東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Consensus-Based Encyclopedic Virtue:...

McGrady, Ryan Douglas,

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Consensus-Based Encyclopedic Virtue: Wikipedia and the Production of Authority in Encyclopedias /

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Consensus-Based Encyclopedic Virtue: Wikipedia and the Production of Authority in Encyclopedias // Ryan Douglas McGrady.
Author:	McGrady, Ryan Douglas,
Description:	1 electronic resource (304 pages)
Notes:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 82-09, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International82-09A.
Subject:	Web studies. -
Online resource:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28306188
ISBN:	9798698598138

Consensus-Based Encyclopedic Virtue: Wikipedia and the Production of Authority in Encyclopedias /
McGrady, Ryan Douglas,

Consensus-Based Encyclopedic Virtue: Wikipedia and the Production of Authority in Encyclopedias /Ryan Douglas McGrady. - 1 electronic resource (304 pages)

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 82-09, Section: A.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a genre with a long history and several well-established assumptions. Scholarship and journalism about Wikipedia often consider the ways it carries forward, diverges from, or takes to an extreme the various qualities commonly ascribed to encyclopedias. In doing so, it is taken for granted that encyclopedias are authoritative sources of summarized knowledge based on values like accuracy and comprehensiveness, and the question becomes how Wikipedia compares. Through this dissertation, I argue that these commonly held beliefs about encyclopedias are not inherent in the text but the result of centuries of external associations and internal efforts to cultivate a particular kind of authority. Encyclopedias have had close relationships with powerful institutions throughout their history and use a variety of techniques to frame the ways readers should think about them. Furthermore, these cultivated "encyclopedic virtues" obscure the way that encyclopedists negotiate competing priorities and influences in the knowledge production process. Rather than being perfect, neutral summaries of the world, they often reflect nationalist, religious, or capitalist interests, sometimes even requiring the consent of the powerful in order to be published at all, or in rare cases, they can even prioritize direct critique of those same institutions. It is instructive to think about Wikipedia in the context of the traditional encyclopedic virtues, but its radically different approach to knowledge production also demands consideration of its own unique way of cultivating epistemic authority. I argue that the encyclopedic virtues of Wikipedia are best understood not through the content of articles themselves or by the identities of individual participants but through the ethos of its community and the procedural rhetoric of its rules. But while Wikipedia does not typically need the consent of a powerful governmental or religious institution, the way its collaborative production of knowledge plays out in practice is messier and more complicated than the presentation of its rules lets on. The central concept to understand how the Wikipedia community makes decisions, settles disputes, and determines what text goes into the articles is "consensus." Determinations of consensus can be strong or weak, operate at many levels, can override or augment each other, involve social and technical hierarchies, and rely on interpretations and applications of the rules in ways that can be inconsistent or even contradictory. Because policies and guidelines rely on interpretation and the exercise of judgment, some variation in the way they are used in practice is expected. In some cases, however, like the multiple "notability" guidelines, inconsistency leads to differences based not just on how to apply a particular rule but on what rules should even apply. The resolution of differences like these can come down to the personal preferences of the subset of users who participate in a given discussion. Another case, source deprecation, shows a tendency towards "blackboxing" consensus with far-reaching implications. In some ways consensus is fragmented and decentralized, while in others it tends towards centralization. At the same time, phenomena like off-wiki coordination, paid editing, and declining participation threaten the consensus model itself.

English

ISBN: 9798698598138Subjects--Topical Terms:

2122754
Web studies.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Consensus

Consensus-Based Encyclopedic Virtue: Wikipedia and the Production of Authority in Encyclopedias /
LDR:05136nmm a22004933i 4500 001 2434382
005 20251027113102.5
006 m o d
007 cr|nu||||||||
008 261011s2020 miu||||||m |||||||eng d
020 $a 9798698598138
035 $a (MiAaPQD)AAI28306188
035 $a (MiAaPQD)NCState_Univ18402038333
035 $a AAI28306188
040 $a MiAaPQD $b eng $c MiAaPQD $e rda
100 1 $a McGrady, Ryan Douglas, $e author. $3 3824352
245 1 0 $a Consensus-Based Encyclopedic Virtue: Wikipedia and the Production of Authority in Encyclopedias / $c Ryan Douglas McGrady.
264 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2020
300 $a 1 electronic resource (304 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 82-09, Section: A.
500 $a Advisors: Packer, Jeremy; Fyfe, Paul; Burgess, Helen; Greenstein, Theodore; Swarts, Jason; Bollmer, Grant.
502 $b Ph.D. $c North Carolina State University $d 2020.
520 $a Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a genre with a long history and several well-established assumptions. Scholarship and journalism about Wikipedia often consider the ways it carries forward, diverges from, or takes to an extreme the various qualities commonly ascribed to encyclopedias. In doing so, it is taken for granted that encyclopedias are authoritative sources of summarized knowledge based on values like accuracy and comprehensiveness, and the question becomes how Wikipedia compares. Through this dissertation, I argue that these commonly held beliefs about encyclopedias are not inherent in the text but the result of centuries of external associations and internal efforts to cultivate a particular kind of authority. Encyclopedias have had close relationships with powerful institutions throughout their history and use a variety of techniques to frame the ways readers should think about them. Furthermore, these cultivated "encyclopedic virtues" obscure the way that encyclopedists negotiate competing priorities and influences in the knowledge production process. Rather than being perfect, neutral summaries of the world, they often reflect nationalist, religious, or capitalist interests, sometimes even requiring the consent of the powerful in order to be published at all, or in rare cases, they can even prioritize direct critique of those same institutions. It is instructive to think about Wikipedia in the context of the traditional encyclopedic virtues, but its radically different approach to knowledge production also demands consideration of its own unique way of cultivating epistemic authority. I argue that the encyclopedic virtues of Wikipedia are best understood not through the content of articles themselves or by the identities of individual participants but through the ethos of its community and the procedural rhetoric of its rules. But while Wikipedia does not typically need the consent of a powerful governmental or religious institution, the way its collaborative production of knowledge plays out in practice is messier and more complicated than the presentation of its rules lets on. The central concept to understand how the Wikipedia community makes decisions, settles disputes, and determines what text goes into the articles is "consensus." Determinations of consensus can be strong or weak, operate at many levels, can override or augment each other, involve social and technical hierarchies, and rely on interpretations and applications of the rules in ways that can be inconsistent or even contradictory. Because policies and guidelines rely on interpretation and the exercise of judgment, some variation in the way they are used in practice is expected. In some cases, however, like the multiple "notability" guidelines, inconsistency leads to differences based not just on how to apply a particular rule but on what rules should even apply. The resolution of differences like these can come down to the personal preferences of the subset of users who participate in a given discussion. Another case, source deprecation, shows a tendency towards "blackboxing" consensus with far-reaching implications. In some ways consensus is fragmented and decentralized, while in others it tends towards centralization. At the same time, phenomena like off-wiki coordination, paid editing, and declining participation threaten the consensus model itself.
546 $a English
590 $a School code: 0155
650 4 $a Web studies. $3 2122754
650 4 $a Information science. $3 554358
650 4 $a Library science. $3 539284
653 $a Consensus
653 $a Encyclopedic virtue
653 $a Wikipedia
653 $a Authority
690 $a 0399
690 $a 0646
690 $a 0723
710 2 $a North Carolina State University. $e degree granting institution. $3 3765716
720 1 $a Packer, Jeremy $e degree supervisor.
720 1 $a Fyfe, Paul $e degree supervisor.
720 1 $a Burgess, Helen $e degree supervisor.
720 1 $a Greenstein, Theodore $e degree supervisor.
720 1 $a Swarts, Jason $e degree supervisor.
720 1 $a Bollmer, Grant $e degree supervisor.
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 82-09A.
790 $a 0155
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2020
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28306188