This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about cookies.
Skip to main content
  • English Choose language Scegli la lingua
    • Italiano
Sign Up Sign In
  • Home
  • Events
  • Blog
  • Assemblies
  • Dashboard Lite
  • Help

Hypotheses and Insights

Propose a hypothesis and share your findings

  • About
  • Members
  • Learn More 💡
  • Hypotheses 🗃️
  • Insights
chevron-left Back to list

Peer collaboration or hierarchy? The epistemic reliability of Wikipedia needs both

Avatar: Antoine Antoine
26/02/2023 12:25  

Context
Over the years, research has shown that Wikipedia is shaped by the interaction of two opposite dynamic
forces. The reliability of its content seems to be a feature of what has now become established as a
“wisdom of the crowd” effect. The sheer multitude of people who provide input on a given topic harnesses
the emergence of a characteristic form of collective intelligence that makes Wikipedia's content solid and
trustworthy. On the other hand, scholars who have focused on the inner workings of Wikipedia’s social
dynamics have highlighted how its organization reflects the so-called “iron law of oligarchy”, that is, a
phenomenon whereby the first generation of Wikipedians, once established, has set a very high bar for
new members to enter the core circle of content creators and editors. When compared to different
websites and social media, Wikipedia is in fact the digital platform with the widest gap between those who
produce content and those who read and use it for specific purposes.
Hypothesis
Wikipedia has often been taken as a virtuous example of a digital platform that unleashes the power of the “wisdom of the crowd” as enabled by Web 2.0 affordances. While the unprecedented large-scale participation in the foundation and evolution of Wikipedia is a matter of fact, research has shown that, despite the massive collective effort, Wikipedia is also characterized by a highly selective curatorial leadership, consisting of editors (i.e., the “Wikipedians”), which play a key role in its maintenance and show very high levels of commitment in terms of time and effort. Our hypothesis is that the epistemic reliability of Wikipedia needs both peer-collaboration and hyerarchy.
Collaboration
Related dataset URL
https://participate.indices-culture.eu/assemblies/indicesDatasets/f/163/proposals/204
Related insights URL
Indicators
Temporal network analysis toolset
Evaluation

AUTOMATED DATA CONTENT ANALYSIS

  • Keyword Graph
  • Geomap
  • Tag Cloud
Sources:
Date range:  
Color codes for sentiment analysis: Negative vs Positive
Improve Hypothesis Improve this hypothesis by modifying its title and body
1 Support
Endorsements count0
Peer collaboration or hierarchy? The epistemic reliability of Wikipedia needs both Comments 0

Reference: IN-PROP-2023-02-210
Version number 1 (of 1) see other versions
Check fingerprint

Fingerprint

The piece of text below is a shortened, hashed representation of this content. It's useful to ensure the content hasn't been tampered with, as a single modification would result in a totally different value.

Value: be24e5e1fc7ebf1fb85e4136e08af3fd964d82b4d9ed98d9bbaf8a7ec7bcb04f

Source: {"body":{"en":"<xml><dl class=\"decidim_awesome-custom_fields\" data-generator=\"decidim_awesome\" data-version=\"0.8.3\"><dt name=\"textarea-1635451235315\">Context</dt><dd id=\"textarea-1635451235315\" name=\"textarea\"><div>Over the years, research has shown that Wikipedia is shaped by the interaction of two opposite dynamic\nforces. The reliability of its content seems to be a feature of what has now become established as a\n“wisdom of the crowd” effect. The sheer multitude of people who provide input on a given topic harnesses\nthe emergence of a characteristic form of collective intelligence that makes Wikipedia&amp;amp;gid://indices/Decidim::Hashtag/13/39;s content solid and\ntrustworthy. On the other hand, scholars who have focused on the inner workings of Wikipedia’s social\ndynamics have highlighted how its organization reflects the so-called “iron law of oligarchy”, that is, a\nphenomenon whereby the first generation of Wikipedians, once established, has set a very high bar for\nnew members to enter the core circle of content creators and editors. When compared to different\nwebsites and social media, Wikipedia is in fact the digital platform with the widest gap between those who\nproduce content and those who read and use it for specific purposes.</div></dd><dt name=\"text-1635451312580\">Hypothesis</dt><dd id=\"text-1635451312580\" name=\"text\"><div>Wikipedia has often been taken as a virtuous example of a digital platform that unleashes the power of the “wisdom of the crowd” as enabled by Web 2.0 affordances. While the unprecedented large-scale participation in the foundation and evolution of Wikipedia is a matter of fact, research has shown that, despite the massive collective effort, Wikipedia is also characterized by a highly selective curatorial leadership, consisting of editors (i.e., the “Wikipedians”), which play a key role in its maintenance and show very high levels of commitment in terms of time and effort. Our hypothesis is that the epistemic reliability of Wikipedia needs both peer-collaboration and hyerarchy.</div></dd><dt name=\"text-1635451372562\">Collaboration</dt><dd id=\"text-1635451372562\" name=\"text\"><div></div></dd><dt name=\"text-1635451427513\">Related dataset URL</dt><dd id=\"text-1635451427513\" name=\"text\"><div>https://participate.indices-culture.eu/assemblies/indicesDatasets/f/163/proposals/204</div></dd><dt name=\"textarea-1669973821818-0\">Related insights URL</dt><dd id=\"textarea-1669973821818-0\" name=\"textarea\"><div></div></dd><dt name=\"textarea-1635451479530\">Indicators</dt><dd id=\"textarea-1635451479530\" name=\"textarea\"><div>Temporal network analysis toolset</div></dd><dt name=\"textarea-1635451518445\">Evaluation</dt><dd id=\"textarea-1635451518445\" name=\"textarea\"><div></div></dd></dl></xml>"},"title":{"en":"Peer collaboration or hierarchy? The epistemic reliability of Wikipedia needs both"}}

This fingerprint is calculated using a SHA256 hashing algorithm. In order to replicate it yourself, you can use an MD5 calculator online and copy-paste the source data.

Share:

link-intact Share link

Share link:

Please paste this code in your page:

<script src="https://participate.indices-culture.eu/assemblies/hypotheses/f/83/proposals/210/embed.js"></script>
<noscript><iframe src="https://participate.indices-culture.eu/assemblies/hypotheses/f/83/proposals/210/embed.html" frameborder="0" scrolling="vertical"></iframe></noscript>

Report inappropriate content

Is this content inappropriate?

Reason

0 comments

Order by:
  • Older
    • Best rated
    • Recent
    • Older
    • Most discussed
Conversation with kate
Comment moderated on 22/03/2023 10:17

Add your comment

Sign in with your account or sign up to add your comment.

Loading comments ...

  • Terms and Conditions
  • Change Impact Assessment Framework
  • Download Open Data files
Europe flag
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 870792.
The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors. It does not necessarily represent the opinion of the European Union.
Neither the EASME nor the European Commission is responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
Creative Commons License Website made with free software.
Decidim Logo
Made by Platoniq

Confirm

OK Cancel

Please sign in

Sign up

Forgot your password?