Wikipedia Reflection

Plagiarism and Wikipedia

All writing includes plagiarism. Whether it was purposeful plagarism or not, no idea is truly your own. Wikipedia can help uss understand that plagarism, when cited correctly and used in the proper manner, isn’t always a bad thing.

            In his article “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community,” James Porter addresses the concept that all writing contains traces of intertextuality, that is “the idea that all texts contain “traces” of other texts and that there can be no text that does not draw on some ideas from some other texts” (86). This means that all writing contains some form of plagiarism. Whether it is the use of the same descriptive words, complete phrases, or just the same thought written in a different way, all ideas are conceived based on something that came before. Even the phrase “Once upon a time…” that is often used in fairy tales could be considered plagiarism because it is an unoriginall thought that “signals to the youngest reader the opening of a fictional narrative” (89). Porter even goes as far as to say that “texts not only refer to but in fact contain other texts” (89). By saying this he is implying that plagiarism exists whether we realize it or not.  

Plagarism is evident through Wikipedia writing. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia comprised of over 3 million articles that is edited by the general public. Because it is an encyclopedia that requires all material be cited, all writing could potentially be considered plagiarized. By citing a reference source, you are saying that what is in this article is not your own thoughts, by merely a compilation of others thoughts placed in an orderly manner.

            Wikipedia writing, as well as all other encyclopedia writing, requires the writer to remain objective. In order to remain objective, the writer must include opinions from all viewpoints on the matter. For example, the abortion page on Wikipedia includes opinions from all sides in the “society and culture” section. Since abortion is such a controversial topic, it would be nearly impossible for a single writer to support both sides in his or her writing. Outside sources must be used in this case to support one or both sides, thus resulting in plagiarism of some kind. In order to remain objective, the writer must consult outside sources so as not to lean a certain way in writing.

             My experience with Wikipedia writing includes some forms of plagiarism. Prior to writing my article on the Bolognese dog breed I had never even heard of the breed. Because of this lack of experience, all of the information in the article is based on someone else’s thoughts, or the thoughts of a discourse community. A discourse community is “a group of individuals bound by a common inerest who communication through approved channels” (91). The discourse community I consulted were owners and breeders of Bolognese dogs.  I plagiarized the majority of my information from this community. While I rarely wrote something wrote something word for word, and when I did I cited it correctly with quotes, all of my facts are their information. The sentence structure is the only thing on the article that I can credit as my own thoughts and even then I learned how to form sentences from someone else during elementary school so even those aren’t technically my own. Even though I used subjective sources I found it easy to stay objective in my writing. Journalism requires that you stay as objective as possible when writing, even though sometimes that is nearly impossible. Because this is how I’ve been writing for the past three years, I was able to balance the article with pros and cons about the breed as well as I could based on the information I received from the discourse community. The only thing I found difficult about this project was that I am used to writing press releases where the style of writing is short, sweet and to the point. You write short sentences that address your point and sell your organization in a way the general public could understand. Wikipedia writing, as well as the majority of writing in this class, requires you to include intricate details and to basically bullshit most of your writing you do by just restating the same thing in different forms. I rarely write anything over one page in PR so writing with minor details has been very difficult for me to remember how to do.

            In my opinion, Wikipedia is an excellent source for gaining information on a certain topic, especially if the topic is something that is not mainstream. However, it is important to remember that most of the information on the website is plagiarized in some form. One of the best uses of Wikipedia is the reference section at the bottom of each topic. This tells where the author initially derived his or her information from, thus giving you .org and .edu websites that are typically considered “better” reference sources. It is also important to remember that no matter what sources you are using to gain information, chances are the information they present has been plagiarized many time before.