User:HunterKaimi/Report

Hunter Brown Cell dog Wikipedia Stub Report

When first faced with the idea of creating a Wikipedia article, it was a bit daunting. I have looked at dozens of articles in the past for school projects or general curiosity, but never thought I would be required to make one. I’m very grateful we did not start from scratch and we were given the option to edit and improve on a stub article. One of the first assignments was choosing your topic. To my surprise, this task was not as easy as I thought it would be. My experience finding an article that met my criteria of what I wanted to be working on for the next six weeks took some time. The stub page itself is very intimidating. With what seems like endless pages of stubs that need to be improved upon, it made it a tough decision to just pick one. I wanted to enjoy the next few weeks of research and writing, so I began to search for articles that I would have fun with. I began with musicians I liked but of course, they were all nearly A-class articles. So, I tried to narrow it down to specific albums I like from them. But surprise surprise, the same issue. This was a frustrating time because I did not feel as prepared in the actual selection of the article as I would have liked. I would have found a module on “finding a stub that fits your interests” very helpful. Filling out a questionnaire on what my academic and personal interests are, then having Wikipedia narrow down the stub selection to match my keywords would make the selection process of a stub much easier. I know this experience of finding an article was not just tough for me, but for many of my classmates. I spoke to a handful of them during the first few weeks and I got the same responses, “I can’t find a stub that’s interesting.” Or “My issue is finding one I actually like.”

Before I even selected my article, I had the opportunity to work with Sage and test out the Wiki Education Dashboard, testing out some of the training modules. This was helpful for me because I was spiraling a bit on how I was going to select and improve on an article when there are so many to choose from. He had me select a random article for the sake of practicing and finishing the training. This was helpful for both of us because I got some practice, and he got to see what it was like for someone to use the dashboard.

While the stubs page does organize them into genres and categories, each of those sub-pages contains dozens to thousands of stubs in them. Something that I would find helpful would be instead of looking through the stub page “1960’s R&B Music” and sifting through the plethora of artists and albums I have never heard of, would be searching an artist or album I like, and having that page automatically remove the stubs that have nothing to do with my initial search. I believe this would not only make the selection process for the editor smoother but also motive a newcomer to edit a stub because finding one that fits their interest would be much easier.

As a newcomer to the Wikipedia community, I can see why their numbers have decreased so rapidly for new contributors. To be honest, once this quarter is complete I will probably not create or edit another article. I say this because of two reasons. One, the norms and rules are much more specific and have greater repercussions than other online communities. And two, attracting new contributors does not feel like a priority to Wikipedia. On a social media platform such as Instagram or Tiktok, if you post something you’re not supposed to it could get flagged or taken down. If you post something horrific that completely violates the rules, that could potentially lead to a ban on the account. But with Wikipedia, if I accidentally phrase something too close to the original, or use a photo that wasn’t allowed by mistake, the same actions could be taken on my account. As a newcomer, this brings up some fear for me when working on my article. The thought of being banned from a community that is despite for contributors for accidental paraphrasing or a violation of a peculiar and specific formatting rule gives me some clarity as to why people might not want to continue working on articles for Wikipedia. In class, we hear stories of Wikipedia yelling at students who are trying to improve on articles, the “Welcome to Wikipedia, now go away.”, and the rates at which their community is losing its members. Yet we haven’t discussed how they could be attracting or retaining their newcomers. If I saw an advertisement on TV or YouTube about a regular guy like me who happens to be passionate or knows a lot about a topic, creating/improving upon an article on Wikipedia portraying that anyone can be a contributor to Wikipedia, it might spark my interest. I might think to myself, “Hey, I actually know a lot about *blank*, I’d be happy to contribute and share some knowledge.” But I have never seen one advertisement from Wikipedia trying to attract newcomers or convey their reason as to why one would even contribute something.

If Wikipedia utilized design claim 20 “Offering people reminders at the point of an action that may violate norms reduces the number of offenses.” Instead of striking fear in newcomers, if a mistake of violation has been made, this might result in a better understanding of the rules and norms, more respectable members, and increase the longevity of a newcomer. Speaking from personal experience, it did not seem like Wikipedia was on my side when it came to me creating an article. If I wasn’t in a class helping me every step of the way, I would have left at the stubs page.

Aside from my constructive criticism, I have thoroughly enjoyed my time working on the Cell dog stub. I’ve learned a lot about the process that goes into creating an article and how much effort those who volunteer their time put in. I’m thankful for my experience learning about something new and giving back to those who are interested in learning more about my topic.