<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>I agree with Galey on this. I think Wikipedia
is an interesting and potentially radical resource. I like the fact that
it softens the link between <SPAN class=555315420-11032006>established
</SPAN>authority<SPAN class=555315420-11032006> (often major publishing
companies)</SPAN> and knowledge and allows for communal production of
entries. Note also that a recent evaluation in the journal
<EM>Science</EM> found that <SPAN class=555315420-11032006>Wikipedia
</SPAN>had no more more errors than the Britanica<SPAN class=555315420-11032006>
when a set of entries were compared by blind experts</SPAN>:<BR></FONT><A
title=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm
href="blocked::http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm"><FONT
title=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm face=Arial
size=2>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm</FONT></A><BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>Where you find a problem with an entry you can (a) correct it
and (b) look at the history to see its evolution. It can be a
problem where there are contested topics (in Discourse Analysis, for example,
there are competing and highly conflictual versions from the post-structural and
linguistic traditions). But even here that can be managed by highlighting
the divergent understandings. <SPAN class=555315420-11032006>When
there is one highly committed individual there can be problems with sustaining
the quality of the entry (see the entry on Harvey Sacks, including the
history). But even in cases such as these the article can be flagged as
problematic. Note that t</SPAN>he entry on discursive psychology has
been stable for some time and occasionally gets minor edits or modifications by
a range of <SPAN class=555315420-11032006>generally helpful
</SPAN>folk. I did one on Michael Billig and all the subsequent edits
have<SPAN class=555315420-11032006> improvded readability and
consistency</SPAN>.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Jonathan Potter<BR><BR>-----Original
Message-----<BR>From: Critical Discourse/Language/Communication Analysis
[</FONT><A title=mailto:CRITICS-L@NIC.SURFNET.NL
href="blocked::mailto:CRITICS-L@NIC.SURFNET.NL"><FONT
title=mailto:CRITICS-L@NIC.SURFNET.NL face=Arial
size=2>mailto:CRITICS-L@NIC.SURFNET.NL</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>] On
Behalf Of GABRIELLA MODAN<BR>Sent: 11 March 2006 20:09<BR>To:
CRITICS-L@NIC.SURFNET.NL<BR>Subject: Re: "(Critical) Discourse Analysis" on
Wikipedia<BR><BR>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??<BR><BR>Galey Modan</FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2><A
href="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonathan.potter1/potterhomepage.htm">http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonathan.potter1/potterhomepage.htm</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML>