User:Rimibchatterjee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user page.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rimibchatterjee.

I am a novelist and academic based in Calcutta. My interests include history of the book, Indian writing in English, science fiction, creative writing, martial arts, theatre, gardening, and dressmaking.

1 Wikipedia: The Citizen Editor and Academia
2 My Books
3 My Site
4 My Wikipedia Page

[edit] Wikipedia: The Citizen Editor and Academia

I've just (8 February 2007) given a paper with this title at a seminar on digital computing at Jadavpur University where I work. Here's a summary of what I said. I'm posting it here in case it's of interest to other WIkipedians. If you would like to respond, leave a comment on my talk page.

I used to be a professional editor in real life, and I still edit on contract for a number of small presses. I also write fiction and scholarly works. The very different edit process on WP got me interested in the similarilties and differences with the present practice of scholarly editing in real life. The questions I'm asking are: does the WP edit process constitute a new paradigm? And if so how does it differ from and compare to present real life best practice? My guess is that the asnswer to question (1) is yes. As for the comparison, here are the ways in which WP is similar to scholarly best practice in paper encyclopedias:

1. Wikipedia uses a manual of style. WP:MOS is similar in most respects to scholarly style sheets and appears to be based on the widely used Chicago Manual of Style.

2. WIkipedia uses references. However, the use of the numbered list of references which Wikipedia sometimes applies is regarded as unscholarly in real life editing.

3. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia does not attempt to present all possible information about a particular subject, but a general summary, with indications of where more specialist information can be found, provided that there is a consensus on what is adequately 'general'.

The differences are much more exciting:

1. Wikipedia is not paper. This is a truism for most Wikipedians, but it has dynamic effects on the process of editing, which is never finished. Print editing looks to freeze the text in the best possible form attainable at that moment. Wikipedia is always, by contrast, a work in progress. Furthermore, it is a dynamic reference tool by virtue of hyperlinks, so the information deliverability of a particular article is greater than the mere text it contains. Instead of static 'Cf.' type references, it can actually provide links to take you straight to new sources of relevance.

2. Wikipedia has an explicit code of conduct, while the code of conduct in scholarly editing is largely unwritten. 'Scholars' are people who've been through a benchmarking process that teaches them the tricks of the trade (and usually gets them a doctoral degree) so that by the time they begin work they are acculturated and know the basic rules. Since the WP community is much more diverse and unstructured, WP has to acculturate people on the fly. Hence the huge apparatus of policy, guidelines and ongoing debates.

2. Wikipedia blurs the line between writing and editing. In real life, editing is invisible while authorship is named. On WP both are unsigned in the main article but can be recovered from the history pages of articles. Thus the very different skill sets that are attached to these jobs in real life are blurred in WP. This has the effect of despecialising contribution. Poeple contribute not only regarding their specializations (as scholars would do) but also on subjects they have a passing interest in (and would never be asked by a print encyclopedia to write about), or even (in terms of correcting literals and wikification) on subjects they know nothing about. Similarly, others may do these favours for them. For instance, I've written a large part of the OUP article because that's my specialization, but I've also added to an article on a computer game I've played, and to IIT Kharagpur (where I used to work) and other topics.

3. Wikipedia removes the curtain of secrecy that surrounds the editing process. Talk pages open up the controversies that are normally contained in private correspondence and communication between publishers and their authors/editors. This is in line with the general democratization of culture which Web 2.0 environments have made possible. While scholarly editing, whatever the fissures within (and they can be very deep) always presents a public face of bland consensus, WP lets it all hang out. It also collapses the two kinds of editing that are seen in scholarly work: the invisible, uncredited 'publisher's editor' kind of work and the credited 'celebrity editor' kind. WP allows editors to opt to mark an edit 'minor' (ie corresponding to publisher's copyediting) but does not press this distinction.

4. WP:EDIANS are not paid. All work is voluntary. However, there is a system of rewards, such as the barnstars, and also the more general satisfaction of the approbation of other editors for jobs well done. There is also the gratification of instant publishing and wide distribution, beyond the capacity of any print encyclopedia. Finally there is the satisfaction of making something better and helping the wider community. This is in contrast to the often isolating and cloistered world of scholarly work, where approbation is often thin upon the ground.

5. Wikipedia challenges its users. Since anyone can edit, if you're shocked by the awfulness of an article, you are challenged to log on and make it better. I think one reason why scholars are so reluctant to edit WP is that they are conditioned to see a work of research as someone's property. Since they haven't written it, they unconsciously reason, it's not their job to improve it. But younger shcolars are beginning to question this premise.

I began editing WP because my students kept referring to (and occasionally cogging from) its articles. Having been deeply shocked by the appalling quality of several articles, i experienced the effect of point (5) above. We also turned the tables on the students by setting them an assignment, in a course on the French Revolution, of improving or adding to articles on some of the major personalities involved. I don't see why other courses and institutions can't do the same.