Skip to main content

Home/ SISummer11/ Group items tagged wikipedia

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Maggie Murphy

Peer governance & Wikipedia - 2 views

firstmonday.org/...2479

governance authority wikipedia community

shared by Maggie Murphy on 06 Jun 11 - Cached
tomdiscepola liked it
  • Maggie Murphy on 06 Jun 11
     
    In one of the videos we watched last week, Wesch mentioned how students can look at the discussion page for any article on Wikipedia to get a sense of how information is being interactively constructed and contested. This article discusses the issue of self-governance in online communities with a focus on how Wikipedia is edited and the community politics behind it. I think this article makes a really useful contribution to a discussion about authority and knowledge production on the Internet. There is also a related article about the relationship between Wikipedia contributions and identity construction here.
  • ...3 more comments...
  • tomdiscepola on 06 Jun 11
     
    I've always tended to cringe at the sight of Wikipedia, mainly because of the danger that community participation without expert editorial would diminish the truthfulness of posts. After reviewing some of this material, I'm now thinking that our skepticism should source from the editorial experts - or site administrators - at Wikipedia themselves. They seem like governors of a new system of direct representation who come to fear their constituents, policing their activities in a "tyranny of structurelessness." It's difficult to determine the right balance between administrators and participants.
  • Cynthia Tavlin on 07 Jun 11
     
    First of all, I don't think entries for 500 Pokemon characters all that trivial - that's exactly the reason I would use Wikipedia, if I needed a refresher in Wiggly Puff or another character. in terms of self-governance I get the idea of a more formal or established social contract, seems to make a lot of sense and sets a standard. I can't say I'm convinced that going for inclusion vs. deletion leads to stronger self-governance. Doesn't there have to be some for of consensus/compromise to establish a system that everyone can live with?
  • Gina Wegschaidler on 08 Jun 11
     
    The article reflects that Wikipedia relies on the "wisdom of the crowds for its quality control processes". I agree that knowing there is some sort of governance or policing occurring on the site increases confidence in the content, but I am going to agree with Wesch that our tendency to be skeptical of collaborative work in an educational setting is in part due to our comfort level with a hierarchical model that places authority at the top.
  • Jeanine Finn on 08 Jun 11
     
    I read (part of) an ethnography of Wikipedia last semester that was really interesting. http://reagle.org/joseph/2010/gfc/ Good Faith Collaboration by Joseph Reagle "Wikipedia's style of collaborative production has been lauded, lambasted, and satirized. Despite unease over its implications for the character (and quality) of knowledge, Wikipedia has brought us closer than ever to a realization of the century-old pursuit of a universal encyclopedia. Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia is a rich ethnographic portrayal of Wikipedia's historical roots, collaborative culture, and much debated legacy. "
  • Daniel Huang on 08 Jun 11
     
    Without accusing certain authors in the field of elitism, I think that Wikipedia works as it should, by serving the needs of people in the way they want it. If someone needs to look up the habits of Pokemon or William Shatner's favorite food, who are we to question their information needs?
1 - 1 of 1
Showing 20▼ items per page