| Abstract
|
Given the fact that many people use Wikipe … 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.ires new
epistemic methods and strategies.
|
| Added by wikilit team
|
Added on initial load +
|
| Collected data time dimension
|
N/A +
|
| Comments
|
N/A (eventhough the author mentioned a small survey)
|
| Conclusion
|
Users 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 source
|
N/A +
|
| Doi
|
10.3366/E1742360008000555 +
|
| Google scholar url
|
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?ie=UTF-8&q=%22On%2Btrusting%2BWikipedia%22 +
|
| Has author
|
P.D. Magnus +
|
| Has domain
|
Philosophy and ethics +
|
| Has topic
|
Epistemology +
|
| Issue
|
1 +
|
| Peer reviewed
|
Yes +
|
| Publication type
|
Journal article +
|
| Published in
|
Episteme - Edinburgh +
|
| Research design
|
Conceptual +
|
| Research questions
|
Given the fact that many people use Wikipe … 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.ires new
epistemic methods and strategies.
|
| Revid
|
10,893 +
|
| Theories
|
Undetermined
|
| Theory type
|
Analysis +
|
| Title
|
On trusting Wikipedia
|
| Unit of analysis
|
N/A +
|
| Url
|
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8356180 +
|
| Volume
|
6 +
|
| Wikipedia coverage
|
Main topic +
|
| Wikipedia data extraction
|
N/A +
|
| Wikipedia language
|
Not specified +
|
| Wikipedia page type
|
N/A +
|
| Year
|
2009 +
|
| Creation dateThis property is a special property in this wiki.
|
15 March 2012 20:29:55 +
|
| Categories |
Epistemology +
, Philosophy and ethics +
, Publications +
|
| Modification dateThis property is a special property in this wiki.
|
30 January 2014 20:30:13 +
|
