‘What are these researchers doing in my Wikipedia?’: ethical premises and practical judgment in internet-based ethnography
The article ties together codified ethical premises, proceedings of ethical reasoning, and field-specific ethical reflections so to inform the ethnography of an Internet-based collaborative project. It argues that instead of only obeying formal statutes, practical judgment has to account for multiple understandings of ethical issues in the research field as well as for the self-determination of reflexive participants. The article reflects on the heuristics that guided the decisions of a 4-year participant observation in the English-language and German-language editions of Wikipedia. Employing a microsociological perspective, it interrogates the technological, social, and legal implications of publicness and information sensitivity as core ethical concerns among Wikipedia authors. The first problem area of managing accessibility and anonymity contrasts the handling of the technologically available records of activities, disclosures of personal information, and the legal obligations to credit authorship with the authors’ right to work anonymously and the need to shield their identity. The second area confronts the contingent addressability of editors with the demand to assure and maintain informed consent. Taking into account these problem areas, the ethical reasoning on the one hand proposes options for observing and documenting episodes. On the other, it provides advice on the feasibility and the necessity of obtaining informed consent.
KeywordsResearch ethics Ethnography Publicness Information sensitivity Internet-based collaboration Wikipedia
No financial interest or benefit arises from direct application of this research.
- Becker, H. S. (1964). Problems in the publication of field studies. In A. Vidich, J. Bensman & M. Stein (Eds.), Reflections on community studies (pp. 267–284). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
- Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Boellstorff, T., Nardi, B., Pearce, C., & Taylor, T. L. (2012). Ethnography and virtual worlds. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Coleman, G. (2013). Coding freedom. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Data Retention Policy (2008). Retrieved from http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Data_retention_policy.
- Ess, C. (2013). Digital media ethics. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
- Ess, C., & AoIR Ethics Working Committee (2002). Ethical decision-making and Internet research. Retrieved from http://aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf.
- Eynon, R., Fry, J., & Schroeder, R. (2008). The ethics of Internet research. In N. Fielding, R. Lee & G. Blank (Eds.), The sage handbook of internet research (pp. 23–41). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Gadamer, H.-G. (1975). Truth and Method. New York: Seabury.Google Scholar
- Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
- Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Glott, R., Schmidt, P., & Ghosh, R.A. (2010). Wikipedia survey. Maastricht: UNI-MERIT United Nations University. Retrieved from: http://www.wikipediastudy.org/docs/Wikipedia_Overview_15March2010-FINAL.pdf.
- Goffman, E. (1967). Interactional ritual. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
- Gray, M.L. (2014). When science, customer service, and human subjects research collide. Now what? Ethnography Matters. Retrieved from http://ethnographymatters.net/blog/2014/07/07/when-science-customer-service-and-human-subjects-research-collide-now-what/.
- Hine, C. (2015). Ethnography for the Internet. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
- Kraut, R., & Resnick, P. (2011). Building successful online communities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Markham, A. (2004). The politics, ethics, and methods of representation in online ethnography. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 793–820). London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Markham, A., Buchanan, E., & AoIR Ethics Working Committee (2012). Ethical decision-making and internet research 2.0. Retrieved from http://aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf.
- McKee, H., & Porter, J. (2009). The ethics of digital writing research. New York: Peter LangGoogle Scholar
- Milne, C. (2005). Overseeing research: Ethics and the institutional review board. Forum: Qualitative Research, 6(1), Art. 41.Google Scholar
- Nissenbaum, H. (2011). Privacy in context. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- O’Neil, M. (2009). Cyberchiefs. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
- Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy. Dialectics of disclosure. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
- Raz, J. (1986). The morality of freedom. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
- Reagle, J. (2010). Good faith collaboration. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Senft, T. (2008). Camgirls. Celebrity and community in the age of social networks. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
- Sveningsson-Elm, M. (2009). How do various notions of privacy influence decisions in qualitative Internet research? In A. Markham & N. Baym (Eds.), Internet inquiry (pp. 69–87). London: SageGoogle Scholar
- Tkacz, N. (2015). Wikipedia and the politics of openness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- van Djick, J. (2013). The cult of connectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Wikipedia:Don’t bite the researchers (2016). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_bite_the_researchers.
- Wikipedia:Ethically researching Wikipedia (2016). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ethically_researching_Wikipedia.
- Wikipedia:Statistics (2016). Retrieved from https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm.
- Wikipedia:What are these researchers doing in my Wikipedia? (2016). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_are_these_researchers_doing_in_my_Wikipedia%3F.
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia (2016). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia.