Wikipedia

I found this project rather frustrating. At first I was pretty excited to participate in writing an article for Wikipedia and actually having my name on something that the entire world would be able to see. I expected a well-written Wikipedia article from my classmates and I that would maybe become a source for other students.

With my contribution for our Wikipedia article I ran into the issues that other groups would discuss multimodality in the education community. My first draft that I wrote up for the Wikipedia article had to be completely changed due to the conflicting topics discussed in other groups. This was very frustrating for me because I had to wait till other groups chose what aspects of multimodal use in the education community before I could write my piece.

Once everyone put his or her contributions inside our Google workspace this is when the real work started. It reminded me of Hood’s article, Editing Out Obscenity. It was very hard to make sure that all contributions had the same cohesion throughout the entire article. This was difficult because everyone in the course has a different writing voice and to try to make every voice match one another was almost impossible. This assignment definitely showed me that it takes time and patience for writers to work together and come up with apiece collaboratively. 

Put Yourself In My Shoes

Since short assignment 6 was very similar to one of our previous short assignments I was more open to the editing process. I still wouldn’t call my self someone’s who is great with editing but after our many workshops I’m much stronger than I once was. I found this assignment pretty entertaining.

I chose to edit a page that I knew about so it would be easier for me. The article I chose to edit was TVOne (US TV network), through Wikipedia’s portal page. This article needed some editing and grammar fixtures. I made sure to pick this particular page due to the fact that I am familiar with. I took precautions to make sure and looked over all my work since this is a public page. I didn’t want to make any more mistakes on the page.

For my own edit I picked the Wikipedia page, The Golddiggers, through Wikipedia’s portal page. The article needed so editing as far as grammar, so I felt comfortable choosing it. Looking it over, I noticed that there were a few grammar issues and irrelevant. Certain parts of the article were repetitive so I decided to edit them out of the entire article as well. This reminded me of our reading by Joseph M. Williams and Gregory G. Colomb’s. “To delete words that mean little or nothing” was one of the many quotes that caught my eye while reading The Basics of Clarity and Grace.

I had to think like the original writer of the page. I chose to read the entire page to see the format and get a sense of what the writer was trying to achieve. It made me think about Deborah Brandt’s, “Ghostwriting and Shifting Values in Literacy”.

“It’s odd. Sometimes it’s difficult. You almost have to think like they think.” – Brandt

To put your self in another writer’s shoes is very hard. I found it difficult at some points in my editing process to see what the previous writer was trying to accomplish.

Wikipedia

After analyzing/comparing the pages of Marshal McLuhan and Michelle Citron and two of Henry Sidgwick’s biographies, I wondered If Wikipedia could compare to encyclopedias such as Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Comparing and contrasting the Wikipedia page and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy was interesting because they were very different. Wikipedia provided broad information while the Stanford Encyclopedia went into great detail. Wikipedia just provided links that took you to other Wikipedia pages to go into details about Sidgwick’s relationship within subtopics. Sidgwick’s article didn’t include any links while McLuhan and Citron pages included links. Images weren’t used in either of the pages and articles showing that the use of media wasn’t effective at all. The McLuhan and Citron pages were completely unrelated except that they both are Wikipedia pages. Due to this I was able to focus on comparing and contrasting the details of the different Wikipedia pages. After observing both the McLuhan and Citron page I wondered if length was important. The Citron page was much longer and provided more information compared to the McLuhan page. McLuhan page went into great detail about personal life while the Citron page didn’t but only had facts in a section about her life such as date of birth and schooling. The structure of both pages started off with their life and background and then transitions into information about their work.

I chose to look into the Wikipedia page of Emma Watson. I have been a fan of Emma Watson since the first Harry Potter movie, The Sorcerer’s Stone in 2001. Overall, I would say that this page fit’s Wikipedia’s criteria for a featured article. The style of the page followed Wikipedia guidelines such as it starts off with background information summarizing the topic (Emma Watson), inclusions of headings with subheadings if needed, and hyperlinks consistently throughout the article.  The use of media proved to be effective as well. Pictures were used throughout the article to illustrate some of Emma Watson’s work as an actress and her throughout the years. 

A Black & White World. (Extra Credit)

I attended the Department of English teach-in about whiteness and social justice this past Thursday. It wasn’t exactly what I expected. I didn’t expect for it to be an open discussion. I thought the speaker was going to come in tell us about his research on the subject and share his personal opinions – but I’m happy he didn’t. The opening YouTube video clip he showed titled “Book of Mormon” definitely set the tone of the discussion.  The statements that the speaker made about how a group of white people think that they can understand an environment that they know nothing about and understand African better than the Africans was very puzzling. These statements opened up the discussion about race and how no one truly knows how it feels to be a race if they are not. For example, I can’t tell anyone how white people feels since I’m not white. This sparked a central question during the discussion at what age did you become aware of that you weren’t white? When I was six years old I finally realized I wasn’t white. At this age color meant nothing to me. I have always attended schools with me being the only black girl in the classroom. My older cousins (2-3 years older than me) did not and would always call me ‘white’ girl as a joke. They always joked around and say comments, “Like Shay you know your not white right? Your hair will never be straight like the white girls” and more comments along those lines. So I went back to school and observed the classroom and realized I didn’t look like the students in my class and that I wasn’t white. As a young child color meant nothing to me, so realizing that my skin didn’t match my friends made me more aware of my surroundings and the color of their skin. 

What Exactly Is Too Much?

In reading Edward P.J. Corbett and Rosa A. Eberly’s, “Citizen Critic” and Donald Lazere’s, “Oversimplification” I believe that together make an interesting dialogue. In both pieces both appeal to the reader by stating examples of oversimplification, facts, claims, and fallacies. The presentation of words can make a statement more complex than it really is and both readings explain their opinion on the topic.

In reading further and also grasping the idea of a “citizen critic” I formed an idea of the social conceptions that go along with different forms of public discourse. The way that we present our words or form our arguments can determine how they are determined. It sort of reminded me of how my mom always taught me that actions are louder than words so in a sense our public discourse is our way of getting are actions heard by through writing. Corbett and Eberly writes:

           

After all, how can you assume to know what is inside the head or heart of another person… (124)

They continue to say, “ – particularly when all you have to go on are their words uttered across a room, on the phone or radio, or in a text you hold in your hands or view via computer?” (124). I completely agree with Corbett and Eberly in that they see the presentation of public discourse as a complex concept. A concept that can be seen by the way it is presented by order, tone, fallacies, facts, or claims.

I found Corbett and Eberly pinpointing several examples through subtopics during the reading such as: “Begging the Question, False Dilemma, and my favorite WYISWYG (“What You See Is What You Get”).

According to Lazere, one thinks critically to understand the complexities of others. I thought that sometimes that would just come naturally for readers while trying to understand multiple viewpoints. Once I continued reading it all just made sense because we as people all don’t think alike. Lazere writes:

Artists’ approach to life is the opposite of that of politicians. Politicians are required to provide answers, artists ask questions (245).

Everyone is different in perceiving public discourse. I like Lazere’s sub section titled: “Reading Between The Lines”. This section goes into further detail about how readers can perceive information through an example of rituals of courtship.  I found this example very relatable and was able to relate and understand what he meant that “with growing experience we learn to “read between the lines” (247).

Personally, after reading these pieces, I have discovered that I relate to both. I find the presentation of words very affective while reading a statement or anything for that matter. These specific viewpoints that were discussed furthered my knowledge of the categories that public discourse may fall in and just how complex our words can be.

Sources:

Corbett, Edward P.M., and Rosa A. Eberly. “Becoming a Citizen Critic: Where Rhetoric Meets the Road.” In The Elements of Reasoning, 2^nd Edition, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2000. 121-136.

Lazare, Donald. “Avoiding Oversimplification and Recognizing Complexity” In Reading and Writing for Civic Literacy: The Critical Citizen’s Guide to Argumentative Rhetoric. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2005. 244-256