“Compare and contrast how these articles address their different audiences. In the conclusion, you might also discuss how effective each author/ article is at addressing its/ his intended audience”.

Upon reading the articles in question, one can draw an easy dichotomy between them. The two Wikipedia articles address a ‘lay’ audience, while Vince Carducci’s “Culture Jamming: A Social Perspective” addresses an academic audience. The register of the language, layout, length, and the amount of information that is presumed of the reader makes this distinction an obvious one. While the former two provide an unfamiliar reader with an introduction to the phenomenon of Culture Jamming, the latter analyzes it in a historical context – the writer has a thesis that he expands upon throughout, working within a framework of academic thought he expects the reader to be confident with (the Enlightenment, Romanticism).
When analyzing the Wikipedia entries, and how effective they are at addressing their audience, it is necessary to investigate what the purpose of a wikipedia article is, so that we may evaluate what exactly someone expects from the resource. The Wikipedia site states the following:
“Users should be aware that not all articles are of encyclopedic quality from the start, and may contain false or debatable information. Indeed, many articles start their lives as partisan, and it is after a long process of discussion, debate and argument, that they gradually take on a neutral point of view reached through consensus…it provides a good starting point for research, and that articles in general have proven to be reasonably sound. That said, articles and subject areas sometimes suffer from significant omissions, and while misinformation and vandalism are usually corrected quickly, this does not always happen.”

It is important to note that Wikipedia admits to being a “starting point” for research. It is fair to presume that one accesses a Wikipedia entry with little or no prior knowledge of the topic one is researching. It therefore makes sense that the articles are written in a colloquial, easily accessible register, in order to appeal to the broadest possible audience. Moreover, given the fact that it is an online resource, one can presume that readers whose first language is not English are also accessing the site, and the need for clarity is therefore even greater.
The article “Subvertizing” begins with a definition that is loose to say the least. The author defines it as a “spoof” or “parody” of an advertisement. These words are ostensibly synonyms, so the desire for extreme clarity is apparent from the outset. However, the difficulty that the author has in neatly defining the practice is also evident when it is claimed that it can be part of “social hacking” or “culture jamming” – two terms that are unlikely to be familiar to the reader.
The AdBusters definition of “subvertizing” is given, but there is little attempt to explore the origins of the phenomenon, how widespread it is, or question its effectiveness. The author does analyze the origins of the word “subvertizing”, but merely to make the obvious connection with the words “subvert” and advertising”. The etymology is not expounded upon in a way that sheds light on the phenomenon and puts it in a social/historical context – this is clearly not what the entry is intended to do. The ‘voice’ of the author, his/her perspective is not important.
The article touches upon the use of “subvertizing”, but only very superficially. The language used is colloquial and somewhat vague;
“Liberal and radical viewpoints tend to dominate subvertising, as one of the ideas behind the concept is to incite change by presenting easily recognizable and understandable images that can be shocking and even disturbing in their frankness…”

The use of the word “tends” communicates that the author is speaking in general terms, and that this is merely an introduction to a more complex matter. The idea that subvertizing could actually reinforce the system it aims to attack is made in passing, and it is again stated in lay terms, not citing a specific scholar or source; “However, some people believe…”
Finally, the author quotes “subvertize.org” to introduce the concept that subvertizing is a social movement, but this is not explored further. It is an aspect of the phenomenon that the interested reader can research separately.
A few pictures are used to supplement the information and provide clarity and further links are given, demonstrating once again that we are reading a general overview. There is no thesis, and it is simply a very rough and plainly worded introduction to the term by an anonymous contributor. In the words of Wikipedia, it is a “starting point”.
The same is true of The “Culture Jamming” entry in Wikipedia. Once again, a simplistic definition is given, as if there were just one. There is no attempt to question the individual definitions of the words that constitute the phrase, but it is slightly more extensive than the “subvertizing” entry. The language is, again, ‘lay’, and the layout is simple; divided into five easily accessible sections; (1) Origins (2) Examples of culture jamming – listed, not much elucidation. (3) Culture jamming organizations or people – listed, with links included. (4) See also (vaguely related topics) (5) References (there are only four).

Pictures complement the information, in a broad, general way, and there is a conscious attempt to avoid jargon. There is no thesis, and it is purely descriptive – an introduction to culture jamming. Instead of analyzing particular instances of culture jamming they are listed, with the reader being able to access them should he/she want to learn more. Often they make little sense taken in isolation -“Andre’ the Giant has a posse, a street art campaign”- and only become clearer when the reader accesses the link. This schematic system is employed for brevity’s sake, as the reader may only want a swift preface. We are made aware of related topics, and key events that will shed more light on culture jamming, but there is no time for an in-depth exploration. It is, after all, an entry that takes up a single page.
Vince Carducci’s “Culture Jamming: A Sociological Perspective” addresses an academic audience. It is a far longer article, for scholars already interested in consumer culture. Carducci’s aim is not merely to define the practice of ‘culture jamming’ which he presumes his audience is somewhat familiar with, but to place it within an historical and sociological perspective.
The structure of the article is targeted at a reader who is doing research on the subject; the abstract highlights his thesis and summarizes the topics covered by the article and the purpose of it. This way, a scholar will know whether it will be of use or not. Carducci eases the reader into the article with an informal passage that creates a bond with his audience and refreshes their memory on the subject, but he quickly adopts a rigorously academic tone. His lexicon is immediately sophisticated:
“the subjective rejoinder to the instrumental rationality of scientific rationalism” (p118). It is clearly not a register that simply anyone could digest. Moreover, he quotes sources and books that he presumes his audience is already familiar with, and assumes that his audience is well-versed in the Enlightenment period, which will provide a frame of reference for his discussion. He analyses the term “culture jamming” thoroughly, linking the phenomenon to movements and analyzing how it may fit into a general dichotomy that has been drawn down through history. The article is divided into sections, but one must be attentive to see how they link together, as the link is often subtle. He systematically provides evidence for his thesis, to which he ties his wide-ranging points to, and then sums up his assessment in the conclusion. The article ends with his own views on the phenomenon and his predictions for the future. Somebody simply looking to familiarize themselves with the term may have a hard time understanding it, but a scholar already involved in the field may be intrigued by Carducci’s new way of viewing culture jamming.
In conclusion, the Wikipedia articles and the Carducci article address entirely different groups as they essentially perform different functions. The Wikipedia entries familiarize a ‘lay’ reader with a topic he/she knows very little about while Carducci discusses a topic his readers already understand, from a different viewpoint. The latter is more scholarly, uses more jargon and draws on a reservoir of published material the reader is assumed to have read. Personally, I deem Carducci’s to be the more effective piece, as the Wikipedia entries are vague and somewhat confusing. While the language employed is straightforward, the presentation relies on one doing considerably more research to understand the phenomenon with some clarity. The jumbled nature of the entries may have to do with flaws inherent in the wiki system, but they are there nonetheless.