Wiki Honesty?

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.