Cover not available
Part of
Investigating Wikipedia: Linguistic corpus building, exploration and analysis
Edited by Céline Poudat, Harald Lüngen and Laura Herzberg
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 121] 2024
► pp. 235–262

Chapter 9
To each their own truth

Epistemic regimes on Wikipedia talk pages

| Université de Bordeaux, SPH
| University of Toulouse Jean Jaurès, CNRS, CLLE
| Côte d’Azur University, CNRS, BCL
| University of Toulouse Jean Jaurès, LERASS
This chapter presents five epistemic regimes we defined for characterizing the conception of “truth” that underpin debates amongst Wikipedian editors on talk pages. The chapter starts by defining each epistemic regime and how it could be understood according to the Wikipedia rules. Then, we propose a method to evaluate the operationality of these regimes from a corpus standpoint and to analyse to what extent these regimes are adopted by Wikipedians. The analysis of the annotation of 324 posts extracted from the French WikiDemoCorpus largely supports our epistemic model and provides new insights into the ideological backgrounds of Wikipedians.
Keywords: Wikipedia talk pages, epistemic regime, conception of “truth”, Wikipedia rules
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Dialogue and disagreements on Wikipedia
    • 2.1The role of rules and dialogue in the Wikipedian episteme
    • 2.2Disagreements on Wikipedia
    • 2.3Toward a model of validity: Epistemic regimes
  • 3.Wikipedia’s main epistemic regimes
    • 3.1The encyclopedic regime
      • 3.1.1Sources of authority
      • 3.1.2Consensus-based and elitist knowledge
      • 3.1.3An educational mission
    • 3.2The scientist regime
      • 3.2.1Wikipedia should be an academic frontier
      • 3.2.2An expert contributor
      • 3.2.3Keeping controversies at bay
    • 3.3The critical regime
      • 3.3.1Can sources be independent?
      • 3.3.2A revealing perspective
      • 3.3.3The impossible NPOV
    • 3.4The doxic regime
      • 3.4.1Truth of common sense
      • 3.4.2Low source requirements
      • 3.4.3A “journalistic” neutrality
      • 3.4.4A mainstream reader
    • 3.5The wiki regime
      • 3.5.1Relativistic neutrality
      • 3.5.2A free and autonomous reader
      • 3.5.3A suspicion toward sourcing
    • 3.6The heuristic virtues of epistemic regimes for understanding editorial disagreements
  • 4.Corpus and annotation
    • 4.1Working sample
    • 4.2Annotation of the working sample
      • 4.2.1Double-blind annotation
      • 4.2.2Adjudication
  • 5.Results and analyses
    • 5.1Regime distribution
    • 5.2Regime particularities and variation
  • 6.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 31 October 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.121.09car
References (22)
References
Bender, Emily M., Morgan, Jonathan T., Oxley, Meghan, Zachry, Mark, Hutchinson, Brian & Ostendorf, Mari. 2011. Annotating social acts: Authority claims and alignment moves in wikipedia talk pages. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Languages in Social Media (LSM 2011), Meenakshi Nagarajan & Michael Gamon (eds), 48–57. Stroudsburg PA: ACM.Google Scholar
Bubendorff, Sandrine & Rizza, Caroline. 2021. Produire collectivement du sens en temps de crise: l’ Utilisation de Wikipédia lors de la pandémie de COVID-19. Communiquer 32(1): 83–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carbou, Guillaume & Sahut, Gilles. 2019. Les désaccords éditoriaux dans Wikipédia comme tensions entre régimes épistémiques. Communication 36(2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardon, Dominique. 2015. Surveiller sans punir: La gouvernance de Wikipédia. In Wikipédia objet scientifique non identifié, Lionel Barbe, Louise Merzeau & Valérie Schafer (eds), 15–39. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Paris Ouest. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1980. Truth and Power. In Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, Colin Gordon (ed.), 109–33. New York NY: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Fullerton, Lindsay & Ettema, James. 2014. Ways of worldmaking in Wikipedia: Reality, legitimacy and collaborative knowledge making. Media, Culture & Society 36(2): 183–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hocquet, Alexandre. 2015. Wikipédia en tant que forum: Une analyse de réseaux sociaux pour l’ethnographie de la production d’articles. In Wikipédia objet scientifique non identifié, Lionel Barbe, Louise Merzeau & Valérie Schafer (eds), 165–176. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Paris Ouest. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luyt, Brendan. 2012. The inclusivity of Wikipedia and the drawing of expert boundaries: An examination of talk pages and reference lists. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 63(9): 1868–1878.Google Scholar
. 2015. Debating reliable sources: Writing the history of the Vietnam War on Wikipedia. Journal of Documentation 71(3): 440–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malaisé, Véronique, Zweigenbaum, Pierre & Bachimont, Bruno. 2005. Mining defining contexts to help structuring differential ontologies. Terminology. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Issues in Specialized Communication 11(1): 21–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matei, Sorin Adam & Dobrescu, Caius. 2010. Wikipedia’s “neutral point of view”: Settling conflict through ambiguity. The Information Society 27(1): 40–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poudat, Céline, Grabar, Natalia, Paloque-Berges, Camille, Chanier, Thierry & Jin, Kun. 2017. Wikiconflits: Un corpus de discussions éditoriales conflictuelles du Wikipédia francophone. In Corpus de communication médiée par les réseaux: Construction, structuration, analyse, Ciara R. Wigham & Gudrun Ledegen (eds), 19–36. Paris: l’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Rebeyrolle, Josette & Tanguy, Ludovic. 2000. Repérage automatique de structures linguistiques en corpus: Le cas des énoncés définitoires. Cahiers de Grammaire 25: 153–174.Google Scholar
Rey, Alain. 2007. Miroirs du monde: Une histoire de l’encyclopédisme. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
Rughinis, Cosima & Matei, Stefania. 2013. Learning through massively co-authored biographies: Making sense of Steve Jobs on Wikipedia through delegated voice. In 19th International Conference on Control Systems and Computer Science, 590–596. IEEE. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sahut, Gilles. 2014. “Citez vos sources”: Archéologie d’une règle au cœur du savoir wikipédien (2002–2008). Études de Communication 42: 97–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Wikipédia, une encyclopédie collaborative en quête de crédibilité: Le référencement en questions. PhD dissertation, Université Toulouse-Jean Jaurès.
. 2016. L’autorité importée dans Wikipédia: La question de la qualité des sources citées. Quaderni 91: 93–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanger, Larry. 2005. The early history of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A memoir. On Slashdot [online]. Urbandal IA. 〈[URL]〉 (31 March 2024).
Schroeder, Andreas & Wagner, Christian. 2012. Governance of open content creation: A conceptualization and analysis of control and guiding mechanisms in the open content domain. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63(10): 1947–1959. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Viégas, Fernanda B., Wattenberg, Martin, Kriss, Jesse & Van Ham, Frank. 2007. Talk before you type: Coordination in Wikipedia. Wikipedia Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’07), 78–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yasseri, Taha, Spoerri, Anselm, Graham, Mark & Kertresz, Janos. 2014. The most controversial topics. In Wikipedia: A Multilingual and Geographical Analysis Global Wikipedia. International and Cross-cultural Issues in Online Collaboration, Pnina Fichman & Noriko Hara (eds), 25–48. Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar