What Editing Wikipedia Taught Me About Community

Taking part in the Wikipedia editing community had a much different experience than what was expected. The editing process was simple, easy, and immediate. After looking at my work (fixing grammatical errors and sentence structure on the “History of Machine Translation” page), I realized how truly all-inclusive the editing community is, which in turn puts more of an emphasis on the importance of being a proper, thorough, and professional editor.

The changes I had made were put up on the site and were able to be read instantly, which made me feel a sense of doubt in my work despite it benefitting the article. I had inserted myself into a community that prides itself on delivering accurate and unbiased information on millions of topics, and although my work is, in essence, anonymous (I am represented by a username and no facts about myself) I felt a need to upheld a given standard. Relating to Deborah Brandt’s article “’who’s the President?’ Ghostwriting and Shifting Values in Literacy”, the term ghostwriter fits well for a Wikipedia editor as someone who writes on behalf of the community. Both ghostwriting and wiki-editing share a purpose of “highlight[ing] power exchanges between writing and social structures and also illuminates assumptions about underlying reading and writing processes that enable such exchanges” (Brandt 549-550). Editing the Wikipedia page was an act of displaying a power of changing information to be delivered to the public, and puts into perspective the importance of making sure the information is as literary and factual as possible, even if the editing process only fixes grammar or spelling. To uphold an encyclopedia-esque credibility, Wikipedia pages entrust in their “ghost-editors” to do what is expected of them through the sites guidelines with the only serious punishment coming from a small group of admins.

Jonathan Zittrain goes further into this analysis of the editing process in the chapter “Lessons of Wikipedia” from his book The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It. The opening paragraph starts by describing a small town, Drachten, in the Netherlands, that has removed any and all road signs that would normally govern the road. Because there is little to no rules of the road, the drivers in Drachten have become more conscious while driving, leading to less accidents and “a dramatic improvement in vehicular safety” (Zittrain 127). Nearly verbatim of my feelings on the editing process, Zittrain says “order may remain when people see themselves as part of a social system” (129). Being aware of any and all errors on my part in the editing process having an influence on the site itself and its editing community made me conscious of my necessity to deliver proper information, even without the influence of a stern set of rules and restrictions.

Brandt, Deborah. ""Who's the President?" Ghostwriting and Shifting Values in Literacy." College English 69.6 (2007): 549-50. Web.

Zittrain, Jonathan. "The Lessons of Wikipedia." The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It. New Haven: Yale UP, 2008. 127-29. Print.

Short Assignment 5

Part 1

When comparing the Wikipedia articles for Michelle Citron and Marshall McLuhan, it is clear that the McLuhan article was composed with more information and preparation. Not only does that article go more in depth with McLuhan’s works, philosophical ideals, as well as his place in history, when compared to the Michelle Citron wiki, the McLuhan article shows either a better understanding of the person when composing, or that McLuhan had a larger impact on the world of media theory and therefore had more to write about.

Even if it is the case that McLuhan was a more prominent figure, the Citron article fails to measure up in multiple facets. Her article lacks the in depth descriptions of McLuhan’s. Her article presents small factoids about herself, but doesn’t deliver any information outside of on the surface outline of birthdate, occupation, list of works. Although McLuhan’s page also tells about his birthdate, occupation, and works, the descriptions of his upbringing, purpose of his philosophies, as well as descriptions of his works, showcases a more learned editor of the subject matter. In Zittrain’s “The Lessons of Wikipedia”, he says, “quality varies greatly. Articles on familiar topics are highly informative, while more obscure ones are often uneven.” Without prior knowledge of either philosopher, the quote appears to be absolutely correct on the matter.

When comparing the articles on Henry Sidgwick, it is clear that both encyclopedias intended to present different information, or different purposes for the articles. While the Sidgwick Wiki article describes his works, the Stanford Encyclopedia article on Sidgwick describes more of the purposes of his works and how they relate to his philosophical standings. Although both articles present factual information and are well sorted, it is important to note the purpose of the article when writing on the subject. Not all encyclopedias disclose every factual detail on a subject, some articles are presented for deep study of a specific facet of a subject. In the same sense of Ridolfo and Rife talking about re-composition in “Rhetorical Velocity and Copyright:  A Case Study on Strategies of Rhetorical Velocity”, “In thinking about re-composition and re-distribution as a complex multimodal strategy, the rhetorician also considers how the release may be recomposed in ways advantageous or disadvantageous to the rhetor’s goals and objectives.” In summary, the rhetor (or in this case, editor) should keep in mind their purpose, goals and objectives of the article and deliver pertinent information relating to their purpose for the article itself. Clearly, the Wikipedia article and Stanford Encyclopedia article were made with two different viewpoints on the history of Henry Sidgwick, and both delivered facts accordingly despite collecting information on the same subject.

Part 2
When looking through the “Featured Articles” section of Wikipedia, the Futurama episode “Hell Is Other Robots” appears as a featured article for accomplishing the necessary parameters to be considered such. However, upon investigation of the article, a key factor was left out of the lead as well as the first section of the article: sources. Now, although there is a case to be made that this is legitimate and an addendum is necessary in Wikipedia’s “No Original Research” guidelines, no such addendum exists and all signs point to an issue with the article which was found in a golden standard list of proper editing articles.

To start, the article’s lead and plot sections do not have any citation. Countering this is the first sentence of Wikipedia’s “No Original Research” page, which states “original research (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, public sources exist.” Even though the sections are syntheses of the episodes content, the summary is from the perspective of the editor, not of a cited source, making it original research.

The issue arises from Wikipedia’s lack of information on summaries: the only written guideline that addresses this issue (partially) is in the references sub-header in the “Summary Style” page, where it says that “The verifiability policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation.” What can be inferred from this is that if material is generally unquestioned, the source is unnecessary. However, this is an inference based on reading of a separate rule, which if were edited into Wikipedia, would be flagged for misappropriation of a source’s content and intention.

So, what is left is an assumption of how an unwritten rule is addressed, and considering the page has this flaw and not only hasn’t been taken down but also is a part of the “featured articles” section, it is safe to believe that summaries of a text without proper citation is allowed on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia Blog Post

In relation to Russel Wiebe's piece "Plagiarism and Promiscuity, Authors and Plagiarisms", our wikipedia project has the same sort of query about legitimacy, or at least it did when the project was originally proposed. On page 32, he quotes Moore Howard for saying "It is perhaps never the case that a writer composes 'original' material, free of any influence. It might be more accurate to think of creativity, of fresh combinations made from existing sources, or fresh implications from existing materials." The wikipedia page's credibility is based in its lack of opinionated material, or it's heavily reportive style of including factual information with varied sources. Because of this, we walk a thin line as to what we can write and how we write it. The idea of composing material to create a thorough description of the subject without infringing upon previous materials is daunting, especially since we must maintain an unbiased attitude towards our submissions while using "fresh combinations" of the sources. However, I think the inclusion of an editing process of looking at our own work with this in mind will greatly benefit the odds of us becoming aware and changing our own errors of plagiarism.

As Jim Ridolfo and Martine Rife note in their piece "Rhetorical Velocity and Copyright: A Case Study on Strategies of Rhetorical Delivery" with the example of the Maggie case, there is an importance of citation and permissive use of the sources in an ethical sense. Going back to fallibility and ethics, the unauthorized appropriation of Maggie's image with multiple use led to a backlash that showcases the importance of awareness of proper source referencing. Even without the use of images in our article, using the original rhetors intentions and purpose when quoting is integral to the unbiased and legitimate effectiveness that is the purpose of the assignment.

This article also promotes the consideration of appropriation, and how the created material will affect remixed material or new material that sources the creation. Keeping that in mind, to create a true representation of "public sphere writing" that can be used by future readers to better understand the subject, we must understand our own intentions and avoid plagiarism and improper appropriation.