MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131692788 · doi:10.29173/irie250

Towards Emancipatory Use of a Medium: The Wiki

2004· article· en· W2131692788 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anja Ebersbach, Markus Glaser

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Information Ethics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWikis in Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpenness to experienceCommercializationThe InternetWorld Wide WebNew mediaSociologyComputer sciencePolitical sciencePsychologyLawSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the rapid growth of the Internet in the 1990ies due to the WWW, many people’s hopes were raised that the spirit of egality, the emancipatory power of the medium then, would be brought to the masses. With the increasing commercialization, the net became and is becoming more and more a one-way medium for advertising. Against this development, a new form of web pages has emerged and is becoming increasingly popular: the Wiki. Its distinctive feature is that any web page can be edited by anyone. Participants attribute the success to this openness and to the resulting collective production of content. In his 1970 article “Constituents of a theory of the media”, Enzensberger developed a list of seven criteria that qualify, in his opinion, the use of a medium as emancipatory. These are used to investigate the question: Can wikis be thought of as a new form of emancipatory use of the medium?

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0100.047
Scholarly communication0.0220.038
Open science0.0010.017
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Review of Information EthicsSame topicWikis in Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207