Summarizing and Contextualizing:

“When the Tenets of Composition Go Public: A Study of Writing in Wikipedia” — James P. Purdy

A question I consider commonly pondered, why can’t we site Wikipedia as a legitimate source? Most teachers respond with “because anyone can write those articles and edit them”. Does that make the information wrong? James P. Purdy breaks down what drives Wikipedia in his article “When the Tenets of Composition Go Public: A Study of Writing in Wikipedia”.

The “Info”

Articles are created solely by one author, as he/she gathers the information to display it to the public. The editors act as a great big collaboration, quickly attacking the articles by adding new information, changing old information, or just slightly altering what is already given. Purdy provides an example from Derek Ross, involving the board game Monopoly. The board game was created and through minute alterations and fixes, the result was a new name and basically the same game. Ross compares this to a Wikipedia article where the information is mostly the same, but with hundreds of alterations and fixes in aim to better the article. Something I learned from Purdy is that Wikipedia offers a History button where all changes are chronologically listed. The reader has the choice of viewing not only the change made, but why. There is also such thing as a discussion where editors are encouraged to explain why they made the change. This allows us to deeply understand the information in front of us. But if the website is forever changing then how can we site the article? Again, the History. This allows you to view all versions of the article, even the original. Other websites which also are continuously revised don’t usually have this capability. Another aspect of Wikipedia that strengthens the information is the multiple links provided throughout the articles. These hyperlinks connect different articles together reassuring information and highlighting explanations. Through a study that Purdy conducted we find that the most common edits on Wikipedia articles aren't just grammatical errors, but the addition of new information and also hyperlinks.

The Arguments

The problem that most people have with the editors/creators is no one knows if they have any expertise in the specific subject. With Wikipedia being completely open, there are hundreds and thousands of people modifying the information being added. Marshall Poe brought this to recognition in his article “The Hive”. There are thousands of eyeballs watching what goes on the site, all with the capability of editing and weeding out misinformation. My personal argument against this would be I could most definitely write a legitimate article about a subject just based off of my experiences and interests. There will always be people who know more and this is where the editing and altering of my article would take place. Purdy provides an example involving vandalism. Total deletions of articles occur at a median time of under three minutes. This is evidence to the fact that there are constantly people creating/recreating articles and also revising. A giant network of changes within Wikipedia. With so many people providing volunteer work the information can be considered accurate because so quickly misinformation and vandalism are fixed. There are hundreds of eyeballs all watching what goes on the site all preventing wrong information and vandalism. Having correct information is vital and the constant editing acts as a negotiation. Purdy states

“We… expect that doctors about to do surgery are using the best treatment and following dosage instructions as written. But we do hope that they have previously considered multiple options — and that medical professionals are continuing to consider multiple positions so that new treatments can be devised and old ones improved”. (Purdy, 6)

This helped me to consider the fact that the most accurate information is used, but through editing new ideas and views are expressed. Wikipedia weeds out the information that doesn't apply correctly, but considers all thoughts.

It is through the fact that Wikipedia is a giant network of people all collaborating by constantly editing, creating and revising articles that I feel the information that is expressed is accurate. Vandalism and misinformation is quickly weeded out as new information is considered. Wikipedia allows to access the history of each article along with the discussion of the changes. Wikipedia is a legitimate source.