Controversy and stability: How wikis have productive conflict

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 Crowdsby 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 (cont’d) 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 (cont’d) 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 <-> 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.“ -- Ward’s 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 can’t 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 wasn’t 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 can’t 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. Can’t 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 aren’t 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/cgi-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 Schally’s 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 wouldn’t 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