On trusting Wikipedia

From WikiLit
Jump to: navigation, search
Publication (help)
On trusting Wikipedia
Authors: P.D. Magnus [edit item]
Citation: Episteme - Edinburgh 6 (1): . 2009.
Publication type: Journal article
Peer-reviewed: Yes
Database(s):
DOI: 10.3366/E1742360008000555.
Google Scholar cites: Citations
Link(s): Paper link
Added by Wikilit team: Added on initial load
Search
Article: Google Scholar BASE PubMed
Other scholarly wikis: AcaWiki Brede Wiki WikiPapers
Web search: Bing Google Yahoo!Google PDF
Other:
Services
Format: BibTeX
On trusting Wikipedia is a publication by P.D. Magnus.


[edit] 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.

[edit] Research questions

"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."

Research details

Topics: Epistemology [edit item]
Domains: Philosophy and ethics [edit item]
Theory type: Analysis [edit item]
Wikipedia coverage: Main topic [edit item]
Theories: "Undetermined" [edit item]
Research design: Conceptual [edit item]
Data source: N/A [edit item]
Collected data time dimension: N/A [edit item]
Unit of analysis: N/A [edit item]
Wikipedia data extraction: N/A [edit item]
Wikipedia page type: N/A [edit item]
Wikipedia language: Not specified [edit item]

[edit] Conclusion

"Users who do not know about such features cannot possibly use them. So teaching people to engage Wikipedia responsibly will require getting them to cultivate a healthy scepticism, to think of it differently than they think of traditional sources, and to learn to look beyond the current articles – and it will require learning to engage with it more responsibly ourselves."

[edit] Comments

"N/A (eventhough the author mentioned a small survey)"


Further notes[edit]

Facts about "On trusting Wikipedia"RDF feed
AbstractGiven the fact that many people use WikipeGiven 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.ires new

epistemic methods and strategies.
Added by wikilit teamAdded on initial load +
Collected data time dimensionN/A +
CommentsN/A (eventhough the author mentioned a small survey)
ConclusionUsers who do not know about such features Users who do not know about such features cannot possibly

use them. So teaching people to engage Wikipedia responsibly will require getting them to cultivate a healthy scepticism, to think of it differently than they think of traditional sources, and to learn to look beyond the current articles – and it will

require learning to engage with it more responsibly ourselves.
engage with it more responsibly ourselves.
Data sourceN/A +
Doi10.3366/E1742360008000555 +
Google scholar urlhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?ie=UTF-8&q=%22On%2Btrusting%2BWikipedia%22 +
Has authorP.D. Magnus +
Has domainPhilosophy and ethics +
Has topicEpistemology +
Issue1 +
Peer reviewedYes +
Publication typeJournal article +
Published inEpisteme - Edinburgh +
Research designConceptual +
Research questionsGiven the fact that many people use WikipeGiven 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.ires new

epistemic methods and strategies.
Revid10,893 +
TheoriesUndetermined
Theory typeAnalysis +
TitleOn trusting Wikipedia
Unit of analysisN/A +
Urlhttp://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8356180 +
Volume6 +
Wikipedia coverageMain topic +
Wikipedia data extractionN/A +
Wikipedia languageNot specified +
Wikipedia page typeN/A +
Year2009 +