User:Patriciatrinidad19/Reflective Essay

Critiquing articles
While completing the article evaluation, I learned what elements Wikipedia insists editors focus on and consider when writing their articles. An important aspect I learned from Wikipedia is to write a new or adjust an existing notable article. When brainstorming article topics, I struggled to pick one because some lacked credibility and importance. For example, I was interested in writing a new article on Buffy the Vampire Slayer’s reboot, Slayers: A Buffyverse Story; however, I quickly realized it would be hard to write about this subject. This is because the details of the reboot were limited as it had not yet been released. Another topic I wanted to compose an article on was Selena Gomez’s mental health organization, the Rare Impact Fund. Unfortunately, I could not find sources independent of the subject and sources that were not promotional articles. For that reason, I ruled out this topic and similar ones, which helped me narrow down my options. My critiquing approach of finding multiple credible sources helped ensure that my selected topic had sufficient information to create several sections within my article. This experience taught me that to meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements, I must prove a topic has significant coverage and nuance so I can produce a quality article. Another element I learned from Wikipedia is writers must apply critical thinking skills to effectively assess the sources they want to use in their research. In my case, I used SF State’s library databases to find academic journals that discussed my topic. By doing this, I filtered the databases and gathered scholarly and peer-reviewed articles that laid a solid foundation so I could start drafting my article. Before I began writing, I decided what sections to focus on in my article, which included examining the gender relations in Guatemalan families and machismo’s role in encouraging traditional gender roles. From then on, I specifically looked for articles and passages regarding those points.

Summarizing your contributions
After skimming my article’s “View History” tab, I found most of my edits consisted of fixing grammar mistakes and improving my sentences. Wikipedia refers to this process as “copy-editing,” which I constantly did because my original sentences tended to be run-on and wordy. These edits were valuable additions to my article because my writing became more easy to understand. On my talk page, Professor Hanley also mentioned that I should continue adjusting my article’s tone, which I felt was one of the most challenging parts of this whole process. This is because my sources had more information on Guatemalan women experiencing more inequalities than men, prompting me to write only their stories. However, after seeing Professor Hanley’s and my peer reviewer’s suggestions, I went back and reworked my sentences. My process involved removing biased phrases to make my writing sound neutral. I also found more sources with new facts that helped me balance my writing’s information. When I added them, I made sure not to include original research. Overall, compared to earlier versions of my article, I felt that my updated version was able to translate much better the message and meaning of each sentence.

Peer review
For the Wikipedia assignment, I peer-reviewed three of my classmates’ articles and did my best to answer every guiding question that applied to their articles. To begin, I did not provide much feedback in my peers’ lead sections because their leads reflected the content discussed in the body of their articles. In terms of content, I felt that most of my classmates did a great job including the most appropriate and relevant information to their articles. Additionally, for the tone and balance of their articles, I noticed here and there that some sentences overrepresented and underrepresented certain sides. As a result, I provided some recommendations so that my peers’ articles could be as neutral as possible. Other than that, I noticed that my peers’ content was very well organized as most of them set up different sections and had few grammatical errors. For the sources and references, I checked that my peers’ links worked and if their sources were all up-to-date. I also suggested that they research using our school’s OneSearch database because we have free access to several peer-reviewed articles and journals. For the images and media, I noticed that many of my peers created infoboxes, which was very impressive to me because their articles looked like true Wikipedia pages. As a result, I did not offer a lot of feedback because I thought they did a wonderful job on their own. Finally, when I was looking over my peer reviews, I noticed that my classmates suggested I fix my grammar and spelling mistakes. One of my peers also added that I should try fixing my tone because, at times, I was leaning toward the women’s side. When I started finalizing my draft, I kept their notes in mind and adjusted my writing accordingly.

Feedback
When I was publishing my final article, I followed all the necessary steps in the module “Moving work out of the sandbox” so that it could be live. However, when I checked the live version of my article, it said, “This template is not to be used in article space.” This message worried me, but a couple of minutes later, Ian (Wiki Ed) fixed my issue by removing the template from my article. After I saw that Ian helped me with my problem, I thanked them using the “thank” feature in the “View History” tab. I do not think other Wikipedia editors have left me feedback on my page, but I have seen some bots contribute to my article. For instance, one bot added my article under the “Gender studies” category and another bot updated my citations.

Wikipedia generally
After contributing to Wikipedia, two of my major takeaways were the importance of accurately paraphrasing and concentrating on the facts. In traditional English classes, students are expected to quote authors and provide in-text citations. Our professors also want us to provide new insights, and feelings toward the topic, and relate our focus to other concepts. However, in Wikipedia, we must draft a sentence using the knowledge we gained from comparing our sources. I think this process is more meticulous and challenging because you have to be more careful about plagiarism and citing your sources. In addition, when I was writing my article, I struggled not to add my own ideas because I felt a certain way about the subject matter. As a result, the first version of my article was subjective and biased, but I was able to improve its tone later on. In general, I think Wikipedia can be used to improve my understanding of my chosen topic, which was gender relations in Guatemala. This is because when I was trying to write about Guatemalan families, I came across numerous sources and learned information that I was not focusing on. This allowed me to develop new perspectives on Guatemalan society.

My article topic did address a major equity gap, which was the gender disparity between men and women in Guatemala. Researching this topic helped me better understand the circumstances in Guatemala. When I was considering article topics, I thought about doing something about gender roles in Guatemala. After I looked under Wikipedia’s subcategories for Guatemala, I noticed no one had ever written an article on this country’s gender relations so I was happy to focus on that. Since I wrote about something regarding a marginalized population, I felt my contribution improved Wikipedia’s coverage of this topic. One challenge unique to this topic was trying to find sources discussing men being oppressed or facing inequality in Guatemala.

Initially, I did not think Wikipedia was a good place to draw information from, but after learning about it and contributing, I think this is a great encyclopedia. I learned that Wikipedians are not just providing their opinions like most people think, but they are actually delving into their sources and writing straightforward and factual information. I think this speaks volumes because now when I research, I will always be mindful of who is writing, what they are writing about, and how it was written. In the current information landscape, I understand that my role is to be a critical thinker who evaluates the information I am presented with before applying it to whatever I am doing. Overall, this Wikipedia assignment has positively affected my understanding of how information is made and shared.