View source for Research:Newsletter/2012/November

===Wikipedia favors established views and scientifically backed knowledge===
An article appearing in ''Information, Communication & Society''<ref>König, R. (2012). Wikipedia. Between lay participation and elite knowledge representation. ''Information, Communication & Society''. Advance online publication. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.734319 '''DOI'''] {{closed access}}</ref> studies the discussion pages of English and German [[:w:September 11 attacks|September 11 attacks]] articles, contributing to the ongoing debates on collaborative [[:w:knowledge creation|knowledge creation]] in the wiki [[:w:Web 2.0|Web 2.0]] context, participation of experts and amateurs on Wikipedia, and, indirectly, [[:w:reliability of Wikipedia|reliability of Wikipedia]]. The article's research question, coming from the [[:w:sociology of knowledge|sociology of knowledge]] and [[:w:social constructivism|social constructivism]] perspectives, asks to what degree Wikipedia's "anyone can edit" policy democratizes the production of knowledge, removing it from traditional hierarchies "between experts and lay participants". The term ''democratization'' here is used in the context of such theoretical concepts as [[:w:wisdom of crowds|wisdom of crowds]], [[:w:participatory culture|participatory culture]], [[:w:produsage|produsage]] and (more critically) the notions of [[:w:The Cult of the Amateur|cult of the amateur]] or [[:w:digital Maoism|digital Maoism]]. All of these refer to the fact that Wikipedia's editors are more often amateurs ("lay participants") than professionally recognized experts. 

Using the [[:w:grounded theory|grounded theory]] approach, the study focuses not on editors, but on their arguments. It finds that due to community-upheld Wikipedia policies such as [[:w:Wikipedia:Reliable sources|Wikipedia:Reliable sources]], dissenting opinions ("traditionally marginalized types of knowledge") such as various conspiracy theories are still marginalized or straight-out excluded; according to the author, this "did not lead to a ‘democratization’ of knowledge production, but rather re-enacted established hierarchies". The finding should be taken in a certain context; as the author notes, the article was written by amateurs ("lay participants"), who however decided to reproduce traditional knowledge hierarchies, relegating various conspiracy theories and similar points not backed up to reliable sources to obscurity on Wikipedia. The author also concludes that Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, is prone to a "[[:w:scientism|scientism]] bias", i.e. treating scientifically backed knowledge as "better" than knowledge coming from alternative outlets. This despite the "anyone can edit" motto of Wikipedia, the author finds support for the argument that Wikipedia puts more stress on article quality than democratic participation, or in the words of the author: "Although laypeople apparently play a significant part in the text production, this does not mean that they favor lay knowledge. On the contrary, it is clearly elite knowledge of well-established authorities which is finally included in the article, whereas alternative interpretations are harshly excluded or at least marginalized."

''Side-note:'' This reviewer found the author's use of a [[:w:Firefox|Firefox]] add-on [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/wired-marker/ Wired-Maker] for [[:w:content analysis|content analysis]] rather ingenious, and applauds the mentioning of such a practical methodological tip in their paper.