User:Xchen0417/Reflections

My experience with Wikipedia has been good so far. To create a Wikipedia article, I had to first understand the basic rules of Wikipedia. In order to do so, I was told to go through the online student orientation. The interactive tutorials were really easy to follow, and gave me a sense on how to contribute. However, I believe that some parts were a bit too long. For example, the editing introduction had too many slides and therefore I lost the motivation to read and skimmed a few. Additionally, although I did complete the training, it would not appear so on the dashboard. I did multiple times for the “completion” to appear under my name. These issues would detract newcomers into joining.

For the topic, I was uncertain on what to write about, so I decided to go through the stub articles on Wikipedia. When I clicked the Akadama sweet wine article, I realized there was a Japanese Wiki article on it, so I checked it out. The nude poster attracted my attention. The fact that a nude poster existed in Japan took me by surprise. Growing up in Japan, I have learnt its customs and even nowadays, a nude poster would rarely be seen in public. With the interest of finding more about this product, I decided to improve on this stub. The feedbacks I got from my classmates were very helpful. The first feedback suggested including an image in the article. I chose the nude poster that attracted me in doing this topic. I first searched the image through the Wikimedia commons but could not find it, so I went to the Japanese Wikipedia article and clicked on the image. I was able to copy the link and put it into my article. It took a while, but I believe that once you get the hang of it, it becomes easier. For the second feedback, my classmate recommended linking other Wikipedia articles. I linked the port wine, sherry and Madeira wine Wiki pages as I thought readers would be interested in them. I also made important names in bold so it stood out more. I found it easier to edit the article through the “Edit source” rather than using the “Edit” option. Overall I thought my article went smoothly. From this experience, my impression on Wikipedia has changed. At first I believed that I was not qualified enough to be a contributor to this online community. I have always thought people making Wikipedia articles were experts or someone who has a degree in literacy. Back in middle school and high school, my teachers told me not to trust Wikipedia. However, this changed my mind, as I read Wikipedia’s rules such as the notability guidelines; the verifiability of the information. Additionally, being able to accomplish this project increased my self-efficacy.

I believe that Wikipedia offers low barriers to contribute, as well as removing the burden on the contributors through low social ownership of content. The talk section that Wikipedia offers is intrinsically motivating. For example, when I got positive feedback from my peers, I was happy that someone found my article interesting and thus motivated me to improve on it. These sincere performance feedbacks are like little victories. However, it is important that the feedback is not negative. If some other editor comments on my article and criticizes it, it would scare me away thus contributing less or none. To avoid this, Wikipedia created a guideline, requiring the editors to treat each other with respect. These guidelines are essential, and they have to be clear in order to avoid conflicts. Yet at the same time, there cannot be too many rules, or else the costs of joining Wikipedia outweighs the benefits. In order to limit effects of bad behavior, the article has to be also free from bias. Wikipedia article guidelines imply that the articles have to be written from a neutral point of view. Moreover, the Wikipedia adventure is also intrinsically motivating as it makes it fun for newcomers to learn about the community. It definitely created a friendlier environment, and I enjoyed it more than the online student orientation. However, sometimes the game did not process properly and at times I got fed up with it. This would detract new comers in joining. There are also extrinsic motivations such as rewards (the barnstars). These rewards give contributors status and motivate them to make more edits and create articles, leading to outstanding contributions. Similarly, I believed the sandbox was used as a protection, as it allows newcomers to experiment and learn safely. It reduces the potential for harm through compartmentalizations.

Based on my experience with Wikipedia, the concept of “Identity, Bond and Norms Commitment” did not apply to me. I did not feel that I was obligated nor needed to contribute in order to belong to the social group. However, needs and base commitment applied to me to a certain extent; I felt obligated to contribute in order to get a good grade for this class. What I did not expect from Wikipedia was the loneliness feeling when your classmates got feedback from Wiki editors whilst you didn’t. It gives a sense that no one is interested in your article and detracts me in contributing further. Moreover I believe that although the rewards are extrinsically rewarding, Wikipedia had too many types; the more choices there are, the more people have to find and choose the rewards they want to give. This increases the cost and detracts people in rewarding others. I believe that Wikipedia should decrease the types of rewards there are.

In conclusion, this Wikipedia project was a good experience and challenging. If it weren’t for this class, I would probably never have thought of editing a Wikipedia article.