User:TWOBJ/Reflection

For my entire scholastic career, or at least since Wikipedia existed and I was enrolled in English classes, I have been told by teachers and professors alike not to use Wikipedia as a reliable source of research. This was the first course I’ve taken where Wikipedia was not only encouraged, but mandatory. After taking this course I have found that Wikipedia has it’s uses and it’s pitfalls. My topic of research was The Boston Chapter of Men of All Colors Together, a multiracial group for the advancement of race relations in the LGBTQ community.

First off I never understood the amount of work that actually goes into crafting a Wiki article. From putting in references to headings to the content. It requires a great deal of work and effort to create a Wiki article that remains on the site. It made me rethink everything I was told to believe about Wiki articles. The barriers to entry are so high and there is a community at large that really believes in making this an encyclopedia of the world. Now in all honesty at the end of this experiment I still wouldn’t consider myself a wikipedian, and despite my love of writing I don’t see myself continuing to create or edit articles after the completion of this course. However what I can say is that writing my Wikipedia article made me a better researcher and gave me a deeper appreciation and understanding for Wikipedia.

It wasn’t a topic I had a great deal of interest before my research, in fact it was not even a topic I had heard of, but I certainly became more and more intrigued as my research went on. What most interested me about this whole experience was the level of research that was required in order to carry out a successful Wiki article. I spent many hours in the Archives of Northeastern going through first hand accounts of this groups actions and dealings. However as I was doing this research I couldn’t help but think that not every article has the same level of care put forth into it. I saw my classmates put together well-crafted articles with a high degree of research, but I still can’t help but think that not every article on Wikipedia is given the same amount of attention. Take for instance the page of the famous comedian Daniel Tosh. This page is frequently shut down because he insights his followers to wreak havoc on his page. Now I understand that he has rather ill standing amongst Wikipedians for this action, but none the less it leads me to believe that people really are out there just to try and sneak things into Wikipedia. Another comedian, John Oliver, has a whole bit about the fact that his reported middle name on Wikipedia is nowhere close to his real middle name. Admittedly in my youth I have gone onto a Wiki page and tried to make something up, I can’t remember for the life of me what I said or what the page was, but what I can remember is that it was quickly removed. I had a similar experience with my actual article for this course.

My original article was in fact tagged for speedy deletion. I must admit that it made me rather gun shy going forward. I had complied a great deal of research about my topic with both first and secondary sources so I was surprised when it was tagged. Unfortunately the tagging and subsequent deletion of my post occurred while I was on break so I never got to state a case as to why my article should remain. I think that I really missed out on not being able to converse with the Wikipedia who had my article deleted. Many students have said that their interactions with other editors have been overall a positive experience. I would have liked to have asked him how to improve the article because clearly it was someone who was dedicated enough to go through the trouble of removing the article so hopefully he could have also been helpful in fixing it. I also made the critical mistake of forgetting to but a class tag on my page which may or may not have saved it from its deleted fate. Also because the page was deleted before I had a chance to examine it I never had a chance to converse with the admin who tagged it for speedy deletion. I’m not upset that it was tagged for deletion, well I’m a little hurt, I put a lot of work into that. But what I can appreciate is that there are people who spend a great deal of time browsing through hundreds or thousands of articles to make sure they are up to the standards of Wikipedia. It shows a tremendous amount of dedication to the Wikipedia community that someone took the time out of there day to go through an article about Men of All Colors Together and decide it wasn’t eligible to be part of the Wiki community, or at least not at the moment.

It was nominated for deletion for seeming to be an advertisement which lead me to a whole new realm of thinking. Should there be a section of Wikipedia reserved for those who want to provide first hand accounts of their organization or product? Personally I believe there should be a tag of sorts that allows people to post to Wikipedia under the clear disclosure of being a first hand account or an advertisement. I think there are many companies and organizations that would have a problem with the way their page currently portrays them. I think that people should have a chance to rebuttal claims made for or against them. I can understand that Wiki has a certain standard to uphold but as long as it is kept up with tags that say the article is a personal opinion rather than straight facts shouldn’t the public be able to know what organizations think about themselves?

Overall I liked crafting the article. This is one of the only classes where you have a tangible piece that will actually be viewed by people outside of the class. I think that Wikipedia should be used in more classes and shouldn’t be as admonished as it is in English classes. TWOBJ (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)