Tyler: Wikipedia and Collective Memory-Making

What is gained in examining the history of writing through Wikipedia and what examples does Wolf cite as particularly useful to unpack this connection?

In “The Historian’s Craft, Popular Memory, and Wikipedia,” Robert Wolf argues that Wikipedia provides the opportunity for anyone to contribute to historical knowledge. In doing so, Wikipedia frees history from the constraints of the academe and expands access to knowledge. However, Wikipedia also blurs the lines between “history” and “memory.” While “history” is a reconstruction of the past based on research and critical inquiry, “memory” is a sacred set of meanings that are tied to heritage (p. 67). For Wolf, Wikipedia provides an opportunity to examine the link between these two concepts.  

            Wolf argues that Wikipedia should be viewed as a process in which people attempt to “codify the meanings of past events” (p. 67). Users edit Wikipedia pages to alter the significance of historical moments and thus influence popular memory. By peeling back the layers and exploring how entries have changed over time, Wolf argues that historians can examine this process of collective memory-making. Wolf uses the Wikipedia page “Origins of the American Civil War” (OACW) as an example. The original article was written by a user who emphasized 1850’s politics and heavily placed blame on white Southerners. Other users, however, attempted to downplay the page’s emphasis on Southern racism and removed emotionally charged language (p. 69). One user even attempted to completely remove race from the narrative by arguing that slavery had far more to do with class (p. 70).

            In sum, this example demonstrates a struggle over the significance of the Civil War, an event that continues to influence politics today. Slavery and the role of racism in the Civil War are by far the most contested events. Considering the influence of Wikipedia, the way in which slavery and racism are framed in a single article may influence popular perceptions of the Civil War, which can have enormous political and cultural implications. Ultimately, Wolf’s article demonstrates the importance of diversity in Wikipedia editing. The voices of women, people of color, queer individuals, and subject matter experts are vital to the production of knowledge. By adding to Wikipedia, these voices can influence the collective memory of the past.

Question: How might the micro-politics of Wikipedia influence the editing process? I assume that people who have edited more articles have more influence/power than a first-time user, and I also assume these experienced users are typically educated white men. How do these power relations influence knowledge production and memory-making?