Arguing across spaces in an online epistemic community

Pub Date : 2024-05-17 DOI:10.1075/jaic.00023.bak
Michael J. Baker, Françoise Détienne
{"title":"Arguing across spaces in an online epistemic community","authors":"Michael J. Baker, Françoise Détienne","doi":"10.1075/jaic.00023.bak","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Wikipedia is the most consulted source of information on the web, on a global level. The collective writing of\n articles, open to the participation of all, can give rise to major conflicts between contributors, in texts and debates, given the\n high stakes involved in achieving agreement on a public presentation of controversial topics. We present analyses of how\n disagreements are managed across socio-technical and dialogical spaces in French Wikipedia, with respect to two case studies, on\n Freud and the Turin Shroud. We adopt a mixed methods approach, combining results of analyses of interviews with moderators in\n these articles and argumentative discussions underlying them, within a broadly pragma-dialectical framework. We show, on one hand,\n that moderators’ attempts to resolve disagreements by requiring participants to cite sources simply displace conflicts to the\n nature of those sources, their validity, their authors and the good faith of their proponents. Debates concerning sources\n themselves draw on social actors’ perspectives in dialogical spaces, beyond the discussion itself. Disagreements are managed\n rather than resolved dialectically by displacing them to alternative socio-technical spaces, such as different sections of the\n text itself, or participants’ personal pages.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00023.bak","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Wikipedia is the most consulted source of information on the web, on a global level. The collective writing of articles, open to the participation of all, can give rise to major conflicts between contributors, in texts and debates, given the high stakes involved in achieving agreement on a public presentation of controversial topics. We present analyses of how disagreements are managed across socio-technical and dialogical spaces in French Wikipedia, with respect to two case studies, on Freud and the Turin Shroud. We adopt a mixed methods approach, combining results of analyses of interviews with moderators in these articles and argumentative discussions underlying them, within a broadly pragma-dialectical framework. We show, on one hand, that moderators’ attempts to resolve disagreements by requiring participants to cite sources simply displace conflicts to the nature of those sources, their validity, their authors and the good faith of their proponents. Debates concerning sources themselves draw on social actors’ perspectives in dialogical spaces, beyond the discussion itself. Disagreements are managed rather than resolved dialectically by displacing them to alternative socio-technical spaces, such as different sections of the text itself, or participants’ personal pages.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
在线认识论社区中的跨空间争论
维基百科是全球查阅最多的网络信息来源。所有人都可以参与集体撰写文章,这可能会在撰稿人之间引起文本和辩论方面的重大冲突,因为要在公开展示有争议的主题方面达成一致,涉及到很大的利益。我们通过对弗洛伊德和都灵裹尸布这两个案例的研究,分析了如何在法国维基百科的社会技术和对话空间中处理分歧。我们采用了一种混合方法,在一个广义的语法-辩证法框架内,将对这些文章中版主的访谈分析结果与这些文章背后的争论讨论结果结合起来。一方面,我们表明,主持人试图通过要求参与者引用资料来源来解决分歧,但这只是取代了对这些资料来源的性质、有效性、作者及其支持者的诚意的冲突。有关资料来源的辩论本身就涉及到社会参与者在对话空间中的观点,超出了讨论本身。通过将分歧转移到其他社会技术空间,如文本本身的不同部分或参与者的个人主页,来管理而非辩证地解决分歧。
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
×
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