Grappling with polarization on Wikipedia: the case of the biography of Ferdinand E. Marcos

IF 1.7 3区 管理学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Journal of Documentation Pub Date : 2023-09-28 DOI:10.1108/jd-04-2023-0078
Brendan Luyt, Karryl Sagun-Trajano
{"title":"Grappling with polarization on Wikipedia: the case of the biography of Ferdinand E. Marcos","authors":"Brendan Luyt, Karryl Sagun-Trajano","doi":"10.1108/jd-04-2023-0078","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose In this study, the authors look at the case of Ferdinand Marcos, President of the Philippines between 1965 and 1986. Documenting the life and career of Marcos on Wikipedia provides an excellent example of the pitfalls confronting those seeking to address disinformation without first reflecting deeply on the reasons why people subscribe to views deemed outlandish by the intellectual or cultural mainstream. Design/methodology/approach The authors sampled the version of the Marcos article on Wikipedia as it existed after the first edit of each year since its inception (2002). This resulted in 22 texts for analysis. Content and thematic analyses were conducted on these texts as well as on the entire body of talk page comments for the article. Findings The authors' work suggests that the basic elements of responsible encyclopedic writing have prevailed in the case of Wikipedia's biography of Marcos. However, this is not an unalloyed victory, as issues of polarization remain unaddressed. Originality/value Underlying revisionist or distorted claims about Ferdinand Marcos (and other controversial topics) lie very real grievances that give these claims traction for many people. Hence, it is not enough to “just present the facts” to readers. Rather, the authors argue that what is needed is a synthesis of positions that would allow for common ground to be found between them. This could be done in the case of Wikipedia by cultivating editors who are capable and willing to engage with the subject literature in a deeper and richer fashion.","PeriodicalId":47969,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Documentation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Documentation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jd-04-2023-0078","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose In this study, the authors look at the case of Ferdinand Marcos, President of the Philippines between 1965 and 1986. Documenting the life and career of Marcos on Wikipedia provides an excellent example of the pitfalls confronting those seeking to address disinformation without first reflecting deeply on the reasons why people subscribe to views deemed outlandish by the intellectual or cultural mainstream. Design/methodology/approach The authors sampled the version of the Marcos article on Wikipedia as it existed after the first edit of each year since its inception (2002). This resulted in 22 texts for analysis. Content and thematic analyses were conducted on these texts as well as on the entire body of talk page comments for the article. Findings The authors' work suggests that the basic elements of responsible encyclopedic writing have prevailed in the case of Wikipedia's biography of Marcos. However, this is not an unalloyed victory, as issues of polarization remain unaddressed. Originality/value Underlying revisionist or distorted claims about Ferdinand Marcos (and other controversial topics) lie very real grievances that give these claims traction for many people. Hence, it is not enough to “just present the facts” to readers. Rather, the authors argue that what is needed is a synthesis of positions that would allow for common ground to be found between them. This could be done in the case of Wikipedia by cultivating editors who are capable and willing to engage with the subject literature in a deeper and richer fashion.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
应对维基百科上的两极分化:费迪南德·e·马科斯传记的案例
在这项研究中,作者研究了1965年至1986年菲律宾总统费迪南德·马科斯的案例。在维基百科(Wikipedia)上记录马科斯(Marcos)的生活和职业生涯,是一个很好的例子,说明那些试图解决虚假信息的人,如果不首先深入思考人们为什么会认同被知识分子或文化主流视为古怪的观点,就会遇到陷阱。设计/方法/方法作者在维基百科上选取了马科斯文章的版本,因为它自2002年成立以来每年都是第一次编辑。这产生了22个文本供分析。对这些文本进行了内容和主题分析,并对文章的整个讨论页评论进行了内容和主题分析。作者的研究表明,在维基百科的马科斯传记中,负责任的百科全书式写作的基本要素占了上风。然而,这并不是一个完全的胜利,因为两极分化的问题仍然没有得到解决。原创性/价值关于费迪南德·马科斯(Ferdinand Marcos)的修正主义或扭曲的说法(以及其他有争议的话题)背后隐藏着非常真实的不满,这些不满让许多人对这些说法产生了兴趣。因此,仅仅把事实呈现给读者是不够的。相反,作者认为,我们需要的是一种综合的立场,以便在他们之间找到共同点。在维基百科的例子中,培养有能力且愿意以更深入、更丰富的方式参与主题文献的编辑可以做到这一点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Documentation
Journal of Documentation INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
14.30%
发文量
72
期刊介绍: The scope of the Journal of Documentation is broadly information sciences, encompassing all of the academic and professional disciplines which deal with recorded information. These include, but are certainly not limited to: ■Information science, librarianship and related disciplines ■Information and knowledge management ■Information and knowledge organisation ■Information seeking and retrieval, and human information behaviour ■Information and digital literacies
期刊最新文献
Information experiences of bonsai growers: a phenomenological study in serious leisure Information experiences of bonsai growers: a phenomenological study in serious leisure Constructing risk in trustworthy digital repositories Information seeking and communication model (ISCM): application and extension Evolving legitimacy of the public library in the 21st century
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1