Reagle's presentation can be accessed on his own website.

I want to make sense some of the criticism Wikipedia receives in a historical frame. I want to do this in a very simple proposition, that; reference works embody larger social anxieties. One of the central things about thinking about encyclopedias is through their motives. Because of the Enlightenment, we tend to think of progressiveness as an inherent property of encyclopedias but that has not been always the case (Reagle’s examples can be found in his presentation on the link above). Encyclopedias can combine progressive or conservative elements and their reception can again be perceived as either, regardless of the inherent qualities of the work in question. The same has been true about Wikipedia as well. While some people criticize it for being anti-academia and hostile to expertise, other people blame it for being a servant of peer-review institutions. While Wikipedia aims to represent all claims to knowledge via verifiable sources in a neutral point of view, this creates an inherent bias towards opinions that are more widely represented within verifiable and notable sources. This natural bias for representation according to proportional evidence aggravates fringe opinion holders (Creationists etc.). Yet, even among scholars the meaning of what an encyclopedia should represent is not certain, not only concerning Wikipedia but concerning historical encyclopedias as well.

Based on all these opinions and issues in discussion, we have understand this debate not strictly about encyclopedias but about larger societal issues. That is my approach; To get a sense of what it is that Wikipedia stirs in society.

At the heart of most discussions concerning reference works in general, and Wikipedia in particular, is a question regarding the degree of normativeness a reference work should embody in contrast to being merely descriptive (Telling how things should be instead/in addition to telling just how they are).

Also, Why should even we care? We certainly don’t care as much about Facebook, to the extend of having conferences solely devoted to it.

Two reasons:

I) This is a market construct. Mid-20th century marketing of Britannica; “Send your children to the Britannica.”

II) Questions of material constraints: What do we put it, what do we take out?

Historically, this is why we have so much critical discourse and debate around Wikipedia. When I look at the discourse around Wikipedia, relative to my research about collaborative culture, I saw four themes that are most prevalent:

I) Collaborative Practice- How do we work together? II) Encyclopedic impulse III) Bibliomania IV) Technological Inspiration - To what extend technology facilitate our struggle to reach our encyclopedic goals?

I will be focusing on the last one.

One of the central arguments of the merits of technology relates to hypertext. It has been hailed as a door for more fluid and accessible learning but it has also been accused of destroying the sanctity of authorship and removing us from real knowledge in favor of mere information. I find most such discussions to be ahistorical, the urge behind connecting information like this is not new. Otlet dreamt of connecting knowledge with index cards and loose-leaf binders.

One other point of heated debate is concerned with the hype surrounding Wikipedia. Critics argue Wikipedia’s shortcomings as a general cultural model. Yet, Wikipedians themselves are seldom the ones that believe in this hype. They usually say “Wikipedia is awesome not because it’s perfect, but it’s surprisingly good. We thought it wouldn’t even work but it’s surprisingly good.” While some critics find even this to be not good enough, I think this might be a question of glass half-empty of half-full. However, comparing something to Wikipedia has become the new cliche. Another indicator that Wikipedia is being used as an example in a larger cultural discussion. Such discussions closely reflect larger, and very common, generational issues, maybe not directly related to age but to certain sensitivities (quotes Douglas Adams on the way people’s perceptions change over time regarding technology). Before Wikipedia, there were many books pointing out shortcomings of other encyclopedias.

In closing;

A lot of the discussion about Wikipedia is representative of some of the prevailing attitudes and beliefs, and some of the contradictions of these attitudes and beliefs, as they shift, as facilitated by technology, and therefore (my argument); Reference works do embody and provoke larger social concerns and with respect to this issue of technology and technological inspiration, I think we can see a concern about the integrity of knowledge, the sanctity of the author and the concern about hype, with the background of this generational difference in perception.

Wikipedia: Collaborative Culture and the Fulfillment of a Vision Short summary and review of Joseph Reagle's dissertation "In Good Faith: Wikipedia Collaboration and the Pursuit of the Universal Encyclopedia". (http://reagle.org/joseph/2008/03/dsrtn-in-good-faith. New York (NY), 2008). By Juliana Brunello Reagle's introduction is somewhat unclear about the central quest of his dissertation. After reading his essay and re-reading the introduction and conclusion, I believe that the central thesis of his dissertation is that Wikipedia is the fulfillment of a "long held aspiration for a universal encyclopedia…" (Reagle 2008: 3) He believes that this was possible due to the collaborative "good faith" practice, encyclopedic impulse, the vision of a universal encyclopedia itself and technological aspiration. In order to present his ideas, Reagle chose a historical and ethnographical approach. Throughout his work, he points out the differences and similarities between the past trials and the present Wikipedia, showing what makes it different and why it has (relatively) succeeded. Read the complete version here

Interview with Erinc Salor, 20.01.2010 By Juliana Brunello Erinc Salor and Joseph Reagle have something in common: One is writing and the other has already written a PhD thesis using a historical perspective to explain Wikipedia. Their backgrounds are completely different though. Reagle has studied Computer Science, Technology and Policy. He also gathered much experience with the new media actively. He used this knowledge to write his PhD, which he concluded with a dissertation on the history and collaborative culture of Wikipedia. Salor, on the other hand, studied Economics, European Studies and Cultural Analysis.

I have met Erinc Salor at de Balie in Amsterdam for a coffee and to talk about his PhD project. I wanted to know more about it and ask him about Joseph Reagle's dissertation. As he explained to me, I noticed that there is a change in focus, making both works different, though related in some points.

Erinc explained to me, that his work is about contextualizing Wikipedia in the encyclopedic heritage, what Reagle also does. He explains however, that while Reagle is more interested in how the community works, he is more interested in how it fits in the whole tradition. Reagle focuses more on how the encyclopedia is defined and re-defined, while he is more interested in where it is coming from "in a broader sense" from periods prior to the printing era to at present focusing on how knowledge was collected.

An important question to be answered is consequently how Wikipedia defines knowledge and authority, a point also discussed in Reagle's dissertation. Salor indicates he will deal with both themes in a more profound way. He gave me a clue to what he means by that. According to him, after Wikipedia started, the understanding and concepts of knowledge and authority became quite different in comparison to the "old model". There used to be just a set of books that set the standards for what is worth knowing in order to be "good educated". Now, with the advancement of Wikipedia, some will position themselves saying it is not good, others will say one should use it, but be cautious and check the source of the information. He points out, additionally, that in Wikipedia something becomes true if it can be verified. In Britannica something becomes true, because Britannica "tells it is true". His conclusion is that there is a shift in authority. This leads to further questioning: What does that imply, concerning society's approach to encyclopedias? What should one expect from it? What does that imply to our approach to knowledge? What does that imply to our society? These are the central questions that Salor will approach in his PhD.

Salor also tells me that Reagle's dissertation has helped him in many ways. He thinks that Reagle could have gone deeper with his insights though. What theses insights are, he did not tell me. It will be part of his work to continue and to deepen these "insights" in his research. Furthermore, we both agreed that it was very much informal for a PhD thesis. His structure and language are not a "scientific" one, but one similar to books. Reagle makes personal remarks on topics and uses the first person throughout his work. Salor emphasizes it is not a critic, but a remark, as he does not know the requirements and practices of Reagle's University.

Salor's PhD dissertation is foreseen to be available by the end of next year. For more information you can visit his website at UvA.