Decision making in the self-evolved collegiate court: Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee and its implications for self-governance and judiciary in cyberspace
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online November, 2017
Decision making in the self-evolved collegiate court: Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee and its implications for self-governance and judiciary in cyberspace
This article considers the extent to which non-legal factors (nationality, activity/experience, conflict avoidance, and time constraints) affect decision making within collegiate courts, through the study of the Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee. That body is a self-evolved collegiate court of the Internet’s fifth most popular website, whose judges (known as arbitrators) are volunteers. This study shows that the decision-making process of this body seems mostly unaffected by the demographic factors studied and the acclimatization bias. Some evidence of conflict avoidance is found. Despite the professed equality of members of the Committee, there is clear evidence that some are much more active (and thus, influential) than others. Compared to most traditional court settings, in the volunteer collegiate court studied here, time constraints play a much more significant role than previously suggested in the literature.
AbtahiHOdoOYoungR (2013) The composition of judicial benches, disqualification and excusal of judges at the International Criminal Court: A survey. Journal of International Criminal Justice11(2): 379–398.
2.
ArazyONovOOrtegaF (2014) The [Wikipedia] world is not flat: On the organizational structure of online production communities. In: Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv, Israel, 9–11 June 2014.
3.
BenklerY (2006) The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
4.
CastellsM (2012) Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age. Cambridge: Polity.
DunlopBDRothmanMBEntzelP (2000) Elders, Crime, and the Criminal Justice System: Myth, Perceptions, and Reality in the 21st Century. New York: Springer.
7.
EllicksonRC (2009) Order without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
HettingerVALindquistSAMartinekWL (2007) Judging on a Collegial Court: Influences on Federal Appellate Decision Making. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
JemielniakD (2014) Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
12.
KapardisA (2014) Psychology and Law: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
KleinDE (2002) Making Law in the United States Courts of Appeals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
KleinDEMitchellG (2010) The Psychology of Judicial Decision Making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15.
KoniecznyP (2009) Governance, organization, and democracy on the Internet: The Iron Law and the evolution of Wikipedia. Sociological Forum24(1): 162–192.
16.
KoniecznyP (2010) Adhocratic governance in the Internet age: A case of Wikipedia. Journal of Information Technology and Politics7(4): 263–283.
17.
LeachDK (2005) The iron law of what again? Conceptualizing oligarchy across organizational forms. Sociological Theory23(3): 312–337.
18.
LevineJMMorelandRL (1994) Group socialization: Theory and research. European Review of Social Psychology5: 305–336.
19.
MaltzmanFSpriggsJFWahlbeckPJ (2000) Crafting Law on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20.
MichelsR (1915) Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchic Tendencies of Modern Democracy. New York: The Free Press.
SunsteinCR (2003) Why Societies Need Dissent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
27.
TahaAE (2004) Publish or Paris? Evidence of how judges allocate their time. American Law and Economics Review6(1): 1–27.
28.
ViégasFBWattenbergMMcKeonMMSchulerD (2007) The hidden order of Wikipedia. Online Communities and Social Computing4564: 445–454.
29.
Von HelversenBRieskampJ (2009) Predicting sentencing for low-level crimes: Comparing models of human judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied15(4): 375–395.
