The Wonderful World of Wiki!

shot-20151206-1874-1p2ize8I had an exceptionally tight deadline owing to other commitments. I, unintentionally, chose a badly written article, the ‘talk’ page should have raised a warning flag or cautioned me to this, however, it was my very first attempt at editing a Wikipedia article and therefore I wasn’t taking any notice of such detail. I chose an alias. It took some time to figure out how to navigate the Wikipedia site. I flicked through many suggested pages. However, I opted to search for an interest instead. I searched a few terms mainly surrounding narration. I eventually chose the topic of ‘Organisational/Organizational Storytelling’. And I had no inkling whatsoever as to what was in store for me. I did not read the article at all. I opened Google Scholar but after some time I realised that this was a futile exercise and instead I had to run a plain Google search on each sentence or phrase. To make matters worse I was using the wrong browser, that is, internet explorer and had to opt for Google Chrome instead. The references were causing me to become distressed initially until I figured out that I had to use the Edit Source tab and just a simple opening and closing reference tag would suffice using markup language, <ref> and </ref> respectively. There were some references towards the end of the short article and they were pushed further down the line so as to include my seven citations. I am aware that you do not have to be an expert to edit an article on Wikipedia, however, I would feel rather uncomfortable trying to frame my own understanding of the topic in question following the Wikipedia framework. I would be concerned that someone would overwrite it and in this sense I would feel that my effort was pointless. I do not have an issue with collaborative writing in a closed context, however, Wikipedia is open for anyone to view or edit anytime, anywhere. I am grateful that I could remain anonymous. I am more than happy to practice citing work until I feel more comfortable formulating and expressing my thoughts on various Wikipedia topics. I used Zotero to create the citations and tagged various documents where necessary. The citations referred to a random selection of documents on the web such as a Powerpoint presentation. As you will see from the pictures one user stated that the document read like an advertising brochure in certain parts. Aside from my own personal experience I do appreciate the Wikipedia project itself. In the past and even now, the use of Wikipedia has been discouraged in educational institutes for a variety of reasons. It is seen to be inaccurate and that one must err on the side of caution. However, as I have gained an understanding of how the project actually works I would not view the project in this way anymore. Combined with a critical eye it is actually quite a user friendly, valuable and popular site and a hypertextual encyclopaedia. For me, I would have to agree with Ethan Zuckerman’s summation as follows:

‘Wikipedia is a victory of process over substance’[1]


picture no 2 wiki editing module


picture no 3 wikipedia editing module


picture no 4

picture no 5 wiki editing

-Danielle Lawlee

[1] Ethan Zuckerman.” Xplore Inc, 2015. 6 December 2015.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s