Summary
In a media literacy course at ASU, John had the opportunity to edit the Wikipedia article on Wolf Entertainment. Initially intimidated by the editing process, he found a tag on the article highlighting its subjective wording. After proposing changes in the talk section and receiving minimal feedback, John revised the article to remove the subjective language and add citations from reputable sources. The collaborative nature of Wikipedia became apparent when other editors made additional corrections shortly after. This experience transformed John’s perspective on Wikipedia from viewing it as unreliable to recognizing the value of its collaborative effort and community support, leaving them feeling more confident in editing future articles.
Are you curious about how Wikipedia articles are created and edited? I’ve often heard that Wikipedia isn’t the most reliable source and that it shouldn’t be used for citations because anyone can edit its content. For our final blog post for my media literacy course at ASU, we had a two-part assignment to edit a Wikipedia article that needed some updates. After making our edits, we were to observe the changes and share our experiences in a blog post. Let me tell you, editing a Wikipedia article is quite an eye-opening experience that might change how you view the platform. I recently took the plunge and made my first edit, focusing on the article about Wolf Entertainment.
First, let’s discuss the original state of the article. When I opened the page, I saw a message at the top stating that “this article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. Please remove or replace such wording, and instead of making proclamations about a subject’s importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance. (July 2025).” After reading through the article, I found several subjective phrases without substantial citations to back up the claims.
Next, I reached out in the talk section of the article with a proposal for the changes I wanted to make and a question about the citations for one of the references I wished to correct. Initially, I didn’t receive much feedback, and I felt incredibly anxious as I revised the language to create a more objective article. For some reason, I was riddled with anxiety about this project, possibly due to impostor syndrome. I didn’t feel qualified to be editing anything on Wikipedia and was waiting for the inevitable moment when my edits would be rejected or removed.
However, I was determined to make a difference, so I rolled up my sleeves and got to work. I ended up making more changes than I had anticipated. I extensively rewrote sections to eliminate the overly promotional tone and added citations from reputable sources like Fortune and the official news page for Wolf Entertainment to substantiate my changes. It was refreshing to replace subjective language with factual statements. For instance, I removed the sentence “According to media reports, it was one of the largest such deals at the time,” which referred to an agreement with Universal Television regarding an undisclosed nine-figure deal. I also added several citations and corrected a date to reflect the announcement date from Wolf Entertainment, along with a citation for the information.
Here are the changes I made in suggesting mode on a Google Doc. The first screenshot shows the original language from Wikipedia. The second screenshot displays the modified language.
Check out the article [here]
Here are examples of how the article has evolved over the last few days. The first shows how the article appeared immediately after my edit, while the second demonstrates how it looked two days later after others collaborated to make corrections. Additionally, the suggested corrections tag has been removed.
The collaborative nature of Wikipedia became quite evident during this process. I noticed the next day my edit had changed slightly and even had another section added to the article. It was a bit intimidating at first, but surprisingly rewarding. I also appreciated the community’s feedback the next day from another editor, giving me advice for one of my citations that I had inquired about. It made me realize that Wikipedia is a collective effort to share knowledge.
Did this experience change my view of Wikipedia? Absolutely! Before, I considered it a somewhat unreliable source that I wouldn’t necessarily trust for academic work, mainly because I didn’t understand the editing process. I thought anyone could edit articles at will. However, after participating in the editing process, I discovered the meticulous attention to detail and the supportive community behind the edits. I can’t believe how intimidated I was to edit an article in Wikipedia. Now that I have been through the process, I feel more comfortable and will be looking to edit some more articles in the near future.
Here are all the links used to add relevant citations while editing the Wolf Entertainment article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Call_(TV_series)
https://fortune.com/2020/02/27/producer-dick-wolf-universal
https://www.televisionacademy.com/awards/awards-search#?q=Wolf+Films
https://www.televisionacademy.com/awards/awards-search#?q=Wolf+Entertainment
https://www.imdb.com/news/ni65277485
https://wolfentertainment.com/news/welcome-to-the-world-of-wolf-entertainment
Leave a Reply