| Nathaniel Tkacz|
(Alternative names for this author)
|Co-authors||Alan Shapiro, Amila Akdag Salah, Andrea Scharnhorst, Andrew Famiglietti, Cheng Gao, Christian Stegbauer, Dan O’Sullivan, Dror Kamir, Edgar Enyedy, Florian Cramer, Gautam John, Geert Lovink, Hans Varghese Mathews, Heather Ford, Johanna Niesyto, Joseph M. Reagle, Krzystztof Suchecki, Lawrence Liang, Maja van der Velden, Mark Graham, Matheiu O’Neil, Mayo Fuster Morell, Morgan Currie, Nathaniel Stern, Nicholas Carr, Patrick Lichty, Peter B. Kaufman, R. Stuart Geiger, Scott Kildall, Shun-ling Chen|
|Authorship||Publications (2), datasets (0), tools (0)|
|Citations||Total (4), average (2), median (2), max (4), min (0)|
|DBLP · Google Scholar|
|Export and share|
|BibTeX, CSV, RDF, JSON|
|Browse properties · List of authors|
Nathaniel Tkacz is an author.
PublicationsOnly those publications related to wikis are shown here.
|Title||Keyword(s)||Published in||Language||DateThis property is a special property in this wiki.||Abstract||R||C|
|The Truth of Wikipedia||Wikipedia
Neutral point of view
|May 2012||What does it mean to assert that Wikipedia has a relation to truth? That there is, despite regular claims to the contrary, an entire apparatus of truth in Wikipedia? In this article, I show that Wikipedia has in fact two distinct relations to truth: one which is well known and forms the basis of existing popular and scholarly commentaries, and another which refers to equally well-known aspects of Wikipedia, but has not been understood in terms of truth. I demonstrate Wikipedia’s dual relation to truth through a close analysis of the Neutral Point of View core content policy (and one of the project’s “Five Pillars”). I conclude by indicating what is at stake in the assertion that Wikipedia has a regime of truth and what bearing this has on existing commentaries.||7||0|
|Critical Point of View: A Wikipedia Reader||Institute of Network Cultures||English||2011||For millions of internet users around the globe, the search for new knowledge begins with Wikipedia. The encyclopedia’s rapid rise, novel organization, and freely offered content have been marveled at and denounced by a host of commentators. Critical Point of View moves beyond unflagging praise, well-worn facts, and questions about its reliability and accuracy, to unveil the complex, messy, and controversial realities of a distributed knowledge platform.||0||4|