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.