đŸ’Ÿ Archived View for library.inu.red â€ș file â€ș petar-jandric-wikipedia-and-education.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:20:44. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

âžĄïž Next capture (2024-07-09)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Wikipedia and Education
Author: Petar Jandric
Date: 25 May 2011
Language: en
Topics: Wikipedia, education, internet
Source: Retrieved on August 28, 2011 from https://web.archive.org/web/20110828152810/http://www.jceps.com/PDFs/08-2-02.pdf
Notes: Published in the Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, vol.8. no.2

Petar Jandric

Wikipedia and Education

ABSTRACT

This paper explores the philosophical background of one of the most

widespread Web based sources used in contemporary education – Wikipedia.

Theoretical part consists of the basic notions of anarchist philosophy

of education such as human nature, work and society.

Through Chomsky‘s prism of visions and goals, it provides the frame for

further analysis. The practical part shows that Wikipedia creates a

virtual anarchist society: open, ludic engagement in this society is

fully interwoven with the specific kind of education of all its members.

Offering an insight into the often neglected area of social and

political ideas underlying the use of technology in education, this

paper offers a conceptual bridge between contemporary Digital Immigrant

educators and their predominantly Digital Native patrons, thus

contributing to the better understanding of education in and for the

third millennium.

INTRODUCTION

McLuhan noticed that “we shape our tools and thereafter they shape us”

(1964); technologies and human beings dialectically interact in the

process of creating our reality. Generally, a tool is something that was

produced before its user was born; technology is something that came

after. When applied to information and communication technologies, this

distinction creates large differences between two vast groups of users:

Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants. Digital Natives are people who

were born into the digital world; Digital Immigrants are people who got

accustomed to the digital world in later parts of their lives. For this

reason,“today‘s students think and process information fundamentally

differently from their predecessors. These differences go far further

and deeper than most educators suspect or realize” (Prensky, 2001: 1).

One of the most widely used ICT-based tools in education is the

“multilingual, webbased, free content encyclopaedia project” Wikipedia

(2010a). There is hardly a teacher who hasn‘t dealt with students who

extensively use Wikipedia as a source in their work: “students,

particularly in the ‘first world’, are increasingly using Wikipedia as a

source of information” (Szesnat, 2006 p.1). There is a small but rapidly

growing body of research about its educational use. This can be roughly

divided in two categories: research about the use of the Wikipedia

knowledge database in instruction, and using Wikipedia as a tool for

instruction. This study takes another approach to Wikipedia studies.

Instead of looking at how Wikipedia can be used in instruction, it

focuses on the philosophy built in its functioning. Inspired by

similarities between the basic postulates of Wikipedia and anarchism and

supported by Reagle‘s article showing the high degree of similarity

between Kropotkin‘s idea of “mutual aid and interdependent decision

making within the Wikipedia” (2005), it seeks for model in the

philosophy of anarchism.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Addressing problems associated with analyses of anarchist views in the

context of education, De Leon writes that “anarchist theory is a huge

field and is not easily summarized, as there have been historical

variants that are quite diverse and eclectic” (2006). In a similar

fashion, Suissa says that anarchism is inherently “anti-canonical, so

one cannot refer to any single body of written work in the search for

definition” (2001 p.629). For those reasons, it is of outmost importance

for this research to create a working definition of anarchist education.

This paper follows the most usual approach: isolating attitudes common

to the most prominent anarchist thinkers, it looks for a “middle way”

which satisfies the majority. Following the method from De Leon‘s

successful comparison between anarchist and critical education, “when I

refer to the concept of anarchism,’ I am actually referring to

‘anarchisms’ which better captures this diverse radical theoretical

tradition” (2006).

The vast majority of anarchist thinkers points out that any discussion

about anarchism and anarchist educational praxis “must rest on some

conception of human nature, of what‘s good for people, of their needs

and rights, of the aspects of their nature that should be nurtured,

encouraged and permitted to flourish for their benefit and that of

others” (Chomsky, 1996 p.107). Traditionally, philosophers have used the

concept of human nature for three purposes:

(Parekh, 1997).

Based on the work of dialectical thinkers from Heraclitus onwards,

Bookchin develops the dialectical approach to acknowledging the

developmental nature of human reality. “Dialectical reason grasps not

only how an entity is organized at a particular moment but how it is

organized to go beyond that level of development and become other than

what it is, even as it retains its identity.” (1995 p.3) The

contradictory nature of identity, for Bookchin, is an intrinsic feature

of the human being; its flourishing, rather than disciplining, is

therefore one of the highest values in anarchist education.

The developmental nature of human reality makes people inherently

interconnected; as Bakunin said, “man is born into society, just as an

ant is born into an ant-hill or a bee into its hive” (Bakunin, 1964

p.157). Thus, for anarchists, there is no strict distinction between

human beings and society. It is therefore natural that in anarchist

theory, where the central animating ideal is the one of free society,

based on mutual cooperation, decentralisation and self-government, the

concept of a common human nature is employed in order to demonstrate the

feasibility of this social ideal (Suissa, 2006 p.25).

During the period of the fastest development of anarchist ideas often

referred to as the golden age of anarchism, all major leftist political

theories were strongly influenced by Darwin‘s theory of evolution.

However, unlike Huxley or Marx who understood evolution quite literally

as survival of the strongest, Kropotkin argued that “the fittest are not

the physically strongest, nor the cunningest, but those who learn to

combine so as mutually to support each other, strong and weak alike, for

the welfare of the community” (1902 p.7). In one form or another,

Kropotkin‘s view became the credo of left-wing anarchism: exercised on

all levels, the principle of mutual aid is the basic prerequisite for

philosophy of anarchism.

Anarchists believe in organization free from the restrictions of

extraneous authority; thus work, together with all other human

activities, has to be voluntary. For Black, it is hard to conceive that

any free person would voluntarily engage in an unpleasant or

intrinsically unrewarding activity – hence, for an anarchist, the main

reason to work is the pleasure obtained. Unfortunately, as Woodcock

notes, the Western concept of work is far from the ideal pleasure

producing activity: “quantity rather than quality becoming the

criterion, the enjoyment is taken out of the work itself” (1997 p.56).

Depending on minor differences between working classes, this lack of

enjoyment leads to more or less subtle coercion; in the present social

order, the real choice about whether to work is left only to members of

the small portion of the society who can afford it. This problem affects

the individual worker just as much as the whole society: when expressed

in terms of work, a truly free society is defined “as one in which there

is no social coercion compelling the individual to work” (Gibson, 1990

p.110).

Apart from social relationships, coercion to work deeply affects the

possibilities for individual human development. Throughout written

history, the majority of people belonged to the working class; only a

small percentage of those who were rich enough belonged to the

privileged leisure class. Despite the huge discrepancy in numbers, it

was the leisure class that

cultivated the arts and discovered the sciences; it wrote the books,

invented the philosophies, and refined social relations. Even the

liberation of the oppressed has usually been inaugurated from above.

Without a leisure class, mankind would never emerge from barbarism

(Russell, 1997 p.33).

Even in the most advanced democracies, it is extremely hard for the

working class to progress into the leisure class. Thus the myth of full

employment, advocated by modern capitalism, “is the slogan of

wage-slaves in an unfree society” (Richards, 1997 p.158); in the more

moderate words of a non-anarchist, it is obviously one of the main means

of social and cultural reproduction (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1994 p.41).

For anarchists, the concept of education takes a central part not only

in the quest for personal freedom but also for achieving a free, equal,

just, anarchist society. Based on his view that human development

strongly depends on social circumstances, Bakunin asserts that complex

ideas such as ethics, morality, freedom and even self-identity are not

innate to human beings; on the contrary, they are transmitted to

individuals through social traditions and education.

Good or bad, education is imposed upon man – and he is in no way

responsible for it. It shapes him, in so far as his individual nature

allows, in its own image, so that a man thinks, feels and desires

whatever the people around him feel, think and desire. (1964, p.153)

Thus, the inverse of the initial statement is as valid as the original.

Anarchist education can exist only in a truly egalitarian society, while

any other kind of organization inevitably leads to social and cultural

reproduction. As Stirner said, “education creates superiority and makes

one a master: thus in that age of the master, it is a means to power”

(1984 p.13). Anarchist understanding of the relationship between

education and society recalls the chicken and the egg problem: it is

impossible to conceive of anarchist education in a nonanarchist society

and vice versa.

VISIONS AND GOALS

In order to apply philosophical inquiries to the praxis of anarchist

education, theory has to be comprised into a useful, widely applicable

framework. Containing both practical and theoretical elements, Chomsky‘s

distinction between visions and goals makes an excellent starting point

for inquiry:

By visions, I mean the conception of a future society that animates what

we actually do, a society in which a decent human being might want to

live. By goals, I mean the choices and tasks that are within reach, that

we will pursue one way or another guided by a vision that may be distant

and hazy. (1996 p.107)

This is “a practical rather than a very principled distinction”,

continues Chomsky; however, it does contain both anarchist philosophy of

education and its practical implications. In this way Chomsky‘s

distinction provides an all-round, though not always precisely defined

frame for analysis of Wikipedia educational praxis.

For most anarchists, the discussion of visions begins with the three

slogans of the French Commune: liberty, equality, and fraternity

(Marshall, 1993 p.435). Anarchists‘ disillusionment with communism has

often led them to omit those slogans in their writings. However, as

Bakunin clearly and repeatedly stated, “the June defeat of the workers

of Paris was the defeat of State socialism, but not of socialism in

general” (Bakunin, 1964 p.279). The notions of liberty, equality and

fraternity encompass the most general vision of anarchist society. It is

impossible to conceive anarchist education in a non-anarchist society

and vice versa; therefore, their blend can easily be taken for the first

vision of anarchist education.

In order to come closer to a “philosophical vision of a liberated

humanity” (Giroux, 1985 p.xvii), anarchist education is concerned with a

specific kind of knowledge. According to Smith, such knowledge should be

“rational, scientific and practical” (1990 p.125); according to Bakunin,

it should be emancipatory (1964 p.327); according to Kropotkin, it

should be “integral and complete” (1912 p.364)
 Historically, in the

education of adults, there was a term which comprised similar meanings:

borrowing from past radical educators, the second vision of anarchist

education is named “really useful knowledge” (Johnson, 1988 p.1).

According to Martin, “education is always a key resource in the broader

struggle for democracy” (2006 p.14); in such a view, really useful

knowledge becomes coloured with the vision of the perfect, or at least

the best available, democratic society.

The third vision of anarchist education is subscribed to the unique

anarchist understanding of human nature and its interdependency with

work and society. It can be summed up in the ideal of the highest

respect for the needs of the individual, as viewed by anarchists; for

the lack of a better expression, it is simply named humanity.

Illustrating this vision, prominent anarcho-individualist Stirner

writes: “thus the radii of all education run together into one centre

which is called personality” (1984 p.25).

Despite the attractiveness of anarchist educational visions, it should

be well remembered that they only describe a wish, an ideal, “the

conception of a future society”. In order to deal with the application

of anarchist philosophy to educational practice or more practical

“choices and tasks that are within reach” (Chomsky, 1996 p.107), it is

therefore necessary to study the goals of anarchist education.

In his very successful comparison of anarchist and critical education,

De Leon asserted five main goals of contemporary anarchist education:

Arising from resistance to current political systems, urgency and

radical change have always been the “trademark of anarchism” (Franks,

2006 p.116). Based on Kropotkin‘s belief in the evolutionary concept of

anarchist revolution, the only way to achieving anarchist society is

not to wait for a distant revolution but to reinvent daily life here and

now. To transform the perception of the world and to change the

structure of society is the same thing. By liberating oneself, one

changed power relations and therefore transformed society
 (Marshall,

2000 in Ward, 2004 p.75)

Thus the goal of urgency and radical change, standing “both as a

practical response to its own right to a given situation, but also as a

symbol of the larger vision of societal change” (Franks,2006 p.118),

first has to be exercised in education (Kropotkin, 1912 p.364).

When applied to the praxis of contemporary education, De Leon‘s goals of

free association and autonomous action are tightly interwoven and often

indistinguishable. Nowadays, the state is the only entity with enough

power to coerce everyone to do something: in this respect, compulsory

and state schooling merge into one and the same thing. For this reason,

those two goals can easily be merged into the goal of free, autonomous

education.

Contemporary anarchist quests for educational autonomy can be summarized

in Bey‘s metaphor of Temporary Autonomous Zones.

We are looking for “spaces‘ (geographic, social, cultural, imaginal)

with potential to flower as autonomous zones – and we are looking for

times in which these spaces are relatively open, either through neglect

on the part of the State or because they have somehow escaped notice by

the mapmakers. (Bey, 2007)

Bey‘s spaces can exist in the real world, as do remote, isolated

communities; they can be primarily cultural, such as those found in

works of art; imaginal, such as mythological places; virtual, such as

cyber communities. Usually, they are a combination of all the above and

more. When applied to educational praxis, a Temporary Autonomous Zone is

the space for education free of social, financial and any other

influence or restraint. Participation is voluntary and therefore

inevitably temporary; curriculum is designed both from and for the

involved community; and pedagogy is based on the highest respect for the

individual.

Prerequisite for anarchist educational vision of liberty, equality and

fraternity, one of the most important goals of anarchist education is

cooperation and mutual aid. Anarchist educators from Tolstoy to Illich

have been trying to incorporate this goal in their educational praxis.

Strikingly similar to the basic principles of Wikipedia, probably the

most relevant example of cooperation and mutual aid in anarchist

education can be found in Illich‘s proposal of learning webs. Three out

of four pillars in his proposal – skill exchanges, peer matching and

reference services to educators-at-large – are voluntarily offered by

anyone who wishes to teach, freely accepted by anyone who wants to

learn, and open to anyone looking for peers (Illich, 1977 p.55–56).

The goal of combining activism and education is tightly interwoven with

the whole anarchist praxis. Anarchists see the individual deeply rooted

in society; thus education becomes “a highly developed form of anarchist

direct action possessing the ability to transform and radicalise

consciousness (Piluso, 1990 p.338). Probably the oldest expression of

such an attitude can be found in anarchist ideas about revolution which,

“in its ideal form, requires multiple successful confrontations of

oppressive powers, rather than a single determining conflict” (Franks,

2006 p.263). In practice, continues Malatesta, it means that the vast

majority of citizens have to understand both the goals and the means of

revolution (1922 p.2). Anarchists do not simply combine activism and

education; it is much more proper to say that “activism is education”

(Bakunin, 1964 p.382).

TOWARDS A LIBERATION OF TECHNOLOGY

Wikipedia is a popular web-based encyclopaedia edited freely and

collaboratively by its users. Its main technological base is the

software called Wiki; according to its inventor Ward Cunningham (2010),

Wiki is designed according to the following principles:

any reader can edit it as they see fit.

not been written yet.

editing and evolution.

access to the most useful page mark-up.

those of writing so that any writer is automatically an editor and

organizer.

required to reproduce it.

additional context is required to interpret them.

name clashes, typically by forming noun phrases.

to error messages.

any other visitor to the site.

citing similar or related content.

Grounded in those principles, Wiki provides an egalitarian, open and

free technological base for collaborative Internet projects. Its largest

and the most famous application – Wikipedia – is funded exclusively

through voluntary donations. Only a very small number of staff is

employed in basic technical maintenance; contribution of articles and

all levels of editing are done only by volunteers. In order to

contribute visitors can simply click Edit button, and their

contributions will be “signed‘ by their IP address. Visitors can also

register and create virtual identities, which do not have to correspond

to the real ones. “After that, one can access information and privileges

unavailable to non-registered users, usually referred to simply as

guests” (Wikipedia, 2010b). Based in those principles, participation in

Wikipedia is fully anonymous: even if someone decides to reveal their

real identity, no-one can check its authenticity. However, only

registered users enter various statistics provided by Wikipedia: for

this reason, all statistical data in this paper are based on registered

users.

Wikipedia organization is linear: each contributor has equal rights to

create and edit all pages. All articles, including rules of contributing

and conduct, are constructed by the mutual agreement of all interested

peers; the same goes for promotions of individuals to higher positions

such as editors and administrators.

The process of contributing to Wikipedia is essentially the following: A

contributor chooses the topic of interest, creates a new page, provides

a relevant title and writes an entry. Entitling, writing style, linking

to other categories and all other activities are subject to strict

rules; immediately upon saving, the page and the history of all changes

become visible to any Wikipedia visitor. Upon reading the article,

another contributor may object that the topic is un-encyclopaedic or

irrelevant; in such case, he or she can propose its deletion. An article

concerning a relevant topic may contain wrong, incomplete or poorly

structured information.

In this case, any contributor can change or reformulate the entry;

immediately upon saving any changes, the improved version becomes

visible to everyone. A contributor may also put a remark about an

article on the top of the page, inviting other contributors to help

improving the article or calling for discussion about any of its

aspects. Both the original and succeeding contributors check the new

version and add further improvements through multiple iterations.

An article is work in progress for as long as contributors are

interested in working on its content. In a case of dispute between

contributors about any element of the article or its deletion, all

contributors discuss the issue and consensually make a final decision.

The Wikipedia interface is simple and intuitive. Its use requires only

very basic ICT skills; in this way, contributing to Wikipedia is

available to almost anyone connected to the Internet.

In control of all aspects of their engagements, contributors to

Wikipedia are active masters of the medium. In this way, Wikipedia

embodies the prophetic McLuhan‘s assertion from pre-Internet era that

“the user is the content” (in Levinson, 2001 p.39).

The average rate of Wikipedia growth depends on size of a Wikipedia: the

larger a Wikipedia is the faster it grows (Almeida, Mozafari and Cho,

2004 p.2). Wikipedia is based on the limited source of human knowledge,

hence its growth will eventually have to cease; however, it shows no

signs of slowing anytime soon.

As of 15^(th) April 2010, Wikipedia has entries in 272 languages

(2010d). The English-language Wikipedia is by far the largest of all: in

order to obtain the biggest possible statistical sample, it was chosen

as the case for this study. Based on analysis of Wikipedias in various

languages in terms of complex networks, “it is very likely that the

growth process of Wikipedias is universal” (Zlatic, Bozicevic, Stefancic

and Domazet, 2006 p.9); for this reason, conclusions about its growth

can be rather confidently applied at least to languages of similar size.

One of the most important educational aspects of Wikipedia is “whether

the success of Wikipedia results from a “wisdom of crowds‘ type of

effect in which a large number of people each make a small number of

edits, or whether it is driven by a core group of ‘elite‘ users who do

the lion‘s share of the work”. Extensive research using several kinds of

measurements and numerous languages showed that the biggest initial

contributions were driven by ‘elite’ users, while the growth of

Wikipedia soon resulted in a “dramatic shift in workload to the ‘common’

user” (Kittur, Chi, Pendleton, Suh, and Mytkowicz, 2007 p.1). Such

trends fit well to diffusion of innovations theory (Rogers, 2003). As

any other new innovation or idea, contributing to Wikipedia was first

accepted by small groups of innovators and early adopters; few years

after its foundation, contributing to Wikipedia is somewhere in the

stage of early majority. Diffusion of innovations theory is based on

Bell curve mathematic division. It is hard to determine the exact

present position of Wikipedia in the curve; however, Rogers’ theory

predicts inevitable shift to common users or democratisation of

participation in Wikipedia.

Contemporary Wikipedia is mostly edited by common people; nevertheless,

Giles‘ famous research shows that “Wikipedia approaches Encyclopaedia

Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries” (2005 p.1).

The Britannica‘s immediate counter-research responded that “almost

everything about the journal‘s investigation, from the criteria for

identifying inaccuracies to the discrepancy between the article text and

its headline, was wrong and misleading” (Encyclopédia Britannica, 2006).

However, the majority of independent researchers agree that “Wikipedia

is not Britannica – but it’s close” (Lamb, 2006 p.1). Accuracy is one of

the main issues in Wikipedia studies. Apart from usability as an

academic source, it implies the practical success of the philosophy it

is built on. In the long run, the success of free, egalitarian Wikipedia

in terms of accuracy would make paid, authoritarian Britannica idle:

effects of this process would certainly strongly reflect to the whole

academic community and beyond.

Early researchers of Wikipedia editing policy were extensively concerned

with the problem of vandalism, i.e. purposeful deleting or altering the

entries with false statements. However, the majority of such research

proves that “the site is subject to frequent vandalism and inaccuracy,

just as sceptics might suspect—but the active Wikipedia community

rapidly and effectively repairs most damage” (ViĂ©gas, Wattenberg and

Kushal, 2004 p.575). Moreover, the researchers found that most vandalism

in Wikipedia is removed within five minutes.

Created and maintained as an online encyclopaedia, Wikipedia wasn‘t

intended to be a tool for instruction. However, the described editing

process seems to have interesting parallels with, for instance,

student-supervisor work on a dissertation. In order to compare those two

processes, let us briefly analyse the process of developing a

dissertation at almost any western university. In the beginning, student

approaches the potential tutor and requests supervision.

Upon the supervisor‘s acceptance, they start discussing the topic in

terms of relevance and structure; the first outcome of these discussions

is the dissertation proposal, which is sent to an academic body such as

the Board of Examiners for approval. Upon acceptance of the proposal,

student starts the research process. Following the supervisor‘s

guidance, he or she writes several drafts which are read and discussed

with the supervisor; through multiple iterations, the both student and

supervisor improve the research until it becomes ready for submission.

The comparison between writing a dissertation and editing Wikipedia

shows that those two processes follow essentially the same work pattern

(Figure 1). However, there are three main differences between

student-supervisor academic work and collaboration between Wikipedians.

[Figure 1: Work pattern of writing an academic dissertation and

contributing to Wikipedia.]

The first difference lies in the relationship between the involved

parties. In an academic environment, the educational process is based on

teacher‘s authority coming from his or her position in the system.

Exercising this authority, the academic supervisor has the power to

insist on an element of dissertation or relevance of the topic which, in

some cases, might directly oppose student‘s opinion or the desired

course of studies. Wikipedia, in contrast, is based on free and

consensual collaboration between peers. The only authority a contributor

can have is the power of arguments: hidden by nick-names or IP

addresses, opponents in discussions can be anyone from manual workers to

distinguished academics.

The second difference is the number of people potentially involved. In

the academic setting, a student typically has one or two supervisors; in

Wikipedia, however, any page of average interest is edited by more than

five people (Wikipedia, 2010b).

The third difference is that academic work has its end product – the

dissertation – while Wikipedia entries are never complete.

Wikipedia contributors do not get any external reward for their

engagement. Academic students, in contrast, are strongly extrinsically

motivated for obtaining a degree. Together with differences between

student-supervisor academic work and collaboration between Wikipedians,

this makes a profound impact to the natures of engagements in those

processes. However, they share the basic work pattern: for the same

reasons why writing an academic paper is education, contributing to

Wikipedia is essentially an educational process. By opening opportunties

for open, ludic, self-directed study, liberation of technology becomes

dialectically intertwined with pedagogy for liberation.

THEORY AND PRAXIS

Engagement in Wikipedia is essentially educational. In order to decide

whether it is anarchist, the first step is to compare their visions. As

can easily be understood both from its technical and organizational

features, each act of contributing to Wikipedia is a good example of the

first vision of anarchist education: liberty, equality, and fraternity.

Liberty, for participation is completely voluntary; equality, for its

linear organization and consensual decision making; fraternity, for its

success is based on mutual aid and respect between all contributors,

through the editing process in which one “both constructively

participates in the community and retains his or her individuality”

(Ferrer, 1909 in Goldman, 1969).

By mutual consensus Wikipedians do not only construct their own “truth”;

through the process of negotiation, they also decide which knowledge is

relevant for them. Providing each contributor with equal opportunities

for sharing current concerns, the content of Wikipedia provides probably

the best definition of the second vision of anarchist education: really

useful knowledge. Wikipedia is available to all Internet users without

restrictions: for this reason, users who utilize a knowledge “product‘

without engaging in a process of its dynamic creation also strongly

benefit from its construction.

Each contributor voluntarily chooses the nature of his or her

contribution: writing, editing, organizing, discussing or counselling

less experienced users. Levels of participation significantly vary: some

people contribute once and never come back, while others participate in

thousands of entries. This feature makes Wikipedia fully orientated to

the development of the individual – his or her wishes, aspirations and

needs – or simply to the third vision of anarchist education: humanity.

Good correspondence of Wikipedia principles to visions of anarchist

education is a strong indicator of its overall anarchist organization.

However, warns Chomsky, visions are often contrasted to their

applications (1996 p.108). Measuring the success of their practical

implementation, analysis of engagement in Wikipedia through the goals of

anarchist education provides a deeper insight into its praxis as

experienced by ordinary user.

From its establishment to each individual contribution, Wikipedia is

based on the principle of urgency: instead of waiting for publishers to

issue the encyclopaedia they want, its founders and contributors simply

create and maintain their own. Such activity is a prime example of

radical direct action. It is direct, for each contributor engages in the

process of editing “without primarily mediating that action through the

formal processes and structures of the State” (Hart, 1997 p.42); it is

radical, for the content of Wikipedia solely consists of knowledge

relevant to its contributors thus denying any kind of higher authority.

Wikipedia is one of the most striking examples of a successful

large-scale project based solely on free association. Funded exclusively

by voluntary contributions and run in virtual space, it is free of all

kinds of influences either from capital or from the state. Based on

voluntary engagement, it conforms to no rules apart from those

consensually created by the community. It can persist for just as long

as its contributors pursue their activities, hence it is intrinsically

temporary. In this way, Wikipedias in various languages offer advanced

examples of Bey‘s Temporary Autonomous Zones – the only spaces allowing

the full extent of anarchist educational praxis.

The goal of cooperation and mutual aid lies at the very foundations of

Wikipedia. Without a sufficient level of both, the project would simply

not be operational. However, this doesn‘t imply smooth, easy operation:

as predicted by anarchist thinkers from Kropotkin onwards, the

Wikipedian community constantly struggles to maintain the delicate

balance between its contributors‘ individual and social instincts. The

prime examples of such a struggle are constant edit wars “when two or

more contributors repeatedly revert one another‘s edits to an article”

(Wikipedia, 2010e). Such disputes are regulated by the strong set of

rules; developed by and for the community, those rules are subject to

constant discussion and change. When rules are insufficient,

contributors enter one of the specific dispute resolution processes; if

this fails, the last resort is arbitration.

Engagement in Wikipedia is a prime example of radical direct action. The

Wikipedian community quickly welcomes a new contributor: offering

instruction, more experienced contributors direct the newcomer to

introductory, policy and other pages. Contributing to Wikipedia is a

constant, dialectical teaching and learning process; in this way, it is

organized exactly according to Bakunin‘s idea that activism is education

(Bakunin, 1964 p.382).

Engagement in Wikipedia corresponds well to the goals of anarchist

education; in fact, it is hard to conceive a contemporary education

system that would achieve a better match. Such a conclusion, however,

still doesn‘t fully confirm that Wikipedia is based on anarchist

beliefs. For this reason, the following analyses challenge its praxis in

the light of basic concepts of anarchist philosophy of education.

Vast voluntary participation in Wikipedia speaks for itself in favour of

Bakunin‘s ideas about the social nature of human beings. In a similar

fashion, the non-sustainability of vandalism supports towards

Kropotkin‘s assertion that the main characteristic of human nature is

mutual aid between individuals. The case of Wikipedia strongly opposes

the liberal idea that “people, being rational, will not voluntarily

cooperate to provide themselves with public goods” (Taylor, 1987 p.ix).

On the contrary, it sets a prime example of almost more than six million

registered individuals (and at least as many unregistered) who

voluntarily cooperate to provide everyone with the basic public good – a

free, relevant encyclopaedia.

Wikipedia solutions to practical problems such as edit wars and

vandalism are based on the education of all its contributors in dialogue

and consensus. The practical success of such enterprise conforms to

Bookchin‘s idea about the developmental nature of human reality; more

specifically, it confirms Bakunin‘s and Ferrer‘s belief that human

nature can be nurtured for the benefit of the community.

Both the size and stability of Wikipedia strongly confirm the basic

anarchist belief that organization without authority is possible; for

anarchists, lack of authority does not imply chaos.

A mistaken – or, more often, deliberately inaccurate – interpretation

alleges that the libertarian concept means the absence of all

organization. This is entirely false: it is not a matter of

“organization‘ or “nonorganization”, but two different principles of

organization. (Voline in Guerin, 1970 p.43)

Replacing the word “libertarian‘ with “Wikipedian”, Voline‘s statement

remains as true as in the original.

One of the most important features of Wiki is that “the mechanisms of

editing and organizing are the same as those of writing so that any

writer is automatically an editor and organizer” (Cunningham, 2010); in

plain language, there is no difference between “technical” and

“academic” contributions. In order to create or edit an entry, each

contributor has to do both tasks simultaneously. Certainly, it is

possible to get voluntary help or advice from more experienced users:

after all, Wikipedia is based on the principles of cooperation and

mutual aid. However, each Wikipedia contributor is well aware that the

old question: Who will do the dirty work? has just one answer: Everyone.

The process of editing Wikipedia involves the full synergy of theory and

practice, academic and technical skills, personal wishes and abilities;

in short, it is the complete exercise of encyclopaedic praxis for

everyone. For educational process of engagement in Wikipedia, there is

no difference between vocational training and education; this principle

corresponds well to anarchist concept of integral education.

The critiques of anarchist views of work are based on two assumptions:

that integral education would provide general knowledge inadequate for

highly skilled professions, and that human beings simply wouldn‘t work

without coercion. The majority of research on accuracy of Wikipedia,

particularly those comparing its science entries with those of

Encyclopaedia Britannica, indicates that the first assumption is at

least ambiguous if not completely wrong. The second assumption can be

seriously questioned on statistical grounds: only English-language

Wikipedia has a member population of roughly the same size as Greece or

Belgium (Nation Master, 2010) and a similar number of pages. By adding

non-registered or guest users those statistics can grow unpredictably.

However, since participation of guest users is fairly limited, it is

reasonable to expect that the majority of active members are registered.

Wikipedia contributors do not get any external reward for their

engagement.

Academic students, in contrast, are strongly extrinsically motivated for

obtaining a degree. It would certainly be interesting to pursue a

socio-psychological research about contributors‘ motives for engagement

in Wikipedia; such inquiry, however, is left to future researchers.

According to Marshall, anarchist society is “a sum of voluntary

associations” (1993, p.12). Consisting of approximately twelve million

registered contributors, English-language Wikipedia makes a virtual

society with the population of approximately the size of an average

European country (Nation Master, 2010). The free, egalitarian Wikipedia

is based on the specific kind of engagement which is inherently

educational; such engagement is feasible only in a free, egalitarian

Wikipedia. All members of Wikipedia society have exactly the same

privileges; even the most basic laws are subject to constant questioning

and change. Anyone who actively participates in Wikipedia is a member of

the society; opting out is simply achieved by ceasing to contribute.

There are no elections or permanent representatives of any group of

people; chosen by the consensual agreement of all interested members,

editors, administrators and contributors in other “higher” positions can

be called off at any time of their engagement and others can be

appointed. All decisions are purely consensual: in a case of dispute,

the concerned parties can choose a mutually respected arbiter.

Constantly questioning its basic assumptions, Wikipedia society develops

unpredictably and spontaneously; based on a belief in developmental

nature of human beings, anarchists also do not have universally accepted

vision of perfect society. Participation in Wikipedia society is on a

fully voluntary basis; free from all forms of coercion, there is no

social reproduction.

Wikipedias provide an inexhaustible range of Bey‘s Temporary Autonomous

Zones to anyone who connects to the Internet; in this way, they provide

appropriate spaces for its specific, essentially educational engagement

based on anarchist principles. Starting by few young enthusiasts as a

small, independent project, Wikipedia was quickly founded by millions of

people and became one of the world‘s largest virtual learning societies.

Its size and stability indicate that, at least in the virtual world,

anarchist society is possible.

One of the main features of participation in Wikipedia is geographic and

social decentralisation: theoretically, Wikipedia can be used by anyone

from anywhere in the world. In practice, however, opportunities for

participation are restricted to the privileged side of the digital

divide. Van Dijk distinguishes four different types of access barriers:

computer anxiety, and unattractiveness of the new technology (“mental

access”).

access”).

inadequate education or social support (“skills access”).

Hacker, 2003: 315–316).

Material access barriers roughly follow the division between global

north and south; other barriers, however, can be found in all societies

regardless their economic power. For this reason, Wikipedia society more

accessible to financially and educationally better-off individuals: in

other words, it is globally and locally elitist. Some of the

aforementioned barriers have been addressed by sister projects such as

Simple Wikipedia, which is designed for users lacking proficiency in

academic English (Simple Wikipedia, 2010). However, the success of such

projects is inevitably partial: there will always be people who do not

use computers, if for no other reason than because of lack of interest.

Access barriers are subject to social reproduction (Van Dijk and Hacker,

2003: 323). Approaching the fringes between online and offline worlds,

virtual Wikipedia society quickly becomes faced with well-known

challenges in any traditional society.

Analysis of Wikipedia praxis in the light of basic concepts of anarchist

philosophy of education shows the following:

about human nature.

Those conclusions can be interpreted in two different ways: as a control

mechanism showing whether Wikipedia is based on anarchist principles,

and as a proof or rejection of principles themselves. This paper is

strongly committed to the first interpretation: in its present state,

the latter provides no more than indications that have to be thoroughly

studied before full confirmation.

Instead of taking up “predetermined problems in a ritually defined

setting”, Wikipedia provides an anarchist alternative in terms of “a

network or service which gives each man the same opportunity to share

his current concern with others motivated by the same concern” (Illich,

1977 p.26). It is widely accepted among radical educators that such an

approach leads to more really useful knowledge (Johnson, 1988 p.3); in

this respect, the example of Wikipedia can offer a lot to traditional

education systems.

Transferring power relations from Wikipedia to the real world is faced

with much more difficulties. No-one has ever created a fully egalitarian

education system of nearly similar size and stability as Wikipedia; even

when dealing with groups smaller by several orders of magnitude, past

and present educators had to maintain at least a minimum of distinction

from their students. In this respect, the case of Wikipedia can

certainly help developing other virtual education systems; however, it

is highly likely that transferring Wikipedia power relations to the real

world, especially for populations counted in tens of millions, would end

up with failure.

Albeit with some difficulty, the Wikipedia community manages to

counterbalance social and individual instincts of its members. However,

contributors spend only a small portion of their waking lives in

Wikipedia society and choose the exact duration of their engagement; it

is unclear whether people would be equally altruistic and courteous in a

full-time arrangement. When a Wikipedian has had a “bad day” he or she

can simply not connect to the Internet or shut the Web browser down at

any moment of the engagement; physical residence in a community based on

Wikipedia principles would impose different dynamics of joining and

leaving.

Engagement in Wikipedia is de-personalised. One can change identities

like clothes, thus there‘s no fear about experimentation with all kinds

of behaviours. Another aspect of impersonality is the lack of personal

contact. For the majority of people, it is easier to express and accept

critique or advice through a text medium than in person; moreover, the

asynchronicity of Wikipedia collaboration allows indefinite time for

reflection before answering a message.

Transferred to the real world, engagement in Wikipedia-like society

would impose inevitable restrictions in terms of both creation of

identity and impersonality of communication. Such transfer may change

its members‘ patterns of behaviour: it is to be expected that people

burdened with the real-life consequences of their activities would

behave differently than hidden under self-created, essentially anonymous

identities.

Growth of Wikipedia is “very sensitive to community driven decisions”

(Zlatic, Bozicevic, Stefancic and Domazet, 2006 p.9); devised by and

exercised in the community, patterns of behaviour are inherently

interconnected with the individual cultural capital of each contributor.

Limited to the privileged side of the digital divide, Wikipedia society

is quite homogenous. However, the majority of the Third World‘s

population lives in cultural and social spaces that are both radically

different from the First World‘s and from each other. It is therefore to

be expected that rapid spreading of Wikipedia to the Third World would

not just influence its size, but also the overall nature of

participation.

CONCLUSION

It seems that every time a historical event chops off a head of the

anarchist Hydra, two more grow in the most improbable places. Contrary

to the common belief that anarchism belongs to history lessons or

Zerzan‘s idea that anarchism is feasible only in a primitive,

nontechnologist society, the example of Wikipedia clearly shows that

anarchist educational ideas are flourishing in the most unexpected

place: in the field of cutting edge information and communication

technologies.

However, it should always be remembered that Wikipedia is a virtual

society. Educators can observe its development or sometimes make an

experiment; however, conclusions based on such observations can never be

literally transferred to the real world. When a pharmacist grows a

culture in a test tube, he or she cannot accurately predict whether it

will survive or mutate when exposed to outer conditions. Conclusions

drawn from the virtual world of Wikipedia have the same character.

However, for the same reasons that such uncertainty does not prevent

pharmacists from using test tubes, educators should not close their

minds to new research opportunities. The information era does not only

create new challenges; it also offers radically new possibilities for

research.

This paper does not offer judgements about anarchism, contemporary

education, technology or the educational use of Wikipedia; it was born

from the urge to obtain a better understanding of the philosophy built

into the technology that every educator meets on daily basis. For

anarchists, the proof that Wikipedia is based on anarchist principles

provides a practical insight into anarchist ideas about human nature,

work and society; above all, the example of real, working, large-scale

anarchist education is a serious rejection of accusations for mere

utopianism. For educators, its connections with anarchism offer an

insight into the philosophy many of their students are daily supporting

through active participation. The majority of contemporary students are

Digital Natives: their engagement in the virtual world shapes not only

the content they learn, but more importantly the worldview they carry

into real-world environments. Understanding how the old, rigorously

studied anarchist ideas found their ways to the very foundations of one

of the most widespread technologies used in education, it is possible to

draw connections between the present and the past. Following the old

proverb that history is the teacher of life, it might also help

educators design a better education for the future.

REFERENCES

Almeida, R B, Mozafari, B and Cho, J (2004) “On the evolution of

Wikipedia”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Weblogs and

Social Media, Boulder: University of Colorado.

Bakunin, M (1964) “Upbringing and Education” in Maximoff, G P The

political philosophy of Bakunin: scientific anarchism, London:

Collier-MacMillan Limited.

Bey, H (1985) The Temporary Autonomous Zone – Ontological Anarchy,

Poetic Terrorism, New York: Autonomedia.

Black, B (1985) The Abolition of Work and Other Essays, Port Townsend:

Loompanics Unlimited.

Bookchin, M (1995) The Philosophy of Social Ecology: Essays on

Dialectical Naturalism, Montreal: Black Rose Books.

Bourdieu, P and Passeron, J C (1994) Reproduction in Education, Society

and Culture, London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Chomsky, N (1996) Powers and Prospects: Reflections on Human Nature and

the Social Order, Boston: South End Press.

Cunningham, HG (2010) “Wiki Design Principles”, Unpublished project

description, Wikipedia Retrieved 17 July 2010 from

c2.com

.

De Leon, AP (2006) “The time for action is now! Anarchist theory,

critical pedagogy, and radical possibilities”, Journal for Critical

Education Policy Studies, Volume 4, Number 2.

Encyclopédia Britannica (2006) “Fatally Flawed: refuting the recent

study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature”, London:

Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc.

Franks, B (2006) Rebel Alliances: the means and ends of contemporary

British anarchism, Edinburgh: AK Press.

Gibson, P (1990) “Kropotkin, Mutual Aid and Selfish Genes”, The Raven –

anarchist quarterly, Vol.4 No.4 pp.364–371.

Giles, J (2005) “Internet encyclopaedias go head to head”, Nature, Vol.

438.

Giroux, H (1985) “Introduction” in Freire, P The Politics of Education,

London: MacMillan Publishers Ltd.

Goldman E and Most, J (1896) “Anarchy Defended by Anarchists”,

Metropolitan Magazine, Vol. IV, No.3.

Goldman, E (1969) Anarchism and other essays, New York: Dover.

Guerin, D (1970) Anarchism – From Theory to Practice, New York: Monthly

Review Press.

Hart, L (1997) “In Defence of Radical Direct Action: Reflections on

Civil Disobedience, Sabotage and Nonviolence” in Purkis, J and Bowen, J

(eds) Twenty-first Century Anarchism: Unorthodox Ideas For a New

Millenium, London: Cassell.

Illich, I (1977) Deschooling Society, Manchester: Penguin Books Ltd.

Johnson, R (1988) ““Really useful knowledge” 1790–1850: memories for

education in the 1980‘s” in Lovett, T (ed) Radical Approaches to Adult

Education: A Reader, London: Routledge.

Kittur, A, Chi, E, Pendleton, B A, Suh, B and Mytkowicz, T (2007) “Power

of the Few vs. Wisdom of the Crowd: Wikipedia and the Rise of the

Bourgeoisie”, Proceedings of the 25^(th) Annual ACM Conference on Human

Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2007), San Jose: ACM.

Kropotkin, P (1902) Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, London:

Heinemann.

Kropotkin, P (1910) “Anarchism”, London: Encyclopaedia Britannica,

11^(th) edition.

Kropotkin, P (1912) Fields, Factories, and Workshops: or Industry

Combined with Agriculture and Brain Work with Manual Work, London,

Edinburgh, Dublin and New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons.

Lamb, GM (2006) Online Wikipedia is not Britannica — but it’s close,

Christian Science Monitor, January 2006.

Levinson, P (2001) Digital McLuhan – a guide to the information

millennium, Cornwall: Routledge.

Malatesta, E (1922) Revolution in practice, UmanitĂ  Nova, No.191.

Marshall, P (1993) Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism,

London: Fontana Press.

Martin, I (2006) “In whose interests? Interrogating the metamorphosis of

adult education‘ in Antikainen, A, Harinen, P and Torres, C A (eds) In

from the margins: Adult Education, Work and Civil Society, Rotterdam:

Sense Publishers.

McLuhan, M (1964) Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, London:

Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Nation Master. (2010) Population (Latest available) by country, Sydney:

Nation Master Retrieved 22 May 2010 from

www.nationmaster.com

.

Parekh, B (1997) “Is there a Human Nature?‘ in Rourner, L S (ed) Is

there a Human Nature?, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.

Piluso, G (1990) “Nurturing the Radical Spirit”, The Raven – anarchist

quarterly, Vol.4 No.4 pp.333–341.

Prensky, M (2001) “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants”, NCB University

Press, Vol.9, No.5, pp.1–6.

Reagle, J (2005) “A case of mutual aid: Wikipedia, politeness, and

perspective taking”, Proceedings of The First International Wikimedia

Conference – Wikimania 2005, Wikipedia.

Richards, W (1997) “Reflections on Full Employment‘ in Various Authors

Why Work?, London: Freedom Press.

Rogers, E M (1983) Diffusion of innovations, London : Collier Macmillan.

Russell, B (1997) “In Praise of Idleness‘ in Various Authors Why Work?,

London: Freedom Press.

Simple Wikpedia (2010) “Main Page‘ Retrieved 21 December 2010 from

simple.wikipedia.org

.

Smith, M (1990) “Kropotkin and Technical Education: an anarchist voice”,

The Raven – anarchist quarterly, Vol.3 No.2 pp.122–138.

Stirner, M (1984) The False Principle of Our Education or Humanism and

Realism, Colorado Springs: Ralph Myles Publisher, Inc.

Suissa, J (2001) “Anarchism, Utopias and Philosophy of Education”,

Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol. 35 No. 4 pp. 627–646.

Suissa, J (2006) Anarchism and Education – A Philosophical Perspective,

London: Routledge.

Szesnat, H (2006) “Who knows? Wikipedia, Teaching and Research”, To be

published in The SBL Forum, Retrieved 17 July 2010 from

www.biblicalhermeneutics.net

.

Taylor, M (1987) The possibility of cooperation, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Van Dijk, J and Hacker, K (2003) ‘The Digital Divide as a Complex and

Dynamic Phenomenon’, The Information Society, Vol.19 pp.315–326.

ViĂ©gas, F B Wattenberg, M and Kushal, D (2004) “Studying Cooperation and

Conflict between Authors with history flow Visualizations”, Proceedings

of the Conference on human factors in computing systems, Vienna: CHI.

Ward, C (2004) Anarchism – A Very Short Introduction, New York: Oxford

University Press Inc.

Wikipedia (2010a) “Wikipedia‘ Retrieved 17 July 2010 from

en.wikipedia.org

.

Wikipedia (2010b) “Statistics‘ Retrieved 17 July 2010 from

en.wikipedia.org

.

Wikipedia (2010c) “Modelling Wikipedia’s growth‘ Retrieved 21 July 2010

from

en.wikipedia.org

.

Wikipedia (2010d) “List of Wikipedias‘ Retrieved 17 July 2010 from

meta.wikimedia.org

.

Wikipedia (2010e) “Wikipedia: Edit war‘ Retrieved 17 July 2010 from

en.wikipedia.org

.

Woodcock, G (1997) “Tyranny of the Clock‘ in Various Authors Why Work?,

London: Freedom Press.

Zlatic, V Bozicevic, M Stefancic, H Domazet, M (2006) “Wikipedias:

Collaborative webbased encyclopedias as complex networks”, Physical

Review E – Statistical, Nonlinear and Soft Matter Physics, Vol. 74.