The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Common knowledge?: an ethnography of Wikipedia
Abstract
With an emphasis on peer-produced content and collaboration, Wikipedia exemplifies a departure from traditional management and organizational models. This iconic project has been variously characterized as a hive mind and an information revolution, attracting millions of new users even as it has been denigrated as anarchic and plagued by misinformation. Have Wikipedia's structure and inner workings promoted its astonishing growth and enduring public relevance? In Common Knowledge?, Dariusz Jemielniak draws on his academic expertise and years of active participation within the Wikipedia community to take readers inside the site, illuminating how it functions and deconstructing its distinctive organization. Against a backdrop of misconceptions about its governance, authenticity, and accessibility, Jemielniak delivers the first ethnography of Wikipedia, revealing that it is not entirely at the mercy of the public: instead, it balances open access and power with a unique bureaucracy that takes a page from traditional organizational forms. Along the way, Jemielniak incorporates fascinating cases that highlight the tug of war among the participants as they forge ahead in this pioneering environment.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Promises and paradoxes of the sharing economy: An organizing framework
Acquier, A., Daudigeos, T., & Pinkse, J. (2017) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.07.006 · Cited by 783
Fluidity, Identity, and Organizationality: The Communicative Constitution of Anonymous
Dobusch, L., & Schoeneborn, D. (2015) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.12139 · Cited by 272
Ways of Knowing When Research Subjects Care
Howard, D., & Irani, L. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3290605.3300327 · Cited by 70
Black Lives Matter in Wikipedia: Collective Memory and Collaboration around Online Social Movements
Twyman, M., Keegan, B. C., & Shaw, A. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing · doi:10.1145/2998181.2998232 · Cited by 51
Analysis of the Potentials of Blockchain for the Governance of Global Digital Commons
Rozas, D., Tenorio-Fornés, A., & Hassan, S. (2021) · Frontiers in Blockchain · doi:10.3389/fbloc.2021.577680 · Cited by 45
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 2014-09-22
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 02
- Pages
- 52-0912-52-0912
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W656064167
- Cited by
- 160
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Common knowledge?: an ethnography of Wikipedia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.52-0912
- The paper
- Common knowledge?: an ethnography of Wikipedia. (2014). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.52-0912
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.