David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Wikipedia (the "free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit") is having a huge impact on how a great many people gather information about the world. So, it is important for epistemologists and information scientists to ask whether or not people are likely to acquire knowledge as a result of having access to this information source. In other words, is Wikipedia having good epistemic consequences? After surveying the various concerns that have been raised about the reliability of Wikipedia, this paper argues that the epistemic consequences of people using Wikipedia as a source of information are likely to be quite good. According to several empirical studies, the reliability of Wikipedia compares favorably to the reliability of traditional encyclopedias. Furthermore, the reliability of Wikipedia compares even more favorably to the reliability of those information sources that people would be likely to use if Wikipedia did not exist (viz., websites that are as freely and easily accessible as Wikipedia). In addition, Wikipedia has a number of other epistemic virtues (e.g., power, speed, and fecundity) that arguably outweigh any deficiency in terms of reliability. Even so, epistemologists and information scientists should certainly be trying to identify changes (or alternatives) to Wikipedia that will bring about even better epistemic consequences. This paper suggests that, in order to improve Wikipedia, we need to clarify what our epistemic values are and we need a better understanding of why Wikipedia works as well as it does.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Thomas W. Simpson (2012). Evaluating Google as an Epistemic Tool. Metaphilosophy 43 (4):426-445.
Similar books and articles
Paul B. de Laat (2012). Coercion or Empowerment? Moderation of Content in Wikipedia as 'Essentially Contested' Bureaucratic Rules. Ethics and Information Technology 14 (2):123-135.
Damien Smith Pfister (2011). Networked Expertise in the Era of Many-to-Many Communication: On Wikipedia and Invention. Social Epistemology 25 (3):217 - 231.
David Milne, Catherine Legg, Medelyan Olena & Witten Ian (2009). Mining Meaning From Wikipedia. International Journal of Human-Computer Interactions 67 (9):716-754.
Deborah Perron Tollefsen (2009). WIKIPEDIA and the Epistemology of Testimony. Episteme 6 (1):8-24.
Lawrence M. Sanger (2009). The Fate of Expertise After WIKIPEDIA. Episteme 6 (1):52-73.
K. Brad Wray (2009). The Epistemic Cultures of Science and WIKIPEDIA: A Comparison. Episteme 6 (1):38-51.
Adele Santana & Donna J. Wood (2009). Transparency and Social Responsibility Issues for Wikipedia. Ethics and Information Technology 11 (2):133-144.
P. D. Magnus (2006). Epistemology and the Wikipedia. North American Computing and Philosophy Conference.
P. D. Magnus (2009). On Trusting WIKIPEDIA. Episteme 6 (1):74-90.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads75 ( #61,009 of 1,938,821 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #458,338 of 1,938,821 )
How can I increase my downloads?