Review for Power of the Few vs. Wisdom of the Crowd: Wikipedia and the Rise of the Bourgeoisie

This paper shows that there is a change in the nature of contribution to the wikipedia site over it's history. Initially the majority of contributions and the contributions of largest size were made by a small number of users, but this is no longer the case. The majority of changes are now small changes made by a large number of users.

I've given this paper a probably accept ration because I think that it makes one major, clear contribution, in the manner that a CHI paper should. This paper very clearly shows that, in the case of wikipedia, there is a shift in the nature of contributions from large and frequent contributions by a small "elite" to small and infrequent contributions by a much larger number of users. This finding is backed up by reference to usage statistics from the wikipedia site.

The reason that I haven't given the paper a definitely accept is that the paper does not do much to unpack the implications or the meaning of this finding. It feels like a Chi paper, but there isn't really anything alternative about it. What is the reader to do with the paper's central finding? What might this mean for someone who was thinking of starting a collaborative site or for the long term- prospects of wikipedia? The promise in the title of the paper - that there would be some discussion of the similarities between the influence on institutions of the educated professional classes in the internet age and the educated professional classes in the industrial age (i.e. the Bourgeoisie) does not materialise. Similarly, there is a tantalising hint at a comparison between the kind of contribution required from a small number of enthusiasts to for a successful start-up company and the efforts required to start a site such as wikipedia. This paper is a good start, and a valid contribution, but also, to some degree, a missed opportunity.