Like other Web 2.0 tools, wiki spaces empower content producers to support life-long learning online. Wikis expand indefinitely to capture massive amounts of cognitive thoughts in a social environment that is accessible, searchable and editable. The cognitive and social coupling leads to a knowledge building tool that gains value and validity with each contribution.
The knowledge building begins when one user puts thoughts down on a publicly searchable, viewable, and editable wiki page. By externalizing his knowledge through processing and clarification, the individual himself learns and adjusts his own knowledge while contributing to the wiki community’s knowledge base. Other users also learn by finding, reading and internalizing the content on the page, but this is still not where the bulk of the knowledge building happens.
The real building begins when subsequent users who search for and view the wiki page disagree with the findings because of some cognitive conflict or irritation. I liked how these two concepts were explained in the article, “A Systemic and Cognitive View on Collaborative Knowledge Building with Wikis” by Cress and Kimmerle. Piaget’s model of Equilibrium described a cognitive conflict as the incongruence of someone’s prior knowledge to new environmental knowledge. Luhmann’s model explained that a system such as a wiki space, was sensitive to environmental irritations such as users with differing cognitive views. Cognitive conflicts and irritations helped to answer one of my long-pondered questions, which is “Why do people post things online?” It seems, when the amount of disagreement is high, users are motivated to add missing content, correct errors and even re-arrange the page so that it makes more sense. To justify their choices, users may also site sources and include in-line links to supporting articles.
These last steps to site sources and justify findings are crucial to establishing knowledge validity. It allows readers to take a more skeptical approach, follow the data trails and draw their own individual conclusions. The knowledge and process involved in a collaborative wiki space may even be more valid than expert publications because it gives users a chance to question the “facts”.
I am curious what others think regarding how many reviewers are needed before a wiki space’s knowledge can be regarded as valid. For example, if your friend created a private wiki on the Myths and Mysteries of Siberia and only shared it with you, would you consider it as valid as the Princeton University wiki on Siberia? Is the content more relevant or the number of reviewers to validity?
Like your peers have commented, your question about the wiki size is interesting. I think I agree with Dana that the more people you have, the more that the information is likely to be vetted and ratified. In a space where you are designing a wiki for a class or a group, then yes, I think group size is an issue and probably good numbers are 4-5 at the most. But in more organic and non-instructional uses of wikis, I would say larger numbers cause more administrative issues, but likely better knowledge verification and addition.
Jessie I really liked your example of Siberia and the validity concept between friends and comparing it to that of a college research project, and I guess it would be dependant on how much your friend knew of Siberia. What I am saying is that if your friend was a subject matter expert (SME) on Siberia then the one person reviewing your wiki would be valid user so I guess to me it seems if the alloted users are known to be SME’s then I would say validity is based on quality of posts rather then your idea of quantity. I like your comment on how contributing to a blog builds the validity by each contributing building upon their peers inputs. I also think the concept of providing links to research gives the readers to determine if the “facts” are indeed correct to ensure the wiki is developed with the most valid information. I do like the idea of using small groups just as one of our classmates described and how we are working in smaller groups as this gives more people but not so many the opportunity to contribute to a wiki and learn through the use of references to ensure all the information being learned is in fact valid due to the small group being able to validate the information.
Jesse,
I like your idea on “how many reviewers are needed before a wiki space knowledge can be regarded as valid”. In my view I would think the greater number of reviewers or contributors there are, the better the wiki becomes. Meredith mentioned that with “so many ideas and thoughts, how would we ever be able to agree on a final product, or make decisions.” This may happen, but isn’t that the point? These disagreements cause “irritation” or cognitive change. I find maybe instead of smaller groups in a wiki the topics could become more specific. Then as the wiki grows more topics can be explored.
Great post!
I was wondering about numbers too. This should be a concern as a teacher when forming groups to develop understanding collaboratively. You really have to make sure students have the appropriate prior knowledge to carry themselves through an online document, which should be a valid document as far as information is concerned. Based on how we are working in this class on wiki’s, we are using a small group and that seems to be a manageable size of people to collaborate with and build knowledge together. What if we were working as a whole class. That’s so many more ideas and thoughts, how would we ever be able to agree on a final product, or make decisions.
Maybe keeping groups smaller and more focused can really allow them to become better experts and more knowledgeable on the topics they need to discuss. Three or four people focusing on a couple of ideas can provide deeper knowledge then say, 10 people focusing on a wider breadth of knowledge.