This is not a thought, but a reading recommendation: The Meaning of Everything : The Story of the Oxford English Dictionary http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0198607024/104-0310953-7405565? v=glance&n=283155 /Jonas
------------------------------
Message: 4 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 11:07:42 -0500 From: Jeremy Hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> Subject: [Air-l] Studying Wikipedia, studying humans? To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Message-ID: <F9CB6039-1621-4AAD-93DA-B52D57D8D2FB@vt.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
I was reading over some wikipedia policies and related things this morning and once again the perennial question arose... at what point is studying wikipedia... studying humans? granted that wikipedia is much larger than the human content, with both its technical infrastructures and bots. However, this wouldn't be a question for studying the Britannica as a 'book', though it might be a an issue in studying the production of the encyclopedia in situ via ethnography or other workplace studies methods. So where would you mark the difference in wikipedia? When are you studying an object, vs a human subject in wikipedia, or... is the distinction not clear enough to differentiate because of the interaction collapses the distinction? Thoughts?
Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments
http://www.aoir.org The Association of Internet Researchers http://www.stswiki.org/ stswiki