The PDF didn't come through to me so I've pasted the full text below. Great
interview, Amy! I'm looking forward to reading your book next year.
Best,
Su-Laine
Wikipedia volunteer
Wikipedia: The Most Reliable Source on the Internet?
Something about this massive online knowledge repository is working better than the rest
of the internet, and we can learn from it.
S.C. Stuart
By S.C. Stuart
June 3, 2021
(Photo by Ali Balikci/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
Wikipedia is a fascinating corner of the web—a font of knowledge that leads to expected
places. But as any teacher or professor will tell you, it's not a primary source. Use
it as a jumping-off point, but scroll to the bottom and seek out original sources for the
"truth."
Is that fair? Is Wikipedia indeed a repository for half-truths? It's a topic that
Professor Amy Bruckman from the Georgia Institute of Technology's School of
Interactive Computing has researched extensively and examines in her book Should You
Believe Wikipedia?, out in 2022 from Cambridge University Press.
Her conclusions may surprise you. Ahead of a September keynote at IntelliSys 2021, we
spoke to Professor Bruckman, a Harvard grad who holds a PhD from the MIT Media Lab, about
how to test assumptions—and the definition of truth and existence—in an era of
misinformation.
Before we get to Wikipedia, your wider research focuses on the field of "social
computing," which includes ethics, research, content creation and moderation, plus
social movements. When did you first encounter web-based communities?
[AB] Around 1990, I was a grad student at the MIT Media Lab and my friend Mike Travers
showed me a model of MIT in a multi-user, text-based virtual world. He had programmed a
bot of his advisor, Marvin Minsky. Virtual Marvin would automatically start off in his
office in the Media Lab, walk across campus to a classroom, and deliver a lecture at the
correct time Tuesdays and Thursdays, reading a chapter of his book, Society of Mind. It
was magic. I was hooked.
ADVERTISEMENT
And was that when you built your first multiplayer real-time world?
[AB] Yes, that was when I built MediaMOO, a multi-user text-based world designed to be a
professional community for media researchers. Then my dissertation project was a virtual
world for kids called MOOSE Crossing, where kids built the world together and learned
object-oriented programming and practiced their creative writing.
MOOSE Crossing
MOOSE Crossing (Image: Amy Bruckman)
Many people have fond memories of using MOOSE Crossing as kids. In fact, there was
something on NPR about it last year. But these were early days in collaborative computing.
What were you running MOOSE Crossing and MediaMOO on?
[AB] Well, this was before the invention of the web, and we were using computers running
the UNIX operating system. The internet wasn’t yet a mass medium, but we could see that it
would be, and the potential was exciting.
Which brings us to Wikipedia. Many of us consult it, slightly wary of its bias, depth, and
accuracy. But, as you'll be sharing in your speech at Intellisys, the content actually
ends up being surprisingly reliable. How does that happen?
[AB] The answer to "should you believe Wikipedia?" isn't simple. In my book
I argue that the content of a popular Wikipedia page is actually the most reliable form of
information ever created. Think about it—a peer-reviewed journal article is reviewed by
three experts (who may or may not actually check every detail), and then is set in stone.
The contents of a popular Wikipedia page might be reviewed by thousands of people. If
something changes, it is updated. Those people have varying levels of expertise, but if
they support their work with reliable citations, the results are solid. On the other hand,
a less popular Wikipedia page might not be reliable at all.
Amy Bruckman
Professor Amy Bruckman
Because few people access that page, or know/care enough about the subject to
correct/challenge them? Which brings us to the big ideas behind what is truth, and how we
reach it.
[AB] In my book and my talk at Intellisys, I try to teach everyone a bit of basic
epistemology, and show how that helps us better understand the internet. I believe ideas
like virtue epistemology can help us to improve the quality of the internet going
forwards.
ADVERTISEMENT
Okay, virtue epistemology is definitely a big idea. Give us a working definition, and how
it applies to Wikipedia.
[AB] Virtue epistemology suggests that knowledge is a collaborative achievement, and we
all can work to achieve knowledge (justified, true belief) by aspiring to epistemic
virtues: "curiosity, intellectual autonomy, intellectual humility, attentiveness,
intellectual carefulness, intellectual thoroughness, open-mindedness, intellectual courage
and intellectual tenacity." Being someone who is careful with knowledge is a lifelong
quest, and trying to embody those virtues helps.
So if someone embodies those virtues, we expect them to be in pursuit of noble truth. But
how do we know what is true?
[AB] The real world exists, but is only knowable through our fallible senses. But that
doesn’t mean that reality is subjective. Am I sitting on a chair? You see it with your
senses and I with mine, but we agree that there is something called a "chair,"
and I am sitting on one. The high degree of correlation between my subjective perceptions
and your subjective perceptions is caused by the fact that the world exists—there's
really a chair. The more people agree on something, the more we can be sure of it. And the
more those people possess what we would call "reliable cognitive processes," the
more we can be sure of it. So let's pick a harder example than my chair: Is human
activity changing the climate? We know the answer is yes because a large number of people
with reliable cognitive processes agree. Truth exists independent of the knower, but
social consensus is our best way of figuring out what that truth is.
Most of us exist inside a bubble of similarly minded folks, which shores up our
confirmation bias. Can you explain that concept with regard to Wikipedia too?
[AB] I’m not actually a climate scientist. I know that human activity is changing the
climate because I have chosen sources I trust. And I interact with a community of people
(in person and online) who share my views. When everyone around me believes that human
activity is changing the climate, it’s easier for me to decide that it’s worth extra money
to buy a car with a hybrid engine. I live in a bubble of like-minded folks. That’s good
most of the time. I don’t have to go get a degree in climatology before I go car shopping.
But there are growing numbers of bubbles of people who share false beliefs, and reinforce
those beliefs in one another. That’s a problem for the internet in general.
RECOMMENDED BY OUR EDITORS
Doheny Memorial Library | USC Libraries
Wikipedia Has a Diversity Problem, But These Librarians Want to Help
Report Concludes Facebook Is a 'Major Threat to Public Health' Image
Report Concludes Facebook Is a 'Major Threat to Public Health'
Democrats and Republicans Agree: Social Media Cannot Be Trusted Image
Democrats and Republicans Agree: Social Media Cannot Be Trusted
What happens with false beliefs on Wikipedia?
[AB] Maybe the biggest surprise of the internet to me is that false bubbles generally are
corrected on Wikipedia. Even if you pick a controversial topic like climate change or
vaccination, the Wikipedia page typically reflects mainstream scientific consensus.
Something about Wikipedia is working better than the rest of the internet, and I think we
can learn from it as a positive model.
ADVERTISEMENT
Can metadata help?
[AB] Metadata is critical to the future of the internet. We all need help deciding what to
believe. It would help a lot if information came with a reliability rating. But
there's nothing easy about creating those ratings. We need both a method of judging
what is reliable, and a financial model to pay for the process of creating those labels.
If Wikipedia is a good example of mass peer review, then it can also incorporate testimony
to establish a baseline of truth, right? For example, I was invited by the USC Shoah
Foundation, which was founded by Steven Spielberg, to see their recording of Holocaust
testimonies for future generations. But eyewitness accounts often don't pass into
'truth' or are considered too subjective on Wikipedia. Is that when we have to
urge people to look to wider sources?
[AB] You need an intermediate layer—interpretation of primary sources by a Holocaust
scholar. That’s the difference between a work of history and an encyclopedia. The job of
a historian is to synthesize primary sources and form an interpretation. The job of an
encyclopedia is to summarize work by historians and give you a list of links to go read if
you want to learn more.
Wikipedia also asks us to educate ourselves, and then share that knowledge, as subject
matter experts. Can you talk about your personal non-academic experience here?
[AB] Editing Wikipedia can be a lot of fun. I used to help with the page on trash cans.
The group of people working on the page had a long conversation about the words
"bin" versus "can" and how the name for a waste receptacle varies
around the world. There’s a mini-golf course near my parents' house, and the trash can
is shaped like a dolphin. I added a picture of it to the article, and the next time I
visited I showed the owner that his trash can was famous. The photo was there for a decade
or so. Someone has since taken it down, sadly. But I enjoy contributing to something
meaningful. Sometimes even things less silly than trash cans.
Finally, and this is going pretty deep, is any of this true? That's where, as
you've pointed out, metaphysics comes in, and where we get to look up at the sky and
wonder 'am I dreaming this life?' Discuss.
[AB] One thing you learn quickly when you hang out with epistemologists is that truth
exists. How we agree what that truth is can be tricky. But the affordances of internet
technology are a surprisingly good fit for how knowledge is constructed. I think we can
learn a lot from success stories like Wikipedia. And maybe apply those lessons to the
design of the rest of the internet.
-----Original Message-----
From: Leila Zia <lzia(a)wikimedia.org>
Reply-To: "wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org"
<wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 11:58 AM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
<wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Re: PC Magazine article about social epistemology and
Wikipedia
Nathan, sorry. I approved your attachment and it didn't come through. I'm
attaching it again, hopefully this time it will work.
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 11:41 AM Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Doesn't appear to be paywalled, but very much
worth reading. PDF is
attached.
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 1:40 PM Ward Cunningham <ward(a)c2.com> wrote:
Ouch. The site wouldn’t let me read it. Can you
share a summary?
> On Jun 3, 2021, at 10:22 AM, Bruckman, Amy S <asb(a)cc.gatech.edu>
wrote:
I thought you all might appreciate my attempt at explaining social
epistemology and why Wikipedia is a model for a successful online site to
PC Magazine. 😊
https://www.pcmag.com/news/wikipedia-the-most-reliable-source-on-the-intern…
-- Amy
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
wiki-research-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
wiki-research-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org