Knowledge and the printing press

Carrying through with thoughts from my previous post and reading...

I've often dialogued, read, reflected on the impact of the printing on Christianity in the US and in faith communities that had previously only been led by one or a few Biblical "interpreters" for the people. The printing press changed all that, because everyone had access to the written knowledge and didn't have to rely on pastors/priest/etc. I've spent time connecting this to Martin Luther and the Reformation.

Anyway....I wonder if Web 2.0 will do/has done similar things to written and shared knowledge. Will it be as dramatic as it shapes knowledge? Does it shape knowledge in a unique way?

Musing about writing as a "keeper of knowledge"

I've been reading the Handbook of Writing Research, particularly the Bazerman & Rogers chapter on Knowledge Outside Modern European Institutions. In the first section the authors define knowledge and then compare the differences between oral traditions and writing.

These two quotes stuck out to me:
"The invention of writing made knowledge more readily and realiably remembered, transported across time and space, and shared, by copying, among multiple people and sites" (p. 143).

"Writing facilitates inspecting exact wording to hold authors accountable for what was said, as well as comparing accounts for inconsistences, differences, and contradiction" (p. 144).

Reading and thinking about these two quotes in light of the question of "authorship" (Prior & Lunsford) chapter AND connecting to a conversation I recently had with my husband about the practice of "tagging" on the internet has led me to ask these questions.

1. Has Web 2.0 made writing more flexible to interpretation, much like oral tradition, due to the way writing consumers can reorganize an author's thoughts and intentions for others?

2. Even the fact that I used the words "writing consumers" instead of readers seems important to me. Why does that seem to apply more to Web 2.0 use instead of reading text from a book?

3. Ultimately, what has technology and the ability to manipulate text done to 'knowledge' that authors attempt to communicate?

Collecting For Future Use and Thought...

Did You Know 4.0

Writing: How it all began

I've only read a couple of our Writing Research Handbook, but I am struck by two aspects from the history chapter. #1 The authors make the claim that art and writing are separate mediums used for separate reasons. Their argument makes perfect sense, but I think I've always thought of early, prehistoric drawings as the first signs of writing...ie. a form of written communication. I'm still pondering their distinctions. #2 The authors trace the first 'writing' as an economic necessity, basically a method of keeping track of debts in a community. I'm struck by the idea that writing was birthed as a type of early credit card.... a way to keep track of debt...:)

Of course, I realize that the intricacies of the accounting systems the authors describe can't be simplified quite this much, but again, before reading this chapter, I think I would have tied the first function of writing as tied to story-telling (ie. the art again) or a function somehow tied to recognize the after-life. As the chapter recounts, this function develops much later.

Many things to consider....