Difference between revisions of "Pushkin and the Wikipedia"

From Wikipedia Quality
Jump to: navigation, search
(Infobox work)
(Embed)
Line 9: Line 9:
 
== Overview ==
 
== Overview ==
 
Wikipedia has become a common resource not only for students shirking the rigors of genuine research, but also for scholars seeking a quick and reliable answer to a basic question. In that capacity it has been extremely useful and time-saving to us all. Recent comparisons have shown that in many respects the [[Wikipedia]] is no worse than traditional encyclopedias. And of course the Wikipedia has the immense advantage of being a work in progress. Wrong information can be corrected; bad entries can be improved. Perhaps the best that can be said about the present Pushkin entry is that it can only get better. The text consists of platitudes occasionally spiced with factual errors. The few footnotes rarely refer to scholarly works, but more often to questionable sources that the author(s) happened upon while surfing the web. From a stylistic point of view, the essay is a horror. In the brief space of three pages, the same weak points are made two or three times, sometimes verbatim. The essay begins with an overview. Authors learn that Pushkin "is considered by many to be the greatest Russian poet." (The authors appear to find this point so controversial that they substantiate it by four different sources, two of whom are from the BBC.) Apparently Pushkin earned this [[reputation]] by "pioneer the use of vernacular speech in his poems and plays." While there may be a hint of truth here, it of course does not get close to explaining Pushkin's unique style, so intimately linked to the history of the Russian literary language and the problem of "archaists and innovators." That the authors do not dwell on such subtleties is hardly surprising. However, one can only express dismay at their decision to close the first paragraph by saying that Pushkin's "Marie: A Story of Russian Love provides insight into Russia during the reign of Catherine the Great." It is not a good sign when the very first work explicitly mentioned does not exist. (A subsequent internet search made clear that this is the title of an early translation of The Captain's Daughter.) Authors then move on to politics. The Wikipedia authors appear to derive their information here from a bad precis of Soviet scholarship. The subject of Pushkin and politics is of course significant and has been discussed recently by both Sergei Davydov and Oleg Proskurin in English essays directed at non-specialists (in The Pushkin Handbook and The Cambridge Companion to Pushkin, respectively). Alas, the Wikipedia is unaware of this scholarship. Thus, authors learn that Pushkin "gradually became committed to social reform" (whatever that means), that "in the early 1820s he clashed with the government" and then in 1823 in Odessa "he again clashed with the government." From there authors jump to the fact that Pushkin and his wife "later became regulars of court society." What is wrong with this picture? To begin with, it is time to recognize that the question of Pushkin's radical politics was blown out of all proportion by Soviet scholars. An up-to-date essay on Pushkin should note that even those early poems always cited by the Soviets and indeed (as the Wikipedia points out) memorized and recopied by the Decembrists, were never viewed by Pushkin as being particularly radical (see Igor" Nemirovskii's essay on "Kinzhal" in his Tvorchestvo Pushkina i problema publichnogo povedeniia poeta). In fact, there is every reason to believe that Tsar Alexander himself did not view them as radical; evidence suggests that he found in them a reflection of his own liberal views. As recent scholars (e.g., Mark Al'tshuller, in his excellent Mezhdu dvukh tsarei) have argued, Pushkin's exile is almost certainly to be attributed not to the political poems, but to his ad hominem epigrams directed at the tsar. More to the point: Pushkin always approved of the institution of monarchy, as long as it was based on a respect for the law. When Nicholas came to power, Pushkin was his staunch defender, often to the amazement of his more liberal friends. …
 
Wikipedia has become a common resource not only for students shirking the rigors of genuine research, but also for scholars seeking a quick and reliable answer to a basic question. In that capacity it has been extremely useful and time-saving to us all. Recent comparisons have shown that in many respects the [[Wikipedia]] is no worse than traditional encyclopedias. And of course the Wikipedia has the immense advantage of being a work in progress. Wrong information can be corrected; bad entries can be improved. Perhaps the best that can be said about the present Pushkin entry is that it can only get better. The text consists of platitudes occasionally spiced with factual errors. The few footnotes rarely refer to scholarly works, but more often to questionable sources that the author(s) happened upon while surfing the web. From a stylistic point of view, the essay is a horror. In the brief space of three pages, the same weak points are made two or three times, sometimes verbatim. The essay begins with an overview. Authors learn that Pushkin "is considered by many to be the greatest Russian poet." (The authors appear to find this point so controversial that they substantiate it by four different sources, two of whom are from the BBC.) Apparently Pushkin earned this [[reputation]] by "pioneer the use of vernacular speech in his poems and plays." While there may be a hint of truth here, it of course does not get close to explaining Pushkin's unique style, so intimately linked to the history of the Russian literary language and the problem of "archaists and innovators." That the authors do not dwell on such subtleties is hardly surprising. However, one can only express dismay at their decision to close the first paragraph by saying that Pushkin's "Marie: A Story of Russian Love provides insight into Russia during the reign of Catherine the Great." It is not a good sign when the very first work explicitly mentioned does not exist. (A subsequent internet search made clear that this is the title of an early translation of The Captain's Daughter.) Authors then move on to politics. The Wikipedia authors appear to derive their information here from a bad precis of Soviet scholarship. The subject of Pushkin and politics is of course significant and has been discussed recently by both Sergei Davydov and Oleg Proskurin in English essays directed at non-specialists (in The Pushkin Handbook and The Cambridge Companion to Pushkin, respectively). Alas, the Wikipedia is unaware of this scholarship. Thus, authors learn that Pushkin "gradually became committed to social reform" (whatever that means), that "in the early 1820s he clashed with the government" and then in 1823 in Odessa "he again clashed with the government." From there authors jump to the fact that Pushkin and his wife "later became regulars of court society." What is wrong with this picture? To begin with, it is time to recognize that the question of Pushkin's radical politics was blown out of all proportion by Soviet scholars. An up-to-date essay on Pushkin should note that even those early poems always cited by the Soviets and indeed (as the Wikipedia points out) memorized and recopied by the Decembrists, were never viewed by Pushkin as being particularly radical (see Igor" Nemirovskii's essay on "Kinzhal" in his Tvorchestvo Pushkina i problema publichnogo povedeniia poeta). In fact, there is every reason to believe that Tsar Alexander himself did not view them as radical; evidence suggests that he found in them a reflection of his own liberal views. As recent scholars (e.g., Mark Al'tshuller, in his excellent Mezhdu dvukh tsarei) have argued, Pushkin's exile is almost certainly to be attributed not to the political poems, but to his ad hominem epigrams directed at the tsar. More to the point: Pushkin always approved of the institution of monarchy, as long as it was based on a respect for the law. When Nicholas came to power, Pushkin was his staunch defender, often to the amazement of his more liberal friends. …
 +
 +
== Embed ==
 +
=== Wikipedia Quality ===
 +
<code>
 +
<nowiki>
 +
Wachtel, Michael. (2009). "[[Pushkin and the Wikipedia]]". Slavica Publishers, Inc..
 +
</nowiki>
 +
</code>
 +
 +
=== English Wikipedia ===
 +
<code>
 +
<nowiki>
 +
{{cite journal |last1=Wachtel |first1=Michael |title=Pushkin and the Wikipedia |date=2009 |url=https://wikipediaquality.com/wiki/Pushkin_and_the_Wikipedia |journal=Slavica Publishers, Inc.}}
 +
</nowiki>
 +
</code>
 +
 +
=== HTML ===
 +
<code>
 +
<nowiki>
 +
Wachtel, Michael. (2009). &amp;quot;<a href="https://wikipediaquality.com/wiki/Pushkin_and_the_Wikipedia">Pushkin and the Wikipedia</a>&amp;quot;. Slavica Publishers, Inc..
 +
</nowiki>
 +
</code>

Revision as of 08:07, 9 May 2020


Pushkin and the Wikipedia
Authors
Michael Wachtel
Publication date
2009
Links
Original

Pushkin and the Wikipedia - scientific work related to Wikipedia quality published in 2009, written by Michael Wachtel.

Overview

Wikipedia has become a common resource not only for students shirking the rigors of genuine research, but also for scholars seeking a quick and reliable answer to a basic question. In that capacity it has been extremely useful and time-saving to us all. Recent comparisons have shown that in many respects the Wikipedia is no worse than traditional encyclopedias. And of course the Wikipedia has the immense advantage of being a work in progress. Wrong information can be corrected; bad entries can be improved. Perhaps the best that can be said about the present Pushkin entry is that it can only get better. The text consists of platitudes occasionally spiced with factual errors. The few footnotes rarely refer to scholarly works, but more often to questionable sources that the author(s) happened upon while surfing the web. From a stylistic point of view, the essay is a horror. In the brief space of three pages, the same weak points are made two or three times, sometimes verbatim. The essay begins with an overview. Authors learn that Pushkin "is considered by many to be the greatest Russian poet." (The authors appear to find this point so controversial that they substantiate it by four different sources, two of whom are from the BBC.) Apparently Pushkin earned this reputation by "pioneer the use of vernacular speech in his poems and plays." While there may be a hint of truth here, it of course does not get close to explaining Pushkin's unique style, so intimately linked to the history of the Russian literary language and the problem of "archaists and innovators." That the authors do not dwell on such subtleties is hardly surprising. However, one can only express dismay at their decision to close the first paragraph by saying that Pushkin's "Marie: A Story of Russian Love provides insight into Russia during the reign of Catherine the Great." It is not a good sign when the very first work explicitly mentioned does not exist. (A subsequent internet search made clear that this is the title of an early translation of The Captain's Daughter.) Authors then move on to politics. The Wikipedia authors appear to derive their information here from a bad precis of Soviet scholarship. The subject of Pushkin and politics is of course significant and has been discussed recently by both Sergei Davydov and Oleg Proskurin in English essays directed at non-specialists (in The Pushkin Handbook and The Cambridge Companion to Pushkin, respectively). Alas, the Wikipedia is unaware of this scholarship. Thus, authors learn that Pushkin "gradually became committed to social reform" (whatever that means), that "in the early 1820s he clashed with the government" and then in 1823 in Odessa "he again clashed with the government." From there authors jump to the fact that Pushkin and his wife "later became regulars of court society." What is wrong with this picture? To begin with, it is time to recognize that the question of Pushkin's radical politics was blown out of all proportion by Soviet scholars. An up-to-date essay on Pushkin should note that even those early poems always cited by the Soviets and indeed (as the Wikipedia points out) memorized and recopied by the Decembrists, were never viewed by Pushkin as being particularly radical (see Igor" Nemirovskii's essay on "Kinzhal" in his Tvorchestvo Pushkina i problema publichnogo povedeniia poeta). In fact, there is every reason to believe that Tsar Alexander himself did not view them as radical; evidence suggests that he found in them a reflection of his own liberal views. As recent scholars (e.g., Mark Al'tshuller, in his excellent Mezhdu dvukh tsarei) have argued, Pushkin's exile is almost certainly to be attributed not to the political poems, but to his ad hominem epigrams directed at the tsar. More to the point: Pushkin always approved of the institution of monarchy, as long as it was based on a respect for the law. When Nicholas came to power, Pushkin was his staunch defender, often to the amazement of his more liberal friends. …

Embed

Wikipedia Quality

Wachtel, Michael. (2009). "[[Pushkin and the Wikipedia]]". Slavica Publishers, Inc..

English Wikipedia

{{cite journal |last1=Wachtel |first1=Michael |title=Pushkin and the Wikipedia |date=2009 |url=https://wikipediaquality.com/wiki/Pushkin_and_the_Wikipedia |journal=Slavica Publishers, Inc.}}

HTML

Wachtel, Michael. (2009). &quot;<a href="https://wikipediaquality.com/wiki/Pushkin_and_the_Wikipedia">Pushkin and the Wikipedia</a>&quot;. Slavica Publishers, Inc..