draft

Ethos of Authority

Beyond tagging is the collective creation of new content, in which participants write their own sense of matters. Setting aside the traditional print model of publication (editors, fact checkers, referees), Wikipedia opens up issues of expertise, authorship, authority, "neutral" stance and language, textual negotiations, the place and use of encyclopedias in culture... Traditional encyclopedias are written by experts in a field, fact checked, refereed by other experts, and edited: they gain their authority and value by this process. The authority of Wikipedia, so the argument runts, rests on its collective nature and the ability of anyone to contribute and edit the work. At the center of discussions about Wikipedia is the authority we're willing to grant the work. The idea is that when an article is written by many hands, it will be more comprehensive, more complete, and so more accurate, than an article written by a small number of experts.

Genre comes into play here. Behind the claims about Wikipedia stands the idea that an encyclopedia is valuable for its appearance and reputation of accuracy. Readers go to Wikipedia to see what it says about a subject, to gain presumably accurate information about the subject. Readers go to Wikipedia out of convenience, as well; they may have a copy of Encarta in the drive but don't use it. Writers - typically student writers - cite an encyclopedia as a point of authority. Typically, experts in a field may refer to Wikipedia but they don't cite Wikipedia - or any encyclopedia - as evidence of authority.

In our consideration, we'll step outside the fray to look at what's happening rhetorically.

Some issues

• The capability to determine the authority of any particular entry by the expertise of the author might be attenuated in Wikipedia. So what makes for an authoritative entry? How do writers create an authoritative ethos for particular entries?
• What makes for appropriate use of Wikipedia? Who can use it for what on what subjects with some reliability?
• The credibility of Wikipedia might rest on features other than publisher authority. So what do readers of Wikipedia value about the work? Convenience? News-worthiness? Multiplicity of views?

Starting points

• http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=1395
• wikipedia details

Project: Collectively write a Wikipedia-liike article on X.