Theory of Knowledge - Course Companion for Students Marija Uzunova Dang Arvin Singh Uzunov Dang

is a case study in the collective
Wikipedia
of multiple perspectives, enabled
negotiation
technology, towards crafting a shared
by
of fact. It can be a step towards
understanding
democratic participation in the production
more
knowledge, assuming, that is, that we accept
of
is on Wikipedia as knowledge. Yes, it
what
crowd-sourced, but as far as crowds go,
is
is exceedingly well-organized, which
Wikipedia
have good or bad results.
may
is hardly news to anyone in the 2020s
It
there are concerns with knowledge on
that
terms: Truth in
Search
Everything
Numbers:
2010 documentary Truth in Numbers:
The
According to Wikipedia raises
Everything
questions about knowledge in the
important
age. Below we provide some prompts
digital
exploring the profound ways that this
for
has affected how we produce and
technology
knowledge. The documentary provides
access
of the context for these discussions, but
much
is a decade old—so consider the following
it
and questions with any recent sources
points
Power and authority: Wikipedia's model of
•
participation questions the power
collective
academic credentials. This is not to say
of
power plays no role on Wikipedia, but
that
it does not sit with an intellectual elite.
that
documentary reveals a deep suspicion
The
authority and derision of elitism among
of
contributors. Experts are given
Wikipedia
special role in contributing to content
no
are no longer seen as legitimate
and
and arbiters of what counts as
gatekeepers
Theirs is just another opinion,
knowledge.
of Wikipedia and criticizing it for its
reliability
and racial bias is old news. Yet many
gender
remain unresolved, perhaps even widely
issues
even though Wikipedia is one of
unknown,
primary reference sources for many people
the
the world. Despite the problematic
around
of how Wikipedia is set up, people
politics
to organize “editing marathons” to add
continue
or develop the entries of underrepresented
to
or topics. They are confronted with the
people
that Wikipedia might be the best they
possibility
do at this scale, and it is up to them to make
can
to be welcomed? What may be
something
consequences of this?
potential
Neutrality and trust: content on
•
is presented by its creators as
Wikipedia
sourced, coming from no
democratically
point of view. Do you agree
particular
this claim that Wikipedia is neutral
with
view from nowhere”)? Wikipedia’s
(“a
sourcing of content means
collective
we are not able to evaluate claims
that
on who the claims-makers are. Recall
based
Carr's advice to history students from
E.H.
9: “study the historian before you
Chapter
[their] facts”. How are legitimacy
study
Accountability and credibility: because
•
contributors use pseudonyms,
Wikipedia
cannot be held personally
contributors
for what they write or delete.
accountable
does this affect the credibility of
How
on Wikipedia? Are the risks
knowledge
Wikipedia vandalism or misconduct
of
by the benefits of pseudonymity
outweighed
Is it knowledge? Is it appropriate to
•
what Wikipedia contributors are
describe
as producing knowledge? Would
doing
describe what is on Wikipedia as
you
III. Methods and tools
III. Methods and tools
it good enough.
Wikipedia. In some ways, questioning the
For discussion
Everything, according to Wikipedia
According to Wikipedia
and trust built on Wikipedia?
that explore the same issues.
for intellectual freedom and privacy?
knowledge?
with no special power or authority. Is this
69