This is where we’ll discuss “Reviewing the Author-Function in the Age of Wikipedia,” Amit Ray and Erhardt Graeff in Originality, Imitation, and Plagiarism: Teaching Writing in the Digital Age.
I included this piece for a couple of reasons. First off, I like the way that Ray and Graeff more or less summarize some of the key theories from Roland Barthes and Michel Foucault about the fuzzy nature of authorship in a “post-modern” world. Now, Barthes and Foucault shaped their theories based in their philosophic and historic interpretations of texts and cultures and their understanding of the relationship between reading and writing. They didn’t have in mind anything like the Internet, let alone Wikipedia, but their notion of authorship being “a contingent affair” certainly is applicable.
Second, they do a decent job of introducing Wikipedia and wikis, something we’ll certainly talk about more in a couple of weeks. Actually, there’s something about this part of the article– the last couple pages seem like it was edited down to me in some way because it all seems kind of quick to me. But like I said, we’ll read a lot more about wikis soon.
I have to say that I found this article really interesting. I haven’t really heard much on the idea of authorship and on the history/theory resting behind it. I especially liked the ideas shared about Barthes: “Barthes makes the case that any analysis of iteration and representation must consider the social, interactive, and communicative function of language, and not just the biography, psychology, and intentionality of the author…” I must admit that I have done very little reading on Barthes and Foucault. But, this piece has inspired me to change that.
Besides this idea of authorship in the reading, it also spurred on thoughts about wikis. In my classes in the past, I would do a fun assignment where the students would collaborate on a class-composed story. Each person would write a section and then we would paste them all together. The students always responded really positively to it and were so interested to see the finished product. The stories were often better than imagined and brought dozens of perspectives and writing styles into a cohesive piece. I think this speaks to the multi-authored approach that wikis promote. The idea of a single author is all fine and good, but wikis applaud the idea that more heads are better than one. I realize, however, that giving the ability to hundreds to edit a single piece can lead to errors and false information. Wikipedia was thought of as the devil when it first came out because teachers didn’t trust something that could be changed by any old person off the street. It is my understanding, though, that sites such as wikipedia are getting a lot better about double-checking edits and making sure that things are accurate.
Even so– a question to my classmates– do you give credit to wikis? Do/would you allow your students to cite wikipedia as a viable source? Do/would you put any stipulations on it?
Ashley, that activity sounds really awesome. Do you have a “lesson plan” or handout for it? i’d love to have a copy if you don’t mind!
We’ll read an interesting take on this from Clay Shirky in a couple weeks– I think that’s on my plans for reading at least.
BTW, I don’t think wikipedia really qualifies as a “source” for academic research either, but I also don’t think that any encyclopedia counts as an academic source. Wikipedia/encyclopedias can get you started with some general information and point you in some worthwhile directions for research, and, for most things, that’s probably enough. But if I am really looking deeply into a topic of some sort, then I’m going to move beyond wikipedia/encyclopedias pretty quickly.
In response to your last question, Ashley, five years ago I would not have neccessarily trusted wikipedia myslef, and I would have encouraged my students to be very cautious about what they were citing from it. But, I think it’s gotten ALOT more reliable. You certainly always encourage students to check their facts, no matter where they come from. But I still hear people rip on wikipedia and express a strong distrust of it, and honestly, I think it’s generally become a very relaible source of info. When I read entries about topics I know a lot about, I usually find that it is quite accurate and it is certainly one of the first resources I use to get a basic understanding of unfamiliar things. I don’t trust it completely, but I take it for what it’s worth.
I think talking about the pros and cons of anything that we find anywhere is the way to go. I have students us wikipedia as their first source and they say that for many of them it tells them nothing new or is too general. If you have them really look at the sources they are using it is helpful. I mean you can have an academic article that is very biased and that is no good either.
I think, Dave, that this relates with the DeVoss and Rosati article. Perhaps we can allow wikipedia as a source if students are willing to evaluate the information and find out if it is credible or not– whether this is by checking other sources or whatnot. But, as I think about that, doesn’t it still put wikipedia in a lower realm– where it can’t be trusted unless the information can be found in a secondary source? Grr. I suppose I might be an information snob, too, Angie! Although… I want to be reformed. This multiple/unknown authors thing is just a little hard to trust. I’m glad we’ll be discussing wikis in more detail later! I’m still curious to know what others think!
I definately see your point, Ashley. But maybe (I’m just theorizing here) the whole problem IS the hierarchy we’ve created. Maybe we take for granted that single-authored, print texts are more reliable than multi-authored annonymous texts. Honestly, maybe we should have been as critical of the info found in traditional encyclopedias as we are w/ wikipedia. And, maybe it’s taken the shortcomings of wikipedia to help us de-romanticize the idea that certain texts are more reliable than others. I don’t know…. I don’t think snobbery has anything to do with it, but I’ve definately shared your’s and Angie’s perspective on this. I haven’t read the DeVoss & Rosati article yet, but we’ll see how that affects my thoughts on the subject.
Dave, I’d have to say “yes” to the idea that we don’t take seriously multi-authored anonymous texts. When I was younger – even into middle school – I relied on the encyclopedia for a lot of information; however, as I moved on I began understand that many folks didn’t take the information found within encyclopedias to be very valuable in terms of research material.
A lot of people seem to have the same feelings about Wikipedia, it’s fine for what it is and great for looking up general information, but it doesn’t serve as a “serious source” in an academic setting. This does complicate Ray and Graeff’s argument that Wikipedia is something Barthes and Foucault were dreaming of when they speculated about the death of the author. The argument of the article is still very strong, only it makes one wonder if we should really be looking forward to the author’s death with such glee or should we, perhaps, have some apprehension.
I agree Ashlee. I wanted to run out and buy Barthes and Foucalt. I haven’t heard much about them.
If you walk onto pray harold’s 3rd floor and observe the walls each week, you’ll find that there is basically a wiki on the wall. LOL
Confessions of English students are the most interesting, I’ll admit. It’s pretty amazing, actually. It’s like a thousand voices on the wall.
Boy, this is the first time I’ve replied from a different computer. hmm. Now I have to search for a log in button.
It’s me! Renee Lindhorst!
I agree with Ashley, I thought the article was really interesting. I know we always say that collaboration is valuable in our culture and in the job market, but after thinking about this article and the wiki and joint-authorship/”serial collaborators”, is that really true? I’m not sure it is. I think we still have too much of a hold on the old notion of doing things on our own. Like we talked about at the beginning of the year, things down in books seem more official than online. We are so programmed to believe in the evils of Wiks, no one in academia can bring themselves to admit they use the source.
I think the fact that the wiki contributors can be anonymous is 1) kind of creepy to me and 2) would definitely make me skeptical. Would I take medical advice from a stranger off the street? no way! In a textbook or published article, I know who my author is, I know his or background, credentials, etc. But on a Wiki, any one can say whatever they want without having to back up their information. I know the article mentioned how fast these changes were caught and fixed, but I still think it should be run by credentialed people only. I don’t think Wikipedia is awful by any means, I guess I’m an information snob
What this tells me is that while we (teachers who assign research “papers”) have issues with students using and citing sources so many of them don’t see that there is a defining line. If they are able to go online and edit a wiki or add to a blog post or comment on someones post on FB or MySpace then they don’t see these lines as so cut and dry as they are for many of us. I think of all the retellings of folk/fairy tales or other stories. They dont see one author there either and so for them these lines are blurred as well. Also, there are times when I have had students who do copy word for word from the internet and I go do a search (a red flag goes up) and I find the same thing on several sites, so if they do as well I think their thought is that is “common” knowledge or that it is all over the place so it is free to use. The fact that I can find the same paper or information in more than 2 places online bothers me more then kids copying and trying to pass it off in a class.
I share some of your concerns too, Cristin. It seems that a lot of what is written on wikipedia is simply taken from other sites, or vise-versa. I sometimes think that the concept of “congruent multiple online sources” is a bit romaticized itself. Some poeple see something written the same on ten different sites and think, “well if all these people agree, it must be true.” But it’s often a rouse. It’s not really mulitple sources if they are essentially carbon copied from one site to another. And the perception of muliple perspectives becomes a false representation.
Maybe I’m wrong about this, but while I was reading this article I felt a little uneasy about the idea of authorship (as a single person) fading away. I certainly respect how this relates to information-based texts, and I can definately see a lot of positives coming from it. But from the standpoint of “creative” texts, it’s difficult for me to let go of the idea that a singular, authorian voice is of great importance to the act of interpretation and making meaning. Yes, we should attempt to make the reading of any text reader-centered. Yes, we should discuss it in terms of social-context and view it as an ever-evolving piece. But I don’t think that we have to de-romaticize the authorship in order to accomplish this. I don’t think it’s zero/sum. Studying a text can be, I think, both reader-centered and author-centered… maybe just not at the same time. Maybe I’m misinterpreting what they’re saying, but that was my initial reaction to the piece.
P.S. my word of the week is “palimpsest” …. was I the only one that had to look that up?
Palimpsest is a good one….
I think the romance of the single and solitary author has largely always been a myth because only a tiny handful of writers have ever really had complete and solitary control of their art. One example that immediately comes to mind I suppose is Emily Dickenson, though I don’t know enough about how she was edited after her death to say. More commonly though are the stories and legends of various editors and publishers influencing the work of the “great authors.” Recently, someone gave a “job talk” for a position in children’s literature that focused on her work tracing some of the ways that some key editors and publishers helped shape children’s literature in the middle of the 20th century. Speaking of which: it seems to me that the children’s writer Dr. Seuss had a wife who was really instrumental in his success in the “business” of publishing.
True… obviously the act of writing – particularly published writing – is almost never a truly solitary act. So, maybe it has always been a bit romanticized, particularly to those who don’t study and think about “Writing.” But, I think there’s a difference between editors and other people helping to “shape” your work with their ideas, input, and influence, and others working as co-authors and having a direct hand in writing the final text. It’s certainly a fine line. But, your point is well-taken and definately makes me rethink my perspective (and Ray & Graeff’s). I’m still not totally convinced though.
As much as anything else, I think this reflects back to the classic split between what I would generally call “new critical” criticism versus what I would generally call “contemporary” (or at least now– maybe post-structualist is better?) criticism when it comes to understanding literature. Is “the meaning” of a text locked in the text itself, presumably put there and shaped by an author, or is “meaning” something that a reader brings to a text through interpretation? I’m in the camp of the reader on this one, and if that’s the case, then we’re all “authors” as readers, at least in the way that Barthes and Foucault are talking about it.
I’m always on the fence with this issue. I find arguments for both the author and the reader to be convincing in their own way. Really, I think both work in a more symbiotic fashion than either camp would like to admit. The writer is a body of quotes but those quotes are still theirs inasmuch as their unique experience reflects them. If we argue for the reader we’re only shifting our romanticism from author to reader. We’re creating great romanticized readers. I guess I’d like to think about more like a big conversation with the author as a point of reference.
All agreeable points, but I think my feelings on it are similar to Brian’s. I mean, I certainly wouldn’t argue that meaning is “locked into the text” or completely placed there by the author. But I also wouldn’t argue that meaning is completely generated by a reader-response and context. When the author is writing a piece, (s)he is considering the audience in an attempt to serve a goal. And, I think (s)he attempts to influence the response of the audience with various strategies, at least at times. So, I guess I just believe that meaning is created in more of a shared manner, between author, text and reader, rather than being monopolized or romanticized by one to the exclusion of the others. But I definately see your point, and can see how over the last century or two, the author has been romanticized and placed on a pedastal above the reader. I guess I just argue for more of a balanced position.
Interesting ideas. Who else out there teaches high school kids?
Do you, Ashlee? Do you allow them to use Wikipedia as a cite for research papers? We definitely do NOT, but it has taken an awful lot of effort for us to get the kids to the point where they do not use it.
We have pretty much begun to accept only databases and government websites for our kids’ work and sometimes I wonder about the government databases. We do have an activity that is taught in 9th grade to our kids at their first research assignment, where they have to evaluate any source they use that is not from a trusted database. In order to do this, they have to fill out a half page form answering several thought-provoking questions about the source. We teach them how to look for special interests that might present credible information but in a biased way. I actually think if they follow our school guidelines, their research is pretty credible. Obviously, not all kids do that–and not all kids get passing grades.
Our media center person told us that there is documentation (I did not see it) that a gentleman who posed as a professor (I think from Oxford) supposedly entered over 2000 entries-many of which were bogus. I guess once the wiki people were onto him there was a way to catch the entries. Still…a worriesome problem.
What I think is so cool about Wikipedia is that it makes visible so much of the work that goes on around a text, especially those written collaboratively. As the authors point out, two features are integral to this kind of writing: the discussion feature let’s us see disagreements between “experts” on how the information should be interpreted and presented; the history feature tracks all the changes made to the document, so we can see how different people have chosen to revise the document, and how the information itself has changed over time. All of this process-info seems really rich and interesting! Professor, do you know of anyone who is studying these features, or the writing that goes on around the construction of wiki pages, or just the collaborative writing practices of wikis more generally?
Hi Judy. I taught high school English out in Vegas for 3 years and around the downriver area as a permanent sub for a few more. Right now I teach at EMU and throughout all of that time we were trying to teach the students that Wikipedia is not a credible source. No school I have ever been at has allowed students to use it in their works cited. I think as Steve mentioned earlier, wikipedias and encyclopedias are good starting places to get ideas flowing and topics generated, but once they cross that point in the research process, I think it’s time to move on from those sources. What district do you teach in? I’m looking for a HS teaching job after this semester if anyone hears anything
I teach at Allen Park and have been there since ’95. I live in Grosse Ile, but I know they have laid off teachers. If Granholm’s proposal goes through there might be a lot of jobs available this fall. We will see–not sure how the whole idea will flesh out, but if it goes through, I am sure there will be lots of job openings! Good luck.
I took C. Fleischer 530 class last semester and their was a demonstration by a high school teacher how he uses a wiki to teach HS history. Anyways I was pondering on having my JCC comp student edit a wiki AFTER they turned in their research paper. We are not allowed to use wiki’s in the works cited page but why not be an editor after the research and see if you can add anthing to the content.
“The Death of the Author to liberate the reader” is still playing in my head (41). You can understand this concept more with multimedia projects and web pages but I am not all together ready to give up the idea of a singular author. I agreewith Dave when he says there should be a balance between text, reader and author.
I think there is definitely a use for Wikipedia. I certainly allow my kids to begin with Wiki to get ideas and to check the links that are sometimes there, but never to use it as a works cited. We really do encourage students primarily to use data bases.
Another way that helps keep kids focused is to have them do an annotated bibliography–that makes them think about the value of their source. When I was at the NCTE conference this fall, that was a suggestion of several of the presentations.
Sorry, my reply is late. I am writing from a different computer.
I liked this article. I am always interested in the history of people’s ideas because I know it came from somewhere; some cultural value or belief system, or a literary texts, and many more places.
I found that I had a huge response to this article that it is probably more appropriate to write a blog about it.
But I guess I am thinking deeply about read and writer relationships and I’d like to try to identify how these relationships are changing. The changes seem subtle because most writers are already readers and it’s good if a reader can shift to a writing position.
I can’t tell you how many times, even though I am shy, I wanted to speak with the author I am reading.
But I understand the negative impact that a wiki may have on the credibility and will address this further in my blog.