Difference between revisions of "An Aesthetic for Deliberating Online: Thinking Through “Universal Pragmatics” and “Dialogism” with Reference to Wikipedia"

From Wikipedia Quality
Jump to: navigation, search
(+ links)
(+ infobox)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
{{Infobox work
 +
| title = An Aesthetic for Deliberating Online: Thinking Through “Universal Pragmatics” and “Dialogism” with Reference to Wikipedia
 +
| date = 2012
 +
| authors = [[Nicholas Cimini]]<br />[[Jennifer Burr]]
 +
| doi = 10.1080/01972243.2012.669448
 +
| link = http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01972243.2012.669448?queryID=%24%7BresultBean.queryID%7D
 +
}}
 
'''An Aesthetic for Deliberating Online: Thinking Through “Universal Pragmatics” and “Dialogism” with Reference to Wikipedia''' - scientific work related to [[Wikipedia quality]] published in 2012, written by [[Nicholas Cimini]] and [[Jennifer Burr]].
 
'''An Aesthetic for Deliberating Online: Thinking Through “Universal Pragmatics” and “Dialogism” with Reference to Wikipedia''' - scientific work related to [[Wikipedia quality]] published in 2012, written by [[Nicholas Cimini]] and [[Jennifer Burr]].
  
 
== Overview ==
 
== Overview ==
 
In this article authors examine contributions to [[Wikipedia]] through the prism of two divergent critical theorists: Jurgen Habermas and Mikhail Bakhtin. Authors show that, in slightly dissimilar ways, these theorists came to consider an “aesthetic for democracy” Hirschkop 1999 or template for deliberative relationships that privileges relatively free and unconstrained dialogue to which every speaker has equal access and without authoritative closure. Authors employ Habermas's theory of “universal pragmatics” and Bakhtin's “dialogism” for analyses of contributions on Wikipedia for its entry on stem cells and transhumanism and show that the decision to embrace either unified or pluralistic forms of deliberation is an empirical matter to be judged in sociohistorical context, as opposed to what normative theories insist on. Authors conclude by stressing the need to be attuned to the complexity and ambiguity of deliberative relations online.
 
In this article authors examine contributions to [[Wikipedia]] through the prism of two divergent critical theorists: Jurgen Habermas and Mikhail Bakhtin. Authors show that, in slightly dissimilar ways, these theorists came to consider an “aesthetic for democracy” Hirschkop 1999 or template for deliberative relationships that privileges relatively free and unconstrained dialogue to which every speaker has equal access and without authoritative closure. Authors employ Habermas's theory of “universal pragmatics” and Bakhtin's “dialogism” for analyses of contributions on Wikipedia for its entry on stem cells and transhumanism and show that the decision to embrace either unified or pluralistic forms of deliberation is an empirical matter to be judged in sociohistorical context, as opposed to what normative theories insist on. Authors conclude by stressing the need to be attuned to the complexity and ambiguity of deliberative relations online.

Revision as of 08:49, 15 January 2020


An Aesthetic for Deliberating Online: Thinking Through “Universal Pragmatics” and “Dialogism” with Reference to Wikipedia
Authors
Nicholas Cimini
Jennifer Burr
Publication date
2012
DOI
10.1080/01972243.2012.669448
Links
Original

An Aesthetic for Deliberating Online: Thinking Through “Universal Pragmatics” and “Dialogism” with Reference to Wikipedia - scientific work related to Wikipedia quality published in 2012, written by Nicholas Cimini and Jennifer Burr.

Overview

In this article authors examine contributions to Wikipedia through the prism of two divergent critical theorists: Jurgen Habermas and Mikhail Bakhtin. Authors show that, in slightly dissimilar ways, these theorists came to consider an “aesthetic for democracy” Hirschkop 1999 or template for deliberative relationships that privileges relatively free and unconstrained dialogue to which every speaker has equal access and without authoritative closure. Authors employ Habermas's theory of “universal pragmatics” and Bakhtin's “dialogism” for analyses of contributions on Wikipedia for its entry on stem cells and transhumanism and show that the decision to embrace either unified or pluralistic forms of deliberation is an empirical matter to be judged in sociohistorical context, as opposed to what normative theories insist on. Authors conclude by stressing the need to be attuned to the complexity and ambiguity of deliberative relations online.