分を欠いていなければならないという原則をたてて回答した。

Nupedia aims to be as unbiased as possible; of course, some people will regard this as a political statement. We can’t make everyone happy in this regard. In any event, we intend to represent all points of view, including those held by any significant minority of experts in a field, as fairly as possible. This would include creationists, Marxists, capitalists, and all manner of incendiary points of view. This should make for interesting reading at the very least. It should be added that Nupedia’s contributors are expected to keep their own views in the background as much as possible. In other words, the point isn’t merely to mention other views not favored by an article’s author; it is to write in such a way that one cannot tell what view is favored by the article’s author.65

ヌーペディアはできるかぎり偏向のないものになることを目指しています。もちろん、これ を政治的主張とみなす人もいるでしょう。その意味では誰もをしあわせにできるわけではありません。私たちは何があろうとも、どれほど小さくともある分野の有効な少数派である専門家の観点であれば、できるかぎり公正に、すべての観点を提示しようとします。創造論者、マルクス主義者、資本主義者、あらゆる反逆的(訳語要検討)な観点がそこには含まれます。これは少なくとも面白い読み物をうみだすでしょう。ヌーペディアの投稿者は自分自身の観点をできるだけ背景にとどめておくことが期待されるということも付け加えておきましょう。いいかえるなら、重要なのは、項目の著者は好まない観点に触れるべきというだけではなく、どの観点が項目の著者の好みであるかが分からないようなやり方で書くべきということです。65

The notion of not being able to tell the predilection of a contributor, a sort of ideological anonymity, is more fully developed in a corollary of NPOV, “Writing for the Enemy”:


Writing for the enemy is the process of explaining another person’s point of view as clearly and fairly as you can. The intent is to satisfy the adherents and advocates of that POV that you understand their claims and arguments…. Writing for the enemy contributes to the NPOV of Wikipedia. Wikipedians often must learn to sacrifice their own viewpoints to the greater good.66

敵のために書くことは、別の人の観点をできるかぎり分かりやすく公正に説明する手続きです。その趣旨は、あなたがそのPOVの信奉者と支持者の主張と議論を理解したと彼らに納得してもらうということです。敵のために書くことはウィキペディアのNPOVに寄与します。for the greater good (要訳出) ウィキペディアンは自分自身の観点を犠牲にすることを学ばなければならなくなることが少なくありません。66

For his part, Wales responded to someone troubled with the notion of “unbiased” by acknowledging the challenges and the importance of avoiding bias:


Surely you will agree that there are more or less accurate, objective, fair, [un]biased ways of putting things. We should simply strive to eliminate all the problems that we can, and remain constantly open to sensible revisions. Will this be perfect? Of course not. But it is all we can do and it is the least we can do…. if you are trying to say that someone, somewhere will always accuse us of bias, I’m sure you’re right. But we should nonetheless try our best to be objective. It doesn’t strike me as particularly difficult. We will want to present a broad consensus of mainstream thought…. This does mean that sometimes we will be wrong! All the top scholars in some field will say X, but 50 years from now, we will know more, and X will seem a quaint and old-fashioned opinion. O.k., fine. But still, X is a respectable and valid opinion today, as it is formed in careful consideration of all the available evidence with the greatest care possible. That’s the best we can do. And, as I say, that’s also the least we can do.67

だいたいのところ正確で、客観的で、公正で、偏り[のない]まとめかたがあるということにはきっと同意してもらえるでしょう。私たちがすべきなのは、なくせる問題をできるだけなくすよう努力し、まともな変更に対しては開放的になままでいつづけることです。これが完全かというと、もちろん、完全ではありません。しかし、できるのはそれだけであり、そして 最低限がそれなのです。誰かが、どこかに偏りがあると糾弾する可能性はいつもあると言おうとしているのなら、私もそのとおりだと思います。しかし、それでも客観的になろうとする努力は続けるべきです。これは特に難しいことだとは思いません。主流派の考えで広く合意されていることを私たちは掲載しようとします。それがいつか間違いになることもあるでしょう。ある分野の第一線の学者たちがみな X と言っていても、いまから50年後にはもっと色々わかって、X がおかしな、古臭い意見だと思われたりする。たしかにそうでしょう。それでも、X は現在は敬意をもって扱うべき正当な意見であり、入手できる証拠すべてを可能な限り注意深く考慮して作られているなら、それが私たちにできる最大限のことです。私の言い方では、私たちにできる最小限のことでもあります。67

Consequently, this interest in unbiased, or at least less biased, claims about an understandable, or at least partially so, objective universe is central to Wikipedia collaborative culture. The notion of NPOV not only provides the epistemic foundation for the project, but also the intentional stance contributors should take while interacting. It makes it possible to “solve the problem of that jig-saw puzzle” for which H. G. Wells had hoped because, from this perspective, differing claims about the world can be fit together.

結果として、偏りのなさ、あるいは少なくとも偏りの少なさの重視は、理解可能な、あるいは少なくとも部分的に理解可能な、客観的世界がウィキペディアの共同作業文化にとって中心的であると主張する。NPOVという考えが提供するのはこのプロジェクトの認識論的基礎を提供だけでなく、投稿者が互いにやりとりをするときに意識的にとるべき態度でもある。さらには、このみかたでは世界についての異なる主張も共存できるため、H. G. ウェルズが解こうとした「ジグソーパズルの問題を解く」ことをも可能にする。

The Intersubjective Stance of Good Faith


In Wikipedia’s collaborative culture, the scope of an open perspective includes not only the subject of collaboration, claims about the world, but also one’s collaborators as well. In Wikipedia’s “Writing for the Enemy” essay, one is encouraged to see things as others might:


Note that writing for the enemy does not necessarily mean one believes the opposite of the “enemy” POV. The writer may be unsure what position he wants to take, or simply have no opinion on the matter. What matters is that you try to “walk a mile in their” shoes instead of judging them.68


The “Assume Good Faith” article on Meatball, where different communities discuss pan-wiki culture, characterizes this as “seeing others’ humanity.”69 Indeed, one of the reasons Wikipedia’s culture and practice are compelling to me is that it has influenced the way I approach controversy and conflict beyond Wikipedia; I have found these norms to be “a great way to end an argument in real life,”70 which corresponds with scholars Yochai Benkler and Helen Nissenbaum’s argument that while virtue may lead people to participate in such projects “participation may [also] give rise to virtue.”71 This sentiment and the challenges of collaborative culture are further reflected in Leuf and Cunningham’s The Wiki Way: “People using Wiki bring their own preconceptions, agendas, and visions — like any community. The remarkable thing is how Wiki as community affects user interactions in an overall positive way.”72

異なるコミュニティが汎ウィキ文化を議論する場である Meatball の「善意を仮定する」69という記事では、このことを「他者の人間性を認める」ものとして特徴づけている。ウィキペディアの文化と実践とが私にとって興味深いのはまさに、これらの規範が「実世界での議論を終わらせる良い方法」70であるからだ。このことは研究者ヨカイ・ベンクラーとヘレン・ミセンバオムの、徳性は人々をこのようなプロジェクトに参加させることにつながることがあるが「参加することも[また]徳性をうむことがある」71との議論に対応する。共同作業の文化のこの感情と難題とはさらにロフとカニンガムの『The Wiki Way』に反映されている。「ウィキを使う人々はそこに自分の思い込み、目標、ヴィジョンを持ち込む。これはあらゆるコミュニティと同じだ。注目すべきは、コミュニティとしてのウィキが利用者同士のやりとりに、全体として肯定的なやり方でいかに影響するかだ」72

Unlike the relatively novel effect of NPOV on collaboration, Wikipedia is not the first online community to recognize the importance of, broadly speaking, good faith, and the challenges of other possibly competing values. In the Debian FOSS community, anthropologist Gabriella Coleman identifies a seeming paradox between liberal individualism/meritocracy and the community values of humility, detachment, generosity, and civility.73 Similarly, Larry Wall, creator of the Perl programming language, playfully argues the success of his project is actually dependent on the coexistence of the seemingly contrary virtues of the individual programmer and the larger collaborative community. That is, programmers who exhibit the individual virtues of “laziness, impatience, and hubris,” which often yield efficiency and quality, must also exhibit virtues of diligence, patience, and humility at the community level.74 Leuf and Cunningham note that in wiki communities “participants are, by nature, a pedantic, ornery, and unreasonable bunch,” yet “there’s a camaraderie we seldom see outside our professional contacts.”75 George Von Krogh, in his article on “Care in Knowledge Creation,” identifies five dimensions relevant to the successful creation of knowledge within a community: mutual trust, active empathy, access to help, lenience in judgment, and courage.76 Benkler and Nissenbaum argue that “commons-based peer-production” entails virtues that are both “self-regarding” (e.g., autonomy, independence, creativity) and “other-regarding” (e.g., generosity, altruism, camaraderie, cooperation, civic virtue.)77

NPOV が共同作業に与えた比較的革新的な影響とは異なって、ウィキペディアは広い意味での善意の重要性と、その他の競合する価値観という難題を認識したオンラインコミュニティとして初めてのものではない。Debian の FOSS コミュニティで、人類学者ガブリエラ・コールマンは自由主義的個人主義及び実利主義と、謙虚、抑制、寛容、礼儀を重んじるコミュニティの価値観とのあいだにパラドクスのようなものを見出した73。同様にして、プログラミング言語 Perl の作者ラリー・ウォールは、自分のプロジェクトの成功は、個人のプログラマとより大きな共同作業のコミュニティという一見対極にある2つの理想が共存したことに依存していると茶化しながら論じた(playfully 訳語要検討)。すなわち、「怠惰、拙速、自信過剰」などしばしば効率性と品質につながる個人としての徳性をしめすプログラマが、コミュニティのレベルでは勤労、忍耐、謙虚の徳性をもしめさなければならない74。ロフとカニンガムはウィキのコミュニティでは「その本質から、参加者は衒学的、ornery, 非合理的な輩」ではあるが「職業的な接触のそとで見ることのあるような camaraderie (要訳出) もある」75。ジョージ・ヴァン・クロホは「知識創出における care(要訳出)」という記事で、知識の創出を成功させるのに関係する次元として、相互の信頼、能動的な empathy (要訳出)、気軽な手助け、裁定における許し、勇気の5つがあると特定した76。ベンクラーとニッセンバウムは「共有地に基づくpeer production(要訳出)」の帰結として、「対自己的」(たとえば、自律性、独立性、創作性)であると同時に「対他者的」(たとえば、寛容さ、altruism, camaraderie, 協調性、civic virtue)な徳性があると論じる77

In subsequent chapters I too speak of seeming contradictions (e.g., benevolent dictators in egalitarian communities), but in the following sections I discuss good faith via four specific “virtues” or behaviors: assume the best, act with patience, act with civility, and try to maintain a sense of humor.


Assuming the Best of Others


Online communities often suffer the effects of Godwin’s Law: as a discussion continues, someone is bound to make an unfavorable comparison to Hitler or Nazis. (Perhaps this is in part a consequence of the effects of computer-mediated communication, such as reduced social cues and anonymity, and the character of virtual community.78) A possible counteracting norm of this tendency is the guideline “Assume Good Faith.” But before examining this norm in detail it is worthwhile to first note that good faith is associated with at least three collaborative wiki norms: good faith, “Assume Good Faith,” and “Assume the Assumption of Good Faith.”


Although present on Meatball, the wiki about wiki collaboration, the broad notion of good faith is not addressed by Wikipedia’s guidelines; there is only a rather obtuse encyclopedic article adapted from the Catholic Encyclopedia’s legalistic treatment of error and guilt.79 But the notion does have colloquial usage, implicitly referring to a handful of concepts — much as I use it to signify the concepts of this section. This informal sense is captured in Meatball’s description of good faith as a lack of intentional malice, an assumption that people are trying to do their best “for the greater good of the community,” and friendliness, honesty, and caring.80 The first two elements of this description are much the same, differing only in their subject: one’s own positive intention and an assumption about the positive intention of others. It is on the latter assumption that Wikipedia focuses. The guideline of AGF is intended to counteract the common reflex to assume the worst of others, reminding us:

善意の広い概念づけは、ウィキによる共同作業についてのウィキ、 Meatball にはあるものの、ウィキペディアのガイドラインでは取り上げられていない。教条的な過ちと罪を扱ったカトリック百科事典からとられた、どちらかというと表層的な百科事典項目79があるだけだ。しかしこの概念は実際には熟語的用法があり、暗黙にいくつかの概念複数—私がこの節で言及する概念のほぼすべて—を参照している。その非形式的な語義は Meatball での善意についての説明で、意図的な悪意がないこと、人々は自分にできるかぎり「コミュニティのためになる」よいことをしようとしているとの仮定、友好的であること、誠実であること80としてとらえられている。最初の2つの説明はおよそ同じで、対象が異なるだけだ。すなわち、自分自身の肯定的な意図と、他者に肯定的な意図があるとの仮定だ。ウィキペディアが注目するのは後者の仮定である。AGFのガイドラインは他者に最悪の仮定をおく反応が広く見られることに対抗するよう意図されている。ガイドラインは次のように注意する。

Well-meaning people make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do. You should not act like their mistake was deliberate. Correct, but don’t scold. There will be people on Wikipedia with whom you disagree. Even if they’re wrong, that doesn’t mean they’re trying to wreck the project. There will be some people with whom you find it hard to work. That doesn’t mean they’re trying to wreck the project either; it means they annoy you.81


Unlike unbiased view/NPOV, which was present at the start, “Assume Good Faith,” in name, is a relatively new norm. The page was first created in March 2004; it received its first comment on its discussion page in February 2005.82 (The first comment proposed “Assume Good Faith” become policy, although as noted, it was demoted to a guideline in 2006 because it did not focus on behavior and was therefore difficult to enforce.) AGF’s origins are most likely rooted in the “Staying Cool When the Editing Gets Hot” essay, which in October 2002 offered five “tips to consider when editing gets emotional,” including avoid name-calling and characterizing others’ actions, take a breather if angry, ignore insults, and “assume the best about people.”83 “Assume the best” eventually found its way onto the “Etiquette” essay in January 2004,84 but in August this was replaced with a link to the relatively new “Assume Good Faith” page.


While these norms of resisting name-calling and assuming the best seemingly arose in the context of everyday practice and playground manners, even, they are also the subject of sociopsychological study. Under the fundamental attribution error, we often attribute the failures of others as evidence of a character flaw — but our own failings are construed as a circumstance of the environment.85 That is, I succeed because of my genius and fail because of bad luck, whereas you succeed by chance and fail by your own faulty character. Not surprisingly, in a study of email collaboration Catherine Cramton found that in successful groups people typically give others the benefit of the doubt and make situational rather than categorical attributions about their behavior.86 Less successful groups included those that escalated hostility or were overly diplomatic — indicating the danger of both rancorous discord and facile consensus. From a psychological perspective, then, a cultural norm of assuming good faith can mitigate negative attributions.


AGF can also help set social expectations. This assumption is much like the popular aphorism “never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity”.87 The humorous Wikipedia essay “Assume Stupidity” notes that, “While assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia, it generally does not help you get over your anger at someone’s, in your opinion, disturbing edits. Therefore, it is much more satisfying to also assume stupidity.”88 Fortunately, the official Wikipedia policy is more politic, as an assertion of stupidity might not be any more welcome than that of malice! Also, as the Meatball wiki cautions, low expectations can sometimes be damning: “Be warned that whatever we assume may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. We AssumeGoodFaith as a way of creating good faith, but assuming indifference or stupidity will encourage those modes as well.” Yet at what point is the assumption of good faith exhausted? Meatball identifies a number of causes: some people might simply be trolling (being disruptive for their own fun), they might be an “angry [storm] cloud” (predisposed to conflict or having a bad day), they might be working at cross-purposes or be confused by a lack of transparency.89 In fact, Wikipedia warns against ever attributing an editor’s actions to bad faith “even if bad faith seems obvious”; one can always judge on the basis of behavior rather than assumed intentions.90 For example, the invocation of “Assume Good Faith,” because it is about intentions, can become an act of bad faith itself, leading to the awkwardly named exhortation to “Assume the Assumption of Good Faith”:

AGF は社会的期待を設定することも助ける。善意の仮定は「無知と説明できることを悪意に帰すな」87という有名な警句と非常によく似ている。ウィキペディアのユーモアある私論「無知を仮定する」では、「善意を仮定することはウィキペディアでは基本的な原理のひとつですが、誰かが(あなたの目から見ると)破壊的な編集をしているのをみて怒りを覚えたときにはあまり役に立ちません。そこで、無知を仮定すると、ずっと満足できます」88と指摘する。幸運なことに、ウィキペディアの公式な方針はずっと丁寧だ。無知を認定するのは悪意を認定するのよりも歓迎されるとは言えないのだろう。また、Meatball ウィキが次のように警告するように、期待を低くすることは悪口(訳語要検討)にもなることがある。「私たちが仮定することはどれも自己成就する予言になるかもしれないので気をつけましょう。善意を仮定するのは、それが善意を作る方法のひとつだからです。無関心や無知を仮定すれば、そのような振る舞いを奨励することになります。」。とはいえ善意の仮定はどこまで行くと尽きるのだろう? Meatball は様々な原因を同定している。たとえば、ある種の人は単なるトロル(自分が楽しむために破壊的になる)行為をしている。「通りすぎる嵐」(衝突で猜疑心に駆られた、無視の居所が悪い)かもしれない。相容れない目的のもとで動いているかもしれない。透明性が足りずに混乱しているかもしれない89。実際、ウィキペディアは、「たとえ悪意が明白に見える場合でさえ」編集者の悪意に帰さないよう警告している。「いつでも意図を仮定する代わりに、振る舞いにもとづいて裁定することができる」90。たとえば、「善意を仮定する」ことへの訴えは、それが意図についてのものであるから、悪意にもとづく行動にもなりうる。このことから「善意を仮定していると仮定する」という奇妙な名前の注意書きができた。

In heated debates, users often cite AGF. However, the very act of citing AGF assumes that the opponent is assuming bad faith. Carbonite’s law tells us, “the more a given user invokes ‘Assume Good Faith’ as a defense, the lower the probability that said user was acting in good faith.”91

過熱した論争では、AGFを引用する利用者が多くなります。しかし、AGFを引用すること自体が、対立相手が自分を悪意にとっていると仮定していることになります。Carbonite の法則によれば、「『善意を仮定する』を盾に持ち出す頻度が多いほど、その人が善意で行動している可能性は低くな」ります。91

To this end, the AGF guideline wisely recommends, “If you expect people to ‘Assume Good Faith’ from you, make sure you demonstrate it. Don’t put the burden on others. Yelling ‘Assume Good Faith’ at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions, and making a habit of it will convince people that you’re acting in bad faith.”92


However, an assumption that counters cognitive bias and sets social expectations still stops short of coming to know and understand others. Here the norm of “Wikilove,” “a general spirit of collegiality and mutual understanding,”93 makes the same sort of connection that I am attempting to make in this chapter: an open perspective (or love) of knowledge melded with caring attitude (or love) toward others. Or as Wales said in his 2004 “Letter”: “The only way we can coordinate our efforts in an efficient manner to achieve the goals we have set for ourselves, is to love our work and to love each other, even when we disagree.”94 This is most clearly reflected in a prominent Wikipedian’s declaration that Wikilove is the most important principle of all:

しかし、認知バイアスに反し社会的期待を設定する仮定は。他者を知り理解することの不足にいきあたる。そこで「ウィキ愛」、すなわち「collegiality (要訳出)と相互理解の一般的な精神」93という規範が、本章で私が試みている結びつけ、すなわち他者への共感的な態度(あるいは愛)ととけあわさった、知識へのひらかれた見方(あるいは愛)と同じ種類の結びつけをする。あるいはウェールズが2004年に「手紙」で述べたように、「私たちが効率的に協調し、自分たちの設定した目標を達成する唯一のやり方は、この仕事を愛し、たとえ意見が分かれても互いを愛することです」94。このことは、ある有力なウィキペディアンによるウィキ愛こそがもっとも重要な原理であるとの宣言において明確にあらわされている。

I believe that we need to highlight the mission of providing a great, free encyclopedia, along with the core principle how we want to accomplish it. And the single most important principle I can think of here is not “anyone can edit.” It’s not even NPOV or any other policy. It’s “WikiLove” — of which our commitment to openness is only an expression. We share a love of knowledge, and we treat everyone who shares the same love with respect and goodwill. (That’s the idea, at least.)95


At this point I want to point out a possible transition between “Assume Good Faith” and “WikiLove.” In the wide range of literature on interacting with others one might discern three not necessarily exclusive ways of orientating toward others: self, selfless, and group.96 The first might be characterized as the strategic choice of a “rational egoist.” Whereas perspective taking often yields “joint gains,” this does not preclude it from being a self-interested behavior that mitigates the erroneous attributions and impasses that impairs one’s own interests.97 For example, it is in the self-interest of a negotiator to “understand” the perspective (e.g., the best alternative to negotiated agreement) of her opponent. Another approach is at the other extreme. Here, some actions are construed as being selflessly “other” orientated, even when counter to self- or group interests. This may be present in particular types of dialogue, empathy, and caring.98

ここで、「善意を仮定する」から「ウィキ愛」への推移の可能性を指摘したい。他者とのやりとりについての多様な研究のなかには、他者に向けての互いに排他的でない3種類のやり方を認めることができるかもしれない。私、無私、集団である96。一つ目は「合理的なエゴイスト」を戦略的に選んだものとして特徴付けることができる。この戦略では、立場のとり方は多くの場合「共同の利益」にゆだねられるが、これは誤った帰属と自己の利益を損なう impasse とを(要訳出)抑えるような利己的な振る舞いを予防することを意味しない97(訳語要検討)。たとえば、対立相手の立場(すなわち交渉されている合意の次善策)を「理解」することは交渉者の利己性だ。もうひとつのアプローチは対極にある。そこでは、自己や集団の利益に反する場合であっても、行動が「他者」に向けた無私なものとして設定されることがある。これはある種の対話、同情、共感で特に顕著かもしれない98

Another common focus is on the group. In the literature of political economy, “collective action” refers to circumstances in which cooperation is beneficial to the group, and each member, but only if others cooperate as well. In such situations pro-social norms — and a willingness to punish defectors — can support sustained cooperation.99 Obviously, the importance of trust, empathy, and reciprocity on building community relationships and facilitating the exchange of ideas is key.100 Trust is characterized by group members who are honest in negotiating commitments, who make “a good faith effort” to abide by their explicit — and implicit — commitments, and don’t take excessive advantage of others even when opportunities to do so arise.101 Furthermore, trust not only affects the expectations of an interaction, but also the construal of it afterwards.102 Indeed, in “good faith” interactions, trust is the supposition that even though one disagrees and hasn’t been able to see and understand from another’s perspective, one might be missing something. For example, in his study of consensus-based decision making within the Society of Friends, Michael Sheeran notes that a dissenting Quaker might respond, “I disagree but do not wish to stand in the way” because: “For religious reasons, a person may prefer the judgment of the group as ‘sincere seekers after the divine leading’ to that person’s individual judgment. In more secular terms, an individual may recognize the possibility that everyone else is right.”103 Trust in others implies a sense of humility toward one’s self as noted in Kizor’s Law of Humility: “Better an editor who’s often wrong and knows it than an editor who’s very seldom wrong and knows it.”104

もうひとつのよくある焦点は集団だ。政治経済学の研究では、「集団的行動」は協調することが集団およびその構成員にとって、ただし他の構成員が協調した時にのみ、有益である状況を指す。そのような状況では親社会的な規範、および違反者を喜んで罰することが、協調を持続する支えになる99。コミュニティ関係の構築と意見交換の促進における信頼、同情、相互性の重要性が鍵となることは明白だ100。信頼は、果たすべきことについて交渉するにあたって集団の構成員が正直になり、明示的、あるいは暗示的なそれを果たすために「善意の努力」をし、機会が生じても他者に対する過剰な優位性をとりすぎないようにすることとして特徴付けられる101。さらに、信頼はやりとりへの期待に影響するだけでなく、やりとりの後の解釈にも影響する102。「善意」のやりとりではまさに、信頼とは、相手に同意できず相手の立場で考え理解することができないときであっても、何かを見落としているかもしれないと仮定することだ。たとえば、Society of Friends における合意にもとづく意思決定の研究で、マイケル・シーランは意見のあわないクエーカー教徒は「同意はできないが邪魔しようとは思わない」と返答することがあると指摘した。「宗教的理由から、ある人は『神の導きを求めて従う者たち』としての集団の判断を個人の判断より好むことがある。より世俗的な言い方では、自分以外の全員が正しいという可能性を認識することがある」103のがその理由だ。Kizor の謙虚さの法則で指摘されるように、他者への信頼は自分自身に対する謙虚さの感覚を含意する。「頻繁に間違えるがそのように自覚する編集者のほうが、ほとんど間違えないがそのように自覚する編集者よりも良い」104

All that said, the debate of whether all altruism is necessarily “egoistic” is a complex one, but Wikipedia might serve as a relevant case for those interested in the discussion.105 (Obviously, anonymous contribution is a provocative topic for those concerned with the motives of seemingly altruistic contributors.) And, in the case of Wikipedia one might ask this more specific question: To what extent is good faith simply a matter of being a more effective and respected Wikipedian, a matter of group altruism, or something more? I would characterize the text on and discussion related to good faith as predominately oriented toward the group. This does not preclude egoistic self-satisfaction, or a transcendent intention, but Wikipedia discourse is rooted in extending good faith and WikiLove in service of a mutual love of knowledge: “We are all here for one reason: we love accumulating, ordering, structuring, and making freely available what knowledge we have in the form of an encyclopedia of unprecedented size.”106

以上すべてを述べた上で、すべての無私性が必ず「利己的」であるかどうかは複雑な論争だが、ウィキペディアはこの議論に興味ある人にとって重要な事例となるかもしれない105(無私的に見える投稿者の動機づけに興味ある人にとって匿名の投稿が刺激的な話題となることは明白だ)。そして、ウィキペディアの場合では、より具体的な疑問が出るかもしれない。善意はどこまでが有効で尊敬されるウィキペディアンたるに過ぎないことであり、どこまでが集団的無私性であり、どこまでがそれ以上のなにかなのだろうか? 善意についての文献とそれに関連する議論はその大多数が集団に向けてのものであると私は特徴付ける。これは利己的自己満足や超越的意図を排除しないが、ウィキペディアの文脈は善意とウィキ愛を知識への相互の愛に拡張することに根ざしている。「私たちがここにいる理由はただひとつ、自分たちにある知識を、かつてない規模の百科事典というかたちで、蓄積し、秩序づけ、構造化し、自由に使えるようにすることを愛するからです」106



A deficient collaborative culture might be characterized as temperamental and brittle because participants are uneasy and defensive; and existing structures and agreements easily fracture, providing little common ground and means for facilitating agreement. Its opposite, a well-working collaborative culture, might be characterized by patience as participants do not easily panic or escalate conflict. As a Wikipedia essay counsels: “The world will not end tomorrow”.107

失敗した(訳語要検討)共同作業の文化は、参加者がかたくなで防衛的なために 短気(訳語要検討)になり硬直したものと特徴づけることができる。存在する構造と合意は簡単に壊れ、合意をみちびくための共通の土台と手段をほとんど提供しない。その反対の、よく機能する共同作業の文化は、参加者が簡単にパニックにならず衝突をエスカレートさせないという意味で忍耐によって特徴付けることができる。あるウィキペディアの私論が助言するように、「明日は地球最後の日ではありません」107

In response to community concerns and conflict generated in response to Wikipedia office actions, where the Foundation office removes “questionable or illegal” content given complaints including “defamation, privacy violations or copyright infringement,”108 Jimmy Wales responded that in such circumstances the community should: “Assume Good Faith. It could be a mistake, it could be a poor decision, it could be a very strange emergency having to do with a suicide attempt…. In general, there is plenty of time to stop and ask questions.”109


Another source of contention is the many differing positions about what kind of encyclopedia Wikipedia should be. Should it address topics like those of any other encyclopedia, or is there also room for encyclopedic articles about every episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer? On this question of scope, there is a range of philosophical views (i.e., “isms”).110 For example, there is deletionism (rigorous criteria for a uniformly worthwhile article must be met, otherwise delete), mergism (merge challenged information into an existing article rather than have it stand alone), essentialism (include traditionally nonencyclopedic information but only if it is notable and verifiable), and inclusionism (keep as long as an article has some merit). And yes, at present, every one of the 144 episodes of Buffy does have its own article.111

もうひとつの対立のみなもとは、ウィキペディアがどのような百科事典になるべきかについて多数の異なる立場があることだ。ほかの百科事典のどれにもあるような話題を論じるべきだろうか。それとも Buffy the Vampire Slayer の個々のエピソードについて百科事典項目が存在する余地はあるだろうか。この掲載範囲の問題については、哲学的観点(すなわち「○○主義」)が様々ある110。たとえば、削除主義(項目としての価値について一貫して厳しい基準を満たさなければならず、そうでなければ削除する)、統合主義(疑問を呈された情報は独立して出さずに既存の項目に統合する)、本質主義(著名で検証可能なものにかぎり伝統的には非百科事典的な情報も掲載する)、包摂主義(利用価値があるかぎり項目は存続させる)がある。そして、現時点で、Buffy の144エピソードにはすべて個別の項目がある111

Perhaps an explanation of Godwin’s Law is that, as discussed, participants come to believe that the issue at hand is eclipsed by larger, more abstract matters, a conflict of principles, a battle between good and evil. As the essay “Don’t Escalate” notes, “we need to watch how many layers of indirection we’re piling onto the discussion and try not to stray too far from the substantive issue.”112 The recourse of patience can mitigate such escalation: “Cease what you are doing. Count to 10. Take a break. Read a book. Watch some videos on Youtube. Don’t edit. Don’t press the ‘save page’ button. Do what you have to do to cool down.”113 Consider a discussion as to whether the contentious “Articles for Deletion” process could be suspended for a month,114 a Wikipedian recommended that instead of panicking

Godwin の法則の解説のひとつは、議論したように、参加者は当座の問題よりも大きな、抽象的な事柄、原理の衝突、善と悪の戦いによって、その問題が支配されていると信じるに至るということだ。「エスカレートさせない」という私論が指摘するように、「議論では、間接の層がいくつ積み重なってきているかを観察し、実質的な問題から離れすぎないようにする必要があります」112。忍耐は、本質的にそのようなエスカレートを防ぐことができる。「今やっていることの手を止める。10数える。休憩する。本を読む。Youtubeで動画でもみてくる。編集しない。「このページを保存」ボタンを押さない。冷静になるためにすべきことをする」113。ある対立的な「削除依頼」の手続きを1ヶ月保留にしてもいいかどうかの議論114で、あるウィキペディアンがパニックになる代わりにすべきこととして推奨した次のことを考えてみよう。

both camps could Assume Good Faith and relax a bit, each not thinking that the “other guys” are a bunch of deranged encyclopedia-haters who want to destroy everything in an orgy of deletion and/or garage band stubs [incomplete vanity articles]. :) A lot of people are currently disagreeing over what sorts of articles merit inclusion in Wikipedia, but it’s not like most of those people think Wikipedia’s going to go down in flames if the “wrong” standards are picked. At least, they shouldn’t. Wikipedia is more resistant than that.115

両陣営とも、善意を仮定して少し気を楽にしてはどうでしょうか。「相手方」が狂った百科事典嫌悪の持ち主で、拙速な削除や素人バンドのスタブ[原注:自己満足的で不完全な項目]ですべてを破壊しようとしていると考えるかわりに :)。どのような種類の項目がウィキペディアに掲載されるべきかについて多くの人の意見が分かれていますが、「間違った」基準が選ばれたとしてもウィキペディアが地獄で焼かれる(訳語要検討)と思う人は多くないはずです。少なくとも、そうなるべきではありません。ウィキペディアにはもっと抵抗力があります。115

Patience is further implicated by “Assume Good Faith,” since frustrating behavior resulting from ignorance, rather than malice, is remedied in time, as the “Please Don’t Bite the Newcomers” guideline cautions:


New contributors are prospective “members” and are therefore our most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is impossible for a newcomer to be completely familiar with the policies, standards, style, and community of Wikipedia (or of a certain topic) before they start editing. If any newcomer got all those things right, it would be by complete chance.116


And the guideline of “Do Not Disrupt Wikipedia to Illustrate a Point” has a similar concern with dampening an escalation toward principle and returning to the immediate concern at hand,117 as does the essay “Wikipedia Is Not Therapy”:


Wikipedia is not therapy. If a user has behavior problems which result in disruption of the collective work of creating a useful reference, then their participation in Wikipedia may be restricted or banned entirely. This should not be done without patiently discussing any problems with the user, but if the behavior is not controlled, ultimately the project will be protected by restricting the user’s participation in the project.118


Finally, the technology of wiki itself furthers patience as a change can always be reversed without fear of permanent damage; as software developer and author Karl Fogel notes with respect to producing free and open source software: “version control means you can relax.”119


The extent to which patience is extended to problematic participants has been a source of (pleasant?) surprise for Wikipedia cofounder Jimmy Wales, who once noted, “when I am asked to look into cases of ‘admin abuse’ and I choose to do so, I generally find myself astounded at how nice we are to complete maniacs, and for how long.”120 Yet such patience can be exhausted, as noted by Larry Sanger, the other Wikipedia cofounder and present apostate:


A second school of thought held that all Wikipedia contributors, even the most difficult, should be treated respectfully and with so-called WikiLove. Hence trolls were not to be identified as such (since “troll” is a term of abuse), and were to be removed from the project only after a long (and painful) public discussion.121


Not surprisingly, the balance of patience to be extended continues to be a topic of discussion. Yet there are cases in which participants disappoint all good assumptions, wear patience thin, and remain lovable only to their mothers; up to, and even after, this point, participants are still expected to remain civil.




A subtle, but important, incoherence is found within the Wikipedia “Policies and Guidelines” page: “Respect other contributors. Wikipedia contributors come from many different countries and cultures, and have widely different views. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an encyclopedia.”122 Are Wikipedians to genuinely respect all others, or (merely) treat them with respect? A comment in the “Civility” policy points to the second interpretation: “We cannot always expect people to love, honor, obey, or even respect another. But we have every right to demand civility.”123 I make this distinction between genuine respect and acting with respect based on Mark Kingwell’s useful definition of civility in public discourse:

微妙な、しかし重要な非一貫性がひとつ、ウィキペディアの「方針とガイドライン」のページにある。「他の投稿者に敬意を持ちましょう。ウィキペディアの投稿者は様々な国々と文化を出身としており、様々に異なる観点を持っています。他者に敬意を持って接することは百科事典をつくるにあたって効果的に共同作業をする鍵です」122。ウィキペディアンは他者すべてに心から敬意を持つのだろうか、それとも(単に)敬意を持って接するだけだろうか? 「礼儀」の方針でのあるコメントは、二番目の解釈を示唆する。「他人を愛し、賞賛し、従い、あるいは敬意を持つことさえ、いつでも期待できるとは限りません。しかし、礼儀を要求する権利は充分にあります」123。私は公共議論(訳語要検討)における有用なマーク・キングウェルの礼儀の定義にもとづいて、心からの敬意と敬意を持って行動することとのあいだの違いを示す。

It is true that civility as I characterize it is related to mutual respect, but there is a crucial difference: genuine respect is too strong a value to demand … in a deeply pluralistic society. The relative advantage of civility is that it does not ask participants to do anything more than treat political interlocutors as if they were worthy of respect and understanding, keeping their private thoughts to themselves.124

私が特徴づける礼儀は相互の敬意と関連するが、そこには決定的な差がある。心からの敬意は……深く多文化的な社会においては……価値観として要求するには重すぎる。礼儀の相対的な利点は、個人の思想は自分のうちにとどめつつ、political interlocutors をあたかも敬意と理解に値する人物であるかのように扱う以上のことは参加者に求めないことだ。124

Consequently, civility acts as both a baseline for building a culture of good faith and as a last line of defense against escalation. Despite expectations to act in good faith, “Assume Good Faith,” walk in another’s shoes, see another’s humanity, love and to respect one another, failing all of this, Wikipedians should still be civil and treat each other with respect. This means refraining from “personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict”.125 Otherwise, as Kingwell notes, “when civility fails, we all lose, because as citizens we lose the possibility of justice, and of a genuinely shared political community.”126 Or, as Wikipedia warns: “Being rude, insensitive or petty makes people upset and prevents Wikipedia from working properly.”127 A lack of civility is self-reciprocating, in that alienation begets alienation, and other faults, such as hypocrisy, soon follow, which “has the same effect on good faith that termites have on wooden houses”.128


Aside from the communicative aspect of dampening counterproductive hostility, historically, civility has also played a role in the production, or at the least legitimation, of knowledge. In A Social History of Truth, Steven Shapin notes that “gentlemen,” as signified in part by their civility, were thought of as arbiters of truth because their privileged status allegedly rendered them immune from external pressure: the man who did not have to labor for his bread was least likely to “shift” his views.129 (Though one might argue that the gentleman’s privileged status certainly biased his perspective.) Although civility is still important within Wikipedia, it is not relied upon as a premodern performance to represent social standing and consequently the ability to legitimate knowledge. Rather, encyclopedic knowledge emerges from civil discourse between people who may be strangers; civility facilitates the generation of knowledge rather than being a proxy for social standing or institutional affiliation.130


That said, civility can be a difficult principle for the community, as people vary in their outspokenness and sensitivity. In the summer of 2009 a large poll was conducted among English Wikipedians, asking if the civility policy was satisfactory, or abused or selectively enforced (i.e., were people baited and then attacked with this policy); also, was its application consistent across all parts of Wikipedia and did it interfere with clarity? The resulting summary concluded that:


The majority of people feel the current civility policy is too lenient, and that it is inconsistently applied and unenforceable. Most people feel that civil behaviour applies as much on personal talkpages as elsewhere, and that there are particular problems with civil behaviour on Recent Changes Patrol and Admin Noticeboards. Almost everyone feels we are too harsh on new users, though just over half the people feel that when it comes to experienced users that expectations of behaviour depends on context and the people involved. Most people feel that baiting is under-recognised, although it was noted that it is difficult to recognise baiting, and that people have a choice in how they respond.131

現在の礼儀の方針はゆるすぎ、一貫性なく適用され、強制不可能であると感じている人が多数派です。礼儀ある振る舞いは他の場所と同様、個人のトークページにも適用され、最近の更新の巡回と管理者伝言板には礼儀ある振る舞いに関する問題があると多くの人々が感じています。私たちは新規利用者に厳しく当たりすぎているとほとんどすべての人が感じていますが、熟練利用者については期待される振る舞いの程度は状況と関係する人々に依存すると半数を少し超える数の人が感じています。baiting (要訳出)についての認知度は不足しているものの、それを認知することは難しく、返答の仕方には選択肢があると感じています。131

This does not imply civility will be abandoned as a policy, the principle at least will persist, though it and its implementation will continue to be discussed, no doubt.




Humor is not a policy or guideline of Wikipedia, but it suffuses the culture and is the true last resort when faced with maddening circumstances.132 Certainly, Wikipedia is the butt of many jokes. The satirical newspaper The Onion has made fun of the often-contentious character of Wikipedia with an article about the U.S. Congress abandoning an attempt at a wiki version of the Constitution; it also lampooned Wikipedia’s reliability with the article “Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years of American Independence.”133 Wikipedia has also been the source of fun for many Web comics, such as a Penny Arcade strip entitled “I Have The Power,” showing the evil cartoon character Skeletor changing He-man’s description from “the most powerful man on earth” to “actually a tremendous jackass and not really that powerful.”134 Wikipedians are also capable of laughing at themselves. In August 2009 there were over seven hundred articles listed in Wikipedia’s humor category,135 including a dozen or so songs and poems, such as “Hotel Wikipedia” and “If I Were an Admin,”136 An excerpt from my favorite, based on a ditty from Gilbert and Sullivan’s The Pirates of Penzance, best captures the character of Wikipedians:

ユーモアはウィキペディアの方針やガイドラインではないが、その文化を覆っており、常軌を逸した状況に直面したときには最後の砦である132。ウィキペディアはまちがいなく多くのジョークの的になっている。satrical 新聞 The Onion はしばしば対立を帯びるウィキペディアの性質を茶化して、米国議会が憲法のウィキ板をつくる試みを断念したと記事で報じた。「ウィキペディア、アメリカ独立750年を祝う」という記事133でウィキペディアの信頼性も茶化した。「ウィキペディアは多くのウェブコミックにとって楽しみの源泉だ。たとえば Penny Arcade は『僕には権力がある』と題されたある話で、悪の漫画キャラ Skeltor が He-man についての解説『地上最強の男』を『実はひどい意地悪でそれほど強くもない』と書き換えた」134とされた。ウィキペディアンも自分たちをバカにすることができる。2009年8月にウィキペディアのユーモアのカテゴリには700件以上が含まれ135、たとえば、「Hotel Wikipedia」や「If I Were an Admin」136(要訳出)など、十数件の歌と詩がある。私は気に入っているのは、Gilbert and Sullivan の The Pirates of Penzance の短い歌をもとにし、ウィキペディアンの性質をうまく言い当てたものだ。その一部を次に抜粋する。

I am the very model of a modern Wikipedian, / My knowledge of things trivial is way above the median, / I know, and care, what Kelly Clarkson’s next CD might just be called, / And all the insults Hilary and Lindsay to each other bawled. / I’m very well acquainted, too, with memes upon the Internet, / I think the dancing hamster would be excellent as a pet. / About the crackpots’ physics I am teeming with a lot o’ news, / The Time Cube has but four sides and it’s not got a hypotenuse.137


Nor is humor relegated only to the funny category. It is present in many of the norms discussed so far, capturing the difficult character of these principles and their practice. For example, the “In Bad Faith” essay collects examples of bad faith, such as “If I compromise, they’ll know it’s a sign of weakness,” and “That policy page is wrong, because it doesn’t describe what I do. I’ll fix it.”138 The “Neutral Point of View” policy notes that when you are writing for the enemy “the other side might very well find your attempts to characterize their views substandard, but it’s the thought that counts.”139 The “Don’t Be Dense” essay asks the reader to remember that “ ‘Assume Good Faith’ is a nicer restatement of ‘Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice.’ Try not to be stupid either.”140 In recognition of the unavoidable absurdity of “isms” there is the most absurd, though quite reasonable, philosophy of all, the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD faction: “The Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn’t Mean They are Deletionist.”141 And given the hundreds of user-created Laws of Wikipedia, Kmarinas86’s Law of Contradiction recommends that “When one law contradicts the other(s), the funniest one applies first.”142

ユーモアも、笑いの範疇だけに貶められるのではない。ここまでに論議論した規範の多くのなかに、原理と実践の難しさを表すためにユーモアが存在する。たとえば、「悪意で」の私論は、「私が妥協すれば、それが弱さのあらわれだと受け取られるだろう」や「私のやっていることを述べていないから方針ページは間違っている。だから直そう」138など、悪意の事例を集めている。「中立的な観点」の方針は敵のために書くときには「あなたが自分たちの観点を低くみせようとしているのだと相手方には思われることも十分ありえますが、重要なのは気持ちです」と指摘する139。「愚鈍になるな」という私論は読者に「『善意を仮定する』は『無能で十分説明されることに悪意を見出すな』を体裁よく言い換えたものだということ」を忘れないようにと呼びかける140。「○○主義」が逃れえない馬鹿馬鹿しさをたたえて、数あるなかでもっとも馬鹿馬鹿しい、とはいえかなり合理的な哲学として AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD すなわち「特定の種類の記事を一緒くたにして存在価値を判断することを嫌いつつもときにはあまりにひどい記事の削除に加担はするが決して削除主義者というわけではないウィキペディアン協会」141という派閥がある。利用者が作成したウィキペディアの法則が何百とあることを踏まえて Kmarinas86 の矛盾法則は「ある法則が別の法則と矛盾した場合、面白いほうが適用される」と推奨する142

Humor serves as an instrument of anxiety-releasing self-reflection. As the saying goes, if you can’t laugh at yourself, who can you laugh at? Michael Schrage, author of the 1990 book Shared Minds: The New Technologies of Collaboration, alludes to the importance of humor when he writes:

ユーモアは不安を解放しつつ自らを振り返るための道具として役に立つ。自分を笑うことができなければ、誰を笑うことができるのか、ということわざの通りだ。1990年のShared Mind: The New Technologies of Collaboration の著者マイケル・シュラーゲはユーモアの重要性に触れて次のように書いた。

Designing for collaboration requires an architect with a sense of humor. After all, collaborative relationships have to cope with the misunderstandings as well as the epiphanies, and the tool should be able to support them all with grace. Creating an environment that stimulates the relaxed intensity that marks effective collaboration is a craft, not a science. It requires both an aesthetic sense and a grasp of functionality.143


Humor is also an instance of intellectual joy, like the many jokes and puns common to geek culture. Ultimately, Wikipedia is supposed to be enjoyable. When circumstances arise such as battling spammers, trying to discern the well-meaning newbie from a troll, politicking over the deletion of an article, and other inherently contentious and non-fun activities, humor serves as a way to restore balance. At times, it may also disrupt balance. For example, sarcasm is a brand of frequently unproductive humor, as parodied in the “Sarcasm Is Really Helpful” essay: “Sarcasm works really well in online media, because it’s so easy to pick up on without all of those pesky extratextual cues. It’s hard to see how the employment of sarcasm could possibly be counterproductive”.144 Also, many Wikipedians dread April 1 because this tomfoolery isn’t present and understood in all cultures, some use the date as an excuse for outright vandalism, and many object to any change of encyclopedic articles for humorous purposes. English Wikipedia currently solves this problem every year by featuring a new article on a topic so odd you would think it is a prank, but it is not.145 Sometimes the values of civility and humor are posed as opposites:


P.S. I know I’m not alone in saying that I have considered leaving Wikipedia on several occasions not because of incivility or personal attacks, but because there are people who can’t and refuse to take an obvious joke. The humorless people will ruin Wikipedia before those who aren’t prim, proper and civil.146

追伸 非礼や個人攻撃のためではなく、あからさまなジョークを受け取ることができずに拒否する人がいるために、ウィキペディアを去ることを考えたことがあると言うのは私だけではないのです。ユーモアのない人たちは、人当たりが悪く不誠実で礼儀の悪い人がそうする前に、ウィキペディアを破滅させるでしょう。146

However, I find that gentle humor and stability more often than not are complementary. When they are not, the question often comes down to, just as it may in the schoolyard, who is the butt of the joke.




Wikis are a relatively novel way of working together: online, asynchronous, possibly anonymous, incremental, and cumulative. Do these features alone explain the success of Wikipedia? Not quite. Each also has possible demerits. Flame-ridden, scattered, unaccountable, half-baked piles of bunk are a possible future for any wiki. As the WikiLove essay notes, “Because people coming from radically different perspectives work on Wikipedia together — religious fundamentalists and secular humanists, conservatives and socialists, etc. — it is easy for discussions to degenerate into flamewars.”147

ウィキは共同ではたらくやり方として比較的あたらしい。オンラインで、非同期で、匿名になることができ、漸進的で、累積的だ。こうした特徴だけでウィキペディアの成功を説明できるだろうか? あまりできそうにない。どれにもデメリットの可能性がある。どのウィキも、フレーム主導、散逸、無責任、生煮えの具になる未来の可能性がある。ウィキ愛の私論が指摘するように、「原理主義者と世俗の人文学者(訳語要検討)、保守主義者と社会主義者など、人々はまったく異なる見地からウィキペディアにあつまるため、議論は簡単にフレーム合戦に退化します」147

So, in addition to technology, a community’s collaborative culture is an important factor in determining what its future holds. Wiki communities are also a fascinating subject of study because one can closely follow the emergence of and discourse on their culture: what is important, what is acceptable, and what does it all mean? On a wiki, the regenerative, recursive, or dual nature of community policy and practice renders discussions about these questions intensely transparent — not that this makes it necessarily easy to filter and understand. As Leuf and Cunningham wrote in 2001, “Wiki culture, like many other social experiments, is interesting, exciting, involving, evolving, and ultimately not always very well understood”.148

だから、技術にくわえて、コミュニティの共同作業の文化はその未来がどこに向かうかを決める重要な因子のひとつだ。どのウィキのコミュニティも、その文化の創発と言論とを近い距離で追跡することができるから、研究対象として魅力的だ。たとえば、なにが重視されるか、なにが許容されるか、けっきょくどういう意味なのか? ウィキでは、コミュニティの方針と実践の再生産性、再帰性、あるいは双対性によって、これらの疑問がきわめて透明にえがきだされる。かといって、それで飲み込み理解することが簡単になるわけではないが。ロフとカニンガムが2001年に書いたように、「ウィキ文化は、ほかのさまざまな社会実験とおおなじように、面白く、エキサイティングで、関係的で、進化しつづけ、最終的にはあまりよく理解されない」148

In the case of the English Wikipedia, there is a collaborative culture that asks its participants to assume two postures: a stance of neutral point of view on matters of knowledge, and a stance of good faith toward one’s fellow contributors. Whereas NPOV renders the subject matter of a collaborative encyclopedia compatible, good faith makes it possible to work together. It is as if the NPOV permits collaborators to bring together the “scattered and ineffective mental wealth” of H. G. Wells’s jigsaw. However, this doesn’t mean the process of working together will be effective or enjoyable. Therefore, a culture of assuming the best of others, and demonstrating patience, civility, and humor facilitates collaborating with one’s peers, of varied persuasions, to fit the pieces together. As the “Collaboration First” essay declares: “A productive contributor who cannot collaborate is not a productive contributor”.149

英語版ウィキペディアの場合は、参加者につぎの2つの立場を仮定するよう求める文化がある。知識にかかわることについての中立的な立場と、自分の同僚投稿者に対して善意を持つ立場だ。NPOVは共同作業によ百科事典として掲載する題材の互換性をあらわすのに対して、善意は一緒にはたらくことを可能にする。NPOVはまるで、共同作業者たちが、H. G. ウェルズのジグソーパズルの「散らばっていて効果的でない精神的富」を持ち寄ることを可能にするかのようだ。しかし、それだけで一緒にはたらく過程が効果的で楽しめるものになるとは限らない。したがって、他者に最良の仮定をおき、忍耐と礼儀とユーモアを実践するよう求める文化は、異なる主張をもつ同僚との共同作業をし、ピースをひとつにつなげることをたすける。「共同作業第一」の私論が宣言するように、「生産的だが共同作業できない投稿者は生産的な投稿者ではありません」149

  1. *Wikipedia, “User:Raul654/Raul’s Laws (oldid=301373968)”*. 2

  2. *Ulrike Pfeil, Panayiotis Zaphiris, and Chee Siang Ang, “Cultural Differences in Collaborative Authoring of Wikipedia,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12, number 1 (2006), (accessed March 13, 2006); Andrew Lih, The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World’s Greatest Encyclopedia (New York: Hyperion, 2009), chapter 6. 2

  3. *Clifford Geertz, “Thick Description: toward an Interpreted Theory of Culture”, chapter 1 in The Interpretation of Cultures and Local Knowledge, ed. Clifford Geertz (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1973), 3–30; Raymond Williams, Keywords: a Vocabulary of Culture and Society (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983); Marshall Sahlins, Apologies to Thucydides: Understanding History as Culture and Vice Versa (Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 2004), (visited on April 17, 2006). 2

  4. *Simon Blackburn, “Culture,” in The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, ed. Simon Blackburn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), (visited on February 16, 2005). 2

  5. *Edgar H. Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership, 3rd edition (San Francisco: John Whiley & Sons, 2004), 14, 32. 2

  6. *Dave Pollard, “Will That Be Coordination, Cooperation, or Collaboration?,” How to Save the World, March 25, 2005, (visited on February 27, 2006); Patricia Montiel-Overall, “Toward a Theory of Collaboration for Teachers and Librarians,” American Library Association 8 (2005), (visited on February 27, 2006). 2

  7. *Lore Sjberg, “The Wikipedia FAQK,” April 19, 2006, (visited on April 6, 2007). 2

  8. *Cass R. Sunstein, Why Societies Need Dissent (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003), (accessed February 15, 2007). 2

  9. *Steve Weber, The Success of Open Source (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004), 3. 2

  10. *For a definition and theoretical models of “interdependent decision making,” see Harold H. Kelley et al., An Atlas of Interpersonal Situations (New York: Cambridge, 2003), 2

  11. *Michael Schrage, Shared Minds: the New Technologies of Collaboration (New York: Random House, 1990), 40. 2

  12. *Jenkins, Textual Poachers*; Henry Jenkins, “Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century,” Confessions of an Aca/Fan, October 20, 2006, (accessed October 10, 2007). 2

  13. *Douglas C. Engelbart, Augmenting Human Intellect: a Conceptual Framework (Menlo Park, Ca.: SRI Project 3578 for Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Stanford Research Institute, October 1962), 4D, (visited on May 21, 2007). 2

  14. *Christopher Kelty, “Geeks, Social Imaginaries, and Recursive Publics,” Cultural Anthropology 20, number 2 (2005): 185–214, (accessed September 19, 2005). 2

  15. *Etienne Wenger, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 58. 2

  16. *Christian Reinhardt, “Collaborative Knowledge Creation in Virtual Communities of Practice” (Master’s thesis, Department of Value-Prcoess Management, Marketing University of Innsbruck, 2003), 2

  17. *Wenger, Communities of Practice15*, 66-68. 2

  18. *Ward Cunningham, quoted in Scott Rosenberg, Dreaming in Code: Two Dozen Programmers, Three Years, 4732 Bugs, and One Quest for Transcendent Software (New York: Crown Publishers, 2007), 138. 2

  19. *Wikipedia, “Portland Pattern Repository,” Wikipedia, June 6, 2007, (visited on June 22, 2007). 2

  20. *Kent Beck et al., “Manifesto for Agile Software Development,” 2001, (visited on April 6, 2007). 2

  21. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia Talk:Consensus,” Wikipedia, July 9, 2008, (visited on July 11, 2008). 2

  22. *Ward Cunningham, “Keynote: Wikis Then and Now,” Wikimania, August 2005, (accessed August 24, 2007). 2

  23. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Red Link,” Wikipedia, November 15, 2007, (visited on November 16, 2007). 2

  24. *Natalia Levina and Emmanuelle Vaast, “The Emergence of Boundary Spanning Competence in Practice: Implications for Implementation and Use of Information Systems,” MIS Quarterly 29, number 1 (June 1, 2005), (visited on January 15, 2007). 2

  25. *These quotes correspond to minutes 21-23 in Cunningham, “Keynote”23*. 2

  26. *Nicholason Baker, “The Charms of Wikipedia,” The New York Review of Books 55, number 4 (March 20, 2008), (accessed March 19, 2008). 2

  27. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Project Namespace (oldid=174790757)”*; Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Meta,” Wikipedia, March 28, 2007, (visited on April 5, 2007). 2

  28. *Meatball, “MeatballBackgrounder,” Meatball Wiki, April 12, 2006, (visited on April 12, 2006). 2

  29. *Jean Le Rond D’Alembert, Preliminary Discourse to the Encyclopedia of Diderot (1751), ed. Richard N. Schwab and Walter E. Rex (Indianapolis: ITT Bobbs-Merrill, 1963), 32, (visited on September 1, 2006). 2

  30. *Susan L. Bryant, Andrea Forte, and Amy Bruckman, “Becoming Wikipedian: Transformation of Participation in a Collaborative Online Encyclopedia,” in Proceedings of the 2005 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work (New York: ACM, 2005), (accessed February 8, 2007). 2

  31. *Benkler, “Coase’s Penguin, or, Linux and the Nature of the Firm”*; Sproull, “Online Communities”*. 2

  32. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Be Bold,” Wikipedia, August 12, 2007, (visited on August 13, 2007). 2

  33. *Fernanda B. Viegas et al., “Talk before You Type: Coordination in Wikipedia,” in Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2007), (visited on January 26, 2007); Fernanda B. Viegas, Martin Wattenberg, and Matthew M. Mckeon, “The Hidden Order of Wikipedia,” in Online Communities and Social Computing, Second International Conference, OCSC 2007, Held as Part of HCI International 2007, ed. Douglas Schuler (Springer, July 22–27, 2007), 445–454, (accessed October 2, 2007). 2

  34. *Stuart Geiger and David Ribes, “The Work of Sustaining Order in Wikipedia: the Banning of a Vandal,” in Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Work 2010 (ACM, February 2010), (visited on August 12, 2009). 2

  35. *Jimmy Wales, “Naturally Occurring Conflicts?,” Air-l, March 28, 2007, (accessed March 28, 2007). 2

  36. *Jae Yun Moon and Lee Sproul, “Essence of Distributed Work: the Case of the Linux Kernel,” chapter 16 in Distributed Work, ed. Pamela Hinds and Sara Kiesler (Boston, MA: MIT Press, 2002), 398,; Felix Stalder, “On the Differences between Open Source and Open Culture”, NODE.London, March 2006, (accessed June 5, 2006), 4; Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 69, (accessed December 5, 2007). 2

  37. *Bo Leuf and Ward Cunningham, The Wiki Way: Quick Collaboration on the Web (Boston: Addison-Wesley, 2001), 322. 2

  38. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Policies and Guidelines,” Wikipedia, April 10, 2007, (visited on April 10, 2007). 2

  39. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia Talk:Assume Good Faith,” Wikipedia, March 31, 2007, (visited on April 10, 2007). 2

  40. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Policies and Guidelines (oldid=121662697)”38*. 2

  41. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Trifecta,” Wikipedia, November 22, 2008, (visited on May 29, 2009). 2

  42. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Five Pillars,” Wikipedia, August 15, 2009, (visited on August 18, 2009). 2

  43. *My belief in the importance of NPOV and “good faith” is shared with Daniel H. Pink, “The Book Stops Here,” Wired 13, number 3 (March 2005), (visited on March 1, 2005). 2

  44. *Wikipedia, “Talk:Evolution,” Wikipedia, April 6, 2007, (visited on April 6, 2007). 2

  45. *Jimmy Wales, “Re: Sanger’s Memoirs,” Wikipedia, April 20, 2005, (accessed November 15, 2005); Jimmy Wales, Fuzheado, and Liam Wyatt, “Interview W/Jimmy Wales,” Wikipedia Weekly, May 8, 2008, (accessed June 25, 2008), minute 33. 2

  46. *Wikipedia, “User:Raul654/Raul’s Laws (oldid=301373968)”*. 2

  47. *Wikipedia, “Troll (Internet),” Wikipedia, June 29, 2008, (visited on July 2, 2008). 2

  48. *

    Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Content Forking,” Wikipedia, July 16, 2007, (visited on August 13, 2007). This strategy of indirection and encapsulation is reminiscent of Diderot’s approach to using cross-references in the Encyclopédie, the technique of “renvois,” so as to confuse and elude censors as described in Stockwell, A History of Information Storage and Retrieval, 91. This approach is further discussed in the contemporary context by Michael Zimmer, “Renvois of the past, Present and Future: Hyperlinks and the Structuring of Knowledge from the Encyclopédie to Web 2.0,” New Media Society 11, number 95 (2009), (visited on April 17, 2009).

    Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Content Forking,” Wikipedia, July 16, 2007, (visited on August 13, 2007). この間接的な閉じ込めの戦略は『百科全書』におけるディドロの相互参照、すなわち「renvois」の技法をおもわせる。この技法は検閲をけむにまいて避けるためのものであったことが Stockwell, A History of Information Storage and Retrieval*, 91 にかかれている。さらに、現代の文脈での議論が Michael Zimmer, “Renvois of the past, Present and Future: Hyperlinks and the Structuring of Knowledge from the Encyclopédie to Web 2.0,” New Media Society 11, number 95 (2009), (visited on April 17, 2009) にある。 2

  49. *Wikipedia, “User:Salva31,” Wikipedia, March 28, 2007, (visited on April 6, 2007). 2

  50. *Wikipedia, “Talk:Evolution/Archive 2,” Wikipedia, December 21, 2006, (visited on February 7, 2007). 2

  51. *Wikipedia, “User:Graft,” Wikipedia, March 23, 2007, (visited on April 6, 2007). 2

  52. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View,” Wikipedia, September 16, 2004, (visited on March 5, 2004); Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View (oldid=249390830)”*. 2

  53. *

    Much like my earlier comments on the ambiguity – and richness – of the concepts of culture and collaboration, “neutral” is also a provocative notion; for 23 different senses of the word, see Roland Barthes, The Neutral, trans. Rosalind E. Krauss and Denis Hollier (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005).

    文化と共同作業の概念の多義性、また豊かさについての先の私のコメントとよくにているが、「中立」も挑戦的な概念だ。その23の異なる語義については The Neutral, trans. Rosalind E. Krauss and Denis Hollier (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005) をみよ。 2

  54. *Joseph Reagle, “Is the Wikipedia Neutral?,” Wikimedia, 2006, (visited on August 1, 2006). 2

  55. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View,” Wikipedia, April 6, 2006, (visited on April 6, 2006). 2

  56. *Nupedia, “Nupedia.Com Editorial Policy Guidelines”*. 2

  57. *

    Jacobs, The-Know-It-All*. A similar effort of reading the whole OED is documented by Ammon Shea, Reading the OED: One Man, One Year, 21,730 Pages (New York: Penguin Group, 2008).

    Jacobs, The-Know-It-All*. 同様にOED全体を読もうとする試みが Ammon Shea, Reading the OED: One Man, One Year, 21,730 Pages (New York: Penguin Group, 2008) に記録されている。 2

  58. *Andrew Gray, “Re: Librarians, Professors, and Pundits,” Wikipedia-l, July 22, 2005, (accessed July 22, 2005). 2

  59. *Larry Sanger, “Epistemic Circularity,” 2000, (visited on October 21, 2005). 2

  60. *Objectivism WWW Service, “Objectivism-Related E-Mail Lists,” December 29, 1995, (visited on November 9, 2005). 2

  61. *Sanger, “The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia”*. 2

  62. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View (oldid=249390830)”*. 2

  63. *Sanger, “The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia”*. 2

  64. *Citizendium, “CZ:Neutrality Policy,” Citizendium, November 25, 2007, (visited on November 8, 2008). 2

  65. *Larry Sanger, “Re: Nupedia: Questions,” nupedia-l, March 10, 2000, (visited on June 7, 2006). 2

  66. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Writing for the Enemy,” Wikipedia, February 8, 2009, (visited on March 11, 2009). 2

  67. *Jimmy Wales, “Re: Bias,” nupedia-l, May 21, 2000, (visited on December 7, 2006). 2

  68. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Writing for the Enemy,” Wikipedia, April 18, 2006, (visited on April 21, 2006). 2

  69. *Meatball, “AssumeGoodFaith,” Meatball Wiki, September 16, 2006, (visited on February 8, 2007). 2

  70. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Writing for the Enemy (oldid=49041942)”67( 2

  71. *Yochai Benkler and Helen Nissenbaum, “Commons-Based Peer-Production and Virtue,” The Journal of Political Philosophy 14, number 4 (2006): 13, (visited on October 16, 2006). 2

  72. *Leuf and Cunningham, The Wiki Way37*, 323. 2

  73. *Gabriella Coleman, “Three Ethical Moments in Debian: the Making of an (Ethical) Hacker, Part III,” chapter 6 in The Social Construction of Freedom in Free and Open Source Software: Actors, Ethics, and the Liberal Tradition (2005), 26, (visited on September 9, 2005). 2

  74. *Larry Wall, “Diligence, Patience, and Humility,” in Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution, 1st edition (Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly, January 1999), (visited on February 23, 2007). 2

  75. *Leuf and Cunningham, The Wiki Way37*, 328-329. 2

  76. *Georg von Krogh, “Care in Knowledge Creation,” California Management Review 40, number 3 (Spring 1998): 137, (visited on May 4, 2006). 2

  77. *Benkler and Nissenbaum, “Commons-Based Peer-Production and Virtue”71*. 2

  78. *

    For possible media effects on conflict, see J. B. Walther, “Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction,” Communication Research 23 (1996): 1–43; Jay Briggs et al., “Lessons from a Dozen Years of Group Support Systems Research: a Discussion of Lab and Field Findings,” Journal of MIS 13 (1997): 163–207; Raymond A. Friedman and Stephen C. Currall, “Conflict Escalation: Dispute Exacerbating Elements of E-Mail Communication,” Human Relations 56 (2003): 1325–1347, (visited on November 30, 2007). For conflict at the (virtual) community level, see Anna Duval Smith, “Problems of Conflict Management in Virtual Communities,” chapter 6 in Communities in Cyberspace, ed. Marc Smith and Peter Kollock (London: Routledge Press, 1999), (visited on November 18, 2004). The author of Godwin’s Law is also famous for his seminal principles of how to meet the challenges of online community, see Mike Godwin, “Nine Principles for Making Virtual Communities Work,” Wired 2, number 6 (June 1994), (visited on September 27, 2007).

    衝突についてのメディア効果の可能性については次をみよ。J. B. Walther, “Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction,” Communication Research 23 (1996): 1–43; Jay Briggs et al., “Lessons from a Dozen Years of Group Support Systems Research: a Discussion of Lab and Field Findings,” Journal of MIS 13 (1997): 163–207; Raymond A. Friedman and Stephen C. Currall, “Conflict Escalation: Dispute Exacerbating Elements of E-Mail Communication,” Human Relations 56 (2003): 1325–1347, (visited on November 30, 2007). (仮想的な)コミュニティのレベルでの衝突については次をみよ。 Anna Duval Smith, “Problems of Conflict Management in Virtual Communities,” chapter 6 in Communities in Cyberspace, ed. Marc Smith and Peter Kollock (London: Routledge Press, 1999), (visited on November 18, 2004). Godwin の法則の著者はオンライン・コミュニティの課題への対処に関する画期的な原理でも知られる。 Mike Godwin, “Nine Principles for Making Virtual Communities Work,” Wired 2, number 6 (June 1994), (visited on September 27, 2007) をみよ。 2

  79. *Wikipedia, “Good Faith,” Wikipedia, May 7, 2007, (visited on May 17, 2007). 2

  80. *Meatball, “AssumeGoodFaith”69*. 2

  81. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith,” Wikipedia, April 3, 2006, (visited on April 11, 2006). 2

  82. *

    For the first instance of the AGF page, see Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith,” Wikipedia, March 3, 2004, (accessed May 30, 2007); for the first comment on the talk page, see Wikipedia, “Wikipedia Talk:Assume Good Faith,” Wikipedia, February 13, 2005, (visited on May 30, 2007).

    AGF ページの初版については Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith,” Wikipedia, March 3, 2004, (accessed May 30, 2007) をみよ。トークページの最初のコメントについては Wikipedia, “Wikipedia Talk:Assume Good Faith,” Wikipedia, February 13, 2005, (visited on May 30, 2007) をみよ。 2

  83. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Staying Cool When the Editing Gets Hot,” Wikipedia, October 25, 2002, (visited on May 30, 2007). 2

  84. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Etiquette,” Wikipedia, January 24, 2004, (visited on May 30, 2007). 2

  85. *Richard Nisbett and Lee Ross, Human Inference (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1980), 247; Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, “Conflict Resolution: A Cognitive Perspective,” chapter 3 in Barriers to Conflict Resolution, ed. K. Arrow et al. (New York: Norton, 1995), 47. 2

  86. *Catherine Cramton, “The Mutual Knowledge Problem and Its Consequences for Dispersed Collaboration,” Organization Science 12 (2001): 361, 2

  87. *Wikipedia, “Hanlon’s Razor,” Wikipedia, January 26, 2009, (visited on March 27, 2009). 2

  88. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Assume Stupidity,” Wikipedia, January 20, 2007, (visited on May 18, 2007). 2

  89. *Meatball, “AssumeGoodFaith”69*. 2

  90. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith (oldid=46719908)”89*. 2

  91. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Assume the Assumption of Good Faith,” Wikipedia, February 23, 2009, (visited on March 11, 2009). 2

  92. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith (oldid=46719908)”89*. 2

  93. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:WikiLove,” Wikipedia, January 30, 2009, (visited on March 6, 2009). 2

  94. *Wales, “Founder Letter Sept 2004”*. 2

  95. *Erik Moeller, “Re: Good Authors,” wikien-l, June 25, 2006, (visited on June 25, 2006). 2

  96. *

    This is similar to the distinction between “selfish,” “altruistic,” and “socially concerned” classes of incentives in wiki contributions in Camille Roth, “Viable Wikis: Struggle for Life in the Wikisphere,” in (ACM, October 2007), (visited on December 13, 2007).

    これに似たものとして、ウィキへの貢献を「利己的」「利他的」「socially concerned」(要訳出)のインセンティヴの階級に区別した Camille Roth, “Viable Wikis: Struggle for Life in the Wikisphere,” in (ACM, October 2007), (visited on December 13, 2007) がある。 2

  97. *A. Galinsky and T. Mussweiler, “First Offers as Anchors: The Role of Perspective Taking and Negotiator Focus,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81 (2001): 659, (visited on October 18, 2004). 2

  98. *David Bohm, On Dialog, ed. Lee Nichol (New York: Routledge, 1996); Daniel Yankelovich, “The Magic of Dialogue,” The Nonprofit Quarterly 8, number 3 (Fall 2001), (visited on November 24, 2004); Jennifer Preece and Kambiz Ghozati, “Experiencing Empathy Online,” in The Internet and Health Communication: Experience and Expectations, ed. R. R. Rice and J. E. Katz (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2001), 233; Krogh, “Care in Knowledge Creation”76*, 137. 2

  99. *Elinor Ostrom, “Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms,” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 14, number 3 (Summer 2000): 137–158, (accessed November 22, 2008). 2

  100. *Jennifer Preece, “Etiquette, Empathy and Trust in Communities of Practice: Stepping-Stones to Social Capital,” Journal of Universal Computer Science 10, number 3 (2004): 2, (visited on May 16, 2005); Krogh, “Care in Knowledge Creation”76*, 136; Cormac Lawler, “Wikipedia as a Learning Community: Content, Conflict and the ‘Common Good’”, Wikimedia, 2005, (visited on September 1, 2005). 2

  101. *Sirkka Jarvenpaa and Dorothy Leidner, “Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams,” Organization Science 10, number 6 (November 1999): 792, (visited on March 13, 2004). 2

  102. *Roderick M. Kramer and Peter J. Carnevale, “Trust and Intergroup Negotiation”, in Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intergroup Relations, ed. R. Brown and S. Gaertner (Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers, 2001), 8. 2

  103. *Michael Sheeran, Beyond Majority Rule: Voteless Decisions in the Religious Society of Friends (Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, 1996), 66. 2

  104. *Wikipedia, “User:Raul654/Raul’s Laws (oldid=301373968)”*. 2

  105. *

    For a seminal treatment of altruism, see Robert L. Trivers, “The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism,” The Quarterly Review of Biology 46, number 1 (March 1971): 35–57, (visited on June 5, 2006). In a small survey of Wikipedians, there were many more “pure” or “pragmatic” altruists than “selfish” individualists, see Christian Wagner and Pattarawan Prasarnphanich, “Innovating Collaborative Content Creation: the Role of Altruism and Wiki Technology,” in Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Washington, DC: IEEE, 2007), (accessed July 23, 2009).

    利他性の画期的な取り扱いについては Robert L. Trivers, “The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism,” The Quarterly Review of Biology 46, number 1 (March 1971): 35–57, (visited on June 5, 2006) を見よ。ウィキペディアン対象の小さなアンケートによれば、「純粋な」もしくは「実践的な」利他主義者のほうが「利己的な」個人主義者よりもずっと多かった。これについては Pattarawan Prasarnphanich, “Innovating Collaborative Content Creation: the Role of Altruism and Wiki Technology,” in Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Washington, DC: IEEE, 2007), (accessed July 23, 2009) を見よ。 2

  106. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:WikiLove (oldid=267504430)”93*. 2

  107. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:The World Will Not End Tomorrow,” Wikipedia, March 6, 2009, (visited on March 11, 2009). 2

  108. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Office Actions,” Wikipedia, June 23, 2008, (visited on July 1, 2008). 2

  109. *Jimmy Wales, “[WikiEN-l] 2 Questions for Jimbo about WP:OFFICE and Things That Aren’t Labeled WP:OFFICE.,” wikien-l, April 24, 2006, (visited on April 24, 2006). 2

  110. *Wikimedia, “Conflicting Wikipedia Philosophies,” Wikimedia, 2007, (visited on May 15, 2007). 2

  111. *Wikipedia, “List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer Episodes,” Wikipedia, August 6, 2009, (visited on August 13, 2009). 2

  112. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Don’t Escalate,” Wikipedia, February 16, 2008, (visited on March 6, 2009). 2

  113. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Candor,” Wikipedia, March 18, 2009, (visited on March 27, 2009). 2

  114. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion,” Wikipedia, May 3, 2007, (visited on May 15, 2007). 2

  115. *Bryan Derksen, “Re: Article Deletion (Proposed 1 Month Hiatus),” wikien-l, September 13, 2005, (accessed September 13, 2005). 2

  116. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Please Do Not Bite the Newcomers (oldid=245559838)”*. 2

  117. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Do Not Disrupt Wikipedia to Illustrate a Point”, Wikipedia, March 5, 2009, (accessed March 6, 2009). 2

  118. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Wikipedia Is Not Therapy,” Wikipedia, December 26, 2008, (visited on May 29, 2009). 2

  119. *Karl Fogel, “Producing Open Source Software: How to Run a Successful Free Software Project,” 2005, (accessed February 4, 2008), 49. 2

  120. *Jimmy Wales, “Re: To: Jimmy Wales - Admin-Driven Death of Wikipedia”, wikien-l, June 4, 2006, (accessed June 4, 2006). 2

  121. *Sanger, “The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia”*. 2

  122. *

    Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Policies and Guidelines (oldid=121662697)”; wikis are said to be based on the concept that “people really can be polite and well mannered” in Leuf and Cunningham, The Wiki Way, 323.

    Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Policies and Guidelines (oldid=121662697)”38*; Leuf and Cunningham, The Wiki Way, 323 では、ウィキは「人々は実際、礼儀正しくすることができる」という考え方にもとづいているとされる。 2

  123. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Civility,” Wikipedia, May 28, 2006, (visited on May 28, 2006). 2

  124. *Mark Kingwell, A Civil Tongue: Justice, Dialogue and the Politics of Pluralism (Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995), 247. 2

  125. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Civility,” Wikipedia, March 5, 2009, (visited on March 6, 2009). 2

  126. *Kingwell, A Civil Tongue124*, 249. 2

  127. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Civility (oldid=55584755)”123*. 2

  128. *Wikipedia, “User:Raul654/Raul’s Laws (oldid=301373968)”*, Law 250. 2

  129. *Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and the Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 1994). 2

  130. *

    Analysis of discourse within online communities finds that politeness is correlated with technical topics and with being a Wikipedia administrator, see Moira Burke and Robert Kraut, “Mind Your Ps and Qs: The Impact of Politeness and Rudeness in Online Communities,” in Proceedings of the ACM 2008 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (ACM, November 8, 2008), 37–46, (visited on May 27, 2009); Moira Burke and Robert Kraut, “Mopping up: Modeling Wikipedia Promotion Decisions,” in Proceedings of the ACM 2008 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (ACM, November 8, 2008), 37–46, (visited on May 27, 2009).

    オンラインコミュニティ内での言論の分析によれば、礼儀正しさは技術的話題であるかどうかとウィキペディア管理者であるかどうかに相関がある。これについては次を見よ。Moira Burke and Robert Kraut, “Mind Your Ps and Qs: The Impact of Politeness and Rudeness in Online Communities,” in Proceedings of the ACM 2008 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (ACM, November 8, 2008), 37–46, (visited on May 27, 2009); Moira Burke and Robert Kraut, “Mopping up: Modeling Wikipedia Promotion Decisions,” in Proceedings of the ACM 2008 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (ACM, November 8, 2008), 37–46, (visited on May 27, 2009). 2

  131. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Civility/Poll,” Wikipedia, August 12, 2009, (accessed August 12, 2009). 2

  132. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Department of Fun,” Wikipedia, March 15, 2009, (visited on March 18, 2009). 2

  133. *Onion, “Congress Abandons WikiConstitution,” The Onion 41, number 39 (September 28, 2005), (accessed October 8, 2005); Onion, “Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years of American Independence”, The Onion 42, number 30 (July 28, 2006), (visited on July 28, 2006). 2

  134. *Jerry Holkins and Mike Krahulik, “Skeletor Editing Wikipedia’s He-Man Article,” Penny Arcade, May 3, 2007, (visited on May 18, 2007). 2

  135. *Wikipedia, “Category:Wikipedia Humor,” Wikipedia, March 3, 2009, (visited on March 18, 2009). 2

  136. *Wikimedia, “Category:Humor Songs and Poems,” Wikimedia, 2006, (visited on October 23, 2006). 2

  137. *Daniel R. Tobias, “I Am the Very Model of a Modern Wikipedian,” wikien-l, October 8, 2006, (visited on October 8, 2006).

  138. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Assume Bad Faith,” Wikipedia, April 30, 2007, (visited on May 18, 2007). 2

  139. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View (oldid=6042007)”52*. 2

  140. *Wikimedia, “Don’t Be Dense,” Wikimedia, March 27, 2006, (visited on April 12, 2006). 2

  141. *Wikimedia, “AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD,” March 4, 2008, (visited on May 6, 2008). 2

  142. *Wikipedia, “User:Raul654/Raul’s Laws (oldid=301373968)”*. 2

  143. *Schrage, Shared Minds11*, 164. 2

  144. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Sarcasm Is Really Helpful,” Wikipedia, February 20, 2009, (visited on March 11, 2009). 2

  145. *Death Phoenix, “April Fool’s Day Proposal,” wikien-l, March 6, 2006, (visited on March 6, 2006); Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Pranking,” Wikipedia, January 7, 2009, (visited on March 18, 2009). 2

  146. *Christopher Thieme, “Incivility, re: Psychosis,” wikien-l, January 15, 2007, (visited on January 15, 2007). 2

  147. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:WikiLove (oldid=267504430)”93*. 2

  148. *Leuf and Cunningham, The Wiki Way37*, 323. 2

  149. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Collaboration First,” Wikipedia, February 5, 2009, (visited on March 6, 2009). 2