(I wrote this note as a part of the course Advanced Research during the first semester of my doctoral studies in Communication.)
During the process of reading for the course and engaging with the materials, I was also cursorily revisiting my proposal which I wrote early this year. Because of a lack of foundational understanding of communication in my previous academic training, in retrospect, I realise that the points of departure for my thesis were not clear. What was missing was the awareness of the history of communication research drawn from the geopolitical context of development, media & technology trade. Briefly, as part of my thesis, I wanted to analyse the design and policy of Wikipedia to find if these aspects of the website become vehicles for cultural and gender bias. Previous evidence suggests that among the number of contributors, women constitute less than 15% (Cohen 2011). Even more alarmingly, 77% of the articles are written by 1% of the contributors (Oberhaus & Maiberg 2017). The context that I have stressed on in my proposal was based in the history of the internet; especially that to do with collaboration over the internet and the FLOSS (free/libre open-source software) movement. However, after the course, I think it is more productive to posit this culture of collaboration within the longer lineage of democratic decentralisation of media. If anything, the democratic liberal values that Wang (2011) attributes to Western theory may be the foundation of the conceptualisation of the internet and how it came to be used. After all, the World Wide Web (WWW) was also spearheaded by Western technical experts like Tim Berners-Lee.
Samarajiva (1987) provides a brilliant historical analysis of the research project by Daniel Lerner, developed into the book The Passing of Traditional Society. Aptly calling it the “murky beginnings” of the discipline of communication and development, he provides an example of how contextual and historical research can help clarify current debates. Drawing a lesson from this example, I have revisited the concept of a collaborative internet within the context of the information economy. In another article by Hollifield & Samarajiva (1995), they perform a similar historical analysis about the information free-flow discourse in the US policy debates. The shift in discourse, as the authors argue, has been from propounding information free-flow for social & political reasons, to economic ones. While initially the rhetoric was about the right to information as necessary to social life in a democratic country, the rhetoric later shifted to being about economic rationality due to the number of goods & services dependent on information trade. This kind of contextual history is crucial to understanding the development of platforms like Wikipedia, but it also made me view critically the strand of democratized, decentralised knowledge that has been dominant in the discourse about the internet.
While recent events might suggest that proprietary control over internet resources is antithetic to the democratized nature of WWW, the conditions of a liberal democracy have prevented communication technologies to be distributed in a manner that does not sharpen already existing social hierarchies. Ample scholarship exists on the commercialisation of the internet, arguing instead for a discourse that would privilege the right to information for the public of a nation (Pickard 2008). This would mean that there would be a redistribution of “information capital”, for which internet technologies is not only sufficient but also necessary. However, the critique offered by Hollifield & Samarjiva makes me practice caution about the optimism involved in the promise of the internet. With regards to Wikipedia, the position I was willing to take was to argue that while Wikipedia claims to be democratic knowledge, in actuality, this is not the case. Rather, due to the design and policy, it remains an encyclopaedia like any other; dominated by already dominant forces in society. However, I am now rethinking this with an attempt to unpack what democratic knowledge production even is, and whether the ideal in this critical approach is to assume all members of society editing on Wikipedia. Reconfiguring Wikipedia so that, for instance, women from developing nations can become contributing members ignores the aspect of Wikipedia that defines factuality and knowledge itself.
Scholarship regarding participatory design, as opposed to user-centered design, in HCI (Human-Computer Interaction) attempts to explore how users can be absorbed into the agenda of building an interface that represents pluralist interests. However, critiques of participatory democracy have argued that it “inadvertently masks informal hierarchies and other subtle power structures” (Pickard 2008, 8). The participatory politics of collaboration over the internet, when put into the context of global information flows, masks the same discourse about technology aiding in development, when actually it is rooted in accumulating informational infrastructures within the developed nations. It should not be assumed that free internet connections would be the solution for an imbalance of information.
What can be drawn from Wang (2011) with this geopolitical context is the argument that the media is already being used in different ways in the developing world. It does not have to be the case that the West is leading in technology use, and the East as merely following the trends. For instance, Wang points to the innovative ways in which social media is used by Chinese netizens. Moreover, the proliferation of media in Asia, Africa, and South America has developed different patterns as compared to NA and Europe; newspapers or television are hardly dying in any of these locations. But in trying to recommend “Asian” communication theories, Wang and Shen (2000) encounter the need for articulating what Asian might even mean. This would force us to ask questions about the relevance and universality of theory, and to problematize the concept of the Orient as a monolithic location of philosophical thought. Provincialising locations in what is “Asian” would also mean to privilege social hierarchies as they appear in the local, and theorising about media use from within this context. Caution also needs to be practiced in attributing infallibility to perspectives from the developing world, especially in a globalising world where cultures respond to and assimilate perspectives from the West as well. Moreover, relations within smaller societies are fret with tension and inequalities, which is why local contexts must also be studied with a similar historical context as Samarajiva advocates.
Revisiting my proposal, what seems more productive to me is to view the cultures around collaborative work in software processes critically. Wikipedia can be a part of this view, considering that individuals with prior experience in version control editing are those we also spend time editing on Wikipedia. The production of software products and services in India has a lineage of institutionalisation of the software industry, and this context is important in establishing who the experts of technology are today.
References
Christiano, Tom. 2018. “Democracy.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Fall 2018. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/democracy/.
Cohen, Noam. 2011. “Wikipedia Ponders Its Gender-Skewed Contributions.” The New York Times, January 30, 2011, sec. Media. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html.
Feyerabend, Paul. 1993. Against Method. 3rd ed. London ; New York: Verso.
Gaus, Shane D., Gerald, Courtland, and David Schmidtz. 2018. “Liberalism.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Spring 2018. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/liberalism/.
Hollifield, Ann, and Rohan Samarajiva. 1995. “Changing Discourses in US International Information-Communication Policy: From Free Flow to Competitive Advantage?” Gazette (Leiden, Netherlands) 54 (2): 121–143.
Oberhaus, Daniel, and Emanuel Maiberg. 2017. “Nearly All of Wikipedia Is Written By Just 1 Percent of Its Editors.” Vice (blog). November 7, 2017. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7x47bb/wikipedia-editors-elite-diversity-foundation.
Pickard, Victor W. 2008. “Cooptation and Cooperation: Institutional Exemplars of Democratic Internet Technology.” New Media & Society 10 (4): 625–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444808093734.
Samarajiwa, Rohan. 1987. “The Murky Beginnings of the Communication and Development Field: Voice of America and the Passing of Traditional Society.” Rethinking Development Communication, 3–19.
Wang, Georgette. 2011. “Paradigm Shift and the Centrality of Communication Discipline,” 9.
Wang, Georgette, and Vincent Shen. 2000. “East, West, Communication, and Theory: Searching for the Meaning of Searching for Asian Communication Theories.” Asian Journal of Communication 10 (2): 14–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292980009364782.