Walter Madsen

Michael Kuhne

ENGL1111

October 19, 2013

Wikipedia as a tool

Wikipedia is a tool for the mind, as knives and hammers are tools for the hand.   What does Wikipedia have in common with a knife, no need for a comma or a hammer?  In the hands of a surgeon, a knife can be an instrument of healing, but an amateur cook can injure himself every day in the kitchen.  A professional carpenter can craft sturdy and beautiful furniture; a garage enthusiast frequently crafts nothing more than bruised thumbs, swear words, and boring birdhouses.   In like manner, Wikipedia works best when used with knowledge, skill, and restraint.  And as with any tool, I find that practice makes perfect, what you get out of it is what you put into it, and one must take responsibility for one’s work.

Clean and clear introduction (very effective).

I've stated that Wikipedia works best with knowledge, skill, and restraint.  Knowledge of Wikipedia is the first essential element.  Virtually everyone on the internet knows how to use Wikipedia; as noted by Clay Shirkey, "Wikipedia is the most widely used reference work in the world."  However simple access does not connote mastery.  An unknown number of Wikipedia users have no idea that the Talk or View History pages exist.  These pages provide a wealth of information.  My own favorite is the Talk page.  The interplay of intellects, discourse both civil and direct, and display of claim and counterclaim sometimes adds more depth to any given article than the article itself.  The View History page can be nearly as elucidating.  The ability to go back and view previous versions of an article can give remarkable insight not only on the subject of the article but on the opinions of the Wikipedians, the ideas and misconceptions surrounding the subject, and on the editing process itself.  I've occasionally become fascinated just by going through and reading the various versions of an individual article and seeing how more experienced editors have improved the work.  This would be more effective if you could briefly explain one of the more interesting exchanges that you witnessed on an article's Talk page These examples, excellent and otherwise, may prove an interesting addition to this course; it is quite possible that having students do an analysis of the edits of any given page may point out useful techniques and possible pitfalls to future students.  Great idea!  This is where the restraint comes into play.  It is sometimes difficult to keep from reaching out to change things that strike us as incorrect because as Wikipedians we have an instinct to improve the work. Example?  It's better to take a breath and see what others have done, to try to understand why things were done the way they were, said the way they were said.  Taking time to research our changes before we put them into effect will sometimes lead us to realize that our improvements are not necessarily better.

Let us address "practice makes perfect."   Simply put, the more often one uses a skill the better one becomes with that skill, so long as the user receives timely and meaningful feedback.  As Robert E. Cummings wrote:

                Teaching writing with Wikipedia has several advantages which serve to complement the traditional college essay. When teaching writing with Wikipedia, the audience is real and, often, writes back immediately.

                One of the foremost problems in teaching writing in the college classroom is helping students gain a more profound concept of audience. Trained for years to write answers to short questions in text books, while writing fewer and fewer essays in high school, students often come to college first-year composition without much appreciation for the fact that real humans read their writing. Wikipedia changes this writing environment, and students are often shocked when Wikipedians respond to their contributions with a critical eye. Sometimes those responses are polite, and sometimes, not, but they are mostly accurate and engaging. (Cummings)

Here Professor Cummings tells us how having his students become Wikipedians has them practice their writing skills with the advantage of nearly immediate feedback from enthusiasts in their subjects.  By giving his students multiple assignments to create and edit Wikipedia content, Professor Cummings gives his students multiple opportunities to improve their writing.  In addition, as Wikipedians outside of the class pick up some of the professor's work load that is very true, he is freed to guide their learning experience with more than rote corrections of spelling, grammar,and punctuation.   This allows Professor Cummings to give his students more immediate attention in matters of style and substance.  An improvement in student writing is almost guaranteed.  For evidence of this improvement, we need look no further than the grading rubrics of our own class.   Since Professors Kuhne and Creel use a similar method of teaching an  analysis of our own student grades should serve as an example of the efficacy of this process.  An examination of student grades from the beginning of the class progressing to the present shows a clear progression of improvement.  Given the assumption that grades are an indicator of writing ability, this progression of improvement would lead one to conclude that practice indeed makes perfect.I understand this reasoning, Walter.  However, I am more interested in your perceptions.  Do you think that your writing ability has improved?  You came into this course with considerable skills already.  What about working in Wikipedia has improved those skills?

Second, let's look at "what you get out is what you put in."  As we have all learned in this class, contributing to Wikipedia forces one to research accurately, write clearly, and accept criticism with grace, all of which makes for a better contributor.  This is borne out by our own class experiences using Wikipedia.  If we examine the page I first edited, the Wikipedia entry on Coffee, I added "Other uses:   While coffee is most well known as a beverage, it is also used as an ingredient in cooking. Recipes with coffee as a main or essential ingredient include Pumpernickel, Red-eye gravy, and Tiramisu, among others" (Wikipedia: Coffee).  Even with but one semester's experience this already feels awkward and perfunctory.  While the entry is complete in and of itself, it does not provide any nuance.  Research was almost entirely lacking; I already knew this information from my own experiences cooking add a comma between independent clauses so I had merely to look up recipes I already knew to support my entry.  There is no reason given for what coffee adds to the recipes, what drawbacks there are in using coffee for an ingredient, variations in how coffee is used, or any other details.  The best part about my entry was the feedback given by the Wikipedians, who agreed with my work and added further detail.  Dwell here longer.  Write in more detail about what happened after you made the edit.  Let the reader know the specifics of that agreement and how other Wikipedians added detail.  My work was, in short, a beginner's effort. 

In contrast, my group's contribution to the Wikipedia page on Fonseca includes multiple corrections for grammar and spelling, additions of non-copy-written graphics, and a well written 350 word addition (if we do say so ourselves) you may:).   The modifications made by our group are both broad and deep.  They cover a variety of topics, clarifying information about the singer's musical work, personal life, and social activism on the part of his country.  The reorganization our group performed on the article clarified a confusing passage and, through placing like material together on the page, makes it less likely that a reader looking for specific information will miss an important detail.  Reading the article from before our edits and contrasting with the current version we can see a clear improvement of the article; the reader has an easier time understanding the information and comes away with greatly improved knowledge about the artist in question.  The research is far more complete and the resources section at the bottom of the page now include a number of further resources that a user can access for even further depth.  Despite over 2,000 page views our edits have survived the scrutiny of not only bots but enthusiasts of the artist and a Wikipedia editor(source? the article's revision history).  I believe this would not be the case if the edits were not accurate and clear.  We can conclude that our writing group has become better writers, and in the process improved Wikipedia - we got out what we put in.  This is already an effective paragraph.  It could be more effective if you were to take but one of these improvements and provide the reader with more detail. 

We are responsible for what we take away from Wikipedia, and for what we leave behind.   As Wikipedia users, we need to read articles with the awareness that the contributors do not speak with the authority of a voice on high; all have feet of clay, all can make mistakes.   We all have other resources available to us than just one website; in fact, a list of other resources is at the bottom of every Wikipedia page.  If we only reference this one source we are falling into the trap Scott Jaschik warns us of:

The department made what Wyatt termed a consensus decision on the issue after discussing problems professors were seeing as students cited incorrect information from Wikipedia in papers and on tests. In one instance, Wyatt said, a professor noticed several students offering the same incorrect information, from Wikipedia (Jaschik).

Mr. Jaschik, referencing the work of Middlebury College, highlights the problem with using only one source.  Students who do not cross check their references can find themselves receiving poor grades, and they have only themselves to blame.  The imperative statement is that while Wikipedia may draw from many sources, it is itself only a single source and must be subject to scrutiny and verification. 

As Wikipedia contributors, we must be equally aware of our own flaws.  This is the reason for the strict guidelines for citations and sources as well as peer reviews taken to the highest level; these resources help rein in enthusiasm and shift perception to fact.  Only a Wikipedia vandal would want to purposely poison the well from which so many drink, but any of us can do so unintentionally.  Responsible and thoughtful checking of our facts and documenting our sources, as well as lending our time to checking and commenting on the work of others, can minimize the risk we run to others as well as ourselves.

Two paragraph conclusion (.mp3) Wikipedia can be a powerful tool for our minds.  Unlike a knife or a hammer, Wikipedia is a community tool and as such has a far greater reach for help or harm than the length of our arms.  If we are responsible members of the Wikipedia community we can help to spread information and new ideas across the world.  Irresponsible or careless use of this tool could cause widespread misinformation and confusion.  I hope that we all have learned through this course to not only be better writers and researchers, but to use Wikipedia with knowledge of what it can offer, skill in understanding the site’s limitations, and restraint in making our own contributions to the global experiment.

Works Cited

English 1111 Class.  Grades.  "ENGL 1111: College English II."  D2L.  Minneapolis Community and Technical College, Fall 2013.  Web.  12/1/13.

Clay Shirkey.  "Wikipedia - An Unplanned Miracle."  The Guardian.  14 Jan 2011.  Web.  1 Dec 2013end mark

"Coffee." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 30 Nov 2013. Web. 30 Nov 2013.

Robert E. Cummings.  "Are We Ready To Use Wikipedia To Teach Writing."  Inside Higher Ed.  12 Mar 2009.  Web. make consistent with other entries 12/1/2013end mark

Scott Jaschik.  "A Stand Against Wikipedia."  Inside Higher Ed.  26 Jan 2007.  Web. make consistent with other entries 12/1/2013end mark

---------------Questions-------------------

1.  This is a VERY rough draft for me - far rougher than my wont.  I would be eager to hear any suggestions on my phrasing in my sentences; some feel very clumsy.

2.  Is my thesis statement easy to find?  Do my arguments supporting my thesis statement well in the ensuing paragraphs?

3.  I'm uncomfortable with my closing paragraph.   Should I draw more from the above paragraphs, referencing back to them to add depth and linkage to the summation?