Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
Wikipedia currently exists in 270 languages, with more than 20 million articles online. The English-language Wikipedia has 2.5 billion words, sixty times the size of Britannica. Wikipedia may be the largest collaborative initiative in history and influences what people the world over know or think they know. Its distinctive feature is the nonexpert, nonprofessional, noncertified, nonformal production of knowledge with credible content. Academics like to sneer at those characteristics, even as more and more of us acknowledge Wikipedia, support it, and use it in teaching. And why should we not warm to it? The rules of Wikipedia discourse are modeled after an ideal academy's. Arguments, not personal attacks or status, carry the day. It may be the most scientific encyclopedia ever: Wikipedia is as self-correcting as anything in science. Purposeful bias, departing tendentiously from dominant beliefs of the academic community, does not prevail. Peer control is high; procedures are many and fanatically enforced. There are no back channels. Every editorial act is recorded and archived and remains on the record forever. Since its inception, Wikipedia has promoted itself as an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and some three hundred thousand editors contribute each month. Some of them are not even human beings. In 2002, an algorithmic bot added thirty thousand articles (on US cities and towns) in a single week. There is evidence, however, that Wikipedia is not as welcoming of new editors as it once was and as its ideology still enjoins it to be. Despite the policy of consensus, conflict fuels Wikipedia growth. Conscious collaboration is rare; most interaction among editors occurs when they disagree. Jemielniak, an editor and administrator with six years of experience on both the English and Polish Wikipedia, has many tales about "edit wars," when even the smallest inconsistency unleashes waves of uninhibited criticism. Why, then, does Wikipedia work? In theory, it should not. In practice, it seems to be a new paradigm of organization, whose breezy anticredentialism tosses traditional hierarchies of knowledge production to the wind. --Barry Allen doi 10.1215/0961754X-3692492 Common Knowledge 23:1 © 2017 by Duke University Press Published by Duke University Press
Common Knowledge – Duke University Press
Published: Jan 1, 2017
You can share this free article with as many people as you like with the url below! We hope you enjoy this feature!
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.