Cheerleading & Wikipedia

My choice of a Wikipedia site is Cheerleading where knowledge is gained from thousands of people to gather information on this one subject. In the article, “What Wikipedia Can Teach Us About New Media Literacies” part one, Henry Jenkins states “Basically, they are recommending exactly what we suggested — students shouldn’t be citing encyclopedias. I would hope they wouldn’t be citing Encyclopedia Britannica, either. If they had put out a statement not to read Wikipedia at all, I would be laughing. They might as well say don’t listen to rock’n’roll either.” This meaning that Wikipedia is supposed to be used as a point of reference, not where you gather all of your information. If I was doing a research project on Cheerleading I would not cite from Wikipedia because that’s clearly not professional but Wikipedia is mainly to get background info on a topic you may not know.

            In Henry Jenkins “What Wikipedia Can Teach Us About New Media Literacies” part two article, I found it interesting how he described collective knowledge. He stated “What holds a knowledge community together is not the possession of knowledge — which can be relatively static — but the social process of acquiring knowledge — which is dynamic and participatory, continually testing and reaffirming the group’s social ties. The Wikipedians bond by working together to fill gaps in their collective knowledge.” I really enjoyed this statement because it put into perspective that ultimately we all learn from each other and each individual holds things that others don’t. This really made me realize the true meaning behind Wikipedia. We all hold a certain type of knowledge and are more knowledgeable in some things than others. By putting all of our knowledge together, we can create one strong website that is in my eyes the smartest of them all. I think the saying “the best way to learn is from other people” really ties in well with these two articles (part one and two) because Wikipedia collectively takes knowledge from thousands of people to create this site that is reliable and knowledgeable.


In the Wikipedia site for Cheerleading I found that it was a very good description of the different types of cheer and details on how it is done. Whether it was talking about high school or competitive cheer, anyone that read this would know everything you need to know about cheerleading.  It grasps the overall ideas of how cheer is run to the history going back to 1877. This article was created October 10, 2001, which is interesting because cheerleading isn’t a new sport and the Wikipedia site for it was only created 13 years ago. The cheerleading Wikipedia page has been viewed 26436 times in the last 30 days, 45869 times in the last 60 days and 89466 times in the last 90 days whereas the total number of revisions is 5438 times and the average number of edits per year is 440.49.




It is still being edited regularly, the last time the Cheerleading page was edited was February 10, 2014. This Cheerleading Wikipedia page clearly shows that by using collective intelligence, we are able gain the knowledge from many different people to gain knowledge about cheerleading from many different perspectives. 


Jenkins, Henry. “What Wikipedia Can Teach Us About The New Media Literacies.” Web log post. Confessions of an Aca-Fan. N.p., 26 June 2007. Web. 13 Feb. 2014 

“Cheerleading.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 16 Feb. 2014. Web. 16 Feb. 2014. <


One comment on “Cheerleading & Wikipedia

  1. The first paragraph does a good job introducing Jenkins and the title of his article. Explaining the context of the quote would help the reader understand it better, because the quote currently uses vague pronouns (“they”), which could be confusing to someone who isn’t already familiar with the concept. While your annotated images could be helpful in guiding the reader to the visual argument, be sure to connect your images to the text of the blog post, and be sure to utilize images that are most helpful to the reader. The statistics cited in the text of the blog post are interesting, but going into more analysis of those statistics in the context of your main points could help connect all of the paragraphs in the text back to the idea of collective intelligence and would make the piece more coherent. The quote by Jenkins and the paraphrasing of that quote into laymen’s terms both worked well within the post; incorporating Jenkins more throughout would improve the argument and could tie together statistics and analysis to create a coherent central argument.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s