Monday, April 1, 2013

Wikipedia: The Pioneer of a Public Global Discourse


            
          When using other people’s research in creating our own arguments it is important to keep ethics and fallibility in mind. Wikipedia, a medium that was once characterized as unreliable, is growing into an intellectual melting pot for scholars and enthusiasts alike. Winterowd, Hood, and Gates give insight to possible issues in creating discourse that is unclear, fallible, and offensive (ethically).
            Winterowd extrapolates how a statements structure can lead to a lack of clarity. In the public context it is imperative to have a concrete intention for writing. Winterowd states that we must know whether we are promising or stating. The mechanics behind these situations lie in propositions. Propositions can be categorized into two categories: Performative and non performative.
A performative sentence looks like this:
I (hereby) advise you to only use credible sources in Wikipedia articles.
While a nonperformative sentence looks like this:
You use credible sources in Wikipedia articles.
            Winterowd states that we gain some clarification of the nature of performatives by the fact that they can easily take the modification of the adverb hereby. As future Wikipedia authors it useful to create performative propositions (ones where hereby can be easily added) as they are concrete and leave no room for misinterpretation. Winterowd also calls attention to the creation of ambiguity via the stating of sentences in question as the object of a performative verb.
            Hood is a professor who encountered a fallible Wikipedia entry on thermodynamics. Wood edited the “offensive fragment” and followed the procedure for replacing vandalized text outlined in “Wikipedia: Vandalism.” Surprisingly, this collegiate English professor is a supporter of Wikipedia. She understands that Wikipedia provides the opportunity to write for an audience that LITERALLY responds. As knowledge seeking individuals it is important to see fallible information as an opportunity to move discourse forward. We need to understand the consequences of the way we compile the content of entries if we are going to be creating Wikipedia entries.
            The global community that Wikipedia creates is unique and is intended towards being a medium for the most current and relevant information on topics. Hood encourages her students to look into Wikipedia as it offers information created by a diverse set of authors. She points out that students currently have a less predictable understanding of audience due to their high use of digital and virtual environments. This being said, the authors of a single Wikipedia article can come from 3 different continents. It’s exciting to think that an American student can simultaneously be working on the same entry as an Asian student 6 time zones away. If done correctly Wikipedia offers an international platform for the growth of knowledge. Wiki authors should look into Wikipedia’s citation tips and keep in mind that a reference that has already been published is deemed as more credible than an unpublished account.
            Logically, Gates is covered last in this post, as he seems to sum up the ideas of ethics and fallibility in the public expression of complex topics. Gates is a strong believer in the humanities. The Internet has catapulted global communication in such a significant way that we need to learn to embrace its uses. Gates states:
We need to reform our entire notion of core curricula to account for the comparable eloquence of the African, the Asian, the Latin American, and the Middle Eastern traditions, to prepare our students for their roles in the twenty-first century as citizens of a world culture, educated through a truly human notion of the humanities.
            As a student I find it overwhelming to think that I am in fact participating in a global community when editing Wikipedia entries. Gates’ suggestion is that universities require students to take humanistic course in efforts of expanding boundaries of social tolerance. It is human nature to be less likely to be open to unfamiliar things. Mandating students to learn more about other cultures can be useful in avoiding fallibility and creating non-offensive content. The more aware students are of other culture the more direction they have in creating discourse that invites more discourse to be created.
            For example, though not institutionally mandated, I participated in an international program and lived in Spain for 5 months. The perspective I gained from the experience has affected my work ethic and consideration for other cultures in my arguments. I visited an Islamic country where women still face suppression and lived in a country where quality of life came before productivity.
            It is naïve to assume that Wikipedia authors come from a homogenous group. As the population of educated individuals is exponentially diversifying the content will also become more diverse. This is an amazing opportunity to gain knowledge through perspective; the best part of all is that it can all be done in the comfort of your own home or office.
             


3 comments:

  1. You really helped clarify for me Winterowd’s ideas. I was confused by what exactly he meant by adding the hereby into the sentence. But after reading this I understand that adding this leaves no room for misinterpretation by a reader. It makes for a stronger statement. I think this is particularly important when working with Wikipedia because objective third parties are so closely monitoring it. I do think I need to understand more about how this type of sentence analysis is implemented into such realms as Wikipedia as opposed to others like blogs and newspapers. Why is it important that we read this type of grammatical analysis now in conversation with the Wikipedia page as opposed to earlier in the semester?
    I love how you highlight the idea mentioned in Hood’s piece that the audience is LITERALLY responding. This is something that we often forget is such a unique facet of our current time and technological place in history. This really made me consider what this audience participation does to the writer and reader to know that one’s work will be immediately critiqued and reinterpreted/possibly remixed.
    I think this idea you bring up that Wikipedia can serve as a common connector for the globe is what I so heavily attached to in my reading of this week’s selections. Wikipedia is constantly changing and growing because users around the globe are constantly accessing it. This relates to the idea that a global connectedness can lead to a more dense pool of knowledge. It seems simple that we should want to pool our resources!
    I like your personal example of your travels overseas. It is key to remember that we all come from a very unique background. No two humans have had the same maturation experience. It is almost overwhelming to think of just how complex this web of knowledge could get if we deemed every single person’s history as valid and useful. Every conversation becomes more credible and in depth the more experts and vantage points present – a conversation between a Buddhist and a Christian has much more context and global understanding than one between two Christians of similar up-bringing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I really appreciate your expansion on Winterowd's piece as well. It was the one I probably struggled with the most. But after reading how you broke down his interpretation of clarity, his article made a lot more sense. It is all about being absolutely, without a doubt clear about the ideas you are trying to communicate to your audience. Especially with such a diverse writing and editing community in place, I can only imagine that this will be one of the elements we will have to work closely with while composing our own Wikipedia article. We can't explain or elaborate our intentions to our readers in person so we instead must make sure that our ideas are communicated effectively and with clarity.

    I'm glad you included Gates' interpretation of the global community when composing in the Wikipedia platform. It is something I talked a lot about in my own post this week. We must be mindful of our own cultural influences we bring to a work whether we are part of the writing, reading or editing community. Each person is different and will bring variations of analysis to the same text that may not be shared with anyone else. It is uniquely their experience. Yet the articles published through Wikipedia are constantly being edited and added to by contributors from across the world. It would be impossible to publish any text that could satisfy all of these cultural variances. I agree that it is important to be mindful of our positions in this global community as we continue with our own Wikipedia projects.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think you do an excellent job explaining the concepts of both articles. I find that the tone in which you right is attention grabbing and understandable. I think after reading your blog post i was able to understand what the piece was really saying and i was able to grasp the important concepts. I think the importance you put on the use of performative propositions is going to help all of us in our Wikipedia writing journey. It is a key note to keep in mind. I believe that it is imperative to create a solid understanding in writing and I agree that there should be no room for interpretation within a Wikipedia article. I also like how in your description of Hood you included not only the fact that there is a diversity in writers and editors, but that students don't necessarily think about it or understand it. I think your personal example is a great attention grabber and an excellent way to tie in the concepts of the post.

    ReplyDelete