User:NUrb93/subpage

Wikipedia is one of the most controversial websites in academia. Throughout my academic career, teachers, professors and tutors have consistently warned me against using Wikipedia as a legitimate source. In my experience however, and through the activities performed in my Online Communities class, I have come to respect Wikipedia not only as a valid source of information but also as a community. For this particular assignment our goal was to create a Wikipedia page on a person or subject that has yet to be covered. I chose to do my article on a relatively unknown artist who’s work I was exposed to shortly before the start of term named Langley Fox. I chose to write my article on Ms. Fox because of her famous lineage, numerous interviews and her multi-channeled career path. Writing a Wikipedia article was unlike any other writing assignment I have ever had; this is mainly because I was not writing this article by myself. The assignment I was writing was being edited, evaluated and fact-checked by other members within the community. This brought about some challenges because I needed to change the tone of my writing, as well as consider the site guidelines about article layout. Although this was a challenge at times, the site rules and norms pushed and taught me about how to write on a given topic from an encyclopedic perspective. If newcomers to an online community such as Wikipedia take the time to learn about the rules, norms, and expectations of said community then the new member will be more effective and will have a more enjoyable time on said site for a longer time.

Before the semester began I had only ever experienced Wikipedia as a source of information, by community standards I fell into the WikiInfant category. Our professor, Joseph Reagle introduced my class and I to the other side of this website; a vast community of Wikipedians that work hard towards making the encyclopedia as accurate and unbiased as possible. In the beginning of our class we were given starting assignments such as creating a profile, learning the editing basics, and adding pages to our “watch list.” These assignments were crucial in teaching us how to be effective community members before we even chose a subject to write about. Although these exercises are not required for new Wikipedia members to join I found that this was extremely helpful for conquering the overwhelming layout of the markup format. This falls in line with design claim number 22: “By using formal, sequential, and collective socialization tactics, new members are likely to become more committed to the community, learn how to behave in it, and contribute more.” Once my class and I were equipped with the tools necessary to contribute effectively as well as a more focused understanding of the overall community Wikipedians strive to maintain it was far easier for us to assimilate into the group. This in turn led to more thoughtful contributions from my peers and I as well as fewer edits from established community members. Writing my Wikipedia article on Langley was an exercise that came with a few specific challenges. Some of the things that I needed to consider while writing were Wikipedia’s guidelines and their criteria for the perfect Wikipedia article. Encyclopedic prose relies strictly on unbiased rhetoric, especially avoiding those words that could be considered puffery or endorsement of the subject. My subject is an accomplished artist who’s work really inspires me and yet I could not write about her work beyond what has been said by others or otherwise from a purely objective point of view. Additionally, as an artist who’s still in the beginning of her career, the primary sources I could find online about her were mostly interviews about her career or about a specific project. Although these interviews provided a few good foundation facts for the article such as her hometown, famous family members, and age, most of these interviews utilized vocabulary that was too subjective whether it was in regards to her work or her personal life. I could have included these quotes because they were from a primary source however; I believe that if I had another Wikipedian would have removed it. When it came time to move my article from the Wikipedia sandbox to the main Wikispace I felt very good about the article I had written and hoped that I had appropriately followed the guidelines. My first edit came the morning after I had moved it when a bot operated by Ladsgroup fixed a heading section problem Special:permalink/766113869. It surprised me how quickly the bot had found and edited my article and it made me feel like a more complete member of the group having been through my first “trial” and passed. This falls in line with design claim 23 “When old-timers provide newcomers formal mentorship, the newcomers become more committed to the community, learn how to behave in it, and contribute more.” My article would go on to be edited by another 6 members within 10 days of it moving to the main space. I was very pleased to see that after the initial minor grammatical and formatting edits were made my article remained in the main space and was deemed acceptable by the community. Some members of my class were not as lucky and had their articles removed because of bias rhetoric or accusations of endorsements. Even after our specific assignments on Wikipedias guidelines we still made some cliché mistakes. This leads me to believe that a lot of newcomers to Wikipedia or other online communities who do not read the necessary introductory materials like the FAQS or guidelines will find themselves feeling ostracized or attacked. My article was not personally taken down or flagged by any community members however some of my classmates shared stories of overzealous editors who reached out directly in an accusatory manner. This is not an unheard experience for some new members to online communities. Developed online communities will often have certain “extreme” members who take the community and it’s rules very seriously. While having passionate members is one sign of a successful community, some individuals can take this quality to a fault and actually intimidate newcomers. Had my classmates and I not been warned about these members I think these interactions would have had a greater impact on our perception of Wikipedia and it’s community. Writing a Wikipedia article was a novel experience that challenged me both as a writer and as an internet citizen. Delving into the nuances of an advanced online community such as Wikipedia made me appreciate the organization and effort it takes to create all of the other communities that I am a part of. I believe that my experience on Wikipedia was so positive because of the training and education I received about the site before I joined it. In the future I will research the communities that I want to be a part of in advance so that if I decide to join I can quickly assimilate and contribute effectively.