Jankowski, S e e
A icle
Consensus echniques
In e ne Policy Re iew
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
Alexande on Humbold Ins i u e o In e ne and Socie y (HIIG), Be lin
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Jankowski, S e e (2024) : Consensus echniques, In e ne Policy Re iew, ISSN
2197-6775, Alexande on Humbold Ins i u e o In e ne and Socie y, Be lin, Vol. 13, Iss. 2, pp. 1-9,
h ps://doi.o g/10.14763/2024.2.1750
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/296503
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/3.0/de/legalcode
Volume 13 |
Consensus echniques
S e e Jankowski Uni e si y o Ams e dam
DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.14763/2024.2.1750
Published: 4 Ap il 2024
Recei ed: 13 July 2023 Accep ed: 27 Oc obe 2023
Compe ing In e es s: The au ho has decla ed ha no compe ing in e es s exis ha
ha e in luenced he ex .
Licence: This is an open-access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e
Commons A ibu ion 3.0 License (Ge many) which pe mi s un es ic ed use,
dis ibu ion, and ep oduc ion in any medium, p o ided he o iginal wo k is p ope ly
ci ed. h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/3.0/de/deed.en
Copy igh emains wi h he au ho (s).
Ci a ion: Jankowski, S. (2024). Consensus echniques. In e ne Policy Re iew, 13(2).
h ps://doi.o g/10.14763/2024.2.1750
Keywo ds: Consensus, Socio echnical decision-making, Democ a ic heo y
Abs ac : A co e ac i i y o decen alising in e ne p ojec s has been pa icipa ion, and wi h i he
democ a ising po en ial o go e ning h ough consensus. This encoun e be ween democ a ic
ideals on one side and i s in eg a ion in o socio- echnical p ojec s on he o he has had signi ican
consequences o he pu poses and meanings a ached o consensus as a echnique. While he
democ a ic po en ial o de eloping such echniques is hope ul, he e is a deep on ological ques ion
abou consensus ha has been a ely answe ed: o wha deg ee is he meaning o consensus
dedica ed o decision-making and when is i commi ed o unde s anding? Addi ionally, o wha
deg ee do hese echniques shape and se up he condi ions o how we unde s and and encoun e
he meaning o consensus? The glossa y en y examines hese ques ions by acing his o ical
di e ences in gene al ag eemen o i s di e se in e p e a ions in libe al, eminis , and echnoc a ic
pe spec i es h ough he lens o cul u al echniques and a o dances, a combined app oach ha
ex ends delibe a i e democ a ic heo y by emphasising how he poli ical is an e ec o he ools
enlis ed o ma e ialise i . The en y p o ides an o e iew o he consequences o hese e ec s by
del ing in o he In e ne Enginee ing Task Fo ce (IETF) and blockchain echnologies whe e ough
consensus, unning code, and dis ibu ed consensus ha e been championed. Howe e , his shi
ca ies wi h i a signi ican d awback: he unin ended echnoc a ic co-op a ion o consensus o
e icien decision-making, a end ha neglec s he democ a ic necessi y o os e ing
unde s anding amid disag eemen . Aimed a bo h poli ical heo is s and in e ne esea che s
dedica ed o he democ a ic po en ial o decen alising echnologies, his en y se es as a eminis
and media-sensi i e guide o make democ acy du able by emphasising he ole consensus plays in
c ea ing unde s anding a he han decision-making.
Issue 2
This a icle belongs o he Glossa y o decen alised echnosocial sys ems, a special
sec ion o In e ne Policy Re iew.
Consensus is a concep ha o en deno es a legi imising p ac ice o pa icipa ion
wi hin democ a ic se ings, one ha s ands in s a k con as o hie a chical o ms
o go e nance. Wi h he no ions o a bo om-up low o au ho i y, consensus may
be achie ed by engaging in se e al ac i i ies: c ea ing a common eeling o unde -
s anding h ough public discou se; dis ibu ed decision-making h ough a ional
a gumen ; o s aging he condi ions o some hing akin o a comp omise. Ei he
alone o in combina ion, hese p ac ices make consensus an a ac i e ool o as-
sessing con en ious conce ns wi hin a democ acy wi hou eso ing o a cen-
alised au ho i y. They pu he pa icipa ion o he people on and cen e.
I is he e o e wi h li le wonde ha in e ne p ojec s dedica ed o collabo a ion
ha e de eloped ways o in eg a e consensus as a basis o deba e and o ganisa-
ion. Indeed, since he 1990s he e ha e been se e al expe imen s in ough consen-
sus, unning code, and consensus algo i hms ha a emp o encode democ a ic al-
ues in o he p ocedu es and ou comes o socio echnical sys ems. Mo e han p o-
iding he uel o poli ical imagina ion, p ojec s like he In e ne Enginee ing Task
Fo ce (IETF) and blockchain echnologies ha e popula ised ways o inc ease he
legi imacy and du abili y o democ a ic communi ies h ough consensus ech-
niques.
The e is, howe e , a complica ion. These enginee ing-based inno a ions ha e been
a ached o sys ems ha a e p ima ily — o e en exclusi ely — designed o en-
de ing making decision-making p ocesses mo e e icien . This ocus on consensus
as a means o sol ing p oblems ma ks a d ama ic shi in i s meaning, one ha
downplays o ou igh igno es i s epis emological unc ion wi hin democ acy: o
os e unde s anding be ween an agonis ically opposed g oups. The consequence
is ha in e ne esea che s and poli ical heo is s dedica ed o dis ibu ed o ms o
go e nance may inad e en ly ad oca e and de elop p ojec s ha co-op consen-
sus o echnoc a ic (and a guably undemoc a ic) goals. Addi ionally, eminis po-
li ical heo is s ha e long a gued ha an unc i ical pu sui o consensus comes a
he cos o limi ing he democ a ic necessi y o disag eemen h ough dissensus.
Gi en his oubling seman ic e ain, how can he concep o consensus be ecom-
posed o manoeu e a ound hese conce ns?
To na iga e his ques ion, I i s posi ion consensus as a cul u al echnique, a con-
2 In e ne Policy Re iew 13(2) | 2024
cep om Ge man media heo y ha equips esea che s wi h he capaci y o e alu-
a e he kinds o democ a ic subjec s ha a e ac ually p oduced by ools, an ap-
p oach ha ex ends poli ical heo y by accoun ing o how powe is ma e ially in-
sc ibed. Secondly, I e iew he complica ed his o y o he keywo d wi hin libe al,
eminis , and echnoc a ic pe spec i es and examine how his echnoc a ic pe -
spec i e has in ensi ied because o an ambigui y wi hin wha coun s as public a-
ional a gumen and he pu pose o consensus. The en y ends wi h an answe o
he ques ion by emphasising he necessi y o eo ien ing consensus owa d he
goal o democ a ic unde s anding by making i du able h ough a new se o digi-
al echniques.
Poli ical ools
This en y is called “consensus echniques” and no me ely “consensus” on pu pose.
This amendmen ges u es owa ds Co nelia Vismann’s media heo y o cul u al
echniques which exca a es he poli ical wi hin echnology. Succinc ly sum-
ma ised, she explained how a ool “de e mines he poli ical ac ; and he ope a ion
i sel p oduces he subjec , who will hen claim mas e y o e bo h he ool and he
ac ion associa ed wi h i ” (2013, p. 84). She ollows his by explaining ha he po-
li ical ac o “does no exis p io o ha ac ” o using he ool (2013, p. 84). In o h-
e wo ds, he e ec o he ool is a way o li e ha enables o cons ains speci ic
o ms o powe . Wha Vismann desc ibes as cul u al echniques, Jenny Da is migh
asc ibe o he e icacy o echnological objec s, o he capaci y o a e ac s “ o e -
ec change” (2020, p. 46). Impo an ly o he , while " echnologies do hings," i is
only human subjec s ha ha e in en ion, no a e ac s (2020, p. 57). This duali y is
p esen in he heo y o a o dances which a e composed o mechanisms ha “al-
low pa icula lines o ac ion and social dynamics” and social condi ions which a e
he "pe cep ions, expe iences, and cul u al no ms su ounding he use o a ech-
nology” (2020, pp. 11–12). By pu ing hese wo heo ies in con e sa ion wi h one
ano he , I ha e assembled a means o analysing how he poli ics o consensus a e
made legible h ough he e ec s o speci ic ools while also e alua ing who is
(and is no ) cul u ally enabled o design and use hem. Wi h his pe spec i e in
mind, I wan o u n you a en ion o he a iega ed his o y o consensus as a key-
wo d and i s subsequen deploymen wi hin decen alising p ojec s such as he In-
e ne Enginee ing Task Fo ce and blockchain echnologies.
A genealogy o he keywo d consensus
When Raymond Williams w o e his Keywo ds p ojec o analyse o e a hund ed
3 Jankowski
wo ds ha now “exp ess adically di e en o adically a iable, ye some imes
ha dly no iced, meanings” (2015, p. xxix), he included an essay on he keywo d o
consensus. S a ing wi h he eigh een h cen u y, he iden i ied ha he wo d signi-
ied “an ag eemen o common eeling,” a “gene al connexion” wi hin a na ion, o
simply a “gene al ag eemen ” (2015, p. 40). Some o hese meanings ha e since
been cap u ed by libe al democ a ic heo y. As John Dewey desc ibed, democ a ic
communi ies equi e a “common unde s anding” o sus ain hemsel es, and his
unde s anding is synonymous wi h consensus which “demands communica ion”
(1916, pp. 5-6). Likewise, Jü gen Habe mas iden i ied ha consensus is o med
h ough “communica i e ac ions, alues, and no ms”, whe e consensus achie es
“public au ho i y” because i is no only he esul o a ional a gumen , bu also a
commi men o he “in e subjec i e ecogni ion” (2008, p. 329, p. 75). F om hese
wo heo is s, we ind deep connec ions wi h ideas o he public — o public
sphe e — and i s capaci y o “mo ing dispu es owa ds consensus” (Dahlbe g,
2007. p. 832). Williams u he disco e ed ha consensus is some imes w i en as
“concensus,” a co up ion ha “indica es a now habi ual i unconscious connec ion
wi h he p ac ice o coun ing opinions” (2015, p. 41). Wi h his nexus comes a sus-
picion o he u ili y o opinions. This suspicion can simila ly be sensed in Dewey’s
dis inc ions be ween popula opinion as ha ing li le connec ion o “logical consis-
ency” (1946, p. 61) and public opinion which “a ises only in c ises” whe e i s
“ igh ness” is limi ed by i s esponsi eness o public eme gencies (1946, p. 178).
Ano he meaning ha Williams iden i ied was hose associa ed wi h “consensus
poli ics”, a ph ase ha he asc ibed o “an exis ing body o ag eed opinions” and se
o policies ha a oided making poli ical di isions in o de o “occupy he middle
g ound” (2015, p. 41). Bu in he ace owa d a cen e whe e igh and le a e uni -
ed, his app oach was de ided o main aining an “e asi e” and “manipula i e” s a-
us quo ha excluded “issues no al eady impo an ” (Williams, 2015, p. 41). Bo h
Nancy F ase and Chan al Mou e ha e signi ican ly ex ended his line o eminis
c i ique o he “consensus a he cen e'' (Mou e, 2000, p. 6) by ques ioning he ex-
is ence o a singula public sphe e, and ins ead a gued ha he e exis many
publics and coun e publics ha allow bo h consensus and dissensus o comple-
men one ano he (Mansb idge, 2017, p. 105; Mou e, p. 104). Ano he issue wi h
Habe mas’ heo y was his iew ha he elos o delibe a ion is consensus, which is
hen used as a decision-making mechanism. Howe e , and as Ka a zyna Jezie ska
a gued, consensus is no an app op ia e end-goal o his ision o delibe a ion
since i demands inclusion and ime, quali ies ha con lic wi h he “ ime-e icien-
cy” demands wi hin decision-making (2019, p. 18). Addi ionally, dissensus unde
his a angemen is seen as an obs acle o making democ a ic decisions. Bu dis-
4 In e ne Policy Re iew 13(2) | 2024
sensus is an indispensable condi ion o democ acy as “ he e will always be dis-
ag eemen conce ning he way social jus ice should be implemen ed” which is
p ecisely cap u ed in he e e g een an agonism be ween he igh and he le
(Mou e, pp. 113-114). The e o e, by making he goal o delibe a ion unde s anding
(ins ead o consensus), bo h consensus and dissensus become legi ima e ou comes
ha a o d di e en le els o legi imacy o decision-making p ocedu es such as
“ o ing a e delibe a ion” (Jezie ska, p. 16, p. 18). This agonis ic heo y o consen-
sus posi s ha while ela ed h ough he pu sui o legi imacy, democ a ic deci-
sions and democ a ic unde s anding eme ge om dis inc si ua ions which in ol e
di e en echniques ha p oduce poli ical subjec s: o e s on one hand and delib-
e a o s on he o he .
Consensus as a echnoc a ic echnique
While poli ical heo is s ha e long conside ed he meaning o consensus in i s e-
la ionship o delibe a i e and agonis democ acies, enginee s and compu e scien-
is s ha e aken democ a ic ideas and used hem wi h decen alising digi al ech-
nologies. Pe haps one o he mos in luen ial s a emen s o his kind came ou o
he In e ne Enginee ing Task Fo ce (IETF), a g oup o enginee s esponsible o
many o he co e s anda ds o he In e ne . Wi h palpable dis us o au ho i a ian
igu eheads and he coe ci e o ce o he majo i y, IETF pa icipan Da id Cla k an-
nounced in 1992 ha “we ejec kings, p esiden s, and o ing. We belie e in ough
consensus and unning code” (Kel y, 2005, p. 198). In he la e sen ence, Cla k a -
icula es wha Ch is ophe Kel y iden i ied as a key aspec o his ype o “geeky”
g oup: hey pe suade one ano he no only h ough “a gumen -by- alk”, bu also
h ough “a gumen -by- echnology” (2005, p. 186). These wo kinds o a gumen a-
ion a e he basis o how consensus shi ed om i s delibe a i e o i s echnoc a -
ic meaning.
Cla k’s s a emen o ough consensus has come o be unde s ood as a “consensus
p ocess” ha begins wi h accoun ing o “di e en iews among IETF pa icipan s”
(Resnick, 2014, pp. 4, 1). A e ai ing di e en p oposals o c i icisms ega ding
no el o exis ing s anda ds, he di e ging iews a e a icula ed in e ms o
whe he a choice is “simply unappealing” o “ uly p oblema ic” (Resnick, 2014, p.
5). Ideally hen, “coming o consensus is a ma e o elimina ing disag eemen s”
(Resnick, 2014, p. 11), al hough in p ac ice a “consensus is when e e yone is su i-
cien ly sa is ied wi h he chosen solu ion” (Resnick, 2014, p. 5). This no ion o su i-
ciency alludes o he e minology o ough, a he han unanimous ag eemen . In
hese si ua ions, a gene al “lack o disag eemen ” is ypically made legible in wo
5 Jankowski
ways. Fi s , IETF pa icipan s i s make signi ican use o a mailing lis o pose “in-
o mal polls” (Resnick, 2014, p. 10) which a e used as a mechanism o “looking a
he open issues and no coun ing heads” (Resnick, 2014, p. 14). Second, du ing in-
pe son mee ings, pa icipan s make hei “lack o disag eemen ” legible by collec-
i ely humming o indica e he g oup is “coming o a consensus” o p e e s a solu-
ion as a con e sa ional “s a ing poin ”. To conclude he consensus p ocess, he i-
nal decision is “ aken on he mailing lis ” (Resnick, 2014, p. 10).
In keeping wi h hei dis us o o ing, he ac o humming is “symbolic” as i
wo ks o coun e he way o showing o hands gi es “ he imp ession ha he num-
be o people ma e s in some o mal way” (Resnick, 2014, pp. 11-12). As such,
humming is in ended o anonymize h ough he collec i e in ensi y o sound. How-
e e , bo h ac ions ( isible hands o hea d hums) a e in e p e ed as o ing ech-
niques. Indeed, one o he IETF’s documen s wea ily epo s ha in many mee -
ings, humming has been used o o e on ac ions and o de e mining consensus
(Resnick, 2014, p. 9). Addi ionally, he chai is a key ole o consensus wi hin he
ask o ce. This pe son no only acili a es discussions and p omp s hums, bu he
p ocess also “ elies hea ily on he good judgemen o he consensus calle ”
(Resnick, 2014, p. 17). Thus, he momen o decision lies no wi h he pa icipan s,
bu wi h he chai . I should he e o e no come as a su p ise ha when consensus
is condi ioned by decision-making ins ead o unde s anding, no only is disag ee-
men seen as de imen al, bu he IETF adop ed he ools o au ho i y i swo e i
ejec ed: he majo i a ian o e and he oice om he h one.
Howe e , because he IETF is a public conce ned wi h enginee ing decisions, he
g oup has an addi ional echnique o o ming consensus h ough wha Kel y calls
“a gumen -by- echnology” o unning code. To expand on his ype o a gumen , de-
sign heo is Richa d Buchanan p o ides he use ul concep o he “design a gu-
men ”. Fo him, “ he o ic is an a o shaping socie y, changing he cou se o indi-
iduals and communi ies, and se ing pa e ns o new ac ion” (1985, p. 6). Since
design is a o m o communica ion ha accomplishes each o hese, i oo is a kind
o a gumen . Howe e , he a ionali y o a design a gumen includes echnological
easoning o ien ed owa d demons a ion (Buchanan, 1985, p. 9). He elabo a es on
his poin by s a ing ha a design a gumen is communica ed on wo le els: “i a -
emp s o pe suade audiences no only ha a gi en design is use ul, bu also ha
he designe ’s p emises o a i udes and alues ega ding p ac ical li e” (Buchanan,
1985, p. 10). In he con ex o he IETF, a gene al ag eemen ha o ms h ough
“a gumen -by- echnology” is o en exp essed as a “consensus [ ha ] comes as mo e
people begin o use ha code” (Kel y, 2005, p. 202). Since e e y indi idual o his
6 In e ne Policy Re iew 13(2) | 2024
enginee ing public is imagined o be able o use, change, o oppose code, he ag-
g ega e o hese choices is a consensus-by-design, as demons a ed by unning
code. Bu o cou se, hose who do no code — he as majo i y o in e ne use s —
a e excluded om his echnical “delibe a ion;” he ci cle o hose who a e in he
posi ion o o m consensus is hus limi ed.
While chai ing mee ings and p og amming so wa e p oduces he poli ical agen s
o he chai and p og amme , he e is a hi d kind o ope a o ha eme ges om
he echnoc a ic ool o consensus. Du ing he 1980s when dis ibu ed compu e
sys ems we e being de eloped, compu e scien is s and enginee s an in o he
p oblem o how o ell i a p ocesso was no unc ioning p ope ly. Thei solu ion
was o de ise algo i hms ha would enable each p ocesso o “ag ee” o “disag ee”
wi h one ano he abou “un eliable” p ocesso s. Comple e ag eemen be ween
p ocesso s was known as “unanimi y” while a majo i y ag eemen was conside ed
o e lec “dis ibu ed consensus” (Dole , 1981; Dole , e al., 1987). Leslie Lampo
amously con ibu ed o his e o by de eloping a “consensus algo i hm” (2001), a
solu ion he explained by using he analogy o a pa liamen on an island named
Paxos whe e all laws we e passed ou o “an a mosphe e o mu ual us ” (1989, p.
135). Wi hin his imagined socie y, “ ade came be o e ci ic du y” (Lampo , 1989,
p. 133) and he e o e he go e nmen used a sys em o upda es o p esen and
newly a i ed legisla o ’s “ledge s” wi h he laws ha had been ecen ly passed. In
he la e 2000s, he logic o he algo i hmic analogy was used o he Bi coin ne -
wo k whe e decisions abou which ansac ions we e alid in he con ex o com-
pu e nodes ha we e cons an ly connec ing and disconnec ing om he ne wo k.
To come o a majo i y ag eemen abou which ansac ions a e alid, he whi e pa-
pe desc ibed ha compu e nodes “ o e wi h hei CPU powe , exp essing hei
accep ance o alid blocks by wo king on ex ending hem and ejec ing in alid
blocks by e using o wo k on hem.” This p ocess was hen labelled as Bi coin’s
“consensus mechanism” (Nakamo o, 2008, p. 8). Wi hin he ealm o dis ibu ed
compu ing, he ool had become he poli ical agen dedica ed o decision-making.
As a esul , consensus had no only shi ed om human pa icipa ion o meaning
only compu a ion, bu he e y no ion o democ a ic unde s anding had been
e ased comple ely. All ha ma e ed was ensu ing enough ag eemen o make cal-
cula ed decisions.
Towa ds echniques o unde s anding
In he cou se o his en y, I ha e a elled om consensus meaning a “common
eeling,” o public opinion, ough consensus, unning code, and algo i hmic consen-
7 Jankowski
sus. Each o hese meanings a e associa ed wi h echniques (delibe a ion, polling,
coding, o ing) and hei espec i e poli ical subjec s: he delibe a o s; he poll-
s e s; he code s; and he o e s. The meaning o consensus and he poli ics i en-
ables a e he e o e an e ec o he cul u al echniques used o p oduce i . Wi hin
decen alising in e ne p ojec s, such poli ics ha e been inc easingly limi ed o
c ea ing ools o dis ibu ed decision-making a he han ools o c ea e he con-
di ions o common unde s anding. This poin s owa ds a echnoc a ic annexa ion
o a democ a ic concep , a si ua ion ha should aise conce ns o poli ical heo-
is s and in e ne esea che s dedica ed o c ea ing al e na i e socio echnical sys-
ems. I consensus is o e ain i s poli ical p omise and epis emological po en ial,
c ea ing dis ibu ed o ms o ag eemen is no su icien . I mus no only be com-
plemen ed wi h dissensus as a possible ou come o delibe a ion ( ollowing he in-
sigh o many eminis poli ical heo is s), bu bo h consensus and dissensus mus
be designed in o sys ems wi h he explici goal o cul i a ing unde s anding be-
ween agonis ic g oups. Wi hou such e o s we will me ely ha e all he ools o
make collec i e decisions bu none o unde s and one ano he .
Re e ences
Dahlbe g, L. (2007). Re hinking he agmen a ion o he cybe public: F om consensus o
con es a ion. New Media & Socie y, 9(5), 827–847. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/1461444807081228
Da is, J. L. (2020). How a i ac s a o d: The powe and poli ics o e e yday hings. The MIT P ess. h p
s://doi.o g/10.7551/mi p ess/11967.001.0001
Dewey, J. (1916). Democ acy and educa ion: An in oduc ion o he philosophy o educa ion. Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1946). The public and i s p oblems: An essay in poli ical inqui y. Ga eway Books.
Dole , D. (1981). Unanimi y in an unknown and un eliable en i onmen . 22nd Annual Symposium on
Founda ions o Compu e Science, 159–168. h ps://doi.o g/10.1109/SFCS.1981.53
Dole , D., Dwo k, C., & S ockmeye , L. (1987). On he minimal synch onism needed o dis ibu ed
consensus. Jou nal o he ACM, 34(1), 77–97. h ps://doi.o g/10.1145/7531.7533
Habe mas, J. (2008). Be ween na u alism and eligion: Philosophical essays. Poli y P ess.
Jezie ska, K. (2019). Wi h Habe mas agains Habe mas. Delibe a ion wi hou Consensus. Jou nal o
Delibe a i e Democ acy, 15(1). h ps://doi.o g/10.16997/jdd.326
Kel y, C. (2005). Geeks, social imagina ies, and ecu si e publics. Cul u al An h opology, 20(2),
185–214. h ps://doi.o g/10.1525/can.2005.20.2.185
Lampo , L. (1989). The pa - ime pa liamen . ACM T ansac ions on Compu e Sys ems, 16(2),
133–169. h ps://doi.o g/10.1145/279227.279229
8 In e ne Policy Re iew 13(2) | 2024
