Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T15:57:26.073Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Fate of Expertise after Wikipedia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Lawrence M. Sanger
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , February 2009 , pp. 52 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alston, William P. 1989. “Epistemic Circularity.” In his Epistemic Justification: Essays in the Theory of Knowledge. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Black, Max. 1954. “The Inductive Support of Inductive Rules.” In his Problems of Analysis: Philosophical Essays. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. “Fatally Flawed: Refuting the Recent Study on Encyclopedic Accuracy by the Journal Nature.” http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdfGoogle Scholar
Fallis, Don. 2008. “Toward an Epistemology of Wikipedia.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59: 1662–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, Jim. 2005. “Internet Encyclopaedias Go Head to Head.” Nature 438: 900–1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keen, Andrew. 2007. The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet is Killing Our Culture. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Lanier, Jaron. 2006. “Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism.” Edge. http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier06_index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Lih, Andrew. 2004. “Wikipedia as Participatory Journalism: Reliable Sources? Metrics for Evaluating Collaborative Media as a News Resource.” In Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Online Journalism. http://jmsc.hku.hk/faculty/alih/publications/utaustin-2004-wikipedia-rc2.pdfGoogle Scholar
Nature. 2006. “Nature's responses to Encyclopaedia Britannica.” http://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Rainie, Lee and Tancer, Bill. 2007. “36% of online American adults consult Wikipedia.” The Pew Internet & American Life Project (Pew/Internet). http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/212/report_display.aspGoogle Scholar
Sanger, Larry. 2006a. “Text and Collaboration: A Personal Manifesto for the Text Outline Project.” Posted April 2006. http://www.textop.org/TextAndCollaboration.htmlGoogle Scholar
Sanger, Larry. 2006b. “The Future of Free Information.” The Digital Universe Journal. Article 2006–1. http://www.dufoundation.org/downloads/Article_2006_01.pdfGoogle Scholar
Sanger, Larry. 2006c. “Why Make Room for Experts in Web 2.0?” Keynote speech, SDForum, San Jose, CA, October 24, 2006. http://www.citizendium.org/roomforexperts.htmlGoogle Scholar
Sanger, Larry. 2007. “Who Says We Know: On the New Politics of Knowledge.” Edge. http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/sanger07/sanger07_index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Sanger, Larry. 2008a. “The Future of Free Information.” Macau Ricci Institute Studies 5: 425–45.Google Scholar
Sanger, Larry. 2008b. “Who's More Command-and-Control, Wikipedia or CZ?” Blog post, February 28, 2008. http://blog.citizendium.org/2008/02/28/whos-morecommand-and-control-Wikipedia-or-cz/Google Scholar
Empiricus, Sextus. 1990. Outlines of Pyrrhonism. Bury, R. G. (trans.). Bu.alo, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Wallace, Patricia. 1999. The Psychology of the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wikipedia contributors. “Wikipedia:Expert editors.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved November 4, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Expert_editorsGoogle Scholar
Wikipedia contributors. “Wikipedia:No original research.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved November 3, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_researchGoogle Scholar
Wikipedia contributors. “Wikipedia: Verifiability.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved November 3, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VerifiabilityGoogle Scholar