What's in a Wikipedia Article?

Comparing and contrasting autobiographies in Wikipedia can give readers a better sense of what constitutes a Wikipedia article and it can help in distinguishing key factors that create a better, more in-depth article versus one that is weak in certain areas. To do so I have conducted an analysis of two sets of autobiographies that outlines some key comparisons and differences among the autobiographies.

Marshall McLuhan and Michelle Citron’s autobiographies serve as the first set of biographies that I evaluated. At first glance, it is evident that McLuhan’s biography is significantly lengthier than Citron’s, which gives the impression that it is more developed than Citron’s.  McLuhan was a well-known communications theorist who produced popular theories and contributed greatly to the study of communication in history while Citron is listed as an artist and filmmaker. The difference in length and depth of the articles may be attributed to the popularity and research available on each of the figures, since it is apparent that McLuhan’s work was widely published and used in the academic realm while Citron’s influence was seen in a much smaller niche. McLuhan’s biography lists 85 notes, while Citron’s lists seven. McLuhan’s biography also contains a larger list of external links and a completed works cited page. The quality of those notes also is important to note. As Charles Bazerman would say, McLuhan's article provides the reader with a higher quality level of intertextuality. The McLuhan article uses the words in the texts to form a relationship among the text, as a way of providing the most knowledge and understanding to the reader. The amount of embedded links in McLuhan's article provides the reader with all the pieces necessary to learn the most about McLuhan and his contributions to academia. However, the lack of intertextuality in Citron's article leaves a reader with additional questions instead. Most of the sources used in McLuhan’s biography are academic sources that reflect on communications theories while some of Citron’s sources as questionable, and include websites like “queerfeast.com” and “Jewish looks.” This brings into question the credibility of the article as well. It is evident that for research purposes McLuhan’s biography is more extensive and thorough than Citron’s, leading to fuller subsections of the article as well. This shows the difference of quality of two Wikipedia articles and how sources and notes can affect the quality, credibility and depth of an article.

The second set of biographies will serve as a way to compare the quality of a Wikipedia biography versus the quality of a more traditional encyclopedia, on the same individual. The format of both biographies is similar; they begin with a lead then provide a link to the subsections within the article. However, it is important to notice the tone difference in the article. Wikipedia’s article is strictly fact-driven, since one of the guiding article principles of Wikipedia states “no original research.” This means that the authors cannot make claims based off other research. The difference of the style of writing is evident from the first lead sentence of the articles.

Wikipedia Article: “Henry Sidgwick (31 May 1838 – 28 August 1900) was an English utilitarian philosopher and economist.”

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Article: “Henry Sidgwick was one of the most influential ethical philosophers of the Victorian era, and his work continues to exert a powerful influence on Anglo-American ethical and political theory.”

The Wikipedia article is more succinct and leaves out the opinion that Sidgwick was among the most influential philosophers- which sounds more claim driven than fact driven.

It is evident that some articles do not meet up to the standards set out by Wikipedia, however, their section titled “Featured Articles” showcases articles that meet specific criteria. One of these articles is the article on Windsor Castle.

This lengthy article is well written and extremely well researched. It has vast information of the castle from the 11^th-21^st century as well as specific details of each section of the castle such as the importance of the middle, upper and lower ward. It begins with a lead that introduces the topic well and the article is organized in an easy to follow format.  In addition to the information it also provides illustrations of the castle during different time periods. In the article it embeds links to important figures related to the architecture and history related to the castle. In total, the article has 239 references as well as a fully cited bibliography.

This article is a great example of Wikipedia content that meets the Featured Article criteria in all aspects. The criteria to be a Featured Article on Wikipedia is extensive, but all criteria are important for the dissemination of knowledge in the digital and public sphere. Wikipedia says because Featured Articles are supposed to represent their highest quality work, the criteria is at professional level in all senses including in writing, presentation, and sourcing. To be a Featured Article on Wikipedia an article must be: well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, and stable. It also must follow the style guidelines that Wikipedia outlines.