source code), technical literacy (such as learning to
read code), and opacities inherent in machine learning
(such as issues of interpretability). To these forms, I add
another: the opacities in learning a particular institu-
tional or organizational culture that is supported by
algorithmic systems."
// source is open, but who can actually read it? and is willing to invest the time and energy in order to hold the system accountable?
// vgl auch Gedanke von Claudia: "Wikipedia is spannend, weil wir daran das erforschen können, was wir an Facebook nicht können. Und weil die ein Abbild der Gesellschaft im Kleinen ist."
// vgl auch Web Science def: observe micro behaviours in order to study macro phenomenons (governance, ..)
Def "algorithmic": "as involving encoded proced-
ures, which are typically—but not exclusively—compu-
tationally implemented."
"Like all algorithmic systems, the ones I studied in
Wikipedia were designed, developed, and deployed by
people." //all developers are human and all humans make mistakes^^
"As Gillespie (2014) argues: ‘‘A socio-
logical analysis must not conceive of algorithms as
abstract, technical achievements, but must unpack the
warm human and institutional choices that lie behind
these cold mechanisms.’’"
Seaver (2013: 9–10) Def Algorithmic System:
"It is not the algorithm, narrowly defined, that has
sociocultural effects, but algorithmic systems — intri-
cate, dynamic arrangements of people and code. . .
When we realize that we are not talking about algo-
rithms in the technical sense, but rather algorithmic
systems of which code strictu sensu is only a part,
their defining features reverse: instead of formality,
rigidity, and consistency, we find flux, revisability,
and negotiation."
"In this context, I ask: for whom are algorithmic systems
(and the organizations that rely on them) formal, rigid,
and consistent, and for whom are they in flux, revisable,
and negotiable?" //Vorwissen, das die Menschen mitbringen, ist wichtig!
2nd level digital divide:
"who had
the knowledge, skills, and sense of empowerment to use
the Internet in ways that further engaged, empowered,
and benefitted their lives." nach Hargittai 2002
Everything's open:
"We must look at more than the fact that partici-
pation in Wikipedia is open to the public; that the infra-
structure supporting it is open sourced; and that the
community’s policies, procedures, and norms are docu-
mented in thousands and thousands of pages of text."
BUT
"We must also look at what kind of skills, knowledge, and
investment is required to fully and successfully partici-
pate,"
speaks of deletion of substandard encyclopedic articles: Where and how are the standards defined? Who defines them?
"article about a
website fails the A7 criteria in the CSD process,
which demands that articles ‘‘credibly indicate the
importance or significance of the subject.’’ (A majority
of speedy deleted articles are tagged with templates
containing A7 rationales (Geiger and Ford, 2011).)"
// ich finde dieses Kriterium ist äußerst mit Vorsicht zu genießen, da die Tür weit aufgemacht wird für Sexismus, Rassismus und andere Arten von Diskriminierung von Inhalten, die der Mehrheit von white dudes nicht passen
"Yet I had a
second, subtler motivation, hoping that in properly
demonstrating correct usage of such a template within
the established workflow of this process, I would be
made legible as a Wikipedian who knew the CSD pro-
cess and should be given some more leeway—unlike
most of the people who were creating articles that
they were deleting." //making use of the brocode^^
"Such systems do not eliminate the need for human
labor, but instead transform the kind of work that
takes place,"
erwähnt auch Abschrecken von newcommers
"As
Seaver (2013) notes with his critiques of various ‘‘crit-
ical algorithms studies’’ literature, it is easy to slip into
a mode of analysis where social factors are contextua-
lized, while infrastructure remain static and determin-
ing. Such an approach ‘‘keeps algorithms themselves
untouched, objective stones tossed about in a roily
social stream’’ (10)."
"the algorithmic
systems themselves are constructed, negotiated, contex-
tualized, and differently interpreted and enacted." // aber wer kann beim Aushandeln mitmachen?
"Wikipedia’s computational infrastructure is
also designed and governed in a relatively open
manner by the project’s volunteer community of edi-
tors (Forte and Bruckman , 2008; Gilbert and Zachry,
2015; Kennedy, 2010), unlike most of the automated
systems that are increasingly prevalent in digitally
mediated environments." //jup. und selbst da blick man nicht durch
Requirements/Expectations for bot developers:
"bot developers are generally expected to be responsive
to reasonable requests and concerns from the
community."
"Wikipedians discuss and debate
about what kinds of bots should exist in the project,"
"one of the
paradoxes of openness is that it can take substantial
time, energy, investment, and resources to fully take
advantage of all the materials released"
Veterans vs newcomers:
"they make it far easier for veteran Wikipedians to
engage in the kind of specific, complex, multifacted
work involved in the governance of Wikipedia. This
can make it far more difficult for newcomers to partici-
pate—not necessarily because bots, algorithms, or
assisted tools are inherently difficult to deal with, but
rather because bots support more complex kinds of gov-
ernance practices in Wikipedia, and complex govern-
