Wikipedia is one of the biggest projects in the internet and one of the most successful web sites in the world. Its articles are written by volunteers, so that the online encyclopedia consists of 100% user generated content (which is an important characteristic of the so called ‘Web 2.0’). Among Wikipedia’s articles are many about politics, parties, and politicians and Wikipedia is an important source of information for many people. This constellation attracts people to the community who intend to place their political beliefs into Wikipedia’s usually neutral articles. Therefore, a large number of Wikipedia’s articles about politics are shaped by conflicts among community members who disagree about political positions. There is much dispute and conflict on the discussion pages of articles and the discussion areas in the background, where the project is organized and community issues are managed. This paper has three aims: (1) The paper presents a theoretical basis for empirical analysis, including theories of public opinion (Habermas, Noelle-Neumann) and communicator research (instrumental actualization, news bias). (2) Methodological issues of a quantitative content analysis of Wikipedia are discussed (including single-edit analysis and discussion analysis). (3) Empirical data on political debates within Wikipedia’s community from a recent research project are presented. The data shows that eluding the principle of neutrality by instrumental editing is a common phenomenon in disputed articles. There is also empirical evidence for highly emotionalized processes of public opinion within the community.
