Wikipedia talk:Homophora

Please feel free to edit the main article. It is only a draft. Also I am not a linguist so the concept I'm trying to wrestle with here is probably pretty convoluted. If you have any questions about what I'm getting at here just ask. This is all about taking things too literally--using technical dictionary definition instead of usage which provides the whole meaning. --Ben 06:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apologies in advance

I am new to Wiki and only just finding my feet so please forgive my presumptuousness in replying here. I suspect this will sound a little naive even though it is couched in somewhat technical terms. The problem you are seeking to address here is simply one aspect of the general difficulty of trying to communicate at a metacode level. Every cultural grouping establishes its own codes for semiotic purposes. So long as individuals remain within the group, their normative behaviour will be unexceptional. But, the moment group members interact with other cultural groups, communication failure becomes the norm until each individual learns how to accommodate the other's codes (for the record, "cultural imperialism" is the term for the situation in which one group unilaterally imposes its codes on others). Hence, the key issue is objectivity. When encoding for a Wiki entry, the writer needs to identify all the implicit cultural assumptions that will inform the choice of words and the values they represent in the particular context. Only the writer capable of identifying his or her own biases, can write genuinely neutral text. Except, of course, that is incorrect because what appears neutral to one group may actually be inflammatory to another, i.e. the very idea of "neutrality" is subjective. When the readers decode the text, they do so using their own codes and values — a process that may produce quite different meanings from that intended by the writer. And, given that potentiality for communication failure, how should one judge whether either or both the writer and the reader is "wrong". Both have applied the cognitive processes adapted for survival in their semiotic niches. That the two sets of codes are incompatible is no-one's fault. Where fault becomes relevant is in any lack of reasonableness in accommodating differences once they become apparent.

Hence, while I sympathise with the ambition in trying to draft this policy, I believe that the coverage and tone of the encyclopaedia would only be improved if all coding biases were addressed. But how you draft a policy to regulate behaviour that only a minority are self-aware enough to be able to identify in themselves is extremely problematic. Then how you would enforce the policy without giving offence is equally problematic. Since spelling, syntax, semantics, and values are codes particular to each group, you only have to look at the number of controversies over issues as important as whether petrol or gas should be used, to grasp the inherent difficulties in keeping the peace. So this is not defeatism on my part, but an observation that, to my newbie eye, you are trying to treat a symptom not the disease. Fragmentation of policy on the same issue can lead to inconsistencies of interpretation and enforcement which, in turn, may exacerbate the underlying problem. A better strategy would be to consolidate all code issues into a single easy-to-understand policy. --David91 28 June 2005 04:08 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm going to have to digest it a bit, since you raise a lot of good points, but in the meantime you've given me some much needed perspective on the issue. Thanks again! --Ben 29 June 2005 21:40 (UTC)