Common Knowledge?

Last updated
Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia
Common Knowledge An Ethnography of Wikipedia.jpg
Author Dariusz Jemielniak
Subject Wikipedia
Publisher Stanford University Press
Publication date
2014
Publication placeUnited States
Pages312
ISBN 978-0804789448

Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia is a 2014 book about Wikipedia's community of contributors. The author is Dariusz Jemielniak, who is a Wikipedia contributor himself.

Contents

Summary

The book has eight chapters, each of which discusses a different aspect of Wikipedia.

Prologue

The author begins by describing that he was in a dispute on Wikipedia from September 2008 to February 2009. [1] He and the other involved parties went through the dispute resolution process, which ended in admonishments for all involved, including a 1-day block for the author. [1] The author reflected on his own behavior, recognizing some poor actions and wondering how all of these things came to happen. [1] In response to the experience the author looked more deeply at how Wikipedia works socially. [1] The anecdote establishes that the author is experienced as a Wikimedia community member and knows how to observe community deliberative processes. [1]

Introduction

There are contemporary negative attitudes to Wikipedia among academics. Michael Gorman, a prominent librarian, disparages Wikipedia as harmful. The author, in contrast, states that he is an academic, and that he recommends Wikipedia for academic and other uses. [2] : 1 

Wikipedia is an open collaboration community and such communities are a new paradigm in research and discourse. [2] : 3  Among open collaboration communities, Wikipedia is highly successful for producing information of great breadth and quality and for engaging people to share information. [2] : 3 

Wikipedia in short

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a wiki. [2] : 10  When those two concepts were brought together to form Wikipedia, it was an instant success, attracting a large international community of contributors who created encyclopedia articles on many topics in many languages. [2] : 11 

Different language Wikipedias have different communities of editors who developed different rule sets. [3] Some popular rules are common in almost all languages of Wikipedia communities, even if they might be interpreted differently in different languages. [3] For example, one quality standard in Wikipedia is "notability", which is the term for describing whether a concept merits an article in Wikipedia. [3] All Wikipedias have some standard for notability, but the standards for notability in one language may differ from others. [3]

The "Wikimedia community" oversee the development of Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects. [4] Researchers have attempted to describe the Wikipedia community with various statistics, including counting its participants, quantifying their activities, reporting demographic surveys, and categorizing the content they submit to the encyclopedia. [4] The Wikimedia community creates its own rules. [5] One rule is "no personal attacks", which is a civility standard. Consensus decision-making is the norm for establishing agreement, while straw polls and other conversation tools advance the discussion. [5] Other rules include avoiding conflict of interest editing, and respecting copyright. [6]

In September 2012, author Philip Roth complained publicly in the media about Wikipedia's presentation of his book The Human Stain . [7] The episode highlighted that people and works who are the subject of Wikipedia articles cannot overrule Wikipedia's own rules for management of those articles. [7]

Wikimedia community members often sort themselves into interest groups called WikiProjects. [8] Individual members often adopt a user name rather than use their offline name. [8] Users present themselves with profiles describing their interests and what they do in the encyclopedia. [8]

Formal roles and hierarchy

The author notes that Andrew Keen's 2007 work The Cult of the Amateur criticized Wikipedia as having a community without culture that produced information which was unreliable and chaotic. [9] A range of academic descriptions of Wikipedia's community are summarized. [9]

Wikipedia's own hierarchy of formal roles is named and ordered: steward, checkuser, oversighter, bureaucrat, administrator, rollbacker, registered user, newly registered user, unregistered user, blocked user. [10] Stewards are elected positions who can perform any technical function and are only limited by social norms. To be elected, stewards must be highly experienced, have great trust from the community, and typically be fluent in a non-English language. [10] The author reveals that he has served as steward. [10] For the other roles, the community entrusts certain sensitive technical rights to certain trusted users who have a demonstrated need to use them. [10]

Counting the number of edits which a user makes to Wikipedia is not an indication of the respect that the Wikimedia community has for that person. However, users who have made large numbers of quality content contributions to Wikimedia projects tend to get more respect. [11] Experienced users are conscious of the edit counts of other users. [11] A user's edit count is the single best available metric which correlates with Wikipedia experience and productivity. [12] There are other factors which experienced editors use to evaluate the contributors of other editors. [13] One prominent system of evaluation is the "request for adminship" process, in which users who pass a peer evaluation may receive administrator rights. [13] Since 2006, many users have described the system both as flawed and the best idea which the community has for this process. [13]

Academic models of power sharing are summarized. [14]

Conflict resolution on Wikipedia

Conflict resolution is the most common social interaction in Wikimedia projects. This is often achieved through consensus building which the author compares to Quaker approaches. The author argues that conflict and dissent are motivations for editing and Wikimedia community celebrates dissent. The satisfaction of seeking consensus is a major motivation in why Wikimedia community members engage. [15] : 59  In closing the author argues Wikipedia is a "community of dissensus" where the possibility of legitimate positions authority is dismissed. [2] : 84 

The author profiles the exceptionally large dispute around the name for the city Gdańsk, and how the matter played out between 2003 and 2005. The case was a matter of fairly representing cultures, including Polish and German perspectives. Wikipedia provided a forum to position various community representatives with strong opinions to face each other and create a definitive and sufficiently neutral compromise. [2] : 65-79  The author argues that when disputes are factual resolution tends to be reached, but consensus can be less likely if there are differences in point of view. An academic models for the possible outcomes for point of view conflicts is summarized. [2] : 79–84 

Bureaucracy and control

Editing Wikimedia projects is like a panopticon in the sense that there is a permanent, public log of all activity. [16] The nature of Wikipedia permits a level of regulation which surpasses many traditional concepts of bureaucratic control. [16] Relationships among Wikimedia community members are less about social bonds between individuals and more about the ties between individuals and the community. [16] When users wish to request any of the services which Wikipedia offers, that request goes into a specialized queue which solicits an appropriate user to respond, rather than relying on interpersonal relationships to sort requests. [16] Community members who routinely perform specialized activities do gain a reputation and might become regular collaborators with other users with whom that work overlaps. [16] While the Wikimedia Foundation does have authority for some tasks, the community manages almost all on-wiki activity. [16]

A primary mechanism of control in Wikipedia is version control. [17] Whatever action anyone takes, other people can track the changes. [17] [17]

When there is a dispute about content, Wikipedia offers mediation. [17] Typical mediators have a record of experience and usefulness in Wikipedia. [17]

In discussions on Wikipedia, there are published technical and social guidelines. [18] Experienced users are expected to follow the procedures. [18] However, inexperienced users or anyone who slips in the procedure will not have their submission discredited on that basis. [18] The Wikipedia community designates some guidelines on Wikipedia as informal, and others as formal policies. [18] As of November 2013, the word count for the official policies is 150,000, which is the equivalent to a 450-page book. [18] Estimating the size of the unofficial guidelines is challenging with the technical tools available, but it must be millions of words. [18]

Academic theories and models of bureaucracy are summarized. [19] There is a learning curve for newcomers in Wikipedia and various internal mentorship programs available to help editors to become oriented. [19] The Wikimedia community uses the rules as a way to prevent over-reliance on any particular leaders's engagement with the project. [19]

Trust in people and trust in procedures

Wikipedia's system of pseudonymity means that most users establish an on-wiki identity which may be different from their offline identity. [20] The community rejects the idea of checking credentials, so any offline reputation typically will not result in on-wiki respect or deference. [20] There is no routine check on who is adding content to Wikipedia. [20] One reason for these systems is to encourage non-experts to contribute content. [20]

Academic descriptions of trust in online communities are summarized. [21] The 2006 Essjay controversy is presented in which a Wikipedia contributor presented himself as an academic expert in theology and cited his authority as justification for editorial decisions. [22] After accepting certain honors, the user revealed that he had no credentials and that his online identity was a hoax. [22] The case was significant for solidifying community opinion that Wikipedia relies on citing quality published sources rather than any claims citing authority or claims otherwise made without citing sources. [22] Academic descriptions of how users can check credentials in online communities are summarized. [23] The Wikipedia community trusts that when people follow the established procedures, then their actions will meet the needs of typical contributors. [24] There are many ways in which a non-expert or amateur can develop Wikipedia content in collaboration with everyone else, including experts. [24]

Between anarchy and bureaucracy

Some aspects of Wikimedia projects, particularly those which require action offline and outside the website, require governance and leadership outside of the web platform's control. [25] There are heated discussions about the non-profit Wikimedia organization's governance. [25] Just as anyone may contribute to any Wikipedia editorial conversation, anyone can join conversations about the Wikimedia Foundation, its budget, the activities of the Wikimedia chapters of volunteers who organize for their own projects, or any individual project. [25]

Leadership transformed

As founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales has a unique relationship with the Wikipedia community. [26] The Wikimedia community has recognized him as a classical authority figure. [26] His primary role is as a spokesperson for the movement. [26]

The knowledge revolution at the gates

The author describes his role in the Wikimedia movement, asserting 6 years of ethnographic research while also being a community member. [27] Academic criticisms of Wikipedia's overall model are summarized. [27]

Reviews

A reviewer for Vice called the book "both primer and detailed study on the habits of Wikipedians". [28]

A writer for Inside Higher Ed said that the "book offers a management expert's inside view of how it has tried, for better or worse, to arrive at a self-sustaining and novel form of self-management". [29]

In Pacific Standard , the reviewer said the book was "a detailed ethnographic study of a paradoxical culture that is at once egalitarian and hierarchical, rule bound and consensus driven, collaborative and conflict driven". [30]

In Forbes, the reviewer gave summaries of concepts covered, including Wikipedia's rule sets, tension between experienced and inexperienced contributors, conflicts between subject matter experts and fact checkers, and the implications of Wikipedia having a large audience. [31]

An academic reviewer for European Management Review stated their recognition that the book's author had a unique insight into the workings of the Wikimedia community. [32] They commented that the book had a bias for English and Polish language Wikipedia communities due to the author's participation in those communities. [32] They recommended the book as a way to understand Wikipedia, for insights into online communities, or even for learning about aspects of online communities by reading particular chapters without reading the entire book. [32]

See also

Related Research Articles

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. Epistemologists study the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge, epistemic justification, the rationality of belief, and various related issues. Debates in contemporary epistemology are generally clustered around four core areas:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Falsifiability</span> Property of a statement that can be logically contradicted

Falsifiability is a deductive standard of evaluation of scientific theories and hypotheses, introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934). A theory or hypothesis is falsifiable if it can be logically contradicted by an empirical test.

In philosophical ethics, the naturalistic fallacy is the claim that it is possible to define good in terms of natural entities, or properties such as pleasant or desirable. The term was introduced by British philosopher G. E. Moore in his 1903 book Principia Ethica.

Social epistemology refers to a broad set of approaches that can be taken in epistemology that construes human knowledge as a collective achievement. Another way of characterizing social epistemology is as the evaluation of the social dimensions of knowledge or information.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ammonium</span> Chemical compound

The ammonium cation is a positively charged polyatomic ion with the chemical formula NH+4 or [NH4]+. It is formed by the protonation of ammonia. Ammonium is also a general name for positively charged (protonated) substituted amines and quaternary ammonium cations, where one or more hydrogen atoms are replaced by organic or other groups. Not only is ammonium a source of nitrogen and a key metabolite for many living organisms, but it is an integral part of the global nitrogen cycle. As such, the human impact in recent years could have an effect on the biological communities that depend on it.

A belief is a subjective attitude that a proposition is true or a state of affairs is the case. A subjective attitude is a mental state of having some stance, take, or opinion about something. In epistemology, philosophers use the term "belief" to refer to attitudes about the world which can be either true or false. To believe something is to take it to be true; for instance, to believe that snow is white is comparable to accepting the truth of the proposition "snow is white". However, holding a belief does not require active introspection. For example, few individuals carefully consider whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow, simply assuming that it will. Moreover, beliefs need not be occurrent, but can instead be dispositional.

Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments in order to form a judgement by the application of rational, skeptical, and unbiased analyses and evaluation. The application of critical thinking includes self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective habits of the mind, thus a critical thinker is a person who practices the skills of critical thinking or has been trained and educated in its disciplines. Philosopher Richard W. Paul said that the mind of a critical thinker engages the person's intellectual abilities and personality traits. Critical thinking presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use in effective communication and problem solving, and a commitment to overcome egocentrism and sociocentrism.

Empirical evidence for a proposition is evidence, i.e. what supports or counters this proposition, that is constituted by or accessible to sense experience or experimental procedure. Empirical evidence is of central importance to the sciences and plays a role in various other fields, like epistemology and law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supervenience</span> Relation between sets of properties or facts

In philosophy, supervenience refers to a relation between sets of properties or sets of facts. X is said to supervene on Y if and only if some difference in Y is necessary for any difference in X to be possible.

The identity of indiscernibles is an ontological principle that states that there cannot be separate objects or entities that have all their properties in common. That is, entities x and y are identical if every predicate possessed by x is also possessed by y and vice versa. It states that no two distinct things can be exactly alike, but this is intended as a metaphysical principle rather than one of natural science. A related principle is the indiscernibility of identicals, discussed below.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cluster analysis</span> Grouping a set of objects by similarity

Cluster analysis or clustering is the task of grouping a set of objects in such a way that objects in the same group are more similar to each other than to those in other groups (clusters). It is a main task of exploratory data analysis, and a common technique for statistical data analysis, used in many fields, including pattern recognition, image analysis, information retrieval, bioinformatics, data compression, computer graphics and machine learning.

In planning and policy, a wicked problem is a problem that is difficult or impossible to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements that are often difficult to recognize. It refers to an idea or problem that cannot be fixed, where there is no single solution to the problem; and "wicked" denotes resistance to resolution, rather than evil. Another definition is "a problem whose social complexity means that it has no determinable stopping point". Moreover, because of complex interdependencies, the effort to solve one aspect of a wicked problem may reveal or create other problems. Due to their complexity, wicked problems are often characterized by organized irresponsibility.

Postdiction involves explanation after the fact. In skepticism, it is considered an effect of hindsight bias that explains claimed predictions of significant events such as plane crashes and natural disasters. In religious contexts, theologians frequently refer to postdiction using the Latin term vaticinium ex eventu. Through this term, skeptics postulate that many biblical prophecies appearing to have come true may have been written after the events supposedly predicted, or that the text or interpretation may have been modified after the event to fit the facts as they occurred.

The study of religiosity and intelligence explores the link between religiosity and intelligence or educational level. Religiosity and intelligence are both complex topics that include diverse variables, and the interactions among those variables are not always well understood. For instance, intelligence is often defined differently by different researchers; also, all scores from intelligence tests are only estimates of intelligence, because one cannot achieve concrete measurements of intelligence due to the concept’s abstract nature. Religiosity is also complex, in that it involves wide variations of interactions of religious beliefs, practices, behaviors, and affiliations, across a diverse array of cultures.

In artificial intelligence research, commonsense knowledge consists of facts about the everyday world, such as "Lemons are sour", or "Cows say moo", that all humans are expected to know. It is currently an unsolved problem in Artificial General Intelligence. The first AI program to address common sense knowledge was Advice Taker in 1959 by John McCarthy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Infinite regress</span> Philosophical problem

An infinite regress is an infinite series of entities governed by a recursive principle that determines how each entity in the series depends on or is produced by its predecessor.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Digital literacy</span> Competency in using digital technology

Digital literacy is an individual's ability to find, evaluate, and communicate information using typing or digital media platforms. It is a combination of both technical and cognitive abilities in using information and communication technologies to create, evaluate, and share information.

Aumann's agreement theorem was stated and proved by Robert Aumann in a paper titled "Agreeing to Disagree", which introduced the set theoretic description of common knowledge. The theorem concerns agents who share a common prior and update their probabilistic beliefs by Bayes' rule. It states that if the probabilistic beliefs of such agents, regarding a fixed event, are common knowledge then these probabilities must coincide. Thus, agents cannot agree to disagree, that is have common knowledge of a disagreement over the posterior probability of a given event.

Dynamic epistemic logic (DEL) is a logical framework dealing with knowledge and information change. Typically, DEL focuses on situations involving multiple agents and studies how their knowledge changes when events occur. These events can change factual properties of the actual world : for example a red card is painted in blue. They can also bring about changes of knowledge without changing factual properties of the world : for example a card is revealed publicly to be red. Originally, DEL focused on epistemic events. We only present in this entry some of the basic ideas of the original DEL framework; more details about DEL in general can be found in the references.

Definitions of knowledge try to determine the essential features of knowledge. Closely related terms are conception of knowledge, theory of knowledge, and analysis of knowledge. Some general features of knowledge are widely accepted among philosophers, for example, that it constitutes a cognitive success or an epistemic contact with reality and that propositional knowledge involves true belief. Most definitions of knowledge in analytic philosophy focus on propositional knowledge or knowledge-that, as in knowing that Dave is at home, in contrast to knowledge-how (know-how) expressing practical competence. However, despite the intense study of knowledge in epistemology, the disagreements about its precise nature are still both numerous and deep. Some of those disagreements arise from the fact that different theorists have different goals in mind: some try to provide a practically useful definition by delineating its most salient feature or features, while others aim at a theoretically precise definition of its necessary and sufficient conditions. Further disputes are caused by methodological differences: some theorists start from abstract and general intuitions or hypotheses, others from concrete and specific cases, and still others from linguistic usage. Additional disagreements arise concerning the standards of knowledge: whether knowledge is something rare that demands very high standards, like infallibility, or whether it is something common that requires only the possession of some evidence.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Jemielniak 2014, p. prologue.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014). Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia. ISBN   978-0804789448.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Jemielniak 2014, p. 13.
  4. 1 2 Jemielniak 2014, p. 14-16.
  5. 1 2 Jemielniak 2014, p. 17-20.
  6. ↑ Jemielniak 2014, p. 19-22.
  7. 1 2 Jemielniak 2014, p. 21.
  8. 1 2 3 Jemielniak 2014, p. 22-28.
  9. 1 2 Jemielniak 2014, p. 29-32.
  10. 1 2 3 4 Jemielniak 2014, p. 33-39.
  11. 1 2 Jemielniak 2014, p. 39.
  12. ↑ Jemielniak 2014, p. 38-39.
  13. 1 2 3 Jemielniak 2014, p. 39-55.
  14. ↑ Jemielniak 2014, p. 55-58.
  15. ↑ Jemielniak 2014, p. 59.
  16. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Jemielniak 2014, p. 85-87.
  17. 1 2 3 4 5 Jemielniak 2014, p. 87-96.
  18. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Jemielniak 2014, p. 92-99.
  19. 1 2 3 Jemielniak 2014, p. 99-104.
  20. 1 2 3 4 Jemielniak 2014, p. 105-106.
  21. ↑ Jemielniak 2014, p. 106-109.
  22. 1 2 3 Jemielniak 2014, p. 109-117.
  23. ↑ Jemielniak 2014, p. 117-120.
  24. 1 2 Jemielniak 2014, p. 120-124.
  25. 1 2 3 Jemielniak 2014, p. 125-131.
  26. 1 2 3 Jemielniak 2014, p. 153-155.
  27. 1 2 Jemielniak 2014, p. 180-182.
  28. ↑ Kiberd, Roisin (2 September 2014). "An Ethnographic Study of the Wikipedia Hive Mind". Vice . Retrieved 8 February 2015.
  29. ↑ Fister, Barbara (11 December 2014). "Common Knowledge: Jemielniak on Wikipeda [sic]". Inside Higher Ed . Retrieved 8 February 2015.
  30. ↑ Postrel, Virginia (17 November 2014). "Who Killed Wikipedia?". Pacific Standard . Retrieved 8 February 2015.
  31. ↑ Anders, George (30 June 2014). "How Wikipedia Really Works: An Insider's Wry, Brave Account". forbes.com. Retrieved 23 June 2015.
  32. 1 2 3 Bourne, Dorota Joanna (March 2016). "All That We Know Dariusz Jemielniak Common knowledge? An ethnography of Wikipedia". European Management Review. 13 (1): 69–72. doi:10.1111/emre.12067.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.