Maybe I shouldn't love Weinberger's Everything is Miscellaneous, since I'm an academic and "academics aren't supposed to love (more) popular books." Neither are academics "supposed" to like scholarship that does not take a highly critical (or reflexive) stance toward the ideas they are reporting. After all, wasn't this the crux of my criticism of Lisa Nakamura?
In spite of my initial, short-lived skepticism, and my status as an academic, I love Weinberger's book. The book does have quite a few problems in terms of diction (sometimes I found myself cringing at his phraseology), and I'm not quite sure I agree with his finite distinctions among "orders of order"; I wanted him to present more discussion of where and how these terms function. And he does seem more than obviously hopeful about the potential of the internet to bridge community and social barriers toward a truly "miscellaneous" body of knowledges, which I am not sure I buy or believe is possible. Reference: last week's discussion, for example.
But, overall, I am willing to overlook these issues because the ideas he discusses (how knowledge is structured and the ways in which physical/material space limits, and contributes, to knowledge) fascinate me. Little things like card catalogs or, for us, meaningless numbers on products signify a whole world of non-miscellaneous knowledge for Weinberger, which in turn has played a key role in determining such things like "what is a product?" or "what counts as a book."
Among the various fascinating things Weinberger discusses, his report on Wikipedia was particularly interesting for me. Why? Because of this sneaky little term Wikipedia uses, called "neutrality." Readers, note that at this point I am neither faulting WP or Weinberger; I am just exploring the potential of this term. For me, "neutrality" is somewhat problematic, as might be expected, since I believe that no knowledge can be neutral. Unlike Wales, who "is not interested in French philosophy," I am. However, I'm intrigued by how Wales -- the founder of WP -- dismisses this as "not" a political or "philosophical" term.
The community of WP allows and enables "neutrality" because it encourages readers/writers to constantly edit the entries. Weinberger details how WP readers might annotate the entries in favor of words that more suit their interests/beliefs. His best example is of John Kerry's medals: whether they are "combat" medals or "service" medals. While one might suggest that "medals" works better than either "service" or "combat," or even that it's irrelevant whether he won medals at all, at the same time this kind of collaboration -- what Weinberger calls "democracy of knowledge" -- showcases the beauty of websites like this one and subverts authoritative structures.
I totally dig this, since I didn't know readers of WP could do this. I didn't know that they could read comments, etc, or add sentences about controversies that allow other readers more insight. I am even going to develop a lesson plan for my ENG 101 class based on writing communities and decisions from WP. But somehow, Wales' assertion that a page is "neutral" when readers stop changing it just doesn't sit well with me.
And here's why: it's all about the effect. Our class discussion on Thursday made clear the power of continued effect on viewers. In our case, then, WP readers might not realize the constructed (and, in some cases, highly contested) nature/origin of WP entries. Additionally, Weinberger's analysis does not account for the more "savvy" user who does not participate in, or see, the additions. In short, it's about use. That is, if a user is looking on WP for something specific, the knowledge will, most likely anyway, be valuable for various purposes, and since the medium calls for a transactional use (you look something up, you find the info, and then you move on), more sustained scrutiny is generally not built into the "WP gaze." Of course, this might be because a lot of things on there are already "neutral" -- at least per Wales'/WP's standards -- and thus might not require a more critical glance.
At the same time, though, the very fact that WP can be used continually in this way, proves that, just like the relentless barrage of (seemingly) insignificant images/articles from People create an effect of passivity, WP might/can/does encourage a similar passive or, at least, acritical stance toward the information. The effect of "neutrality" in entries, then, engenders more acritical looking/ viewing/searching on other pages. This brings up the question of whether we should be critical of everything in front of us, which obviously takes time, as well as the question of what to do when we need "quick" knowledge -- can't we just take it and go?!?
Of course. When you need it, you need it. I'm not saying we should have our critical helmets on at all points; sometimes, we just need to know, quickly, who the 33rd President of the US was, the first woman doctor, or the history behind the Magna Carta. And Weinberger does a great job of demonstrating that the connections between "facts" or "pieces of knowledge" and how they are used, play out in the "third order of order." He's right, in this case, that the internet makes all kinds of connections possible for all kinds of reasons; it's the use to which knowledge is put that makes the difference. But, back to the idea of WP and the "myth of neutrality" it promises: it's not that we can't know these things and get them quickly. And it's not that we don't use them for our own means, which, Weinberger points out, is the very definition of "resistance." The problem lies in the effect of being "fed" "neutral" information, regardless of political beliefs or philosophical tastes. In other words, it's not so much whether you're "enlightened" about how knowledge cannot be neutral, but rather that WP writers/readers assume that information on WP should be neutral.
Put in a better way: maybe what we should be teaching our students when we warn them against using WP in research papers, etc, is how they should use WP; even better, that the effect of continuously relying on others to get our information for us -- i.e. decide what "counts" as the background or "facts"-- creates the issues. Despite WP's efforts at making its info "neutral," and despite Weinberger's efforts at painting a truly revolutionary portrait of WP (and, don't get me wrong, I love the possibilities it opens up!), in the long run it comes down to the idea that someone is deciding something for us. And that, my readers, is the long-term effect I fear the most.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
When I deal with Wikipedia in my classes, I say, "If you actually CITE Wikipedia in your paper, you will get an automatic failing grade on your paper. That said, feel free to use it as a jumping-off point to other sources that are actually good."
When I use Wikipedia, I DO look at it critically, for exactly the reasons you mention in this post. I take nothing at face value, particularly as regards political/controversial topics, and I make sure to independently verify the listed sources, because I assume that someone has an agenda. It IS useful for quick reference, but my God! I would never use it to answer a reference request at work, because a work that is so editable isn't DEFINITIVE, by definition.
Maybe this is just my training as a historian? No good historian takes ANY primary or secondary source document at face value. For primary documents, the question is, "Why did the author choose to present this particular perspective in his/her narrative?" For secondary documents, the question is, "How is the author marshaling the sources to support his/her argument?" And so it goes with Wikipedia.
I agree with you that just because an article doesn't have a "disputed neutrality" tag, that doesn't necessarily make it ipso facto neutral. I would qualify that argument, however, by saying that the article is "neutral ENOUGH" for the purposes to which it should be put, i.e. quick, personal reference that will allow you (or your blog readers, as the case may be) a baseline to conduct further research as needed.
Now, of course, a lot of people WILL use it as an authoritative source, which is why the warning referenced in the beginning of the post is issued as soon as my students start THINKING about writing their papers ;) But I, at least, am careful to go over what use Wikipedia DOES have for students in terms of the ready reference and/or clarification and/or baseline establishment. They're welcome to START there, says I, but if they FINISH there they're in for a world o' hurt come grading time.
(Oh, and Wikipedia Talk pages, in addition to being useful for examining the motives of article authors, are often hi-larious. I highly recommend the Rush Limbaugh talk page in particular. Good times, good times.)
Yes, me too. I believe that WP does encourage a critical viewpoint, especially in that it presents all kinds of context and evidences rhetorical choices. But my argument is not "against" WP, per se; rather, it's the discourse of neutrality I find problematic here, since "neutrality" begs the question of "neutral for whom"?
I am not saying that I think or believe identity should always be a factor online or anywhere else. I am saying, however, that the collective and continual effect of pursuing neutrality, hides and masks so much that it affects the ways we think of knowledge in general.
Perhaps it's about "neutrality" being one discourse among many, which is what I think Weinberger might be trying to suggest. WP makes qualifiers, such as "the neutrality of this article is in question," which Weinberger seems to think is a good thing. And I'm willing to agree, mostly. I'm still somewhat skeptical of the overall effect(s) it has.
YOU and I read critically, but much of us don't. And the question becomes whether to "punish" students for citing WP in their final papers. I've done it, too -- and I'm not convinced it's the best way to go. This is because I've been trained to question the academy and power structures within it. I guess, in the final analysis, it comes down to a few things:
1)Overall, continual, long-term effects
2)authority/power of knowledge
3)The USE to which that knowledge is put
4)One discourse among many... and how we make sense of them.
Hope this helps.
'But my argument is not "against" WP, per se; rather, it's the discourse of neutrality I find problematic here, since "neutrality" begs the question of "neutral for whom"?'
OK, I can see that. But, in that case, what good does a "disputed neutrality" tag do? You're still dealing with the discursive problem you reference in your post. To me, at least, "neutrality" in this context refers to an article which at least makes an attempt to be even-handed, i.e. mentions both the good and bad of the subject and/or treats the controversies surrounding it. (I was going to use "objective" but then I remembered that there's no such thing, in history or otherwise. Poor Leopold von Ranke spins in his grave whenever 21st Century scholars talk about historiography ;)
Is this always going to give the fairest result? I dunno. I admit that my idea of 'even-handed' is different from that of a Republican activist, for example, but I like to THINK that I'm willing to take the bad lumps with the good for writing something like this...
'YOU and I read critically, but much of us don't. And the question becomes whether to "punish" students for citing WP in their final papers. I've done it, too -- and I'm not convinced it's the best way to go. This is because I've been trained to question the academy and power structures within it.'
And? I know you want to meet the students where they are, but I think this issue is a case where you absolutely HAVE to shake them out of their comfort zones. Healthy skepticism is not just useful in academics, but in just about any field that I can think of. Any worker who takes everything he/she reads literally is setting him/herself up for bad times in the future.
Auto-failure is a bit harsh, perhaps, and I usually don't ACTUALLY fail my students for it. What I do more often is treat Wikipedia cites as non-cites, complete with the "Source?" comment in each instance of same, so when they ask me why they got a C- for insufficient citation of sources, I refer them to the course's Wikipedia policy and their notes on same. I'm not a TOTAL bastard-- I allow them to rewrite the paper with appropriate sources, most of the time-- but I've also never had a student who put forth even minimal effort cite Wikipedia in two papers in a row.
(Holy long comments, Batman. I should put this much effort into writing, you know, ACTUAL blog posts :P)
Your writing has made me curious, Sarah, about one of the possible critical positions one can take with Wikipedia: that of entry writer/contributor -- and there are degrees to that position too, ranging from being the first person to post an entry on some topic to being a spell-checker.
But to partake in adding or editing means one feels confident in partaking in the "discussion" (or is "building" more apt?). One feels that a topic needs to be added or "fixed" -- and so one is aware (necessarily?) of the easy malleability of the entries, their contingency and construction -- and so one would always be hesitant to take any position as fixed, neutral, final... perhaps?
This is more and more making me think that asking students to write Wikipedia entries could help them consider the contingency of much knowledge (as a colleague of mine up at MTU used to ask students in a second-year writing class to do, after they'd researched local topics).
Hmmmm.... some good openings here....
I have to say that I strongly disagree with the idea of failing students for citing Wikipedia. Now, I am a Librarian-in-Training, so I understand the power of a reference source as much as the next person, but to say that a student will earn a failing grade for citing Wikipedia? Obviously, it shouldn't be the entirity of their paper--their only references, but it is a source. No, it is not a primary source, but unless a paper specifically asks for primary sources, then citing Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia should not be considered a "failure". Perhaps a cause to pause and question... as any source might be apt to do. "Is this the best possible source here?" "Could you have found someone with more authority?" A valid point for discussion, yes, but for failure? Of course, I am a bit biased in that I taught a juvenile detention center for two years, so to have my students cite anything was cause for excitement. Still, I consider it valid discussion. In fact, in a graduate library science course which I recently took, there were some answers which COULD only be discussed using Wikipedia. Our professor would intentionally plant questions in our weekly assignments which would force us to go to Wikipedia, as all of us LiT's had it so ingrained that Wikipedia was WRONG, DAMNABLE, and well, really... just plain wrong.
Post a Comment