Before this
assignment, I had never edited a Wikipedia article before. I was unaware of how
easy it is and how openly available Wikipedia is to allow anyone to edit an
article, but I was also unaware of the many standards and responsibilities that
come with editing for Wikipedia. Through years and years of school I would
often use Wikipedia as a quick reference to look something up, but never in
formal contexts as I was always taught how unreliable Wikipedia is. After this
assignment, I would no longer necessarily say that this claim is true. My
beliefs about this have changed because of the Wikipedia trusted system of
being a mindful citizen critic when working in the Wikipedia sandbox. With the
lessened reward and punishment system of Wikipedia, the result is, “…basic
order maintained, as people choose to respect particular limits in the absence
of enforcement” (Zittrain 128). Wikipedia is an open source publication that
anyone can access and edit; however, the standards and monitoring in place do
hold weight for Wikipedians to avoid bias and provide accurate information to
Wikipedia consumers.
This was an
interesting assignment in that the entire class contributed and worked
together, which I found to be the most difficult and rewarding part of completing
the article. Creating one single article with over 20 individual contributors
all working in the same room created a lot of issues from some being upset that
their section had been changed or entire sections being deleted on accident.
Corbett and Eberly stress the importance of working together in this kind of
sandbox environment in “Becoming a Citizen Critic” when they say, “In a
democracy, rhetoric as the actualizer of potential depends on citizens who are
able to imagine themselves as agents of action, rather than just spectators or
consumers” (Corbett and Eberly 131). This was an important learning process, as
the class learned how to work as a democracy, making changes together and
bringing each individual section into conversation with the article as a whole.
Learning how to work together in Wikipedia’s sandbox environment brought in
overarching class principles on how to be a citizen critic and trust in each
other’s work, which is discussed in “Becoming a Citizen Critic”: “Citizen
criticism requires some sense of faith in whatever public or community is being
addressed” (Corbett and Eberly 122).
Responsibility
played a large part in being one individual writer for this collaborative
article. This required utilizing Wikipedia’s regulations in order to provide
accurate and unbiased information, while at the same time trusting the editing
system of Wikipedia in knowing that mistakes can be fixed, and the Wikipedia
network, in this case being our classmates, would be helping to provide
validity for our work. An open source system of this sort works because, “When
we face heavy regulation, we see and shape our behavior more in relation to
reward and punishment by an arbitrary external authority, than because of a
commitment to the kind of world our actions can help bring about” (Zittrain
128). By not being highly regulated and punished for minor and unintentional
discrepancies, Wikipedians strive to uphold the standards and ethics of open
source publications for their consumers. This is largely because of Wikipedia’s
editing system, which allows that, “If any of the posted material is
objectionable or inaccurate, people can either ignore it, [or] request for it
to be taken down…” (Zittrain 131). A system similar to this is exactly what
took place in our large editing workshops in class, with everyone working
together to question material when necessary or remove extraneous information
for the better of the article as a whole.
One final
concept that I gained from this assignment was a more complex but concrete
understanding of rhetorical velocity. In “Rhetorical Velocity and Copyright: A
Case Study on Strategies of Rhetorical Delivery,” rhetorical velocity is
defined 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). My understanding of
rhetorical velocity came from the way I adapted my writing in the context of a
Wikipedia article. This required me to provide accurate and unbiased
information, in a matter of fact way, relying heavily on sources while using
little quotation, and citing with footnotes. My typical academic writing,
including the majority of my writing in this class, relies more on quotation
and manipulating quotations to the arguments specific to an assignment. Ridolfo
and Rife touch on the importance of how Wikipedia operates as a commons: “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). Respecting the commons
environment is essential to being a Wikipedia editor because constructing an
article in the Wikipedia sandbox relies so heavily on appropriating information
and accurately conveying that information to one specific topic or article.
Appropriation was another large overarching theme of the class that we were
able to further understand because, “…cultural properties – unlike natural
resources – are not exhaustible, and in fact depend upon appropriation to
survive” (Ridolfo and Rife 238). This was true in our collaborative article as
we appropriated many class sources as well as additional outside sources to
provide information pertinent to our article topic for Wikipedia consumers to
utilize in the future.
Overall,
editing a Wikipedia article for the first time was a large learning process
that brought together several overarching themes from the class, ultimately
giving me a deeper understanding of what rhetorical velocity and being a
mindful citizen critic really mean.
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 on Strategies of Rhetorical
Delivery.” 223-243. Web.
Zittrain, Jonathon L. “Lessons of Wikipedia.” 127-295. Web.