I would argue that putting the emphasis on process makes the object/human subject dichotomy irrelevant. Or to restate in Giddens-esque terminology, the focus should be human practices, with the subject and object viewed as duality rather than dualism. Christopher J Richter, PhD Assoc. Prof. & Chair, Communication Studies Hollins University P.O. Box 9652 Roanoke, VA 24020 Tel. 5403626358 Fax 5403626286 e-mail crichter@hollins.edu www.hollins.edu -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Hunsinger Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 11:08 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-l] Studying Wikipedia, studying humans? 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 _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/