This study is about Wikipedia which defines itself as a free online encyclopaedia. Our chief interest lies in the debate and the controversy which has arisen around Wikipedia. After reading critical articles concerning Wikipedia we found that the debate for most parts had one identifiable theme namely the question whether Wikipedia is an encyclo-paedia or not.
Encyclopaedia as a term and a phenomenon has a long tradition. Wikipedia, despite calling itself an encyclopaedia, functions differently in comparison to more traditional encyclopaedias. These traditional views involve encyclopaedic structure, its organiza-tion and its functions. On the other hand there is Wikipedia, its structure, organization and functions are in many cases different and sometimes even opposite to these values.
In order to understand the debate we had to inquire into the diverse perceptions which enclose the term encyclopaedia. To do that we have chosen to analyse the debate about Wikipedia through the contrast between modern and post-modern epistemologies and their views on the terms truth, knowledge and information.
Through our analysis we have analyzed a selection of articles on Wikipedia?s site, which pertain to Wikipedia itself. We have also analyzed a selection of relevant articles that criticise Wikipedia. We have done a rhetorical analysis in order to expose the as-sumptions and presuppositions hidden beneath the different statements made by both sides: Wikipedia and its critics. With that in mind we have chosen Fairclough?s critical discourse analysis (CDA) as a tool to carry through our analysis as well as to get a higher understanding for the various problems pertaining to this thesis.
Our conclusion is that the central term of the debate is selection. The more traditional encyclopaedias are characterised by making selection as to who will be permitted to contribute to encyclopaedias and as to what information and knowledge ca...
