The social shaping of knowledge

The social shaping of knowledge through collaborative authoring tools

I grew up in a household with a set of encyclopedias prominently displayed in the family room and frequently used as a resource– for our education, to consult during family discussions about issues, or as a supplemental guide to expand our knowledge about obscure topics introduced through media sources. In short, my knowledge construction was directly shaped by the easy availability of this information resource in my family’s home, and the credibility and authority that was given these revered texts.

Thus, I have a long standing reverence for encyclopedias as foundations for new knowledge. This included important and early introductions to cultural topics: I remember writing a school report in 6th grade on Thailand, poring nightly over the encyclopedia, and absorbing information about Asian cultures and the wonderful ways their food, dress, language, religion and geography differed from my own WASPish upbringing in Southern California.

Perhaps this is one reason I tend to be skeptical in adopting Wikipedia as a source of information. In spite of the fact that I’m a seasoned, ingrained user of all technologies and electronic information resources, I’ve only occasionally tapped Wikipedia in my quest for new information. I can’t argue with its ease of access, and its breadth of topics. And I think the wiki technology is an exciting enhancement to our online knowledge communities seeking more accessible tools that nurture collaborative writing processes and allow better dissemination of new knowledge.

But, with Wikipedia specifically, the nagging questions are: “Who wrote this”, “Can I trust this”, and “Should I even be reading this, lest it shape my knowledge differently?” Let me be clear here: my arguments are not addressed to wiki technology, but to Wikipedia specifically as an encyclopedia tool. My main concerns and observations are fourfold: 1) How does the demographic makeup of wikipedia authors influence the knowledge produced?; 2) What is the nature of knowledge that is socially constructed by less authoritative and credible producers?; 3) What is the future of Wikipedia?; and taking a left turn, 4) What are the organizational challenges of collective communities?

Representation: The demographics of Wikipedia authors
When asking about credibility of information, the first question raised should be the source of the information. Sanger (2006a) focuses much on the issue of credibility, derived from accuracy. I would argue that credibility is also a function of representation based upon the demographics of the authors. That is, what do we know about the demographics of those who participate in collaborative writing projects like Wikipedia? Do these groups mirror earlier and other first-adopter cultures such as “The Well” (these were primarily white, middle-class males, with strong technical backgrounds).

I was unable to find any quantifiable information about those who author entries in Wikipedia (termed “wikipedians”). In his lecture Monday, Sanger suggested that the demographics might indeed be similar to “The Well”, with the exception that this appears to be a remarkably younger and less educated group of authors – those in their teens and early twenties who are either high school or college students (Sanger, 2006b).

If this is true, how do these demographics bias the assumed democratic platform of wikipedias? As topics and presentation of information are shaped by the community participants, the knowledge produced by this community will necessarily be biased by the demographic makeup of participants. By Wikipedia’s own claim (“Who writes Wikipedia”; “Wikipedians”), there is a possibility of systemic bias in both the coverage of topics and the perspective of such information.

Thus, while the community is open and collective, “open” does not equal “representative”.
Furthermore, how do we judge the credibility of information when its sources and contributors are unknown? Credibility demands accountability, but how can you have accountability when there is anonymity of the sources (Stross, 2006)?

Thus, “representative” does not equal “credible and authoritative”

The nature of knowledge
Building on this concern of bias from a non-representative community, is the question of what is the nature of knowledge construction when there are no defined boundaries, rules, authority or credibility? In a system like Wikipedia, when authors are anonymous and unknown, the bias is hidden, and generates a system of power that is unusual in a knowledge creation instrument. As noted in Wikipedia’s history:

Emigh and Herring argue that “a few active users, when acting in concert with established norms within an open editing system, can achieve ultimate control over the content produced within the system, literally erasing diversity, controversy, and inconsistency, and homogenizing contributors’ voices.” (“About Wikipedia”)

How would an ideal information resource that is collaboratively developed handle this to provide a truer representation and reflection of society’s information and knowledge?

The organizational challenges of collective communities

On a completely different note, as a budding organizational communication scholar, I find it intriguing to evaluate the evolution of this collective community. It appears that collectives, based upon consensus decision-making, frequently begin to creak and groan under the strain of dissidents – or trolls as they are called in wikipedialand. The continuing tension between allowing all voices to contribute, and not censoring provides a forum for the troll to overpower and overcome a productive, constructive, (or much less, harmonious) community.

What does organizational communication literature on collectives tell us about whether these tensions can be addressed, while maintaining the spirit of open, democratic, consensus environments? We do know that collective communities do not scale well – once they grow beyond identifiable networks of colleagues, their collective success breaks down and consensus decision-making becomes problematic. In fact, there was a similar breakdown of the Well community, when disruptive individuals began to break down the spirit of collaboration and community on which it thrived.

Thus, when the community scales large, “consensus” does not equal “most efficient”, “most representative”, or “best decision”.

The future of Wikipedia
Finally, Wikipedia continues to expand and thrive as an online information resource. Given the challenges arising – to its credibility, representation, and organization – will it continue to thrive? What will be its greatest challenges? Current challenges to its credibility have arisen from the alleged Siegenthaler libel act, and Nature’s contention that Wikipedia and Brittanica were equally accurate will increase scrutiny of this resource (Giles, 2005; Brittanica, 2006; Nature, 2006).

My prediction is that people will come to recognize Wikipedia as an easy, quick way to find topical information about a broad range of subjects, but not view this as information that can be used when veriable, accurate, and expert information is required. As Daniel Boyd (2005) noted in Wikipedia: “[i]t will never be an encyclopedia, but it will contain extensive knowledge that is quite valuable for different purposes”.

References
About Wikipedia. Article on www.wikipedia.org.. Retrieved March 22, 2006 from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia.

Boyd, D. (2005). Academic and Wikipedia. Many-to-Many, January 4, 2005. Retrieved March 28, 2006 from: http://many.corante.com/archives/2005/01/04/academia_and_wikipedia.php.

Brittanica (2006). Retrieved March 28, 2006 from: http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf.

Giles, J. (2005). Special Report: Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature 438, 900-901 (15 December 2005). Retireved March 27, 2006 from: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html.

Nature (2006). Response to Brittanica. Retrieved March 28, 2006 from: http://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf.

Sanger, L. (2004). Why Wikipedia must jettison its anti-elitism. Retrieved March 22, 2006 from: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25.

Sanger, L. (2005). The early history of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A memoir. April 20, 2005. Retrieved March 22, 2006 from: http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213&tid=95.

Sanger, L. (2006a). The future of free information. Retrieved online March 22, 2006.

Sanger, L. (2006b). Personal Communication. Lecture to Purdue University, March 27, 2006.

Stross, R. (2006). Anonymous source is not the same as open source. New York Times, March 12, 2006. Retrieved March 22, 2006.

Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia. Article on www.wikipedia.org.. Retrieved March 28, 2006 from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Who_writes_Wikipedia.

Wikipedians. Article on www.wikipedia.org.. Retrieved March 28, 2006 from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians.