Although heavily discouraged to do so, we have all looked up information on Wikipedia. Because of its high accessibility (also the fact that Google and many other search engines guides us to solutions through Wikipedia), they are recognized as sixth on the most popular websites. The use of Wikipedia raises some interesting concerns regarding my recent discussion made in our Arts Studies class. In reading What is the What by Dave Eggers, many of us raised the concern of how much power Dave Eggers had in redistributing the story of protagonist, Valentino Achak Deng. This coincides with many of the dilemmas of the “autobiographies” present on Wikipedia. I quoted the word autobiographies because although they are not official autobiographies and mere subjective points brought forth by anyone on the web, many of the readership utilize Wikipedia as a source of summary of a life or a series of events. Exactly who are deemed necessary to have a page? If any web user could edit the page, which agency agrees upon this right to write and shape oher’s life narrative?
In relations to the film, God Grew Tired of Us directed by Tommy Walker, Christopher Dillon Quinn, I observed the three Sudanese lost boys focused in the film, John Dau, Daniel Pach and Panther Bior. Immediately, I noticed the fact that Daniel did not have a Wikipedia page. After observing the pages of John and Panther I recognized the various involvement and occupations both John and Panther had and Daniel did not.
“Dau is an experienced social entrepreneur. He has founded three non-profit 501(c)3 organizations.” -John’s Wikipedia Page
“Panther is partnering with Heaven’s Family, an international ministry based out of Pittsburgh, in an effort to build a school in his homeland.” -Panther’s Wikipedia Page
As we noticed while watching the film, Daniel was also neglected later in the film for his relative unsuccessful adaptation to life in the United States. Could this signify the case in which success determines whose stories are heard and whose are not? As seen in the references and external links of both John and Panther’s pages, we see many recognizable organizations picking up their stories. Does this disparities in having a Wikipedia page based on recognition tell us of the value of success we favor in our society? If this is the case, what can we do to change this current status?
Ironically, it is our privilege and ability to write online. We, as consumers and producers of life narratives, should use this given status to alert others that our values are not the only determining factor in reaching out towards life narratives. For example, western readership value traumatic life narratives, as proposed by Schaffer and Smith’s “Conjunctions: Life Narratives In the Field of Human Rights”, because of the relativity it provides with the reader and the traumatic experience, but these values based on our necessities should not be the sole reason why we read these life narratives. With access to webpages such as Wikipedia at our disposal, there is nothing inhibiting us from spreading these life narratives. However, as I mentioned in a blog post regarding the various sexual assault cases on campus, I believe people can subjectively and often unconsciously, change the form of life narratives and I understand the difficulty in transmitting life narratives. As discussed in my Political Science 100 class regarding the issue of humanitarianism, acts that we believe will benefit others might not be the case to that of the receiving end. But as responsible global citizens, it is in our duty to take selfless acts in retaining and redistributing stories of others with ethical consideration. With a significant “voice” in the internet, we were granted the “dilemma” to shape what we consume and to reproduce.
To the readers of this blog post:
What do you think are the consequences of second hand redistribution of life narratives in the form of a page on the internet such as Wikipedia? Do you think that the pros of the consequences brought upon the stories where everyone is heard regardless outweigh the cons of the alteration of these stories?
Makoto, great post! You raise some really thought-provoking questions. I noticed the lack of focus on Daniel during God Grew Tired of Us as well, and I definitely think that his struggle to succeed was the reason for his minimal screen time. Unfortunately, no organization wants to stand behind a guy who just couldn’t make it. The consequences of secondhand redistributions of life narratives, especially on sites like Wikipedia, are huge. The original sources don’t necessarily get a say in what gets posted or in what way. If everyone hears about a story, but in the wrong way, I think it is worse than if a few people hear the story in the way it was intended. The authenticity of life narratives should be the thing that matters, not the quantity or fame of methods of redistribution.