User:Sabmarriie/Report

Reflection Report
Within the 6 weeks that I have worked directly on Wikipedia, I have learned an extraordinary amount of how a community function and what is expected of members within. I have been working on the article “Pet Culture.” According to Wikipedia, it was categorized as a stub class, only containing one sentence and a few references. In the beginning, I thought it would be easy to add information, making it the perfect article to work with. This soon changed as I started looking at its related articles, such as “Pet Culture in Japan.” The related articles linked below were extremely helpful and useful. In addition, the article needed a great deal of information added. I used “Pet Culture in Japan” to guide my research and to guide me in how I should format the article.

Although, writing the article had its own challenges. Wikipedia highly emphasizes copyright and plagiarism violations. Out of the three plagiarism issues, close paraphrasing was my struggle. I found it hard to take information and put it in my own true words, without following the original structure. One way I conquered this was writing the information down on a paper in my own words (similar structure) and then rewriting my own words. Another issue that I found while working with Wikipedia was navigating the site. Nevertheless, with the help of WikiEdu., I found it difficult to navigate the talk page where others left messages. Along with understanding how the contributions section worked to see where others have changed the article or talk page. The only way that I was able to figure out the site was to ask another classmate. If the classmate did not know, I would then ask the teacher’s assistant, which gladly helped. In addition to these issues, it was challenging for me to understand Wikipedia’s rules and norms, specific rules, as Wikipedia does not have solid rules, but principles. I appreciated that I had the freedom to do what I wanted without a set of rules, but it hindered me from going doing too much as I was afraid that I was breaking principles and/or norms. I only did what I was told to do. Despite all these difficulties, I thought the idea that everyone and anyone is welcome to pitch in their own information and corrections was a great way to incorporate everyone’s knowledge. I respected that they only emphasized the importance of valid and unbiased information, along with communicating with others through the talk page. In addition to this, Wikipedia’s “See Also,” relating articles, assisted me in what I should look for and what to focus on. Although, there are more things that Wikipedia can do to improve its user experience.

Based on my own experiences, the things that I disliked about the website have made me reflect on ways Wikipedia could improve. As I mentioned before, it was troublesome for me to figure out where things were on the site, such as contributions changes in the article, talk page, and sandboxes. One way that Wikipedia could improve on this is by including a voluntary introduction video (Kraut, Robert E., and Paul Resnick, 219). This video will be provided for every new user that has just signed up. The video will include a quick introduction of what Wikipedia is and its five pillars, to help guide newcomers to the communities’ norms. It will also include a tour guide of the site, explaining how the talk page, contributions, and sandboxes work. The videos will range between 3-5 minutes per topic and at the end of each topic, there can be a link that newcomers go to and learn more about. This process could determine which newcomers will continuously stay.

In addition to this idea of signing up, Wikipedia should require those who want to edit a page to sign up. Wikipedia highlights the idea that anyone can edit a page. This presents the issue of welcoming trollers and spammers, as they can edit the page with misinformation (Kraut, Robert E., and Paul Resnick, 127). Although volunteers can change this, it could be difficult at a larger number. A solution to this issue is requiring users that want to edit a large portion of a page to sign up and create a profile. Wikipedia can continue advertising that anyone can edit, but it can be limited. Small edits are welcome, such as grammar issues or adding one to three sentences. Large edits consist of more than a paragraph added. This process will help minimize trollers and spammers within the site.

Furthermore, I only participated in Wikipedia for the purpose of the class. If it was for my own free will, I would have not signed up for Wikipedia and participated in incorporating the information. Wikipedia should further widen its incentives, along with advertising these incentives, to increase contribution (Kraut, Robert E., and Paul Resnick, 53). Wikipedia advertises involvement for a more intrinsic motive, feeling good about adding information. They also already have extrinsic motivations, such as achievement and status awards, like Barnstars. Although, Wikipedia should further this beyond the website. One outside incentive could be an achievement to put on their resumes. Those that contribute with the highest Barnstar status can receive a certificate and they are welcome, and encouraged, to put this achievement on their resume. Users that have awards from anywhere between Ultimate Vanguard Editor to Grandmaster Editor can receive this certificate. This will incentivize those who have an account, but are not active to become more active. It incentivizes those who aren’t users and are looking to expand their resume or profession in writing.

In my final reflection, Wikipedia has shown me how the users truly shape its community. Through this experience, it has made me realize that the users who are willing and want to incorporate new information into their chosen article takes a considerate amount of time and dedication. Wikipedia’s community benefits users, but also benefits those outside with useful ideas and sources.