I actually edited another Wikipedia article just a few days
ago and I was excited to note that my edit is still there after two days! Since
I have a bit of experience with HTML/CSS coding prior to this experience, for
that editing I did on the 18th, I was able to figure out what I was doing based
on what the coding did for other cited sources. Of course, any editing feels
daunting so when I opened up the editor I got a little nervous about all the
functions available but I powered through. Since the article I edited for this
short assignment was actually my second attempt I felt a bit more comfortable
navigating the controls.
Generally, when it comes to Wikipedia, I still feel
generally positively about the information. I share Zittrain's optimism. Yes, I
see how easy it is to edit it but I believe in the "lawless" order
that seems to have been formed here. And I believe in the fact that Wikipedia
has remained—if not the top—one of
the top results in Google searches. Something about the format has created a
trust among the readers and editors and users of Wikipedia. Yes, it is free to
edit but as (Carra Leah) Hood explicitly explained in her article about Editing Out Obscenity in Wikipedia, there is absolutely a hierarchy in place;
while users have freedom to add and take away whatever they want whenever and
however they want, there are still administers and those who monitor pages.
There is always a trail no matter how much people believe in internet
anonymity. IP addresses allow virtually every single internet user to be held
accountable if conduct is not followed. No, the internet is not total anarchy
but it certainly is "lawless." It exists more on the plane of moral
codes and social mores. And honestly, social mores are almost more binding than
laws. We follow social mores in order to avoid embarrassment and ridicule. We
try to do things that benefit us and do not harm others in these types of
public, open, observable spaces.
But more importantly than all that, I feel comforted in the idea
that if I made errors (which I'm certain I did) then someone will be along
(shortly, most likely) to fix them. To edit what I've edited which was also
probably edited. And people can feel comfort in posting articles, safe in the
knowledge that most likely, somewhere along the way others will edit the
article and make it better. I feel comfort in the fact that nothing I do on
Wikipedia has to be a final draft. I can contribute and cause others to feel
motivated to contribute and in this way there is a connection and a community
of mutual benefits. And it's incredibly interesting that I don't have to know
anything about a subject to contribute. I'd never even heard of machine
translation (though I use the function on a regular basis through GoogleTranslate) before Wikipedia directing its users to pages that "need
help." I bring to the table my own set of expertise—in this case, it is
editing. With our class Wikipedia page it will be editing and also everything
we know about public sphere writing. And that's incredible to me. It's exactly
a sense of accomplishment.
