User:Marinamano/subpage


 *  Please see Articles for deletion/Decibel Therapeutics for background on this, as well as the talk page. Cheers.  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  10:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Assignment Reflection: How to survive as a newcomer
Since its inception in 2001, Wikipedia has expanded tremendously and is now the largest encyclopedia with over 5 million working articles online. It's evident that Wikipedia really blossomed when it transformed from Nupedia because for the first time ever, the site allowed new authors to add more articles and continue to improve existing ones. This boom in activity helped solidify the community’s norms—an essential aspect of successful communities, both online and offline. My rather brief experience with Wikipedia as a registered user was a valuable learning experience. In this reflection, I will argue that Wikipedia is fairly difficult to assimilate to as a newcomer. And in my explanation, I will suggest that in order to make successful contributions to Wikipedia, participants must comply appropriately with moderators and educate themselves on the community’s norms while also using feedback constructively.

Inception
When deciding which topic to create an article on, I thought about potential topics that wouldn’t pose any conflict of interest or compromise my neutral point of view. My best friend has worked for Decibel Therapeutics, a medical startup, for almost a year. I knew that Decibel was on the brink of a breakthrough in technology, and felt that it warranted a Wikipedia page of its own. I started a draft in my sandbox and created a Background section for the company, using information from its website and other news articles that have reported on its work. I also drafted a section for its history, investors, and competitor research. I felt that this information would help legitimize the topic and make it notable by Wikipedia standards. I felt it was also necessary to include all of the noteworthy scientists, researchers, businessmen, scholars, physicians, etc. who have made contributions to the company’s progress. I was hopeful that because I had no prior knowledge about Decibel Therapeutics, I would surely not violate any community norms. In addition, I was excited about the prospect of creating an article of my own.

First Attempt
When I felt I was ready, I moved my work out of my sandbox and into the main space. I was a fool to believe that my article was ready. Almost an hour after the move, my article was marked for a speedy delete because it was not considered notable. More specifically, Wikipedia moderators felt that an article about Decibel Therapeutics was not necessary because the topic wasn’t grounded in enough third-party sources. With help from Professor Reagle, my article was recovered and safely put back into my sandbox where I could continue to edit it and hopefully move back into the main space once it was ready. With suggestions from Professor Reagle and my classmates Sara Perry and Sam Abbatessa, I trudged forward. I made significant edits, including the deletion the Scientific Advisory Board section, and instead focused on Decibel’s leadership, founders, and board of directors. I added more information from additional sources, including a background on hearing loss, research, and testings. I also added a photo of the company’s letterhead, which I had acquired from my friend who works there.

I found that it was much harder to find reputable sources than I had thought partly because the company is so new. In addition, much of its research and findings are not open to the public. Innovation in this field is extremely confidential because of the impact it has the potential to make. This was something I had considered during the topic selection stage, but I was confident that my sources were sufficient. I was hesitant to move again, given my experience the first time around. Yet, with encouragement from Professor Reagle, I gave it a second attempt. I may have been too hasty in moving my article back into the main space because within hours, it was “butchered” to pieces by Wikipedians. By "too hasty", I mean that I should have reconsidered the photo I uploaded weeks prior because as noted by Professor Reagle, it had the potential to raise conflict of interest concerns. In retrospect, I believe this photo was a big reason why my article was flagged.

Final Attempt
A few interesting things happened after my second and final attempt to move into the main space. To ensure that this is an ethical discussion, I'm going to protect the anonymity of the users I interacted with. First, my article was posted on the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard by User A, who was concerned because he/she claimed that I had attempted to move my article out of my sandbox multiple times--something I was unaware I had even done. User A claimed they had trimmed it of “its cruft”, but needed further opinion. This I took as a clear indication of seeking consensus as we’ve discussed in length about Wikipedia's community specifically. User B added that she trimmed it of even more cruft and proposed that it get deleted. User A ended up praising User B for her comments and proposition that my article get deleted.

Next, User A left a message on my talk page, informing me that my article was posted on the Conflict of Interest/Noticeboard because it was involved in a Conflict of Interest issue. User B left a message on my talk page as well, but this user was specifically concerned that I was a paid editor because the nature of my edits gave the impression that I had a financial stake in promoting Decibel Therapeutics. User B continued on to explain why paid advocacy is considered a conflict of interest, violates the policy on neutral point of view, and ultimately that it was an issue of a black hat practice. I was told that I was obligated (by the Wikipedia Terms of Use) to provide the necessary information if I was, in fact, a paid editor. And I was condemned from making further edits until I addressed the issue directly. Additionally, User B tagged my article for proposed deletion because it failed WP:CORP notability.

Lastly, User C left a final message on my talk page called "Ways to Improve Decibel Therapeutics". This user told me he tagged my article using Wikipedia's page curation tools and listed several reasons why: "I don't see any mention in independent, reliable sources that indicates why this company is interesting, important, or otherwise notable". User C gave me a number of specific suggestions and told me I could reach out on his talk page if I had any questions.

As of now, my article remains active but has been flagged for having multiple issues and has been trimmed down significantly.

Online Community Norms
In The Virtues of Moderation, James Grimmelmann defines moderation online as “the governance mechanisms that structure participation in a community to facilitate cooperation and prevent abuse” Grimmelmann suggests that by employing these mechanisms, communities can better resist the tension between too much freedom and too much control online, an issue they often have to reconcile. As discussed, one of the biggest challenges and most important goals of moderation online is norm-setting. Grimmelmann shares that moderators can influence and articulate norms by interacting with codes of conduct, statements of rules, or by praising good behavior and criticizing bad. With my own experience, I felt that the moderators on Wikipedia validated the norm of praising good behavior and criticizing bad. After my first attempt to move, I felt criticized by the user who marked my page for speedy delete so quickly because it was clear that my work was inadequate. I felt incompetent and my confidence suffered. Despite my rather negative reaction, I now acknowledge that this user was simply enforcing the community norm by acting quickly to delete articles that were not acting in good faith.

Another important norm associated with online communities is the initiation of newcomers, who must be taught the community’s expectations while simultaneously feeling welcome to that community. This norm was exemplified by the interaction I had with User C, who took the time to explicitly explain his actions on my talk page. He listed the reasons why my article needed to be improved, and even offered solutions. He offered to help if I responded to him on his talk page, and finally, he even thanked me for creating “Decibel Therapeutics”. I found that this user’s response to my article resonated with the norm of initiating new participants while making them feel welcome. If I had this type of response when I first moved my article into the main space, I would have felt much more motivated to continue to improve my article rather than run away and completely shut down.

Transparency
Another moderator norm to consider as defined by Grimmelmann is transparency. Grimmelmann shares that explicit moderation enhances legitimacy and provides community support. On my talk page, it was incredibly helpful when User C explained why exactly my page was incomplete and provided tangible suggestions. This transparency was helpful for me because it helped me better understand what the expectations were and how to continue to improve. In contrast, I felt that my interactions with User A and User B were less effective because they provided far less information about why my page was problematic and how to change it. It was clear that they cared much more about deleting my page, and in the process, failed to be transparent. While they may have felt that this was crucial in maintaining the community's legitimacy and enforcing its norms, I felt that my participation and sense of support were compromised.

Identity
The last moderator norm that played a role in my Wikipedia experience was identity. Grimmelmann poses that participants online can be either identifiable or anonymous, and that Wikipedia has a complicated relationship with identity because while anyone can edit, registered users’ edits are watched carefully. The role of identity was especially important in my experience because my identity (and the identities of others in my class) were scrutinized. We were targeted as newcomers when we entered the community and were told that we didn’t belong. One moderator made these comments as a response to a classmate's article: "...this isn't the first time we've had ill-prepared students let loose on Wikipedia by tutors who don't know what they are doing themselves. Furthermore, he is using Wikipedia as a noticeboard for his course, which is presumably not free, and, to me, this looks like advertising and material which is not intended to further Wikipedia's aims. I think there is a case for deleting the page and telling him to run his course elsewhere." In this example, the moderator was not only targeting our class because we were newcomers, but was also attacking Professor Reagle and his mission for the class. There are two takeaways from this discussion regarding identity. First, it's clear that Wikipedia fosters an identity-dependent community, or one where the role of identity is important. The opposite would be a community where anonymity is valued. And second, it’s evident that the actual identities of participants carry significant weight in the Wikipedia community because those with less credible reputations have a much more difficult time making any contributions at all.

Patience
In Chapter 3 of Good Faith Collaboration, Joseph Reagle (2010) discusses the concept of patience on Wikipedia, and postulates that patience is complicated by “assume good faith” because moderators sometimes don’t realize that less experienced users are acting out of ignorance not malice. One of Wikipedia’s norms states “please don’t bite the newcomers”, and is the idea that new members are valuable assets to the site so older members should treat them with kindness and be patient while they assimilate to the community. I found that this was one of the most difficult issues to contend with while creating my article. Wikipedia moderators were very quick to get my article out of the main space after my first attempt. And after my second, they were even quicker to trim it down to ensure that the article was not violating the conflict of issue policy--a widely accepted norm. These users hardly gave me a chance to explain my purpose or the reasons why I felt this page was deemed notable. Recall that User B even accused me of being a paid editor. In addition, many of my classmates experienced similar experiences with Wikipedia moderators, who were hasty to delete their articles. While I think it’s true that in a perfect world, Wikipedia moderators would give newcomers more time to learn the norms and assimilate into the community, this just isn’t always the case.

Obligation to Know
I think this tension between understanding the community’s norms and patience is also reflected in what we learned about in The Obligation to Know: From FAQ to Feminism 101 (2013). Joseph Reagle describes geek culture as one that has a “complementary norm obliging others to educate themselves on rudimentary topics”, and I think that Wikipedia exemplifies this culture. It’s totally fair that because Wikipedia users invest so much time and effort into improving the community, they might feel that newcomers must assimilate quickly and accurately to prevent any disruption. While valid, this “obligation to know” is only helpful when it’s communicated to newcomers. And as we’ve learned, communities like Wikipedia are predicated upon sharing. This makes it even more imperative for more experienced users to share information openly with newcomers. In addition to being less transparent in their communication, User A and User B used a lot of Wikipedia jargon that I, as a newcomer, was not familiar with. For example, in reporting me to Conflict of Interest/Noticeboard, User A used acronyms like UPE, AFC and mentioned something called "cruft". In contrast, I found that it was much more helpful when User C gave me tips and actually explained the issues with my article rather than just deleting it. User C used language that I was familiar with and his tone was much more friendly and approachable. I think that as long as newcomers feel comfortable enough to ask for help, their “obligation to know” and corresponding assimilation will be a much smoother process. And as we have discussed, this successful assimilation process benefits both the newcomer and the community itself.

Reflection: Feedback
The role of feedback is also very important in helping assimilate newcomers to Wikipedia, and the feedback I personally received drastically affected my participation in the community. In "Effects of Peer Feedback on Contribution: A Field Experiment in Wikipedia", Zhu et al. (2013) studied the effectiveness of four different types of feedback (positive, negative, directive, and social) on Wikipedia. They had several key findings that I’ll apply to my own experience with Wikipedia. First, they found that receiving feedback messages changed recipients’ subsequent editing in Wikipedia. They also discovered that positive and social feedback motivated members to contribute more, while negative feedback decreased members’ contributions, and that these effects were especially true for newcomers. I found these results were very representative of my own experience. After the first time my page was deleted, I felt very discouraged and unmotivated to continue editing. The second time I tried moving my article, I received several types of feedback. I received negative feedback when a user posted my article on the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and shared that I had “repeatedly moved from sandbox to article space, even after being advised of AFC being a better bet”. I felt almost attacked and like I was being reprimanded by my parents. Another user's comments on my talk page were extremely authoritative, as she condemned me from making further contributions to the community.

In contrast, a different user provided more directive and even positive feedback on my talk page. Consequently, I reached out for help on his talk page. His speedy response was polite, comprehensive, and incredibly informative. He addressed the concerns with my article on Decibel Therapeutics and provided a list of relevant resources to consider. His response to my comments on his talk page were empathetic, as he could relate to feeling "butchered" by other Wikipedians. And when considering next steps, he even asked me for my permission to do certain things instead of simply telling me what he was going to do. My interaction with this user resembled a real conversation, a novel concept for my experience with Wikipedia. Although his comments were short, they completely shifted my feelings toward the community. In response to this very different feedback, I experienced intrinsic rewards like those of belonging, satisfaction, and even motivation. I felt encouraged to continue improving my article not only because he had acknowledged my contribution, but because he provided directive feedback, which I knew how to utilize.

Conclusion
It's obvious that my first real exposure to the Wikipedia community was a rocky one, but one that I take responsibility for. When I was shut out after my first attempt at the main space, I was left feeling discouraged and incompetent. I even felt defensive because the work I had done was deleted so quickly without much time for me to contest it. The negative feedback I received discouraged me from making further contributions to my article, and I found that I even dreaded having to complete the rest of this assignment. Had I known that moderators like User C were out there and were willing to help would have encouraged me to actually ask, and ask sooner. Yet I believe that my experience corresponds well with what we've learned about newcomers throughout the semester. We've exposed the inevitable struggles associated with newcomer experiences, and how those are intensified in communities like Wikipedia. After having had this experience, I argue that in order for newcomers to assimilate successfully on Wikipedia, they must spend the time and effort to educate themselves on the community's norms. They must understand their identity in the context of others, respond well to feedback, and not be scared to ask for help. Although my process was not totally successful, I am proud of the progress I made in the community and for the confidence I gained by engaging with fellow Wikipedians.