Night: Wikipedia Realm Revisited

            When looking into the constituents and constraints of the Wikipedia article realm, I have found that there are a variety of ways in which to adequately represent a given topic. As I have noticed in analyzing/comparing the pages of Marshal McLuhan and Michelle Citron, and two of Henry Sidgwick’s biographies (1 and 2), areas of weakness are more obvious in settings such as Wikipedia, because it becomes visually apparent where more information is needed. There is also a difference between active and passive coverage of a given topic – a distinction between those alive and dead and also those whose achievements are simply stated as opposed to exploring their motivation behind such actions. This makes Wikipedia a tough realm to work with in that the information included must be simultaneously thorough and concise while also providing a new and substantial contribution to the world’s wiki-encyclopedia. It is a daunting task to compile information on a given topic [without adding original information] that would be deemed worthy of becoming a part of the concrete coverage of a topic.

            I chose to look into the Wikipedia page (Night) book. I would argue that this article contains a slight amount of original research. It is unique in that this Wikipedia page is centered around the subject matter contained within the book. This makes the original research more opinion based than  “original” for it is simply this author’s reinterpretation of the events that happened in the book. The article reads:

 The remainder of Night describes Eliezer's desperate efforts not to be parted from his father, not even to lose sight of him; his grief and shame at witnessing his father's decline into helplessness; and as their relationship changes and the young man becomes the older man's caregiver, his resentment and guilt, because his father's existence threatens his own.

 In a way, I find such a synopsis inappropriate, because in having actually read this book, one could argue that there is more at play in this book than these things alone.

           

            When referencing Wikipedia’s Summary Style, it is evident that this article does an excellent job of expanding on all aspects of the culmination of this novel. I would even argue that it goes into too much detail at times. The page devotes two sections to the other two books in Elie Wiesel’s trilogy, which, to me, seems out of place. It would have made more sense to simply reference these texts and hyperlink to the page where these texts are discussed separately. I think it is trying to encompass a little too much when the publication of two other books, though related to Night, are talked about at length on the Night (book) Wikipedia page. As the Summary Style pages says:

A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own.

           

            In a way, this article on Elie Wiesel reminds me of Melinda Fine’s You Can’t Just Say That The Only Ones Who Can Speak Are Those Who Agree with your Position: Political Discourse in the Classroom in that the subject matter at hand makes the discussion of it slightly more loaded and difficult. It came to me while reading this article that we, as people, are so unbelievably afraid of offending any party. So, when we discuss sensitive subjects, such as the Holocaust, especially with those in close relation to the topic, we are cautious to express our true opinions for fear of seeming callous or ignorant. I can see this referenced in the Wikipedia page on Elie Wiesel’s Night in the end when discussing Oprah’s public support of the memoir:

Ruth Franklin writes that Night's "resuscitation" by Oprah Winfrey came at a difficult time for the genre of memoir, after a previous book-club author, James Frey, was found to have fabricated parts of his autobiography, A Million Little Pieces. She argues that Winfrey's endorsement of Wiesel's work was a canny move, perhaps designed to restore the book club's credibility with a book regarded as beyond criticism.

The idea of a work being beyond criticism due to its subject matter is troublesome to me and somewhat seems to reflect the author’s opinion that certain subjects should not be openly and evenly discussed because of their possible sensitivity with some audiences.

            I also find it interesting to note the shift in perspective on the concept of memoir that this Wikipedia article covers. It is interesting when also referencing Donald Lazere’s Reading and Writing for Civic Literacy. Chapter 10 states that:

Art enables us not only to perceive other people’s views of the universe but also to perceive the shifts in our own viewpoints as time passes and we change locations in space and in our relations with other people. (246)

This argument as to whether this book should be classified as a memoir or novel is a reflection of the times. I find it notable that Wikipedia openly acknowledges the ebb and flow between factual and circumstantial evidence. This classification of memoir or novel is not something that can necessarily be concretely proven as factual with either choice. Yet, acknowledging the discussion is an important distinction for the Wikipedia realm. In looking at this article, it has become clear that all information included in a Wikipedia article does not necessarily have to be essentially factual [cited] or solely focused on the title – as long as it [most importantly] adds to the context, though that may change throughout time, of the item at hand.