User:Lainahare/Wikipediareflection

Wikipedia Debrief

Contributing to Wikipedia was an experience that showed me hands-on the difficulty and stress of assimilating to an online community that has very high standards for contributions. Being a true newcomer to Wikipedia, a community that I had limited knowledge about, showed me why the structure of this community that is presented at the introduction could be off-putting to new users. Online communities make the decision to prioritize case by case based on what they agree should be the primary objective of the group. It quickly became clear to me that the community of Wikipedia prioritized strict adherence to the established policies and the quality of writing produced over the personal experience of new users. Wikipedia has a surplus of contributors and therefore the members are not concerned with maintaining contributors or putting in effort to gain more. If anything it felt that new users were discouraged from taking the leap of adding contributions. New users are replaceable and not necessary from the continued success of the community. This attitude is not clear at the onset of joining, but once you make moves of consequence through posting on the mainspace, it becomes clear.

While thinking back on my time contributing to Wikipedia, the concept of a practice community and its reification proposed by Wenger continued to come up. Wenger defines reification as “the process of giving form to our experience by producing objects that congeal that experience into ‘thingness.’” (Wenger, as quoted in Reagle, 2010) This theory describes how people create a shared understanding and common identity over time. This is established through a history of communal approval and faith in knowledge of the ability of users to follow regulations. The Wikipedians that I interacted with viewed me as an outsider because of my violations of the previously established norms. Also it is very easy to see that I was a newcomer to the community because of the introduction on my talk page and the lack of previous contributions. I believe my newcomer status was responsible for the level of animosity I received for my contribution. Rather than giving me the benefit of the doubt, the Wikipedians jumped to negative assumptions and went so far as to question my intentions in contributing to the subject I chose.

Wikipedia has been categorized as a practice community, meaning they are focused on the creation of the encyclopedia, however Wegner’s theory asks that you consider the relationship between practice and reification. Wegner argues that the seemingly opposed practice and reification actually intermingle to create a “duality of meaning.” (Reagle, 2010) This duality provides a deeper understanding of what is taking place in interactions and why it is happening in this specific community.

From the very beginning of adding to my user page, I was met with introductions from two separate users within a day of each other. As discussed by Reagle, “extant members expect newcomers to acquaint themselves with well-established knowledge, both technical and social.” (Reagle, 2010) I had expected to have some amount of interaction with Wikipedians during the progress of this course. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lainahare) The first user suggested that because I am a student I should take the Wikipedia course for students and included the corresponding link. Obviously, we utilized this resource throughout the class so I didn’t need this information; however, if I hadn’t had previous access to it this would have been a beneficial introduction. The user who posted the second introduction also shared resources with me so that I could be aware of the regulations and expectations of Wikipedia. The resources contained guides similar to the WikiEd assignment that we completed as well as a link to Wikipedia’s FAQ page. Although these comments left on my user page did not have any undertone of sass or anger it still felt the goal was similar to “RTFM” or a “FAQ slap”. I appreciate that the users wanted to ensure that I had all of the resources available to begin contributing; however, it felt a little intimidating because of the amount of information they were informing me must be completed before being able to participate. These interactions also made me hyper-aware that people are watching my user profile and contributions. I responded to these comments by thanking both of the users to let them know that I appreciate them taking time to send me resources. For my first interactions on Wikipedia, I walked away with a lot of useful information to improve my contributions while also realizing that my contributions may be under the watchful eye of Wikipedians.

Realizing how strict of a community Wikipedia truly is made me feel overwhelmed due to the amount of information I was expected to absorb at once. Adjusting to the social expectations of interacting on Wikipedia made this even more difficult. The tone of the initial contacts from other Wikipedians were kind and informative; however, these were the last cordial messages I received. Once I put my article onto the mainspace I was immediately met by harsh criticism and assumptions of the worst intentions. The first comment I received regarding my mainspace article was one accusing me of working for the company and commenting that “This isn’t meant to be a web host.”(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Design_for_America) They made this accusation because I included the organization’s mission statement, which I saw as an important aspect of understanding the company and their goals. The same user who made this comment on the article itself then went onto my talk page and commented further on the article's lack of readiness. This user also informed me that they had moved my article to the draftspace. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lainahare) There was originally a mistake with this user moving the page as the mainspace page remained. Luckily, he quickly fixed the problem and the draft space version is the only one that exists.

This first negatively veiled interaction with a Wikipedian showed me the animosity that comes along with breaking the platform's established norms. My mistake was seen as something more negative than my own innocent intentions. My article was received as a purposeful violation of the previously agreed upon norms. “Those that refuse to do so are seen as attempting to “derail” the conversation.” (Reagle, 2010) In this environment any breach of norms regardless of intention were seen with malice intentions. This realization made me fearful of making mistakes during the remaining time. This fear also has and will create extreme uncomfortability in the community and cautiousness surrounding participants willingness to create and edit articles.

Due to the mistake that the user had made in trying to migrate my article, Dr. Reagle stepped in and asked what had occurred as the remainder of the version still existed. This prompted another user to step in and accuse me of moving the article after it had been put in draft space. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lainahare) The message they left was written in a very accusatory tone which furthered my discomfort with interacting within the community. The accusation that they made was inaccurate and only added to the confusion of resolving the issue. In order to inform the users of the actual situation, I felt pressured to defend myself although I had done nothing wrong. This situation reminded me of the dynamic we discussed in class and how new users have less credibility in the community. My newcomer status in the community showed those looking over my contribution that I had no experience and therefore was not a trusted writer. I believe that if I had been a more experienced member of the community the comments left by other users would have been more respectful.

The final comment that was left on my talk page by a different user was much more kindly worded and made no accusations. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lainahare) They simply gave me edits and certain information they felt I needed to improve the article. I also appreciated that they gave specific edits so that I could take action right away. This user also made a comment about the lack of the encyclopedic tone in the article. However, instead of assuming the worst, the user just informed me of my mistakes and offered an explanation to support their comments. This interaction slightly lessened my fear of contributing by showing me that not all Wikipedia users are so sharp and critical.

Being a newcomer to Wikipedia showed me how unforgiving an online community can be when you violate the established norms. My article was labeled as inaccurate and corrupt because of false assumptions made by an active member of the community. When new users are met with such a level of intensity and disbelief, it is no surprise that there isn’t a larger amount of new individuals who want to contribute. While those who do contribute are clearly very dedicated, these users need to be more mindful of the level of respect that should be given to users trying their best. I was happy to find that one user did in fact offer kind and constructive criticism. If more Wikipedians approached the process more positively then I believe the community would be stronger and greater in size.

Works Cited


 * 1) Chapter 3 §1 Good Faith Collaboration. 3 Good Faith Collaboration. (2011, September 21). Retrieved November 28, 2022, from https://reagle.org/joseph/2010/gfc/chapter-3.html
 * 2)  Etienne Wenger, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 58.