New Perspectives: Counter Narratives and Co-tellership

Dr Ruth Page, University of Leicesterrep22@le.ac.uk; @ruthtweetpage

Introduction: New Directions....

• Counter narratives (Bamberg and Andrews 2004) and small story research (Georgakopoulou 2007)

• Interactional contexts of social media storytelling– Wikipedia

• Interactions and macro-social identities– Power relations in storytelling

Murder of Meredith Kercher

• Institutional power• Competence of

police

• Evidence of anti-Americanism

• Media sources

• Gendered asymmetry

• Female deviance• Sexualised and

sensationalised

• What happened?

Suspects Knox as villain

Knox as victim

National context

Wikipedia article

• High profile site• Encyclopedia

– Represent ‘neutrality’– Reflect not create

knowledge– Selective summary

• Technology– Delete as well as add text– Highly transparent

• Controversy associated with the article

• English Wikipedia article first authored November 13, 2007

• Since been edited >9000 times

• >1000 distinct contributors

• Deleted in 2011 and rewritten

• Talk pages: 37 archives (approx 187,000 words)

Two controversial narratives

• Reported events• Crime and its aftermath– Pro-innocence– Pro-guilt

• Article creation• Is the creation of the

article compliant with Wikipedian principles or is it imbalanced in favour of pro-innocence or pro-guilt?

Shared Stories and Counter Narratives

• “umbrella term for stories that are oriented to in interactions as familiar either because they have been told in the past or because the events reported in them are known to all or some of the participants.” (Georgakopoulou 2007:50)

• Counter narratives operate as a means by which a single shared story is disrupted

• Counter narratives can themselves also be ‘shared’

• Both shared stories and counter narratives involve multiple co-tellers

A multidimensional model of co-tellership

• Herring (2007)• Site architectures• Norms and rights• Semiotic resources

• Goffman’s (1981) footing

• Bell’s audience design

• Single shared story• Multiple,

incompatible versions (Langlotz and Locher 2012)

• Single or multiple?• Involvement (Ochs

and Capps 2001)

Number of tellers

Affiliation or disaffiliation?

Medium factorsWhat

participation roles are

taken up?

Wikipedia’s pillars

• Wikipedia is necessarily collaborative• No Original Research• Verifiability• Neutral Point of View• “Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not

engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own point of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another.”

Production formats

• Animator– Editors

• Authors– Editors and Authors of

cited sources used for verifiability

• Figures– Persons involved in the

events

• Addressee– Editors (Animators)

• Auditors– Other Wikipedian

contributors

• Overhearers– General viewing public

(including Authors and Figures)

Asymmetries in co-tellership roles

Animators (Editors)• Remain neutral and provide

‘complete information’• Generate the text of

Wikipedia• Representation is

anonymous/pseudonymous• Discourse Identity • Hierarchy of Editors and

Administrators

Authors (of cited sources)• Partial, providing a selective

account• Precluded from generating

the text of Wikipedia (NOR)• Representation uses ‘real

names’ and nationality• Transportable Identity• Judged against criteria for

‘reliable sources’

Architectures for narrationArticle Front Page

Page History Article Talk Page

User Talk Page Dispute Forums

High visibility Low

Figures and Authors named

Editor details provided by default

Editors add their own signature

Counter narratives of the events

Counter narratives of the article

The Article Front Page

• Add new content with implies an alternative version of events– Counters ‘events’– Complies with

Wikipedia’s principles

• Mignini (who was observing) suggested that cuts to the front, left and right of the neck must have been caused by different knives, but Lalli retorted that his guess was those cuts were caused by a single knife.[24] Lalli's report on the autopsy was reviewed by three pathologists from Perugia's forensic science institute; they differed from Lalli in suggesting bruises indicated sexual violence and an attempt to immobilise Kercher by her attackers or attacker.[25]

Medium-specific strategies

Deletions Reversions• An editor must not perform

more than three reverts on a single page – whether involving the same or different material – within a 24 hour period. An edit, or series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors’ actions – whether in whole or in part – counts as a revert.

The Article Talk Page

• Focus on the edits made to the article– Retrospective– Prospective

• Edit summaries• But alleged events also retold (embedded as

illustrative evidence)

Turn-by-turn countering (events of the crime)

• In the June trial (A link to the transcript is in the 'transcript' section of this talk article) she states that she did not know what an Italian container of bleach looks like, had never used or bought it. I think then that the assertion that she used it can't be stated as unbiased fact. So if it is still in the article, it should be taken out. Admittedly I don't know the source of the June 2009 trial transcript or its reliability. It is translated by someone on a forum somewhere (see link).– 78.145.170.24 (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• According to The Times of 19 Nov 2007,[1] till receipts found at Sollecito's flat showed that he bought 2 lots of bleach, one at 8.30am on 2 November, and the second 45 minutes later. It seems surprising that Knox, who was supposedly with him at that time, didn't notice him buying the bleach.– Bluewave (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher/Archive_5#Washing_machine_and_bleach)

Target 1: Criticise Source Material

• Bruce Fisher's book, Injustice in Perugia: a Book Detailing the Wrongful Conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, was removed from the list of books because it was self-published (via CreateSpace). It is Wikipedia policy that the use of self-published sources as references for Wikipedia articles is generally not appropriate.– --Davefoc (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher/Archive_36#Removal_of_Bruce_Fisher.27s_book_from_the_list_of_books

Target 2: Criticise Author (of cited source)

• I would like to propose the deletion of the paragraph in which Judy Bachrach gives her opinion on the Italian justice system. [...] I don't believe that Bachrach, as a journalist for Vanity Fair, has the appropriate standing to comment on the Italian justice system; certainly not to a degree to be included in a WP article. – Karl franz josef (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher/Archive_4#Judy_Bachrach_paragraph

Target 3: Attack positive face of Editors (Animators)

• This is extremely rude and arrogant not very nice of you PilgrimRose. By all means give a link to another page of Wikipedia if you wish but to cut and paste a section of policy AT THE HEAD OF THE PAGE and try to interpret it to support your views is just wrong. Please delete your post and try to lose some degree of your arrogance possibly inappropriate emphasis. rturus (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Rturus, This is supposed to be a discussion about NPOV. Your anti-American sentiments have no place in the discussion.... I do not believe that your fears that Wikipedia is becoming too "U.S.A. slanted" justifies trying to block the views of Americans who wish to contribute to this article. Please read the policy on NPOV and try to respect the rights of others, including Americans, who feel their views should be included under NPOV policy. PilgrimRose (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2009. PilgrimRose (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2009

The User Talk Pages

• Target is Administrator-Editor

• Focus is the creation of the article

• Warnings about retrospective actions based on past behaviour

• Counter narratives occur turn by turn (post by post) between one Editor and another

• He reported me instantly without taking even a brief moment to research what I wrote. I highly doubt that [name 1] would be standing up for [name 2] if he didn't share his views on the article. In fact I have no doubt that [name 1] would have already reported [name 2] for his actions if they disagreed with each other. That is where the problem lies. This behavior has been seen over and over again with this article.

Dispute forums

• Notice boards– Incidents– Edit Warring– Arbitration committee

• Nominate an article for deletion– Requires consensus

(users vote)– Decision based on

Wikipedian policy, not numbers

• Influence not just individual Editors, but all Editors who might want to work on an article

Sliding scale of influence?

• Countering the content of the article– Adding contrasting material – Removing or reverting material to create imbalance

• Countering the value of an Author• Attacking an Editor (Animator)– Criticising their behaviour > Criticising their identity– Constraining their behaviour (Blocks and Bans)

• Prevent all Editors from working on an article• Deleting the article

Conclusions

• Value of a multi-dimensional model of co-tellership for counter narratives

• Wikipedian principles influence co-tellership– Separation between Animators and Authors– Architecture of Wikipedia presents countering in different ways

• Position us as consumers or creators

– Flat hierarchy v. Administrators and Editors• Separation of ‘real world’ and ‘Wikipedian’ contexts does

not always hold true: process of reflecting knowledge tells a complex story of national identities