[Air-l] Studying Wikipedia, studying humans?

[Jonas Holmström]

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 at vt.edu>
> Subject: [Air-l] Studying Wikipedia, studying humans?
> To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org
> Message-ID: <F9CB6039-1621-4AAD-93DA-B52D57D8D2FB at 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
>