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.

Appealing To Time Response

Emily’s blog caught my attention because of the first sentence. “In the chapter “Appeals to Time” in the book Appeals in Modern Rhetoric, M. Jimmie Killingsworth discusses how classical and modern rhetoric utilize appeals to time in order to perpetuate meaning and purpose in a discourse" (Blog). I completely agree with this statement. It is the perfect summation of what is explained in Killingsworth’s article. In the very beginning of the article while discussing time he states, “It focuses an audience’s attention by concentrating on a particular moment in time” (Killingsworth 38). Kairos is also another topic discussed that I believe is important in writing for time. “Kairos has to do with finding the right argument at the right moment” (Killingsworth 38).

In Handa’s The Multimediated Rhetoric of the Internet, I also found the concept of finding the right time or period of time for an article. Emily discusses remediation of texts, as in making a text work for the time that you are writing for. With the growth of the internet, we need to pay attention to who we are writing for and what type of writing they will understand and comprehend. Handa states that, “Because they capture students’ eyes and minds, the sites consciously and subconsciously reinforce particular values through their rhetorical displays while also reflecting additional information about the people and cultures that produce them” (Handa 84). I think this is more relevant than ever because our writing should reflect the current times we live in and appeal to those in our time.

I agree completely that Killingsworth’s use and explanation of time made Handa’s argument and overall appeal more relevant and will stay relevant for a long time.

Handa, Carolyn. Multimediated Rhetoric of the Internet. London and New York:

Routledge, 2014. Print.

Killingsworth, M. Jimmie. “Appeals to Time.” In Appeals in Modern Rhetoric: An
Ordinary-Language Approach. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP, 2005. 38-51. Print.

Editing Analytical Response

While I enjoyed reading this and learned a lot about Wikipedia in the process, I felt that this was very bland and needed some arrangement changes. The biggest modification I made to the article is the order of the information. I changed the order of the numbers because I felt that having the “It says so on Wikipedia” one was more important and should not have been last. I made it second because while I do not want to give up the biggest one right away, I do believe it was necessary to be at the beginning. I also changed the numbers to go from 1 to 10 instead of descending order. When the numbers were descending, I did not believe it sounded correct. With the numbers in ascending order, it made more sense because the most important pieces of information should be first.

From the sources, I used the clarity checklist in Working with Words on page 240, to make sure my article was sound and made sense throughout. Along with that, I used the coherence section of the Style book to make sure that I was not making points in the wrong areas, or adding on to a point that was already made. These two pieces of information helped me reform this article to make sense to every audience. Coherence was explained as, “Think of coherence as seeing what all the sentences in a piece of writing add up to, the way all the pieces in a puzzle add up to the picture on the box” (Williams 38). I wanted to be sure that in its entirety the article made sense.

“Write to others as you would have others write to you” (Williams 132). There were a few spots that I changed words to make the reading earlier to understand for any audience. While the original words were not impossible to understand, I just felt that it was important for a variety of people to understand. For example, under number 3, he states, “In order to properly evaluate information on the Internet, there are three questions you must always ask; the first two are “Who wrote this?” and “Why did they write it?” I edited this to say certain questions because if he is only going to state these two, he should not have said there were three in total. I was confused as to why he would say that and then not state the third questions.

There were a few parts where I added in a sentence to remind the reader that these examples are just one of many. While I was reading myself, I felt that was not repeated enough. Under number 4, he gives an example of information being fabricated on the Internet, and thus the information went out in newspapers. But that is just one example of the many false stories on the Internet. Even celebrity news magazines publish fake stories that are not always taken down. I added, as a reminder that is was just one of many cases, and to refer back to number 10, fact checking.

“If any man were to ask me what I would suppose to be a perfect style or language, I would answer, that in which a man speaking to five hundred people, of all common and various capacities, idiots or lunatics excepted, should be understood by them all, and in the same sense which the speaker intended to be understood” (Working with Words 239). Daniel Defoe said this quote. What I took away from this quote is that the overall piece needed to be understood by all and for all to have the same understanding of the article.

I felt the overall article had short and to the point sentences and paragraphs. Each section was no more than 5 sentences. The article is straight and to the point, which I believe made it easier to read. I kept that concept even with adding in my few points.

            I don’t think I am a very strong editor because I do not like the idea of changing an author’s work. With that being said, I understand why editing is important for writers. I know there are times when I have sent my sister something of mine to edit and when it is returned there are small errors that normally, I would not have noticed. It is always good to have an extra pair of eyes to look over your work. I attempted to keep this basically the same, but with adding some information to make the overall article come together better.

Brooks, Brian S., James L. Pinson, and Jean Gaddy. Wilson. Working with Words: A Handbook for Media Writers and Editors. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. Print.

Williams, Joseph M. Style: The Basics of Clarity and Grace. New York: Pearson Longman, 2009. Print.