Wikipedia in HEL

Before reading this, be sure to see the poem posted by Danielle in the last entry (I would link to this, but it doesn't appear that I have the editorial power to do it yet).

Below is some work I've been doing on Wikipedia as a both a lexical resource and collaborative model of knowledge production. I thought I'd share this with you because it is of direct relevance to the interests of our club and I'd ideally really love some feedback on it. This Thursday I'll be presenting a version of it at the UMass Boston Educational Technology Conference. As you'll see, it's written for an audience of educators, but I hope you'll find it interesting for your own purposes and research. Also, one of esteemed members is obliquely referenced in the essay - can you figure out who it is?

Wikipedia in HEL

As I was considering the title for this presentation, I realized that the popular acronym for the History of the English Language (HEL) invoked a diabolical and pedagogically appropriate image for my use of Wikipedia in this course. After all, if educators had the power to condemn internet sites to a kind of cyber-hell, I'm almost certain that Wikipedia would be first on the list of the damned. As one recent article puts it, "Want to stir up a room full of college faculty and librarians? Mention Wikipedia."<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[i]<!--[endif]--> The reasons behind such animus are many and, in some cases, justified. After all, Wikipedia operates under the controversial premise that anyone, from the credentialed academic to the high school dropout, can edit and contribute to this online accumulation of knowledge about the world. What disturbs most of us about such a democratic encyclopedia is not necessarily its open or collaborative nature – instead it is what we assume is our students perception and use of the information gleaned from this site. We wonder: don't all students assume that all Wikipedia entries are true? This assumption is confirmed when we encounter Wikipedia citations displacing scholarly ones in student papers. Isn't this a problem?

I want to begin this presentation by offering my answer to this question. Yes, I think this is a problem. However, I do not think this is Wikipedia's problem. Nor I do I think the problem is as pervasive or significant as we fear it is. To allay our anxieties, I believe it's important to know that Wikipedia's model for such collaborative production of knowledge is centuries old, originating in early medieval practices for accumulating and organizing information about the natural world in manuscripts that could be expanded, glossed, and illustrated by and for an increasingly popular readership. One of the earliest encyclopedias, the Etymologies, was produced in the seventh century by the recently named patron saint of the Internet, Isidore of Seville, in an effort to compile the sum of human knowledge about the world into one text that could be used as both a popular reference and scholastic work. His text is not “original” in any sense of the term, for it is a distillation of the knowledge produced and verified by the classical authorities he cites. An early twentieth-century scholar, Ernest Brehaut, condemns Isidore for his slavish reliance upon Greek and Latin authors and what he calls his "pseudo-science based on authority, the conspicuous tendency to confusion and feebleness of thought, [and] the habit of heedless copying that we find in an aggravated form in the Etymologies."<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[ii]<!--[endif]--> I think many of us would be tempted to denounce Wikipedia on these same grounds, for its entries can be perplexing, simplistic, and derivative. And like Isidore's reliance on previous "authorities," information found in Wikipedia entries is authorized based on whether or not it can be verified – that is, the research must be unoriginal and can be found elsewhere, such as in a scholarly publication or a popular website.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[iii]<!--[endif]--> As Mathieu O'Neil puts it, "Wikipedians are concerned with verifiability rather than truth."<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[iv]<!--[endif]--> For many of us, this privileging of textual authority, particularly over empirical truth, undermines the reliability of Wikipedia and Isidore's Etymologies.

The reliance of these texts upon the "wisdom of the crowd" has not, however, mitigated their vast influence. Isidore's encyclopedia survives in hundreds of manuscripts (“hundreds” is astounding for a medieval text) and its numerous citations in subsequent texts demonstrate its pervasive use. As Martin Irvine contends, "It was a text held in common that, along with the Scriptures and Donatus [another vastly influential scholastic text], one can safely assume almost every library would have possessed."<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[v]<!--[endif]--> The same can now be said for Wikipedia’s establishment within the digital world. At last count, Wikipedia now boasts fifteen million entries in 270 languages.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[vi]<!--[endif]--> And in a recent survey of college student use of Wikipedia during the research process, 52% of respondents claimed they used the site often, even when its use was forbidden by their instructors. By contrast, only 22% claimed that they didn't use Wikipedia regularly.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[vii]<!--[endif]--> In other words, these encyclopedias are virtually immune to our excommunications of them from sanctuaries of higher learning. Users will continue to descend even to the depths of “higher education” hell to access these undeniably useful resources.

Before we beat our breasts in despair, I want to suggest that there are significant educational benefits of such collective notions of textual authority. One such positive consequence of collaborative productions of knowledge is what I call a compilational awareness. That is, readers and writers of collected texts, such as encyclopedias and wikis, develop an understanding that these texts have been compiled from multiple sources or authors. Irvine suggests that this sensibility is a fundamentally premodern one:

The reason that Isidore's work has often been written off or denigrated by modern scholars – that it is a derivative, unoriginal compilation – was the very reason for its popularity throughout the Middle Ages and early Renaissance . . . The form of textuality at work can be understood through the notion of the writer as compilator, one who selects material from a larger cultural library and whose resulting compilation is an interpretive arrangement of the discursive traditions in which the writer intervenes. The compilator makes explicit the writer's function at the level of textuality: the compiler sets up a dialogue between prior texts and the interpretive discourse of his own community, isolating or bringing into focus a pattern in the larger network of texts that forms the library. In short, the notion of the compilator opens up the question of the intertextual dimensions of writing, both the awareness of this principle by medieval writers and readers themselves and the historical conditions for writing and interpretation that function impersonally and unconsciously.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[viii]<!--[endif]-->

Medieval readers of Isidore's Etymologies understood that this encyclopedia was not only a dialogue between classical and medieval writers, but also Isidore's unique intervention in an ongoing compilation of knowledge production. Likewise, most readers of Wikipedia understand that its entries are works in progress compiled from a variety of sources that must be verified. In the study of student Wikipedia usage cited above, a mere 16% of survey respondents believed Wikipedia to be more credible than other websites. Some students even characterized their use of Wikipedia in a way that is highly dialogic – that is, they assumed that information should be double-checked and substantiated by other sources.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[ix]<!--[endif]--> This compilational awareness acknowledges the complex network of encyclopedic knowledge, which users must view in dialogue with its many sources.

For some us, compilation may sound like a euphemism for plagiarism. In fact, Isidore anticipated allegations of fraud by offering a definition of his authorial role as a compilator in the style of the Roman poet Vergil: "Conpilator, qui aliena dicta suis praemiscet, sicut solent pigmentarii in pila diversa mixta contundere. Hoc scelere quondam accusabatur Mantuanus ille vates, cum quosdam versus Homeri transferens suis permiscuisset et conpilator veterum ab aemulis diceretur. Ille respondit: 'Magnarum esse virium clavam Herculi extorquere de manu'" [Compilator, one who mixes things said by others with his own words as paint dealers are accustomed to pound together various mixes in a mortar (pila). The Mantuan poet [Vergil] was once accused of this crime when, transposing certain verses of Homer, he blended them in with his own and was called a plunderer (conpilator) of the ancients by his rivals. He replied: 'to wrench the club from the hand of Hercules is to be of greater power'] (10.44).<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[x]<!--[endif]--> For Isidore, such a compilational awareness fosters a reading culture in which textual authority resides with the most recent user of textual knowledge. As Irvine puts it, "[C]ompiling means transferring textual power from the hand of a former holder to that of the present compiler. To compile is to rewrite and to perpetuate authority."<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[xi]<!--[endif]--> Such use, selection, and combination of previously written material is not simply a mindless deferral to classical authority – it is an audacious assumption of textual power.

Like Isidore’s Etymologies, wikis such as Wikipedia are collective texts through which anyone, even our students, may “wrench the club from Hercules” and contribute to knowledge production. When I teach the History of the English Language, I try to convey to my students that such textual audacity has been a driving force for the rise of English as the ubiquitous language of global authority. Isidore’s encyclopedia is an appropriate starting point for teaching HEL because the title of this work, Etymologies, is informed by its organizational principle, which is based on the origins of words, the key to what he believed were transcendental truths.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[xii]<!--[endif]--> Isidore explains that "Etymologia est origo vocabulorum, cum vis verbi vel nominis per interpretationem colligitur. Hanc Aristoteles σúµβολον, Cicero adnotationem nominavit, quia nomina et verba rerum nota facit exemplo posito; utputa 'flumen,' quia fluendo crevit, a fluendo dictum. . . Omnis enim rei inspectio etymologia cognita planior est” [Etymology is the source of words, when the force of a word or name is inferred by interpretation. This was termed 'symbolon' by Aristotle and 'notatio' by Cicero, since it produces a sign (nota) by the names and words of things in a given pattern; for example, a 'flumen' (river) is so called from 'fluendo' (flowing) because it arose from flowing . . . An examination of every thing is clearer by knowledge of its etymology] (1.29). This notion that “truth” could be discovered through linguistic origins is an attractive perspective on the power of language to serve as a means to understand the world. This lexical core of the Eytmologies also happens to inform popular use of Wikipedia, which is often used as a dictionary rather than an encyclopedia.

Furthermore, the development and growth of Wikipedia is based on the same principles as most descriptive lexica, even the most authoritative dictionary of English in the world, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). The OED was, and continues to be, written based upon linguistic evidence provided by its readers. During its early stages, the OED was compiled from slips of paper that were submitted to the editor James Murray in response to his democratic call for contributions that was published in the May 10, 1879 issue of The Academy. The call reads, “This is work in which anyone can join. Even the most indolent novel-reader will find it little trouble to put a pencil-mark against any word or phrase that strikes him, and he can afterwards copy out the context at his leisure. In this way many words and references can be registered that may prove of the highest value.”<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[xiii]<!--[endif]--> From the “most indolent novel-reader” to the most erudite academic, the OED became a linguistic compilation of English usage. Compare this call to the following exhortation to Wikipedia editors listed on the “Introduction” page: “Don't be afraid to edit — anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved and make it better - for example, spelling, grammar, rewriting for readability, or removing unconstructive edits.”<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[xiv]<!--[endif]--> This call is devoid of any reference to “indolence,” but it essentially advertises its work in a crucially similar manner. Like Isidore’s medieval readers, users of the OED and Wikipedia are invited to intervene and actively participate in the development of these compilations of knowledge.

Because I believe such a compilational awareness and call for participation are central to an understanding of the History of the English language, I decided to have my HEL students write their own Wikipedia-like pages on linguistic topics ranging from the Great Vowel Shift to text messaging. Prior to this experiment, I had used a course wiki only one time, an experience that taught me that it was a mistake to require that students write pages collaboratively. The required collaboration stifled their creativity and their investment in the selected topics, which led to pages that had an ad hoc quality about them – pages were sewn together like the incompatible appendages of Frankenstein’s monster. For this HEL assignment, students only collaborated if their common interests compelled them to do so, which in at least one case proved successful. Three students shared a common interest in the history of the English dictionary, which led to the creation of an enchanting page titled “The English Dictionary from Past to Present.”<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[xv]<!--[endif]--> Two of the wiki writers became particularly interested in Samuel Johnson and created a link to a new page entirely devoted to the writer of one of the first English dictionaries.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[xvi]<!--[endif]--> As much as I was delighted to read these pages, which were deliciously chockfull of information and helpfully linked to other sources and websites, the pages still exhibited uncertainty about the protocol for collaborative writing. For instance, the “Samuel Johnson” page includes two paragraphs of introductory text that were clearly written by each student at early stages of the page and never deleted once the page was completed. One of the contributions reads, “For this assignment, I plan to explore the details of Johnson's work (specifically in terms of his writing of the dictionary), and show ways in which his work effected Modern English, and ways we use his work everyday, without even thinking about it.” Each student failed to delete these early drafts, which suggests to me that they were either hesitant to delete each other’s work or simply neglected to edit carefully. In this case, their compilational awareness may have been undermined by their respect for each other’s individual contributions.

Overall, the development of these dictionary pages was a pleasure to witness, but I must admit that the previous example was only one instance of collaboration in the midst of numerous isolated efforts. In fact, if you read the list of pages in the right hand column of the course wiki, you can see by the titles alone that many of the pages could and should have been combined under common headings. For example, two excellent pages on writing technologies, “Language and the Word Processor” and “Language, Technology, and Media” were written separately without any acknowledgement of each other’s existence.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[xvii]<!--[endif]--> Even though these entries demonstrate what I have been describing as a compilational awareness through their use and citations of multiple sources and convenient hyperlinks, they only exhibit an intensive, rather than an extensive, reach. That is, their perspectives within the network of the course wiki are insular, focused on individual concerns at the expense of the larger collective text.

I continue to see the educational benefits of collaborative forms of knowledge production, but I think my experience with my course wiki in HEL and our shared concerns about student use of Wikipedia should challenge us to consider carefully the complexity of new literate practices, such as postmodern compilation, and what their prehistories can teach us. Somehow Isidore’s “pseudo-science” and the OED’s “indolent” readers managed to produce both popular and authoritative information about the world through untraditional modes of expertise. Wikipedia, it seems to me, offers our students yet an even more accessible and efficient model for sharing knowledge, but we have to identify the limitations of such collaborative writing and adjust our pedagogical practices to negotiate the dynamic nature of digital literacy. To do so requires that we acknowledge the potential of wiki writing and release Wikipedia from its imprisonment in pedagogical hell. As Murray says, “This is work in which anyone can join,” so let us join in wrenching the club from Hercules before the herculean potential of Wikipedia passes us by.

<!--[if !supportEndnotes]-->

---

<!--[endif]-->

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[i]<!--[endif]--> Alison J. Head and Michael B. Eisenberg, "How Today's College Students Use Wikipedia for Course-Related Research," First Monday 15.3 (1 March 2010): 1-13, http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/

view/2830/2476 (accessed April 27, 2010).

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[ii]<!--[endif]--> Ernest Brehaut, An Encyclopedist of the Dark Ages: Isidore of Seville (New York: Burt Franklin, 1912), 42-3.

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[iii]<!--[endif]--> "Five Pillars," Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_pillars_of_Wikipedia (accessed on May 5, 2010).

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[iv]<!--[endif]--> Mathieu O'Neil, Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes (New York: Pluto Press, 2009), 150.

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[v]<!--[endif]--> Martin Irvine, The Making of Textual Culture: 'Grammatica' and Literary Theory, 350-1100 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 210. For the reception of the Etymologies, see C.H. Beeson, Isidor-Studien (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1913); Bernard Bischoff, "Die europäische Verbreitung der Werke Isidors von Sevilla," Mittelalterliche Studien I (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1966), 171-94; Marc Reydellet, "La Diffusion des Origines d'Isidore de Séville au Haut Moyen Age," Ecole Française de Rome: Mélanges d'Archéologie et d'Histoire 88 (1966), 383-437.

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[vi]<!--[endif]--> "Help:About," Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:About (accessed on May 5, 2010).

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[vii]<!--[endif]--> Head and Eisenberg, "How Today's College Students Use Wikipedia for Course-Related Research," 3.

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[viii]<!--[endif]--> Irvine, The Making of Textual Culture, 241-2. See also Neil Hathaway's "Compilatio: From Plagiarizing to Compiling," Viator 20 (1989), 19-44.

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[ix]<!--[endif]--> Head and Eisenberg, "How Today's College Students Use Wikipedia for Course-Related Research," 9. See also, Sook Lim’s “How and Why Do College Students Use Wikipedia?” Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology 60.11 (November 2009): 2189-2202.

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[x]<!--[endif]--> The Latin text, here and in subsequent citations, is from the edition by W.M. Lindsay (Oxford: Clarendon, 1911).

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[xi]<!--[endif]--> Irvine, The Making of Textual Culture, 242.

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[xii]<!--[endif]--> Brehaut, An Encyclopedist of the Dark Ages, 15-34.

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[xiii]<!--[endif]--> This call was titled, “Appeal to the English-Speaking and English-Reading Public to Read Books and Make Extracts for the Philological Society’s New Dictionary.” For a discussion of this publication, see Seth Lerer’s Inventing English: A Portable History of the Language (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007), 236-7.

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[xiv]<!--[endif]--> “Wikipedia: Introduction,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction (accessed on May 6, 2010).

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[xv]<!--[endif]--> “The English Dictionary from Past to Present,” Wikipedia in HEL, http://engl440 mueller.wikispaces.umb.edu/ The+English+Dictionary+from+Past+to+Present (accessed on May 7, 2010).

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[xvi]<!--[endif]--> “Samuel Johnson,” Wikipedia in HEL, http://engl440-mueller.wikispaces.umb.edu/Samuel+Johnson (accessed on May 7, 2010).

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[xvii]<!--[endif]--> “Language and the Word Processor,” Wikipedia in HEL, http://engl440-mueller.wikispaces.umb.edu/Language+ and+the+Word+Processor (accessed on May 7, 2010); “Language, Technology, and Media,” Wikipedia in HEL, http://engl440-mueller.wikispaces.umb.edu/Language%2C+Technology+and+Media (accessed on May 7, 2010).