Hi Everyone (Britta here),
I just had another thought that I wanted to share. The other evening on the call, Laura asked about or made reference to post-modernism. I loved Ju-Pong's response that it is something that is very difficult to grasp and understand and cannot be easily summarized. Yes.
Then, I think it was also Laura who made note of O'Donnell's use of Wikipedia as a reference. If my memory serves me, Laura, I think you were not impressed by this and made a comment to indicate that. Correct me if I have it wrong, please...
But, this is what I was thinking. And, I wanted to say a small bit about post-modernism in this regard. From what I understand (and remember, because I haven't read about it for about 10 years now...) but, from what I understand, post-modernism is the big way of describing what has happened to the world since (about) 1968 or so. Things became faster, more random, less linear, more democratic (with a small 'd'), more relativistic, people began to embrace irony and the idea that the world is "socially constructed," secularism became a more widely practiced belief system. People didn't like or trust old structures of authority.
So, to make this brief, I think Wikipedia is a very post-modern form of knowledge. And, to embrace it, as a legitimate reference source is also very pomo. If one believes that the world is "socially constructed" then Wikipedia is a perfect place to tap into that construction of the world.
Just a note about my own beliefs, as I tend to be a bit agnostic on the whole matter. I can see that post-modernism is, in fact, here. out my window and in my head. But I am not sure if I like it. On the other hand, I don't know if I really liked what happened before or what might happen next.
all the best to all of you!