User:Rmarvick/subpage prep assignment

Liberalism in China http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_liberalism

In eponymously encyclopedic fashion, Wikipedia’s article on Liberalism develops its rhetoric in a precise, diplomatic fashion. It travels though a chronology of Chinese liberalization without presenting any—at least from what is evident to a foreigner of China—sentiments that could not arise out of any temporal bias. The page accurately captures the flux of liberalism’s influence in China over the past few centuries without much of a narrative gap. With the narration bookended by a first paragraph and last paragraph declaring China’s temporal standpoint on liberalism, the piece seems to stratify into something beyond its vulnerably malleable medium, binding it into a virtual piece of an individuals intellectual jest. Its strength is in its structure. Although it may not be the most detailed piece, it serves its purpose well as concise summary of an unendingly complex issue. With this being said, a comment on word count must now follow. A proposed argument for the elongation of this article—through possible expansion of information regarding Liberalism’s current influence on the doctrine of the communist party or an articulation of the issues under the Quing Dynasty that may have spurred liberal interests—is this: the Wikipedia page on Chinese Liberalism contains 573 words, a that number falls short of Pop-Tarts’ page by 707 words. There aren’t many social beings on this planet able to explain China’s liberalization over the past four centuries in fewer words than they can find to describe America’s bestselling frosted flatbread. So, why is it that Wikipedia has done this incredible feat without blinking an eye? And, furthermore, what does this say about those literate in English, are they to be blamed for this? These are questions that must be answered.

Mao Zedong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong#Political_ideas

The withholding of information is understood, in most circles arguably, to be the same as stating a lie, but what if the information is simply hidden, out of reach, in the fine print? Contractors would ague that this is in no way morally reprehensible. Though that doesn’t mean they won’t admit that it makes finding the truth slightly more difficult. In all probability, there is a good chance they will describe it the same way that they describe the difficulty of understanding Mao’s political decisions by referencing them to his ideological writings when perusing Wikipedia. It is not that information on Mao “On Practice” is impossible to find, but rather that it’s not readily accessible. Although Mao’s page includes simply everything one could ever possibly want to know about the political figure—except for, disappointingly, his personal taste in pop-tarts—It has very little explaining his personal ideology. Instead, the page seems to, as it obviously should, focus on his political career with a slightly disturbing length of text devoted to his violent conflicts. This alone, does not nearly present the whole scope of his biography; it is unbalanced, and, depending on one’s opinion, lacks accuracy. If one wishes to deepen one’s relationship with Mao, a separate page on Maoism exists: an ideology unrepresented on its creator’s page. Separating Mao’s page from the Maoist page unavoidably causes a subsequent abstract separation of Moa from his ideology. He becomes depoliticized, unable to defend himself against critique by stating his humanitarian intention and, instead, condemned to being judged as an individual divorced from his former duty as social facilitator.

East Asian Yogācāra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asian_Yog%C4%81c%C4%81ra

This Wikipedia page is quintessential. Everything, from the three to five ratio of notes with text, the first heading “epistemology,” all the way down to the individualized quick-facts box colorized in a purple the likes of which the world hasn’t seen since it flowed westward across Eurasia centuries ago. It all oozes a Jimmy Wales aesthetic, but it does it well, it does it succinctly, and it does it accurately. This aside, it is slightly lacking in a few key subjects, mainly: the morality of appropriating Yogacara tradition devoid of its religious aspects and a description of spirituality within East Asian Yogacara specifically.

Wikipedia’s Unique: One main issue stands at the forefront of this discussion, determining a normative definition for an appropriate Wikipedia contribution. It tends to be inferred that all manner of literature must be written in the manner of it’s similarly bound literature—Poetry must be bound poems, a novel must be a bound narrative, a Wikipedia article must be a bound… No, wait; it’s not bound at all. A Wikipedia page isn’t a collection of dry, encyclopedic entries about the Byzantine Empire, or a list of plant species in the Tundra of Ontario, bound up in a shiny black cover with imprints of last nights math homework sitting, bored on it’s marinara stained surface. Wikipedia is not a book at all; it’s a beast of intellectual dynamism, floating in an ether of omniscience over the world of unending questions. Now, that seems a slightly more intimidating place to leave a mark than a notebook. But, with all challenging intimidations come rewards. Working on a contribution to such a global medium will unquestionably improve writing skills, for what better way to teach universality than to write for the universe? It’s an apprenticeship with the world; a writing workshop for those searching for escape from xenophobia; an editing seminar for the seekers of communicability; a publishing job with The Globe Instantaneous. Especially in regards to those pieces that desire, so much, to work towards a conclusion, the process of posting a Wikipedia page will be a development of a new skill. Such pieces as a discourse on Modern Chinese Philosophy, for example, must be reigned in and fine tuned before they will be ready for posting. Obviously this is done in every type of writing, but this is more than that, Wikipedia requires a specific kind of editing. It requires what can only be termed a literary distillation: slimming down of sorts, until the most can be said with the least amount of words. Ideally this would be an everyday affair—in the least it would save energy—but that doesn’t seem to near in the future, not to a world where that takes 1,280 to describe a Pop-tart.