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.

             

The Fabulous Life of Logic, Facts, Editing with Coffee, and Wikilies

Meta Discourse

            The organizational pattern the author chose is effective and helps organize the arguments. According to Kaufer this argument is working on the third conflict source level in that it makes statements and holds evidence directly supporting its claims. For example, number 8 claims that contributors with an agenda often prevail, then sites a controversial issue from 2009. The claim starts at the fact stases and ends up at the value stases as the reader begins to understand the gravity of the situation.

            In regards to the stases, I found that the statements more meaningful by organizing the arguments with the most important and effective stasis up front. This was easily fixed by changing the order the arguments were presented in. For example, argument #9 is that “you especially can’t rely on something when you don’t even know who wrote it.” A fact statement was supporting this argument; a cause stases is better fit as it presents the support in a logical manner. Since the context is lack of legitimacy it is ok to use logic rather than truth because there is no definite truth to share with the reader (Jones).  

            The juggling of truth and logic can be used to foster solid arguments. It’s imperative to know when to use them as they can avoid assumptions, which tend to weaken formal arguments. Before I changed the wording in #4 it based its discourse on values and assumptions. Now it focuses on accurate editors as opposed to active ones – active does not mean accurate.

            As an editor I found analyzing sentence structure to come naturally. I could easily assess when the emphasis was placed in the wrong part of a sentence. Staying focused on the purpose of the article helped me tweak the statements to better support the claims. I used tips outlined in elements of style that recommend placing the most important parts of the sentence at then end. I had the most trouble with finding adjectives to replace broad claims. When taking a stance on an issue it is important to use specific diction that leads readers to a concrete conclusion as opposed to one of assumptions.