I learned numerous things during our first project, writing a Wikipedia article. I learned not just how to write an article using the wiki syntax or how to site sources within Wikipedia, but I also learned a great deal about the writing processes. It allowed me to see just how dynamic the writing process really is. I gained insight into what it means to write as a social and use the five functions of writing, which we read about in Writing about Writing. I became more knowledgeable about sources and source retrieval, as well as, evaluating and incorporating those sources into my writing.
Although I found writing a Wikipedia article to be both a rewarding process and an informative way to introduce me to the readings we have done in Writing about Writing; it was also quite a frustrating process. I quickly learned how sometimes it might look as if there is a copious amount of information out there about a particular topic, but that may not always be the case. In fact, it may just turn out to be several news sources reporting on the exact same event. Due to this, I had a great deal of trouble getting my article to meet the length requirement, and I ended up having to make two articles instead. This actually turned out to be a good thing though because it kept me from having to stretch out the information. Also, it made my articles much more useful to the readers, as well as, made my writing better.
I also learned many additional things about sources and source retrieval throughout not only my experiences during the writing process, but my classmates’ experiences as well. What Wikipedia considers a good source was not necessarily what I had considered a good source in the past. The issues that several of my classmates were encountering brought an entirely new light on what I now think of as a good source. What I mean by this is now when I think of a good source I no longer just think “Oh, it’s a newspaper. This is a great source.” I now see that where the newspaper is located also plays a bit of a role.
Something I found with many of my classmates was that they were writing on local events and were using local newspaper articles as sources which the Wikipedia editors did not like. This is because they were looking for unbiased third party sources. While the newspaper articles that they found were probably for the most part unbiased, these newspapers were not third party sources. Since the newspapers where local papers, the writers and the paper itself stands to do better when the local economy is better. Events such as the ones the newspapers were writing about stand to bring tourists into the city, which in turn helps the local economy and therefore, helps the newspapers and their writers. In this sense no local newspaper article written about such events can be truly unbiased. So, thinking of it in that way, I can now see why they say that they are looking for ‘third party sources’ as well, and not just ‘unbiased sources’.
Wikipedia also gave me a great deal of insight into understanding the readings we have done in Writing About Writing. It allowed me to get a better view of the writing process from the start, or the shitty first draft all the way to being finished. Although, the finished part is never technically finished because it is always open for more edits. As Barbara Tomlinson pointed out, we can think of writing as John Fowles does, “‘fluid,’ molten, during the time he can revise it, becoming ‘solid’ only with the final casting – publication.” This says a lot about Wikipedia and its possibilities; articles on Wikipedia will always be subject to the casting and recasting part of Tomlinson’s metaphorical stories. And with this comes the possibility for major reformulation of any article at anytime, allowing Wikipedia to change to fit the times and the writers. This then brings new light to what Tomlinson means by sewing and tailoring. She asserts that, “text can be divided into elements or components, into which major sections can be inserted even as the text nears completion (Tomlinson 255-257). This is also much like Wikipedia where new writers can come and add whole new sections of knowledge to an article, even though the article may seem to others to be complete.
Wikipedia was a great example in furthering my understanding of the Murray reading, and without having written the articles in Wikipedia I would have never been able to see it in that way. “We are autobiographical in the way we write,” Murray proclaimed, “my autobiography exists in the examples of writing I use in this piece and in the text I weave around them (Murray 58).” We all draw on are past experiences when writing. This was at first quite hard to see with Wikipedia; in fact I thought it was going to be the down fall to Murray’s argument. Wikipedia, which is supposed to be an unbiased source, does not call on the writers and editors to draw from their past experiences. After thinking long and hard about what Murray had to say, I feel that he is correct, because is what we read on a particular subject not a previous experience? Do we not gain experience from what we read? I think that we certainly gain insight about topics from reading, and because of this I was able to see that Murray’s argument is not in fact faulty, but quite well founded.
Wikipedia is forever changing the way we see knowledge and how it is distributed in the twenty-first century. It allows us to see the dynamic process that is writing, and demystifies the processes behind the writing. Before Wikipedia we were never able to see the whole process from start to finish. We were only able to see the finished product, the ink on the pages that had been printed only after several edits and revisions. Also, it took several editors looking over it with a fine tooth comb to check and see that the writer hadn’t missed any mistakes they may have made, for once the article is printed it can no longer be revised; it is forever cast in stone. Now, with Wikipedia we can look back to an articles poor first draft all the way to its much more robust and meaty current state.
Wikipedia is an entirely different entity that the world has never seen before. While it takes the form of an encyclopedia, it has been transformed into so much more. It is a place for writers to collaborate, a place where an average person can share their knowledge, a place where the information can change to fit the world as it is today. The articles on living people can change daily to reflect any current accomplishment or changes in their lives. For example, Steve Jobs. When I heard that Steve Jobs had died, I immediately looked for an article on this by typing “Steve Jobs Death?” into the Google search bar. The first result I got wasn’t one of many of the numerous newspaper articles on this tragic event, but Steve Jobs Wikipedia article that had already been changed to reflect this event. This ups the bar from a regular encyclopedia that wouldn’t be able to make a change like this until the next edition is printed years later.
Wikipedia has an advantage over most encyclopedias. It is like a hybrid-cross that has never been created before. Most searches that I complete in Google yield a Wikipedia article as one of the top results. This really says something. Wikipedia definitely has an advantage over more traditional methods and allows much easier access to the users than traditional methods offered. It has allowed the encyclopedia to adapt to fit the ‘now’ world we live in here in the twenty-first century. In an age where computers are everything and the world is at your fingertips, Wikipedia makes room for the encyclopedia to fit within these contexts.
Works Cited
Murray, Donald. "All Writing is Autobiographical." Writing about Writing. Ed. Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. Boston:Bedford/St. Martin, 2011. Print.
Tomlinson, Barbara. "Tuning, Tying, and Training Texts." Writing about Writing. Ed. Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. Boston:Bedford/St. Martin, 2011. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment