User:Chriscarroll58/Report

First and foremost, Wikipedia is a deceptively simple system. All the pages are clearly labeled and marked, where the Help button is on the sidebar which has a complete list of everything you ever need on Wikipedia. However, the learning curve is as steep as a virtual Matterhorn but the rewards certainly outweigh the risks. Wikipedia has a bad reputation among the academic community as a website where a person could put anything they want on here. A gross oversimplification! However, the commonly used phrase "be bold" is nothing more than a pandering attempt to and give the user a falsely motivated sense of confidence only to step on their hopes of ever becoming a committed Wikipedia user. Although everything is clearly laid out for the user, knowing there are real people who have administrative roles years ahead of mine is quite intimidating. If I mess up, will I get a nasty message? Will my efforts be met with kindness or with Wikipedians stepping on my dreams of becoming a Wikipedia superstar?

My criticisms may seem harsh but be aware that they do serve a purpose; to challenge your rationality in the wake of being upset and potentially make you think in a new way about the beginning user experience. I didn't really see a point in clicking through a different website that I'm not as familiar with in order to navigate through this one (I am referring to WikiEdu). Now while I have been reading through Wikipedia for some number of years, there is no color to divert my attention. There's just nothing designed to divert my attention to a different page so I just simply go to another site and get lost in down that rabbit hole of information. To give you an idea, I just searched "ethos, logos, and pathos" on google and got lost down a pipeline of different results that different people worked hard on for years and years only for me to barely glance at it. Getting somebody to pay attention and focus deeply is something of an art form.

Now look, I'm 22 years old so I can't stare at a colorless page for hours on end unless there's some kind of reward. It could be altruism that motivates me or it could be a comically large sack of golden doubloons; but that's not what matters. What matters is doing something that is true. My generation wants things to be instantly entertaining because that is how the internet has conditioned (most) of us.

I'm not a very good critic. But what I do know is that doing something takes experience. I am honestly not be compelled to edit a wickedly complex online encyclopedia and stare at a screen for hours and hours in order to anticipate an angry Wikipedian's response to my work. I am aware critical thought is necessary to the growth of such a groundbreaking online community, but I really do think that messing up will make me quit and not think that editing Wikipedia is worth any of my time. I once heard from a wise man that stress makes diamonds and also coal. I tend to get lost down these pipelines of thought when I am just walking around during the day, so being on the computer increases that propensity to be distracted tenfold. I urge you to really sit down and re-read my words at a later time in order to read them from a slightly different perspective in time. I take this theory from Hemingway, which states that his words are steeped with many layers and deep metaphors that really only begin to make sense once one knows his life and his struggles.

My article was on walking meditation! Please look at it and make changes as you so should desire.