Becoming a Wikipedian

             After completing my first editing task on Wikipedia, I found that it is kind of nerve-racking to edit someone else’s semi-established piece of work in such a public space. It is important to keep in mind that Wikipedia is a collaborative website and multiple people have already come along and made changes to every article on the site. The article I chose to revise was about anonymous web-browsing and although I know little about this subject, I chose it to make minor edits; which Wikipedia considers to be “typo corrections, formatting and presentation changes, rearranging text…” (Wikipedia). In other words, I corrected some simple errors and eliminated some unnecessary sentence fragments. In my opinion, I just polished up an article that was a little rusty. In chapter six of his book, The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It, “Lessons of Wikipedia,“ Jonathan Zittrain mentions that "Wikipedia--- with the cooperation of many Wikipedians---has developed a system of self-governance that has many indicia of the rule of law without heavy reliance on outside authority or boundary” (Zittrain 143). Becoming an official Wikipedian and experiencing my first editing task, I can fully understand the aspect of “self-governance” within Wikipedia that Zittrain discusses. With guidelines and features such as the “edit summary” box, Wikipedians are free to make edits without any official authority. As long as every edit made is justified in the edit summary section and abides by the guidelines, Wikipedia is able to maintain a system of self-governance.

            After becoming a Wikipedian, I realize the full extent to the problems people have with Wikipedia. While in the editing section, there is liberty to literally change anything on the article. However, after reading so much about Wikipedia, I know for a fact that large erasures of sections, vandalism, and biased statements are watched heavily by robots, administrators, and loyal Wikipedians. If there is one thing I learned about Wikipedia, it’s that it involves a heavy use of intertextuality. According to James E. Porter, in his article “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community,” “’Examining texts ‘intertextually’ 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, being a collaborative entity, is nothing but fragments of information sewn together with the goal of creating new discourse. Without the pre-existing information needed to create well-developed articles, Wikipedia would not exist.

Ultimately, I have learned that Wikipedia is defined by two things: collaboration and intertextuality. Just as Wikipedia relies on intertextuality for its existence, it also relies on the collaboration of its Wikipedians to put those fragments of information together in a cohesive manner. The collaborative aspect of Wikipedia is what allows such a broad spectrum of information to become available at such a rapid rate. All in all, becoming an official Wikipedian has caused me to realize how Wikipedia really functions as a “sandbox.” Just as children collaborate and play “nice” in a sandbox, Wikipedians collaborate and respect one another’s opinions, additions, and edits to articles. After stepping into the realm of Wikipedia and becoming a Wikipedian by making some minor edits, I am ready to play in the sandbox and make worthy additions to my Advanced Writing and Editing class' Wikipedia article on public sphere writing!

Composing for Wikipedia

                        Wikipedia does its best to keep its articles informative and reliable. It does so by adhering to a set a standards for composing articles. These standards can be referred to as their core principles and includes things such as “Neutral Pointof View” and “Verifiability.” In addition, these standards can also be reflected in Wikipedia’s “featured articles” section; which includes a set of standards enforcing well-written, non- biased, and well- researched articles. All articles posted within the “featured articles” section of Wikipedia are required to follow the standards previously mentioned. So, in order to ensure these standards are adhered to, I did some research. In a November 8, 2014 featured article about pelicans, Wikipedia seems to keep to their well-written, well-researched standards. This article features non-biased, informative descriptions of the pelican, while identifying the scientific classification of the bird: “Pelicans are a genus of large water birds that makes up the family Pelecanidae,” this statement goes on to describe  more physical features of the bird in a coherent and unbiased manner. The article goes on to provide the reader with more facts about pelicans such as their taxonomy, fossil records, behaviors, and even use of the bird in religion and mythology. Although religion tends to be a controversial subject, the article remains unbiased and strictly provides readers with the bird’s historical affiliation with Christianity. In doing this research, it’s clear to see that while composing Wikipedia articles its important to remain unbiased and stay focused on forming well-written, well- researched information. In composing a Wikipedia article it is also crucial to keep citations consistent, this is something that the pelican article succeeds in doing: all information is well-cited and links to a reliable secondary source. Not only is the information well-cited, but the images included throughout the article are used properly and follow the image use policy. Although this research shows that Wikipedia does a good job at enforcing well- written and well- researched information, at times Wikipedia can provide what seems to be useless, or excessive information.

            In comparing and contrasting two separate biographies about Henry Sidgwick, one on Wikipedia and one on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, I found that Wikipedia included some excessive, unnecessary information. In the Wikipedia article, there is an entire section about a woman named Eusapia Palladino that is nowhere to be mentioned in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s article on Sidgwick. This women played a minor role in Sidgwick’s life, yet Wikipedia spends time constructing an entire section on this woman and places it before a more important section about Sidgwick’s works. In the Stanford Encyclopedia’s article, there is an entire section dedicated to Sidgwick's “masterpiece Methods of Ethics (1907)” (Stanford). It is important to note that articles within the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy remain stable and cannot be edited by the public; Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia and this means that sections can be added and altered separately without the acknowledgment of the original author. So, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a tendency to be more coherent and concise with their information. Being a more academic website, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy provides users with academic resources such as “how to cite this entry” and PDF links. However, in comparison, both articles provide well-written and well-researched information on Sidgwick’s life, career, and background. Both articles also provide a well-detailed list of primary and secondary sources; however, the Stanford website provides a more organized list of sources, dividing the primary and secondary sources into two separate sections. After doing this research, I found that it is important to stay coherent and concise while editing and adding multiple sections to a Wikipedia article. It is also important to flow with the original author’s content and to avoid irrelevant sections. Nevertheless, the most important standards to adhere to while composing for Wikipedia are having credible research and conveying this research in a coherent and informative manner.

Plagairism, Copyright, Fair Use, Oh My!

            With the Internet being such a normal part of our daily lives, information is consistently at our fingertips. Although this broad access to all types of information may seem like a positive concept, it actually has some negative consequences. Now that the Internet is such a regularity, plagiarism has also become a consistently common act. However, it is hard to place plagiarism on the hierarchy of academic dishonesty. According to Russel Wiebe in “Plagiarism and Promiscuity, Authors and Plagiarisms,” it is more ethical to cheat on school tasks, “which are largely unreal and therefore, outside the realm of ethical consideration” (Wiebe 30). Even though plagiarism is seen as a negative act, Wiebe sees it as harmless in the realm of inane school tasks and actually believes it to be useful in some circumstances. In his article, Wiebe explains how Kelly Ritter “suggested that students see the plagiarism question not as a question of morality but rather as a question of utility” (Wiebe 36). In other words, students don’t care if it is morally right to plagiarize, they care if it will help them somehow advance.

            Although Wiebe sees plagiarism in the classroom as a harmless act, he still believes that plagiarism is an overall issue in our technologically advancing society and sees the need for different plagiarisms to be defined. In his article, Wiebe explains different suggestions in attempts to categorize different acts of plagiarism. For example, “Moore Howard (1995) has suggested three categories in an attempt to define what should be considered plagiarism: cheating, non-attribution, and patchwriting” (Wiebe 32). These categories reflect directly to common acts of plagiarism: cheating would be directly copying the work of another peer, non-attribution would be directly taking from a source without citing it, and patchwriting would be paraphrasing from a source without acknowledging the original source. Other theorists have attempted to define plagiarism in different, but similar ways. Brian Martin discusses word-for-word plagiarism, paraphrasing plagiarism, and secondary source plagiarism (Wiebe 33). These definitions are very similar to those presented by Moore Howard and are self-explanatory. Even though these definitions help to categorize different acts of plagiarism, Wiebe still views plagiarism as something that can be beneficial. After all “it is probably the rare academic who has not engaged in some form of ‘dishonesty’ in school or in our professional lives” (Wiebe 32). Wiebe makes it clear that most people have plagiarized in their lives and it is sort of a part of creating new discourse; similar to intertextuality.

            For centuries we have been borrowing from previous generations; even in acts of simple graphic design. In The Laws of Cool, Alan Liu explains graphic design from the nineteenth century to today. In his explanations of various types of typography he inadvertently explains how different generations take from previous generations. He explains that “modernist graphic design focused above all on a totality of design… the idea was to look at every page as a whole in which variation and unity were so tightly bound that their very nature altered” (Liue 198). This modernist view of design is later transferred over to the age of the World Wide Web. “By the time of the Web… graphics and digital information became part of the same integral design. Both were aspects of the single great canvas now subsuming all the pages… that the modernist designers had created” (Liu 207). Although it isn’t made explicit, the beginning of Web design derived precisely from the modernist design and could be considered a plagiarism of technique. However, instead of plagiarism, this is just considered an extension of “good design.” 

            Moving away from plagiarism and toward the realm of copyright laws and fair use (these concepts are also complicated to define). In a case study concerning a Michigan University student, Maggie Ryan, fair use of this student’s photo is brought into question. The issue with the use of this students photo isn’t the fact that it was used without her permission, it’s more of how the use of the photo effected the student’s rhetorical velocity. In Jim Ridolfo and Martine Courant’s case study, “Rhetorical Velocity and Copyright: A Case Study on Strategies of Rhetorical Delivery, ”They explain that “rhetorical velocity is a strategic concept of delivery in which a rhetor theorizes the possibilities for the recomposition of a text based on how s/he anticipates how the text might later be used” (Ridolfo & Courant 230).  This anticipation of how the text might later be used is the issue with the use of Maggie’s photo. Maggie intended on getting publicity, but not for her personal photo to promote the University’s campus life, she wanted publicity for her activist protest against her University joining the WRN. Instead of getting noticed for her acts of protest, she was acknowledged as a typical Michigan U student playing in the snow. The rhetorical velocity of her situation was completely skewed by the University. “In addition to directly appropriating her image, the university also remixed her image...it’s clear that not only did the Web team take a picture of Maggie out of context but they also repurposed it by adding the caption ‘winter fun learn more’” (Ridolfo & Courant 228). This further emphasizes how the University re-appropriated Maggie’s photo and remixed it for their own benefit. The issue with Maggie and copyright law is that “an individual cannot use the right of publicity to claim a property right in his/her likeness as reflected in photographs that were taken in a public place to illustrate a newsworthy story” (Ridolfo & Courant 235). So, although U.S. copyright laws are supposed to protect items that are original, it is hard to do so with a human body in a public place.

            It is easy to say that defining plagiarism and copyright issues is a complex thing; however, it is necessary to determine a line between what is considered fair use and what isn’t. “we need to stop thinking about copyright law in terms of what isn’t possible, but also in terms of what is possible—that is, how rhetors can strategically compose for the recomposition of their own intellectual property” (Ridolfo & Courant 238). The most important thing to take from Maggie Ryan's case study is that it is crucial to recognize an author’s rhetorical velocity before merely recomposing their work in order to respect the original intention of the rhetor. Copyright and fair use laws are a little more complex to define than acts of plagiarism. With plagiarism, these acts can easily be resolvable by simply citing sources correctly. Plagiarism is a commonality, especially in today’s Internet savvy society. Plagiarism can easily be turned into intertexuality by simply knowing how to properly cite quotations and paraphrased statements. Unfortunately, copyright issues are resolved in a more complex manner, requiring the author's permission and acknowledging the author's rhetorical velocity before repurposing their work.