User:Nustudent1120/Reflection

At first glance, Wikipedia is intimidating. I’ve never considered myself to be part of the tech-savvy portion of Generation Z. My peers and I were taught from a young age that Wikipedia is an unreliable source for information and we’d be better off looking at something like Encyclopedia Britannica. The reason why we’re often cautioned against it is because “anyone can edit Wikipedia” – you simply need an account. However, upon actually learning about the Wikipedia community this semester, that’s the glory of the platform. In the same way that academic literature undergoes a peer review, so does each article. Although my reflection is limited to the short four months in which I had limited interactions with the greater Wiki-community, the insight I’ve gained into what makes the platform so notable as a resource solidifies in my mind what a successful online community looks like. The diversity in user background, experience and knowledge in Wikipedia’s community allows for a uniquely unbiased bank of information that supports a social structure in which an untraditional user hierarchy is acknowledged, accepted and encouraged.

Entry into the Wikipedia community is objectively easy when looking at the sign-up and account creation process alone; it’s acclimating to the community norms, social dynamics and guidelines that’s difficult. As a member of Professor Reagle’s online communities class, I was given a “student-driver bumper sticker” of sorts as anyone that viewed my user page was notified of my student editor status. I was fortunate enough to have an individual who was familiar with the community and knowledgeable about its norms and nuances that provided guidance for how to navigate being a newcomer. With this in mind, my experience was likely vastly different from those who lack a WikiGnome to show them the ropes. As part of my acclimation to Wikipedia, I completed trainings that covered the basics of editing, policy, creating and collaboration. The role of the online communities course, however, is what provided pivotal context to understanding the user demographic and informal social stratum that lies beneath Wikipedia’s surface.

One of the common critiques of Wikipedia as a source of information is that not all contributors edit for the right reasons– something that Reagle (2008) acknowledges and refutes in his piece titled “In good faith”. “It is on the assumption of others’ intentions which Wikipedia focuses on. The guideline of “Assume Good Faith” is intended to counteract a common reflex to assume the worst of others” (p. 123). More experienced Wikipedians are often skeptical of newcomers’ motives, forgetting Wikipedia’s plea to not bite the newcomers. Consistent with the feelings described in Kraut et al. (2012) I felt intimidated about making an edit out of fear of inadvertently violating a norm I hadn’t yet learned (p. 149). If editing another user’s article wasn’t an assignment for this course, I would’ve been even more discouraged from making any changes to an existing article. After reading chapter five of Kraut et al., my perspective shifted as those that assume good faith of Wikipedia users, even new ones, see them as a “source of innovation, new ideas, and work procedures or other resources that the group needs” (p. 179). With this newfound encouragement, I edited the 24:7 Theatre Festival page as well as the 8th arrondissement of Paris. While my edits were mostly fixing grammar, sentence structure and links, I found that my student editor status provided me with more confidence that I may not be bit for my edits as a newcomer.

One of the first readings for online communities was McMillan and Chavis (1986) that defined what constitutes a community. The first element is “membership” that the reading defines as “a feeling that one has invested part of oneself to become a member and therefore has a right to belong”. After making my first round of edits, I felt more comfortable embracing my place in Wikipedia’s community as a member since I had made an investment through my contributions to these selected articles. While most newcomers likely identify themselves as “WikiInfants” by the standards of Wikipedia’s “Seven Ages of Wikipedians”, I would argue that this course expedited my Wiki-aging process. Still new to the community and rather naive yet learning how to navigate at a consistent rate through class readings and assignments, I’d identify as somewhere between a WikiInfant and WikiChild– a WikiToddler of sorts. The vast assortment of WikiFauna is what makes Wikipedia a noteworthy source of information. Contrary to traditional peer editing of text, individuals ranging from students to topic-enthusiasts to experts to the “average Joe” all edit the same articles with varying levels of Wikipedia experience. This diverse community of users and their perspectives is what creates the truly nonpartisan bank of knowledge.

Whether users realize it or not, they’re part of one or many WikiFauna categories. With the context provided by the course material and my personal proclivity to respect Wikipedia’s more unspoken community norms, I knew my place as a more inexperienced member. With this in mind, as I developed my article draft on France’s anti-waste and circular economy law, I anticipated more experienced Wikipedians providing feedback once I moved to the mainspace. Within a day of moving to the mainspace, I had my first encounter with another Wikipedian outside of the confines of our class. Ian from Wiki Ed provided feedback on my article and moved it back to a draft. While at first this was discouraging, I took this as an opportunity to improve my article and learn from their corrections before moving it back to the mainspace. I saw this user as a similar mentor to Professor Reagle: a WikiAdult that recognized my place as a student-editor and offered their expertise. According to Kraut et al. (2012) “when old-timers provide newcomers formal mentorship, the newcomers become more committed to the community, learn how to behave in it, and contribute more” (p. 217). While providing me a sense of mentorship, Ian simultaneously protected the larger Wikipedia community and its reputation from a newcomer which is the fifth and final problem that Kraut et al. (2012) identifies with newcomers (p. 180). Considering I was hyper-aware of my “newbie” status and the way it could impact the greater community, I had no problem going back to the draft stage.

Ian’s feedback pointed out issues with references, phrasing of certain pieces of information and general structure of the article. Before tackling these edits, I did more research on what a successful, well-written Wikipedia page looks like. I looked at other pages about legislation to see how those individuals organized the information, paraphrased sources and worded in an encyclopedic tone. The Wikipedia page for the United States Constitution was a model for me to follow as the edit history spans over two decades. I noted the amount of links to other Wikipedia articles, the types of sources used to support the information, the way the text was worded and the overall structure of the article itself. Between March 27, when I received Ian’s feedback, and April 11, when I moved the page to the main space for the second time, I made several edits that addressed the feedback and aimed to fulfill what Wikipedia considers the “perfect article”. By looking at those more experienced users and generally those that had a significant editing history, I more deeply understood the small pieces of wording and structuring I had previously missed in my first main space attempt.

In the days following my new and improved move to the main space, I looked to those same Wiki-role models for help once again — this time for feedback. I reached out on users’ talk pages to ask for feedback on my article, citing the other articles they’ve made contributions and edits to. In addition to reaching out to users I didn’t know, I reached out to those I did for more recommendations. The feedback I received from Ian at WikiEd was very different from that which I received from my classmates. According to Zhu et al. (2013), there are four types of peer feedback Wikipedia users typically receive. Ian’s feedback was “directive feedback” that “gave directions to correct an error” (p. 2). In contrast, Anabella’s comments in her peer editing were more “social feedback”, “with a sociable, person focused, friendly and supportive tone” (p. 2). Consistent with the findings in Zhu et al., my experience as a newcomer was affected by the feedback that I received on my article. I found that the positive, direct and social feedback that was left by other Wikipedians motivated me to improve my article (p. 9). What makes the peer review process unique in Wikipedia is the varying levels of experience on the platform and what each editor is looking for– most users are all editing for different reasons and looking for different criteria. Some edit grammar, others focus on structure and Wikipedia’s guidelines, but the way that the edit history of articles is constantly added to is something no other platform offers. My gratitude for the feedback provided on my article was shown publicly with each “thanks” I gave to the users that helped a newcomer start her (hopefully) long edit history.

I acknowledge that my personal anxieties about making a contribution limited the amount of interactions I had with Wikipedia’s community. However, the experience gave me more than simply knowing how to use a talk page or the difference between a simple “thanks” and a “barnstar”. The rich history of Wikipedia as a community of individuals constantly looking to better the information that the platform provides shed light on what a successful online community looks like, which is arguably one of the goals of this course. The collaborative efforts made by each user, regardless of their WikiFauna identity, demonstrates respect for those with more experience and a general willingness to help those new to the platform. My hope is that even though our online communities course is coming to an end, the article contribution I’ve made to Wikipedia will live on and continue to be edited, updated and reviewed by WikiGnomes, WikiChildren, WikiRodents and everything in between.