[WikiEN-l] Fwd: modern foundations of scientific consensus

[Ray Saintonge]

Samuel Klein wrote:
> Some motivation for a proper WikiCite project.     --sj
>   
This blurs the line between episteme and gnosis.

Any article that includes 321 citations must be right. ;-)

I would certainly not be in a position to comment on the medical issues 
involved, but it would be difficult to imagine a field of knowledge 
where such processes do not prevail.

Wikipedia is not exempt from these processes, and may be even more 
vulnerable to them.  Our own notion of "reliable sources" can easily 
work to reinforce biases.  It presumes that we have mechanisms in place 
for determining when a source is reliable. If such a "reliable source" 
is cited there is very little inclination to dispute it.  For 
independent researchers the tools needed to investigate citations may 
only be available with great difficulty.

In a quest to adapt knowledge to orderliness it is too easy to 
underestimate the vastness of available knowledge.

Ray


>
> =============== Begin forwarded message ==================
> "How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a
> citation network"
>        http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/jul20_3/b2680
>
>
> Abstract:
>
> Objective -To understand belief in a specific scientific claim by
> studying the pattern of citations among papers stating it.
>
> Design - A complete citation network was constructed from all PubMed
> indexed English literature papers addressing the belief that \u03b2
> amyloid, a protein accumulated in the brain in Alzheimer\u2019s
> disease, is produced by and injures skeletal muscle of patients with
> inclusion body myositis. Social network theory and graph theory were
> used to analyse this network.
>
> Main outcome measures - Citation bias, amplification, and invention,
> and their effects on determining authority.
>
> Results:
> The network contained 242 papers and 675 citations addressing the
> belief, with 220 553 citation paths supporting it. Unfounded authority
> was established by citation bias against papers that refuted or
> weakened the belief; amplification, the marked expansion of the belief
> system by papers presenting no data addressing it; and forms of
> invention such as the conversion of hypothesis into fact through
> citation alone. Extension of this network into text within grants
> funded by the National Institutes of Health
> and obtained through the Freedom of Information Act showed the same
> phenomena present and sometimes used to justify requests for funding.
>
> Conclusion:
> Citation is both an impartial scholarly method and a powerful form of
> social communication. Through distortions in its social use that
> include bias, amplification, and invention, citation can be used to
> generate
> information cascades resulting in unfounded authority of claims.
> Construction and analysis of a claim specific citation network may
> clarify the nature of a published belief system and expose distorted
> methods of social citation.
>
>
>
>
>