Abstract
Given the fact that many people use Wikipedia, we should ask: Can we trust it? The empirical evidence suggests that Wikipedia articles are sometimes quite good but that they vary a great deal. As such, it is wrong to ask for a monolithic verdict on Wikipedia. Interacting with Wikipedia involves assessing where it is likely to be reliable and where not. I identify five strategies that we use to assess claims from other sources and argue that, to a greater of lesser degree, Wikipedia frustrates all of them. Interacting responsibly with something like Wikipedia requires new epistemic methods and strategies.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 74-90 |
| Number of pages | 17 |
| Journal | Episteme |
| Volume | 6 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 2009 |
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'On Trusting Wikipedia'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver