Annotation Summary for: Fallis08 – 1

In Uncategorized

Annotation Summary for: Fallis08 - 1

 

Page 1, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Toward an Epistemology of Wikipedia Don Fallis School of Information Resources and Library Science, University of Arizona, 1515 East First Street, Tucson, AZ 85719. E-mail:[email protected] Wikipedia huge impact on how a great many people gather informationabout the world. whether people are likely to acquire knowledge a result of having access to this information source. is Wikipedia having good epistemic con-sequences? "

 

Page 1, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Wikis, which are Web sites that anyone with Internet access can edit, provide a popular mediumfor this sort of collaboration."

 

Page 1, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "the epistemic consequences of peo- using Wikipedia as a source of information are likely to be quite good."

 

 

Page 1, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "open-source software, Linux Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search project has discovered several of the largest known prime numbers."

 

 

Page 1, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "reliability of Wikipedia compares favorably to the reliability of traditional encyclopedias. even more favorably to the reliability of those information sources that people would be likely to use if Wikipedia did not exist other epistemic virtues"

 

 

Page 1, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "it is not a foregone conclusion that such mass collaboration will be successful in all instances."

 

 

Page 1, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "changes (or alternatives) to Wikipedia that will bring about even bet- ter epistemic consequences."

 

 

Page 1, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "clarify what our epistemic values to better understand whyWikipedia works"

 

 

Page 1, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "people are likely to acquire knowledge as a result of having access to this information source."

 

 

Page 1, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Wikipedia might (or might not) be successful. at building a good ency- clopedia, but it also might be successful at simply building an online community—and it is not completely clear which of these goals has priority (cf."

 

 

Page 1, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Mass collaboration"

 

Page 2, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Ebay.com serves as an aggregation point for other goods"

 

 

Page 2, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "goal of Wikipedia is fun for the contributors” building a good encyclo- pedia is goal epistemic. A"

 

Page 2, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: " serious concerns have been raised aboutthe quality "

 

Page 2, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "good encyclopedia is a place where people can “acquire knowledge” and sometimes “share knowledge”"

 

Page 2, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Wikipedia lacks these sorts of quality-control mechanisms."

 

 

Page 2, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "“no one stands offi- ciallybehindtheauthenticityandaccuracyof anyinformation"

 

Page 2, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Epistemology is the study of what knowledge is and how people can acquire it"

 

Page 2, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: " primary task for the epistemolo-gist is to evaluate institutions, such as Wikipedia, in termsof their epistemic consequences. That is, the epistemolo-gist should ask whether people are more (or less) likely toacquire knowledge as a result of a particular institution beingin existence."

 

 

Page 2, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: " perpetuatingthe cycle of misinfor-mation and ignorance”"

 

Page 2, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: " also hasbeen dismissed as unreliable by members of the library andinformationscience community("

 

Page 2, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "worry here is that people are likely to acquire false beliefs rather than knowledge as a result of consulting such a seemingly unreliable information source."

 

Page 2, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Agood encyclopedia should help people to acquire knowl- edge. how encyclopedias in general mightbe studied by an epistemologist. "

 

 

Page 2, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "the epistemology of encyclopedias must appeal to work on several important topics in current epis- temological research epistemology of testimony, social epistemology, and epistemic value theory)."

 

 

Page 2, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "“crowdsourcing”],"

 

 

Page 2, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "sinceepistemologyhas not reallyaddressedtheissue of mass collaboration, an epistemic evaluation of Wikipedia will require an extension, and not just an application, of the existing epistemological research."

 

 

Page 2, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Epistemology has traditionally been fairly individualistic;"

Comment: Epistemology has traditionally been fairly individualistic;

 

Page 2, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "an aggregation point for encyclopedic information in much the same way that the"

Comment: an aggregation point

for encyclopedic information in much the same way that the

 

Page 2, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Encyclopedias goal is to disseminate existing knowledge ratherthan to discover newknowledge.4 Thus, the epistemology ofencyclopedias falls within the scope of the epistemologyof testimony. howit is possible to come to knowsomething based solely on the"

 

 

Page 3, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "fact that somebody else says that it is so"

 

Page 3, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "we also need to know what counts as good epistemic consequences whatsorts of things are epistemically valuable. Thus, the episte-mology of encyclopedias must appeal to work on epistemicvalues "

Comment: we also need to know

what counts as good epistemic consequences

whatsorts of things are epistemically valuable. Thus, the episte-mology of encyclopedias must appeal to work on epistemicvalues

 

Page 3, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "epistemology of testimony typically focuses ona single individual transmittingknowledge toanother indi- vidual, the epistemology of encyclopedias is clearly much more social than that."

Comment: epistemology of testimony typically focuses

ona single individual transmittingknowledge toanother indi-

vidual, the epistemology of encyclopedias is clearly much

more social than that.

 

Page 3, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "perennial questions in epistemology This research, has rarelybeenappliedtoactual deci- sions that people make where epistemic consequences are at stake."

Comment: perennial questions in epistemology

This research,

has rarelybeenappliedtoactual deci-

sions that people make where epistemic consequences are at

stake.

 

Page 3, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "how many people are able toacquire knowledge fromsuchsources source of the information in an encyclopedia is rarely a single individ- ual."

Comment: how

many people are able toacquire knowledge fromsuchsources

source of

the information in an encyclopedia is rarely a single individ-

ual.

 

Page 3, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "almost never the original source of the information"

Comment: almost never the original

source of the information

 

Page 3, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Encyclopedias col- lect, condense, and organize knowledge"

Comment: Encyclopedias col-

lect, condense, and organize knowledge

 

Page 3, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "contributors toWikipedia are prohibited fromincluding any original results"

Comment: contributors toWikipedia

are prohibited fromincluding any original results

 

Page 3, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "only a fewpeople have looked at what epistemic values are at play in more mundane contexts such as education and infor- mation management"

Comment: only a fewpeople have looked at what epistemic values are at

play in more mundane contexts such as education and infor-

mation management

 

Page 3, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "encyclopedias an example of group testimony"

Comment: encyclopedias

an example of group

testimony

 

Page 3, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: " Wikipedia simply extends this even fur-ther by allowing anyone with Internet access to participatein the project. "

Comment:  Wikipedia simply extends this even fur-ther by allowing anyone with Internet access to participatein the project.

 

Page 3, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Thus, the epistemology of encyclopedias also falls within the scope of social epistemology."

Comment: Thus, the epistemology of encyclopedias also

falls within the scope of social epistemology.

 

Page 3, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "epistemic benefits of Wikipedia outweigh its epistemic costs."

Comment: epistemic benefits of Wikipedia outweigh its epistemic costs.

 

Page 3, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "social epistemology looks at howsocial processes lead to the acquisition of knowledge"

Comment: social epistemology looks

at howsocial processes lead to the acquisition of knowledge

 

Page 3, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Epistemic Concerns About Wikipedia"

Comment: Epistemic Concerns About Wikipedia

 

Page 3, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "dimensions of information quality: accuracy, completeness, currency, comprehensibility, and so on Wikipedia is not ascomprehensible andcomplete as we might expect anencyclo-pedia to be. It is clear that such failings can adversely affectpeople’s ability to acquire knowledge fromWikipedia."

Comment: dimensions of information quality:

accuracy, completeness, currency, comprehensibility, and so

on

Wikipedia is not ascomprehensible andcomplete as we might expect anencyclo-pedia to be. It is clear that such failings can adversely affectpeople’s ability to acquire knowledge fromWikipedia.

 

Page 3, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "inaccurate information can easily lead people to acquire false beliefs. epistemically worse off falling into error to be the mostadverse epistemic consequence the principal epistemic concern that has been raised"

Comment: inaccurate information can easily lead people

to acquire false beliefs.

epistemically worse off

falling into error to be the mostadverse epistemic consequence

the principal epistemic concern that has been raised

 

Page 3, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "not a lot of philosophical work on howpeople come together to collabo- ratively create information and knowledge."

Comment: not a lot of

philosophical work on howpeople come together to collabo-

ratively create information and knowledge.

 

Page 3, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "address the sort of mass collaboration on a single project that takes place in Wikipedia."

Comment: address the sort of mass collaboration on a single project

that takes place in Wikipedia.

 

Page 4, Note (Yellow):

This makes me think abt authority in business settings, as well. Often academic degrees or expertise are not valued as much as tenure, conformity, not rocking the boat.

 

Page 4, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "no one person can claimcredit for the result. encyclopedia. Many experts are understandably unwilling to put in the effort to create content that might simply be removed by an unqualified individ- ual"

Comment: no one person

can claimcredit for the result.

encyclopedia. Many experts are

understandably unwilling to put in the effort to create content

that might simply be removed by an unqualified individ-

ual

 

Page 4, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "is whether people are likely to get accurate information from it. is Wikipedia a reliablesource of information? "

Comment: is whether people are likely to get accurate

information from it.

is Wikipedia a reliablesource of information?

 

Page 4, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "evenbeencitedincourt cases concerns about its reliability"

Comment: evenbeencitedincourt cases

concerns about its reliability

 

Page 4, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: " have led many people to suggest that Wikipedia should not be used as a source of information."

Comment:  have led many people

to suggest that Wikipedia should not be used

as a source of information.

 

Page 4, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "contributors may try to deceive the readers"

Comment: contributors may try to deceive the readers

 

Page 4, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "various reasons to worry about the reliability of Wikipedia (and about the related issue of its verifiability)."

Comment: various reasons to worry about the reliability

of Wikipedia (and about the related issue of its verifiability).

 

Page 4, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "library and information scientists often focus on the descriptive question of whenpeople actually do grant cognitive authority to informationsources. We are concerned here with the normative question,fromthe epistemology of testimony, of whether people oughtto grant cognitive authority to Wikipedia (cf. Fallis, 2004b,"

Comment: library and information scientists

often focus on the descriptive question of whenpeople actually do grant cognitive authority to informationsources. We are concerned here with the normative question,fromthe epistemology of testimony, of whether people oughtto grant cognitive authority to Wikipedia (cf. Fallis, 2004b,

 

Page 4, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "“inaccurate information might result from (disinformation), or (misinformation).” disinformation on Wikipedia."

Comment: “inaccurate information might result from

(disinformation), or

(misinformation).”

disinformation on Wikipedia.

 

Page 4, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "In other words, instead of looking at the conditions under which people trust information sources, we want to know whether this particular information source really is trustworthy."

Comment: In other words, instead of looking at

the conditions under which people trust information sources,

we want to know whether this particular information source

really is trustworthy.

 

Page 4, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "worrisome when prominent individuals and large organizations are caught changing their ownWikipediaentries still potential for inaccurate information to be intro- duced as a result of unintentional bias"

Comment: worrisome when prominent individuals

and large organizations are caught changing their

ownWikipediaentries

still potential for inaccurate information to be intro-

duced as a result of unintentional bias

 

Page 4, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Concerns About Reliability"

Comment: Concerns About Reliability

 

Page 4, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "there is a third category of inaccurate informa- tion Stephen Colbert suggested in July 2006 that we should just construct the reality that we col- lectively want"

Comment: there is a third category of inaccurate informa-

tion

Stephen Colbert

suggested in July

2006 that we should just construct the reality that we col-

lectively want

 

Page 4, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "information can be added to Wikipedia and remain on Wikipedia indefinitely regardless of whether it is accurate."

Comment: information can be

added to Wikipedia and remain on Wikipedia indefinitely

regardless of whether it is accurate.

 

Page 4, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "a significant amount of information on Wikipedia might be inaccurate. lack of expertise, may inadvertently add inaccurate information. may inadvertently remove accurate information misinformation"

Comment: a significant amount

of information on Wikipedia might be inaccurate.

lack of expertise,

may inadvertently add

inaccurate information.

may inadvertently

remove accurate information

misinformation

 

Page 4, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "This type of inaccurate information is arguably distinct from both disinformation and misinformation. Colbert showed no concern for the truth"

Comment: This type of inaccurate information is arguably distinct from

both disinformation and misinformation.

Colbert showed no concern for the truth

 

Page 4, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: " Several philosophers (e.g., Black, 1983;G.A. Cohen, 2002; Frankfurt, 2005) have offered analy-ses of humbug or bullshit. lack of connection to a concern with truth—this indifference to how things really are—that"

Comment:  Several philosophers (e.g., Black, 1983;G.A. Cohen, 2002; Frankfurt, 2005) have offered analy-ses of humbug or bullshit.

lack of connection to a concern

with truth—this indifference to how things really are—that

 

Page 4, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "misinformation on Wikipedia."

Comment: misinformation on Wikipedia.

 

Page 4, Line Drawing (Black)

 

Page 4, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "people who lack expertise to contribute. It has been suggested that Wikipedia exhibits anti-intellectualism and actively deters people with expertise fromcontributing."

Comment: people who lack expertise to contribute. It has been suggested

that Wikipedia exhibits anti-intellectualism and actively

deters people with expertise fromcontributing.

 

Page 4, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "experts rarely receive any deference from other contribu- tors to Wikipedia as a result of their expertise cannot simply appeal to their author- ity,"

Comment: experts rarely receive any deference from other contribu-

tors to Wikipedia as a result of their expertise

cannot simply appeal to their author-

ity,

 

Page 5, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "I regard as of the essence of bullshit.”"

Comment: I regard as of the essence of bullshit.”

 

Page 5, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "really is because others have come through ahead of them, picked up the trash, and quickly wiped off the counters."

Comment: really is because others have come through ahead of them,

picked up the trash, and quickly wiped off the counters.

 

Page 5, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "can try to verify by considering the identity of the source anyconflict of interest sufficiently qualified enough track record) good"

Comment: can try to verify

by considering the identity of the source

anyconflict of interest

sufficiently qualified

enough track record)

good

 

Page 5, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Concerns About Verifiability"

Comment: Concerns About Verifiability

 

Page 5, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: " being misled can often lead to serious harms 465). However, inaccurate information is not so serious a problemif it is possible for people to determine that this information is (or is very likely to be) inaccurate. if people are in a position to verify the accuracy ofinformation, they are less likely to be misled "

Comment:  being misled can often lead to serious harms

465). However, inaccurate information is not so

serious a problemif it is possible for people to determine that

this information is (or is very likely to be) inaccurate.

if people are in a position to verify the accuracy ofinformation, they are less likely to be misled

 

Page 5, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Wikipedia, difficult to determine the exact source of a particular piece of infor- mation. anonymous contribu- tors"

Comment: Wikipedia,

difficult

to determine the exact source of a particular piece of infor-

mation.

anonymous

contribu-

tors

 

Page 5, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "consider the verifiability as well as the reliability of this information source"

Comment: consider the verifiability as

well as the reliability of this information source

 

Page 5, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "people can avoid the potential epistemic costs of inaccurate information even if they are not able to determine with absolute certainty that a particular piece of informa- tion is inaccurate. reasonable estimate of the reliability of the source"

Comment: people can avoid the potential epistemic costs of

inaccurate information even if they are not able to determine

with absolute certainty that a particular piece of informa-

tion is inaccurate.

reasonable estimate of the reliability of the source

 

Page 5, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Wikipedia Is Quite Reliable Despite legitimate concerns about its reliability, empir- ical evidence actually has suggested that Wikipedia is not all that unreliable. researchers by inserting plausible errors and seeing how long it takes for the errors to be corrected such vandalism is typicallycorrected in just a few minutes "

Comment: Wikipedia Is Quite Reliable

Despite legitimate concerns about its reliability, empir-

ical evidence actually has suggested that Wikipedia is not

all that unreliable.

researchers

by inserting plausible errors and seeing how long

it takes for the errors to be corrected

such vandalism is typicallycorrected in just a few minutes

 

Page 5, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "blind comparisons by experts of Wikipedia entries and entries in a traditional ency- clopedia"

Comment: blind comparisons by

experts of Wikipedia entries and entries in a traditional ency-

clopedia

 

Page 5, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "if we have the right amount of faithinthem, even fairly unreliable sources can be useful"

Comment: if we have the right amount of faithinthem,

even fairly unreliable sources can be useful

 

Page 5, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: " scientific topics. Results have been moremixed when it comes to other topics."

Comment:  scientific topics. Results have been moremixed when it comes to other topics.

 

Page 5, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "try to verify by considering both the presentation and the content of the information"

Comment: try to verify

by considering both the presentation and the content of the

information

 

Page 5, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "philosophical topics, “Wikipedia entries vary widely in quality,"

Comment: philosophical topics,

“Wikipedia entries vary widely in

quality,

 

Page 5, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "spelling and grammatical mis- takes makes other claims that areclearlyfalse, Unfortunately, these are just the sorts of features that contributors to Wikipedia typically remove when they edit entries that other people have written. quickly remove spelling mistakes, grammatical mistakes, and clearly implausible claims. no longer be available to someone trying to verify the accuracy"

Comment: spelling and grammatical mis-

takes

makes other claims that areclearlyfalse,

Unfortunately, these are just the sorts of features that

contributors to Wikipedia typically remove when they edit

entries that other people have written.

quickly

remove spelling mistakes, grammatical mistakes, and clearly

implausible claims.

no longer be

available to someone trying to verify the accuracy

 

Page 5, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Nevertheless, even on such nonscientifictopics, the reliability of Wikipedia still seems to be com-parable to that of Britannica. "

Comment: Nevertheless, even on such nonscientifictopics, the reliability of Wikipedia still seems to be com-parable to that of Britannica.

 

Page 5, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Wikipedia had more “major errors,” Britannica had many more “minor errors and infelicities, The sins of Wikipedia are more of omission than commission,"

Comment: Wikipedia had more “major errors,” Britannica

had many more “minor errors and infelicities,

The sins of Wikipedia are more of omission than

commission,

 

Page 5, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "McHenry’s the concern is that people cannot tell how dirty a restroom"

Comment: McHenry’s

the concern is that people cannot tell how dirty a restroom

 

Page 6, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "easy availability of low-quality information sources can certainly have bad epis- temic consequences in actual practice. people do not just have epistemic interests. many nonepistemic interests it often may be ratio- nal not to seek more knowledge or greater justification Wikipedia may be sufficiently reliable for many purposes,"

Comment: easy availability of

low-quality information sources can certainly have bad epis-

temic consequences in actual practice.

people do not just have epistemic interests.

many nonepistemic interests

it often may be ratio-

nal not to seek more knowledge or greater justification

Wikipedia may be sufficiently

reliable for many purposes,

 

Page 6, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Several investigations have simply rated the quality of the information on Wikipedia however, it is often more appropriate to carry out a relative rather than an absolute epistemic evaluation of an institution"

Comment: Several investigations

have simply rated the quality of the information

on Wikipedia

however, it is often more appropriate to carry out

a relative rather than an absolute epistemic evaluation of an

institution

 

Page 6, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "how reliable it is compared to the available alternatives."

Comment: how reliable it

is compared to the available alternatives.

 

Page 6, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Wikipedia Is Quite Verifiable spelling and grammat- ical mistakes are not correlated with inaccuracy. infelicities of presenta- tion (e.g., lack of stylistic sophistication and coherence) arenot as easily removed by other contributors. With regard tothe removal of implausible claims, some people probably arebeing deprived of useful indicators of inaccuracy we have to weigh the epistemic cost of a loss of verifiability for some people against the epistemic benefit of removing information that will be misleading to other people."

Comment: Wikipedia Is Quite Verifiable

spelling and grammat-

ical mistakes are not correlated with inaccuracy.

infelicities of presenta-

tion (e.g., lack of stylistic sophistication and coherence) arenot as easily removed by other contributors. With regard tothe removal of implausible claims, some people probably arebeing deprived of useful indicators of inaccuracy

we have to weigh

the epistemic cost of a loss of verifiability for some people

against the epistemic benefit of removing information that

will be misleading to other people.

 

Page 6, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Bertrand Meyer we should really be comparing the relia- bility of Wikipedia against the reliability of the information sources that people would likely be using if Wikipedia were not available"

Comment: Bertrand Meyer

we should really be comparing the relia-

bility of Wikipedia against the reliability of the information

sources that people would likely be using if Wikipedia were

not available

 

Page 6, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "if the reliability is comparable tothe reliability of traditional encyclopedias, then the reliabil-ity of Wikipedia presumably compares even more favorablyto the reliability of randomly chosen Web sites.9"

Comment: if the reliability

is comparable tothe reliability of traditional encyclopedias, then the reliabil-ity of Wikipedia presumably compares even more favorablyto the reliability of randomly chosen Web sites.9

 

Page 6, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "readers of Wikipedia can easily look at all of the contributions that a particular author has made and can evaluate the quality of these contributions."

Comment: readers of Wikipedia can easily look at

all of the contributions that a particular author has made and

can evaluate the quality of these contributions.

 

Page 6, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "If reliability is sufficiently important, double-check the information"

Comment: If reliability is sufficiently important,

double-check the information

 

Page 6, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "too time consuming to research his or her qualifications and potential biases."

Comment: too time consuming to

research his or her qualifications and potential biases.

 

Page 6, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "people are subject to the so-called Principle of Least Effort. “most researchers (even ‘serious’ scholars) will tend to choose easily available information sources,"

Comment: people

are subject to the so-called Principle of Least Effort.

“most researchers (even ‘serious’

scholars) will tend to choose easily available information

sources,

 

Page 6, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "we trust grouptestimony if we knowthat the process bywhich the testimony is produced is reliable"

Comment: we trust grouptestimony if we knowthat the process bywhich

the testimony is produced is reliable

 

Page 7, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: " author’s reputation for accuracy."

Comment:  author’s reputation for accuracy.

 

Page 7, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "there is reason to think that people are more likely to overestimate the reliability of traditional encyclopedias than the reliability of Wikipedia. “an inaccuracy in Britannica is (mis)taken as fact, an inaccuracy in Wikipedia is taken with a grain of salt, easily confirmed or proved wrong.”"

Comment: there is reason to think

that people are more likely to overestimate the reliability of

traditional encyclopedias than the reliability of Wikipedia.

“an inaccuracy in Britannica is

(mis)taken as fact, an inaccuracy in Wikipedia is taken with

a grain of salt, easily confirmed or proved wrong.”

 

Page 7, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: " registered contributors who have made a lot of changesare likely to make changes that persist. Interestingly, anony-mous contributors who have made only a few changes alsoare likely to make changes that persist."

Comment:  registered contributors who have made a lot of changesare likely to make changes that persist. Interestingly, anony-mous contributors who have made only a few changes alsoare likely to make changes that persist.

 

Page 7, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: " “non-discriminating reflectors” of Wikipedia many other information sources"

Comment:  “non-discriminating reflectors” of Wikipedia

many other information sources

 

Page 7, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "(Wikiscanner) connect specific con- tributions to Wikipedia with the organization that owns the IP addresses Wikiscanner also may increase the reliability as well as the verifiability of Wikipedia by deterring people from editing entries when they have an obvious conflict of interest."

Comment: (Wikiscanner)

connect specific con-

tributions to Wikipedia with the organization that owns the

IP addresses

Wikiscanner also may increase the reliability as well as the

verifiability of Wikipedia by deterring people from editing

entries when they have an obvious conflict of interest.

 

Page 7, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "epistemic benefits to anonymity may be deterred from disseminating valu-able information. "

Comment: epistemic benefits to anonymity

may be deterred from disseminating valu-able information.

 

Page 7, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Finally, in many respects, Wikipedia is actually more ver- ifiable than most other information sources. Warnings editing history talk pages that contributors use to discuss howentries shouldbe changed( This is in line with John Stuart Mill’s (1859/1978) claimthat exposure to differ- ent viewpoints is the best way to learn the truth about a topic"

Comment: Finally, in many respects, Wikipedia is actually more ver-

ifiable than most other information sources.

Warnings

editing history

talk pages that contributors use to discuss howentries shouldbe changed(

This is in line with

John Stuart Mill’s (1859/1978) claimthat exposure to differ-

ent viewpoints is the best way to learn the truth about a topic

 

Page 7, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Wikipedia Has Many Other Epistemic Virtues epistemic values of power, speed, and fecundity"

Comment: Wikipedia Has Many Other Epistemic Virtues

epistemic

values of power, speed, and fecundity

 

Page 7, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: " howmuch knowledge canbe acquired froman information source, howfast that knowl-edge can be acquired, and how many people can acquire thatknowledge. Fecundity, in particular, is an especially impor-tant concept at the intersection of social epistemology andwork on epistemic values."

Comment:  howmuch knowledge canbe acquired froman information source, howfast that knowl-edge can be acquired, and how many people can acquire thatknowledge. Fecundity, in particular, is an especially impor-tant concept at the intersection of social epistemology andwork on epistemic values.

 

Page 7, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "New technologies potential to increase the verifiability of Wikipedia"

Comment: New technologies

potential to increase the verifiability of Wikipedia

 

Page 8, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "huge amount of free labor very powerful. no delay for new con- tent to go through an editorial filter and because its content can be accessed quickly over the Internet, speedy can be free to anyone with Internet access, it is likelyto be very fecund. "

Comment: huge amount of free labor

very powerful.

no delay for new con-

tent to go through an editorial filter and because its content

can be accessed quickly over the Internet,

speedy

can be

free to anyone with Internet access, it is likelyto be very fecund.

 

 

Page 8, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "despite legitimate concerns about its reliability, it probably is epistemically better (i.e., in terms of all of our epistemic values) that people have access to this information source."

Comment: despite legitimate concerns about its reliability, it

probably is epistemically better (i.e., in terms of all of our

epistemic values) that people have access to this information

source.

 

Page 8, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "very"

Comment: very

 

Page 8, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "“open-source” project. allowed to make copies of its content for free increases the disseminationof knowledge, contrib-utors do have to give up any intellectual property rights thatthey might have claimed in their work. Intellectual propertyrights can have epistemic benefits by motivating people tocreate new content a large number of people are willing to contribute to Wikipedia even without this motivation"

Comment: “open-source” project.

allowed to

make copies of its content for free

increases the disseminationof knowledge, contrib-utors do have to give up any intellectual property rights thatthey might have claimed in their work. Intellectual propertyrights can have epistemic benefits by motivating people tocreate new content

a large

number of people are willing to contribute to Wikipedia even

without this motivation

 

Page 8, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Wiki Technology “given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.”"

Comment: Wiki Technology

“given enough eyeballs,

all bugs are shallow.”

 

Page 8, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: " intellectual property rights can stifleas well as promote the creation of new content "

Comment:  intellectual property rights can stifleas well as promote the creation of new content

 

Page 8, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "while Wikipediamay be slightly less reliable than Encyclopedia Britannica,itis arguably much more powerful, speedy, and fecund. "

Comment: while Wikipediamay be slightly less reliable than Encyclopedia Britannica,itis arguably much more powerful, speedy, and fecund.

 

Page 8, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Errors on the Internet can be corrected much more easily and quickly"

Comment: Errors on the Internet can be corrected much more easily

and quickly

 

Page 8, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "corrections usually take somewhat longer because most Web sites can be edited only by a small number of people. corrected immediately. anyone who finds an error in Wikipedia can (and isencouraged to) immediately correct it. "

Comment: corrections usually take somewhat longer because most Web

sites can be edited only by a small number of people.

corrected immediately.

anyone who finds an error in Wikipedia can (and isencouraged to) immediately correct it.

 

Page 8, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: " the relative importance of different epistemicvalues will often depend on the circumstances.  WilliamJames (1896/1979) famously claimed that the value of powercan sometimes outweigh the value of reliability. "

Comment:  the relative importance of different epistemicvalues will often depend on the circumstances.

WilliamJames (1896/1979) famously claimed that the value of powercan sometimes outweigh the value of reliability.

 

Page 8, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Wikipedia are more likely to be found because more people are on the lookout for them."

Comment: Wikipedia are more likely to be found because more people

are on the lookout for them.

 

Page 9, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "errors can be more easily introduced So, to explain why Wikipedia is as reliable as it is, we need an explanation for why errors are more likely to be corrected than introduced as a result of wiki technology."

Comment: errors can be more easily

introduced

So, to explain

why Wikipedia is as reliable as it is, we need an explanation

for why errors are more likely to be corrected than introduced

as a result of wiki technology.

 

Page 9, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "groups. Thus, it is not clear that appealing to the wisdom of crowds provides a sufficient explanation for why Wikipedia is as reliable as it is."

Comment: groups. Thus, it is not clear that appealing to the wisdom of

crowds provides a sufficient explanation for why Wikipedia

is as reliable as it is.

 

Page 9, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "The Wisdom of Crowds a large group will often be more reli- able than any individual member of the group."

Comment: The Wisdom of Crowds

a large group will often be more reli-

able than any individual member of the group.

 

Page 9, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "“Wikipedia’s authors do not come from a cross-section of the world’s population. English-speaking, males, and denizens of the Internet” especially unclear how diverse the contributors to any specific entry are likely to be."

Comment: “Wikipedia’s authors do

not come from a cross-section of the world’s population.

English-speaking, males, and

denizens of the Internet”

especially unclear

how diverse the contributors to any specific entry are likely

to be.

 

Page 9, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "examples of the wisdom of crowds typically involve simply aggregating the independent viewpoints of many individuals. what a Wikipedia entry says is rarely determined by such aggregation mechanisms. the collective viewpoint is simply the view- point of whoever happened to be the last person to edit an entry before you looked at it small-group dynamics that can make a group much less reliable any controversy the talk pages an emphasis on reaching consensus can stifle dissent that helps a group to be wise."

Comment: examples of the wisdom of crowds typically

involve simply aggregating the independent viewpoints of

many individuals.

what a Wikipedia entry says is rarely determined by such

aggregation mechanisms.

the collective viewpoint is simply the view-

point of whoever happened to be the last person to edit an

entry before you looked at it

small-group dynamics that

can make a group much less reliable

any controversy

the talk pages

an emphasis on reaching consensus can stifle dissent

that helps a group to

be wise.

 

Page 9, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Condorcet jury theorem even if none of the voters in an election are all that reli- able, they can still collectively be highly reliable"

Comment: Condorcet jury theorem

even if none of the voters in an election are all that reli-

able, they can still collectively be highly reliable

 

Page 9, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "To be wise, a group musthave certain properties. "

Comment: To be wise, a group musthave certain properties.

 

Page 9, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "large, independent, and diverse"

Comment: large, independent, and

diverse

 

Page 9, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Wikipedia Policies promote the reliability neutral point of view"

Comment: Wikipedia Policies

promote the reliability

neutral point of view

 

Page 9, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "people who voluntarily choose to write on a particular topic are likely to have at least some degree of reliability on that topic."

Comment: people who voluntarily

choose to write on a particular topic are likely to have at least

some degree of reliability on that topic.

 

Page 10, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "This neutrality pol- icyis arguablyconducive toreliabilitybecause consensus can often be “diagnostic of truth” references to reputable pub-lished sources contributors are encouraged to remove claims that are not supported by such sources. some degree of quality control."

Comment: This neutrality pol-

icyis arguablyconducive toreliabilitybecause consensus can

often be “diagnostic of truth”

references to reputable pub-lished sources

contributors are encouraged to remove

claims that are not supported by such sources.

some degree of quality control.

 

Page 10, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "in addition to trying to improve how people useWikipedia, we can try to improveWikipedia itself. newtechnologies potential to increase the reliabilityand verifiability of Wikipedia. New policies ameliorative project in epistemology,which focuses on how we can modify our institutions andpractices to better achieve our epistemic goals"

Comment: in addition to trying to improve how

people useWikipedia, we can try to improveWikipedia itself.

newtechnologies

potential to increase the reliabilityand verifiability of Wikipedia. New policies

ameliorative project in epistemology,which focuses on how we can modify our institutions andpractices to better achieve our epistemic goals

 

Page 10, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "social epistemolo- gists can try to figure out how to improve on Wikipedia.Citizendium.org welcomes experts to con-tribute as authors and as editors, and entries that meet certainstandards of quality are officially “approved” by such quali-fied editors Veropedia.com host stable versions of Wikipedia entries that have been approved by experts in the relevant subject areas Atkinson’s suggestion that while libraries and other information services should provide access to as many materials as possible, they should make the materials that are easiest to access as reliable as possible."

Comment: social epistemolo-

gists can try to figure out how to improve on Wikipedia.

Citizendium.org welcomes experts to con-tribute as authors and as editors, and entries that meet certainstandards of quality are officially “approved” by such quali-fied editors

Veropedia.com

host stable versions of Wikipedia entries

that have been approved by experts in the relevant subject

areas

Atkinson’s

suggestion that while libraries and other information services

should provide access to as many materials as possible, they

should make the materials that are easiest to access as reliable

as possible.

 

Page 10, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "people are largely cooperative even in the absence of legal constraints, people regu-larly develop and abide by cooperative norms "

Comment: people

are largely cooperative

even in the absence of legal constraints, people regu-larly develop and abide by cooperative norms

 

Page 10, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Some Wikipedia policies provide incentives for contrib- utors rather than placing constraints on them."

Comment: Some Wikipedia policies provide incentives for contrib-

utors rather than placing constraints on them.

 

Page 10, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Featured Articles The prospect of having one’s work advertised and recognized in this way can certainly inspire contributors to try to meet these standards of quality contributors who strive for qual- ity and accuracy are more likely to see their changes persist, to have their articles featured, and to gain such a reputation."

Comment: Featured Articles

The prospect of having one’s work advertised and recognized

in this way can certainly inspire contributors to try to meet

these standards of quality

contributors who strive for qual-

ity and accuracy are more likely to see their changes persist,

to have their articles featured, and to gain such a reputation.

 

Page 10, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "any proposed changes to Wikipedia are likely to have epistemic costs as well as epis- temic benefits. take longer to add and update entries. So, to evaluate any pro- posed changes, we need to be clear about exactly what our epistemic values are and what the appropriate tradeoffs are when there are conflicts."

Comment: any proposed changes to

Wikipedia are likely to have epistemic costs as well as epis-

temic benefits.

take longer to add and update entries. So, to evaluate any pro-

posed changes, we need to be clear about exactly what our

epistemic values are and what the appropriate tradeoffs are

when there are conflicts.

 

Page 10, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "HowWikipedia Can Be Improved"

Comment: HowWikipedia Can Be Improved

 

Page 10, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "increasing its reliability, this is a fairly difficult task. we might do better at improving the epistemic consequences of Wikipedia by increasing its verifiability"

Comment: increasing its reliability, this is a fairly

difficult task.

we might do better at improving the epistemic

consequences of Wikipedia by increasing its verifiability

 

Page 11, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "To increase the verifiability of Wikipedia, we need to pro- vide readers with easy access to evidence of the quality of particular entries.15 it is fairly easy to simplyflag existing content that is questionable. mechanism that allows people in general to rate the quality of the content, as they do on Digg.com or Amazon.com."

Comment: To increase the verifiability of Wikipedia, we need to pro-

vide readers with easy access to evidence of the quality

of particular entries.15

it is fairly easy to simplyflag existing content that is questionable.

mechanism that allows people in general

to rate the quality of the content, as they do on Digg.com

or Amazon.com.

 

Page 11, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Even if Wikipedia includes only accurate information, if its omissions tend to mislead people it may not be a reliable information source encyclopedias in gen- eral should be a starting point important omissions as well as inaccura- cies should be flagged."

Comment: Even if Wikipedia includes only accurate information, if its

omissions tend to mislead people it may not be a reliable

information source

encyclopedias in gen-

eral should be a starting point

important omissions as well as inaccura-

cies should be flagged.

 

Page 11, Line Drawing (Black)

 

Page 11, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "experts to direct readers to good introductory sources on any given topic. since Wikipedia is where many people start their research, libraries and archives with good digital materials on various topics are putting links to these materials in the relevant Wikipedia entries open-access peer-reviewed journals can provide a useful supplement to Wikipedia"

Comment: experts to direct readers to good introductory sources on

any given topic.

since Wikipedia is where

many people start their research, libraries and archives with

good digital materials on various topics are putting links to

these materials in the relevant Wikipedia entries

open-access peer-reviewed journals can

provide a useful supplement to Wikipedia

 

Page 11, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "Conclusion Like the Internet itself, Wikipedia is having a huge impact on how a great many people gather information about the world. Therefore, it is important for epistemologists to ask what the epistemic consequences are of people having access to this information source. While there are legiti- mate concerns about its reliability (since anyone can edit it), the empirical evidence has suggested that Wikipedia is fairly reliable (especially compared to those informa- tion sources that are as easily accessible). In addition, it has a number of other epistemic virtues (e.g., power, speed, and fecundity) that arguably outweigh any defi- ciency in terms of reliability. Even so, epistemologists should be trying to identify changes (or alternatives) to Wikipedia that will bring about even better epistemic consequences. To do that, we need to clarify our epistemic values and to better understand why Wikipedia works as well as it does."

Comment: Conclusion

Like the Internet itself, Wikipedia is having a huge impact

on how a great many people gather information about the

world. Therefore, it is important for epistemologists to

ask what the epistemic consequences are of people having

access to this information source. While there are legiti-

mate concerns about its reliability (since anyone can edit

it), the empirical evidence has suggested that Wikipedia

is fairly reliable (especially compared to those informa-

tion sources that are as easily accessible). In addition,

it has a number of other epistemic virtues (e.g., power,

speed, and fecundity) that arguably outweigh any defi-

ciency in terms of reliability. Even so, epistemologists should

be trying to identify changes (or alternatives) to Wikipedia

that will bring about even better epistemic consequences.

To do that, we need to clarify our epistemic values and

to

better

understand

why Wikipedia

works

as

well

as

it does.

 

Page 11, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: " which types of entriesare more likely to be questionable. Empirical studies that compare the reli- ability of Wikipedia with respect to different subject areas wouldbe useful."

Comment:  which types of entriesare more likely to be questionable.

Empirical studies that compare the reli-

ability of Wikipedia with respect to different subject areas

wouldbe useful.

 

Page 11, Highlight (Yellow):

Content: "several empirical studies have suggested that the more serious problem with Wikipedia is not that entries are likely to be inaccurate but that they are likely to be incomplete.16"

Comment: several empirical studies

have suggested that the more serious

Annotation Summary: Don Fallis 2008problem with Wikipedia is not that entries are likely to be

inaccurate but that they are likely to be incomplete.16

 

--

 

Marked up using iAnnotate on my iPad

 

 

Sent from my iPad. Please forgive typos.

 

Diana Ascher