Wikipedia As Rational Discourse: An Illustration of The Emancipatory Potential of Information Systems
Wikipedia As Rational Discourse: An Illustration of The Emancipatory Potential of Information Systems
Wikipedia As Rational Discourse: An Illustration of The Emancipatory Potential of Information Systems
Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07)
0-7695-2755-8/07 $20.00 © 2007 1530-1605/07 $20.00 © 2007 IEEE 1
Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2007
Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07)
0-7695-2755-8/07 $20.00 © 2007 2
Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2007
could be conducted openly enough and continued long Operated under the auspices of the Wikimedia
enough” [4: 42]. Foundation, Wikipedia bills itself as “the largest
reference website on the Internet.” It is an online
2.2.2. Types of discourse. Habermas indicates that encyclopedia in which articles on any subject can be
five types of argumentation exist within such a created and edited by anyone using a standard web
discourse. These categories are distinguished by the browser. Since its introduction in 2001, Wikipedia has
basis upon which they make validity claims: seen an explosion of popularity, with over 13,000
active contributing editors.3 The English language
x Theoretical discourse – Claims to truth based version of the system has nearly 1.2 million articles,
on evidence and logic with over 1,500 new articles added on a daily basis.4
x Practical discourse – Based on social norms, In addition, Wikipedia has articles written in over 200
claims to appropriateness and social other languages.
acceptability As the name implies, Wikipedia is based on a wiki
x Aesthetic criticism – Criticism based on good web environment [10]. First developed in the mid-
taste, “standards of value” 1990s, wiki is an open source server software that
allows all users to edit web page content using any
x Therapeutic critique – Questioning sincerity or
type of web browser. Significant features of a wiki
honesty
environment include the maintenance of an archive of
x Explicative discourse – Expression of claims version changes that a single document/page has
that are clearly formulated and intelligible undergone since its inception and the ability to rapidly
The validity claim of a statement can be challenged develop new pages and crosslink them to existing
on any of the above grounds, and that type of discourse sources within a domain. The predominance of non-
would then ensue. hierarchical navigation through the use of multiple
For Habermas, a continuing discourse of one or hyperlinks within the body of a document is one of the
more of these types, which is consistent with the characteristic qualities of a wiki environment. While
assumptions detailed above, will approximate rational the wiki technology is quite simple, the functionality
discourse. If such a discourse were enabled and that it enables has made it a significant tool for
entirely mediated through an information system, one collaborative writing and design, and has contributed
could also argue that such an information system to the broader development of the open source
incorporates an emancipatory potential in terms of philosophy.
Habermas’ critical theory. Wikipedia itself was developed as an outgrowth of
Next we will apply these assumptions and types of an earlier effort at the creation of a free online
discourse to an example from Wikipedia. We will take encyclopedia, dubbed Nupedia [20]. The Wikipedia
as the null hypothesis the prevailing view of critical project was launched when the Nupedia leadership
theorists: that information systems increase central team recognized the potential advantages of a wiki
control and rationalization and therefore constrain environment for rapid development and the
freedom and work against the emancipatory ideals of maintenance of free content. The articles on the
rational discourse. system are kept free through the application of the
In the spirit of falsification, we show how GNU Free Documentation License, which ensures that
Wikipedia can be considered an instance where content developed is open to use and modification by
rational discourse is not only allowed, but enabled and all editors and that all subsequent enhancement will
fully mediated by an information system. Therefore, not be subject to proprietary use [22].
we will now put forth an argument showing how One of the key points of emphasis in the self-
Wikipedia appears to meet the criteria for a rational presentation of Wikipedia is marketing the system as
discourse. We follow this illustration with a “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.” This
discussion of caveats to this view, as well as future statement underscores the decentralized structure of
directions for research. the project. All changes to articles on the system are
made by the contributing editors who volunteer their
time and input to the system. There is limited
3. Wikipedia
Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07)
0-7695-2755-8/07 $20.00 © 2007 3
Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2007
oversight of the project outside of the observation and considered to engage in communicative action. If,
efforts of editorial volunteers. however, a user does not agree with certain truth
The majority of administrative functions for the site claims made in an article, that user may turn into a
are handled by Wikipedia Administrators. contributor and thus embark on discursive action.
Administrators represent a subset of the contributing While there is no way of determining with certainty
editors who have been approved for administrator whether or not a contributor acts with cooperative
status by members of the editorial community. intent, it appears that some portion of contributors act
However, the Administrator distinction is more than strategically (i.e., with an agenda), and may not have
ceremonial. Administrators are given access to appropriate motives for their editorial activities.
specific technical features of the system, including the However, as noted above, blatant vandalism and
protection of pages (i.e., blocking additional edits), the politically motivated claims are quickly quashed by the
deletion of articles, and the ability to block other broader editorial community.
editors from further changes to the site’s pages. Therefore, although cooperative intent cannot be
The need for blocking selected editors highlights generalized to any specific instance of an article at a
one of the key challenges of the system – i.e., the given time, over the entirety of the Wikipedia project,
potential for vandalism. Because editorial rights are with an aggregate view of the articles as a whole, one
granted to any web user, the system frequently can infer that cooperative argument in the interest of
encounters editorial actions that are taken in a truth is a motivator for the bulk of contributions.
deliberate effort to degrade the quality of an article.
Such vandalism may take the form of wholesale 3.2.2. Formalized structure. Habermas suggests that
deletion of article content, the insertion of superfluous the structure of rational discourse must be explicit and
vulgar language, or the inclusion of intentionally be adhered to by competent actors. Such structure is a
erroneous information. The recognition of such acts central component in the pursuit of desired quality in
can lead to censure by the broader editorial community the Wikipedia community. While content
through a series of warnings and, in extreme cases, by development and site administration is almost entirely
the blocking of editorial rights to the individual. While decentralized, the editors are bound together by a
vandalism remains an acute challenge for the project, series of policies and guidelines that have been
some evidence suggests that acts of vandalism are developed by the Wikimedia Foundation in
rapidly addressed and eliminated by the community collaboration with the project’s editors. Currently, the
using the systems reversion controls [19]. Wikipedia project has 43 official policy statements
Based on this brief introduction to Wikipedia, the addressing the development of content, the behavior of
following is a characterization of how it embodies editors, the treatment of legal issues, and the processes
Habermasian rational discourse and an accompanying for resolution of conflicts within the community.
example. We then amend this characterization with a Foremost among these are the three content-guiding
discussion of the limitations of Wikipedia in relation to policies of the project: neutral point of view,
the criteria of rational discourse. verifiability, and the prohibition against original
research.
3.2. Wikipedia as Rational Discourse First, the maintenance of a neutral point of view
(NPOV) in the development and enhancement of
Before addressing any particular article, we will Wikipedia articles is a central element of the system’s
first discuss how Wikipedia articles in general can be discursive structure.5 This policy asserts that
understood to meet key assumptions that are required Wikipedia articles should present all significant facets
for rational discourse. These key assumptions include: or competing positions on a given subject in a way that
(1) actors sincerely intending to engage in a is unbiased. Contributing editors should take efforts
cooperative search for truth; (2) through a formalized not to betray their personal preferences or opinions in
structure; (3) excluding the use of force; (4) meeting presenting a topic. In addition to establishing a
the rules of the ideal speech situation; and (5) engaging structure for the discourse that may ensue, this policy
in a discourse which is open and “lasts long enough.” aligns with Habermas’s assumption of the pursuit of
common understanding, rather than the ideological
3.2.1. Cooperative search for truth. As Wikipedia is a competition observed in strategic action.
widely-used reference medium, it is fair to say that
most users and editors of the system are generally 5
This policy has been described as “absolute and non-
engaged in the pursuit of accurate information. If they negotiable” by Wikipedia founder and Wikimedia
critically find what they read agreeable, users can be Foundation President, Jimbo Wales.
Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07)
0-7695-2755-8/07 $20.00 © 2007 4
Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2007
Second, the Wikipedia community requires that directly through the use of the “talk page” for that
editors restrict themselves to the statement of facts, article.6 If an editor wishes to introduce a topic or issue
assertions, or theories that can be verified through not yet represented on the Wikipedia site, he or she is
reference to other published sources. As the policy encouraged to start a new page on that subject.
itself states, “the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia Finally, as indicated above (3.2.3), contributors are not
is verifiability, not truth” [24]. That is not to say that subject to compulsion.
truth is not a desired outcome, but that a premium is
placed on the ability of other editors to externally 3.2.5. Lasting over time. Wikipedia offers an endless
verify a given statement. The importance of potential for page editing, and articles are always
verifiability is reinforced by the third content-guiding dynamic. This leaves the window open for
position – the prohibition against original research. improvement of any article over time as it becomes
Wikipedia specifically states that it is not an outlet for more refined and accurate in its statements. Indeed,
the publication of theories or concepts not previously similar to Habermas’s assertion that sustained effort
published elsewhere. Together, these three positions may be required for a discursive environment to
along with the 40 other policies and over 20 guideline approximate an ideal speech situation, the Wikipedia
documents provide significant structure for the community emphasizes the importance of time in
discursive activity that takes place between editors. supporting the accuracy of articles. It is widely
acknowledged by system contributors that many
3.2.3. Excludes use of force. Wikipedia contributions Wikipedia articles are of less-than-admirable quality
are entirely voluntary. Just as no use of force when they are first developed. However, it is argued
motivates people to engage in a Wikipedia-mediated that the quality of the articles, in terms of accuracy,
discourse, neither can any force require individuals to prose, and fairness, continually improves as the article
accept any contribution. Further, contributors enjoy undergoes repeated revision by members of the
relative anonymity in their editorial activities. While community. As one of the pages about the system
editors and administrators can identify and itself notes:
communicate with a given contributor (i.e., page
“Articles are never ‘complete and final’. Just
editing requires a login or the recording of the
as human knowledge evolves, so does our wiki
contributor’s IP address), members of the Wikipedia
coverage of it. Wiki articles are continually
community have little access to an individual’s
edited and improved over time, and in general
personal information. Accordingly, editors are closely
this results in an upward trend of quality, and
constrained to the structure of the discourse in disputes
a growing consensus over a fair balanced
over content. In the case of vandalism, steps can be
representation of information.” [21].
taken to limit an individual’s ability to participate on
the site, but it is intended that this would only occur Thus, the Wikipedian community appears to have
after efforts at open communication have been significant faith in the effects of time on the quality of
exhausted and an individual has revealed himself or the content that they collaboratively create.
herself to be in bad faith with respect to the pursuit of
accuracy. Also, as an email or IP address is all that is 3.3. An Illustration of Rational Discourse
required to set up an account, vandals can conceivably through Wikipedia
continue to vandalize under different account names.
The discursive action enabled by the Wikipedia
3.2.4. Ideal speech situation. If we view all environment can be assessed through the study of a
Wikipedia users as the population of interest, then it subject around which one would expect there to be
appears that Wikipedian discourse approximates the multiple challenges to truth claims, i.e., a topic of
conditions of the ideal speech situation. As access to a significant controversy. Several such subjects can be
web browser and competency with simple text editing identified among the Wikipedia articles, including
are all that is required to participate, it is reasonable to segments on abortion, U.S. immigration reform, and
assert that all users have the ability to contribute if they the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons. Certainly,
see fit. Indeed, individual contributors have multiple one would expect to see significant strategic action
avenues to question a proposal or to submit a novel employed in general discussions of such issues.
proposal. If one questions the validity of a certain However, given the Wikipedian objective of a neutral
truth claim, he or she may edit the text of the relevant
article in an effort to improve its accuracy. 6
Each Wikipedia article has an associated discussion page
Conversely, a contributor may question the claim labeled “Talk” or “Discussion”.
Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07)
0-7695-2755-8/07 $20.00 © 2007 5
Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2007
point of view, the ideal treatment of such issues on references to support specific truth claims made on the
Wikipedia is expected to be communicative in nature. page.
To support the analysis of discursive action At the time of the current analysis, the article on the
surrounding such a controversial issue, we focus on the Armenian Genocide includes more than 9,000 words
treatment of one such topic, the Armenian Genocide. and provides broad coverage of the subject. While the
Following we will briefly introduce the controversial bulk of the article focuses on the majority
topic of the Armenian Genocide, and then we will interpretation of the historical events, the page includes
illustrate how the controversy was dealt with in extensive discussion of the alternative perspectives on
Wikipedia. the issue and significant attention to the controversy
itself. The Reference section on the page has expanded
3.3.1. Armenian genocide. We use the term Armenian to include 16 sources, and the Notes section has grown
Genocide to refer to the forced relocation and death of to include 26 comments supporting claims made within
between 800,000 and 1.5 million ethnic Armenians at the body of the article. The external links on the page
the hands of the Young Turks regime in the period now number 43, including sources both supporting and
from 1915 to 1917. The primary controversy over the refuting the conjecture of genocide and direction to
events is the use of the term genocide itself. While a three independent studies on the subject. In addition,
majority of international scholars accept the the page includes 23 links to related articles on the
application of the word to the associated events, the Wikipedia system. All of these links are in addition to
government of Turkey and much of the Turkish the non-linear links embedded in the document itself.
population argue that the occurrences were a case of
inter-ethnic conflict rather than a state-sponsored effort 3.3.3. Rational discourse and the Wikipedia ‘talk’
at extermination. In the present analysis, we take no pages. As one might imagine, the discussion, or “talk,”
position with respect to the relative validity of either pages for the Armenian Genocide article have been
set of claims, but consider instead the ways in which used extensively. A reader can now access over 10
the discourse has developed in the Wikipedia context. archives of editorial discussion regarding the article
dating back to October of 2004. These archives
3.3.2. Wikipedia and the Armenian genocide. A include one page dedicated solely to the discourse
review of the history for the article on the Armenian between a few of the most active editors of the page.
Genocide reveals that, since its initial development in Indeed, it is in the talk page that the true discursive
October of 2002, the page has undergone over 3,300 action between editors emerges. While much of the
edits. In its first month, the article grew slowly from a interaction observed in the article’s talk page is
brief statement exclusively reflecting the “genocide” patently strategic, each of the forms of discourse
perspective to a short article that acknowledges the outlined by Habermas can be observed there as well.
Turkish position on the subject. Then, in early Theoretical discourse: On the talk page, theoretical
December 2002, the article was deleted and simply discourse predominates, with editors presenting the
replaced with the statement: “The Armenian Genocide evidence and logic for the changes that they have made
(also known as the Armenian Holocaust) was an event to the page. Such discourse is particularly prevalent in
that, in the true meaning of the word ‘genocide’, never argument around the specific use of the word
took place.” This statement in turn was promptly genocide. The following exchange offers an
replaced by a strongly biased counter statement. illustration:
However, the article was soon reverted to the version
A: “Genocide is a term in international law.
that had persisted before the blatant vandalism
An event can only be called a genocide
occurred.
after it has been approved by an
In the ensuing months, multiple actions that could
international court.”
be characterized as strategic (from both sides of the
issue) can be observed, including additional acts of
B: “Your claim that the use of ‘genocide’ to
unambiguous vandalism of the page. However, over
describe this or any other historical event
the course of 2004 and 2005, additional hyperlink
requires some international court to pass
resources were added to support the verifiability of
a verdict is unsupportable and faulty.”
various claims, including links to websites
representing both points of view on the issue. In June Editors also employ theoretical discourse when they
of 2004, a “Reference” section was added to the article justify a reversion of the page to an early iteration, e.g.
and the first scholarly reference was included. In “I have gone back to what appears to be the most
January 2006, a “Notes” section was added with complete recent version of the article.”
Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07)
0-7695-2755-8/07 $20.00 © 2007 6
Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2007
Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07)
0-7695-2755-8/07 $20.00 © 2007 7
Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2007
over time is warranted. Over the history of the article, individuals who fail to adhere to the assumption of
few truth claims have been uncritically accepted, and good faith may prove far more incendiary. One can
currently the significant truth claims have multiple not ascertain with confidence the sincerity of inquiry
sources of support. by other editors that is advised by Wikipedia and
Due to page limitations, a full analysis of this article Habermas alike.
cannot be presented here. However, our analysis does One of the strongest critiques of the Wikipedia
show that early in the life of the article, major model comes from one of the pioneers of the project.
theoretical discourse occurred. As these truth claims Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger left the project in
were addressed over the life of the article, practical 2002 after experiencing dissatisfaction with the
discourse was also mixed in (as evidenced by the ready trajectory that the system was taking. Sanger [17] has
elimination of vandal activity), as was therapeutic expressed concern with the anti-elitist attitude that has
discourse in the discussion pages (as editors question come to prevail within the community. Rather than
each others’ intentions). The current discursive defer to the perspectives of experts as is common in
activity mostly focuses on explicative discourse, such the development of most encyclopedias, in Wikipedia
as grammar and phrasing correction. prior training or education do not convey a priority
status on the contributions of any one individual.
From Sanger’s point of view, this has led to challenges
3.4. Questioning Wikipedia regarding the system’s credibility in public perception
and the tolerance of uncivil participants on the project.
While the Wikipedia environment approximates However, in juxtaposing this condition with
features of the ideal speech situation articulated by Habermas’s ideal speech situation it is not clear that
Habermas, several concerns remain. Wikipedia has the approach adopted by Wikipedia is inconsistent
been criticized over issues regarding the accuracy of with the objectives of rational discourse. Indeed,
articles, the motivations of editors, the rigor of its Wikipedia’s anti-elitist tendencies seem to reinforce
verifiability, and a perception of anti-elitism within the Habermas’s insistence that rational discourse demands
community [1,17]. that every participant can question the proposals of
In giving all users the freedom to edit the text of another and can introduce novel proposals as they see
articles, Wikipedia exposes itself to the inclusion of fit. Truth claims are addressed by the force of the
inaccurate information. Even if one accepts that acts argument, not by the credentials of the individual.
of vandalism are rapidly corrected on the system [19],
there is little way of protecting against more mundane
errors inserted by editors with no malicious intent. At 4. Discussion
any given moment in time, it is nearly impossible to
determine whether or not a given article includes Based on our observations of the case of the
substantive inaccuracies. While a hotly-contested Armenian genocide, we assert that the Wikipedia
study published in the journal Nature suggests that environment exhibits features of a Habermasian
Wikipedia articles have error rates similar to those of rational discourse. Our case is presented with caution,
the highly-regarded Encyclopaedia Britannica [3], any however, as such an ideal form of communicative
casual user of the Wikipedia system can identify a action can never be fully realized. Habermas indicates
range of minor errors (e.g., spelling, grammar) simply that true discursive action is “counterfactual,” in that,
by browsing through a few articles. Thus, one is left to given the human condition, it does not exist in its pure
question whether or not a theoretical discourse (i.e., form. Yet, when Habermas wrote the bulk of his
based on evidence and logic) will be undermined by corpus, the Internet was in utero, and a Wikipedia-type
the potential inaccuracies of the evidence presented. discourse was largely inconceivable. Now, with the
A second key challenge involves the intentions of emergence of Wikipedia and other contexts for web-
the contributors to the systems. As Denning et al. [1] based communication, the question may well be
note, “You cannot know the motives of the whether such discourse is truly counterfactual.
contributors to an article. They may be altruists, While the case that we have considered illustrates
political or commercial opportunists, practical jokers, the potential of discursive progress within Wikipedia,
or even vandals” [p. 152]. Despite the issues that it also illustrates the medium’s continued dependence
Wikipedia encounters with vandalism, the last of these on legitimate, institutional forms of authority. In the
possibilities may be the least problematic in the long Wikipedia venue, the force of the argument is a driver
run. While blatant vandalism is relatively easy to of acceptance by the editorial community, but the force
address, the impact on the quality of an article from
Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07)
0-7695-2755-8/07 $20.00 © 2007 8
Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2007
of the argument is largely derived from the sources that an ideal state. Wikipedia articles are rarely marked by
it brings to bear – sources that in turn derive their an appropriately neutral point of view and balanced
authority from their institutional legitimacy. For treatment when they are introduced, but it is hoped
example, in its guideline on reliable sources [23], (and believed) that such characteristics will emerge as
Wikipedia advises contributors in the evaluation of the community hones its efforts. In a very real sense,
sources, including an emphasis on reviews by only time will tell.
scholarly publications. This indicates that often the
crux of any article can be influenced by factors that are
inconsistent with the spirit of various forms of critical 5. Conclusion
social theory, of which Habermas is one
representative. In this essay we have argued that Wikipedia
In a general sense, critical theorists challenge the represents a form of rational discourse. While we
authority of prevailing institutions, which perpetuate acknowledge that the Wikipedian discourse is not quite
the “ideological manipulation” from which such ideal in meeting all the Habermasian requirements for
theorists seek to liberate human actors [8]. Therefore, discursive action, we argue that the consistencies with
an inevitable weakness of a medium such as Wikipedia the theory are quite evident.
is the dependence on the very institutions that While other forms of discourse are used as
rationalize and often oppress humanity, from the examples by Habermas (i.e., law, science), none exist
perspective of the critical theorist. without institutional influence. We believe that
Such an argument has been made in the IS Wikipedia offers a unique instance that is truly
development literature. While various methodologies democratic.
can claim to be emancipatory at various levels [7], Future research will focus on the nature of rational
Wilson [25] argues that such methodologies are really discourse as it is exhibited by Wikipedia. In our
no different from the traditional control-oriented example, we indicated that theoretical discourse came
practices they claim to replace. But just as IS first, while explicative discourse largely followed, long
development methodologies may not be entirely after agreements were generally established. By
emancipatory in line with the ideals of critical empirical analysis of the contours of a wider range of
theorists, one can say they are more emancipatory than Wikipedian discourses, we may gain insight into
prevailing methods. Emancipatory practices such as a patterns associated with communicative action.
socio-technical systems focus [14] and participatory Such data is now freely available and without the
design [2] promote greater discourse and control for institutional taint of previous examples of discursive
users over their own destiny relative to traditional life- action. Never before has such research into rational
cycle methods. discourse been possible.
In much the same way, Wikipedia offers an
example of a reference medium that is more
emancipatory than prevailing monolithic institutional
authorities. What is of particular interest is not how 6. References
close Wikipedia comes to the ideal, but the freedom it
[1] Denning, P., Horning, J., Parnas, D., & Weinstein, L.
grants to its users relative to prevailing forms of (2005). Wikipedia Risks. Communications of the ACM,
communication. Other forms of emancipatory systems 48(12), 152.
may also be emerging with the proliferation of Internet
technologies, such as the open-source software [2] Floyd, C; Mel, WM; Reisin, FM; Schmidt, G; Wolf, G;
community [16] and phenomena such as blogs and (1989) “Out of Scandanavia: Alternative Approaches to
podcasts. Of particular note is that these potentially Software Design and System Development,” Human-
emancipatory systems were generally not designed Computer Interaction, Volume 4, 253-350.
with an emancipatory agenda in mind. Rather, their
emancipatory features have emerged with adaptation [3] Giles, J. (2005). Special Report: Internet encyclopaedias
go head to head. Nature, 438, 900-901.
and use. This is a powerful insight for the future
design of emancipatory, democratic systems. [4] Habermas, Jürgen (1984) The Theory of Communicative
A final consideration is the role of time in the Action, Volume 1: Reason and The Rationalization of
emergence of the discursive context. The leaders of Society, translated by McCarthy, Thomas, Beacon Press,
the Wikipedia project have echoed Habermas in their Boston, 1984.
assertion that the quality of the discourse on the system
demands patience and sustained effort in the pursuit of
Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07)
0-7695-2755-8/07 $20.00 © 2007 9
Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2007
[5] Habermas, Jürgen. (1980) "Discourse Ethics: Notes on [15] Ngwenyama, O.K., & Lyytinen, K. (1997). Groupware
Philosophical Justification." Moral Consciousness and Environments as Action Constitutive Resources: A Social
Communicative Action. Trans. Christian Lenhart and Shierry Action Framework for Analyzing Groupware Technologies.
Weber Nicholson. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1980. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 6, 71-93.
[6] Habermas, Jürgen (1976) “What is Universal [16] Raymond, Eric, S. (2001) The Cathedral and the
Pragmatics?” in Cooke, M. ed. (1998) On the Pragmatics of Bazaar: musings on Linux and Open Source by an
Communication, MIT Press 1998 accidental revolutionary, Second Edition, O’Reilly & Assoc.
(originally published in 1999).
[7] Hirschheim, R., Klein, H., & Lyytinen, K., (1995)
Information Systems Development and Data Modeling: [17] Sanger, L. (2004). Why Wikipedia Must jettison its
Conceptual and Philosophical Foundations, Cambridge Anti-Elitism. Kuro5hin, December 31. Available at:
University Press 1995 http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25
[8] Kincheloe, J. & McLaren, P. (2003): Rethinking Critical [18] Sharrock, W., & Button, G., (1997) “On the Relevance
Theory and Qualitative Research, in Denzin N., Lincoln Y. of Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action for CSCW,”
(eds) The Landscape of Qualitative Research – Theories and Computer Supported Cooperative Work 6, 369-389, 1997.
Issues (2nd edition), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 433-488.
[19] Viégas, F.B., Wattenberg, M., & Dave, K. (2004).
[9] Klein, H.K., & Huynh, M.Q., (2004) "The Critical Social Studying cooperation and conflict between authors with
Theory of Jürgen Habermas and its Implications for IS history flow visualizations. Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Research," in Social Theory and Philosophy for Information Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
Systems. J Mingers & L Willcocks (eds.) Chichester: Wiley, (Vienna, Austria), 575 – 582.
157 – 237
[20] Wickipedia Contributors. (2006). History of Wikipedia.
[10] Leuf, B. & Cunningham, W. 2001. The Wiki Way: Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved June 13,
Quick Collaboration on the Web. Boston: Addison-Wesley. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia
[11] Lyytinen, K. & Klein, H. (1985) “The Critical Theory of [21] Wickipedia Contributors. (2006). Researching with
Jürgen Habermas as a Basis for a Theory of Information Wikipedia. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved
Systems,” in Mumford, E., et al eds, Research Methods in June 13, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researching
Information Systems, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., with Wikipedia
North Holland, 1985.
[22] Wickipedia Contributors. (2006). Wikipedia: Copyright.
[12] Lyytinen, K., & Hirschheim, R. (1988) “Information Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved June 13,
Systems as Rational Discourse: An Application of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright
Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action,” Scandinavian
Journal of Information Systems, ZV.4, Issue 1, 1988, 2. [23] Wickipedia Contributors. (2006). Wikipedia:Reliable
Sources. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved June
[13] Lyytinen, K., & Ngwenyama, O., (1997) “Sharrock and 13, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Reliable_source
Button… and Much Ado about Nothing: How to Build
Windmills in CSCW Research and Attack Them,” Computer [24] Wickipedia Contributors. (2006). Wikipedia:
Supported Cooperative Work 8, p.285-293, 1999. Verifiability. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved
June 13, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
[14] Mumford, E. (2003) Redesigning Human Systems, Idea
Group Inc. [25] Wilson, F.A.., (1997) “The Truth is Out There: the
search for emancipatory principles in information systems
design,” Information Technology & People, 10(3) 187-204.
Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07)
0-7695-2755-8/07 $20.00 © 2007 10