The Phenomenology of Error

In "The Phenomenology of Error," Joseph M. Williams argues that writing errors should be seen as "social constructs." What does he mean by this?

He means that people should essentially worry about when they make grammatical errors because other people in society will judge them for the errors that they make. Although he doesn’t say that people should correct others when they make errors, it would be pointless for grammar errors to be a part of social construction if there wasn’t someone there to make sure that people followed it and then punished when someone went against the rule or made an error.

Further, how might we apply this realization to the negative reception of Wikipedia and its characterization as inaccurate and error-prone?

Because of the way that society functions and sees errors and social constructs it makes sense that people are weary of the validity of Wikipedia. It has been drilled into our heads for years that information on the internet is hard to trust and Wikipedia should really never be trusted or used as a reference in an academic paper.

A 2005 study of Wikipedia's accuracy found that "Wikipedia scientific articles came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors" ("Reliability of Wikipedia"). If we trust this research, why is Wikipedia being subjected to so much criticism while Britannica remains mostly undisputed? Can Williams help us answer this question?

I think that the reason that there is so much criticism surrounding Wikipedia is because “regular” people are allowed to contribute. If you look at the writers and editors of Britannica it is a list of reputable people. But if you look at the writers and editors of Wikipedia it is a list consisting of just about every kind of person you could think of. I think because Wikipedia doesn’t have the credentials that Britannica has people are weary of it and its validity.