When Mr. Williams refers to errors as "social constructs", he defines them as spellings, phrases, or errors in grammar of those who speak a language. These errors, while truly incorrect usages of the language in its rigidly “correct” sense, have been absorbed into the language as almost a form of higher slang. In this way, Williams deems them appropriate usages of the language and highlights the absurdity of decrying these “errors” when people have used some of these phrases for literally hundreds of years.
In my opinion, Wikipedia carries a negative connotation because it is seen as an embodiment of the above idea of “error as social construct.” The idea of a Wiki is that it is open to editing and revision from literally anyone. It’s the ethos argument. The potential for rampant error and vandalism is great. But the reality, as you and I now know, is that Wikipedia has come a long way in validating itself as a credible fountain of information while retaining it’s grassroots idea.
An article was posted comparing Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica as being similarly error prone. In response, I will go so far as to say one could make the argument that Wikipedia is more credible (generally speaking) as it is a reflection of the majority of speakers of a language. In the same vein, I could argue that Britannica is riddled with errors of language and grammar as it ignores large portions of modern English which, although at one time incorrect, have since been adopted and used for quite a long time.
I would have to agree with you. Thinking about the article again after talking about it, it's almost vilifying errors that we've been using for years. Language is constantly changing, and the errors of old are acceptable speech of today.
ReplyDeleteWith your Wiki vs. Britannica argument, again you make a good point. To me, it seems odd that an encyclopedia that can be corrected at any time is more error prone than a book that can't be re-done easily