Controversy and stability:How wikis have productive

conflict

http://usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?ProductiveControversy

By Sunir Shah, with acknowledgments to Meatball.

Frankfurt, GermanyAugust 7, 2005

Under Creative Commons Share-Alike Attribution license

Part I.Diversity vs. Controversy

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)

Encyclopedia Britannica

"We're deciding what people are going to think."

-- Wendy Doniger, Board Member of Encyclopedia Britannica

(as qtd. in Ferkenhoff, 2005)

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

Debate, discussion of opposing opinions; strife

-- Wiktionary

Contention; dispute; debate; discussion; agitation of contrary opinions.

-- Webster, 1913

What is controversy?

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)

Must diversity lead to conflict?

Part II.Divergence vs. Convergence

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.

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)

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)

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)

How do we achieve convergent controversy?

Part III.Peer review

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 …

Creating a social boundary

Common, clear goal• Survival, mission statement, project

Common centre or focal point• Geography, company, wiki

Common voice• Dictated <-> fair process

Peer review revisited

PeerWho are the people inside the social

boundary? Those are your peers.

ReviewThe process by which peers hold you to

convergent controversy.

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

Sounds easier said than done!

Part IV.Peer reviewing a wiki

Editing

1. Messy discussion2. Edit mercilessly3. Final document

Warning: If not done with integrity, can lead to animosity!

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.”

Brainstorming

1.Brainstorm2.Point-form3.Reform

• No criticism! All points are valid.• Point form only. Point form is less loaded with personal ego.

(Editing orally!)

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.

Split discussion from outcome

‘Objective’ common focus summarizing the open conversation.

• Discussion pages like Wikipedia.• Above the fold summarization.• Wiki per decision / project

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.”

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.

Can’t reviewing be abused?

Part V.Common voice

Clear policy

Reviewing requires integrity and a sense of fairness.

Getting to YesCommonly agreed to objective measure.

Mission statement.NPOV.

Engagement Involve people affected by

decisions.

ExplanationEveryone must understand.

Expectation clarityLet people focus on the task at

hand.

Fair process

Kim, W. C., and Mauborgne, R. (1997). Fair process: Managing in the knowledge economy. Harvard Business Review, January-February, 65-75.

We still aren’t converging!

Part VI.Introducing information

Introduce information

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

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.

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!)

Part VII.Conclusion

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

Questions?(or peer review)

http://usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?ProductiveControversy

Parking lot

Part X.Controversy in science

The primary structure of Growth Hormone Releasing Hormone (GHRH) is X.

(Latour, 1987, p.23)

A fact.

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.

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!

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!

Controversy in science

Part X.Stability

Equilibrium

Unstable Stable

Equilibrium

Unstable Stable

Equilibrium

Unstable Stable

Equilibrium

Unstable Stable

Equilibrium

Unstable Stable

Equilibrium

Unstable Stable

Equilibrium

Unstable Stable

Equilibrium

Unstable Stable

Equilibrium

Unstable Stable

Stable base

Stable base

Stable base

Stable base

"If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants.” -- Newton