Cited by 27Wikis in Education and CollaborationComplex Network Analysis TechniquesKnowledge Management and Sharing

The Third Man: hierarchy formation in Wikipedia

Open access
Lerner, Jürgen, Lomi, Alessandro·2017·Applied Network Science

Abstract

Wikipedia articles are written by teams of independent volunteers in the absence of formal hierarchical organizational structures. How is coordination achieved under such conditions of extreme decentralization? Building on studies on the organization of dominance relations in animal and human societies, we theorize that coordination in Wikipedia is made possible by an emergent hierarchical order sustained by self-organizing sequences of text editing events. We propose a new method to turn the editing history of Wikipedia pages into an evolving multiplex network resulting from three types of interaction events: dyadic undo, dyadic redo, and third-party based edit events. We develop new relational event models for signed networks that specify how the probability of observing various types of edit events depends on their embeddedness in sequences of past edit events. Using a random sample of page histories comprising 12,719 revisions produced by 7,657 unique users, we examine the relation between theoretically defined sequences of text editing events, and the emergence of linear dominance hierarchies that regulate production relations within Wikipedia. We find evidence that dyadic interaction gives rise to systematic extra-dyadic dependence structures that are partially consistent with a hierarchical interpretation of the Wikipedia editing network. We support and complement the statistical analysis of multiplex event networks with data visualizations that provide qualitative validation of our main results.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s41109-017-0043-2

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Emotional patterns such as hostility toward banned users or fear among newcomers mirror dynamics seen in hierarchical online spaces like Wikipedia, where new contributors often face criticism from established editors.

    “while emotional patterns such as hostility toward banned users or fear among newcomers mirror dynamics seen in hierarchical online spaces like Wikipedia, where new contributors often face criticism from established editors [35].”

    From Exploring incel group dynamics: a computational study of hierarchy and group-boundary policing (2025) · cites this paper as [35]

    The Empirical setting section (page not supplied) describes Wikipedia edit reversals as acts of aggression and reports that contributions by low-reputation users are more likely to be undone. The Conclusions (page not supplied) describe hierarchies among editors. Neither passage establishes that newcomers are often criticized by established editors or addresses fear among newcomers or hostility toward banned users. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 56 · Cited by 27

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Elster, J (1989) The cement of society: A survey of social order. Cambridge University Press.
  2. Flöck F Acosta M WikiWho: Precise and efficient attribution of authorship of revisioned content Proc. 23rd Intl. Conf. WWW 2014 Seoul ACM 843 854

Authors
Lerner, J., & Lomi, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Konstanz (DE)
  • University of Southern California (US)
Corresponding author
Lerner, Jürgen
Venue
Applied Network Science
Published
2017-07-27
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
24-24
ISSN
2364-8228 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2741466057
Cited by
27
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5
FWCI
7.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Applied Network Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • KOPS (University of Konstanz) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (LE 2237/2-1)
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (100018_150126)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Wikis in Education and Collaboration
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Knowledge Management and Sharing
Keywords
Wikipedia, dominance hierarchy, multiplex networks, signed networks, relational event models, edit history, self-organization, volunteer management, dominance relations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review