Difference between revisions of "The Authority of Wikipedia"
(Adding wikilinks) |
(Infobox work) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | {{Infobox work | ||
+ | | title = The Authority of Wikipedia | ||
+ | | date = 2009 | ||
+ | | authors = [[Jean Goodwin]] | ||
+ | | link = https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1144&context=ossaarchive | ||
+ | }} | ||
'''The Authority of Wikipedia''' - scientific work related to [[Wikipedia quality]] published in 2009, written by [[Jean Goodwin]]. | '''The Authority of Wikipedia''' - scientific work related to [[Wikipedia quality]] published in 2009, written by [[Jean Goodwin]]. | ||
== Overview == | == Overview == | ||
Philosophers of argumentation and of testimony suggest that authors can rely on what someone says because of its epistemic merits. If so, then authors should never credit [[Wikipedia]], since authors cannot assess what its anonymous contributors know. Author propose instead that Wikipedia can have pragmatic merits, in that the contributors' passion for the project, and the emerging communicative design through which that passion is made manifest, provide a reason for trust. | Philosophers of argumentation and of testimony suggest that authors can rely on what someone says because of its epistemic merits. If so, then authors should never credit [[Wikipedia]], since authors cannot assess what its anonymous contributors know. Author propose instead that Wikipedia can have pragmatic merits, in that the contributors' passion for the project, and the emerging communicative design through which that passion is made manifest, provide a reason for trust. |
Revision as of 16:42, 1 July 2019
Authors | Jean Goodwin |
---|---|
Publication date | 2009 |
Links | Original |
The Authority of Wikipedia - scientific work related to Wikipedia quality published in 2009, written by Jean Goodwin.
Overview
Philosophers of argumentation and of testimony suggest that authors can rely on what someone says because of its epistemic merits. If so, then authors should never credit Wikipedia, since authors cannot assess what its anonymous contributors know. Author propose instead that Wikipedia can have pragmatic merits, in that the contributors' passion for the project, and the emerging communicative design through which that passion is made manifest, provide a reason for trust.