rughinis matei wikipedia learning though biografies jobbs

7/23/2019 Rughinis Matei Wikipedia Learning Though Biografies Jobbs

1/7

Learning Through Massively Co-Authored

BiographiesMaking Sense of Steve Jobs on Wikipedia through Delegated Voice

Cosima Rughinis, Stefania Matei

Faculty of Sociology and Social Work

University of Bucharest

Bucharest, Romania

{cosima.rughinis, stefania.matei}@sas.unibuc.ro

AbstractThis paper discusses opportunities for learning

about biographies through Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopaedia.

We examine argumentation and interpretation practices in Steve

Jobss entry and its associated Talk pages, focusing on editors

debates on whether Jobs was an inventor. We highlight

argumentation from delegated voice as a core element ofWikipedian knowledge building; contributors variable skills in

engaging this NPOV mandated requirement account for their

success or failure in promoting changes in page content and

structure. Editors concerns about topic relevance and page

structure are particularly vulnerable to counter-argumentation

from delegated voice.

KeywordsBiography, Wikipedia, collaborative work,

argumentation, delegated voice, dialogue

I. INTRODUCTION

Many biographies, either short, such as obituaries, or long,as in books, are authored by one or, at most, several people.Co-authors of a biographical text usually write in closecollaboration, attending to the unity of style and interpretationin the final work. As a rule, authors sign their published

biographies, and readers interpret them understanding that theyread authors perspectives on the subject person a perspectivemanifested through multilayered choices, such as the selectionof relevant elements, their contextualization, their ordering,choice of words, explanations, analogies, comparisons,counterfactual judgments, commentaries and evaluations, etc.Wikipedia presents the public with an alternative form ofauthorship. Wikipedia entries are continuously elaborated bylarge and spontaneous collectives of anonymous contributors,working together on entry files and in channels of online talk,

with reference to a set of procedures for writing andcollaboration that modulate [1], [2] the editing style.

Wikipedias role in public learning has been both praisedand decried, based on considerations of article coverage andquality, public access, and editorial guidelines and practices[310].

Evaluations of quality of Wikipedia articles point to highvariability. Quality depends on article popularity [10], onchance factors related to the probability of any entry beingvandalized at a certain point in time, and, we may add, on the

ratio of common-reasons facts to scientific theory requiredto make sense of the respective topic.

Wikipedia offers free access and, moreover, it is widelyaccessed, because it has a high rank in Google search results

and because coverage is comprehensive. While this is goodnews, it can also be read as a disadvantage, since any problemin entry quality affects a large number of people; studentsmassive use of Wikipedia for academic work is a frequent topicof professors malaise.

Still, Wikipedia is not only a learning resource for itsreaders (as well as users of derived services that mine itsinformation), but also a potential learning experience for itswriters. Rosenzweig praises it especially in this regard:frequent contributors report considerable learning aboutdialogue with a diverse public, benefits in structuring andmemorizing knowledge, and overall enjoyment in contributingto a public stock of knowledge [3]. Time organization is also

important for learning [11]: Wikipedia invites contributors in acontinuous engagement through asynchronous, but timelyinterventions. Contribution quality is encouraged through asystem of peer-awarded badges [12], [13], and through internal

peer review for good articles and for featured articles.

In this article we explore a specific type of learningafforded by Wikipedia, concerning biographical knowledge.We examine the Free Encyclopaedia page of Steve Jobs, as of06.02.2013 [14], and its Talk pages, in order to study howeditors make sense collectively of his contribution to thehistory of technology: how is this contribution formulated, andhow is it changed, in successive moves? How is the massivelyco-authored interpretation of Steve Jobs achieved?

We focus on a specific question that has been repeatedlyaddressed by contributors: was Steve Jobs an inventor? Thisargument involves debates on what it means to be an inventor,adequate criteria for membership in this category for Wikipedia

purposes, whether Jobs fulfills such criteria, and whatformulation of Jobss article is best suited to capture theanswer. The debate also touches on Jobss role in Apple:should Apples products be attributed to Jobs, or should theyfeature only in Apples Wikipedia page? We examine thearguments advanced in these discussions, the role of Wikipedia

procedures in editors arguments, and what type of learning is


2/7

afforded for readers, on the one hand, and for contributors, onthe other hand, concerning argumentation and the quality of

being an inventor.

II. WIKIPEDIA AS A RESOURCE FOR READERS

Wikipedia texts are continuously updated by multipleanonymous contributors, through additions, deletions and

changes in structure and formulation, and therefore no versionof an article is definitive; new editors have the power to undowhat previous editors have written (although this power is, insome cases, limited, for fear of vandalism). While rapid update

brings a risk of errors or malicious changes, Wikipedia alsodisplays considerable self-healing properties, since manyarticles are monitored by editors [3]. Nevertheless, this radicalflexibility of Wikipedia entries has led critiques to challenge itsstatus as a co-authored work, considering that it is rather aserially authored text [9]. Authors anonymity and volatilityintroduce a radically different relationship between texts andreaders, one in which it is not possible anymore to entertaintraditional concepts of author credibility based on expertise andexperience, and enforced by reputation considerations [6], [7].

The ambivalence of Wikipedia as a resource for readers canalso be formulated through the conceptual framework of thetheory of instrumental genesis [1518]. Wikipedia is a noveltype of instrument, due to its massively multi-authoredinstrumentalization. At the same time, readers instrumentationschemes are shared with other encyclopedic instruments, whichhave definite authorship, such as Encyclopdia BritannicaOnline. This discrepancy between editors instrumentalizationwork and readers instrumentation schemes is of concern formany critiques. In essence, the problem is that many readersuse Wikipedia as if it were an individually-authored onlinereference text, without adapting to its specific organization ofauthorship through a different type of scrutiny, or by

examining available talk pages and archives.

The Free Encyclopedia has been praised for is widecoverage, rapid update in case of presentations of currentevents, and free access to texts not only for human reading,

but also for data mining, making Wikipedia a valuable resourcefor secondary services such as automated question and answer

platforms [3].

With coverage, accuracy and access as strong points, itsweak points derive also from its openness, specifically from itsindiference, if not outright hostility to academic expertise [19].Consequently, in comparison with articles on similar topicswritten by scientific professionals, Wikipedia articles oftendisplay an amateurish structure of relevance, somehow similarto collectors structures rather than to current scientific wisdom[3], [5], [8]. For example, Abbott writes as regards the entry on

professions at that time: In short, the Wikipedia article onprofessions is about the quality of a good but not excellentundergraduate paper (p. 179), examining the end result as wellas the arguments underlying edits: Overall, this conversationresembles nothing so much as a dinner chat in a universitydining hall. It is a melange of mixed agendas, unstated moral

positions, sharpeven contemptuousassertions of (usuallyerroneous) authority, and vastly different levels of actualknowledge, all sustained by a kind of youthful energy and a

noble but naive faith. Its participants are concerned and eager.They know a lot of different things and are willing to prospectfor more to the best of their limited time and ability. They arecommitted to a kind of collective enterprise of inquiry. Thatsaid, both the article and this discussion are fundamentallyignorant [5] (p. 180). Luyt [20] also concludes thatWikipedian expertise is based on the nave belief in theinterchangeability of texts as bearers of facts, leading to a

rather haphazard selection of scientific references andperspectives, and a domination of easy references, such asonline short articles, and institutionally-polished summariesand overviews.

Related criticisms apply also to Wikipedias biographicalentries, as discussed especially by Rosenzweig [3] and Brague[8]. There are significant omissions, especially as regardsintellectual contributions, such as in the case of philosophers;there is a lack of contextualization for historical figures; all inall, there is an overweight on exotic details, and a writing stylethat often lacks coherence, due to assemblages of sentencesfrom different contributors. Rosenzweig also points toWikipedias lack of an overall interpretive stance also

attributable to its massive authorship, but also to its policies,especially the Neutral Point of View (NPOV)[21], Verifiability[22] and No Original Research [23] policies. In brief,Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content isdetermined by previously published information rather than the

beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're suresomething is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.When reliable sources disagree, present what the varioussources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain aneutral point of view [22]. Unlike authors of otherencyclopaedic articles, such as Encyclopdia Britannica,Wikipedia contributors claim no voice of their own.Wikipedia, more than the traditionally authoredencyclopaedias, claims to speak in a delegated voice: it reports

what has been said by reputable sources.

III. WAS STEVE JOBS AN INVENTOR?

We start our inquiry by examining how interpretation of thelife and impact of a public person, specifically Steve Jobs, isnegotiated and formulated in his Wikipedia article and itsassociated Talk pages. Unlike scientific constructs, in whichawareness of current scientific literature is critical forunderstanding and meaningful writing, biographical entries donot depend strictly on professional knowledge for eitherreaders or writers. While biographies benefit greatly fromhistorical expertise and also from intimate disciplinaryfamiliarity with the professional life of the subject, stories and

interpretations of renowned persons are publically discussedand available to non-professional people, who can choose andformulate a coherent perspective based on their common-sensesociological knowledge and on others various accounts.

We focus on Wikipedia editors debate concerning whetherJobs was an inventor, whether this alleged quality is significantenough to warrant inclusion in various sections of his article,and, if yes, how it should be formulated. We have chosen this

particular debate because it is prominent on the English-language Talk page associated with Steve Jobs entry. Asecond reason is that our assumption that a coherent and


3/7

detailed take on this issue does not require specializedprofessional knowledge, but nonetheless it benefits fromcareful consideration of alternative points of view asformulated by different collaborators and commentators ofJobs. To put it briefly, we take this topic to be amenable tolearning through dialogue. We investigate whether (and how)this happens in Wikipedia. What sort of knowledge work doesthis debate involve, and what sort of learning does it afford for

contributors, on the one hand, and readers, on the other?

A. The Inventor Debate: Challenging Adequacy and

Relevance through Article Content and Structure

As of 8 February 2013, the introductory description ofSteve Jobs on Wikipedia presented him as an Americanentrepreneur [7] and inventor [8], best known as co-founder,chairman and CEO of Apple Inc. Through Apple, he waswidely recognized as a charismatic pioneer of the personalcomputer revolution [9] [10] () [14] (emphasis added). Wenotice in this description the prominent position of inventor.This is not a singular position, but also not a frequent one. Forexample, the entry in Encyclopdia Britannica Online

[06.02.2103] starts by presenting Steve Jobs as cofounder ofApple Computer, Inc. (now Apple Inc.), and a charismaticpioneer of the personal computer era [24]. In theEncyclopdia Britannica entry, Levy does not mention

inventor as a description of Jobs, but writes that he innovatedas regards products and reinvented corporate organization:Innovate he did. In 1998, Jobs introduced the iMac, an egg-shaped, one-piece computer that offered high-speed processingat a relatively modest price and initiated a trend of highfashioncomputers.() Steve Jobs had saved his company, and in the

process reestablished himself as a master high-technologymarketer and visionary. () In 2001 Jobs started reinventing

Apple for the 21st century (ibid.).Whether or not inventor is a correct and relevant

description of Jobs has featured in 5 debates on the WikipediaTalk pages, as presented in Table 1. One debate concernedarticle structure, contesting the inclusion of Apple products inthe Inventions section on Jobss page. Two debatesconcerned the replacement of inventor with alternativedescriptions, respectively technologist and visionary. Afourth discussion was stirred by an editors comments on acomparison between Jobs and Edison (presented throughdelegated voice, that is, through a citation). The fifth debaterequested that designer be reinstated as a second maindescription of Jobs. As of 6 February 2013, the results of these

debates are as follows: although designer was reinstated, ithas mysteriously vanished again in between; the comparisonwith Edison still stands; inventor is a main description ofJobs.

TABLE I. DEBATES ON JOBS AS INVENTORIN WIKIPEDIA TALK PAGES AFFILIATED WITH JOBSS ENTRY

Request [date] Posts [dates] Topic

07.01.13 07.01.13 06.02.13

Request for moving topics from Inventions section [Not done]

19.10.11 19.10.11

03.03.11

Request to replace inventor with technologist [Not done]

10.09.11 10.09.11 08.10.11

Challenges the following sentence: After his resignation as Apple's CEO, Jobs was characterized as the Thomas Edisonand Henry Ford of his time.[273][274] [Not done]

02.11.11 02.11.11

13.11.11

Inventor has been replaced with visionary, then restored

24.02.12 24.02.12 25.02.12

Request to change "was an American businessman and inventor" to "was an American businessman, designer andinventor".". Most of his patents were design patents, not utility patents. He only had about 40 utility patents and most of

his utility patents were software patents. [Done]

An examination of arguments exchanged through Talkpages indicates the prominence of the argument concerningreliability of sources, that is, what we term the argument fromdelegated voice. The policy of reflecting common wisdomthrough the encyclopaedic voice is often translated as the

policy of replacing any editors judgments with what has beensaid by numerous and / or reliable sources. This policy ofdelegated voice is effectively put in place to silence counter-arguments that do not employ the same argumentative device.

As we can see in the entry text, there are numerous footnotes toindicate references. Not everything is referenced buteverything is accountable to being referenced. In case a word ischallenged, whether or not that term derives from a reliableexternal voice is often (but, we shall see, not always) thedecisive argument.

For example, in Figure 1, the request to replace inventorwith technologist is ultimately adjudicated through theargument that there isnt any published material that refers tohim as such. In this line of argumentation, editors personalopinions are contrasted with reliable sources.

[1] Consider reversing 'inventor' in first sentence in favor of'technologist', as the present term may not properly reflect Jobs' role

within Apple. 222.153.64.27 (talk) 05:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC) ()

[2] What you're expressing is personal opinion. Wikipedia canonly use whatever is from reliable sources: newspapers, magazines,reputable websites, etc. There are numerous that refer to Jobs as an

inventor. 02:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[3] All knowledge is "personal opinion". Preceding unsigned

comment added by 151.200.143.164 (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2011

(UTC)[4] Perhaps, but this doesn't mean we can change Wikipedia

policy to adapt wording for one specific article. Regardless of whatinformation is, Wikipedia has a strict policy on biographies of livingpersons that any statements that are likely to be controversial must be

backed up by reliable sources. Numerous sources state that he is aninventor, and while I'd be inclined to agree with you on the use of theword "technologist" instead, there isn't any published material thatrefers to him as such. elektrikSHOOS 16:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Figure 1. Excerpt from Talk pages, Oct. 2010 Feb. 2011 (paragraph

nummerotation added)


4/7

The comment that all knowledge is personal opinion(para.3) comes in direct conflict with Wikipediasepistemological discourse, and thus it is bound to fail as anargument in this setting, whatever its philosophical merits.

The argument from delegated voice is not only used toargue for the use of one term over another, but also in debatesconcerning relevance. For example, in Figure 2, the first editorquestions the relevance of including the reported comparison ofJobs with Edison. Still, the initiator formulates this challenge ashis opinion concerning the comparison between the two, ratherthan his evaluation on the relevance of including the reportedcomparison (para.1: I think not!). This framingunsurprisingly leads to argumentative failure, since editorsopinions on substantive topics concerning the article subjectare always superseded by voices of external (reliable) sources.In this case, the sources are not introduced as numerous; still,what has been said is reportable by default; editors cannotcontradict a reliable external voice, but just argue against itsrelevance in the Wikipedia entry according to Wikipediacriteria. The initiator does not do this. Through framing thisdebate as a conflict of opinion, the initiator stands to lose. In

sequence, another contributor offers his opinion in aninteresting exchange that further marks the discussion asinterpersonal communication between contributors. Interestingas it may be, the dialogue is marked as against rules by anothercontributor (para.3), and the fourth editor concludes Thearticle simply states what has been said of him (para.4), thusformulating the debate as one of sourceversus opinion(sourcewins), instead as a discussion of relevance.

[1] The Henry Ford or Thomas Edison of his age? I think not!

He's a brilliant man and did a lot to advance the personal computer

industry, but he is not in the same league as these two people. Heinspired others to create, but he didn't invent a single thing. Hislegacy is motivation, not creativity.108.23.147.17 (talk) Preceding

undated comment added 04:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC).()[2] Honestly, The Edison comparison is apt, though probably not

for the intended purpose. Edison was a brilliant marketer of,essentially, other people's technology. He took existing ideas (stole

would not be too far off the mark in some cases) and brought theminto the public mindset. Jobs didn't invent tablet PCs, computers, mp3players, etc...he took existing technologies, improved their design andusability, and marketed them brilliantly. He was a product designer at

heart, not really an "inventor" in the traditional sense. He investeduser experiences, not the tech itself. For better or worse, that matchesEdison fairly well. 204.65.34.206 (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

[3] This is not the place to share your reflections or original

research on Jobs' life or accomplishments, unless it's somehowrelevant to writing about them on Wikipedia. There are lots of other

places on the net to talk about this. --Saforrest (talk) 15:23, 6 October

2011 (UTC)[4] It doesn't matter what you (or any other editor) thinks. The

article simply states what has been said of him, it (and WP) doesn'tmake any judgments one way or the other. -- Jibal (talk) 03:57, 7

October 2011 (UTC) (Emphases added)

Figure 2. Excerpt from Talk pages, Sept. Oct. 2011 (paragraph

nummerotation added)

Wikipedia contributors are not only debating the presenceand absence of descriptions and sentences, but also their

position in the article as signs of relevance. For example, in

Figure 3, the initiator questions the list of products under thecategory Inventions, arguing that their attribution to Jobs asan individual is unwarranted and that they should be presentedon the Apple page (para.1). Still, the second contributor readsthis request as being answered through a sentence that plainlystates Jobs role, and does not acknowledge the purportedconflict between what is plainly stated and the articlestructure. Subsequently the debate turns to issues of how to

describe Jobss contribution, rather than article structure, due tothe intervention of subsequent editors. Since the contributionhas already been plainly stated, the initial argument is lost

both as visibility and as regards it chances of success.

[1] I think listing those under "Inventions" is a bit misleading,

given the most involvement he's had with them was "the look and feel".Those should go under Apple's article, as it was his engineers that

actually did the work. Preceding unsigned comment added by67.189.102.242 (talk contribs) 7 January 2013

[2] The articleplainly statesthat Jobs "is listed as either primaryinventor or co-inventor in 342 United States patents or patent

applications...Jobs's contributions to most of his patents were to 'the

look and feel of the product'". I'm not sure what else you want here;please be more specific. Thanks. KuyaBriBriTalk 19:36, 7 January2013 (UTC)

[3] Right people want to know if he actually EVER invented

anything himselfor only put his name on stuff as you indicate and as

the current lede indicates (stating that Woz actually did all the work).We know he's the champion of capitalists and people who think

themselves entitled to take credit and ownership of products producedby the labor of others everywhere, the question is did he actually everreally DO anything other than that, or was he just a hustler,entrepreneur, whatever you want to call it ()72.228.190.243 (talk)

22:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC) ()[4] Well it's clear there's a confusion on EXACTLY what he DID

DO in the production processes in question. Maybe that's a betterway to frame it but, yes that subsumes what you just asked. It need notbe a negative statement about a null set where Gates has the Basic

system, Ellison has his first RDBMS, etc., a positive statement of anon-null set as the entirety of his participation in those processes willwork just as well, better perhaps. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 22:00, 13January 2013 (UTC) (Emphases added)

Figure 3. Excerpt from Talk pages, Jan. 2013 (paragraph nummerotation

added)

A similar structure of argumentation can be seen in Figure4. Following a previous contributors acknowledgement thatBut yeah, he did invent some things, just need to clarify it wasmostly design and simple things, another editor challenges the

position of the word inventor in the article introduction. Still,this challenge as regards article structure is lost in the generalargument concerning whether Jobs was or not an inventor. Theeither/or framing dominates the discussion, making argumentsabout relevanceand its representation through structure lessvisible and less likely to succeed.

We can therefore see that argumentation from delegatedvoice makes it particularly difficult for contributors to advancearguments about the relevanceof a particular topic (counteredas personal opinions) and about the article structure(attenuated by discussions of article content). Despite thesubstantial discussions on the correctness and relevance ofJobss description as an inventor on the Talk pages, it still


5/7

occupies a prominent place in the examined version of theencyclopedic entry.

[1] Just because Jobs' name is on patents certified by the USPTO,

which therefore makes Jobs an "inventor", that doesn't mean that theword "inventor" should necessarily be put in his introduction. Millionsof other people on Wikipedia have their names on patents, and don't

have the word "inventor" put in their introduction. One example isCharlie Sheen. He invented a "Chapstick Dispensing Apparatus"

(acknowledged by USPTO), yet he doesn't have "inventor" in theopening of his Wikipedia page. (Nbanato (talk) 08:20, 6 February

2013 (UTC))[2] Do you see a difference in the relative success of their

inventions? --SubSeven (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[3] That's not my point. The point is that the introduction of a

wikipedia page should say what the its subject was/is most known for.

Charlie Sheen was an actor first and foremost, and Steve Jobs was atechnology entrepreneur and visionary. A single Apple patent usually

includes the names of many, many others (for example, those whowere responsible for the engineering, the programming etc) in

addition to Jobs. If we are to include the word "inventor" in Jobs'introduction, then, to be fair, we would have to give every single oneof those Apple employees included in the patents that Jobs is included

in the title of "inventor" (in their wikipedia opening) as well. The factthat only Jobs has the Macintosh, ipod, iphone, imac etc listed on hispage as inventions of his is very misleading. It gives readers theimpression that they were created solely or primarily by him. Whyaren't these products listed as being the inventions of all those other

people whose names are included in Apple's patents on their wikipages? (Nbanato (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC))

Figure 4. Excerpt from Talk pages, Feb. 2013 (paragraph nummerotation

added)

This prominence is manifested through article structure:

1) Jobss description as an inventor is included as a coredescription, in the introduction;

2) There is a distinctive section on Inventions anddesigns that lists Apples products as attributable to Jobs.

Still, the debate did not remain without results in the entrytext. We can observe, in the section of Inventions anddesigns, three argumentative devices for dealing with thecontroversies:

1) Juxtaposition: voices against Jobss description as aninventor are included and referenced, as dissenting views. Inthe spirit of Wikipedias focus on delegated voice, a paragraphhas been included here to report dissenting views on Jobssdescription as an inventor: According to Apple cofounder,Steve Wozniak, "Steve didn't ever code. He wasn't an engineer

and he didn't do any original design..."[130][131] DanielKottke, one of Apple's earliest employees and a college friendof Jobs', stated that "Between Woz and Jobs, Woz was theinnovator, the inventor. Steve Jobs was the marketing

person."[132] [14]. It is still noteworthy that Jobs descriptionas an inventor is realized in the encyclopaedic voice, not asexternal view. This asymmetry reflects a general Wikipedia

policy that when presenting negative material, it is often bestto name the source of the criticism within the paragraph orsentence, so that the criticism is not presented in theencyclopedia's voice [25]; this does not apply to descriptions

that are considered neutral, even if the concept indicates aspecific merit (as is the case with inventor);

2) Concluding descriptive sentences which encourage aspecific interpretation: the introductory part on Inventions anddesigns ends with a description that presents Jobssinventiveness under extreme situations, presenting him asconstantly oriented towards devising novel devices: Evenwhile terminally ill in the hospital, Jobs sketched new devicesthat would hold the iPad in a hospital bed.[137] He alsodespised the oxygen monitor on his finger and suggested waysto revise the design for simplicity.[138] [14];

3) Concluding interpretive sentences: the paragraphmentioning that He is listed as either primary inventor or co-inventor in 346 United States patents or patent applicationsends with a conclusive sentence that acknowledges this debateand solves it as a transformation in time: Although Jobs hadlittle involvement in the engineering and technical side of theoriginal Apple computers,[131] Jobs later used his CEO

position to directly involve himself with product design.[136].Although both halves of this phrase are attributed to sources,following faithfully the policy of delegated voice, the editor/screate, through their juxtaposition, the novel interpretation thata transformation took place in Jobs style of involvement.

Therefore, the centrality of delegated voice andcontributors inability, at least in this case, to use this policy tochallenge the relevance of Jobss description as an inventoras emphasized through page structure rather than page content,have resulted in the high prominence of this description in thecurrent version of the Wikipedia entry on Steve Jobs. On thereverse side, the same policy accounts for the representation ofthe controversy in the page content, thus reflecting, to someextent, the plurivocality concerning this topic.

B.Accounting for Jobss Succcess in Talk and Entry Pages

Readers of Talk pages, particularly if following theinventor debate, encounter a nuanced portrait of Steve Jobs,with multiple descriptions of his creativity. We can identifytwo types of opponents to the inventor description:

1) The mere marketing evaluation, considering thatinventor refers to technical creativity that stands inopposition to less valuable marketing, sales, and other businesscapabilities; see, for example, the following appreciation in theTalk archive: Agreed, Jobs is NOT an inventor. He reallyworks with design teams and lays out "Requirements" whichthe engineers than go figure out how to do. Stipulatingrequirements is not strictly speaking "inventing". Invention has

more to do with the hard science behind something. Ex. Stevelikes his devices to not show screws. The engineers have tofigure out how to construct something that is held togetherwithout any screws showing. Steve didn't invent anything, hemerely came out with some requirements. 19:15, 9 February2011 (UTC) Preceding unsigned comment added by

NathanielPoe. (Emphasis added).

2) A discussion of different forms of creativity andinnovation, largely highlighting Jobs merits as a productdesigner; the following comments on the Talk pages illustratethis evaluation: Dan Farber at CBS summarised Jobs this way:


6/7

He was not an inventor in the classic sense, tinkering withprogram code to create the Worldwide Web or tinfoil toreproduce sounds on a phonograph. Jobs was more of anorchestral conductor, charismatic and dictatorial, assemblingthe people and pieces of existing and emerging technology tocraft an object of desire that reflected his personal aesthetic andvision for how people and machines should interact.http://www.firstpost.com/world/dream-of-being-your-own-

inventor-not-the-next-steve-jobs-100958.html -Classicfilms(talk) 05:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC); There's a very goodargument made that he was a tweaker, not an inventor, in acurrent The New Yorker article, The Tweaker: The real geniusof Steve Jobs by Malcolm Gladwell. --Tagishsimon (talk)20:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC).

Some arguments from the discussion concerning theparticular abilities of Jobs did find their way in the main page;we can find the following comment included in Mediacoverage: Malcolm Gladwell in The New Yorker assertedthat Jobss sensibility was editorial, not inventive. His gift layin taking what was in front of him and ruthlessly refining it[14]. Still, in the overall, the entry does not provide a

discussion of what accounted for Jobss success either aspersonal abilities, or as distributed competences and even asbroader, favorable trends. An overall interpretive stance onhow to explain Jobs success, and what particular kinds ofcreativity he had, is lacking.

Wikipedias promise of universal access to authorship (asemphasized in its slogan: the free encyclopedia that anyonecan edit), and the massive mobilization of voluntary editorsraise the issue of what forms and roles dialogue has [26] inshaping its entries. Yet a second issue, following Bakhtins[27], [28] theoretical approach, concerns polyphony: can weargue that Wikipedia is a polyphonic encyclopaedia, makingvisible if not audible multiple voices in a self-orchestrated

event? As a tentative answer, based on our analysis of SteveJobss entry, we propose that, through reading a Wikipediaarticle, we can overhear a lively discussion involving manyvoices although this polyphony becomes quite muffled by theaggregated encyclopaedic voice that demotes diversity of

perspectives to the periphery of a common knowledgeconsensus. Diverse voices are readable on the Talk pages

but, again, the preference for argumentation from delegatedspeech means that, in order to be powerful, an editors voicemust be dual: it should speak in sync with a reliable source.Editors who succeed in coupling their voices with publishedtexts gain access to authorial dialogue; those who ignore orresist the NPOV requirements are quickly dismissed.Interestingly, bibliographic references do not function as

arguments in favor of ones own point of view (as customary inacademic argumentation); instead, in Wikipedia sourcesrepresent the main voices that are to be represented on the entry

page, while editors position themselves as carrier waves. If(and only if) taken jointly with their associated Talk pages,Wikipedia entries present the reader with a dynamic, rich,dialogical argumentation but there are also multiple instancesin which the NPOV principle is visibly used to silenceinterlocutors.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Our examination of the inventor debate concerning theentry on Steve Jobs in Wikipedia points to several conclusionsconcerning Wikipedia as a resource and opportunity forlearning.

As regards contributors skills, the Talk page offers spaceand challenges for argumentation, and the inventor controversy

emerged more than once. Still, proponents of modifications inthe status quo seem to underestimate the significance of theargument from delegated voice; at times they confront itdirectly, or they ignore its mandate. To a large extent, thefailure of attempts to underplay Jobss description asinventor derives from proponents casual style ofargumentation, avoiding or challenging a rigorous employmentof the policy of reference to sources and speaking throughothers voices. A second explanation can be found in theconstant combination of arguments concerning adequacy ofdescription with arguments concerning relevance, to the resultthat conclusions concerning adequacy (Jobs can be adequatelydescribed as an inventor, according to Wikipedia criteria ofevaluation) overshadow discussions of relevance. Along the

same line, discussions of page content completely obscurechallenges concerning page structure.

As regards Steve Jobss entry as a resource for readers, wefind that, through structure more than content, the pageemphasizes Jobs as an inventor at the expense of other relevantand available descriptions, especially downplaying theproduct designer description. Dissenting voices are includedin text, following the NPOV policy. Still, there is no

problematization of what kind of special abilities account forJobss success, and how it can be understood in a wider socialand technological context. Contextualization and nuancedaccounts of personality and transformation throughout liferepresent, indeed, weak points of Wikipedia authorship.

To conclude on a less critical tone, our analysis supportsthe claim that Wikipedia articles do indeed illustrate a varietyof voices and points of view. Unlike the EncyclopdiaBritannica Online entry, which does not include any criticalcomment on Jobs, the Wikipedia article includes severaldiscussions concerning, among other, his management style,his lack of philanthropic engagement, and, as mentionedalready, challenges to his technical inventiveness. This meansthat, if editors master Wikipedia argumentation style and rulesof relevance, they can incorporate alternative voices, althougharguments about their relative weight are particularlychallenging, in the NPOV framework. It remains to be furtherstudied what type of argumentative devices are most successful

in implementing judgments of relevance and the associatedchanges in article structure.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This article has been supported by the research project

Sociological imagination and disciplinary orientation in

applied social research, with the financial support of ANCS /

UEFISCDI with grant no. PN-II-RU-TE-2011-3-0143,

contract 14/28.10.2011.


7/7

REFERENCES

[1] R. Rughinis, Serious Games as Input versus Modulation:

Different Evaluations of Utility, in 26th Conference on

People and Computers BCS-HCI 2012, 2012, pp. 175184.[2] R. Rughinis, Scaffolding a Technical Community of

Students Through Social Gaming: Lessons from a SeriousGame Evaluation, in 10th International Conference on

Computer Supported Collaborative Learning CSCL 2013,

2013, pp. 14.[3] R. Rosenzweig, Can History Be Open Source? Wikipedia

and the Future of the Past, Journal of American History,

vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 117146, 2006.[4] K. B. Wray, The Epistemic Cultures of Science and

Wikipedia,Episteme, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 3851, 2009.

[5] A. Abbott, Varieties of Ignorance, The American

Sociologist, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 174189, 2010.[6] P. D. Magnus, On Trusting Wikipedia,Episteme, vol. 6,

pp. 7490, 2009.[7] D. P. Tollefsen, Wikipedia and the Epistemology of

Testimony,Episteme, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 824, 2009.

[8] G. Bragues, Eiki-Philosophizing in a Marketplace of Ideas:Evaluating Wikipedias Entries On Seven Great Minds,Media Tropes e-Journal, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 117158, 2009.

[9] J. Goodwin, The Authority of Wikipedia, in Argument

Cultures, 2009.

[10] P. Duguid, Limits of Self-Organization: Peer Productionand Laws of Quality,First Monday, vol. 11, no. 10, 2006.

[11] R. Rughinis, Time as a Heuristic in Serious Games for

Engineering Education, in 5th International Conference onComputer Supported Education CSEDU 2013, 2013.

[12] R. Rughinis, Badge Architectures in Engineering

Education. Blueprints and Challenges, in 5th International

Conference on Computer Supported Education CSEDU2013, 2013.

[13] R. Rughinis, Talkative Objects in Need of Interpretation.Re-Thinking Digital Badges in Education, inAltCHI 2013,

ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing

Systems, 2013, pp. 110.[14] Wikipedia Contributors, Steve Jobs, Wikipedia, The Free

Encyclopedia, 2013. [Online]. Available:

http://en.wikipedia.org/. [Accessed: 18-Feb-2013].[15] P. Bguin and P. Rabardel, Designing for instrument-

mediated activity, Scandinavian Journal of InformationSystems, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 173190, 2000.

[16] J. Longchamp, An instrumental perspective on CSCLsystems, International Journal of Computer-SupportedCollaborative Learning, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 211237, Feb.2012.

[17] R. Rughinis, Flexible Gamification in a Social LearningSituation, in 10th International Conference on Computer

Supported Collaborative Learning CSCL 2013, 2013, pp. 1

4.[18] R. Rughinis, Work and Gameplay in the Transparent

Magic Circle of Gamification. Insights from a GamefulCollaborative Review Exercise, in 15th International

Conference on Human-Computer Interaction - HCII 2013,

2013, pp. 110.[19] L. Sanger, Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism,

Kuro5hin, no. 30.12.2004, 2004.

[20] B. Luyt, The Inclusivity of Wikipedia and the Drawing ofExpert Boundaries: An Examination of Talk Pages andReference Lists, Journal of the American Society forInformation Science and Technology, vol. 63, no. 9, pp.

18681878, 2012.[21] Wikipedia Contributors, Wikipedia: Neutral Point of

View, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 2013. [Online].Available:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vi

ew. [Accessed: 10-Feb-2013].[22] Wikipedia Contributors, Wikipedia: Verifiability,

Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 2013. [Online].

Available:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability.[Accessed: 10-Feb-2013].

[23] Wikipedia Contributors, Wikipedia: No Original

Research, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 2013.[Online]. Available:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research. [Accessed: 10-Feb-3012].

[24] S. Levy Jr., Steve Jobs,Encyclopdia Britannica, 2013.

[Online]. Available:http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/304313/Steve-Jobs. [Accessed: 06-Feb-2013].

[25] Wikipedia Contributors, Wikipedia: Criticism, Wikipedia,

The Free Encyclopaedia, 2013. [Online]. Available:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism.[Accessed: 10-Feb-2013].[26] E. J. Hartelius, Wikipedia and the Emergence of Dialogic

Expertise, Southern Communication Journal, vol. 75, no. 5,pp. 505526, Nov. 2010.

[27] M. M. Bakhtin,Problems of Dostoevskys poetics, vol. 8, no.

v. 8. University of Minnesota Press, 1984, p. xliii, 333 p.

[28] O. Belova, I. King, and M. Sliwa, Introduction: Polyphonyand Organization Studies: Mikhail Bakhtin and Beyond,Organization Studies, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 493500, 2008.

rughinis matei wikipedia learning though biografies jobbs

Documents