Clinamen

Along with many others, I’ve been following the latest Wikipedia controversy: the publishing of images of the prophet Muhammad and the subsequent petition filed by those who would like to see those pictures taken down. Recently, I began viewing my dissertation as the presentation of a number of Wikipedia episodes, followed by rhetorical analysis of how (what I’m calling) Wikipedia’s hospitable constitution plays out in practice. I want to be clear: the code is hospitable. This is different than saying Wikipedians themselves are hospitable (there is evidence that some are not.)

At the moment, I’m thinking that the Muhammad episode will find its way into my dissertation; however, it’s becoming more and more difficult to stop adding such espisodes. Wikipedia is a moving target (what text isn’t?) and I’m going to have to stop adding stuff. At any rate, I thought I’d chime in briefly about how this whole story is playing out in terms of who’s responsible. Much of the news coverage of this issue has discussed how Wikipedia/”they”/editors have decided to leave the images up in the name of Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View Policy. For instance, the Guardian describes the situation this way:

the defiant editors of the encyclopaedia insist they will not bow to pressure and say anyone objecting to the controversial images can simply adjust their computers so they do not have to look at them.

In light of my study of Wikipedia’s code/constitution (one I call hospitable), I think we can reframe these kinds of statements. By claiming that “defiant editors” have chosen to ignore the petition, much news coverage has looked to pin responsibility to a vague “they” (editors? Wikipedians? Administrators?) But is this where we should locate responsibility? Might we be better served to locate at least some of the responsibility in Wikipedia’s code – a code that makes attempts to institute fewer filters. Don’t get me wrong: I am not saying that people aren’t responsible for what they write. In fact, we’re responsible more than we can ever know (especially on the Web). Audiences will interpret texts in ways we can never predict, and we are responsible to any range of readings (regardless of what we intend). Still, attaching responsibility for these images to a vague “they” oversimplifies things and completely leaves out the constitution that Wikipedia has established. Should that constitution be changed? Larry Sanger thinks so, I’m not sure sure. But if the question is about the constitution of Wikipedia (that is, about how it decides what/who stays or goes), then I think the discussion can be much more useful. The current dust-up over images of Muhammad seems to miss this discussion altogether.

What are the ethical implications of leaving these images up? What are the implications of taking them down? How does Wikipedia’s constitution—one that usually invites noise—deal with such an issue? Currently, Wikipedia (not “they”—“it”) has chosen to stand its ground and leave the images where they are. In my view, any argument that they should be taken down needs to address the code/constitution of Wikipedia rather than this particular version of the debate over what stays and what goes. Otherwise, Wikipedia would head down a road that required it to deal with other kinds of images similarly.

I'm going to keep thinking this through...more to follow in the coming days.