Oh my Lord, Oh Sweet Jesus! Who needs a barometer when you've got tendonitis? I feel like a giant biometric barometric measuring device. The closer the rain gets, the worse the pain is...and I am supposed to concentrate on writing through this physical agony? Isn't the mental agony of Wikipedia enough?
Having to discuss Wikipedia and its slim merits was bad enough, but having to write for it, too? For me, this whole project has been like having to eat big spoonfuls of shit; all the while keeping an open mind about the taste so as to grasp every nuance of the flavor in order to impartially review all of its qualities, both virtuous and vile.
Topping off this mental anguish is the smell-o-gram I am receiving from the compost which I mixed into the soil of my grapefruit tree's pot. (I brought it inside due to the cold snap we are supposed to get tonight). There is a slightly sulfurous smell coming from the decomposition of Heaven knows what...I woke to the smell and the thought that I should pray to Saint Isidore to make it go away. (Okay, what is weirder: The fact that I know St. Isidore is the patron saint of farmers or that I also happen to know that he is my patron saint by virtue of birth? His Feast Day is May 15th, my birthday).
The painkillers are clocking in, so I will be clocking out for now.
Showing posts with label I Hate Wikipedia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label I Hate Wikipedia. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
One Last Wiki Blog...Or So I Pray
I am seriously hoping this will be my last blog on the Internet scourge that is Wikipedia. I am seriously ready to gouge my eyes out just so I do not have to go back to another Wiki site. In discussing this issue with someone the other day, I told them that there is a difference between someone who is a writer and someone who writes. Just because you own a kepboard and have an Internet connection does not make you a writer, regardless of what Wikipedia allows you to believe.
I know my reviews of Wikipedia and its various branches sound harsh and bitchy, and may be they are...maybe WikiTravel is a great place for budding travel writers to build their portfolio before applying for paying work; but their work is the diamond that is buried somewhere in the rough.
I have pretty much finished my paste-up of my WikiTravel piece, and am just waiting on my peer review of it before putting together the final copy; and am trying to decide where it would best serve travelers - because isn't that the point of WikiTravel articles? Isn't the purpose of this site to be of service to travelers trying to make plans in a territory that is unknown to them?
Obviously, my choice of location - Fox Point/Wickenden Street - does not belong among the most broad of categaories, or even a broad category at all. It definitely fits into the "District" category WikiTravel offers - anybody who knows Fox Point knows that Wickenden Street is the heart of Fox Point, which is more of a neighborhood than a district - but I think Wikitravel could narrow the selection even further. If I were search Bourbon Street, in what category would I find it? Some streets are destinations in and of themselves, and I think they deserve their own category.
In short, I would guess my place choices for my entry would be "District", which does exist; "Neighborhood", which should exist but does not; and "Famous Streets", another non-existant category.
I know my reviews of Wikipedia and its various branches sound harsh and bitchy, and may be they are...maybe WikiTravel is a great place for budding travel writers to build their portfolio before applying for paying work; but their work is the diamond that is buried somewhere in the rough.
I have pretty much finished my paste-up of my WikiTravel piece, and am just waiting on my peer review of it before putting together the final copy; and am trying to decide where it would best serve travelers - because isn't that the point of WikiTravel articles? Isn't the purpose of this site to be of service to travelers trying to make plans in a territory that is unknown to them?
Obviously, my choice of location - Fox Point/Wickenden Street - does not belong among the most broad of categaories, or even a broad category at all. It definitely fits into the "District" category WikiTravel offers - anybody who knows Fox Point knows that Wickenden Street is the heart of Fox Point, which is more of a neighborhood than a district - but I think Wikitravel could narrow the selection even further. If I were search Bourbon Street, in what category would I find it? Some streets are destinations in and of themselves, and I think they deserve their own category.
In short, I would guess my place choices for my entry would be "District", which does exist; "Neighborhood", which should exist but does not; and "Famous Streets", another non-existant category.
I Still Hate Wikipedia
I just can't get into this whole Wikipedia assignment. Last night, when I was uploading and making minor edits to my article, someone else jumped onto it and started changing it on me. To me, that is the height of rudeness to go in and change someone else's work because you THINK what you have to say is better. I can understand if it were a regular Wikipedia article and incorrect information was posted; but to rearrange my sentence structure because you think ending sentences with prepositions sounds better than using proper grammar? I have two words for that Bozo, and one of them is "off". Seriously, if we are to write for audiences that may not have a full grasp of the English language, improper grammar is not going to make the article any easier for them to comprehend.
Anyhow, I believe that all clouds have silver linings, and for me Wikitravel's glimmer of argentum is its Manual of Style. As someone who is new to writing for the Wiki sites, there were a few helpful sections. The first would have to be the Structural Style Guide, which offers helpful writing tips to writers on where exactly their article will fit into the scheme of Wikitravel; as well as advice on when to start a new article or simply edit an existing one. I am not sure how many people actually read these instructions, but they are pretty darn comprehensive. The importance of this concept should be obvious: it eliminates redundancy, something which there is already way too much of on the web.
The other section of the Manual of Style that I found helpful is the section on Writing Style. This portion of the manual offers over a dozen links to elaborate on simple instructional phrases, such as "Don't tout"; Words to avoid"; and my personal favorite, "No advice from Captain Obvious".
I found "Don't tout" to be interesting, because I did not know what professional touting was, even though I frequently see it on the Internet and the inherent dishonesty of it has always upset me. I think it is important for contributors in general to remember this rule lest their articles be marked as SPAM and deleted from the site. Sometimes, you have to curb your enthusiasm in order to be heard.
"Words to avoid" made me laugh because there is nothing I hate more than pretense. It is one thing to drop a fancy sounding word here or there if it comes naturally to you. As a Science major, my brain is filled with both the English and Latin names for so many things. Combine this fact with the fact that I also speak French and you can see that I have three different languages spinning through my brain at the speed of thought. Is it any wonder that words like "argentum" spill out of my mind and into this process blog? However, this process blog has a limited audience, one that is presumed to be college educated. The same cannot be assumed of WikiTravel, so to fill an article with "50-cent words" would be foolish - unless your goal is to sound like a pretentious snot; then, by all means, write like you are submitting a court brief instead of a travel article.
The guideline "No advice from Captain Obvious" was by far my personal favorite for its simplicity, which is something people often forget about in their attempts to sound knowledgeable. I think it is important to keep the obvious out of the article for a few reasons. The first and most obvious is that including such information insults the intelligence of the reader. The second and less obvious is that it also bores the reader. When writing for the Internet, you need to keep your readers focused on what you are writing while maintaining their interest in your topic. If you lose the reader's interest, they will click on a link that will take them elsewhere and - eventually - lead them far from your article.
____________________________________________________________
My one problem with WikiTravel is that it is so broad that it seems difficult to be useful in planning a trip. I would be more likely to use it for local or regional travel than to plan a longer, more expansive trip. For example, if I were to take a day-trip to New Hampshire and wanted to know about restaurants in the area where I would be going, I might search the region or district on Wikitravel. Most likely, though, I would just CitySearch it.
P.S. Does anyone outside of science and/or academia know what argentum is?
Anyhow, I believe that all clouds have silver linings, and for me Wikitravel's glimmer of argentum is its Manual of Style. As someone who is new to writing for the Wiki sites, there were a few helpful sections. The first would have to be the Structural Style Guide, which offers helpful writing tips to writers on where exactly their article will fit into the scheme of Wikitravel; as well as advice on when to start a new article or simply edit an existing one. I am not sure how many people actually read these instructions, but they are pretty darn comprehensive. The importance of this concept should be obvious: it eliminates redundancy, something which there is already way too much of on the web.
The other section of the Manual of Style that I found helpful is the section on Writing Style. This portion of the manual offers over a dozen links to elaborate on simple instructional phrases, such as "Don't tout"; Words to avoid"; and my personal favorite, "No advice from Captain Obvious".
I found "Don't tout" to be interesting, because I did not know what professional touting was, even though I frequently see it on the Internet and the inherent dishonesty of it has always upset me. I think it is important for contributors in general to remember this rule lest their articles be marked as SPAM and deleted from the site. Sometimes, you have to curb your enthusiasm in order to be heard.
"Words to avoid" made me laugh because there is nothing I hate more than pretense. It is one thing to drop a fancy sounding word here or there if it comes naturally to you. As a Science major, my brain is filled with both the English and Latin names for so many things. Combine this fact with the fact that I also speak French and you can see that I have three different languages spinning through my brain at the speed of thought. Is it any wonder that words like "argentum" spill out of my mind and into this process blog? However, this process blog has a limited audience, one that is presumed to be college educated. The same cannot be assumed of WikiTravel, so to fill an article with "50-cent words" would be foolish - unless your goal is to sound like a pretentious snot; then, by all means, write like you are submitting a court brief instead of a travel article.
The guideline "No advice from Captain Obvious" was by far my personal favorite for its simplicity, which is something people often forget about in their attempts to sound knowledgeable. I think it is important to keep the obvious out of the article for a few reasons. The first and most obvious is that including such information insults the intelligence of the reader. The second and less obvious is that it also bores the reader. When writing for the Internet, you need to keep your readers focused on what you are writing while maintaining their interest in your topic. If you lose the reader's interest, they will click on a link that will take them elsewhere and - eventually - lead them far from your article.
____________________________________________________________
My one problem with WikiTravel is that it is so broad that it seems difficult to be useful in planning a trip. I would be more likely to use it for local or regional travel than to plan a longer, more expansive trip. For example, if I were to take a day-trip to New Hampshire and wanted to know about restaurants in the area where I would be going, I might search the region or district on Wikitravel. Most likely, though, I would just CitySearch it.
P.S. Does anyone outside of science and/or academia know what argentum is?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)