This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 23 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK

The Routledge Handbook of Applied Epistemology

David Coady, James Chase

Wikipedia

Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315679099-3 Karen Frost-Arnold Published online on: 30 Aug 2018

How to cite :- Karen Frost-Arnold. 30 Aug 2018, from: The Routledge Handbook of Applied Epistemology Routledge Accessed on: 23 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315679099-3

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT

Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms

This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. 28

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 17:00 23 Sep 2021; For: 9781315679099, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315679099-3 fundamental epistemicgood(Goldman (Goldman community members social epistemology evaluates epistemicsystems according totheirepistemicoutcomes for Wikipedia systems- isveritistic andlimitations.nity shapesitsepistemicmerits framework fortheepistemology of A useful within appliedepistemology and arguesthatthesocialorganizationof Wikipedia commu- damages thelandscapeofhumanknowledge. the This chapter summarizes Wikipedia debates temology isuniquelypositioned toevaluate towhatextent Wikipedia actuallyimproves or articles (“ articles and isthefocusofthischapter. (hereafter ‘Wikipedia’) hasover 5 million in diff (“ the topGoogle queries result tofactual on theInternet. Itreceives every uniquevisitors month, 374 million andregularly as appears inonlinecollaborativeexperiment knowledge dissemination. Itisoneofthemostvisitedsites Asafree encyclopediaproduced mostlyby volunteer contributors, Wikipedia isanambitious research (“ meetitsstandards ofaneutralpointview,to checkthatarticles verifi slower oversight peerreview editorial orexpert procedures, Wikipedia relies onitscontributors Wikipedia’s community. This openness aimsataddingcontentrapidly. Additionally, inplaceof ledge. Anyone caneditmostpagesandhelpshapethepoliciesorganizationsthatmaintain independent sources toprovide free accesstoanaccurate, neutralsource ofencyclopedicknow- considerations inmind. The Wikipedian dream ofvolunteers isanarmy drawing onreliable, applied epistemologists’ attention. Wikipedians of true beliefswithinitscommunity ofusers.of true Alvin Goldman( epistemology of Wikipedia evaluates Wikipedia’s anddissemination impactontheformation standards, by Paul summarized Thagard asfollows: Butdoesthereality live upto Wikipedians’ dreams? As anormative enterprise, appliedepis- Wikipedia hasloftyepistemicgoalsandisdesignedconstantlyupdatedwith erent languages(“ Wikipedia:About Wikipedia:Core contentpolicies ”). As oneofthemostcommonlyusedreference sites, merits Wikipedia certainly List of ”) andover 30,000active Wikipedians editingcontent(“ WIKIPEDIA oriented socialepistemology (seeFallis oriented 2011 Arnold d l o n r A - t s o r F n e r a K ). socialepistemology takes beliefasthe A veritistic true Introduction n o i t c u d o r t n I 1992 Wikipedia:About ”). ”). The Englishlanguage Wikipedia isthelargest , 3 28 1999 ). Thus, systems- averitistic ”). There are 280active Wikipedias 1992 2011 ) lays outfi ability, andnooriginal ). Systems- oriented social oriented ve veritistic veritistic ve oriented oriented Active 29

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 17:00 23 Sep 2021; For: 9781315679099, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315679099-3 2. 1. et al. ( in of theinformation Wikipedia accurate(see Fallis Muchepistemicanalysisof Wikipedia focusesonthequestionof Wikipedia’s reliability: is most articles) (Hartelius (Hartelius articles) (suchasfi procedural information skillin managing able independentsources. Experienced Wikipedians may be experts”“informational whopossess basedonreli- Wikipedia ofpeoplecollectinganddisseminating information aimstobeanarmy Wikipedia isnotasource ofnew knowledge production that requires contentexpertise. Instead, edit, remove, on information andcategorize Wikipedia) onthetopic. are oftennotexperts anonymous editing, andincentives todamage Wikipedia. non- about reliability centeraround three features of the encyclopedia: Temple andFraser reliable, et al. andmore recent studiesconcur(Kräenbring are reliable, whichclaimshave beenrefuted, etc. (Fallis willnotknowlack contentexpertise whichtopicsare notable andimportant, whichsources 3. 1945 many peoplecanproduce reliable knowledge, conditions(Estlund undercertain diction markets, theorem andtheCondorcet theviewpoints suggeststhataggregating jury of 4. (Healy tent experts havetent experts atnon- beenalarmed 5. that Wikipedia’s reliability compares well with reliable (Fallis are createdand oftenarticles by asmallgroupinsteadoflarge crowd (Fallis Wikipedia refl they oftenreach consensusthrough deliberationratherthanvoting); on anyarticle current adequately explain Wikipedia’s reliability. Wikipedians their views donotsimplyaggregate (e.g., Wikipedia does not grant content experts additional authority (inpart, additionalauthority content experts becauseithas no Wikipedia doesnotgrant areclaims by removed contentexperts orreplaced with inaccurate onesby non- 2– Wikipedia’s community isapressing epistemicthreat, especiallytostandards 1and2. members. Finally, between anddistrust status dependsonitscomplexandshiftingrelations community oftrust Section1

5. the by thepractice; the Anyone caneditmostpagesin Wikipedia, (i.e., whichmeansthateditors thosewhowrite, the questions thatinterest them; the practitioners; the Whetherornot Wikipedia illustratesthewisdomofcrowds, studiesshow thatitisrelatively 1997 ; Sunstein Section 3 2011 reliability speed power effi fecundity 2007 : 247). ciency evaluates Wikipedia according tostandard 1, while ) review several studiesshowing that Wikipedia’s isgenerally medicalinformation ofapracticeishow answers; quicklyitleadstotrue ofapracticeismeasured by itsabilitytohelpcognizersfi ). When thishappens, thereliability of Wikipedia cansuff ects theviewpoint ofthemost recent judgment), editor(ratherthananaggregated 2008

draws toarguethat onthesocialepistemology oftrust Wikipedia’s epistemic ofapracticeishow well answers itlimitsthecostofgettingtrue (Thagard ofapracticeismeasured bytototalnumber ofbeliefsfostered theratiooftruths of a practice is its ability to lead to large numbers of true beliefsfor oftrue ofapracticeisitsabilitytoleadlargenumbers 2006

section 4 ; “ ; “ 2011 2014 ; Surowiecki . s iiei rlal? hud e rs it? trust we Should reliable? Wikipedia Is 1. ; Pfi ). results, Despitetheseencouraging appliedepistemologists’ concerns ster ster appliesfeministepistemology toshow thatlackofdiversity in

2011 2004 ). Nonetheless, that onemightworry Wikipedians who ). However, DonFallis( experts editingordeletingtheirworkexperts on Wikipedia Wikipedia ”). For example, awidelyread 29 Encyclopedia Britannica Britannica Encyclopedia 2011 citationsin nding andinserting Wikipedia : 299)? Work system, ontheprice pre- 2011 2014 : 300). : 300). Additionally, many con- 2008 section 2

; Kupferberg andProtus ) arguesthatthisdoesnot er, ifaccurate particularly ’s (Giles answersnd true tothe focusesonstandards Nature expert authorship,expert 2008 2005 experts. While 1994 studyfound : 1670). ). 1

Heilman ; Hayek 2011 many ;

30

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 17:00 23 Sep 2021; For: 9781315679099, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315679099-3 experts to learn how tolearn navigateexperts (Lih thewikiinfrastructure have by madeattemptstoreach outtoexperts solicitingtheirinputinways thatdonotrequire (“ ofeditors theexpertise mechanism forverifying actors (Owensactors generally very sensitive toprivacy issuesandrarely publicly release theoffl increase the accuracy of their contributions (Sanger increase theaccuracyoftheircontributions whobelieveepistemologists thatholdingpeople’s offl if successful, couldimprove thereliability oftheencyclopedia. anonymity (Fallis to their expertise and harassmentmightonlycontribute Wikipedia undertheprotection of of onlineanonymity. ofvulnerable populationswhohave Members ofreprisal fears legitimate Barbara 2015, and blocked (Erhart money administrators topost articles 381useraccountsforcharging names were known” (Sanger withoutarestraint thatmanychety benttoattackexperts would nodoubtfeeliftheirreal part, allows thosewithananti- becauseofsuchconcerns: “anonymity up toexpectationsofaccuracy. Sanger, Larry aco- editors’ offl editor canaddinaccurateinformation, andtheiroffl accounts withapseudonym, orthey caneditwithonlytheirIPaddress beinglogged. Thus, an harm theepistemicproject (Fallis harm weed outerrors, thereby improving theaccuracyofencyclopedia. nymity may allow somevulnerable Wikipedians toengageintalkanddiscussionsthathelp closed paidediting, isfrowned uponin Wikipedia (“ content toarticles. For example, editingwhileunderaconfl areand harassers allpotentialthreats toreliability, sinceitmay beintheirinterest toaddfalse had beenreceived (“ articles. tooff They contactedthesubjectsofthosearticles an experienced Wikipedian oradministrator. usedrecordsThe scammers ofpreviously rejected (Erhart andBarbara (Erhart that the fact Wikipedia’s volunteer diduncover army thescamandtake corrective measures aboutitsreliability. cause toworry editing give critics However, by onemightbecomforted accountability forinaccuracy. users’ onlineidentitiesby, forexample, banninganaccountfrom thesite. Thus, there is some Although there israrely punishmentforusers’ offl they ignore two points. First, there while anonymous Wikipedians donot(Wray tothatofscienceprecisely becausescientistshaveWikipedia isinferior areputation toprotect, related toconfl professional ethics culture inwhichPRfi communications fi failing to detect the error quicklyand fornotidentifyingthevandal todetectthe error (Seigenthaler failing the assassinationsofJohn Kennedy. andRobert Seigenthalerpublicly attacked Wikipedia for Johnbiography Seigenthalertospeculatethathad beeninvolved ofjournalist in their own amusement. Seigenthaler incident, Inthewidelyreported aprankstereditedthe Wikipedia allows tobeanonymous. editors Anonymity for isasecondsource ofconcern A third epistemic concern isthat Athird epistemicconcern Wikipedia’s with incentives opennessattractseditors to Wikipedia’s opennessalsoattractstrolls andvandals whointroduce inaccuratecontentfor 2015 ine identitiescannotbepunished, lackincentive thateditors someworry forliving ). Inthisscam, were smallbusinesses andartists contactedby someoneposingas ictofinterest (Lih 2013 rms rms 2008 ). Second, demandsforincreased accountability ignore theepistemicvalue 2015 Wikipedia:Long- ”). 1668; Frost- : ). Additionally, Wikipedia hasworked withmajorPRfi 2009 2

I discuss thesesanctionsin I discuss 2015 : 66). And K. Brad Wray arguesthattheepistemicculture of 2011 are Arnold Arnold term abuse/ term punishmentsforuntrustworthy behavior on Wikipedia. Karen Frost-Arnold ; “ ; “ : 300). Trolls, vandals, public relations fi rms donotviolate rms Wikipedia policies, including those Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating 2009 2014a 30 ine identities, there isasystemforsanctioning Orangemoody : 39– Wikipedia:Confl ). ofreliability, Interms Wikipedia’s ano- ine identitywillnotbetarnished. Since founder of Wikipedia, lefttheproject, in 2009 Wikipedia:Expert editors editors Wikipedia:Expert will ine identitiesaccountable forerrors 40). While theseargumentshave merit, ; Wray er toaddthecontentoncepayment section 3 2015 ict ofinterest, especiallyundis- ”). This andothercasesofpaid 2009 ; Lihet al. ict ofinterest . Wikipedians, though, are ). Wikipedians cancreate intellectual orjustcrot- ine identity of bad of identity ine 2015 ”)), Wikipedians rms,politicians, rms tocreate a rms ). Sucheff ”). In August 2005 orts, ). In 31

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 17:00 23 Sep 2021; For: 9781315679099, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315679099-3 we it?” trust (Fallis importance iswhetherweimportance canbejustifi improve itsreliability. goals,those withharmful Wikipedia haspoliciesinplacetoaddress theseissuesandcontinually haveepistemologists aboutitslackofexperts, raisedconcerns anonymity, andopennessto epistemic goals, especiallywhenthestakes are forerror nothigh(Fallis for support some empirical Wikipedia’s reliability, anditmay bereliable enoughtomeetour measures cannotmake Wikipedia vandal- users from thatmayusers editingarticles betargetsofvandalism (Lih semi- (3) a policy was created toprovide guidelinesforremoving inbiographies, questionable material and anonymous were users prevented from creating new articles, (2) aBiography ofLiving Persons response, Wikipedia institutednew measures toprotect theencyclopediaagainstvandalism: (1) assess the trustworthiness ofa assess thetrustworthiness that Wikipedia asasystemisreliable onaverage, “this overall doesnothelpusto trustworthiness anyone canchangethecontentat any moment. Thus, whilewe may have goodreason tobelieve process. However, aproblem withprocedural in trust Wikipedia isthat Wikipedia isdynamic – knowledge about Wikipedia’s safeguards forreliability asgoodjustifi cedural trust – Wikipedia hasnosingle, identifi tifi may inadvertently use Wikipedia as aself- sources forcorroboration. However, many from othersitescopy material Wikipedia, soone example, onemightusethemethodofsamplingby checkingaclaimonwebsite againstother ourusualmethodsofevaluatingWikipedia frustrates ofonlineclaims. thetrustworthiness For in itsclaimsmay behard tojustify. ledgeable author(Magnus author, accuracyinoneclaimisnoguaranteethatotherclaimswere by thesameknow- written by inphysics;claim was anexpert written by adiff andsinceeachclaimcouldbewritten Thus, inthestyleofaphysicist isno guaranteethatany iswritten one thatthearticle thefact by hundredswritten ofpeoplewhodoaslittleaddoneclaim ortidyupthespellingandstyle. accurate aboutphysics outsidemy area ofknowledge). Buta ispotentially Wikipedia article aboutthephysics Ifso,the authorcorrect claimsthat I know? thentheauthorislikely to be like a physicist?)the authorwrite somethingaboutphysics. orcalibration(SupposeI know Is blog postaboutphysics by aself- usual toolsofverifi in information theoriginal sourcesWikipedia. tosupport Another way our Wikipedia frustrates Wikipedia, which isthenpicked upinmediareports, usedas whichare inturn ‘independent’ with a history ofvandalism).with ahistory forevery whetheraclaimwasediting history editor (lettingreadersverify madeby aneditor hasbeenthesubjectofarecent editwar –whether thearticle Wikipedia’s content. accesstoeveryWikipedia grants article’s (showing editinghistory readers reporting” (“ Wikipedia hasbeenalocusof creation of ‘citogenesis’: “the ‘reliable’ sources through circular 2009). cation willhave tobediff Leaving asidewhether reliable,Wikipedia isinfact questionofepistemological afurther However, Fallis( So, are there any ofspecifi toolstoassessthetrustworthiness 3

Judith Simon( protection toolwas introduced, whichprevents unregistered ornewly registered Wikipedia:List ofcitogenesis incidents trust intheprocess trust whichgenerates Wikipedia content. Onemighttake auser’s cation isthrough multi- 2008 2011 2010 , ) andSimon( 2011 2009 ) argues that trust in ) arguesthattrust Wikipedia isbestviewed asaninstanceofpro- 4

The ‘talk’ discussion aboutthe pagesallow readerstoseecritical erent thanjustifi specificlaim c ; Magnus : 85– : 85– able author(Magnus professed physicist usingstandards ofplausibilitystyle(Does 87). So, Wikipedia maytoverify, bechallenging andtrust ed in 2010 2009 in Wikipedia” (Simon free, they canincrease itsreliability. Insum, there is authored content. I might evaluate thereliability ofa Wikipedia confi ) arguethatthere may beotherways toverify believing 31 ). Ifwe canjustifi traditionaltestimony,cation fortrusting since source (Magnus rming ”). Incitogenesis, isaddedto information itreliable, orasP. D. Magnus asks: “Can 2009 ; Simon ared fl agforbias), anditprovides ably trust Wikipedia, ourjus- c claims?Magnus arguesthat 2010 2009 cation for their trust inthe cation fortheirtrust 2010 : 349). 2008 : 191– : 191– ; Tollefsen 2009 : 8). While applied : 8). While 94). While these 94). While 87). Relatedly,: 2009 ; Wray erent

32

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 17:00 23 Sep 2021; For: 9781315679099, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315679099-3 who knew eachotherwere central in foundingthecommunity (Lih Wikipedia’s culture: its anddistrust. complexandshiftingrelations oftrust Projects, organizeedit- a dynamiccommunity. Wikipedians interactontalkpages, meetinperson, collaborateon Wiki 2012 Theepistemicculture of (cf.Wikipedia iscentraltoitsepistemicsuccesses andfailings Coady error- success according toGoldman’s otherstandards ofpower, speed, fecundity, andeffi Reliabilityisnottheonlyepistemicvirtue, have andappliedepistemologists analyzed Wikipedia’s claims may bediffi in trust would undermine Wikipedia content. Insum, whethertotrust determining Wikipedia’s who take thetimetousethesetoolscanputthemselves that inapositiontogaindefeaters readers that, forexample, hasbeenquestioned.” ofthisarticle “The truthfulness Thus, readers reliability ofcontent. And disputetemplatesare postedinmany warning Wikipedia articles ( interesting epistemicsignifi shows thatasnewwere members recruited, Wikipedia usedhopefultrust, with oftrust aform takeveritists power reliability (Coady tosometimestrump hands ofthetrustee, willnot take but herhopethatthetrustee advantage ofthatvulnerability powerful orencyclopedic(Coady (e.g., aboutHarriet Tubman) would beamaximallyreliable source, but itwould notbevery Frost- this score, Wikipedia isincredibly epistemicallysuccessful. beliefsthanitscompetitorwouldtrue have anepistemicadvantage, alongonedimension. On know many truths, aswell asavoid errors. attainmoreAnd anencyclopediathathelpsusers to Wikipedia’s 3,890,000, almostsixtytimesasmany (Silverman productionit was in2012; endingprint atthetime, smaller number of experts (Fallis smaller number ofexperts volunteer non- foritsreliability,openness appeared tobeaconcern itisaboontoitspower – (Fallis for fast contentcreation (Fallis for fast to questionsformany people. Additionally, Wikipedia’s opennessisexplicitlydesignedtoallow process thatitonlyproduced about two initsfi dozenarticles encyclopedia by Sanger, andLarry , hadsuchademandingpeerreview cost- as afree source ofknowledge forusers, anduseofvolunteer has editors anditsonlineplatform fecundity – are openaccessadvocates, andtheproject’s emphasisonfree onlinecontentincreases its comparison, Wikipedia produced 20,000initsopeningyear (Lih 2008 Wikipedia started withasmallcommunity, Wikipedia started between relations andpersonal oftrust people Wikipedia alsomeasures well againstGoldman’s standards ofspeed, fecundityandeffi saving benefi : 171). While mostreadersperceive Wikipedia asastaticpieceoftext, Wikipedia isactually ) accountofhopefultrust, makes vulnerable thetrustor by herself inthe puttingherself Arnold Arnold avoiding epistemicvirtue, take epistemologists reliability astheprimary truth- 2011 itallows beliefstobeacquired by true : 305). Intheeraofsmartphones, Wikipedia provides instant, convenient answers 2014a experts can create and expand more entries than an encyclopedia written by a thananencyclopediawritten cancreate andexpandmoreexperts entries cult usingtraditionalmethodsofverifi tsinproduction. : 66– 2. A broader epistemology of Wikipedia Wikipedia of epistemology broader A 2. a- 68). claims consistingofalltrue An encyclopediawithonlyoneentry thons, andholdconferences. This sectionanalyzesonekey feature of cance, tomotivate innewbies. trustworthiness On McGeer’sVictoria 2008 2011 3. Wikipedia and trust trust and Wikipedia 3.

2012 : 1669; Sunstein : 305). Karen Frost-Arnold : 170). : 170). We want to anencyclopediatohelpitsusers 32 many 2006 Britannica Britannica people. Similarly, Wikipedia iseffi cation, but othermethodsare available. : 150). An initialattemptat anonline Encyclopedia Britannica Britannica Encyclopedia 2012 yearrst (Lih had 65,000 articles compared had65,000articles 2009 5– : 2009 2012 : 77). Many Wikipedians 7; Fallis ). Paul deLaat( ). WhileWikipedia’s 2009 2006 ciency. While thousandsof announced : 40– : 40– 182– : ciency seeking 41). In cient 2010 83; )

33

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 17:00 23 Sep 2021; For: 9781315679099, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315679099-3 large numbers of users whohadonlyfl ofusers large numbers vision ofmeasafellow Wikipedian motivating. Butas Wikipedia grew, itwas bound toattract Wikipedians, whatthey thinkofme, fi andI care thenitismore likely thatI can couldhave trust force. ofinterpersonal munity where commonforms someother IfI know trust (deLaat trust dence thatthey willbetrustworthy. interesting becauseone’s own insomeonecancount, trust conditions, undertheright asevi- vision canmake akindofrole thetrustee modeltoherself. isepistemically Hopefultrust trustee tothink: “I wanttrustee tobeassheseesmebe” (McGeer trustworthy. Itdoesthisbecausethetrustor’s hopefulvisioncanbemotivating – toliveencourages thetrustee uptothetrust. Thus, caninspire peopletobemore hopefultrust stemic trustworthiness motivatesstemic trustworthiness towork users fortheepistemicgoodofcommunity. explain someof Wikipedia’s epistemicsuccess – volunteers.faith caninspire trustworthiness, thathopefultrust IfMcGeerisright thismay help trustworthy commitmenttothe production ofafree, reliable encyclopediaproduced by good of Wikipedia hold outavisiontoitsmembers communications aboutcommunity norms but infellow they andnewcomers. oftendosowithanattitudeofhopefultrust members people todobetter. As founderJimmy Wales puts it, towardtrust newcomers. Onereason Wikipedians oftengive forthisapproach isthatitinspires fully completingscreening procedures. But Wikipedians insteadadoptanattitudeofqualifi tonew members, attitudeofdistrust default toeditaftersuccess- forcing themtogetpermission motives.vulnerable tothosewithharmful ofthisthreat, Intheface Wikipedians couldadopta able – a distrustful attitudeandrationalchoiceapproach a distrustful totrust. charitable resource”charitable (Wales discoveries in Wikipedia, thatmostpeopleonlywant tohelpusandbuild thisfree nonprofi It’s aremost peopleouttheregood. … oneofthewonderful onthe Internet humanitarian discussions. For example, inaCNNdiscussionwithSeigenthaler, Wales said, “Generally we fi most public ambassador, Jimmy Wales, presents ahopefulvisionofthecommunity inhispublic the community consensusguidelinesespousethisattitudeofhopefultrust. Third, Wikipedia’s nity, are anddisputesaboutwhethermembers actuallyfollowing thesepracticesabound, but by (deLaat assuminggoodfaith In otherwords, Wikipedians make themselves vulnerable todamage, andthey dosowithhope Wikipedians encouragenewtomake editors editswithoutfearofbreaking theencyclopedia. “ “Assume goodfaith,” “Don’t bitethenewbies,” and “Be bold” (“ Asecondsignof Wikipedia’s of isitscommitmenttotheprinciples attitudeofhopefultrust Wikipedia:Be bold Intheirrelations withoneanother, apowerfulWikipedians oftenendorse ofhopeful form Ontheotherhand, Wikipedia’s isalsoqualifi attitudeofhopefultrust to dogood. leaving thingsopen- anyone …[Wikipedia is]about fortrust elseactuallyeliminatesall the opportunities of thereasons isbecausethisphilosophytomake oftrying sure thatnoonecanhurt taneously dogood… There are somany hostilecommunities ontheInternet. One [B] they putthemselves ineachother’s hands. Wikipedia maintainsanopennessthatmakes it y having complex permission models,y having complexpermission you make itvery hard forpeopletospon- 2010 ). First, ofthe members make themselves vulner- ”; “ Wikipedia:Please donotbitethenewcomers ended, it’s people, abouttrusting it’s people aboutencouraging 2005 ). 5

2010 Insum, Wikipedians make themselves vulnerable toharm, : 332). Ofcourse,: 332). Wikipedians are adiverse commu- eeting interactionswiththe community. Therefore, it Wikipedia 33 its attitude of hopeful trust andvision ofepi- itsattitudeofhopefultrust 6

asasmallcom- Wikipedia started 2008 Wikipedia:Assume good faith Wikipedia:Assume goodfaith : 249). Inthisway, ahopeful Wales ”). With these principles, ed andbalancedwith 2009 : xvii– itprompts the nd their nd xviii

nd ed t, ”; 34

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 17:00 23 Sep 2021; For: 9781315679099, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315679099-3 lacks multicultural diversity (Backer in itssurveys, andthere isalackofotherdata, but anecdotalevidence suggeststhat Wikipedia 2011 Wikipedians rangefrom 9%to16%women (HillandShaw Lackofdiversity isanepistemicproblem for Wikipedia. Estimatesofgenderdiversity of help Wikipedians detectandrevert vandalism (deLaat and (3) semi- reliability: (1) creation foranonymous noarticle users, (2) a Biography ofLiving Persons policy, earlier, inresponse totheSeigenthalerincident, Wikipedia institutedmethodstoimprove its (seedeLaat toqualifytheattitudeofhopefultrust an attitudeofdistrust that is notsurprising Wikipedia was rocked by andconsequentlygrew scandalsofbadactors Western bias(Hern topics related to women, peopleofcolor, andnon- about diversity on aboutgapsincoverageWikipedia are mostcommonly framedasconcerns of consequences ofproposed solutions tothegap. I address both. analysis oftheepistemicsignifi oftheappliedepistemologist.side thepurview (1) an Applied epistemology cancontribute causesofthediversity thetrue out- gaprequires studyandfalls Determining careful empirical ness aimed at inspiring new members. ness aimedatinspiring remnants ofhopefultrust’s ofavisiontrustworthi- opennesstonewcomers andarticulation the community more tothreat ofpunishment. However, asI have arguedabove, there are still connections. andinterpersonal an attitudeofhopefultrust Butthepressures ofgrowth turned trust. Itmay bedescriptively accuratethat Wikipedia’s earlyepistemicsuccesses depended on is whether these changing relations of trust support or undermine orundermine support relations oftrust is whetherthesechanging Wikipedia’s epistemicgoals. community (“ punishments suchasprobation, ontopicsa restrictions Wikipedian canedit, andbansfrom the has beenusedless, ArbCom isbusy – and anarbitrationcommittee(ArbCom)(Lih and judgeindisputes. So, in2004, Wales volunteers recruited tosetupamediationcommittee types ofeditors,from ofcertain amistrust forexample, anonymous, new editors. cient tokeep atbay badactors isanopenquestion, constantlydebatedwithinthecommunity. toadoptthispessimisticview.persuaded Whether Wikipedia’s systemofpunishmentissuffi 2009 as follows: “Wikipedia ofwhathumanityis, holdsupthedarkmirror (quotedinLih toitself” approach.nature thanthehopefultrust thecontrast Jason Scottsummarizes historian Internet ations. Following Hobbes, therationalchoiceapproach thustakes ableaker view ofhuman orpro- sharewithout needingtoassumethattheircommunity members altruistic violate therules. The goalofsuchsystemsistoallow tocooperatewitheachother members act asexpected. Wikipedia hasguidelinesforconductandasystemofpunishmentthosewho constraints, mostnotably punishmentforuntrustworthiness, tomake itintheirself- and maintainsthatpeopleactinatrustworthy mannerwhenthere are suffi choice approach totrust. This approach modelsindividuals asself- The demographics of Thedemographics haveWikipedia editors several epistemicimplications. First, concerns Itmay bethat Wikipedia’s successliesinitsabilitytoblend bothoftheseapproaches to Additionally, as Wikipedia grew, itwas nolongerfeasible forJimmy Wales toactasamediator ). The doesnotcollectdata ontheraceorethnicityofeditors : 131). Becauseofallthevandalism, trolls, andharassmenton Wikipedia, onemightbe protection. Moreover, software toolsandautonomousbotshave proliferated to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions Wikipedia:Editing restrictions 2015 ). There isnoconsensusonthecausesof Wikipedia’s diversity problem. 4. Wikipedia’s gaps and biases biases and gaps Wikipedia’s 4. evaluation ofthe epistemic cance oftheimbalance and(2) an 2015

8 Karen Frost-Arnold For theappliedepistemologist, theinteresting question it is the main sanctions arm of itisthemainsanctionsarm Wikipedia, delivering ; Murphy ”). Systemsofpunishmentare signsofarational 34 2009 Western subjects, which islargelyaconcern 2015 180). : While themediationcommittee 2015 ; Reynosa ). Many ofthesemechanismsstem 2013 2015 interested rationalactors ; Wikimedia Foundation; Wikimedia ). Wikipedia alsohasa 2010 cient external external cient ).discussed As social motiv- interest to - 7

35

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 17:00 23 Sep 2021; For: 9781315679099, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315679099-3 Garrido et al.Garrido on Wikipedia containmore marriage- claims(Frost- forfalse support evidential often detectunconsciousbiaseswiththebackgroundassumptionsandpurported by scrutiny peoplefromsubjected tocritical diff byconsider supported evidence. canbedetectedwhenputative Errors knowledge claimsare bias. Backgroundassumptionsshapedby individuals’ sociallocationscanshapetheclaimsthey haveas feministepistemologists longargued, communities thatlackdiversity canperpetuate Wikipedia’s reliability, are weeded itisoften arguedthaterrors outby communal scrutiny. But will beadded. women, thereby increasing available thenumber oftruths on Wikipedia, sincemore biographies of women, thenattractingmore women may editors increase thenumber of ofbiographies (Graells- to men. And women’s in onlyaccountfor15.5%ofallbiographies biographies Wikipedia that topicsofinterest towomen have in articles shorter Wikipedia thandotopicsofinterest about thepower (inGoldman’s sense)of Wikipedia. For al. instance, ( Lamet spouse is.’ claim (amongothers) ‘A woman’s spouseismore relevant toheraccomplishmentsthanaman’s misleading evidence – of others, reader canbemisleadingandharmful. of A Wikipedia isexposedto biographies are missing;some truths whichdoappear, itisthatthetruths inconjunctionwiththeabsence statusofmany men),the marital tofullycapture but theproblem. thisfails Itisnotjustthat Perhaps theproblem ofpower isafailure because (namely,Wikipedia ismissingsometruths identifi correctly woman’sin aparticular toso- biography thatshewas married suff of Wikipedia talkpages, inthediscussionsonarticle taking part fewer are detectedandthereliability errors fewer women, peopleofcolor, ofotherunderrepresentedgroupsmakingeditsor andmembers entered scientifi of knowledge andbiaswhenwomen communities thatdetectederrors orpeopleofcolor 1990 be non- how afoulof onesolutionfalls “the problem ofspeakingforothers” (Alcoff oftheseproposed solutions.can beusefulinassessingtheepistemic merits To illustrate, I show systemicbias Countering gender andmulticultural diversity (“ (Cohen misleading truths. Therefore, more diversity seemslikely ineditorship todiminish Wikipedia’s problem with likely thatwomen have in more atstake such misleadinginformation incorrecting Wikipedia. While women stereotypes, are alsovulnerable tounconsciousbiasandcanalsoperpetuate itis women’s identitiesare thantotheirprofessional more tiedtotheir families accomplishments. tothedevaluationcontributes of women’s accomplishmentsandpromotes thestereotype that guideline andverifi Third, lackofdiversity theproliferation facilitates ofmisleading truths. Women’s biographies Second, thereliability lackofdiversity of undermines Wikipedia. Indiscussionsof The Wikimedia Foundation setthegoalofincreasing women Wikipedians to25%by 2015 Oneofthesuspectedcauses Wikipedia’s diversity problem isitsreliance onthenotability ). Oneofthemainprojects offeministsciencestudies hasbeentoprovide casestudies 2011 trivial andinteresting, trivial Garrido et al.Garrido

10 This isepistemicallyproblematic, claim, asafalse asit but itisalsoethicallyharmful ). Although thisinitiative hasfailed, many otherprojects aimtoimprove Wikipedia’s 2015

9 Thus, lackofdiversity meansthatfewer are available truths tocognizers. numbers.c disciplinesingreater to Returning Wikipedia, thismeansthatwith ed, thisstatementmightnotseemepistemicallyproblematic, becauseitistrue. ers. ). There isanepistemicproblem here, but whatisit?Considerthestatement ability policy. in The notabilityguidelineensures thatthetruths Wikipedia basedonwhatthey read, they have reason tobelieve thefollowing false 2015 ”; “ ). Ifwomen are editors more likely thanmentocreate biographies Wikipedia:WikiProject Women inRed Arnold Arnold

11 andtheverifi 2014a related events ofmen(Graells- thandobiographies Wikipedia : 71; Goldman AfroCROWD:About” ability policy obviously makes Wikipedia more 35 erent whocanrecognize backgrounds and 1999 and- : 78; Intemann so. Assuming thespousewas ; “ ; “ ”).epistemology Applied Wikipedia:WikiProject

1991 2010 ). 2011 ; Longino ) found 36

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 17:00 23 Sep 2021; For: 9781315679099, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315679099-3 2015 notability andverifi verifi subpopulation may notseemnotable. ofthenotabilityguideline reads,The nutshell description tion. To awhite, Western editor, toan onanartwork ofculturalimportance anarticle Asian imacy are madeinlightofbackgroundassumptions, whichcanbe biasedby one’s socialloca- community (an Afro- gives theexampleofproposed on article inPeril,”“Garifuna afi ofpeople increase theparticipation descentin African Wikimedia (“ Backer, founderof Afro Free Culture Crowdsourcing Wikimedia (AfroCROWD), aninitiative to sources are reliable. The problem isthatthesebackgroundassumptionscanbebiased. Alice document thisattention, andthiswillbedoneinlightofbackgroundassumptionsaboutwhich Similarly, onemust make judgmentsaboutwhetherthere existreliable independentsources to makes attentionsignifi attention by theworld atlarge,” whichisajudgmentmadeinlightofassumptionsaboutwhat Following thisguidelinerequires assessingwhetheratopichasgained “suffi advocating on behalf of marginalized others (Code advocating others onbehalfofmarginalized aboutthenotabilityorverifi concerns canoverride behind anarticle valuable tothecommunity make contributions oneatrustworthy editor, intheeditor and trust relations oftrust – deleted whensubmittedby peopleofcolor. Noticethatthissolutionleverages Wikipedia’s instances inwhichthisstrategyhadeff solution was repeatedly proposed at WikiConference USA2015, andexampleswere off the trusted Wikipedian, they willbelesslikely torecommend itfordeletion asnon- groups.minority Thus, when Wikipedians andseethatitwas lookat the new article created by Wikipedian, whobelongto editors onbehalfoflessexperienced topostthenew article communities are oftenrejected. Hence, notsurprisingly, ofwomen, thecontributions people ofcolor, andothermarginalized knowledge, whichbiasesourassessmentofwhatisnotable andwhichsources are reliable. aboutCentral newsformed sources.American Our sociallocationshapesourbackground culture,Garifuna unaware ofthe fi but thatthetypicalwhite, itisnothard toimagine Western Wikipedian isignorant about why the Wikipedian foundittobenon- whorejected thearticle established Central newspapers.American Now we cannotknow thereasons withcertainty notability, thatColoncontinued toadddozensofsources, despitethefact includingwell- was rejected by auserasnon- blogger Teofi Linda Alcoff Advocacy canbe epistemically benefi Now oneproposed solutiontothisproblemeditor, isforanexperienced whoisatrusted However, appliedepistemology reveals aproblem withthissolution. afoulofwhat Itruns initmoreable rationallyjustifi andtrust Wikipedia articles cover Wikipedia articles attention. of Wikipedia. We considerevidence from reliable independentsources togaugethis attention by theworld atlargeandover oftime, aperiod andare notoutsidethescope ; Stephenson- calls “The problem ofspeakingforothers” (Alcoff lo Colon, to multiple timestoaddthearticle tried Wikipedia, but eachtimeit Goodknight itrecognizes thatalargenumber ofprevious editsandknown of history biaswithinacommunity lackingdiversityability canperpetuate (Backer Honduran community) (Backer cant, oftheworld’s whoorwhatcountsasgoodindicators attention, etc. notable topics notable andlackingindependentverifi 2015 lms thathave communities, meaninginGarifuna andunin- cial; itcanallow speakers tobe the claims ofmarginalized ). Assessments ofanarticle’s notabilityandasource’s legit- ectively addednew articles, whichhadpreviously been Karen Frost-Arnold — those thathave gainedsuffi 36 able. While epistemicallyhelpfulintheseways, 2006 2015 ; Frost- ). The creator ofthearticle, Garifuna

1991 Arnold Arnold notable andpoorlysourced, “ ability ofthecontent. ) andotherproblems with Wikipedia:Notability able sources tosupport lm abouttheGarifuna AfroCROWD:About” ciently signifi ciently 2014b ciently signifi ciently ; Ortega notable. This cant ered of 2006 ” cant

), ). 37

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 17:00 23 Sep 2021; For: 9781315679099, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315679099-3 diversity gapsbothdisplay similarproblems age. andraisenew challengesforadigital to alackofdiversity iswell- epistemic communitiesstagesofdevelopment. atvarious And, whiletheepistemicdamagedue normative questionsaboutwhichmodesofsocialorganizationareimportant bestsuitedfor adjusting toprotect itsepistemicstanding. Wikipedia’s raise anddistrust shiftingrelations oftrust aboutthereliabilitypersist andverifi the production anddisseminationofknowledge through onlinecollaboration. While debates parent community withexplicitlyepistemicgoals, Wikipedia provides tostudy opportunities and epistemologists Wikipedians couldbeasource ofnew ideasforaddressing thediversity gap. problems, othersolutionsmay bemore epistemicallyfruitful. Collaborationsbetween applied whobelongtomoremunity members diverse populations. are without While nostrategies does notpushestablished Wikipedians new toaddress com- theirowntotrust biasesorlearn still fi intheireditinghistory,for theadditionofnew articles and Wikipedians ofcolorwill unjustprivilege.perpetuates White, established Wikipedians willultimatelyreceive thecredit stemic laborofthemarginalized. While theintentionsofadvocate may benoble, thisstill the advocate buttresses theirsocialstatusandepistemiccredibility onthebackofepi- editors.not trusted Additionally, whenanadvocate speaks subject, amarginalized “in place of” to prevent from theirarticle beingdeleted, we stillhave asysteminwhichpeopleofcolorare When peopleofcolorneedtogive their toestablishedWikipedia white articles Wikipedians peopleisnotheard oracceptedintheirownsystem inwhichthespeechofmarginalized voice. heard, whenthey mightotherwisebeignored orrejected. However, advocacya alsoperpetuates Ithank Teofi K. Brad Wray, andananonymous reviewer forhelpfulcomments.

1 2 3 4 5 7 6 8 9

Inconclusion, groundforappliedepistemology.Wikipedia isfertile As adynamicandtrans- Encyclopedia Britannica Britannica Encyclopedia Nature offl Sangerrecognizes thatthere issomeaccountabilitybut thinksaccountability thatdoesnottargetone’s Infact, somequestionwhether Wikipedia provides testimony atall(Tollefsen listing theirnumber ofedits, ontheiruserpages. oftheireditinghistory andmany postsummaries in isamarkoftrustworthiness Editinghistory Wikipedia. Wikipedians oftenintroduce themselves by For quotesfrom other Wikipedians espousing Wales’s hopefulvision, seedeLaat( de Laat( speaker off oftestimony,assurance theory according towhich hearersare entitledtoaccepttestimony becausethe Tollefsen ( andgovernancerules tools. off DeLaat( anonymous editingprecludes. against vandals, seeHalfaker et al. ( For ausefuldiscussion ofthedesignchallengesbalancingopennesstonewcomerswith vigilance if women are asequallyreliable asmen, whichthere isno reason todoubt. Also, itishard toobtaindata Ofcourse, more women onwomen adding more editors articles to willonlyaddmore truths Wikipedia nd thattheircontentisrejected whenaddedundertheirown identities. This solution ine identityisinsuffi temperedered asaresult witha decrease toeditors ofhopefultrust indiscretion duetoincreasing ’s rebuttal. 2010 2010 ers their assurance of the truth ofthetestimony and acceptsresponsibility theirassuranceofthetruth forit.ers However, 2009 lo Colon, MichaelHunter, Alla Ivanchikova, RosieStephenson- ) responds thataccountability shouldnotbeconfusedwithoff ) analyzes Wikipedia’s ofthediscretion interms balancebetween anddistrust trust ) arguesthat Wikipedia’s accountability mechanismsmake itcompatible withthe

critiqued the critiqued cient toprevent someofthepoor behavior on Wikipedia.

traveled fortheappliedepistemology ofscience, terrain Wikipedia’s

2014 Nature Acknowledgments Acknowledgments ability of Wikipedia’s content, Wikipedia isconstantly ).

study( Wikipedia Notes s e t o N 37 Encyclopedia Britannica Britannica Encyclopedia

2006 assurances,ering which ). See 2009 2010

; Wray Nature ). Goodknight,

2009 (

2006 ).

), for

38

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 17:00 23 Sep 2021; For: 9781315679099, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315679099-3 Fallis Estlund 11 10 “ “ Fallis Graells- Frost- Alcoff Hayek Hartelius deLaat Frost- Fallis Halfaker Giles Backer deLaat Coady Erhart Erhart Goldman EncyclopediaBritannica, Inc Goldman Code Goldman Cohen AfroCROWD:About Active Wikipedians

Decision org/ Information Information Technology andMoral Philosophy January 30, 2011. Retrieved December14, 2015, from Episteme org/ Science and Technology ideological critique critique ideological Wikipedia media/ 29 readings Information TechnologyInformation Wikipedia’s moralorder? WkHbg9V5wnI 10, 2015, Washington, DC. Retrieved December14, 2015, from britannica_ britannica_ Press by the journal by thejournal Investigation 08/ SeeFallis( I thank ananonymous reviewer forthispoint. Additionally, readersare misledaboutwhichtopics(suchaswomen’s status)are important. marital women writing articles (“ articles women writing That said, thegoalofmany projects aimedatdecreasing thediversity gapistoincrease thenumber of encyclopedia (ratherthantheremoval claimsorachangeinpresentation ofexistingclaims). offalse about whetherhigherpercentages ofwomen Wikipedians beingaddedtothe willleadtomore truths , , , ,

, Arnold Arnold Arnold Arnold ( D. D. J. , , , , D. L. 2 , , D. 31/ ( L. E. F. F. , , , Garrido Garrido ): EN/ ?q=content/ A. ( ( N. . ( , ( 2005

( ( P. B . . B P. D. M. ( , P. B . . B P. , , , A. 2011 , and 2006 2006 790 2012 ( E. J. 1945 A. 2008 A. A. 1991 31link.html?_ ( . wikipedia- , , New York , 2015 36 ( 2011 ( ( TablesWikipediansEditsGt5.htm 11 , , Geiger ( ). “ ( – .” .” 1999 ( 2011 1992 2006 K. ). “ ). “ K. ( nature_ ). Barbara ( ). 807 2010 ). “ ( ). “ 2011 2 ). “ 2015 , arXiv 1 .” .” Internet EncyclopediasGoHeadto Internet WhattoBelieve Now: Applying epistemology tocontemporary issues ( Ecological Thinking: The politicsofepistemiclocation ): ( 1994 ). “ ): Wikipistemology E. ). “ Epistemic Value andSocialEpistemologyTheory The UseofKnowledge inSociety 2014a The Problem ofSpeakingforOthers Wikimedia blog Toward anEpistemology of Wikipedia 2014b . 131 ).

). “

). ) andGoldman( 63 , , . ). “ ). AfroCROWD—

Defi .” ( ( .” Nature. ). “ about KnowledgeinaSocial World Lalmas R. S. Liaisons: Philosophy meetsthecognitive andsocialsciences Liaisons: Philosophy : accounts- ). “ – 1502 The SocialEpistemology ofBlogging The Rhetoric of Expertise ofExpertise TheRhetoric response.pdf : , – .” ( ( .” .” .” 81 How Can Contributors toOpen- How CanContributors n.d. J. Oxford University Press The UseofSoftware Tools and Autonomous Botsagainst Eroding Vandalism: 62 , ). “ , ne GenderGap?Lookup Wikipedia’s List Contributor r=0 ( ProceedingsCHI2014 ). “ 59 Opinion Leaders, Independence, andCondorcet’s Jury Theorem 12 . n.d. 2015

, and . .

.02341 [cs.SI]. Trustworthiness and accountability ofInternet epistemicpitfalls Truth: The ). In ( ” Retrieved December13, 2015, from ( , Imposters, Tricksters, and Trustworthiness asanEpistemic Virtue . 10 ” . ( . ( 4

M. ). In Wikipedia:WikiProject systemicbias Countering ): Ethics and Information EthicsandInformation Technology 2006 ): ). “ blocked- Terveen 327 Wikimedia. , and 1662 . Retrieved December8, 2015, from Hundreds of ‘Black Hat’ English Wikipedia Accounts Blocked following ,” in . AfroCROWD

). “ – 1999 41 Bridging theMulticulturalGap Bridging – Fatally Flawed: Refuting therecent studyonencyclopediaaccuracy A. I. Menczer 74 . ,

paid- L. G. : 94–

.

Karen Frost-Arnold Retrieved December16, 2015, from Goldman . , advocacy/

References . ( 96) ontheepistemicvalue ofinteresting truths. New York . New York . ACM Press

2014 , . New York

. Retrieved December14, 2015, from F. F.

( 38 .” .” ). “ 2015 and American EconomicReview American .” .” Snuggle: Designing foreffi Snuggle: Designing .

: : ). “ Cultural Critique Cultural Critique D. Cambridge University PressCambridge .” .” .” .” : : Lexington Books Source Communities Be Trusted?

Oxford University Press 311 Whitcomb Nature Journal ofthe Journal SocietyforInformation American ,” in First First Women, Genderbiasin SecondSex: , 17 www.nytimes.com/ – . ( 20 3 J. New York .” .”

): , . van denHoven

438 Episteme 175 .” WikiConference USA, October (eds.), https:// http:// : – 900 ,

88 20 . www.youtube.com/ . Malden, MA . , :

. –

Cambridge, MA : 2 Oxford University Press SocialEpistemology: Essential 901 5 blog.wikimedia.org/ ( corporate.britannica.com/ corporate.britannica.com/ ”). 3 , – ): 35 32

cient socialization and socialization cient https:// . .” .”

177 2011/ ( and . 4

.

The ): . –

519 88 :

Wiley- www.. J. 01/ New York Times New York stats.wikimedia.

. Weckert

– .” .” 30 31/

” : : Theory and Theory . .” .”

The MIT Blackwell Ethicsand watch?v= business/ Hypatia (eds.),

2015/ .

.” .” , , .

39

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 17:00 23 Sep 2021; For: 9781315679099, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315679099-3 Kupferberg “ Reynosa Healy Simon Nature Kräenbring Kräenbring Intemann Lam Sanger Ortega Ortega Seigenthaler Longino Hern Hern Heilman Pfi Owens Magnus Lih McGeer Lih Silverman Silverman Hill “ Lih Murphy

List of Wikipedias Reliability of Wikipedia ster , , , textbooks ofpharmacology “ 12 assessment bias withpropensity score estimation Hypatia Washington, DC. to- 15, 2015, from December 13, 2015, from wikimedia.org/ December 13, 2015, from 13 crookedtimber.org/ 21 2015. Retrieved December13, 2015, from ( network- 2015, from wikipedia- wikipedia- December 8, 2015, from and invention Symposium on Wikis andOpenCollaboration “ London #Olumu22uvkq6 org/ Retrieved December14, 2015, from 15, 2015, from Box: Alternative waysBox: Alternative toengagesubject- , A. 2011 , A. A. Accuracy and Completeness of Drug Information in Wikipedia: A comparison withstandard Acomparison in Information Accuracy andCompletenessofDrug Wikipedia: WP: Clubhouse? WP: Clubhouse? An explorationof Wikipedia’s genderimbalance B. M. , , ( ( ( S. K. T. , A wikipedia/ , , , ( 4 1 3 ( . ( . ( , , K. D. J. McGrady L. M. , ): ): ): , wiki/ S. M. . ( .( , 2015 , ( 2009 , , V. V. P. D. D. P. C ). “ 2006 ( ( H. ( , P. P. 2010 , 343 e14 56 J. M. 2015 ( , and ( . ( .( , 2013 K ( 2011 , : , 2007 M. ( Wikipedia: A key toolforglobalpublic healthpromotion 25 2008 , 2006 N. N. 2015 – 2015 Aurum Press Aurum J. J. history- history- . ( .( ( ( ). “ 1990 Reliability_ ). . J. – .” .” 74

, edit_ view- , 2009 ). “ ( ( 2009 ( ). “ , and 2010 55 , 4 ). “ Penza Journal oftheMedicalLibrary Journal Association The ofnobodiescreatedtheworld’s Howabunch greatest encyclopedia Wikipedia Revolution: ). “ Uduwage ). “ . Shaw Kemmann ): What Wikipedia MustDo ). “

2012 2005 , ). “ .” .” ). “ . ). “ . The Entanglementof Trust andKnowledge onthe Web ). “

R. Nature’s ResponsestoEncyclopediaBritannica

Wikipedia’s View ofthe World is by the Written West ). www.colorlines.com/ 778 The BattletoDestroy Wikipedia’s BiggestSockpuppet Army wiki/ SocialEpistemology Networked intheEraofMany- Expertise x.htm .” ( ( .” ). “ ). “ Trust, HopeandEmpowerment ). “ of- Wikipedia Follies Being Lovingly, Knowingly Ignorant: White feminismandwomen ofcolor Protus Why Don’t to More LatinosContribute Wikipedia? ScienceasSocialKnowledge Can ‘Black Wikipedia’Can TakeOff

, wiki- http:// http:// . , , Ramjohn

). “ ). “ The Fate of Expertise after The FateofExpertise n.d. T. M. A. – On Trusting On Trusting the- 25 Years are andStandpoint we ofFeminist Empiricism now? Theory: Where 2007/ 96 ( List_ A False Wikipedia ‘Biography’ . Encyclopedia Britannica vs.Encyclopedia Britannica Wikipedia .” ( ( .” of_ .

,

2013 . ). In pr/ ,

, A. world- B. eltecolote.org/ mashable.com/ , n.d. E. Wikipedia ( 02/ . Gutmann of_ , www.nature.com/

, .” .” 2011 ). “ Wikimedia Meta- , Dong Bonert Bonert ). In www.dailydot.com/ I. PloSONE Wikipedias 04/ http:// , and The survey responseWikipedia GenderGapRevisited: Characterizing is- Wikipedia ). “ still- wikipedia/ Wikipedia , , .” .” 25 Accuracy and Completeness of Drug Information in Information Accuracy andCompletenessofDrug Wikipedia: An Z. , Ross . ,

M. .” .” articles/ articles/ J. J. www.youtube.com/ usatoday30.usatoday.com/ ( Crooked Timber written- written- , 3 , PloSONE ): content/ Sen , Muehlich , 2012/ .” WikiConference USA, October9, 2015, Washington, DC. , . 9

Chatterjee . 217 S. ( ” . . matter experts matter experts 9 . Retrieved December4, 2015, from ( , ACM Press Princeton, NJ Episteme Wikipedia ): . Wiki 2015

nature/ S. S. can- – by- 03/ e106930 Wikipedia 31 , like ‘Black Twitter’? 39 en/ Musicant .” .” . lifestyle/ . Retrieved December16, 2015, from the-

). “ black- , , 16/ , Australasian ofPhilosophy Journal 8 S. S. www.theguardian.com/ 99 , commentary/ commentary/ ( , Thinking (and Contributing) OutsidetheEditing Thinking (andContributing) britannica/ britannica/ . Retrieved December13, 2015, from 6 , A. 6 encyclopedia- west .” .” ( ): Zolk ( : 4 .

1 ,

1 wikipedia- ): .” .” USA Today e65782 ): Ragar – .” WikiConference USA, October10, 2015, : watch?v=Gj6U22uJzGM , wikipedia- . Episteme 310 10

74 Princeton University PressPrinceton , D. R. to- O. O. . –

– 90 .” .” Many Communication: On Many Communication: On Wikipedia , , 13 news/ . .

B. B. Wojnowski .” .” . Mashable

, . why-

, , .” .” take- Terveen Nature 6 , November 29, 2005. Retrieved britannica- britannica- .” .” Beards Journal of Medical Internet Research Research ofMedicalInternet Journal ” ( sockpuppet- ” .” .” 1 opinion/ Proceedings of the 7th International Proceedingsofthe7thInternational El Tecolote .” .” Colorlines ): Ethics and Information EthicsandInformation Technology dont- black- The Guardian 52 , . Retrieved December17, , , .” .” – , technology/ 438 G. M. 73 L. more- L. The Daily Dot twitter wikipedia- , and editorials/ editorials/ , … . :

. Retrieved December . Retrieved December https:// investigation- 900 , … , . latinos- 86

Sarikas Sarikas .

– Riedl . (

, September15, 901. 2 Laurent ): 2015/ en.wikipedia. https:// 2005- infographic/ infographic/ 1 contribute- contribute- Retrieved , . Retrieved , – A. .” .” 18 J. ( sep/ ( Hypatia , largest- . http:// 11-

M. R. 2014 2011 meta. 15/ 29- ). ). ” , , , .

40

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 17:00 23 Sep 2021; For: 9781315679099, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315679099-3 “ “ “ “ “ “ “ Wray Sunstein Stephenson- “ Wales Wales “ “ “ Thagard Temple Surowiecki Wikimedia Foundation “ “ “

Tollefsen Wikipedia:Long- Wikipedia:List ofcitogenesis incidents Wikipedia:Editing restrictions Wikipedia:Editing restrictions Wikipedia:Expert editors editors Wikipedia:Expert Wikipedia:Assume good faith Wikipedia:Assume goodfaith Wikipedia:Be bold Wikipedia:Core contentpolicies Wikipedia:About Wikipedia:Confl Wikipedia:Notability Wikipedia:Please donotbitethenewcomers Wikipedia:WikiProject systemic bias Countering Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from communications fi participating Wikipedia:WikiProject Women inRed https:// en.m.wikipedia.org/ org/ en.wikipedia.org/ en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ wiki/ en.wikipedia.org/ en.wikipedia.org/ org/ 688451455 wiki/ WkHbg9V5wnI 10, 2015, Washington, DC. Retrieved December14, 2015, from Medicine? pdf&page=1 2011. wikimediafoundation.org/ w/index.php?title=File%3AEditor_Survey_ -_April_ Report_ encyclopedia encyclopedia https:// en.m.wikipedia.org/ from Wikipedia_ Retrieved December8, 2015, from , , , K. B. J. J. , ( ( wiki/ wiki/ , , , N. J. https:// Wikipedia:About Wikipedia:Be_ Wikipedia:Notability P 2009 2005 C. D. P. . ( .( ( , en.wikipedia.org/ en.wikipedia.org/ ( 2009 1997 J Goodknight . ( .( 2006 Wikipedia:Expert_ Wikipedia:Expert_ User:One/ User:One/ , and ” ( . ). “ ). . 2004

from_ London Canadian Journal of Information andLibrary Science ofInformation CanadianJournal 2009 “ .

en.m.wikipedia.org/ ). “ ). “ Foreword Foreword Wales Interview Transcript ict ofinterest ). term abuse/ term .” ( ( .” The EpistemicCultures ofScienceand ). Fraser Collaborative Knowledge Infotopia .” ( ( .” .

). “ participating_ participating_ wiki/ wiki/ w/ wiki/ n.d. The Wisdom ofCrowds .” ( ( .” n.d. Wikipedia : . ( . ( bold wiki/ wiki/ index.php?title=Wikipedia:Confl Wales_ Aurum Press Aurum n.d. , ). In , 2011 .” ( ( .” . R. ). In

,” in Wikipedia:Editing_ Wikipedia:Assume_ Wikipedia:Core_ J . ( .( . . ). In

( n.d. New York wiki/ Wikipedia:List_ Wikipedia:WikiProject_ . w/ 2014

Wikipedia Orangemoody 2015 ). Wikipedia interview_ interview_ The ofnobodiescreatedtheworld’s abunch Wikipedia Revolution: How greatest .” ( ( .” .” ( ( .” .” ( ( .” editors editors andtheEpistemology of Testimony ). In Wikipedia EditorsStudy index.php?title=Wikipedia:Long- Wikipedia .” ( ( .” Wikipedia:Please_ communications_ ). “ n.d. n.d. ). “ n.d. wiki/ . Wikipedia n.d.

How Accurate Are Wikipedia inHealth,Articles Nutrition, and Women …It Takes a Village ). In . ). In .” ( ( .” :

. Retrieved December16, 2015, from ). In .” ( ( .” Oxford University Press . Retrieved December10, 2015, from ). In n.d. transcript transcript Karen Frost-Arnold . Retrieved December2, 2015, from Wikipedia:WikiProject_ n.d. . .” Retrieved December10, 2015, from New York content_ .” ( ( .” Wikipedia .” .” Wikipedia of_ ). In Wikipedia .” ( ( .” restrictions restrictions ). In good_ . Retrieved December4, 2015, from Wikipedia https:// Noûs n.d. citogenesis_ n.d. Wikipedia. 40 .” ( ( .” Wikipedia . ). In

, fi ). In do_ policies rms rms faith faith 31 Women/ n.d. : . Retrieved December10, 2015, from . Retrieved December10, 2015, from en.wikipedia.org/ . Retrieved December8, 2015, from ( Doubleday . Retrieved December16, 2015, from . Retrieved December15, 2015, from 2 not_ ict_ Wikipedia . Wikipedia . Wikipedia . )

). In :

242 incidents .

. Retrieved October16, 2015, from Retrieved October16, 2015, from of_ bite_ Women_ , – Wikipedia 38 interest&oldid=694255381 . 61

the_ . . Retrieved December8, 2015, from (

. Retrieved December10, 2015, from : A comparison Countering_ Countering_ . 1 term_ term_

.” .” ): . .” WikiConference USA, October

Episteme newcomers 37 in_ wiki/ . Retrieved October16, 2015, – abuse/ www.youtube.com/ 52 Red rms rms .

, Wikipedia:Statement_ https:// https:// https:// 6 . systemic_

( Orangemoody&oldid= .” ( ( .” 1 .” .” .

): https:// https:// Episteme n.d. 8 – en.wikipedia.org/ en.wikipedia.org/ en.wikipedia.org/ 24 ). In bias .

en.wikipedia. en.wikipedia. . ,

6 .

( Wikipedia watch?v= 1 ): https:// https:// https:// https:// https:// https:// https:// 38 – on_ 51 . .