W12: discuss Reagle’s 6th chapter

As we know by now, Wikipedia is a community that yearns to be open and egalitarian. However such things are not possible because of the downsides it would produce. To tackle this issue wikipedia has implemented the so called authorial leadership, when action is needed those who possess the power can take action. How are there chosen ? Simply base on their contribution and loyalty to wikipedia. This leadership is located in between meritocratic, autocratic, anarchic and democratic, for it mixes different aspect of the forms of authority quoted beforehand. The system can maintain itself as it does not allows any « gods » in the community, only hard workers that prove they’ve earned the title.

But with the possibility to log in, and so, to identify yourself, those who largely contribute by editing build themselves a informal reputation and authority, thus become administrator. Acknowledged by everyone, they can mediate internal dispute, guide the community and defend wikipedia ideals.

It is the most interesting how things have developped, authoritarian personnalities have not lasted because of their lack of acknowledgement by the community. But those who strive to improve the community, earns natural authority and thus become accepted by everyone.

We understand why this system is the best for now, but it doesn’t stand on the same ground as Wikipedia’s ideal. Do you think this ideal can really be reached, if yes how ?