User:NUstudent1316/reflection

Reflection
Arguably, communities are intended to be an opportunity for individuals to discover like-minded individuals, exchange information and receive social support. About every online platform, and social media site, has been loosely defined as a “community”. Prior to spending a generous (or grueling) amount of time understanding the complexities and meaning behind a community, I would have falsely assumed many platforms to be communities. In my mind, Wikipedia was little more than an online knowledge base that I was not allowed to use for papers or research. However, after experiencing the community for a little shy of four months, my preconceived notions have changed. As I reflect upon my journey on Wikipedia, I would like to consider what made it so distinct, including my experience as a newcomer, interactions with members, and my new perspective of the community. Wikipedia offers a unique and vibrant community for scholarship, unlike other platforms and social media sites, but it depends on whether newcomers comply with their long-established social and academic norms.

Regardless of my experience in academic writing, I still felt uncomfortable with Wikipedia in the beginning. The idea of being publicly called out for doing something “wrong” made me feel uneasy. However, being able to utilize the Sandbox and slowly digest the interface of the platform made it more approachable. Activities such as proposing my topic, making small edits on existing articles, and completing the editing training made me feel more confident writing and sharing my contributions. These practices also encouraged me to learn and comply with the established social and academic norms Wikipedia follows, hence, making the transition smooth.

However, the smooth transition I faced is not guaranteed for all individuals entering the domain. As suggested by Professor Reagle, a central question in the literature is the extent to which community members should invest in newcomers. If newbies are not staying long, or going to invest back into the community, is it worth it? The resources necessary for acceptance in the community are available online but necessitate work from newcomers. Further, some newcomers might not be aware of these resources. However, scholars such as Kraut propose that barriers to entry help promote a healthy online community. Wikipedia’s scholarly complexities might offer a productive barrier to entry that encourages worthwhile contributions and active community members. It is worth exploring whether this barrier makes Wikipedia less accessible to individuals with less access to education. Does this make the platform inherently elitist? Or does making a plethora of information accessible to everyone make the community welcoming to all? These are questions I continuously ruminate on as I understand Wikipedia.

After entering the community, newcomers such as myself began interacting with other members. According to Kraut, newcomers are the most sensitive to their first interactions and impressions with community members. Part of the reason my Wikipedia experience has been enjoyable is that my initial interactions were positive. I asked six community members for feedback on their work and received two direct responses. Both of them were positive, complimenting my work and encouraging me to keep up ‘the good work up’. Furthermore, Kraut argues that friendly interactions with community members lead to longer commitments and community involvement from the newcomer. My early positive experiences led me to feel more connected and comfortable with the online platform. Additionally, when my fellow classmates peer-reviewed my contributions, I also received warm responses. The kindness I experienced from community members heightened my interest in Wikipedia, making me feel welcomed and appreciated.

That being said, it’s important to note that I will not be including the specific feedback I received from contributors as I want to be mindful of their privacy. I made one exception above as the contribution came from a fellow classmate who is being graded in the same manner as I am. Her contributions are also accessible to both my peers and instructor. This decision was made because of an opinion articulated by Bruckman, who pioneered student studies on online communities, as she advises not addressing any users specifically. Following her ethical best practices, I will also only be speaking about my personal experience and will not include any quotes from other users. Instead, I will cite the general feeling the interactions provoked.

Additionally, Wikipedia has a strong set of defined community values and norms, differentiating itself from other online communities. However, one value specifically spoke to me, as articulated by Reagle in Good Faith Collaboration — the point of neutrality. Other social media sites put up facades that they are building a community, but it feels like I’m always being sold something or being told to think a certain way. Professional platforms are no different. For instance, LinkedIn is a never-ending persuasion attempt, persuading others of our success, persuading others to join a company, and so forth. Wikipedia stands alone in its unique pillar of neutrality. In my opinion, the point of neutrality is what allows Wikipedia to have a vibrant, unique, and scholarly online community. In doing so, Wikipedia does not create an echo chamber like many other online communities and platforms. Wikipedia actively defies this innate human desire by establishing a neutral point of view. Interestingly, I thought this would be more challenging with the topic I selected. I have long had a deep interest in both nutrition and policy, and I thought it would be challenging not to sprinkle in my own opinion and thoughts on Chile’s progressive law. However, the exercise put me right back into my freshman-year writing class in which we were tasked with writing an expository essay. Most students, myself included, struggled to stick to the facts of an issue. This prior writing experience helped me put on a ‘Wikipedia writing hat’, similar to my freshman year exercise. I found it refreshing to solely share the facts established by empirical research rather than trying to persuade. As shared by Cialdini, persuasion is a science, and it seems most communities and platforms are capitalizing on persuasion science rather than creating something meaningful. Additionally, I would argue one of the reasons my initial interactions were so positive was because of my ability to write from a neutral perspective, and therefore confined by the long-established social and academic norms.

Furthermore, Wikipedia offers distinctive advantageous community governance and social norms. Compare the talk history to Tiktok’s comment section, where you will spend five minutes reading the commentary and you will likely be laughing. It’s almost as if everyone leaves their filters at the door on that platform. And as funny as the comments can be, when taking a second to reflect on the implications they have on others they quickly lose their humor. Similar to assuming neutrality, Wikipedia’s ‘Assume Good Faith’ differentiates the scholarly community. I cannot think of any other online community that has this principle so eloquently defined and followed within the community. Because my interactions were positive, I did not personally experience a moment where I had to cite or imply AGF. That being said, it was really interesting to learn about the community norm throughout the duration of the class.

Lastly, I found the moderation techniques and policies on Wikipedia to be encouraging and helpful to my experience as a newcomer. As suggested by Grimmelmann in his Wikipedia case study, Wikipedia utilizes a high amount of openness as well as low costs, meaning that there are few requirements to flag troubling content. I’ve found that I have a lot of patience when it comes to reading and writing, but struggle to focus and enjoy more technical works, like understanding how the citations on Wikipedia work. Although I completed the ‘Adding Citations’ training and was able to apply my new skills to my draft successfully, I still found it slightly frustrating and confusing. However, skilled community members stepped in to help me. Again, I found myself reflecting on the advantages Wikipedia offers when comparing it to other online communities. The best assignments and classes force you to reconsider implicit opinion and biases. My time on Wikipedia encouraged me to question how I spend my time on platforms, and whether or not those are valuable and enriching experiences. I found my time was spent poorly, and since then have significantly worked to change my habits. Overall, my experience as a newcomer was welcoming, enjoyable, and smooth. Wikipedia stands alone in the unique scholarly community it offers and has a strong community of governance one that is resilient to controversy and debate, vandalism, and newcomers that might come its way.