The two Wikipedia articles that I will be comparing and
contrasting are “Kairos” and “Digital Rhetoric.” Both of these are closely related to the
topic of public discourse, especially in this electronic age. The two above topics also feed into each other,
seeing as that digital rhetoric is reliant on kairos in order to be successful
and continuous. Not only that, but the articles themselves are a matter of public discourse, seeing as that anyone can contribute to editing Wikipedia pages (so long as they have proper references and follow the guidelines). Because of this, external participants can have a dialogue with others interested in the subject by providing expert opinions and links that perhaps other did not know of along with posting their opinions on the 'talk' pages associated with each article. This delayed response gives all persons involved a chance to better themselves and others.
The layout of the two articles are similar in that they
follow the basic layout of all Wikipedia pages.
For example, the column on the left is solely dedicated to reach
different portions of Wikipedia with little connection to the article
material. The articles also have brief
overviews of the topics at hand (also known as a "lead"), followed by a table of contents. However, that is where the similarities end.
Of the two articles, the "Kairos" article is a better example of a well-defined
Wikipedia page. It provides
illustrations of examples of kairos depicted from ancient times, and it carries a
more professional tone than its counterpart. The "Kairos" article is set up to
be informative and yet understandable to the lay reader. It also gives the
reader of the sense of time associated with kairos, sticking mainly with
ancient Greece before transitioning to the modern definition of the word. The "Digital Rhetoric" article, on the other
hand, does not give such in depth information.
It lacks illustration; and though it has a number of sections, each one
only contains a sentence or two of explanation.
The article appears to be pubescent, and although it gives a detailed
definition of the topic, it does not supply much other information. This could be because the "Digital Rhetoric" article
is a thorough example of intertext.
Porter, in his paper “Intertextuality and Discourse Community,” gave a thorough definition of what intertext is. On page 35 of his paper he explains that “[The
text’s] system of language, its grammar, its lexicon, drag along numerous bits
and pieces-- traces of history so that the text resembles a Cultural Salvation
Army Outlet with unaccountable collections of incompatible ideas.” This
definition harmonizes with the set-up of the "Digital Rhetoric" article, mainly
because the majority of the words presented on the page were hyperlinks to
other Wikipedia pages. The "Digital
Rhetoric" article works as a synthesis of information, with numerous outsourced
links to give information that the page itself is incapable of giving as one
coherent unit. “It is important to
remember that ‘the I…is already itself a plurality of other texts,’” asserts Porter on page 42 of his work. (This is especially
clear when you scroll to the “See Also” section and take notice of the
plethora of links available.)
The article on "Kairos", however, works closely with Carolyn Handa’s claims in her article “Multimedia Rhetoric.” Handa’s beginning claims include that of everything posted on the internet not only requires context, but also is impossible to be present without it. "Kairos" gives the context of the word and how it has been shaped over the centuries- first with ancient Greece, them its modern definition, and finally its religious impact. There are fewer external links on this page as compared to "Digital Rhetoric," mainly because it is self-supporting, with more reputable sources given in the further reading section.
The disparity between the two articles is to be expected,
mainly due to the maturity of each of the terms. Digital rhetoric was born in the late
twentieth century, as compared to Kairos’s ancient Greece. Digital Rhetoric gives an example of the
numerous fledgling articles which Wikipedia has yet to expand, something that
can be seen clearly under the “stubs” category.
If one were peruse the stubs category, one would notice that a majority
of the categories have to do with events or topics in recent time. Most of these are related to sports, music,
and even geography (which, although having been present for a long amount of
time, was only recently able to be thoroughly expanded upon with modern technology). The correlation between recent articles and
the amount of information needed to be updated are closely related, and this
can be seen even more clearly when one looks at the “Articles to be Expanded” region of Wikipedia where the earliest entry was in 2007, even though the site was founded in
2001.
In essence, the new age calls for more information and
intertextuality in order to properly explain the topics involved in the digital
age. Not only that, but basics of modern
discourse can be seen rooted into the ancient past, revealing that nothing
today is without context.
