Second Things

OK, so much for the programmatic statements... the proof of trans-discipline comes in the execution. So, without further ado...

One of the major ways to understand what trans- is all about is in the familiar world of the 'wiki.' A recent story on NPR (yes, I listen to the clarion call of the liberal media; what did you expect, I'm a professor) about the growth of Wikipedia here explained the open source origins of the idea: user-editors bringing many eyes to a problem or an issue in order to remove errors and create a collaborative solution. It is a direct challenge to the expert/editor-author/publisher model of controlling the spread of information. The story is a good introduction to the advantages and pitfalls of the wiki approach, advantages and pitfalls that apply to trans-discipline itself.

I would just like to highlight one thing: the role of moderators in Wikipedia as balancing points in a democratic process where all are equally able to contribute (transcending the usual division between expert and novice). Moderators address the demand for reliability and veracity, as well as coherence and style, on the part of all the users. This is where professors in places such as our institute and others with expertise come in. Rather than using our skills and knowledge in a classically authoritative manner, we can reach out and facilitiate learning in many different ways. We do not have to be confined to the classroom, the journal, or the book (see a very nice discussion of the limits of paper and the possibilities of web-based writing here), nor do we have to surrender all influence and authority. We can participate in the construction of new knoweldge along with many others, not just those with proper pedigrees. We can take some risks, embrace new ideas and technologies, and be as inclusive as possible. This is part of what I find so interesting in being trans-.

Comments

[Nathan Garrett]

In many ways, I think the trends you are discussing apply to more places than just wikis. with the increasing ease of media production, the role of gatekeeper has diminished in importance. While the emphasis of wikis is on opening and simplifying the process of editing, the connection between author and reader in similar new media has much the same effect.

[Randall Satuffer]

The question of authroship is one that seems difficult to eliminate when so much of personal and economic advancement depends on creating a singularly identifiable vision. However the notion that trans- might offer insights on how we might break down that structure could be interesting. Especially if the notion of trans- is explored through the filter of transvestism. The wearing of masks of authority, the taking on of alter-characters, are some examples of how marginalized or under-represented voices have infiltrated the typically priveledged position of authorship; they may illustrate strategies for entering into or subverting the structure of authorship without necessarily acclimating. Reference "Paris is Burning", and Sherry Levine's Untitled (After Edward Weston). Though these two references use different strategies and have different motivations, the desire to point out the flaws and inequities of authority may be common. Can trans- generally and the undermining of the author specifically be used to take on similar tactics? In addition to finding new solutions to an existing problem through transdiscipline voices, the process of trans- can develop alternative strategies toward the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge (authorship/authority/power) and use that repositioned knowledge in an equitable way.

[Dori LIttell-Herrick]

Single vs. tribal authorship. I’m wondering if authorship is really absent in trans-disciplinary work or instead shifting from the individual as author/creator to the tribe or collective as author/creator. Last election’s popular flash animations from Jib Jab are a good example. They spread across the net rapidly but did not loose their connection to the creator group. Nor did they single out a member of that group but rather attached to the collective, small though it is, in this case a business practicing viral marketing in an entertaining way. Wikipedia is another example, although the tribe is more dispersed and less identifiable, my assumption when I read Wikipedia is that the people who are posting about something know about it and I count on the tribe which represents the moderators of the various areas to enforce that through editing. When they don’t, incidents like the manipulations of senate staffers discredit the entries. Again, the individual has receded but the tribe remains important. If I can’t be assured of the integrity of the tribe, then I don’t accept the accuracy of the message.

[Nathan Garrett]

Dori, interesting thoughts about the cooperative authorship. One interesting idea of credit that people often miss in Wikipedia is that although the larger world does not give an author credit, the internal community does. Internal community recognition seems to replace (or moderate) the need for external recognition.