User:Crohbar/WikiReflection

My Wikipedia Experience
Wikipedia is not a stranger to me. It’s been the platform that’s given me company since I first started writing research papers. However, my relationship with this platform wasn’t always rooted in assuming good faith and trust. Like many of my peers, I spent the majority of my education skeptical of Wikipedia’s credibility because my teachers would constantly tell me that the platform was not to be used as a ‘reputable source.’ Due to my internalized biases against the validity of this site, I inadvertently came into this project with the assumption that there wasn’t a strong editing community that I could rely on to help me with my page. Furthermore, I had always been on the receiving end when it came to Wikipedia—I was the one being fed information, not the other way around. When the reality that the dynamic would be flipped as part of my capstone project, a storm of feelings ranging from fear and dread flooded through me. Those who are able to move past the newcomer initiation process, explore platform resources, and maintain an open-minded relationship when interacting with other users, will be able to successful integrate and find fulfilling outcomes from the Wikimedia community. This is my Wiki pride and joy: Yoon Ahn.

Please Do Not Bite Me (The Newcomer)
This was my first encounter with the editing portion of the site. The idea that I would not only creating a page for the site but also going into the deep end of editing a platform of an extremely public platform was incredibly daunting. According to Kraut, entry barriers are effective in motivating newcomers to become committed to a community. There was also the added pressure where every saved edit would immediately be public. The Wiki catchphrase “be bold” initially felt like an empty platitude. Kraut’s newcomer design claims also assert that newcomers who are able to move past the initiation process will come out with ‘stronger loyalties’ than those who did not go through an initiation process. Wikipedia’s initiation process, in comparison to other online communities I’ve encountered, is not extremely rigid to the point where most newcomers would be driven away. But as I had accidentally visualized and internalized a dramatic narrative of Wikipedia, I felt extremely pressured and imagined a ‘death-button’ situation where a mistake could potentially lead to huge consequences and immense public embarrassment. Even though the initial tutorials on editing basics and Wikipedia policies were helpful and not very intimidating, I still felt required to go through all the steps and research community dynamics. When I started my first draft, I spent over 30 minutes rearranging the first two sentences of my article because I was worried about potentially breaking rules and getting banned from Wikipedia. Eventually, I was engrossed in the process of making my article and became committed to creating something that would follow guidelines. I had initially seen the Wikipedia project as something necessary for a grade; by the end, my mindset shifted and I became motivated to create a page that would do both my subject matter and the Wikipedia community values justice.

During some of my initial researches on the Wikipedia community, I saw that Wikipedia asked experienced users to “biting the newcomer” and provide constructive, supportive feedback. While I cannot completely relate to this concept with my specific relationship with Wikipedia, my past experiences with other platforms tell me that if Wikipedia had a tense and biting dynamic, I would not feel as inclined to participate and my motivation would plummet. The sandbox was one Wiki aspect I really appreciated amongst all this pressure. Once I realized that I had some space to mess around with ideas and paste in random links without fear of lurking strangers, I was able to relax and focus more on making a good article. Personally, I never had a negative encounter with another user. Most of my online encounters were with bots and random people making minor grammar edits on my page.

While exploring the Wikipedia user pages of various people, I noticed a trend where more experienced and active users added small banners listing their interests, hobbies, and professions and included a small biography. Seeing even a simple image posting with a brief caption on a user's page was greatly appreciated. Kraut’s explanation states that when both newcomers and experienced users reveal certain personal aspects about themselves online, they are able to foster stronger connections during potential interactions. As Wikipedia is mostly based in online interactions, seeing these mini introductions and lists of contributions helped me personalize this foreign community. My initial assumption was that most members who were creating and editing pages were extremely educated and highly experienced people who would not make the time to deal with a random undergraduate student. Contrarily, I slowly discovered that many users on Wikipedia are ‘normal’ people who might have master’s degrees but also enjoy nerdy things (such as collecting cheese figurines). Quite honestly, the prouder the nerd, the better. As people made edits on my page, I could contextualize the individual and see that people were actually willing to help me. During the whole editing process, the majority of the feedback I received was from my classmates and Professor Reagle. I had the opportunity to build a repertoire with them through our classes together. Going through the process of picking our topics together and editing each other’s pages further cemented our trust process and also helped us find similarities within each other’s interests. They provided me with great suggestions on my talk page, grammar edits, and it was really easy to follow up with people because we were all actively watching each other’s pages.

Support and Reciprocation
Topic talk pages were resources that proved to be tremendously helpful. As a first-time Wikipedia author, I wasn’t entirely sure how to promote and include my page in other Wikipedia spaces after publishing my draft. One of the problems I ran into was figuring out which categories to place my page under. My page was a biography for a Korean American designer who was primarily based in Japan. I wasn’t sure which country to list her under and created a post on a talk page for the "list of fashion designers" asking other users to give me advice. Even though no one ended up responding to my question, I was able to keep track of the advice people were giving to others in a similar boat. Based on some of the back and forth I was tracking on various subpages, I decided to place my page under the country where my designer mostly grew up in, the United States.

Within this network lies the dynamic of reciprocation between Wikipedia users. My most notable edit suggestion was when someone ended up moving my page to the ‘American fashion designers’ category page and also added it under other category pages. I was extremely grateful for this person’s assistance, especially as I had not anticipated someone outside of my class helping me, and I thanked them publicly. I did not expect them to respond with a “you're welcome” or for them to offer me more help in case they were touched by my gratitude. Similarly, as someone who gave my peers detailed feedback on their articles, I didn’t expect to see a "thank you" note from them on my talk page because I had assisted them with good intentions. Of course, Wikipedia encourages its users to express Thank You's to others whenever applicable; undeniably, giving thanks is a great way to boost and maintain morale. But if I had underlying expectations to hear a compliment or recognition of my good deed, then I would be working for extrinsic motivators outside of upholding community values and would most likely resent users for no real reason. As Whitacre states, any resentment on my end is my problem and ultimately is not constructive to either my learning experience or maintaining positive community values. The last thing/most ridiculous scenario I want to face is getting into an online argument with someone because I feel entitled to a badge (and obviously, vice versa). As asserted by Lampinen et al., if I gave feedback and edits in hopes of some underlying exchange, I would fall out of line with the Wikipedia community’s core values and most likely lose interest in the platform as a whole.

The Tightrope of Moderation
According to Grimmelmann, a well-moderated community has productivity, efficient openness and holds few demands from its users. Active subpages, respectful editing between strangers, and being able to monitor user behavior even as a newbie, proved to me that Wikipedia had a well-moderated community that was generally productive and incentivizing. Grimmelmann also briefly mentions the balance between actively encouraging new members to join versus maintaining firm boundaries while moderating online communities.

As mentioned before, because I am a WOC without a degree in design or fashion history, I faced a huge amount of imposter syndrome during the majority of my time working on the platform. Even without the implementation of stricter community entrance guidelines, I would still have taken my role as a Wikipedia member seriously. A community like Wikipedia relies on the sharing of external knowledge to promote the group. If the platform decided to uphold tighter borders around its community, valuable knowledge could potentially be lost—the greatest threat to Wikipedia existence. Tighter community borders would also mean the decrease of interactions between new and experienced users. I have no doubt that many seasoned Wikipedians are often tired of having to constantly help newcomers and repeatedly explain why certain things must be removed/added. However, taking measures to dramatically decrease the amount of people because of various reasons such as conflicting opinions, would be an infringement of the collaborative consensus and open borders foundations that ground Wikipedia as a community. Furthermore, any users like myself would struggle to find help from others and the quality of individual pages would decrease overall. I chose my topic because I was familiar with my subject’s history and passionate about including women Asian designers into Wikipedia's mainstream. It would have been wasteful and dismissive towards both me and my peers’ potentials to not give us a chance to participate on this platform, even if we were WikiInfants for the most of it.

Trolls, on the other hand, are a malicious inevitability. Before engaging in this project, I had heard of horror stories of trolls trespassing onto users' hard-worked pages and ruining them. However, these are most likely not as common as the off-handed troll that comes in to instigate minor fights with well-intentioned users. Wikipedia's "what is a troll?" page lists best-practices on how to deal with malicious intruders--mostly encouraging users to 'stop feeding' the trolls and to adhere from giving them any attention. Moderating trolls requires a fine understanding between actually troll-activity and general (perhaps slightly heated) disagreements.

The best way for Wikipedia to maintain the healthy aspects of its inclusive dynamic is to maintain the collaborative spirit of consensus and keeping an open-minded stance during interactions, even if it means having some disagreements and road bumps along the way.

Liberating the Imposter
For my first interaction with Wikipedia, I can confidently report that I had a fantastic time. I had no communication issues with my peers or Wiki strangers, a lot of fun, and got to look inside the window of a platform that had accompanied me during my formative years.

I came into this project hoping to gain experience in something new and although the process entailed mixed emotions, I am glad to say this has been an unforgettable project I am proud to have been a part of. As alluded to in various studies , an initiation process can potentially push away newcomers but it can also bring in valuable contributors with an increased commitment level, especially as those people are the ones who have made a stronger effort to stay.

My page has been viewed by over 400 people. Thanks to Wikipedia's policy of consensus and open communication, I can easily jump onto a talk page where I can respectfully sort out any issues with other passionate members. Getting through all the road bumps and committing to the Wikipedia process was something I did not have high expectations for but I am happy in being proven wrong. Overcoming my imposter syndrome by the end of this project and seeing my article's worth slowly acknowledged by other users brings forth indescribable feelings of gratitude and liberation.