Jump to content

Engaging Platforms in Open Scholarship/The Rise of Platforms

Add links
From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
All around us, it seems that a nebulous series of entities called ‘platforms’ are increasingly shaping our world. . . Yet what are these entities, and what sorts of commonalities do they share? (Srnicek 2017, para. 1)

Since the advent of operating systems in the mid-1980s, computers and their operations have ostensibly become more user-friendly and, at the same time, even more difficult to understand because the internal workings of digital devices are often concealed or hidden from view (Apperley and Parikka 2018; Berry 2011; Broussard 2019; Grech 2001). Many scholars agree that this concealment can serve a practical function. For instance, an average user often isn’t required to have a precise—or even basic—understanding of how a digital device or object works in order to engage with and benefit from it (Burgess 2021; Gillespie 2015; Van Dijck 2013). However, left unopened or unexamined, these technological black boxes can obscure broader thorny questions about digital cultures, labour, data collection, privacy, and everyday life (Burgess 2021). For instance, Prescott (2023) joins other scholars in sharing concern regarding the propensity of technological black boxes to “amplify and reinforce existing injustices and inequalities” if left intact (para 20). Alongside the ubiquitous rise of computers and digital devices, platforms—broadly understood as digital systems that connect users, facilitate content exchange, and enable various forms of interaction—have become so deeply integrated into everyday use that they too can almost seem invisible, becoming noticeable only when they fail, stutter, or break down. This suggests that platforms are much more than a neutral collection of technical tools or systems; they play an active role in responding to and shaping the knowledge creation and sharing ecosystem.

This research scan, with its list of annotated resources, is intended to support researchers, community members, educators, students, and anyone with an interest in the broad topic of platforms and open scholarship in their efforts to think more about the implications platforms may have for open scholarly publishing. It begins with an unofficial and very abbreviated history of the rise of platforms that involves a change to the internet’s acceptable usage policy and the first ever sale on the internet of a broken laser pointer. From there, it tracks some of the terminological drift that readers are likely to encounter when encountering the usage of platforms, and presents some guidance that others may wish to draw on when building their own definitions. Finally, it presents the organization of the annotated bibliography, including an overview of each section and some tips to maximize its use.

An Unofficial and Very Abbreviated History of the Rise of Platforms

[edit | edit source]

In a way, the platforms of today began in September 1995 with the sale of a broken laser pointer on eBay (Ryan 2010). Several things needed to align for this sale to take place. First, the National Science Foundation needed to amend its NSFNET Acceptable Usage Policy to allow commercial and private traffic, which it did in March 1991 (Grech 2001; Ryan 2010; National Science Foundation 2000; 2003). Second, the World Wide Web, along with its HTML, HTTP, and URLs, needed to come into existence—which they did, thanks to a computer scientist at CERN (Berners-Lee 1991), who also launched the world’s first website just a few months after the NSF amended their policy (CERN 2024; Fischels 2021). Third, thanks to the work of Nicola Pellow and many others, the average person could not only access the internet—they could also use it (National Science and Media Museum (UK) 2020). Next came the expansion of the World Wide Web, which started with just a single website in 1991 (Berners-Lee 1991). By the end of 1992, this number increased to 10 and, when the broken laser pointer was sold in 1995, there were around 23,500 websites online (Armstrong 2021).[1]

The World Wide Web started out as a single, shared space where company websites created by professional webmasters competed with DIY websites created by enthusiasts (Burgess 2021). By 2005, the World Wide Web had shifted significantly to become something users and businesses could build on (Poell, Nieborg, and Van Dijck 2019). Thomas Poell and colleagues (2019) argue that this shift enabled corporate actors to pursue the enclosure and segmentation of an open web into a series of walled-off proprietary, private “appliancized” digital spaces that have since come to be referred to as platforms (examples include MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube).

Prior to this moment, if social networking occurred digitally, it happened mainly through emails, bulletin board systems, and internet relay chats like AOL Internet Messenger (Thayer and Notess 2022). Before MySpace and Facebook colonized the Internet, the term ‘platform’ was most often used by those in the computer industry to describe systems that provided a foundation for other applications, services, or functions to build upon (Plantin et al. 2018). For instance, hardware architecture, as well as gaming and operating systems, were considered examples of platforms—although, as the next section will explore, the term has since undergone its own discursive renovations, not unlike notions of the web (e.g., as “Web 2.0”).

What is a Platform?

[edit | edit source]

The notion of a platform is often used in conjunction with (or as a synonym for) other digital technologies that could also be described as archives, websites, games, software, operating systems, social networking sites, and other digital devices. This terminological drift signals just how intertwined platforms have become with everyday life, objects, politics, and discourses (Gillespie 2010). Relatedly, this drift also signals the extent of cross-disciplinary interest in the increasingly vast, increasingly networked ‘ecologies’ of applications, programs, and relations that have come to dominate life for many (Plantin et al. 2018; Poell, Nieborg, and Van Dijck 2019). Some examples of how platforms have been described in the literature include:

  • A set of tools, technologies, and techniques that enable or facilitate opportunities for social networking, communication, selling/buying and/or the exchange of information, files, media, or content, and allow for code to be written or run (Anable 2018; J. Burgess 2021; Gillespie 2010, 353)
  • A structure upon which other products or services may be built and/or offered, such as a government or library (Cordella and Paletti 2019; Weinberger 2012; Van Dijck, Poell, and Waal 2018)
  • A sort of computing system that may consist of hardware or software (or both), upon which other digital services may be built (Schweizer 2023)
  • A site of competing discourses and rhetorics (Edwards and Gelms 2018)
  • A sort of archive, archive-in-progress, or archive-in-use (Apperley and Parikka 2018)
  • An intermediary that links together multiple parties, and / or set of relations that need to be continually performed (Hassel and Sieker 2022; Gillespie 2010; Nichols and Garcia 2022; Van Dijck 2013; van Dijck, Poell, and Waal 2018)
  • A slippery metaphor that does important discursive work, including evading regulations, restrictions, or other legislative frameworks (Carrigan 2022; Gillespie 2010; 2017)

Some recurring themes that seem to draw these different usages together are as follows:

  1. Platforms are social, relational, material, technical, discursive constructions applied in a heuristic, logic, or strategic-like way
  2. Platforms function as intermediaries and networks, typically connecting different types of users for a variety of purposes (multi-sided markets)
  3. Platforms typically involve user-generated content

One of the many challenges that arises when attempting to define what a platform is or is not relates to the evolving nature of the internet and technology. In other words, what might have been considered a platform yesterday may no longer be one today. One example of this might be Netflix, considered to be less of a platform these days and more of a company that provides streaming services (Talking about Platforms 2024). A frequently repeated guideline is that understanding what a platform is requires understanding what a platform does—although this approach may feel overly teleological for some, particularly if broader, critical questions are ignored. However, shifting the focus to considering what platforms do (rather than what they are) reflects more recent trends in the literature that move away from object-focused discussions (where platforms are ‘things’) to process-focused discussions (where platforms are ‘processes’—for more, see Poell et al. 2019).

In this scan, we understand platforms broadly to include a set of tools, techniques, and technologies that connect different groups of users together; host or otherwise facilitate user-generated content; enable opportunities for social networking, communication, selling/buying and/or the exchange of information, files, media, or content; and/or allow for code to be written or run (Anable 2018; Andrews 2020; Burgess 2021; Gillespie 2010, 353; Nichols and Garcia 2022). For instance, both YouTube and Facebook could be considered a type of platform. While both are owned by private companies, the term ‘platform’ can extend beyond private and for-profit examples to others such as Mastodon (a not-for-profit social networking site) and to platform cooperatives (see, for example, platform.coop). The term can also be extended to include other examples, such as the Knowledge Commons (hcommons.org) and the Canadian HSS Commons (HSSCommons.ca), which serve as repositories, spaces to share content, and connect with other members of the community.

Interestingly, there appears to be some tension between whether understandings of platforms offered by those in the interdisciplinary field of studies in digital communication, new media, and platforms apply to the digital assets and environments developed in, by, and for the global open access community. Namely, it often seems as though definitions of platforms that circulate most broadly heavily rely on the marketplace or market-based understandings in some way, which may lead those in open access and open social scholarship communities to question whether the term ‘platform’ is appropriate for their purposes. Rather than offer a definitive answer, this scan is intended to support community members and researchers in determining how best to respond to this question given their contexts and aims. That said, the following questions may be useful for those who are interested in reflecting upon this issue further:

  1. Can another word—such as site, base, forum, digital space, service, tool, or network—be used instead of platform, as a term? What might be lost or gained with this substitution?
  2. What affordances might an application of the term (platform) offer in your context? What constraints and/or consequences might accompany such usage?

Finally, both knowledge and platforms are heavily shaped by the capitalist systems that permeate many facets of everyday life (Lund and Zukerfeld 2020; Ma 2023; Scholz 2023; Srnicek 2017). Notably, many businesses have shifted from those that sell products directly to those that utilize platforms to mediate, manage, or otherwise facilitate transactions between two or more actors—a shift captured by the term “platformization” (Andrews 2020, 266). One example of this shift might be Amazon, which used to sell products directly to customers but now functions more as a platform that enables third-party sellers to gain access to its logistical network and audience (Andrews 2020, see also Hassel and Sieker 2022). However, while platforms can enhance efficiency and accessibility, Andrews warns that there is also a real risk they may monopolize data, workflows, and the values underpinning the movement (e.g., by prioritizing profit over equity, openness, and collaboration​). This echoes similar concerns raised elsewhere, regarding media consolidation and the market consolidation of scholarly publishing (Butler et al. 2023; Garz and Ots 2025; Larivière et al. 2015; Ma 2023a; Winter and Sardino 2023).

Some have argued that the open movement has a long-standing relationship with platforms (such as Academia.edu, ResearchGate, and ‘X’ or Twitter, formerly), in the sense that they have played a role in shaping the creation and sharing of knowledge (Andrews 2020). Gray (2020) argues that these platforms “organize and monetize relations in and across research communities to suit their respective business models, whether through transactional metadata, advertising, or user fees,” such that the dissemination of research may very well be determined by how well it connects to trending algorithms, marketing niches, and shareability features (258). Deliberate counterbalances to the profit and market-driven dynamics described above—such as the HSS Commons in Canada, and the Knowledge Commons in the U.S.—thus remain critical.

About the Annotated Bibliography

[edit | edit source]

An important aim of this scan is to support the efforts of those in the humanities and social sciences in developing shared, disciplinary-sensitive analyses of platforms, particularly when they intersect with open scholarship, and the knowledge commons. The annotated bibliography consists of 114 individual annotations, which are organized into five main sections: Understanding Platforms; Researching Platforms and Digital Environments; Social Implications of Platforms; Models and Mechanisms of Platform Governance and Regulation; and Alternative Models and Approaches. These sections are further divided into subsections. Each section responds to one or more of the following questions:

  • What are platforms? How are they researched?
  • What are some of the ethical and social implications of platforms?
  • What are some of the ways platforms are governed and/or regulated?
  • What are some alternatives to these approaches, mechanisms, or models?

Each section presents a curated list of resources and annotations related to the study of platforms within the humanities and social sciences.

The process for selecting the resources included in this scan consisted of the following iterative steps: (1) carefully reviewing existing bibliographies for potentially relevant resources; (2) searching further for resources using several search terms (namely, “platforms,” “platform studies,” and “open scholarship,” as well as other analogous terms such as “open access”, “open science,” “scholarly communication,” “platformization,” “humanities,” “social science,” “knowledge commons,” “ethics,” “governance,” “open access publishing,” and “public humanities”); and (3) gathering and reviewing these resources in closer detail. Over 230 resources (mostly English) were gathered and reviewed for their relevance to the scope of this scan. These ranged from lecture series, reports, scholarly articles and chapters, to curated bibliographies. Resources that focused on perspectives on platforms in the humanities and the social sciences, as well as on the intersection between and open access scholarship platforms or cognate terms were generally prioritized.

We hope this annotated bibliography will be useful to researchers, community members, educators, students, and anyone with an interest in the broad topic of platforms, platform studies, and the study of digital and online artifacts. This bibliography might be used in any number of ways, including to build reading lists, curricula, bibliographies, support literature reviews, and fuel community of practice discussions. We suggest using Command+F (For Mac) or CTRL+F (for PC) to search keywords, as well as the table of contents. Next, we provide an overview of each of the five sections.

This and other themed bibliographies are openly available online as a Wikibook, at Open Scholarship Press Collections.

Overview of Sections

[edit | edit source]

The annotated bibliography begins with Section 1: Understanding Platforms, which is further divided into two subsections—one focused on key texts in platform studies and the other on intersections between platforms and infrastructures. Resources in this section offer several foundational perspectives and theoretical insights in platform studies that can be used to support the development of critical platform literacy skills (see, for example, Gillespie 2010, 2017; Poell et al. 2019; Van Dijck et al. 2018). For instance, Poell et al. (2019) discuss the process of platformization, which they suggest refers to the process by which platforms integrate into the infrastructure, economic systems, and regulatory frameworks across different industries and areas of daily life. This process also reshapes cultural behaviors and perceptions, organizing them around the functioning of platforms.

Resources in this section also offer insights and implications for the design of equitable access strategies and digital repositories. For instance, Chan and Klareld (2022) delve into the conceptual entanglement of platforms and infrastructures, identifying how these constructs shape patterns of social action and information management. Similarly, Plantin et al. (2018) bridge platform and infrastructure studies, illustrating the growing entanglement of corporate-controlled platforms with public infrastructures, a perspective essential for shaping regulatory frameworks. Along with these shifts and the concerns they raise, Jo Guldi (2020) argues that we can infer values and priorities from infrastructure. Thus, the process of building new or different infrastructures can serve as a deliberate counterbalance to the profit-driven dynamics and principles that frequently shape how knowledge is shared and circulated.

Section 2: Researching Platforms and Digital Environments, is divided further into two subsections. This section features various approaches to studying platforms, collectively emphasizing methodological innovations, ethical considerations, and interdisciplinary frameworks. Works like Apperley and Parikka’s (2018) discussion of media archaeology provide critical insights into how platforms are not only technologies, they are also archives shaped by cultural, social, and historical contexts. Jean Burgess and Nancy Baym (2020) utilize a mixture of methods to collecting data and stories about Twitter, including archive materials (gathered using the Wayback Machine), user experience blogs, scholarly and news articles, as well as a combination of semi-structured oral history conversations and “scrollbacks” with actual Twitter users. Duguay and Gold-Apel (2023) extend these discussions by updating the walkthrough method to better capture the intricacies of algorithmically-driven platforms, demonstrating the need for research approaches to evolve alongside digital environments. Similarly, Forberg’s (2022) algorithmic ethnography of QAnon unpacks how algorithms, user behaviors, and routines contribute to the integration of fringe ideas into mainstream discourse, shedding light on the socio-technological dynamics of platform influence.

Resources in this section also address many of the ethical dimensions of research on platforms, including the need to rethink the so-called “global scope” of platform research. Together, these resources underline the importance of recognizing regional and cultural differences in understanding the socio-political implications of platforms. For instance, Carlson and Rana’s (2024) recent report for Wikimedia Australia considers First Nations peoples’ interactions with Wikipedia, drawing on data gathered through multiple methods (research interviews, yarning circles, and surveys). Their work highlights the distrust members of First Nations and Torres Strait Island communities feel toward Wikipedia due to inaccuracies, racism, and culturally unsafe content. Likewise, Maurer’s (2022) investigation of the Reciprocal Research Network in Canada demonstrates the potential for heritage platforms to foster cultural revival while exposing tensions between institutional control and community-driven knowledge creation.

Section 3: Social Implications of Platforms, consists of four subsections. Collectively, the resources in this section offer a critical examination of the ethical and social implications of platforms. For instance, several works, including those by Shoshana Zuboff (2015; 2020), critique platforms for their roles in advancing surveillance capitalism, where user data is extracted and commodified without consent, eroding privacy and autonomy. Similarly, Fitzpatrick (2015) and Adema et al. (2015) discuss the exploitative practices of academic platforms like Academia.edu, which leverage user participation to build social capital while prioritizing profit over scholarly communication. Birkinbine (2020) explores the paradox of digital commons, where open-source communities face co-optation by profit-driven corporations, revealing the tension between collective value creation and capitalist appropriation.

The exploitation of labour and the environment is another critical theme that emerges in this section. For instance, resources like Van Doorn (2017) highlight the gendered and racialized dimensions of platform labour in the gig economy, and the Amazon Employees for Climate Justice (2024) detail the significant environmental footprint of Amazon and its data centers, as well as its extractive production practices. Issues related to mis– and dis– information are addressed through works like Conway (2024) and Chagas (2024), which examine how platforms enable the spread of conspiracy theories and extremist content due to their structural affordances and algorithmic opacity. Lastly, some resources—such as Couldry and Mejias (2023)—argue for decolonial approaches to data governance, linking current platform practices to historical patterns of colonial extraction and inequity.

Comprising two subsections, Section 4: Models and Mechanisms of Platform Governance and Regulation, homes in on resources that consider different models and mechanisms of platform governance and regulation. As Gorwa (2019) points, conceptions of governance have evolved and must continue to. Building on this lineage of thought, Gorwa proposes thinking about ‘platform governance’ as a concept that refers to “layers of governance relationships structuring interactions between key parties in today’s platform society” (3). While there is an increased understanding in how platforms govern (e.g., via content policy decisions, forms of user-dependency/ies, and algorithms), the question of how they should be governed remains open. To this end, Gorwa identifies three emergent governance models: self-governance, external governance, and co-governance.

Policy-oriented approaches to platform governance also receive considerable attention by resources in this section, with several focused on outlining different policy recommendations for improving and enforcing platform governance across national and transnational contexts (e.g., the collection of essays edited by Taylor Owen in 2019). Elsewhere, the Platform Governance Archive (Katzenbach et al. 2021) proffers a historical lens for understanding policy evolution across major platforms. Several entries in this section explore governance approaches adopted by co-operative, collaborative and open knowledge frameworks as alternatives to corporate-led platforms. Through Glass (2018), we explore the roles libraries can play in fostering collaborative scholarship and the participatory digital commons. Examining ‘online creation communities’ such as Wikipedia, Fuster Morell (2014) identifies different governance dimensions that are essential to fostering collaboration, such as platform design and community-managed infrastructure. Platform cooperativism is also proposed by some resources in this section as a transformative model and alternative. Scholz (2016; 2023) outlines principles for platform cooperativism that build on the cooperative model of democratic co-ownership and equitable labour practices, and extends these principles to include other dimensions such as data transparency. Papadimitropoulos and Malamidis (2024) advocate for integrating commons-based peer production into cooperative platforms, referring to this model as "open cooperativism." Others (such as Schneider, 2024) call instead for the creation of "governable spaces," advocating for participatory governance in the design of online platforms, thereby promoting democratic decision-making.

Lastly, we return to the topic of mis– and dis– information; this time viewing both as a governance issue. For instance, Gorwa et al. (2020) discuss the complexities and ethical issues surrounding algorithmic content moderation, focusing on its use by commercial mega-platforms such as Facebook and YouTube. Considering algorithmic moderation from a different angle, Duffy and Meisner (2023) highlight how marginalised creators face algorithmic invisibility and biases, and the broader roles platforms' can play as mediators of content and social norms. The challenges of content moderation also features prominently in Gillespie’s (2018) work, emphasising the sociotechnical complexity of filtering harmful content and the ethical dilemmas it poses, such as labour exploitation and opaque decision-making processes, while Avieson (2022) showcases how Wikipedia's editorial frameworks effectively counter misinformation, demonstrating the potential of participatory culture. Together, these resources present a nuanced picture of platform governance, bridging theoretical discussions and actionable insights.

The annotated bibliography ends with Section 5: Alternative Models and Approaches, which is divided into two subsections. Here, we return to resources that offer alternatives and counterbalances to platforms, such as the Free/Libre Open Source Software (or FLOSS) movement (Birkinbine 2020), the Creative Commons (n.d.), the Eva cooperative in Quebec (De Broves 2022), the HSS Commons (Jensen et al., 2022), and the knowledge commons (Martin 2019). The cooperative model is reconsidered through the lens of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples in Canada by Thunder and Intertas (2020), who point out that while cooperativism already exists in the principles and traditions of many communities, there are few Indigenous cooperatives. The authors conclude that the cooperative model needs to be adapted to satisfy the specific needs of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis communities. In “Come Hell or High Water,” by Delfina Vannucci and Richard Singer (2010), we find a humorous, insightful, and helpful exploration of the pitfalls most commonly associated with egalitarian processes. While not exclusively a how-to guide, this pocket-sized handbook offers practice examples and advice for those interested in alternative governance models.

Resources in this final section also widen conversations regarding sustainability. For instance, Barats, Schafer, and Fickers (2020) argue that there is a tension between long-term data preservation and the short life cycles of platforms and infrastructures, concluding that while these challenges may be technical, they are also related to the institutional contexts and epistemic traditions in which digital studies take place. Johanna Drucker (2021) likewise argues that sustainability in the digital humanities is a reflection of deeper relationships between knowledge production, authority, and the cultural frameworks that govern digital scholarship. Drucker argues for the need to go beyond thinking about sustainability solely in terms of the maintenance of existing projects or systems and instead consider how we can ensure that the knowledge production processes can endure across time and institutional changes, while adapting to technological and cultural shifts.

Platforms Forever?

[edit | edit source]

It may be difficult, given their prominence and influence in our everyday lives, to imagine that platforms might be in any state other than one of continual ‘arising.’ But platforms are neither immortal nor inevitable; rather, they are in a constant state of decay. Some of this decay is unintentional, offset, for example, by the unending maintenance of code. Some of this decline, as Cory Doctorow pointed out in his 2023 article for Wired Magazine (“The ‘Enshittification’ of TikTok”), may very well be intentional.

Platform decay (also referred to as ‘crapification’ and ‘enshittification’) describes the decline in the quality of a platform’s offerings over time (see: Enshittification 2025). It might be thought of as an approach: first, the goal is to entice people and their networks to join a platform by making the cost of switching or barrier to entry so low that not joining appears to be an affront to progress itself. At this stage, the emphasis is on high-quality offerings for a platform’s users.

This emphasis gives way, however, after a critical mass of people have arrived. At this point in time, the users of a platform become the ‘high-quality offering’—the recipients are the businesses that platform companies now aim to entice with promises of a captive audience (and source of revenue). It matters not that users of a platform find that the offerings originally promised to them have begun to degrade; the cost of leaving many platforms is often high enough that users are effectively locked in. However, in the cycle of intentional platform decay, even this emphasis gives way to the final phase, where the only group benefiting from the platform are the shareholders of the platform company. Both users and businesses are locked into the platform, even as it claws back whatever benefits it promised in the first place.

If the above description of intentional platform decay feels familiar to you, it might be because academic publishers like Elsevier and the Taylor and Francis Group have pursued a similar model for decades (Lamdan 2023; Lund and Zukerfield 2020; Ma 2023; Wall 2024). That is, large-scale commercial publishers continually prioritize profits over the experiences and needs of their ‘users.’

Yet open social scholarship encourages us to imagine otherwise—like a cooperative academic publishing platform that charges commercial publishers a fee to access its network of authors, reviewers, and editors (Lupova-Henry and Tenorio-Fornés 2021). Or a world where diamond open access journals that are free for readers and authors are sustainably funded, and radical scholarly publishers succeed alongside others prioritizing degrowth and smaller scales. These imaginings are just the beginning. And if, as Jefferson Pooley (2024) suggests, there are some who criticise these imaginings and others like them as utopian, so be it. For, regardless of “whether or not another (scholarly publishing) world is possible, it is important to act as if it is. In both the short and medium runs, the way we talk about scholarly communication helps dictate the aperture of imaginative possibility” (Pooley 2024, 1, italics added).

Notes

[edit | edit source]
  1. ↑ As of 2021, this number surpassed 1 billion.

References

[edit | edit source]
  • Barats, Christine, Valérie Schafer, and Andreas Fickers. 2020. “Fading Away... The Challenge of Sustainability in Digital Studies.” Digital Humanities Quarterly 14 (3).
  • Birkinbine, Benjamin J. 2020. Incorporating the Digital Commons. University of Westminster Press. Critical, Digital and Social Media Studies. University of Westminster Press. https://doi.org/10.16997/book39.
  • Broussard, Meredith. 2019. Artificial Unintelligence: How Computers Misunderstand the World. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
  • Burgess, Jean Elizabeth, and Nancy K. Baym. 2020. Twitter: A Biography. New York: New York University Press.
  • Butler, Leigh-Ann, Lisa Matthias, Marc-André Simard, Philippe Mongeon, and Stefanie Haustein. 2023. “The Oligopoly’s Shift to Open Access: How the Big Five Academic Publishers Profit from Article Processing Charges.” Quantitative Science Studies 4 (4): 778–99. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00272.
  • Carlson, Bronwyn, and Lotus Rana. 2024. “‘I Really like Wikipedia, but I Don’t Trust It’: Understanding First Nations Peoples’ Experiences Using Wikipedia as Readers and/or Editors.” Macquarie University. https://doi.org/10.25949/76YK-G627.
  • Chagas, Viktor. 2024. “Far-Right Memespheres and Platform Affordances: The Effects of Environmental Opacity on the Spread of Extremist Memes on Twitter and WhatsApp.” Journal of Applied Communication Research 0 (0): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2024.2355114.
  • Chan, Shirley, and Ann-Sofie Klareld. 2022. “Platform or Infrastructure or Both at Once? Detangling the Two Concept’s Knotty Cross-Articulations.” In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science, May 29 - June 1, 2022. Vol. 27. Oslo Metropolitan University,: Information Research. https://doi.org/10.47989/colis2205.
  • Cordella, Antonio, and Andrea Paletti. 2019. “Government as a Platform, Orchestration, and Public Value Creation: The Italian Case.” Government Information Quarterly 36 (4): 101409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101409.
  • Couldry, Nick, and Ulises Ali Mejias. 2023. “The Decolonial Turn in Data and Technology Research: What Is at Stake and Where Is It Heading?” Information, Communication & Society 26 (4): 786–802. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2021.1986102.
  • De Broves, Olivier Rafélis. 2022. “Les Coopératives Au Secours Des Travailleurs de Plateforme : Quelles Innovations Contre l’ubérisation?: Une Étude de Cas Au Québec.” Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research 13 (S1): 92–114. https://doi.org/10.29173/cjnser542.
  • Duffy, Brooke Erin, and Colten Meisner. 2023. “Platform Governance at the Margins: Social Media Creators’ Experiences with Algorithmic (in)Visibility.” Media, Culture & Society 45 (2): 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/01634437221111923.
  • Duguay, Stefanie, and Hannah Gold-Apel. 2023. “Stumbling Blocks and Alternative Paths: Reconsidering the Walkthrough Method for Analyzing Apps.” Social Media + Society 9 (1): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231158822.
  • Drucker, Johanna. 2021. “Sustainability and Complexity: Knowledge and Authority in the Digital Humanities.” Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 36 (2): ii86–ii94. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqab025.
  • Edwards, Dustin, and Bridget Gelms. 2018. “The Rhetorics of Platforms: Definitions, Approaches, Futures.” Present Tense 6 (3): 2–10.
  • Forberg, Peter L. 2022. “From the Fringe to the Fore: An Algorithmic Ethnography of the Far-Right Conspiracy Theory Group QAnon.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 51 (3): 291–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/08912416211040560.
  • Fuster Morell, Mayo. 2014. “Governance of Online Creation Communities for the Building of Digital Commons: Viewed through the Framework of Institutional Analysis and Development.” In Governing Knowledge Commons, edited by Brett M. Frischmann, Michael J. Madison, and Katherine J. Strandburg, 281–312. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199972036.003.0009.
  • ———. 2018. Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. New Haven [Connecticut]: Yale University Press.
  • Glass, Erin R. 2018. “Engaging the Knowledge Commons: Setting Up Virtual Participatory Spaces for Academic Collaboration and Community.” In Digital Humanities, Libraries, and Partnerships, edited by Robin Kear and Kate Joranson, 75–90. Chandos Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102023-4.00006-9.
  • Gorwa, Robert, Reuben Binns, and Christian Katzenbach. 2020. “Algorithmic Content Moderation: Technical and Political Challenges in the Automation of Platform Governance.” Big Data & Society 7 (1): 2053951719897945. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719897945.
  • Gray, Jonathan. 2020. “Infrastructural Experiments and the Politics of Open Access.” In Reassembling Scholarly Communications, edited by Martin Paul Eve and Jonathan Gray, 251–64. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11885.003.0026.
  • Grech, V. 2001. “Publishing on the WWW. Part 5 - A Brief History of the Internet and the World Wide Web.” Images in Paediatric Cardiology 3 (3): 15–22.
  • Guldi, Jo. 2020. “Scholarly Infrastructure as Critical Argument: Nine Principles in a Preliminary Survey of the Bibliographic and Critical Values Expressed by Scholarly Web-Portals for Visualizing Data.” Digital Humanities Quarterly 014 (3).
  • Hassel, Anke, and Felix Sieker. 2022. “The Platform Effect: How Amazon Changed Work in Logistics in Germany, the United States and the United Kingdom.” European Journal of Industrial Relations 28 (3): 363–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/09596801221082456.
  • Jensen, Graham, Alyssa Arbuckle, Caroline Winter, Talya Jesperson, Tyler Fontenot, Ray Siemens, and the ETCL and INKE Research Groups. 2022. “Fostering Digital Communities of Care: Safety, Security, and Trust in the Canadian Humanities and Social Sciences Commons.” IDEAH 3 (2). https://doi.org/10.21428/f1f23564.ed75625f.
  • Katzenbach, Christian, João Carlos Magalhães, Adrian Kopps, Tom Sühr, and Larissa Wunderlich. Platform Governance Archive (PGA). 2021. Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG). https://pga-interface.netlify.app/about.
  • Ma, Lai. 2023. “The Platformisation of Scholarly Information and How to Fight It.” LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries 33 (1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.53377/lq.13561.
  • Ma, Lai. 2023a. “Information, Platformized.” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 74 (2): 273–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24713.
  • Martin, Shawn. 2019. “Historicizing the Knowledge Commons: Open Access, Technical Knowledge, and the Industrial Application of Science.” KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies 3 (23). https://doi.org/10.5334/kula.16.
  • Maurer, Jason. 2022. “Decolonial Affordances of a Digital Communal Heritage Platform: A Case Study of the Reciprocal Research Network.” ESSACHESS – Journal for Communication Studies 15 1 (29): 59–81.
  • Papadimitropoulos, Vangelis, and Haris Malamidis. 2024. “The Transformative Potential of Platform Cooperativism: The Case of CoopCycle.” tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique 22 (1): 1–24. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v22i1.1418.
  • Plantin, Jean-Christophe, Carl Lagoze, Paul N Edwards, and Christian Sandvig. 2018. “Infrastructure Studies Meet Platform Studies in the Age of Google and Facebook.” New Media & Society 20 (1): 293–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816661553.
  • Ryan, Johnny. 2010. A History of the Internet and the Digital Future. London: Reaktion Books.
  • Scholz, R. Trebor. 2023. Own This! How Platform Cooperatives Help Workers Build a Democratic Internet. London New York: Verso.
  • Schweizer, Bobby. 2023. “Platforms.” In The Routledge Companion to Video Game Studies, 2nd ed., 41–47. Routledge.
  • Van Dijck, José, Thomas Poell, and Martijn de Waal. 2018. The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Van Doorn, Niels. 2017. “Platform Labor: On the Gendered and Racialized Exploitation of Low-Income Service Work in the ‘on-Demand’ Economy.” Information, Communication & Society 20 (6): 898–914. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1294194.
  • Vannucci, Delfina, and Richard Singer. 2010. Come Hell Or High Water: A Handbook on Collective Process Gone Awry. California: AKPress.
  • Winter, Caroline, and Maggie Sardino. 2023. “Market Consolidation and Scholarly Communications.” Observation. Open Scholarship Policy Observatory. https://doi.org/10.25547/CZ92-S769.
  • Zuboff, Shoshana. 2015. “Big Other: Surveillance Capitalism and the Prospects of an Information Civilization.” Journal of Information Technology 30 (1): 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.5.
Engaging Platforms in Open Scholarship
 ← Executive Summary The Rise of Platforms Understanding Platforms → 
Retrieved from "https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Engaging_Platforms_in_Open_Scholarship/The_Rise_of_Platforms&oldid=4525844"