You know how some people seem to take on entirely different persona(e) when they write versus when they speak? Familiar with the way others' prose personalities translate directly to their spoken words? I myself am probably a case of the former, save in situations in which I'm very comfortable or well established. While I may come off textually as very confident, assured, smarmy, and sometimes even righteous, I confess that I'm a rather nervous public speaker. I'll get blushy and look down and forget what I'm going to say, dig my toes into carpet and wonder how many people are staring at that huge zit crater southeast of my left nostril. Our friend Jason, though? Man, is he a case of the latter.
Being a writing tutor I'm especially adept at wading through bullshit to dig from the muck swallowed diamond rings, toy soldiers and gold bullion, so before tonight's appearance and with my readings of Jason's Wikipedia criticism as background, I'd decided that Jason had begun to make some good points in his articles and the speech, their only true fault being lack of cohesion. His written/transcribed material, while entertaining, proved continually troubling for me because by the end of whatever piece I'd been cruising, I still wasn't very clear as to Jason's actual stance save a general sentiment of negativity toward Wikipedia. Jason's more than willing to step in and make attacks--(hello Wiki-vandalism!)--but doesn't seem to have much in the way of productive solutions. Nor do I get the sense that he's clearly thought out and identified in explicable terms the core of what he sees as being wrong with Wikipedia's system.
Exactly as he does in his articles, tonight he talked around suggestions of points, providing lots of interesting factual information regurgitated into our class' collective hungry gullet and I'm full, but not satisfied. If in fact he can, I'd like to see Jason dredge up from his miasma of swirling ideas what he sees as the core faults of Wikipedia, whip them into the shape of ugly hobgoblins he can plainly expose for the entire world to see beyond a doubt, and proceed to rip them to shreds as, with his presumed body of knowledge, he should be able to do with his eyes closed. What I wonder--and what I wondered after I'd done my reading of his stuff for the last real post--is if Jason knows what these flaws are, or if he's just one of those individuals who's dangerously fond of being contentious, devilishly grinning over steepled fingers, giggling "I know more than you know!" Or maybe he's just jealous of Jimbo? The resentment seemed rather personal. After all, Jason prides himself on his charisma and speaking skills; perhaps Jimbo's being audaciously compelling and a true charmer has sparked some sort of primeval competitive instinct in the soul of Jason Scott?
Now, please don't get me wrong: I like wiseguys. In fact, I'd probably go so far as to identify myself as one, but being a wiseass without whipping out the goods to back it up? I'm not such a fan of that. Y'all remember my hangup on truthiness (If not, check it two posts ago). I thought that I could identify with Jason as far as goes placing a high value on veracity, but now I'm not so sure he's even advocating for dissemination of truth and eradication of misinformation. Instead, he's just kind've windbagging along, mumbling "you're making stupid edits." Additionally, I'd assert that participating in vandalism and name-calling without being able to state precisely why and manifest why you've any claim on doing so does nothing to promote personal integrity or make any situation better. Jason claims he's an inclusionist, but it seems he'd rather be an exclusive, smirking lurker of the wiki-wiki-world (yes: please do read that with full-on DJ turntable sounds) than work to advance and improve a technology/community/phenomena for which he claims to have so much respect. I get the sense that Jason is content to be lord of his purportedly clean and upstanding limited wiki-land (was anybody else curious about the communities in which he participates? I was. I should have inquired) than sustain a demotion to share his expertise and become a lesser baronet of the wiki Universe.
In my post from earlier this week I said that Jason was entertaining and interesting to read. This is still true, and he was engaging in class (just ask him if he's a compelling and engaging speaker--he'll tell you!). In much the same way, class clowns make class more fun, too. This doesn't mean, though, that they're the guys you respect as they shoot spitballs at the group giving a subpar presentation up at the front of the classroom. As in Jason's articles, his talk in class left me silent not out of satisfaction, but rather hushed and dazzled by intricate circumulocution, questioning whether I'd just missed the obvious or if there had been no real point made.
In all, I think Jason's got the goods up there in his head as to why Wikipedia is an evil machine and deserves to be overthrown (or at the very least sacked and remodeled) but until he lays out in plain terms why this is so rather than defaulting to broad negative assertions supported by entertaining examples, I've yet to be convinced.
Come on, Jason. Be a smart bully and deliver.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I wanted to reply to this earlier, but I've been drudging through 18th century literature, criticism, and crusty secondary resources for the better part of the day with only brief opportunities at escaping to the gloriously fast and streamlined world of the Internet. Yay!
First of all, Jason (because I'm sure you're reading this)--thanks for replying! This was really helpful and interesting. I commend you for your level-headed, coherent rejoinder. High five.
See--I did hear you saying these things in class, just not directly, and blended with a heaping portion of complex analogies (obviously I'm a huge fan of figurative language, so I'm not exactly knockin' ya) and more of an expression of these ideas in relation to what's WRONG with Wikipedia, versus how to make it better, rendering the really thoughtful ways in which to make it better you've outlined less evident. Seeing them instead spelled out and bulleted brings it all together for ME, and I hope for others, too. Hell, now that you have what's essentially a really effective shadow outline of your speech, maybe this'll be useful for your future appearances and talks? :)
One remaining query: You recommend "Separated archive of primary source materials (gained in negotiation with primary sources, proving hosting while allowing original owners to keep copyrights)."
Isn't this, essentially, what things like ECCO and Early English Literature Online do? Have an online data base of actual sources scanned into online format? And you have to pay beaucoup bucks for these services. Don't you think that outfits such as these would stage a pretty hearty protest? But, damn, it'd be nice if they were made free... mmm... (lapses into nerdy bibliophile fantasies).
Okay, Jason, I respect what you have to say about your analogies. They DO tend to reach a broader mass of people than dead-on facts and clearcut diction might, but keep in mind that when you're paving your path with analogies and shiny tiles of figurative speech, some of your audience might get distracted along the way, stay fixated on an invitingly glimmering piece of something and stop following you down the yellow brick road. ;)
And maybe the wanting answers as to "how to fix Wikipedia" part speaks only to my innate need to have things wrapped up; maybe it interested NO ONE elsein the class. Who the shit knows? :) Still, I think it's natural and intelligent and makes YOU look like a more compelling force if, in addition to your insightful detractions from Wikipedia's glorious theoretical functionality, you have some "it'd be better ifs" to act as buttresses. There's the basic format of any persuasive essay--so you've presented counterarguments, you say? Cool. But they don't mean as much as they could without a followup of "AND I'm also amazing because I KNOW how we might make things better... and here's how, but sadly nobody's doing it, and this, my friends, is why Jimbo Wales blows." You dig? That's all I was getting at. Maybe I'm trying to make a false application of dull, academic, cut-and-dry argumentation format here to your blog writing and speeches, but I think the basic premises for arguments stay the same, little matter the medium.
I'll go check out the site you mentioned and thanks! The "crap for free is better than good for pay" bit...ooh...my blood BOILS. CRAP FOR FREE IS STILL JUST THAT: it is CRAP. I wish people'd just heighten their standards. It'd make the world a better place.
Thanks for the info, Jason. Stay gangsta.
Post a Comment