Alright, about my wikipedia post… only two other people have amended the entry since it was posted (hope my letter grade doesn’t drop as a result of that). This is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%A1mestie_Slovensk%C3%A9ho_n%C3%A1rodn%C3%A9ho_povstania_%28Bratislava%29
I just chose the topic randomly; there was not anything really magical or special about it. I was looking over the entry for the Velvet Revolution and while reading the bit under Tuesday November 21, the name Square of Slovak National Uprising was written in red, which caught my attention. Considering that I haven’t posted anything on wikipedia and did not really know what to write about, what better place to start than here.
I, then, created my account which was pretty easy, started looking through the databases, but really did not come across a whole lot that could help me write the article. There was not much in the ways of a lengthy history other than what happened before World War II with the leader at the time allying himself (and the country) with the Third Reich, allowing the Nazis to come in. Then they began oppressing and deporting Jews and others, which the Fascists typically did and that created an atmosphere of fear and terror. So when the Red Army began rolling through, the Czechs and Slovaks began revolting and combined it became one of the defining moments in their history. In 1989, the square saw more protesters who were finished with communism and the empty promises of the old regime and ideology.
Undoubtedly, there will be some question of the sources used, so I’ll elaborate. What I found and used were the Christian Science Monitor (one of the most objective news reporting outlets), the BBC (because they were there at the time, not a preferred source) and another article from the history database. I found several other articles, however they either pertained more to Havel than the actual site or they were written in Czech or Slovak.
From what I noticed looking over what has been edited, really what the two or so other users did was make it look more aesthetically appealing for which I must take leaps and bounds before that can be so. I think this assignment was one of the more interesting things I’ve done during the time at Mason. When just thinking about the venue the entry was posted (wikipedia) and how, whether or not you trust it or your professor likes it is irrelevant because it is here to stay. So much more information is contained in the site than anywhere else I can think of like Britannica and Encarta. The idea that someone looking at doing a research project now or next year or ten years down the road can look at the Velvet Revolution and wonder what the heck is the Square of Slovak National Uprising, and for them the article I started can put some of the event during November 1989 into context. Twain said, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” For some of us the articles we make in the larger context of the events surrounding whatever the subject was, well, ordinary people can look at it and draw their conclusions based on the facts we found. Such as in the case of getting rid of the Nazis, then having to do the same for the Communists.
The more we take an active interest in what is posted and examining things we do actually know about or can cite, the more knowledge can thrive in the public domain. But that isn’t to say we should hook up servos to wind chimes and every time an article is edited it will sound the “winds of change” like what Dr. Kelly’s friend has rigged. But who knows, my article went through very little actual change. Perhaps in 5 years it’ll look a lot different and have more depth to it.
