Short Assignment #4

In one aspect, Wikipedia is a platform by which a compound rhetorical situation on a subject can be presented on one page. At least, that’s what it seems to be intended for. Keith Grant-Davie says in his article “Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents” that compound rhetorical situations are “the discussions of a single subject by multiple rhetors and audiences” (265). Wikipedia articles don’t provide a new entry to a rhetorical conversation. Rather, Wikipedia articles seek to provide a discourse aiming to inform the readers of all angles and information of a subject.

But the public can edit Wikipedia articles. So the question arises as to whether ordinary citizens can be trusted to contribute to articles in an unbiased manner and by using accredited sources. From my observations of different terms we’ve explored in this class and an article from Wikipedia’s “Did You Know?” section, which I’ll explain further later, articles on Wikipedia seem for the most part to adhere to attributing information to peer-reviewed and trusted sources. From my experience, a lot of the information is even verbatim. The content in the articles is not a new interpretation of sources or the introduction of a new idea. If it’s not straight facts, it’s an explanation of what’s being said in the sources.

credit: Flickr

In the case of the article I read, much of the page was factual information and encapsulated what was said in the referenced sources. I chose to read about the Pyrenean Frog, an endangered species of frog located in the mountain-rivers of France and Spain. The article was brief. Most of its information came from databases that collected their information from peer-reviewed studies. I wouldn’t have trusted the databases otherwise. In the article, the databases were referred to mostly for factual information on the frog: body size, habitat, reproduction, etc. But the article also drew information directly from a peer-reviewed study about the frog’s declining population because of its diminishing habitat. And while the some of the content might be paraphrased or shortened, the article didn’t really stray from the important facts or add any unconfirmed information.

This is what I imagine and hope most Wikipedia articles are like. They should aim to provide discourse that informs the public of all relevant information on a subject, and views if a subject is disputed. And that information should be based on reputable sources.

In a way, Wikipedia works like a science accommodator. In her article “Accommodating Science” Jeanne Fahnestock says magazines like National Geographic and Newsweek seek to provide the reader “’the wonder’ and ‘the application’ appeals” (279). Wikipedia articles might take information from science-accommodating articles like those in magazines, but they might also draw directly from “forensic discourse”. They take information, peer-reviewed and fact-based, forensic and awe-appealing, and put them in one available space. With regards to science-accommodation articles, Wikipedia articles make information that is supposed to be understandable to the layperson even more understandable.

But I did find an example of an article that doesn’t necessarily follow the strict guidelines that all Wikipedia articles should be written by. I searched some of terms we’ve discussed in our class. Some, like the term “citizen journalism”, came back with an article, but there was a notification at the beginning of the page requesting help finishing the article. It said that information was flawed or unclear. Some searches for terms, like “citizen critic”, returned no articles. This might be seen as open invitation for a person to give their thoughts on the subject. This can be dangerous for readers. Unless all information in an article refers back to a peer-reviewed or trusted source, the article is irresponsible. In this instance, I wouldn’t trust it. But, for the most part, Wikipedia seems to verify when references in articles are peer-reviewed.

Carolyn Handa in her article “The Multimediated Rhetoric of The Internet” preaches that students should be able to understand digital rhetorical skills in order to compose their own rhetoric on the Internet. The rhetoric of Wikipedia imitates an encyclopedia, with information from peer-reviewed articles and studies. It’s important to acknowledge this context when reading content and contributing to it.