This is where we’ll discuss James Purdy’s “When the Tenets of Composition Go Public: A Study of Writing in Wikipedia.”
There is a lot to digest in this essay, which just came out a couple months ago (December 2009.) I appreciate Purdy’s research model here of examining the way that some particular wiki articles that have changed/been edited (the entries for “archive,” “design,” and “writing”) because that’s a very workable methodology for studying the ways that texts change over time on the internet– not just Wikipedia. Though I have to say that I was confused about some places where Purdy is describing the particular changes to the wiki articles. For me, the bigger issue is the bigger principles he’s advancing.
First off, as he mentions on page W353 and a number of other places is that the history/archive of wiki pages is key. In fact, you could make a pretty good argument that the really interesting stuff on Wikipedia is not the pages but the discussion on these pages.
It’s come up a couple of times in our other readings, but Purdy once again raises some of the issue textual authority and authorship– I’m thinking in particular of the passages on page 356, but it comes up in a lot of other places too. I was also struck by the ways in which Purdy discusses on page W357 about how Wikipedia “exposes… the messy processes that usually happen behind the scenes,” which reminds me of the controversy that happened last year about the email exchanges between scientists about global warming.
I also like the way that Purdy discusses the whole Nature study about how accurate Wikipedia is compared to Britannica– this is on page W361 or so. I think Purdy summarizes the fears that academics have pretty well on the bottom of W361. But I also think he does a really good job of how spaces like Wikipedia open up a new sort of “empowerment” to cultivate a wider distribution of knowledge beyond just a bunch of academics.
Lots of good stuff. I really like what he says on W365: “Simply limiting Wikipedia to an encyclopedia disregards the ways in which Wikipedia can extend our understanding of knowledge production through advancing participatory models of research and writing.”
Has copyright law touched wikipedia yet? It sounds as if the collaborators are sometimes pulling a tutor.com/Purdue.
Ok Purdy said what I was trying to say before but he says it better. “Wikipedia asks us to reexamine our expectations for the stabiity of research materials and who should participate in public knowledge making.”
My version was scattered and less coherent.
The writing is different on wikipedia; if you are not using the sources as support then aren’t you trying to assert your knowledge as stable and definite, or long-lasting. It’s kind of arrogant, isn’t it?
But on the other hand, the wiki still challenges knowledge as stable and definite because it constantly changes and is debatable!!
So funny. So ironic.
I like that wikipedia has two modes: one for documents, one for discussions. Also that there is collaborative negotiation for ways the content should be structured. And although Purdy says that generalizations cannot be made about his limited example, I think it’s pretty accurate description of what’s going on.
I think there is a much needed balance when something is challenging the academy’s control over knowledge production.
Question: would creating appropriate situation to determine knowledge as true or not be referencing or citing a source? I can’t think of any other way.
mmm… I will correct what I said above, “The writing is different on wikipedia; if you are not using the sources as support then aren’t you trying to assert your knowledge as stable and definite, or long-lasting. It’s kind of arrogant, isn’t it?”
That does not pertain to areas that are easily researchable and accessible. But if someone is writing on a topic of controversy, especially one that is changing epistemology or other areas like it, I think it is better to have support to back up your claims, otherwise I think the writer’s intention is to assert facts.
Do you think that the filtering that goes on during the review process for a Wikipedia entry is inhibiting the overall collaborative knowledge-making? If someone plays the gatekeeper to information, is that method of forming knowledge really as free as it could appear on the surface?
I haven’t done research on this and I’m not completely sure if this is something that Purdy talks about or not. But I guess I’d say that I think it depends a bit on the topic of the article. I will say regardless that it is really worthwhile to take a look at the discussion and history of an article. I don’t know why, but I always refer to the entry on “Bacon.” Some of the debates in the discussion area about bacon are pretty intense….
Great point, Andrea.
I would like to think that the filtering on wikipedia is different from the academy, in it that they do not have restrictions on who is able to contribute, but what they contribute is a topic of debate. It reminds me of Plato’s Republic. I don’t want to get too far off topic but I think some people’s need for recognition and credibility is at the core of changing our learning, thinking or epistemology.
And actually, just to build off of what Renee was saying here: one of the reasons why vision that Wales and Sanger had failed– that is, a database that was more or less written/peer reviewed by academics and other experts– is that the filtering process for those kinds of things is much more laborious. I can tell you as someone who has published a few things in academic journals that it can literally take years for a simple article to get approved, because of all kinds of things, including the review process. In contrast, you post something to wikipedia (or a similar site) and boom, there it is.
Sometimes…sometimes “boom, there it is,” and, other times, your submission gets rejected. I’ve heard about this happening too.
It’s the rebel in me that likes how Wikipedia challenges the academy’s role as knowledge producers. On the issues of citations, I don’t think they’re necessary in the context of Wikipedia. I’m not saying they wouldn’t be nice in some cases; however, I think it’s fine to sacrifice citation for the quick and relatively-accurate information available on Wikipedia. Also, sometimes you will find a quality link at the end of a Wikipedia article to say, an online version of a primary source. For example, at the end of the Wikipedia entry on Plato there are some links guiding you to translations of Plato’s dialogues. Again, I wouldn’t suggest we allow the citation of Wikipedia in academic contexts, but as a place to gather a general sense about something, it’s amazing.
Well I dont think they set out to challenge it but those who are absolutes do see it that way. Instead of saying no to it use it for the advantages it can bring to the classroom.
I agree, brian, about finding good links at the end of wikipedia entries. That is one of the reasons why I think it’s a good place for people to begin their research. Not only do the articles give you, generally, a good overall picture of the subject, but they can lead you to primary sources and scholarship. Funny that you use Plato as the example, because when I had to read the Phaedrus for the first time last semester in 503, the first place I went was… drum roll please… wikipedia. Not only did the the breakdown of history, summary, interpretations etc. help me in my reading of the dialogue, but the links at the end helped me find other sources, which linked me to other sources, and so on.
To link up with what you guys are saying, that is the best part of Wikipedia and other online information sources– they’re interactive. Granted, printed encyclopedias also will often have a “See such-and-such” section for more information, but Wikipedia makes it easy because all you have to do is click. You learn more in a shorter amount of time. And, I think you guys hit it on the head, due to Wikipedia’s ever-changing information base, I would be very reluctant to recommend it as a definitive source to my students, but I think it is a great place to start your research and/or to seek further clarification or knowledge on a subject you’re interested in. I think the articles this week have not proven that Wikipedia is 100% reliable for academic sources. They have definitely explored its merits– of which it has many– but continue to bring up its downfalls, too. It is a mixed reaction for me when it comes to considering things. And, I don’t think it is because my perception of knowledge conveyance is being challenged, as Purdy discusses, but is rather because of this shakey ground Wikipedia continues to be on because of its unstability. I think it is awesome that the Wikipedia way allows for hundreds of brains to collaborate on a project and is more up-to-date… does that necessarily mean it is better? I’m not sure.
So is Wikipedia the new Sparknotes? Wish i’d have known that, I’d have gone there too, maybe I wouldn’t of had to write my paper on Nietzsche so many times
On page W355, when Purdy talks about how different author-users “transformed the discussion of Internet Archive from foundational to peripheral,” I found myself asking, “but is that how it really is? Is that right? Should it be on the periphery instead of in the main part of the article?” This impulse probably comes from always seeing only the product of the messy knowledge-making process, as well as from my expectations about what kinds of information an encyclopedia should present: definitive, unbiased, “correct” information. At the same time, though, the impulse to ask these questions is what keeps the dialogue going, the “never-ending process of negotiation” (W356).
Professor, do you know if anyone has ever done a study on who edits Wikipedia the most? I wonder if there is a specific profile of person who edits more than others, though I’m sure it depends on different article subjects and their popularity…
I like this article for three reasons. The first is he talks about the idea that there really is no current published articles out there in writing studies that examine “ideas about production, collaboration, authorship, and revision.” To me this says that the debate is all about if its good or bad. This disucssion about how a wiki is created and used is an important and because it is the writing teachers that so often talk about and teach how to do research then the disucssion is up to us to talk to our students about the uses of Wikipedia. This leads me to the other two things here. I had no clue that if I went to Wikipedia I could see the history of page revisions. This is really a cool thing and I wonder (I am thinking none) of my students are aware of that if I was not. It is really a good thing to know about . I mean its something at the top of the page but for some reason i never paid attention. When I was reading I thought I’ll look and see what he is talking about and it was enlightening. To be able to see what was edited and the changes that were made is fantastic, you dont get this when you buy a 2nd, 3rd, 4th edition of a book there is no way to tell what is new and changed. Im not comparing Wikipedia to some textbook but the idea is that we just dont know what is different and why. The last thing is the discussion part of Wikipedia. If you go in there you can see where people post about errors or misinformation. I like this and I will point this out to my students now. I mean I should have paid attention to this but I never did. This is why just dismissing something out of hand (i didnt) is not a good idea. I mean think about how this will change how we can get and give out information to others. I like what he says on page W356 “Finding the one correct answer on a topic becomes an untenable goal, shaking the foundations of writing pedagogy and resreach based on finding and citing the authortative, rights texts.” This is what a lot of students think that they have to do when they write…find the answer, but it just does not exist. There is a difference between facts and knowledge but it what is more interesting????
Yeah, those things stood out to me as well Cristin. I liked that he mentioned that, “to date, no study of Wikipedia appears in the major journals of the discipline” and found that to be really interesting. If all these scholars have such a problem with it, why aren’t they doing actual full-blown studies of the thing to prove it is “good” or “bad” one way or the other?
I too had no idea you could go in and see past pages to check and see how information has changed on the page over time. That’s really cool, but seems like it would take up a lot of space on such a program. Or does wikipedia not have “space” like a normal hard drive? I don’t know! Your final point is also really interesting. I think there might be times when there is one right answer, but for the most part, we say that we want students to make meaning through their writing, and yes, that can mean taking in ideas and info from many conflicting sources, all of which could be 100% academic in nature. Interesting.
I agree with the thing Brian said about challenging institutions, I wrote about that in my blog. I think the “Academy” and the “Institution”, like anything in life, needs some challenges in order to grow and stay current with the times. But if we’re not getting our information from the “experts” and those who are credentialed, who should we get our information from? I wouldn’t take medical advice from anyone but a doctor, and while doctor’s have been known to be wrong too, I’d still rather put my trust in them than a “friendly stranger on the street”.
Now, I use wikipedia too like I previously mentioned, still don’t think they’re a “credible” source. Useful? yes. Helpful to get a general overview of something? Absolutely. But until there are more tweaks done to it and studies done on it, I still won’t consider it a scholarly source.
Wikipedia entries are “obscure about their sources” and, like he says for most people, that gives me “discomfort with departure from scholarly citation conventions”. As Purdy mentions, Wikipedia gives access to outside sources, but nothing is really cited which creates a huge discomfort on my part. I need to know that what I am getting os coming from the best source possible. I take anything I hear in the media with a grain of salt, and I just think it’s best if we keep doing that with Wikipedia as well.
As a result of this article and of our discussion, I just looked through some wiki entries and some histories. I found a couple of contributors who claim to have made thousands of entries. Both of them indicated that their pages have been vandalized numerous times. But, each time, they were apparently restored quickly. I think it is really interesting to look at the history and see how changes have been made and what changes have occurred. I began by trying to think of a topic that would have changed so I picked the “shoe bomber”–assuming that as more information became available, and as his trial progressed, there would be updates. It was very interesting to look at it all and to see how well-developed the changes were.
Compared to a print encyclopedia, the ability to change something like this is phenomenal. I also have a new appreciation for the detail that apparently goes into some of this.
The one contributor said he is an information junkie and his work with Wikipedia had caused him to slack on his schoolwork. I guess I could see that happening!
I agree with Angie, that we need to take everything with a grain of salt, but I do have a new appreciation for Wikipedia at this point.
I like the idea of knowledge being challenged. No one is an absolute authority on a given subject, so knowledge is being challenged on Wikipedia. “Correctness still maktters, but it is extablished through a never-ending process of negtiation among multiple positions rather than the advancement of the single “correct” one.”(W356)
I love that middle paragraph. My second job is working in dr office. There is always conversation about how to treat something and it’s a team effort. That is how we should view the ever changing knowledge of Wikipedia. It grows as we find out knowledge and share it. It is a starting point for research as Brian has stated again and again.
I remember buying our first set of encyclopedias for our kids. They were old before we made the last payment. With wikipedia it grows as the knowledge is being discovered.