The Phenomenology of Error

Joseph M. Williams, in his article "The Phenomenology of Error", argues that writing errors should be seen as ‘social constructs’. Seeing how language in general is a social construct, I readily agree that error within a socially constructed system like language would be socially constructed as well. Epistemologically speaking, a better question would be: how could error be anything but socially constructed? Or better yet, what is error? But that's a whole other can of worms.

Specifically, Williams discusses the experience of error as necessarily existing in multiple places at once; in the mind of a grammarian who sets the rule, in the net of the teacher who enforces the rule, and in the effort of the student who breaks the rule. This is an interesting point when combined with another argument of his; that is, to survey academia on nearly limitless cases of potential grammatical errors would most likely generate more grammatical rules, more potential for grammatical pitfall.

It seems like the more social this construct of error becomes, the more rigid the construct becomes. If this is the case, and if Wikipedia is one of the largest socially constructed texts our society has produced, than why is it so popular (and I may add, effective), when it may be helping to expand the social construct of error? And how can we lend credence to something that may be ripe with both error, and the potential for error?

We must consider the basic difference between a Wikipedia article and an academic article as texts. An academic article usually has one author/editor, or a small group of people who are responsible for it’s birth. As such, these articles are often ‘finished’, after being combed over for error in both content and form. These articles often have a specific audience in mind, that obviously affects the level of scrutiny in editing out error, as this audience may cringe at the least noticeable grammatical errors. Because authorship/editorship is limited, and because the audience is limited, academic articles are necessarily held to the highest standards for grammar.

Wikipedia is more fluid, it has multiple authors and editors, and multiple revisions. Articles posted on Wikipedia rarely stagnate, or find a ‘final copy’. Wikipedia is unique to all other texts, because the author (potentially anyone) and the audience (potentially anyone) are one in the same. Wikipedia is subject to change; both factual, in regards to content of an article, and social, in regards to aesthetics like formatting, and (gasp) grammar usage.

People who write Wikipedia articles use a neutral tone in order to appeal to the broadest audience. I believe that grammar usage also follows the same logic. Williams noted the difference between types of grammatical errors and the reaction from a reader; the most egregious errors cause the reader to lose focus, while the lesser errors are sub-consciously forgiven, and the content is still clear. While Wikipedia might not be held to the same ivory-tower grammatical standards as other texts, I argue that due to the nature of the relationship between author and reader in a Wiki, those standards aren’t necessary, and shouldn’t reflect on the intrinsic value of the content it presents.

Academic articles are like the Mona Lisa, whereas Wikipedia articles are like a photocopy of the Mona Lisa. Same content, but different form; if that matters to you, feel free to waste time, money and effort to visit the Louvre and realize that the image is exactly the same.