Using electronic environments for drafting, reviewing, revising, editing, and sharing texts

         I feel it necessary to blog on Wikipedia, as our class-wide Wikipedia project has just concluded and I`m "fresh" on the subject. While none of our learning outcomes for English 102 mention Wikipedia at all, Wikipedia has opened my eyes to many truths about research, writing, and editing. Because I won`t get a satisfactory grade writing about any random thing that I feel is important (only English 102 learning outcomes), I`ve found a learning outcome that has been achieved through my exploration of Wikipedia.  The skills I`ve used and applied relating to the website couldn`t be a better example of me learning how to "use electronic environments for drafting, ... editing, and sharing texts."
         Drafting text on Wikipedia is undoubtedly a unique process. Most of the time, I blog about semi-abstract concepts that I have mastered, like using appropriate tone or diction. In stark contrast, drafting text on Wikipedia is a highly technical and specific skill. In order to format text into headings, or cyber-links, you must perform specific actions, like sandwiching the heading text with double equal-signs, or double-bracketing the words you intend to cyber-link. And if you intend to include sources in a bibliography, and link the via superscript to the portion of the text they correlate to, you must perform more specific actions. Drafting on Wikipedia is a very technical and useful tool that I am thankful for learning in the classroom setting.
        Editing text on Wikipedia (what makes it so popular, or unpopular), is not unlike drafting it. In fact, you do the same things in editing a text that you would if you were the original author. What`s important here, though, is not the technical skills required to edit, but simply the ability and acuity in editing so that you can contribute to the massive source of information that is Wikipedia.
        None of this would matter if it weren`t for the "sharing texts" portion of this learning outcome. Wikipedia could not be a better example of a sharable text. Anything drafted or edited on Wikipedia is instantly shared (or made sharable) to the entire world. Through Wikipedia, we can draft, edit, and share to the entire world ideas and facts that might otherwise go unheard or unseen.

Integrating Personal Ideas With Those of Others

     Collaboration. It`s the engine of ingenuity. It fastens ideas down like plywood in dusty garages called brains and sandpapers the heck out of them. We`ve all heard the phrase, “Two heads are better than one.” What does that even mean? It means that the productive power of the human brain is increased exponentially when combined with another. When collaboration is approached appropriately, ideas blossom into masterpieces with the majesty of Van Gogh`s paintings and the abruptness of a bud popping into full bloom.

      But how does this relate to the writing process? Well, if there is one thing I`ve taken away from the past couple weeks in Composition 2, it`s that the physical part- the formation of words, sentences, paragraphs and pages- is an incredibly miniscule portion of the entire writing process. Our first assignment in the series of “Argument Essay” assignments was strictly to work with our ideas. We`ve spent several class periods simply refining ideas. So, it logically follows that something like collaboration would drastically influence the end result of our thoughts- what is written down on paper.

     “Too many cooks spoil the broth.” There is a right and a wrong way to collaborate. If the wrong advice is taken or the right advice disregarded from our peers, or if too much authority is given to the ideas of either our peers or us, we are due spoiled broth. One thing I have learned is that usually, my peers who I am collaborating with are my audience. If they do not understand a point made in my paper, I do not try to explain it to them. I am not going to be sitting beside every individual in my audience when they read my work. If something is misunderstood, it must be changed. My peer is always right when it comes to misunderstanding. Otherwise, respect should be given to anything they say, and it should be applied according to what I believe. Many times, the ideas of others have not been something I desired to work directly into my work, but provided inspiration and a spark to my work simply because of the extra thinking capacity provided. Ultimately, when both parties understand what is most effective about the collaborative process, there is nothing more conducive to a healthy writing atmosphere.

Understanding Writing as an Open Process

      It wasn`t until Wednesday`s essay workshop in my Composition 2 class that I grasped this concept`s relation to my current research paper. I understood writing as a process: I had systematically narrowed my topic from one of generality and vagueness to one that I thought would be appropriate, I had gathered what I thought to be sufficient sources, and I felt pretty confident in the work that I had done. Case closed, right? Wrong. In class I was challenged by my professor to look at my progress so far as a critical someone would- say, a corporate executive, and pick out the flaws and failures. The result was enlightening.
      I am a very step-by-step, systematic person, so it naturally follows that I am content with the step-by-step process of writing a research paper. However, when I finish those steps, I want to be confident that they are as perfect as they will ever be. I learned Wednesday that advancement in the whole process means refining past steps- something irritating to my very soul.While combing over my "perfect" thesis, I noticed a major problem. My thesis went something like, "Separation of church and state as it was intended is beneficial to our national government." By including the phrase, "as it was intended," I had set myself up for twice the research, reading, and writing that I truly intended to take on. While I do want to be clear on my definition of "church and state," I don`t want to write an encyclopedia. This aspect of my progress is currently under construction, along with my fantastic ideas of perfection.
       After several run-ins with mischievous logic-trouble-makers within my outline and plan for the paper as a whole, my eyes were also opened to problems within what seemed invincible- the bibliography. Yes, my bibliography was flawless as related to the criteria at the time I developed it- the works were credible, I had enough works, etc. etc. But what I discovered in Wednesday`s workshop was that my bibliography was disproportionate. I had a couple sources that were very meaty and in-depth, but if I really wanted information, I had far too many dictionary and encyclopedia sources.
       I have definitely learned, to my frustration, that the writing process by nature is an open process- I am going to have to refine and revise as I go. But, in the end, this will only make for a better outcome.