Openness as an Organizing Principle: Open for Diversity or Exclusionary Openness?
1 like221 views
The document discusses the concepts of openness and inclusion in innovation, particularly emphasizing the tension between open and closed strategies. It highlights the challenges surrounding diversity within open-source communities and the implications of algorithmic governance, exemplified through the use of bots on platforms like Wikipedia. The text explores how traditional business strategies may need to adapt to the evolving landscape created by open innovation practices.
![Wikipedia-
specific
Societal
Closedness
Potential reasons
for exclusion
in Wikipedia
Hacker culture
Trolls
»Bots«
0
25
50
75
100
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
editcountinpercentperyearineachusergroup
Anonymous users Bots
Registered users
Figure 3: Development of edits per user group (registered user,
anonymous user, bot) in the Wikipedia’s administrative names-
pace 4.
continuously increasing in number. Since bots have shown their
usefulness for a wide variety of tasks in the main namespace, their
scope has steadily expanded, and more edits have taken place in
other namespaces.
This contradicts a community guideline that suggests the avoidance
of editing activities of bots outside the article namespace. However,
in 2012, these “outside” edits accounted for over 40 percent of all
bot edits. This emergence of bot activity all over the community
project is an indication of the growing importance of these “lit-
tle helpers” for the community’s activities. This relates to a study
that analyzed the diversification of human edits over the different
namespaces. In 2001, about 90 percent of all edits were carried
out in the article namespace, but in 2006, this number had already
decreased to 70 percent [15]. We assume that the change in the
community engagement of bot operators also expanded the reach
of bot edits. More interestingly, while human edits slowed down in
Wikipedia’s community space, edits carried out by bots increased
as shown in Figure 3. In this administrative space, 20 different bots
have been active on average (disregarding wikilink-bots).
In the next part of our analysis, we specifically look at the types of
activities bots carry out. Our interest is twofold: first, we classify
tasks executed by bots in order to understand their relatedness to
existing social governance mechanisms. Second, we examine our
assumption of increasingly algorithmic rule enforcement by bots.
We collected task descriptions from bots’ user pages to examine
the kinds of activities in which bots are participating in the Wiki-
pedia community. In single, doubtful cases we matched edits with
their task descriptions to identify discrepancies and exclude those
activities. Based on these data, we defined general activity types
that are indicated in the first column of the table 1. These general
activity types were defined in three steps. During the first round,
we coded existing task descriptions collaboratively (around 100)
until we had an almost stable set of activities. In the second round,
we separately coded the remaining task descriptions. In the third
round, we checked the assigned codes and compared them with
our own decisions, and collaboratively coded all task descriptions
that needed new activity types. In order to create a shared under-
standing of existing activity types, the second and third rounds were
an iterative process. Newly introduced activity types were always
cross-validated over the whole data set.
We clustered the manually defined sets of activities in activity types
(cf. second column of the table 1) and identified three foci of bot
activities (cf. fifth column of the table 1): (1) the content focus, (2)
the task focus, and (3) the community focus.
The first category contains mainly bots that are active in the article
namespace. These bots are created primarily to support the curat-
ing activities of their operators (for example, by using Autowiki-
browser – a semi-automated MediaWiki editor13
) or to connect dif-
ferent language versions of a page through interwiki-links. The
second category comprises bots that are used to support the main-
tenance work of editors by compiling working lists or by informing
editors about existing status changes on articles. The third category
- the community focus - refers to activities that are rather unrelated
to encyclopedic articles; they are more related to community rules
and their enforcement.
Four bots have a community focus: the CopperBot, GiftBot, Items-
bot and xqbot. The CopperBot is the German equivalent to the
HagermanBot of the English Wikipedia [8] that is responsible for
signing unsigned comments on discussion pages. The main task of
the Itemsbot was welcoming new users to the German Wikipedia
by leaving a message on their personal discussion pages. Probably
because of the aforementioned community consensus against bot
welcome messages, the bot stopped working within two months.
In 2008 and 2009, the operator of the Giftbot requested a bot flag
for her bot in order to correct spelling mistakes. In both cases, the
request was denied. In July 2010, the third request was successful.
This time, the bot tasks included the removal of processed flagged
revision requests, the dissemination of a newsletter that contains
information on new edits on pages such as polls, and requests for
banning users as well. All these activities were much more fo-
cused on specific community needs. We assume that the operator
of Giftbot learned much more about existing rules and guidelines
over time and was therefore much better able to meet the needs of
her fellows.
The last of the four community bots is introduced in more detail in
the next section. We show in an exemplary way how the activity
set employed by this bot changes over time.
5.3.1 Example: xqbot
In October 2008, the editor applied for a bot flag for her xqbot in
order to request speedy deletions of orphan pages14
or remains of
moved pages. In November 2008, the bot flag was assigned and
the bot started working. Soon after this, the bot activities included
over ten different tasks such as correcting double redirects, fixing
links on disambiguation pages, adding missing references tags in
articles, and the setting of interwiki-links. All these tasks were
mainly focused on quality improvements to encyclopedic articles.
In 2010, the focus changed in terms of additional tasks. This was
motivated mainly by a procedural problem that occurred during an
administrator re-election.
In January 2010, one participant initiated a discussion by question-
ing the procedure to take care of obsolete votes [31], [32]. The
13
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowse
14
Orphan pages on Wikipedia are articles that have no or very few
incoming links.
Usability
Mirror of societal structures
and relations
Access
to Internet
Openness](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/dobusch-eclusionaryopenness-jkui-guest-lecture-191218154751/85/Openness-as-an-Organizing-Principle-Open-for-Diversity-or-Exclusionary-Openness-40-320.jpg)
![Wikipedia-
specific
Societal
Closedness
Potential reasons
for exclusion
in Wikipedia
Hacker culture
Trolls
»Bots«
0
25
50
75
100
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
editcountinpercentperyearineachusergroup
Anonymous users Bots
Registered users
Figure 3: Development of edits per user group (registered user,
anonymous user, bot) in the Wikipedia’s administrative names-
pace 4.
continuously increasing in number. Since bots have shown their
usefulness for a wide variety of tasks in the main namespace, their
scope has steadily expanded, and more edits have taken place in
other namespaces.
This contradicts a community guideline that suggests the avoidance
of editing activities of bots outside the article namespace. However,
in 2012, these “outside” edits accounted for over 40 percent of all
bot edits. This emergence of bot activity all over the community
project is an indication of the growing importance of these “lit-
tle helpers” for the community’s activities. This relates to a study
that analyzed the diversification of human edits over the different
namespaces. In 2001, about 90 percent of all edits were carried
out in the article namespace, but in 2006, this number had already
decreased to 70 percent [15]. We assume that the change in the
community engagement of bot operators also expanded the reach
of bot edits. More interestingly, while human edits slowed down in
Wikipedia’s community space, edits carried out by bots increased
as shown in Figure 3. In this administrative space, 20 different bots
have been active on average (disregarding wikilink-bots).
In the next part of our analysis, we specifically look at the types of
activities bots carry out. Our interest is twofold: first, we classify
tasks executed by bots in order to understand their relatedness to
existing social governance mechanisms. Second, we examine our
assumption of increasingly algorithmic rule enforcement by bots.
We collected task descriptions from bots’ user pages to examine
the kinds of activities in which bots are participating in the Wiki-
pedia community. In single, doubtful cases we matched edits with
their task descriptions to identify discrepancies and exclude those
activities. Based on these data, we defined general activity types
that are indicated in the first column of the table 1. These general
activity types were defined in three steps. During the first round,
we coded existing task descriptions collaboratively (around 100)
until we had an almost stable set of activities. In the second round,
we separately coded the remaining task descriptions. In the third
round, we checked the assigned codes and compared them with
our own decisions, and collaboratively coded all task descriptions
that needed new activity types. In order to create a shared under-
standing of existing activity types, the second and third rounds were
an iterative process. Newly introduced activity types were always
cross-validated over the whole data set.
We clustered the manually defined sets of activities in activity types
(cf. second column of the table 1) and identified three foci of bot
activities (cf. fifth column of the table 1): (1) the content focus, (2)
the task focus, and (3) the community focus.
The first category contains mainly bots that are active in the article
namespace. These bots are created primarily to support the curat-
ing activities of their operators (for example, by using Autowiki-
browser – a semi-automated MediaWiki editor13
) or to connect dif-
ferent language versions of a page through interwiki-links. The
second category comprises bots that are used to support the main-
tenance work of editors by compiling working lists or by informing
editors about existing status changes on articles. The third category
- the community focus - refers to activities that are rather unrelated
to encyclopedic articles; they are more related to community rules
and their enforcement.
Four bots have a community focus: the CopperBot, GiftBot, Items-
bot and xqbot. The CopperBot is the German equivalent to the
HagermanBot of the English Wikipedia [8] that is responsible for
signing unsigned comments on discussion pages. The main task of
the Itemsbot was welcoming new users to the German Wikipedia
by leaving a message on their personal discussion pages. Probably
because of the aforementioned community consensus against bot
welcome messages, the bot stopped working within two months.
In 2008 and 2009, the operator of the Giftbot requested a bot flag
for her bot in order to correct spelling mistakes. In both cases, the
request was denied. In July 2010, the third request was successful.
This time, the bot tasks included the removal of processed flagged
revision requests, the dissemination of a newsletter that contains
information on new edits on pages such as polls, and requests for
banning users as well. All these activities were much more fo-
cused on specific community needs. We assume that the operator
of Giftbot learned much more about existing rules and guidelines
over time and was therefore much better able to meet the needs of
her fellows.
The last of the four community bots is introduced in more detail in
the next section. We show in an exemplary way how the activity
set employed by this bot changes over time.
5.3.1 Example: xqbot
In October 2008, the editor applied for a bot flag for her xqbot in
order to request speedy deletions of orphan pages14
or remains of
moved pages. In November 2008, the bot flag was assigned and
the bot started working. Soon after this, the bot activities included
over ten different tasks such as correcting double redirects, fixing
links on disambiguation pages, adding missing references tags in
articles, and the setting of interwiki-links. All these tasks were
mainly focused on quality improvements to encyclopedic articles.
In 2010, the focus changed in terms of additional tasks. This was
motivated mainly by a procedural problem that occurred during an
administrator re-election.
In January 2010, one participant initiated a discussion by question-
ing the procedure to take care of obsolete votes [31], [32]. The
13
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowse
14
Orphan pages on Wikipedia are articles that have no or very few
incoming links.
Usability
Mirror of societal structures
and relations
Access
to Internet
Openness
?](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/dobusch-eclusionaryopenness-jkui-guest-lecture-191218154751/85/Openness-as-an-Organizing-Principle-Open-for-Diversity-or-Exclusionary-Openness-44-320.jpg)
Openness as an Organizing Principle: Open for Diversity or Exclusionary Openness?
- 1. Leonhard Dobusch University of Innsbruck Guest Lecture in the course „Understanding the digital economy“ December 18, 2019, Johannes Kepler University Linz OPENNESS AS AN ORGANIZING PRINCIPLE Open for Diversity or Exclusionary Openness?
- 2. CO M M ERCIAL BREAK Dobusch, L. & Dobusch, L. (2019): The Relation between Openness and Closure in Open Strategy: Programmatic and Constitutive Approaches to Openness. In D. Seidl, G. von Krogh & R Whittington (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Open Strategy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 326-336
- 3. Openness as an Organizing Principle
- 4. 11 EIRMA SIG III, 2005-10-20 Closed innovation Our current market Our new market Other firm´s market Open innovation External technology insourcing Internal technology base External technology base Stolen with pride from Prof Henry Chesbrough UC Berkeley, Open Innovation: Renewing Growth from Industrial R&D, 10th Annual Innovation Convergence, Minneapolis Sept 27, 2004 Internal/external venture handling Licence, spin out, divest
- 5. a lesser extent in the arts and humanities). 0 50 100 150 200 250 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 All SSCI B/M Figure 1.2 Growth of publications on open innovation in Web of Science Notes: Search criterion: “open innovation” in title, abstract or keyword or citing Chesbrough (2003a); All = SCI, SSCI and A&HCI; SSCI = Social Science Citation Index; B/M = Business or Management category (within SSCI)
- 6. Open Innovation and Strategy Henry W. Chesbrough Melissa M. Appleyard A new breed of innovation—open innovation—is forcing firms to reassess their leadership positions, which reflect the performance outcomes of their business strategies. It is timely to juxtapose some new phenomena in innovation with the traditional acade- mic view of business strategy. More specifically, we wish to examine the increas- ing adoption of more open approaches to innovation, and see how well this adoption can be explained with theories of business strategy. In our view, open innovation is creating new empirical phenomena that exist uneasily with well- established theories of business strategy. Traditional business strategy has guidedQuelle: David Lerner, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Internet_troll.jpg, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ Open strategy … embraces the benefits of openness as a means of expanding value creation for organizations “ Chesbrough & Appleyard (2007)
- 7. Impression Digital Openness of Organizations Example: Buffer
- 8. Impression Tool Digital Openness of Organizations
- 9. Bild: Chris Potter, CC-BY 2.0, https://www.flickr.com/photos/86530412@N02/8334443952 Impression Tool Value Digital Openness of Organizations
- 10. Openness as a Program
- 11. Quelle: David Lerner, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Internet_troll.jpg, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ Increasing Openness as a PROGRAM Tensions such as “compromising speed” or “burdening wider audiences with the pressures of strategy” (Hautz et al., 2017) as limitations or hurdles for achieving greater openness IIIOpenness as the opposite of closure, representing two endpoints of a continuum from closed to open: Inviting more actors, sharing more information >> open++ open++ as a normative ideal
- 13. “Open forms of strategy-making with more inside and outside organizations and more of different actors internally and externally. Whittington et al. (2011, S. 531, Übersetzung L.D.) transparency inclusion
- 14. surveys dialogue ratinginformation transparency inclusion
- 16. How are openness and diversity connected?
- 17. How connected are openness and diversity?
- 19. Survey of 5.500 open source developers on Github: 95% male, 3% female (in comparison: ~20% of all professional developers in the USA are female) Quellen: http://opensourcesurvey.org/2017/; https://www.wired.com/2017/06/diversity-open-source-even-worse-tech-overall/
- 26. Non-performatives describes the “reiterative and citational practice by which discourse” does not produce “the effects that it names” (Butler 1993: 2) “ Ahmed, S. (2012, p. 117)
- 27. Bild ShashiBellamkonda, CC BY 2.0, : https://www.flickr.com/photos/drbeachvacation/4623702054/
- 28. Why is open for "anyone" not open enough?
- 31. Photo: UNESCO, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Online_harassment_of_women_journalists.png. CC BY-SA 4.0
- 32. “non-anonymous individuals are more aggressive compared to anonymous individuals Rost et al. (2016): Digital Social Norm Enforcement: Online Firestorms in Social Media, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0155923
- 33. Lack of diversity in spite of radical openness? because of
- 34. Bild: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Being_any_Gender_is_a_drag_-_World_Pride_London_2012_(7527764372).jpg,, CC BY 2.0, by xJason.Rogersx Mirror of societal (gender) structures and inequalities?
- 35. Quelle: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_Zero_1_Mumbai_Guy_on_phone.jpg Mirror of societal (gender) structures and inequalities?
- 37. 0 25 50 75 100 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 editcountinpercentperyearineachusergroup Anonymous users Bots Registered users More edits of algorithms (»bots«): Aus: Müller-Birn, C./Dobusch, L./Herbsleb, J. D. (2013): Work-to- rule: the emergence of algorithmic governance in Wikipedia. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Communities and Technologies (C&T ’13), ACM, 80–89.
- 38. Quelle: David Lerner, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Internet_troll.jpg, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ If your group has nine helpful and polite members, and one rude, sexist, loud member, most women are going to continue to stay away because of that one member “ Valeria Aurora (2002), http://tldp.org/HOWTO/ Encourage-Women- Linux-HOWTO/
- 39. Path dependence of (lack of) diversity? Quelle: Sydow et al. (2009, p. 692)
- 40. Wikipedia- specific Societal Closedness Potential reasons for exclusion in Wikipedia Hacker culture Trolls »Bots« 0 25 50 75 100 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 editcountinpercentperyearineachusergroup Anonymous users Bots Registered users Figure 3: Development of edits per user group (registered user, anonymous user, bot) in the Wikipedia’s administrative names- pace 4. continuously increasing in number. Since bots have shown their usefulness for a wide variety of tasks in the main namespace, their scope has steadily expanded, and more edits have taken place in other namespaces. This contradicts a community guideline that suggests the avoidance of editing activities of bots outside the article namespace. However, in 2012, these “outside” edits accounted for over 40 percent of all bot edits. This emergence of bot activity all over the community project is an indication of the growing importance of these “lit- tle helpers” for the community’s activities. This relates to a study that analyzed the diversification of human edits over the different namespaces. In 2001, about 90 percent of all edits were carried out in the article namespace, but in 2006, this number had already decreased to 70 percent [15]. We assume that the change in the community engagement of bot operators also expanded the reach of bot edits. More interestingly, while human edits slowed down in Wikipedia’s community space, edits carried out by bots increased as shown in Figure 3. In this administrative space, 20 different bots have been active on average (disregarding wikilink-bots). In the next part of our analysis, we specifically look at the types of activities bots carry out. Our interest is twofold: first, we classify tasks executed by bots in order to understand their relatedness to existing social governance mechanisms. Second, we examine our assumption of increasingly algorithmic rule enforcement by bots. We collected task descriptions from bots’ user pages to examine the kinds of activities in which bots are participating in the Wiki- pedia community. In single, doubtful cases we matched edits with their task descriptions to identify discrepancies and exclude those activities. Based on these data, we defined general activity types that are indicated in the first column of the table 1. These general activity types were defined in three steps. During the first round, we coded existing task descriptions collaboratively (around 100) until we had an almost stable set of activities. In the second round, we separately coded the remaining task descriptions. In the third round, we checked the assigned codes and compared them with our own decisions, and collaboratively coded all task descriptions that needed new activity types. In order to create a shared under- standing of existing activity types, the second and third rounds were an iterative process. Newly introduced activity types were always cross-validated over the whole data set. We clustered the manually defined sets of activities in activity types (cf. second column of the table 1) and identified three foci of bot activities (cf. fifth column of the table 1): (1) the content focus, (2) the task focus, and (3) the community focus. The first category contains mainly bots that are active in the article namespace. These bots are created primarily to support the curat- ing activities of their operators (for example, by using Autowiki- browser – a semi-automated MediaWiki editor13 ) or to connect dif- ferent language versions of a page through interwiki-links. The second category comprises bots that are used to support the main- tenance work of editors by compiling working lists or by informing editors about existing status changes on articles. The third category - the community focus - refers to activities that are rather unrelated to encyclopedic articles; they are more related to community rules and their enforcement. Four bots have a community focus: the CopperBot, GiftBot, Items- bot and xqbot. The CopperBot is the German equivalent to the HagermanBot of the English Wikipedia [8] that is responsible for signing unsigned comments on discussion pages. The main task of the Itemsbot was welcoming new users to the German Wikipedia by leaving a message on their personal discussion pages. Probably because of the aforementioned community consensus against bot welcome messages, the bot stopped working within two months. In 2008 and 2009, the operator of the Giftbot requested a bot flag for her bot in order to correct spelling mistakes. In both cases, the request was denied. In July 2010, the third request was successful. This time, the bot tasks included the removal of processed flagged revision requests, the dissemination of a newsletter that contains information on new edits on pages such as polls, and requests for banning users as well. All these activities were much more fo- cused on specific community needs. We assume that the operator of Giftbot learned much more about existing rules and guidelines over time and was therefore much better able to meet the needs of her fellows. The last of the four community bots is introduced in more detail in the next section. We show in an exemplary way how the activity set employed by this bot changes over time. 5.3.1 Example: xqbot In October 2008, the editor applied for a bot flag for her xqbot in order to request speedy deletions of orphan pages14 or remains of moved pages. In November 2008, the bot flag was assigned and the bot started working. Soon after this, the bot activities included over ten different tasks such as correcting double redirects, fixing links on disambiguation pages, adding missing references tags in articles, and the setting of interwiki-links. All these tasks were mainly focused on quality improvements to encyclopedic articles. In 2010, the focus changed in terms of additional tasks. This was motivated mainly by a procedural problem that occurred during an administrator re-election. In January 2010, one participant initiated a discussion by question- ing the procedure to take care of obsolete votes [31], [32]. The 13 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowse 14 Orphan pages on Wikipedia are articles that have no or very few incoming links. Usability Mirror of societal structures and relations Access to Internet Openness
- 44. Wikipedia- specific Societal Closedness Potential reasons for exclusion in Wikipedia Hacker culture Trolls »Bots« 0 25 50 75 100 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 editcountinpercentperyearineachusergroup Anonymous users Bots Registered users Figure 3: Development of edits per user group (registered user, anonymous user, bot) in the Wikipedia’s administrative names- pace 4. continuously increasing in number. Since bots have shown their usefulness for a wide variety of tasks in the main namespace, their scope has steadily expanded, and more edits have taken place in other namespaces. This contradicts a community guideline that suggests the avoidance of editing activities of bots outside the article namespace. However, in 2012, these “outside” edits accounted for over 40 percent of all bot edits. This emergence of bot activity all over the community project is an indication of the growing importance of these “lit- tle helpers” for the community’s activities. This relates to a study that analyzed the diversification of human edits over the different namespaces. In 2001, about 90 percent of all edits were carried out in the article namespace, but in 2006, this number had already decreased to 70 percent [15]. We assume that the change in the community engagement of bot operators also expanded the reach of bot edits. More interestingly, while human edits slowed down in Wikipedia’s community space, edits carried out by bots increased as shown in Figure 3. In this administrative space, 20 different bots have been active on average (disregarding wikilink-bots). In the next part of our analysis, we specifically look at the types of activities bots carry out. Our interest is twofold: first, we classify tasks executed by bots in order to understand their relatedness to existing social governance mechanisms. Second, we examine our assumption of increasingly algorithmic rule enforcement by bots. We collected task descriptions from bots’ user pages to examine the kinds of activities in which bots are participating in the Wiki- pedia community. In single, doubtful cases we matched edits with their task descriptions to identify discrepancies and exclude those activities. Based on these data, we defined general activity types that are indicated in the first column of the table 1. These general activity types were defined in three steps. During the first round, we coded existing task descriptions collaboratively (around 100) until we had an almost stable set of activities. In the second round, we separately coded the remaining task descriptions. In the third round, we checked the assigned codes and compared them with our own decisions, and collaboratively coded all task descriptions that needed new activity types. In order to create a shared under- standing of existing activity types, the second and third rounds were an iterative process. Newly introduced activity types were always cross-validated over the whole data set. We clustered the manually defined sets of activities in activity types (cf. second column of the table 1) and identified three foci of bot activities (cf. fifth column of the table 1): (1) the content focus, (2) the task focus, and (3) the community focus. The first category contains mainly bots that are active in the article namespace. These bots are created primarily to support the curat- ing activities of their operators (for example, by using Autowiki- browser – a semi-automated MediaWiki editor13 ) or to connect dif- ferent language versions of a page through interwiki-links. The second category comprises bots that are used to support the main- tenance work of editors by compiling working lists or by informing editors about existing status changes on articles. The third category - the community focus - refers to activities that are rather unrelated to encyclopedic articles; they are more related to community rules and their enforcement. Four bots have a community focus: the CopperBot, GiftBot, Items- bot and xqbot. The CopperBot is the German equivalent to the HagermanBot of the English Wikipedia [8] that is responsible for signing unsigned comments on discussion pages. The main task of the Itemsbot was welcoming new users to the German Wikipedia by leaving a message on their personal discussion pages. Probably because of the aforementioned community consensus against bot welcome messages, the bot stopped working within two months. In 2008 and 2009, the operator of the Giftbot requested a bot flag for her bot in order to correct spelling mistakes. In both cases, the request was denied. In July 2010, the third request was successful. This time, the bot tasks included the removal of processed flagged revision requests, the dissemination of a newsletter that contains information on new edits on pages such as polls, and requests for banning users as well. All these activities were much more fo- cused on specific community needs. We assume that the operator of Giftbot learned much more about existing rules and guidelines over time and was therefore much better able to meet the needs of her fellows. The last of the four community bots is introduced in more detail in the next section. We show in an exemplary way how the activity set employed by this bot changes over time. 5.3.1 Example: xqbot In October 2008, the editor applied for a bot flag for her xqbot in order to request speedy deletions of orphan pages14 or remains of moved pages. In November 2008, the bot flag was assigned and the bot started working. Soon after this, the bot activities included over ten different tasks such as correcting double redirects, fixing links on disambiguation pages, adding missing references tags in articles, and the setting of interwiki-links. All these tasks were mainly focused on quality improvements to encyclopedic articles. In 2010, the focus changed in terms of additional tasks. This was motivated mainly by a procedural problem that occurred during an administrator re-election. In January 2010, one participant initiated a discussion by question- ing the procedure to take care of obsolete votes [31], [32]. The 13 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowse 14 Orphan pages on Wikipedia are articles that have no or very few incoming links. Usability Mirror of societal structures and relations Access to Internet Openness ?
- 45. From radical openness to legitimate closure: Exclusion for the benefit of openness?
- 46. Usage rights in the English Wikipedia none all
- 47. Trademarks Server infrastructure Software development Production of content Deletion of content Division of Labor Foundation/Community
- 48. Division of Labor Foundation/Community
- 49. Division of Labor Foundation/Community Community managers?
- 52. Quelle: David Lerner, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Internet_troll.jpg, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ Openness and Closure as CONSTITUTIVE Analyzing the paradoxical nature of openness (and closure) by focusing on legitimate forms closure. e.g., official secrecy as a way to enhance transparency (Costas & Grey 2014) IIIOpenness and closure as inextricably linked and interacting with each other >> we find examples of closure in all empirical studies of open strategy
- 53. Explicating and addressing normativity inherent in (calls for) openness from looking at degrees of openness to investigating combinations of openness and closure desirable in organizations labelled as ‘open’ together with a switch from exclusionary openness to inclusion through legitimate closure allows moving
- 54. CONTACT E-mail: Leonhard.Dobusch@uibk.ac.at Twitter: @leonidobusch Websites: bit.ly/LD-UIBK // www.dobusch.net Research blogs: governancexborders.com // osconjunction.net