Advertisement

Synthese

pp 1–20 | Cite as

Trolls, bans and reverts: simulating Wikipedia

  • Valentin Lageard
  • Cédric PaternotteEmail author
Article

Abstract

The surprisingly high reliability of Wikipedia has often been seen as a beneficial effect of the aggregation of diverse contributors, or as an instance of the wisdom of crowds phenomenon; additional factors such as elite contributors, Wikipedia’s policy or its administration have also been mentioned. We adjudicate between such explanations by modelling and simulating the evolution of a Wikipedia entry. The main threat to Wikipedia’s reliability, namely the presence of epistemically disruptive agents such as disinformers and trolls, turns out to be offset only by a combination of factors: Wikipedia’s administration and the possibility to instantly revert entries, both of which are insufficient when considered in isolation. Our results suggest that the reliability of Wikipedia should receive a pluralist explanation, involving factors of different kinds.

Keywords

Wikipedia Social epistemology Computer simulation Collective knowledge Wisdom of crowds 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Anouk Barberousse for her comments on an early version of this work.

References

  1. Anderson, C. (2006). The long tail. New York: Hyperion.Google Scholar
  2. Fallis, D. (2011). Wikipistemology. In A. I. Goldman & D. Whitcomb (Eds.), Social epistemology: Essential readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Frankfurt, H. (2005). On bullshit. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Giles, J. (2005). Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature, 438, 900–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Goldman, A. (1987). Foundations of social epistemics. Synthese, 73, 109–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hull, D. (1988). Science as a process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kitcher, P. (1990). The division of cognitive labor. The Journal of Philosophy, 87(1), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Magnus, P. D. (2009). On trusting Wikipedia. Episteme, 6(1), 74–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Sanger, L. M. (2009). The fate of expertise after Wikipedia. Episteme, 6(1), 52–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Shachaf, P., & Hara, N. (2010). Beyond vandalism: Wikipedia trolls. Journal of Information Science, 36, 357–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Strevens, M. (2003). The role of the priority rule in science. The Journal of Philosophy, 100(2), 50–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. Garden City: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  13. Tsvetkova, M., García-Gavilanes, R., Floridi, L., & Yasseri, T. (2017). Even good bots fight: The case of Wikipedia. PLoS ONE, 12(2), e0171774.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Viegas, F., Wattenberg, M., & Dave, K. (2004). Studying cooperation and conflict between authors with history flow visualizations. Proceedings of the Computer-Human Interaction, 6(1), 575–582.Google Scholar
  15. Weisberg, M., & Muldoon, R. (2009). Epistemic landscapes and the division of cognitive labor. Philosophy of Science, 76(2), 225–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Zollman, K. J. S. (2007). The communication structure of epistemic communities. Philosophy of Science, 74, 574–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UFR de PhilosophieSorbonne UniversitéParisFrance
  2. 2.SND Research Team, UFR de PhilosophieSorbonne UniversitéParisFrance

Personalised recommendations