Since we’re all getting tired of hearing Wikipedia used as an example of this or that — although I’m sure you’ll find the discussion of Wikipedia in Everything Is Miscellaneous to be minty fresh! — here’s a reminder that before the estimable Wikipedia, we were making knowledge social using humbler forms.

Knowledge has always been social, even though our metaphysics has led us to say that knowledge is a type of belief, and thus is a mental state, and thus is something inside a head. If the belief is true and justified, then the mental state gets stamped with a big, official K, preferably in some gothic-teutonic font. If not, it gets marked with a red X and your soul loses 2 points (4 if it is an essay question). Something like that.

When Wikipedia works, however, (and I think it works remarkably well remarkably often), the knowledge it contains results from a social process. Expert opinion gets rendered expert-er and more neutral by being negotiated in public.

But forget Wikipedia for the moment. Think about the mailing lists you’ve been on for years. Some of them are just for fun, but others are our best source of information, knowledge and opinion about topics that matter to us. Over time, experts emerge on the list. Their posts are listened to, but also usefully challenged and extended. The mailing list as a whole is a better source than any of the individuals on it. Mailing lists embody social knowledge — knowledge that arises through conversation and that thus is not contained in any single head. Social knowledge is among, not in.

And not just at Wikipedia.

[Tags: knowledge epistemology wikipedia listserv]