Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of British Columbia/ASTU260 (Summer 2015)/Analysis and Proposal

Wikipedia Self-Description as a Mirror for Its Knowledge Dissemination Practices
Wikipedia is arguably the world’s most influential information resource. Yet, practically no one outside the community of contributors understands what goes on behind the scenes. On top of that, it’s this community that’s in charge of providing the most authoritative description of itself. The best—or at least the most accessible—information about the internal workings of the encyclopedia is available on Wikipedia’s own article about itself. This is highly problematic considering that no individual, organization, or entity can engage in wholly unbiased self-reflection. It is even more troubling when said article has easily identifiable knowledge gaps.

One of the most important of these gaps can be found in article’s "Governance" section. To a former very active member of the Wikipedia community, this description of the project’s hierarchy was left strikingly incomplete. In addition to the editing rights of the average registered user, six special classes of permissions exist, each one higher than the last on the totem pole of authority. Of these, only two are mentioned and the role of only one is described. This omission is incredibly significant. It means that the management structure of the most powerful information resource in the world is opaque to all but those who operate within it.

In fact, Wikipedia’s operating framework remains difficult to understand even to many of its own members. Social interaction researchers have consequently noticed the project’s subculture sliding towards technocracy. The number of community members appealing for higher levels of authority has been steadily decreasing for years (Jemielniak 38-39). New users are discouraged from continuing on past their initial registration. Those at the top of the power pyramid have grown more and more hostile to new information (Suh et al. 9). Of all these, the last is the most consequential for knowledge dissemination and research translation. If the Wikipedia community continues grow more hostile to new contributions and contributors, its content will begin to stagnate as information becomes outdated and new developments are not incorporated.

Works Cited


 * 1) Jemielniak, Dariusz. Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia. Stanford, California: 	Stanford University Press, 2014.


 * Suh, Bongwon, et al. "The Singularity is Not Near: Slowing Growth of Wikipedia.

Governance
In principle, Wikipedia’s system of government operates off of a base of equal and open access, as well as consensus-driven democratic decision-making. Conventional managerial systems often seen in the worlds of business and politics are absent. However, a collection of "formal roles" fulfilling certain functions and providing general oversight have led some to speak of a "parahierarchy" within the community. Three primary roles exist—each one with a greater level of permissions than the last—, as well as several other permissions sets assigned automatically to Stewards and selectively to Bureaucrats and Administrators. Criticism against this system have been leveled by academics and community members alike. These have principally targeted "lack of clarity" concerning governance structures and the concentration of power in the hands of an emerging elite.

Stewards
At the top of this organizational structure are the stewards. As of February 2015, they are 37 stewards active across all Wikimedia projects. Elections for new stewards are held on an annual or bi-annual basis and users from across the entire Wikimedia community are eligible to vote. Prospective stewards must obtain an 80% approval rating in order to be selected.

Candidates for stewardship must be administrators on at least one Wikimedia project and are generally expected to have had a history of inter-project work and experience holding positions of trust. Name visibility is a significant asset, as is multilingualism and fluency in English. Of 37 stewards, only one is monolingual in English.

Stewards are granted the capacity to "perform any task that any other user group can" and at their own discretion. However, they are obliged to follow Wikipedia policy in doing so. Their permissions extend across all Wikipedia language versions and Wikimedia projects. As stewards are expected to act as an independent voice representing the entire Wikimedia community, they are restricted from employing their enhanced editing rights on their project of origin.

Because of their high-profile role and extensive permissions, Stewards are required to provide proof of identity and documentation demonstrating they exceed the age of 18 to the Wikimedia Foundation to obtain their position.

Bureaucrats
Bureaucrats are administrators tasked with the power to alter user permissions and usernames. Their primary role is to assign administrative permissions to users approved through the RfA process for administrator status. Bureaucrats are not entitled to use their own discretion in assigning enhanced user rights, but rather are required to bow to community consensus as expressed through voting procedure. While they play an important role in the internal workings of the Wikipedia community, their job tends to be simplistic.

Even in major projects, the number of bureaucrats tends to be small, the only exception being the English version on which there are 32 as of September 2015. Candidates for bureaucrat-ship are elected according to the same 80% support benchmark as for stewards. Because bureaucrats do not fill a time or labor-intensive function, each project only requires so many bureaucrats. As a result, the number of applications to RfB and the number selected have been in decline for some time.

Administrators
Administrators are the front lines of Wikipedia governance. They are comprised of "experienced users" whose job it is to monitor and regulate community activity; this applies to both article editing and behind-the-scenes interaction. Administrators have the ability, among others, to ban/block users, rollback edits, and apply protections to articles. Candidates for higher levels of responsibility are drawn from this pool of users.

Any registered user has the right to request adminship through the RfA voting process. However, successful applications almost always meet certain expectations. Applicants are traditionally users with good standing in the community who have a diverse background in vandalism control, article contribution, and Wikipedia policy formation. The number of edits the prospective administrator has made also weighs heavily on the selection process, being the most common reason for an unsuccessful request.

Administrators perform a very broad range of jobs across a single Wikipedia project. As a result, the number which each project has does not tend to reach a de facto cap as there’s always more administrative work to be done. That being said, the number of new applications for adminship has declined so significantly in past years that the phenomenon has attracted the attention of major news outlets and information science researchers alike.

Checkusers & Oversighters
CheckUsers are members of the Wikipedia community with the ability to view the IP addresses of users. Their job is to determine whether or not a single individual is editing on multiple accounts, typically to better identify and deter article vandalism.

Oversighters are granted the power to conceal past edits and the usernames associated with them in an article’s revision history. Once done, concealed edits can only be viewed by other oversighters and stewards (who automatically are granted oversight permissions). The process by which an oversighter expunges a past revision is referred to as "suppression" and may only be used under a select and enumerated set of circumstances. Accountability is ensured by other oversighters and the Arbitration Committee.

Although no formal rule requires it, checkusers and oversighters are by tradition administrators. However, not all administrators are checkusers or oversighters. To whom these responsibilities are assigned is determined by the Arbitration Committee. By virtue of their access to sensitive information and the consequent need for discretion, users with these permissions are required—like stewards—to provide evidence of their identity and age to the Wikimedia Foundation.

Rollbackers
After registered users, rollbackers are the first rung upwards in the Wikipedia governance system. These are users entrusted with the ability to roll back a page to an original version with the click of a button. Rollbackers’ number one priority is to identify and reverse vandalism in a timely manner. As such, projects tend to have a large number of users with this permission and expected qualifications are not high. Rollbackers are not appointed by consensus but by administrators who themselves have rollback abilities.

Criticism
Most criticisms of Wikipedia management target problems stemming from the project’s ostensibly-structureless governance system. Wikipedia hosts a vast archive of information and an equally massive community of editors constantly adding to, modifying, and removing from it. When combined with a lack of clarity about who controls what, one critic asserts that the need for regulation simply outstrips the ability of administrators to provide it.

Vandalism control, in particular, has represented a major problem for the project. To combat it, various policing measures have been established over its lifetime which, in turn, leave a great deal of discretion to administrators and rollbackers. Some critics have noted this allows for the disproportionate "accumulation of power in one section of the Wikipedia community." They go on to say that administrators have consequently become not only "enforcers of policy," but have also begun to make "‘moral’ decisions about user behavior."

Researchers have observed that members of the community at several different levels share outside critics’ concerns about Wikipedia’s system of control. One unregistered user was cited as saying that founder Jimmy Wales created the "structureless of tyranny," another comments on the relative lack of permission-holder accountability systems.

A culture of technocracy has been labeled a developing problem for the Wikipedia community. According to one researcher, the complex system of rules and regulations, in addition to the concentration of power in the hands of those who best understand them, creates an environment in which "editors are dominating the process, to the detriment of the more expert contributors of articles, and growth has stopped.

Part One: Gap Analysis
Bias is a common issue in the process of translating academic knowledge to a public audience. Levin points out that in knowledge translation, mediators such as think tanks and media attempt to connect research to practice (9). These actors of mediation, especially the media, are professional knowledge mobilizers who deliver information to the public audience. They are in theory more capable of using the language that suits the audience’s context (McKinlay et al 615). However, the rhetorical situation of the mediator influences this process of translation. News reporting requires information that is immediately relevant to the audience; therefore it is common for journalists to translate the research in a way that oversimplifies, or misapplies the academic findings.

A sub-section of Wikipedia entry of “bias” is media bias. The article includes a literature review of media bias, and practices of biases. It mainly explains the bias that occurs in news reporting of current events (i.e. religious and political bias), and fails to recognize the bias in the presentation of academic research in the media. This gap in Wikipedia suggests that the public may not realize that the knowledge they receive in the media is not always the accurate findings of the researchers. It is therefore crucial for the public to understand the possible shortcoming of the media in knowledge dissemination: a piece of research, which may have taken years to undertake, can be reduced to a 30-second “sound bite” by the media that can be both misleading and inaccurate (Frater 278).

Work Cited:

1. Frater, Lorraine. "Engaging the Media: An Academic's Sojourn in the Newsroom". ''Researching Sustainability: A Guide to Social Science Methods, Practice and Engagement. Routledge'' (2013):278-294.

2. Levin, Ben. "To Know Is Not Enough: Research Knowledge and Its Use." Review of Education Rev Educ 1.1 (2013): 2-31.

3. Mckinlay, Andy, Chris Mcvittie, and Sue Cowan. "How Expert Psychiatrists Formulate Criticisms of Lay Descriptions of Psychiatry in Front of a Lay Audience." Text & Talk - An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies 31.5 (2011): 601-18.

Bias in the media presentation of academic research
Proposed entry "Bias in the media presentation of academic research" in article "Media Bias" after the section "religious bias"

A general concern among the academic community about the media is that academic research is often subject to biased interpretation by the journalists, who may then mislead the public audience.

The media are “mediators” that translate academic findings into comprehensible language for non-experts. During the process of communication, it is common for journalists to simplify and generalize the information in order to talk within the audience’s context of utterance. These strategies create potential perils of bias and manipulation. Constraints in the rhetorical situation of news reporting are one cause of media bias. Media outlets are required to use provocative headlines and a limited amount of time to catch busy audience’s attention. The presentation as a result may not reflect the content of the research or can be misleading. Ben Goldacre, author of the Bad Science column in The Guardian, accuses the media for overstating stories in an astonishing way that have led scientists to come forward and say, “That’s not what my research says”. Other times, journalists lack sufficient expertise to comprehend the academic findings. In the model of knowledge mobilization presented by Levin, the media are mediators who attempt to connect research to practice. Journalists are not producers of the knowledge and often don’t understand academic jargons or numerical findings. Oversimplification and over-reliance on the conclusions of the research are the solutions to translate the knowledge, but in the mean time creates bias.

Not only scholars worry about the biased presentations of media coverage, but the audience are also becoming less informed. The public receive oversimplified information and fails to understand that academic research does not always find clear-cut answers, nor are the findings straightforward. As a consequence, they go frustrated with the ebbs and flows that typify scientific progress: “one day they are telling us to switch to diet soda, the next day they’re telling us it makes you fat.”

Part One: gap analysis
For my gap analysis, I focused on Wikipedia page about “knowledge translation (KT)”, an important process for lay audience to understand scholarly research and articles. What I found is that the information on Wikipedia is very limited. It stands from a theoretical point of view, emphasizing on the definitions and history of knowledge translation, yet fails to include analysis on the framework in this process. Researchers have done multiple researches on the mechanism of knowledge dissemination. For example, Levin, in To know is not enough: research knowledge and its use, discussed the conceptual framework of knowledge mobilization (Levin, 9). Landry, Amara and Lamari, in Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada, also discussed four models of knowledge utilization (Landry et al, 334). A conceptual framework is important in the analysis of knowledge translation, as it will not only provide guidelines to help researchers promote their research, but also help their audience groups (customers, policy-makers) understand the essence of scholarly research. It provides a macro view on the process of knowledge translation. The model I chose to add in the next session, the knowledge-to-action framework, is built on existing models, and has already been recognized by Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Including this model in Wikipedia will help the not only experts, but also general audience to understand in depth key mechanism in knowledge translation. Understanding the complexity of this mechanism may help the non-experts understand the gap we usually observe between research and practice. The usefulness of this framework may go beyond the health sciences, and may be applied to all knowledge translation.

Work cited:
 * 1) Straus, Sharon E., Jacqueline Tetroe, and Ian Graham. “Defining Knowledge Translation.” CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal 181.3-4 (2009): 165–168. PMC. Web. 3 Sept. 2015.
 * 2) Levin, B. (2013), "To know is not enough: research knowledge and its use". Review of Education, 1: 2–31. doi: 10.1002/rev3.3001
 * 3) McKinlay A, McVittie C, Cowan S. "How expert psychiatrists formulate criticisms of lay descriptions of psychiatry in front of a lay audience." Text & talk. 2012;31(5):601-618

Conceptual framework
The conceptual framework, knowledge-to-action (KTA) framework, developed by Graham and his colleagues, is widely recognized in the field of health sciences, including Canadian Institutes of Health Research. This model can be broken down into two concepts: knowledge creation cycle, analyzing how general knowledge can be narrowed down to fit particular purposes; action cycle, discussing the application of research knowledge to practice. By connecting researchers with users of the research, this model illustrates the interactions between and within knowledge creation cycle and action cycle , bridging the gap between research and use.

Knowledge Creation Cycle
The knowledge creation cycle describes the process of which general, unprocessed knowledge is converted to the knowledge fitting into a specific purpose, for example, information that needs to be transferred to the patients. The three phases of knowledge creation tunnel forms the shape of an inverted pyramid. The order from the top to bottom, from the widest to the narrowest is: knowledge inquiry, synthesis, and products/tools. At each stage of the creation cycle, the knowledge can be refined and distilled so that at the final stage, the knowledge produced fits the interests needs of different users such as policy makers.

Action Cycle
This is the process of which knowledge is implemented into practice. The action cycle is based on the commonalities of multiple planned action theories, frameworks, and models. The action cycle includes seven phases together forming a circular cycle. They are connected by bidirectional arrows, indicating that they can influence each other. The seven phases are :
 * Identify a problem that needs addressing, then search for knowledge relevant to the problem.
 * Adapt the identified knowledge or research to the local context
 * Assess barriers to using the knowledge
 * Bulleted list item
 * Select, tailor, and implement interventions to promote the use of knowledge
 * Monitor knowledge use
 * Evaluate the outcomes of using the knowledge
 * Sustain ongoing knowledge use

In the real-life situation, action cycle and knowledge creation cycle do not function exclusively to each other. There is interaction between the knowledge creation cycle and the action cycle: if the knowledge is updated,it may require changes in all phases of the action cycle.

Practices
Field and his colleagues attempt to answer the question “is the KTA framework used in practice?” What they find is that FTA model is frequently cited in health care publications. However, there is less evidence supporting its application in real life, urging the need for primary research.

Part One: gap analysis
The Wikipedia page of The Conversation media outlet fails to explain in depth why this is such an innovative project to communicate research knowledge to public audience through collaboration between researchers and editors. Readers interested in this topic might not understand the very purpose of the Conversation or the difference between the original research publications and their correspondent article in the website before browsing the site, which defeats the aim of an encyclopedia. This gap suggests that not enough attention is brought to the importance of “knowledge translation” and the need for knowledge transmitters to engage in certain practices to adapt/filter the content of their message. Additionally, it does not evaluate the success of such initiative based on a review of the content or a thorough analysis of the requirement of this type of articles as compared to original research works, nor does it develop on the collaboration of researchers and editors (thus, the core process of knowledge translation) and the subsequent transformations that characterize this pieces of information. This gap suggests that its novelty has not given Wikipedia the chance to dig into the Conversation’s actual content, focusing rather on the information presented by the website on its own work. This entry also forgets genre theory in its analysis since part of the enduring transformation of the knowledge handled by the Conversation is a translation from a genre that is not adapted to the public audience to one that is, with the consequences that this change entails (which are also obviated). Priority in the study of knowledge circulation seems to be given to form, at the expense of content.

Works cited:
 * 1) https://theconversation.com/us
 * 2) Levin, Ben. “To know is not enough: research knowledge and its use”. Review of education. Vol.1, No.1, February 2013,pp.2-31.Web.15Aug.2015
 * 3) McKinlay, Andy, Chris McVittie, and Sue Cowan. An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies. Vol.31, 5, pp. 601–618. August 2011. Web. 13 Aug.2015
 * 4) Giltrow, Janet, and Dieter Stein. Genres in the Internet: Issues in the Theory of Genre. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub. Co, 2009. Print

Proposed new section: “Content” formatted as other media outlets are in Wikipedia (i.e. The New York Times)
Since its launching in 2010, the Conversation website content proposes to engage the public through making academic research “accessible and comprehensible to the public” with the ulterior motive of influencing policy outcomes and practices. This initiative responds to a rise of social media collaboration with academic scholars in the light of new debates on efficient ways to share academic opinions, news and ideas with a general, non-expert public. Social media provide global audience and an “intimate and immediate forum for academics and other to communicate their works and views”, but requires scholars to adapt their discourse to meet the requirements of the journalistic genre. As explained by its chief operators, the publications of the Conversation are still fact-based and the platform is an “editorially independent forum”. Through their disclosure processes, readers can evaluate themselves potential conflicts of interests. Original researchers are behind these publications, but they must comply with guidelines for publishing their work which include particular formatting of the articles, which are generally 500-800 words and should be written as “people talk”. Technicality is discouraged in the website which uses a “readability index” based on Flesch-Kincaid readability tests, which are “set at the level of an educated 16-year-old.” The editors justify this choice through the website’s primary goal, sharing expert knowledge with everyone; particularly acknowledging readers whose first language might not be English. Despite its new approach, some scholars have criticized this platform for knowledge translation on the basis that it pertains to the journal genre, which are believed to entertain a system of hierarchy, which disregards certain types of academic knowledge. The necessity for scientists to participate in the “market for knowledge”  is said to require a library-based scholarly communication system, which could benefit from modern technology to improve filtering, selecting and disclosing academic knowledge for the general public.

Part One: Gap Analysis
The academic world is developing and widening. As Suresh Canagarajah writes, “the conditions of globalization have generated much traffic between different communities, making us aware of different social conditions and knowledge traditions. Despite the fact that the backgrounds of scholars is growing more diverse, there is a clear discrepancy between the English speaking academic world and the non-English speaking academic world. Serious international academic publishing usually takes place in English. This means that with the internationalization of academia, a greater issue regarding translation arises in the field of academic publishing. In this case, knowledge translation does not refer to genre but rather to language; nonetheless it is an important factor to consider when discussing knowledge dissemination across international borders.

On the Wikipedia site entitled Academic Publishing there is a gap in this regard. No mention is made of the prevalence of English in academic publishing. The proposed Wikipedia entry seeks to address this gap. On a research blog for the University of Helsinki, Anna Mauranen writes “few researchers would disagree that publishing in English is a necessity. The implications of the English status quo on the multilingual academic world form the centre of the proposed Wikipedia entry. Currently, Wikipedia includes a well-rounded discussion on the history of academic publishing, business and financial concerns, the importance of peer review, the publishing process, citations, the development of open access journals and, towards the end, the growth of academic publishing (mainly focused on developing and newly developed countries). This last part of the article does not analyse language and corresponding translations of knowledge into account.

In terms of knowledge circulation, this shows that the very fact that English is the status quo is so prevalent and universal it is largely unquestioned. While the Wikipedia entry does not serve to provide an argument for or against the situation of academic publishing today, it instead will attempt to draw attention to the existing gap.

Academic Writing and Publishing in Translation
Generally, the language of academic publishing is English. If a scholar wants her work published in an internationally respected scholarly journal, this means publishing in English-language journals. The evolution of English as the main language of academic publishing has emerged over time and is today considered as a fact of the trade by scholars and publishers alike. Some academics, such as Suresh Canagarajah actively criticize this prevalence of English, because, as he argues, it causes a cleft between the centre and the periphery. Others, such as Maria J. Grant, suggest methods through which to help academics whose first language is not English.

Academic writing is translated mainly from and into English. The process is unique from other forms of translation, because it requires a strong understanding of academic writing and genre in both the original language and the language of translation. It differs from other forms of translation, such as literary translation, because it has this additional limiting factor. An alternative form of translation is automated translation. This raises several other issues, such as fragmented sentence structure, illogical writing and a lack of contextual understanding. Generally, taking into account the current availability of technology, human translation is seen as a more efficient method of academic translation.

Some academic journals are multilingual, including English and one or several other languages. One example is Ibérica, which is affiliated with the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes (AELFE). Ibérica accepts submissions in languages other than English. Nevertheless, as the international reputation of the journal has increased, so to has the percentage of English contributions. This increase is from 57.1% of English articles in the years 1996-2002 to 76.8% in the years 2003-2012.

Part One: Gap Analysis
In searching up the relevant concepts that we discussed during the course, I found that knowledge dissemination does not have its own entry on Wikipedia despite the significance of the concept in knowledge studies. This was unlike the related concepts of knowledge mobilization and knowledge translation.

The manner in which Nelles demonstrates how various institutions and methods through which knowledge dissemination occurs helped to increase research and the production of ideas shows the importance of understanding knowledge dissemination in order to make use of research knowledge (153). In some ways, knowledge dissemination may be the first step towards increasing knowledge mobilization. Levin also points out that the researchers often do not do enough to share or disseminate their knowledge, which can weaken knowledge mobilization networks (16). As such, understanding how knowledge dissemination works is helpful in discussing how knowledge can be mobilized. The lack of coverage about the topic may demonstrate why knowledge dissemination practices are still weak at many institutions (Levin 16).

Thus, it appears that the idea of knowledge dissemination may have been neglected in knowledge studies. This suggests that although research knowledge has been circulated and made available to the public, people may be unaware of why it is important. Levin highlights in particular the passive nature of knowledge dissemination as a problem that needs to be addressed such that research knowledge can be better utilized (16). Hopefully, the addition of an entry about knowledge dissemination will help to fill the gap.

Works Cited

Part Two: Proposed Wikipedia Entry [Knowledge Dissemination]
Knowledge dissemination is the distribution of knowledge such that it is available to those who may need it. It involves various institutions, mediums and actors who work towards making knowledge available for consumers. In recent years, the internet has played an important role in the dissemination of knowledge.

Knowledge Dissemination Mediums
Historically, academic institutions such as universities and academies have often played an important role in the dissemination of knowledge. They provided a platform through which lectures could be delivered, ideas discussed with likeminded people, and new knowledge produced as a result of this interaction. Today, academic institutions continue to play important roles in the dissemination of knowledge, serving as experts who can add to the public discourse about important current events. Newer platforms such as conferences and TED talks have allowed for the greater dissemination of knowledge, with the popularity of the platform allowing research knowledge to reach a wider audience. Publishing also grew to be one of the most important platforms through which knowledge was disseminated since the introduction of printing in the 16th Century. By the 19th century, the volume of work that was being produced meant that publishing became a highly specialized industry, where large for-profit publishers instituted restrictive policies on the dissemination of knowledge. This led to a pushback in recent years, with the advent of the internet allowing for the establishment of the Open Access movement that fights for unrestricted access to research knowledge.

Works Cited

Part One: Gap Analysis
On Wikipedia, the topic of linguistic imperialism is represented as mainly being a feature of the English language. While the authors acknowledge that historically other languages have had features of linguistic imperialism, the focus remains on English throughout the sections currently available. There is a separate section (section 1), dedicated to English, however, English is discussed in section 3 (Critique), section 4 (Response), and section 5 (Appropriation). The way of presenting English as being the epitome of linguistic imperialism distorts the main idea of linguistic imperialism, which is that within a narrowly defined multicultural and multilingual environment, the dominant culture and its language impose themselves on the subaltern. Moreover, in the introduction to the section, the word “transfer” is used to describe the power of linguistic imperialism. The word “transfer” implies a voluntary acceptance by the one who is being transferred to, while the historical evidence states otherwise. It was often a violent process accompanying colonization and the subjugation of the locals. Thus, a more appropriate word might be “imposition”. Furthermore, one scholar’s works are given pre-eminent position in the article itself. At the top of the page there is a link that re-directs the reader to the page of Robert Phillipson’s book on linguistic imperialism. Phillipson’s work is used as a constant throughout the article. His work serves as an introduction, and is critiqued and supported, thus establishing Phillipson as the authority on the topic. Other authors who support his thesis are presented as mere appendages to Phillipson. Specific referencing of authors on Wikipedia may be one of the ways to academic stardom, a phenomenon analyzed by Shea (albeit in a different context), thus promulgating and popularizing a particular approach to the topic, which in turn influences the audience’s view. Ultimately, throughout the entry, linguistic imperialism is treated as a problem of linguistics and is taken at face value, leaving aside the wider problems inherent in the imposition of language onto the Other, such as the fragmentation of a social group’s worldview, leading to the easier imposition of hegemony, as proposed by Gramsci. The entry itself does not address the opinions of periphery scholars on the issue, who could potentially come from the culture that has experienced linguistic subjugation, thereby giving the victim a voice. Therefore, the audience is only presented with the view of the linguistic colonizer, and not the colonized.

Works Cited

Part Two: Proposed Wikipedia Entry [Gramsci and the Language]
Gramsci applied his critique to fascist uses of language in Italy during the reign of Mussolini. The authorities had tried to impose a “standardized version of Italian”, based on the Florentine dialect. Gramsci argued that the “standardized Italian” would be challenged by a linguistic substratum, consisting of dialects that are a product of the environment in which they were developed, thus rendering the imposition of a “standardized version” of language impossible due to the fact that the linguistic environments differ. According to Peter Ives, “language politics and the molecular operations of power within linguistic differences were intimately bound with his [Gramsci’s] life experiences as a Sardinian”, and Franco Lo Piparo has argued that Gramsci’s concept of hegemony grew out of his interest in linguistics.

For Gramsci, language by itself does not exist. It exists in relation to culture and philosophy, at the level of the “common sense”, which makes it organically coherent and coordinated. As such, Gramsci states, historical action can be achieved only if the collective achieves unity, embodied in the language it shares. Therefore, language represents the collective’s “common sense”, the way it perceives and the way it is perceived. However, Gramsci states, “common sense” may operate on two levels of theoretical consciousness: the level of unity (transformational), and the level of superficiality (inherited and uncritically absorbed). Linguistic imperialism operates at both levels; it is constructed at the level of superficiality due to its hegemonic inheritance, and is resisted by the people at the level of unity for it is something that separates him from his fellow men. Thus from this discrepancy of the two levels of theoretical consciousness arises opposition to linguistic imperialism. Language therefore is also an ideology, for it “organizes human masses and creates the terrain on which men move, acquire consciousness of their position, struggle, etc”.

Works Cited

Part One: Gap Analysis
Upon researching Wikipedia, there appears to be a knowledge gap on efforts to address the interests of specific cultural communities in the context of the open access movement. Most notably, there is no entry on Mukurtu CMS, a digital archive designed by Christen and the Mukurtu development team to address the needs of Indigenous communities around the globe in information sharing. This gap implies that one aspect of the arguments surrounding the open access movement is neglected on Wikipedia, an important source of knowledge for the general public. The negligence is especially apparent since there are detailed entries on “Open access” and “Aaron Swartz”, prominent open access activist. More specifically, the gap demonstrates a negligence of the consideration of periphery knowledge traditions. Canagarajah argues that, “the methods and approaches discussed in mainstream [scholarly] journals may not reflect […] the needs and interests of many communities” (661). While Canagarajah notes the negligence of peripheral knowledge traditions in publications, Christen emphasizes the same negligence of such traditions in arguments supporting open access. She claims that arguments for information freedom “seems to erase the cultural logics of many groups who view improper reuse […] of their materials as possibly damaging to their […] traditional knowledge systems” (2875). Mukurtu CMS reflects the knowledge traditions of peripheral communities in opposition to mainstream conversation supporting open access (Swartz; Willinsky). The fact that information on Mukurtu CMS is not found on Wikipedia supports Canagarajah’s and Christen’s claims that mainstream knowledge circulation tend to overlook the interests of specific cultural communities. Given the significance of this knowledge gap, it is important to fulfill it by creating a new entry outlining the nature and motivations of Mukurtu CMS.

Mukurtu CMS
Mukurtu CMS is a digital archive designed to address the needs of Indigenous communities in knowledge and heritage sharing. The archive is “free and open source” for all Indigenous communities worldwide. Its most significant feature is the use of “cultural protocols”, or guidelines for the “behavior of a cultural group”. They allow Indigenous communities to design for themselves who has access to what materials in the archive based on the user’s family relations and community status. It stemmed from the Mukurtu Wumpurrarni-kari Archive, which was restricted to one community in Australia. .

Motivations behind the project
According to its website, Mukurtu is “a grassroots project aiming to empower communities to manage, share, preserve and exchange their digital heritage in culturally relevant […] ways.” The archive is born out of the awareness that the interests of Indigenous communities are often overlooked in a world of globalized knowledge access. Kimberley Christen, one of the project’s developers, explains that, “[i]nstead of assuming that information wanted to or should be open […] our development process emphasized the underlying sociality of information and its reliance on […] ethical systems of relation.”

Evaluations of the project
Michael Shepard identified a number of imperfections of Mukurtu CMS in his review of the software, including the “lack of functionality for audio- and video-based resources” and that the archive is “still in development”. He concludes that, with improvements, the project will serve sufficiently as a digital archive that addresses the interests of Indigenous communities worldwide.

Part one: Gap Analysis
Open access is a topic that has been addressed by various scholars, and that is relevant when talking about knowledge dissemination. In his book The Access Principle: The Case for Open Access to Research and Scholarship, John Willinsky defines the access principle as ”A commitment to the value and quality of research carries with it a responsibility to extend the circulation of such work as far as possible and ideally to all who are interested in it and all who might profit by it” (xii). This idea of unlimited and widespread circulation of knowledge has not remained entirely uncontested, however. In her work "Does Information Really Want To Be Free?", Kim Christen argues that the concept of open access “distracts from the specificity and historical context”, and that knowledge should be “circulated properly within an articulated ethical system”. The Mukurtu Wumpurrarni-kari archive is an example of how knowledge could potentially be circulated while acknowledging the social and cultural context from which it arises. Researching the topic on Wikipedia, one can find articles on “Digital Rights Management”, “Open access”, and on “Information wants to be free”. There is, however, a gap of knowledge when it comes to presenting alternative views of - and alternatives to – ideas connected to open access. As there is no Wikipedia entry on the Mukurtu archive, this could be a relevant point of inquiry - and an entry that could potentially contribute to a broader understanding of digital rights management, open access, and circulation of knowledge.

Works cited:
Christen, Kimberly. “Does Information Really Want to be Free?” International Journal of Communication 6, 2012, 2870-2893. Web.

Willinsky, John. The Access Principle: The Case for Open Access to Research and Scholarship. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2006. Web.

Mukurtu CMS
Mukurtu (MOOK-oo-too) CMS is an internet-based community platform designed to archive and manage cultural materials. The platform addresses the needs and cultural protocols of indigenous communities, allowing these communities to ”archive, preserve, and circulate their cultural materials and knowledge in ways that reinforce their own systems of knowledge management without denying the dynamism and flux of such systems”. The project offers a new approach to digital rights management, where access to the material is tied to the social practices of knowledge management held by the community in question

The name, Mukurtu, is taken from a Warumungu word for dilly bag.

History
The first version of Mukurtu, the Mukurtu Wumpurrarni-kari archive, was developed by by Professor and Project Director Kim Christen Withey and Craig Dietrich, in collaboration with members of the Warumungu community. It was launched in 2007 at the Nyinkka Nyunyu Art and Culture Centre. On December 10, 2010, Mukurtu CMS was released, making the until then stand-alone Warumungu archive platform globally available

Reception and evaluation of the platform
The platform has gained both praise and criticism. Some argued that Mukurtu was “digital restrictions done right”, while others were critical of such restrictions, linking it to censorship and calling the system paternalistic. In her work Does Information Want To Be Free? Christen addresses some of the criticism the platform has received linked to open access, arguing that knowledge should be used but “circulated properly within an articulated ethical system” and that “the software neither locks anything up, nor closes anyone out” but allows communities to share information according to existing cultural protocols.

Part One: Gap Analysis
There is a Wikipedia page dedicated to explaining the Open Access Principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access), which goes into relative depth explaining the concept, its motivations, the stakeholders, the implementation practices, and its history and growth. However, the page lacks a fair discussion of the limitations, or alternative viewpoints of the principle of Open Access. This is where I have identified a “gap”: the Wikipedia page needs a subsection to reference the existing studies that have identified alternative understandings of Open Access, such as Kimberly Christian’s research into Indigenous forms of knowledge circulation. This is significant, a key element to be considered in the growing discussion and debate around the concept of Open Access. It provides critical nuance, expanding not only the stakeholders considered but also the different cultures and communities impacted by the concept. Without it, Wikipedia neglects the valuable peripheral, or non-mainstream, point of view, instead focusing on the predominant perspective, in a manner that scholars such as Suresh Canagarajah have criticized. For anyone interested in the idea of Open Access, it is important to understand that the concept must be nuanced, allowing a broader understanding of what information freedom means in a world of digital heritage and common resources. As Christian’s research shows, communities throughout the world have different cultural protocols of how information is circulated and shared, and this need not be considered “DRM” or “blocking access”, but as honouring a different system of knowledge transmission guided by cultural protocols. When disseminating research on Open Access, the page should also consider how allowing such controls has been shown, in studies, to preserve communities’ cultural practices, by empowering them to control their information, share selectively, and protect the value and integrity of their practices. However, this page will be inherently restricted to displaying neutral, discussed areas, as Wikipedia is designed as an encyclopaedic platform, not a platform for debate or discussion. This existing gap highlights the challenges in the public circulation of research knowledge itself: the Wikipedia page is designed for public view, but it is inherently limited in all of the knowledge it can share and circulate. Any dissemination platform, designed by humans and filled with research by humans, is inherently limited by the humans who produce it. Yet this need not be a static problem; rather, it is a constant impetus for editing and contributing, which is the very basis of the flexible Wikipedia form. It confirms, in a sense, the constantly evolving forms of knowledge dissemination. As Paul Nelles’ explores in his “Dissemination of Knowledge” in Jonathan Dewald’s Europe 1450 to 1789: Encyclopedia of the early modern world”, the forms of public knowledge circulation are constantly changing; perhaps the gaps that appear in online Wikipedia pages may be easier to identify and fill than in earlier forms of knowledge dissemination. Arguably, this form may also help eventually lessen the power of the “Western-hegemony” of academic knowledge, as scholars such as Suresh Canagarajah have thoroughly explored. As a web-based platform of dissemination, Wikipedia allows contributions from anywhere in the world, welcoming article contributions and editing from a diverse, global pool. This may help produce an encyclopaedia of more diverse, nuanced research, one that incorporates numerous views and sides of a researched issue.

Works Cited List
Canagarajah, Suresh. "Internationalizing Knowledge Construction and Dissemination." The Modern Language Journal 94.4 (2010): 661-64. Web.

Christen, Kimberly. "Does Information Really Want to be Free? Indigenous Knowledge Systems and the Question of Openness." International Journal of Communication [Online], 6 (2012): 24. Web. 1 Sep. 2015

Nelles, Paul. “Dissemination of Knowledge” in Jonathan Dewald’s Europe 1450 to 1789: Encyclopedia of the early modern world

Swartz, Aaron “Open Guerilla Manifesto” (https://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamjuly2008_djvu.txt)

Willinsky, John. The Access Principle: The Case for Open Access to Research and Scholarship. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2006. Print.

Part Two: Proposed Entry
The gap identified could be addressed by expanding the Wikipedia entry on Open Access to include a subsection on the discussed limitations of the concept, an entry that would not include any opinion, but would simply highlight one of the existing scholarly debates surrounding the topic. In the spirit of Wikipedia’s encyclopedic directness, an appropriate subheading for this section could be “Cultural Protocols and Open Access”. The purpose of this addition would be to expand the conversation to include alternative understandings of the principle of Open Access, beyond the singular notion of “freedom of information.” An example of what a possible entry could be as follows:

Cultural Protocols and Open Access
Focusing on Indigenous communities, the scholar Kimberly Christen has researched cultural systems that guide how knowledge is shared and disseminated. Christian is an Associate Professor in English and the Associate Director of the Digital Technology and Culture Program at Washington State University. She has worked with indigenous communities around issues of open access and digital technologies, focusing on the archival process and property rights in the global commons. According to UNESCO, indigenous knowledge is the “local knowledge that is unique to a culture of society.” The parliament of Canada refers to this knowledge as “traditional knowledge [that] encompasses the beliefs, knowledge, practices, innovations, arts, spirituality, and other forms of cultural experience and expression that belong to indigenous communities worldwide.”  Christen’s research paper "Does Information Really Want to be Free? Indigenous Knowledge Systems and the Question of Openness" focuses on the need to view the concept of “Open Access” through a broader lens, and highlighted that communities throughout the world may have unique cultural protocols that shape how knowledge is shared. Her researched showed that rather than being forms of DRM or “blocking access,” these particular cultural systems guide the direction of knowledge circulation according to long-practiced customs. Christian’s research emphasizes that through such systems, communities may preserve and continue their cultural practices to maintain this traditional knowledge. In this case, the politics of cultural properties has been regarded as more complex than a singular notion of “Open Access,”  and scholars such as Mira Burri-Nenova have researched the broad issues of traditional cultural knowledge circulation in relation to digital environments.

Part One: Gap Analysis
There is a prospective gap on the Wikipedia page concerning the slogan “information wants to be free.” While there is information concerning the origins of the meme and the history as well as its relation to cyberpunks, there is no discussion of the criticisms or controversies surrounding it. Additionally there is no mention of the conversation surrounding the open access movement in general in which the slogan is necessarily involved. It is important to have mention of scholars such as Christen because she directly mentions this catchphrase and uses it as a basis for her research that challenges the validity of the statement. Consequently, including a section on the controversy and ethics surrounding knowledge circulation would enable the topic of research dissemination to be broadened and better understood by the general public. For example, Christen’s work highlights the dangers of looking at this movement in isolation from its particular normative and social backbone, as it has the potential to suppress minority systems of knowledge circulation that diverge from this particular way of thinking. The gap in this entry also stands to reaffirm the argument of Canagarajah, who argues that a certain typology of knowledge is privileged over others. Because Christen’s work deals primarily with indigenous nations, it doesn’t reaffirm core beliefs and thus arguably gains less exposure compared to others. The absence of a section regarding the criticisms of the “Information wants to be free movement” impedes critical analysis of intuitive concepts, and can consequently contribute to those on the periphery being pushed further away from the process of knowledge mobilization.

References:

Christen, Kim. "Does Information Really Want to Be Free? Indigenous Knowledge Systems and the Question of Openness." International Journal of Communication (n.d.): n. pag. Web.

Canagarajah, Suresh. "Internationalizing Knowledge Construction and Dissemination." The Modern Language Journal 94.4 (2010): 661-64. Web.

Part Two: Proposed Wikipedia Entry
Debate

The “information wants to be free” phrase has been met with criticism. This slogan is part of a larger call for open access, a principle defined by John Willinsky as: "a commitment to the value and quality of research carries with it a responsibility to extend the circulation of such work as far as possible and ideally to all who are interested in it and all who might profit by it." Scholars have brought to the attention the ethics of this mode of thinking that demands that information be accessible to all, because it is argued to have normative undertones that are misleading to the movement. Cory Doctorow, a Canadian-British blogger stated: “the “IWTBF” slogan needs to die,” as it does more harm than good because it is actually the “people who actually want to be free.” Another criticism surrounds the exclusionary effects of the open access campaign. For example, Kimberly Christen Withey, an Associate Professor in English at Washington State University who focuses on contemporary indigenous alliance making, has identified the ethical considerations of the “information wants to be free” slogan in her work. She has been actively involved in including indigenous nations in technological developments that may have diverging cultural protocols concerning the circulation of knowledge. A solution that she has proposed in overcoming the normativity of the “information wants to be free” meme is the collaboration with indigenous communities in designing a digital management system that allow for profile-based access to information available online. This in turn enables cultural practices of knowledge sharing to be maintained, while enabling peripheral communities to be included in the technological revolution.

Gap Analysis
Examining Wikipedia’s entry on knowledge mobilization, the entry of knowledge brokers was listed. The brokers were defined as “intermediaries that act as bridges between the users and producers of knowledge”. It was surprising that in that neither the two short paragraphs nor the Knowledge Brokers Wikipedia page mentioned journalism as there are numerous examples of how they move knowledge from researchers to the wider community. The examples of knowledge brokers given seem very business-like and professional, dealing with institutions and knowledge that is intended from the beginning to influence policy. That is the research brokers deal with knowledge that was crafted with a direct relation to policy “knowledge brokers facilitate the appropriate use of the best available research evidence indecision making processes”. The reason for this is most likely because the brokers are identified as stake holders in the research process. This means that they are undertaking the research for a specific purpose with consequences.

Excluded from this is knowledge that is not intended for those purposes, that is usually spread through newspapers and journalists reporting on new developments on research. This research may or may not have a direct influence on policy and is not necessarily intended to have that influence. Newspapers are not stakeholders in a lot of research, but they still report on it and this creates a gap in the entry.

Levin has included journalists as parties to the knowledge dissemination process. Levin cites the media as an intermediary in the knowledge transfer process, highlighting their function as “access points” where people find out about research through the newspapers and other forms. While there are several projects such as The Conversation that tries to bring in academics and the media together to share research. The media’s role as knowledge brokers is established and the roles it plays in that process as a a medium for information that is not necessarily a stakeholder have been examined. The exclusion of the media from the broker’s category is thus a glaring gap that should be remedied.

Media
The media in its different forms such as newspapers or television shows plays a role in knowledge transfer. The media facilitates the movement of knowledge between different sectors and between knowledge producers and users. The media acts as an intermediary between the producers and the users by reporting on new research such as discoveries. Articles and shows act as access points for the consumers of media for new research by providing a forum where knowledge is presented and users are made aware of developments.

The media can act as a producer and an intermediary simultaneously. Several initiatives have been developed where journalists and academics work together to write articles about an academic’s research in a form that is appropriate to the style used by media outlets. The media can also provide a forum where academics can publish their work in an accessible way to reach the general public. [theconversation.com The Conversation] is an example of this process. Academics edit their journal articles to a form that is more in line with usual news sites language, style and format.

The media allows knowledge to move from the users to the producers. Reports on different issues allow the traditional producers of knowledge such as academics to see what the needs of the traditional users of knowledge are and to act upon those demands. Examples include projects where the media highlight environmental damage that draw in researchers to study the phenomenon and propose solutions.

Several problems face the media when it acts as a knowledge broker. The language needs to be presented in a way that is accessible to the general public in a way that is easily understandable. The experts and producers of knowledge also have to categorize themselves in such a way so as not to alienate the recipients of knowledge.

Part One: Gap Analysis
The gap I found was in the entry TED talks which only outlined different branches of TED and a basic introduction of each faction. Through the ASTU 260 course, we were exposed to concepts of knowledge mobilization, translation and dissemination; all of which TED talks do. Since most TED talks are popular academics talking about their specialization, they engage in spreading knowledge from an expert to a lay audience (McKinley). Although not all talks are academic, most of them have an intellectual element that make their content accessible to the general public. Additionally, TED talks are mostly filmed and put onto a sharing platform like YouTube for everyone with the necessary technology to view it. Additionally, for the ASTU 260 course, we were assigned a reading by Christopher Shea where he explores academic celebrity and what role TED talks play in them. In a Wikipedia entry, it is important to know the basics of what something is, but it is also crucial to know what its function is. The page manly features information about financial and factual matters, rather than any information about its utility. Through different scholarly sources, I will make the point that TED talks are a prime example of knowledge mobilisation, translation and dissemination. In consideration of new forms of knowledge dissemination, perhaps this entry will enrich the public’s understanding of the knowledge mobilisation process.

Part Two: Gap Proposal
TED talks constitute an important new outlet for knowledge dissemination. As many specialist speakers are invited to give talks, there is constantly a translation of expert knowledge to lay audiences. TED acts as a vehicle through which these specialists and academics mobilise their knowledge to a greater audience. The TED talk motto is “ideas worth sharing”, this allows for some interesting periphery scholars to translate their knowledge and disseminate it through their talk and by way of the internet, to the world. This could be problematic as some information may be privileged above others (periphery scholars may not always be most desired speakers). Christopher Shea writes in his article “The New Academic Celebrity”, that TED has given rise to a new type of academic celebrity, different to the old lecture circuit types. This can attributed to the internet and the accessibility of TED talks by the public.

Part One: Gap Analysis
While researching across Constraint, I was interested to see that the Wikipedia page on Constraints had no specific constraint regarding the rhetorical constraints in discourse and knowledge translation. Although it seems the rhetoric constraint is not popular enough to be researched by a broad audience, I tried looking up rhetoric constraints in Knowledge Mobilization. On the Knowledge Mobilization page there appears to be no specific detail on the constraints of knowledge mobilization which may prevent this. When looking at the Processes tab of Knowledge Mobilization it was shocking to see that although there were many arguments that seemed to stem from Landry, Amara, and Lamari, there was no mention in the processes on how these processes are constrained. Therefore I identified this as a gap in the page of Knowledge Mobilization. This gap is significant due to the fact that in the processes of knowledge mobilization, there are certain constraints which impedes its effectiveness and which is a de facto part of the knowledge mobilization process. The entry on the process of Knowledge Mobilization effectively uses the theory behind the mobilization practices mentioned by Landry, however, it lacks the practical reality of the situation, failing to mention the constraints which impede such knowledge mobilization processes. Although the Wikipedia entry does mention some of these models of knowledge mobilization such as, user-pull methods, producer-push methods, they fail to mention the limitations constraining the interaction between knowledge producers and knowledge users.

Part Two: Gap Proposal Constraint
In terms of practical methods, the process behind research mobilization faces various limitations. These various limitations were popularized by Lloyd F. Bitzer in a perspective essay concerning rhetorical situations. In his essay Bitzer explained that “Constraints are made up of persons, events, objects, and relations which are parts of the situation because they have the power to constrain decision and action needed to modify the urgent need or demand.” Bitzer argued that constraints are a customary aspect of the context of knowledge mobilization. Research mobilization is shaped by the way the system is structured and the social context that takes place within this system. Benjamin Levin explains in his essay on his review of education that the system structure is composed of constraint. Levin mentions that “System structure refers to considerations such as the number and kind of institutions, governance arrangements, interest groups, legal constraints and so on, while social context refers more broadly to matters such as the dominant ideas in society, changing laws and technology, demographic factors and the like.” Levin further insists that both system structure and social context have powerful effects, as constraints, on the way research gets connected to practice. An example of this is also given by Elizabeth L. Toth and Robert Lawrence Heath, in their book, the Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations. They argue that there is a constraint in the method knowledge research gets created and how it is used. Toth and Heath mention that “the activist group attempts to chip away at the various supports underlying its opponent's position. It makes a series of gradual and small moves [the tactic of incremental erosion] designed to manoeuvre opponents into a position where they have no more rhetorical options”

Wikipedia Gap analysis: Confirmation bias
On Wikipedia, in regards to addressing the field of ‘bias’, more specifically ‘confirmation bias’ is represented as a cognitive process when an individual has a tendency to search or interpret information that confirms one’s beliefs or hypothesis, while giving less attention to information that contradicts it. Canagarajah have addressed, “research published is biased towards privileged communities”, implying the prominent issue that exist within academic and research sphere is the dominance of mainstream Western journals that oppresses periphery scholars and research. Thus, knowledge production becomes a form of political hierarchy, placing periphery scholars to follow implicit guidelines of ‘Westernized concepts’ in research. Despite the increasing prevalence and variety of academia and research on an array of platforms as ‘new technologies have given rise to new situations’, and the increasing methods to improve validity and reliability, there is still a strong inclination of academic research that fundamentally stems from the scholars’ personal beliefs and values. One of the main attributes of bias that occurs on a holistic level is the dominating language of English in the academic publishing sphere, risking inevitable risks of confirmation bias, specifically targeting Western research, information and culture in the process of knowledge dissemination, and neglecting ‘periphery information’

Proposed Wikipedia Entry: Western bias as a form of confirmation bias
Confirmation biases work beyond the cognitive level of processing in researchers. While academic researchers and scholars attempt to operate under a belief that they have an objective understanding in a certain field of knowledge of academia, most contemporary research is affected by a major source of confirmation bias that stems from a Western dominating culture. Infact, bias toward a Western cultural paradigm is one of the most widespread forms of bias worldwide. Even if a reviewer might be international in consciousness, the way they evaluate during a process of research and knowledge transmission remains Western bound. This is due to the Western academic systems remaining paramount in the evaluation process Confirmation bias in the form of Western hegemony is not only due to the academic culture itself, but the dominance of the English language. Bias is organically bound with language, and is also language specific. This implies that inevitably, an academic researcher or scholar forms a confirmation bias through a medium of the English language. Furthermore as the methods of expressing ideas and knowledge differ from one language to another, and language is capable of describing “its own reality more effectively than the other”, this causes academic knowledge to retain under Western circumstances, preventing knowledge dissemination in the academia circle to diffuse to other alternative cultures and norms. As a result, research becomes skewed to Western values and beliefs, reshaping the periphery systems, to Western lines, and proliferate Western cultural paradigm. As knowledge mobilization and transission occurs at the level of mediation; the individuals and organizations connecting the research into practice must acknowledge these Western confirmation biases to work towards a more globalized reliable academic culture.

Wikipedia Gap analysis: Language in the platforms of Research Translation
Within our course of study, we were introduced to various notions within the umbrella of knowledge dissemination: knowledge mobilization and translation. Wikipedia explained knowledge translation to be an important practice to allow the spread and understanding of scholarly material to the lay audience, that is most often used to health professions. This is where I find a gap in this wikipedia entry. Knowledge translation is not only limited, and not only often used in health related topics, it also spans out to different other concentrations, such as the social sciences, with various different mediums. Nelles have stipulated in his work, “Dissemination of Knowledge” how the forms and methods of public knowledge being circulated are continuously changing, and with the emergence of online platforms that allows the spread of knowledge such as Massive Open Online Course (MOOCs), TED talks, Wikipedia and other sites that allows for academic material to be accessible to the general public, through various sharing platforms and social media sites. The importance of language is also dismissed in the Wikipedia entry; the result of knowledge being translated has to be in a language such that it could engage all audiences. However, Canagarajah argues that this particular form may further enhance the dominance of Western academia. Despite that fact, these platforms such as Wikipedia, allow the audience to also contribute to the issue or topic of discussion, producing a more developed entry thus a more enhanced translation and dissemination of knowledge.

Proposed Wikipedia Entry
In today’s context, the core actor of knowledge dissemination, same as the olden days, is academic institutions. They are able to provide the platform to initiate dialogue between the scholars and audience that could potentially lead to new ideas, or knowledge to become more apparent. Academic institutions are most commonly the actor that provides the initial point of research - this research, with the help of different actors and platforms is then translated to be more eligible to the lay audience. For example, TED conferences and different social medias allows a better way to disseminate knowledge in a more engaging way that is more relatable to a larger audience.The increasing popularity and accessibility of these platforms minimizes the gap between the scholars and the larger audience as these platforms loosens the rigidity of the scholar’s language by re-presenting it in a more engaging manner. Janet Giltrow writes in “Academic Writing: An Introduction” that the language used in the translation of research needs to be accessible, and to be able to reach a large audience; as language is sensitive to situation in which the way we use language shifts as new situations come forth.