Argumentation and Conflict Management in Online Epistemic Communities: A Narrative Approach to Wikipedia Debates

  • Michael J. Baker
  • Françoise Détienne
  • Flore Barcellini


With the rise of Internet-based technologies, new web-based communities of practice have emerged, that we term online epistemic communities, or “OECs”, whose raison d’être is the co-creation of knowledge objects such as open-source programming languages or encyclopædias (for example, Wikipedia). In this chapter we focus on the case of Wikipedia, where general public participation has recently grown very quickly, in part due to egalitarian principles that encourage free participation by everyone. However, widespread participation, coupled with the principle of neutrality of viewpoint, has led to “editing wars” (repeated text deletions and “reverts”, now largely controlled by “(ro)bots”). The nature of participation has tended to change over time, with a migration of conflicts to discussion pages, especially in the case of articles on contentious issues (e.g. “The Turin Shroud”). Our aim is to describe the characteristics of such OEC debates, in relation to their contexts and potential for effective knowledge elaboration. We describe an approach to studying argumentation practices in OECs based on articulating third-person (researcher) analyses, based on a pragma-dialectic model extended to include dimensions of knowledge elaboration and interpersonal relations, with a first-person (participant) perspective, where key contributors to controversial articles produced narratives on their ‘life cycles’. On the basis of two case-study discussions we show that although debates are mostly epistemic, concerning article content and structure, the possibilities of anonymity and completely open participation also lead to disputes on an interpersonal (ad hominem) level, concerning expertise. We conclude with prospects for rendering OEC debates more constructive and productive.



This research was financed by the CARNOT programme of the Institute Mines-Telecom. We thank Dominique Fréard, who, as a post-doc researcher, collected the data analysed here.


  1. Baker, M. J. (2003). Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In J. Andriessen, M. J. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 47–78). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, M. J. (2009). Argumentative interactions and the social construction of knowledge. In N. Muller Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 127–144). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker, M. J. (2015). The integration of pragma-dialectics and collaborative learning research: Dialogue, externalisation and collective thinking. In F. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Scrutinizing argumentation in practice (pp. 175–199). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barcellini, F., Détienne, F., & Burkhardt, J. M. (2008). User and developer mediation in an open source software community: Boundary spanning through cross participation in online discussions. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(7), 558–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue: A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benkler, Y., & Nissenbaum, H. (2006). Commons-based peer production and virtue. Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(4), 394–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bruner, J. (1991). The Narrative Construction of Reality. Critical Inquiry, 18, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Détienne, F., Baker, M. J., Fréard, D., Barcellini, F., Denis, A., & Quignard, M. (2016). The descent of Pluto: Interactive dynamics, specialisation and reciprocity of roles in a Wikipedia debate. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 86, 11–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M. J., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In P. Reimann & H. Spada (Eds.), Learning in Humans and Machines: Towards an Interdisciplinary Learning Science (pp. 189–211). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  11. Fréard, D., Détienne, F., Baker, M. J., Quignard, M., Barcellini, F., & Denis, A. (2012). Visualising zones of collaboration in online collective activity: A case study in Wikipedia. Proceedings of ECCE 2012, European Conference of Cognitive Ergonomics, Edinburgh, UK, August 28–31.
  12. Hakkarainen, K., Lallimo, J., Toikka, S., & White, H. (2011). Cultivating collective expertise within innovative knowledge-practice networks. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund, I. Rasmussen, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 69–86). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Hibbert, K., & Rich, S. (2006). Virtual communities of practice. In J. Weiss, J. Nolan, J. Hunsinger, & P. Trifonas (Eds.), The international handbook of virtual learning environments (Vol. 1, pp. 563–579). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kittur, A., Suh, B., Pendleton, B. A., & Chi, B. H. (2007). He says, she says: Conflict and coordination in Wikipedia. Proceedings of CHI 2007, April 28–May 3, 2007 (pp. 453–462). San Jose, CA: ACM.Google Scholar
  15. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Muller Mirza, N., & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (Eds.). (2009). Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Plantin, C. (1995). Fonctions du tiers dans l’interaction argumentative. In C. Kerbrat-Orecchioni & C. Plantin (Eds.), Le Trilogue (pp. 108–133). Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon.Google Scholar
  18. Reagle, J. M. (2007). Do as I do: Authorial leadership in Wikipedia. Proceedings of WikiSym’07 (pp. 143–156). New-York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  19. Suh, B., Convertino, G., Chi, E. H., & Pirolli, P. (2009). The singularity is not near: Slowing growth of Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration, ACM.Google Scholar
  20. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984a). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984b). Argumentation, communication and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorts, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, F. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Viégas, F. B., Wattenberg, M., & Dave, K. (2004). Studying cooperation and conflict between authors with history flow visualizations. In Proceedings of CHI 2004, April 24–29 (Vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 575–582). Vienna, Austria. ACM.Google Scholar
  24. Wright, S. (2009). The role of the moderator: Problems and possibilities for government-run online discussion forums. In T. Davies & S. Peña Gangadharan (Eds.), Online deliberation: Design, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE (pp. 233–242). Standford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael J. Baker
    • 1
  • Françoise Détienne
    • 1
  • Flore Barcellini
    • 2
  1. 1.Institut Interdisciplinaire de l’InnovationCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique & Telecom ParisTechParisFrance
  2. 2.Conservatoire National des Arts et MétiersParisFrance

Personalised recommendations