User:Andrew34jack/reflection

Wikipedia Reflection
Through my experience with Wikipedia, they have strict norms and regulations on content contributions, if you adhere to them you will find it to be a positive community. I have found it to be an engaging platform when contributing to content that I was interested in. Wikipedia demands a lot from its members. Everything from civility of interactions with other members, personal investment, and the quality of content itself. Veterans and administrators of Wikipedia certainly holds every interaction and contribution on its platform to the highest standard and will not hesitate to scrutinise if evidence of misconduct has occurred. Ultimately, I argue that Wikipedia as an online platform can be a rewarding experience, if one is willing to put in the effort to learn the ins and outs of the platform. On the other hand, if you choose to ignore training and norms of the site, you are unlikely to reap its benefits and may even be criticised for taking a laissez-faire approach. Wikipedia as a community is full of passion, and certainly the most unique one that I have encountered. While I am far from a seasoned veteran of the platform, after having made some edits, I can already feel the responsibility that individual members carry when contributing to a collaborative knowledge building platform such as Wikipedia.

I contributed to the article Provoke, which was a Japanese photography magazine that ran during the late 1960s. Initially, taking on the challenge to freely edit a Wikipedia article felt quite daunting. I had spent a long time drafting in my sandbox before moving my work over to the mainspace, in fear of my edits not adhering to the high standards that Wikipedia swears by. I had felt intimidated not just at the strict criteria of writing that Wikipedians adhere to, but strangely at the relative ease in which I could make permanent edits on any page. It seemed all too easy that at any time I could significantly alter, or even delete content on any page of my choosing through a few simple steps. I appreciate the training modules that showed me the basics of creating and editing articles. In a way, it reminded me of Aronson and Mills (1959), where they found that the severity of initiation had an impact on the liking for a group. While not exactly the sort of hazing that Aronson and Mills had in mind, the training regime that I had to complete, as well as other preparations that Professor Reagle showed in class, from my perspective was the initiation process. Along with learning about Wikipedia etiquette and their moral tenets, I felt more connected to the community. The learning curve attached to Wikipedia was something that made the experience more rewarding. It also increased my motivation to continue contributing, as I felt like I was challenging myself. This claim is also consistent with Kraut's design claim 17, which explains how entry barriers for newcomers can cause them to feel more committed and contribute more.

The sandbox function on Wikipedia is a great feature that allows newcomers such as myself to slowly learn at my own pace, and still have all the editing power at my fingertips. As it replicates all mechanisms one needs to know when editing the main space, it was a good place for anyone to get ample practice. It also allowed me to develop my edits, without potentially harming the mainspace. This experience was consistent with Kraut's design claim 24, which stated that sandboxes both speed up the learning process for newcomers and reduce the harm to the community that newcomers might otherwise cause. The sandbox also allows for other people to directly view and make suggestions, which made it convenient for peer feedback.

Upon moving my work over to the mainspace, I was not sure as to how much feedback I would receive. Since the topic I had selected was relatively niche, and only a handful of wikipedians had edited the page previously. After roughly a week no response on the talk page, I decided to start reaching out to previous editors of the page (e.g., Hoary, Lopifalko). I was lucky to have received comments from a veteran Wikipedian (Hoary), who has received multiple Barnstars and is an expert on editing topics in photography. While I was confident in the content that I had added on the page, I was eager to find out where it can be improved. Hoary provided some valuable insights into specific areas of the article that needed polishing. On the Provoke talk page, we engaged in constructive conversation regarding various improvements that could be made to the article not just on my parts, but the rest of the article in general. Other edits made on the page were relatively minor: user MichaelMaggs added a short description template; user GoingBatty made some copy edits and fixed some references; user CaroleHenson also made some copy edits. I was grateful of any input I could get on the article and as a result, utilised the "thank" function in the edit history, and also left messages on some talk pages to show my gratitude. User Hoary responded kindly to my messages on his talk page, and we even engaged in a short conversation on photography. Because of the interactions I had with user Hoary, I would like to extend a special thank you towards them, for their dedication and effort to the feedback he had provided, as well as engaging in meaningful conversation with me. After making the mistake of leaving a comment on his talk page at the head instead of the foot, Hoary did not flame me, instead he recognised I was new and encouraged me by congratulating me "Well done", and included a small reminder of what the proper etiquette was. This was a typical example of assuming good faith, one of the core tenets of Wikipedia. Hoary could have easily interpreted my behaviour as attempting to skip the line, and making my comment more visible at the head of the page. But, he evaluated the situation in earnest and assumed the best of intentions on my part. Seeing others who would devote a significant amount of time and effort to edit a page that they did not even create, felt rather wholesome to me. The interactions that I had and feedback received from various users provided me with more motivation to improve my edits. I could feel a sense of value during the construction of the page Provoke. It is hard to say that I would have had the same motivation if I had not received any feedback from other Wikipedians.

This was a starkly different experience to any other online platform that I have encountered. I believe that those who actively participate and stay long term truly do believe in Wikipedia's mission. I stumbled upon this realisation after perusing user MichaelMaggs user page, where I found out that he also uploads images and audio files to the Wikimedia Commons. To have contributed in such a way, with no real monetary or external gain other than the fact that he believed it was the right thing to do was astonishing to me. As I am writing this, I feel rather blessed to have delved deeper into a community such as Wikipedia. The sense of reward through effort and learning is something that is not easily found on other popular information sharing platforms. While design choices made by companies such as Facebook largely cater to the largest demographic (which is not inherently a bad thing), it feels relatively devoid of personality. On platforms such as those, individual users are funneled into using the platform in exactly the way that the designers had intended. Leaving little creative freedom to exact your personality. While the core etiquette of Wikipedia is widely followed by members, there is much more freedom allowed in terms of how you choose to compose yourself (look no further than the widely varying differences in user and talk pages e.g., Hoary, GoingBatty, Lopifalko). In a community with a learning curve as steep as Wikipedia, while it could scare away many potential newcomers, those who choose to stay are usually more invested and may produce higher quality contributions. Professor Reagle mentioned in class that the retention rate of students from Wiki Education programs is relatively low. I personally do not think this is necessarily a bad thing. The inherent design choices of Wikipedia lean itself to being more of a niche platform. Meaning that it takes a great deal of interest and committment in order to become an active community member. However for those who choose to stay, I have confidence that the majority of their experiences with the community will be meaningful and rewarding.