User:Angeladav/reflection

Wildfox Couture Article
For my Online Communities Wikipedia assignment, I chose to write about the privately held American fashion retailer Wildfox Couture. The most recent version of my article exists as a draft here: Draft:WildfoxCouture.

Initial Attempt
I selected the topic Wildfox Couture from Requested articles because I was semi-familiar with the brand and believed I could write a notable article on it. The first couple drafts of my article were short. They included an introduction and subsections for company history, the brand’s fragrances, and controversies surrounding the company’s CEO who has been accused of sexually assaulting underage girls. As I mentioned in class and in one of my QICs, I struggled trying to decide how much information to include about the controversies, but ultimately I felt that they were notable. The majority of secondary sources I found mentioned the scandal in one way or another.

When I felt that I had gathered a sufficient amount of information for a first draft, I submitted my article for review.

Critique and Revision
After submitting my article for review, it was quickly declined, and a template was applied to it, which read "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." The only comment Wikipedia User:SwisterTwister, the reviewer, left was, “Largely advertisement-formatted and not satisfying our main policy WP:What Wikipedia is not, for example, the sources are all clear published or republished business announcements, press releases or company-initiated notices.” This critique was fair, but it was discouraging. Initially, I had not even realized that many of the sources I used were, in fact, press releases being republished. It was helpful to have this pointed out, and I understand why it is problematic to rely heavily on these types of sources.

I took another look at my article, and resolved to remove some of the press releases; however, at second glance, I realized that all of my primary sources accounted for what I considered to be basic background information about the company. Originally, I thought referring to the company website or communications for information like facts about store locations, founding date, and personnel was fine. Additionally, I remained confident about finding more sources because the Wildfox Couture brand is mentioned frequently by fashion magazines and other reputable publications, such as Vogue, Elle, and the Los Angeles Times. Alas, there was some information I could not seem to find anywhere outside of the official company press releases. So, I realized too late in the semester that, if my use of the Wildfox Couture company website and official press releases was inappropriate, then I might not have enough information from independent or secondary news sources to continue with my article.

I never reached back out to Wikipedia User:SwisterTwister because I found his abrupt dismissal of my article and curt comment confusing and intimidating. In hindsight, I could have been bolder and more aggressive. I could have challenged him or asked for more advice. I also could have looked to other Wikipedia users for advice. Ultimately, though, I most regret the decision to stick with a topic that had proven to be so challenging. If I could go back, I would have changed my topic and done so closer to the beginning of the semester. I stuck it out, partially due to my personal biases. Wildfox Couture is a brand with which I was familiar, and I believed to carry a certain reputation. This proved hard to capture in an impartial article. The company appears to be privately held, and as such there is little data on it available to the public.

Current Status
After removing as many of the primary sources as I was able and attempting to supplement them with additional reliable news articles, I believe I have improved upon my article significantly. This diff shows one of the source changes. I replaced a press release with information from Bloomberg. I also tried to improve upon the neutrality of the language used. At this time, however, it remains a draft. I still do not feel comfortable moving it over to the Wikipedia mainspace because it feels short and incomplete. In my opinion, it should be clear that I did not set out to write an advertisement, and made use of primary sources to fill in the blanks about the company’s background. I believe it is especially apparent that I took a neutral point of view because I chose to include information about a scandal that plagued Wildfox Couture that, even when stated factually, reflects the brand in a bad light and would certainly not be included in sanctioned advertising materials. Perhaps, my article should be allowed to exist as a stub, so that other users and I are able to improve upon it as more information becomes available. I am unsure how to accomplish this, though, if my drafts are completely rejected.

Newcomers
As a newcomer to the Wikipedia community, I felt as though I had access to a great deal of helpful resources. As part of the Online Communities course, I participated in tutorials that explained editing basics and read articles like  The perfect article. Among other things, I learned the importance of notability and verifiable sources. All of these materials aided me in learning the community norms. Norm-setting is important part of newcomer socialization. In Building Successful Online Communities, Kraut and Resnick claim that "Explicit rules and guidances increase the ability for community members to know the norms, especially when it is less clear what others think is acceptable." I highlight this because I am not sure if these materials are as explicit or readily available to Wikipedia newcomers who are not enrolled in a university course. Wikipedia can seem like an overwhelming community even to those who are well-socialized and prepared. So, I can easily see how one might feel lost or discouraged without an instructor and syllabus to serve as guides. In this way, user experiences can be seen as inconsistent. Perhaps that is one reason why out of over 30 million Wikipedia users, only about 140 thousand accounts represent active users.

As I was acclimating to Wikipedia, I noticed inconsistencies in my own experience. In class, I would hear that many of my classmates had been greeted by other users and invited to the Teahouse, a page to help new users learn about editing Wikipedia. I never received an invitation. If it hadn't been for my classmates, I would have been completely ignorant of this page's existence. Robert Cialdini describes the importance of liking and affinity in his article, The Science of Persuasion. In my opinion, simple steps like inviting all new members to the Teahouse could create positive connotations of the community and promote new user participation. My only suggestion to Wikipedia is to have a more formal system to welcome newcomers. If the Teahouse is a helpful resource, why shouldn't every new user be invited?

Moderation and Community Governance
When it comes to moderation in the Wikipedia community, I personally was put-off by the push-back I received. Kraut and Resnick claim that "Performance feedback enhances motivation only when it is considered to be sincere." My interactions with User:SwisterTwister felt insincere, and were therefore discouraging. A quick visit to his userpage reveals proudly displayed badges which proclaim things like, "This user is a new page patroller." In my opinion, if moderators like SwisterTwister focused less on quickly declining article submissions and more on leaving positive feedback, or that which effects change his moderation could be more substantive, newcomers would feel more welcome, and more articles would get published. Wikipedia community members benefit from a large amount of freedom and being able to self-govern. This eases the experience of many users, but it should be acknowledged how it also creates inconsistencies that might be confusing or discouraging for new users.

Conclusion
Though I do not consider my Wikipedia article a success, I did learn a great deal in the process of writing it, and therefore, my efforts were not wasted. Based on my experiences, I believe Wikipedia is a rich online community with a number of helpful policies in place. However, since Wikipedia is also a self-governing community, they can be often be applied inconsistently.