All the little ants are marching
I quit my volunteer job/addiction of editing Wikipedia articles. Normally when someone quits, they write up a departing essay pointing out all the things wrong with the web sub-culture of wiki, namely all the things wrong with pages anyone can edit. Some of the popular critiques of social media are the lack of expert opinion and the opportunity for special interest groups to push a particular point of view, two things traditional media tries to avoid (often failing). I don't know about any of that. After two years of editing on a regular basis, I'm still a fan of the idea of Wikipedia. As I wrote in an essay some time ago:
No, the reason I quit is actually one of the things I think is a plus of social media; it's just something I'm not personally cut out for. While at Wikipedia, through my (ahem) superior writing skills, I assisted in getting one of the articles to Featured Article status. By assisted I mean I wrote a significant portion of it myself. I had contributed towards a number of articles, hundreds of edits actually, but this one held a special place on Wikipedia, the highest status. I was rather proud of my accomplishment and set back to marvel at my work.
A few weeks later someone came in and changed a few words around. Not a significant change, but not the wording I would have chosen, and so it was mildly irritating. No big deal, so I let it go. A few more changes here and there. I let it go. Some other guy thought it needed to be rewritten completely, and I had to argue for the current version. He eventually let it go, and so did I. But more and more as time went on, the idea that I was somehow "finished" with the article became less and less true. Wikipedia is built on process, not product.
This is a very cool thing and the defining thing that separates web media from print media. You write, say, a book and have it printed. Once those presses start rolling that thing is set in stone, and you have to wait for a second edition (if ever) to correct any part of it or make any improvements. Not so on the web, obviously. Web documents can be updated, modified, fixed, all at a moment's notice. No more is this apparent than at Wikipedia, the "Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit". Thousands of editors participate in the process, and as such, Wikipedia is an ever evolving phenomenon. It is a living document.
I could hardly be pissed at that. That's beautiful. It reminds me of an ant hill after a storm has wiped through. You see dozens of little ants scurrying about, rebuilding, modifying, growing the hill, all so it can be wiped out in the next storm. It's about process, not product. Nothing is ever "finished" because that was never really the point to begin with. It's about the process of living, and big surprise, it's not that different in a living document.
I am a fan of the idea. It's just hard for me personally. Though it's not very Zen, I've always had trouble with the maintenance side of life. Mowing the lawn and watching it grow. Mowing the lawn and watching it grow. Mowing the lawn and... what the hell? I just mowed it the other day! I'm very product-orientated. I'm not saying any of that is better because it probably isn't. It's just more my style. I'd like to be in Zen harmony with the ebb and flow; I'm just not there yet.
So some guy came in and proposed an entire rewrite of my featured article and for the first time I thought, you know, I think I'm done here. Maybe I'd be more product-ive elsewhere. I thought all of that, and wrote up this departing essay in favor of processes, and as I was writing the words "I think I'm done here," I realized... that's the product. How narcissistic of me to have not considered that there'd be anything after. Has an ant colony ever been about just one ant?
Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia, wrapped up in and documenting popular culture. It also has the unique characteristic of being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, which means that it is edited by the masses who draw on their experiences of living in popular culture.It really is fascinating, a system designed to chronicle pop culture, built on counterculture concepts. What a mashup! I am still, totally, a fan of the site. You won't be hearing any rant coming from me.
I'm personally fascinated by the dynamic between the established popular culture, and counterculture movements. MediaWiki itself is an experiment in countering the culture of traditional publishing. Though I was born decades later, I enjoy reading histories of the counterculture movements in the United States during the 1960s.
No, the reason I quit is actually one of the things I think is a plus of social media; it's just something I'm not personally cut out for. While at Wikipedia, through my (ahem) superior writing skills, I assisted in getting one of the articles to Featured Article status. By assisted I mean I wrote a significant portion of it myself. I had contributed towards a number of articles, hundreds of edits actually, but this one held a special place on Wikipedia, the highest status. I was rather proud of my accomplishment and set back to marvel at my work.
A few weeks later someone came in and changed a few words around. Not a significant change, but not the wording I would have chosen, and so it was mildly irritating. No big deal, so I let it go. A few more changes here and there. I let it go. Some other guy thought it needed to be rewritten completely, and I had to argue for the current version. He eventually let it go, and so did I. But more and more as time went on, the idea that I was somehow "finished" with the article became less and less true. Wikipedia is built on process, not product.
This is a very cool thing and the defining thing that separates web media from print media. You write, say, a book and have it printed. Once those presses start rolling that thing is set in stone, and you have to wait for a second edition (if ever) to correct any part of it or make any improvements. Not so on the web, obviously. Web documents can be updated, modified, fixed, all at a moment's notice. No more is this apparent than at Wikipedia, the "Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit". Thousands of editors participate in the process, and as such, Wikipedia is an ever evolving phenomenon. It is a living document.
I could hardly be pissed at that. That's beautiful. It reminds me of an ant hill after a storm has wiped through. You see dozens of little ants scurrying about, rebuilding, modifying, growing the hill, all so it can be wiped out in the next storm. It's about process, not product. Nothing is ever "finished" because that was never really the point to begin with. It's about the process of living, and big surprise, it's not that different in a living document.
I am a fan of the idea. It's just hard for me personally. Though it's not very Zen, I've always had trouble with the maintenance side of life. Mowing the lawn and watching it grow. Mowing the lawn and watching it grow. Mowing the lawn and... what the hell? I just mowed it the other day! I'm very product-orientated. I'm not saying any of that is better because it probably isn't. It's just more my style. I'd like to be in Zen harmony with the ebb and flow; I'm just not there yet.
So some guy came in and proposed an entire rewrite of my featured article and for the first time I thought, you know, I think I'm done here. Maybe I'd be more product-ive elsewhere. I thought all of that, and wrote up this departing essay in favor of processes, and as I was writing the words "I think I'm done here," I realized... that's the product. How narcissistic of me to have not considered that there'd be anything after. Has an ant colony ever been about just one ant?
Labels: social media, Web 2.0
posted by Jeremy at
12:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
« Home