Creating, or in my case, editing a Wikipedia article, has changed the way I look at Wikipedia’s credibility. There are so many functions set up on that website that others often overlook. Contrary to what people think, it’s nearly impossible to make anything up, or put anything on a page that isn’t backed up by a very reputable source. Teachers and professors often tell students to not utilize Wikipedia as a reference, but truth is, if you want to get the gist of a topic, it would be my first stop on the internet. Noah Cohem writes in his New York Times article , “once routinely questioned about its reliability — what do you mean, anyone can edit it? — the site is now used every month by upwards of 400 million people worldwide.” I never would have agreed with this four weeks ago, but seeing how Wikipedia operates has definitely caused the site to gain my respect and intrigue.
When we were told we would be creating our own Wikipedia article, I thought it sounded very interesting because I would be making something that could possibly stick on the internet forever. Sure, we’ve all made blogs and websites now and again, but do those ever come up first thing in a good search? The answer to that would be no. I felt pretty empowered about this whole project so I knew I wanted to do a topic that interested me. I’d always been fascinated by paranormal stories and old abandoned buildings. They just hold so much more of a story than anyone could ever see, so a recent trip to The Ridges, brought me upon my first proposed topic of the Tuberculosis Ward. Driving up the hill in the back of The Ridges gave me chills as I looked at what was in front of me. I was unsuspecting that, that was where the TB Ward stood so I drove up closer and walked around with my friend for awhile. When we left, we went home and tried to look up information on tours or any information at all regarding history or factual stories about the facility. All that was written on the internet were fan blogs of people who visited old “haunted” buildings as a hobby and told stories about them with their own opinions and photos. I decided to visit the archives at the local library to really be able to find useful information and “dig up” as much of the history as I could.
The man working in the archives happened to work for the Mahn Center for archives for a very long time and he was heavily involved with research regarding the old state hospital. I told him that I specifically wanted to know history about the Tubercular Ward, and he said that they really only had a page or two and it wouldn’t be anything useful. When he showed me the rest of the archives with photocopies and pictures regarding the facility as a whole, I knew I had to know more.
Getting permission to revise an already existing article was really interesting and laid the pressure on a lot more. The original article was created years ago and had been edited over a hundred times already. I felt as if an audience was watching me as I wrote down the facts that I pulled out of the archives. I looked over the edits made in past revisions and that helped me decide on whether or not certain edits that I wrote would fall under the cause for deletion . Facts that could not be proven true were taken down such as “deleted statement that Haerlin was a student of Olmsted. No evidence he was.” And “The Kennedy Museum is a different building that was restored that used to be part of the hospital. The Athens Asylum is a different building, in disrepair. Please find a new pic of the actual building.” I made sure to try and cite my sources correctly even though it was difficult with the files I was working with.
The Discussion Board also helped me decide what was acceptable to write on my page as far as keeping a neutral tone. Someone had previously written, “The old trees surrounding the original structures are majestic in their timeless beauty.” While that statement sounds really nice and would fit well in a book maybe, it didn’t fit with Wikipedia’s neutral point of view, or “npov”. So, I made sure to leave out too many descriptive unnecessary adjectives. Another way I used the Discussion Board was to help answer people’s questions. I felt I had a huge advantage with contributing to that page because the State Hospital was located right down the road, and I had primary sources within the library. Someone had previously asked how many square feet the facility took up, so I dug through the entire plot plans and there were records circa 1960, stating how much square footage the hospital truly took up.
Writing a Wikipedia article was unlike anything I have ever written before. I knew I would “address the essential characteristsics of effective composing: planning, drafting, aligning, revising and monitoring” as Tierney and Pearson described in their article, “Toward a Composing Article of Reading” (176). I planned out how I wanted the page to look by looking at what was already on there, and deciding if I needed to take anything down. Then I posed questions for myself on a sheet of paper, that I wanted to be answered on the Wikipedia article when it was done. I also knew I wanted to have credible sources for the article so I went to the archives to pull records and photocopies of plot plans. I drafted out my first submission, then saved and looked at my page to make corrections to the alignment. While revising the article, I found myself going over it with a fine tooth comb. The pressure I had previously talked about felt so real saving something that was live on the internet. I now still check back on my article to monitor and see if anyone has stopped by to edit anything or discredit my hard work.
What made Wikipedia seem so different from anything I had written before is that fact that Wikipedia brings researched information and formality, to a heightened sense of excitement, due to the fact that it makes writing social. We don’t all have access to the best resources or references, so when things are published to the internet, you’re seeing one person’s point of view, of what makes something notable, interesting and what should be shared with the world. On Wikipedia, you get a collaboration of works, other’s stories and writing styles. You can see where everyone is coming from and use the edit and discussion board topics to communicate with one another on how to better the article. This sort of makes Wikipedia like a live revision that never stops. Wikipedia doesn’t ask for a final draft. It allows through history and time, for each article to keep expanding to it’s fullest. Sure, some articles take longer than others to get the so-called “facelifts” they deserve, but nevertheless, an article submitted on Wikipedia is always open to more facts and references provided for the subjects.
Through all this, I’ve realized Wikipedia is changing the way people can understand information about a multtitude topics. I still don’t think teachers and professors want to see Wikipedia as a cited source in an essay, however, I would give Wikipedia much more credit than it receives. I don’t think sites like Wikipedia will totally abandon the constructs of traditional writing, because in writing in a neutral point of view is a task that proves to be quite challenging to some, and if you have no background or baseboard to start from, they how can you expect to create an article on a social encyclopedia, where other authors and readers can take you seriously? I don’t think Wikipedia completely alters established methods of writing, it just tweaks it and makes it something exciting for this generation to explore and play with. It should be interesting to see if Wikipedia can shy away from having such a bad reputation.
Tierney, Robert J. Pearson, David P. “ Toward a Composing Model of Reading” Writing About Writing. Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. Boston, MA. Bedford/St.Martins, 2011. 174-190.
No comments:
Post a Comment