Authoring for Wikipedia: a retrospective

Indeed, I did make use of the five steps of writing. Even if I was not consciously working under them, my process can clearly be broken down, examined, and explained by them.

Planning is the first step of any writing, whether done consciously or otherwise. I can’t honestly say I planned a whole lot out before writing. With the Slim Phatty synthesizer, I knew that I wanted to utilize such things as an info box detailing the specs and properties of the device. I also wanted to spend some time comparing and contrasting it with the synth it is based off of: the Little Phatty. With this in mind, I just kind of took of with it I guess; plugging in information wherever I deemed appropriate.

A conventional draft also did not exist. Instead, I had a roughly hashed out version of my page. From there, I simply kept running through and bulking sections out with each pass. Revising also makes an appearance here, as this essentially occurred as I was improving upon each earlier incarnation.

Alignment is something that also did not really exist. Alignment only occurred in the sense of trying to avoid it. By remaining conscious of maintaining a neutral and unbiased tone, I was consciously trying to avoid aligning myself either for or against the subject of my article.

In the context of the authoring a Wikipedia article, I would say that monitoring would be defined as the constant self-critiquing and editing that occurred throughout the assignment. Not only fine-tuning at the micro level, but changing the whole organization of the page, the flow and direction of each paragraph, and even where to put pictures and topic headlines.

Wikipedia Article(s)

Here are my articles for the Slim Phatty and Misa Kitara respectively. In the event one or both are deleted, my user page is at the bottom (and contains both).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slim_Phatty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misa_Kitara


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zc338609

Intertextuality and Autobiography

Donald Murray proclaimed that all writing is autobiographical: coming from our own past and experiences. James Porter in turn that all writing is “Intertextual”. In other words, he claims that all writing consists of bits and pieces borrowed from culturally known texts and writings.

This is a challenge to Murray’s ideas because Porter is almost asserting that writing is, on the surface, not entirely original. But while Porter does make the case that writing is in many ways unoriginal, he does assert that it is in original in the sense of the meaning derived from reading it.

Porter references some lines from the Declaration of Independence as an example that one may utilize previously published phrases and wording. By reordering them one may compose a discourse that allows for a totally different interpretation and meaning to be derived.

Murray felt writing came from each individual writer. Porter feels that writing comes from the “cultural and rhetorical milieu”, or the culture that surrounds the writer.

Murray and Autobiography

Murray asks us to consider the idea of writing as autobiography. He argues that all writing is personal to the writer. His general point is that as a writer we utilize and reflect on personal experience and memories in all of our writing. Murray references a great quote from Herman Melville: “It is not down on any map: true places never are.”

            Most would say Wikipedia, or any encyclopedia for that matter, should be devoid of autobiography. It should be a place of pure facts and no personal experience, as personal experience tends to lack in neutrality. If I were to apply this to our upcoming work with Wikipedia, I would say to be mindful of personal bias and experience sneaking into our work. Murray’s entire piece is centered around how these facts and experiences end up in our writings whether we intend to include them or not.

The Rhetorical Situation and its Constituents

Keith Grant-Davie gives direct and detailed explanations for the terms rhetorical situation and its constituents. He describes a rhetorical situation simply as “the content in which speakers or writers create rhetorical discourse.” The book also defines it as communication (discourse) that attempts to motivate others to do or change something, where the attempt at persuasion is the rhetoric and the context of it is the situation.

The constituents are separated into three groups based on their function in the aforementioned rhetorical situation. First there is the exigence, which Grant-Davie defines as “A need or problem that can be addressed through rhetorical discourse.”  There are rhetors: the people who create and produce the discourse. The “writers” as it were. Then we have the audience. Obviously, these are the people engaging in and influenced by the discourse. Grant-Davie dubs them the “mediators of change.” Finally, we have what he calls the “constraints”. These are the people or things involved in the situation that may impede attempts to “solve” the exigence. The book used an example of a chilly friend attempting to subtlety ask for the heat to be turned up. The subtlety was a constraint as the friend didn’t want to come off as pushy or rude, and in doing so she limited the potential effectiveness of her communication. A compound rhetorical situation is simply your run of the mill rhetorical situation that has several rhetors.

The rhetorical situation and constraint are very much the yin and yang of communication in any context. I think everyone would benefit from improving his or her knowledge of the two. Being aware of exactly what you want to say, as well as the constraints that really define your tone and “plan-of-attack” will ultimately make you a more effective writer and communicator. 

"The Phenomenology of Error"

When Mr. Williams refers to errors as "social constructs", he defines them as spellings, phrases, or errors in grammar of those who speak a language. These errors, while truly incorrect usages of the language in its rigidly “correct” sense, have been absorbed into the language as almost a form of higher slang. In this way, Williams deems them appropriate usages of the language and highlights the absurdity of decrying these “errors” when people have used some of these phrases for literally hundreds of years.

In my opinion, Wikipedia carries a negative connotation because it is seen as an embodiment of the above idea of “error as social construct.” The idea of a Wiki is that it is open to editing and revision from literally anyone. It’s the ethos argument. The potential for rampant error and vandalism is great. But the reality, as you and I now know, is that Wikipedia has come a long way in validating itself as a credible fountain of information while retaining it’s grassroots idea.

An article was posted comparing Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica as being similarly error prone. In response, I will go so far as to say one could make the argument that Wikipedia is more credible (generally speaking) as it is a reflection of the majority of speakers of a language. In the same vein, I could argue that Britannica is riddled with errors of language and grammar as it ignores large portions of modern English which, although at one time incorrect, have since been adopted and used for quite a long time.

An Introduction

Welcome! This is a blog I’m writing for my junior composition class. Matt Vetter is my teacher. He likes technology and writing.

My name is Zach Carlson. I like to play guitar, draw things, watch football, and throw Frisbees. I am in the junior studio of the Graphic Design program. My hometown is Findlay, Ohio. It is a very boring place. I hope to one-day work for a sweet, motivated, and next level design firm. Preferably in New York City or Chicago, but I’ll take what I can get.

I liked 151 when I took it freshman year. I highly enjoyed the writing we were asked to do, as well as the work I produced. That said: I feel like I could have pushed myself harder in some of the writings. We did have one particularly interesting project where we were required to post a finished essay online to a website called “This I Believe”. This website is a public domain for anyone to post essays and brief writings regarding the ideas, morals, and stories which influence how they live or act.

In regards to this class, I am quite interested in the “digital” aspects of the curriculum. Digital things are cool to me. Also, the digital literacy projects that are planned differ greatly from past assignments I have worked on, and I look forward to the prospect of opening my mind to new ideas and formats for writing. In this class I hope to continue developing my writing abilities as well as expose myself to writing in new and mediums and areas. I can’t say that I am honestly worried about too much in this class.