Mike Palij writes: >There is an interesting article in the NY Times on issues related >to determining the origins of certain types of "knowledge", such >as Allen points out below in the Freud cigar situation. However, >the argument that is made in the article, in the context of >evaluating information on Wikipedia, is that requiring one to >provide a source for some "knowledge" is a reflection of >"a Western, male-dominated mindset similar to the perspective >behind the encyclopedias it has replaced." See: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/business/media/a-push-to-redefine-knowledge-at-wikipedia.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha26
Thanks for drawing attention to the New York Times article, Mike – and for adding pertinent comments! A link in the article leads to this: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/business/media/a-push-to-redefine-knowledge-at-wikipedia.html?_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha26 and to this video by Achal Prabhala (Bangalore, India), an adviser to the Wikimedia Foundation: "People are Knowledge" http://vimeo.com/26469276 Nothing in the video addresses the problem highlighted by Mike [see below] about the difficulties inherent in much of so-called "oral knowledge". There are items in the video on historical knowledge passed down through the generations, but no getting to grips with problems of authenticity (in so far as it can be assessed or ascertained) of such 'knowledge'. No one is saying that the procedures using citations and references provides definite knowledge, but where are we if we treat 'oral knowledge' on more-or-less the same level as referenced 'knowledge'? A case in point (with which another TIPSter is familiar!) occurred on the Wikipedia Einstein page, where a contributor added that after Hitler came to power in 1933 Einstein escaped via Albania, where he was given hospitality for a few days and provided with an Albanian passport with which he was enabled to enter the United States. This was challenged in the Discussion (Talk) page, and three people came up with citations. I followed up all the citations, and in each case they were dependent on hearsay, with no reliable documentation. I recall that one contributor wrote that everyone in Albania knows that it is true – which encapsulates the problem with the notion of "oral knowledge"! Wikipedia has its problems, but they would be magnified many times if the current referencing system were to be put aside to allow for non-referenced material. I doubt it will happen any time soon with English Wikipedia (or most European language Wikipedias), but from the video it seems it is already happening with some languages in countries where some people are anxious to move beyond "Western" ways of knowing. Meantime, Mike's final suggestion is more pertinent than ever in our internet age: >One might use this article in class to review how we >determine whether a source is credible or not and how >to evaluate statements that purport to be valid >representations of reality. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org ---------------------------------------------------------- re: [tips] Freud interview Mike Palij Mon, 08 Aug 2011 07:06:38 -0700 There is an interesting article in the NY Times on issues related to determining the origins of certain types of "knowledge", such as Allen points out below in the Freud cigar situation. However, the argument that is made in the article, in the context of evaluating information on Wikipedia, is that requiring one to provide a source for some "knowledge" is a reflection of "a Western, male-dominated mindset similar to the perspective behind the encyclopedias it has replaced." See: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/business/media/a-push-to-redefine-knowledge-at-wikipedia.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha26 The article focuses on discussions concerning the use of printed sources to support statements and claims made on Wikipedia (NOTE: for those who have not been paying attention, when I use the shorthand "yadda-yadda" for "standard disclaimers apply", I am in fact referring to the problem of determining the accuracy of information in a Wikipedia entry). The argument is that many cultures have no printed records for certain activities and if one were to try to create an entry that is a "first person" or "hearsay" account, such entries would not be allowed even though it might be useful (this means that Wikipedia is the primary source for the information). The article appears not to understand that the purpose of, say, peer-reviewed journals is to provide a review and critical analysis of empirical research reports (from observational to lab-based experiments) and scholarly reviews of a literature or presentation of a theory. We can always argue about the quality of peer-review and the need to put certain "knowledge" on the record but is it really a good idea to use Wikipedia as the first place of publication? In an internet age where "knowledge" is just a Google away, young people may think that quickly available information is the same thing as valid information. If everyone knows that Freud said "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" or that he used the iceberg as a metaphor for the mind, why would anyone challenge these claims? If it's on the internet, it has to be true, right? Especially, if a lot of people agree with the statements made. One might use this article in class to review how we determine whether a source is credible or not and how to evaluate statements that purport to be valid representations of reality. -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=11808 or send a blank email to leave-11808-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
