Marshall McLuhan and Michelle Citron’s respective Wikipedia articles
could not be more distant from each other. To begin with, McLuhan’s article is
incredibly lengthy. It is arguably one of the longer Wikipedia articles I have
read to date, and this can partially be due to the fact that he is a
well-renowned theorist and scholar. The article introduces him as such, and
explains his presence in the scholarly community. It then goes to explain how
interest in Mcluhan’s concepts has been renewed in the past few years (thanks
to the rise of the internet), which may also allude to why his article is very
lengthy: a lot of people have a lot to say about Marshall. The articles begins with his life and career,
in one section. It follows his sequence of jobs as well as his personal life.
Then it goes to introduce his major works- although, once read, is much more
than an introduction. The article explains the concepts at work behind his
terminology and books, as well as listing its’ critiques. The tone of his
article is very theoretical and thorough, and it obviously works very hard to
give every aspect on Mcluhan’s life attention. If a person were to read this
article having known nothing about his ideas, the reader would leave with a
good sense of who Marshall Mcluhan was.
Michelle Citron’s article is noticeably shorter and contains much less writing. Her life and career sections- which are separate- are a few sentences long. The list of Michelle’s works is provided in a graph, rather than explaining the significance of the works. The tone of the article- if there is any at all- is very short and bland. Very little is said about her works in women studies (but at least they noted it). A large difference is seen when comparing the citations- Mcluhan’s article has 85 citations from a variety of sources, while Citron’s has 7, most of which are from books on women’s studies. The differences between the two articles can be attributed to the fact that Mcluhan’s work is much more applicable in a broader sense, and has sparked many other studies as a result. Citron’s ideas and work are contained to a singular subject, and has not found a niche outside of that. It is also important to note that Marshall Mcluhan has been pass away for over 30 years, so there is much that can be said about his work. Citron is still alive and creating works, which probably inhibits her audience’s ability to extensively critique or describe her work.
Michelle Citron’s article is noticeably shorter and contains much less writing. Her life and career sections- which are separate- are a few sentences long. The list of Michelle’s works is provided in a graph, rather than explaining the significance of the works. The tone of the article- if there is any at all- is very short and bland. Very little is said about her works in women studies (but at least they noted it). A large difference is seen when comparing the citations- Mcluhan’s article has 85 citations from a variety of sources, while Citron’s has 7, most of which are from books on women’s studies. The differences between the two articles can be attributed to the fact that Mcluhan’s work is much more applicable in a broader sense, and has sparked many other studies as a result. Citron’s ideas and work are contained to a singular subject, and has not found a niche outside of that. It is also important to note that Marshall Mcluhan has been pass away for over 30 years, so there is much that can be said about his work. Citron is still alive and creating works, which probably inhibits her audience’s ability to extensively critique or describe her work.
The featured article that I chose to write about is “marine
shrimp farming” –mostly because I think shrimp are really cute. I was impressed
with the length of the article, mostly because I was unaware that shrimp
farming was such a big deal. The article not only describes shrimp (enough so
that they could be their own article) but describes how shrimp farming is
completed. It then continues to descrcibe the socioeconomic aspects of farming,
and how it affects the workers. This article excels in the area of “neutrality,”
because it provides so much information that it’s difficult to put forth an
agenda. Furthermore, it’s hard to be biased about shrimp farming: unless you’re
a competing seafood farmer. Unfortunately, this article does not exactly follow
Wikipedia’s ‘summary style’ ideal- it goes very in detail about every aspect of
shrimp farming, and some audience members may have trouble finding certain
information.
