I’ve been thinking and reading about the notion of authorship recently, and came across an article by James Purdy about the nature of Wikipedia. I thought it was interesting as a standalone piece about how collaboration and editing influences the idea of the “author” and what it means to create a work, and so I’m going to summarize it below. Please leave your thoughts and comments in the comment section.
Firstly, in James Purdy’s article, he argues that “Wikipedia supports notions of revision, collaboration, and authority that writing studies purports to value, while also extending our understanding of the production of knowledge in public spaces” (Purdy 351). Until the introduction of Wikipedia, authorship had an exclusive connotation to it, where a title or a level of expertise was required to contribute. Purdy describes the creation of Wikipedia as “a never-ending process of negotiation among multiple positions rather than the advancement of the single ‘correct’ one.” It is not only about having a collaborative effort. Rather, what Wikipedia is doing is revolutionary. It is a publicly accessible forum, which allows its users to constantly and consistently grow, develop, and evolve the ideas that are being shared. Putting it another way, encyclopedias need to come out with newer versions to combat changes. Wikipedia is constantly becoming a newer, refined version of itself.
What this means, he argues, is that Wikipedia wants to expose the “messy processes that happen behind the scenes.” When students realize these messy practices that lead to knowledge and understanding, they will be more comfortable taking part in these practices.
In this view, Wikipedia really is a community of author-users, a never-ending chain of knowledge, where every contribution is welcomed. This term author-users refers to the idea that those authoring the piece are the ones who are using it as well. We believe this creates for a stronger overall work, since the users of the encyclopedia are looking to create the greatest collaborative job that they can. The users have the perspective of an architect, not just a spectator, which creates a community of users who are constantly striving to improve on the site’s mistakes.
Purdy further elaborates that disputations and arguments are praised as well, since it is all a part of idea development. One of the main complaints against this whole notion is that Wikipedia is not scholarly. In response, Purdy explains that Wikipedia is not meant to be scholarly. For this reason he explains that the majority of the edits that are done on Wikipedia are “substantive rather than correctional” (355) . A common jab is that those “weeding out” the wrong information on Wikipedia are not experienced authors, and they may not be doing a good job at “weeding.” However, in a study versus the Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia was about as accurate in the posts that were looked at.
We as writers should be comfortable knowing that the finished product does not come right away. It takes time and effort to develop one’s ideas and create a well-written piece, and we should welcome setbacks and bumps since they only lead to improvement. Second, if there is one thing this article and our class have taught us, it is that working in groups and discussing your ideas with others helps tremendously. It is important to be open to criticism because every single person brings a unique talent and insight that someone else may not have thought of. Please let me know your thoughts.
EDIT 1: I’ve just noticed how this whole blog is a collaborative and edit-filled process. It’s just like Purdy says about Wikipedia. It’s never fully done or published as we’re constantly engaging and publishing all the time through comments (and even this edit).
EDIT 2: Thanks to anonymoususer321 for pointing out that Wikipedia’s authors are available, and that Wikipedia does not remove the idea of the individual’s place in authorship (see: Foucault). I’ve changed the piece to reflect this better.
Purdy, James P. “When the Tenets of Composition Go Public: A Study of Writing in Wikipedia” College Composition and Communication, 61.2 (2009) W351-73. Web.
Picture from https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Wikipedia-logo-en-big.png
