The wide availability of unregulated texts from a sequence or authors or communal sources exacerbated through the development of web 2.0 technologies may lead to a decline in the overall standard of the written word as a medium for intellectual discussion for those beginning to understand academic discourse. Younger users of such media are under pressure to be more discerning to ensure the credibility and authority of the arguments espoused before using the sites as sources for academic or other research. The technology that enables the sharing of information and textual democracy of multiple authors could the have as its downside a mire of bland, intellectually irresponsible work with a ubiquity that is overwhelming.
Palimpsests are texts that have been overwritten; the word comes from the Greek meaning to scrape again. This was due to the use of animal hides to produce vellum which as a robust but valuable writing surface could be subject to scraping to remove unwanted text to enable the page to be reused. Due to the chemical composition of inks, or other environmental conditions the erased texts occasionally resurface. The resulting document is a palimpsest.
I use this metaphor for the wiki, the editable web page accessible by anyone (within certain boundaries); enabling multiple users to add, amend and contribute ideas to a shared document. With such flexibility there are benefits and drawbacks.
Palimpsests were both the accidental and intentional result of the preciousness of the writing materials and the knowledge they contained. The destruction of books in the medieval world due to heretical beliefs was a strong weapon against the spreading of unorthodox beliefs due to the low number of texts. Overwriting was an efficient method of destruction that did not waste resources. In contrast to the preciousness of these texts the wiki is the antithesis available to any participant but the currency of such availability may be the dilution of individuality, and the smothering of individual voices that have to be critical of resources used for academic purposes.
My argument is not of the disgruntled Daily Telegraph reader variety bemoaning the misuse of Latin plurals in English. The development of language, and for that matter, technology is part of its vitality and security in the face of ever changing circumstances. My focus of criticism is the availability of information and the corresponding possibilities in a decline in understanding. This has been compounded by the availability of information sharing technologies. Those same technologies that can be utilised by communities of users to a greater end than individual endeavour present a more complex dilemma for those beginning to work with textual sources.