User:Bes8/Report

I have always avoided using Wikipedia after being told countless times that it is unreliable. However, after understanding how Wikipedia actually works, I am much more comfortable and confident in using it as a source of information. This is mainly due to learning about article quality ratings, sources, and mostly about the community and rules that Wikipedia embraces. At first, evaluating and critiquing articles seemed daunting to me because I felt that I would not be able to contribute relevant information because I am not an expert on anything specific. However, once I spent more time learning the basics of Wikipedia, the purpose of the assignment became more clear and manageable.

I chose to evaluate an article on a painting by Andy Warhol, known as Coca-Cola(3). At first, I was inclined to choose an article that I had prior knowledge about, but looking back I am glad that I chose an article subject completely new to me. This choice allowed me to focus and utilize reliable sources rather than being prone to relying on my own opinions and knowledge.

I chose to contribute to this article because when I first discovered it, I felt that viewers would not find the information that they needed or wanted. While the lead was concise and brief, there was not any further information. After reading the lead, I wanted to know more about the painting, where it originated from, and more specific details such as the primary inspiration of the piece. Through research, I was able to gather a few sources that expanded on the history of the painting and the artist. This was slightly difficult for me because this painting lacks thorough online information. It took an extensive amount of time to find information worth contributing to the article. In addition to this, there was no visual reference to the painting so I made sure to add an image of it and an image of Andy Warhol. Unexpectedly, adding images was the part that I spent the most time struggling with. It took me a while to grasp an understanding of the copyright rules that Wikipedia strictly enforces. In addition to adding images, I also made a few minor edits to the lead and needed source information. Now when users visit this article, they will not only learn what Coca-Cola(3) is but also understand its history and why the artist created it in the first place.

While struggling to incorporate images into my article, I gained an understanding of the importance of the rules and guidelines that Wikipedia enforces. Without them, information added to the site could be completely false with no way to regulate what is contributed by users. Through this, I have also acquired a greater perception and appreciation for the rules and guidelines of additional online communities. While Wikipedia has low barriers to entry, I can understand why some communities may create strict entry criteria, whether it is for the website’s personal benefit or the benefit of the members of the community themselves. By comparing our class discussions to the time I spent actually working on Wikipedia, I was better able to understand how rules can impact an online community and attract or repel users. For example, certain media users may be more inclined to contribute to a community that has less strict guidelines and allow for more creativity than Wikipedia and vice versa.

Furthering on the benefits of Wikipedias rules, they also help to create norms for the community. As discussed in lectures, without these norms, it may be difficult for new members to join and understand how to contribute effectively. They can also help to prevent conflict between community members. Specifically, Wikipedia makes it very clear how to contribute effectively, especially when changing another user’s edits. This creates the norm of maintaining a good-character when interacting with the community. This aligns with their “Assume Good Faith” norm. Also, by making “Nutrilialty” a norm, they are preventing disputes between users by not accepting heavily biased views that can encourage arguments. Considering that Wikipedia has low barriers to and a set of expected norms, many users may be inclined to participate and contribute to the community because they feel they are helping others, or they may feel that it is personally satisfying. I felt both of these after I published my work, knowing that the information I contributed could be beneficial to someone else. After I worked through my initial struggles and better understood how the site worked, it became slightly satisfying to make edits. I can now further comprehend why users are inspired to contribute and spend so much time doing so. In order to further user participation, I would recommend that Wikipedia incorporates an improved reward system, especially for users who put in extensive time and effort into advancing the site. Wikipedia could do this by utilizing exciting personal achievements or even animations that are presented to contributors. This would work to make the community environment more entertaining. In addition to this, I would suggest a more user-to-user interactive feature. Making it easier for users to discover and interact with other users may make community bonds stronger and increase participation. I feel that these recommendations should be taken seriously as I am now a user that has recently gone through the entire “new user process” by completing the trainings and making my first public edits. Thinking about what attracts new users to communities and reflecting on the information presented in lectures has provided an understanding of these concepts. A random new user may not have spent as much time learning about the Wikipedia community as well as other communities. By comparing various online communities to Wikipedia, it becomes more clear what it lacks and what it positively incorporates. Bes8 (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)