CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 12Open Source Software InnovationsWikis in Education and CollaborationSocial Media and Politics

The (in)visible barriers to free software: Inequalities in online communities in Spain

Open access
Calvo, Dafne·2021·Studies in Communication Sciences
DOI 10.24434/j.scoms.2021.01.011
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Free culture communities support self-learning, peer production, and the distribution of knowledge generated without any restrictions. However, free culture communities are not isolated from the social inequalities of the outside world. Understanding (in)visibility as the (in)ability to address internal under-representation within these communities, this research aims to analyse their member profiles and their perception of this issue. To this end, an online questionnaire was administered to 290 communities and interviews were conducted with members of 37 of these previously surveyed communities. The respondents and interviewees acknowledged that technopolitics requires a broad knowledge of the technical implications of their values, which makes access to and participation in a community more difficult. They also criticised the gender bias of their communities and, last but not least, pointed to other inequalities relating to the sexual orientation, socioeconomic level, or ethnic origin of the members of their communities.

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 · 10.24434/j.scoms.2021.01.011

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • El software libre se ha caracterizado desde sus inicios por una escasa participación de mujeres y personas LGTTBIQ+.

    “El software libre se ha caracterizado desde sus inicios por una escasa participación de mujeres y personas LGTTBIQ+.”

    From Tensiones desde la perspectiva de género en torno al potencial democratizador del software libre (2022) · cites this paper as Calvo, 2021

    Section 2, “Inequality issues in the free culture movement” (page unavailable), reports very low participation by women in free software and free culture projects. The interview discussion also identifies sexual orientation and gender identity as inequalities needing attention, but the paper does not establish low participation by LGTTBIQ+ people from the movement’s beginnings. Section 4.2.1 even reports interviewees’ recollection that women had a greater presence in the 1990s and early 21st century. (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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 53

  1. Abdi, S., & Van Gilder, B. (2016). Cultural (in) visibility and identity dissonance: Queer Iranian-American women and their nego- tiation of existence. Journal of Internation- al and Intercultural Communication, 9(1), 69-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513057. 2016.1120850. · DOI
  2. Antin, J., Yee, R., Cheshire, C., & Nov, O. (2011). Gender differences in Wikipedia editing. WikiSym '11: Proceedings of the 7 th Inter- national Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (pp. 11-14). https://dl.acm. org/doi/10.1145/2038558.2038561. · DOI
  3. Barbas, A., & Postill, J. (2017). Communication activism as a school of politics: Lessons from Spain's Indignados movement. Jour- nal of Communication, 67(5), 646-664. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12321. · DOI
  4. Bauman, Z., Bigo, D., Esteves, P., Guild, E., Jabri, V., Lyon, D., & Walker, R. B. J. (2014). After Snowden: Rethinking the impact of sur- veillance. International Political Sociology, 8(2), 121-144. https://doi.org/10.1111/ ips.12048. · DOI
  5. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  6. Casas-Cortés, M. I., Osterweil, M., & Powell, D. E. (2008). Blurring boundaries: Re- cognizing knowledge-practices in the study of social movements. Anthropolog- ical Quarterly, 81(1), 17-58. https://doi. org/10.1353/anq.2008.0006. · DOI
  7. Castells, M. (2012). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the Internet age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  8. Coleman, G. (2011). Hacker politics and pub- lics. Public Culture, 23(3), 511-516. https:// doi.org/10.1215/08992363-1336390. · DOI
  9. Coleman, G., & Golub, A. (2008). Hacker practice: Moral genres and the cultural articulation of liberalism. Anthropolog- ical Theory, 8(3), 255-277. https://doi. org/10.1177/1463499608093814. · DOI
  10. Collier, B., & Bear, J. (2012). Conflict, criticism, or confidence: An empirical examination of the gender gap in Wikipedia contri- butions. Proceedings of the {ACM} 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Co- operative Work (pp. 383-392). https://doi. org/10.1145/2145204.2145265. · DOI
  11. Costanza-Chock, S. (2018). Design justice: Towards an intersectional feminist frame- work for design theory and practice. De- sign Research Society: Catalyst (pp. 1-14). https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2018.679. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Cox, L., & Flesher Fominaya, C. F. (2009). Move- ment knowledge: What do we know, how do we create knowledge and what do we do with it? Interface: A Journal for and about Social Movements, 1(1), 1-20.
  13. Dahlberg, L. (2018). Visibility and the public sphere: A normative conceptualisation. Javnost-The Public, 25(1/2), 35-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2018.1 418818. · DOI
  14. Della Porta, D., & Pavan, E. (2017). Repertoires of knowledge practices: Social movements in times of crisis. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An Inter- national Journal, 12(4), 297-314. https:// doi.org/10.1108/QROM-01-2017-1483. · DOI
  15. Fuchs, C. (2011). Web 2.0, prosumption, and surveillance. Surveillance & Society, 8(3), 288-309.
  16. Giuri, P., Rullani, F., & Torrisi, S. (2008). Explain- ing leadership in virtual teams: The case of open source software. Information Eco- nomics and Policy, 20(4), 305-315. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.infoecopol.2008.06.002. · DOI
  17. Graells-Garrido, E., Lalmas, M., & Menczer, F. (2015). First women, second sex: Gender bias in Wikipedia. In Association for Com- puting Machinery (ed.), HT 2015 -Pro- ceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media (pp. 165-174). https://doi.org/10.1145/2700171.2791036. · DOI
  18. Hill, B. M., & Shaw, A. (2013). The Wikipedia gender gap revisited: Characterizing sur- vey response bias with propensity score estimation. PLoS ONE, 8(6), 1-5. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065782. · DOI
  19. Howard, P. N. (2002). Network ethnography and the hypermedia organization: New media, new organizations, new methods. New Media & Society, 4(4), 550-574. https://doi. org/10.1177/146144402321466813. · DOI
  20. Jackson, S. K., & Kuehn, K. M. (2016). Open source, social activism and "necessary trade-offs" in the digital enclosure: A case study of platform co-operative, loomio.org. tripleC, 14(2), 413-427.
  21. Jordan, T. (1999). Cyberpower: The culture and politics of cyberspace and the Internet. London: Routledge.
  22. Jordan, T. (2017). A genealogy of hacking. Convergence, 23(5), 528-544. https://doi. org/10.1177/1354856516640710. · DOI
  23. Koopmans, R. (2004). Movements and media: Selection processes and evolutionary dynamics in the public sphere. Theory and Society, 33, 367-391. https://doi. org/10.1023/B:RYSO.0000038603.34963.de. · DOI · Paper page
  24. Lam, S. S. (Tony) K., Uduwage, A., Dong, Z., Sen, S., Musicant, D. R., Terveen, L., & Riedl, J. (2011). WP: Clubhouse? An exploration of Wikipedia's gender im- balance. In Association for Computing Machinery (ed.), Proceedings of the 7 th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (pp. 1-10). https://doi. org/10.1145/2038558.2038560. · DOI
  25. Langman, L. (2006). From virtual public spheres to global justice: A critical theory of internetworked social movements. Sociological Theory, 23(1), 42-74. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.0735-2751.2005.00242.x. · DOI
  26. Lessig, L. (2004). Free culture: How big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity. New York: The Penguin Press.
  27. Lim, S., & Kwon, N. (2010). Gender differences in information behavior concerning Wiki- pedia, an unorthodox information source? Library and Information Science Research, 32(3), 212-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. lisr.2010.01.003. · DOI
  28. Magnusdottir, G. L., & Kronsell, A. (2015). The (in)visibility of gender in Scandinavian climate policy-making. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 17(2), 308-326. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2014.8 96661. · DOI
  29. Margolis, J., Fisher, A., & Miller, F. (1999). Caring about connections: Gender and computing. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 18(14), 13-20. https://doi. org/10.1109/44.808844. · DOI
  30. Milan, S., & Treré, E. (2019). Big data from the south(s): Beyond data universalism. Television and New Media, 20(4), 319-335. https://doi. org/10.1177/1527476419837739. Ministry of Education and Science (2006, May 4). Ley orgánica de educación [Ed- ucation Act]. Boletín Oficial del Estado. Retrieved from https://www.boe.es/boe/ dias/2006/05/04/pdfs/A17158-17207.pdf. · DOI · Paper page
  31. Nosko, A., Wood, E., & Molema, S. (2010). All about me: Disclosure in online social networking profiles: The case of Face- book. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 406-418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chb.2009.11.012. · DOI
  32. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evaluation of institutions and col- lective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  33. Patil, V., & Purkayastha, B. (2015). Sexual vio- lence, race and media (in)visibility: Inter- sectional complexities in a transnational frame. Societies, 5(3), 598-617. https://doi. org/10.3390/soc5030598. · DOI
  34. Postill, J. (2016). Freedom technologists and the future of global justice. In N. Buxton & D. Eade (eds.), State of power 2016: Demo- cracy, sovereignty and resistance (pp. 147- 163). Amsterdam: Transnational Institute.
  35. Powell, W. E., Hunsinger, D. S., & Medlin, B. D. (2010). Gender differences within the open source community: An exploratory study. Journal of Information Technology, XXI(4), 29-37.
  36. Reagle, J. (2013). "Free as in sexist?": Free culture and the gender gap. First Mon- day, 18(1/7). https://doi.org/10.5210/ fm.v18i1.4291. · DOI
  37. Reagle, J., & Rhue, L. (2011). Gender bias in Wikipedia and Britannica. International Journal of Communication, 5, 1138-1158.
  38. Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading digital culture. Reading: Addison- Wesley.
  39. Robles, G., Reina, L. A., Serebrenik, A., Vasiles- cu, B., & González-Barahona, J. (2014). FLOSS 2013: A survey dataset about free software contributors: Challenges for curating, sharing, and combining. In Association for Computing Machinery (ed.), 11th Working Conference on Min- ing Software Repositories, MSR 2014 - Proceedings (pp. 396-399). https://doi. org/10.1145/2597073.2597129. · DOI
  40. Rohlinger, D. A., Redmond, R. A., & Stamm, T. (2019). Gender, age, and political legiti- macy: Activist (in)visibility in broadcast news, 1970-2012. Journal of Women & Aging, 1-25. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/08952841.2019.1 593774. · DOI
  41. Seymour, K. (2019). (In)visibility and reco- gni tion: Australian policy respon- ses to 'domestic violence'. Sexuali- ties, 22(5/6), 751-766. https://doi. org/10.1177/1363460716681465. · DOI
  42. Sobieraj, S. (2010). Reporting conventions: Journalists, activists, and the thorny strug- gle for political visibility. Social Problems, 57(4), 505-528. https://doi.org/10.1525/ sp.2010.57.4.505. · DOI · Paper page
  43. Solove, D. J. (2001). Privacy and power: Computer databases and metaphors for information privacy. Stanford Law Review, 53, 1393-1462. https://doi. org/10.2307/1229546. · DOI
  44. Stephansen, H. (2016). Understanding citizen media as practice: Agents, processes, publics. In M. Baker & B. B. Blaagaard (eds.), Citizen media and public spaces: Diverse expressions of citizenship and dissent (pp. 25-41). London: Routledge.
  45. Stoecker, R. (1995). Community, movement, organization: The problem of identity convergence in collective action. Socio- logical Quarterly, 36(1), 111-130.
  46. Taraszow, T., Aristodemou, E., Shitta, G., Laouris, Y., & Arsoy, A. (2010). Disclosure of personal and contact information by young people in social networking sites: An analysis using Facebook TM profiles as an example. International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics, 6(1), 81-101. https://doi.org/10.1386/macp.6.1.81/1. · DOI
  47. Toupin, S. (2014). Feminist hackerspaces: The synthesis of feminist and hacker cultures. Journal of Peer Production, (5). Retrieved from http://peerproduction.net/editsuite/ issues/issue-5-shared-machine-shops/ peer-reviewed-articles/feminist- hackerspaces-the-synthesis-of-feminist- and-hacker-cultures/.
  48. Toupin, S. (2016). Gesturing towards "anti- colonial hacking" and its infrastructure. Journal of Peer Production, (9). Retrieved from http://peerproduction.net/editsuite/ issues/issue-9-alternative-internets/ peer-reviewed-papers/anti-colonial- hacking/.
  49. Treré, E., & Barranquero, A. (2018). Tracing the roots of technopolitics: Towards a North-South dialogue. In F. Sierra & T. Gravante (eds.), Networks, movements and technopolitics in Latin America: Critical analysis and current challenges (pp. 43-63). New York: Palgrave.
  50. Tufekci, Z. (2008). Can you see me now? Audi- ence and disclosure regulation in online social network sites. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 28(1), 20-36. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0270467607311484. · DOI
  51. van Stekelenburg, J., Oegema, D., & Klander- mans, B. (2010). No radicalization without identification: How ethnic Dutch and Dutch Muslim web forums radicalize over time. In A. Azzi, X. Chryssochoou, & B. Klandermans (eds.), Identity and Par- ticipation in Culturally Diverse Societies. A Multidisciplinary Perspective (pp. 256- 274). Hoboken: Wiley.
  52. Vaserfirer, A. (2012). (In)visibility in lesbian and gay student organizing: The case of gay student services. Journal of Homosexuality, 59(4), 610-627. https://doi.org/10.1080/00 918369.2012.665706. · DOI
  53. Wagner, C., Garcia, D., Jadidi, M., & Strohmaier, M. (2015). It's a man's Wikipedia? Assessing gender inequality in an online encyclope- dia. Proceedings of the Ninth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (pp. 454-463). Retrieved from https:// www.sg.ethz.ch/media/publication_ files/10585-46528-1-PB.pdf.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Calvo, D.
Affiliations
Universidad de Valladolid (ES)
Corresponding author
Calvo, Dafne
ORCID
Calvo, Dafne
Venue
Studies in Communication Sciences
Publisher
SComS
Published
2021-06-10
Volume
21
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 1424-4896 (ISSN-L)
  • 2296-4150
DOI
10.24434/j.scoms.2021.01.011
OpenAlex
W3094131946
Cited by
12
References
3
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 9
FWCI
2.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Studies in Communication Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UVaDOC UVaDOC University of Valladolid Documentary Repository (University of Valladolid) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • HOPE (Hauptbibliothek Open Publishing Environment) (University of Zurich) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Fundación Banco Sabadell
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Wikis in Education and Collaboration
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
Keywords
free software communities, free culture, online communities, social inequality, visibility, underrepresentation, gender bias, technology and politics, community participation, socioeconomic disparities, sexual orientation, ethnicity, Spain

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