Academia and Wikipedia
danah boyd,
Corante,
Jan 07, 2005
A back-and-forth debate, prompted by Larry Sanger's criticisms (carried here a few days ago), has erupted over the role of Wikipedia. In this article, a response to Clay Shirkey's response to Sanger, Dinah Boyd argues that "many librarians, teachers and academics fear Wikipedia (not dislike it) because it is not properly understood, not simply because it challenges their privilege." Moreover, Wikipedia should not be taken at face value, she argues, citing a weak entry on social network as an example. In his response to Boyd, Shirkey writes, "I feel like I’m being told that bi-planes fly better than F-16s because F-16’s are so heavy." Pointing out that Wikipedia is weaker in some areas doesn't mean it is weaker in all areas. "And of course, sometimes Wikipedia is better, since, as with the Indian Ocean tsunami example, Britannica simply has no offering." Wikipedia's authority will evolve over time, he writes in another post, and will not depend on some sort of declaration to do so. "Like trustworthiness, authority is a social fact, though authorities often want to obscure this." Responding, 'jake' questions Shirky's suppositions on the origin of trust. "I’m not sure there can be any meaningful authority that isn’t based on authorship or brand." This may be true, in the sense that authority, by definition, must be attached to something. But does the authority derive from the thing it is attached to? I would say no.
Today: 2 Total: 102 [Direct link] [Share]
