Gillian Delaney – 115142165

For this assignment I choose to edit an article called “List of Irish Travellers”. I added in a new section and updated an existing one. Prior to this editing assignment I would have rarely used Wikipedia but I found it useful for giving brief descriptions of people, television series and movies.

I tended to have a negative opinion on Wikipedia which stemmed from when I was completing a business course we were under strict instructions not to use Wikipedia as a reference. As a result of this I have remained sceptical on the reliability of its content.

When Ronda Rousey was beaten by Holly Holmes there were updates put on her Wikipedia page that were cruel. A post which was dated 15th September this year showed that somebody has already inputted Ronda as the winner a month before the fight had even happened.

 

https://twitter.com/darcymaine_espn/status/643901800899325952/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

These types of errors are not good for Wikipedia’s reputation however now that I have edited an article I am surprised that it was not detected at first glance. Although Wikipedia states that there is no editor that is not entirely true as there is a “User Talk” function that informs you if there is an incomplete update and so deletes off the article.

What makes some of us sceptical of Wikipedia? The freedom that it gives everyone the opportunity to input, update and delete information. We want the man or woman in the big office signing off a checklist to ensure all information is correct. We want to know someone and not everyone is in charge.

One of the advantage’s to Wikipedia is that it does not allow for academic arguments, original research or opinions. I enjoyed keeping the article fact based as it keeps the information clear and concise.

 

Before Source Edit

wiki screenshotswiki screenshots

 

After Editing

I found the access and editing pages user-friendly however it still also concerns me that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, making the information less reliable.

The editing process was quite simple. I didn’t realise until I went to edit my chosen Wikipedia page that it used html and felt at ease straight away. When I clicked onto the edit section I wasn’t overwhelmed as I had intentionally chosen an article that was small enough to prevent this. I was immediately able to see the list of names and details.

As suggested I read the “5 Pillars” which is a set of guidelines set by Wikipedia and complied with using a neutral tone. I found the 5th principle “no firm rules” quite clever. It gives Wikipedia the opportunity to save or delete any edit. I found the Wikipedia tutorials a bit confusing so I looked up how to reference on youtube ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifjj4zGTH7U ).

I had to insert two web addresses in the reference section and tried a couple of times before it was correct. I liked they the references updated numerically themselves.

I have used Wikipedia extensively in the last few weeks I have come to change my opinion about it. I believe it is useful but I would still cross reference any information found on the site to ensure it was correct. I felt it was important to start with a small article so that my first attempt to edit a Wikipedia article was a success. As a result of this positive and informative experience I intend on updating more Irish Traveller related articles in the future.

Advertisements

Gillian Delaney 115142165: The role of the editor and the emergence of social media

Abstract

This video discusses the role of the editor and how it’s changed with the emergence of social media. The first part of the video essay tells a story how social media has impacted on the way in which the publishing and newspaper industries operate. Social media has made editing easier however it has led to the possibility of plagiarism and as there is less attention paid, as news is posted as soon as it happens, the standard of writing including spelling, grammar and punctuation can be problematic .
Following on from there the video discusses the merits and problems encountered by the academic community with regards to publishing research. Some of the problems encountered include increased subscription fees, copyright issues and how research dissemination takes place on social media.
The video draws attention to the public’s recent interest in reality television and how it seems to target the marginalised parts of society as their research material. These shows tend to provoke reactions from their audiences in a negative way. These sectors of society feel that they have been judged and unfairly represented.
Finally I discuss the editing skills any editor needs and outline some of the software that I will be using.
I have never digitally edited in the past and I found this experience rewarding and challenging. I used animation and images to tell the story in a visual way as well as well as including audio.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/_8CzE-E48pU“>Gillian Delaney 115142165 The role of the editor and the emergence of social media

Alice Campion video essay

In this video, I talk about the role of grammar and proof reading in the editing process, with a focus on the growth of “grammar Nazis” on online platforms. This video will not comment on the ethics of the semantics or symbolism this term invites, but rather explore attitudes towards grammar on digital platforms, in both academic and non-academic circles.
With my research interests still undefined, I initially struggled to find a focal point for this essay. I decided on the topic of grammar, as I believe it will have a part to play on whatever I decide to do my dissertation on – also, the popularity of “grammar Nazis” has relevance to both academic and non-academic discussions. In much of my research on editing for this module, copy-writing and proof-reading has come up numerous times. I think the prevalence of grammar correction on digital platforms (including social media sites, comment sections, chatrooms) shows how grammar in the digital age is part of the general consciousness, and not restricted to academic discussions.
Grammar Nazis remind us that the internet is a textual medium for all users in many different contexts – linguistic views on grammar and academic correction should be considered in relation to digital publishing if we are to improve upon the scholarly editing process.

Wikipedia Edit

Having edited a Wikipedia article for the first time, I would consider the site as a valuable but unreliable tertiary source. The ease at which I was able to access and edit pages made for a very user-friendly experience, but serves as a reminder that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at all, making the information unreliable.

Charlie Edwards describes the Digital Humanities as a “system with users” and recognises the peril such a system poses in a scholarly context as usability and inclusivity can lead to poorer content and unprofessionalism. 1 Nevertheless, Wikipedia is not a “professional” site in that users with no background in a subject can edit and contribute, and as an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia is not the place for academic arguments or original research. 2 Edwards further describes DH as somewhat “Centreless” – as a decentralised information source with diverse (albeit often non-academic) contributors, Wikipedia is an example of this “Centrelessness”.
Before:

Screenshot 2015-12-08 23.36.39

After:

Screenshot 2015-12-09 00.11.16

Sources:

sources wiki

I decided to edit the entry on Fine Gael, as I am working on the topic of “Digital Feminism” for a collaborative writing exercise. For this piece, I researched the #repealthe8th social media campaign (which seeks to legalise abortion in Ireland) and was surprised to see that there wasn’t any mention of this on Wikipedia’s Eighth Amendment 3 or Abortion in Ireland 4 articles. As I clicked on links to relevant articles, I saw that Fine Gael’s abortion stance was omitted from their Wikipedia entry. 5 I believe abortion is an important social and health issue and it carries enough weight to be included in Fine Gael’s ideology and policies.

My entry is: “Fine Gael have historically been anti-abortion, with Fine Gael leader Garret Fitzgerald in power during the 1983 abortion referendum.[43] This referendum resulted in the Eighth Amendment to the Irish constitution, giving the unborn child an equal right to life to that of the mother.[44] In 2015, the party is divided on repealing the Eighth Amendment.”[45]
I was careful to adhere to Wikipedia’s “5 Pillars” set of guidelines and used a neutral tone and cited reliable academic, news and legal sources (see above). I was struck by the 5th fundamental principle employed by Wikipedia, that there are “no firm rules” and that “there is no need to read any page before editing.” 6 When perusing the different features available to contributors, I scanned the “Recent Changes” page which tracks the hundreds of edits made on various articles every minute in real-time – here, I came across a few cases of vandalism where lewd and deliberately false information was added to otherwise seemingly legitimate articles (see example below).

seabass

With regards to traditional scholarly publishing, Daniel J. Cohen describes a “social contract” forged between press and reader, in that the reader considers an article seriously (consciously or otherwise) when a publisher employs time and effort to minimise errors, format appealingly and cite correctly. 7 Many Wikipedia contributors clearly do not adhere to the idea of a “social contract” between themselves and readers (as seen in the previous example), which further undermines its reliability as a source of information. Cohen considers scholarly articles in terms of “supply & demand” i.e. scholars supply the content while readers demand believability. While the “supply” of content in new forms has been considered at length in the field of Digital Humanities, Cohen believes that the “demand” of the audience must be examined if DH is to advance any further. Creating new formats to present information is meaningless if the audience is left unconvinced – this is a difficult balance to get right as can be seen in Edwards’ argument for usability & inclusivity versus quality & professionalism. While Wikipedia is open to everyone and easy to use, contributors do not strive for the same level of quality professional publications strive for.
Paul Fyfe further considers the differences between traditional & digital publishing and open versus peer review – in his mind “we need clearer plans for the obsolescence of academic correction” to create quality digital documents. 8 He mediates on the importance of copy, and argues that standards of quality must be enforced for digital documents to be held in the same esteem as traditional publications. According to Fyfe, Wikipedia as an example “invites a different understanding of correction as curation” due to the rate at which edits can be made by such a broad base of contributors.
Sources, content and the audience must be considered and respected when presenting information in traditional and digital forms – coming from a non-editorial background, contributing to Wikipedia has given me helpful insight into the editorial process and the need for standards.

REFERENCES:
1 Edwards, Charlie. ‘The Digital Humanities And Its Users’. Debates In The Digital Humanities. 1st ed. University of Minnesota Press, 2012. Web. 8 Dec. 2015.
2 Wikipedia. ‘Five Pillars’. N.p., 2015. Web. 9 Dec. 2015. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars
3 Wikipedia. ‘Eighth Amendment Of The Constitution Of Ireland’. N.p., 2015. Web. 9 Dec. 2015. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland
4 Wikipedia. ‘Abortion In The Republic Of Ireland’. N.p., 2015. Web. 9 Dec. 2015. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland
5 Wikipedia. ‘Fine Gael’. N.p., 2015. Web. 9 Dec. 2015. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_Gael
6 Wikipedia. ‘Ignore All Rules’. N.p., 2015. Web. 9 Dec. 2015. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules
7 Cohen, Daniel J. ‘The Social Contract Of Scholarly Publishing’. Debates In The Digital Humanities. 1st ed. University of Minnesota Press, 2012. Web. 8 Dec. 2015.
8 Fyfe, Paul. ‘Electronic Errata: Digital Publishing, Open Review, And The Futures Of Correction’. Debates In The Digital Humanities. 1st ed. University of Minnesota Press, 2012. Web. 9 Dec. 2015.

Video Essay – Joan St. Leger

 

My video Essay is called Re-Editing Fairy tales and Stories. In my video essay I look at the importance of not only the traditional editor but also the idea of re-editing to create new and more vibrant versions of fairy tales and stories. I hope to be using this in my thesis to look at how fairy tales are recaptured and transformed though editing. Not only editing the tales themselves but also editing the medium in which we receive them. I used moovly and unfortunately the time is capped at 10 minutes so I had to rush it a little. But my core points are included and hopefully you will be able to see how I plan to use the editor and re-editing in my thesis.

 

Sinead Meehan – Video Essay

My name is Sinead Meehan, I’m currently an MRes History of Art student. Although I have used digital editing for projects in the past, this project was very challenging. I wanted to use video clips to and images to demonstrate my points in a visual way, and include audio and some simple animation. This lead me to converting my own clips, re-learning how to import and manipulate sound, and edit dialogue on the few occasions that I slipped up in the middle of a sentence. I was also forced to remember that Premier Pro takes a long time to render and export on computers as unsuitable as my own. Despite these complaints, I’m glad to have had a chance to use this programme again and it has encouraged me to get my teeth back into film based concepts again.

I started by trying to define what and editor is, more for my own sake. In my field an editor usually works in relation to art publications, journals and news articles. In this way art writers and editors are partially responsible for generating a public interest for upcoming exhibitions. They also edited academic and informative books and publications about the work, connecting their ideas to other artists, concepts and movements.  I also touched on some of my own concerns surrounding documentary, as it’s a practice I am interested in. As I am equally interested in history, I often come against freedom of expression through art practice and accuracy when using history as a source. Picturing Derry (2013) and Catholic Blood (2013) were two exhibitions I used outline this. These were proceeded by a brief explanation to the context of Derry during the City of Culture festival in 2013 when these issues began to interest me. In my opinion both exhibitions are strong examples of a crossover between contemporary art and history.

hay

Sinead Meehan, The Quiet Ones, 2014

Collaborative writing is has not been an aspect of my work so far, but collaboration has. I used the basic principles of relational and participatory art practises in current art practices to deal with this. The theory of these come quiet close to ideas surrounding the open access of information, knowledge sharing and dialogue based work practices which are often mentioned in relation to the internet and digital practices. Finally, I briefly dealth with digital skills and they power they give creators. This allows for experimentation with image, sound and video that often influences the work of many contemporary artists. Digital skills allow artists to have their voice heard online, and aloes means that any of us can easily change and manipulate this media for a variety of reasons. Context can be changed through content and new narratives can be created.

Sinead Meehan, MRes History of Art

Wikipedia Edit – Joan St. Leger

For this assignment I decided to edit the Little Red Riding Hood Wikipedia page.  I have used Wikipedia quite a lot as a site for information. It is one that I would go to for quick information on pretty much everything that you would be curious about. I have used it for understanding something but have never used it as an actual site of reference and that would be down to the fact that anyone can edit it. Even though what I have added to the Little Red Riding Hood page was sourced and referenced correctly and my sources cited. I have no idea about the rest of the information. It does appear to be correct but when it comes to it, Wikipedia is not the most reliable concrete source to use for academic writing.

It is a great resource if used correctly by academics or people who are well versed in the pages that they are contributing to and are reliable with citing- I feel this would add a lot more depth to Wikipedia as a site for knowledge.

The editing process was quite simple. I have always wondered about Wikipedia, and know of friends who have edited pages jokingly (which is what adds to my qualms about Wikipedia being used as a reliable source because it is so easily edited). I didn’t realise until I went to edit my chosen Wikipedia page that it dealt with html. I guess, I didn’t think much about the whole process of editing a page on Wikipedia. I figured it would be more like a word document and I was wrong. When I clicked in to edit section I was quite overwhelmed because the Little Red Riding Hood page is such a large text page and trying to find and locate the area that I wanted to edit was somewhat difficult. All the text was located last within the html code. Editing an already created page had it’s good and bad points. It was both simple and difficult. It was easy enough to figure out how to link a page with the words e.g.  to link Angela Carter to the Angela Carter Wikipedia page all I had to do was place her name inside double brackets like so: [[Angela Carter]] and referencing was quite easy because the book I was referencing from was already referenced with the text itself, I simple had to change the page number. Even without that added help, I feel it would be quite to figure out yourself how to reference whatever text it is that you need to. I was very relieved to figure out that the references update numerically themselves, I was worried at first that I would have to go to all the other references throughout the text to change them but you don’t. Wikipedia is very well set up to allow the user to edit with ease and to enable them to cite sources neatly, because it corrects the footnote references and the user doesn’t have to.

I had hoped to add to the page on Catherine Orenstein also but when I went to select it, a message came up stating that another “editor” had deleted the page and contact them before making another one. I found this difficult as I was unable to figure out how to contact them, so I have not done anything for this page, this is the reason why Catherine Orenstein is in red on the Little Red Riding Hood page because the link brings it to a deleted page notification.

So aside from Wikipedia being easy to use to edit your selected page (once you get over the initial feeling of being overwhelmed) the next hurdle is deciding what to add, change, delete etc. The Little Red Riding Hood page to me was quite full of information; information which I believe to be accurate. I decided to just change and add a little bit about the Company of Wolves adaptations of the story. It is an adaptation I personally find very interesting because it is a re-edit of the story from a feminist perspective which is then further “re-edited” and adapted into a film of the same title by Neil Jordan. I wrote a nice lengthy paragraph on it, but to be honest I could have written a lot more, but chose not to. The editing of this Wikipedia page raised a lot of questions for me. Ones to do with the rights to intellectual property. The authors and writers that I cited are open and readily accessible to the other readers of the Wikipedia page, but I am not. I may not have written the words I cited but I did write interpretations that I have about their work. It made me wonder about using what I wrote in my own thesis if what I wrote I put up on Wikipedia. Would I be plagiarising myself? I wouldn’t really be able to prove that I wrote what I wrote because none of us can tell who wrote this what is effectively an anonymously written collaborative writing piece.

The paragraph I have edited is down in Modern Uses and Adaptations.

Before:

Joan St Leger Wikipedia Before

After:

Joan St Leger Wikipedia Edit