Wiki your way to better writing

DROP into any forum that offers support for budding writers and you’ll see the suggestion to get blogging cropping up with tiresome regularity, writes Louise Bolotin.

Now, I’m not knocking blogging – it’s good practice for writing and I currently have four blogs on the go. It’s just that blogging is a tad self-indulgent. Even if you enable comments and get plenty of them, the chances are high that none of them will give you any feedback on how you actually write, only on your content.

The problem is that unless you are a published writer producing a niche blog on a specialist subject, blogging is simply about having a public diary and your writing techniques may never improve. If you want to get the real measure of just how good your writing is, working on a wiki is a far more constructive way of getting peer criticism and learning the skills you need to produce a readable feature. Wikis offer open access so anyone can write for them and anyone can change what has been written.

As a freelance who earns just 20 per cent of my income from selling journalism (the rest comes from editing and copywriting), I need to write regularly in a way that will stand up to scrutiny by the wider public, in order to keep my skills honed so I recently started contributing to www.chesterwiki.com.

Some months earlier, I’d attempted to add content to Wikipedia, but I was daunted by the sheer scale of it and found the coding complicated. But when a fellow Cestrian started the Chester Wiki and invited me to write for it, I decided to give wikis another go. As the Chester Wiki was very new, I was less intimidated. I spent some time figuring out the coding – it’s actually not difficult once you get the hang of it – before diving in and writing my first article on it. Since then, I have added around 100 pages.

So, why is writing for a wiki superior to blogging? For one thing, if you create a wiki article you have to do your research and do it properly. That means finding the appropriate sources for your information and citing the references, just as you would in paid journalism. Secondly, once you’ve added your page, anyone can change it – if your spelling and grammar are poor, someone will correct them. If your facts are wrong or insubstantial, it’s guaranteed that another contributor will amend those as well. Thirdly, if what you’ve written is just plain dull, expect someone to liven it up and turn into a compelling or entertaining read. Lastly, there is no room for self-indulgence – that will be stamped out very fast by other users! Because wiki software allows you to see the history of a page and compare versions, you can spot very quickly what someone else has done to clean up your writing.

In short, it’s good discipline. Seeing how someone has changed your wiki contributions offers good pointers to where you need to improve and how you can make a piece of writing more interesting. My partner caught the wiki bug, after watching me write, and has had the ignominy of seeing me tidy up his appalling typos. Equally, I’ve watched him conjure up interesting obscure facts and add them to my carefully crafted contributions and I’ve had to admit that he improved them. And I have a lot of writing experience under my belt, which just proves that you never stop learning how to make your writing better.

There are hundreds of wikis on the net – find one you like the feel of and get writing. Don’t worry if you get the codes wrong to start with – wikis usually have help forums and contribution guides. Tag the pages you make by putting them on your “watch list”, then see how others edit you by viewing the history. Then use your peer feedback constructively to sharpen your writing skills.

Louise Bolotin is a freelance writer and editor. See www.plaintext.co.uk for more info.

Comments

[ourman]

"It’s just that blogging is a tad self-indulgent."

Certainly having four of them is.

Sorry, but I can't agree on this. I checked the Chester page - pub reviews, and local history. And? So?

I don't think this is writing it's just presenting facts - albeit in a straight forward and hopefully readable fashion.

What's that Trueman Capote quote: "That's not writing, that's typing."

Blogging and wiki-ing is like the difference between travel writing and writing a guide book.

[Linda]

I think Louise makes a brilliant point about putting your writing "out there" for others to edit. This must be pretty good for sharpening writing/research skills if you know someone is going to "pounce".

I have seen blogs where feedback is robust of course but I suppose readers would just stop reading if they didn't like the writing.

I'd like to know more about Wikis I think, and the people who'd be doing the "editing."

As for blogs being travel writing and wikis a guide book, some would say *some* blogs are scrawlings on a bus shelter.

Ducks for cover.

Oh and Louise - thank you so much for contributing. How chuffed am I? :)

[Linda Corby]

Interesting, I tried to do my profile on there, strange site in some ways they ask you to create a profile, then when you do they are almost rude if you put any links to anything you do or have done on site.

Never done an article there, surely as authors we want to get paid for our work? Well at least I like to.

Good luck with it.

[Louise Bolotin]

ourman, firstly, the Chester Wiki has only been up for less than two months, so it's in no way complete. There is a news section, which will hopefully develop as more people get involved with the wiki. Whichever way you dice it, writing for a wiki is still writing. There's a lot more on there than just pub reviews and history, but I'd argue that even writing up history is good preparation for paid work, because you have to research and order your material, just as you would for a paid gig. As for four blogs being self-indulgent, I totally agree. However, one of them is a serious campaign blog, which I don't see as indulgence at all.

[Louise Bolotin]

Linda Corby, I think you may be referring to Wikipedia rather than the Chester Wiki about profiles/rude comments. I've not seen any of that on Chester Wiki. The point of wikis, of course, is that they are open access, so you don't get paid for adding content. And of course, we all want to get paid for "proper work". My point was that wikis offer an alternative route to practising your writing skills in preparation for paid commissions. If you can survive having your wiki contributions mauled, you can survive commissioning eds and the rest!

[ourman]

Bu then again if you wrote in a wiki style for commissioning eds most would throw it back at your as the dullest copy around.

I don't get this. Sure it'll help you practice your grammar, punctuation, vocabulary etc. But surely most writers are past that, aren't they?

Wiki has it's own colourless, dry style that wouldn't sit too well outside of a text book.

Nope just can't see it. Wiki = dry, no byline and no money. It's a hobby I guess and obviously one you enjoy. Fantastic. But in terms of helping a writer I don't see the point.

As regards your work being edited, surely by the time people are ready to deal with commissioning editors they are used to their work being criticised already. Aren't they?

Interesting though and a point I wouldn't have considered.

[Louise Bolotin]

I wouldn't suggest anyone send in a commercial piece written in a wiki style, if there is such a thing (which I doubt, as a random flick through Wikipedia will show you pages written in a wide variety of styles). After all, you wouldn't win a pitch for Hello! and send them copy more suited style-wise for New Scientist.

You'd be amazed the number of writers who can't spell, construct a decent sentence or even assemble a feature in a logical order. Ask any sub-editor who's had the job of having to completely rewrite stuff that really should have only needed a light edit, trim, and standfirst added.

And for dealing with criticism, read some of the threads on Journobiz or Mousetrap's email forum to see there are plenty of professional writers around who are not very good at handling it.

Yes, writing for a wiki could certainly be seen as a hobby, but that doesn't mean it's not a good place to test your skills - it's quite a tough environment.

[ourman]

Thanks Louise. I'll certainly look at it in a new light - I always wondered who the hell it was who actually went to the effort of contributing to wiki. I thought it was either PRs boosting their clients or people with an axe to grind.

As an ex hack/PR - quite a long time out of the business and living and working/volunteering overseas, I am used to dealing with the critics. My problem is pitching and making money. But I guess that is a whole other column and a very different issue.

Thanks for the insight into wiki.

[Dave Lee]

I see the logic here. Putting your writing up for scrutiny in front of readers that can edit it is an interesting way of gaining feedback.

But is it feedback? Advice is only good if it's useful. The impression I get is that the people that would edit your entries are not journalists in any form, so really they're just fact checkers.

Even if you get your articles corrected a million times, you'll still not have an improved writing style/tone etc.

Which, from reading your single post here alone, you don't need any help on anyway. So rather than doing things "as you would in paid journalism", why not just do paid journalism in the first place?

Good read.

(And Linda, I've emailed you. Or at least I'm about to, but by the time you've read this, the email will have arrived. Unless something distracts me. A bacon sandwich perhaps.)

[Louise Bolotin]

PRs and people with axes to grind do not seeing their writing survive in recognisable form on a wiki. If you're not neutral, which is an essential requirement for a journalist, you will be edited. Just yesterday, the Chester Tories attempted to hijack the Chester Wiki to plug their election manifesto by adding a piece to the news column - it took just an hour before someone rewrote the item as a proper "news in brief" piece and removed attempts to grab votes. To my mind, that's a perfect example of peer criticism in action!

[Louise Bolotin]

Dave, I don't really see your logic that someone who is not a journalist is just a "fact checker", if they change a wiki page. That's simply not so. Wikipedia, for example, contains thousands of pages created by people who are not paid journos but talented, passionate people who can write well.

No one on a wiki will give you advice unless you ask for it in the help forums; the feedback element comes from comparing the version history and see if and how others have improved on the original post. So I believe it is possible to see where you can improve.

[ourman]

Maybe but perhaps the Chester Tories PR got paid - you didn't. Ouch. Sorry.

[Louise Bolotin]

"Ouch. Sorry"

I'm not sure what your point is. No, I don't get paid if I add stuff to the Chester Wiki, but I get commissioned work which I do get paid for. I'm currently Contributing Editor for Skin Two, which brings in money, plus I write for other paying publications, in between the editing and copywriting. I've been a journalist off and on for nearly 30 years. I enjoy writing and I'd probably still do it even if I wasn't in a position to get paid for it. Why are you writing your blog? Do you get paid for that? No, I'd guess, but you still do it!

[ourman]

You wrote:

"I enjoy writing and I'd probably still do it even if I wasn't in a position to get paid for it. Why are you writing your blog? Do you get paid for that? No, I'd guess, but you still do it!

Exactly. You wiki because you enjoy it. Nothing wrong with that.

Any practice writing, and as you say, experience of being edited and criticised is useful to some extent or another.

But..

My blog has my name on it. It has my contact details. On the strength of it, today, I just got asked to write a local commercial blog. Over and above the fact that I enjoy writing it, it's an advertisement and a web presence for me.

I may just be starting out on my freelancing career but to this point everything I have ever written for cash on a freelance basis has been as a result of this blog or its predecessor (www.ourmaninhanoi.com).

I'm also a charity fundraiser and my old blog must have brought in, in excess of $20,000.

To go back to your original piece. I can't see how advising a potential writer to blog is tiresome. I can't see how blogging is self indulgent.

Suppose I wrote wikis instead. I can hardly go to a client..I wrote that bit, and that bit, oh and that bit there. He certainly isn't going to approach me on the basis that I wrote a wiki. He wouldn't even know.

Argue that wiki writers are doing an invaluable service and I am with you. I must use wiki ten times a day.

I live in the developing world but life is cheap here. The work my blog brought in today means I can continue to live here. A handsome sum by local standards, albeit a 1/8 of what I would charge back home.

Again thanks for the insight. I'm not criticising (although weren't we talking about learning to take criticism) just putting a point of view.

Without my blog I'd be starting at square one as a freelancer. As it is I'm a little ahead of that and even without much of a portfolio behind me I do have something to show people.

[Dave Lee]

I'm not for a moment suggesting that the people who contribute to wikis are not passionate about it. They wouldn't even survive if it were any other way.

What I'm saying is, you're describing writing for the wiki as a tool to further your journalism, and I just don't buy it.

Like 'ourman' said, with his blog, it has his name stuck at the top, and it is a really fantastic promotional tool. A wiki is anonymous. So while it may help you with writing accurately, I fail to see how it will improve your journalism career.

If I was an editor of a publication looking to commission freelancers, and one approached me saying "I've written on a wiki", I'd think "so what? Anyone can edit those...that's the point".

Blogs do have the same problem somewhat, but if you can approach an ed and say I've written this blog about my time in Hanoi, and XX amount of readers log in daily to read my words...then you're on to a winner.

[Louise Bolotin]

Dave said: "What I'm saying is, you're describing writing for the wiki as a tool to further your journalism, and I just don't buy it."

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying wikis can improve your writing skills, which are then transferable (purely as writing skills) and improve your chances of getting commissions. Nowhere have I suggested using wiki contributions as part of a portfolio.

[ourman]

An absolutely, quite by chance, comment on the accuracy of Wikis.

I reckon your average blogger would have double checked (as I did). A newspaper news editor would be fired for this gaffe.

http://tinyurl.com/23an77

How did this get through?

[Louise Bolotin]

Well, I don't doubt that there is false info on Wikipedia, but given that research has shown it's at least as accurate as Encyclopedia Brittanica (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm), it's a pretty accurate resource on the whole.

But that's rather moving away from my original point, no?

[ourman]

Moving away from the original point?

You wrote in your original piece:

"For one thing, if you create a wiki article you have to do your research and do it properly."

Well, if we write off the piece I have linked (which has still not been changed) as pure vadalism - where is the editing process there? You can point to inaccuracies elsewhere but..publishing that someone who is alive is dead..well, where is the fact checking there? Who is editing this? It has survived for several hours already.

I suggest that blogging at least gives everyone (not just the wiki-skilled) the chance to comment and highlight inaccuracies.

In terms of style we have already agreed that wiki style isn't what most media editors want. What they do want is hard facts that have been checked. Shown here that this is not always the case on wiki.

The benefits of being edited...AFTER publication? What kind of a standard is that?

I'm left trying to work out what the other benefits of writing for a wiki is, other than, as we've already said, a fun hobby.

[Linda]

Did you see the blog that said Maggie was dead a couple of weeks back?

[ourman]

There's one to ask Ms Seymour about. She'll probably get all teary and blame it on Islam.

[Louise Bolotin]

I stand by my comment that accurate research is essential for any piece of writing, whether it's for a wiki, The Times or anything else. Don't hold me responsible for some saddo that thought it would be funny to vandalise a Wikipedia page. And I've also already explained why writing for a wiki could help improve your writing skills. But really, you just want to argue with me for the sake of it.

[ourman]

no I don't