Citation

Yam SCJ. Commun. Crit. Cult. Stud. 2016; 13(3): 305-323.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2016, National Communication Association, Publisher Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/14791420.2015.1137334

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Although previous research has revealed factors that affect Wikipedia editors' decisions regarding content retainment and deletion,1 there has been little research on the editors' discussion that is involved therein as a linguistic process. In this article, I study Wikipedia's Articles for Deletion (AfD) talk pages and conceptualize each discussion as a conflictual language game.2 I study, by using discourse analysis interpretively and critically, how participants (especially first movers) frame the discussion direction--either as an invitation to collaborate or with cascading arguments (leaving little room for casual chit-chat). Finally, I study entire AfD discussions and find two coexisting language games: the discussion game and the consultation/enforcement game. I find that the closing admins of AfD discussions function as policy experts rather than consensus facilitators. Hence, AfD discussions contain both sets of game rules, but ultimately the power of the decision is nonetheless vested in the admins. This brings background power dynamics into the grammar of language games in the struggle for the generation and sustenance of the dominant knowledge or narratives of our information society.

Language: en