I recently went to an interesting session led by Dave Weinberger on the authority of the wikipedia at the Berkman Center. There is an available podcast of the event at the Berkman Center. There is an available podcast of the event at the Berkman center site. Dave started with the authority of knowledge, in general, as he is writing a book on the topic. He noted that authority can bring social status, institutional power, and control conversations. Academic institutions are given authority and can grant this authority to attendees. Academic journals are often see as the prime authority on many topics since contributions are reviewed by other authorities.
Dave noted that in the past journal space was limited, in part, because the supply of paper was limited. So only a limited amount of new content got recognized by the authorities. Now in a virtual world, the space for content is unlimited and the distribution means is cheap or almost free.
The Encyclopedia Britannica has over 500 steps to ensure accuracy and to claim to be an authority. It is often compared with the wikipedia where anyone can, in theory, make a contribution in one step. There have even been studies comparing the two, including the well known one by Nature. The wikipedia does have a list of quality standards and it is continuously reviewed by administrators and thousands of volunteers to make entries better and weed out spam or other inaccuracies. The wikipedia will also acknowledge if an article is in dispute, something that the mainstream media and sources like Britannica almost never do. One reason that paper based sources are reluctant to admit problems is that they are hard to fix. In a virtual world the fix is easy.
Wikipedia entries are generally of higher quality if the topic is important and many people contribute to it. The wisdom of crowds in practice. You can see the editing history of a contribution. However, since the wikipedia does not require contributors to give their actual names, it can be hard to know who did what. Some people like Dave are open about their contributions and use their own name.
Dave discussed the concept of “negotiated” truth. The various contributors may get into an editing war over the contents of an article such as one on a political figure. The only way these editing wars can stop is for the various parties to reach a common agreement on a version that attempt to provide a “neutral point of view” and/or an acknowledgement of the various views. If the wars do not stop, the wikipedia staff can lock down the content of an article but this is the exception and represents a failure of negotiations.
I looked at the term “Web 2.0” which remains controversial and the article noted this. The article included what appeared to be some careful wording that was likely negotiated. It also listed sources that we for and against the concept. I will write separately on the details but it seems to be a good example of a negotiated truth. The assassination of JFK is another example where every theory on the event is listed, even the most farfetched
There is no negotiation with other authorities like the Britannica, except to make some suggestions for the next edition which may or may not reach the right ears. The extent to which the “authorities” are closed to multiple views turns knowledge into fundamentalism. I am not suggesting that the Britannica falls into this category, but certain truths are relative and changing. The wikipedia can provide an open platform to negotiate these truths and keep them evolving. Imagine wikipedia descriptions of the universe or the laws of physics in past centuries. Better to have the people participate in these definitions than have the Inquisition do it. On the other hand, I see polls that say the majority of Americans believe in creationism as a science. There is balance to be reached here.
I looked at the wikipedia article on creationism. It is quite long and comprehensive with many viewpoints. I think it maintains a neutral point of view that people on all sides would feel like they were represented in a neutral manner. The wording is very careful and likely the result of a virtual negotiation process. I thought it was very fair. I think it will be interesting to see how the wikipedia handles other controversial topics. This seems to be one of its strengths.
At the moment most teachers do not accept the wikipedia as a source for papers. It has even been said that Jimmy Wales, founder of the wikipedia, agreed with this position in an interview. On the other hand it is a good source for ideas and often contains links to many primary sources by noted authorities.