We have all been in the classroom when a student proceeds to correct a teacher, discrediting the "authoritative opinion" of which we believed to be true. Often times, the student is correct. I believe this to be a prime example of the tension between authoritative and communal acquisition of knowledge--common knowledge can prove as a stronger source of information. For example, in comparing the Encyclopedia Britannica with Wikipedia, both have error. In a study completed in 2005, Nature Journal chose articles from both sites in a wide range of topics and sent them to what it called "relevant" field experts for peer review. The experts then compared the competing articles--one from each site on a given topic--side by side, but were not told which article came from which site.
In the end, the journal found only eight errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site. They did, however, discover a series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123. Traditional encyclopedias are based on the reputation of certain authors. These authors, though small in number, are highly interested and qualified to find good sources for their information, and are therefore expected to produce good quality articles - however, they are not immune to human error. Thus, tension arises between the authoritative (Britannica) and communal (Wikipedia) sources.
I believe that communal sources of information are more practical. They force people to read other perspectives and carefully consider a response, such as the discussion boards on Wikipedia. I find that authoritative sources can often be limiting, or represent only one side of an argument. By collecting information from many sources and compiling it in a database, we are allowing a further use of critical thinking skills and building upon our knowledge base.
Source: Terdiman, Daniel. "Study: Wikipedia as Accurate as Britannica - CNET News." Technology News - CNET News. Web. 22 Nov. 2011.



I agree that communal practices lead to a greater breadth of knowledge. The issue, though, is that communal acquisition of knowledge is inevitably directed by the majority. That majority's bias may skew the range of knowledge. Would you be more wary to use communally acquired information if you were to know the composition of the majority?
ReplyDeleteThat is a good point, but isn't all knowledge biased...Encyclopedia Britannica? Otherwise we wouldn't have differing points of view...
ReplyDelete