User:Mr. Lestah/sandbox

Wikipedia Reflection
My Wikipedia journey has been quite a humbling experience. As a newcomer, navigating Wikipedia and its tools and capabilities was certainly a daunting task. Coding and computers in general are far from my strong suit, so working my way through understanding Wikipedia made me feel like a "Boomer." Throughout my Wikipedia experience, I really didn’t have much interaction at all with any members of the community. The only interaction I had was with a student in my class who decided to review and revise some of my work. I noticed that community interaction relies heavily on current events or relevant content. I assumed that my topic would be relevant enough as the World Cup had just happened this past summer. However, I noticed that most of the Wikipedia edits on those topics were edited during or right after the World Cup. On a platform as vast and globally used as Wikipedia, your contributions can be left unseen and untouched. I personally felt a bit isolated, as many newcomers often do. However, I believe that isolation is the exception to the rule that unpleasant initiation is an effective way to attract newcomers.

The "Welcome to Wikipedia" page, which acts as a guide for new editors, has a special policy regarding greeting new users. The article offers a concise summary of Wikipedia's rules, customs, and policies. It also links to key pages that new editors should read before beginning any edits. The website stresses the significance of using sources and adopting a neutral stance when posting on the platform. Moreover, Wikipedia has an "Adopt-a-User" initiative where veteran editors can train new editors and assist them during their initial stages on the website. The only issue with this program is that it doesn't directly benefit true newcomers, ultimately only providing them with one option, to navigate Wikipedia by themselves.

Despite these precautions, many new users, including my peers, still have trouble navigating Wikipedia. This is due in part to the difficult editing interface. The editing interface of Wikipedia, in contrast to other user-friendly platforms, can be intimidating for newcomers.

Understanding Wikipedia's rules and regulations is another difficulty for novices. Particularly for people who are not familiar with the platform, Wikipedia contains a sizable collection of regulations and guidelines that might be challenging to understand. The platform's rules and regulations can often be vague, making it challenging for new editors to understand what is and is not permitted. For instance, Wikipedia's "notability" policy can be perplexing because there is no clear definition of what constitutes notable information. This policy states that “Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics.” Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice" (Wikipedia). It is all based on guidelines that emphasize vague adjectives such as “scholarly” or “professional”.

The "verifiability" policy of Wikipedia might potentially be blematic  for novice users. This simply states that “In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.“ (Wikipedia). This is another example of information that can go unheard when a newcomer is isolated from the community. “Newbies” could accidentally submit content without the required citations because they are unfamiliar with the rules for citations, which is a mistake I almost made before watching the “help” videos. This can cause newbie edits to be undone, which might discourage future newcomers.

As Aronson and Mills write: "If he has undergone an unpleasant initiation to gain admission to the group, his cognition that he has gone through an unpleasant experience for the sake of membership is dissonant with his cognition that there are things about the group that he does not like." . find it interesting that all kinds of unpleasant initiation are supposedly motivating to all newcomers. I found that isolation seemed to be a stark contrast to this rule. I understand entirely that isolating me as a newcomer was not the intention of the Wikipedia community. Again, this is an issue of updating or adding relevant topic pages.

Kraut and Resnick isolate five basic problems in relation to newcomers, recruitment, selection, retention, socialization, and protection. Socialization is described by Kraut and Resnick; “The group needs to socialize the newcomers, teaching them how to behave in ways appropriate to the group-" . Socialization seems to be the biggest problem when utilizing a platform as large as Wikipedia. Not only does socialization allow newcomers to be guided by veteran members, but it also teaches them acceptable etiquette as they become better versed in responding to other people’s edits or revising another user’s work. As mentioned before, isolation seems to be commonplace, and it's impossible to include socialization when there is nobody to welcome you or guide you through the editing process.

In instances of socialization and isolation, moderation also maintains a consistent reliance. Moderation without context can be extremely difficult. It can even lead to confused or even “fiery” exchanges between newcomers and veteran Wikipedians. This is an issue when attempting to treat newcomers with respect. As mentioned in “The Virtues of Moderation”, “ in norm-setting, they inculcate community-serving values in other members. Together, these are the basic tools of moderation”. It is a sizable part of a moderator’s job to invoke the values and acceptable discourse of what is expected on Wikipedia, with the newcomers. However, when a moderator is rude, or is interpreted as such, they set a poor example for newcomers who haven’t become familiar with Wikipedia yet. I didn’t personally experience this, although I worried I would while secretly hoping nobody would criticize my writing. I did hear that some of my peers experienced “snappy” or not so constructive criticism on their work. This clearly goes against the cordial and professional expectations that Wikipedians are meant to set for the platform. When dealing with a platform as difficult to navigate as Wikipedia, it’s important for newcomers to be immediately socialized with existing, long-tenured members.

Although I had few interactions with the Wikipedia community, besides my classmates, I engaged heavily with Wikipedia I made some suggestions to DovC123’s Wikipedia contribution about Wally’s Cafe. I simply mentioned that a few more in-text citations on the background and history of the topic may benefit their piiee. I also interacted with DovC123Special:PermanentLink/oldid (my classmate) on my Wikipedia contribution. They mentioned that I may have used a poorly sourced piece of information, but it turned out that they misunderstood my evidence. This was a clear representation of why back-and-forth conversations, in regards to edits, are beneficial in putting forward the most factually accurate information possible. Collaborating/communicating with my peers allowed me to define my Wiki etiquette and make sure that I was scholarly in my responses and used critical thinking to provide constructive criticism. QICs were also a great way for me to practice becoming familiar with Wikipedia, and utilizing some of the tools that it provides. Not only did these allow me to see what my classmates thought about the same readings, but I was also able to accumulate feedback from Professor Reagle over time to help me further improve my summarization skills and Wiki-friendly writing style.