The Wikipedia article I looked at is about Japan’s famous geisha. I’ve been interested in Japanese culture for a long time, and I’ve read a lot about Japan’s history.
My first step was to read the article. I was impressed; the information is consistent with what I know to be true. The next thing I did was to look at the article’s talk page. The first thing which caught my attention was a discussion about whether a common American mispronunciation of geisha – geesha – should be merged into the main geisha article or left separate. Another ‘hot topic’ is whether the women in the image attached to the page are really geisha-in-training, or maiko. Since many people admire the geisha culture, there are many chances for ordinary citizens and even foreigners to dress up as geisha for a day. The clothing and makeup are well-done, so it was concluded that it is impossible to tell if they are real maiko or not.
A major part of the talk page is dedicated to clearly explaining what geisha actually do. Geisha are trained to be hostesses and entertainers – they are skilled in the traditional Japanese ways of reading, singing, dancing, and hosting. They spend their nights entertaining customers, usually male, in traditional-style teahouses and restaurants. This is especially hard to explain, since many Americans find it hard to imagine paying someone to pour liquor and read to you. The contributors also talked about the best way to emphasize that part of a geisha’s work does not include prostitution, and mentions that most Japanese also think of geisha as women of loose morals.
I think a way to improve Wikipedia would be to publicize the talk page. I think if people could see the thought that goes into creating and maintaining the accuracy of an article, they would be more inclined to trust Wikipedia as a valuable resource. In addition, I think that requiring users to create an account in order to see the behind-the-scenes workings creates a barrier.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Although you mention the talk or discussion page, you barely mention the history page. How controversial were edits to the page? Were most of the edits logical? Were there clear leaders in terms of who supplied the main content and edited the page? I would be interested in knowing all this.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. I'm a little confused about what you mean by publicizing the talk page; it is already available for public viewing to those without an account. As for making the behind-the-scenes work more transparent, I feel like that will take away from the sense of community and collaboration that avid contributors feel. The separation of product and process helps enforce a sense of importance and care in producing a quality page.
ReplyDelete