Polycentric Principles

Polycentric governance evolves incrementally through collective-choice processes; this contrasts starkly with traditional organization governance, which is deployed top-down on subjects at lower levels of the hierarchy. A high degree of collective-choice—the notion that the community sets the rules through consensus—is found to be associated with the long-term success of local arrangements governing shared resource systems such as grazing grounds, fisheries, and forests

23_{Adapted from Ostrom et al (1994, p. 47).} 24_{“Action Situation” on the operational level.}

172

(Ostrom 1990). Correspondingly, PIC theory asserts that a multitude of independent centers of decision-making operating within the frame of an overarching goal is the key to the long-term sustainability of information commons (Mindel et al. 2018). The theory also asserts that open content provision is a double-edged sword—potentially generative and degenerative at the same time—and that an information commons should ideally incorporate four polycentric principles in its governance to reduce the prevalence and impact of threats arising from the system’s open nature.

First, an information commons should not solely rely on paid outsiders for monitoring, but rather should allow the community to police itself as much as possible. Defined as “the extent to which rules and features afford peer monitoring and gradual sanctioning to support appropriate

behavior and dispute resolution in an information commons” (Mindel et al. 2018, p. 619), the

principle of shared accountability aims to create a sense of ownership toward the information commons among participants. The principle of shared accountability suggests that the more the community actively monitors against those who break the information commons boundaries, the more it will be able to serve its overarching goal. Focusing on resolving information pollution on

the operational level, shared accountability can manifest in different ways, including flagging of

polluted content or disruptive users, direct removal of content, and community-based arbitration mechanisms to resolve disputes. Shared accountability works to reduce the cost of monitoring against information pollution and is predicated on the idea that, when participants in the information commons share the task of maintaining its integrity, they are more likely to resolve pollution effectively.

Second, an information commons should allow participants a high degree of freedom in determining the rules on content and conduct boundaries. Defined as “the extent to which rules

173

and technical infrastructure features afford information provision and appropriation consistent

with the information commons’ overarching goal” (Mindel et al. 2018, p. 619), the principle of

boundary regulation helps address collective-action threats by increasing the community’s sense of the content and conduct that should characterize the information commons. Every information commons has a different overarching goal, which necessitates context-specific boundaries (Ren et al. 2007). The principle of boundary regulation suggests that a high degree of inclusion of participants in setting rules will lead to higher consensus and a greater likelihood that the boundaries will be accepted and followed. Resolving pollution on the operational level requires a certain level of awareness of the boundaries—that is, the rules on content and acceptable conduct—by participants. In most cases, boundary regulation occurs when participants simply communicate the rules to those who seem unaware of them; in Wikipedia, for instance, participants might ask someone not to post content about dogs in an article dedicated to cats, or cite the policy against original research in article editing when that issue arises. In other instances, core participants with administrative authority may issue more-official warnings and may even ban those who insist on ignoring the information commons’ boundaries.

Third, an information commons should avoid sudden top-down dictated changes that might upset participants and instead incrementally adapt in a bottom-up fashion. Defined as “the extent to

which changes in infrastructure and rules are gradually introduced and providers and

appropriators are actively involved in shaping them” (Mindel et al. 2018, p. 619), the principle of

incremental adaptation aims to strike a balance between the need to adapt and sensitivity to participants’ needs and opinions. The principle of incremental adaptation suggests that those who are most closely involved with the everyday operational dynamics of the information commons are also more likely to provide constructive feedback for its adaptation. Moreover, it suggests that

174

smaller changes are more likely to be positively received, as opposed to sudden extensive changes that may alienate many participants. Incremental adaptation also reduces the cost of experimenting with changes. If a certain change is only gradually different from the previous version and is well received, it can be quickly incorporated and further adapted. On the other hand, if it is not well received, it is easy to replace it with another incremental adaptation. On the operational level, incremental rather than extensive modification of OSS code or wiki content is more likely to lead to output that is more balanced, contains fewer errors, and gains more consensus.

Lastly, because information commons depend on volunteers for content, they should create a positive environment for those actively participating. Defined as “the extent to which providers

are acknowledged by peers, appropriators, and producers” (Mindel et al. 2018, p. 619), the

principle of provider recognition aims to enhance the personal and social experience for participants. The provider recognition principle suggests that a volunteer workforce must be motivated to continuously engage with the information commons. On the operational level, provider recognition may be manifested in the form of direct recognition for high-quality work, as well as in the awarding of virtual status and popularity symbols such as avatars, icons, likes, smiley faces, and any other signal of positive acknowledgment.