Is democracy in action at H-Diplo?
H-Diplo’s example of technological democracy in action raises comparisons with a far more well-known tool of the twenty-first century, Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that encourages anyone to insert, revise, and discuss an entry. The democratic process—that is, free access to write, comment, and read on the site—assumed primacy in Wikipedia’s basic structure and content, and it has worked wonders in boosting the number of entries in the English version to over one million since 2001. On a smaller scale, H-Diplo has had a similar impressive rise to that of Wikipedia. According to its managing editor, Diane Labrosse, H-Diplo has a current membership of about 4,000 members, a nearly four-fold increase over the past eight years. The average H-Net list has roughly 600 members, while a typically strong one attracts about 1,000 subscribers. This makes H-Diplo one of the top five largest lists among the 180 on the H-Net system.
Democracy is in action within H-Diplo’s submissions process, too, but in a more controlled way. To be sure, the editors and moderators provide guidelines to ensure civility, regulate the list to prevent redundant messages, and terminate access for those eventually identified as rogue contributors. This has brought charges that H-Diplo stifles the very democratic process that lies at the core of Internet communications. Some readers complain about ideologically driven gate-keeping that represses open inquiry, but it is impossible to verify such complaints with any accuracy, especially as such grievances are common in the academy. My brief survey of H-Diplo members (of which just a handful responded) turned up grumbling across the political spectrum (though more from the Left). In determining content from the top down, the editors also work closely with other scholarly journals (such as Diplomatic History, the journal of record for the field) to present forums on articles, and they have their own excellent list of book review roundtables. But the core of H-Diplo, just like Wikipedia, remains member driven. Subscribers offer topics on whatever suits their fancy. Free expression, however moderated by the editors, is in evidence, but a question arises as to how positive the consequences are....