K. BRAD W RAY
THE EPISTEMIC CULTURES OF SCIENCE AND WIKIPEDIA:
ACOMPARISON
ABSTRACT
I compare the epistemic culture of Wikipedia with the epistemic culture of
science, with special attention to the culture of collaborative research in science.
The two cultures differ markedly with respect to (1) the knowledge produced,
(2) who produces the knowledge, and (3) the processes by which knowledge is
produced. Wikipedia has created a community of inquirers that are governed by
norms very different from those that govern scientists. Those who contribute to
Wikipedia do not ground their claims on their reputations as knowers, for they
stand to lose nothing if and when their contributions are found to be misleading
or false. And the immediacy of the medium encourages gossip and jokes. Hence,
though we have some reason to believe that an invisible hand aids scientists
in realizing their epistemic goals, we cannot ground our confidence in what is
reported on Wikipedia on the fact that an invisible hand ensures quality. Nor
is the information on Wikipedia aptly justified in a manner similar to the way
testimony can be justified.
1. INTRODUCTION
Apparently, the Wikipedia article on Albert Einstein “averages about one hundred
thousand views per day” (Ross 2008, 1). Clearly, given that Wikipedia is such
a common way for people to get information, it is a site of interest for the
epistemologist. Because Wikipedia is constructed through the efforts of many
people, it is an apt focus of study for the social epistemologist.
1
My aim in this paper
is to contribute to the epistemic analysis of Wikipedia by comparing the epistemic
culture of Wikipedia with the epistemic culture of scientific inquiry.
2
As we will
see, the two cultures differ markedly with respect to (1) the knowledge produced,
(2) who produces the knowledge, and (3) the processes by which knowledge is
produced. I also aim to explore ways in which we might justify our reliance on
information from Wikipedia. My arguments concerning the epistemic justification
of information gleaned from Wikipedia are negative, thus raising doubts about
the veracity of such information. I argue that though we have some reason to
believe that an invisible hand aids scientists in realizing their epistemic goals, we
cannot ground our confidence in what is reported on Wikipedia on the fact that an
38 EPISTEME 2009 DOI: 10.3366/E1742360008000531

THE EPISTEMIC CULTURES OF SCIENCE AND WIKIPEDIA
invisible hand ensures quality. Nor is the information on Wikipedia aptly justified
in a manner similar to the way testimony can be justified.
2. COLLABORATION IN SCIENCE AND IN WIKIPEDIA
In an effort to develop an epistemology of Wikipedia, it is worth comparing
this sort of epistemic collaboration with another common type of epistemic
collaborative project, scientific collaborations. Collaborative research is quite
common in science. Indeed, in some fields it is the norm (see Wray 2002).
Scientific collaborations, though, are a heterogeneous lot, differing along many
dimensions. They range in size from the two person research team to the enormous
research facility, like CERN or the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC).
In fact, collaborative projects involving a hundred scientists are not unheard of
(see Wray 2002, Hardwig 1985, Knorr Cetina 1999). Further, as Paul Thagard
(1999, 2006) notes, in science collaborative research is pursued for many different
reasons. And collaboration serves many different functions in science. Sometimes
it is pursued as a means to train or mentor young scientists. At other times it is a
means to draw on disparate pools of knowledge that no single individual possesses.
And certain types of knowledge may only be attainable if we are prepared to col-
laborate (see Wray 2007). Some research projects run for years and require the con-
certed efforts of many scientists, engineers, and support staff (Knorr Cetina 1999).
Because we are well on our way to developing an epistemology of collaborative
research in science, it is worth highlighting some of the differences between
collaboration in science and the sort of collaboration that gives rise to Wikipedia.I
want to draw attention to three key differences between these two cultures.
First, Wikipedia and science have very different objectives and aim to produce
very different epistemic products. Scientists are working at the frontiers of
knowledge, investigating issues and questions for which answers are not yet settled
(see Cole 1992, 118; Latour 1987). Wikipedia, on the other hand, is concerned to
make information about settled issues widely available (see Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:
About”). Wikipedia eschews the frontiers of knowledge by design. It is not intended
to be a venue for announcing new discoveries. To use Bruno Latour’s (1987) apt
terms, Wikipedia is concerned with ready made science (or knowledge) rather than
science (or knowledge) in the making.
Second, the producers of knowledge in these two domains are very different.
The producers of scientific knowledge have traditionally been trained experts with
reputations and careers to protect. These days, in many fields, there are teams of
such people working together. And the findings that are reported are subject to the
critical scrutiny of other experts in the field. Indeed, it is widely recognized that
only scientists are capable of judging other scientists’ work (see Kuhn 1996).
3
The
knowledge in Wikipedia, on the other hand, is created by a mass of people, many
with no reputation to lose and no career as a certified or credentialed knowledge-
maker that can be adversely affected if one were found to be negligent in one’s
EPISTEME 2009 39