My Experience Editing Wikipedia

For this short assignment, I chose to edit the Wikipedia article on anonymous web browsing.  The article was thin when it came to information or detail, and so I focused on expanding the information that was already there.  To do this, I looked up the Wikipedia pages for certain words and phrases mentioned  in the Anonymous Web Browsing article, paraphrased what I found, and added it to the article.  I did the same with expanding the lead in the sense that I gave a brief- but more than the initial post- detail of what the article would discuss.  There was one instance in particular that I could not figure out how to expand.  I noticed that “device fingerprint” was mentioned in passing, and as I read the article I felt that it was an important issue.  However, I was unable to find a specifically reliable source to properly discuss the issue, and so I simply added a comment on the edit page saying that it needed to be done. 

Editing the page- though sometimes difficult to read with the code in the “sandbox”- was overall an easy task.  I did not feel overly concerned as to if I had the information 100% correct, mainly because I knew that if there was a better way to say what I did, someone would come along and do it.  Also, the lack of strict guidelines made the article feel more inviting to the addition of any relatable information.  As I worked on the page I felt myself agreeing with Zittrain’s Drachten analogy.  Although I was careful to only add correct information, I felt a sense of camaraderie with the editor community in the sense that we were all working towards the same thing. 

Wiki-Who? The In's and Out's of a Wikipedia Page

The prompt I am taking under consideration is a comparison of the Wikipedia pages of Marshall McLuhan and Michelle Citron.  At first glance, the articles are vastly different.  Not only is Citron’s Wikipedia page barren in comparison to McLuhan’s, but the structure of the articles are also distinctive.

Marshall McLuhan’s Wikipedia article is robust, giving great detail into the many facets of his life.  The article’s structure begins with a summary of who he was, followed by an explanation of his life almost completely year by year, his works, and his legacy.  Following that are sections devoted to notes of statements given in the article, a works cited of pieces written by McLuhan as well as about him, further reading into the subject, and finally an extensive list of external links.  It is possible that the reason for such depth into McLuhan’s is primarily due to the fact that he has already died, and so all the works about him and records of his life are more readily available than that of a living individual who might have something to say about privacy.

Michelle Citron’s Wikipedia article, on the other hand, is scarce with information. Her introductory section is only a single, scant sentence long-- as compared to McLuhan’s two paragraphs.  Citron's article fails to give a depiction of the individual, and the closest thing to an illustration are tables assembled to display her filmography and multimedia.  The article focuses on Citron’s works, with only cursory information of the person herself.  The structure of the article moves from the scarce sentence to her early life, career, filmography, and bibliography. Following that are the notes, a reference section, and a short list of external links.  None of the works listed in the reference section contain links to other articles or web pages-- unlike McLuhan’s reference section, which was riddled with hyperlinks. 

Citron’s article’s lack of depth could be attributed to a few different factors.  Firstly, Michelle Citron is still living, meaning that she actively holds copyright to many aspects of information about her person.  A link is given for her personal website, suggesting to the reader that if one wished to learn more in depth about her one must follow the hyperlinks to a non-objective point of view.  Another possible attributing factor is the subject of her works.  McLuhan’s focus was primarily on contemporary rhetoric and the effects of technology on culture- a “hot topic” in today’s discourse.  Citron, however, holds a focus on the LGBT community (primarily the lesbian community) and her works are for the most part on film (as compared to McLuhan’s book list).  This topic, although becoming larger in the community, has not yet reached its apex and therefore is not given as must attention from intellectuals.  On top of that, with Citron’s personal webpage and living presence in the world, it is more difficult to relay information about the person and her life without either committing plagiarism or expressing opinions that appear to be written by Citron herself or a close associate. 

Although McLuhan’s article is extensive and thorough with information, it pales in comparison to that of a featured article.  After comparing Citron to McLuhan, I chose to look at the article given on Earnest Hemingway-- the notable fiction author of the twentieth century. Hemmingway’s article is a veritable novella, giving to detail to every aspect of his life and works.  Unlike the articles of Citron and McLuhan, Hemmingway’s article also delves into the themes of his works, audio of the individual, and a number of pictures with detailed captions.  Hemmingway’s article also includes a list of over 200 notes and references, something that makes the other two articles look as if they were written by a first-year English student. While McLuhan and Citron’s articles lean on the expected use of external links, Hemmingway’s article is self-sufficient, with an extensive analysis of every category.

The beautiful thing about these three Wikipedia articles is that they provide a clear view into the laxity of rules Wikipedia has about the complexity of an article.  Jonathan Zittrain, in his piece The Lessons of Wikipedia, goes into extensive detail over the advantages of Wikipedia’s lack of strict structure and rules.  Zittrain explains how Wikipedia has very few rules over its content, with a general focus on how an editor should not produce original research and how a person cannot contribute to an article about themselves (or have someone write an article for them). This constraint lends to the superficial aspect of Citron’s article (it is more difficult to write something about a living person without committing plagiarism). However, the fact that Wikipedia does not hold a “maximum” limitation, persons are able to give as must detail as they wish, which lends to Hemmingway’s dauntingly long article. 

Wikipedia, as mentioned previously, has a strict “no plagiarism” rule.  This is one of the only things that Wikipedia is adamant on, and for good reason (one wouldn't want their website shut down because of plagiarized content).  Russel Wiebe, in the article "Plagiarism and Promiscuity,"f gives detail onto how even accidental plagiarism can lead to negative consequences.  In Weibe’s piece, a university used the image of one of its students for advertisement purposes, even though the student portrayed had actually been protesting and was not compliant with the use of her photo.  Wikipedia is very careful to not allow appropriation such as this and quickly removes or flags information that even has the hint of appropriation or remediation of previously published content.  This allows a safe-guard against possible lawsuits and fraudulent information. 

Wikipedia and the Battle Against Cultural Geneticism

Lindsey Marcus’s entry on the Wikipedia page for JohnBauer was informative and detailed, with high optimism for the credibility of the Wikipedia page process in general.  She suggests that many of the mistakes made on the page were simply due to a lack of reading over one’s writing, and does not take time to delineate the process of fixing the errors.  For example, she states at the beginning of the third paragraph that “The information in this article is very reliable, albeit the minor spelling error here and there but not every writer has the patience to re-read their work.” This is an example of the type of writing culture that Wikipedia is springing into existence.  

As Hood explains in her text Editing out Obscenity, “[the way Wikipedia works] demystifies the writing process and renders the idea of a final product obsolete.” The minor spelling errors are examples that the piece is a work in progress and that over time someone will come along and take the time to fix it. However, because Wikipedia as a whole is a work in progress, many teachers and professors are against its use in academic circles. “Most teachers assigning research projects either closely regulate the use of Wikipedia or prohibit it altogether,” Hood states in the “Revision in Thinking” section. This, Hood explains, is because such persons do not appreciate the “mediocrity of the people contributing.”  This comes out of the fact that Wikipedia has a global base of contributions, and therefore the individual editor may not have what academics consider proper credentials necessary to create an encyclopedia. 

Another point that I would like to make about Lindsey’s entry is the topic of the entry itself.  Prior to reading it, I had no idea who John Bauer was.  Granted, I am not an art major nor have I taken an extensive course on painters, but on reading more about Bauer, I was struck with how little I know, especially of people outside the United States. Of course there are the big names like Michelangelo and Shakespeare, but I know very little from modern history.  

Gates, in his chapter "Integrating the American Mind," expounds upon my problem. He explains that in the American education system there is a severe lack of diversity, and because of that the average college student is being taught on histories and ideals centered on the West-- or, as he calls it, “cultural geneticism.” “Americans know little of the world history because high schools and colleges in America focus on Europe,” is a paraphrase of his claim.  On page 347 he goes on to say“We need to rethink the notion of comparative literature. Most programs of the sort only work in comparing Latin, French, German, and perhaps one other. The western segment of a humanities course should only take up a quarter or a third...”  The wide scope that Wikipedia presents helps this cause.  With hundreds of thousands of intertextual entries and dozens of different languages, people can click their way from Francis Bogart to the Chinese history of fireworks.  

As Gates says in his closing statements, “Undigested eclecticism [is] posing as a bold new synthesis; but to read and write culture anew means additional demands for rigor and coherence, not emancipation from these things” (pp. 349).

Analyzing Connections Between Different Sources

The two Wikipedia articles that I will be comparing and contrasting are “Kairos” and “Digital Rhetoric.”  Both of these are closely related to the topic of public discourse, especially in this electronic age.  The two above topics also feed into each other, seeing as that digital rhetoric is reliant on kairos in order to be successful and continuous.  Not only that, but the articles themselves are a matter of public discourse, seeing as that anyone can contribute to editing Wikipedia pages (so long as they have proper references and follow the guidelines).  Because of this, external participants can have a dialogue with others interested in the subject by providing expert opinions and links that perhaps other did not know of along with posting their opinions on the 'talk' pages associated with each article.  This delayed response gives all persons involved a chance to better themselves and others.

The layout of the two articles are similar in that they follow the basic layout of all Wikipedia pages.  For example, the column on the left is solely dedicated to reach different portions of Wikipedia with little connection to the article material.  The articles also have brief overviews of the topics at hand (also known as a "lead"), followed by a table of contents.  However, that is where the similarities end.

Of the two articles, the "Kairos" article is a better example of a well-defined Wikipedia page.  It provides illustrations of examples of kairos depicted from ancient times, and it carries a more professional tone than its counterpart.  The "Kairos" article is set up to be informative and yet understandable to the lay reader. It also gives the reader of the sense of time associated with kairos, sticking mainly with ancient Greece before transitioning to the modern definition of the word.  The "Digital Rhetoric" article, on the other hand, does not give such in depth information.  It lacks illustration; and though it has a number of sections, each one only contains a sentence or two of explanation.  The article appears to be pubescent, and although it gives a detailed definition of the topic, it does not supply much other information.  This could be because the "Digital Rhetoric" article is a thorough example of intertext. 

Porter, in his paper “Intertextuality and Discourse Community,” gave a thorough definition of what intertext is.  On page 35 of his paper he explains that “[The text’s] system of language, its grammar, its lexicon, drag along numerous bits and pieces-- traces of history so that the text resembles a Cultural Salvation Army Outlet with unaccountable collections of incompatible ideas.” This definition harmonizes with the set-up of the "Digital Rhetoric" article, mainly because the majority of the words presented on the page were hyperlinks to other Wikipedia pages.  The "Digital Rhetoric" article works as a synthesis of information, with numerous outsourced links to give information that the page itself is incapable of giving as one coherent unit.  “It is important to remember that ‘the I…is already itself a plurality of other texts,’” asserts Porter on page 42 of his work.  (This is especially clear when you scroll to the “See Also” section and take notice of the plethora of links available.)

The article on "Kairos", however, works closely with Carolyn Handa’s claims in her article “Multimedia Rhetoric.”  Handa’s beginning claims include that of everything posted on the internet not only requires context, but also is impossible to be present without it.  "Kairos" gives the context of the word and how it has been shaped over the centuries- first with ancient Greece, them its modern definition, and finally its religious impact.  There are fewer external links on this page as compared to "Digital Rhetoric," mainly because it is self-supporting, with more reputable sources given in the further reading section.

The disparity between the two articles is to be expected, mainly due to the maturity of each of the terms.  Digital rhetoric was born in the late twentieth century, as compared to Kairos’s ancient Greece.  Digital Rhetoric gives an example of the numerous fledgling articles which Wikipedia has yet to expand, something that can be seen clearly under the “stubs” category.  If one were peruse the stubs category, one would notice that a majority of the categories have to do with events or topics in recent time.  Most of these are related to sports, music, and even geography (which, although having been present for a long amount of time, was only recently able to be thoroughly expanded upon with modern technology).  The correlation between recent articles and the amount of information needed to be updated are closely related, and this can be seen even more clearly when one looks at the “Articles to be Expanded” region of Wikipedia where the earliest entry was in 2007, even though the site was founded in 2001.

In essence, the new age calls for more information and intertextuality in order to properly explain the topics involved in the digital age.  Not only that, but basics of modern discourse can be seen rooted into the ancient past, revealing that nothing today is without context.