Read & Respond – Week 7

Welcome to Wiki Week! This week’s we’ll be taking the collaborative ideas we’ve used in our mapping projects and apply them to a different kind of crowdsourced project.

First, you’ll read a chapter from Clay Shirky’s (remember him?) Here Comes Everybody that deals with wikis, Wikipedia, and the function of collaboration in communication. You can find this PDF in the “readings” folder on the main page of our class eCampus page.

For a light counterpoint, have a look at this article on wikigroaning from venerable humor site Something Awful (there are later installments here and here) – if you like your information more traditional, there’s also a story on the phenomenon in the Wall Street Journal). The argument is that collaborative works like Wikipedia tend to emphasize trivia and pop culture over substantive information. Consider, for example, that the entry for television program Grey’s Anatomy is almost seven times the length of the entry for seminal health handbook Gray’s Anatomy. (If you’re not easily offended, you can also have a look at this informative but characteristically profane entry from Encyclopedia Dramatica).

Whew. Let’s pull back from the chaos of Internet humor for a different approach. Philosopher Martin Cohen writes about who edits Wikipedia, what they edit, and why. With the above perspectives in mind, let’s consider the concepts of “wikiality” and “wikilobbying” (below; the last 30 seconds are an ignorable user-added rant on Fox News):

Finally, have a look at the Wikipedia page for our own P.I. Reed School of Journalism. Pay particular attention to those three little windows at the top of the page. These are Wikipedia standards alerts that indicate our entry isn’t up to snuff. How can we improve it?

What is your take on the function of wikis and wiki-like processes in communication and journalism today? How do concepts like wikiality and wikigroaning impact on the positive qualities made available by this new way of communicating? If you see it as a problem, how could the process be improved? And just what can we do about that J-school page? (hint hint …)

Respond by commenting on this post by the end of the day Monday, Feb. 22.


18 Responses to Read & Respond – Week 7

  1. After looking at the wikipedia page for the j-school, it looks legit because I go to school there and experience it everyday. If was a stranger to the school and was thinking about coming here and looked at the page I would think the information on there is pretty legitimate and believable. I do understand that since almost anyone can get on here and change some information it leaves it subject to have false facts.

    I actually read a wikipedia site that was false and someone added facts that weren’t true. It was actually for my high school wikipedia site (York Suburban High School). There were names of specific teachers in it and it was talking about how they are sucking all of the creativity out of the school and that the students aren’t allowed to think freely. It was very comical when I kept reading. The point I want to make about that example is I first read that two or three years ago when my sister told me about it. When I looked at the page a couple of weeks ago it was still the same, but now it barely has any information on there just the basic things about the school.

    It was funny to go to the page and find that a couple of people I graduated with marked themselves down as famous alumnist when they haven’t done anything. This page, however, doesn’t have the three windows above it and it has less information than the journalism school’s page. I know the reason they took it off was because of all of the false information the students in the past have placed on there.

    I think these sites are good to go to if you need a little bit of background information, but I wouldn’t go too deep into all of the information this has. One example would go back to my high school’s wikipedia page, it wasn’t established in 4000 B.C. and I think things such as wikigroaning help out occasionally when someone is trying to find a certain topic, but the example that was given with the jedi knight and the regular knight didn’t make much sense to me. Even thou they are similar I think they are more different. Regular knights didn’t have some mythical power they could use when ever they wanted to.

    Back to the J-schools wikipedia page I think this page needs to be open to other people besides the department because there are people who want to add real facts that enhance the page and make kids want to come to the school. I think there really is no way to make the page perfect and have no false facts on it. There are so many wikipedia pages on the web that it’s impossible to monitor everything. Maybe the one thing we could do for the journalism school, if possible, would be to only let the page be allowed to be edited in the school’s building and no where else. That’s the only thing I can think of that might be able to improve the j-school’s page. Those are my thoughts for this response.

  2. kenziekat says:

    Wikipedia. My online source to case briefs for my civil, criminal, and constitutional law classes. Sometimes, I wonder what those before me did without it (Did they actually read the hundred of cases we are assigned?! surely not!).

    I am amused by this notion of wikigroaning, but not at all surprised about what they are groaning about. OF COURSE pop culture will predominate over “real topics”. People are more interested in such things, and thus edit such things more adequately. Hence the reason our “real tv news” has been overtaken with the latest Spears scandal.

    Regardless, I’d like to say I AM HAPPY Court Case Briefs have far less words than the entry on Paris Hilton. The whole reason I look at Wikipedia is to find a SHORTER version that what I’m learning about. I have a textbook for things I actually want a wordy explanation for. Isn’t short and sweet descriptions the whole point to such a site? I think so.

    Also, as for the J-School page. It looks quite bland, but I’m not sure why all those warnings are at the top. I don’t see anything noticeably wrong with the entry. I think it could be a little more friendly, the writing is quite proper. Why do we have all those notes at the top? Am I missing something? How do some crazy outlandish pages get approved and our J-School page doesn’t? Weird.

  3. nochickflickmoments says:

    Who doesn’t use Wikipedia? I think even the people who hate it use it. It’s always one of the top things you see in a Google search, and I’ve never actually found anything incorrect on it (I always try to find the same info elsewhere).

    Wikigroaning is hilarious. There were a few comparisons that surprised me, like Titanic the movie vs. Titanic the boat. Most of the comparisons, however, were exactly how I thought they would be. History is lengthy and boring, so we want that info in the shortest form possible. We don’t mind reading more about something we’re actually interested in.

    The J-School page is so boring. It needs photos and more in-depth info about all the J-School has to offer (like the different majors, graduate programs, achievements, clubs). It should also be linked to things like WVU as a whole.

  4. When it comes to Wikipedia, I think it’s actually a very good source to get background information. Obviously you can’t go only off of the site, but it will for the most part give you a pretty accurate background on whatever it is you need to know.

    And really, I think that’s about as far as the site can go when it comes to journalism. You can read up about someone or something to get background, but I don’t think you can ever use it as an official source – because it’s just not credible enough. Sure, there are probably people who make sure a certain topic is completely up to date and true, but you can’t be sure about that for all topics.

    You can maybe even use the site to get some story ideas, if it’s a slow news day and you want to find something unique and different.

    One of the articles talked about how there are so many more in-depth articles on entertainment topics than actual academic topics. Well, when the site is basically run by the average person, I think it’s rather obvious that most articles would be about entertainment stuff rather than academics. People have other sources, more reliable sources, to get information on academic issues. Also, people in general are just more interested in entertainment and pop-culture. I don’t get how that’s surprising at all.

    When it comes to the J-School’s Wikipedia page, I don’t really get why it’s not up to standards. It looks fine to me. Maybe it needs more links or information, but there seems to be plenty of that as well – at least compared to some of the stuff you find on Wikipedia.

  5. Kander says:

    Well, first I’d like to point out that the Wiki page for our Jschool needs corrected. It is no longer “Broadcast news” it is now TV Journalism. An annoying change but still a change.

    As far as the wiki process goes hasn’t anyone stopped to think why pop culture out weighs “reality?” It is because more people care about pop culture and fancy themselves experts on it.

    I am not saying I agree with their logic or condoning their priorities. I am just pointing out that if you let people have free reign over knowledge they are going to promote what they know.

    I’m actually going to take the other side here and say the people who are ruining what good wikipedia COULD be is in fact the wikigroaners.
    You have people who post what they truly believe to be true about things that really don’t matter one way or the other – then- you have nerdy basement dwellers who cluster f*ck both pages just for fun. It is because people like that, that wiki has been deemed unreliable.

    You have experts on smart stuff, experts on social stuff, and jerks. Yes these jerks could be nerds or unintelligent people with computers either way they are jerks who are changing entries just to mess with people.

    Everyone wants to feel smart sometimes though and if that means allowing someone to talk about transformers universe than let them. What is the big deal? Plus there is probably more information out there about transformer universe than the actual universe.

    You can only say “It is big” in so many ways.

  6. austindrizzy says:

    Comments for the Readings:

    Clay Shirkey:

    Wikipedia is a wonderful thing. I have always enjoyed using the free website to gain information, but I like how this reading taught me how Wikipedia came about and why it exists. I learned that is means quick encyclopedia and I also learned from Clay Shirkey that it exists because it is free user generated website that allows people to love the website and its contents in a way that a group-collaboration has never succeeded before in life. In this quote: “Now we can do things for strangers, who do things for us at a low enough cost to make that kind of behavior attractive. When people care enough they can come together and accomplish things of a scope and longevity that was previously impossible: they can do big things for love.”This says what Wikipedia is all about for me. I use it to find quick information and I know it is going to be reliable because people just like me are looking for information just like me and everyone wants the correct information so people make sure it is correct and because it is free it is an even more attractive option.

    The art of Wikigroaning: (Johnny “doc-evil” Titanium)

    I think wikis and wiki-like processes are good for communication and journalism. Why? I think they give valuable information for free. I understand the argument wiki groaning makes by saying that the users spend more time editing and making an article about something that is fake like light saber than they do on a real subject like modern warfare. To me this reminds me a lot like the Farmville question posed during last class when we were online. If you do not like the things that are written or edited about a certain subject than ignore the subject or add information to the subject, just do not put fake information or mess up/jeopardize the articles in any way. I agree that it does seem odd to have more information about a subject that people will never be able to find useful in their lives than a subject that can help people, but that is not what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia wants its users to help contribute, what they call love, to its website by being real and adding information that will overall add to the utility of one’s life.

    The Word: Stephen Colbert

    Wikilobbying: This is where Wikipedia becomes are most trusted reference source of information and reality is what the majority agrees upon. I like how Colbert says Microsoft is offering cash for edits on Wikipedia. Now this would take away from Wikipedia because people would be putting bogus information on different articles. They would edit an article about how Microsoft is offering money for Wikipedia edits or for instance they can put self ads on Wikipedia. This sort of thing is bad for the internet and takes away from what Wikipedia is. I think this is why he makes fun of Wikipedia and why it is not an accredited source of information. A real source of information should be an expert in the field of the subject. This is not Wikipedia, and this is not what Wikipedia wanted to be. This place was made for quick information that would be more accessible than an encyclopedia and edited and updated with information from users that care about the content, not destroy or fabricate the content.
    The essence of wikilobbying, described by Colbert, is when money determines Wikipedia entries, reality has become a commodity. I agree with him, I hope this does not happen because then he will be right and then when you go to Wikipedia under reality you will see the essence of wikilobbying and how reality has become a commodity.

    Perley Isaac Reed School of Journalism:

    There are many problems or issues that I think can be resolved with the edit of our Journalism wiki page. To improve the page we (as in a group- I was thinking this could be a good group project for our class… when the project is due, so no one take my idea because I thought of it first) my group can improve the layout of the page make it look more modern like other wiki pages and add interesting designs and an elegant display of the information. Also I think there needs to be more relevant links to the page in order to make the page more credible and give the audience a way to find more information. I also think the information on the page needs to be updated severely. Add things about WVU News program, other classes to take in the J-school, and I was thinking definitely add our class about blogging since it is becoming more and more relevant in journalism and in today’s society.

  7. ecmoore19 says:

    Personally, I’m a believer in the wiki-process as a means, but not necessarily as and end. I think it’s a great way to disseminate the knowledge of the community into a single source. I agree with the idea Shirkey was advocating that people post what they are most passionate about. This means that the people who are spending time changing Wikipedia are generally those who want to improve it as a reputable source and not the vandals that detract from that ideal. Of course there are those who enjoy taking advantage of the open-source platform but they are usually “outpassioned” by the people who genuinely care about the information.

    Even though I think Wikipedia is generally reputable, I also think you need to take the published information at face value. Wikipedia is the beginning to finding the answer to a question. Whenever I am writing a paper or doing research, I usually start there and then branch out. Wikipedia helps me get on track and can usually help point me in directions I hadn’t thought to explore. This is what I mean by saying that Wikipedia is a means but not an end. I would never cite it as a source, but I can still use it as a tool to help my research develop.

    If Wikipedia is used in the way that I described above, Wikiality and Wikigroans don’t have much effect on the positive qualities. If you are researching information on elephants and see that their population has doubled on Wikipedia but not on any other websites, you shouldn’t feel comfortable using it. As journalists, we should be checking and double-checking sources anyhow. Just like anything else, use Wikipedia responsibly and know what it really is and there won’t be any huge problems.

    Here’s another example of some fun Wikipedia vandalism. Daniel Tosh from the show “Tosh.0” encouraged his viewers to go to his page and create their own entries. Hilarity ensues. ( I looked at his Wikipedia page and, yes, the page is locked like he said. I also checked on the elephant page and saw that they had locked it as well. So if you’re going to vandalize pages, don’t say so on your TV show and you’ll be just fine.

  8. Wikipedia has become a huge component in good and bad ways. It’s extremely helpful when used right, as a jumping off point to other resources, but when used without further exploring what‘s out there can turn ugly. Some entries can be truthful, while some can be fused by person opinion.

    The notion that pop culture is dominating Wikipedia entries shouldn’t be surprising by now. People have come to care more about what’s happening socially rather than historical or “serious” content. When you compare Gray’s Anatomy the textbook to Grey’s Anatomy the show it’s obvious to me at least that the show will have more information giving the reader character and plot information, as well as scandals on the set and problems. How many people have read Gray’s Anatomy leisurely compared to those who have seen an episode of Grey’s Anatomy?

    I think wikigroaning is pretty funny. I feel like when we’re using Wikipedia to find important information rather than just checking out a topic for fun, we’re going to want a condensed version that gets straight to the point. Who wants to skim through thousands of words like you would a textbook when all you want is the important highlights?

    I think the journalism school’s wiki entry is lacking in updated content. The page details history, but doesn’t include the current happenings. In the school’s case the information that is highlighted about the programs and clubs are open ended and don’t give an idea of what the programs focus on.

  9. rzawodni says:

    Okay, I have been using Wikipedia since it has existed and I have never had a problem with it. Out of the two criticisms of the website neither of them has affected me. The two things that I have noticed that most people consider flaws of the site are “just anyone can edit Wikipedia” and “Grey’s Anatomy the show has seven times more content than Gray’s Anatomy the seminal health handbook.”

    Never have I ran into trouble with false information on Wikipedia. Most of the time if I am doing a paper I will go to the site first and get information as a starting point and then I will try to find more “reliable” sources aka sources that teachers want. The other times I use Wikipedia is if I hear about something and I need knowledge on it quickly, I hit up wikipedia. I have never had a conversation about a topic using my wiki-knowledge where I was supplied with false information.

    This all is impart due to the fact that the wiki-bosses are on point with the monitoring of the additions to the pages. I once posted something on a Wikipedia page just to test the sites reaction time and my post lasted less than two minutes.

    The other reason that most of the information that I have come across on the site is in fact true is that the authors actually care about the subject. How many people are really going to spend their time typing fake printing press entries when in the end it will not stay on the site for long.

    The next issue that many have is the Wikipedia pie chart that would have the largest slice be pop culture and sports and the smaller slices be the science, history, and the arts.

    I feel that those that continue to have a problem with this should not whine about Bill in Wyoming’s 13 page Star Trek entry and maybe start beefing up some of the scholarly entries that they feel is so needed. I feel that if people care so much about Wikipedia having too much pop culture and not enough scholarly content should simply make the site better by adding to it.

    People are only going to write what they care about…and if most of that is pop culture and not as much is scholarly I don’t care because if it is all reliable then that is all that matters. And almost all the time for me the site has never steered me wrong. I support Wikipedia!

    To sum it up…Wikipedia has never gave me false information and all those who hate on the site for the heavy concentration on pop culture should suck it up and do something pro-active (aka add more scholarly content) about it or stop complaining and reiterating the same point. And again…Wikipedia is amazing.

  10. I have to say that when ever I just want to know a random fact, wikis are the first place a I look. I would never use it as a scholarly source, but its great just look something up really quick, because like we have learned there are wikis for absolutely everything.

    With the technologies we have now it make it very easy to update or change these wiki pages from anywhere. Since more people are more technological inclined it also means more people are more likely to change these pages. This is where that idea of wikiality might come in.. But when you read these pages you can tell if they are made up or just for laughs, for example Colbert’s elephant story.

    I think people just need to realize that wikipedia is not a legitimate source, but it is a great place to start. Most people that make and update these pages really do have interest in the topic. I’m not saying that they are all factual, but I think if someone wants to take the time to change and update these pages they must really care.

    Finally the J school wiki, I thought it was somewhat of a mess, there could be much more information added about the school and the major descriptions really need to be rewritten. To deal with the little boxes at the top that says the page is an orphan all we would need to do is to add some links to article about the school.

  11. padenwyatt says:

    It’s funny that Gabrielle pointed out using it for the law classes because that’s the first place I went as well to learn all about the cases that we would be studying.

    I feel that wiki-groaning is a part of a growing society that cares more about entertainment pop culture news than actual important news or important reports. Could this be a bad thing? I think it’s potentially hazardous to care more about the stranded/weird-traveling feller, John Locke, than his philosopher counterpart.

    However, that’s only if you really think that Wikipedia is a solid resource to use. As we’ve discussed in class before, it’s a great starting point. But as far as being able to cite it, I wouldn’t get ahead of yourselves. I know that’s where I always head when I need to know who certain comic character’s secret identity is, but it’s also the first place I went when I learned of Schoedinger’s cat!

    I remember when Starcraft II got announced a few years ago and I happened to be on Wikipedia to learn more about it. But each time you would refresh the page, there was some crazy phrases. I became more interested what the next phrase would be than the actual Starcraft content itself. This went on for over an hour before Wikipedia finally locked the article and waited for an official update.

    Also, as far as the J-school’s page goes, if I see more than 2 of those boxes at the top, I get real wary about believing the information even a little bit. That sucka needs cleaned up.

  12. I love this idea of Wikiality – because really, what is reality but an agreed upon set of rules/points/information. We all concede that the color pink is pink, because it is pink. We all concede that apples fall to the ground because of something called gravity. A great deal of what we consider “good” “moral” or “right” is based on popular consensus, as well as what we consider “bad” “immoral” or “wrong”. I really don’t see how wikipedia is any different. There have always been experts, and there have always been rhetoricians, and there have always been nit-wit followers (or just nit-wits) in society – and all three (or four) classes exist on wikipedia. The experts provide the “accurate” (as accurate as we can get it) information, the rhetoricians practice the art of being heard and changing minds, and the rest of us blindly follow (or blindly do whatever nit-witted thing amuses us at that moment). The non-experts and non-rhetoricians with opposing ideas don’t get heard, because they’re in the minority. My point here is, all of human “knowledge” throughout history is based on consensus. That is how words become words, how ideas become theories (or facts) and how history gets documented. We’ve accepted our knowledge so far, so why is there such a problem with wikipedia?

    Because it’s mostly focused on pop-culture? Really, what isn’t? Show me a time when the masses cared more about philosophy and knowledge than the latest craze – it doesn’t exist, that’s just human nature. We crave novelty.
    Because the information is inaccurate? Well – how is it inaccurate? Because it’s edited by anyone and everyone? We’re getting closer. Because minority opinion can every so often slip in unnoticed, or, god forbid, even have its own wiki-page?!? BINGO! …at least that’s what I think – I’ll stop before this turns into another rant.

    Now, to be fair, I don’t trust wikipedia. But, to be even more fair, I don’t trust what the joe schmoes of the world tell me in any context, so really, it’s the same thing. Wikis in general are awesome. They’re super-helpful when applied to specific fields (like gaming) so that you can get the info you want from people who have been through the exact same process as you (like…in video games!). I don’t know about wikipedia’s endeavor to gather all human knowledge, though. Human knowledge is a fluid, changing thing, that as most college professors will tell you about wikipedia, is usually not accurate, but rather is based in opinion and consensus. It has its purposes, when you want to read up on pop-culture and personal opinion, or find a quick-fix fact to prove a point or explain a general idea (provided you know what you’re talking about, and read through some of the article to make sure the info is right). I don’t know about treating it as fact though – just like when writing an article for a paper, you have to verify your sources – so you should have to verify wikipedia sources before accepting them.

  13. Wikipedia just got slammed!!

    all of those articles completely HATED on Wikipedia! And although they had some good points. What do they expect? Wikipedia was MADE so people can add whatever information they want, there is NO positivity sure fire way to guarantee some idiot is not going to go onto the “Elvis” page and say that he had dinner with him last night proving that he never actually died.

    Thats also what makes Wikipedia so awesome. People can post information not in most people “common knowledge” and if someone needs to know details about some completely random topic “like star wars” i cant think of a better place to look.

    i took at look at some of these comparisons and to be honest i tried to read the entries all the way through , and in most cases, the only entries i was able to finish without being bored ( or confused) out of my mind where the “pop-culture” entries. I think people we just need to accept the fact that American’s LOVE their “pop-culture” and just run with it. I mean sure ill read up on Napoleon some time, but when i just want to learn some cool facts, or a quick overview about the movie I’m about to watch… here i come Wikipedia.

    However, when writing your theses paper, it might be a wise choice to look elsewhere.

  14. oops … also,

    J schools Wikipedia Blog.

    The j-school’s blog is OK but its all “boring info”
    it would be cool if someone could post accomplishments some of the students have made, or a “where they are now” type of thing.

  15. gavinwv says:

    I agree with the consensus and usually use Wikipedia as a starting point for further research or just a way to get basic information about a subject. The problem is that its almost forced on everyone to do this. Most of the time when I Google something the first search result is wikipedias entry for it, it make it hard to avoid. The benefit though is that most of the time the work cited links at the bottom of the page usually point you in a way better direction than Google would anyway.
    Wikigroaning is a pretty understandable concept. Usually the common article that we are supposed to be outraged by when compared to the “useless” article is a subject that countless books and webpages are already devoted to. Why would someone put so much effort into work that has already been done countless times before? Some of the long, albeit strange topics offer a lot of new ideas and definitions that don’t really exist in common knowledge and if they do are certainly much harder to find for a casual observer.
    Wikiality on the otherhand is both hilarious and scary at the same time, it reminds me of Orwells 1984. I don’t really see it as much of as a problem now, but the more validity wikipedia gets, the more that I would worry about this becoming a serious problem.
    Since I’m on my way to leaving Perley Isaac Reed School of Journalism and looking for a job, I would be totally fine with anybody wanting to create a new positive Wikiality for the school, although I’m pretty satisfied with it myself. I don’t think that we have to lie, I say we just drum up the wiki with a lot of positive information and cool facts about the school and its alumni. I also wouldn’t be opposed to hinting that it’s a school for wizards, like the one Harry Potter goes to. That would be something to get my foot in the door for a second interview.

  16. grcarey says:

    Wikipedia is a nice starting point to gather information, but it can’t be used as a credible source. There’s a reason I’ve often been told not to even think about trying to use Wikipedia as a source for a paper in college. It’s an interesting site in that you can find the basic information you need on some topics that are hard to find out a lot about. But I personally would rather acquire new information in a more traditional format as the reading in the Wall Street Journal suggested. It brought up some very good ideas and pointed out some major flaws of the site (like how the Harlem Globetrotters have a longer Wiki page than the Harlem Renaissance & Miles Tails Prowler of Sonic’s Videogame has a longer Wiki page than famed musician Miles Davis). That suggests that Wiki is much more accessible and has a greater value to the younger generation. It is an interesting site but it can’t be taken seriously as much of its information isn’t credible. As for the WVU SOJ’s wiki page, it could use a picture of Martin Hall and more in-depth detail on the staff in charge and the type of programs and resources students have access to.

  17. ourgoldenlife says:

    I laughed when I read Martin Cohen’s claim that Wikipedia is only updated by teenage male computer nerds, probably because I always assumed this to be true. Jokes aside though, Cohen makes some insightful points about Wikipedia’s users. However, I think he is giving the site way too much credit.

    Yes, Wikipedia is a great place to start any research about a topic, but only when you use it solely as a jumping off point. Whenever I hear about something new that I know little or nothing about, I look it up on Wikipedia. I would say that 9 out of 10 times I do this I gain a better understanding of what I searched for, so Wikipedia has proved itself useful to me.

    Students do frequently use Wikipedia to begin their research about a paper, as Cohen mentioned, but he was wrong on how students go about using it. No student would ever use Wikipedia as his sole source of information, unless he wanted to get an F on it. Also, I don’t know what kind of Journalists are getting their information from Wikipedia, but they can be very successful or credible ones.

    Anyone who uses Wikipedia needs to grasp the concept that ANYONE could add or edit information about the site, so they need to read each article cautiously and take gained knowledge with a grain of salt. People need to stop taking Wikipedia way too seriously. Instead of freaking out about the implications of such a site users should just enjoy it for what it is.

    As a site note, I thought the box “Oh, That John Locke,” in the WSJ article was both hilarious and extremely telling about what our society is like today. We have made it pretty clear as to what is important to us, and entertainment and pop culture won the battle over historical or scientific facts. The fact that Raphael the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle has more text than the famous artist Raphael is a little sad to me. Then again, I could probably write more about the turtle than the artist myself…

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: