Poster presented at the Digital Humanities 2016 Conference by Jim McGrath (Brown University)

1. Edit Histories and Literary Turf Wars
John Ashbery, Reception History, and Wikipedia
Jim McGrath, Brown University
(@JimMc_Grath)
[citation needed]
How is cultural authority visualized in social media through the publication, revision, and erasure of citations? This poster examines the
social dimensions of citation practices in the creation, revision, and dissemination of Wikipedia articles about literary texts, figures, and
movements.
This work began as part of a dissertation on how claims for the value of poetry (specifically, North American poetry written after 1945) circulate
online. Given Wikipedia’s visibility and its openly-accessible, heavily-documented record of its article revisions (and its debates between editors), I
became interested in where and how ideas about poetry materialize in the online encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an extremely visible and malleable
public space where competing claims about aesthetics collide and re-collide.
I am particularly interested in:
Trends in terms of particular authors, institutional contexts, publishers, dates of publication, points of origin (print vs. digital, paywalled
content, open-access journals, public domain, blog posts), and accessibility of sources
Uses of academic scholarship in specific articles: are they referenced in bibliographies? Quoted extensively? Appearing in particular
sections of articles? Ignored completely?
the social dimensions of debates about aesthetics in article edit histories: how editors justify additions, deletions, and revisions, how
cultural authority is established, when debates get particularly nasty
I am interested in John Ashbery because of his literary stature in the eyes of segments of North American and
global audiences. Additionally, Ashbery creates particular challenges for scholars (and other readers) interested
in periodization and reception history; he has ties to several literary coteries across time and space (the New
York School, L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poetry), his work has been praised by scholars, journalists, and MTV (among
other audiences), and he continues (as of this writing) to publish new material that unsettles the work being done
to cement his legacy.
Case Study: John Ashbery
"No figure looms so large in American poetry over the past 50 years as John Ashbery” (Langdon Hammer; 2008)
"the last figure whom half the English-language poets alive thought a great model, and the other half thought
incomprehensible” (Stephen Burt; 2008)
“the source given is some columnist speculating randomly 22 years ago.” (Wukai; 04:12, 26 January 2015)
“deleted a repetitive quotation that adds nothing to encyclopedic understanding” (Mzilikazi1939; 20:32 7 May
2013)
“This is a pointless jibe at Ashbery from a fifth rate critic, and reduces the neutrality of the article.” (Nightspore;
02:10 6 February 2007)
Page Citations (as of 1
July 2016)
21 “References” (1
Academic Article; 2
Encyclopedia Entries; 3
Newspapers)
13 "External Links” (2 links
to Academic Article Portals)
15 Books in “External
Reading” (14 Authors; 7
University Presses)
2 Scholars quoted in body
of article: Langdon Hammer
(Yale); Stephen Burt
(Harvard)
Edit History of John Ashbery’s Wikipedia Page as of 1 July 2016
(Source: Wikimedia Tool Labs)
Much of your time has been
occupied by creative games
Until now, but we have all-
inclusive plans for you.
-John Ashbery, “These
Lacustrine Cities”
Looking closely at Ashbery-related Wikipedia content has led me to consider:
1. How to identify (and inventory) patterns in rhetorical strategies used in assessing and contextualizing the merits of
particular poetic reading practices
2. How to situate Wikipedia's (and academic scholarship’s) particular investments in certain citational practices within
digital modes of curation and dissemination that prefer (or ignore) these impulses: Tumblr pages, tweets, image macros
3. How to balance “distant reading” strategies fueled by the availability of Wikipedia data and Wikimedia visualizations
with “close reading” methodologies that consider the particular conditions of individual poets, their audiences, and their
editors