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.