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.
