Research:Codifying Digital Behavior Around the World: A Socio-Legal Study of the Wikimedia Universal Code of Conduct
This research project examines the Wikimedia Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) as a pivotal development in governing online behavior across Wikimedia projects. Led by a research team from the University of Oxford and Universidade Católica Portuguesa, the study analyzes the codification process of the UCoC, with a focus on its origins, structure, and the narratives guiding its enforcement. Using empirical data collected through interviews and document analysis, the project explores the dynamics surrounding the UCoC’s adoption and ongoing debates about its enforcement. Findings from this research have been shared through conferences and reports and will culminate in an open-access paper published in an international journal.
Literature Review
editThe team’s combination of expertise will play a critical role in providing a theoretical frame for interpreting the data drawn from documentary analysis and interviews. Indeed, our theoretical approach will primarily rely on:
1. Digital constitutionalism: One theoretical frame draws on the notion of “digital constitutionalism,” which explores the ways in which digital spaces gain values and structures that take the shapes of constitutions. This analytical frame is influenced by research on liberal constitutionalism, global constitutionalism, and the sociological theories of Niklas Luhmann, as revisited by Gunther Teubner under the label of “societal constitutionalism.” The notion of “digital constitutionalism” might help understand the reasons why the Wikimedia Foundation, which is the overarching entity of the various Wikipedia projects on a transnational scale, has decided to identify “a minimum set of guidelines of expected and unacceptable behaviour,” which resembles “bills of rights” or “constitutional texts” in liberal democracies. This is particularly important considering that Wikipedians usually reject quasi-legal structures in order to preserve their decentralized mode of governance in the hands of volunteers.
2. Private governance: Another theoretical frame draws on the notion of “private governance”. This area of research looks at how social groups create informal systems of governance, and how these systems interact with formal legal systems. We will rely on the work of scholars such as Robert C. Ellickson or Lisa Bernstein. This conceptual framework could be used to explore the ways in which bottom-up governance (which characterizes, to a certain extent, the ways in which Wikipedians govern their networks) comes into tension with the top-down approach that the UCoC seems to favour. One way of analyzing the codification efforts of the UCoC is the notion of interdependence, whereby bottom-up systems do not exist in isolation from top-down systems of governance, but actively interact with them.
3. Field theory: Yet another conceptual tool that will be helpful in analyzing the codification of the UCoC is the notion of “field” elaborated by Pierre Bourdieu and taken up by other scholars. Bourdieu’s notion of field understands social life through the prism of competing forces that enter into conflict and come to a resolution through the imposition of values by the most powerful actors in the field. As a consequence, the field is constantly shaped by these struggles and, most importantly, by the social forces that dominate these struggles. An analogy could be drawn between the codification of the UCoC (which arguably opposes different values embedded in various Wikimedia projects) and this notion of field.
By looking into the debates that led to the formulation of the UCoC and connecting these narratives to the perspectives of digital constitutionalism, private governance, and field theory, we hope to identify salient points in the resistance/acceptance of the UCoC on Wikimedia and its enforcement.
Methods
editOur methodology is empirical and inductive, avoiding pre-established theoretical frameworks before data collection to allow the voices of those directly engaged with the UCoC to emerge authentically. We prioritized gathering firsthand insights from key stakeholders to inform theoretical analysis of user experiences.
1. Interviews: We conducted semi-structured interviews with UCoC drafting committee members, administrators, editors, and arbitration committee members from two Wikipedia language editions (English and French). These editions were selected based on (i) their status as the first and fifth largest Wikipedias, enhancing the generalizability of our findings; (ii) their cultural diversity, allowing for comparative analysis of responses to the UCoC; and (iii) their potential to expand the research into underrepresented regions, such as Africa, in future phases.
2. Content Analysis: We are monitoring ongoing discussions within Wikimedia communities related to the UCoC’s codification and enforcement. This includes content and discussion pages, as well as email lists. By coding key terms and discussion points, we aim to understand how Wikipedians interpret and discuss the codification efforts initiated by the Wikimedia Foundation.
Our data collection included 30 interviews with 28 participants, comprising: 8 members of the Phase 1 Committee, 6 members of the Phase 2 Committee, 8 members of the Revisions Committee, 7 members of the Wikimedia Foundation, 3 members of various Arbitration Committees, 7 members of the French Wikipedia community, and 2 individuals with other roles, such as editors.
Results
editOur interviews identified three key forces that likely influenced the UCoC codification process: the Fram case, challenges within smaller Wikipedia projects, and shifts in the regulatory landscape.
The Fram Case: A potential catalyst for the UCoC’s creation was the Fram case. In 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation issued a one-year ban to a long-time administrator, Fram, due to uncivil conduct. This decision sparked protests within the English Wikipedia community, particularly among administrators, who opposed the Foundation’s intervention. Many speculate that the Foundation initiated the UCoC codification process to establish a framework for handling similar conflicts in the future. Relatedly, some interviewees suggested that the Foundation saw the UCoC as a necessary step to protect newcomers and foster a more welcoming environment, thereby supporting Wikipedia’s long-term sustainability.
Turmoil in small Wikipedia projects: Another argument raised is that the UCoC aims to prevent small Wikipedia projects from falling under the control of a few malevolent actors. A prominent example is the Croatian Wikipedia, which was taken over by radical right-wing, ultra-conservative populists—individuals who were “real-life friends, ideological sympathizers, or political allies.” These actors exploited community mechanisms, leading many editors to leave the project and promoting disinformation and content distortion to align with their political views. Following an investigation in 2021, some of these individuals were globally banned and stripped of their administrative privileges. Many believe that cases like this were significant factors in prompting the Wikimedia Foundation to initiate the UCoC codification process.
Change in the regulatory landscape: Finally, interviewees mentioned the incoming European Digital Services Act, which came into force in February 2024, as a reason for the introduction of the UCoC. As one could expect, the codification of the UCoC and its Enforcement Guidelines sparked many controversies, which broadly fell into two main categories: the codification process itself, and the content of the codification.
The Process: One of the main controversies surrounding the UCoC process is that it was initiated by the Wikimedia Foundation in a top-down fashion, contrasting with Wikipedia's traditionally decentralized, bottom-up governance model, where authority generally stems from its diverse communities. Some editors perceive the UCoC as a potential power grab by the Foundation, viewing it as an unwelcome interference with established, community-driven processes that are already functioning effectively. In our interviews with members from various Wikipedia communities, some interviewees raised concerns about the legitimacy of the UCoC process, particularly questioning the composition of the Drafting Committees. For instance, some interviewees doubted whether the appointed Wikipedians truly represented their local communities, as they were not elected but appointed by the Foundation. Others were less focused on the final committee composition and more critical of the applicant pool itself, arguing that the same individuals tend to apply for every available ‘political’ role, resulting in a pool that lacks genuine diversity from the outset.
The Content: During the codification process, in Phase 1, there were debates about which values could be considered universal across various Wikipedia communities. One point of contention was the inclusion and interpretation of the term “race.” Some contributors were reluctant to include the term, viewing it as potentially discriminatory. Conversely, others argued that omitting references to racial discrimination would itself be discriminatory, emphasizing the need to acknowledge and address such issues explicitly. Debates within the French Wikipedia community continued even after the UCoC was enacted. The initial response from French Wikipedians was to meticulously compare the UCoC’s provisions with their own set of “rules and recommendations,” aiming to identify any provisions that were either absent or contradictory. One interviewee estimated that 95% of the UCoC’s guidelines were already observed within the French Wikipedia community. While all interviewees expressed agreement in principle with the UCoC’s values, and acknowledged that most of its provisions were already reflected in their local rules, some still voiced clear intentions to disregard the UCoC moving forward. The reasons cited included a lack of community endorsement, with the UCoC perceived as unrepresentative due to its top-down imposition, as well as concerns over practicality and cultural relevance to their community.
Enforcement: The UCoC will be enforced primarily through each Wikipedia’s respective Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) or other high-level decision-making local bodies. Only in cases where there is a systemic failure or no effective local governance will enforcement escalate to the U4C, i.e., the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee. This was referred to as the principle of “subsidiarity” during the codification process. Amid organizational changes (such as the creation of the U4C), our interviewees report that references to the UCoC are increasingly appearing in disputes before various ArbComs (such as English and Dutch), in editor conflicts, and in decisions by administrators and stewards. Notably, both supporters and critics of the UCoC appear to be leveraging the Code in discussions and cases. Additionally, a few interviewees mentioned observing misinterpretations of the Code or “wiki-lawyering,” which they attributed to ambiguities in certain provisions of the Code. In the absence of an active Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) in the French Wikipedia, administrators are currently responsible for enforcing the UCoC. However, the way the Code is applied often reflects the perspectives of individual administrators. Some interviewees describe administrators as biased, applying rules selectively and, at times, even interpreting the UCoC’s provisions in ways that seem to contradict their intended meaning.