Networked Expertise in the Era of Many-to-many Communication: On Wikipedia and Invention

Pfister, Damien Smith

doi:10.1080/02691728.2011.578306

Cited by 32 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, networked communication technology supports many-to-many communication that blends dialogue and dissemination on a broad scale. One implication for intercultural communication that stems from the growth of many-to-many communication fora is the increase in multiperspectivalism (Bruns, 2006;Gans, 2011;Pfister, 2011). In contrast to the traditional broadcast press, which generally adheres to a pro/con or he said/she said binary format, many-to-many communication supports the expression of a wide variety of opinions without artificial narrowing.…”

Section: Digital Media Facilitate Intercultural Communication On a Nementioning

confidence: 99%

(Re)conceptualizing Intercultural Communication in a Networked Society

Pfister¹,

Soliz

2011

Journal of International and Intercultural Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Digital Media Facilitate Intercultural Communication On a Nementioning

confidence: 99%

(Re)conceptualizing Intercultural Communication in a Networked Society

Pfister¹,

Soliz

2011

Journal of International and Intercultural Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It is a system, even if an imperfect one, which allows more to produce and discuss knowledge, thus, in that sense, empowering more than traditional encyclopedias (Hansen et al, 2009). This does not mean either that everybody has access to the process, as the technological boundaries, but also the organizational ones remain important, a pointed out by Hartelius (2010) and Pster (2011) as by Perovic (2011). Does that mean, as these two authors debate, that Wikipedia is a thinking machine which overcomes the human fallibility thanks to a technical system, and thus institutes a socio-technical expertise instead of the traditional scientic expertise, and a as argued by Perovic (2011), a world of contingency without irony, knowledge without self-observation and learning without thinking, a world enshrined by Wikipedia today.?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, if, according to him, in traditional adhocracies, individuals are bound by rules that cannot be altered; at Wikipedia, by contrast, there is no rule that cannot be altered if the community so desires, beside the main iron rules (the ve pillars), seemingly. In addition to that, in Wikipedia's adhocracy, the editors not only capture opportunities, but they also can create those opportunities, since editors can change all policies and so enjoy an unprecedented degree of empowerment (something stressed by Hansen et al, 2009;Hartelius, 2010;Pster, 2011). More studies should be pursued to see if this model is a new implementation of the global adhocracy model or if falls in the model proposed by Mintzberg and McHugh (1985).…”

Section: Management and Leadershipmentioning

confidence: 99%

What We Know About Wikipedia: A Review of the Literature Analyzing the Project(s)

Jullien

2012

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article proposes a review of the literature analyzing Wikipedia as a collective system for producing knowledge. 1 Introduction. Wikipedia project is one of the tremendous successful project of knowledge production ever, with more than 3.5 million articles for the English version and nearly one million visits per day 2 by researchers (Ortega, 2009). From an Information System research point of view, this example of open knowledge projects should provide useful information on how structuring online open knowledge project for it to succeed 4 , but also for internal organization's projects, as rms are institutions created to allow collaboration (Simon, 1957; March and Simon, 1958), and even dened by Grant (1996) as "institution for integrating knowledge [of its members]. And regarding this function, the wiki tool, allowing distant and sequential collaboration around a structured document seems to be very promising (Hasan and Pfa, 2006a,c,b). It also, for libraries, a new platform to stock information and knowledge resources, to to promote digital collection and thus to reach new users (Pressley and McCallum, 2008), and today a prominent source of online information, notably for health (Laurent and Vickers, 2009), where false information may have dramatic consequences. But to be used as a model, how the model works is needed to be better understood. This is need for internal purpose too: the Wikipedia project managers may want to monitor the activity: is the English Wikipedia more ecient than the French one, or are projects (portals) more or less ecient, more or less productive, is there a minimal, an optimal number of editors for an article 5 ? And, to quote Crowston et al. (2006, p. 124), to be able to learn from teams that are working well, we need to have a denition of`working well'. To do so, we rst rely on the literature of Information System, but also on the literature of knowledge common, to propose a framework of how the elements interact. Then, we propose are review of the existing literature on how Wikipedia works. 2 Theoretical contributions. 2.1 Research questions. There are numerous research articles dealing with Wikipedia (7029 articles in the science direct base on October 20 th), notably because this encyclopedia is used as a test base in information and 4 Even if the comparison between dierent industries must be done very carefully, as shown by Müller-Seitz and Reger (2009) on the comparison between open-source with Open Source car and Wikipedia projects. 5 For research questions pointed by the Wikimedia foundation, which support the Wikipedia project, see http: //meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Index. 2 Theoretical contributions. 3 language processing systems 6 and information retrieval tasks (Buriol et al., 2006). This socio-technical project (Bryant et al., 2005; Benker and Nissenbaum, 2006), where the tools used and the rules mediate and shape user activity around open collaborative writing, can be seen as a community of practice (Hara et al., 2010), or even as an aggregation of multiple co...

show abstract

“…The modern information and communication environment has added several disrupting factors that can serve to enhance and aggravate the phenomenon described aboveincluding the speed with which news can be shared, the use of algorithms that play a role in deciding what people see, and the decrease in traditional media. These technological advances have shifted communication and distribution approaches from "one-to-many" (typical of traditional mass media such as newspapers, television and radio), to "manyto-many" (how news and information are exchanged in the digital world) (Jensen and Helles, 2017;Pfister, 2011).…”

Section: How Technological Advancements and User Behaviours Affect Thmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At the same time, evolutions in media and information ecosystems 1 have altered how people consume, transmit and share information, which affects who and what they trust. By changing distribution models from a "one-tomany" approach to a "many-to-many" approach, new technologies have facilitated sharing and interacting and have significantly increased opportunities for engagement (Jensen and Helles, 2017;Pfister, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Governance responses to disinformation

Matasick¹,

Alfonsi²,

Bellantoni³

2020

OECD Working Papers on Public Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides a holistic policy approach to the challenge of disinformation by exploring a range of governance responses that rest on the open government principles of transparency, integrity, accountability and stakeholder participation. It offers an analysis of the significant changes that are affecting media and information ecosystems, chief among them the growth of digital platforms. Drawing on the implications of this changing landscape, the paper focuses on four policy areas of intervention: public communication for a better dialogue between government and citizens; direct responses to identify and combat disinformation; legal and regulatory policy; and media and civic responses that support better information ecosystems. The paper concludes with proposed steps the OECD can take to build evidence and support policy in this space. OECD Working Papers should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its member countries. The opinions expressed and arguments employed are those of the authors. Working Papers describe preliminary results or research in progress by the author(s) and are published to stimulate discussion on a broad range of issues on which the OECD works. Comments on Working Papers are welcomed, and may be sent to the Directorate of Public Governance,

show abstract

Networked Expertise in the Era of Many-to-many Communication: On Wikipedia and Invention

Cited by 32 publications

References 13 publications

(Re)conceptualizing Intercultural Communication in a Networked Society

(Re)conceptualizing Intercultural Communication in a Networked Society

What We Know About Wikipedia: A Review of the Literature Analyzing the Project(s)

Governance responses to disinformation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About