Wikipedia Exploration

I looked up "ethnocentric" and was redirected to "Ethnocentrism." It seemed to be on point with our readings. Next, I looked up "pandering." This led to two different pages suggested: one was "pandering (politics)" and the other was "procuring (prostitution)," which I found interesting that the two of them were closely enough related that they came up next to each other. The definition of political pandering seemed to be on point with our reading. Next, I looked up "partisan" which gave me the general "partisan (political)" and then an incredibly long list of pandering in reference to something to do with World War Two as well as music. The "partisan (political)" page was rather barren and directed off to different pages. From there, I clicked on "polarization (politics)" and got a more in-depth description that tended to be American-centric, referencing our two-party system and our congress. The introduction to the page briefly mentions that it can be something other than political but it doesn't go much further than that. Next, I looked up "citizen critic" and found that there was no such page. I think that is a bit of a travesty and is a term that should, in fact, be included. Next, I looked up "primary certitude," another page that has yet to be added that I do believe could use its own page. Next, I looked up "false analogy" and got a pretty good article that also linked to "list of fallacies" and a page called "apples and oranges" which was a good break down of the American idiom that is basically a false analogy example. Next, "paradox" that led to a very informative article that I think was very well rounded. Next, I looked up "rhetoric," a term often misused in the media. However, the article was well-written and seemed to be on point with what I have learned as an EWM major. It was a long article and as the subject is difficult to pin down I felt it was appropriate in length. From there, I looked up "audience," since this term is equally difficult to pin down and comprehend. As far as I could tell, this article was also quite lengthy and rounded-out. Next, I looked up "citizen" which redirected to "citizenship." This page took the term quite literally and related it to laws and countries, linking to the page for "nationality." Citizenship is generally acknowledged as having full rights within a municipality/state/country/nation/etc.  Next, I looked up "enthymeme" and found a page that was a bit short but also had links to logical fallacies which I found appropriate. And finally, I looked up "bias." As I suspected, the page was mostly made up of explanations of the "negative" type of bias, refusal to acknowledge the other side or the fact that something could even have a bias.

For the article I analyzed I(entitled "Queen's Building, Wolverhampton"), there were only two sources—one was a print book and the other was a Wikipedia stub that linked to an online database which I found difficult to navigate or find out any information about where they get their information. A Google search of the same name as the database (The National Heritage List for England) took me to an entirely different webpage than what was linked on the Wikipedia stub. Since the source that seemed to be drawn most heavily from was the book (entitled Britain's Historic Railway Buildings: A Gazetteer of Structures) that I do not have access to it is difficult for me to fact-check the information and I was unable to really navigate the website listed. A search of the website returned with only internet and image searches. So, I was unable to verify any information off that website as well. I think the book is potentially reliable, based on the fact that the edition and page numbers of a specific book are listed but I do not find the website even usable, much less reliable.

Wikipedia is actually much more reliable than many high school teachers might have us believe—it is rather well regulated and monitored, with programs in place to look for fictitious/libelous information. However, some pages will be more or less rounded then others, given time and much room for debate and edits. The longer a page has been around, the more likely it is to be mostly free of bias and rather neutral. Yes, it is open to all citizens with internet access but there are only certain types of people who will edit pages (those who believe they know information pertinent to particular pages). However, all pages (except those that are specifically monitored by Wikipedia staff), are completely transparent; they will list when they were originally posted, by whom they were posted, and who has had any part in editing the pages and what his/her/their contributions may have been. Thus, it is possible to track exactly what has been done to individual pages as well as the constraints on information verifiability—the sources must be specific, listed extensively, and be a third-party source. If things are not well-sourced, it will be apparent to staff and promptly removed. Wikipedia does not abide by poorly sourced information. Of course, no matter what type of media you are interacting with, there will always be a bias—always. Human beings created the content, it has a bias. However, the more eyes look at a page, the more people who edit or tweak wording the more likely it is to have less of a bias. That is the idea behind Wikipedia. It is still more likely to have a white, male, upper class bias because almost all media does and those are the people most likely to e able to access the information and want to edit it, but the idea is that it has much less of a bias than a traditional print encyclopedia. Donald Lazere, in chapter five of his book Reading and Writing for Civic Literacy: A Critical Citizens Guide, speaks extensively about bias. He says that every viewpoint is and isn't biased. How does that make sense? Well, we try to keep things as "nonpartisan" as possible, but no matter who we are we carry our identity in our experiences and our experiences shape our opinions. I am a twenty-something, white, female. I am shaped by this. I am shaped by my privilege as a white person and my discrimination as a female and as a "young person" with "no job experience." I will tend to vote democratic and I will write like a liberal person. Lazere explains that you are more likely to be seen as reliable if you acknowledge your own bias: "You will never convince someone who doesn't already agree with you if you stack the deck by presenting only arguments in support of your own position…" (Lazere 129).

Wikipedia is the epitome of "our public discourse" as Edward Corbett and Rosa Eberly discuss in their book The Elements of Reasoning.  We are all citizens of the public, this shared space. We have the right and ability to participate and in that way we have the responsibility to come into it in a responsible way. There will never be a singular experience but we have the ability to share it, come to an understanding with hope and the possibility of change. This is the nature of a "citizen critic." We can help discuss and change things if we come at it with the ability to change ourselves and hear others. That's exactly what Wikipedia gives us the ability to do. We can read, disagree, edit, and be edited ourselves. Wikipedia is the symbol our freedom.