Wikipedia Article Reflection

The Wikipedia Article Project was a new kind of challenge compared to other work we’ve done in our Advanced Writing class this semester. While the “team” aspect was a part of that challenge, in my perspective, it wasn’t the primary one. During the project I found establishing our identity and role as writers in the public sphere, as well as determining what content was relevant for our section were the defining aspects of the challenge. Writing a Wikipedia article requires thinking about the kind of information we present and how we present that it. On one level, we serve as reporters, conveyers of information to the public, yet we maintain a standard by which we adhere to factual information as close as possible. During our project, we had to find a role that was a medium between public writing and scientific writing. Determining what was relevant for our section required thinking about all possible viewpoints, and incorporating them to give a fuller description of the section.

Writing any Wikipedia article includes thinking of one’s role. This is because the role shapes the content in the article. Maybe this applies to any encyclopedia, but I think this is particularly true with Wikipedia articles. That’s because of the open-contribution, or as Zittrain might describe it, “verkeersbordvrij” (127) nature of Wikipedia. Wikipedia article writers must hold themselves accountable to their audience by referring to sources at every instance, and keeping text as close to the content of those sources as possible. I found when writing the article we acted somewhat like citizen journalists or scientific accommodators, trying to provide as clear a definition as possible to the readers. But at the same time, we stuck to the principles of Wikipedia by referencing peer-reviewed sources and factual information, like scientific writers. A citizen journalist is more dependent on their own interpretation. Fahnestock says the purpose of accommodators is “to celebrate rather than validate” (279). As Wikipedians we cannot stray from our sources. Our purpose is to achieve a well-rounded definition by providing relevant information, even from different perspectives. In this way our role is also different from scientific writers who write strictly on their research. We may incorporate the view of one writer, but other perspectives could also be relevant to a subject. I’d describe our public sphere role as “dedicated informers”. We strive to provide the audience with a full-bodied definition comprised of multiple sides and perspectives, and absent of a singular interpretation.

Judging what sides, perspectives, and viewpoints were necessary required a new kind of critical thinking. As Wikipedians, we must include relevant, but well-researched, interpretations of a subject so that the reader may interpret the information for themselves. This requires weighing rhetorical quality, the evidence and factual information behind any viewpoint, and then comparing views or ideas about a subject against one another. Donald Lazere says when acting as a critical writer one’s aim “should not be to avoid expressing opinions but to express opinions that will impress your readers as educated, unprejudiced, and fair” (129). While we aren’t taking one critical stance when writing our Wikipedia article, it was important to think critically from all sides of a subject matter. In this way we could provide relevant information from many different perspectives, not just one. We also had to think about what a particular concept said about the overarching subject, like how Queer Theory or Cultural Centrism fit into “Influences” of Public Sphere Writing.

Through all of this, working as a team might not have been as much of a challenge as it was an advantage. Individually, determining one’s role and collecting all relevant information would have required much more effort, thought, and work. But by working together and through the contribution of every team member, we could more easily determine our collective role when writing the article and then ascertain what we thought was relevant to our portion of the article.

Works Cited

Zittrain, Jonathan. “The Lessons of Wikipedia.” The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It. NewHaven, CT: Yale UP, 2008. 127-48.Print.

Lazere, Donald. “Viewpoint, Bias, and Fairness: From Cocksure Ignorance to Thoughtful Uncertainty.” In Reading and Writing for Civic Literacy: The Critical Citizen’s Guide to Argumentative Rhetoric. Boulder, CO: Paradigm P, 2005. 125-38.Print.

Fahnestock, Jeanne. “Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts.” Written Communication3.3 (Jul. 1986): 275-96. JSTOR.

On Wikipedia Articles And Format Dissimilarities

Part 1

Though Wikipedia has many rules to assure the alignment of article formats, styles, and focuses, not all Wikipedia articles are created the same. This is mostly because of an interpretation of the topic, and thusly how that topic is approached in the article. The interpretation of a topic stems from the perspective of the contributors and how they see their audience reading the article. This perspective isn’t personal views on a topic’s sections or details. Rather, it’s the role the topic is being observed from. This disparity not only applies to Wikipedia articles, but also any informational text written. But, since Wikipedia strives to achieve uniformity in articles through formatting, writing style, and media use, it’s interesting to note the differences in composition of articles, even those of the same category.

Biographical articles are one example of dissimilarity, even if it’s slight. The two pairs of articles we observed for our short assignment reflect this. Marshall McLuhan’s Wikipedia article is a great example of a biography that envelops all the different parts of a subject’s life, and still manages to personify the subject by not focusing too heavily on one area of their life. McLuhan’s page is divided up into sections that identify all of the most significant parts of his life – his different life stages and journeys, and then his major contributions. Each of these is meticulously detailed, with references to work or critical literature on his work. Overall, the article does a thorough job of answering the questions “Who is this person?” and “Why is this person relevant?” In contrast, Michelle Citron’s Wikipedia article is a biography of “Michelle Citron the Film Artist”. By this I mean, the article focuses on Citron’s career achievements and her work, but doesn’t encapsulate who she was as a person. Her short “Early Life” section is even just a set of qualifications for her career. This difference between writing a biography of a person as a “person” and a person as only a part of who they are is a result some of Wikipedia’s base concepts: freedom to participate, freedom to create, and less rules. Because of the vast amount of contributors, it’s impossible for all Wikipedia articles to use the same format.

These concepts also explain the lack of motivation to make articles congruent in format. Zittrain in “The Lessons of Wikipedia” notes about articles “Quality varies greatly. Articles on familiar topics can be highly informative, while more obscure ones are often uneven” (137). Editors and contributors may be keen to pour their efforts into topics that are more recognized, while avoiding the same kind of effort to less-known topics.

Another interesting contrast in biography styles is Henry Sidgwick’s Wikipedia article and his Stanford biography. Sidgwick’s Wikipedia article is similar to McLuhan’s, in that it gives a well-rounded description of Sidgwick as a person. There’s personal information about his childhood and early life. There’s information on his major contributions and also important events. But, unlike McLuhan’s article, Sidgwick’s is less detailed. There was less of an effort to explore and elaborate on his concepts. Sidgwick’s Stanford biography is entirely an explanation of his work, theories, and contributions to philosophy. For a research project, the Wikipedia article is helpful in describing who Sidgwick actually was, and it also puts Sidgwick’s work and ideas into context. But, to help define Sidgwick’s concepts and to apply them to other areas, I would refer to Stanford’s encyclopedia.

Part 2

For Part 2 of the assignment I chose Wikipedia’s article on Taiwanese aborigines, the native inhabitants of Taiwan. The article fits two criteria particularly well: it’s well researched, and makes great use of media. The article references about 100 different peer-reviewed sources. They range from texts critiquing perspectives of Taiwanese aborigine history to texts on the culture of the people. The article is chock full of hyperlinks and references to these texts and other sources. This type of research is what allows me to put my trust into a Wikipedia article. The information is fact based, and is a compilation of different texts to make an even greater document of information. The article also uses pictures to its advantage. Photographs of Taiwanese aborigine art, cultural exhibits, and people are strategically placed throughout the text to reinforce the particular areas in the article. Each is attributed to its source and also gives a short explanation of the picture and its relevance to its place in the article. In her paper “Multimediated Rhetoric of the Internet” Carolyn Handa says “our analytic perceptions, abilities, and vocabularies must expand beyond two-dimensional surfaces to three-dimensional space” (151). The Taiwanese aborigine article is a great example of how this is accomplished. The article successfully blends media, hyperlinks, and references to create a rich multimediated text.

Analysis

Our Wikipedia Project team broke down Public Sphere Writing into what we viewed as its most essential categories. This included things like rhetoric, influences, and examples. Under these terms we further discussed what made these categories relevant and what would go under the categories. We also put thought into page design and the order of the categories. Generally, the categories that most define and explain public sphere writing come first, followed by examples and other theories. Something I think we’ll have to keep in mind as we continue working is how the reader will perceive the article and what exactly they might be seeking from it. I think it’s our job to make the article as thorough as possible, not just including the definition of “Public Sphere Writing”, but also its significance in the context of other forms of writing and also in our culture.

University Presidential Search Processes and the Imbalance in Discourse Control

Though the availability of money to public institutions is of even more vital importance today, funding shouldn’t be a university’s top priority. Rather, the success of students, teachers and the university as a whole should be the guiding principle. But as of late, a focus on money has seeped into the hiring of university presidents. Why? Because discourse of the search processes caters excessively towards board members, when it should invite an open conversation between all people involved in the institution. Trustees may want the best for the university, but their vision of what is best is not the same as others. Presidential search discourse reflects a focus on the ideas of a board, and not the school and its parts. The discourse should invite an open conversation and debate on who is qualified for a position. Ignoring voices in a conversation isn’t the way to do this.

As seen in recent instances, like at Purdue University, the College of Charleston, Louisiana State University, and Florida State University, presidential search processes can lend to restricting public discussion of a candidate. At the beginning of its search process, FSU’s search committee was prepared to make the decision to interview Republican Senator John Thrasher as its sole candidate. But, only after facing student and teacher outcry and opposition did the search committee decide to make the process more open. The discourse of candidate selection was already concealed and one-sided. And though the process eventually invited more candidates and became open to public discussion, the feeling that a decision was already made lingered.

And that feeling seems replicated in the other search processes. David Kaufer questions in “A Plan for Teaching the Development of Original Policy Arguments” how we decide between two competing analogies. He says “the substance of the views an arguer expresses is not alone a sufficient test of his or her skill at resolving issues of values,” (66) meaning just because a person or group may have a subjective view doesn’t mean they can’t argue for a clearer resolution. The goal should be for multiple groups of different subjective views to collaborate in order to find the best resolution. But, when there is a lack of collaboration, this goal can’t be met. The discourse of discussion in university president search processes indeed seems to be misrepresented.

Though students and teachers may cry out, a decision is already made. How can trustees elect a president, without reasoning with the argument of teachers and students? Former provost and interim president at American University Milton Greenberg suggests in his commentary article “You Don’t Need a Search Firm to Hire a President” that “search consultants are hired by and report to the board of trustees, often diminishing the influence of traditional campus constituencies.” Greenberg highlights another inherent problem in the discourse of presidential searches: the trustees dictate the discourse of the process, focusing on their own ideal candidates instead of publicly discussed ones. From the beginning, the control of the discourse of search processes lies in the hands of one group: the administration of the school and its trustees. This makes it less likely the discourse will encompass all players in an argument.

In other words, including all the players in “the discourse community” is ideally the only way a reasonable conclusion should be attained.  James Porter defines the term “discourse community” in his article “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community” as “a group of individuals bound by a common interest who communicate through approved channels and whose discourse is regulated” (38-39). The presidential search process discourse community is all those involved in process of selecting a president and those involved in a university. But, the power in the discourse community is imbalanced, so that the discourse is dictated by one particular group within the community. In this case, it’s the trustees or the selecting committee. Controversy from search processes comes from the inability of committees to hear the opposing side of an argument for or against a candidate. The goal of a discourse community should be to strive for fair and balanced discussion, where all sides and views are given equal opportunities to be heard and reasoned with. All participants in the discourse community of a university president search should want collaboration in discourse when picking a candidate. Otherwise, the resolution is heavily in favor of one side of an argument, without consideration of the opposition.

Public deliberation is one key component that assures all sides of an argument are heard. In “Rhetorical Citizenship and Public Deliberation” James McDonald says “public deliberation is a practice by which each party is exposed to the knowledge and interpretations of its adversaries. All parties involved can therefore discover, even create, new knowledge that changes their initial position” (200). But was public deliberation really present in recent search processes that stirred controversy? Students and teachers were able to pose questions and raise issues publicly, even in front of candidates. But, this doesn’t constitute public deliberation. Where is reasoning and conversation when the board of trustees dismisses the argument of students and teachers? There is no deliberation when sides refuse to consider the arguments of the opposition. In FSU’s case, the discourse gave the appearance of public deliberation, rather than actually having public deliberation. The discourse wasn’t fostering balanced discussion, which lead to an imbalanced resolution.

The discourse of university presidential searches needs to be hinged on the collaboration and discussion of trustees, search committees, and teachers and students. But with recent searches in mind, the discourse appeals to the ideals of trustees only, and what they see is best for a university. They aren’t the only ones in the community. Students and teachers need also to be equally represented and heard. Arguments should be reasoned with and should help reach a better solution. The discourse community needs to be balanced. With deciding power in the hands of a disproportionate member of the discourse community, it’s vital that the trustees be compelled to listen and collaborate with opposing sides of the community. And finally, the discourse needs true deliberation, not just the appearance of it. Without healthy deliberation, a discourse is ineffective.

Works Cited

Kaufer, David S. “A Plan for Teaching the Development of Original Policy Arguments.” College Composition and Communication 35.1 (Feb 1984): 57-70. JSTOR.

McDonald, James. “I Agree, but … : Finding Alternatives to Controversial Projects through Public Deliberation.” Rhetorical Citizenship and Public Deliberation. Ed. Christian Kock and Lisa S. Villadsen. University Park: Pennsylvania State UP, 2012. 119-217. Print.

Porter, James E. “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community.” Rhetoric Review 5.1 (Autumn 1986): 34-47. JSTOR.

Milton, Greenberg. “You Don’t Need a Search Firm to Hire a President.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. The Chronicle of Higher Educaton, 1 Sept. 2014. Web.