User:8isfate/Final Reflection

Getting to learn the inside world of Wikipedia that I never knew existed was actually fun. I enjoyed pretending to know code even though I just copied another page's source coding and edited the information to make things easier on myself. Although my experience itself was short, I managed to interact with various users in the community who helped my 3RACHA article grow (and unfortunately die). Most of these interactions as a newcomer have been lukewarm, to say the least, but, as an activist for diversity and inclusion, I know Wikipedia can do better with interpersonal communication within the online community. I will explain my experiences below and how they could push away new people because it could be misinterpreted. I argue that the Wikipedia community should implement identifier boxes to increase visibility in often overlooked identity groups to encourage proper communication and collaboration.

Existing Norms & Lack of Application
Wikipedia, as an online community, functions under many guidelines and policies which make up the collective norm. The Assume Good Faith (ASF) guideline is one of the more common ones that I’ve seen on Wikipedia talk pages. The premise of ASF as stated by Jack Gibbs (cited in Reagle, 2010), “Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.” The result of assuming good faith is reducing the amount of conflict that may arise from miscommunication. Online communication often lacks tone indicators and generally has not adapted for neurodivergent individuals, along with English-as-a-Second-Language individuals and the younger contributors, which leads to a lot of avoidable conflicts. As a newbie to Wikipedia, or humorously as a WikiChild, I felt obliged to respect the ASF guideline. When I would communicate with others and receive no response, the immediate thought may be negative but I would flip that to realize that people aren't always ill-intentioned. But this guideline, along with all the guidelines, cannot stand alone and cannot solely be the work of newcomers. It's easy to assume good faith when someone just does not respond; the potential reasons for their part are simple to think of. It's harder to assume good faith when someone deletes your article without prior communication with you. And for newbies, this ‘hostile’ action may affect future participation as it leads to a chilling effect.

The interesting thing is Wikipedia does have a guideline that specifically talks about communication with newbies and discourages hostile behavior against them under ‘Please Do Not Bite The Newcomers’ (from here on referred to as PDBN). This page is filled with great notes on communication methods to make newcomers of the community feel welcome and to not thwart attempts of creating articles or making edits, which are the foundation of Be Bold. User:Finnybug made good use of PDBN as they came to my talk page to notify me that they were adding edits to the 3Racha article, they let me know of their past experiences and how they want to help. Their simple comment made me feel like my work was appreciated and was worthy of being built upon, furthering the narrative that simple polite interactions help maintain a collaborative healthy community. However, I’ve come to realize that just because these guidelines exist as a standard for the community, "this does not mean these norms are always followed, far from it.”

In contrast to Finnybug’s use of PDBN, User:Abdotorg often edited the article without notifying me but I came to appreciate all of their edits. However, at first, they made a change that left me a bit dejected. The change itself did not affect the article and I would not have minded it if it weren't for the comment. The change was from the capitalization of 3RACHA to 3Racha and the comment attached was “we do not do this - removing caps”. I might be an overly sensitive person who overthinks a lot, but that came off as a snide comment rather than actual reasoning. In fact, I’m still unsure of the reason it was changed; could it have been a lack of references, or have they found contradicting sourcing? It was never clarified and I was put off by the comment so much that I didn’t want to interact with them. If I extend this to a broader group of newcomers that includes neurodivergent individuals, ESL people, and a younger demographic, this simple comment could have turned away a lot of them.

Ultimately my article was deleted by User:Explicit under the reasoning that my article did not improve on the previous article that existed and was removed. I still disagree with Explicit to some degree under the basis that I was not covering 3racha as a musical band but rather as composers. However, I'll move my article into the Stray Kids page under a subheading after further advice from User:Reagle. I found an issue with the way Explicit went about deleting the article as there were no attempts of communication on the talk page, at least since I uploaded this article, on ways I could improve on the reputability of the article. The comment was straightforward which connects to the topic of miscommunication; being straightforward can be professional but it can also just be off-putting. As a newbie who has seen the guideline of assuming good faith multiple times through various pages, this action seems to be the complete opposite of what assuming good faith on their behalf is. Yes, I can assume with good faith that they just wanted to make sure all articles on Wikipedia are reputable. But, as I mentioned, assuming good faith is hard when there's little evidence of good faith. Actions like immediate deletion without adding to the discussion in the talk page will shun newbies from the community.

Potential Changes
What changes do I think need to be made? While the Wiki ages are satirical, I find them to be useful in managing how we speak to one another. Having a small box right next to the username that signifies the length of time and amount of work done will indicate to others proper ways to communicate. If a norm of editing is to leave a straightforward note, a newbie may not understand that and can take that in different ways. However, someone can be a WikiAdult and still not appreciate someone nominating their article for deletion when they have not contributed to the article discussion in order to better the page. I think as an online community that is as huge as Wikipedia and encompasses people from a variety of backgrounds, the foundation of the longevity of the community is proper communication. A similar proposal and possibly more important is adding boxes that disclose an important detail of a user; this would include neurodivergency, age, and ESL. These tags do not define a person but they do offer insight into the ways we may communicate with them in a concise and clear manner without deterring them from adding to the community. These boxes should be optional for those willing and wanting to disclose and have appeared next to their username; this should be clearly communicated to all new coming individuals to ensure their comfort in the community. Moreover, adding a subheading to the Systemic Bias page on neurodivergent individuals along with age will increase visibility and act as a reference for people to check themselves before commenting bashfully.

Ending Thoughts
To conclude, I was intrigued by this complex online community and I think I’ll continue to be an active member after the course. However, I hope to see some changes in the ways members communicate with one another. It’s hard to uphold Wikipedia's Be Bold policy to encourage everyone to add to the encyclopedia when a member communicates with you in a discouraging manner. While we shouldn’t baby newcomers, basic communication etiquette isn’t left for children alone. By fostering a community of ‘pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps’ mentality, we also foster a community that inherently discriminates against swaths of people. Helping each other and talking politely, while using tactics of conflict resolution, helps increase visibility and appreciation for the various identities in the community.