"(Critical) Discourse Analysis" on Wikipedia

[GABRIELLA MODAN]

I think it's a great idea to do a collaborative edit to the Wikipedia entries; if this happens (I'm avoiding agency since I myself don't have the time to get the ball rolling on this, although I'd be happy to edit/contribute at a later stage) I think it's also really important to include an explanation of what we changed and why in the history link. (The history link is a link where you can see various changes that have been made to entries and people's justifications for them. These links are actually often way more interesting than the entries themselves.) I'm pro-wikipedia, and disagree with Celso that the best way to correct untruths is to discredit wikipedia. I think there's merit in joining the system and taking some responsibility for spreading knowledge about our field in a form that's easily accessed by people outside the rarified world of discourse analysts -- isn't that the point of doing CDA work??

Galey Modan

----- Original Message -----
From: Phil Chappell <philchappell at MAC.COM>
Date: Saturday, March 11, 2006 8:02 am
Subject: Re: "(Critical) Discourse Analysis"  on Wikipedia

> Dear Tuen,
> 
> I don't know too much about the workings of the supposed freely  
> produced Wikipedia, but I have noticed one trend in the past few  
> years when I have intermittently used it - postings on large 
> topics  
> such as CDA or DA or a major name in a field e.g. Vygotsky http:// 
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vygotsky have tended to be briefer and  
> definitely the voice of fewer contributors. I spent some time 
> several  
> years back contributing to the entry on "zone of proximal  
> development" and "scaffolding", two widely used constructs in  
> education. None of my original contributions remain and a 
> monoglossic  
> tone of brevity pervades those pages.
> 
> I would be happy to contribute to your project for CDA on 
> Wikipedia,  
> however should we first check on the stability of contributions? 
> It  
> seems to me that a privileged group are somehow able to hold on to 
> 
> editorial rights.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Phil Chappell
> AUA Language Centre
> Bangkok, Thailand
> University of Wollongong
> New South Wales, Australia
> 
> 
> On 11/03/2006, at 6:46 AM, Teun A. van Dijk wrote:
> 
> >
> > Dear friends,
> >
> > I do not usually look up Wikipedia when I need to know something 
> I  
> > do not know, although the idea of a shared net-cyclopedia is 
> great,  
> > and I wished we had something like that for discourse studies (I 
> 
> > proposed the idea some years ago, but it did not work out 
> because  
> > of technical problems: on which server to put it, etc...).
> >
> > However, if you type in "Critical Discourse Analysis" or 
> "Discourse  
> > Analysis" in Google, as undoubtedly many students do, then you 
> also  
> > hit on the Wikipedia definitions - and on some surprises, such 
> as a  
> > mere two books being mentioned as references for DA, one of 
> which  
> > is... Austin's How to do things with words: Check it out for 
> yourself:>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_Analysis
> >
> > as well as some other confused, misguided, etc, statements like:
> >
> > Thus, most discourse analysts following Harris have conducted 
> work  
> > that falls under the heading of “pragmatics” in modern 
> linguistics,  
> > rather than “syntactics,” though many discourse analysts would  
> > reject linguists’ tripartite division of the main 
> characteristics  
> > of language--the third characteristic being "semantics."
> >
> > (...)
> >
> > Critical discourse analysis, which combines discourse analysis 
> with  
> > critical theory (particularly that of the Frankfurt School, 
> Michel  
> > Foucault and Jacques Derrida, as well as literary, semiotic and  
> > psychoanalytic influences from Julia Kristeva, Roland Barthes, 
> and  
> > Jacques Lacan), to create a politically engaged form of 
> linguistic  
> > discourse analysis.
> >
> > Of course this is no drama, but always worrying about what 
> students  
> > learn, I find this at least a bad example of a Wikipedia entry. 
> Or  
> > maybe I simply have no idea who of all these French heroes were  
> > actually CDA-ers avant la lettre... Jaques Lacan a CDA-er?
> >
> > The item on CDA has the following surprising statement:
> >
> > In terms of method, CDA can generally be described as hyper- 
> > linguistic or supra-linguistic, in that practitioners who use 
> CDA  
> > consider the larger discourse context or the meaning that lies  
> > beyond the grammatical structure.
> >
> > Obviously, this has little to do with CDA (or is a raving 
> triviality).>
> > Just check it out:
> >
> >  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Discourse_Analysis
> >
> > And while you are at it, also check the (basic) entry on Discourse:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse
> >
> > where you can read initial statements such as:
> >
> > Discourse is a term used in semantics as in discourse analysis, 
> but  
> > it also refers to a social conception of discourse, often linked 
> 
> > with the work of French philosopher Michel Foucault (1926-1984) 
> and  
> > Jürgen Habermas' The Theory of Communicative Action. Even though 
> 
> > each thinker had personal and incompatible conceptions of  
> > discourse, they remain two important figures in this field;  
> > Habermas trying to find the transcendent rules upon which 
> speakers  
> > could agree on a groundworks consensus, while Foucault was  
> > developing a battle-type of discourse which opposed the classic  
> > marxist definition of ideology as part of the superstructure).
> >
> > Now who in contemporary DA recognize themselves in this 
> statement  
> > as an introduction to contemporary discourse analysis? Habermas  
> > (with all due respect for his work) as the leading scholar in 
> the  
> > definition of 'discourse'?
> >
> > So, WHO IS WRITING THIS NONSENSE?
> >
> > I thought that Wikipedia editing was meant to correct obvious  
> > errors, add new references, or add an obvious point that had 
> been  
> > forgotten, but not that people who have no idea (re)write items...
> >
> > I also discovered that I am (still) described in Wikipedia as a  
> > text-linguist -- that is, by someone who has not read his (?)  
> > discourse analysis literature for some 30 years...
> >
> > In sum, this is not doing Wikipedia or our students any good, so 
> I  
> > propose at least some of us jointly compose some items on (C)DA  
> > that can be warranted as more or less representative of the 
> field,  
> > then to be submitted to (for instance) this list, with requests 
> for  
> > corrections and additions, and then we post it on Wikipedia... 
> and  
> > see what happens to those items...
> >
> > I of course know that encyclopedia items come in many guises, 
> and  
> > reflect the interests, etc. of the writer(s), and no entry can 
> be  
> > 'objective', but I think they should at least be more or less  
> > correct, and more or less representative.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Teun
> >
> > PS. Para l at s hispanohablantes escribí entradas sobre AD y ACD 
> para  
> > la versión de Wikipedia en español -- espero que sean más  
> > representativas:
> >
> > http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Análisis_del_discurso
> > http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Análisis_crítico_del_discurso
> >
> > ________________________________________
> >
> > Teun A. van Dijk
> > Universitat Pompeu Fabra
> > Dept. de Traducció i Filologia
> > Rambla 30
> > 08002 Barcelona
> >
> > E-mail: teun at discourse-in-society org
> > Internet: www.discourse-in-society.org
> >
> > Para hispanohablantes también:
> > E-mail: teun at discursos.org
> > Internet: www.discursos.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
>