User:Runhan Hou/WikiReflection

What should Wikipedia think about doing?
Wikipedia should think about local communities in countries with less coverage. Generally, Wikipedia is always a good starting point for researchers. However, the website is only helpful to researchers when the information they look up is universal or comes from popular countries. For example, a researcher looking up information about the USA in general or something specific to the USA will most likely find it on Wikipedia. However, the same researcher might not find detailed information about a small country like Seychelles, for example. So, Wikipedia should expand its coverage to include such countries. Put differently, Wikipedia should open avenues for writers and editors from marginalized communities. In addition to increased content coverage to marginalized communities, Wikipedia should also think about publishing more articles in the languages of the marginalized communities. Languages like Kiswahili, Somali, Igbo, Moroccan-Arabic should also have over a million articles like the English language

What should they think about changing?
Wikipedia seems to have a problem with political coverage. Looking up “Wikipedia” and “politics” at the same time yields articles accusing the website of either being politically biased or left-leaning. This political science publishing is a problem because the website should be neutral and present all facts without bias. Of course, researchers often maintain a healthy skepticism when using Wikipedia, and even academics do not reference it in their formal papers. Still, the starting point of research should provide a picture so neutral enough that researchers have an unbiased starting point. It is, therefore, reasonable for one to ask Wikipedia to think about how they frame political topics. Political articles are so sensitive that they can be instrumental in uniting or segregating people. Therefore, Wikipedia editors do not have business being the cause of dividing the people.

What did you do and what did you learn?
The Wikipedia assignment I did in this course gave me the opportunity to get to know about how Wikipedia works. During this assignment, I learnt about the policies and the guidelines of Wikipedia. I edit an article by myself for the assignment. In this process, I first searched for reliable sources as the backup in order to add information to the article I’m editing. Then I obtained useful information that can be added to the article from the sources, rephrased it, and added it to the article. Followed by the peer reviews and the advice from my TA, I further polished my article and finally made it live on Wikipedia. In this assignment, I learnt a lot about how to edit a Wikipedia article. I learnt how to use the sandbox and the talk page of the Wikipedia. I learnt how to edit the article in both visual and source mode. I learn how to cite the sources after the texts in Wikipedia. During this period, I trained my ability to collect and integrate information and I learnt to arrange information accumulated experience.

Why should your recommendations be taken more seriously than just random advice from one new user?
Motivational theories have shown that Wikipedia articles can perform positive and negative functions. Therefore, suggestions that connect to the theoretical frameworks according to which Wikipedia operates should not go unnoticed. Wikipedia articles have intrinsic and extrinsic motives. So, for example, people from marginalized communities would feel fulfilled when they see articles on their culture on Wikipedia. For this subset of people, the pages are themselves an end. The articles give these people the pleasure and satisfaction that other people also know they exist. Likewise, Wikipedia publishing politically inclusive articles can serve extrinsic motives too. For example, individuals from political factions which feel unfavored will feel that the writings are a means to an end.

In other words, the articles produce peace, love, and harmony among people for sensitivity toward all. It is harmful when the articles lean on only one political divide. The extrinsic motive is division, as one side comes out as “clean” and the other as bad people. It is worth noting that Wikipedia articles being politically inclusive means publishing materials on other political groups too. Focusing on the big groups paints a misleading political picture and limits the masses to only the dominant groups. Therefore, the suggestion that Wikipedia should be more politically inclusive meets the extrinsic needs of uniting a people and promoting peace. The suggestion that Wikipedia should cover minority groups meets the intrinsic needs of boosting the people’s pride.

What would you change or add based on your experience?
Wikipedia needs to change its decision to choose one political side over the other. Wikipedia should not even be political, as it should not promote one political agenda. Doing this defeats the purpose of it being a reservoir of information. Leaning on the political divide makes it a propaganda machine. So, it demotivates some writers and editors who are genuine about their course. Writers and editors who donate their time and expertise to Wikipedia do so because they feel the need to serve their communities. They do not do it for the sake of their religious beliefs or political affiliations. Therefore, just as it has been a tradition to not favor one religious belief over another, Wikipedia should not favor one political side over the other. The tone of each writing should show that Wikipedia regards all groups of people.

What is unique or different about Wikipedia?
The unique thing about Wikipedia is that it promotes crowdsourcing of information and allows people from any part of the earth to contribute to its articles. This openness should be a force for doing good for all communities. The unique attribute of Wikipedia is that it comes as the starting point of all research. Even though no academic will reference it as a credible source, it plays a significant role during the early stages of research. Therefore, Wikipedia is a powerful tool for persuasion whether or not academics acknowledge it as a source. When Wikipedia invites and adds more writers to cover content from marginalized groups, it becomes even more influential. The level of persuasion that announcing the invitation for writers and editors from minority groups will be a motivational force. In other words, the announcement will make target writers and editors feel obliged to give back to society by writing about them.