User:Lmc99/Report

My experience on Wikipedia was a relatively straightforward one. Besides the rather steep learning curve that came with familiarizing myself with the editing workspace, and the difficulties I had with uploading a picture to Wikimedia, it was a relatively simple and even enjoyable project. I focused on improving the pre-existing Wiki article about Moonlight Basin Resort. The first thing I did was break the article (previously one long section) into subject-specific headers. This was easy enough, as it was similar to a lot of the writing I’ve done for analytical/research papers. What gave me a touch more difficulty--and also where I learned the most--was using Wikipedia’s “encyclopedic” tone, and sourcing things. Moonlight Basin is not a “scholarly” topic, so finding information and quality sources for it was a challenge. I spent a lot of time reading through news articles or blog posts, evaluating them, and trying to decide if the information was useable. Research is definitely what took the most of my energy, but I came out of it with a keener eye and a developing sense of what sources are “quality” and which ones aren’t. As for encyclopedic tone, I’m so used to writing argumentative things that it took a bit of effort (especially at the beginning) to remember that I was supposed to be reporting facts and info in an unbiased way--not trying to persuade the reader.

At the end of the work I did, I came out with a new understanding and appreciation of the work that goes into many of these Wiki articles. I wasn’t even writing one from scratch and it was far more work than I’d anticipated. Wikipedia users really hold each other to a high standard--even though the article I wasn’t working on wasn’t active, I still felt the pressure to write a high-quality article that would fit the overall tone of the site.

For the duration of time I’ve been using Wikipedia, I’ve noticed a couple of areas that could be improved. This is from both the editor end (creating articles, editing them, etc etc) as well as from the reader’s end. My first big issue from the editor’s end has to do with attracting (and keeping) newcomers. I was lucky because I had the tutorial pages easily accessible through Wikiedu, and without it, I would’ve had no clue what I was doing. Part of Wikipedia’s draw is the idea that anyone can jump in and start editing. However, outdated, clunky design and a daunting interface are enough to put everyone but the most determined off. My suggestion for this particular problem would be setting up a tutorial page--the first thing new users see, preferably--with a list of links to something similar to the step-by-step guides we had on Wikiedu. It doesn’t have to be necessary to complete the training before you start editing, but it would be an extremely valuable resource that would help flatten the learning curve and make Wikipedia more accessible sooner for new users. Retention was one of the big things talked about in the “Newcomers” section of lecture, and I think giving newcomers a little more coaching (or at least the option for it) would be beneficial. In our Zooniverse discussion, I remember discussing the usefulness of the tutorials for each project, so the user will be able to contribute quality stuff to the community from the get-go, rather than having to figure it out all on their own.

I also think ease of communications could be greatly improved. Once again, Wikipedia is pretty old, but it’s starting to show (and become increasingly hard to use). A specific suggestion I have is to streamline the communication between users. Wikipedia puts so much emphasis on community, and you would think that communication between those community members would be a lot easier (and straightforward). Most new users are used to the likes of Twitter or Reddit, which have an auto-reply function (versus having to write out the username) as well as auto-formatting for replies, so the page will look neat and each user comment is discernible from the last. I’ve seen several talk pages where relevancy or recency is different; sometimes, the newer posts are on the top and the older on the bottom, or vice versa. I think standardizing formatting and adding the reply function is a bare-minimum must. I’m not sure what it would take to implement a DM system (I assume that’s pretty difficult and effortful) but the previous piece of advice is actionable and would only take a couple of programming tweaks.

Not only are these recommendations based on my personal experience, but they represent some of the common themes I’ve seen in many of our case discussions. Take Open Project, for example--the isolated nature of many of its users makes the whole project feel less open, and friendly. Accessibility to other people, particularly older users, is fundamental to any site that relies on user contributions. Older users teach the new ones how to act and contribute, what the norms and expectations are, and help them feel welcome in the space. If Wikipedia wants to continue attracting new people, and fit in with the larger “social media” sites, it needs to modernize its interface and continue to make its space more accessible to its community, new and old alike.