User:Wadewitz/Sandbox

Wikithoughts

For wikipedia to succeed as an encyclopedia – that is, for it to be taken seriously as a reliable reference work – we, the editors, have to hold ourselves to the highest standards of research and writing. What does this mean?

Research

Articles are built upon a foundation of research - if the foundation is weak, so is the article. This is why it is important to use the most reliable sources possible for each article you edit. As WP:RS explains: "Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world....Wikipedia articles should point to all major scholarly interpretations of a topic." What is the difference between scholarly and non-scholarly work? For one, all scholarly work is peer reviewed, that is, other scholars assess its accuracy before publication. Academic journals and books published by university presses are the best examples of such work. Oftentimes, these works themselves will have bibliographies that lead you to other sources.

While it is easy to understand that a website that I published would not be reliable, it is also important to understand the more nuanced distinction between scholarly books and trade books. Trade books, published by presses such as Penguin, are intended to make money and are not peer reviewed. One textbook describes the difference this way:

When manuscripts are submitted to an academic publisher, the editor sends them for independent review to experienced scholars who judge the rigor and accuracy of the research and the significance and value of the argument. The process is highly competitive and weeds out shoddy or trivial work. In contrast, trade books are not peer reviewed by independent scholars. Instead, they are selected for publication by editors whose business is to make a profit. Fortunately, it can be profitable for popular presses to publish superbly researched and argued material, because college-educated people – as lifelong learners – create a demand for intellectually satisfying books written for the general reader. These can be excellent sources for...research, but you need to separate the trash from the treasure. Trade books are aimed at many different audiences and market segments and can include sloppy, unreliable, and heavily biased material.

The question then becomes how to separate the wheat from the chaff-the reliable trade books from the unreliable.

Do not write an article without looking into the research issues first! If you are writing on an obscure historical topic like the Priestley Riots, do you have access to a large public library or a university library? You will probably need their resources. If you do not have access to these facilities, rethink your choice of topic. For literary and historical topics, the internet simply does not have sufficient reliable sources for a good article. Most quality scholarship is only published on paper or accessible electronically through a larger institution.

Think about the scope of the topic you are choosing – do you want to go with something small or large? Do you feel comfortable taking on something as large and complex as the Song Dynasty or would you rather stick with something more contained, such as Harriet Tubman? Always keep in mind that the larger the topic gets, the more you will need (and want!) to read. Also, the more time it will require and the more difficult you will (probably) find the writing. Most editors start with smaller topics and work their way up to larger ones. They also make friendships along the way which enable them to join forces for larger articles.

Once you have a topic, assemble a bibliography. Spend some time at a library reading through the bibliographies of a few of the major books on your topic to understand which are the most important resources for it. Some topics come with fully prepared bibliographies; for example, in literature the Cambridge Companions about authors and genres provide helpful bibliographies. Once you have a list of the books you want to read – start reading!

Everyone has their own way of reading and taking notes – figure out what works best for you and use it. Just don't lose your notes! You will more than likely want them throughout the writing process as you revise the article. If you have split the reading with other editors, find a way to share notes and ideas.

Writing

After you have finished reading, or perhaps towards the end of your reading, start thinking about the best way to structure the article. It's a good idea to set up a draft version of the article in a sandbox (especially if you are working with a group of editors), so that you can play with different organizational structures without distracting Wikipedia readers too much. Try to conceptualize the article in sections, relying to some extent on Wikipedia precedent. Some people prefer strict outlines at this stage, while others prefer a looser structure – this all depends on your style of writing and the dynamics of your group (if any).

As you start writing, always consider rearranging the structure. It is easier to redraft early in the writing process rather than late. Also, as this is Wikipedia, try to include your sources as you write (that way they don't get lost in the shuffle). After you have a draft, start adding some of the layout features, such as images, categories, and other accoutrements that make a Wikipedia article what it is.

At every stage of this process, you should consider taking large breaks (days, weeks) to give yourself distance from the article and offer yourself a fresh perspective when you return. If you are working in a group, others can take over for a while.

As you start to polish the draft, pay attention to matters of prose in particular and start to adhere to the manual of style as much as possible. You might think about soliciting a peer review at this point, or putting the article up for good article candidacy, depending on its state.

If you decide to go for featured article, institute a thorough review process for the article that will force you and others to look over the article many times. Don't rush into featured article candidacy or you will more than likely be disappointed. (Forcing reviewers to make laundry-lists of serious problems in your article at FAC is rude and shows impatience.) If you carefully prepare the article and go through several peer reviews beforehand, the article should easily pass. Think of FAC as a discussion about how to improve the article as well.

Blake Books

• Bloom, Harold. Blake’s Apocalypse: A Study in Poetic Argument. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1963.

• Bronowski, Julius. William Blake and the Age of Revolution. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1965.

• Butler, Marilyn. Romantics, Rebels and Reactionaries: English Literature and its Background 1760-1830. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981.

• Connolly, Tristanne. Blake and the Body. Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.

• Damrosch. Leopold. Symbol and Truth in Blake's Myth. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980.

• Erdman, David. Blake: Prophet Against Empire, A Poet’s Interpretation of the History of His Own Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954.

• Frye, Northrop. Fearful Symmetry: A Study of William Blake. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.

• Glen, Heather. Vision and Disenchantment: Blake’s Songs and Wordsworth’s Lyrical Ballads. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

• Goldsmith, Steven. Unbuilding Jerusalem. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993.

• Makdisi, Saree. Blake and the Impossible History of the 1790s. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.

• Mee, Jon. Dangerous Enthusiasms: William Blake and the Culture of Radicalism in the 1790s. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.

• Mitchell, W. J. T. Blake's Composite Art: A Study of the Illuminated Poetry. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978.

• Paglia, Camille. Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990.

• Paley, Morton. The Apocalyptic Sublime. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986.

• Viscomi, Joseph. Blake and the Idea of the Book. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.

• Worrall, David. Radical Culture: Discourse, Resistance, and Surveillance, 1790-1820. Wayne State University Press, 1992.

A noiseless patient spider, I mark'd where on a little promontory it stood isolated, Mark'd how to explore the vacant vast surrounding, It launch'd forth filament, filament, filament, out of itself, Ever unreeling them, ever tirelessly speeding them. And you O my soul where you stand, Surrounded, detached, in measureless oceans of space, Ceaselessly musing, venturing, throwing, seeking the spheres to connect them, Till the bridge you will need be form'd, till the ductile anchor hold, Till the gossamer thread you fling catch somewhere, O my soul." —"A Noiseless Patient Spider" by Walt Whitman Happy New Year Awadewit (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)