On Wiki-editing

This Short Assignment has, in my opinion, been the most useful and has taught me the most. Getting to actually edit a real Wikipedia article and watch my edits be published was, not only a learning experience, but also very cool. 

When I clicked on the Edit History of the Wikipedia article I chose to edit, the one on Genre, I could see all the edits that have been made to this page. It was impressive to see people editing the same article I was editing, and finding countless errors or areas that needed improvement. I myself found a few and edited them. For example, there was a mention of a "tragicomedy" in the Genre article, and it was not linked to the Wikipedia page on Tragicomedy, so I linked it. I used other words that had been linked to their appropriate page, such as "literature" as reference on how to appropriately link. As it turns out, simply adding brackets around the word does the trick. 

I now get the sense that the more editing a Wikipedia article has gone through, the more editing eyes its seen, the closer to perfect by Wikipedia's standards it will be, considering that the editors do a thoroughly good job. The most relevant critical text from those we've studied this semester in my opinion was "Intertextuality and the Discourse Community" by Porter. When I think of the term "intertextuality" itself, I automatically envision a sort of web, which connects every piece of writing and information together. With Wikipedia, this becomes even easier to envision. The article on genre linked to literature which linked to plot which linked to climax. Many things can web out from a single article on a single term, and I believe that is the epitome of the "intertextuality" referred to by Porter. Everything is intertwined and comes from a past source. "Examining texts 'intertextuality' means looking for 'traces,' the bits and pieces of Text which writers or speakers borrow and sew together to create new discourse" (Porter 34). Wikipedia is the perfect example of that.

As a relative newcomer to the Wikipedia editing community, I recognize there is still much for me to learn. The task was difficult, and I am certain that I did not catch every copyediting or inline citation mistake that I could have. 

According to Ridolfo’s text and a study by him and Danielle Nicole DeVoss, today’s digital delivery is different because new elements are very “readily available to mix, mash and merge” (Ridolfo 229). “Rhetorical velocity: strategic concept of delivery in which a rhetor theorizes the possibilities for the recomposition of a text based on how they anticipate how the text might later be used” (Ridolfo 229). Rhetorical velocity is at play, and at full force in the Wikipedia platform. Texts via this media can be recomposed almost immediately as information becomes available. I remember googling Robin Williams about 3 minutes after his death was confirmed. His Wikipedia page was already updated with the time, place and speculations of his death. Rhetorical velocity at full blast. 

Strengths and flaws in Wiki bios

Short Assignment #5

Part 1:

Compare and contrast author biographies:

Marshall McLuhan & Michelle Citron:

            As far as structure, Michelle Citron’s Wikipedia biography had a one-liner as the opening paragraph. It was straight to the point and read: “Michelle Citron (born in Boston, Massachusetts) is a film, video and multimedia artist, scholar and author.” On the other hand, Marshall McLuhan’s Wikipedia biography’s opening paragraph was more packed, and included much more information. When I see a one-liner opening on Wikipedia, I have the bad habit of assuming that either not much is known about the person or subject that the article covers, or that they are not as influential or important as someone with a thicker first paragraph in their Wikipedia biography. The article on McLuhan was also notably longer in structure than Citron’s. It had headings and subheading, and sub-subheadings, while Citron’s had few sections. A big on structure-wise was the lack of a picture in Citron’s biography. Whenever there is not at least a stock photo in a Wikipedia page, I am inclined to not be as interested because I assume the subject is not well known or interesting.

            In terms of kinds of information contained/linked to, in Michelle Citron’s biography the only information linked to other Wikipedia pages were the universities she attended. Marshall McLuhan’s biography linked to a world of other things, including but not limited to Wikipedia pages dedicated to his major works, and biographies of other authors’ biographies with whom McLuhan collaborated. This reinforces the idea that he was more prominent and/or more well known than Citron. McLuhan also had an extensive list of over 88 references, while Citron’s had a meager 8. The tone of McLuhan’s biography praised him a bit, while Citron’s was minimally informational. In a research project I would probably only use McLuhan’s as there is sufficient information. If I needed information on Citron I would go elsewhere because this Wikipedia page seems incomplete and depthless.

Henry Sidgwick Wikipedia & Henry Sidgwick Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

            Henry Sidgwick’s biography on Wikipedia was entirely different from his biography in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. There were the obvious structural differences such as the common Wikipedia layout versus a text-heavy page in the Stanford Encyclopedia biography, but there were also differences in the types of information presented. As I expected, the Wikipedia biography included more outline information and little in-depth, while the Stanford Encyclopedia biography went in depth about Sidgwick’s epistemology, views on religion, economics, politics, and education.
            If I was looking for just quick information on who he was and why, more or less, he was important, I believe the Wikipedia biography would be thorough enough. However, if this were a research project, I would go to the Stanford Encyclopedia biography. It mentions who influenced Sidgwick, and has extensive paragraphs on his views on each issue. Though they are both useful, these biographies serve different purposes. The Wikipedia page has one section for his “major works” but does not include any of the books he published, while the Stanford Encyclopedia does not have a “major works” section, but instead it incorporates his major works within the sections divided by subject. For example, in the “Economics” section, it mentions The Principles of Political Economy, a work published by Sidgwick.

Part 2:

Featured article: Same-sex marriage in Spain

            When ran by the featured article criteria, the “Same-sec marriage in Spain” Wikipedia article has its strengths and weaknesses. I am not an expert in the topic so I do not know if it neglects major facts or details, but the article is comprehensive and concise. It is also written from a neutral standpoint and includes quotes both from those in favor and from those against gay marriage.

            As for style guidelines, the lead is concise and summarizes the topic well. Though it was a bit text-heavy in comparison to other Wikipedia leads, there was nothing that could have been crossed out, or that I deemed unimportant. The Table of Contents was present and clear, with hierarchical section headings. Citations were appropriate, with footnoted in-text citation, as well as a list of references at the end. Style-wise the article was strong, and stuck to the guidelines for Wikipedia featured articles from the lead to the references.

            Another guideline that this featured article followed thoroughly was he media specifications. I went through the images on the article, and they all have the appropriate citation, and some even include copies of the emails asking for permission, and the response of the person who owns the image granting permission for it to be used in this article. They are all captioned and labeled accordingly.

            As for my own expectations, the article fulfilled them as well. Though I would have cut the first section and made it only one paragraph long, that is not exactly a rule but more of my own stylistic preferences. I prefer it when the first section is quick and to the point, simply because it’s easier on the eye. The subheadings and information found in them were pertinent and relevant to the topic, without becoming abundant. All in all, this was a strong article judging by Wikipedia’s featured article criteria.

Analysis:

            The Wikipedia Criteria for featured articles is thorough and I support every aspect of it. I believe that when making composing decisions about what to include in this kind of public sphere writing, contributors must keep the criteria in mind. Violating any copyright laws by using images that you are not allowed to use can be detrimental and can make a relevant, useful and timely article void simple because of the violation of copyright. I thought about Ridolfo and Rife, and how they made the point that Maggie’s picture was being used by Michigan State University out of the context that she intended. In the specific case of the featured article that I chose to analyze, the images were actually not being used out of context. There were images of a protest in Spain about same-sex marriage, and the article was about that, precisely. It made me wonder how Ridolfo/Rife would feel about it in this case. What if the people in those images decided that they did not want their picture being used, but they were protesting in a public place, and, at least for this Wikipedia page, the images are not even being used out of context. Would the same legal, ethical and contextual issues still apply here?

            Based on what I observed through this assignment, in both analyzing the biographies and the featured article based on the criteria, I have realized that my group for the Wikipedia project will have to make stricter decisions than I intended. What concerns me the most are the images/media. I know that there are certain stock photos that are in the public domain and that anyone can use them, but I am wondering how my team will get permission to use another image if we feel like it would add to our Wikipedia article. I am also now considering how to make it a good read. I did not know that was part of the actual criteria—for the article to be well-written and not just informational. We will need to find a way to make our topic engaging, without adding too much flowery language that will just end up deviating from out topic and diminishing our credibility.

Rhetorical Velocity: It's all happening so fast

Jim Ridolfo and Martine Courant Rife’s text has been by far the most interesting to me thus far. It is highly applicable in our everyday lives, especially with technology on the rise these days. Working for a newspaper, copyright infringement and laws is something that I am always on the lookout for. There is a designated page with photos we are allowed to use because we have rights to them, and a set of stock photos we can also use. Aside from those, anything else needs to be given the appropriate accreditation, which did not happen in the case of Michigan State University’s student, Maggie.

Maggie’s snowball fight photograph was used on MSU’s website repeatedly, and was remediated to fit several different parts of the website, including a prospective student recruitment section, when in reality Maggie was part of a protest.

Maggie was less than pleased about this and said, “the university didn’t contact me. Nobody ever got my name. Nobody ever asked anything. The reporters I don’t think even got it but the university officials definitely didn’t. They didn’t get my name or the name of the other person in the picture, and I was like the main person, focal point of the picture.”

The question now is, should they have gotten that information? At my job, when we send freelance photographers to take pictures of an event, we rarely ever ask for the students’ names, unless they are, for example, the SGA President. And those photos stay on file if not forever, then for a really long time. We’ve never had a problem with people being upset about their photo being featured, so I am not sure how that would be handled, but in Maggie’s case, here is what comes into play:

-According to Ridolfo’s text and a study by him and Danielle Nicole DeVoss, today’s digital delivery is different because new elements are very “readily available to mix, mash and merge” (Ridolfo 229).

-Composing in the digital age is completely different from traditional practices of composing.

-“Rhetorical velocity: strategic concept of delivery in which a rhetor theorizes the possibilities for the recomposition of a text based on how they anticipate how the text might later be used” (Ridolfo 229).

The concept of rhetorical velocity offers another lens to look at Maggie’s case from.  Though her argument is understandable, with today’s “rhetorical velocity” the desire to manipulate everything that is digitally available is impossible. Also, how wrong is it to use an image for something other than its original purpose? Sure, Maggie was protesting, and the image shows otherwise, but as long as the content is not offensive or derogatory, is there really an issue, and if there is, should an attempt even be made to stop it? Remediation will occur, websites will use photos and mold them to fit their own platforms, and rhetorical velocity is at full velocity.