What Does Being a Mindful Citizen Critic Mean When Operating in a Commons?

Wikipedia largely functions as a “commons,” requiring a trust system that each Wikipedian (or Wikipedia editor) act as a citizen critic, only editing where appropriate and with proper citation, to better Wikipedia as a source for all its readers. As a new Wikipedian, I went into editing my first article with hesitations about whether or not I would be expert enough to provide contributions to the article. This required being a mindful citizen critic, reading the article from a neutral point of view, considering the rhetorical velocity of any changes I made, and sticking to Wikipedia’s many guidelines for maintaining their sense of trust for the open source publication. Ridolfo and Rife define rhetorical velocity as, “a strategic concept of delivery in which a rhetor theorizes the possibilities for the recomposition of a text based on how s/he anticipates how the text might later be used” (Ridolfo and Rife 229). Upon completing the revisions I felt necessary to make in order to better the article, I felt that I had a better sense of what being a mindful citizen critic means in respect specifically to the commons that is Wikipedia, and how rhetorical velocity plays a large role in considering how editing for Wikipedia defines citizen criticism.

As an open source online publication, openly editable to anyone, Wikipedia must lay out a strict set of guidelines for its editors to follow in order to keep its information credible and up to date. Wikipedia operates as a commons based on the way “commons” is defined by Ridolfo and Rife in “Rhetorical Velocity and Copyright: A Case Study on Strategies of Rhetorical Delivery” when they state, “When rhetorical velocity and copyright converge, one has to define the commons, because designing documents or discourse to be appropriated ultimately means placing creations in the commons, which is a place reliant on the appropriation of things with no owners (i.e. orphaned work) and of things previously owned (as in the case of human bones)” (Ridolfo and Rife 238). This largely relates to rhetorical velocity in the commons of Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is comprised solely of appropriation, compiling information from a vast number of sources to provide unbiased and accurate information to its audience. Citizen criticism is important to upholding this commons by considering rhetorical velocity when making any changes because of the freedom that Wikipedia allows in making these changes. Corbett and Eberly address this important connection between rhetorical velocity and being a mindful citizen critic in “Becoming a Citizen Critic” when they say, “Citizen criticism requires some sense of faith in whatever public or community is being addressed” (Corbett and Eberly 122). All Wikipedians and consumers of Wikipedia articles must have this faith in each other, that Wikipedians are being mindful in their contributions, and that readers are receiving accurate and credible information.

The article I chose to edit, titled “Bulgarians in Albania,” was flagged for needing “copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling.” I took on this task, line editing the article for any of these problems, finding only three “minor” errors. These included adding a comma, removing a word, and removing a period in the middle of a sentence. While these are all very small errors, they do help clarify the article by making a few sentences easier to read. I expected to find more obvious errors when reading this article because it had been flagged, but even while editing for such small errors I had to remain a mindful citizen critic, and consider the rhetorical velocity of these changes and how they would affect the article as a whole.

While my few contributions to making a single article a little more understandable for readers was a small task, it still allowed me to experience how Wikipedians remain mindful citizen critics in Wikipedia’s democratic “sandbox” environment. Corbett and Eberly state that, “In a democracy, rhetoric as the actualizer of potentional depends on citizens who are able to imagine themselves as agents of action, rather than just spectators or consumers” (Corbett and Eberly 131). This is important for Wikipedians as their role isn’t simply to consume articles, but to take action and edit where necessary for the better of Wikipedia as a whole. The rhetorical velocity or editing in this “democracy” is also important as Wikipedia relies strongly on appropriation to provide its material. This is touched on by Ridolfo and Rife who state, “…cultural properties – unlike natural resources – are not exhaustible, and in fact depend upon appropriation to survive” (Ridolfo and Rife 238). Because Wikipedia relies so heavily on appropriation, Wikipedians must strictly follow the guidelines, only making judgments and actions when necessary to better or further the aim of an article.

Revising a Wikipedia article in this context where I only needed to make a few grammatical changes is very different from the type of writing and editing that is required when drafting an entire article. However, it was a good example of the importance of considering rhetorical velocity for any changes made to remain a mindful citizen critic who respects the democratic structure of Wikipedia as an open source “sandbox” that other consumers will be utilizing. The Wikipedia commons relies on a system of trust and following a set of guidelines to survive, and even small editing roles for a single article can showcase how to operate appropriately within the commons.

Corbett, Edward P.J., and Rosa A. Eberly. “Becoming a Citizen Critic: Where Rhetoric Meets the Road.” The Elements of Reading. 121-138. Web. 

Ridolfo, Jim and Martine Courant Rife. Rhetorical Velocity and Copyright: A Case Study