late poem replay
Morgontrött sestina - ofullbordad, regelvidrig tror jag...
Jag åker spårvagn.
Jag är sen.
Sömnen kväver my eyelids.
Heaven is höstgrå, and I am waiting ever.
I'm confused
and a little scared.
What's next,
after this tram?
world approaches the eyelids.
Yes, I'm afraid ...
Constant fear, constantly.
Is there anything good in that confused huh?
I'm late again, pretty late.
I do not have time to finish writing, I'm afraid.
Everyday life cry out against his eyelids.
Is now waiting for another tram.
Constantly eddies, constantly
shady meetings in a world that seems more and more confused.
Can I say that? Is the world more confused
(even 'for me') than for a week or 10 years ago?
I sit now on 3ans tram,
wonder confused: Is this someone who are not afraid?
It is
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Much Does Xanax Cost Street
Swedish Wiktionary within
Hi, my name is Martin and I are Wikiholist . Yikes, now I recognize me too Väli part of what is written on that page. But it's not Wikipedia that is my gift in the first place (which might have been better - specifically related to the research I try to do) but Wiktionary , then r I have previously acknowledged that I agree to do so tried to lure my readers in the swamp .
Well, perhaps my first line of defense for myself when I think I spent too much time on Wiktionary, especially if I'm thinking about I could have used that time to the job, is that there are jobs. Type. Almost. It is language, always to some Swedish, and thus to some training / tutorials for me and while some "third task ": Swedish to the people, which I then helps with my big nordistiska and general linguistic expertise. At the same time, and above all, is the wiki ethnography and liaison within the Wikimedia projects (while I can keep myself at arm's length of my primary study and not "affect" too much). Brilliant!
Well. But then, we can try to think seriously of that stuff ethnographic. How is it to work with the Swedish Wiktionary? Yes ... it is certainly different for different people. It's funny, I want to say - among other things, that there is so much to do. And it is quite frustrating, because there is so much to do and we are relatively few make it. You want it to be finished, sort of ... that we have all the words in any language and can dedicate ourselves to discuss the formatting of the spread of the Klingon word for Illis''Point feminine''(we have suggestions for inflected forms, to facilitate navigation and to allow insertion of information including pronunciation). Or yes, we'd probably be able to do now under the right circumstances ... Yes, and as it is with things that are fun and a bit frustrating and the like will never end so it can be quite addictive ...
Take a look at Wiktionary: Project / Frequency Dictionary . I have done, quite a few times, including today. It's a long, long list of (more or less) common (more or less) Swedish words, mostly those who do not have a spread in Swedish Wiktionary ... (For those who have it, see Category: Swedish / Alla_uppslag ). This page was created by Users: Jonas Wiklund (currently not active) in the second year of the Swedish Wiktionary existence - April 2005. (Modifications of the Wikimedia projects are public by the version history, and it is a user's own choice to use real names rather than edit under pseudonyms or anonymous editor. Anonymisation is impossible in principle, but also usually not necessary.) However, this was not the current list. The list of "words that are among the most common in the Swedish language as we have on Wiki yet" could be shrunk down over time as new ideas were created, while people are changing to a capital letter in the name, sat point out in abbreviations, changing inflections to the base form in some cases, etc. in the list - so it was better to see the words that actually existed. Meanwhile, a source was added to the list - Wiklund had not mentioned any such, but an anonymous editor was able to show that the information was taken from PAROLE-corpus , namely statistics files available through this site . It was good, for thus it was possible to specify to "among the 1,000 most common words in Swedish" (although it should perhaps been "among the 1,000 most frequent word forms in the PAROLE corpus (described This ). "And at the end of December 2006, it was time for the Swedish Wiktionary main techniques [[Skalman]] (\u0026lt;- one wikiholistsymptom: I try to use the source of this on other pages. [[]] is used to create links. ) to fill in with a bunch of words and writing "among the 2,000 most common" instead. In April 2007 I made my first editing the list and removed Nils , who apparently had had time to be created. The way to tell which of the words in such a linked list that has spread (in their spelling - it can be be such that there is the Swedish word because Wikispecies also lists words in other languages ) as links when lit blue among the red links to blank pages. It was more casual, but I would return ... In March 2009 they were there in 2000 most common near the end and it was time for Mlari to refill from the 3000 most common, and a little later in that month could Mason note that ä ; even these began to take end and fill the 10 000-list. This was the last replenishment, so this list should have been like the longest. The version appears to have been a test to see which ones were blue. This could be called the longest real version.
So during March and April, so the pills a bit of structure, thankfully put someone into headings so that you can edit parts of the big list, blålänkar and misspellings removed, the name may be capitalized. Mlari is perhaps the most active, but it is more involved - good examples of wiki collaboration. So nothing from May to September (we had a sense of being out in the sun, believe?), And so October 10th it begins to get a whole lot of edits of Ever wonder , ie me. The background was that I was from the night until 4 in the same month started to pay attention to Wiktionary general and specialized wishlists for Swedish . (Date mm, I now the automatically generated list of my "contribution" in Swedish Wiktionary .) I added the Commander , nobility and platitude in the general list - what I now just got the word from. (I do not know if they are then created, but they have been created you can of course take a look and if not surely it would be nice if someone happy readers added to them.) I thought I could make some mechanical undercoat llsarbete at the same time, so I removed some blålänkar. I was thinking far enough to check that the Swedish word was indeed the case flor and forums , and put in comments when they were not there. I added into saknasmallen ( saknasmallen - Templates are pages that can be "pasted" automatically on other pages) to these pages, which I knew that maybe I really would not do that I probably also ; later pointed out to me after a similar editing (it would be the more subtle irrelevant ). (I started a small discussion about creating a "Swedish missing" template and experimented even a little, but it ran out of the sand .) I created some good sides and added meanings, and so also - that is more direct content-oriented work, which I think is easiest to do in response to the need at some point of something like this mechanical work or by simply picking something out of an existing list as I see that I should be able to to something. I think in principle it can be quite tricky to create definitions and I do like a lot of time on it, but some others say it is easy ... So there was a bit more blålänkar to remove. I would think that I emptied the "general" list of blålänkar before I went to bed, but it's hard to say (you can not see the easily now). A little later it was in all cases clear special charts that caught my interest: I asked a question about some instructions on removing the "blålänkar" in animals list, removed a blålänk the phrase list ... and then began to discuss personal names, as apparently was not totally focused on changing the lists you want anyway. (I was certainly an eye on Recent changes to see what happened in the dictionary writing. We like what we Wikimedians ... wikiholister?) So it was time to plow through the golf term list, until I could summarize my last change -tee, rough, rash; spoon - "Golf is no significance" (no blålänkar left to watch now, but quite a few rödlänkar to create articles for those who want - definition is often here) . So I had that when I went through the general list (and well-phrase and animal lists) followed each blue link (As eagle and tee ) to check if the current importance in Swedish were included and the word could be removed. Yes, the hours passed ... These include, in order to emphasize the interactional, the changes I made on forgive met some reactions . Well, 5-8 October, I started some on Wiktionary but mostly with more than wishful lists (including continuing discussions on personal and trickery to get into the Swedish and com- ; rkortingstecknet o in the dictionary, it went, see Other characters ). But I did manage to empty the interjektionslistan on blålänkar. And I added pelvis in the general list, because it probably had only existed as bending ideas. It worked Wiktionarysamarbetet and pretty soon it was more complete pelvis -spread created. :) October 9, I started to add the correct number of words rather randomly at different places in the general list. Some of the examples indicate that I had looked at the last special lists, I still had not been edited: Pronouns , Chess Terms , Hose and Wiktionary (or perhaps really just chess terms and Wiktionary). But then I started getting a little more systematic, while I found that when I mentioned the specific words that I added in my edit summary, I was able to link them and so could not see it at : Recent changes and think 'no' but oh, we do not have the word "and immediately click and create the idea ... Do not know if it has worked, but I have continued to use me to this (especially when I later then came to fuss a lot with the frequency dictionary). I started to put into words systematically in alphabetical order by means of searches in language bank (AA *... the basic forms of non-name, we already have, ok where do I out these others in the wishlist, so we take ab *...), and put right many of those in the 9th. But then I came to after a few hours to a , that's where both the wish list and the dictionary is most developed - silly to focus on improvement there! So when I started doing the same thing but with p . And there I had great fun for a while, but I also noticed that there were varied PAFF or pack and parallellstorslalom , and thought that finally we well have all that stuff and it's fun to add to it and so, but should not it be great with some kind of focus on the last? So when I added the parta the list, I decided to create Wiktionary: Project / Wishlists / Swedish / Preferred with edit comment alphabetically arranged selection from the first part of Wiktionary: Project / Frequency Dictionary , supposed to be edited freer than the side . So now it had gone hand in my eye-catcher again.
Yes, so I started to remove blålänkar to make the list more manageable, and filled in the "priority" of what was left. I discovered over time that list was pretty chaotic. Previously, people had changed curved shapes to the basic form and so, but this would probably become unmanageable when the raw material was a list of 10 000 words, so when I got to know the list seriously, I understood what it was intended that the curved shapes would bear - and that was it perhaps. I was not even sure if we should remove or edit any obvious typos or leave it (I asked a question once on frekvensordlistans talk page, but got no answer ), or the name that stood with small letters were changed to high. I let these things be and it did not bother me especially when it came to build the "priority" list, but ... duplicates were tough, and could obviously would serve no purpose. Thus, I had a big, big project to bite into every time I wanted to contribute a bit to Wiktionary, but only energy to do something "mechanical". Firefox search: type in a word, then returned to seek more examples, ok there was only one, type in the next, back, oh it was a duplicate, edit sections, ctrl-x duplicate , use the search again in the editing window so I should not have to edit the same section again to delete the duplicate of the same word, edit summary, double ctrl-v (so that it can be seen on the recent changes that we have no word), save , type the next word in the search box ... First I did this with one section at a time and then use the "adjusted" section to build on the "priority", but then after a while it felt like to priority threatened to become to overwhelming for to be useful while it seemed easier to just continue to duplicate the search section at the border. Well, it took a few months (but then I made in and of itself bit else too), but the other day, I could remove the last duplicate (until someone turns on from the 100 000 common ...). It was perhaps a little inconvenient, for it led to a sudden, I was (at a time when perhaps I would rather have kept me away from Wiktionary, or at least not launch major projects there) became interested in the charts section.
Ok, remove blålänkar, it's easy ... And since it is those böjningsuppslagen - it's automatic "bots" that create them in the first place (yes, Doddebot exact), but they're r law facilitating the creation of a human yet, and so has blålänkar to remove then, and so check it at the same time if we have the basic form and otherwise, then create it or maybe put on your wish list. And as for the basic forms of Swedish words, there's all start doing the "priority", but it's a bit strange when they see the long list too, so , adding that while eliminating some blålänkar ... But some words will be on course when you see them it is unnecessary to take the detour because we know roughly what to write, so when you create the spread, and so may it be a blålänk here and in priority and when was it a pretty important ideas, so hooray! And as misspellings, or words that have spread and been discussed and been erased ... I put out a rödflagga which is a smart model that signals that something is odd and where you can add a little comment, for I'm not sure that I only want to delete the words if they actually belong to 10 000 in the top of parole ... And then you can then remove the blålänkar created, and go to section 2 ... but so far I have not yet commented. And even beyond that becomes a part of this process to build systematically on the "priority" again. And then maybe create lookups?
Yes, so the work continues ... and moving forward! Svenska Wiktionary har 100 000 uppslag inklusive böjnings- och variantuppslag, och förstås inklusive alla språk...
Hi, my name is Martin and I are Wikiholist . Yikes, now I recognize me too Väli part of what is written on that page. But it's not Wikipedia that is my gift in the first place (which might have been better - specifically related to the research I try to do) but Wiktionary , then r I have previously acknowledged that I agree to do so tried to lure my readers in the swamp .
Well, perhaps my first line of defense for myself when I think I spent too much time on Wiktionary, especially if I'm thinking about I could have used that time to the job, is that there are jobs. Type. Almost. It is language, always to some Swedish, and thus to some training / tutorials for me and while some "third task ": Swedish to the people, which I then helps with my big nordistiska and general linguistic expertise. At the same time, and above all, is the wiki ethnography and liaison within the Wikimedia projects (while I can keep myself at arm's length of my primary study and not "affect" too much). Brilliant!
Well. But then, we can try to think seriously of that stuff ethnographic. How is it to work with the Swedish Wiktionary? Yes ... it is certainly different for different people. It's funny, I want to say - among other things, that there is so much to do. And it is quite frustrating, because there is so much to do and we are relatively few make it. You want it to be finished, sort of ... that we have all the words in any language and can dedicate ourselves to discuss the formatting of the spread of the Klingon word for Illis''Point feminine''(we have suggestions for inflected forms, to facilitate navigation and to allow insertion of information including pronunciation). Or yes, we'd probably be able to do now under the right circumstances ... Yes, and as it is with things that are fun and a bit frustrating and the like will never end so it can be quite addictive ...
Take a look at Wiktionary: Project / Frequency Dictionary . I have done, quite a few times, including today. It's a long, long list of (more or less) common (more or less) Swedish words, mostly those who do not have a spread in Swedish Wiktionary ... (For those who have it, see Category: Swedish / Alla_uppslag ). This page was created by Users: Jonas Wiklund (currently not active) in the second year of the Swedish Wiktionary existence - April 2005. (Modifications of the Wikimedia projects are public by the version history, and it is a user's own choice to use real names rather than edit under pseudonyms or anonymous editor. Anonymisation is impossible in principle, but also usually not necessary.) However, this was not the current list. The list of "words that are among the most common in the Swedish language as we have on Wiki yet" could be shrunk down over time as new ideas were created, while people are changing to a capital letter in the name, sat point out in abbreviations, changing inflections to the base form in some cases, etc. in the list - so it was better to see the words that actually existed. Meanwhile, a source was added to the list - Wiklund had not mentioned any such, but an anonymous editor was able to show that the information was taken from PAROLE-corpus , namely statistics files available through this site . It was good, for thus it was possible to specify to "among the 1,000 most common words in Swedish" (although it should perhaps been "among the 1,000 most frequent word forms in the PAROLE corpus (described This ). "And at the end of December 2006, it was time for the Swedish Wiktionary main techniques [[Skalman]] (\u0026lt;- one wikiholistsymptom: I try to use the source of this on other pages. [[]] is used to create links. ) to fill in with a bunch of words and writing "among the 2,000 most common" instead. In April 2007 I made my first editing the list and removed Nils , who apparently had had time to be created. The way to tell which of the words in such a linked list that has spread (in their spelling - it can be be such that there is the Swedish word because Wikispecies also lists words in other languages ) as links when lit blue among the red links to blank pages. It was more casual, but I would return ... In March 2009 they were there in 2000 most common near the end and it was time for Mlari to refill from the 3000 most common, and a little later in that month could Mason note that ä ; even these began to take end and fill the 10 000-list. This was the last replenishment, so this list should have been like the longest. The version appears to have been a test to see which ones were blue. This could be called the longest real version.
So during March and April, so the pills a bit of structure, thankfully put someone into headings so that you can edit parts of the big list, blålänkar and misspellings removed, the name may be capitalized. Mlari is perhaps the most active, but it is more involved - good examples of wiki collaboration. So nothing from May to September (we had a sense of being out in the sun, believe?), And so October 10th it begins to get a whole lot of edits of Ever wonder , ie me. The background was that I was from the night until 4 in the same month started to pay attention to Wiktionary general and specialized wishlists for Swedish . (Date mm, I now the automatically generated list of my "contribution" in Swedish Wiktionary .) I added the Commander , nobility and platitude in the general list - what I now just got the word from. (I do not know if they are then created, but they have been created you can of course take a look and if not surely it would be nice if someone happy readers added to them.) I thought I could make some mechanical undercoat llsarbete at the same time, so I removed some blålänkar. I was thinking far enough to check that the Swedish word was indeed the case flor and forums , and put in comments when they were not there. I added into saknasmallen ( saknasmallen - Templates are pages that can be "pasted" automatically on other pages) to these pages, which I knew that maybe I really would not do that I probably also ; later pointed out to me after a similar editing (it would be the more subtle irrelevant ). (I started a small discussion about creating a "Swedish missing" template and experimented even a little, but it ran out of the sand .) I created some good sides and added meanings, and so also - that is more direct content-oriented work, which I think is easiest to do in response to the need at some point of something like this mechanical work or by simply picking something out of an existing list as I see that I should be able to to something. I think in principle it can be quite tricky to create definitions and I do like a lot of time on it, but some others say it is easy ... So there was a bit more blålänkar to remove. I would think that I emptied the "general" list of blålänkar before I went to bed, but it's hard to say (you can not see the easily now). A little later it was in all cases clear special charts that caught my interest: I asked a question about some instructions on removing the "blålänkar" in animals list, removed a blålänk the phrase list ... and then began to discuss personal names, as apparently was not totally focused on changing the lists you want anyway. (I was certainly an eye on Recent changes to see what happened in the dictionary writing. We like what we Wikimedians ... wikiholister?) So it was time to plow through the golf term list, until I could summarize my last change -tee, rough, rash; spoon - "Golf is no significance" (no blålänkar left to watch now, but quite a few rödlänkar to create articles for those who want - definition is often here) . So I had that when I went through the general list (and well-phrase and animal lists) followed each blue link (As eagle and tee ) to check if the current importance in Swedish were included and the word could be removed. Yes, the hours passed ... These include, in order to emphasize the interactional, the changes I made on forgive met some reactions . Well, 5-8 October, I started some on Wiktionary but mostly with more than wishful lists (including continuing discussions on personal and trickery to get into the Swedish and com- ; rkortingstecknet o in the dictionary, it went, see Other characters ). But I did manage to empty the interjektionslistan on blålänkar. And I added pelvis in the general list, because it probably had only existed as bending ideas. It worked Wiktionarysamarbetet and pretty soon it was more complete pelvis -spread created. :) October 9, I started to add the correct number of words rather randomly at different places in the general list. Some of the examples indicate that I had looked at the last special lists, I still had not been edited: Pronouns , Chess Terms , Hose and Wiktionary (or perhaps really just chess terms and Wiktionary). But then I started getting a little more systematic, while I found that when I mentioned the specific words that I added in my edit summary, I was able to link them and so could not see it at : Recent changes and think 'no' but oh, we do not have the word "and immediately click and create the idea ... Do not know if it has worked, but I have continued to use me to this (especially when I later then came to fuss a lot with the frequency dictionary). I started to put into words systematically in alphabetical order by means of searches in language bank (AA *... the basic forms of non-name, we already have, ok where do I out these others in the wishlist, so we take ab *...), and put right many of those in the 9th. But then I came to after a few hours to a , that's where both the wish list and the dictionary is most developed - silly to focus on improvement there! So when I started doing the same thing but with p . And there I had great fun for a while, but I also noticed that there were varied PAFF or pack and parallellstorslalom , and thought that finally we well have all that stuff and it's fun to add to it and so, but should not it be great with some kind of focus on the last? So when I added the parta the list, I decided to create Wiktionary: Project / Wishlists / Swedish / Preferred with edit comment alphabetically arranged selection from the first part of Wiktionary: Project / Frequency Dictionary , supposed to be edited freer than the side . So now it had gone hand in my eye-catcher again.
Yes, so I started to remove blålänkar to make the list more manageable, and filled in the "priority" of what was left. I discovered over time that list was pretty chaotic. Previously, people had changed curved shapes to the basic form and so, but this would probably become unmanageable when the raw material was a list of 10 000 words, so when I got to know the list seriously, I understood what it was intended that the curved shapes would bear - and that was it perhaps. I was not even sure if we should remove or edit any obvious typos or leave it (I asked a question once on frekvensordlistans talk page, but got no answer ), or the name that stood with small letters were changed to high. I let these things be and it did not bother me especially when it came to build the "priority" list, but ... duplicates were tough, and could obviously would serve no purpose. Thus, I had a big, big project to bite into every time I wanted to contribute a bit to Wiktionary, but only energy to do something "mechanical". Firefox search: type in a word, then returned to seek more examples, ok there was only one, type in the next, back, oh it was a duplicate, edit sections, ctrl-x duplicate , use the search again in the editing window so I should not have to edit the same section again to delete the duplicate of the same word, edit summary, double ctrl-v (so that it can be seen on the recent changes that we have no word), save , type the next word in the search box ... First I did this with one section at a time and then use the "adjusted" section to build on the "priority", but then after a while it felt like to priority threatened to become to overwhelming for to be useful while it seemed easier to just continue to duplicate the search section at the border. Well, it took a few months (but then I made in and of itself bit else too), but the other day, I could remove the last duplicate (until someone turns on from the 100 000 common ...). It was perhaps a little inconvenient, for it led to a sudden, I was (at a time when perhaps I would rather have kept me away from Wiktionary, or at least not launch major projects there) became interested in the charts section.
Ok, remove blålänkar, it's easy ... And since it is those böjningsuppslagen - it's automatic "bots" that create them in the first place (yes, Doddebot exact), but they're r law facilitating the creation of a human yet, and so has blålänkar to remove then, and so check it at the same time if we have the basic form and otherwise, then create it or maybe put on your wish list. And as for the basic forms of Swedish words, there's all start doing the "priority", but it's a bit strange when they see the long list too, so , adding that while eliminating some blålänkar ... But some words will be on course when you see them it is unnecessary to take the detour because we know roughly what to write, so when you create the spread, and so may it be a blålänk here and in priority and when was it a pretty important ideas, so hooray! And as misspellings, or words that have spread and been discussed and been erased ... I put out a rödflagga which is a smart model that signals that something is odd and where you can add a little comment, for I'm not sure that I only want to delete the words if they actually belong to 10 000 in the top of parole ... And then you can then remove the blålänkar created, and go to section 2 ... but so far I have not yet commented. And even beyond that becomes a part of this process to build systematically on the "priority" again. And then maybe create lookups?
Yes, so the work continues ... and moving forward! Svenska Wiktionary har 100 000 uppslag inklusive böjnings- och variantuppslag, och förstås inklusive alla språk...
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Black Stool And Stomach Ache
"Odd polyphony 'and Other Features of Wikipedia discourse - presentation slides and more ...
EDIT: Though "the week for which this was the post" is over, post is still subject to extensive change. Stay tuned!
EDIT again: such extensive change is still in principle planned to happen as of April 5 2010, but if it will actually come about and when that will be is somewhat unclear.
This post is or concerns work in progress in at least the following ways: 1) at this point it is not necessarily considered to be finished in itself; a decision on whether to continue working on it will be made tomorrow (though if I decide to wait it's still possible that I come back to it in the weekend) I have now more or less decided to try to finish this 2) the idea was to use the blog post as a kind of first draft for an article; the big decision for tomorrow is whether I should stick with this idea or go for though it is very possible that a better choice there would have been a more direct approach 3) subject matter: Wikipedia is a work in progress... 4) though largely retrospective (2007 study...) also is part of my ongoing work with studying Wikipedia, the future being addressed specifically in the last slide.
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphony_%28literature%29 (though this does not go into interest in the concept outside literature, such as in linguistics - but I don't have a good link for that now)
http://www.ua.ac.be/main.aspx?c=*IBCDIO&n=81357&ct=75108 page on the organizer's site from where, at least for now, these slides as well as an abstract for my presentation can be downloaded
http://www.ua.ac.be/main.aspx?c=*IBCDIO&n=24991&ct=024463&e=60947 Main site of organizer DiO (Discourse in Organizations)... I think. At least this page explains a bit of what they are about. My presentation was one of the 2009-2010 halfday workshops
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Fairclough , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Halliday
Wikipedia, “the free encyclopedia” is a well-known example of a wiki, a website that can be edited by its visitors. Several good reasons exist to study the texts and discourse of Wikipedia, including social relevance due to the great impact of the site, methodological advantages created by the availability of records of the editing process, and the theoretical interest of the unusual situation of communication through changes in a text that is simultaneously viewable by, and ultimately meant for, “third parties”.
The original plan was for the oral presentation to have three parts: First, a general description of the wiki(pedia) environment, beginning with the basics and going on to account for some analysis by other researchers and myself. Next, a second part drawing on a previous analysis of Swedish Wikipedia's article about the protests during the EU summit in Gothenburg 2001 (Göteborgskravallerna) to showcase an odd feature of some Wikipedia texts: an “odd polyphony” where the conflicting viewpoints of editors result in a text that seems to be “polemizing against itself”, the analysis applying Fairclough’s (1992) concept of a “discourse arena” to Wikipedia. Finally, a third part, where I would discuss my current research focus - to empirically study the collective writing process on Wikipedia viewed as negotiation. This would be followed by our "Wikipedia practicioner", dr. Marko Phernambucq asking some questions to open up the concluding discussion among the audience. This general outline was more or less followed, but I ended up not talking as much about analysis and previous research in the first part as I had first planned, and the final part about "current research" was very short. At least in the first case, in this written version of the presentation I will try to include some of what I then omitted.
Probably noone who reads this will have no previous knowledge of Wikipedia, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit ", and most of you probably use it to some extent, in some way. Still, more detailed knowledge of what Wikipedia is and how it works is much more rare. Even not going beyond that basic slogan cited in the first sentence of this paragraph, I have quite often been in conversations about whether it's actually true that "anyone can edit". Well, anyone can who has Internet access, on an IP number that has not been specifically - normally temporarily - blocked (often a logged-in user can bypass this) and who is not scared off by the technical aspects, mostly not actually very complex , and who, finally, is not at the moment as a logged-in user "blocked" from editing (which is possible to bypass by editing anonymously, something that may be seen as acceptable if the editing is not "disruptive" and will in any case often be impossible to control). As for what is actually meant with Wikipedia being "free", this is even less well-known, even though it is - philosophically and practically - a quite central aspect of the project. It means, basically, that the material that makes up Wikipedia can not only be accessed free of charge but that it can also be reused, changed or unchanged and also commercially, by anyone who cites the source and allows the new version to be reused by others in the same way. (Read more at Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content , and also at the Free content article which English Wikipedia chooses to link the word "free" in the slogan to.) This is Wikipedia as part of the free culture and free software movements, and closely related to Wikipedia's and the Wikimedia Foundation's idea of making "all the knowledge in the world" available to all. That Wikipedia is, or as some might prefer it stated aims to be, an encyclopedia, is probably known to most people. Still, Wikipedia seems to think that people need reminding .
As in the slogan cited previously, key words in this first paragraph of the "About" page are linked, marking them as important (to various degrees - Hawaiian less so than some others, perhaps showing some randomness is still there) and also letting these words stand for more than they do in themselves by connecting them to more detailed information about what they mean in this specific context. This leaves a paragraph with quite densely packed information, which a reader can however "unpack" by following the links... or indeed on reading on on the same page, going on for some 5000 words and containing a multitude of additional links (though they are a bit further apart in after the first few sentences). (Though see below for questioning of parts of this analysis for this particular case, as informed by a closer look at where the links actually lead.)
Here an overview of the links in question:
/ˌwɪkɨˈpiːdi.ə/ : Wikipedia:IPA for English
WIK -i- PEE -dee-ə : Wikipedia:Pronunciation Respelling Key
multilingual: (English) Wikipedia article Multilingualism
web-based: Wikipedia article World Wide Web
free-content: Wikipedia article Free content (as with "free" in slogan)
encyclopedia (twice, once in italics speaking of the word): Wikipedia article Encyclopedia
openly-editable: Wikipedia:How to edit a page
portmanteau: Wikipedia article Portmanteau
wiki , first occurrence: Wikipedia article Wiki
websites: Wikipedia article Website
Hawaiian: Wikipedia article Hawaiian language
wiki , second occurrence: (English) Wiktionary entry wiki, subsection for Hawaiian
Actually, not having looked at this before, I'm surprised at the dominance of encyclopedia articles. I expected something like "multilingual" linking to the list of Wikipedias at the "Meta" wiki , to something like Wikipedia:Multilingual coordination or simply to wikipedia.org ; "free-content" to the Wikimedia foundation's licensing policy or Wikipedia:Copyrights ; the first, non-italized, "encyclopedia" to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and the second to the English Wiktionary entry encyclopedia . Links like these can instead be found in later parts of the text. This calls for some revision of the "un-packing" discussion above as a specific analysis of this paragraph. I think it still holds more or less, but "what they mean in this specific context" is not necessarily a good description of what kind of information most of the links give (Wikipedia:How to edit a page) being the main exception.
Here I'm drawing to some extent on the article Wiki on English Wikipedia, but primarily on my own previous knowledge. For the WikiNow concept, see http://www.meatballwiki.org/wiki/WikiNow and also http://www.meatballwiki.org/wiki/VersionHistory . This, and Meatballwiki as a whole, is also interesting by often showing quite clearly that there is such a thing as a "wiki philosophy" (separate from Wikipedia philosophy, but an important influence/current there along with, among other things, the free software and free culture movements mentioned above).
Paragraphs one and two of the slide contains some contradiction. It seems odd that "closed projects" and "personal" uses would always or even normally be "websites that can be edited by their visitors", and they aren't. If they allow visitors not involved in the project at all (as for example my new research note-taking wiki [mostly in Swedish] does), they will normally not allow these to actually edit the pages. The wiki technology can also be used as a tool to create a "normal", non-editable (by normal viewers), website, as on the official site of the Wikimedia Foundation (the organization that owns the servers which host Wikipedia and its "sister projects"). The defining point of what can properly be called a wiki is probably that it can be easily edited through a normal web browser, regardless of who is actually able to do so, who can even see the page and even whether it is actually online, on the World Wide Web or even on some smaller net as opposed to a single offline hard drive. The "general rule" is to be understood to have exceptions, and to probably apply more generally to openly-editable wikis on the World Wide Web than other types, as the wiki technology can certainly be used to create "finished" contents. Even inside the Wikimedia projects, Wikinews articles are routinely archived whereafter they are not publicly editable and are only supposed to be edited at all to correct grammar and formatting (true for English Wikinews, other language versions may have different policies). This, on the other hand, does not mean that Wikinews itself is considered finished.
That "[d]ifferent uses of technology generate different patterns of discourse", and what this can mean in practice, will be obvious even inside Wikipedia when we soon compare articles, talk pages and various "other" pages. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that there can also be important differences in the technology itself between different wikis. Most relevant here is that the automatic connection of a "talk page" to each "content page" (see below) is specific to the MediaWiki software and a response to Wikipedia's special needs. Full version histories is also, as mentioned, not something all wikis have, though for Wikipedia it is essential for licensing reasons, for being able to revert vandalism and arguably for transparency. Viégas, Wattenberg & Dave (2004) acknowledge that not all (but "most") wikis have "archiving systems that record all previous edits of a page and make it simple to revert to an earlier version. If the ease of adding a contribution is a distinguishing feature of a wiki, so too, paradoxically, is the ease of removing contributions of others by reverting an edit" and mention talk pages and "watchlists" (another feature important for keeping vandalism in check) as important features of Wikipedia that are "incidental or even absent" in other wikis (p 576).
The idea that "the wiki is never finished" is a central point in Andreas Widoff's interesting master thesis (in Swedish) "Den variabla texten - En dialogisk analys av Wikipedia" , also referenced in a later slide - and indeed quite an important point for me. Note however that "variableness" is not a unique feature of wikis, but applies for many kinds of websites and also certain other kinds of text (for example on a blackboard). (This is not a critique of Widoff, who I think notes the same things.) What makes Wikipedia and similar wikis special is rather most basically the combination of "variableness", open collaborative authorship and editing (in the case of Wikipedia articles meant to result in a product that is not tied to a specific author but is rather in some sense "spoken" by the collective), and transparency in the editing process.
References:
Fairclough, Norman 1992: Discourse and Social Change . Cambridge: Polity Press.
Viégas, Fernando B., Wattenberg, Martin & Dave, Kushal 2004 "Studying Cooperation and Conflict Between Authors with history flow Visualizations "in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems p. 575 - 582nd
Widoff, Andreas 2009: "The variable text - a dialogical analysis of Wikipedia." Master thesis. Gothenburg University: Department of Swedish Language. Full text online at http://gupea.ub.gu.se/dspace/bitstream/2077/21109/1/gupea_2077_21109_1.pdf (viewed 2010-03-08).
Wikimedia Foundation website.
Wikipedia ("hub" site for all language versions). http://www.wikipedia.org
Wikipedia - Free content. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_content
Wikipedia - Gothenburg riots. http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göteborgskravallerna
Wikipedia "Wikipedia: About"
Wikipedia: Wikipedia: Reusing Wikipedia content "
Wikipedia Wikipedia talk: About"
Wikipedia: Wikipedia: What Wikipedia ice Note:
EDIT: Though "the week for which this was the post" is over, post is still subject to extensive change. Stay tuned!
EDIT again: such extensive change is still in principle planned to happen as of April 5 2010, but if it will actually come about and when that will be is somewhat unclear.
This post is or concerns work in progress in at least the following ways: 1) at this point it is not necessarily considered to be finished in itself;
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphony_%28literature%29 (though this does not go into interest in the concept outside literature, such as in linguistics - but I don't have a good link for that now)
http://www.ua.ac.be/main.aspx?c=*IBCDIO&n=81357&ct=75108 page on the organizer's site from where, at least for now, these slides as well as an abstract for my presentation can be downloaded
http://www.ua.ac.be/main.aspx?c=*IBCDIO&n=24991&ct=024463&e=60947 Main site of organizer DiO (Discourse in Organizations)... I think. At least this page explains a bit of what they are about. My presentation was one of the 2009-2010 halfday workshops
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Fairclough , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Halliday
Wikipedia, “the free encyclopedia” is a well-known example of a wiki, a website that can be edited by its visitors. Several good reasons exist to study the texts and discourse of Wikipedia, including social relevance due to the great impact of the site, methodological advantages created by the availability of records of the editing process, and the theoretical interest of the unusual situation of communication through changes in a text that is simultaneously viewable by, and ultimately meant for, “third parties”.
The original plan was for the oral presentation to have three parts: First, a general description of the wiki(pedia) environment, beginning with the basics and going on to account for some analysis by other researchers and myself. Next, a second part drawing on a previous analysis of Swedish Wikipedia's article about the protests during the EU summit in Gothenburg 2001 (Göteborgskravallerna) to showcase an odd feature of some Wikipedia texts: an “odd polyphony” where the conflicting viewpoints of editors result in a text that seems to be “polemizing against itself”, the analysis applying Fairclough’s (1992) concept of a “discourse arena” to Wikipedia. Finally, a third part, where I would discuss my current research focus - to empirically study the collective writing process on Wikipedia viewed as negotiation. This would be followed by our "Wikipedia practicioner", dr. Marko Phernambucq asking some questions to open up the concluding discussion among the audience. This general outline was more or less followed, but I ended up not talking as much about analysis and previous research in the first part as I had first planned, and the final part about "current research" was very short. At least in the first case, in this written version of the presentation I will try to include some of what I then omitted.
Probably noone who reads this will have no previous knowledge of Wikipedia, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit ", and most of you probably use it to some extent, in some way. Still, more detailed knowledge of what Wikipedia is and how it works is much more rare. Even not going beyond that basic slogan cited in the first sentence of this paragraph, I have quite often been in conversations about whether it's actually true that "anyone can edit". Well, anyone can who has Internet access, on an IP number that has not been specifically - normally temporarily - blocked (often a logged-in user can bypass this) and who is not scared off by the technical aspects, mostly not actually very complex , and who, finally, is not at the moment as a logged-in user "blocked" from editing (which is possible to bypass by editing anonymously, something that may be seen as acceptable if the editing is not "disruptive" and will in any case often be impossible to control). As for what is actually meant with Wikipedia being "free", this is even less well-known, even though it is - philosophically and practically - a quite central aspect of the project. It means, basically, that the material that makes up Wikipedia can not only be accessed free of charge but that it can also be reused, changed or unchanged and also commercially, by anyone who cites the source and allows the new version to be reused by others in the same way. (Read more at Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content , and also at the Free content article which English Wikipedia chooses to link the word "free" in the slogan to.) This is Wikipedia as part of the free culture and free software movements, and closely related to Wikipedia's and the Wikimedia Foundation's idea of making "all the knowledge in the world" available to all. That Wikipedia is, or as some might prefer it stated aims to be, an encyclopedia, is probably known to most people. Still, Wikipedia seems to think that people need reminding .
At Wikipedia:About - and indeed in the encyclopedia article Wikipedia , which may be interesting to compare - English Wikipedia gives us a bit more detailed information about itself, and also says something about other language versions and "sister projects". (The main difference between the two pages should be that "About" is dedicated wholly to Wikipedia presenting itself as it chooses to, laying the focus on what the community itself deems important, while the encyclopedia article though a product of the same community should by policy present the subject as it is described in "reliable sources" primarily to be found outside the work itself.) A paragraph such as the one shown above, with a very prominent place on an important page (though see below, end of this paragraph), has obviously received a lot of attention and it can be assumed that it is a product of quite careful composition. One sign of this is that there are at least 4500 saved versions of the page from 2002 up until today, though a significant part of this will be vandalism and its reverts or very small changes, sometimes made by automated "bots", and most of the rest will not include changes in the opening paragraph. Discussion of the page is a bit difficult to get an overview of, the "talk page" having been archived a number of times (with some signs that the archives now linked on the "current" talk page may not include all old material) and comments by unregistered and new users after a certain point being directed to a subpage of its own. Taken together, the "talk" has been quite extensive, but its content seems to be more general remarks and questions about Wikipedia than discussion about what should be on the page itself. Though I've described this as an important page, the talk page actually shows that this is not the opinion of all Wikipedians: at least in one place it is questioned whether the page actually serves a purpose. The answer does not indicate that the question is considered absurd in any way.
As will become apparent from later parts of this presentation, many edits and many people being involved do not necessarily make a Wikipedia page very "polished" or "perfect" in any way. In this case, however, at least this first part of the page says only things that a large majority of Wikipedians will agree on, in a place where it will probably also be agreed that it is of some importance that Wikipedia "looks its best".One thing to note here is that the "openly-editable model" is described as something Wikipedia "uses" rather than something it "is".
As in the slogan cited previously, key words in this first paragraph of the "About" page are linked, marking them as important (to various degrees - Hawaiian less so than some others, perhaps showing some randomness is still there) and also letting these words stand for more than they do in themselves by connecting them to more detailed information about what they mean in this specific context. This leaves a paragraph with quite densely packed information, which a reader can however "unpack" by following the links... or indeed on reading on on the same page, going on for some 5000 words and containing a multitude of additional links (though they are a bit further apart in after the first few sentences). (Though see below for questioning of parts of this analysis for this particular case, as informed by a closer look at where the links actually lead.)
Here an overview of the links in question:
/ˌwɪkɨˈpiːdi.ə/ : Wikipedia:IPA for English
WIK -i- PEE -dee-ə : Wikipedia:Pronunciation Respelling Key
multilingual: (English) Wikipedia article Multilingualism
web-based: Wikipedia article World Wide Web
free-content: Wikipedia article Free content (as with "free" in slogan)
encyclopedia (twice, once in italics speaking of the word): Wikipedia article Encyclopedia
openly-editable: Wikipedia:How to edit a page
portmanteau: Wikipedia article Portmanteau
wiki , first occurrence: Wikipedia article Wiki
websites: Wikipedia article Website
Hawaiian: Wikipedia article Hawaiian language
wiki , second occurrence: (English) Wiktionary entry wiki, subsection for Hawaiian
Actually, not having looked at this before, I'm surprised at the dominance of encyclopedia articles. I expected something like "multilingual" linking to the list of Wikipedias at the "Meta" wiki , to something like Wikipedia:Multilingual coordination or simply to wikipedia.org ; "free-content" to the Wikimedia foundation's licensing policy or Wikipedia:Copyrights ; the first, non-italized, "encyclopedia" to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and the second to the English Wiktionary entry encyclopedia . Links like these can instead be found in later parts of the text. This calls for some revision of the "un-packing" discussion above as a specific analysis of this paragraph. I think it still holds more or less, but "what they mean in this specific context" is not necessarily a good description of what kind of information most of the links give (Wikipedia:How to edit a page) being the main exception.
But I am straying digressing (tip o' the hat to Alison Bechdel) ... This was not really supposed to be a detailed analysis of Wikipedia:About or its first paragraph, and even though I have more than 45 minutes for this now I think I should probably move on. First I should just point to a further (arguably more central) "place where English Wikipedia defines itself", Wikipedia:Five pillars , and a somewhat similar page "one level up" in the Wikimedia structure, the Wikimedia "founding principles" as defined on an editable page at Meta . A statement by Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales is also of interest here. (And as I am also - really primarily - looking at sv.wikipedia.org : Wikipedia:Om , Wikipedia:Grundprinciperna , Swedish Wikipedia article Wikipedia and that language version's article on itself .) (I had some trouble letting the thing about importance go, so I checked visiting statistics 201002 through http://stats.grok.se/ - Wikipedia:About: viewed 454845 times, thereby ranking 123 on English WP, Wikipedia:Five pillars: 6529 views, no ranking listed, Wikipedia (Article, English): 837834 views, rank 31, User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles: 708 views, User:Jimbo Wales [where one version of the statement also appears] 4760 views [no ranking], Founding principles: 519 views, ranking 505 on meta, sv:Wikipedia:Om [About] 3069, ranking 1378 on Swedish WP, Wikipedia (article, Swedish) 28002, ranking 17 on the same, article Svenskspråkiga Wikipedia [meaning Swedish Language Wikipedia] 261, no ranking listed, Wikipedia:Grundprinciperna [Five pillars at least roughly, though other title] 405 views, no ranking.)
Next:"What is a wiki?" where I may manage to be more brief... and after that there will be more on what Wikipedia is and how it works - I really never meant to use the Wikipedia:About quote as anything but a short introduction. :) But remember: multilingual, free, encyclopedia (project) using openly-editable model.
Here I'm drawing to some extent on the article Wiki on English Wikipedia, but primarily on my own previous knowledge. For the WikiNow concept, see http://www.meatballwiki.org/wiki/WikiNow and also http://www.meatballwiki.org/wiki/VersionHistory . This, and Meatballwiki as a whole, is also interesting by often showing quite clearly that there is such a thing as a "wiki philosophy" (separate from Wikipedia philosophy, but an important influence/current there along with, among other things, the free software and free culture movements mentioned above).
Paragraphs one and two of the slide contains some contradiction. It seems odd that "closed projects" and "personal" uses would always or even normally be "websites that can be edited by their visitors", and they aren't. If they allow visitors not involved in the project at all (as for example my new research note-taking wiki [mostly in Swedish] does), they will normally not allow these to actually edit the pages. The wiki technology can also be used as a tool to create a "normal", non-editable (by normal viewers), website, as on the official site of the Wikimedia Foundation (the organization that owns the servers which host Wikipedia and its "sister projects"). The defining point of what can properly be called a wiki is probably that it can be easily edited through a normal web browser, regardless of who is actually able to do so, who can even see the page and even whether it is actually online, on the World Wide Web or even on some smaller net as opposed to a single offline hard drive. The "general rule" is to be understood to have exceptions, and to probably apply more generally to openly-editable wikis on the World Wide Web than other types, as the wiki technology can certainly be used to create "finished" contents. Even inside the Wikimedia projects, Wikinews articles are routinely archived whereafter they are not publicly editable and are only supposed to be edited at all to correct grammar and formatting (true for English Wikinews, other language versions may have different policies). This, on the other hand, does not mean that Wikinews itself is considered finished.
That "[d]ifferent uses of technology generate different patterns of discourse", and what this can mean in practice, will be obvious even inside Wikipedia when we soon compare articles, talk pages and various "other" pages. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that there can also be important differences in the technology itself between different wikis. Most relevant here is that the automatic connection of a "talk page" to each "content page" (see below) is specific to the MediaWiki software and a response to Wikipedia's special needs. Full version histories is also, as mentioned, not something all wikis have, though for Wikipedia it is essential for licensing reasons, for being able to revert vandalism and arguably for transparency. Viégas, Wattenberg & Dave (2004) acknowledge that not all (but "most") wikis have "archiving systems that record all previous edits of a page and make it simple to revert to an earlier version. If the ease of adding a contribution is a distinguishing feature of a wiki, so too, paradoxically, is the ease of removing contributions of others by reverting an edit" and mention talk pages and "watchlists" (another feature important for keeping vandalism in check) as important features of Wikipedia that are "incidental or even absent" in other wikis (p 576).
The idea that "the wiki is never finished" is a central point in Andreas Widoff's interesting master thesis (in Swedish) "Den variabla texten - En dialogisk analys av Wikipedia" , also referenced in a later slide - and indeed quite an important point for me. Note however that "variableness" is not a unique feature of wikis, but applies for many kinds of websites and also certain other kinds of text (for example on a blackboard). (This is not a critique of Widoff, who I think notes the same things.) What makes Wikipedia and similar wikis special is rather most basically the combination of "variableness", open collaborative authorship and editing (in the case of Wikipedia articles meant to result in a product that is not tied to a specific author but is rather in some sense "spoken" by the collective), and transparency in the editing process.
References:
Fairclough, Norman 1992: Discourse and Social Change . Cambridge: Polity Press.
Viégas, Fernando B., Wattenberg, Martin & Dave, Kushal 2004 "Studying Cooperation and Conflict Between Authors with history flow Visualizations "in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems p. 575 - 582nd
Widoff, Andreas 2009: "The variable text - a dialogical analysis of Wikipedia." Master thesis. Gothenburg University: Department of Swedish Language. Full text online at http://gupea.ub.gu.se/dspace/bitstream/2077/21109/1/gupea_2077_21109_1.pdf (viewed 2010-03-08).
Wikimedia Foundation website.
Wikipedia ("hub" site for all language versions). http://www.wikipedia.org
Wikipedia - Free content. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_content
Wikipedia - Gothenburg riots. http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göteborgskravallerna
Wikipedia "Wikipedia: About"
Wikipedia: Wikipedia: Reusing Wikipedia content "
Wikipedia Wikipedia talk: About"
Wikipedia: Wikipedia: What Wikipedia ice Note:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)