wiki attitude

1
Controversy and stability How wikis have
productive conflict http//usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.
pl?ProductiveControversy By Sunir Shah, with
acknowledgments to Meatball. Frankfurt,
Germany August 7, 2005
Under Creative Commons Share-Alike Attribution
license
2
Part I.Diversity vs. Controversy
3
Encyclopedia Britannica
"The world has changed. There has to be far more
attention to the Third World, to women, to
alternative political groups, to alternative
literature, and things and ideas that weren't
covered by the old Britannica, which was a white
male thing. -- Wendy Doniger, Board Member of
Encyclopedia Britannica (as qtd. in Ferkenhoff,
2005)
4
Encyclopedia Britannica
"We're deciding what people are going to
think." -- Wendy Doniger, Board Member of
Encyclopedia Britannica (as qtd. in Ferkenhoff,
2005)
5
Diversity is critical
The more authors you have, the higher quality the
Wikipedia article is. (Brändle, 2005) AlsoThe
Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki Thomas, D.
A. and Ely, R. J. (1996) Making differences
matter A new paradigm for managing diversity.
Harvard business review, September-October, 79-90

6
What is controversy?
Debate, discussion of opposing opinions strife
-- Wiktionary Contention dispute debate
discussion agitation of contrary opinions. --
Webster, 1913
7
Controversy is bad?
Controversy is very weakly negatively correlated
with quality. (Brändle, 2005) this was to be
only the first in a long series of controversies,
the ultimate upshot of which was to undermine my
own moral authority over the project and to make
the project as safe as possible for the most
abusive and contentious contributors. (Sanger,
2005)
8
Must diversity lead to conflict?
9
Part II.Divergence vs. Convergence
10
Divergent controversy
Out of control, growing wider and wider, the
conflict escalates as positions become hardened.
Participants create new obstacles or (personal)
attacks to knock others from their
positions. Outcome (Forcible) Cease fire.
11
Divergent controversy (contd)
Either reputation, authority, ego. (Save
face.) Or sensitive issue for the person.
(Pain.) Assume good faith. Figure out if it is
pain. Affective (emotional)
12
Convergent controversy
Challenges are common. Introducing information
closes the gaps between positions. Participants
move to a new common position that covers the
existing information. Outcome A stable group
decision.
aka healthy conflict (Eisenhardt, Kahwajy,
Bourgeois, 1997)
13
Convergent controversy (contd)
Either mutual teaching/learning active
listening. Or adversarial, but systematic way to
introduce and prioritize facts. Diversity has
maximum benefit as more new information is
introduced. Effective (cognitive)
aka healthy conflict (Eisenhardt, Kahwajy,
Bourgeois, 1997)
14
How do we achieve convergent controversy?
15
Part III.Peer review
16
Social boundary
Who has permission to participate. (Kim,
2005) The definition of us from
everybody. Allows a community to
self-organize. (like cell membranes and your skin
allow you to self-organize) Tight

Wide Neurophysiology
Corporation Meatball Wikipedia
17
Creating a social boundary

• Common, clear goal
• Survival, mission statement, project
• Common centre or focal point
• Geography, company, wiki
• Common voice
• Dictated lt-gt fair process

18
Peer review revisited
Peer Who are the people inside the social
boundary? Those are your peers. Review The
process by which peers hold you to convergent
controversy.
19
Peer review and wikis
"Observable - Activity within the site can be
watched and reviewed by any other visitor to the
site. -- Wards Wiki design principles
20
Sounds easier said than done!
21
Part IV.Peer reviewing a wiki
22
Editing

• Messy discussion
• Edit mercilessly
• Final document
• Warning If not done with integrity, can lead to
  animosity!

23
Editing
I believe that cars should be kept off the road
and we should all bike. I cant bike in the
winter in Canada! You can use public
transport. Only if it is running that
day. When available, bikes and public
transport should be used over cars.
24
Brainstorming

• Brainstorm
• Point-form
• Reform
• No criticism! All points are valid.
• Point form only. Point form is less loaded with
  personal ego.
• (Editing orally!)

25
Stripping
Tone down material to point-form. If the author
wasnt a moron, he would know wikis were invented
in 1995! Wikis were invented in 1995. NPOV.
26
Split discussion from outcome

• Objective common focus summarizing the open
  conversation.
• Discussion pages like Wikipedia.
• Above the fold summarization.
• Wiki per decision / project

27
Above the fold
When available, bikes and public transport should
be used over cars. I believe that cars should
be kept off the road and we should all bike. I
cant bike in the winter in Canada! You can use
public transport. Only if it is running that
day.
28
Project wiki
For each major project or decision, have a
separate wiki to collect all relevant facts,
resources, information, meeting notes,
Summarize these to a final report. Copy final
report to a new wiki focused on implementing its
next steps. Repeat.
29
Cant reviewing be abused?
30
Part V.Common voice
31
Clear policy
Reviewing requires integrity and a sense of
fairness. Getting to Yes Commonly agreed to
objective measure. Mission statement. NPOV.
32
Fair process
Engagement Involve people affected by
decisions. Explanation Everyone must
understand. Expectation clarity Let people focus
on the task at hand.
Kim, W. C., and Mauborgne, R. (1997). Fair
process Managing in the knowledge economy.
Harvard Business Review, January-February, 65-75.
33
We still arent converging!
34
Part VI.Introducing information
35
Introduce information

• Sources
• Experiments
• Running code
• Customer feedback
• Precedents
• Existing policies / decisions

36
Answer doubts
Whenever the argument is hung up on an doubt,
answer it. Sure, if X were true, but maybe
not In the wiki way, just make X into a link.
37
Keep sources
Conversations on a wiki can be reopened at any
time. Keep sources around to answer old
questions. Links, revision history. (Wikis do
this for free!)
38
Part VII.Conclusion
39
Why is peer review important?

• Wikis are not centralized.
• Maintain peer reviewed quality without sysops
  and wizards.
• Gain scalability, fairness, quality, peace
• Defend against burnout, hostile forking,
  malfeasance, attacks

40
Questions?(or peer review)http//usemod.com/cg
i-bin/mb.pl?ProductiveControversy
41
Parking lot
42
Part X.Controversy in science
43
Controversy in science
The primary structure of Growth Hormone
Releasing Hormone (GHRH) is X. (Latour, 1987,
p.23) A fact.
44
Controversy in science
Now that Dr. Schally has discovered GHRH is X,
it is possible to start clinicala trials in
hospitals. (Latour, 1987, p.23) A solid
foundation.
45
Controversy in science
Dr. Schally has claimed GHRH is X, but by
troubling coincidence, X is also haemoglobin, a
common contaminant in samples. (Latour, 1987,
p.23) A controversy!
46
Controversy in science
If there is a troubling coincidence, it is in
the fact that criticisms against Schallys
discovery of GH are levelled by his old foe, Dr.
Guillemin. It is just a plain mistake by
Schally. Guillemin has always been more credible
than him! I wouldnt trust this GHRH an
inch. (Latour, 1987, pp.26-7) A hot controversy!
47
Part X.Stability
48
Equilibrium
Unstable Stable
49
Equilibrium
Unstable Stable
50
Equilibrium
Unstable Stable
51
Equilibrium
Unstable Stable
52
Equilibrium
Unstable Stable
53
Equilibrium
Unstable Stable
54
Equilibrium
Unstable Stable
55
Equilibrium
Unstable Stable
56
Equilibrium
Unstable Stable
57
Stable base
58
Stable base
59
Stable base
60
Stable base
"If I have seen further it is by standing on ye
shoulders of Giants. -- Newton