Wikipedia is a multilingual web-based project that combines
many featured encyclopedias, almanacs and other forms of informative content.
Its articles are written from a neutral stance that gives no personal opinion
to its readers. The Wikipedia Project wants its readers and viewers to actively
participate in searching for any topic that interests them, especially when any
person who has access to the Internet can use, edit and redistribute any and all
the articles. Bullard mentions that, there is an underlying theme of policy
change and the need to do so, rather than just agreeing or disagreeing. Wikipedia
was created to where curious individuals can research very broad and very
specific topics and issues without selective standpoints.
Searching through Wikipedia’s website, there is a section
called “Subcategories,” which entail very specific and particular stubs that
contain unfinished and uncertain articles that need reviewing. I thought it was
very interesting that Wikipedia actually took the time to separate those
articles that were not sited from reliable sources before a reader or viewer
actually believe the information given.
Under the “Subcategories” section, there are thousands of
stubs that were reviewed and all of them surprised me, some more than others. Two
different stubs that had taken me aback were, California and New York United
States Representative Stubs that are listed in this category. I found it quite
interesting that our own governments’ stub is listed with articles sited with
unreliable sources, and unfinished editing. Jones instantly came to mind when
she mentions in her article of truth and logic. The quote, “things that are
naturally better and things that are true have always succeeded to be proven
right,” reiterated the government’s honesty towards its civilians. If the
government can control most of the daily errands us citizens do, why not
correctly site their own stub and complete finish editing their own stub? Does
the government not want to be seen in the finest of light?
Speaking of good lighting, Guo Shengkun has recently been
appointed China’s Minister of Public Security. As jones has strongly repeated
in her theory that truth is very important for one’s argument and speech,
Shengkun has little to possibly no experience in his new appointed field. Since
the article stated that Guo Shengkun was not suitable for his position, when he
is not only a native to his country but also has been held accountable for
being a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China,
working during the Cultural Revolution, China Non-Ferrous Metal Mining
Corporation and many other positions. Although this may not be a case of
discrimination, the content and the treatment of Guo go hand in hand with
Bullard’s argument. Since Bullard makes use of extensive historical evidence to
support his claims of discrimination throughout his argument, Shengkun has
served over two decades of governmental work for China. This operates on the
stasis levels of value and policy. The value of Guo Shengkun and how his newly
appointed position and how it affects his people is what is driving his
evidence. This level affects the concept of policies and how these policies,
especially in disasters, are carried out in areas of diversity.
In Guo Shengkun’s article, I immediately noticed that there
were not any sources but rather references. Both are equally important,
however, both are very different. The three references are the Xinhua News,
People’s Daily and South China Morning Post. The Xinhua News is the “official
press agency of the People's Republic of China and the biggest center for
collecting information and press conferences in China.” People’s Daily is a “daily
newspaper in the People's Republic of China. The paper is an organ of the
Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), published worldwide
with a circulation of 3 to 4 million.” Lastly, the South China Morning Post is
the Sunday morning paper for China. After researching these three difference
references, I found them to be very reliable sources as well as informative. Jones
claims that in the history of rhetorical argumentation there is a distinction
to be made between being logical and being truthful (163). Logic was lacking
from the article because of its lack of detail explaining why Shengkun was
appointed his new position. If the editor decided to state, “He had little
legal experience,” the editor would have needed to provide sources and strong
details to support such a statement.
Work Cited:
Jones, Rebecca. “Finding the Good Argument, or Why Bother with Logic?” Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing, Volume 1. Ed. Charles Lowe and Pavel Zemliansky. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor P, 2010. Available online via WAC Clearinghouse at http://wac.colostate.edu/books/writingspaces1/ .
Bullard, Robert. "How Race Affected the Federal Government’s Response to Katrina." 2005. Online.