The Top-Heaviness of Participatory Culture
February 23rd, 2008 by BenSlate has a great article on the popular “democratic” websites, like Wikipedia, Digg, and Slashdot. The article looks into the myth that these sites are democratic, equal-opportunity, and created by a large number of people. It shows research that indicates that sites like Wikipedia and Digg are actually run by a very small number of people: 1% of Wikipedia users and about 100 Digg users. These people not only write most of the content, but hold controlling administrative positions with the power to control who submits, edits, and can post to the front page.
Additionally, the article mentions that these sites have a very hierarchical structure, especially wikipedia, with its many levels of administrators. This isn’t necessarily a harsh criticism, but its something we must take into account.We must be wary of describing any “democratic” culture, including fan cultures and movements. We have to question how many people were actually at the core of the culture. When we talk about trekkies and reference the documentary we saw, are we really talking about “trekkies”, or are we talking about a small subset that’s holding all the sway in how this culture is ideologically interpreted? We have to question how we’re defining fans based on the fan groups we examine, and whether or not we’re excluding a more silent majority.
Posted in Fan representation, Links | 3 Comments »
Here’s the thing about participatory culture, though–it’s participatory! It makes sense that those who participate more will have more sway.
The Slate article used words like “democracy” and “oligarchy,” which I feel to be much less valid than the word “meritocracy.” Of course, in the worlds of fandom and the internet, where the definition of “merit” is up for grabs, perhaps we’re talking about a “participatocracy.”
I’d say it’s a temporalcracy. He who has the time has the power. I have a friend who shall remain nameless who, as he has a great deal of time, has become one of the most frequent posters on both Wikipedia and a number of online forums, becoming an authority on numerous topics. While he is undoubtedly brilliant, one of the reasons for his success and authority is the amount of time he has to post. It is such that those with cube jobs, the unemployed, and college students will rise to the top of posting and “consumer content edited” heap.
In many ways, posting has become a second or first job to these people with large amounts of time on their hands. They occupy it by rising to the top of the information heap. It doesn’t pay much but in it, they are lord and master, possessing near absolute authority over their little private kingdoms of online information. Merit holds a place, certainly, those with time but little skill don’t get very far, but, with some skill and lots of time, the opportunities for online “power” are limitless…of course, it starts and ends at their computers.
I actually have been able to deal with this sort of thing first hand and it was a really interesting experience.
I was constantly updating the wikipedia page entries for bands that I like and eventually I had an account and was officially editing pages on occasion. However they kept finding reasons to delete my content additions. I understand how to use wikis pretty well but they were very very harsh in their critiques and incredibly nit picky in their criticisms.
Just recently my additions have begun to remain on their respective pages indefinitely and that is good to see but it did leave me wondering about how much this process resembles the freedom they attest to.