RENDIMIENTO ESCOLAR

The term Web 2.0 refers to the changes in how internet content is produced and describes the shift from top-down communication to the “participatory internet” (KhosraviNik & Unger, 2016, p. 207), that is, it emphasises the increased user participation in creating content. Apart from this, Web 2.0 also refers to the rise of applications that support the convergence of different modes of communication (Herring, 2013, pp. 2–4). This study focuses on Wikipedia data, that is, data from an internet site that has been understood as a typical Web 2.0 site (Herring, 2013, p. 5).

This rise of the Web 2.0 and its participatory content production processes was a prerequisite for the development of social media, which can be defined by three core tenets. Users have to

(a.) work together in producing and compiling content; (b.) perform interpersonal communication and mass communication simultaneously or separately – sometimes mass performance of interpersonal communication and; (c.) have access to see and respond to institutionally (e.g. newspaper articles) or user‐generated content/texts. (KhosraviNik, 2017, p. 582)

Hence, beyond a Web 2.0 site, Wikipedia fulfils all the criteria of a social media platform (KhosraviNik, 2017, p. 1): first, Wikipedians collaborate to create content. Second, they converse on the TP and, at the same time, communicate information to readers of the encyclopaedia via the article pages. Finally, they also have access to external source material (such as newspapers) as well as user-created content. Thus, my study of Wikipedia data falls within KhosraviNik’s Social Media Critical Discourse Studies (SM-CDS).

Like Jones before him (2008, pp. 429–431), KhosraviNik emphasises the importance of acknowledging the difference between social media, where private individuals can draw on various modes to engage in interpersonal and mass communication, and ‘traditional’ top-down media (e.g. broadcast media). In light of this difference, he emphasises the role of contextualisation when approaching social media from a critical perspective (KhosraviNik, 2017, pp. 4–5). However, again, the question arises which aspects of contextualisation require particular attention.

Indeed, my review of Herring’s work already points to the importance of discussing especially the technological affordances offered by the site from which data are taken. By comparison, KhosraviNik underpins the importance of exploring the societal role and significance of the social media site under investigation. Building on both Herring and KhosraviNik, I arrive at three facets that deserve particular attention concerning the third layer of contextualisation: first, the social media site’s embeddedness in society (KhosraviNik, 2017, pp. 4–5), second, the social media site’s technological affordances (Herring, 2004, p. 341) and third, the social media platform and its policies.

Concerning the first aspect, KhosraviNik emphasises that SM-CDS requires a “contextualisation level which embeds both the text and the medium” (2017, p. 4) in the wider social context, that is, works in SM-CDS must not neglect to examine how the social media platform from which discourse material was taken for analysis relates to society (KhosraviNik, 2017, pp. 4–5; also see KhosraviNik & Unger, 2016, p. 214). Thus, on the

whole it is important to address questions that could be considered traditional aspects of Wodak’s third level, e.g. questions of reach and readership of the platform (see 3.3.1).

Moreover, KhosraviNik’s emphasis on exploring the relationship between society and social media platforms also motivates the exploration of additional elements – one such element being the shift in power to create and disseminate information and ‘knowledge’ throughout society. In traditional mass media, an elite group directs a flow of information at the non-elite, i.e. society at large. As Unger and KhosraviNik note, social media have changed this in that non-elite individuals can now participate in the creation of mass media content (2016, p. 210). Before celebrating the apparent democratisation of media and ‘knowledge’ creation however, it is important to explore different forms of potential gatekeeping and communicative power inequalities when examining social media data (e.g. see 3.2).

Another point relating to social media and society that deserves attention is the fact that, like most digitally mediated communication, social media are usually not limited nationally. Potentially, users from all over the world could interact and produce content that is then available globally. Consequently, scholars dealing with social media data within a CDS framework must sufficiently address this shift in reach and the implications it might have, especially in the context of topics that exceed national relevance, such as the EU (see 3.3.2).

Second, and as Herring’s approach already implies, technological affordances and restrictions of the social medium under investigation ought to be addressed, not least because – as indicated above – participatory content creation might be limited via technological restrictions. KhosraviNik touches upon this but focuses mainly on technological affordances concerning multimodality (2017, p. 6). While I agree that the level of textual analysis ought to take multimodality into consideration, I take Herring’s more general point and argue that it is essential to address general technological restrictions and possibilities that affect the data under investigation (Herring, 2004, p. 341). This goes beyond an examination of how multimodal signifiers can technically be included, but also relates to issues such as what format textual interaction takes, whether post-hoc manipulation of contributions is possible, if data are recorded and can be mined after production (Herring, 2007).

Lastly, and in addition to a) societal relevance and b) technological possibilities, I argue that Social Media Critical Discourse Studies must not neglect a final aspect of consideration regarding Wodak’s third layer – the investigated platform’s rules and

policies. As Herring notes, such institutions frequently have sets of organisational norms (2007), i.e. a set of policies that organise user behaviour. Since Wikipedia has a particularly extensive body of policies and these policies affect and shape the data set (Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, Wikipedia, 2017), a detailed examination of these rules is crucial.

Summing up, Wodak’s third level of context features three focal points with respect to my data set. First, questions of societal impact and reach need to be addressed, which is done in this study by discussing Wikipedia’s impact over the past few years and its potential to function as a transnational public sphere (see 3.3). Second, technological affordances and limitations need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, here, e.g. Wikipedia’s wiki structure deserves some attention. Last, policies and rules that guide Wikipedia operations ought to receive sufficient attention as well (see 3.2 for more details on the latter two aspects).

The following chapter examines Wodak’s third level of contextualisation and thereby addresses this study’s research questions geared towards exploring Wikipedia.

3 The Third Context Level – Wikipedia, the Free Online Encyclopaedia

This chapter first presents past research on Wikipedia. It then deals with the three aspects of Wodak’s third context level that have been established as central – Wikipedia’s technological affordances, policies/guidelines and Wikipedia’s role in society.