 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
About the Author
Mark Bauerlein is professor of English at Emory University. His books include Literary Criticism: An Autopsy (1997) and Negrophobia: A Race Riot in Atlanta, 1906 (2001). His articles have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, The Weekly Standard, TLS, Yale Review, Partisan Review, Reason Magazine, and many other national periodicals. Topics he will cover include the ideological climate of the campus, knowledge and skill levels of U.S. students, and technology in the classroom.
About Brainstorm
Mark Bauerlein
Marc Bousquet
Kevin Carey
Laurie Fendrich
Teresa Ghilarducci, guest blogger
Sara Goldrick-Rab, guest blogger
John L. Jackson Jr.
Stan Katz
Brainstorm Alumni
Eric BanksDan Greenberg
Michael Nelson, guest blogger
Marty Nemko, guest blogger
Graham Spanier
Stephen Joel Trachtenberg
Bob Zemsky
Recent Posts
For Millennials, College and Learning Are Not the Same | Comment [20]
The War on Drugs From Left to Right | Comment [114]
Dropout Rates, Arts and Humanities, Graduation Numbers | Comment [23]
Another Problem With Texting | Comment [29]
Books, Libraries, Kids | Comment [4]
Featured Articles By the Author
The Wikipedia Style
I can tell when my students have consulted Wikipedia when writing their papers. Sentences lose their singularity, transitions go flat, diction pales. The discourse sounds like information issuing from a neutral platform, not interpretation coming from an angle of vision. The assignments are literary, and one expects some individual style to enter the prose. Instead, students write as if they were composing an encyclopedia entry—or rather, a Wikipedia entry.
I wondered if older encyclopedias delivered the same featureless prose, and came up with some comparisons which I outlined at Education Next. Check out these versions of Moby-Dick. Here’s the Wikipedia entry:
“Ahab seeks one specific whale, Moby-Dick, a great white whale of tremendous size and ferocity. Comparatively few whaling ships know of Moby-Dick, and fewer yet have knowingly encountered the whale. In a previous encounter, the whale destroyed Ahab’s boat and bit off Ahab’s leg. Ahab intends to exact revenge on the whale.”
And here’s Collier’s Encyclopedia, first published in 1950: “As he makes very clear to Starbuck, his first mate, Captain Ahab envisions in Moby-Dick the visible form of a malicious Fate which governs man thoughtlessly…”
And here’s the description of Ahab in the 1953 Encyclopedia Americana: “a crazed captain whose one thought is the capture of a ferocious monster that had maimed him…”
And Cliffs Notes (1966): “Ahab’s monomania is seen then in his determination to view the White Whale as the symbol of all the evil of the universe.”
Each one is more vibrant and entertaining than the Wikipedia entry. The information is no better, and Wikipedia is, indeed, a marvelous source for a quick date, fact, definition, event. But in style, most entries are deadening.
Students assimilate the idiom every time they call it up. That’s the implicit lesson. Wikipedia has become such a popular resource tool that they think Wikipedia style is proper academic style. When writing for intellectual purposes, they assume they should drop the creativity, dash, and metaphor that appears in their personal profile pages (however puerile the content). The concern for bias probably underlies the neutrality style, but I wish I received a lot more biased, opinionated, argumentative, judgmental, stylish, and colorful papers.
Posted at 12:41:13 PM on May 23, 2008 | All postings by Mark BauerleinComments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: The Reigning Paternalism
Next: A Diversity Disclosure Bill in California
Yes! The culture enculcated in Wikiputia is oblivious to the fact that critical thinking and creative thought both take their bearings by reflecting on the point of view that one currently has, not by denying one’s own horizon.
Jon Awbrey
— Jon Awbrey · May 23, 02:31 PM · #
Indeed, Wikipedia’s rules of style enforce some neutral tone. This is because Wikipedia’s articles are supposed not to expose the point of view of a single author, including that author’s subjectivity. Imagine if each and every author wanted to include his or her pet epithet, condemnation or praise.
As often, the problem is not Wikipedia in itself, but people who take it for what it is not. Wikipedia is not a model of style for literary essays, for instance.
— DM · May 23, 02:56 PM · #
To follow up on DM’s excellent points…
Students also aren’t reading anything else other than Wikipedia!
Heck, did they even read Moby Dick before writing their paper on it?
If one’s only view of writing is the Wikistyle, then how can one see that there are better, more creative, more interesting ways to craft a sentence?
— TM · May 23, 03:19 PM · #
Not because I am an Emory alumnus, I must still say, “Yes! Exactly! Bravo!” to Professor Bauerlein. I used to be able to point to an article on Wikipedia called “History of West Eurasia”. It was horrible. I actually had to create a sockpuppet to gain enough credibility to have the article deleted. Here are some excerpts from the article:
Though Roman expansion seems quite unstoppable this was an unstable period. According to Peter Green, in this period a large number of people were enslaved due to the large number of wars and this explains the large number of slave revolts in this period. Piracy was on the increase because Rome cut down to size those navel powers who had kept piracy in check but was slow to take on the responsibility herself. During this period of Roman expansionism archeological evidence points to a great increase of the volume of trade in the Mediterranean sea, with increased by 200% to 300%, from the 3th century BCE to the 1st century.[citation needed] This appears to indicate that the political unification of the Mediterranean sea stimulated economic progress.
…
As the Viking raids subsided the Magyars arrived. Crossing the Carpathians they, in 896, occupied the Upper Tisza river, from which they conducted raids through much of Western Europe. However, in 955 they were defeated by Otto of Germany at the Battle of Lechfeld. The defeat was so crushing that the Magyars decided that ‘if you can’t beat them join them’ and in 1000 their King was accepting his royal regalia from the Pope. Otto on the strength of that victory was able to secure the tittle of Emperor. This German based Holy Roman Empire was to be the major power in Christian Europe for some time to come. As well as this “rebirth” of Western Roman Empire, the Eastern Roman Empire continued to be the up.
Seriously, how awful was that?
As for DM’s comment above: “Imagine if each and every author wanted to include his or her pet epithet, condemnation or praise.” Sounds like Wikipedia. That’s what you were describing, right?
— Gregory Kohs · May 23, 03:24 PM · #
If you are using wiki-style to write a thesis paper on literature you deserve the grade you get. Let me also say that the Moby Dick page is pretty lame and not the best example. Take a look at Hamlet or something and you’ll see it’s a bit better (especially if you stay away from plot sections, EVERYONE wants to edit those, and thus they tend to deteriorate faster).
— wrad · May 23, 04:09 PM · #
Wikipedia is really great for people who want to read their own obituary.
Mark will probably be reading his tomorrow morning.
And tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow …
Jon Awbrey
— Jon Awbrey · May 23, 09:53 PM · #
I personally think that this problem is rather inherent in most academic work nowadays, not merely student papers or encyclopedias. There’s this nasty culture of trying to appear somehow dignified or intellectually refined when the opposite is the case – great thinkers often use the most childish conceptualizations and the most ridiculous inspirations. For example, there is the tale of Kekulé coming up with the structure of benzene through the analogy of an ourobouros, or of Einstein visualizing a ride at light-speed. The trouble is more within the modern expectation of something that looks scholarly rather than something that is really inspired.
Wikipedia can get away with it; the encyclopedia’s policies of neutrality and verifiability inherently limit how new and intriguing and opinionated its information can be, and an article that simply gives the facts and stops short of the authors’ interpretations is entirely understandable in an environment where original research is discouraged (to ensure verifiability). That literature is subjective doesn’t help, and even Wikipedia acknowledges that the current version of bland articles like the one on “Moby-Dick” are merely “B-class”; drafts.
Students, however, need to tear away from this idea that scholarly work is necessarily dusty tomes and bespectacled, greying professors. It’s rather about the knowledge that is gained from the experience of attending it. As a current student, I would say that I’m horrified sometimes at the extent to which some courses I take are merely essay-writing, intellectual obstacle courses where a certain amount of work, rather than an involved and appreciative comprehension of or well-reasoned opinion on the subject, is the factor that allows one to pass. I admittedly cannot offer an outright solution, but I would suggest that challenging the classic essay format or explicitly soliciting opinion in essays might help.
That scholarship is about thinking and figuring things out rather than mere cerebral exercise is an idea as corroded and clouded by mystique as the idea that science is some dark art practiced by near-omniscient geniuses. If you need a reminder of how common that unfortunate myth is, simply recall the phrase “mad scientist”.
— Nihiltres · May 24, 12:46 AM · #
This is a rather silly essay. Students write in an uninspired style because of Wikipedia? Maybe it’s because they are uninspired by the educational system?
— Bernie S · May 24, 11:32 AM · #
For the benefit of those readers who haven’t learned Wikipidgin yet, here’s a translation manual:
Neutrality = the quality of beliefs believed by me and my gang.
Verifiablity = the quality of claims that are reinforced by Google search when you click on the box that says “Are You Feeling Lucky, Wikipunk?”
Original Research = stuff I’m praying won’t be on the test.
Jon Awbrey
— Jon Awbrey · May 24, 09:57 PM · #
Nihltres is discouraged that university requires work rather than just the gift of the gab? Was he joking when he said that as a student he’s discouraged by this? No doubt I would feel the same in his position.
— chick · May 25, 07:13 AM · #
I don’t blame Wikipedia for problems with style, but I’ll save my thoughts on how I address angle of vision and style for another time. I will say that my own prose varies from task to task and is, at times, less featureless than what follows.
In my experience, Wikipedia presents a challenge to the research process. Information is malleable. I teach students how to question authority and to examine (even revise) Wikipedia entries for both content and style. They learn to go outside the text of a Wikipedia entry to trace sources and to go inside the text to examine the conversations, critiques, revision process, and so on. It could be interesting to do that with the Wikipedia entry under discussion. There’s a rich underworld there.
I’d take another look at the superficial text as well. The excerpt chosen to exemplify all that is stylistically wrong with Wikipedia is part of a longer entry that includes a range of sentence types and styles, just as older encylopedias contain ordinary and even dull sentences too. Some sentences excluded from analysis in Bauerlein’s discussion are, in fact, as “vibrant and entertaining” as the passages cited from the past. Not that I’d want my students to stop with Wikipedia and miss the novel itself or more diverse literary essays by authoritative scholars reflecting on <i>Moby Dick</i>.
— Felicia Mitchell · May 25, 11:44 AM · #
Question authority all you want, but questioning the authority of a 12 year old anonymous “administrator” in Wikiputia will get you banned from the site quicker than you can say Jimbo Kliquette.
Jon Awbrey
— Jon Awbrey · May 25, 08:57 PM · #
As Truman Capote said, “That’s not writing, that’s typing.”
— Dan Reiner · May 29, 01:54 PM · #
“I can tell when my students have consulted Wikipedia when writing their papers. Sentences lose their singularity, transitions go flat, diction pales. The discourse sounds like information issuing from a neutral platform, not interpretation coming from an angle of vision.”
The “neutral platform” aspect of this is perhaps misleading, as there is really no such thing as a neutral platform. Rather, there is a more or less contrived cobbling together of view-facets with an ethos of painfully self-conscious “neutrality” that often – in the case of Wikipedia – manages to achieve anything but .
I find Wikipedia useful when I’m beginning research on a topic – to get a broad sense of available sources – but it is absolutely no substitute for reference works like the Brittanica. It’s an entry-level source, and as such is serviceable, but the meat of any research report is likely to be found in other sources, and likely not on the ‘net.
As far as literary style goes, anyone who tries to pull stylistic hints from any encyclopedia (no matter how august) is probably barking up the wrong tree…
— Tony Jones · May 29, 08:09 PM · #
Chick’s comment in #10 misses my point: I rather was trying to make a point more along the lines of what Bernie S says in #8.
That mindless work rather than critical understanding is being used in some courses is clearly unacceptable, and that’s what I wanted to point out. A single pithy comment can demonstrate greater understanding than some verbose essay.
The irony is not lost on me that my verbose examples and analogies are misinterpreted while Bernie S’ comment manages to make a similar, clearer point in a few words. I give it an A.
— Nihiltres · May 29, 09:06 PM · #
Educational Impact Statement
The educational impact of the Wikipedia game is found mainly in the playin’, not in the paintball pointillism that makes up its article content. The articles are just so much shrubbery that the players hide behind as they play The Wikipedia Action Game (TWAG)™.
Educators need to start asking themselves:
What are the habits of citizenship and scholarship that students acquire by playing TWAG?
Jon Awbrey
— Jon Awbrey · May 30, 09:24 AM · #