Composing Decisions for Wikipedia

Though every Wikipedia article is obligated to meet distinct guidelines, not all articles are created equal. Writers and contributors all come from different backgrounds and have different skill sets, and not all topics are treated with equal care and consideration. Wikipedia strives to achieve uniformity in articles by promoting standards for formatting and style, so it is interesting to note the differences between articles, especially those of similar categories.

The stark differences between the Wikipedia article for communication philosopher, Marshal McLuhan, versus the Wikipedia article for multimedia artist, scholar and author, Michelle Citron, for instance, portray the inconsistencies in article writing despite Wikipedia’s specific guidelines.

Structurally, the articles are outlined in a similar manner, but McLuhan’s article contains numerous subsections that add extensive detail whereas Citron’s article contains zero subsections and therefore adds no detail to the already sparse information shared. The McLuhan article goes into great detail about his early life, career, ideologies, works, concepts, and disposition. While the article expounds on McLuhan’s life, the Citron article’s “Early Life” section is comprised of four sentences and only divulges information related to Citron’s career.

The McLuhan article contains links to other sources for just about every topic mentioned. The article is embedded with a myriad of links offering more information on a subject. The Citron article contains about three links, all of which are for universities. The McLuhan article contains a few images, such as a headshot and a chart outlining one of his concepts. The Citron article does not include a single image. As a reader, the lack of a headshot in a biographical article effects my perception of the individual. It conveys his or her lack of importance and lack of accessibility.

Besides the drastic difference in the amount of information disclosed in each article, the most striking difference between the two articles is the tone of writing. The McLuhan article is thorough and gives of the impression of being invested in McLuhan’s life without losing its objectivity. The Citron article is minimalistic and has a very dull, almost uninterested tone. The article is truthful and relays the message but due to the way it is written, the reader does not get a feel of who Citron is as a person and does not get the message that Citron’s work is powerful, noteworthy or influential. Overall the McLuhan article paints a nice picture of who McLuhan was as a person; it humanizes him. While maintaining its objectivity, the writing is filled with quotes and anecdotes that give the reader an in-depth look at his life. Theo McLuhan article is written about him as a person whereas the Citron article is written about her career.

One explanation for the minimal information offered in the article about Citron, or just something to note, is that Michelle Citron is still alive. Many times a person’s influence is seen in retrospect. Also, at 41 years old, Citron still has a lot more to accomplish. A change in the writing’s tone would certainly make a difference in a reader’s perception of Citron but the lack of information can possibly be explained.   

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy begins its piece on Henry Sidgwick with: “Henry Sidgwick was one of the most influential ethical philosophers of the Victorian era, and his work continues to exert a powerful influence on Anglo-American ethical and political theory.” According to the Wikipedia’s Manual of Style/Words to watch page, the first sentence of the Stanford biography would be inappropriate due to puffery. Words such as “most influential” and “powerful influence” introduce bias. Instead, a Wikipedia article would use sources and examples to portray that Sidgwick was influential and powerful, which is exactly what the Wikipedia article on Henry Sidgwick does. The Wikipedia article uses a quite bland tone to give a detailed and somewhat anecdotal biography on philosopher and economist, Henry Sidgwick. The Stanford Encyclopedia outlines its article in a more comprehensive manner than the Wikipedia, as if to give a more rounded out overview of Sidgwick’s life and work. The Wikipedia article is organized a bit more haphazardly, but still includes important information regarding his life and works. The Stanford Encyclopedia, however, delves into a lot more detail, expounding on his theories and describing his religious beliefs. The Wikipedia article includes several links to outside sources and embeds links throughout the text. The Stanford Encyclopedia has an extensive bibliography, but only includes a few outside Internet sources.  Overall, the Stanford Encyclopedia article presents Henry Sidgwick in a detailed and comprehensive way, with a clear bias. The Wikipedia article is unsurprisingly more reserved, both in content and in tone. 

………………………………………………………………………………………………

A typical Wikipedia featured article displays professional standards of writing, presentation and sourcing, and makes use of media. It is well written, comprehensive, well researched, neutral, appropriately structured, consistent in its citations, and an appropriate length.

The Wikipedia article for The Entombment, a painting by Dieric Bouts that depicts the entombment of Jesus Crist, is classified as a featured article. This article excels in research, neutrality, media, and appropriate length. The lead is very comprehensive, informative, and (although lengthy) relevant. The article offers a thorough and representative review of The Entombment. The claims are verifiable and are supported by inline citations. It presents views fairly and without bias, which is unsurprising given that it describes an uncontroversial subject. It also displays a wonderful use of media through images with succinct captions. This is critically important to an article describing an image. It is well written, comprehensive and relates the piece to the time period as a whole and to the painter. The weakest aspect of the article is its structural organization. The structure sways the article’s information and focus away from the painting itself. The “Provenance and attribution” section, one of the main headings, is not even about the painting but rather about the painter and his other works. Additionally, the article tends to assume the reader knows enough about the topic to understand some of the content. For instance, the word “vista”, found in Section 1.1, should include a hyperlink since its meaning is not very clear.

In The Lessons in Wikipedia, Zittrain mentions that “standards can work better than rules in unexpected contexts” (Zittrain 128) In Wikipedia’s case, the promotion of certain standards has led to featured articles. And although Wikipedia can remove content based on specific guidelines, the web-based encyclopedia tends to stray away from the word “rules.” This gives authors a sense of freedom. In turn, I think standards, rather than rules, promote a feeling of camaraderie among authors as opposed to a sense of competition. In “Editing Out Obscenity: Wikipedia and Writing Pedagogy,” Hood claims that Wikipedia delivers pedagogy that is familiar to writers and educators, and that the encyclopedia places value on the process not the product; a negotiation of words. This furthers the concept of authors working together to expand an article. I think our class should compose our article with the understanding and hope that others may contribute, and design our article in a way that invites that to happen.

Our class has taken on the task of composing a Wikipedia article about Public Sphere Writing. Analyzing the articles mentioned above has generated some interesting insight into how I think we should approach this task. My analysis has shown that an article’s structure could make or break its success. Organization, headings and subheadings truly impact an article because they serve as the article’s structural foundation. Our article’s organization will also serve as readers’ mental map of public sphere writing, and in order to provide an accurate portrayal of what public sphere writing encompasses, we need to have an accurate structural foundation.

I also think we need to think about our article a little more broadly and understand just how many connections and contexts this topic promotes. With that in mind, I think we will be able to be thorough, yet focused. While Wikipedia articles do rely on sources for all material mentioned, I think we may be relying a little too heavily on our sources right now. I think our class must realize that we need to draw from our sources to write about public sphere writing and then incorporate them into our text. We need to mold the information into a unique and comprehensive article that explains public sphere writing and its significance in the context of other forms of writing and across cultures.

Although it comes across as a tad cliché in this context, I think the most important thing we need to keep in mind when composing our article is that “[Wikipedia] stands for the idea that people of diverse backgrounds can work together on a common project with, whatever its other weaknesses, a noble aim – bringing such knowledge to the world.” (Zittrain 147)