Elephants, prog rock, the berlin wall. What do all of these things have in common? They’re just a few of the millions and millions of topics discussed on the world’s largest online encyclopedia; Wikipedia. With such a vast and varied collection of information in one place, it’s easy to become lost. Merely click on one tempting live link and you may find yourself wading through a mire of obscure foreign bands or classic mathematical proofs. Far from being intimidated, many approach Wikipedia with a sense of adventure. Fearlessly, they dive right in, working to clear the undergrowth and build structures of knowledge as editors. As Nicholson Baker illustrates in his essay “The Charms of Wikipedia, “It was like a giant community leaf-raking project in which everyone was called a groundskeeper” (page 1). Creating my own article for this last project has exposed me to the unique culture of those who contribute, as well as the internet knowledge organism itself; Wikipedia.
Initially, I had a difficult time getting a foothold on the project. The more and more I browsed articles, looking for inspiration for my own, the more convinced I became that everything one should want to know was already on the site. However, once I had established what my article was going to cover, Wikipedia provided many resources to help with composing. For example, I like to have a template or some idea of how to setup and organize my work. With millions of articles to read and examine, there is no shortage of material for inspiration. By using the edit button, anyone can see how an article is coded.
Wikipedia spends a lot of effort making sure that the information on the site is accurate, or at least highly referenced. The “Article Wizard” is a very helpful initial tool in assessing the practicality and the relevance of a proposed topic. While I didn’t directly use it when creating my article, I read through it and got some important information and tips. Another resource that was used and discussed is the “drawing board.” The drawing board would be great for someone who has a very specific topic, but isn’t sure if it belongs on the site. We all used the drawing board through this project, but I didn’t take it as a significant factor in my planning process.
I was surprised by how quickly I was able to go from nothing to a shell of what very much resembled a real article on Wikipedia. Since I was writing about something local that I was familiar with, I was able to take my own photographs and didn’t have to worry of copyright issues when adding them to my article. We discussed how the addition of a photograph or two can add a significant amount of notability to a potential article, and it was absolutely true. Once I figured out how to go through the hassle of uploading and linking photos from Wikimedia Commons, I had two pictures to go along with my article. It really changed the look from merely a few paragraphs on an obscure subject to a legitimate article that I could easily have seen myself reading and trusting. I guess in some ways that’s what surprised me the most throughout this project, the revelation that I personally had contributed a legitimate article and added to the knowledge on Wikipedia. Also though, it did make me realize that many of the articles I had read and fully trusted over the years may have been put together by people that didn’t know what they were doing any more than I did at that moment. It was something to think about for sure.
Given that composing this article was a fairly significant literary project, some of my writing skills seemed to be challenged. A significant portion of the work for the article went into retrieving and compiling the actual information and facts. As hard as it is for some younger people, such as myself, to believe, not all information that you might be interested in finding is available from a Google search. I was able to find almost all of the information I used from sources available on the internet, but I know several individuals had to research from printed material. Ultimately, the goal of the project is in fact to make as much correct information freely available on the internet as possible.
The component of composing the article that stood out most to me was the collaborative writing environment that was emphasized both in the project description as well as Wikipedia in general. The entire philosophy of Wikipedia is collaborative composition; quite different from my normal style. I feel as though I take on a sort of ‘lone wolf’ philosophy when I write. Once I have a concept, I sit and crank out writing, and subsequently revise. I see myself as Barbara Tomlinson’s Sculptor, as described in “Tuning, Tying and Training Texts,” “Chiseling and shaping a large block of material” into my work. (WAW 256) I have always been reluctant to let anyone see my work until I felt confident that it was presentable. The idea of having others, especially strangers on the internet, read and revise my work before I feel its complete puts me somewhat out of my writing comfort zone. In that sense, this project has possibly made me more open to using a more collaborative writing style in the future.
In her work “Shitty first Drafts,” Anne LaMotte asserts that, “Everyone writes a shitty first draft. “I know some very great writers….and not one of them writes elegant first drafts.” (WAW 301) This has been a significant concept that I have taken away from this project. My discomfort at having others examine my writing before it has reached perfection was due to the fact that I thought it was, well, “shitty.” The idea that everyone writes these sort of initial drafts and the fact that no one is expected to write well at first is significant. This, as well as my experiences using revision tools on Wikipedia has shown me how writing is much more of a social, collaborative activity then I ever imagined.
Twenty years ago, the only way to reach stardom was with a major record deal; today internet superstars are made every day. Ten years ago, massive bookstore chains ruled literature; today, Amazon and the Kindle reign supreme. Technology not only changes the way we see the world, it changes the world itself. This is the context in which Wikipedia and the internet has changed the way we view and create knowledge in the 21st century. First of all, knowledge is free. Anyone with an internet connection can access unimaginable vast amounts of information. More importantly though, anyone can contribute to this cache of knowledge. No longer does one need to hire a publisher in New York, or Boston, or Los Angeles, anyone can share their knowledge and opinions to the world.
It’s obvious that this shift has negative as well as positive implications. Given the cost of publishing something the traditional way, it is reasonable to assume that many fact-checkers were employed to make sure the print going out was correct. On the opposite end, a blogger can write whatever they want to the internet without contributing any fact-checking. Given this, the reliability of information found on the internet most often be highly questioned; even information from Wikipedia. However, the negative aspects of this new system are far outweighed by the positive. Suddenly, everyone in the world has a voice that deserves to be heard. Everyone has the ability to contribute positively to human knowledge. This is the ideal that Wikipedia was founded on and in some ways, thanks to the internet; this may well be an ideal that defines the 21st century itself.
References:
Baker, Nicholson. "The Charms of Wikipedia." The New York Review of Books.
NYREV., 20 March 2008. Web. 8 October 2011.
Tomlinson, Barbara. "Tuning, Tying, and Training Texts." Writing about Writing. Ed. Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. Boston:Bedford/St. Martin, 2011. Print.
Lamott, Ann. "Shitty First Drafts." Writing about Writing. Ed. Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. Boston:Bedford/St. Martin, 2011. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment