![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
Information systems researchers that apply critical social perspectives frequently emphasize the potential for information technology to serve as a mechanism for increased rationalization, domination, and control. Such theorists often overlook or discount the liberating aspects of information systems. In this study, we apply the ideal of rational discourse developed by Jürgen Habermas to the phenomenon of Wikipedia in an effort to explore empirically the emancipatory potential of information systems. We contend that Wikipedia embodies an approximation of the necessary conditions for rational discourse. While several challenges persist, the example of Wikipedia illustrates the positive potential of information systems in supporting the emergence of more emancipatory forms of communication. The corresponding implications for researchers and design professionals alike are discussed.
We are grateful to three reviewers and the associate editor of The Information Society for their instructive comments. We take full responsibility for any remaining errors or omissions.
Notes
1. This article extends research presented at the Hawaiian International Conference of Systems Sciences in January 2007 (CitationHansen, Berente, & Lyytinen, 2007).
2. Habermas himself indicates that his notion of rational discourse is based on “counterfactual” assumptions.
3. One notable exception is a study by CitationKanungo (2004) focusing on the implementation of IT kiosks in a small town in India.
4. While Habermas treats discursive process as a facet of communicative action, some subsequent scholars have chosen to isolate discursive action as a distinct form of social action (e.g., CitationNgwenyama & Lyytinen, 1997; CitationKlein & Huynh, 2004).
5. All Wikipedia statistics were gathered on July 12, 2007.
6. An “Active Wikipedian” is defined as an individual who has contributed content five times or more during a 1-month period.
7. For a consideration of volume, this compares to roughly 120,000 articles available through Britannica Online.
8. In the present analysis, we are attempting to highlight points of resonance between the features of Wikipedia and the ideal speech situation outlined by Habermas. However, we are not adopting a normative position with respect to the desirability or undesirability of such features, nor are we suggesting that the design of the Wikipedia platform has been normatively directed through an effort to achieve rational discourse. In the fifth section of this article (fourth subsection) we discuss some of the critiques that have been leveled against Wikipedia.
9. Refer to the Appendix for a summary of the official policy statements maintained at the time of publication.
10. This policy has been described as “absolute and nonnegotiable” by Wikipedia founder and Wikimedia Foundation President, Jimmy Wales.
11. Each Wikipedia article has an associated discussion page labeled “Talk” or “Discussion.”
12. In one of their formal policies, the Wikipedia community urges contributors to assume good faith on the part of other participants.
13. While the intentions of contributors cannot be determined definitively, a recent innovation has shed some light on this issue. In August 2007, Virgil Griffith, a CalTech graduate student, introduced the WikiScanner, a searchable database that links Wikipedia edits to their IP address of origin. In many cases, this linkage enables the identification of a specific organization (but not an individual contributor) as the source of edits to the Wikipedia content for that institution. See E. CitationBiuso (2007). WikiScanning. The New York Times Magazine, December 9.
14. The fundamental tensions between neutrality and normativity in knowledge creation have been extensively explored within the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) and the related field of science and technology studies (STS). A special edition of Social Studies of Science provides an excellent summary of differing positions in this regard (CitationRichards & Ashmore, 1996).