The fate of expertise after Wikipedia

From WikiLit
Jump to: navigation, search
Publication (help)
The fate of expertise after Wikipedia
Authors: Lawrence M. Sanger [edit item]
Citation: Episteme - Edinburgh 6 (1): . 2009.
Publication type: Journal article
Peer-reviewed: Yes
Database(s):
DOI: 10.3366/E1742360008000543.
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
The fate of expertise after Wikipedia is a publication by Lawrence M. Sanger.


[edit] Abstract

Wikipedia has challenged traditional notions about the roles of experts in the Internet Age. Section 1 sets up a paradox. Wikipedia is a striking popular success, and yet its success can be attributed to the fact that it is wide open and bottom-up. How can such a successful knowledge project disdain expertise? Section 2 discusses the thesis that if Wikipedia could be shown by an excellent survey of experts to be fantastically reliable, then experts would not need to be granted positions of special authority. But, among other problems, this thesis is self-stultifying. Section 3 explores a couple ways in which egalitarian online communities might challenge the occupational roles or the epistemic leadership roles of experts. There is little support for the notion that the distinctive occupations that require expertise are being undermined. It is also implausible that Wikipedia and its like might take over the epistemic leadership roles of experts. Section 4 argues that a main reason that Wikipedia’s articles are as good as they are is that they are edited by knowledgeable people to whom deference is paid, although voluntarily. But some Wikipedia articles suffer because so many aggressive people drive off people more knowledgeable than they are; so there is no reason to think that Wikipedia’s articles will continually improve. Moreover, Wikipedia’s commitment to anonymity further drives off good contributors. Generally, some decisionmaking role for experts is not just consistent with online knowledge communities being open and bottom-up, it is recommended as well.

[edit] Research questions

"This paper discusses if Wikipedia model does vanishe the need for experts, when the knowledge can be actually generated by a collection of non-experts"

Research details

Topics: Encyclopedias, 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: N/A [edit item]

[edit] Conclusion

""some decision making role for experts is not just consistent with online knowledge communities being open and bottom-up" p. 52"

[edit] Comments

""some decision making role for experts is not just consistent with online knowledge communities being open and bottom-up" p. 52"


Further notes[edit]