Studying Wikipedia, studying humans?
I was reading over some wikipedia policies and related things this morning and once again the perennial question arose... at what point is studying wikipedia... studying humans? granted that wikipedia is much larger than the human content, with both its technical infrastructures and bots. However, this wouldn't be a question for studying the Britannica as a 'book', though it might be a an issue in studying the production of the encyclopedia in situ via ethnography or other workplace studies methods. So where would you mark the difference in wikipedia? When are you studying an object, vs a human subject in wikipedia, or... is the distinction not clear enough to differentiate because of the interaction collapses the distinction? Thoughts? Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.aoir.org The Association of Internet Researchers http://www.stswiki.org/ stswiki
On Wednesday 15 February 2006 11:07, Jeremy Hunsinger wrote:
I was reading over some wikipedia policies and related things this morning and once again the perennial question arose... at what point is studying wikipedia... studying humans?
I make this very point in my study of its culture: http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/career/phd/s05?showcomments=yes * Arguments Among Friends: the Wikipedia - a snapshot of the sharp point (sans literature review) of my proposal: The Wikipedia is not merely an online encyclopedia; while the Web site is useful, popular, and permits anyone to contribute, the site is only the most visible artifact of an active community. Unlike previous reference works which stand on library shelves distanced from the institutions, people, and discussions from which they arose, the Wikipedia is a community, and the encyclopedia is a snapshot of its continuing conversation. If you look at the development of dictionaries and reference works (most prominently dictionaries) one realizes the key to their character is the policies that governed their development (e.g., Philip Gove of Webster's Third). The novelty of Wikipedia is that one can easily see the discourse and work that gives rise to the artifact.
As your subject line implies, I don't think there's one right answer. It depends on the questions, the methods, the unit of analysis. I think there are certain cases where this distinction is fairly clear. When we studied Wikipedia as a community by interviewing Wikipedians about their practices, that was human subjects research. If I were to study the interconnectedness of Wikipedia articles by counting links, I'd say that's NOT human subjects research. I certainly agree that (like in other online communities research) there are fuzzy grey areas. I think that each project needs to be understood on its own merits, though. There's no way to make a statement that covers all Wikipedia research. Andrea On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Jeremy Hunsinger wrote:
I was reading over some wikipedia policies and related things this morning and once again the perennial question arose... at what point is studying wikipedia... studying humans? granted that wikipedia is much larger than the human content, with both its technical infrastructures and bots. However, this wouldn't be a question for studying the Britannica as a 'book', though it might be a an issue in studying the production of the encyclopedia in situ via ethnography or other workplace studies methods. So where would you mark the difference in wikipedia? When are you studying an object, vs a human subject in wikipedia, or... is the distinction not clear enough to differentiate because of the interaction collapses the distinction? Thoughts?
Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments
http://www.aoir.org The Association of Internet Researchers http://www.stswiki.org/ stswiki
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
participants (3)
-
Andrea Forte -
Jeremy Hunsinger -
Joseph Reagle