Every college student has used it, some much more than they should, for everything from getting last minute information for a paper due the next day to simply providing hours of entertainment. Wikipedia.org, one of the most popular encyclopedia sites on the Internet, provides its users with a gateway to information about almost anything they can think of. The site is used by millions each day, and people take the information they see on the site as trustworthy fact. Why do people put so much trust into a site that is written by the everyday man? The answer is that even the almighty Wikipedia has a Leviathan that rules over it. This Leviathan ensures that those who post on the site are posting factual and verifiable information. If it is not valid, it allows for the information to be edited or deleted, creating the social norm of posting accurate information on the site.
People come to know that they should post accurate information on Wikipedia due to the fact that the rules for posting are listed when a user attempts to post. Wallace would call this the “Sign on the Door”. Without the subtle cues available in face-to-face interaction, “stronger measures are needed to get the job done, and the blunt sign on the door is one example” (Wallace, 66). The rules are posted in clear view so that any user thinking that they will post false or copyrighted information are reminded of the fact that doing so is not acceptable on the site. With rules such as, “Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*,” (Wikipedia, Online) it is made clear that these actions are intolerable. They also know that if the content they publish that does not conform with the rules it be changed, “If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it” (Wikipedia, Online).
The Leviathan enforces the norm in one of two ways. The first way is by complete removal of a user’s post from the site. If an administrator or viewer of Wikipedia notices that someone has posted false or copyrighted information, they have the ability to delete the whole post or simply the section which contains the problem. Another way to enforce the Leviathan is by editing the post to make it correct or stating that the information may not be completely accurate [ex: “Some information, such as the circumstances of the person's death and surrounding events, may change rapidly as more facts become known” (Wikipedia, Online)]. Both of these measures are examples of Wallace’s “Arched Eyebrow”, in which, “group members will escalate their pressure to ensure conformity by simply raising a virtual eyebrow, reminding the offender gently-or not so gently-that certain behavior is not acceptable” (Wallace, 66). In the case of Wikipedia, the warning is not so gentle, as when a user’s post is edited or removed.
http://comm245blue.blogspot.com/2007/10/a61-smoldering-in-flames-of-forums.html
http://comm245blue.blogspot.com/2007/10/assignment-6-is-that-oj-in-that-cup.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Wikipedia is a great example of the idea of a Leviathan and how it relates to the norm. Your post does a good job in describing not only how the Leviathan works in regards to the code of conduct posted on the site, but your incorporation of Wallace's other ideas like the raised eyebrow and the sign on the door demonstrates how much of these things exist in most online spaces.
Ian,
I also liked your post because it included mentions of The Leviathan as well as Wallace's reproaches. There have been many times when I look for something on Wikipedia only to find that the profile has been locked, making it un-editable. I think that you could have mentioned a little more about this happening since most of the time when the Leviathan enforces the norm on Wikipedia, they not only change the incorrect information but they also lock the site down so that no one but them can ever edit that post again.
Sometimes I wonder how the Wikipedia Leviathan can tell everytime something is added to a post, or how they classify something as normal or true when it is a topic that cannot be strictly defined in encyclopedic terms. In these cases, I guess the arched eyebrow comes into play where someone raises an initial flag and the problem simply continues to escalate until it is fixed.
Ian,
I also liked your post because it included mentions of The Leviathan as well as Wallace's reproaches. There have been many times when I look for something on Wikipedia only to find that the profile has been locked, making it un-editable. I think that you could have mentioned a little more about this happening since most of the time when the Leviathan enforces the norm on Wikipedia, they not only change the incorrect information but they also lock the site down so that no one but them can ever edit that post again.
Sometimes I wonder how the Wikipedia Leviathan can tell everytime something is added to a post, or how they classify something as normal or true when it is a topic that cannot be strictly defined in encyclopedic terms. In these cases, I guess the arched eyebrow comes into play where someone raises an initial flag and the problem simply continues to escalate until it is fixed.
Post a Comment