User:MiguelM27432/Reflective Essay

Critiquing Articles
Through critiquing and evaluating Wikipedia articles I learned about the general structure of Wikipedia articles and how to appropriately organize citations. My approach to critiquing the original fish factory article, that I had selected for this assignment was to review the quality of the text and the organization of the article. The first observation I was able to make was that the article was very short and did not provide much information on the topic. In order to properly evaluate the article, it would be necessary to review the general structure and elements, such as the image gallery, related topics’ sections and resources. When compared to well-developed articles with similar topics, the organization of the fish factory article was very similar. The most noticeable difference was the lack of text and sources, which would be the focus of my contributions for this article. The original article lacked reliable sources to support its claims, finding reputable sources for the existing text was one of the initial additions that would help improve the article. Reviewing the sentence structure and organizing the existing text would help clarify the topic and improve readers’ understanding. These critiques guided me in deciding to focus on developing the text of the article and providing new information with reputable sources.

Summarizing My Contributions
Most of the additions I made to the article were in the development of the text. The original article only covered fish processing and sourcing, neglecting to describe fish factory facilities, regulations and production. I expanded on the original text and added new information to further develop the article. Additionally, I organized the text adding an introduction, five sections and various sub-sections to separate related information and make navigating the article easier. Finally, the original article lacked reliable references to back their information. I removed references that where not used to develop the article in order to avoid confusing readers, and instead provided new references from reliable sources that provided information which would benefit understanding of the topic and reenforce the credibility of the article. The final edit that I contributed to the article was to add an image from Wikimedia commons to the introduction in order to give readers a clear visual of a modern fish factory. My version of the fish factory article when compared to the earlier versions retains a similar structure but is much longer, providing significantly more information on the topic and resources that are directly related to the article.

Peer Reviewing
My class did reviews but unfortunately, I did not get around to completing any written peer reviews on Wikipedia. However, in class we were able to peer review articles in person, demonstrate our progress, and talk through our plans for developing our articles. I was able to exchange reviews with one of my classmates as we developed our drafts. The first time we reviewed each other’s work we were gathering information and planning our drafts, the main focus was to organize our content and fill any information gaps that we could to grant the reader better understanding of our topics. When we were working on finalizing our drafts, we were able to review each other’s work again and gave feedback on how to finalize our organization by utilizing headings and sections and catching any minor mistakes that may have gone unnoticed. In my personal experience with reviewing my peer’s article I suggested that they include sections that would separate information based on their relevance, sections such as early life, career, projects, and education. Additionally, I suggested that they include any relevant resources to their topic as they had yet to include them in their draft. My peer suggested that I refrain from becoming too specific and try to make my information generally applicable to the subject of my topic. They pointed out that many of my sources were too specific and that I should be careful as to use information that could be applied more generally to my topic. Lastly, my peer suggested that I use bolded headings for subsections to make them stand out and easier for readers to find.

Feedback
Prior to posting the final draft of my article on the Wikipedia main space I received feedback on some of the minor edits and contributions I made to the original article. I contributed two sources and two new sentences in addition to minor organizational changes: separating the single paragraph into two and adding a section titled “Sourcing of Fish.” The feed back I received from a fellow Wikipedian stated that the labeling of a new section did not feal appropriate as there was not enough information that would warrant needing a separate section. I kept their feedback in mind as I worked on my draft, when deciding how to organize and divide the text into sections I made sure to provide enough text and information in each section. If some information felt important enough to single out, I would give it a sub-heading within a related section if there was not enough text to justify a separate section. My response to that specific Wikipedian’s  feedback was to change the “Sourcing of Fish” section into the “Sourcing” sub-heading under the new “Facilities” section.

Wikipedia in General
In making contributions to Wikipedia, I learned about the trial and error that goes into finalizing an article so that it is visually appealing and well organized. Additionally, I learned how to utilize shortcuts to make editing articles simpler and how much effort it takes to do research on a topic that does not receive much coverage. This assignment was defiantly different from other projects I have completed in the past, but over the course of the Wikipedia training I felt more comfortable working on Wikipedia and making contributions. Unlike other assignments even when working alone once publishing to Wikipedia our assignments could be edited and seen by anyone on Wikipedia, our work would be available and shared outside of our class. Learning how to make contributions and what is appropriate to contribute was probably the most important part of what I learned from this project. The pillars of Wikipedia gave me a new perspective on how trustworthy Wikipedia is as a source, it’s up to the Wikipedia community to hold each other accountable and create a collaborative environment.

I think Wikipedia could be used to improve understanding of my topic by providing multiple resources from reputable sources and generally applicable information on the topic. Most articles on the topic focus on specific factories and/or processes but having a more general perspective could make it easier to understand what a fish factory is meant to be and how they are expected to operate. Having an article that can provide general information on a topic that is often not covered from a general perspective can help clarify any misunderstandings that could arise from learing from a limited perspective. If I had been able to find an article similar to the one I had drafted it would have taken less time to research the topic and find adequate resources that did not fixate on one specific aspect of facility, reducing my confutation around fish factories.

To my knowledge my contribution did not address any major equity gaps on Wikipedia. My topic is inter-related to many other topics such as aquaculture, fisheries, and fish processing. Most of my contribution provided information similar to those other topics but focused on how they relate to Fish Factories; many of the related topics were mentioned and linked in my article. I used those related articles as references when developing my article as to ensure the accuracy of my information and address any disparity when relating to my topic. My topic had not seen any major contributions in years leaving it underdeveloped. However related topics had been extensively developed, providing information that could potentially supplement for the underdeveloped fish factory article, however references to information related directly to fish factories was limited. The greatest challenge in developing my article was finding reliable sources and general information, most sources were either too specific or provided limited information making it difficult to develop the article on Wikipedia.

Working on this Wikipedia assignment allowed me to take a new perspective on how understanding can be developed through community efforts and contributions. Through sharing information and feedback, creating an informative article that provides adequate understanding seems like a less daunting task. On Wikipedia one individual does not have to struggle alone to develop an article and can reach out for help and feedback when needed. I have come to understand my role in today’s information landscape as a potential contributor, whether it is in providing feedback or creating and article we all have something to offer that can help improve the information available to us and others.