The Feminist Critique: Mapping Controversy in Wikipedia

  • Morgan Currie
Chapter

Abstract

Research on Wikipedia often compares its articles to print references such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica, a resource historically associated with depoliticised content, neutrality, and the desire to catalogue the external world objectively.Yet Wikipedia, the free-content, openly editable, online encyclopedia, evolves out of a process whereby multiple perspectives, motives, compromises, and protocols determine the present version of an article. Using controversy as an epistemological device, can we explore Wikipedia to map editors’ concerns around an issue? Can we observe how the mechanics of controversy regulation affect the quality of an article?

Keywords

Feminist Critique Digital Method Editing Activity Related Header Online Encyclopedia 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Brauges, G. (2009), ‘Wiki-Philosophizing in a Marketplace of Ideas: Evaluating Wikipedia’s Entries on Seven Great Minds’, Media Tropes E-Journal II(1): 117–58.Google Scholar
  2. Chesney, T. (2006), ‘An Empirical Examination of Wikipedia’s Credibility’, First Monday 11 (November). http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/chesney/.Google Scholar
  3. Digital Methods Initiative (2008), ‘Digital Methods Wiki’. http://www.digitalmethods.net. Date accessed 9 January 2010.Google Scholar
  4. Gerlitz, C., and Stevenson, M. (2008), ‘The Place of Issues – According to Editors and Their Edits’, Digital Methods Wiki. http://wiki.digitalmethods.net/Dmi/NetworkedContent.Date accessed 19 January 2010.Google Scholar
  5. George, A. (2007), ‘Avoiding Tragedy in the Wiki-Commons’, Virginia Journal of Law and Technology 12(8), Fall.Google Scholar
  6. Kittur, A., et al. (2007), ‘Power of the Few vs. Wisdom of the Crowd: Wikipedia and the Rise of the Bourgeoisie’, Alt.CHI at CHI 2007; 28 April–3 May 2007; San Jose, CA.Google Scholar
  7. Kushal, D., Wattenberg, M., and Viegas, F. B. (2004), ‘Studying Cooperation and Conflict between Authors with History Flow Visualizations’, CHI Journal April: 24–29.Google Scholar
  8. Lih, A. (2004), ‘Wikipedia as Participatory Journalism: Reliable Sources? Metrics for Evaluating Collaborative Media as a News Resource’, Paper presented to the 5th International Symposium on Online Journalism, University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved 19 October 2006, fromhttp://jm http://jmsc.hku.hk/faculty/alih/publications/utaustin-2004-wikipedia-rc2.pdf. Date accessed 10 January 2010.Google Scholar
  9. Niederer, S. and van Dijck, J. (2010), ‘Wisdom of the Crowd or Technicity of Content? Wikipedia as a Socio-Technical System’, New Media & Society, first published on 7 July 2010 doi:10.1177/1461444810365297.Google Scholar
  10. Nissenbaum, H., and Benkler, Y. (2006), ‘Commons-Based Peer Production and Virtue’,The Journal of Political Philosophy 14(4): 394–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nupedia archive (2010), http://web.archive.org/web/*/www.nupedia.com/main.shtml.Date accessed 10 January 2010.Google Scholar
  12. Reagle, J. (2008), ‘In Good Faith: Wikipedia and the Pursuit of the Universal Encyclopedia’, PhD dissertation, New York University: 70–102.Google Scholar
  13. Rogers, R. (2009), The End of the Virtual: Digital Methods (Amsterdam: Vossiuspers UvA).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Simmons, J. (ed.) (2006), ‘The Wikipedia Mohammed Cartoons Debate: A War of Ideas. Iraq Museum International’. http://www.baghdadmuseum.org/wikipedia/wmcd03_060215. pdf.Google Scholar
  15. Venturini, T. (2010), ‘Diving in Magma: How to Explore Controversies with Actor-Network Theory’, Public Understanding of Science 19(3): 258–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wiki.org (2010), ‘What is Wiki’. http://wiki.org/wiki.cgi?WhatIsWiki. Date accessed 9 January 2010.Google Scholar
  17. Wikipedia (2010a), ‘About Wikipedia’. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About. Date accessed 9 January 2010.Google Scholar
  18. Wikipedia (2010j), ‘Anacapa User Page’. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anacapa. Date accessed 3 December 2009.Google Scholar
  19. Wikipedia (2010l), ‘Community Sanction Board’. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index. php?title=Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard&oldid=136135960. Date accessed 10 January 2010.Google Scholar
  20. Wikipedia (2010h), ‘Edit Warring’. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edit_warring. Date accessed 10 January 2010.Google Scholar
  21. Wikipedia, ‘Feminism Talk Page’. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Femin ism&oldid=154594558. Date accessed 10 January 2010.Google Scholar
  22. Wikipedia (2010m), ‘Feminism Edit History 1 February 2006’. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ index.php?title=Feminism&oldid=154829063. Date accessed 10 January 2010.Google Scholar
  23. Wikpedia (2010n), ‘Feminism Edit History 31 August 2007’. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ index.php?title=Feminism&oldid=37622595. Date accessed 10 January 2010.Google Scholar
  24. Wikipedia (2010o), ‘Feminism Edit History 30 April 2006’. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ index.php?title=Feminism&oldid=50939405. Date accessed 10 January 2010.Google Scholar
  25. Wikipedia (2010i), ‘Flame War’. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_war. Date accessed 10 January 2010.Google Scholar
  26. Wikipedia (2010d), ‘Neutral Point of View’. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: Neutral_point_of_view. Date accessed 26 March 2009.Google Scholar
  27. Wikipedia (2010c), ‘No Original Research’. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_ original_research. Date accessed 26 March 2009.Google Scholar
  28. Wikipedia (2010k), ‘Plonkeroo User Page’. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Plonkeroo. Date accessed 3 December 2009.Google Scholar
  29. Wikipedia (2010e), ‘Reliability of Wikipedia’. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_ of_Wikipedia. Date accessed 7 January 2010.Google Scholar
  30. Wikipedia (2009), ‘Revision History of Feminism’. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php ?title=Feminism&action=history. Date accessed 3 December 2009Google Scholar
  31. Wikipedia (2010), ‘Revision History of Antifeminism’. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index. php?title=Antifeminism&action=history. Date accessed 3 December 2009.Google Scholar
  32. Wikipedia (2010), ‘Revision History Pro-feminism. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index. php?title=Pro-feminism&action=history. Date accessed 3 December 2009.Google Scholar
  33. Wikipedia (2010g), ‘The Three Revert Rules’. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_ revert_rule#The_three-revert_rule. Date accessed 10 January 2010.Google Scholar
  34. Wikipedia (2010b), ‘Verifiability’. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability. Date accessed 26 March 2009.Google Scholar
  35. Wikipedia (2010f), ‘Writing for the Opponent’. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:Writing_for_the_opponent. Date accessed 10 January 2010.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Morgan Currie 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Morgan Currie

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations