Wikipedia has become an extremely popular source of information, and almost all students use it to look up something or the other. “Written collaboratively from by volunteers from all around the world,” the articles on Wikipedia can be edited by anyone who wishes to do so simply by clicking on the “edit this page” link. Such freedom grants tremendous power to its users in terms of entering in what they deem correct; users could theoretically replace correct information with rude language or false statements. Such incidences barely occur, however, and users usually remain respectful of the site and its content. People who choose to edit an article are careful to input only data they truly believe to be correct. Moreover, they are meticulous to use correct spellings, respectful language, and grammatically correct sentences. Essentially, people follow a set of norms to ensure the website remains controlled and useful.
While old users usually know the norms through use of the website, both new and old users can fully understand Wikipedia’s customs through the “Policies and Guidelines” page, which can be accessed through the main website. As Wallace succinctly states, “members of cohesive groups expect new participants to comply with whatever norms and posted signs are in place for the group, and when they don’t a reproach may be forthcoming.” Should they choose not to follow the norms, Leviathans exist to reproach them and correct their behavior.
Essentially, “the Leviathan is there…because we want the Internet to flourish…it will not unless we build a framework of trust and establish means to ensure compliance with, at the very least, netiquette” (Wallace 69). In this case, the Leviathans are other, more experienced Wikipedia editors who san be trusted to maintain order. Articles with mistakes are usually changed in lesser than a few hours by editors who routinely browse the website. Moreover, should users engage in vandalism, “Administrators” have the power to block users. To avoid being criticized, reproached by the raised “virtual eyebrow,” or exiled from the Wikipedia community, users conform to and follow the online community’s norms and standards. Thus, “the presence of some authority figure can have a calming influence and ensures participants that a means is available to resolve disputes should they arise” (Wallace 70).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Angi, I think that this dual-Leviathan concept you describe is interesting. In one sense, Wikipedia users sense the Leviathan in their attempt to avoid chaos and uncertainty. Those who use the site want to be able to trust and believe what they read, so collectively they do their best to avoid false or offensive additions to pages. This is the self-governing sort of Leviathan that Wallace describes when she explains how we give up certain freedoms to live in a predictable world. On Wikipedia, however, there is also the more tangible Leviathan of site administrators. The way I interpret your description of this Leviathan is almost a back up to the first. Most people will naturally respect Wikipedia and only put true information. Those that don’t, however, will have the administrators to deal with. The interaction between these two types of governing influences is interesting.
Hi Angi. I really enjoyed reading your block about Wikipedia. I agree with your description of Wikipedia. I also agree with your use of issues we have discussed in class and how they relate to Wikipedia. I feel that somewhat frequently, though, definitions on Wikipedia are ridiculous. I have noticed these kinds of absurd explanations showing up on Wikipedia for more controversial words and concepts, such as the Theory of Evolution and Creationism. I also believe these types of controversial topics are the most edited. I think people violate the social norms you talked about in your blog because they are so passionate about these specific issues.
Good call Angi on Wikipedia having more than one Leviathan. Of course we as the content suppliers would adhere to our own unofficial governing rules because we want to believe everything on Wikipedia is true, since it is just a convenient so. What would the point be of us putting on false information for others to be deceived by if we ourselves could be deceived as well. What goes around comes around, and we’d want to give people real information the same way we want to receive real information. That being said, unfortunately as humanity goes, we really can’t be trusted to govern ourselves. We need that higher power, those “administrators,” to block and protect the misinformation we might receive from the bad apples of the internet tree. I hate having to be weary of such a convenient source of information, but that’s the breaks.
Hey Angi, so first off all I wanted to say that the virtual eyebrow was very funny! I think that your post takes this whole new Leviathan to a new level because it is about following rules on an ethical level. I think it brings up the idea about a humane desire to uphold the integrity of the website for the sake that other people go to it for accurate information. I think it puts it into perspective what we do with our freedoms but that it is still important to have a Leviathan to make sure we do not abuse those rights. I know that I go to the Wikipedia for a source of knowledge and like to believe that people maintain the integrity of the site even though I know that some people do not care as much. Thank goodness for the Leviathan that to make sure people are at least respectful!
Angi,
I agree, Wikipedia really has become an extremely popular and powerful site. When I look up something on Google, most of the time Wikipedia is one of the first sites that pops up.
I like the fact that Wikipedia allows volunteers to edit or add information. I would think that because Wikipedia is such popular source of information, people tend not to vandalize or include false information. I know a lot of people who always go to Wikipedia to look up information and if the site is not maintained by more experienced editors, then Wikipedia would lose its credibility and no one would use it. People including myself believe that Wikipedia has accurate information. If people continually to vandalize or include false information, people would no longer trust the information they read about on Wikipedia. Hence, order needs to be controlled for the site to continue on.
Hi Angi! First, I just wanted to say I really enjoyed your post. I thought you did a great job of describing how the Leviathan functions within Wikipedia. I also applied Wallace's idea that the reason the Leviathan flourishes is because we essentially want it to. I think that it is really important to remember that in order for a Leviathan to successfully function, we must allow it to.
Post a Comment