User:Reemslim/report

Wikipedia Reflection:

When editing the Wikipedia page about the July 2013 Beirut Bombing, there were a couple goals I had in mind; 1. Accurately represent the event, and 2. Abide by Wikipedia community guidelines. Although this two-step process is seemingly fool proof, it proved to be more difficult than anticipated at times. With the Wikipedia guidelines being very detailed, it was important to remember my audience, and platform, when creating the revised article. This proved the most challenging for the subject I chose because it is a gruesome topic, that includes much tragedy, death, bombings, and war. This is something that is difficult to discuss in brief on a Wikipedia article, without accompanying the writing with images. Because of this, I believe that Wikipedia should allow creators to use images that may initially go against their community guidelines, IF they provide the readers with a trigger warning. This change could allow the readers who are okay with viewing the gruesome photographs access to understand the situation through pictures, while also respecting someone’s decision to not expose themselves to such images. The way this can be presented is; similar to how one uploads a photo onto Wikipedia, and fills out a form stating the source of the photo, they would fill out a form as to why this image is essential to the article and what trigger warnings should be given out for it. With this in place, the reader will initially see a blurry image with a trigger warning label, and only if they give permission to view the image, will it become clear for them to see. I think by changing this feature, Wikipedia will provide creators like myself more freedom to use certain images, and descriptive writing to accurately depict the situation without “sugar coating it”.

My experience with Wikipedia initially started out rocky, it was difficult for me, a non- “tech savvy” person, to navigate the website. However, after extra research, watching some videos, and a lot of failed attempts, I found that it wasn’t as difficult as I had initially thought. This experience taught me a lot about my abilities to navigate rocky waters, and apply myself to situations that are outside my comfort zone. On a more professional level, working with Wikipedia really exercised my ability to write a non-bias article. Being someone who is Lebanese, I grew up hearing about the messy politics of this beautiful country. This is something that I had to be cautious of not allowing impact my writing, I had to remind myself to remain unbiased and report all sides of the situation. There have not been many instances in my academic career with I was asked to write a non-biased article, thus doing so for my Wikipedia article allowed me to practice and learn how to do so.

In this course, we took a look at a series of different “code of conducts”, all of which had similarities and differences from one another. The basis of these “code of conducts” was to tolerate opposing views, use respectful language and actions, keep an open mind, and that harassment is un-tolerable. Although the GNOME code of conduct, and Ubutu code of conduct are more in depth than Ruby, they more or less cover the same basic rules. When looking at these codes of conduct, I noticed that they hold their users to a high stander of respect and professionalism, however they don’t stifle the way they decide to express themselves. This is a freedom that I do not believe Wikipedia grants their users. Although it is understandable as to why there are regulations in place, I believe that Wikipedia can benefit from looking at the “vagueness” of the Ruby or GNOME code of conducts. This will allow their users to use more expressive language, and images (within the realm of acceptability). My advice should be taken more seriously than just random advice from a new user because, it is an issue I encountered during my first time editing a Wikipedia article. This allows me to believe that it is an issue encountered by many returning users as well, which is something that can get bothersome and act as a deterrent.

This class has covered a variety of topics, all revolving around online communities and what goes into creating/maintaining them. This is something that has helped me recognize the importance and depth of Wikipedia. It is often that we take such sites for granted, and neglect to think of who writes the articles, who started this community, and how it remains afloat. Because of this, I believe that the information we are being taught in this course is very valuable to maintaining our place within these online communities. Wikipedia is unique because it is a more formal site that provides readers with historically accurate information, rather than allowing users to write freely, yet it is also informal in the sense that it covers a variety of topics ranging from entertainment to war. Based on my experience with this website, I would say there is not much change that needs to be made. I have previously expressed my concern with the limited artistic freedom, however I also believe that the way Wikipedia functions now is prime for growth. If I were to change something, it would be the way society views Wikipedia. It is often considered an unreliable source, with false information. This misconception is one that I have come to personally find inaccurate, and I believe that if all users and readers were informed of the process behind posting/editing an article, everyone would feel similarly to myself.