User:Sshockley1/reflection report

As a completely new Wikipedia editor, I had an experience that was likely not unique. I was a little nervous to step on someone’s toes, uncertain about my authority to write about anything, and I wanted to make sure anything I did would be worth reading. I chose a topic I could approach, flourless chocolate cake, that would have accessible research material, a stub that had little interesting content already, only one source, and no inline citing. It was a good jumping-off point since I wasn’t feeling super secure, and I think going in that direction let me focus on the steps and tutorials without worrying about doing a major research project on something totally unfamiliar or replacing something that felt like someone else spent a lot of time on.

Since I entered this space through a school program with a lot of formal structure, I can’t speak to how the process would feel to someone coming to Wikipedia organically. All the tutorials and step-by-step actions made my first entry manageable and approachable. There were measurable outcomes and clear steps to complete the onboarding process and we had a group to rely on for peer reviews and a mentor for feedback. Looking at the startup page to help new editors coming to Wikipedia’s main page I do see that there are 6 links on how to get started. I can say that if I were starting that way I would definitely feel like it was a lot since each page is a whole other Wikipedia page to get through. Depending on the big picture goals of Wikipedia, providing a similar format to the student process that was posted plainly on the main page for all new users might help increase participation and create more confident editors.

I found it interesting that the barriers to entry are minimal to start editing, but the barriers to performing well are a bit higher with the rules to contribute and code of conduct to follow. It may be an angle of participant self-selection to leave the “how-to” a bit more intense so that people will hesitate before jumping in and only people that are serious about it will engage fully in the process even though it is fairly open. I think this allows participants with an identity bond to the projects and process to maintain a desire to contribute because they identify with the goal of Wikipedia enough to learn the normative values and methods of participation and are invested and interested in the goals of the group. People that don’t have that bond will likely pause before entering the space blindly for fear of messing up the work of others or feeling lost. Being honest, before this class I didn’t realize I could just sign up and start editing a page and I never looked into it because I didn’t consider my knowledge worthy of encyclopedia level processing. Additionally, Wikipedia is so expansive that it felt like there couldn’t possibly be something I could add to the information already there.

I found that when I was done writing my article, I did have a sense of pride in contributing. Even though I knew it could be taken down, re-edited, or be relatively unimportant in the scheme of things, it was still a contribution. I think there is intrinsic value in sharing content that is personally interesting to the writers/editors of Wikipedia. The fact that there was little reward besides feeling good by contributing means people are participating because they care which means they are more likely to do their research and provide quality contributions on content relevant to them. I think an identity-based connection with Wikipedia’s goal to share knowledge also creates a connection to the ways of being within the group. You know people can change your work, but there is space to communicate why and start a discussion about where you found your knowledge and who might have the correct information. The ability to have conversation also allows users to defend their content and ideas, as long as it is civil and based on a legitimate argument.

One thing that made our class project seem less intimidating was the fact that we were all working in a group and were at the same level. I felt like transparency in seeing what we as a group were working on was in line with the experience of working on a Wikipedia article in the wild, and it let us learn from what our peers were creating. Keeping groups of newcomers together in this way could create a group motivation to keep working. Also, feeling comfortable to have an audience to discuss issues with if needed could reduce anxiety in producing information for public consumption. If Wikipedia offered this team format, they would build a strong bond among members and build confidence in the ability to contribute and join the larger group.

My project was part of a larger group within Wikipedia Food and Drinks. When working on my article, knowing it wasn’t a stand-alone piece made me want to make it better and get feedback from the group. They weren’t super active so my comments didn’t get a response, but the group mentality is effective in increasing participant work ethic as well. I could see how they were participating based on their edits and talk pages, so my expectations weren’t high for getting a response, but it still made a difference. I do think that featuring aspects of Wikipedia that are more group-centric on the main page or user profile tabs might help newcomers feel more comfortable jumping in. It creates space to get projects done, but it also allows an informal mentor/mentee relationship to form if someone is leading the group.

One thing that felt really refreshing about working in Wikipedia was that it felt open and free in some way. I think the ease of participation after the initial knowledge intake gives the feeling of infinite possibility. You have access to any topic and your knowledge is the value that makes you valuable. It is essentially the opposite of lock-in in theory, but also stronger because your information is available to any and everyone. It’s different than the majority of the spaces you experience online where the goal is to take discreetly from the user under the guise of giving and instead Wikipedia feels like a giving space for everyone.

I like that there is a badge system to recognize folks that have contributed at certain levels and give them credit where credit is due. It likely creates a sense of accomplishment to them similar to the initial feeling from editing your first article. It also gives them a bit more clout in editing or commenting on other people’s pages. I wonder if this could be boosted so that newcomers are given a level as well so that they see the system, feel like they are a part of it, and have a desire to move up the ladder.

Being able to contribute anonymously does make it feel like you can put yourself out there without getting embarrassed if your content is struck down or altered. I think this would improve rates of contribution, though I would fear that it could create space for trolls. I don’t know what the rate of moderation is for correcting troll activity, but it seems like with the vast field of articles available there would be a lot of content that people would mess with. The ability to revert pages to pre-edited formats does seem invaluable to this platform, so maybe that is the answer, but it seems to work well.

The moderation aspect of Wikipedia was, to me, perhaps the most impressive. I considered my article to be way off the radar of people being serious about contributions, but I had a few people make edits around how I placed my images and some citing issues. The fact that people are so active and committed to the quality of the content was a draw to me because it proved that Wiki isn’t a joke to people. That feeling did prove to me the idea that more users create a draw to new users.

Overall, I think this experience was valuable in that it reinforced a lot of the content of what we have learned so far. I haven’t felt confident in contributing to an online community in this way in a long time. I used to write t-files for an ezine a million years ago because my friend pushed me repeatedly to contribute. It was a small group called 'Angstmonster' and the stories were abstract and obscure, but it felt cozy and safe. I’m not into being seen by a large crowd, but this doing this project made it feel possible if still a bit intimidating. It’s all about choosing the content that will drive you to create great work, which really is a life lesson that can be applied to many other realities like what job you do and what hobbies you invest in. I’m glad to have taken this step and think it will be valuable in my career as I aim to create communities in the future despite feeling so hesitant in participating myself. Sshockley1 (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)