Chapter 6: The Benevolent Dictator

When a building is on fire, a leader will not survey everyone to see what the consensus is about a response. It is time for action. — Bhadani’s Second Law

建物が火事になったとき、どういう対応で合意できるかを全員にたずねるようなことを指導者はしない。行動すべきときだからだ。 –Bhadani の第2法則

Open, civil, egalitarian, deliberative: these are some of the concepts encountered in the pursuit of a universal encyclopedia. While they might seem simple enough in the abstract, they become much less so when used in the practice and discourse of a community. For instance, a perfectly “open” community will likely be chaotic, rendering it inhospitable to many. Or, if consensus doesn’t require unanimity, agreement — unanimous or otherwise — on what it does require can be elusive. Some of the sources and ironies of the English Wikipedia’s collaborative culture are further highlighted when one considers the role and status of leadership. Wikipedia, like other open content communities, is predominately a voluntary effort — aside from a few Wikimedia Foundation staff — and there’s little room for coercion or utilitarian rewards.1 Yet, there is often a seemingly paradoxical use of informal tyrant-like titles (i.e., “benevolent dictator”) for the community leader. What, then, can we make of this latest puzzle?

オープン、市民(FUZZY polite の意味か?)、平等主義、調整:これらは普遍的百科事典を追求するなかで遭遇する概念の一部だ。抽象においては十分単純にみえるかもしれないが、コミュニティの実践とディスコース(FUZZY)ではそれほど単純ではなくなる。たとえば、完璧に「オープン」なコミュニティは混沌におちいる可能性がたかく、多くの人にとって過ごしにくくなる。合意が全会一致でなくてもよいなら、どうなれば合意なのかについての同意–それが全会一致であれ他のものであれ–はつかみにくくなる。英語版ウィキペディアの共同作業の文化の源と皮肉の一部は、指導者の役割と地位について考えるとさらに鮮明になる。ウィキペディアは、他のオープンコンテントコミュニティと同様、少数のウィキメディア財団職員をのぞけば、自発的な活動が主体であり、強制力や功利主義報酬の余地はほとんどない1。それでも、コミュニティの指導者に対して、一見矛盾するような、非公式の専制的な称号(「優しい独裁者」など)が使われることがある。では、この難題はどう読み解くことができるだろうか。

In this chapter I show how this juxtaposition can be understood as an “authorial” form of leadership whereby exceptional autocratic power is exercised by a respected “author” within an open content community. I then return to the story of Wales and Sanger, for their conceptions of leadership and expectations for the community profoundly shaped its direction and culture. Finally, I consider how the community discusses this type of leadership and the values with which it seems at odds.

本章では、この対比(FUZZY juxtaposition)がリーダーシップの「著者的」形式として理解できることを示す。リーダーシップの著者的形式とは、ここでは例外的独裁的権力がオープンコンテントコミュニティ内で尊重される「著者」によって行使される様子を言う。その後、ウェールズとサンガーの物語に戻り、リーダーシップについての彼らの考え方、コミュニティの方向と構造を深く形成した彼らのコミュニティについての期待をとりあげる。

Authorial leadership


During one of the discussions about a feared “neo-Nazi” attack with which I began this book, Jimmy “Jimbo” Wales responded, “If 300 NeoNazis show up and start doing serious damage to a bunch of articles, we don’t need to have 300 separate ArbCom cases and a nightmare that drags on for weeks. I’ll just do something to lock those articles down somehow, ban a bunch of people, and protect our reputation and integrity.”2 How can such an autocratic statement be made within a supposedly open and consensus-based community? (I continue to use the term autocratic to describe, nondisparagingly, leadership actions that do not derive their authority from group decision-making processes.) Actually, such an exercise of power by a community founder is not unique to Wikipedia. Such “authorial” leadership is common to many open content communities and prompts three questions that merit attention: What is the environment from which such leadership emerges? How is it enacted? And, most interesting, how is it discussed and understood by the community?3

本書の冒頭でとりあげた「ネオナチ」による恐ろしい攻撃についての一連の議論のひとつのなかで、ジミー・ウェールズ(または「ジンボ」)はこのように答えた。「ネオナチが300人現れて、たくさんの項目に深刻な被害を与えはじめたら、ArbCom への訴えを300件出して何週間も悪夢になやまされる必要はありません。私がそうした項目をなんらかの方法で凍結し、何人もを追放して、私たちの名誉と倫理を守ります」2。このような独裁者的宣言がオープンであり合意にもとづくとされるコミュニティでなされることができるのだろうか(私は「独裁」という用語を、貶める意図を込めず、集団の意思決定から権威を導かずに指導者が行う行為として使いつづける)。実際、コミュニティ創設者によるこうした権力の行使はウィキペディアに固有ではない。こうした「独裁」的指導者はオープンコンテントコミュニティの多くでみられ、注目に値する3つの疑問を生じさせる。こうした指導者が出現するのはどんな環境か? どのようにしてそれが成立するか? そしてもっとも興味深いのは、それがコミュニティでどのように議論され理解されるのか? だ3

With respect to the environment, such leaders often found a project (often by authoring the initial content) around which a community develops, or otherwise emerge from a leaderless context by way of merit; subsequently they influence the direction of a community’s culture.4 Furthermore, this type of leadership often operates within a mix of governance models: ,meritocratic (setting the direction by leading the way), autocratic (acting as an arbiter or defender of last resort), anarchic (consensus); and occasionally democratic (voting).5 Wales himself has noted that:

環境に関しては、こうした指導者は、プロジェクトを(しばしば初期のコンテンツを著して)創設しそのまわりにコミュニティが発展していくか、もしくは指導者がいない文脈で功績(FUZZY merit)をもとに出現することが多く、その後コミュニティの文化の方向性に影響を与える4。さらに、この種のリーダーシップは、功績主義(進む道を先導することで方向を決める)、独裁(最後の手段としての裁定者または守護者)、無政府主義(合意)、場合によって民主主義(投票)など、複数の統治モデルの混合で運用されることが多い5。ウェールズ自身はこのように述べた。

Wikipedia is not an anarchy, though it has anarchistic features. Wikipedia is not a democracy, though it has democratic features. Wikipedia is not an aristocracy, though it has aristocratic features. Wikipedia is not a monarchy, though it has monarchical features.6


With respect to conduct, leaders often convince by persuasion and example though they also retain charismatic authority accumulated from their merit.7 This authority is frequently employed to act, as a last resort, as an arbiter between those of good faith or as an (autocratic) defender against those of bad faith. As Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) luminary Eric Raymond notes, leaders must be capable of operating with a “soft touch,” to “speak softly,” consult with peers, and “not lightly interfere with or reverse decisions” made by other prominent members.8 Additionally, humor and civility facilitate camaraderie between all participants and ease the exercise of authority and related anxiety.


Finally, such leadership is rarely enacted or understood as a formal office, though prominent leaders might be endowed with the informal moniker of “benevolent dictator” and occasionally act autocratically,9 as Wales threatened in the neo-Nazi case. However, leaders whose autocratic actions exceed their accumulated merit or charisma, sometimes referred to “idiosyncrasy credits” or “reputation shares,” risk their status and a forking of the community.10 For example, while a “benevolent dictator” might be tolerated as a necessity, a “God King” is a “site owner or administrator who uses their special authority more than absolutely necessary.” This is a leader so “arrogant that they suppose they are ‘god’ ”; this type of leadership is an “abuse,” “a bad thing,” and an “anti-pattern” of good wiki community.11 Also, the possibility of forking — even if unlikely — is central to voluntary community dynamics and discourse, as David Wheeler notes with respect to FOSS communities:

最後に、卓越した指導者は非公式に「優しい独裁者」という呼称が与えられることがあり、ウェールズがネオナチの件で警告したように独裁的に振る舞う場合もある9ものの、こうした指導者の力が公式の機関として制定されたり理解されたりすることは稀だ。しかし、独裁的行動が(しばしば「逸脱の貯金」や「名声の株式」と呼ばれる)積み重ねられたカリスマや実績を越えてしまった指導者は、その地位を失ったりコミュニティがフォークしたりする危険にさらされる10。「優しい独裁者」は必要なものとして許容されるかもしれないが、たとえば、「ゴッドキング」は「みずからの特殊な権威をどうしても必要な程度以上に使うサイト所有者または管理者」だ。この種の指導者は「傲慢にもみずからを『神』とする」。こうした指導者のありかたは「濫用」「悪いこと」であり、ウィキのコミュニティの「アンチパターン」だ11。(それほど高くなくとも)フォークの可能性は自発性にもとづくコミュニティの力学と言論において中心的だということを、David Wheeler は FOSS コミュニティに関してこう指摘する。

Fundamentally, the ability to create a fork forces project leaders to pay attention to their constituencies. Even if an OSS/FS project completely dominates its market niche, there is always a potential competitor to that project: a fork of the project. Often, the threat of a fork is enough to cause project leaders to pay attention to some issues they had ignored before, should those issues actually be important. In the end, forking is an escape valve that allows those who are dissatisfied with the project’s current leadership to show whether or not their alternative is better.12

基本的なこととして、フォークを作ることができるということで、プロジェクトの指導者は支持者らへの注意を向けるようにさせられる。ある OSS または FS のプロジェクトが市場のニッチを完全に支配していたとしても、そのプロジェクトには常に潜在的な競合者がいる。そのプロジェクトのフォークだ。フォークの危険ができることは、多くの場合、それまで無視していた問題に、それが実際は重要なものだったとして、注意を向けるようにプロジェクトの指導者をしむけるのに十分だ。結局、プロジェクトの現在の指導者のありかたに不満のある人に、自分たちの代案のほうがよいかどうかを示すことを許す安全弁のひとつが、フォークなのである。12

In short, only those leaders that tread carefully and continue to make important contributions (including, now, the judicious exercise of autocratic authority) are granted the “dictator” title. Whereas this term might not be the most appropriate in capturing the genuine character of this role, it serves as a warning: a good-natured joke balanced on the edge of becoming a feared reality.13 It serves as a caution to such leaders, as well as a metaphoric yardstick for discussing any participant’s action.


Because of the voluntary and meritocratic character of open content communities it is not surprising that leaders are expected to lead by example as their very leadership is founded upon exemplary behavior; leadership emerges through action rather than appointment. And while a founding leadership role has some semblance of authoritarianism to it, at least in title, it is eternally contingent: a dissatisfied community, or some constituency thereof, can always leave and start again under new leadership.


Wales and Sanger


Two of the most influential people in the history of Wikipedia are cofounders Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales. In Organizational Culture and Leadership, Edgar Schein identifies ways in which such leaders embed and transmit culture including “how leaders react to critical incidents and organizational crises.”14 The following brief account of the crisis of Nupedia’s demise, Wikipedia’s rise, and Sanger’s departure provides a revealing introduction to leadership in the Wikipedia context.

ウィキペディアの歴史上もっとも影響力のあったのは、共同創設者ラリー・サンガーとジミー・ウェールズの2名だ。著書 Organizational Culture and Leadership で Edgar Schein は「指導者が重大事件や組織の危機にいかに対応するか」等、こうした指導者が文化を埋め込み伝えていく方法を特定している14。下記に示す、ニューペディアの死の危機、ウィキペディアの勃興、サンガーの離脱についての簡単なまとめは、ウィキペディアの文脈でのリーダーシップについての赤裸々な紹介となる。

Wales, a co-owner of the Internet content and search company Bomis, hired Sanger in February 2000 to launch and act as the editor in chief of the Nupedia project. Until he resigned, Sanger was the most prominent leader of Nupedia (the original peer-review project) and Wikipedia (its wiki complement and eventual successor). As Sanger writes in his April 2005 memoir:

インターネットのコンテンツと検索の会社 Bomis の共同経営者だったウェールズは、2000年2月、ニューペディア事業の編集責任者としてサンガーを雇った。辞職まで、サンガーはニューペディア(大本のピアレビューのプロジェクト)とウィキペディア(それを補完するウィキ版であり最終的な後継者)の最大の指導者だった。サンガーは2005年4月にこう述懐している。

The idea of adapting wiki technology to the task of building an encyclopedia was mine, and my main job in 2001 was managing and developing the community and the rules according to which Wikipedia was run. Jimmy’s role, at first, was one of broad vision and oversight; this was the management style he preferred, at least as long as I was involved. But, again, credit goes to Jimmy alone for getting Bomis to invest in the project, and for providing broad oversight of the fantastic and world-changing project of an open content, collaboratively-built encyclopedia. Credit also of course goes to him for overseeing its development after I left, and guiding it to the success that it is today.

ウィキの技術を百科事典の構築という課題に適用しようという考えは私のものだった。ウィキペディア運用のもとになっているコミュニティと規則を運営し発展させることが2001年の私の仕事だった。ジミーの役割は、最初は、全体のヴィジョンと監督だった。彼はこの運営スタイルを、少なくとも私が関係しているあいだは、好んでいた。といってもやはり、この事業への投資を Bomis から引き出し、オープンコンテントであり共同作業で作る百科事典という夢のような、世界を変革する事業全体のヴィジョンを提供したことはジミーだけの功績だ。もちろん私が去ってからの監督と発展も、今日の成功にまで導いたことも、そうだ。

What precipitated Sanger’s resignation? As discussed in chapter 2, Sanger was caught between continuing frustration with Nupedia’s slow progress on one hand and problems with unruly Wikipedians on the other. Furthermore, Sanger alienated some Wikipedians who saw his actions as unjustifiably autocratic and he eventually broke with the project altogether. In late 2006 Sanger launched the more expert-friendly collaborative encyclopedia Citizendium. In any case, Sanger’s account recognizes the uneasy tension between title and authority and cultural momentum at the founding of this community:

何がサンガーの退職を急がせたのか? 第2章で論じたように、サンガーはニューペディアの遅々とした進捗へのいらだちの継続を一方に、無法なウィキペディアンらを他方に、両者の板挟みになっていた。さらには、自分の行動を不当にも独裁的だと考えた一部のウィキペディアンらをサンガーは疎外し、最終的にはこの事業と袂をわかつことになった。2006年終盤、サンガーは専門家にとってより取り組みやすい共同作業の百科事典 Citizendium を公開した。いずれにしても、このコミュニティの創設期における称号と権威と文化的勢いとのあいだで不安定な緊張を、サンガーは省察で認めている。

My early rejection of any enforcement authority, my attempt to portray myself and behave as just another user who happened to have some special moral authority in the project, and my rejection of rules — these were all clearly mistakes on my part. They did, I think, help the project get off the ground; but I really needed a more subtle and forward-looking understanding of how an extremely open, decentralized project might work.


Such an understanding might have been like that of Theodore Roosevelt’s recommended leadership style: speak softly and carry a big stick. Whereas Sanger did have special authority at Nupedia as “editor in chief,” such was not the case at Wikipedia, and Sanger’s corresponding “loudness” was a later cause of regret:


As it turns out, it was Jimmy who spoke softly and carried the big stick; he first exercised “enforcement authority.” Since he was relatively silent throughout these controversies, he was the “good cop,” and I was the “bad cop”: that, in fact, is precisely how he (privately) described our relationship. Eventually, I became sick of this arrangement. Because Jimmy had remained relatively toward the background in the early days of the project, and showed that he was willing to exercise enforcement authority upon occasion, he was never so ripe for attack as I was.15


Perhaps unrealized by Sanger, Wales exhibited this pattern of leadership even on an earlier philosophical email list for which he wrote that he would “frown very much on any flaming of any kind whatsoever” and choose “a ‘middle-ground’ method of moderation, a sort of behind-the-scenes prodding.”16 And most interestingly, Sanger attributes a root of the problem to his failure to recognize the importance of community and culture:


For months I denied that Wikipedia was a community, claiming that it was, instead, only an encyclopedia project, and that there should not be any serious governance problems if people would simply stick to the task of making an encyclopedia. This was strictly wishful thinking. In fact, Wikipedia was from the beginning and is both a community and an encyclopedia project.17


As noted earlier, upon publication of Sanger’s memoirs a controversy arose over whether Sanger even deserved credit as a cofounder of Wikipedia. In a sense, in playing the bad cop one is depleting one’s own reputation or leadership credits in favor of the good cop; Sanger, in shifting from bad-cop to apostate, prompted some to question whether such credit was merited at any time. A more productive discussion at the time characterized the change in leadership style as a necessary one:


Now, I must say… I think a project of such a type can only work without a strong authority. It is important to let people built their own organisation. Jimbo has this very powerful strength, in this that he lets most of the organisation be a self-organisation. For those who know a bit about leadership, it is a rather rare occurrence. For the sake of wikipedia, and to let all the international projects grow up (without a strong hand to lead them), it was important that the role of the editor in chief disappear.18


Sanger actually concedes as much in the development of editorial policies but is still concerned about controlling abusive editors and attacks, particularly when they alienate high-quality expert contributors. And so he now leads the Citizendium project.

サンガーは実際は編集方針の策定にはかなり譲歩しているが、無理を通す編集者と攻撃とを統制することには、特にそれらが優良な専門家の寄稿者を遠ざけているとき、こだわっている。そのために彼は今は Citizendium プロジェクトを進めている。

Wales’ influence


Authorial leaders are frequently the initial author of the community’s content. This is the case, for example, with Linus Torvalds and the Linux kernel or Guido van Rossum and the Python programming language. In this respect, Wikipedia is a bit different, as was pointed out to me by Evan Prodromou, Wikipedian and a founder of Wikitravel.19 Prodromou argued that unlike FOSS communities, Wikipedia has many more contributors, many of whom, even at the administrator level, contribute at a low skill and intensity level compared to FOSS contributors. Furthermore, unlike other wiki communities or even other leaders within Wikipedia, Wales has never been a significant “author” in terms of creating content. Indeed, because of Wikipedia’s history the community regards an editor in chief as undesirable, and even Wales’s relatively modest editorial contributions are apt to cause concern. (In fact, in The New Yorker he admitted he abandoned his efforts to write a scholarly Nupedia article on Robert Merton and options-pricing theory because it was too intimidating and reminiscent of graduate school.20 Sometimes his Wikipedia edits are challenged, as we will see, and statistics on his contributions and “edit count” have been a topic of discussion.21) Plus, much of his purview has been understandably limited to English projects. And even though Wales’s public presence in the daily life of Wikipedia has receded,22 I consider his leadership to be central because of his founding vision, early activity, contributions to collaborative norms, relationships with other Wikipedians, and latent power.

著者的指導者はコミュニティのコンテンツの初期の著者であることが多い。たとえばリーナス・トーヴァルズとリナックスカーネル、Guido van Rossum と Python プログラミング言語の場合はそうだ。この観点で、ウィキペディアンでありウィキトラベル創設者である Evan Prodromou が私に指摘してくれたように19、ウィキペディアは少し異なる。FOSS コミュニティと違い、ウィキペディアにはずっと多くの貢献者がいて、その多くは、管理者の水準であっても、FOSSの貢献者よりも低スキルで低集中の貢献をしていると Prodromou は論じた。さらには、他のウィキコミュニティ、あるいはウィキペディア内の他の指導者とも違い、ウェールズはコンテンツを作りだす「著者」として目立ったことがない。まさにウィキペディアのたどった歴史のために、コミュニティは編集長をのぞましくないものとみなし、ウェールズの比較的控えめな投稿でさえ、懸念を生じさせがちだった。(実際、The New Yorker で、ニューペディアにロバート・マートンとオプション価格評価理論についての学術的項目を書く試みは、怖く、大学院を彷彿とさせるので、放棄してしまったとウェールズは語った20。今後みていくことだが、彼のウィキペディアの編集は時に批判にさらされ、彼の投稿と「編集回数」の統計は議論の対象となった21。)くわえて、彼の射程は、理解できることだが、英語のプロジェクトに限られていた。ウィキペディアの日常におけるウェールズの公的な存在感は影を消したとはいえ22、創設のヴィジョン、共同作業の規範への貢献、他のウィキペディアンとの関係、隠れた権力を理由に、彼のリーダーシップを重要だと私は考える。

In addition to reacting to crises, Schein argues that community culture is affected by what leaders “pay attention to.”23 In this way, leadership can be exerted by highlighting rather than coercing. For example, in any early discussion about neutral point of view, Wales identifies an important issue and highlights a sentiment he agrees with: “We should all pay close attention to Larry’s wording here, which I think is excellent. Nupedia should ‘include articles on all points of view’ (note the emphasis added), not necessarily ‘include articles from all points of view.’”24 Or, as seen in the discussion about the blocking of a white supremacist, Wales went out of his way to commend the participants for having “a disagreement with a positive exploration of the deeper issues.”25 Highlighting others’ arguments to make his own has even led Wales to apologize for contravening Netiquette; in a thread about the balance between high-quality content and “cruft,” Wales commented: “I know it is bad form to quote an entire post just to say ‘me too’ but I wanted to say that Daniel is right on the money here, and displays what I think of as true Wikipedia spirit. We have to have a passion to get it right or we’ll be full of rampant nonsense.”26 He also can be found highlighting what he thinks to be central Wikipedia values: “Wikipedia is built on (among other things) twin pillars of trust and tolerance…. The harmony of our work depends on human understanding and forgiveness of errors”.27

危機への対応にくわえて、指導者が何に「注意をはらうか」によってコミュニティの文化は影響をうけると Schein は論じる23。このようにして、強制ではなく強調することによってリーダーシップは発揮される。たとえば、中立的な観点についての初期の議論で、ウェールズは重要な問題を指摘し、自分が同意する意見をこう強調した。「私たちはラリーのこの言い方に十分注意をむけなければなりません。すぐれた言い方だと思います。ニューペディアは『あらゆる観点についての項目を掲載』すべき(原注:強調は追加)」であって、『あらゆる観点に立った項目を掲載』すべきとはかぎりません」24。ある白人優越主義者にブロックを課すことについての議論でみられたように、ウェールズは「より深い問題を肯定的に探索する不同意」をもっていることについて、議論参加者を賞賛するやり方をとった25。他者の発言の一部を強調することで発言をする彼のやり方は、ネチケット違反を謝ることにさえつながった。高品質なコンテンツと「カス」のあいだのバランスについてのスレッドで、ウェールズは「『同意』と言うためだけに1メッセージ全体を引用するのは行儀のよくないことだとは分かっているのですが、ダニエルが言ったことは全くただしく、ウィキペディアらしい精神をあらわしている、と言いたかったのです。私たちはただしくすることへの情熱をもたなければなりません。でなければここは無意味なものだらけになるでしょう」26と発言した。ウィキペディアの価値観に中心的なものと彼が考えているものをこのように強調した例もみつかる。「ウィキペディアは(他のものにくわえて)信頼と寛容という2つの柱で成り立っています……。私たちの仕事全体の調和は、人間を理解することと誤ちを許すこととにかかっています。」27

Furthermore, after immersing oneself in Wikipedia practice it is not difficult to see that many of its good faith norms are strongly exercised by Wales himself. In a 2007 discussion about his role at Wikipedia he described his approach as diplomatic and reflects elements of both good faith and neutrality:


I have many faults, but refusal to listen is not really among them. I make mistakes, but I am calm and educable. I try to land in the center on most issues, rather than staking out any sort of extreme positions. And I try to represent all parts of the community’s interest in the broad building of consensus as being better than gang warfare.28


Wales once described his approach to me as “I like to think I’m not stupid, but I’m not in my present position because I’m smart but because I’m friendly.”29 This attitude can be seen in the following interactions in which Wales frequently writes with:


patience: on a thread regarding Serbo-Croatian dialects: “For those who find Mark irritating, and who may not tend to listen to him on those grounds, I would like to say, listen to him on this point.”30

忍耐:セルヴォ・クロアチア語についてのスレッドで:「Mark にいらいらさせられているという人、彼のあの手の論陣を聞き流す傾向のある人に向けていいたいのですが、この点については聞いてください。」30

civility: in response to someone who spoke of a threatened fork over a Friulian dialect and challenged “ARE YOU CRAZY!?!!!!?!!?!?!” Wales responded, “Good luck with that. ‘Not yelling at people’ is a critical trait of leadership in an all volunteer project.”31


humility: in response to someone concerned about perennial problems, including language policies, Wales wrote, “I’m very sympathetic to all these points. I don’t have an easy answer what to do.”32


a willingness to apologize: when Wales recommended some text be added to a page when it was already present he wrote, “Ok, my mistake, I’m very very sorry. I didn’t see that. I apologize for any confusion.”33


Additionally, humor serves to further camaraderie and diffuse anxiety about leadership. In response to a message about an April Fool’s Day joke about Wales as dictator, someone responded that many prominent Wikipedians make jokes:


These jokes don’t have a “point.” If you scour the list for all messages, you will find that I am not the only one who has a sense of humour and knows how to make jokes. In fact, this extends to Ant, Mav, Jimbo, etc. who can occasionally be found to be making a joke on this list.

こういう冗談には「主張」はありません。このメーリングリストの全メッセージを精査してみれば、ユーモアのセンスがあり冗談を言えるのが私だけではないと分かるでしょう。実際、Ant や Mav やジンボもそうであり、ここで冗談を言うことがあります。

I don’t know how it is with you, but as far as I know the point of humour is to lighten up a situation, and only occasionally to make a point.34


However, as Wikipedia has grown, attempts at humor by those in positions of authority seemingly become rarer because a bad or misunderstood joke can have deleterious consequences exceeding the value of a few chuckles. And, of course, just as Wikipedia sometimes fall short of its ideals, Wales — and other leaders — make their fair share of mistakes, some of which are widely publicized because of Wikipedia’s prominence and a counter-culture of message boards that thrive on complaint and conspiracy.35 Even within the community, his attempts to steer Wikipedia are sometimes challenged. For example, during the 2006 Wikimedia board of trustee elections, Wales’ message encouraging people to vote — and for specific candidates — was thought inappropriate by some because he might have access to the intermediate results; subsequent elections were hosted and overseen by an external organization.36 Or, in response to an embarrassing instance of vandalism in 2009, Wales called upon the Foundation to enable the experimental “Flagged Revisions” feature at the English Wikipedia based on his “personal recommendation” and community consensus (roughly 60 percent of those polled supported the idea). This prompted a maelstrom of discussion, and mainstream press attention, about openness, the meaning of consensus, and his role. However, despite initially overreaching, he and the community continued substantive discussion and Wales challenged those who objected for a specific counter-proposal within a limited time frame.37 (I expect using this feature as a way to protect specific pages eventually will be implemented.)

しかし、悪い冗談や誤解される冗談は、ちょっとした笑いの効果を上回る、痛みをともなう結果をひきおこしかねないものであり、権威ある立場にある人による冗談の試みはウィキペディアの成長につれてめずらしくなっていったように見える。そしてもちろん、ウィキペディアも自らの理想を守れないことがあるのと同じように、ウェールズ —と他の指導者たち— はそれなりの間違いを犯すため、また、ウィキペディアが目立つことと、文句と陰謀論で成り立つ掲示板のカウンターカルチャーがあるために、間違いは広く報知される35。コミュニティ内でも、ウィキペディアを動かそうとする彼の試みには異論が出ることがあった。たとえば、2006年のウィキメディア理事会選挙で、投票 —特定の候補者への— を呼びかけるウェールズのメッセージを、彼には中間結果をみる権限があるかもしれないから不適切だと考える人がいた。以降の選挙は外部組織によって主催・監督された36。2009年の不名誉な荒らしの一件への対応として、「個人的な進言」とコミュニティの合意(投票した人のうち60パーセントが支持)にもとづいて、ウェールズは財団に実験的な「FlaggedRevisions」機能を英語版ウィキペディアで有効にするよう呼びかけた。これは開放性、合意の意味、彼の役割についての議論と主流メディアの注目を巻き起こした。初期段階では無謀だったが、ウェールズとコミュニティは実質的な議論を続け、ウェールズは反対者に具体的な対案を一定の期間内に出すよう呼びかけた37。(特定のページを保護するものとしてのこの機能はいずれ実施されると私は見ている。)

In any case, Wikipedia’s good faith culture undeniably has been shaped by Wales’s own values and actions; while he did not write many articles, he did help establish many of Wikipedia’s essential values and norms. Additionally, after Sanger’s departure he once again attempted to move to the “background” in encouraging other forms of governance to emerge and by supporting like-minded persons with a similar temperament.


Beyond the Founders: Admins, ArbCom, and the Board


Whereas cofounder Larry Sanger was editor in chief of Nupedia and he was informally known as the chief organizer of Wikipedia, neither role was ever claimed again after he resigned. Instead, the “Administrators” page stresses that everyone is an equal editor. Those who demonstrate themselves to be good editors may request extra responsibilities but “are not imbued with special authority.”38 Yet, while Wikipedia culture values editorial egalitarianism over administrative responsibilities, this does not mean there are no leaders. Consequently, before turning to how the community speaks about leadership, I first present a brief description of the leadership and governance structure of Wikipedia itself.


A novel characteristic of Wikipedia is that most anyone who browses Wikipedia may edit it — though a tiny fraction of pages are “protected” if they are subject to persistent or severe policy violations, such as edit warring, vandalism, defamation, or copyright violations.39 Wikipedia pages claim that contributors who sign up for an account and log in — no longer “anonymous” — do not gain additional powers; instead, they have access to useful features such as a user page and the ability to track the pages one cares about. (Of course, a logged-in user who builds a good reputation can garner informal authority among other contributors.) Additional features are made accessible to experienced users in the role of a system administrator, or sysop. These features permit such an administrator to enact Wikipedia policy and group consensus, particularly with respect to the management of protected pages, the deletion of pages, or temporarily blocking sources of vandalism. Yet, the English Wikipedia’s “Administrators” page quotes Jimmy Wales as saying, “This should not be a big deal.” Indeed, in a 2005 version of this page an association with editorial authority is purposely disavowed:


Administrators are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility. Some Wikipedians consider the terms “Sysop” and “Administrator” to be misnomers, as they just indicate Wikipedia users who have had performance-and security-based restrictions on several features lifted because they seemed like trustworthy folks and asked nicely. However, administrators do not have any special power over other users other than applying decisions made by all users.


In the early days of Wikipedia all users acted as administrators and in principle they still should. Any user can behave as if they are an administrator, provided that they do not falsely claim to be one, even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions. Users doing so are more likely to be nominated as full administrators by members of the community and more likely to be chosen when they are finally nominated.40


Essentially, administrators are able to quickly prevent and intervene in destructive edits. (Textual vandalism isn’t truly destructive as the previous versions are available; one administrative feature is the rollback that permits the quick reversion of such edits.) However, in an ironic testament that administrators are much like ordinary users, they do sometimes become involved in wheel wars, a term going back to the 1970s to describe conflicts among those who gained “big wheel” privileges on a computer system.41 And, given there are now thousands of contributors, administrators, and administrative actions it is no longer possible to claim that administrators are “applying decisions made by all users” as was claimed in 2005. A clarification in 2008 states: “There is very little extra decision-making ability that goes along with adminship, and it does not add any extra voice in consensus decisions. In that sense, whether a person is an administrator is not, in and of itself, important”.42


In the time since its founding, additional levels of authority have appeared as Wikipedia evolved from a small English-only encyclopedia to a massive project among many at a nonprofit foundation. At the English Wikipedia there are now 900-plus active administrators and about a dozen active bureaucrats who appoint administrators and other bureaucrats.43 Elected stewards can, respectively, change any such role across all Wikimedia wikis and act as bureaucrats for smaller projects.44 Orthogonal to administrative and governance roles there are also developers, those who actually write the software and administer the servers.45 Volunteers continue to act in all of these capacities: the Wikimedia Foundation has only a handful of employees who administer the foundation, solicit funding, or perform essential hardware/software maintenance and development.46


In Wikipedia culture, and in keeping with the larger wiki culture, delineations of authority are suspect, as is seen in the previous excerpt regarding the role of administrators. Yet, even if these other levels of authority entail responsibilities rather than rights — which is the orthodox line — they could nonetheless be seen as something to achieve or envy if only for symbolic status. This leads to the occasional call for the label associated with this role to be deprecated, as discussed in the thread “Rename Admins to Janitors”:

より広いウィキ文化を反映するウィキペディアの文化では、管理者の役割についての前掲の引用でも見られるように、権限の定義がはっきりしない。しかし、他のこうした権威の段階は権利というより責任をおびる—これは正統派の見解である— としても、象徴的地位の意味でだけでも達成されるか羨まれるものとして見られうる。このことにより、この役割につけられた名前を廃止しようというよびかけが、時おりなされる。「管理者を掃除人に改名する」のスレッドではこう議論された。

I’m sick and tired of people misunderstanding what an “administrator” of Wikipedia is. It was a misnomer to begin with, and we’ve had nothing but trouble with this name ever since. Users misunderstand it (and ask admins to make editorial decisions). Media misunderstand it (and either do not explain it, or connect it to power and influence). And it’s no wonder. “Administrator” could refer to a manager, or someone appointed by a court; it typically describes someone in an important official position.


When the role of “bureaucrat” was created, the name was chosen specifically so that people would not treat it as a status symbol. It should be something nobody really wants — something people do because it needs doing, not because it gains them credibility and influence. This seems to have worked reasonably well for the most part.47

「ビューロクラット」(官僚)の役割が作られたとき、まさに地位の象徴として受けとられないようにするためにこの名前が選ばれました。誰もやりたがらない役目 — 信用や影響力が得られるからではなく必要だからやるという役目です。これはそれなりにうまくいったようです。47

Also, it is worthwhile to note that as one ascends the hierarchy of roles, and the power of implementation increases, policy discretion often decreases. Just as administrators ought not to have extra authority in making editorial decisions, stewards should not make policy decisions. Stewards can “remove arbitrary user access levels” on any Wikimedia wiki. They can toggle whether one has the ability of an administrator (to block users or protect pages), a bot (run automatic tools), or a bureaucrat (set access levels within a single wiki), and whether one has the ability of oversight (suppressing revisions), or checkuser (to determine the Internet address of users). Because of this power, stewards are governed by their own policies: don’t decide, don’t promote users on projects with existing bureaucrats, don’t change rights on your own project, act with transparency, and check local policies.48 The “don’t decide” policy further states:


Stewards are not allowed to make decisions, such as “this user should (or should not) be promoted.” Their task is to implement valid community decisions…. Stewards should always be neutral. They can vote in elections, but when executing the result of the election the steward has to act according to the result, even if they disagree.49


At the time of incorporation in 2003, Wales delegated some of his authority to an initial five directors of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, in which he serves as chairman emeritus. (The board has since been expanded; elections in July 2009 resulted in a total of ten trustees.50) The Board “has the power to direct the activities of the foundation. It also has the authority to set membership dues, discipline and suspend members (article III), and to amend the corporate bylaws (article VI).”51 In the realm of editorial disputes between users (including administrators) dispute resolution can be facilitated by mediation or arbitration, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) can issue a binding decision. The ArbCom, discussed in chapter 5, was first proposed as a “Wikiquette committee” in 2003 and was formally established the following year.52 However, it is recommended that disputes be worked out civilly between the participants as mediation and arbitration can be tedious. Or, as Skomorokh’s Law notes, “There are no winners at Arbitration, only losers”.53 The ArbCom, the Board, and Jimmy Wales himself, ultimately, have the authority to penalize or remove abusive users.

2003年の設立の際、ウェールズは自分の権威の一部をウィキメディア財団初代理事5名に委ねた。ウェールズは理事会に名誉理事長を務めている。(理事会はその後拡大された。2009年7月の選挙で10名が選出された。50)理事会は「財団の活動を指揮する権力を持つ。理事の任期の決定、統制、資格停止をする権威を持ち(3章)、法人の定款を修正する権威を持つ(6章)。51」(管理者を含む)ユーザー間の論争の領域では、論争解決は調停か裁定によって推進され、裁定委員会(ArbCom)は拘束力のある決定を発行できる。ArbCom については5章で論じたが、これはもともと「ウィキケット委員会」として2003年に提案され、翌年に正式に発足した52。しかし、調停と裁定はなかなか進まないため、論争は参加者間で礼儀にのっとってまとめることが推奨されている。または、Skomorokh の法則が指摘するように、「裁定に勝者はいない、敗者あるのみ」53。ArbCom 、理事会、ジミー・ウェールズ自身が、究極的には、無法なユーザーに懲罰を与え、排除する権威を持つ。

Finally, while consensus is preferred for most decisions, voting has had a place in Wikipedia, such as in some elections (e.g., for stewards and board members) and on pages like “VfD” (Votes for Deletion) where allegedly unworthy articles are nominated for removal. Nonetheless voting is widely recognized as difficult and often contentious: “Don’t vote on everything, and if you can help it, don’t vote on anything.”54 In fact the VfD process was renamed to AfD (Articles for Deletion) and now speaks of consensus rather than voting.55 In any case, and as noted earlier, multiple models of governance coexist within Wikipedia, and democratic voting is widely recognized as problematic.

最後に、ほとんどの決定で合意が好まれるものの、一部の選挙(たとえばスチュワードや理事の選挙)や不適切だと考えられた項目の取り下げが提案される「VfD」(削除についての投票)のページなど、投票はウィキペディアで一定の位置を占める。とはいえ投票は難しく、しばしば争いをになりやすいと広く認められている。「何にでも投票をしようとするのはやめましょう。できるならば、あらゆる投票をやめましょう」54。実際 VfD の手続きは AfD (削除が提案された項目)と名が変えられ、投票よりも合意を重んじるようになっている55。いずれにしても、先に述べたように、複数の統治のモデルがウィキペディアには共存し、民主的投票には問題があると広く認められている。

However, despite an early lack of concern with community structure and culture (e.g., “Ignore All Rules”), protestations that administrators are nothing but janitors, and that the ArbCom was but an experimental delegation of authority from Wales, Wikipedia’s conceptualization of governance and leadership is maturing and stabilizing. Wikipedia has long since recognized itself as a community, people strive to become administrators despite disclaimers, and the ArbCom is unlikely to go away. The cultural significance of administrators was acknowledged in January 2007 by the creation of the page “Advice for New Administrators,” which became part of the “New Admin School,” which even includes the “coaching” (mentoring) of editors who want to become an administrator.56 Yet, the orthodox caveats about responsibility rather than power persist, as the “Advice” page cautions:

しかし、コミュニティの構造と文化について初期に関心が欠如していて(たとえば「ルールはすべて無視せよ」)、管理者は掃除員にすぎない、ArbCom はジンボ・ウェールズから試験的に権威を移譲されたにすぎないと抗議されたにもかかわらず、ウィキペディアの統治とリーダーシップの概念化は成熟し安定しつつある。ウィキペディアは古くからひとつのコミュニティとして認識されており、人々はただしがきの存在にもかかわらず管理者になろうとし、ArbCom は消滅しそうにない。管理者の文化の重要性は2007年1月に「新人管理者への助言」の作成を通じて認識された。この文書がとりこまれた「新人管理者の学校」には、管理者になろうとする編集者の「コーチング」(個人指導)さえも含まれている56。しかし、権力ではなく責任という正統派の注意は、「助言」のページのこのような警告として維持されている。

Remember that administrator status is not a trophy. Generally, therefore, do not act any differently now than you did six months or a year ago. It is true that you may be able to help mediate a dispute effectively, or resolve one, or guide the improvement of an article. But in virtually all of these cases your ability has nothing to do with your being an administrator, just with your experience, knowledge of the policies, and good sense — i.e. virtues you had long before you became an administrator, and virtues shared by many non-administrators…. Wikipedia administrators do have certain powers, and you need good judgment to use them. Nevertheless, this does not mean that administrators should act like police or judges. Consider thinking of your new status more like a custodian.57


Furthermore, the role of socializing others into the collaborative norms of Wikipedia are represented as a central function of being an administrator, who should be willing to talk and be patient; respond with “gentle” encouragement and discouragement; pay “careful attention to our core policies”; “assume people act on good faith”; and “give people the benefit of the doubt.” They should not “get sucked in” to the disputes in which they intervene.

さらに、ウィキペディアの共同作業的規範に関して他者を社会化(FUZZY ERRATA “are represented” は “is represented” の誤記か?)する役割は管理者であることの中心的機能として表現されており、管理者は忍耐力を持って対話する意思を持ち、すすめることとすすめないことについて「柔らか」な返答をし、「中核的方針に深い注意」を払い、「人々が善意で行動することを仮定」し、「疑わしきときは当人の利益」とするべきだとされる。また、論争へ干渉するときに、論争に「はまりこむ」べきではない。

Discussing Leadership


The prominent leader of an open content community is sometimes characterized as a benevolent dictator. This is a variation on a tradition in online communities, particularly Usenet, of referring to a minority with disproportionate influence as a “cabal.”58 While a cabal can still be spoken of in earnest (with a negative connotation), in time it and the acronym TINC (“There Is No Cabal”) became shorthand for referring to the difficulties of community governance and the propensity for some to see conspiracies. The role of the “benevolent dictator” completes this ironic turn while also indicating genuine respect. Jimmy Wales is referred to as a benevolent dictator, though it is not a title he accepts. Indeed, it behooves any such leader to disclaim such a title because, as Eric Raymond notes, hacker culture “consciously distrusts and despises egotism and ego-based motivations; self-promotion tends to be mercilessly criticized, even when the community might appear to have something to gain from it. So much so, in fact, that the culture’s ‘big men’ and tribal elders are required to talk softly and humorously deprecate themselves at every turn in order to maintain their status.”59 (Although Raymond is seminal for theorizing aspects of open source leadership and popularizing the term “benevolent dictator,” its usage appears to precede Raymond’s use in computer communities and even its application to Linus Torvalds.60)

オープンコンテントコミュニティの有力な指導者は優しい独裁者として特徴づけられることがある。これは、「カバル」として不釣り合いな影響力を発揮する少数派を指す、オンラインコミュニティ、特に Usenet における伝統の変形のひとつだ58。カバルは真剣に(否定的な意味合いで)言及されることはいまだにあるが、時とともにこの言葉およびその略語 TINC (”there is no cabal”、カバルなどない)はコミュニティ統治の難しさと陰謀をみようとする一部の傾向とを端的に指すようになった。「優しい独裁者」の役割はこの皮肉な展開を完成させるが、同時に純粋な敬意も示す。ジミー・ウェールズは優しい独裁者と呼ばれるが、この称号を彼は受け入れていない。実際、どんな指導者であれこのような称号は返上するのが適切だ。その理由はエリック・レイモンドが指摘するように、ハッカー文化は「独善と独善に由来する動機を疑い、軽蔑する。自己宣伝は、コミュニティにそこから得るものがありそうな場合であっても、容赦なく批判される傾向にある。この文化の『偉い人』や長老が地位を維持するためには、どんな局面でも物腰をやわらかにし、ユーモアをもって卑下する必要があるほどだ」59。(レイモンドはオープンソースの指導者の側面を理論化し「優しい独裁者」という用語を広めた先駆者だが、その用法はレイモンドのコンピュータのコミュニティに関する用例、あるいはリーナス・トーヴァルズへのその適用よりも前にさかのぼるようである。60

Nonetheless, the need for “dictatorship” arises from the difficulty inherent to decision making in large, voluntary, and consensus-oriented communities. While a cabal or dictator might be complained about, so might their absence. In a discussion about whether a redesign of Wikipedia’s portal should use icons of national flags to represent different languages — many nations share a language or use more than one — Wikipedian NSK wrote that continued arguments “do nothing to improve the present ugly portal.” Unfortunately, “Wikipedia suffers from many voices, often contradictory. I think you need an influential leader to take final decisions (after community input of course).”61 This sentiment is shared in many open content communities. FOSS practitioner Karl Fogel writes: “Only when it is clear that no consensus can be reached, and that most of the group wants someone to guide the decision so that development can move on, do they put their foot down and say ‘This is the way it’s going to be.”’62 Clay Shirky also makes this point in his essay “A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy” by way of Geoff Cohen’s observation that “the likelihood that any unmoderated group will eventually get into a flame-war about whether or not to have a moderator approaches one as time increases.”63 (Again, Cohen’s observation takes the form of the ever popular Godwin’s Law.)

とはいえ、「独裁」の必要性は巨大で自発的で合意指向のコミュニティに内在する困難から生じる。カバルや独裁者には苦情が向けられるかもしれないが、その欠如にもやはり向けられる。ウィキペディアのポータルが言語を示すために国旗のかわりにアイコンを使うべきかどうか(1つの言語を共有したり、多数の言語を持つ国家は多い)という議論で、ウィキペディアン NSK は議論を続けても「現状のみにくいポータルを改善するのに何の役にもたたない」と述べた。残念ながら、「ウィキペディアは多数の、しばしばたがいに矛盾する意見になやまされている。影響力のある指導者が最終決定をくだす必要があると思う」と続けた61。こういった気分は多くのオープンコンテントコミュニティで共有されている。FOSS の実践家カール・フォーゲルは「達成できる合意がないこと、また、開発を前に進めるために誰かに決定を導いてほしいと集団内のほとんどが願っていることが明らかなときにのみ、腹をくくって『これで行きます』と言う」62。クレイ・シャーキーは随筆「集団の最悪の敵は自分自身」でジェフ・コーエンの「モデレーションを受けていない集団がモデレータを持つべきかどうかに関してフレーム合戦に陥る確率は、時間とともに1に近づく」63という観察を引いている。(コーエンの観察もまた、おなじみのゴドウィンの法則の形をとっている。)

In the Wikipedia context, in addition to differing opinions among those of good faith, an informal and consensus-based approach does not seemingly deal well with those who act in bad faith, such as the feared neo-Nazi attack:


What is needed in obvious cases like this is a “benevolent dictator,” whether it’s Jimbo Wales or the arbcom, to examine the editors’ contributions then ban them, because these are not bona fide Wikipedians who happen to have a strong POV. They are fanatics acting to promote the views of a political cult, and they’re here for no other reason. Yet here they remain, making a mockery of everything Wikipedia stands for.64

このような明白な事例で必要なのは、ジミー・ウェールズであれ ArbCom であれ、編集者の投稿を調べて追放する「優しい独裁者」です。彼らはたまたま強い POV を持っている善意のウィキペディアンではないからです。政治的カルトの観点を推進しようと行動する狂信者であり、この場にいる理由は他にありません。彼らはウィキペディアの目的をバカにしながら、ここに居座っています。64

Where possible, Wales has delegated authority, particularly to the Board of Trustees and Arbitration Committee, but much authority remains with Wales as noted in a 2005 comment:

可能な場合、特に ArbCom と理事会に、ウェールズは権威を移譲してきた。しかし2005年の発言に示されるように、多くの権威がウェールズのもとに残っている。

Wikipedia is “at the mercy of” Jimbo. Jimbo has delegated his “mercy,” to use your term, to the Arbitration Committee that he convened over 15 months ago, and which he periodically refreshes the membership thereof as guided by the wishes of the community. Significant disciplinary matters in Wikipedia are thus guided by a number of editors who are held in high esteem by the community at large (or, at least, so one hopes).65


Anthere, a former chairperson of the board of trustees, described this balance of reserved authority and delegation as one of facilitating or hindering a direction, reminiscent of the goal theory of leadership66 whereby a leader makes the subordinate’s path more satisfying and easier to travel by clarifying goals and reducing obstructions:

元理事長 Anthere は、方向性を導くか妨げるかするものとしてこの抑制された権威と移譲の均衡を説明する。これはリーダーシップの目標理論66において、目標を明確化し障害を少なくすることにより指導者は部下の進む道をより充実感があり容易なものにすることを彷彿とさせる。

I think that what is especially empowering is the leadership type of Jimbo. Jimbo is not coaching at all, and rather little directing (though hints are sometimes quite clear), as well as rather little delegating (I think the foundation would sometimes benefit from more delegation from Jimbo). His type is essentially supportive. Very low direction but very high support. This leaves basically as much opportunity to work in certain directions as one would dream of. However, one moves in a direction supported by Jimbo much more quickly than in a direction not supported by Jimbo. I[t] can take a long time to find a satisfactory decision, but prevents from travelling in an unsafe direction.67


However, this balance can lead to ambiguities that prompt discussion, such as that about editorial authority. In February of 2005 an enormous debate erupted over the illustration included in the encyclopedic article on autofellatio. Images tend to prompt many debates and raise questions of censorship, free speech, cultural differences, and of the age appropriateness and quality of Wikipedia. A similar debate arose for the image in the clitoris article, as well as a cinematic still of Kate Winslet wearing nothing but a diamond necklace in the “Titanic (1997 film)” article. The latter debate was resolved when her breasts were cropped from the image;68 it was eventually removed altogether because of copyright concerns. When Wales deleted the photographic image of autofellatio, which had replaced the less-contentious illustration, Erik Moeller challenged this action as it raised the old issue of to what extent Wikipedia has an “editor in chief”:


Perhaps you could clarify that this was not done in your role as trustee. I don’t believe it was, as you did not consult with Angela and Anthere [two other trustees], so I consider it just like an edit by any other Wikipedia editor, only that, of course, you hope that people will take it more seriously because of the reputation that comes with your role in the project, past and present. That’s completely reasonable, if done rarely and in cases you consider important.

理事としての立場でこれをしたのではないと明確化しておいてはどうでしょうか。アンジェラとも Anthere とも(両者は理事である)相談していなかったことから、そうではなかったのだと私は思います。ですから、私はこれを、ほかのどのウィキペディア編集者の編集とも同じようにとらえます。ただ、もちろん、あなたの過去と現在のプロジェクト内の立場からくる名声のために、他の人にもっと真剣にうけとられると期待できるでしょうが。あなたが重要だと思う場合に、まれにしか行われないかぎりは、それはまったく理にかなったことです。

The page is currently being edit warred over, and one editor uses the comment “rv [revert] to Jimbo’s approved version.” It would be helpful if you could state here that you are not in the business of approving articles. I believe your edit summary “This image is completely unacceptable for Wikipedia” could be misconstrued to be an official statement, when it is your personal opinion. Some people still see Wikimedia as being governed by a benevolent dictator, and any explanation would help to eliminate that misconception.


I still remember how the Spanish Wikipedia forked over some discussion on advertising. I’m somewhat worried that people might misunderstand your comments, and assume that you are acting as “Chief Editor.” On the other side, those who do support the removal of the image might deliberately seek to create that impression in order to further their agenda.69


Wales did not respond to this particular email message, but continued discussion with respect to how this image would affect educational use of Wikipedia. However, Wales’s role was further discussed during discussion of the possible neo-Nazi attack. This led Wales to clarify that he would prevent such an attack though he also recognizes the dangers inherent to such action:


The danger of course is that the benign dictator may turn out to be biased or wrong himself. So I hesitate to do this except in cases where speed is of essence, or where it’s just very clearcut and easy. What I prefer is that I can act as a temporary bridge and “person to blame” while we work on community solutions.70


Seven months later, on the same thread, Wales further defined his role as a “constitutional monarch”:


I do not believe in the “benevolent dictator” model for Wikipedia. Our project is of major historical significance, and it is not appropriate for any one person to be the benevolent dictator of all human knowledge. Obviously.


But we have retained a “constitutional monarchy” in our system and the main reason for it is to support and make possible a very open system in which policy is set organically by the community and democratic processes and institutions emerge over a long period of experimentation and consensus-building…. It is not possible for 10,000 NeoNazis (if such numbers exist) to storm into Wikipedia and take it over by subverting our organic democratic processes because I will not allow it. Period. So we don’t have to overdesign those processes out of a paranoia of a hostile takeover. But this also means that we don’t need to over-react right now. We can wait and see. They’ll talk a big game but just review those message boards and then look around here. A battle of wits between Wikipedians and Nazis? I know who I’m betting on.71

しかし私たちは「立憲君主制」をシステムのなかに持ちつづけています。その主な理由は、方針がコミュニティのなかで有機的に定められ、民主的手続きや制度が長期間にわたる実験と合意形成のなかで出現するという、非常に開放的なシステムを可能にするためです。1万人のネオナチ(そんな人数がいるとしてですが)がウィキペディアに乱入し、有機的な民主的手続き転覆させてウィキペディアを乗っ取ろうとすることは、私が許さないため、不可能です。以上。ですから、敵対的乗っ取りに対して偏執的になって制度を過剰に設計する必要はありません。ですが、これはいますぐに過剰反応する必要もないことも意味します。しばらく様子を見ることもできます。彼らは大風呂敷をひろげていますが、あちらの掲示板をチェックし、こちらの様子を観察しましょう。ウィキペディアンとナチのどちらが利口か? 私の賭ける先は決まっています。71

Wales’ conception of his role was further developed and articulated on the “Benevolent Dictator” discussion page:


I am more comfortable with the analogy to the British monarch, i.e. my power should be (and is) limited, and should fade over time….


The situation in is probably a good example of how I can play a productive role through the judicious exercise of power. My role there is mostly just as advisor to people in terms of just trying to help people think about the bigger picture and how we can find the best ways to interact and get along to get our incredibly important work done. の状況は権力の慎重な行使によって生産的な役割を私がはたせるやりかたのよい例になるでしょう。人々が全体像を考え、どう交流するのが最善かを考え、この非常に重要な事業をなしとげるために協力できるよう、助言するのがそこでの私のおもな役割です。

But it is also a role of “constitutional” importance, in the sense that everyone who is party to the discussion can feel comfortable that whatever agreements are reached will be binding, that there is a higher enforcement mechanism. It’s not up to me to impose a solution, nor is it up to me directly to enforce a solution chosen by the community, but I do play a role in guaranteeing with my personal promise that valid solutions decided by the community in a reasonable fashion will be enforced by someone….


And notice, too, that I believe such authority should be replaced as time goes along by institutions within the community, such as for example the ArbCom in, or by community votes in, etc.

そのような権威は、 の ArbCom や のコミュニティの投票のような、コミュニティ内の制度によって時間とともに置き換えられていくべきだと私が信じていることにも注意してください。

We have very few problems, other than isolated things, with sysop abuse or cabals, even in smaller languages, and in part because everyone is quite aware that I would take whatever actions necessary to ensure due process in all parts of wikipedia, to the best of my ability.72


It is worthwhile noting that Wales is articulating a hybrid of leadership types including autocratic (decision made by the leader alone), consultative (the problem is shared with and information collected from the group, before the leader decides alone), and delegated leadership (the problem is shared, ideas are accepted, and the leader accepts the solution supported by the group).73 Also, Wales’ concern with not over-designing the “organic democratic processes” echoes findings in the study of FOSS community that the judicious use of charismatic authority can be preferable to a “complex system of rules.”74 Similarly, in a discussion about the openness of foundation-related committees Wales felt that “it seems to me that the best way to approach this is not with a formalistic board resolution (this is not our traditional way), but through ongoing dialog and discussion, rather than rules-based demands from the board.”75 And even though Wales is seemingly conscientious about the use of his authority, others note that the “charismatic” character of his leadership can be unsavory. If others appropriate what Wales has said or done as the justification for their own position, some will object:


This kind of hero-worship begins with Christians who find it more chic to parrot Christ’s words than to live them. In our context this translates into using “Jimbo said …” as an argument that would stop all debate.76


Wales himself is now sensitive to this concern as seen in his qualification of an email about how to distinguish between sites that criticize Wikipedia and those that harass Wikipedians:


I have this funny feeling, after writing this email, that it is the sort of email likely to be misused in some fashion as a WP:JIMBOSAYS fallacy. This note at the top serves as notice that anyone citing this email as setting down policy on Wikipedia is being a goof. I am just discussing and thinking here and trying to be helpful.77

このメールを書いたあとで変な予感がするのですが、この種類のメールは WP:JIMBOSAYS の誤謬に相当するやりかたで誤用されることがあります。このメールを参照してウィキペディアで方針を結論づけようとする人はバカだということをこの冒頭の注意書きで告知しておきます。私はここで助言しようとしていて議論し考察しているだけです。

Elsewhere he notes that “unless I am very very very careful, it ends up getting used as a stick to beat innocents to death with. :)”78

他の場所でウェールズは「すごくすごくすごく注意していないかぎり、いつのまにか無辜の人をいたぶる道具につかわれてしまうのです :)」と述べている。

Concern about this role and title led to a consideration of alternatives for “benevolent dictator” including constitutional monarch, the most trusted party (TMTP, Linus Torvalds’s preferred moniker), eminence grise, and deus ex machina.79 And while the notion of constitutional monarch has achieved some stabilization and acceptance within the community, “benevolent dictator” won’t disappear from the conversation given its long history within online communities. Indeed, the notion not only serves as a measure of the leader’s actions, but also those other participants. In one of the many threads about sexual content on Wikipedia, one participant wrote to another: “So your opinion is now law? Wonderful. We don’t need all of those nasty little polls or votes…. All we have to do is have you make the decision for us. I thought Jimbo was the benevolent dictator. You seem just to want to be dictator, period.”80

この役割についての懸念から、「優しい独裁者」の代替案が検討されることになった。立憲君主、もっとも信頼される機関(リーナス・トーヴァルズが好む通称ではTMMP)、影の立役者(eminence grise)、機械仕掛けの神(deux ex machina)などだ。立憲君主の概念はコミュニティ内である程度安定と受容を達成したが、「優しい独裁者」はオンンラインコミュニティに長い歴史のある用語なので、議論でもちいられなくなることはなかった。この概念は指導者の行為だけでなくその他の参加者の行為のものさしにもなった。ウィキペディア上の性的コンテンツに関する多数のスレッドのひとつで、ある参加者が別の参加者に向けてこう書いた。「あなたの意見が法律になったとでも? それはいい。こうやって不愉快な投票や意見調査をする必要もなくなる……。あなたに決定をしてもらえばそれですむのですから。ジンボが優しい独裁者だと私は思っていましたが、結局、あなたはただの独裁者になりたいんですね」



To whatever extent Wikipedia has been successful in the pursuit of a universal encyclopedia — a question for the next chapter — I argue an appreciation of the community and its collaborative culture is key to understanding Wikipedia. However, unlike the purity of a utopian dream, Wikipedians must reconcile their vision with the inescapable social reality of irritating personalities, philosophical differences, and external threats. Despite its good-faith collaborative culture, its egalitarian ethos, and its openness — or because of it — Wikipedia has been shaped by authorial leadership. An informal benevolent dictator serves to gently guide the community, to mediate internal disputes between those of good faith, and to defend against those acting in bad faith. At this point, he or she may achieve a significant amount of symbolic status within the community or even outside attention. However, when a person comes to be responsible for more than he or she can do by dint of will alone, new responsibilities and authority pull taut a tightrope that must be carefully walked before the eyes of one’s peers. Sanger’s reflections about his exit from the community and continued discussion about Wales’s role are testaments to how delicately the tin crown of such leadership must be balanced.

普遍的百科事典の探求においてウィキペディアがどれほど成功しているか—この点は次章で問う—によらず、コミュニティのappreciation(FUZZY 未訳)とその共同作業文化はウィキペディアを理解するにあたって重要だ。いらだたしい人物、哲学的相違、外的脅威など社会的現実と自分たちのヴィジョンとをウィキペディアンは整合させなければならない。その善意の共同作業文化、平等主義のエトス、開放性があるにもかかわらず—あるいはあるがために—ウィキペディアは著者的リーダーシップによって形づくられてきた。非公式の優しい独裁者がコミュニティを優しく導くため、善意の人々のあいだの内部の論争を調停するため、悪意で行動する人々に対する防衛のために奉仕する。この点で、その人物は象徴的地位と外部の注目とをかなりの程度達成する。しかし、意思のみによってできる以上の責任を負うにいたれば、新しい責任者と権威とが、同僚のまえで縄をはり、その上を慎重にわたらなければならない。このようなリーダーシップのブリキの王冠がいかに微妙なバランスを必要とするかは、コミュニティからの自らの退場に関するサンガーの回想とウェールズの役割についての議論とがよく示している。

  1. *Amitai Etzioni, Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1975). 2

  2. *Jimmy Wales, “Re: Neo-Nazis to Attack Wikipedia,” wikien-l, February 7, 2005, (visited on February 7, 2005). 2

  3. *

    Joseph Reagle, “Do as I Do: Authorial Leadership in Wikipedia,” in WikiSym ’07: Proceedings of the 2007 International Symposium on Wikis (New York: ACM Press, 2007), (accessed December 20, 2007); a similar model to the “authorial” model of leadership is offered by Mathieu O’Neil, Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes (New York: Pluto Press, 2009). 2

  4. *

    For emergent leadership, see Bernard M. Bass, Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications, 3rd edition (New York: Free Press, 1990), 126-127. For characteristics of emergent leadership in the online context, see Gianluca Bosco, “Implicit Theories of ‘Good Leadership’ in the Open-Source Community” (Master’s thesis, Technical University of Denmark, 2004), (visited on January 13, 2006); Youngjin Yoo and Maryam Alavi, “Emergent Leadership in Virtual Teams: What Do Emergent Leaders Do?,” Information and Organization 14, number 1 (January 2004): 27–58, (visited on June 28, 2007). The role of technical contributions in such communities is discussed by David Waguespack and Lee Fleming, “Penguins, Camels, and Other Birds of a Feather: Brokerage, Boundary Spanning, and Leadership in Open Innovation Communities,” April 8, 2005, (visited on January 13, 2006). 2

  5. *

    For the mixing of governance models in software development, see O’Neil, Cyberchiefs; Coleman, “Three Ethical Moments in Debian”; Siobhan O’Mahony and Fabrizio Ferraro, “Governance in Production Communities,” April 2007, (visited on June 15, 2007). Similarly, the larger Internet culture, a “set of values and beliefs informing behavior,” is argued by to be constituted by techno-meritocratic, hacker, virtual communitarian, and entrepreneurial values by Manuel Castells, The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 36-37. Theories of governance are compared in the Wikipedia context in Christopher Goldspink, “Social Self-Regulation in Computer Mediated Communities: the Case of Wikipedia,” International Journal of Agent Technologies and Systems 1, number 1 (2009): 19–33, (visited on April 24, 2009). 2

  6. *Jimmy Wales, “From Jimbo Wales’ user talk page,” quoted in Wikimedia, “Meta:Talk:Benevolent Dictator,” Wikimedia, March 16, 2007, (visited on May 21, 2008). 2

  7. *

    “Charismatic authority” is seminally discussed by Weber, Economy and Society, 215; in the online context, see Giampaolo Garzarelli and Roberto Galoppini, “Capability Coordination in Modular Organization: Voluntary FS/OSS Production and the Case of Debian GNU/Linux,” in Economics Working Paper Archive at WUST, 0312005 (Industrial Organization, 2003), 18, (visited on September 3, 2004); O’Neil, Cyberchiefs, 18. 2

  8. *Eric Raymond, “Homesteading the Noosphere,” First Monday 3, number 10 (1998): 15, (accessed December 13, 2004). 2

  9. *Raymond, “Homesteading the Noosphere”; Wikipedia, “Benevolent Dictator for Life (oldid=289287807)”. 2

  10. *Edwin P. Hollander, “Competence and Conformity in the Acceptance of Influence,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 61, number 3 (1960): 365–369,; Yukl, Leadership in Organizations, 29; Raymond, “Homesteading the Noosphere”, 15. 2

  11. *Meatball, “GodKing,” Meatball Wiki, November 2, 2007, (visited on November 2, 2007). 2

  12. *Wheeler, “Why Open Source Software/Free Software (OSS/FS)? Look at the Numbers!” 2

  13. *For examples of similar anxiety and humor about leadership, see Pfaffenberger, “If I Want It, It’s Okay”; Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal,” Wikipedia, February 16, 2009, (visited on May 29, 2009), 379. 2

  14. *Edgar H. Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd edition (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1992), 231. 2

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

  16. *Jimmy Wales as quoted in Marshall Poe, “The Hive: Can Thousands of Wikipedians Be Wrong? How an Attempt to Build an Online Encyclopedia Touched off History’s Biggest Experiment in Collaborative Knowledge,” The Atlantic Monthly (September 2006): 2, (accessed August 14, 2006). 2

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

  18. *Anthere, “Re: Sanger’s Memoirs,” wikipedia-l, April 23, 2005, (visited on April 23, 2005). 2

  19. *Evan Prodromou, “Your Paper and Presentation at WikiSym,” email message to author, October 23, 2007, doi:1193147885.6121.35.camel@bear. 2

  20. *Schiff, “Know It All”, 3; Jimmy Wales, “Citing Material from the Web?,” nupedia-l, October 10, 2000, (visited on June 7, 2006). 2

  21. *Steve Bennett, “[OT] Jimbo Wales’ Edit Count (Was: Re: Here’s an,” wikien-l, February 1, 2006, (visited on February 1, 2006). 2

  22. *

    For example, between June and September 2008 Wales did not post to wikiEN-l MARC, “Viewing Messages Posted by ‘Jimmy Wales’,” MARC, May 23, 2008, (visited on October 3, 2008); his edits can be seen at Wikipedia, “Jimbo Wales User Contributions,” Wikipedia, May 23, 2008, (visited on October 3, 2008). 2

  23. *Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership, 231. 2

  24. *Jimmy Wales, “Re: Do We NEED an Article on Feminism for the One on Masculism?”, nupedia-l, September 15, 2000, (visited on June 7, 2006). 2

  25. *Wales, “Re: A Neo-Nazi Wikipedia”. 2

  26. *Jimmy Wales, “Re: Cruft,” wikien-l, September 11, 2005, (visited on September 11, 2005). 2

  27. *Jimbo Wales, “User Talk:Jimbo Wales,” March 3, 2007, (visited on March 3, 2007). 2

  28. *Jimmy Wales, “Re: Just What *Is* Jimbo’s Role Anyway?,” wikien-l, March 21, 2007, (visited on March 21, 2007). 2

  29. *Jimmy Wales, “Wikimania 2007 Interview with Joseph Reagle” (August 3, 2007). 2

  30. *Jimmy Wales, “Re: Ant: Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia - a Policy Question?”, wikipedia-l, October 16, 2005, (visited on October 16, 2005). 2

  31. *Jimmy Wales, “Re: Request for New Wikipedia: Friulian,” wikipedia-l, November 4, 2004, (visited on November 4, 2004). 2

  32. *Jimmy Wales, “Re: Status of Wikimedia,” wikipedia-l, November 7, 2005, (visited on November 7, 2005). 2

  33. *Jimmy Wales, “Re: Re: Static HTML Dumps,” wikipedia-l, October 18, 2005, (visited on October 18, 2005). 2

  34. *Mark Williamson, “Re: Wikimedia Foundation Internal Radio System”, wikipedia-l, April 12, 2005, (visited on April 12, 2005). 2

  35. *

    Some of the more extreme message boards have come to popular attention through media coverage of “cyberbullying,” see Mattathias Schwartz, “Malwebolence - The World of Web Trolling,”, August 3, 2008, (visited on August 14, 2008). 2

  36. *Jimmy Wales, “Wikimedia Board Elections,” wikipedia-l, September 16, 2006, (visited on September 16, 2006); Wikimedia Foundation, “Wikimedia Foundation Announces Board Elections”, Wikimedia, June 27, 2007, (visited on June 27, 2007). 2

  37. *Wartenberg and Ragesoss, “Flagged Revisions (oldid=266468243)”; Cohen, “Wikipedia May Restrict Public’s Ability to Change Entries”; Jimmy Wales, “User Talk:Jimbo Wales,” Wikipedia, January 22, 2009, (visited on January 26, 2009). 2

  38. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Administrators,” March 23, 2005, (visited on May 4, 2007). 2

  39. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Practical Process (oldid=221497230)”; Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Lists of Protected Pages,” Wikipedia, June 30, 2008, (visited on October 2, 2008). 2

  40. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Administrators (oldid=11508036)”. 2

  41. *Wikipedia, “Wheel (Unix Term),” Wikipedia, September 13, 2008, (visited on September 30, 2008). 2

  42. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Administrators,” Wikipedia, October 2, 2008, (visited on October 2, 2008). 2

  43. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:List of Administrators (oldid=307325114)”; Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Bureaucrats,” Wikipedia, July 16, 2009, (visited on July 17, 2009). 2

  44. *Wikimedia, “Stewards,” Wikimedia, July 9, 2009, (visited on July 17, 2009). 2

  45. *

    The structure and character of Wikipedia governance is further explored by Forte and Bruckman, “Scaling Consensus”. 2

  46. *Wikipedia, “Wikimedia Foundation,” Wikipedia, July 14, 2009, (visited on July 17, 2009). 2

  47. *Erik Moeller, “Rename Admins to Janitors,” wikien-l, March 6, 2007, (visited on March 6, 2007). 2

  48. *Wikimedia, “Stewards,” Wikimedia, November 2, 2007, (visited on November 2, 2007). 2

  49. *Wikimedia, “Steward Policies (oldid=724037)”. 2

  50. *Wikimedia Foundation, “Board of Trustees/Restructure Announcement”, Wikimedia Foundation, April 26, 2008, (visited on June 11, 2009). 2

  51. *Wikimedia Foundation, “Board of Trustees,” October 13, 2005, (visited on August 26, 2008). 2

  52. *Erik Moeller, “RK Temp-Banned,” wikien-l, October 2, 2003, (visited on April 16, 2009); Jimmy Wales, “Wikiquette ‘Committee’,” wikien-l, October 2, 2003, (visited on April 16, 2009); Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee (oldid=225940072)”. 2

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

  54. *Wikimedia, “Polls Are Evil (oldid=656194)”. 2

  55. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Deletion Guidelines for Administrators,” Wikipedia, July 4, 2008, (visited on October 3, 2008). 2

  56. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:New Admin School,” Wikipedia, June 20, 2008, (visited on July 31, 2008); Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Admin Coaching,” Wikipedia, July 24, 2008, (visited on July 31, 2008). 2

  57. *Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Advice for New Administrators,” Wikipedia, June 10, 2008, (visited on August 8, 2008). 2

  58. *Pfaffenberger, “If I Want It, It’s Okay”; Coleman, “Three Ethical Moments in Debian”. 2

  59. *Raymond, “Homesteading the Noosphere”, 11. 2

  60. *

    For the earliest instance I could find in computer communities see Steve Dyer, “Re on the Direction of Net.Motss,” net.motss, October 2, 1984, (visited on May 2, 2007); for application to Torvalds, see Russell Nelson, “Patchlevel 6,” comp.os.linux, September 22, 1992, (visited on May 2, 2007); Charles Hedrick, “386Bsd Vs Linux,” comp.os.linux, October 3, 1992, (visited on May 2, 2007). 2

  61. *NSK, “Re: Flags,” wikipedia-l, January 10, 2005, (visited on January 10, 2005). 2

  62. *Fogel, “Producing Open Source Software”, 48. 2

  63. *Geoff Cohen, quoted in Shirky, “A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy”, 5. 2

  64. *SlimVirgin, “Re: Original Research versus Point of View,” wikien-l, January 18, 2005, (accessed January 18, 2005). 2

  65. *James D. Forrester, “Re: Your Golorous [Sic] Leader.,” wikien-l, April 8, 2005, (visited on April 8, 2005). 2

  66. *Yukl, Leadership in Organizations, 144. 2

  67. *Anthere, “Re: NYTimes.Com: Google May Host Encyclopedia Project”, wikipedia-l, February 14, 2005, (visited on February 14, 2005). 2

  68. *Wikipedia, “Talk:Titanic (1997 Film)/Archive 1,” Wikipedia, December 13, 2007, (visited on September 30, 2008).

  69. *Erik Moeller, “Re: [[Talk:Autofellatio]] - Poll,” wikien-l, February 13, 2005, (visited on February 13, 2005). 2

  70. *Wales, “Re: Neo-Nazis to Attack Wikipedia”. 2

  71. *Jimmy Wales, “Re: Re: A Neo-Nazi Wikipedia,” wikien-l, August 27, 2005, (visited on August 27, 2005). 2

  72. *Jimmy Wales as quoted in Wikimedia, “Meta:Talk:Benevolent Dictator (oldid=544462)”. 2

  73. *

    As such, Wales’s hybrid leadership style might fit within the “situational school” which advocates different leadership performances as merited by the particular context, see Victor H. Vroom and Philip W. Yetton, Leadership and Decision-Making (Pittsburgh: University Of Pittsburgh Press, 1973). 2

  74. *Garzarelli and Galoppini, “Capability Coordination in Modular Organization”, 36; also see Ostrom, “Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms”, 149. 2

  75. *Jimmy Wales, “Where We Are Headed,” Foundation-l, June 4, 2006, (accessed August 6, 2008). 2

  76. *Ray Saintonge, “Re: Wikimedia Foundation Internal Radio,” wikipedia-l, April 12, 2005, (visited on April 12, 2005). 2

  77. *

    Jimmy Wales, “Re: Harassment Sites,” wikien-l, October 24, 2007, (visited on October 24, 2007); Another instance in which Wales is forced to disclaim authority in a message is Jimmy Wales, “Re: Fancruft,” wikien-l, July 22, 2006, (visited on July 22, 2006).

  78. *Jimmy Wales, “Re: Process Wonkery,” wikien-l, September 28, 2006, (visited on September 28, 2006).

  79. *Wikimedia, “Benevolent Dictator,” Wikimedia, February 2, 2009, (visited on May 29, 2009).

  80. *Rick, “Re: Re: Writing about Sexual Topics Responsibly Is Not,” wikien-l, February 14, 2005, (visited on February 14, 2005).