User:Rgathercoal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By training, I study organizations within a framework that is based in communication, linguistics, semiotics and philosophic perspectives. I have a PhD from Purdue University in Organizational Communication.

Have taught advertising/journalism (about 10 years at Purdue, been a small business and not-for-profit organizational consultant. Have taught in MBA programs. I am permanently disabled with a bone condition. Extensive pain medication keep me from participating except in spurts.

I believe in the Wiki principles but find myself wondering if there are not some invisible structures that might be privileging certain voices while hushing others (not preventing, just hushing). It is difficult to accomplish the merging of material from thousands of areas of study and interest while keeping the discourse basic enough that non-specialists (those who have not learned the argot of the disciple in question) can participate in a meaningful way along side of the experts.

There does seem to be huge faith in (perhaps honestly) the reasonable contributions will prevail. It seems more likely that as an expert dips in somewhere The lay conversation will be left behind.

To some extent the project recognizes this risk and takes measures to reduce the effect of such "argotizing" of the discussion. Indeed, once you begin discussing an issue in the language of those whose life work in centered around the issue, you will need to either say "thank you, we'll take it from here" to the lay contributors, or spend much time unpacking all of the historical context of the field, accepted sensibilities among those who study a certain topic, and lay aside the assumption that the participants will have a core understanding of some issues key to the discipline's development.

In one sense we can guard against this by structuring in systemic safeguards (our own little form of "peer review" is placing the delete button in the hands of anyone who wants it. There is a danger, here, in that it becomes relatively easy for someone who has much more time to devote to forming a wiki article than does your typical working student/researcher has.

Given the amount of time it takes to make any sort of significant non-vandalising (in the "this is impossible to explain in this amount of time--go ahead, say whatever you want") contribution, it would be a strange exception for the working professional to withstand an even superficially engaged campaign by a couple of pre-teens with some six or more hours each night to keep things interesting. . .I would assume that "interesting" in this sense (cf "interesting as engaging") would be a serious blow to the project's credibility.

Wikipedia deserves to be taken seriously, as a forum in which there are fewer unified editorial constraints (to avoid appearing as a collage of materials from authors who have never had the need to consider the advantages of a unifying structure underpinning the huge amount of material in a general encyclopedia. This freedom has the potential of allowing each general area of understanding to employ an editorial sensibility that makes sense for each "sort" of article.

This deserved recognition, however, will not happen if it becomes too easy for trivia to dominate the discussions. Tautologically a general encyclopedia of understanding must choose some contexts to foreground, while backgrounding (or even deleting entirely) other contexts.

For example:

while Professor Hawking has proven amazingly innovative in his careful use of technology--embedded in overlapping communities within the academic and research worlds--one should be able to expect that any general encyclopedia covering the professor will focus on his contributions to physics, and to a lesser extent, the particulars (even with their "WOW!" factors) of the technology he uses--especially the technology that impacts more on helping him cope with the everyday demands of the small things most take for granted. There are sites that focus on just this (even a part of his own "personal" page explains some of the details, although constantly drawing the reader to focus on Professor Hawking's contributions rather than on one particular set of obstacles he has needed to overcome.

This portion of that shows how he is able to prepare to lecture and to carry on the demands of author. He also functions as celebrity/inspirational figure to some because of his ability to live despite his physical condition (and inescabably accusatory to others "why can't you dial the telephone" and help with chores--look what this man does!") While any university would certainly adjust their expectations for a faculty member who has the record of accomplishments and worldwide visibility of Professor Hawking, there are also many demands which must be met in order to continue as "professor."

Yet it should be assumed that in a general encyclopedic the theories of Hawking would be expected to occupy the center of things.

I wonder about how often our Wikipedia is pushed in the direction of "human interest" rather than on "notable impact." While the majority of articles do cover the "important stuff" it seems there is tendency to tack onto the end of most entries some "human interest" bit. This is not bad in itself, but taken as a whole and in terms of the effects of "stewardship of readers' attention" it could blunt the reputation and therefore the utility of this project.

In a traditionally prepared encyclopedia an editorial board would make this sort of judgment and the result is a work with a consistent voice.

As with most traditional-vs-nontraditional stories, there is always a trade-off. Perhaps the world has enough of the "single voice" products and that part of Wikipedia's contribution to our level of informed discourse is to round things out by providing the counter-example--passed over by each individual encyclopedia and therefore not ever represented. Perhaps even some character which could be represented by, say, "19% total value" (these valuations are so ridiculous--I hope I will have the time to come back and do something else her to make the point) would never be given ear in a work seeing itself as the best encyclopedia of its (__fill in the qualifier____) --who would ever pick a 19% over a 81% factor?--there is advantage in at least one work covering that perspective less we have a thousand doing the larger and none offering the latter feature.

I hope to (clean up and) continue to add to this reflection. There are some fascinating possibilities within the Wiki structure. Collaborative work is not well thought out, at least among people whose work tends to involve their minds running as they sit at a desk. We know much more about collaborative work among those whose bodies are active!