Wikipedia has an editing problem. We're not referring to the often repeated yet overblown reliability problem or the more substantial issues with systemic bias. These both are undoubtedly aspects that have to be addressed, and explicit efforts have been made to do so, with more or less success. An elaborate process has developed within the Wikipedia community to increase reliability and research shows that this issue is not as significant as is often assumed.[1] Likewise, an increasing number of publications are highlighting Wikipedia's systemic bias and an increasing number of initiatives and courses are attempting to address this bias (more on these issues in our Introduction).
We are referring specifically to a classic developmental editing problem, which certainly relates to these problems but needs to be highlighted separately: How does one assist a writer or, as in this case, a community of writers and experts to create a piece of writing that is appropriate for the publication venue, clearly written, usefully organized, and capable of easily being updated as needed?
Perhaps this traditional editing problem has been obscured somewhat by the gargantuan task of keeping the encyclopedia generating decent content that is reliable, appropriate, and thoroughly representative of notable forms of knowledge. Currently, Wikipedia's reputation among academics and the public still suffers from misperceptions regarding issues related to reliability—despite multiple studies disproving these narratives (refer to the Problem #1 section of our Introduction). Meanwhile, Wikipedia has continued to develop, and its culture and structure have settled into a more stable form.[2] In this form, the problem of advanced editorial tasks becomes more apparent as an additional component necessary for maintaining the value and quality of Wikipedia. As many have already noted, Wikipedia, in turn, becomes an excellent case study in the complexities of advanced editing work in a digital environment (e.g., Vetter, 2014).
This webtext is about these advanced editing problems, discussing how they arise and what they show about traditional comprehensive editing questions. We will do so here through a close examination of what we call stalled articles on Wikipedia, discussing why articles stall and analyzing how we might address them, as well as giving examples of this phenomenon from Wikipedia itself. Although we will not dwell extensively on these concerns, we believe this research will also point to insights regarding the particularities of dispersed writing situations, particularly within digital spaces.[3] The final portion will be devoted to explaining and supporting an assignment built around this issue of stalled articles, which was taught in an advanced editing course. We provide advice as well as digital materials for others who would like to teach a similar assignment.
[1] For an overview of this issue as of 2021, refer to McDowell and Vetter (2021), particularly Chapter 2.
[2] Recent assessments of Wikipedia have noted that with its maturity comes a new respect for it as a source of information and way of compiling information. Refer to Cooke (2020), Harrison (2019), and Guo (2016).
[3] Wikis generally and Wikipedia specifically have already been pointed to as an insightful or perhaps revolutionary view into forms of writing and collaboration in a number of fields (e.g., Kost, 2011; Lundin, 2008; Manion & Selfe, 2011; Pifarré & Fischer, 2011).
Organization
This webtext has an introduction and two major sections:
The Introduction outlines the problems facing Wikipedia in order to situate the particular editing tasks we want to discuss amongst them. This section serves as a brief overview of the research and conversations around the history and challenges of Wikipedia. The aim here is not to make an exhaustive account but rather to summarize the issues in a way that introduces readers to the necessary contexts for our discussion of stalled articles, both in terms of the research and teaching components. Readers already familiar with editing Wikipedia or this research may skip to Part 1.
Part 1 contains an examination of stalled articles, discusses reasons why they stall, and connects these problems to Wikipedia's procedures, culture, and particular rhetorical situation. We then overview tasks and approaches to remedying these kinds of problems.
Part 2 outlines an assignment created as part of an advanced editing course, with some thoughts on how and why Wikipedia provides a unique opportunity to cultivate advanced editing capacities in upper-level writing students. We include advice for instructors and assignment materials for those who wish to teach the assignment or adapt these materials for their own assignments.
Audiences
The Wikipedia community, as well as those looking to newly enter the Wikipedia community, will find Part 1 of the greatest interest as one way of highlighting particular editing issues and pointing to their resolution.
Scholars of writing, editing, Wikipedia, or digital rhetoric will find the Introduction and Part 1 of most interest as a case study in the challenges of collaborative composition and digital writing.
Instructors and students will find Part 2 most useful, although they will find Part 1 essential for understanding Part 2.
Please note that this resource is not intended to be a complete introduction to editing Wikipedia or teaching with Wikipedia. Materials for these purposes are available extensively elsewhere; the materials here are designed to help with identifying and remedying the particular issues related to developmental editing issues. However, we include a Resources section that contains links to materials for instructors, students, and new contributors.
Navigating and Reading the Text
To provide a full view of the text, we have included a Table of Contents, linked at the bottom of each page. To keep the right (or bottom, if viewing on a small screen) menu to a manageable length, we have only included navigation links for that section. The top navigation bar can be used to hop directly between sections.
The text may be read in two ways:
In sequential order: Pages of this webtext are arranged in a sequence for those who would like to work through it in order as we build a picture and case for stalled articles, first as an interesting phenomenon and then as a teaching opportunity.
Directed by reader interests and returned to as a reference: Most likely, readers will want to browse through parts of the text they find useful. For this purpose, we encourage readers to use the Table of Contents and section sidebars to find and return to specific sections.
This text will be most productively read in conjunction with independent exploration of Wikipedia. Throughout this webtext, we link to Wikipedia articles, edits, talk pages, and policy pages that remain on the public record as part of Wikipedia's editing process. The text is best experienced by selectively navigating to those Wikipedia pages and locating the issues involved based on our description to see where and how they exist within the Wikipedia interface.
The findings and assignments here required deep explorations of edit histories, talk pages, related pages, and policies of Wikipedia in addition to close readings of the pages themselves. In some cases, readers might have to look at the edit histories, talk pages, or related pages to fully see some of what we point to. Readers who are new to these components of Wikipedia might want to spend a moment exploring how these talk pages, edit histories, and editing interfaces work.
Note that most of the links to Wikipedia pages are permalinks, mostly to older edits which remain in the public record even after an article changes. Over time, the status of the articles linked in this webtext will continue to evolve. As readers work through examples, we link to particular edits that readers can examine for the aspects discussed. Readers can also then compare these articles with their current state. Perhaps over time all the articles examined here will progress into better forms, providing an ideal compare and contrast for us to study.
To provide as much variety of examples as possible and provide a more extensive archive of cases for future research and teaching, we have opted for more rather than fewer examples. We have also decided not to pull in actual text or screenshots from the pages since part of the process of learning about stalled articles is practicing identifying the issues involved. Some more accessible screenshots and side-by-side comparisons can be found in the Assignment Documents, which are geared more directly to students.
Many of these examples are drawn from discussions and work from students who participated in an advanced editing assignment over a period from 2016 to 2022, although some are also drawn from related findings by the authors as they went over these materials. Two students, Hannah Mailhos and Connor Hearron, who participated in the assignment also assisted in authoring this webtext (refer to Credits).
Aim of this Text
Our hope is that this webtext will contribute to existing scholarship on Wikipedia and digital writing while also providing an essential resource for teachers, editors, and Wikipedians.
The editing issues raised here are complex, and the assignment described in Part 2 requires a substantial degree of preparation and time on the part of both instructors and students. We would thus like to acknowledge that this resource sits alongside many other productions and efforts to use Wikipedia for teaching and research. We see the focus here as an advanced component of educational efforts related to Wikipedia (we have listed some of them in the Resources section). At other levels, instructors have used Wikipedia to teach information literacy (particularly in secondary education), writing (particularly in lower-level undergraduate writing courses), and as a supplement to a study of a topic (currently the most common category for courses supported by Wiki Education). One hope is that this resource will lower the barriers-to-entry for using Wikipedia in advanced editing courses by providing an extensive overview and documentation through examples of the issues involved and a series of educational materials both for instructors and students.