Graduate studies at Western
Episteme 6 (1):74-90 (2009)
|Abstract||Given the fact that many people use Wikipedia, we should ask: Can we trust it? The empirical evidence suggests that Wikipedia articles are sometimes quite good but that they vary a great deal. As such, it is wrong to ask for a monolithic verdict on Wikipedia. Interacting with Wikipedia involves assessing where it is likely to be reliable and where not. I identify five strategies that we use to assess claims from other sources and argue that, to a greater of lesser degree, Wikipedia frustrates all of them. Interacting responsibly with something like Wikipedia requires new epistemic methods and strategies|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
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.
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.
Deborah Perron Tollefsen (2009). WIKIPEDIA and the Epistemology of Testimony. Episteme 6 (1):8-24.
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.
Lawrence M. Sanger (2009). The Fate of Expertise After WIKIPEDIA. Episteme 6 (1):52-73.
P. D. Magnus (2006). Epistemology and the Wikipedia. North American Computing and Philosophy Conference.
Added to index2010-07-11
Total downloads28 ( #49,955 of 740,795 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,452 of 740,795 )
How can I increase my downloads?