Reflective Analytical Essay
Elizabeth Biondo
In order to be a successful Wikipedian editor, there must be an acceptance of duality. One must be passionate and invested in the work, while at the same time completely willing to let it go. One must be creative and inventive, while adhering to a structure. And finally, one must be courageous and bold in their editing, while perfectly willing to accept criticism and defeat. Perhaps the most important trait to have in the process of editing Wikipedia is the trait that encompasses them all; one must be dynamic. (I need to add more the Intro, this is just my thesis)
My experience shows that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to write a good Wikipedia article without some level of passion for the subject or, as I have discovered, a passion about Wikipedia itself. Initially I chose to be a part of the group that edited the “Pink Moon” Wikipedia page because I was a casual fan of Nick Drake, and I knew he had an interesting life story. I hoped it would hold my interest through a long and involved group project. What I hadn’t bargained on is the delight and obsession with which I found myself immersed in the project. I became incredibly interested in “Pink Moon” and Nick Drake, reading hundreds of pages of research, and simultaneously I was educating myself about Wikipedia; its editing and review processes, its various Wikiprojects, and its history. It wasn’t until I was done with the class requirements on “Pink Moon” that I realized I had not only become passionate about “Pink Moon” but passionate about Wikipedia in general. I found myself looking over all sorts of pages (even on subjects I might never have previously been interested in) that needed editing, I joined three Wikiprojects, I created a user page for myself, and I now have a comprehensive folder on my taskbar with bookmarks to all the Wikipedia “how-to’s” I might need as I move forward with editing Wikipedia as a hobby. Wow:) One might ask “Why?” or “How do you find time?” as a full time student and overtime mom? Because, as Clay Shirkey notes in his book, Cognitive Surplus: How Technology Makes Consumers into Collaborators, “We have always found the time to do things that interest us, specifically because they interest us” (p 20). I feel inspired by Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia created for the people, by the people. I know how much time and research I did to edit “Pink Moon” and it was just a drop in the bucket compared to so many other contributors who have contributed their time and expertise with the sole intent of sharing knowledge with others. Shirkey puts it in terms that are mind-bending when he says that Wikipedia, including its edits, discussion pages, and alternative language versions, “represent[s] something like one hundred million hours of human thought” (p 10). I felt inspired when reading those words, knowing that I had contributed some of my own hours. On the other side of the coin, Shirkey compares that number with the “roughly two hundred billion hours of TV” people in only the United States watch every year (p 10). I choose not to be discouraged by this as I know that I, personally, have turned off the TV more often than not of late, and instead listened to classical music while perusing Wikipedia for my next gig.
According to the Buddha, “You only lose what you cling to” and this statement perfectly illustrates why when making an edit to Wikipedia, you must be willing to let go of attachment to it immediately. Tell that to my group who made the edits to the “Pink Moon” Wikipedia page, and then waited with baited breath to see what would happen! I thought, “Those edits are my words!” and “Those edits were the best way to explain the background and recording of ‘Pink Moon’!” Or, were they? According to Wikipedia, there have been nearly seven hundred million page edits, with an average of 21.13 edits per page. At this rate, you can guarantee that your edits will be changed, corrected, updated or even removed. Initially I thought this would bother me after adding over a thousand words to the “Pink Moon” article, but I quickly realized that it wouldn’t bother me at all. I would love for the “Pink Moon” article to eventually become a Featured Article, and I know that would require editing and improving what I have already written. At this point I would welcome some insight and edits from other Wikipedians, as it seems like the only people that care about progressing the status of the “Pink Moon” article are my group members and myself. I think the collaborative editing process is a valid one. If each of my class members could look at an essay I was writing and make changes and updates as they see fit, I think the final product would be considerably better than the original. Along these lines, it’s clear that in order for a Wikipedia article to be the best it can be, continuing edits are inevitable. An editor’s role in the world of Wikipedia is to add another step on the stairway to the next level of knowledge sharing, knowing that it’s only a piece of the whole. Although I felt pride in the edits I made to “Pink Moon”, I am not attached to them. In fact, I would be thrilled and delighted to see some interest in moving the page to the next level, but I am not even attached to that outcome. I have moved on to my next project, and although I occasionally check in with the Pink Moon page, I have realized, as so many other Wikipedia editors must have, the words and information you put forth in Wikipedia belong not to just you, but to everyone.
In order for the edits one makes to Wikipedia to be lasting, it’s vital to find a way to be creative and bold while sticking to a structure. This isn’t as easy as it sounds. Although Wikipedia makes it clear their suggestions are “intended only as a guide”, in reality the vast majority of featured articles follow a similar structure. Finding ways to be “engaging, even brilliant”, as the Featured Article criteria suggest, can be a challenge especially when one must maintain a completely neutral point of view. When articles are reviewed, they are checked for “…accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style”. It’s a little like a cooking competition I've seen on television where the contestants are expected to make the best dish of their lives with four surprise random ingredients. Sometimes there is a brilliant result, appealing to everyone’s taste buds, and sometimes it’s just a mess only your mother would eat. Take, for example, the following words from the Wikipedia featured article on Bob Dylan:
Much of his [Dylan’s] most celebrated work dates from the 1960s, when he was an informal chronicler and a seemingly reluctant figurehead of social unrest...Dylan's six-minute single "Like a Rolling Stone" radically altered the parameters of popular music in 1965. His recordings employing electric instruments attracted denunciation and criticism from others in the folk movement.
Clearly the prose here is well formed and engaging, especially in comparison to the following excerpt taken from the C-class Wikipedia page on a Lynyrd Skynrd album, (Pronounced 'lĕh-'nérd 'skin-'nérd):
Bassist Leon Wilkeson left the band during the album's early recording sessions only playing on two tracks….guitarist Ed King was asked to fill in for Wilkeson on bass during the remaining sessions, as Wilkeson already wrote many of the bass parts. This left Skynyrd with only six official members at the time of the album's release. Not long after, King remained with the band, and was made a member…
There is a marked difference in the level of skill and clarity in these examples, and one begins to see what types of edits and prose must come about to successfully bring a Wikipedia page into “Featured Article” status. Certainly the power of collaboration is at play here with the Dylan article having some 13,625 revisions, and the Lynyrd Skynrd article sitting at 305. Considering the “Pink Moon” page has had, itself, only 308 revisions, I think it’s imperative to accept that my words and those of my group members will be adapted, criticized, and picked apart on the road to Featured Article status. While I may be tickled with my turn of phrase and killer quotes, another editor might (will!) see something I don’t. I’ve discovered there’s no use being bold and courageous in my edits, if I can’t accept there will be bolder and more courageous edits than mine.
Conclusion Paragraph 1: Summarize TBD
Conclusion Paragraph 2: Thesis: Most importantly, one must be able to "roll with the puches", maintain and open mind, and accept what happens (or at times what doesn't happen). One must be; multifaceted, malleable, dynamic.
Questions for my peers:
1. Are my pararaphs too big? Initially I was going to have more body paragraphs than just three but the claims I made seem to fit best in three paragraphs..please weigh in with some ideas of how I might split them up!
2. So far, I only have one source (outside of several wikipedia sources). Do I need to find another one, or more, to round this out?
3. Please tell me what is not working. Were you bored? Am I fragmented? Tell me how it is...I promise I won't be offended!
Comments (17)
Liz Biondo said
at 12:55 am on Dec 3, 2013
Hey folks in my peer group, sorry for the late and incomplete posting. Today I had the lovely experience of my first computer virus...I am not tech savvy in the least so suffice it to say, there was a bit of panicking going on over here. I will add the rest of the rough draft tomorrow, Tuesday the 3rd. Of course, please feel free to proceed with peer review as is and I look forward to taking a look at each of yours.
Cheers!
Liz
Alycia Foss said
at 7:32 pm on Dec 3, 2013
Of course I would read your rough draft Liz, you should read mine. I love your start...it was so fun to read. I make a shocking admission in mine...I tried...but I don't really care for Nick Drake. I respect him...yea...but not a big fan of anything but the song Pink Moon. The whole thing really became a Wikipedia process.
Alycia Foss said
at 7:41 pm on Dec 3, 2013
By the way Liz. I was at dinner the other night with a friend who actually bought a VW cabriolet because of this commercial. Did you know that the VW dealership gave out a VW promotional music cd with the sale of the car...and that the cd had Pink Moon among others on it!!! She had the CD...she scanned it to me...I have it! I have to figure out copyright, but damn...WHAT A FIND! Think we should add it? Any suspicion we won't continue this? My husband is now translating Valerii Yakovlevich Bryusov from the Russian Wikipedia FA to the English crappy version. He wants to get the translating barnstar. Funny!!!
Liz Biondo said
at 8:16 pm on Dec 3, 2013
Alycia, I have already read yours as well, I was intimidated by how good it was! I am really struggling writing this one for some reason. I think it's because I have so much to say. hehehe.
Alycia Foss said
at 8:33 pm on Dec 3, 2013
Liz, your prose is fantastic, look at the work you did on Pink Moon. Simply brilliant. Don't get caught up in this essay...write like you did there. Your writing on Pink Moon was very intimidating to me. It was superb!...if we get a FA it will because your prose was brilliant...and we will get an FA goddammit. : ) I haven't exactly 'let go.'
Michael Kuhne said
at 11:27 am on Dec 4, 2013
Liz and Alycia, you two are great!:) You established a wonderful, supportive collaboration.
Liz Biondo said
at 4:55 pm on Dec 4, 2013
Thanks Alycia, you ARE so supportive and I appreciate it...and thanks, Michael. Alycia and I got really lucky teaming up together! :-)
Tamara said
at 8:28 pm on Dec 4, 2013
For each draft, respond to the writer's questions in a posting as appropriate.
1. Are my paragraphs too big?
I don’t think that the paragraphs are too big. They are long and detailed, but they only cover one claim per paragraph, so I wouldn’t change it if I were you.
2. So far, I only have one source (outside of several wikipedia sources). Do I need to find another one, or more, to round this out?
You quoted from a book, but you also quoted Buddha, so that’s two sources outside of Wikipedia. I think that’s plenty since the essay is mostly focused on Wikipedia anyway.
3. Please tell me what is not working. Were you bored? Am I fragmented? Tell me how it is...I promise I won't be offended!
I really liked your essay, but I did get bored with the long quotes comparing the prose in the two different articles. I wonder if you could find a shorter way to compare them? Maybe just using a sentence from each?
Tamara said
at 8:29 pm on Dec 4, 2013
1.1 What do you like most about the draft and why (at least 50 words)?
1.1 I loved your lead/thesis about duality and being dynamic! I finished reading and thought, “Damn! Why didn’t I think of that?”
1.2 What confuses you or concerns you and why? How could the writer address this problem (at least 50 words)?
I’m slightly confused by the Buddha quote. Was this the claim for the paragraph or evidence of the claim? If you switched it around a little bit it could work as evidence. If you started out with the claim about the Pink Moon group waiting to see if their edits survived, I think the quote could be used to support it.
Tamara said
at 8:30 pm on Dec 4, 2013
2.1 Mark the sentence that you think is the thesis.
Not really much for me to guess at here. You labeled it and said that the first paragraph was your thesis.
Is it nuanced and does it avoid over-simplification?
As I stated before, I loved your thesis. I look forward to seeing what you add to the rest of the lead.
Are you able to predict the organization of the essay?
The thesis suggests that the essay will focus on the duality that is needed to be a successful Wikipedia editor. I would guess that it would follow that you will address each side of the qualities that you suggest are needed and that you’ll show why each quality is necessary.
Is it arguable and focused? It’s focused, but I’m not really sure that it’s arguable. I don’t know that you could make a case against the concept of duality. Can I really argue that you have to be courageous and bold, but NOT willing to face criticism and defeat? I like it, but am not really sure it’s arguable.
Make specific suggestions for improving the thesis to match the essay (50 words)
I have the same concerns for your essay that I have for mine. Your essay is over 1500 words long and you haven’t even expanded on the lead or written the two conclusion paragraphs yet. I think you need to shorten it somewhat, but I’m not really sure where. I’ve done some abstract writing in classes and they usually tell us to remove 10% of the words with each revision, so maybe that’s a way to start?
Tamara said
at 8:31 pm on Dec 4, 2013
2.2 Choose one body paragraph that attempts to use the analytical paragraph structure outlined in the Analytical Paragraph Structure presentation.
Claim - In order for the edits one makes to Wikipedia to be lasting, it’s vital to find a way to be creative and bold while sticking to a structure.
Evidence- There’s a lot of evidence given including the two long quotes that compare the prose of the two articles. Most of the paragraph seems to be evidence.
Explanation – “There is a marked difference in the level of writing skill, and one begins to see what types of edits and prose must be created to successfully bring a Wikipedia article into “Featured article” status. Certainly collaboration is at play here with the Dylan article having some 13,625 revisions, and the Lynyrd Skynrd article sitting at 305.”
Conclusion- “Through my experience, I see it takes a few key things to be successful at editing Wikipedia; passion, non-attachment, creativity, a willingness to play by the rules, and perhaps most importantly, it takes a willingness to work with others.”
Like I already said, I think it needs to be shortened up a little. I would try to remove some of the evidence to make it stay more focused on the claim in the paragraph about being creative and bold, but structured. While all your evidence is good evidence, I don’t know that you should try to use it all to support one claim.
Diana Dacera-Ross said
at 12:10 pm on Dec 5, 2013
THREE QUESTIONS
1. I think your paragraphs are big because you emphasized and elaborated on your claim which isn't a bad thing. If there's a way you can shorten sentences to break up the break up the paragraph it would be ideal but I think keeping it as is wouldn't terrible either.
2. Adding one or two more sources to support your claim would be ideal. I think you can add a citation on the average number of page edits you mentioned. As a reader I'd be interested to see where you got that fact. You could also cite the criteria for the featured article on the fourth paragraph where you have mentioned it.
3. I like the first two paragraphs you have. I enjoyed reading about your experience and it seems like you had a great time editing the article you picked. I was a bit lost on the third paragraph though. I just felt like a bit cluttered and all over the place. The paragraph after that is more structured and your conclusion is also good although it can be expanded some more.
Diana Dacera-Ross said
at 12:46 pm on Dec 5, 2013
1.1 What I like the most about your essay is that it's a very emotional reflection of your Wikipedia editing experience. You wrote about how passionate you are about the subject and that it reached a certain level in your emotions. As the reader, I have got the idea that the experience of editing is more than just a class requirement, you did it because you enjoyed your topic and you became hooked because you have true passion for doing a good job, writing well, and contributing something worthy on a topic that's important to you. I think you did a great job on expressing that.
1.2 I think I was a little confused about the third paragraph but I think it has a lot to do with my own approach or experience with Wikipedia editing. Talking about the emotional attachments to the edits is personally a little difficult for me to grasp and so it seemed a bit cluttered and disorganized. After reading it a few times I think I somehow got idea. One thing about writing about personal experiences and emotions is that it makes it challenging to provide supporting evidence. I think you can still work something around it so the paper is not only a reflection of your experience but is also compelling and convincing to the readers.
2.2 Your thesis is the first paragraph. You do need some introduction as you have noted. It's a bit awkward going straight to the thesis statement but I think it's a good thesis . It's nuanced, arguable and focused. It did give me a bit of perspective of what to come on the following paragraphs. I think with the addition of a good intro and interesting hook, you could have a great lead paragraph with well written thesis. I look forward to reading the final one.
Diana Dacera-Ross said
at 1:01 pm on Dec 5, 2013
2.2 On the second paragraph, your CLAIM is - My experience shows that it would be difficult, if not impossible to write a good Wikipedia article without some level of passion for the subject or, as I have discovered, a passion about Wikipedia itself. This is a good claim, it's debatable and you followed it with good supporting claims.
Since this the paper is a reflection of the experience with Wikipedia editing, your EVIDENCE for this claim is more of a personal experience which I think is this part of that paragraph - I became incredibly interested in “Pink Moon” and Nick Drake, reading hundreds of pages of research, and simultaneously I was educating myself about Wikipedia editing and review processes, it’s various Wikiprojects, and it’s history. It wasn’t until I was done with the class requirements on “Pink Moon” that I realized I had not only become passionate about “Pink Moon”, no need for a comma but passionate about Wikipedia in general. I found myself looking over all sorts of pages (even on subjects I might never have previously been interested in) that needed editing, I joined three Wikiprojects, I created a user page for myself, and I now have a comprehensive folder on my taskbar with bookmarks to all the Wikipedia “how-to’s” I might need as I move forward with editing Wikipedia as a hobby.
I think you did well on expressing your emotions to provide an evidence for the claim so good job on that. It's also good that you backed it up with a cited work from Clay Shirkey too so it's not just your experience
Diana Dacera-Ross said
at 1:11 pm on Dec 5, 2013
CONT- 2.2
You followed it with an EXPLANATION - I feel inspired by Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia created for the people, by the people. I know how much time and research I did to edit “Pink Moon” and it was just a drop in the bucket compared to so many other contributors who have contributed their time and expertise with the sole intent of sharing knowledge with others.
This wraps up your claim and your evidence. I actually really like how you explained it in one sentence.
This is your CLOSING sentence - On the other side of the coin, Shirkey compares that number with the “roughly two hundred billion hours of TV” people in only the United States watch every year (p 10). I choose not to be discouraged by this as I know that I, personally, have turned off the TV more often than not of late, and instead listened to classical music while perusing Wikipedia for my next gig.
It doesn't necessarily sum up the ideas on the entire paragraph but you were able to maintain a good flow of the ideas towards the end. That being said, I think the closing sentence is still a gave a good end to the paragraph although you can still improve it in a way that it will summarize your claims and main ideas in the paragraph and at the same time allow for a good transition to the next paragraph. I think your third paragraph could use good transition as I have previously mentioned, the ideas on the third paragraph is a bit more confusing than the second.
I think you did a good job overall. You definitely have a great start. It's great to read about your journey to Wikipedia and how passionate you are with the project. Keep it up! I sure do have a lot of respect for editors in Wikiepedia.
Keisha said
at 9:02 pm on Dec 5, 2013
1. Are my pararaphs too big? Initially I was going to have more body paragraphs than just three but the claims I made seem to fit best in three paragraphs..please weigh in with some ideas of how I might split them up!
I think that from what I saw the second and third paragraph are long I would probably break that up one being so it is a little easier to read and secondly so the essay doesn't look like the other paragraphs are missing information.
2. So far, I only have one source (outside of several wikipedia sources). Do I need to find another one, or more, to round this out?
I think that to make your research a little more interesting when you get other resources.
3. Please tell me what is not working. Were you bored? Am I fragmented? Tell me how it is...I promise I won't be offended!
I think I got a little lost in the fourth paragraph
Keisha said
at 9:12 pm on Dec 5, 2013
1.1 I like the fact that you really expressed your personal experiences with working with Wikipedia. That fact that you were very honest about your feelings about how you thought working with Wikipedia would be a challenge for you and how you overcame this challenge by not giving up and giving in.
1.2 My concern is that your 1st and 2nd paragraphs are great but, confusion begins to set in at the third and continues into the rest of essay. The other concern is I think it appears you were running out of information to make the essay the amount of words you needed.
You don't have permission to comment on this page.