In the era of digital revolution many contemporary events that changed the world were shaped through the internet. Nowadays, the emergence of internet of things (IoT), combining physical objects with virtual networks is expected to have even more influence. This new 'decentralised' structure in the world raises questions such as power, governance and the notion of democracy online. The aim of this paper is to investigate these notions. We have taken the examples of Bitcoin and Wikipedia and examined their decision-making process. Our analysis has found some inconsistencies in their policies, that are in contradiction with democracy and consensus principles of governance. Starting from our findings, we present further improvements that can be used to achieve more democracy and equity in the digital context.
Decentralised communities increasingly need ways to generate, contest, and maintain shared knowledge without relying on central editorial authorities. Existing collaborative systems such as wikis support large-scale knowledge production, but typically depend on centralised moderation and governance, while blockchain consensus mechanisms are primarily designed for transactional state rather than the validation and revision of shared claims. This paper introduces Pensieve, a framework for decentralised epistemic governance in collaboratively governed knowledge bases. Pensieve combines structured submissions, contribution-weighted support, and stake-backed dispute escalation to govern the publication, revision, and contestation of knowledge entries over time. The paper makes three contributions. First, it presents Pensieve as a framework for decentralised epistemic governance designed specifically for collaboratively governed knowledge bases rather than for transactional ledgers alone. Second, it formalises a contribution-weighted model of item governance and dispute resolution, showing how reputational participation and economic stake may be combined to support knowledge revision that remains both dynamic and increasingly stable over time. Third, it examines the Pensieve instance on ECF.network as an early live implementation context through which the framework is being applied to the collaborative documentation and evaluation of Web3 projects. The case study provides descriptive evidence that the framework can support structured publication, community contribution, dispute handling, and AI-assisted but human-accountable input in practice, while also revealing unresolved challenges around referencing, sustained participation, postpublication revision, and long-term governance design. Pensieve is therefore offered not as a completed solution to decentralised knowledge governance, but as a research framework and live design experiment for coordinating collective knowledge production in human-AI systems.
Generative search engines are reshaping information access by replacing traditional ranked lists with synthesized answers and references. In parallel, with the growth of Web3 platforms, incentive-driven creator ecosystems have become an essential part of how enterprises build visibility and community by rewarding creators for contributing to shared narratives. However, the extent to which exposure in generative search engine citations is shaped by external attention markets remains uncertain. In this study, we audit the exposure for 44 Web3 enterprises. First, we show that the creator community around each enterprise is persistent over time. Second, enterprise-specific queries reveal that more popular voices systematically receive greater citation exposure than others. Third, we find that larger follower bases and enterprises with more concentrated creator cores are associated with higher-ranked exposure. Together, these results show that generative search engine citations exhibit exposure bias toward already prominent voices, which risks entrenching incumbents and narrowing viewpoint diversity.
Abstract Like an online carnival, Web3 aims to turn the internet’s social order upside down. Unlike a carnival, Web3 wants to be more than a weeklong party and morph into a legitimate substitute for the internet’s status quo. Web3’s secret sauce for upheaval is decentralized, permissionless technologies, in particular blockchain technologies. In this exploratory paper, we draw on the concept of institutional isomorphism to muse about Web3’s future and to highlight the inherent tension between striving to be different from Web2 yet wanting to become more legitimate. We argue that technical merits are hardly enough to realize Web3’s high aspirations. Regulatory pressures, rampant uncertainty, and the professional norms of Web3 participants drive the space to adopt many of the organizational structures and practices that it aims to displace. To maintain divergence from Web2, despite isomorphic pressures, we suggest that it is important to increase the overall diversity of people in Web3, to double down on the value of decentralization, and to reaffirm Web3’s commitment to creatively re-imagine various institutional arrangements.
[概要]NFT（Non-Fungible Token：非代替性トークン）は模倣困難性，トレーサビリティ，所有権の証明によってデジタル資産の流通を保証し，デジタル・エコシステムが持ついくつかの特性を刷新しつつある。本稿では，文献レビューを通じて近年急成長を遂げているNFTの視点からユーザー・コミュニティとUGC（User Generated Content）を再考し，こうした技術的変化が今後のオンライン創造活動のマネジメントに与えうる様々な影響を検討する。 [Abstract] Non-Fungible Token (NFT) guarantees the circulation of digital assets through imitation resistance, traceability and proof of ownership, and is also renewing some of the characteristics of digital ecosystems. Through a literature review, this paper reconsiders user communities and UGC (User Generated Content) from the perspective of NFTs, which have been growing rapidly in recent years, and examines the various impacts that these technological changes may have on the management of online creative activities in the future.
This paper presents a social-media data analysis tool to support investors making their decision on play-to-earn projects. The tool was developed in a web application by featuring (1) the common data about the game project and (2) its trend on Twitter by using NLP AI to analyze the tweets and visualize the results in graph presentation. The use scenarios are also presented by how to find answers by using the proposed analysis tool.
Piotr Stolarski, Włodzimierz Lewoniewski, Witold Abramowicz
In this research we presented different approaches to investigate the possible relationships between the largest crowd-based knowledge source and the market potential of particular cryptocurrencies. Identification of such relations is crucial because their existence may be used to create a broad spectrum of analyses and reports about cryptocurrency projects and to obtain a comprehensive outlook of the blockchain domain. The activities on the blockchain reach different levels of anonymity which renders them hard objects of studies. In particular, the standard tools used to characterize social trends and variables that describe cryptocurrencies’ situations are unsuitable to be used in the environment that extensively employs cryptographic techniques to hide real users. The employment of Wikipedia to trace crypto assets value need examination because the portal allows gathering of different opinions—content of the articles is edited by a group of people. Consequently, the information can be more attractive and useful for the readers than in case of non-collaborative sources of information. Wikipedia Articles often appears in the premium position of such search engines as Google, Bing, Yahoo and others. One may expect different demand on information about particular cryptocurrency depending on the different events (e.g., sharp fluctuations of price). Wikipedia offers only information about cryptocurrencies that are important from the point of view of language community of the users in Wikipedia. This “filter” helps to better identify those cryptocurrencies that have a significant influence on the regional markets. The models encompass linkages between different variables and properties. In one model cryptocurrency projects are ranked with the means of articles sentiment and quality. In another model, Wikipedia visits are linked to cryptocurrencies’ popularity. Additionally, the interactions between information demand in different Wikipedia language versions are elaborated. They are used to assess the geographical esteem of certain crypto coins. The information about the legal status of cryptocurrency technologies in different states that are offered by Wikipedia is used in another proposed model. It allows assessment of the adoption of cryptocurrencies in a given legislature. Finally, a model is developed that joins Wikipedia articles editions and deletions with the social sentiment towards particular cryptocurrency projects. The mentioned analytical purposes that permit assessment of the popularity of blockchain technologies in different local communities are not the only results of the paper. The models can show which country has the biggest demand on particular cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple, Bitcoin Cash, Monero, Litecoin, Dogecoin and others.
In the era of digital revolution many contemporary events that changed the world were shaped through the internet. Nowadays, the emergence of internet of things (IoT), combining physical objects with virtual networks is expected to have even more influence. This new 'decentralised' structure in the world raises questions such as power, governance and the notion of democracy online. The aim of this paper is to investigate these notions. We have taken the examples of Bitcoin and Wikipedia and examined their decision-making process. Our analysis has found some inconsistencies in their policies, that are in contradiction with democracy and consensus principles of governance. Starting from our findings, we present further improvements that can be used to achieve more democracy and equity in the digital context.
Abeer ElBahrawy, Laura Alessandretti, Andrea Baronchelli
The production and consumption of information about Bitcoin and other digital-, or crypto- , currencies have grown together with their market capitalization. However, a systematic investigation of the relationship between online attention and market dynamics across multiple digital currencies is still lacking. Here, we quantify the interplay between the attention towards digital currencies in Wikipedia and their market performance. We consider the entire edit history of currency-related pages and their view history from July 2015. First, we quantify the evolution of the cryptocurrency presence in Wikipedia by analyzing the editorial activity and the network of co-edited pages. We find that a small community of tightly connected editors is responsible for most of the production of information about cryptocurrencies in Wikipedia. Then, we show that a simple trading strategy informed by Wikipedia views performs better than baseline strategies, in terms of returns on investment, for most of the covered period although the ‘buy and hold strategy’ dominates during the periods of explosive market expansion. Our results contribute to the recent literature on the interplay between online information and investment markets, and we anticipate it will be of interest for researchers as well as investors.
The 2008 debut of Bitcoin marked the first large-scale implementation of blockchain technology, and its decentralized approach to monetary systems has since been abstracted to more generalized purposes like distributed computing. Platforms like Ethereum, which function as a global, decentralized computing and data storage system, promise to bring the cost of decentralized knowledge production in line with the efficiencies afforded by the centralized, integrated computing systems that currently dominate the knowledge economy. Blockchain technologies have been investigated for a wide range of information management purposes, but their exploration within the realm of library and information studies has largely been nascent. Though many applications within the field have been envisioned, few have been explored in depth. Among the many functions performed in the field of librarianship, the work of cataloguers—which has always been performed in a decentralized manner—represents an intriguing use case. A review of current shared-cataloguing practices reveals that catalogues have become largely-centralized, divorced from public participation, dominated by an ethos of efficiency at the cost of quality, and essentially unaltered since the shift from physical to electronic catalogue storage more than 40 years ago. The evolution of blockchain technologies, paired with an intentional approach to shared catalogues that is open for use, transparency, and public participation, is explored in a conceptual framework and design based on the Ethereum platform. A theoretical design scheme grounded in the affordances of Ethereum, shaped by the principles of open source software development, and guided by the best practices of existing social information production systems results in a proposal for Catagora: an open source, open-for-use, transparent and participatory shared-cataloguing platform that reverses the trend towards architectural and political centralization and promises novel catalogue features such as complete revision history and distributed collaboration on the content and quality of catalogue entries. Blockchain technology, alone, cannot disrupt shared cataloguing practices; such a shift involves the voluntary and eager participation of cataloguers and members of the public in order to sustain and grow the system. The Catagora design concept presented in this thesis incorporates accessibility, collaboration and reputational systems that are intended to foster open participation, but these alone cannot guarantee a thriving, shared-cataloguing alternative to existing systems. Further exploration, in the form of a live implementation, is warranted; and lessons from existing large-scale library technology projects suggest that a centrally-coordinated implementation, targeting key cataloguing partners and driven by a passionate project champion, may provide a more complete picture of the blockchain’s potential to support open, shared cataloguing for the benefit of information seekers.
Muhammad Syafiq Mohd Pozi, Gopinath Muruti, Asmidar Abu Bakar, Adam Jatowt · 5 authors
Authorship contribution is often taken for granted. Internally, the contribution rate is usually known among all the authors of a given paper. However, this rate is hard to be verified by external parties, as the measurement of the authors' contribution is still not common and the way to measure it is unclear. In this paper, we propose a new blockchain based framework to assess the contribution of all authors of any scientific paper. Our framework can be implemented by anyone who is directly or indirectly involved in the publication of the paper, such as a principal researcher, grant funder, research assistant or anyone from relevant external bodies.
Working life requires employees to continuously update their competences, making lifelong learning an important but challenging part of professional development. This study aims to look for solutions to uncover the tacit and implicit knowledge within the enterprise by the means of social media. Our interest is specially focused on challenges on informal learning and refining and sharing of the tacit knowledge among these expert companies. We have so far collected data from two enterprises about their current knowledge sharing habits and procedures and found out the pitfalls they have experienced in their working culture concerning finding and sharing knowledge. The main challenges (apart from lack of time, which is quite obvious result today) are defects in storing information in a way that enables its easy rediscovery and the huge amount of information from which to filter the relevant pieces of knowledge. Particularly the centralized experts in an insurance company find the lack of regular vertical interaction between the decentralized claim handlers a drawback. There exists a lot of overlapping effort as they need to tell the same issues many times to various claim handlers. Taking these challenges into account new working models will be put into practice utilizing collaborative tools, like wikis and chat forums.
Open source software development (OSSD) is a community-oriented, network-centric approach to building complex software systems. OSSD projects are typically organized as virtual enterprises that lack an explicit managerial regime to control and coordinate decentralized project work. However, a growing number of OSSD projects are developing, delivering, and supporting large-scale software systems that are displacing proprietary software alternatives. Recent empirical studies of OSSD projects reveal that OSS developers often self-organize into organizational forms we characterize as evolving socio-technical interaction networks (STINs). These STINs emerge in ways that effectively control semi-autonomous OSS developers and coordinate project activities to produce reliable and adaptive software systems. In this paper, we examine how practices and processes enable and govern decentralized organizations like OSSD projects when coalesced and configured as contingent, socio-technical interaction networks. In so doing, we draw on results from two ongoing case studies of leadership and governance activities and elements in a small and a large OSSD project.
Online Creation Communities (OCCs) can be defined as networks of
individuals that communicate, interact and collaborate; in several forms and degrees of
participation which are eco-systemically integrated; mainly via a platform of participation
on the Internet, on which they depend; and aiming at knowledge-making and sharing. This
article analyses the conception of participation and the organizational logic of participation
in OCCs. Participation in OCCs does not follow a dichotomize approach, but function more
as an eco-system. The more significant characteristic of participation in OCCs are: 1) What
is important is that the system is open to participation, but it is not expected that everybody
participate and contribute equally; 2) Participation has multiple forms and degrees which are
integrated. A critical mass of active developers is essential to initiate the project and maintain
the content; weak cooperation enriches the system and facilitates reaching larger fields of
information resources; and lurker or non-participants provide value as audience or though
unintended participation that improve the system; 3) Participation is decentralized and
asynchronous; 4) Participation is in public; 5) Participation is autonomous in the sense that
each person decides which level of commitment they want to adopt and on what aspects they
want to contribute. 6) Participation is not only deliberation but implementation. To conclude,
an analysis of the governance conditions under which the resulting outcome could be defined
as a digital commons is included. Furthermore, a reflection on the political implications of
CCOs is also provided. The analysis is developed over the case studies of a platform provided
by the European Social Forum, Flickr, Wikihow and Wikipedia. The main empirical methods
are interviews, virtual ethnography and content analysis.
Although I'm a rich white guy, I'm also a feminist anti-racism activist who fights for the rights of the poor and oppressed. (Carl Kenner)Systemic bias is a scourge to the pillar of neutrality. (Cerejota)Count me in. Let's leave the bias to the mainstream media. (Orcar967)Because this is so important. (CuttingEdge)These are a handful of comments posted by online editors who have banded together in a virtual coalition to combat Western bias on the world’s largest digital encyclopedia, Wikipedia. This collective action by Wikipedians both acknowledges the inherent inequalities of a user-controlled information project like Wikpedia and highlights the potential for progressive change within that same project. These community members are taking the responsibility of social change into their own hands (or more aptly, their own keyboards).In recent years much research has emerged on Wikipedia from varying fields, ranging from computer science, to business and information systems, to the social sciences. While critical at times of Wikipedia’s growth, governance, and influence, most of this work observes with optimism that barriers to improvement are not firmly structural, but rather they are socially constructed, leaving open the possibility of important and lasting change for the better.WikiProject: Countering Systemic Bias (WP:CSB) considers one such collective effort. Close to 350 editors have signed on to the project, which began in 2004 and itself emerged from a similar project named CROSSBOW, or the “Committee Regarding Overcoming Serious Systemic Bias on Wikipedia.” As a WikiProject, the term used for a loose group of editors who collaborate around a particular topic, these editors work within the Wikipedia site and collectively create a social network that is unified around one central aim—representing the un- and underrepresented—and yet they are bound by no particular unified set of interests. The first stage of a multi-method study, this paper looks at a snapshot of WP:CSB’s activity from both content analysis and social network perspectives to discover “who” geographically this coalition of the unrepresented is inserting into the digital annals of Wikipedia.Wikipedia and WikipediansDeveloped in 2001 by Internet entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and academic Larry Sanger, Wikipedia is an online collaborative encyclopedia hosting articles in nearly 250 languages (Cohen). The English-language Wikipedia contains over 3.2 million articles, each of which is created, edited, and updated solely by users (Wikipedia “Welcome”). At the time of this study, Alexa, a website tracking organisation, ranked Wikipedia as the 6th most accessed site on the Internet. Unlike the five sites ahead of it though—Google, Facebook, Yahoo, YouTube (owned by Google), and live.com (owned by Microsoft)—all of which are multibillion-dollar businesses that deal more with information aggregation than information production, Wikipedia is a non-profit that operates on less than $500,000 a year and staffs only a dozen paid employees (Lih). Wikipedia is financed and supported by the WikiMedia Foundation, a charitable umbrella organisation with an annual budget of $4.6 million, mainly funded by donations (Middleton).Wikipedia editors and contributors have the option of creating a user profile and participating via a username, or they may participate anonymously, with only an IP address representing their actions. Despite the option for total anonymity, many Wikipedians have chosen to visibly engage in this online community (Ayers, Matthews, and Yates; Bruns; Lih), and researchers across disciplines are studying the motivations of these new online collectives (Kane, Majchrzak, Johnson, and Chenisern; Oreg and Nov). The motivations of open source software contributors, such as UNIX programmers and programming groups, have been shown to be complex and tied to both extrinsic and intrinsic rewards, including online reputation, self-satisfaction and enjoyment, and obligation to a greater common good (Hertel, Niedner, and Herrmann; Osterloh and Rota). Investigation into why Wikipedians edit has indicated multiple motivations as well, with community engagement, task enjoyment, and information sharing among the most significant (Schroer and Hertel). Additionally, Wikipedians seem to be taking up the cause of generativity (a concern for the ongoing health and openness of the Internet’s infrastructures) that Jonathan Zittrain notably called for in The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It. Governance and ControlAlthough the technical infrastructure of Wikipedia is built to support and perhaps encourage an equal distribution of power on the site, Wikipedia is not a land of “anything goes.” The popular press has covered recent efforts by the site to reduce vandalism through a layer of editorial review (Cohen), a tightening of control cited as a possible reason for the recent dip in the number of active editors (Edwards). A number of regulations are already in place that prevent the open editing of certain articles and pages, such as the site’s disclaimers and pages that have suffered large amounts of vandalism. Editing wars can also cause temporary restrictions to editing, and Ayers, Matthews, and Yates point out that these wars can happen anywhere, even to Burt Reynold’s page.Academic studies have begun to explore the governance and control that has developed in the Wikipedia community, generally highlighting how order is maintained not through particular actors, but through established procedures and norms. Konieczny tested whether Wikipedia’s evolution can be defined by Michels’ Iron Law of Oligopoly, which predicts that the everyday operations of any organisation cannot be run by a mass of members, and ultimately control falls into the hands of the few. Through exploring a particular WikiProject on information validation, he concludes:There are few indicators of an oligarchy having power on Wikipedia, and few trends of a change in this situation. The high level of empowerment of individual Wikipedia editors with regard to policy making, the ease of communication, and the high dedication to ideals of contributors succeed in making Wikipedia an atypical organization, quite resilient to the Iron Law. (189)Butler, Joyce, and Pike support this assertion, though they emphasise that instead of oligarchy, control becomes encapsulated in a wide variety of structures, policies, and procedures that guide involvement with the site. A virtual “bureaucracy” emerges, but one that should not be viewed with the negative connotation often associated with the term.Other work considers control on Wikipedia through the framework of commons governance, where “peer production depends on individual action that is self-selected and decentralized rather than hierarchically assigned. Individuals make their own choices with regard to resources managed as a commons” (Viegas, Wattenberg and McKeon). The need for quality standards and quality control largely dictate this commons governance, though interviewing Wikipedians with various levels of responsibility revealed that policies and procedures are only as good as those who maintain them. Forte, Larco, and Bruckman argue “the Wikipedia community has remained healthy in large part due to the continued presence of ‘old-timers’ who carry a set of social norms and organizational ideals with them into every WikiProject, committee, and local process in which they take part” (71). Thus governance on Wikipedia is a strong representation of a democratic ideal, where actors and policies are closely tied in their evolution. Transparency, Content, and BiasThe issue of transparency has proved to be a double-edged sword for Wikipedia and Wikipedians. The goal of a collective body of knowledge created by all—the “expert” and the “amateur”—can only be upheld if equal access to page creation and development is allotted to everyone, including those who prefer anonymity. And yet this very option for anonymity, or even worse, false identities, has been a sore subject for some in the Wikipedia community as well as a source of concern for some scholars (Santana and Wood). The case of a 24-year old college dropout who represented himself as a multiple Ph.D.-holding theology scholar and edited over 16,000 articles brought these issues into the public spotlight in 2007 (Doran; Elsworth). Wikipedia itself has set up standards for content that include expectations of a neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and the publishing of no original research, but Santana and Wood argue that self-policing of these policies is not adequate:The principle of managerial discretion requires that every actor act from a sense of duty to exercise moral autonomy and choice in responsible ways. When Wikipedia’s editors and administrators remain anonymous, this criterion is simply not met. It is assumed that everyone is behaving responsibly within the Wikipedia system, but there are no monitoring or control mechanisms to make sure that this is so, and there is ample evidence that it is not so. (141) At the theoretical level, some downplay these concerns of transparency and autonomy as logistical issues in lieu of the potential for information systems to support rational discourse and emancipatory forms of communication (Hansen, Berente, and Lyytinen), but others worry that the questionable “realities” created on Wikipedia will become truths once circulated to all areas of the Web (Langlois and Elmer). With the number of articles on the English-language version of Wikipedia reaching well into the millions, the task of mapping and assessing content has become a tremendous endeavour, one mostly taken on by information systems experts. Kittur, Chi, and Suh have used Wikipedia’s existing hierarchical categorisation structure to map change in the site’s content over the past few years. Their work revealed that in early 2008 “Culture and the arts” was the most domin
This chapter contributes to the sociological understanding of open source software (OSS) production by identifying the social mechanism that creates social order in OSS communities. OSS communities are identified as production communities whose mode of production employs autonomous decentralized decision making on contributions and autonomous production of contributions while maintaining the necessary order by adjustment to the common subject matter of work. Thus, OSS communities belong to the same type of collective production system as scientific communities. Both consist of members who not only work on a common product, but are also aware of this collective work and adjust their actions accordingly. Membership is based on the self-perception of working with the community’s subject matter (software or respectively scientific knowledge). The major differences between the two are due to the different subject matters of work. Production communities are compared to the previously known collective production systems, namely, markets, organizations, and networks. They have a competitive advantage in the production under complete uncertainty, that is, when neither the nature of a problem, nor the way in which it can be solved, nor the skills required for its solution are known in advance.Request access from your librarian to read this chapter's full text.
B. Balamurugan, T. Poongodi, M. R. Manu, S. Karthikeyan · 5 authors
The moving image archive of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) includes a copy of the film The Double Day (1975), cataloged in the series Moving Images Relating to International Development Programs and Activities, 1979–1991, a collection of more than eight hundred titles “created to provide information on assistance programs supported by the Agency for International Development (AID).”1 Yet, The Double Day does not, in fact, directly depict or engage with any specific development or aid initiative. Instead, the film—directed by US-based Brazilian filmmaker Helena Solberg as part of the International Women’s Film Project collective and described as “the first Latin American feminist documentary”—examines the gendered dynamics of paid and unpaid labor through the testimonies of women from Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela, and Mexico.2 Its presence in the USAID archive is likely a consequence of its funding history, having received support from the Inter-American Foundation, a USAID-affiliated entity; the development agencies of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden; the United Nations Development Program; and US philanthropist Calvin Cafritz.3These transnational funding structures not only enabled the film’s production but also determined its archival destination, which renders legible its place within the history of international development.4 The Double Day’s institutional trajectory reflects the shifting configurations of aid, gender, and media during a historic moment when women were being repositioned at the center of what Arturo Escobar has described as development’s “regimes of visuality.”5 Especially relevant to The Double Day’s production and exhibition was the international institutional framework of Women in Development (WID). Emerging in the early 1970s and culminating in United Nations’ proclamation of 1975 as International Women’s Year, WID emphasized women’s participation in the global economy as both an index and mechanism of development. Indeed, The Double Day premiered at the World Conference of the International Women’s Year, held in Mexico City.6 Within this context, the film forms part of a broader trajectory of media use by international organizations that intensified during the 1970s—as best exemplified by Media Habitat, a collection of 236 documentary films commissioned by the United Nations to represent urban and rural development initiatives for the 1976 Habitat Conference on Human Settlements in Vancouver. As a policy-shaping initiative, Media Habitat primarily featured films from the Global South intended not only to illustrate but also to help codify standardized audiovisual markers of “underdevelopment” that determined access to the emerging global economic order and to international aid.7Framed in relation to these international institutions and their operations, The Double Day could similarly be considered “development media”—exemplifying the type of nonfiction media produced and distributed outside of the commercial film circuits whose aspects and subcategories have been variously described in scholarship as nontheatrical, useful, sponsored, institutional, industrial, educational, or nonprofessional/amateur.8 Scholars working in this area have emphasized the institutional contexts of such media’s production and exhibition infrastructures as shaping its instrumentalized effects. From a feminist perspective, such an approach is crucial to grappling with the broader question of how “gender impacts [these works’] shape, content, and trajectories.”9 Yet we also argue that, taken in isolation, the institutional and infrastructural contexts are insufficient to account for the complex relationship between media and development, potentially not only limiting our understanding of the reach and impact of development but also distorting our interpretive conclusions. For example, to categorize The Double Day as “development media” is to overlook the film’s place within Solberg’s directorial oeuvre, as well as within the histories of both transnational women’s filmmaking and radical Latin American documentary cinema to which it simultaneously belongs. Such exclusive framing is especially limiting given that women globally were disproportionately engaged in nonfiction production throughout the twentieth century—sometimes by political choice but more often due to structural exclusions from fiction filmmaking. Even in nonfiction historiography, however, institutional media has remained particularly marginal, reinforcing hierarchies that separate such works from the aesthetic and authorial frameworks through which film history has been constructed.10 This marginalization not only tends to erase women’s contributions but also presumes a “weak” or derivative authorship, rendering these films unworthy of the interpretive attention needed to apprehend their aesthetic and political complexity.11 The same dynamic is likely to structure assumptions about “development media” as well.Categorizing The Double Day exclusively within this category would further prompt us to assume top-down institutional analyses that have been characteristic of both institutional media methodologies and the scholarship on development at large. This, in turn, would risk obscuring this film’s radical Marxist approach to women’s labor as well as its concrete contribution to activism and its attendant grassroot structures. In Mexico City, The Double Day became a catalyst for feminist solidarity in practice when one of the film’s protagonists, Bolivian activist and trade unionist Domitila Barrios de Chungara, was invited to participate in the Tribune of Non-Governmental Organizations held alongside the official UN conference.12 There, Barrios de Chungara challenged Western feminist priorities by reframing the debate around labor, class, and imperialism, helping to articulate a shared Third World feminist agenda that significantly departed from the developmentalist vision of the United Nations and USAID.13 Seen through the lens of activist media, The Double Day helped forge transnational solidarity networks by enabling information exchange across the diverse voices that shaped its making—from the women featured in the film to the activists who circulated it—revealing a considerably more dynamic interplay between institutional and grassroots or contingent media practices.Moreover, the film’s Latin American context—reflected in Solberg’s formation in Brazil as the only woman in Cinema Novo, its focus on women from across the region, and its premiere and key reception in Mexico City—requires grappling with the regional specificities of the very notion of development in its multiple iterations.14 Far from being an epistemological and political framework imposed solely by the Global North, both the practices of development and the theoretical foundations of developmentalism (understood as a broad and polysemic set of discourses) were shaped through the active participation of Latin American economists.15 Within this iteration, underdevelopment, as a constitutive notion of developmentalism, became central to a distinctly critical strand, which by the late 1960s became known as the dependency theory.16 This same approach is reflected in some of the best-known Latin American radical film manifestos of the time, arising precisely from the same milieus to which Solberg belonged.17These various considerations of the film’s history illustrate the methodological challenges confronting feminist scholars seeking to assess the impact of development on media projects, theories, and practices. To disregard the developmentalist context of such works by emphasizing their political aesthetics and affects risks reproducing a romanticized narrative of heroic resistance (albeit from a feminist perspective). Yet to engage exclusively with their institutional and material infrastructures risks naturalizing developmentalism’s political and epistemological foundations at the expense of the goals and beliefs of the many women who participated in these projects. The contradictions and ambivalences that animate such histories call for feminist frameworks capable of holding both institutional complicity and radical possibility in view.This challenge resonates with ongoing debates about the politics of the archive and what Allyson Field has termed “the practice of informed speculation.”18 As she reminds us, feminist, queer, and decolonial methodologies have long taught us to “press at the limits” of the archive to “inoculate our scholarship against our evidence’s afflictions.”19 The concern that the evidence we draw on in our analysis reproduces the very structures and blind spots of the dominant ideology and therefore shapes and delimits our interpretation becomes particularly urgent when engaging the developmentalist media corpus. Informed speculation offers an alternative by inviting the experimental, creative, and speculative rewriting of history, mobilizing the archive “in a project that runs counter to the original purpose, or the imperative to preserve, or the conditions that led to erasure.”20 Yet, as Field cautions, such speculative gestures must remain grounded in a deep and “intimate familiarity with the archive” that we are working with and against. Building on this imperative, we suggest that the developmentalist archive, in particular, demands expansion and critical reconsideration in ways that unsettle the very disciplinary frameworks through which it has been studied as well as the larger institutional contexts for such knowledge production.Our focus on The Double Day in the opening of this introduction thus foregrounds the entanglements of institutional and grassroots forces, local and international contexts, structural and interpersonal relations, and creative and economic factors that have shaped not only this film but the broader ecosystem of development media projects—and their preservation—over time. Addressing such a constellation involves transgressing methodologically entrenched divisions between political economy and aesthetics, between material infrastructures and affective regimes; reckoning with divergent periodizations across film history and world economics; and situating these within the local specificities of women’s movements and international institutional programs. It also demands attentiveness to the coexistence of multiple, and sometimes competing, understandings of development—each historically, geographically, and ideologically situated.We imagine this special issue as an opening toward a critical dialogue, not only about how such an approach might be enacted in practice but also about the far-reaching ways development paradigms have shaped both our objects of study and the contours of the field itself. The decision to center institutionally sponsored films across all the essays in this issue is deliberate and enables us to highlight institutional critique as a vital methodological imperative within our analytical framework. Created within the frameworks of international organizations, state agencies, or NGOs, these films’ histories make legible the institutional logics that underwrite their production. Yet our critique does not stop at these specific entities. Rather, we argue for a broader interrogation of the political conditions and institutional infrastructures that shape media and knowledge production more generally. This includes contemporary corporations embedded in the digital platform economy, from streaming services to the rapid expansion of AI. Equally critical is a reflexive examination of academia itself, where departments of economics, political science, and centers for development have played a formative role in producing and legitimizing developmentalist theories and policy frameworks. While the humanities and arts have at times offered critical alternatives, they have also frequently mirrored and reinforced many of the same developmentalist assumptions. A feminist analysis of the nexus between development and media must therefore unsettle not only dominant archives but also the institutional and disciplinary foundations of our own scholarly practices.As scholars, we share the complex position of navigating the same tensions between institutional complicity and emancipatory aspiration as many of the media-makers whose work we study. Mirroring our subjects is also the transnational, collective mode of this special issue’s own production as it emerges from an ongoing informal working group we have sustained over several years. While relying on institutional and disciplinary affordances—such as university funding for conferences or access to academic publishing platforms—we have been working toward creating a community that exceeds, and often resists, the prevailing logics of our academic institutions. Our aim has been to create a space for shared inquiry and mutual support that pushes back against disciplinary siloing and technocratic neoliberal assessment modes of both labor and knowledge production—and this certainly extends to our experience collaborating with the journal editors throughout the publication process. Our goal has been to examine both the persistence and variability of developmentalism, understood as what Gustavo Esteva calls a “powerful but fragile semantic constellation,” as a conceptual formation that has historically inspired, legitimized, and mobilized media projects across Asia, Africa, and Latin America.21 And gendered biopolitics, from population control to gender mainstreaming, have remained integral to development policies and media practices, recurring across formats from institutional newsreels to film festivals.We share the conviction that, far beyond the history of nonfiction institutional media, development (as both a broad ideological project and a network of material and institutional practices) and developmentalism (as a set of discourses and theoretical models associated with development) have exerted a far-reaching influence on film and media cultures at large. As such, they must be treated as a major force in shaping global film and media systems and also the many ongoing assumptions behind their critical discourses. The discipline of communication studies was founded on modernization theory governed by Cold War goals of dissemination of Western liberal democracy around the world, while “an area studies framework allowed compartmentalizing Western and non-Western outcomes of technologies that were always claimed to be universal.”22 Despite critique from postcolonial and critical race studies, many of these frameworks have remained foundational for media theory.23 In historical scholarship, as we increasingly move beyond “modernity” as a dominant conceptual anchor, engaging with practices and discourses of development opens more precise analytical pathways. These film and media’s entanglements with the logics of and economic and the associated with as well as their conceptual underdevelopment, and impact in as diverse as and of media aesthetic and paradigms in film and film and funding are developmentalist assumptions to the they to underwrite the narrative and logics of and global media from the structure of the film to the cultures of argue that a examination of the historical entanglements between film and developmentalist aesthetics, modes of as well as infrastructures and critical the and that our contemporary media is a of the historical contours of development as a field of inquiry embedded within a of some of the methodologies by the featured in this special a of this complex history, to the larger at in media, development, and gender all its development a it as an of be with practices as divergent as and in In as we work on this the of the of the USAID the ideological that have the history of international the and of this on the global its a from development as a global practice and as an institutional and which over the has as a with its own media Yet or does not erase the historical impact of these the contradictions they have reflected and over the as the of development several crucial to the economic theories of development initiatives to and through the of the development an international policy framework at from the Global to the of the Global the by the political role of and the of the International the on was challenged by dependency theory and at development as global structural the neoliberal of the the Programs by the and World imposed and as conditions for and forms of assistance became known as the major markers for international development development has moving beyond economic to such as the Human Development and the Development and from international organizations such as the United Nations to a broader network of These frameworks increasingly of and liberal of and with what in many ways to various while the of the to development’s epistemological more scholarship has toward a of its and material the field has to a of and critical by and scholars, which development as a dynamic of conceptual and political to these the studies in this special issue call for sustained analysis in place of In we draw from a of and that in of of gender and to this special issue engage that and from Mexico to contemporary specific local historical of global distinctly feminist methodologies as well as attention to studies that this issue a in the global history of development on and documentary work in Mexico how early women infrastructures as of while US films an early of state and transnational on a outside the Global as the of developmentalist both the and markers of development media, its to the and Latin central grounded in archival also women’s in transnational and the methodological of archives on study of the series to a a digital media not by but by women not as but as subjects and within circuits of neoliberal and the aesthetics and of how development’s has models of to contemporary neoliberal paradigms of and analysis how digital and gender and practices, discourses on and their of these essays the of some of the historical of developmentalist as the question of the role of the state within such on a notion of economic as a and the dominant of development that the state as the for and through infrastructural projects. This understanding of development was shared across both of the as well as in the Third The United and the increasingly mobilized international in the of the modes of international at the postcolonial of policy and ideological These programs were at the expansion of their and of while with the and decolonial of The conceptual between modernization and development that the Cold in of and hierarchies of that long and As an of postcolonial their role as of international aid concern about the of Western development projects. In alternative across the Global South that to structural between and through policies of and In many they were further the global structures. In Latin for example, this approach was through organizations such as the United Nations for Latin and the both developmentalist projects and their have taken many forms historically, and they have and they have been to a of projects, and postcolonial and development has been and in ways and with frequently political While many of these alternative frameworks the embedded in dominant Western they often technocratic and assumptions. gender and gender as for the of to be shaped by This becomes particularly in the media that of development where women frequently a crucial associated with and women were as both the subjects and of their participation in the and labor often as the index of In this study of from the 1970s how women were as of this as these about women’s urban and recurring and of a within the own of and critique that official examination of archives and enables a feminist interrogation of their mobilizing a of the in the of contribution to this issue similarly the of a dynamic within as well as across ideological the of women’s and the media of the and as active in labor and as integral to the technocratic women became of as their labor remained a of and analysis and archival with attention to the specific of and It also transnational that as a and affective a nexus of and practices through which gender, media, and developmentalism one film not as a but as part of the of alongside and work a broader concern of this special media as a of developmentalist projects. The debates the World and which international such as the United Nations and a critical historical for such primarily by postcolonial and of the for the of media and communication infrastructures in as to counter Western The a between and economic how systems of media and reinforced global hierarchies of and in an agenda that supported and alternative media infrastructures across postcolonial contexts, the framework gender as an analytical This “gender in the 1970s by of the Women in Development in relation to The Double its political critique of with its broader to center women in development policy through and This was also in of media, which was shaped by its international reach and audiovisual production and and and Yet, as WID institutional it also to the and of the women’s development programs often by in These were by a of studies, and on and the to of women’s presence and through the of their economic and In this on the filmmaker this history directly by the and of for women by the WID framework during the with and agencies the of and against Women in at the of the neoliberal turn, when institutional media often the only to access and support to projects. The an by this dynamic as of the from the Global South are to engage with the developmentalist assumptions funding models that their similarly the as a in developmentalist media history by the of and centers on the Film a between of and the attention toward the and labor by and work was foundational the of and the of audiovisual aid, as both a of development projects and a critical for their the in this issue argue for a with media, gender, and developmentalism as an field of that is and shaped by feminist and methodologies and that challenge the entanglements between academic knowledge production and and technocratic development And while methodological these dynamics at the structural the of feminist in media and cinema by this the very a