User:Kllamanzares/Reflective Essay

== Critiquing articles: What did you learn about Wikipedia during the article evaluation? How did you approach critiquing the article you selected for this assignment? How did you decide what to add to your chosen article? ==	While I knew Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for many different topics, what I learned and probably what changed my view on encyclopedic writing especially for Wikipedia is the Five Pillars foundation of Wikipedia. Presenting Wikipedia with a foundation I feel shows how Wikipedia is reliable in it’s information as an encyclopedia, particularly something that stood out when I was reading the pillars was the neutral point of view, which I pretty much wholeheartedly agree when it comes to writing an article in Wikipedia, along with the other pillars that Wikipedia is founded upon. When approaching an article for evaluation I would always reference back to the pillars and write what matter much more in improving an article than trying to change anything much that diminishes the writer’s vision, but still try to find work arounds if there is anything that seems off with an article. == Summarizing your contributions: include a summary of your edits and why you felt they were a valuable addition to the article. How does your article compare to earlier versions? ==	The edits I made on article was more of expanding a small lead or summary and adding two pretty in-depth sections dedicated to the article, one being the ‘history’ of the building I am researching on, and the other being the ‘Interior’ which came to be since most articles I read about the Comstock Saloon was describing the interior of the place which was antique and old, even the history I read on the saloon described the history of how the interior never changed since it’s inception. The two sections I feel serve an important part of the article as it describes the most important of a Wikipedia article on a building, which is the history, and the description of the interior which serves as the notability of the building to be on Wikipedia, also knowing that it was home to past bars and saloons varying in different notable events happening. Comparing to an older version of the article before my contributions, it was rather sparse and very simple, having only a summary of what the place is, and being categorized under stub articles.

== Peer review: If your class did peer review, include information about the peer review process. What did you contribute in your review of your peers article? What did your peers recommend you change on your article? ==	Similarly like what I did for critiquing and evaluating a Wikipedia article, it was no different during a peer review, basing my evaluation the same on the pillars, and also help guiding the writer to various ideas and advice I give to help the article look much more organize and what to add. I also received feedback as well for my article, having a in-depth analysis on my draft of the article as well as been given links to a few news outlets that I can use for sourcing and such.

Feedback: Did you receive feedback from other Wikipedia editors, and if so, how did you respond to and handle that feedback?
I didn’t receive any feedback from actual Wikipedia editors, but have gotten my article modified a bit from bots, mainly just citation and punctuation issues. But other than that, the contribution from my draft to the article seems to be mostly untouched.

== Wikipedia generally: What did you learn from contributing to Wikipedia? How does a Wikipedia assignment compare to other assignments you've done in the past? How can Wikipedia be used to improve public understanding of our field/your topic? Why is this important? ==	In other assignments I have done in the past, I don’t think I have ever done a research project in the style of an encyclopedia entry like Wikipedia, most of the time it would be done through an essay form with paragraphs that does not necessarily contain different sections explicitly. Working on a research project like in the style of encyclopedia though I think will be extremely beneficial in improving understanding of topics, as it is collecting general and historical research and information in a topic to write on and publish to the public to see and view. I feel this is important as I would compare Wikipedia to other important encyclopedias such as history books and archived newspapers where history is preserved for various purposes. Wikipedia is much like that in the more technological sense and I see as important in archival and historical preservation as much as the others.

== Did your contribution address a major equity gap? Did your contribution improve Wikipedia's coverage of historically underrepresented or marginalized populations or topics? If so, were there any challenges unique to contributing in these subject areas? ==	The subject that I’m researching about is neither really popular or obscure, but it was in the middle where there was enough information to research to create a decent Wikipedia article. The thing about the building and the Comstock Saloon is that there is already an article about the building’s predecessor ‘San Francisco Brewing Company’ which also has a section on the history of the building, so trying to add new information about Comstock Saloon without rehashing information is considerably difficult to try and write, but I still managed to write it and also still added on the history of the building and it’s significance with Comstock Saloon, albeit more compressed and summarized.

Did the Wikipedia assignment affect your understanding of how information is constructed and shared? How do you now understand your own role within today's information landscape?
After this Wikipedia assignment, I feel that my understanding of the sharing of information has been more shifted to a technical sense now, knowing about the pillars and how articles on Wikipedia are often laid out, differing from each article to another, I feel now I have a proper etiquette to write not only Wikipedia articles, but for other research projects for organization and rhetoric. For my own role in the information landscape, being much more of a reader I tend to read to know more of a certain topic, to have better sense and understanding of one as well. I feel that I’m only a beginner in writing Wikipedia articles, particularly in a grammatical sense and writing with what research I have, but having the clear understanding of Wikipedia after being a reader from time to time on the site, builds confidence and gained even more interest in reading more various topics on Wikipedia for benefit of myself.