In this blog entry, which was archived on http://www.corante.com/, Shirky defines 3 beliefs that drive the creation of Citizendium: 1) There are experts and we can be made to recognize who they are, 2) Something created by giving experts special treatment will be better than something creating without doing so, and 3) Once we know who the experts are, we will of course defer to them and rarely if ever disagree. Shirky says all 3 of these beliefs are wrong. Again, the key to this argument is bound up in the definition of "expert", the social fact. How do we know who is an expert? Usually they are decreed so by some institution or other. My favorite example:
"We have a sense of what it means that someone is a doctor, a judge, an architect, or a priest, but these facts are only facts because we agree they are. If I say “I sentence you to 45 days in jail”, nothing happens. If a judge says “I sentence you to 45 days in jail”, in a court of law, dozens of people will make it their business to act on that imperative, from the bailiff to the warden to the prison guards. My words are the same as the judges, but the judge occupies a position of authority that gives his words an effect mine lack, an authority only exists because enough people agree that it does."
In my other class, one of the students was hugely opposed to this idea. She was completely unwilling to even entertain the thought that people’s perceptions help shape our reality. The idea that one person could start spouting an idea contrary to widely held beliefs (the world is round, anyone?) and eventually gain a following that would change our concept of the truth, was completely unacceptable to her. The thing for me is, most people these days are not going to believe an arbitrary statement that shakes up their reality – not without sufficient, repeated, and reliable evidence - even if it does come from an expert.
A subsequent blog entry had Shirky posting Sanger’s response to his arguments. Sanger strongly defends his editorial credentialing process and insists that anyone is able to post and declare themselves an expert if they provide a verifiable CV on their page. He states his belief that the question of expertise will not be the overwhelming focus of the project, as Shirky believes it will become.
You say, "The thing for me is, most people these days are not going to believe an arbitrary statement that shakes up their reality – not without sufficient, repeated, and reliable evidence - even if it does come from an expert."
ReplyDeleteNow, the above is an interesting concept to me and I generally agree. We all have fairly solid assumptions and presuppositions that we adhere to. With the advent of Web 2.0 and CMC theories abound insisting that more higher order thinking (HOT) will occur as students "create their own meaning" and interact challenging one another. This follows the theories of Dewey, Vygotvsky, Mesirow, and others. However, study after study indicates that this does, in fact, not happen. My question continues to be could the theories of "learning by experience" be, in fact flawed? Now, the problem, if it is one, is that according to Vygotvsky HOT is the overturning of basic presuppostions, etc. However, this is extremely difficult to do in reality, and I personally see no reason why this would be considered to be higher order thinking in the first place. I would think that good problem solving techniques and/or problems actually solved would be higher order thinking.
You also say, "A subsequent blog entry had Shirky posting Sanger’s response to his arguments. Sanger strongly defends his editorial credentialing process and insists that anyone is able to post and declare themselves an expert if they provide a verifiable CV on their page. He states his belief that the question of expertise will not be the overwhelming focus of the project, as Shirky believes it will become."
Ahhhh Sanger says this but what about when the creationist comes up against the evolutionist on Darwin day? Both have great cvs, both have publishing careers that go on for years, but will Sanger treat them equally? I predict NO. Thus, when truly enormous controversial entries are to be made the cvs that reflect the biases of the overall editors be they in Wikipedia or Citizendium will be the main criteria for who gets in!!!
This is an Achille's heel.
john cummins