Abstract:The concept of "social role" has long been used in social science describe the intersection of behavioral, meaningful, and structural attributes that emerge regularly in particular settings and institutions. We use structural signature methods to identify key roles in a large distributed collaboration system (Wikipedia) by examining the distribution of edits across types of pages and the structure of relationships between editors. We distinguish between technical editors, substantive experts, vandal fighters, and social networkers and demonstrate key ways that their patterns of interaction and contribution differ. We conclude by considering how differential entry into and retention in particular roles may affect the operation of the large social system. IntroductionIt is difficult to gauge the social significance of Wikipedia, other than to say that, like Google, Wikipedia has forever changed how we use, find and think about information. Both pundits (like Stephen Colbert) and researchers (Stvilia et al. 2005, Giles 2005) have been pre-occupied with the question of whether the product of Wikipedia is of sufficient quality, or whether its pages constitute legitimate references (Read 2006). Others argue that the project will never achieve a sufficient level of quality relying on non-expert volunteers of unknown identity (Chesney). Instead of prognosticating about the potential of the Wikipedia project we contend that scholars should be more focused on understanding how Wikipedia has achieved the success that it has: a "pretty good" resource for a basic understanding of most any topic. How has the "pretty good" and incredibly extensive resource been achieved? And how has this been possible given the absence of the resources and controls of conventional firms and bureaucracies?Through the course of our research we have come to suspect that the success of Wikipedia has stemmed from two key sources: (1) infrastructural features that help people find their roles in the organization (2) technical innovations that allow substantial economies of scale in the performance of many of those roles. This paper concentrates on the former and is about finding roles in a double sense: to what extent can we identify the roles people play in Wikipedia by measuring general behavioral and structural features of their participation? We address this technical challenge by using a range of qualitative and quantitative methods to find signatures of social roles in Wikipedia (cite cite). The second sense asks: how do people find their roles in Wikipedia? We address this question quantitatively by comparing general patterns in editing across two different samples of Wikipedians, a cohort that first edited in January of 2005 and a sample of dedicated Wikipedians whose edits spanned a period of greater than one year. These samples allow us to compare how patterns in participation vary between cross section of new participants and those who stick around, and become the long term participants in the social system. Finding Social Role...

What drives local decisions to prohibit industrial land uses? This study examines the passage of municipal ordinances prohibiting gas development using hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) in New York State. I argue that local action against fracking depended on multiple conceptions of the shale gas industry. Matching these alternative conceptions with prevailing spatial models of public response to industrial land uses—“not in my backyard,” “not in anyone’s backyard,” and “please in my backyard”—improves our understanding of where local contention might emerge and how it contributes to policy change. Results from event history and logistic regression analyses show, first, that communities lying above favorable areas of the shale did not pass anti-fracking laws because opposition to fracking was counteracted by significant local support for development. Fracking bans passed primarily in a geographic sweet spot on the periphery of targeted regions, where little or no compelling economic interest in development existed. Second, as fracking became the subject of a highly politicized national debate, local opposition increasingly reflected mobilization by political liberals. This trend is reflected in the increasing rate of ordinance adoption among Democratic-leaning communities outside the geographic sweet spot.

Both formal organizations and informal associations face a perplexing question: how to attract and retain members when people have limited time and energy for participation. A substantial amount of research on organizational recruitment suggests that social network ties between members and outsiders play a crucial role in promoting recruitment and facilitating membership growth in churches (Stark and Bainbridge 1980), religious cults (Rochford 1982; Snow, Zurcher, and Ekland-Olson 1980), social movements (McAdam and Paulsen 1993; Walgrave and 693616A SRXXX10.

Passionate disagreements about climate change, stem cell research, and evolution raise concerns that science has become a new battlefield in the culture wars. We used data derived from millions of online co-purchases as a behavioral indicator for whether shared interest in science bridges political differences or selective attention reinforces existing divisions. Findings reveal partisan preferences both within and across scientific disciplines. Across fields, customers for liberal or "blue" political books prefer basic science (e.g., physics, astronomy, and zoology), while conservative or "red" customers prefer applied and commercial science (e.g., criminology, medicine and geophysics). Within disciplines, red books tend to be co-purchased with a narrower subset of science books on the periphery of the discipline. We conclude that the political left and right share an interest in science in general, but not science in particular. This underscores the need for research into remedies that can attenuate selective exposure to "convenient truth", renew the capacity for science to inform political debate and temper partisan passions. In its quest for an objective understanding of the world 1 , modern science has practiced two distinct forms of political neutrality: as an apolitical "separate sphere" detached from ideological debates, and as a "pubic sphere" relevant to political issues but with balanced political engagement that facilitates reasoned deliberation and deference to evidence 2-5. Recent surveys support the view that science contributes not only to human knowledge but also to social integration, both as a voice of reason and also as a shared value. Joint surveys conducted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the Pew Research Center in 2009 and 2014 found that science remains near the top in public rankings of professions, well above that of clergy, despite the prevalence of liberals among scientists 6-8. Although nearly twothirds of respondents question evolution, even those who see conflict with issues of personal

No abstract