User:Bonnie Weglin/Report

Bonnie Weglin

COM 482

Due 2/17/2020

Report Project

Wikipedia has been able to grow into one of the most successful online communities known, largely because it was built around something already familiar to users, contribution is easy, and editing other’s work is accepted and encouraged. These characteristics has set it apart from other communities and allowed it to thrive. As a new Wikipedia editor, I found these concepts inviting and emboldening. Despite how inviting these aspects of the site might be, I still ran into some situations that were a bit difficult to maneuver for a relatively unfamiliar user. For example, it is typically expected that when a change is made to an article, conversations will take place on the Talk Page to help break down edits and the reasonings behind them. Though this communication helps maximize productivity, the first sight of a talk page may appear quite chaotic, filled with various usernames, symbols, and unknown abbreviations. To a new user, one of the easiest, most engaging opportunities to participate in a community is by commenting and conversing with fellow users. The confusion which may arise in navigating the tabs of “Read,” “Edit Source,” “New Section,” and “View History” has potential to be resolved with the incorporation of a system that would allow users to participate easily in conversation. For example, the utilization of a text box underneath an article during editing would guide users immediately as to where they would need to go in order to contribute their thoughts. This could additionally be improved if names were signed automatically when comments were submitted. Considering this from a different perspective, it is possible that requiring these extra steps ensures that only users with more meaningful and productive comments participate in conversation. But, this could also mean that valuable perspectives are being driven away by the complexity of the process necessary for adding a thought to discussion. The Wiki-Education program available through my Communications course helped clarify the steps to comment on an article talk page, but I can imagine that navigating these pages and rules could be quite overwhelming for someone without guidance.

In my time spent on Wikipedia, I have had quite positive learning experiences. I began my learning involvement with the guidance of the WikiEducation program which helped to lay out general rules and expectations I would need in order to contribute properly. This approach to teaching is known as institutionalized socialization. As a student participating in this course, we all remained in a formal, isolated group as concepts were introduced to us. Here we followed tutorials, quizzing us periodically on information retention before branching out to interacting with the site in real time. This was a sequential format, as each week we were introduced to a unit such as the sandbox, citations, plagiarism, evaluating sources, policies, etc. I found this fixed approach to be quite effective, as it provided a safe space for the group to experience trial and error while grasping methods to finding success in participation. Our online classroom was a helpful resource as well, a place to reference material when needed. Throughout school, I always learned that Wikipedia was never an appropriate source to gather information from due to the fact that anyone can contribute to it. However, as I have become more informed about the practices which govern Wikipedia, it has become clear that this site can be a great resource as the community requires facts to be backed with credible sources. In the process of searching Wikipedia for short articles or “Stubs,” I learned that although Wikipedia is the largest online encyclopedia, there is still a considerable number of topics that are highly underdeveloped and some which have no article at all. Everything we find on Wikipedia is there because individuals volunteered their time to research subjects and cultivate articles to best display that information in an original way. This is not always the easiest feat, so I learned to acknowledge the importance of giving back to the communities that we turn to when in need.

In order to ensure that any information contributed meets the community’s standards, Wikipedia editors monitor posts and check credibility on a regular basis. Bots are also put to use for monitoring more drastic and unnecessary edits such as page deletion. These reactive tactics help eliminate bad behavior or the contributions from the uninformed or clueless users. Based on the lecture material of maintaining order in online communities based off norms and regulations, moderation in this sense can help users get a sense of what standards are expected by the site. However, as a new user, I also found that there was more to creating a good article than just having reputable facts. An equally critical component is how those facts are presented to the audience reading it. Anyone who opens a Wikipedia article to read is expecting to be met with straightforward content arranged in a way that flows together seamlessly, this is a valuable part of the user experience. Therefore, a certain level of writing proficiency is necessary for making a good contribution, yet this not something that all people who would like to contribute possess. The concepts of participation barriers which we’ve covered in lecture in this case would be a barrier set by grammatical technique and writing ability. The elevated tone and depth of knowledge some subjects require may repel certain users from feeling comfortable making revisions or additions. This may also be connected to the concept of groups being formed on early in a community, making it difficult for newcomers to be comfortable jumping in with people who have already become familiar with each other and a project. Considering ways to approach this issue, it would be beneficial for Wikipedia to offer a built-in grammatical checking system to help people eliminate spelling errors or poorly constructed sentences before publishing. It can be difficult to check one’s own work, so a brief system like this would draw attention to mistakes the user may not otherwise pick up on. This would also save time for other users as well who may notice small errors throughout an article but might not necessarily want to take the time to go in and fix them. A transition such as this would put less weight on the reactive moderation that Wikipedia uses now, and instead employing a more proactive approach by removing issues before they become public.

Additionally, after being introduced to Wikipedia through the WikiEducation program, I think this is something that should be offered and encouraged to more newcomers. Given that Wikipedia editing can be done by anyone, it would be beneficial to have this resource more accessible. One of the significant reasons behind Wikipedia’s success is because no account is necessary, there are no barriers to the act of editing, no CAPTCHAs, no privilege systems, and nothing to determine if a user is qualified to contribute. Although, drawing from lecture content, this ensures that no one will be repelled by the difficulty of editing, the freedom given may seem overwhelming to some. This is where the WikiEducation program could come into play, for example programming the site to pop up a small window when a user clicks on the edit button asking if the they would like to go through a few tutorials first. This could be programmed to occur during the first few times they click on the edit button or periodically in the future. Wikipedia has proven a bit difficult site to navigate at times, and not knowing expectations or norms can make that process all the more complex. As someone who has seen an article on Wikipedia that I wanted to edit previously but didn’t understand how to even begin, I think that my advice should be taken as a credible source. I do think this simplicity and accessibility is what makes Wikipedia the unique engine it is, open to anyone who wants to contribute and available to anyone who wants to read. The way it was able to create something already familiar but with a new approach of including everyone invested in the ongoing process.