Wikipedia...it's anything but #basic

            I found this project rather difficult to accomplish adequately. It was problematic to adjust to working with a medium that was so specific in its requirements concerning legitimacy. I worried about working so hard on this project to simply have it be rejected in the end. It troubled me that “Although some editors might continuously attempt to shape the perspective of particular entries to suit corporate, institutional, or personal needs, the conservative nature of the Wikipedia project works against such partisanship” (Hood). It seemed as if my work for this project ran the risk of being constantly threatened on Wikipedia, which shied me away from this project. Yet, upon further thinking I started to understand the above quote in a different way. Though some users may attempt to roadblock the efficiency of an article by editing it improperly, this format, at its most basic level, allows for a conversation not possible in any other setting. It is a discussion on what qualifies as fact, and the idea alone that fact is a subjective word.

            The title of Melinda Fine’s article, alone, You Can’t Just Say That The Only Ones Who Can Speak Are Those Who Agree with your Position: Political Discourse in the Classroom, reaffirms my change in thought. Her work chronicles the journey of a classroom of students from very different backgrounds and how they all approach a common topic or social issue. The conversation does not always end well – which is something I think I had to accept about Wikipedia before I could truly understand this project. It isn’t about whether or not our article is approved or not but the idea that we have chosen to participate in this global discussion on definition and fact – What is legitimate information? To set out to create a page defining a term for the globe to see takes courage enough and is something admirable within the context of our time. It seems to me that there cannot be growth without attempt, attempt not always meaning success on the first try. It is this pursuit for information that really defines this project. 

            Hood continues on to say in her web-text Editing Out Obscenity: Wikipedia and Writing Pedagogy:

The nature of the writing that takes place on Wikipedia, primarily a result of multiple contributors and value placed on achieving consensus over time, leads to the circulation of articles that, at any given moment in the writing process, “often have a choppy quality” . . . or appear “a lumpy work in progress.

In doing this project, I have come to understand and accept that forums such as Wikipedia take time.  It isn’t like writing a research paper because the stakes are so much higher for a public forum like Wikipedia. It is used globally to shape early understanding on an innumerable amount of topics. I think one of the important aspects that I had to truly grasp was the gravity of the situation that has been attached to the Wikipedia name. As a primary resource for information it is greatly taken for granted – even though it provides the building blocks for comprehension to students and people around the globe.

            I think we all, by the end, desired to be a part of this global system of sharing and learning – glitches, pranksters, and all. That being said, I have still found this project very personally challenging. I have never before been forced to write in a style in which every sentence had to be grounded in some sort of fact. There is no room for rumination or speculation on Wikipedia – or even personal thought - which is something very hard for a young writer and theorist to truly accomplish without practice. Yet, that’s the main point of what I’ve discovered in doing this project – It isn’t about the polish of the final project but about the gritty effort that’s put into the building process, because that’s where the real learning and growth happens.

Works Cited

Fine, Melinda. You Can’t Just Say That The Only Ones Who Can Speak Are Those Who Agree with your Position: Political Discourse in the Classroom. 

Hood, Carra Leah. "Revision in Thinking." Editing Out Obscenity: Wikipedia and Writing Pedagogy. N.p.. Web. 10 Apr 2013. <http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/english/cconline/wiki_hood/index.html>.