Wikipedia Article: Multimodality
Wikipedia should win some kind of accolade for "Most Misunderstood". After working with the Wiki for weeks now, it is hard to believe there was a point when its only identity for me as a student was as an unaccredited source. For years I have heard professors and conducted research under the philosophy that Wikipedia was not reliable and should not be trusted as honest research. While those concerns are rooted in valid concerns of open sourcing, there is without a doubt a prejudice against Wikipedia that is not necessarily warranted. After nearly half a semester working and editing in an effort to publish an article, I learned so much about the pillars and expectations Wikipedia holds its articles and editors to; it's nearly impossible not to have gained a little more trust in the Wikipedia system.
I had never realized how complex and well developed the style guidelines for Wikipedia were until we began utilizing them in class. It was actually really helpful to have the "dos and don'ts" of writing in that public sphere so organized. I liked that the intent of articles were for the public reader and as a result, these guidelines reflected the same usability for its contributors. It is so though that anyone could read and understand their demands, allowing for this network of writers and editors to function and participate with the same article.
Though it was definitely a challenge at times to work and collaborate both within our groups and as a class, we were mirroring the struggle that Wikipedians experience over time and distance. We read through the edit histories and saw that there can be disagreements of tone and direction in the Sandbox, just as we experienced at times among our peers. Especially in writing part of the definition, there were times where I felt like what I was writing didn't always align with the direction that the rest of the class had established. It was only in letting go of my own work for the sake of the article that the definition became more in sync with the rest of the article. The same principle followed with editing the article. At first, I was very hesitant to overhaul someone's work for fear that I was allowing my own bias to change what they had written. But in taking a step back and removing myself from the work, I was able to edit with a more focused lens and cultivate the transparency that Wikipedia strives for.
I think some of the biggest obstacles and challenges for me in this project were being so collaborative with my writing. I don't think I have ever been put in a situation where the group project included the entire class. It was definitely a challenge to be mindful of so many more opinions and ideas than my own as well as staying true to the expectations set forth by Wikipedia. It was truly a challenge to keep all of these in mind while I was writing my contribution to the article. I felt as though the definition, much like the lead article, was to be influenced by the findings and direction of other groups. We couldn't create or establish a definition that contradicted the findings of one group or didn't situate itself to work with another. We were constantly trying to hone in on what the class thought multimodality to be from reading their parts and how they either agreed or disagreed with our own findings. It tested our limits as writers and editors to perform in such a collaborative setting, but in the end was truly something to be proud of.
To look back on the beginning of the project, when everything seemed so daunting and overwhelming, it's hard to believe how far we have come in such a few short weeks. From the initial brainstorming of topic ideas and our first drafts to having our article available to be drafted and edited by Wikipedians worldwide, is a serious accomplishment and something to be proud of. It was such a group effort that I don't think it could have been possible without piecing each contribution together as we did. There were such strengths in each individual than could ever be achieved by one contributor alone.
