Post 5

Lamott's central argument in "Shitty First Drafts" is that the first draft is supposed to be terrible.  Universally, all writers experience the agony of beginning a paper and being terrified that it will be terrible.  However, Lamott also provides a ray of hope for writers who experience this type of terror at the beginning of the writing process by explaining that from a first draft, a second or third will emerge that is far and away better than the first.  The creative process that takes place on Wikipedia very much supports Lamott's argument.  On Wikipedia, writers begin and submit first drafts of alterations to a subject.  Then other writers come and change that information to improve and clarify it.  If an editor makes a change to the work then the second draft may include more pertinent data or fewer inaccuracies.  Furthermore, the author of the original post can often learn something new from the process.  For example, he or she may learn new information about the topic that is being discussed while also learning about formatting on Wikipedia.  I think that Lamott would fully support this creative process because it allows for constant improvement, which is the goal of multiple drafts.  Even when something is deleted off of a post on Wikipedia, the author should consider it a first draft and continue to try to improve and alter until the final product is worthy of being kept on the page.