Is Wikipedia democracy or anarchy? Chaos or order? Explain your answer and how you define the terms you chose.

A little bit of both?

While there is no strict "head" of Wikipedia to give orders to people (like "do this article" or "do that article") there are guidelines that they must follow. Other than that, contributors have a lot of flexibility as to what articles they choose to do and how they want it organized. However, it is inevitable that people will eventually have disagreements with each other as to how to do a specific article. It is during these times that a democracy is needed in order to reach a peaceful conclusion without having never-ending edit wars.--MangoDango (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

In a sense, the people that go on Wikipedia pages and check others on their facts, grammar, or set-up are like the "authority" you would need to see if you'd like to call Wikipedia a democracy. I agree that it is inevitable to have people arguing over certain pages, but most information put on Wikipedia is basic enough that there is clearly a right or wrong answer to the argument. So, eventually these disagreements tend to be solved. Kslinker5493 (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Anarchic Order

Wikipedia seems to be the ideal of a self-sustaining democracy. Out of the probable chaos fostered by open-content work emerged a self-regulating community. The second article we read makes that clear -- or, simply the fact that articles can be written about the Wikipedia community makes that clear. The interviews in both articles with the "Wikipedians" reveals the internal structure that has been completely invisible to me as I've employed Wikipedia over the past couple years. These people clearly feel they have specific roles and responsibilities in the Wikipedia community. This somewhat surprising degree of organization makes Wikipedia the surprisingly accurate source we all seem to agree it is. Thus my description as "anarchic order" is based off the "anarchy" that results from its self-regulation and the "order" that has emerged from it.Luna002 (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia gives me the sense of a self-governing and sustaining system. It also follows similarly to the web 2.0 articles that we read last week. How Wikipedia relies and fosters a kind of "crowdsourced" knowledge with volunteers. The community defines itself in various ways and pulls the major toward a rough set of rules and guidelines that give articles a similar voice and organizational style. The system is fairly ordered, but does not maintain itself in a typical hierarchical fashion. The community fosters its ideas and preferences with how things should be done and attempts to bring others into line for the improvement of the site as a whole.--Jeflicki (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Now contributing to this discussion again months later, near the end of the course, I have more thoughts on the issue. I just wrote an entire article from scratch at the request of a professor. I would talk about it with friends and family, and they were assume it was the easiest thing in the world. "Wikipedia? Anyone can edit that! That should take you ten minutes!" Oh, how untrue. It took me a good 8 to 10 hours total to locate sources on the subject (my professor) and format/write the article. I really struggled to master sourcing and citations, but I knew it was of incredible importance to avoid having the article put up for quick deletion. Eventually, I produced at least a good, if not great, article, of which I am very proud. In short, there were SO MANY rules I was expected to know and follow, so many standards I felt pressured to meet, that my original point -- Wikipedia is a self-sustaining democracy -- still stands. It seems unlikely, still, that Wikipedia could produce these high standards of accuracy and quality, but it has been done. And I am impressed and humbled.Luna002 (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with y'all here. I really can't see it as a full on anarchy considering the rules and regulations that everyone imparts on one another. The system of checks and balances really does speak to the heart of a democratic society, but of course not everyone plays by the rules here. It is regulated, but a degree of freedom is allowed still. I really don't wanna make exact comparisons to types of governing and/or political ideals, but I would agree that the system on Wikipedia functions in a way that allows folk to share and edit things themselves but within guidelines. It really allows people to fall into place with what they'd like to be involved in. If you want to become a Wikipedia police and go around make, well not citizen arrests but correcting the wrongdoings, you can. You can contribute or you could just read. The fact that its held up on its current structure for this long is pretty amazing since personally I'm not one to spend my free time editing Wikipedia, but there's the fact that there are people who do and are willing to help maintain it. Kind of like the Keepers on the Citadel in the Mass Effect universe (a relatively so but still incredibly nerdy reference I know). --Seannator (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Democratic Chaos

Wikipedia is a democracy because if you don't like something, then you have the power to change it. Someone may go back and changed what you have just changed, but you've still made a contribution. Whether it sticks or not is completely up to the community. We as the users of Wikipedia have the ability to change whatever we want. It's also a collaboration to make an article, just like it's a collaboration to run a government. As stated in an earlier post, there are guidelines that should be followed by Wikipedia users. However, no one actually has to follow these rules. That's where the chaos comes in. Wikipedia users can make whatever changes they want to an article. The changes don't necessarily have to make sense, because there are no consequences for vandalism. Rebaduck (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I defined vandalism as anarchy, so it is interesting to me that you define it as chaos. I agree with that in the sense that Wikipedia allows everyone to edit/change it with that little set of rules in mind, yet they dont enforce those rules really. People, like you said, are still allowed to vandalize the articles, regardless of the rules. That is what separates it as chaos maybe, instead of anarchy, considering that the vandals aren't doing anything they aren't literally allowed to do. Interesting thought.--Tabbboooo (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of Democratic Chaos. I believe it is democratic because anyone has the freedom to change something, not just a certain group of people. Others also have the right to delete what ever change you made, and this process will continue until the majority's opinion is represented. This process can appear quite unorganized and haphazard leading to this democratic process seeming chaotic. In the end however everything works out and the will of the many will maintain order and balance on the site. --Youngpenn (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Democratic/Ordered, with a hint of Anarchy

Wikipedia is democratic in the sense that it is for the people, by the people. Anyone can edit it, as well as use every bit of information that is published through it. Wikipedia gives everyone a voice, allowing anyone and everyone (who has access to wikipedia) to post, edit, revise, etc. any part of the Wikipedia collection they want. It also follows a system (the loose rules Wikipedia has) and is organized, categorically from page to page, link to link and from edit to edit, which makes it ordered. The anarchy comes in the sense of vandalisim, where users defy the rules, attempting to go against the grain on purpose, to stand out.--Tabbboooo (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thinking of Wikipedia as a democracy because everyone can edit it is an interesting idea that wasn't the first thing that popped into my head when I read this prompt. Giving everyone a voice is the point of a democracy and, in that sense, Wikipedia is definitely a democracy. The vandalism can usually quickly be removed from pages, so that factor doesn't add much chaos, but people fighting over facts or changing things back and forth definitely can. Kslinker5493 (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I see it the way expressed here by Tabbboooo -- Democratic and Ordered, with a hint of Anarchy. Democratic in that anyone has the ability to contribute and to exercise a level of control. Ordered in that there is a structure and a set of rules and processes for how things get done. A hint of anarchy, not by design, but by default -- the community is so large and diverse that those inclined toward anarchy are able to make their influence felt through flouting the rules or committing vandalism.--Brodmont (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea of Wikipedia being a Democracy. Its availability to a significant portion of the world's population allows this to happen. Anyone can post or edit an article on Wikipedia, and then that is looked over by hundreds of other "Wikipedians". --152.1.170.227 (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Depends on the type of page

There are different types of pages on Wikipedia. The major pages that are considered "good" or above are monitored more closely than other pages that some would consider less important. The big pages have a more democratic feel because you will have many people contributing to the page as well as people checking what others are writing. People checking others almost acts as the "authority" that you see in a democracy when there isn't technically an actual leader of Wikipedia. These pages do have some hints of chaos because there will be people fighting back and forth over a contribution, but in general, these pages seem to have a decent amount of order. On the smaller pages where you have less people checking, it is more like an anarchy. Ironically though, these pages tend to have less chaos and more order because there aren't as many people trying to add or delete things to the page. The page may not be completely accurate, but the chaos factor isn't there. Kslinker5493 (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This is an incredibly good point. It's a really good idea to break the classification into categories. There is definitely a big difference between pages on Wikipedia that have been extensively worked on and pages containing one or two lines about relatively unknown topics. Vandalizing these smaller pages would be a lot easier than vandalizing the bigger, more worked on pages. Writing false information on smaller pages most likely will not be seen by as many people and has a larger chance of staying without being caught. Therefore, bigger pages are more regulated by the public and resemble a democratic system much more than the smaller pages. Also, I think it was interesting to point out that smaller pages have less chaos! --Eems.p (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this point of view the larger pages are really the only pages that have a large number of people working on them or watching them. So there is likely to be a more democratic representation there because of the many people expressing their opinions on the topic and how it should be written. I think that some of the smaller pages might be more chaotic though since there are fewer people watching them and people can change information. Those changes will likely not to be changed back for sometime if the change is incorrect. So the smaller pages are sort of this unregulated zone for users to do with as they will so it is kind of anarchy. --Youngpenn (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Democracy/Chaos & Order

I believe, like others who have contributed to the discussion, that wikipedia is more so a democracy than anarchy. This is true because, as in a democracy, everyone has the ability to contribute to, edit and create pages on wikipedia. Also, 'the people' are technically the creators of the information available on wikipedia, while a select number of moderators decide what material will actually be published. To me, this system is very comparable to a modern democracy with citizens contributing ideas and government officials determining which laws are put into effect. I believe that that wikipedia can be seen to have a degree of both chaos and order. There is chaos in the sense that people are able to edit or create information as they please, creating back-and-forth arguments about what information should be published. However I believe that this chaos is orderly, as there are rules and moderators to make sure the rules are followed. This can also relate to a democracy where there are laws and officers to make sure that they are followed. People do not need to follow these laws, as wikipedia contributors do not need to. The difference is that in breaking the law you are punishable and with wikipedia you are not punished but may not have you page/edit published.--Ryenocerous (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Democracy in practice

I definitely think Wikipedia is a democracy. But more specifically, I don't just see it as representing the theory of democracy, but also as democracy in practice. For example, democracy in the United States features elected representatives. I think this parallells with Wikipedia in that a relatively small number of people edit and write a huge portion of Wikipedia pages. Of course, these people are not elected, but merely acquire this status over time. Now that I think about it, I am actually unsure whether the most prevalent users in Wikipedia are recognized by the rest of the Wikipedia community (does anyone know the answer to this?). As for order versus chaos, I think Wikipedia is definitely ordered. First, people who troll Wikipedia and make stupid changes are often noticed pretty quickly and the problem is set straight. Second, claims on pages need sources and have to be referenced, there's no highly questionable information that appears out of nowhere (usually...). Third, Wikipedia has a style guide! As most of us are English majors, we can all agree that the existence of a style guide is undoubtably synonymous with order. --Eems.p (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that Wikipedia resembles US democracy. Elected officials are in a sense similar to those moderators on Wikipedia that decide what is published. The people who write for Wikipedia are similar to the citizens of the US in that they propose something, a written work, and rely on officials to enact it. I also believe that just as there are rules on Wikipedia, there are laws in the US democracy on what we can and cannot do. Further, just because there are rules on Wikipedia does not necessarily mean everyone will follow them, just as US citizens do not always obey the law. Moderators are relied on to catch those breaking the rules and make sure it is rectified just as elected officials and officers of law are expected to ensure laws are obeyed.--Ryenocerous (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

According to my experience with Wikipedia and the knowledge of the Wikipedia site I believe that it is a democracy. In practice, it is more of a democracy because it is a free exchange of ideas, words and theories. You can not only obtain information freely from Wikipedia but add source without too much restriction. Although false information or restricted contact will be later blocked, you still have a free voice on any given topic or subject that is visible to the general public through online sources. According to the Wikipedia community, a good percent of the community would like to thing that they are participating in a given democracy when it comes to this site. I also believe that Wikipedia is ordered and has it's own system of outputting and filtering information. Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Although Wikipedia isn't a actual government, it runs on a fixed system which gives the users equal say and the information conveyed on the site does affect people lives such as relevant information or unsolved questions looked up and answered by Wikipedia users. --Isaiahgee (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Who Knows?

When I think of democracy I think of everyone contributing to the solution. Everyone is involved and everyone gets equal say. This is not the case with Wikipedia. I can go in and article an article however I want without anybody having any say. This is more indicative of anarchy except that anarchy usually doesn't involve any sort of control. While I may be able to edit anything I want, it may not stay that way for very long, and I may be blocked from changing that article again. There is some time of rules and guidelines, that are not indicative of anarchy. Wikipedia allows anyone to come in and change anything they want at any time. This is a strong indication for chaos. Most of the pages on Wikipedia that I have contained mostly accurate information. This indicates that Wikipedia has more order, than its design would lead you to believe. Overall I would say that Wikipedia's design invites chaos and anarchy but because of the people using it, it has achieved a more democratic and ordered state. There is no guaranteeing that it will stay this way though and there are the occasional vandalism's, so you have to take everything you see with a grain of salt.--MartellRedViper (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess kind of like how we discussed in class about how Wikipedia is not your average typical encyclopedia, Wikipedia itself is not something that can be easily labelled. There are many aspects to Wikipedia that provides gray areas and because of that it does not fit neatly into either categories. I guess, in my opinion, this is due to the fact that Wikipedia is unique, being the first of its kind to have an encyclopedia that anyone can contribute. Maybe because of this it deserves a new label? In some ways, I feel that Wikipedia has started a new trend so to speak. --MangoDango (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hard to See Wikipedia as Chaos

I'm having a hard time applying "chaos" to Wikipedia. To me, chaos implies lack of intelligent agency and direction. But the Wikipedia community manages to create a product that is largely ordered. I guess there is a school of thought that order can self-emerge from chaos, but I don't see that as the case with Wikipedia. (I don't think I buy the order-from chaos idea anyway.) Here's a question: What would a chaotic community look like? Are there any examples in the real world?--Brodmont (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I also would not consider Wikipedia chaos. Wikipedia is much too organized to be considered chaotic. Even on articles with vastly different subjects there is an order in the way articles are set up. There is a brief introduction with the subsections highlighted near the top. The "chaos" comes from everybody trying to get their input in the article. The chaos can be seen sort of behind the article on the talk page. The finished product of every Wikipedia article seems to be organized in a similar fashion. The democratic nature of Wikipedia is that everyone's input on the talk page is considered and then a consensus can made from that on which is the best and that is democracy.--SJRick (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Neither

In theory, I would say Wikipedia is more democratic than anarchist, but in practice I'd say it's neither. Its collaborative design seems to be perfect for a democracy, but a tiny percentage of the visitors control most of the edits; yes, anybody can edit Wikipedia, but how many users can actually make those edits stick? I definitely wouldn't say it's anarchy, for there is policing in the form of guidelines, terms of use, etc., all of which is enforced by other users. Besides, Wikipedia's structure doesn’t seem to be the most ideal for an anarchy; though users may vandalize, these changes can easily be reverted. Now, if we consider that the majority of edits on Wikipedia are controlled by the very few (percentage-wise), the registered contributors and moderators, then we could consider Wikipedia as an oligarchy. We could even take this a (silly) step further: if we say that these "power-users" have a lot of time on their hands, and if the old adage "time is money" holds true, then I'd say Wikipedia more closely resembles a plutocracy. --Katerwaul (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Anarchy — Not Chaos

Wikipedia is anarchy. And I mean this as a fantastic compliment. It’s group of decentralized individuals who have voluntarily come to Wikipedia with the intent to contribute lasting work while following rules established by the website’s founder. These rules were not forced upon contributors; they were embraced by them. In contrast, political legislation is forced upon communities. The absence of government here, then, constitutes anarchy. This environment has the potential to cause chaos, as we’ve noticed in the “talk sections" of numerous pages, but the prosperity of Wikipedia as a whole can dramatically attest to the benefit of anarchistic exchange. --Information-01152001 (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you've made some good points here. I agree that rules established by the founder of Wikipedia is not forced upon its contributors. However, I still don't think Wikipedia is total anarchy. While individuals are able to contribute freely, there is still a group of moderators who can regulate and delete contributions without detestation. In other words, some form of authority is still present and can overrule an individual's ability to post freely.--Eng395jy (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Democracy

I think it's democracy because everyone can contribute but there are also rules and guidelines and people to enforce those rules. There is an amount of chaos thrown in because anyone could write anything. Everything on the internet has an element of chaos because it is created by people and some people do ridiculous things. However, all-out anarchy is a concept that obviously could never work (we've all read Lord of the Flies) since someone is bound to emerge as a leader. Wikipedia has these people that have emerged as leaders, and can police the pages. I don't know who actually gets paid at Wikipedia, but I'm under the impression that not a lot of people do, so it really is a democratic community. --Tinaface86 (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

But, Wikipedia isn't set up for a leader to ever emerge. There are people who can "police" the pages but there is no real "leader." I understand and agree with your beginning statement about democracy, to a degree.--Jastout (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I would assume that the only people that get paid for Wikipedia are the ones that actually do the programming for it. There may also be advertising and more business type things that they hire people for as well. I don't think that anyone that provides content gets paid to do so. I think this is a very important aspect because everyone that is providing content is doing so because they want and without incentive basically. I think this helps to increase the quality of the information that people provide.--MartellRedViper (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Anarchic and democratic

Since Wikipedia is open to anyone to contribute, especially since you don't have to a be a credentialed writer, to me, it seems more like a democracy. But there are those who get on Wikipedia just to make false edits, like the "graffiti" we've talked about in class. Also, because there is no "leader" or "head" of Wikipedia you could make a case that it is anarchic. Depending on how you use the site and consider how others use it, the argument of whether Wikipedia is anarchy or a democracy could go on for a while.--Jastout (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)