I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. , If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics). This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]
Tama Leaver discovered that you can now use Google Trends to find information on what people in a particular country and even particular city are searching for. He noticed that while the world as a whole is more likely to search for “wiki” than for “blog”, Australians started using the search term “wiki” more than “blog” last autumn. Obviously I had to try the same for Norway, and lo and behold, Norway’s like Australia, not like the world. While wikis are more popular (well, in google searches) than blogs throughout Norway, the two major cities, Bergen and Oslo, show less of a difference – go have a look for yourself.
Anne Helmond
The Dutch also show a slightly bigger difference between the two than the Australians. Wikis are newer than blogs and you can see the turning point in the Dutch statistics halfway 2005 and in the Australian statistics at 3/4 of 2005. The worldwide trend seems to be heading towards a halfway 2007 turning point. Does this mean that wikis are about to replace blogs as informational sources?
It makes one wonder.
Jill
Or maybe blogs have simply become so ubiquitous we no longer have to SEARCh for them – we find them everywhere? It would also make sense to imagine that a blog is something you read because you trust or are interested in the opinions of the writer, whereas a wiki is someting you’d trust (or at least consider) as a consensus opinion, closer to “information” than opniion?