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.
