Reflection Esay

           There are many constructs involved with editing existing Wikipedia articles. After being weary of these constructs before my editing began, I was honestly a bit nervous about indulging into the “highly criticized” Wikipedia world. But after completing this assignment in which I was extremely hesitant about doing, I feel as if Wikipedia can help us understand the research writing process and the proper way to go about it.

            Although it is often criticized for its lack of credibility, it is often forgot that contributors must back up their information with credible and reliable sources. Contributers aren’t just making up material for the sake of throwing into an existing Wikipedia article. They are simply relaying the information for an easy and more efficient way of gathering information. I began to look at Wikipedia as an “Info Tree” but with the necessary information already at your fingertips for retrieval. It’s not a terrifying and arduous process. It’s actually quite enjoyable to peruse a Wikipedia article.

            Anne Lamont put it best, “Very few writers know what they’re doing until they’ve done it.” I did not have a clue as to what I was doing when I started these edits. Research writing has not always been a strong suit of mine. I knew I had to somehow involve Porter’s “creative writer within” to get through it. But as I neared the end of my first drafts, I felt like I was able to grasp Lamont’s words. Staring at a no longer blank page, suddenly everything came to me. But the one thing that did not, was the question as to what is my purpose in writing this?

            When writing Wikipedia edits it is easy to take one of Porter’s constructs into consideration: heroism. What is the purpose of editing this article? It is because one wants to share their knowledge of a certain subject to better inform a potential audience. We almost view ourselves as heroes for being able to provide extensive information on a subject that no one else could. But are we really being “heroes” for simply taking the initiative to put someone else’s words in an online encyclopedia article?

            I think all of us believe ourselves to be creative writer’s when making these Wikipedia edits. We are simply forming something out of blank space. But in doing so, we are submitting to Porter’s ideology “the creative writer is the creative borrower” (Porter). In reference to this assignment, we are the creative borrower. We are the initiative finder, the creative borrower, and the submissive organizer. This is what makes a good Wikipedia edit.

            The most difficult part of the Wikipedia edit was definitely the organization. When editing an existing start-class article, it is easy to just throw in all the information you find into one jumbled mess and announce, “I have reached the minimum word count!” But one owes it to the projected audience to be able to correctly organize that information into a sensible and orderly manner. I am a Wikipedia fiend. It is where I get all my information for everything. But I won’t even bother with an article if it is poorly organized and therefore unappealing. When making my edits, I made sure that I put myself in the readers’ shoes and thought about how I would want the article organized. This was a great idea for the finalization of editing process.

            The Wikipedia tutorials on how to correctly site sources and report information was extremely helpful. Honestly it was much easier than I had originally thought it would be. I knew it wasn’t going to be just a “copy and paste” type of deal, but I thought it would have more curveballs than it actually did. It was fast and easy to start on my sandbox, which was my own personal editing bay without yet publishing my information. And when the time came to publish my work, it was simply a couple clicks of the buttons and my hard work was displayed for the world to see. I’ve admittedly checked out both my pages I edited more than a few times, proud of the work I’ve done.

            As I stated earlier, I thought of myself through the construct of heroism early on during my edits. But then I remembered my own words that I posted in a blog earlier this quarter; “to imagine writing as heroic is exceptionally dangerous because when one starts to write for heroic reasons, it is easy to become lost in the intertextuality of writing.”

            As I continued my edits I abandoned the heroic aspect of Wikipedia and focused on the individuality. It is impossible not to feel individuality when editing an article because it is just you working on it. There is no one constantly critiquing your work or questioning it. It is the most individual form of research writing I have ever come into contact with, and am already itching to continue my editing in the Wikipedia world!