User:Drishinb/3AM Article Reflection

The sound of a notification, followed by a message from an automated bot that read "Welcome to Wikipedia, Drishinb! We're glad you're here!" This was the extent of my welcoming into the Wikipedia community.

The question of whether Wikipedia was welcoming to newcomers is a topic we discussed at length in my Online Communities course. My answer: not quite. Upon joining Wikipedia, several of my peers in the course were welcomed with an immediate invitation to the Teahouse. This is a group specifically aimed at newcomers with the objective of creating a "friendly place to help new editors become accustomed to Wikipedia culture, ask questions, and develop community relationships." This is a means of easing newcomers into the community and providing an environment to help strengthen their connection to the community through heightened familiarity. Unfortunately, this was one that I was denied, with the lack of an invitation to join the club. Instead, I had to rely on learning the ins and outs of Wikipedia through a basic tutorial and searching specific "how-to's" on the Wikipedia specific article space when creating my article 3AM (TV Series) in my WikiInfancy, a term used by Wikipedians for newcomers according to the Seven Ages of Wikipedians. However, upon moving the article into the mainspace, it was quickly reviewed by a fellow Wikipedian. Soon after, several other wikipedians came to contribute several minor edits to fix grammatical errors whilst one of them pointed out an inconsistency.

I began the creation of my article by first taking a look at the List of Requested Articles on the Wikipedia specific article space, under the Film, Radio and Television category. I chose to do this topic for my article due to my interest in Film and Television, in addition to the curiosity I had for how a television series on a popular network like Showtime did not have an article on Wikipedia. During the researching of my subject matter, I encountered a strange instance where a primary source of the information, in the form of the official webpage for the show on the network's website, was deleted from the website. However, I was able to go around this by finding alternative sources that corroborated any information that I required, which adhered to Wikipedia's required use of objective and unbiased sources. As I began writing the article, my experience of simply having to use the basic tutorial and not being invited into the teahouse put me in a position where I was unclear on how to format an article that revolved around a specific television reality documentary series. I therefore had to use another documentary series on the same network, Gigolos, as a source of guidance for the specific formatting norms for an article about a television show. Such formatting norms included the "infobox" on the top right of the page that consisted of basic information about the show, such as genre, creators, producers, production companies and networks, among others. In addition, another formatting norm that was I included, judging from the other show, was the order for the contents of my article. I moved from the introduction into the cast information to "production and development" to "episodes" (including a table listing episode names and air dates) to critical reception and external links.

Upon completion of the writing for my article, I moved it from the sandbox into the article space and was met with a relatively smooth reception. My article was quickly reviewed after entering the mainspace. The Wikipedian that reviewed my article also made several grammatical edits and removed the now dead link to the show's official webpage, as can be seen in Special:Diff/766195419 and Special:Diff/766197316. In addition, the reviewer of my article also left a tag at the bottom of my article that stated that the article was uncategorized, as evidenced here Special:Diff/766195576. Upon remedying this, the Wikipedian proceeded to "Thank" me for my edit. In addition to the edits made by the reviewer of my article, several other wikipedians also contributed to the article, but primarily in the form of several minor grammatical edits, which can be seen in Special:Diff/766179119 and Special:Diff/768497395. However, one other wikipedian also added an "ophan" tag, as shown here Special:Diff/767523265. This tag described that my article was not being linked in other pages. I remedied this by going to other Wikipedia articles that were linked in my article, such as the creators and several cast members, in addition to the pages stating lists of American television shows, shows on the specific network and American shows in the 2010s, and ensured that my article was linked wherever appropriate. I then proceeded to remove the tag, as shown here Special:Diff/773733907, because the article was no longer an orphan. With the exception of the "uncategorized" and "orphan" tags that were added to the article, the contributions that my article received from other wikipedians were primarily in the form of minor edits.

In their discussion of the attraction of Newcomers, Robert Kraut and Paul Resnick highlight 5 important steps that contribute to the recruiting of newcomers in Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-Based Social Design. Kraut and Resnick state the 5 steps include recruitment of newcomers, selection of newcomers that are a good fit, retention of members via engagement and developing strong ties, socialization to educate newcomers in social norms and protection from newcomer disruptions to the community. From my experiences with Wikipedia, several of these steps are missing, which negatively effects the community's ability to attract and welcome newcomers. With Wikipedia being an open encyclopedia that anyone can come in and edit means that there is a lack of a filter that ensures a selection process for newcomers that may be a good fit, as it allows anyone and everyone to join the community. One of the more crucial steps missing, however, with my experience with Wikipedia was the lack of socialization to educate newcomers in social norms. Without the invitation to the Teahouse to assimilate me into the Wikipedia community, I was forced to understand social and formatting norms through searching for the information myself on Wikipedia and through a basic tutorials. This creates a significantly more frustrating and ultimately unappealing environment for newcomers to come join the community, as newcomers are not properly socialized to understanding how the community works. This is a fact that is corroborated in Kraut and Resnick's discussion. In their discussion of newcomers, Kraut and Resnick note that around 60% of registered editors on Wikipedia never make another edit after the first 24 hours of participation. However, as negative as the environment for newcomers as been, my experience with Wikipedia did include a small level of engagement, via the minor contributions, which can act an attempt to develop some ties and retain me as a continued contributor on the site.

In conclusion, I learned much about the WIkipedia community as I entered as a newcomer. I learned that newcomers should expect a lack of socialization to the norms of the community. Ultimately, Wikipedia demands a high level of commitment from its newcomers as it mostly requires a large degree of self-starting for users to learn to use the site by themselves. Therefore, it repels the type of users who are simply curious to learn about the site and only caters to those coming in serious about contributing.