Wikilegality 和法律意识1

IF 1.3 3区社会学 Q1 LAW

Journal of Law and Society Pub Date : 2024-07-11 DOI:10.1111/jols.12484

DAVID NELKEN

{"title":"Wikilegality 和法律意识1","authors":"DAVID NELKEN","doi":"10.1111/jols.12484","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article begins by commenting on recent work on legal consciousness, concentrating especially on the pioneering work of Patricia Ewick and Susan Silbey and later commentary, including research by Ayelet Oz that attempts to extend their ideas to cases of non‐state private ordering such as Wikipedia. It goes on to outline some of the distinctive features of Wikipedia's legal system and its ambivalence about (state) law and discusses the objections to what is called ‘wikilawyering’. To illustrate ‘wikilegality’, it offers a brief examination of how a dispute develops and is processed. The article concludes with some brief comments about what this case study can tell us about Ewick and Silbey's claims about hegemonic legality.","PeriodicalId":51544,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Society","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Wikilegality and legal consciousness1\",\"authors\":\"DAVID NELKEN\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jols.12484\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article begins by commenting on recent work on legal consciousness, concentrating especially on the pioneering work of Patricia Ewick and Susan Silbey and later commentary, including research by Ayelet Oz that attempts to extend their ideas to cases of non‐state private ordering such as Wikipedia. It goes on to outline some of the distinctive features of Wikipedia's legal system and its ambivalence about (state) law and discusses the objections to what is called ‘wikilawyering’. To illustrate ‘wikilegality’, it offers a brief examination of how a dispute develops and is processed. The article concludes with some brief comments about what this case study can tell us about Ewick and Silbey's claims about hegemonic legality.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51544,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Law and Society\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Law and Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12484\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12484","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

本文首先评论了近期有关法律意识的工作，尤其集中于帕特里夏-埃威克（Patricia Ewick）和苏珊-西尔贝（Susan Silbey）的开创性工作以及后来的评论，包括阿耶莱特-奥兹（Ayelet Oz）的研究，该研究试图将他们的观点扩展到维基百科等非国家私人秩序的案例中。报告接着概述了维基百科法律体系的一些显著特点及其对（国家）法律的矛盾态度，并讨论了对所谓 "维基法律化 "的反对意见。为了说明 "维基合法性"，文章简要考察了争议的发展和处理过程。文章最后简要评述了这一案例研究对埃维克和西尔贝关于霸权合法性的主张的启示。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Wikilegality and legal consciousness1

This article begins by commenting on recent work on legal consciousness, concentrating especially on the pioneering work of Patricia Ewick and Susan Silbey and later commentary, including research by Ayelet Oz that attempts to extend their ideas to cases of non‐state private ordering such as Wikipedia. It goes on to outline some of the distinctive features of Wikipedia's legal system and its ambivalence about (state) law and discusses the objections to what is called ‘wikilawyering’. To illustrate ‘wikilegality’, it offers a brief examination of how a dispute develops and is processed. The article concludes with some brief comments about what this case study can tell us about Ewick and Silbey's claims about hegemonic legality.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Law and Society Multiple-

CiteScore

2.00

自引率

15.40%

发文量

期刊介绍： Established as the leading British periodical for Socio-Legal Studies The Journal of Law and Society offers an interdisciplinary approach. It is committed to achieving a broad international appeal, attracting contributions and addressing issues from a range of legal cultures, as well as theoretical concerns of cross- cultural interest. It produces an annual special issue, which is also published in book form. It has a widely respected Book Review section and is cited all over the world. Challenging, authoritative and topical, the journal appeals to legal researchers and practitioners as well as sociologists, criminologists and other social scientists.