Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59 (10):1662--1674 (2008)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
Wikipedia 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 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 article 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. In addition, Wikipedia has a number of other epistemic virtues that arguably outweigh any deficiency in terms of reliability. Even so, epistemologists and information scientists should certainly be trying to identify changes to Wikipedia that will bring about even better epistemic consequences. This article suggests that to improve Wikipedia, we need to clarify what our epistemic values are and to better understand why Wikipedia works as well as it does. Somebody who reads Wikipedia is “rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom,” says Mr. McHenry, Britannica’s former editor. “It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him.” One wonders whether people like Mr. McHenry would prefer there to be no public lavatories at all. The Economist
|
Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
Reprint years | 2008 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Cognition and the Web: Extended, Transactive, or Scaffolded?Richard Heersmink & John Sutton - 2020 - Erkenntnis 85 (1):139-164.
Epistemological Problems of Testimony.Jonathan E. Adler - 2006 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Minds Online: The Interface Between Web Science, Cognitive Science, and the Philosophy of Mind.Paul Smart, Robert William Clowes & Richard Heersmink - 2017 - Foundations and Trends in Web Science 6 (1-2):1-234.
The World Wide Web.Paul Smart - 2018 - In David Coady & James Chase (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Applied Epistemology. New York, NY, USA: Routledge. pp. 15–27.
View all 13 citations / Add more citations
Similar books and articles
Coercion or Empowerment? Moderation of Content in Wikipedia as 'Essentially Contested' Bureaucratic Rules.Paul B. de Laat - 2012 - Ethics and Information Technology 14 (2):123-135.
Epistemology and the Wikipedia.P. D. Magnus - 2006 - North American Computing and Philosophy Conference.
Transparency and Social Responsibility Issues for Wikipedia.Adele Santana & Donna J. Wood - 2009 - Ethics and Information Technology 11 (2):133-144.
The Epistemic Cultures of Science and WIKIPEDIA: A Comparison.K. Brad Wray - 2009 - Episteme 6 (1):38-51.
Mining Meaning From Wikipedia.David Milne, Catherine Legg, Medelyan Olena & Witten Ian - 2009 - International Journal of Human-Computer Interactions 67 (9):716-754.
Networked Expertise in the Era of Many-to-Many Communication: On Wikipedia and Invention.Damien Smith Pfister - 2011 - Social Epistemology 25 (3):217 - 231.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2009-01-28
Total views
113 ( #103,721 of 2,508,102 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #208,944 of 2,508,102 )
2009-01-28
Total views
113 ( #103,721 of 2,508,102 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #208,944 of 2,508,102 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads