Wikipedia Reflection

As a culmination of the knowledge I obtained in my Advanced Editing and Writing Class, I was require to collaborate with about twenty other classmates to create a Wikipedia article. This project gave us an (almost uncomfortable) sense of freedom because this article was to be completely defined by us: the topic was chosen by us, as well as the organization and the content. Many students would rejoice in the ability to give the project whatever direction pleased them, but I found this daunting. The article that we would be writing would guide knowledge that others learned, much like how I spent hours on Wikipedia looking up information on topics that interested me. Furthermore, it was daunting to think that I would be working with twenty other students, all with this own priorities and agendas. I had not a clue how to organize such a large group- my largest project involved five people, and even then it was difficult to delegate tasks and make sure that everyone was pulling their weight.

I was able to mitigate this sense of foreboding after discussing this with my professor and entire class. It seemed that every person was having the same difficulties; they were worried that we would lead the article in the wrong direction, or the twenty different voices that comprised the article would make it sound choppy and unintelligent. This was not the first time a large group of people came together to create a public text on Wikipedia. What was occurring in our classroom was happening in different rooms all around the world, and makes up the very essence of what Wikipedia stands for. Wikipedia is created from collaborations and had many articles to help guide novice article writers who took on this daunting task; we were not exploring uncharted territory. We came to realize that, no matter what direction our article took, it would have value simply because it exists. The empty space of knowledge due to the lack of our article was to be defined by us. Of course, we had to abide by Wikipedia’s rules of bias and Point of View, but it gave us comfort to know that there was no single ‘correct’ article. 

As a generation that has virtually been educated by Wikipedia, I feel that most people-strangely enough- tend to undervalue the world’s largest online encyclopedia. It is ever-present, and people who are uninvolved in the creation of article (largely those people who comprise the main audience) do not understand the depth of involvement required. There is much to be discussed, mitigated, and placed in order for the article to make sense to an uninvolved audience. This process gave me quite the reality check. After we were given our group assignments, I had assumed that there would be a person who wished to designate themselves the leader. After a quick analysis of all my two teammates, I quickly realized that I would have to assume that position. I had never considered myself a leader before this, but I quickly found myself filling the vacuum that was left by this leadership position. I found myself delegating appropriate tasks and contacting the different constituents of my group to make sure they were being completed on time. After one member of my group dropped the class, me and my singular partner had a lot to do (compared to the 10 or so other groups in the class with 3+ members).

Upon initially composing the Wikipedia article, I found myself particularly confounded with one aspect of the composition- knowing just who our audience was. Part of the audience I was writing for was students similar to myself, who just wished to learn more about subjects that interested them. Others were Wikipedia writers themselves. Others may be incredibly sheltered, and some may be more knowledgeable than the article writers themselves. The possible audience is a wide as the internet is itself, but one consideration is very important: We are writing this article so that the audience will feel compelled to edit it further. Much like Danielle Devoss talks about in her text “composing for recomposition,” we must consider how our article might be repurposed or edited, and keep than in mind when writing. That was one guiding principle I remembered when initially writing my portion of the article. 

Yet another aspect of article writing that was important was mitigating my tone. Inherently, a Wikipedia article is supposed to lack any bias or point of view. The articles are supposed to contain strictly facts, and all facts must be cited so that I reader could understand the context of the information. It was very common for me to contain phrases such as “most importantly” and “unfortunately” when beginning a sentence. This was bad for wikipedia’s use, because those phrases give the information a certain bias. Who am I to say that example was the most important, or this fact was unfortunate? Acknowledging and deleting those instances of editorializing really helped my article be more official and informational.

After drafting this Wikipedia article, I know understand the full depth of composing for the most public space. Wikipedia is the place on the internet where people go to learn more about a subject.It is the first space my audience thinks to look, and believes it contains accurate information. The article I wrote no longer affected just me- it affected the world. After taking on such an important task, I feel now that I truly have some insight on how my writing can have true, real world repercussions.

Works Cited

 Bezemer, Jeff; Gunther Kress (April 2008). "Writing in Multimodal Texts: A Social Semiotic Account of Designs for Learning". Written Communication 25 (2): 166–195

 Ridolfo, Jim; Danielle Nicole DeVoss. "Composing for Recomposition: Rhetorical Velocity and Delivery". Kairos 13.2.