Wikipedia Knows Standards

Knowledge is whatever is known.  Whether it is true or not, if it is presented as information, it is stored as knowledge.  Gates references a stanza of a Jowett piece: “What I know not, is not knowledge.”  Information that is not shared or interpreted remains unknown.

The internet has become one of the fastest and most accessible ways to acquire knowledge.  Question after question is typed into toolbars on various media devices, and one of the first sources to pop up is Wikipedia.   Information presented on Wikipedia pages may or may not always be the most accurate or truthful, but if that is the only information one is presented with, that becomes their knowledge.  Because of Wikipedia’s popularity, accessibility, and immediacy, it is important that as much factual information is published and that the inaccuracy is kept to a minimum.

Wikipedia accepts information from non-staff members, making the site itself a public platform to share and access knowledge.  Though Wikipedia urges submitters to publish factual truths and knowledge, it goes without saying that not all people tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  For this reason, Wikipedia’s administration and editors have access to every page and are able to edit or change any published submissions.  Wikipedia is often not considered a reliable source for research and knowledge; however, many of us use it as a “jumping off point.”  For example, if there is a term, person, or event I am unfamiliar with, I may use Wikipedia to get a general and shallow understanding in order to familiarize myself.  After gaining a certain level of familiarity, I look to more specialized sources written by experts of the subject.

In Zittrain’s article, Wikipedia etiquette is discussed as standards and rules, holding separate meanings, are explained.  “Standards allow people to tailor their actions to a particular situation" (Zittrain 128) while "rules are less subject to ambiguity, and if crafted well, inform people exactly what they can do, even if individual situations render the rule impractical, or worse, dangerous " (Zittrain 128).  Breaking rules and ignoring standards both come with consequences: while rule breaking is usually followed by punishment, not meeting standards usually leads to some sort of improvement or correction.

Hood’s contrasting screenshots are examples Wikipedia’s standards.  The ‘before’ shot included foul language, misuse of words, and offensive inaccuracies.  The ‘after’ shot was taken after Wikipedia’s editors refined the language and included factual information.

Rainy Day Class Discussion

1.

Lazere defines primary certitude as a “psychological term for the mindset of people who are fixed in absolute beliefs so dogmatically, without recognizing their own bias, that they cannot bear to have their beliefs questioned or doubted” (Lazere 126).  This term is exemplified in Bouie’s Criminal Justice Racism article through the study he discusses.  In the study, the participants are given skewed statistics which support racism and prejudice.  Dunn, a character from the article, ended up shooting and killing a black man because he felt threatened and was made a “victim.”  His own thinking led to his actions.

Partisan viewpoint was also exemplified.  Similarly, it is a perspective that sides with others.  Since the participants in the aforementioned study which Bouie wrote about were given faulty statistics, their viewpoints were shifted towards the viewpoints of the people conduction the study and manipulating the participants.

2.
     I think, after reading Corbett and Eberly, that one’s success in writing or arguing in the public can only be achieved by knowing and understanding and acknowledging one’s audience.  The beginning of their chapter when they show two contrasting letters to the editor was a huge eye-opener for me as far as this unit.  They explain that the author of the first letter wrote with hope.  Rather than listing her grievances, she asked that her issue be resolved in a timely fashion.  She did not ‘tear down’ any institution or individual.  The second letter is written without hope.  The author complains and writes nasty things to his audience.  His letter ends up focusing on his own personal views rather than resolving the initial issue/complaint.

     McDonald emphasized the point that it is not about tearing an opponent’s argument down in order to prove your point’s “rightness,” but rather to understand both viewpoints and finding a way to learn from each other.  The first author in C/E’s chapter does that.  She writes to her opponent explaining her side and leaves room for their explanation.  Author number two leaves no room for learning.

 

Editing "How Liberals Behave the Way They Do"

First off, I apologize for not including the editing graphics (comment boxes, strike-throughs, etc.).  I did not catch that part of the assignment until I had already finished editing and found it counterproductive to go back just to insert them.  I also did not feel that there was an overwhelming amount of commentary needed or grammatical errors to correct using those tools.

There was, though, a lot of restructuring that I felt needed to be done.  In the original text, claims were made, but the evidence and support did not show up until four paragraphs later.  Since the piece was already set up in short paragraphs pertaining to topic, it was fairly easy to rearrange them into the proper, flowing order.  For example, I placed most of the information and research on Le Bon in the same section of the text rather than scattered throughout as it had been before.  Also, the author initially stated that Democrats ignored the mathematical facts, but those facts were not found until much later on the page.  It made more sense to me as a reader to put the facts first.

The new order not only made sense, but strengthened the arguments and claims made by the author.  By providing support right away, the claims were not just left floating and waiting for further explanation.

A few commas were moved around, but other than that, the punctuation did not require too much attention.  I changed “effected” to “affected” because it was supposed to act as a verb in the context of the piece.

I found it difficult to edit this piece without seeing it in its original form.  I searched using the provided link, but the site said the page could not be found.  Personally I do not keep up with politics, so I did not know whether some words were specific movements or acts that needed capitalization (proper nouns) and other politics-specific details.

-erp