Location
University of Windsor
Document Type
Paper
Start Date
3-6-2009 9:00 AM
End Date
6-6-2009 5:00 PM
Abstract
Philosophers of argumentation and of testimony suggest that we can rely on what someone says because of its epistemic merits. If so, then we should never credit Wikipedia, since we cannot assess what its anonymous contributors know. I propose instead that Wikipedia can have pragmatic merits, in that the contributors’ passion for the project, and the emerging communicative design through which that passion is made manifest, provide a reason for trust.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Response to Submission
Lilian Bermejo-Luque, Commentary on Goodwin
Reader's Reactions
Lilian Bermejo-Luque, Commentary on Goodwin (June 2009)
Included in
The Authority of Wikipedia
University of Windsor
Philosophers of argumentation and of testimony suggest that we can rely on what someone says because of its epistemic merits. If so, then we should never credit Wikipedia, since we cannot assess what its anonymous contributors know. I propose instead that Wikipedia can have pragmatic merits, in that the contributors’ passion for the project, and the emerging communicative design through which that passion is made manifest, provide a reason for trust.
