The Information Society, 28: 151160, 2012
Copyright

c Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0197-2243 print / 1087-6537 online
DOI: 10.1080/01972243.2012.669448
An Aesthetic for Deliberating Online: Thinking
Through Universal Pragmatics and Dialogism
with Reference to Wikipedia
Nicholas Cimini
Faculty of Education, Health and Sciences, University of Derby, Derby, United Kingdom
Jennifer Burr
School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
In this article we examine contributions to Wikipedia through
the prism of two divergent critical theorists: Jurgen Habermas
and Mikhail Bakhtin. We show that, in slightly dissimilar ways,
these theorists came to consider an aesthetic for democracy
(Hirschkop 1999) or template for deliberative relationships that
privileges relatively free and unconstrained dialogue to which every
speaker has equal access and without authoritative closure. We em-
ploy Habermass theory of universal pragmatics and Bakhtins
dialogism for analyses of contributions on Wikipedia for its en-
try on stem cells and transhumanism and show that the decision
to embrace either unified or pluralistic forms of deliberation is an
empirical matter to be judged in sociohistorical context, as opposed
to what normative theories insist on. We conclude by stressing the
need to be attuned to the complexity and ambiguity of deliberative
relations online.
Keywords Bakhtin, Habermas, Internet, stem cell, transhumanism,
Wikipedia
Scholars have recently started thinking about the con-
nections between Jurgen Habermass theory of universal
pragmatics (a template for deliberative democracy based
on the principles of openness, accountability and rational-
ity) and the deliberative forums emerging online (Geiger
2009; Hansen et al. 2009; Poster 1997; Rheingold 1995).
Received 13 January 2011; accepted 8 February 2012.
The research on which this work is based was given financial sup-
port by the ESRC (grant number PTA-031-2004-00153).
Address correspondence to Dr Nicholas Cimini, Faculty of Educa-
tion, Health and Sciences, University of Derby, Kedleston Road, Derby
DE22 1GB. E-mail: n.cimini@derby.ac.uk
One of the earliest of these works was Howard Rheingolds
book The Virtual Community (1995), in which he outlines
his self-professed utopian vision of the Internet as an
electronic agora with emancipatory potentialakin to
the salons and coffee houses of Habermass The Structural
Transformation of the Public Sphere (1989) (Geiger 2009,
1112). More recently, in this journal, Hansen, Berente,
and Lyytinen (2009) have sought to leverage the case
of Wikipedia . . . to illustrate the potential of information
systems for supporting rational discourse (38). From this
perspective, the editable encyclopaedia approximate[s]
the conditions for a Habermasian rational discourse be-
cause it overcomes much of the influence of relations of
power and domination (Hansen et al. 2009, 53).
With inspiration from Habermas, these champions
of the Internet (Gieger 2009, 11) see chat-rooms, Web
forums, mailing lists, and other forms of electronic
communication as decentralizing communication and
democratizing political relations. This interpretation
stresses the open, transparent, and bottom-up nature
of dialogue in places like Wikipedia, Twitter, and the
blogosphere. It assumes that virtually anyone, regardless
of expertise or resources, can engage in deliberation and
contribute to meaningful forms of online knowledge.
The neo-Habermasian theories of the Internet also point
to the fact that many online spaces are independent of the
state, capital, and sectional interests, and play host to the
articulation, distribution, and negotiation of thousands of
contradictory worldviewsaggregating the knowledge
of participants through principles and rules developed
organically by the communities themselves.
In the search for the cosmopolitan e-democracy to-
be, however, many of these neo-Habermasian interpreta-
tions have lost sight of the fact that online relations are not
151
152 N. CIMINI AND J. BURR
only determining but are simultaneously determined by al-
ready existing deliberative relationships. As Agre suggests
(2002, 315), deliberation online creates little that is qual-
itatively new in terms of the struggles for accountability
and social change; instead, for the most part, it ampli-
fies existing forces. The tendency to view the Internet
in the highly normative terminology of neo-Habermasian
theory, as approximating rational discourse, denies the
many ways in which online knowledge is both shaping and
shaped by already existing, and often irrational, social
processes and struggles.
Though Habermas himself has recognized the need for
empirical evidence for the cognitive potential of politi-
cal deliberation (2006, 414), normative theorising tends
to sidestep empirical research in the application of Haber-
masian theory to the Internet. We, on the other hand, go be-
yond the principally normative terms of neo-Habermasian
thought on the Internet. We do so by extending Haber-
masian thought with the notion of dialogism from the
Bakhtin Circle, which, though not unproblematic, is by
comparison more attuned to the messy complexity of
deliberation and the emancipatory potential of everyday
speech. We use contributions on Wikipedia for its entries
on stem cells and transhumanism as a case study to show
the fruitfulness of this exercise.
We are critically optimistic about the future of the Inter-
net as a deliberative forum and remain open to the possi-
bility of meaningful agreement on issues of public life,
both online and further afield. But we believe such a fu-
ture cannot be borne out of normative theorization alone.
It will require sophisticated interventions, which only em-
pirically grounded theory development can aid.
We begin by examining the notions of the public
sphere and ideal speech as these concepts appear in the
work of Habermas. It makes sense to begin with Habermas
because, in his own lifetime, he has been able to gain a
level of sophistication and intellectual respect that eluded
Bakhtin. We then move on to discuss the work of the
Bakhtin Circle and argue that, revised and supplemented
with specific reference to empirical examples, certain ele-
ments of both Bakhtinian and Habermasian theory provide
powerful tools for thinking about the Internet.
HABERMAS AND BAKHTIN
In recent years an increasing number of comparative stud-
ies have been conducted that explore the correlation be-
tween the ideas of Bakhtin and Habermas (Gardiner 2004;
Garvey 2000; Hirschkop 1999; Ives 2008). Even a cur-
sory glance over this literature would note a number of
similarities. For a start, both Bakhtin and Habermas draw
from many of the same theoretical sources: primarily, neo-
Kantianism and German theories of jurisprudence. Both
seek a critical defense of Enlightenment ideals and both
agree that before equality can be established in the social
world, it is necessary to establish a model of egalitarian
deliberative relations, or an aesthetic for democracy. Both
understand their work as a form of social critique that can
help in the conceptualization of moral, ethical, and polit-
ical problems by explicating some of the ways in which
power and domination are constructed, reproduced, and
sometimes subverted through language use. This focus
also encourages both to believe that meaning and signifi-
cance in language use are constituted through dialogue and
interaction, rather than by ideological indoctrination, sub-
ordination, or through the will to power. Although these
and other points of contact do exist, there are undoubtedly
also clear differences between the two theorists. We first
discuss each individually and then study the contrast.
Habermas
By far the most important influence on Habermas is the
broadly neo-Marxist tradition that originally inspired the
first generation of critical theorists from the Frankfurt In-
stitute: Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse. In particular,
Habermas shares with Adorno and Horkheimer a concern
that Enlightenment has turned, from a means of achieving
liberation, to a new form of enslavement in the form of
instrumentally rational actions (Outhwaite 1994). The
Habermasian project is thus a critical defence of Enlight-
enment, which emphasizes the duplicitous nature of reason
and the difficulties in actualizing its full potential.
This defense of Enlightenment takes many forms. What
are of interest for us here are Habermass ideas about lan-
guage use and the conditions of discussion on issues of
public life. A major contribution of Habermass project is
his notion of the public sphere, which is understood as
a relatively open and unconstrained environment for po-
litical discussion to which every speaker has equal access
and there is no authoritative closure. This public sphere
is independent of the church, state, and sectional inter-
ests (which has drawn comparisons with the Internet), and
it can be traced through the rise of several predecessors
of the Internet: the world of letters, the coffeehouse sa-
lon, the weekly and the novel, the library, the newspaper
(Habermas 1985). In these cases, individuals were given
access to forums for discussion of issues of public life in
a relatively independent fashion.
After the public sphere was so created, it was increas-
ingly encroached upon by instrumentally rational action
(any action directed toward enhancing efficiency and/or
furthering self-interest, often to the detriment of alter-
native goals in the public sphere)for instance, when a
genetic creator acting according to [their] own interests
irreversibly sets in motion the life contours and identity
of another person without even the possible assump-
tion of counterfactual consent (Habermas 2003, 87). The
 RETHINKING DIALOGUE ON WIKIPEDIA
instrumental rationalization of the public sphere can also
be seen online: in the surveillance of computer users, var-
ious digital censorship techniques, increasingly personal-
ized methods of advertising, the commercial acquisition
of peer-generated Web content, the many near monopo-
lies that exist in the software industry, and the increasingly
popular practice known as astroturfing (planned politi-
cal, advertising, and public relations campaigns by organi-
zations that create the impression of being spontaneously
born), among others.
Finally, and importantly, the Habermasian project
normatively supposes that a genuine dialogue or a
communicative rationality involves the demolition
of systematic obstacles to understanding (Habermas
in Outhwaite 1994, 38), such as sectional or class
interests. Vulgarities and ideological influences must also
be cast aside, as rational discussion has a normative
requirement that relevant issues, required information,
and appropriate contributions be mobilized (Habermas
2006, 418, italics in original).
Further, according to Habermas, it would be possible
as a matter of principle to distinguish between a gen-
uine and a false consensus, if we assume the possibility
of an unconstrained dialogue to which all speakers have
equal access and only the force of the better argument
prevails (Outhwaite 1994, 39). This unconstrained dia-
logue is a hypothetical construct that Habermas calls an
ideal speech situation. Habermas recognizes that this is
a hypothetical construct and that actual speech rarely, if
ever, corresponds with it, but, as Outhwaite points out, It
is more than just a fiction, or a regulative idea . . . since we
do in fact have to assume its possibility (1994, 40).
The belief that competing ideologies and material
interests could be cast aside in the pursuit of a genuine
consensus is a basic assumption underlying Habermass
conception of language use and debate in the public
sphere. Clarity, objectivity, and transparency are requi-
sites of ideal communicative interactions. Ideal speech
would necessarily be based on the principles of reason
and rationality, and stripped of all the inconsistencies,
vulgarities, and other instrumental rationalities that color
debate in the public sphere. This in turn presupposes the
possibility of a form of social life in which communica-
tion would take place in this way (Outhwhaite 1994, 40):
inclusively and based on rational discussion, free from
all the economic and ideological pressures, and in which
interlocutors treat each other as equals, adjudicating their
differences in a shared attempt to reach understanding on
issues of common concern.
This understanding of the ideal speech situation is, how-
ever, subject to criticism from, among others, a variety of
feminist and post-modern authors who argue that Haber-
masian philosophy can be criticized for being utopian and
gender blind (Benhabib 1992; Chambers 1995; McCarthy
153
1991). It is argued that the ideal speech situation, and
Habermasian theory in general, represents the potential
homogenization of differences, the devaluing of diversity,
and the implicit requirement of articulateness or
communicative competence (Young 2000, 38). The
privileging of rational speech along generally accepted
conceptual and normative frameworks would exclude
expression of some interests, which cannot be voiced
within this framework (Young 2000). As Benhabib
argues, Habermass theory has been gender blind in two
ways. One, difference in experiences for men and women
in all domains of life are ignored. Two, power relations
in the private sphere have been largely ignored and if
anything idealized.
We think these criticisms are important. Habermas does
privilege and idealize certain forms of communicative
competence, often to the potential denial of alternative
competencies. His focus on institutionalizing and univer-
salizing the mechanisms by which a society adjudicates
differences has led him, and those who have followed
in his footsteps, to equivocate when it comes to empiri-
cal questions of context and social difference, as we later
demonstrate in our analysis of the discourse on Wikipedia.
However, we share the agenda of Habermas and do
not discount the possibility of a progressive, unified lan-
guage (Ives 2008, 95). In other words, we would embrace
an aesthetic for democracy or model for egalitarian so-
cial relations that is open, is inclusive, and takes strength
from, or strives toward, universalism. After all, as we next
suggest with reference to some of the strengths and limi-
tations of Bakhtinian theory, it is an abstract and divisive
pluralism that celebrates difference for its own sake, re-
gardless of what one is being different about.
Bakhtin
It is now apparent that Bakhtin was well versed in the Ger-
man philosophic tradition and drew on many of the same
intellectual reference points as Habermas. Most notably,
both thinkers are inspired by German theories of jurispru-
dence, the Marburg School of neo-Kantianism, and phe-
nomenologists such as Max Scheler. This combination of
German idealism and socialist theory leads both thinkers
to believe that before justice can be established in the so-
cial and political worlds, it is necessary to establish a just
framework for discussing issues of public life.
Bakhtin uses the novel as a template for deliberative
relationships (Hirschkop 1999). In particular, Bakhtin be-
lieves that the polyphonic novels of Dostoevsky are thor-
oughly dialogic and imbued with a profound sense
of democratic spirit (Brandist 2001). The characters in
Dostoevskys novels are not submerged under the autho-
rial position (in other words, monological closure does
not occur), as is thought to happen with Tolstoi; rather, the
154 N. CIMINI AND J. BURR
characters are said to interact in an unmerged dialogue in
which each voice is given equal rights (Brandist 2001).
Like Habermas, Bakhtin sought the advancement of a
genuinely consensual and open dialogue, dia-logic, and
communicative rationality, over strategic and authori-
tarian actions, monological closure, and instrumental
rationality.
Bakhtin sought to explicate some of the ways in which
relations of power are constructed, reproduced, and po-
tentially subverted through language use. The utterance
is the main unit of analysis from this perspective. It is
conceived as belonging to particular speakers/writers at
particular conjunctures and as being addressed to the
voices of otherspast, present, and future. The utterance
is therefore dia-logical, part of an ongoing process of
social interaction, and is thought to register conflict and
political change (Harman 2007). Powerful groups will
continually try to control the types of utterances used,
much as they seek to control wider social and economic
struggles, and consequently there are continual clashes
over how people think about different terms and social
meanings. This understanding of language use might be
seen to afford us significant possibilities in terms of current
concerns. If language reflects social relations at particular
sociohistorical conjunctures, then shifts and changes
underway in the linguistic sphere, such as online, will alert
us to shifts and changes elsewhere, in the wider world.
The term carnivalesque was used by Bakhtin to
denote a certain proto-literary genre (Brandist 2002,
137140). In Bakhtins studies of Rabelais (1981,
20624; 1984), the history of carnival culture is traced
back to the festivals of antiquity or, even earlier, to the
agricultural pre-class stage in the development of human
society (Bakhtin 1981, 206; see also Brandist 2002, 135).
Bakhtin argues, although without sustained historical
research (Brandist 2002, 135), that these carnivals were
associated with individual and social renewal, laughter,
the grotesque, the gaiety of change, and the merry dist 2002). Nevertheless, the embrace of either centripetal
negation of uniformity and similarity (Bakhtin 1984, 40).
Carnivalesque literature, like carnivals themselves, in-
volves the temporary suspension of all hierarchic distinc-
tions and barriers among men . . . and of the prohibitions
of usual life (Bakhtin 1984, 15). This literature subverts
and liberates the tendencies of a dominant culture through
laughter, chaos, and displays of the grotesque (Brandist
2002, 14043). The carnival also has the capacity,
according to Dentith (2001), to lose its historic specificity
and so comes to represent a transhistorical genre which
can be actualised across a range of contexts. Bakhtins
description of the carnivalesque is thus an understanding
of a certain proto-literary genre, which is characterized
by the reappearance of medieval/ancient comic relations
in contemporary contexts in an attempt to undermine and
liberate the tendencies of a prevailing order.
NORMATIVE THEORIES OF MEANINGFUL
DELIBERATION: CENTRIPETAL AND
CENTRIFUGAL FORCES
As noted earlier, Habermas himself has recognized the
need for empirical evidence of rational deliberation. But
in positing a hypothetical realm of deliberation that un-
folds in a transparent and universally applicable manner,
applications of Habermasian theory have too often equiv-
ocated when it comes to real individuals in their everyday
lives. For instance, Habermasian theorists sidestep em-
pirical observation when they see the approximation of
rational discourse in the combative and hostile debate that
occurs online. Habermas, from a Bakhtinian perspective,
allows normative theory to sidestep actual material cir-
cumstance and thereby develops a philosophical construct
that fails to speak to everyday life (Garvey 2000).
However, in a different yet equally problematic way,
Bakhtin can also be criticized, from a Habermasian per-
spective, for allowing theory to sidestep actual material
circumstance in his purposefully difficult, fragmentary,
and underresearched embrace of dialogism, carnival cul-
ture, and heterogeneity. Bakhtin consistently emphasizes
dialogism, open-endedness, and other centrifugal forces
and tendencies, and he is consistently critical of unified or
centripetal forces. He does not consider the possibility
of a progressive, unified language (Ives 2008, 95), and
seems to imply that there is something inherently positive
about having multiple perspectives on a subject (Eagleton
2010, 147). Bakhtins apparent enthusiasm for centrifugal
dialogue could be seen as a product of its time (Stalinist
Russia), with Bakhtin seeking to defend pluralism in the
face of authoritative closure or in his terminology defend-
ing dialogism over monologism (Brandist 2002; Ives
2008). It could even be a product of Bakhtin scholarship,
rather than Bakhtin himself, because his work has been
selectively translated and disseminated in the West (Bran-
or centrifugal social forces, centralized or diffuse deliber-
ation, would surely depend upon historical circumstance.
One would want to know what one is being dialogic and
open-ended about, and when, because it is an abstract and
divisive pluralism that embraces social difference regard-
less of the difference in question.
Hence, revised and supplemented, and with reference
to empirical evidence, the normative theories of Haber-
mas and Bakhtin act as counterweights to each other and
together provide some interesting ways in which to under-
stand deliberation online. Habermas offers an aesthetic
for democracy that aspires to universally applicable out-
comes despite social differences, and his emphasis on
transparency, clarity, and universality provides a coun-
terweight to Bakhtins frequently ambiguous translations
of political questions into literary and aesthetic ones.
 RETHINKING DIALOGUE ON WIKIPEDIA
From Bakhtin, however, we get a philosopher who
is attuned to the value of opacity (Garvey 2000): the
frequently progressive use of language and ideology
in ambiguous, jocular, or even irrational ways. Where
Habermas views emotional rhetoric and ideology as
obstacles toward understanding and meaningful change,
Bakhtin places value in laughter, the grotesque, and par-
ody. Where the former supports universally applicable out-
comes despite social differences, the latter appears to view
all universalizing tendencies as inherently tyrannical. But
with reference to each other, these two thinkers provide
some interesting ways for envisioning actual deliberation.
THE CASE OF WIKIPEDIA
There are good reasons for collecting data from Wikipedia:
There is an abundance of written and other material; there
are cost savings for the researcher (transport, venue rental,
etc.); and it provides ready-transcribed data. What is more
interesting, however, are the social processes underpinning
Wikipedia and other Web 2.0 enterprises. Struggles over
linguistic meaning and interpretation are particularly ac-
centuated on peer-generated webspaces such as Wikipedia
(Cimini 2010), which attempts to bring together contribu-
tors from a range of perspectives and aggregate knowledge
through discussion. The researcher therefore is afforded
insights over a period of time into a range of stakeholder
accounts, interaction between these accounts, and assorted
conflicts and struggles over meaning.
The current study entailed maintaining a database of
interesting or controversial edits to health- and genetics-
related Wikipedia articles and their associated discussion
pages, including the content of individual user pages and
pages for debating Wikipedia policy, over a period of 7
years from the inception of the website in 2002 to 2010.
It is possible to trace the history of each of the Wikipedia
pages discussed here, and thereby conduct an archaeol-
ogy of the website. Even though the data were already in
the public domain, ethical approval was secured from the
University Research Ethics Committee before data collec-
tion commenced. The data was coded using both manual
and computer-assisted techniques, and the development
of conceptual understandings and analysis unfolded in a
semi-iterative fashion. The coding scheme was applied
across the whole data set, with links retained to the origi-
nal quotations on Wikipedia to provide context to individ-
ual quotations. This coding scheme included codes that
are sometimes overlapping and interchangeable, which
means that certain quotations were coded more than once.
Examples of the codes used most widely include claiming
authority, personal attack, and agreement, positive level of competence.
and negative, past, present, and future, disabil- In most cases, user pages adhere to these conventions
ity, and eugenics.
155
Illustrative quotes, from serial online discussion, are
used to demonstrate the way discussion about content de-
veloped. Where we do refer briefly to Wikipedia defini-
tions, we do not make any claims about the accuracy, or
otherwise, of the definitions analyzed. Though the findings
we present next are tentative, we contribute to a growing
body of knowledge that suggests that deliberation online
is hostile and combative, and it is this hostility that spurs
greater levels of user activity (Chmiel et al. 2010; Dahlberg
2001).
Claims to Personal Authority on Wikipedia
In this and the next section, we show that peer-generated
webspace is characterized by repeated, strategic, and often
highly manipulative attempts of individuals to claim per-
sonal authority and also a tendency for self-aggrandizing
behavior. In addition, we show that internet users have a
tendency to denounce the ascribed personal authority of
others.
In the absence of definitive knowledge about those be-
ing addressed, Internet users are prone to developing ad
hominem methods of argumentation, arguments that prob-
lematize the personal identification of an individual rather
than the expressed points of view themselves. A Wikipedia
contributors declaration of personal authority varies ac-
cording to its purpose and contexts of use. Some of these
declarations can be subtle, such as a personalized HTML
signature that is left on a discussion page or in a user
profile, alleging some form of professional association.
Others can be full-blown confessionals or more uninhib-
ited accounts of personal detail.
One of the main ways in which Wikipedia users can
construct a sense of self is through their personalized user
pagethe personally designated space of each user on
the website. The stated purpose of these personally des-
ignated spaces is to facilitate communication between
users and assist in the construction of encyclopaedia arti-
cles. There are no hard rules restricting users with regard
to the content and style of their personal space, but the
convention is that user pages should relate to an individ-
uals activity on Wikipedia. Therefore, it is common for
user pages to include a list of the articles that the user
has collaborated on, sometimes a graphic representation
of the users edit history is presented, and these pages
might also feature a list of articles that the editor believes
requires attention. In addition, it is common for users to
detail their interests or area(s) of expertise (such as med-
ical or disease-related Wikipedia articles). If the user is
multilingual, that persons user page might additionally
refer to the languages the person speaks and with what
by containing only information that relates to Wikipedia.
156 N. CIMINI AND J. BURR
However, a large and vocal minority of Wikipedians do
not conform to these norms. Several user pages include
seemingly irrelevant biographical details. Many display
or discuss information relating to political or religious
beliefs. Others discuss drugs, music, software, and so on.
In some cases medical information is divulged, and sexual
orientation and mental or physical impairments have also
been acknowledged. Jimmy Wales, the cofounder and
public face of Wikipedia, has spoken out against such
displays of personal association. He also supports an,
as yet, unsuccessful campaign to impose restrictions on
user-page content with the specific aim of identifying
polemical, divisive, or severely objectionable views or
positions which are anathema to the Wikipedia project,
basic tenants of Wikism, or to the projects overall health
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userbox policy
poll).
In particular, Wales and other Wikipedians have ob-
jected to the display of controversial userboxes on the
website. These are the two- or three-inch boxes that appear
on many user pages. These boxes might contain informa-
tion about personal associations, religious or political be-
liefs, and ethnic identity. Until recently, one of the most
popular and hotly contested boxes related to dislike for
George W. Bush. Other such boxes pledge allegiances to
the nation, whichever it might be, to our troops abroad, to
pro-life or pro-choice, to the I.R.A., to British Union-
ism, to veganism, and so forth. Some of these boxes are
blatantly parodic, humorous, or grotesquefor example,
This user has never left planet earth; This user is a
moon citizen.
Opposition to userboxes, and other controversial self-
identifying information, is informed by Habermasian nor-
mative rationality: the premise that personal associations,
ideological baggage, and emotional rhetoric lead to fac-
tionalism. It is felt that in order to have a large number
of people achieve a meaningful agreement on potentially
contentious issues, it is necessary to suppress the impact
of political or group cleavages and overtly polemical,
emotional, or uncivil methods of argumentation. These
emotional rhetorical strategies threaten the unity of the
Wikipedia community and thus could undermine the pur-
suit of rational discussion. Hence the clarion call by Wales
and others: Here we are Wikipedians, out there we are
advocates.
Wikipedians who speak in defence of userboxes, on
the other hand, believe, like Bakhtin, that the pursuit of
meaningful deliberation is futile, and potentially even
dangerous, if it ignites attempts to minimize emotional,
ideological, or individual expression. For example, user
John Reid (Proposed policy on userboxes, 05:37, 19
February 2009) says, Its human nature to form groups of
all sizes and for all sorts of purposes. On the same page,
user Nelson Ricardo (02:35, 20 February 2006) says:
In exchange for helping this encyclopedia evolve into
what it is today, we would like a tiny bit of space on some
computer servers to tell the world who we are and to express
some opinions (outside the encyclopedi [sic] article space).
In this perspective, personal associations and [express-
ing] some opinions are a constitutive part of what it
means to be a socially embedded human being, Its hu-
man nature. In addition, to encourage Wikipedians to
leave their personal politics at the door is to underes-
timate the power that personal and emotional intonations
will bring to bear in any deliberative forum, since this per-
sonal energy help[s] this encyclopedia evolve into what it
is today. It is to the occasionally positive role of personal
and emotional intonations in political deliberation that we
now turn.
The Emancipatory Potential of Seemingly Irrational
Discussion
The tendency to make arguments based on personal au-
thority and experience is not always counterproductive. In-
deed, in certain circumstances these personalized methods
of argumentation can result in prolonged debates, multiple
edits, and potentially a clearer exposition of views.
This occurred, for example, in the debates on Wikipedia
over stem cell research between users Keetoowah, Nec-
tarflowed, and Oarih, in late 2004. Offline, in the real
world at this time, the restrictions imposed by President
Bush on the federal funding of new embryonic stem cell
lines were used by many Democrats as yet another exam-
ple of the presidents folly, his pandering to the Christian
Right, and as denying millions of Americans the right to
new treatments. In the Wikipedia manifestation of these
debates, as happened in the wider world, the supporters
of President Bush emphasized the ethical benefits of
adult stem cells, whereas supporters of John Kerry and
the Democratic Party emphasized the apparent scientific
merits of embryonic stem cells.
User Keetoowah began making edits at 05:48 on
December 26, edits that, in his or her words, attempted to
counter a clear bias toward embryonic stem cell research
. . . and add balance with the adult stem cell alternative.
Three days later, at 04:04 on December 29, Nectarflowed
reverted many of these changes, claiming Keetoowahs
edits appear IMHO [in my humble opinion] to be too
strongly motivated by partisan activism. The response
from Keetoowah is prompt and equally as personal. Just
thirty minutes later, s/he positively identifies as an ex-
pert, making a claim to personal authority, and then uses
this personal authority as the basis for a counterattack,
accusing Nectarflowed and Oarih of bias and lacking the
necessary expertise:
 RETHINKING DIALOGUE ON WIKIPEDIA
I realize that expertise is not a requirement for this busi-
ness of Wiki, but I do know that I have been working directly
with some the leading researchers and administrators in this
area for five years and I can verify that. I have not heard the
same from you [Nectarflowed] and Oarih. What I have read is
incorrect and full of bias. (Keetoowah (04:34, 29 December
2004)
Keetoowahs claim to authority and ad hominem attacks
were met with derision by Oarih (05:24, December 29,
2004), with the words of the former being turned against
him/her in comments made by the latter. Oarih stated:
The fact that you are involved in funding adult stem cell
research almost calls your ability to be impartial further into
question. Would it even be in your interests to see a competing
technology receive more attention?
This debate between Keetoowah and others further il-
lustrates that self-expression, personal beliefs, and the per-
ception of bias feature strongly in online discussions, and
these forces are often viewed as obstacles toward rational
discussion. Discussion here is thus personalized, highly
emotive, and reflective of ideological baggage, with
claims to personal expertise, accusations of bias, and con-
ducted against a backdrop of a U.S. presidential election.
However, of particular interest is that three days after
the combative personal exchange between Keetowah and
Oarih, after a grand total of 69 distinct article edits (be-
tween these and other users), further discussion on the
associated talk page, and even the protection of the arti-
cle from the 29th to 31st of December (all users were sus-
pended from editing the article at this time), there emerges
the appearance of compromise over the disputed material.
Keetowah (05:52, 31 December 2004) eventually declares
that I realize, on reflection, some of my changes need
work, but I also believe, and may be Im just being naive,
that we are getting these things worked out.
By January 3, 2005, after nine days of arguing and
editing, all three contributors appeared to settle on agreed
wording. At least, the personal attacks stopped and all
three editors continued to collaborate on the article for
a number of months after. The wording that they agreed
upon remained in the article for another 12 months in
more or less the same form until an almost wholesale
revamp occurred in the middle of January 2006. In the
Wikipedia manifestation of the stem cell debates the per-
sonal and emotional methods of argumentation appeared
to bring about a clearer exposition of views and eventually
consensus between opposing points of view. At the very
least, a partial and temporary semblance of consensus was
reached, which was near enough impossible to achieve
offline between the political representatives of these
views.
Another example of personal or emotional arguments
spurring greater debate and discussion can be seen in the
157
Wikipedia article on transhumanism. When the article
began, transhumanism was defined as:
an emergent school of speculative philosophy which is
predicated on the idea that the human species does not repre-
sent the endpoint of evolution but rather its beginning. (07:13,
4 July 2001)
Variations on this definition persisted in the article for
a number of years, representative of the fact that, per-
haps, the most vocal editors at this time were generally
sympathetic toward the idea. From March 2006 onward,
however, the following definition began to take shape:
Transhumanism is an international intellectual and cul-
tural movement supporting the use of science and technol-
ogy to improve human mental and physical characteristics
and capacities. This movement regards aspects of the human
condition, such as disability, suffering, disease, ageing, and
involuntary death, as unnecessary and undesirable. (Defini-
tion at time of writing: 5 June 2009)
This more recent understanding is more balanced, in the
sense that the definition is one step removed from the
language of the movement itself, and it has changed only
slightly over the past 2 12 years. For example, disability
has only recently replaced stupidity as one of the unnec-
essary and undesirable conditions. While there remains an
underlying sense of tension in the article, the long-standing
presence of this definition is indicative of a delicate con-
sensus between a range of editors including a number
of self-confessed transhumanistsMetamagician3000,
The Transhumanist, and KarlBunkerand two other
prominent editors who self-identify as being neutral
(Loremaster) and sceptical (StN). For example, the
following exchange took place on March 6, 2006, with
user StN responding to predictions made by Loremaster
on the possible future uses of genetic technologies:
Germline genetic engineering and full-term cloning, even
with experience from animal studies, will be a crap-shoot.
(StN 22:37)
As for your crapshoot comment, Ive talk [sic] to some
prominent (non-transhumanist) animal and human biologists
who say otherwise. (Loremaster 23:08)
This is one of the real problems with this whole discourse.
People can say anything they want in private conversations.
The real question is whether you or anyone else can come up
with scientific papers on animal cloning or transgenesis that
indicate that the technical problems are under control, or look
soon to be, and give reason to believe that the first such at-
tempts in humans wont be simply uncontrolled experiments.
(StN 23:32)
Again, the delicate consensus that was achieved among
these various editors was brought about through a clash
of opposing points of view, rather than through reasoned
or rational discussion. As was the case with the display
of userboxes and in the debates over stem cells, discussed
158 N. CIMINI AND J. BURR
earlier, this exchange on genetic engineering further un-
dermines the idea that Wikipedia approximates rational
discourse. We can see both the purchase of grotesque lan-
guage in political deliberation (a crapshoot), forcing a
response from Loremaster, and in that response yet more
attempts to construct personal authority through unverifi-
able accounts of best knowledge. In the end, however,
this was not an obstacle to communicative reason. Instead,
these seemingly irrational methods of argumentation facil-
itated further discussion and eventually agreement, inclin-
ing Loremaster to reconsider his views and later provide
evidence in support of his claims:
When I find the time (and money), I can provide you
with these papers. That being said, I think it might be useful
to cite someone . . . on the safety issues and provide a
transhumanist rebuttal. (Loremaster 17:08, 7 March 2006)
The formulation of personally authoritative voices, a ten-
dency to view others with suspicion, and sometimes rather
personal attacks thus culminated in a clearer exposition
of views and mutual understanding (the article eventu-
ally reaching featured article status, meaning that it was
credited as being one of the better articles on Wikipedia
and it appeared on the homepage of the website in 2006).
In another example of the use of rather personal at-
tacks, user Metamagician3000 (15:38, 8 November 2006)
attempts to demarcate the pursuit of eugenics at the fin
de siecle from transhumanist philosophy. This is achieved
in a way that closely reflects the conventional historical
thinking about eugenics, through the powerful rhetorical
trope of emphasising individual choice:
I think the trampling on basic freedoms bit is the key to it.
If you give the state a mandate to use its vast coercive powers
to attempt to improve the human species, next thing you know
itll be sterilising people, killing people of the wrong kind,
etc. . . . Transhumanists, however, dont usually seek to hand
the state any mandate to pursue a eugenic agenda. On the
contrary, they favour strong protections to keep any decisions
to improve the health and abilities of children in the hands of
parents.
Where, for Metamagician3000, eugenics was about state
control and trampling on basic freedoms, transhumanism
is based on liberty and choice. This perceived distinction
between the reproductive philosophies of then and
now is historically misleading, since it requires these
narratives of ideological rupture and progress to deny the
persistence and malleability of voluntary eugenics and
the fact that, long before Nazi abuses, many liberals
and left-wingers championed the discourse of choice with
respect of eugenic decisions (Paul 1998). Further, Meta-
magician3000s distinction is also theoretically flawed,
as suggested by Wikipedia user StN (17:20, 8 November
2006), who identifies as a historical materialist,
because it denies the possible limits to informed choice
and the coercive nature of contemporary capitalist
relations:
Libertarians tend to ignore the hegemonic and coercive
elements of corporations and the capitalist economy in gen-
eral, imagining that peoples perceived desires and consumer
choices are a matter of free choice. So, in this model, people
will demand genetic engineering for their offspring just as
they demand sports utility vehicles on their highways, trans
fats, high fructose corn syrup and hormones in their foods,
and breast implants for themselves and their daughters.
This critique of choice is then echoed by Loremaster
(17:33, 8 November 2006):
In other words, although liberal eugenics is intended to be
under the control of the parents, the substantial governmental
and corporate infrastructure required for genetic engineering
may limit or steer their actual choices.
In response, Metamagician3000 (00:02, 9 November
2006) is both sarcastic and dismissive of the suggestion
that there are limits to choice:
StNs views sound very paternalistic to me, but thats just
me. I am merely explaining what was so bad about eugenics
and why it doesnt apply to transhumanism. . . . Before Im
going to want to be protected from my own decisions, Im
going to have to be pretty convinced that I cant trust my own
capacity to make wise decisions. . . . Even if the state were
controlled by someone as intelligent as StN, I would rather
trust my own judgment [sic], influence of advertising and all,
on these personal matters.
The critique of reproductive choice is thus dismissed as
dangerously paternalistic, even when obstacles to choice
are recognized, and the conventional historical narrative
is misleadingly reinforced (I am merely explaining what
was so bad about eugenics). The sarcastic/amiable tone
of the final sentence, and the fact that discussion con-
tinued for a number of months after, also further rein-
force the argument made here that personal, emotional,
or humour-based arguments need not be a hindrance to
communicative rationality. Indeed, at times, such methods
of argumentation can force an Internet user to revisit the
topics of discussion, potentially offering a clearer expo-
sition of their views and ultimately helping to forge new
and closer relationships with interlocutors. On many oc-
casions, there is thus a clearer exposition of views that
is achieved, in spite of, or perhaps because of, these per-
sonal/sometimes vulgar methods of argumentation.
CONCLUSION
Wikipedia, like the Internet and Web 2.0 generally (Chmiel
et al. 2010), is characterized by persistent and diverse
methods of asserting personal authority, as well as associ-
ated attempts to undermine the authority of the other. In
this sense, the Internet ideal of peer collaboration rarely
 RETHINKING DIALOGUE ON WIKIPEDIA
corresponds with rational discourse. The electronic inter-
face, the ability to manipulate virtual personae, and a lack
of face-to-face contact often lead Internet users to rela-
tively more self-aggrandizing behaviors and deliberately
provocative methods of argumentation than is normally
the case in conventional methods of deliberation. On-
line deliberation rarely, if ever, approximates ideal speech.
However, taking this argument one step further, we have
suggested that, as a normative framework, an aesthetic for
democracy should be attuned to the emancipatory poten-
tial of seemingly irrational methods of persuasion. The
influences of personal bias or emotions need not be a hin-
drance to reasoned discussion. In fact, at certain junctures
in a deliberative relationship, personal reflection and the
weight of ideological baggage can play an important
role in the formation of a general will.
The position developed leads to the following conclu-
sions. First, we argue that the theories of Bakhtin and
Habermas give us a sophisticated and politically engaged
theoretic vocabulary that allows us to think through argu-
mentation and persuasion online. However, our normative
thinking about the Internet, and its perceived emancipa-
tory potential, must be firmly embedded in the study of
existing debate. To judge the emancipatory potential of
the Internet and, indeed, the potential for agreement on
issues of public life, it is necessary to study actual debate
and discussion over a sustained period of time.
Second, we show that, revised and supplemented, with
specific reference to empirical investigation, elements of
both Bakhtinian and Habermasian theory provide pow-
erful tools for understanding debate and discussion on-
line. From these thinkers we take a view of language
use not only as vehicles for communicating beliefs and
ideas, but also as intimately connected to political strug-
gles, in that language reflects and impacts on particular
contexts. In addition, we take a view of linguistic mean-
ing and knowledge, both in virtual communities and in the
real world, as socially constructed and shaped through
interactionrather than straightforwardly dictated from
above, inherently conflictual and fated to disagree, or im-
posed by a will to power. Therefore, it seems at least
theoretically possible that disparate social groups could
reach a genuine consensus on issues of public life, and it
is not the case that typically subjugated voices are bound
to their positions of subservience. The potential for agree-
ment despite social difference can be seen, for example, in
the earlier discussion, in the albeit fleeting and transitory
moments of consensus reached on the topics of stem cells
and transhumanism.
Third, our analysis shows that critical thinking on the
Internet should be open to the complexity and ambiguity
of deliberative relations and the often irrational ways
in which the truth or socially meaningful knowledge
emerges in online environments. That the Internet has de-
159
veloped a new vocabulary to describe and rebuke provoca-
tive debating styles (trolling and flaming, for instance)
suggests a need to rethink the role of reason in wired
communication. Our analysis recognizes that the Internet
is a combative arena in which methods of personalized ar-
gumentation often holds sway. This put us at odds, in cer-
tain respects at least, with the neo-Habermasian Internet
theories and the universalistic applications of communica-
tive rationality that stress the emancipatory force of reason
and rationality in attempts to reach consensus. Taking this
point one step further, we feel that the seemingly irrational
methods of argumentation and persuasion mobilized on-
line need not be a hindrance to consensus formation. The
truth may often emerge in an online forum not in spite
of irrational methods of argumentation, but often because
of them.
Habermas and Bakhtin both believed that before jus-
tice can be established in the real world, it is necessary to
establish a just theory of debate and discussion over issues
of common concern. Habermass theory of just exchange,
from a Bakhtinian perspective, privileges clarity and uni-
versality often to the detriment, or denial, of actual debate
and discussion. However, Bakhtins theory could be seen,
from a Habermasian perspective, as a naive and divisive
form of pluralism that celebrates dialogics, heterogeneity,
and social difference without considering the potential of
an emancipatory, unified voicea discourse or form of
deliberation that aspires to widespread applicability. For
these reasons, we argue that the embrace of either cen-
tripetal (centralized) or centrifugal (diffuse) deliberation
must be influenced by historical circumstance. Theoretical
notions of a discourse that embraces one or the other, as
normative principles, without considering the actual con-
texts or topics of discussion themselves, are at best only an
abstraction. The case we have explored here, Wikipedia,
is not unique as a website. It reflects our wider world.
Much the same processes of debate and negotiation can
be found on websites such as YouTube, Twitter, and the
blogosphere, and also offline at work and in the family.
Wikipedia is thus much like any other context of social
interaction that simultaneously indexes and accentuates
struggles over authority, power, and control, as well as the
attempts to overcome or profit from these.
REFERENCES
Agre, P. E. 2002. Real-time politics: The Internet and the political
process. The Information Society 18: 31131.
Bakhtin, M. M. 1984. Rabelais and his world. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. 1981. The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Benhabib, S. 1992. Situating the self: Gender, community and post-
modernism in contemporary ethics. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
160 N. CIMINI AND J. BURR
Brandist, C. 2001. The Bakhtin Circle. The Internet Encyclopedia
of Philosophy, April 11. Available at: http://www.iep.utm.edu/b/
bakhtin.htm (accessed July 11, 2007).
Brandist, C. 2002. The Bakhtin Circle: Philosophy, culture and politics.
London: Pluto Press.
Chambers, S. 1995. Feminist discourse/practical discourse. In Femi-
nists read Habermas, ed. J. Meehan, 16380. London: Routledge.
Chmiel, A., J. Sienkiewicz, G. Paltoglou, K. Buckley, M. Thel-
wall, and J. A. Holyst 2010. Negative Emotions Boost Users Ac-
tivity at BBC Forum. Physics Archive 1011.5459. Available at:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.5459 (accessed December 20, 2010).
Cimini, N. 2010. Struggles online over the meaning of Downs syn-
drome: A dialogic interpretation. Health: An Interdisciplinary
Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine 14:
398414.
Dentith, S. 2001. Carnival, carnivalesque, carnivalisation. In The
literary encyclopedia, July 18. Available at: http://www.litencyc.
com/php/stopics.php?rec = true&UID = 160 (accessed June 10,
2009).
Dahlberg, L. 2001. Computer-mediated communication and the pub-
lic sphere: A critical analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication 7. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00137.x/full (accessed December
20, 2010).
Eagleton, T. 2009. Reason, faith, and revolution: Reflections on the
God debate. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Gardiner, M. E. 2004. Wild publics and grotesque symposiums: Haber-
mas and Bakhtin on dialogue, everyday life and the public sphere.
Sociological Review 52: 2848.
Garvey, T. G. 2000. The value of opacity: A Bakhtinian analysis of
Habermas discourse ethics. Philosophy and Rhetoric 33: 37090.
Geiger, R. S. 2009. Does Habermas understand the Internet? The algo-
rithmic construction of the blogo/public sphere. Gnovis: A Journal
of Communication, Culture, and Technology 1: 129.
Habermas, J. 2006. Political communication in media society: Does
democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of nor-
mative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory 16:
41126.
Habermas, J. 2003. The future of human nature. Cambridge, MA:
Polity.
Habermas, J. 1989. The structural transformation of the public sphere:
An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Hansen, S., N. Berente, and K. Lyytinen. 2009. Wikipedia, critical so-
cial theory and the possibility of rational discourse. The Information
Society 25: 3859.
Harman, C. 2007. Gramsci, the Prison Notebooks and philosophy. In-
ternational Socialism 114. Online. Available at: http://www.isj.org.
uk/index.php4?id=308 (accessed January 26, 2012).
Hirschkop, K. 1999. Mikhail Bakhtin: An aesthetic for democracy.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ives, P. 2008. Gramscis politics of language: Engaging the Bakhtin
Circle and the Frankfurt School. Toronto, Canada: University of
Toronto Press.
McCarthy, T. 1991. Ideals and illusions: On reconstruction and de-
construction in contemporary critical theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Outhwaite, W. 1994. Habermas: A critical introduction. Cambridge,
MA: Polity Press.
Paul, D.B. 1998. The politics of heredity: Essays on eugenics,
biomedicine, and the naturenurture debate. Albany: State Univer-
sity of New York Press.
Poster, M. 1997. Cyberdemocracy: Internet and the public sphere. In
Digital culture, ed. D. Porter, 20118. London: Routledge.
Rheingold, H. 1995. The virtual community: Finding connection in a
computerized world. London, UK: Minerva.
Young, I 2000. Inclusion and democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Copyright of Information Society is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.