User:Tmaraki/Report

The dynamic of online communities is so versatile and very intriguing. Without ever physically seeing a person, communities of hundreds of people are able to create personal bonds with one another through the internet and services such as Wikipedia. Although at first daunting, my experience navigating through the norms, safeguards, and policies within Wikipedia has been very informative, speaking volumes of the complexities to which administrators create and always update the Wikipedia platform. In class, we've discussed the stages of users from new users to retaining newcomers and capturing committed members long term. In each of these areas, I've seen Wikipedia's efforts. New Users can easily sign up and begin editing. To retain newcomers such as myself, Wikipedia assigned a Wiki Expert to assist should I have any questions. In the niche community of Wiki Edu, the trainings were straightforward, simple and easy to follow making the entire editing process less confusing. The sense of guidance and structure within the community encourages a certain direction that keeps the community organized. Finally for committed members such as BrownHairedGirl who was actively providing suggestions not only to me but also to my classmates, Wikipedia may consider giving committed members a visual update of some sort. Just like how badges for their profile are handed to members of the Yelp Elite Squad, Wikipedia could give committed members a different colored User tag, for example, so when their name shows up in the history log or Talk pages, others know the indicated user is very active and very experienced in the Wiki community.

For recommendations, I want to address reputation in two different solutions. Reputation of Wikipedia is known to be unreliable. Since I was in high school starting research papers, I've been instructed never to use Wikipedia as a source. Now in college, I question the legitimacy of the content on Wiki articles. Although safeguards have been put in place and other wiki editors work very hard to ensure all information is accurate, up to date and unbiased, the lack of credibility is associated with the fact that anyone and everyone can edit the information despite their personal credibility. This makes the site more prone to trolls and griefers who purposely disrupt the works for the fun of it. Another concern for the publicly accessible editing feature is the lack of effectiveness and low quality of contributions by newcomers. With good intentions, someone may edit an article but be completely naïve to the respectful nature of consulting with the community first. If Wikipedia limited the types of articles made available for public or "live" viewing based on the article's Wikipedia assessment, this could initiate a shift in its reputation in a positive direction. For example, those articles with a quality grade C-Class and below, should not be made available for the public viewing, and possibly editing, until the article has been edited and researched enough to be upgraded to B-Class. This means, all important content has been added and there is little to no irrelevant materials included. Also, with a majority of the important information organized well in an article, there is little that a new user with innocent intentions but low writing and research skills will be able to add.

In addition to the above, Wikimedia should consider adjusting the header bar and side bar to include a short disclaimer that includes the article's current Quality grade and Level of Importance, including a precautionary note of what the quality grade means at the top of each page. In this way, viewers are made aware that the content of the article may be missing key pieces of information. I had no idea Wikipedia had a quality and importance grading scale associated with each article until recently. If I did, as a viewer I would have been able to utilize this as a way to sift through sources for my own research.

In my experience editing The Enchantments, I learned the exact process and the amount of time and energy it takes to conduct the research and ensure the article delivers accurate information. I've always known Wikipedia to invite everyone to be an editor, but I didn't know how it actually works. The use of the sandbox was very helpful. As a visual learner, I always need a space to brainstorm my own thoughts and ideas. The sandbox was a safe space to do exactly that. I played around with flow a lot, rearranging the order of the sections to see which combination was the most visually appealing and makes the most sense given the topic.

The experience with Wikipedia has been valuable in terms of understanding the online community base and the work that is done to ensure quality articles are produced. In my recommendations, applying a public vs private view of articles that are not fully complete may begin the shift in a positive direction. Viewers streaming the internet for information will see how well-written, organized and informative the B-Class articles are instead of coming across a Stub article that tarnishes the viewers initial high quality impression. Through extensive research and going through the process of reading and editing, reading and editing over and over again, I've come to respect the committed members of the site who spend their time ensuring a positive experience all-around.