Don Fallis is a professor here at the UA with the School Information Resources and Library Science. He has a PhD in Philosophy. In his article, Toward an Epistemology of Wikipedia, Fallis explores the validity and reliability of Wikipedia. He claims that the epistemic consequences are good rather than bad, meaning that people are gaining knowledge from it in a good way. The article was included in the Journal for American Society for Information Science and Technology, and a previous version of it was presented at a Computing and Philosophy Conference suggesting that Fallis' primary audience was other scientists or individuals concerned with technology's role in the dissemination of knowledge.
His primary claim being that wikipedia is more reliable and valuable to society's ability to gain knowledge, he first outlines the counter arguments. The main concern with wikipedia is accuracy because anyone can edit it, and they can do so anonymously. Because of this, three problems can arise which include misinformation (unintentional inaccuracy), disinformation (intention of deceit) and “bullshit (indifference about whether something is true or not).” Another concern is that wikipedia discourages experts from contributing because their contribution might be edited, and they do not get proper credit for their work, this is called anti-intellectualism.
Despite these concerns, studies show that most of the information is only slightly less reliable than an encyclopedia like Britannica. In addition, the warnings on wikipedia that some of the information might not be true or complete adds a level of verifiability to wikipedia, possibly making it better epistemically than traditional encyclopedias which more people might be inclined to blindly trust. In addition, because Wikipedia offers other values like power, speed and fecundity (the number of people it reaches), Fallis argues that Wikipedia is actually epistemically more valuable. Because of the capabilities of the medium to allow such mass collaboration, the amount of information on wikipedia greatly exceeds that of other encyclopedia. Mistakes are often corrected very quickly by other users, unlike in other encyclopedias where they could not be corrected until the next edition. Overall, the main problem with wikipedia is not unreliable information, but the incompleteness of information, so wikipedia and other encyclopedias should be used with caution because they do not have all the facts.
Inquiry:
I would have to agree with the claims that Fallis is making because he provides empirical evidence to support it, such as studies that show how much of the information on Wikipedia and Britannica is true. He also provides a thorough overview of the counter arguments and why they are valid or not which leads me to believe that the article was well thought out, and not biased one way or another, but an actual analysis and description of facts.
Questions:
Do you agree with Fallis? Why or why not? Has your experience with Wikipedia confirmed or denied Fallis' argument? How did you feel about wikipedia prior to reading this article and has your opinion changed?
The fact that wikipedia is on the internet and used by the wide range of people is both good and bad. Do you agree with Fallis that the benefits of power, speed and fecundity provided by the medium outweigh the costs of potential misinformation?
I know that I have had multiple professors in both college and high school forbid the use of wikipedia as a source, do you think this article could or should change their minds?
By Kelsie Cady
I completely agree with Fallis that Wikipedia is a good source of information. With knowledge and information constantly changing, something as open as Wikipedia is the only thing that has the capability to keep up. Wikipedia usually cites sources at the bottom of the page, and this is a great place for researches to check their information and even receive more information from those other sources. Strong research should come from multiple sources anyway. People do not have the time to go to a library and search through books and encyclopedias for one paragraph answers. Wikipedia is convenient, fast, and simple just as we like it. There will always be mis/disinformation from just about any source. Textbooks are constantly outdated and teachers frequently proven wrong. But I do believe teachers have their right to decide if Wikipedia is a liable source. All teachers have different policies and this should be no different.
ReplyDeleteI would certainly say that I agree with Fallis in regards to Wikipedia’s reliability and accuracy. As a student and a person who seeks general knowledge, I have utilized Wikipedia innumerable times. The editing standards are much higher than most people would think; most everything stated in a Wikipedia article is sourced, with the link to that particular page readily available. The Encyclopedia Britannica, frankly, lacks that sort of transparency and mass availability. I like to think of Wikipedia as sort of our culture’s collective consciousness- continually adding to itself and virtually all-encompassing. Fallis’ article did not change my views on Wikipedia substantially; rather, it only served to strengthen them. I feel as though it is about as reliable and thorough as any source that can be found on the Internet, and at least one can be relatively secure in the neutrality of the articles. In addition, many sources on the Internet do not have direct sources that they pull information from (at least not listed sources), and so in many instances you have no idea where it is coming from. In terms of this article changing other people’s views on Wikipedia especially older professors, I would say that it would do very little. The idealist in me would like to believe that Fallis’ organized, logical argument would make most people quite confident in Wikipedia, however my inner cynic knows that most people’s minds cannot be changed so easily. As it grows as a source of information, however, I feel that Wikipedia will only increase in its legitimacy and general reputation as the place to go to on the Internet for information of any kind.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Fallis that the benefits of power, speed, and fecundity outweigh the costs of potential misinformation. There are many situations where I am curious about something or need quick information on something and Wikipedia is my first reference. Often, I would not even look something up if I did not have quick easy access to the information. I almost never use an encyclopedia like Britannica because it is too difficult access and too time consuming. Wikipedia encourages general knowledge with it is easy access and broad spectrum. Most users are aware of the chance for being exposed to misinformation when they use Wikipedia and take the information with caution. Currently, Wikipedia is getting much more accurate as there are more users who monitor it and correct misinformation. In addition, there are ratings on the articles that allow readers to see what other people thought of the article, how accurate it is, and how thorough it is. I see Wikipedia becoming more widely used and accepted in the future.
ReplyDeleteGoing with what Brittney said, I definitely do feel that Wikipedia is only getting more accurate as more and more users are aware of it and using it, especially those who contribute to the articles. Wikipedia already has a firm editing/quality standards system in place, which will only get more effective as time goes on. As we have both stated, Wikipedia’s legitimacy will certainly grow in the coming years. However, I am not so sure if most users are fully aware of how Wikipedia works and exactly what the chances are of them coming across inaccurate information, rare though it may be. While I have much confidence myself in the reliability of the information to be found on Wikipedia, I fear that most people will not see it in shades of grey. Either it is a totally unreliable source to them, or they accept everything they come across as fact. I believe that with the growing use of the new technology of the online wiki, users need to educate themselves about how information can be added to articles on Wikipedia and exactly how it is monitored. Too many people choose not to bother themselves with learning about how the system works and completely ignore any and all sources used in the articles they read. In order to effectively peruse and draw from Wikipedia, it is necessary to do your homework and know what you’re reading.
ReplyDeleteThe volume and breadth of articles in Wikipedia is far greater than any online encyclopedia that I know. Among the subjects there are subcategories and more related articles to look into. Like the sentiments of everyone else, it's also important to take the information with a grain of salt. We will never be able to cite Wikipedia as a legitimate source. Instead, it is mostly designed to provide a synopsis that way a student may fine-tune their search for information on another source. With the presence of this much information and its ease of accessibility, our generation has become accountable for basically knowing all of it. No longer can you have a conversation or a discussion and use the excuse of not knowing a basic fact; this information can be found at your fingertips in a matter of milliseconds on a computer or smartphone via Wikipedia.org. Fallis has some excellent points urging the public to approach with caution. However, I personally have never felt the consequences referring to thoughts on Wikipedia that may be incomplete. If I had stated incorrect facts in some of my school papers, I would not notice, as it had not been corrected by my TAs or professors. I believe that is the reason that students and other people continue to faithfully use it.
ReplyDeleteThe more i think about it, the more I believe Wikipedia will be accepted in the future. Students have been using this site as a source of information for years. So I question how future teachers who used Wikiedia when they were students could deny Wikipedia as a valid source. It is very hippocritical. So as Wikipedia continues to prove its correctness and as more people continue to use it, the more accepted it will be. There will always be those who are anti-Wikipedia, but there are always "haters" for just about any subject of argument. The ease and simplicity of Wikipedia outweighs its flaws hands down.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Fallis, although this article didn't change my perception much. The main component that is driving Wikipedia is the speed with which one can move through the site with their extensive use of hyperlinks. Users have the ability to easily gain more detail on the majority of concepts being brought up in an article, which allows for much more information to be accessed relavant to what you're reading. Also, by using the citations provided at the end of the article it is extremely easy to find scholarly articles pertaining to that topic which are considered legitimate sources and one could cite in a paper. BBeck pointed out that the majority of people using Wikipedia know the chance they are taking at getting biased or inaccurate information, which I thought was a great point. In the end definitely agree with Fallis' argument and believe that Wikipedia is an extremely valuable as a means for society to gain information.
ReplyDelete