Over the last couple of weeks, I've been contributing to Wikipedia when I should have been blogging. Now, don't panic – I'm still going maintain this blog until the end of the year, but it seems I've followed a natural progression in internet contribution from discussion forums, to blogging, to editing Wikipedia articles. While blogging has its place, I can see a couple of advantages in contributing to Wikipedia.
i) Wikipedia provides an opportunity to make a lasting contribution. "Lasting" is, of course, relative – who knows if Wikipedia will still be around in five years? – but it is still not as ephemeral as a blog, and with a greater readership, one is in a position to inform readers on subjects about which they may know very little. My plan is to introduce readers to notable people like Domingo Bañez, Brevard Childs, Rabbi Duncan and F. W. Grant. There are so many articles still to be written on Wikipedia – there isn't even one on Paul White the Jungle Doctor!
ii) Wikipedia encourages neutrality and anonymity. While blogs focus more on the author, Wikipedia emphasises the subject, which is, I believe, much healthier. One is forced to write (as far as is possible) from a neutral perspective. And while it is important to be able to articulate one's opinions (especially for someone in my position!) attempting objectivity can be a good way to learn how to write. When we learned essay writing in high school, we started with discursive essays before moving onto expositional ones. Editing Wikipedia has been a good exercise for me to think about how to express things objectively, and to cite my sources – I do believe it encourages a better writing style than blogging. There are one or two bloggers out there who could learn a bit about writing.
So now when I see a YouTube video like this one, I throw up my hands and cry "Unreferenced!"
| ← Previous day | (Calendar) | Next day → |