What Wikipedia Taught Me About Writing Online

During this project, I realized there is so much more to be learned about writing for the Internet than initially apprehended. At the beginning, working in groups made the project itself seem less intense because we each only had a small part of the overall work. A big aspect of this assignment was trying to figure out what the important information and the correct information were, so we could use it on our page. Another thing that seemed important to me while doing this project is the cyber law of the Internet, better known as the use of Netiquette. It is not only valuable to make sure the information on the page is true, but a Wiki user must also be polite and understanding to others who may have different opinions than them. I found the discussion section of Wikipedia to be helpful because users can argue their points and come to a mutual agreement through this page. Wikipedia is a community of users that work together on the content of the pages and attempting to understand how to do that correctly taught me further information about writing on the Internet for any type of media.

In Zittrains Lessons of Wikipedia, he discusses the world that these Wikipedians have created, in which they developed a system of self-governance. Wikipedia allows its users to edit the content that is on the site, and discuss alongside the article, or in the discussions area, what information is true and what is false. While the pages can be continuously edited, there are some guidelines to be a part of this self-governing community. One of which is Wikipedia’s three-revert rule, which states, “An editor should not undo someone else’s edits to an article more than three times in one day” (Zittrain 135). With this rule, other editors can offer their viewpoints on the subject without overpowering the page with force. This allows other users to give their input on the matter. Something related to this that I found very useful for doing this project is the discussion section of Wikipedia. I discussed this in a previous post, but it allows users to debate about the information being changed on a page to come together and find the answer.

The impression that a vast group of users can come together and agree on one meaning seems astonishing, but it could not be done without the hard work put into these pages by the Wikipedians. “Indeed, the idea that a “neutral point of view” even exists, and that it can be determined among people who disagree, is an amazingly quaint, perhaps even naïve, notion. Yet is it invoked earnestly and often productively on Wikipedia” (Zittrain 144). Wikipedia, responded to that by having all the content on their website licensed, “so that any may copy and edit it, so long as attribution of its source is given and it is further shared under the same terms” (Zittrain 145). They are showing that they believe in what it is that they are doing by having all of their material available to the public. Through this discussion approach to communicating with the other users to come to an agreement, I realized that even though working together in a group setting seems complicated, it opens the door to a discussion with others that are interested in the text.

            Another thing that was challenging to me with this project was agreeing on what the content should be and what sounded best on the page. “The ultimate stage in development is committed relativism, in which students have learned that, in spite of complexity and uncertainty of many truths, judgments of truth and falsity, right and wrong, and moral commitments still need to be made, on the basis of the most complete, diverse knowledge presently available to us” (Lazere 128). I felt that trying to come together as a whole class and create this page was challenging and trying to keep my viewpoint on the audience at large was definitely harder than expected.

Lazere’s article gave a lot of good points on looking beyond what you want yourself and coming to an agreement on what is fair. He points out that every person or writer will have his or her own opinions on what is right and what is wrong. As writers, we have to look past that and decide what is true. “A large step in the direction of objectivity, then, is learning to avoid applying a double standard toward biases favoring our own side versus those favoring the other” (Lazere 128). Through this I realized that although a person has strong beliefs of what is right and wrong, as users we have to be able to put our opinions aside and find the best way to give all the information appropriately.

            From this project, I learned that viewpoint and fairness is important for this type of writing because people can argue as much as they want, but facts are facts. Opinions should not be allowed to get in the way of that. Writing for Wikipedia, being clear and consistent, as well as informative and trustworthy, was a much more difficult task than I had originally prepared for. With that being said, I feel that I am coming away from this assignment much a lot of beneficial knowledge about writing for the public online. 

Works Cited

Lazere, Donald. “Viewpoint, Bias, and Fairness: From Cocksure Ignorance to Thoughtful Uncertainty.” In Reading and Writing for Civic Literacy: The Critical Citizen’s Guide to Argumentative Rhetoric. Boulder, CO: Paradigm P, 2005. 125-38. Print.

Zittrain, Jonathan. “The Lessons of Wikipedia.” The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 2008. 127-48. Print.

The Community Behind Wikipedia

I decided to edit the Genre page for my project. I feel that I know a lot about genre, after taking many classes on it, and could be another pair of helpful eyes to the page. At first, the page looked generally fine. I went through and found some places that were asking for citations, but when I further researched these things, I took out what couldn’t be cited and left the ones that could. After spending a few hours looking for other things to be changed, I began to feel that this would be a much harder task than anticipated.

            I found Zittrain’s “The Lessons of Wikipedia” very helpful throughout my editing. He discusses one of the main attributes, which is the discussion page that comes alongside every main page. “This allowed people to explain and justify their changes, and anyone disagreeing and changing something back could explain as well” (Zittrain 134). This section helped me to do my changes to the page. I read through these discussions a bit and tried to pick what I felt needed changing or more information. The discussion page gives other users reasoning for why they believe a change should or should not be made. That gave me some guidelines on what to look at, which was very helpful.

            Editing other peoples work helped me to understand what users go through to find the information that is necessary for the topic to be fully explained. It is a much harder process than just looking at their sources and finding the information. The research requires looking at numerous facts and websites to clarify what is written. Zittrain’s article also discusses the ethos that a person must have to become an editor of Wikipedia. “It embodied principles of trust-your-neighbor and procrastination, as well as “Postel’s Law,” a rule of thumb written by one of the Internet’s founders to describe a philosophy of Internet protocol development: “Be conservative in what you do; be liberal in what you accept from others”” (Zittrain 134).

            The other thing I used to help guide my editing is “Editing Out Obscenity: Wikipedia and Writing Pedagogy” by Carra Leah Hood. She gives two examples of Wikipedia pages; one with offensive wording and incorrect facts and another with edits that make the page a proper looking Wikipedia article. While the Genre page I edited did not have that many edits to be made, I did look through for things similar to Hood’s first example to be sure that it was worded in a grammatically correct way. “A finished version of a Wikipedia entry exists only in theory, however; since entries are rarely locked or tagged “read only,” a reader can take on the role of an editor at any time, thereby updating, fussing with, or otherwise adulterating an entry that has remained stable for a while”. (Hood Explanation in Process).

            This section made me realize that as often as people use and change Wikipedia pages, there is always more that can be added. This is an ongoing process; new users will come across these pages much after a change has been made and completely agree or disagree with it. On top of that, there is always new information coming out that can change a definition of a word or topic.

            Wikipedia does not have rules exactly, but guidelines for those who are trying to become an editor or user of the site. I did a lot of research on these guidelines, which seem to be working as of now, but there are people who change things on Wikipedia to incorrect information. This is something that Wikipedia has tried to keep a hold on, but it does happen. With that, Wikipedia made it so that administrators can block certain users that keep coming up from being able to edit pages.

            After making the edits and reading through all the information, I feel that Wikipedia is doing their best to keep their information credible. The research that goes into these articles and sources is very hard to keep track of. The administrators of this site have a tough job, but from what I’ve read, I believe it’s paid off. The way that Wikipedia is set up, with the discussion board, guidelines for editing, and overall layout of the site, are great resources for any information you may need, but it is still good to know about how to check sources and facts on their site. I think this editing project really showed me more about the site than I imagined was a part of it. While it is complicated, I think this idea of a community of endless information and debates keeps the mind fresh.

Cites:

Hood, Carra Leah. “Editing Out Obscenity: Wikipedia and Writing Pedagogy.” Editing Out Obscenity: Wikipedia and Writing Pedagogy. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.

Zittrain, Jonathan. “Chapter 6: The Lessons of Wikipedia.” The Future of the Internet and How to Stop it. New Haven: Yale UP, 2008. Print.

Response to Lindsay's Blog

The last part of your piece stood out to me the most. It is so true that no text comes from an original thought these days, It comes from a blend of different things we experience and how we are raised. All our life experiences influence how we think and feel and where our information comes from. Maggie’s experiences with this photo and MSU. This created more discussion on the topic and helped created this new discourse. I totally agree with all that is said here, you made some great points.

In Ridolfo and Rife's article, they state, “Although the activists succeded in their rhetorical goal of achieving third-party media coverage for their campaign. Maggie’s ethos was drawn into the spotlight in questionable ways for years after the initial events took place” (Ridolfo 229).

While she was protesting, the image was used for something else, but with that got the coverage that they originally wanted. This photo was reused, which brings up Copyright issues, but I think you stated those issues well.

http://lindseymarcus.blogspot.com

The Standards of Wikipedia

Zittrain's article, Lessons of Wikipedia, discusses how rules and standards are used differently to achieve similar goals.Wikipedia is run by administrators who can block or change what people have submitted to the page, but users are still encouraged to submit correct facts to their site. Wikipedia has submission provisions that state the guidelines for users submissions, but other than that it is a free-range for users to post. In Zittrain's article, he states that there is a difference between rules and standards. "Rules are less subject to ambiguity, and if crafted well, inform people exactly what they can do, even if individual situations render impractical, or worse, dangerous" (Zittrain 128). He then goes on to say, "Standards allow people to tailor their actions to a particular situation" (Zittrain 128). Wikipedia's guidelines for submission can be see as standards for what they expect in the content on their site.

Wikipedia has given their administrators certain veto rights to keep the content true and well written. They have a "three-revert rule" which is defined as, "An editor should not undo someone else's edits to an article more than three times in one day" (Zittrain 135). This rule keeps the users from continuously changing the content back and forth until someone gives up. The content can then be discussed by other users to come up with which idea is the correct idea. The examples given on Hood's website show how diverse a page can look just because of the type of language that is being used.

In the photos by Hook, it is showing examples of a correct Wikipedia article and of an incorrect article. In the before photo, the page shows unpleasant language use and description, plus some surely untrue facts. The first paragraph starts out seeming as if it will be a regular article and then quickly changes to something completely different. The after photo then uses a wider range of language to explain the correct topic. The editor corrected the facts and terminology on this page. The second photo is an example of what they do want for their site, true facts in a well written manner. This would be a great example for someone who was considering submitting, to show them what is expected from them as authors.

Zittrain's article continues on to talk about cyber space and the unspoken cyber laws. "In modern cyberspace, an absence of rules (or at least enforcement) has lead both to a generative blossoming and to a new round of challenges at multiple layers" (Zittrain 129). By this I believe he means that while yes the internet has opened doors and given users access to all kinds of information, it has also created a place that can be difficult to monitor. There are so many different aspects of the internet, that it is hard to keep track of every single thing that is going on. If users can follow these "cyber laws" then everything will run smoothly, but if not it can create chaos on the internet.

"Although different users have different levels of capabilities, anyone can register and anyone, if dedicated enough, can rise to the status of administrator" (Zittrain 142). This opportunity gives the community a sense of fairness. This policy style allows articles to be edited and then reedited again. It relies on active editors and contributors, constantly checking the site for incorrect information. It requires extensive amount of work and effort to do such a task, but Wikipedia has faith in it's community and editors to keep this information true.

Throughout Lessons of Wikipedia, Zittrain explains this community of Wikipedians, or the people who use and contribute to Wikipedia often. Through these people, as well as the administrators of the site, the content put in these articles is created and discussed by users everywhere. He explains where the content on their site comes from, but also the hardships that come from having such an open website. With these examples from Hook and the different topics discussed in Zittrain's article, readers get a clear view of how Wikipedia is run and what goes into the content on the website. It creates a community in which people can gather information as well as discuss various topics. It also shows that a website can run without "rules" but rather just overall etiquette standards that are known by users.





Hood, Carra Leah. "Editing Out Obscenity: Wikipedia and Writing Pedagogy." Editing Out Obscenity: Wikipedia and Writing Pedagogy. Richard Stockton College of New Jersey. Web. 29 Oct 2014.

Zittrain, Jonathan. "After the Stall" The Lessons of Wikipedia. Print.

Wiki-Right Or Wiki-Wrong?

        Wikipedia is a well-known database of information on topics that vary from history to current events. Although Wikipedia is very well known, it’s sources are not always trust worthy. Because so many people have access to Wikipedia, the edits that are made on some of the pages may not be correct. Wikipedia claims to be an online encyclopedia, but with random people adding facts to their pages, it is hard for users to trust this information. Essentially, yes, there is a team of people who try to keep track of the edits and make sure that they are true. But with so many users and changes, it is hard for them to keep track of everything. I believe that Corbett, Eberly and Lazarre would all agree that Wikipedia could be the ultimate platform for citizen critics seeing as anyone can edit articles. Wikipedia claims they have editors with diverse backgrounds, but how can we, as users, know if that it true or not. Another interesting fact about Wikipedia is the way the overall website is organized. While there is a search box, the home page gives the viewer many articles to choose from to begin their searches.

        Wikipedia does state on their “About Wikipedia” page, “Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous Internet volunteers who write without pay. Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles, except in limited cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism. Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or, if they choose to, with their real identity.” This is what makes users skeptical of using information off their site.

        After looking through a bunch of Wikipedia articles on the “Did you know…” page, I came across one about Dascha Polanco, an actress from Orange Is The New Black, and found her background story very interesting. The difficult part of this article was that there were a lot of articles from news sites, but most were in Spanish, thus I couldn’t understand if these facts were true or not. There was also some articles from bigger named sites, such as NBC. While looking through those, I found that all the information on her page seemed true. Some of the sources are from smaller news sites, and while I don’t think that makes them “unreliable” it does make me question them a tad.

        Of the sources I checked out, all agreed with the fact that she is from the Dominican and raised in Brooklyn and Miami. All the articles also stated that this job on OITNB was her first acting job. Lastly, they all also confirm that she was working to become a nurse after college. I do think this information is generally reliable, but with some of the articles being in Spanish, I could not confirm those. There was not much detail on her page, seeing as she just became famous, but of the information provided it all seemed to be true to her life. This is just one example of Wikipedia being correct. There are surely many examples of Wikipedia having incorrect information on it, I was just lucky enough to pick something that was all true.

Cites:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dascha_Polanco

Corbett, Edward P.J., and Rosa A. Eberly. “Becoming a Citizen Critic: Where Rhetoric Meets the Road.” The Elements of Reading. 121-138. Web. 

Does apologizing for slavery make it better?

For this assignment, I chose an article from the Resolutions folder, the Concurrent Resolution, Apologizing for the enslavement and racial segregation of African-Americans. In this article, the author is giving details of what happened to African Americans after slavery and how the fight is not over yet. While he is apologizing in this piece, the author does note that an apology does not erase what happened. “Whereas an apology for centuries of brutal dehumanization and injustices cannot erase the past, but confession of the wrongs committed and a formal apology to African- Americans will help bind the wounds of the Nation that are rooted in slavery and can speed racial healing and reconciliation and help the people of the United States understand the past and honor the history of all people of the United States;” (Harkin paragraph 16). This article gives distinct details about what African Americans have been dealing with since slavery and how they are still struggling. Throughout the article, the author discusses particular events that happened in our history and how, no matter what apology is made, we cannot undo Slavery.

Lazere’s article, Viewpoint, Bias and Fairness: From Cocksure Ignorance to Thoughtful Uncertainty, gives many definitions of ideas that are used throughout criticism and writing in general. The first definition given in the article, partisan viewpoint, which is defined as a viewpoint siding with a particular party of ideology, seemed to be relevant while reading Harkin’s article. Harkin is not exactly siding with African Americans, but he is giving explicit details about their hardship during and after slavery. Lazere introduces many terms in his article, but skepticism is one that stood out to me. Skepticism is defined in the article as “the philosophical doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible and that inquiry must be a process of doubting in order to acquire approximate or relative certainty” (Lazere 125). I felt that this was an important aspect because while reading this article, if the author’s ideas in the article do not agree with the readers point of view, they will become skeptical of the article.

With that, I also think primary certitude is important. This is defined as a “psychological term for the mindset of people who are fixed in absolute beliefs so dogmatically, without recognizing their own bias, that they cannot bear to have their beliefs questioned or doubted” (Lazere 126). People may have this attitude and not even realize it is affecting their view of things, while on the other hand, can easily see this bias in others. Critics need to be fair-minded in the delivery of their articles, and present both sides of the story. Pertaining to Harkin’s article, I believe that people can read it and feel for African Americans, or they can feel that this article is pushing too much into the topic. Because of their bias opinions on the subject, their take away from this article can range from either of these opinions.

Corbett and Eberly’s The Elements of Reasoning; Becoming a Citizen Critic, discusses what a citizen critic is, how this affects our ability to argue in a public sphere. “Becoming a citizen critic is a matter of habit; like reasoning itself, it is a matter of habitual practice” (Corbett/Eberly 122). The article gives the reader diversions of reasoning section, where it offers critics a way to critique and examine without attacking the author. One of the ways discussed is pandering. “People are said to pander to their audiences when they use emotional appeals as diversionary tactics or scare tactics” (Corbett/Eberly 127). In Harkin’s article, I believe he is pandering to the audience’s values. 

“In a democracy, rhetoric as the actualizer of potential depends on citizens who are able to imagine themselves as agents of action, rather than just spectators or consumers” (Corbett/ Eberly 131). Corbett and Eberly state in their article, “we must invoke ad well as address democratic audiences”. I believe by that they mean to bring up the issue and give reason for the audience to change it. Corbett and Eberly are saying that it is important for the audience to be able to walk away and feel the need to change something. With Harkin's slavery article, I believe he wants his readers to walk away with the need to change how African American's are viewed. 

Works cited:

"Concurrent Resolution Passed by U.S. Senate." Federal Sentencing Reporter 16.5 (2004): 360. Web.

Corbett, Edward P. J., and Rosa A. Eberly. The Elements of Reasoning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2000. Print.

Lazere, Donald. “Viewpoint, Bias, and Fairness: From Cocksure Ignorance to Thoughtful Uncertainty.” In Reading and Writing for Civic Literacy: The Critical Citizen’s Guide to Argumentative Rhetoric. Boulder, CO: Paradigm P, 2005. 125-38. Print.