User:Alexliow/sandbox

3D Printing Group Report

Team Members: Linda Gao, Alex Liow, Carol Wu and Charlie Xu

Article Contributions

Creation of History Section by Merging in Portions of the Terminology Section

• The former introduction of the 3D printing article consisted of a huge paragraph of information. Of course, the introduction of any article page should provide sufficient background so that users can glean a sense of what the topic that they have a chance to learn further information about. However, we believe that some of this material fit better under a History section, so we decided to create it.
• Therefore, we merged in some information about 3D printing terminology (which was included in the introductory section) with historical information, also splitting out the formation of different methods (and the terminology referring to them) from the development of applications for the technology.
• Previously, much of the information was repeated or interrelated, and the introductory section of the page went too in-depth about some specifics, which drew away from the purpose of an introduction to 3D printing. Now, with our edits, we believe that if the reader is interested in the history of 3D printing, specifically either its methods and terminology or the development of its applications, they have a better idea of where to find the information that they need.

Reorganization of Applications Section

• Before we began to edit the 3D printing page, we noticed that there was a section titled 'Applications' that had many, many subsections. These subsections seemed to have been in a random order, and we believe that it made the user experience rather difficult. This was such a major portion of the 3D printing article, so we thought it was very necessary to reorganize this section somehow so that we can improve the logical flow and hopefully contribute to a more comfortable and informational user experience.
• To do so, we first examined the current content under the former Applications Section. We noticed that all of the current subsections could have been better organized into three more descriptive sections: Manufacturing Applications, Industrial Applications, and Sociocultural Applications. 'Manufacturing Applications' was a better description for the subsections regarding the use of 3D printing for large scale production. 'Industrial Applications' helped to describe subsections relating to using 3D printing in specific industrial sectors. Lastly, 'Sociocultural Applications' encompassed any subsections that described 3D printing's utility in relation to the greater society and culture.
• In regards to how we decided which subsections would "fit" under these newly created sections, we read through the information that other users had contributed. We then tried to see if the content of those subsections fit in with the definitions that we had formulated for each of the new Application sections. Furthermore, we listed the subsections in alphabetical order in order to maintain some official form of categorization and/or organization.

Improvement of Bioprinting Section

Content Additions

• Initially, the bioprinting section consisted of only what is now the last sentence in the section. The group significantly expanded the section by reading and analyzing primary research articles.
• A first paragraph consisting of a brief background of 3D bioprinting in general was written. Then, the extra complexities associated with 3D bioprinting were discussed.
• A second paragraph was added, discussing the past successes of 3D bioprinting in terms of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Future directions in bioprinting applications were then *discussed
• A third paragraph was added, describing the Jonathan Butcher Laboratory's heart tissue engineering research, having to do with cell-seeded aortic valve constructs.
• A fourth paragraph was added describing the Lawrence Bonassar Laboratory's research regarding the 3D printing of cartilaginous tissues.
• The fifth and last paragraph was revised in terms of wording.

Sources

A number of different sources were used in the bioprinting section. All of these sources were peer-reviewed primary research articles. Thus, their reputability is as good as the journals' in which the research groups published their articles, and institutions' in which the research groups reside. A brief comment will be made regarding each of the sources.

• "3D bioprinting of tissues and organs" is an article written generally in the format of a review. Overarching ideas regarding 3D printing in general were extracted from this article.

• "3D Bioprinting of heterogeneous aortic valve conduits with alginate/gelatin hydrogels" is an article produced by the Butcher Laboratory. It was used as a reference that described the purpose of the lab, as well as yield some basic information regarding the lab's published 3D printing process.

• "Rapid 3D printing of anatomically accurate and mechanically heterogeneous aortic valve hydrogel scaffolds" is an article produced by the Butcher Laboratory. It was used as a reference to describe the reasoning behind the usage of PEGDA as a material, and to describe the basics of the lab's bioprinting process.

• "3D bioprintable hydrogels with tunable physical and mechanical properties for encapsulation of heart valve cells" is an article produced by the Butcher Laboratory. It was used as a reference for the specifics of the lab's bioprinting process, as well as yield information into the future of bioprinting research in terms of aortic heart valves.

• "Tissue-engineered total disc replacement: final outcomes of a murine caudal disc in vivo study" is an article produced by the Bonassar Laboratory. It was used as a reference for the background and preliminary results of one project in the Bonassar laboratory's research.

Improvement of Grammar and Structure

• The existing content of the page has been edited to reduce grammatical errors and improve overall style. The content has also been edited to improve the readability of sections for the average reader, through the explanation or reduction of technical terminology, rephrasing and re-structuring of confusing and/or ambiguous information, and other similar changes. For example, relevant content was merged into paragraphs where before they were separated by other ideas in the same section.
• Previously, due to the nature of Wikipedia itself, much of the information may have been strewn together without much thought to the style and flow of the information. We hope that our contributions to the improvement of the grammar and structure will enhance the accessibility of the page.

Matching Images with Proper Content

Overview

• Upon first viewing of the page, we had to make the choice of whether or not we wanted to add pictures at all. Many pictures on the page existed already, and they were mostly in the consumer section. There were pictures scattered all over the page and some of them matched the content they were placed next to and others didn't. As a group, we decided that the pictures were too unorganized and that they would inhibit a viewer's ability to understand the content. We reasoned that a lot of the concepts on the page such as modeling, lamination, granulation, industry use, and consumer use are new, and that in order to be able to visualize these concepts best was to add pictures of them. 3D printing and many related topics are now only used by a select audience, and although the users are growing, many people just haven't been introduced to these new technologies

• Our team also considered that people visiting the page would probably be looking up what 3D printing was and that we should use pictures that weren't too obscure. We were lucky that a lot of the pictures were great at demonstrating the process of 3D printing in a clear way, especially the video at the top of the page.

Our Contributions

• We began the process of adding pictures by rearranging the pictures that didn't fit in the appropriate sections. Looking first at the manufacturing section, we found a picture of a little metal sculpture and a green necklace. We decided to move these pictures to the art section because they most dealt with fashion, and or consumer use. We also felt that the domestic use section looked too bare, and it had a comment requesting for the section to be expanded. In order to meet these requests, we found a picture on wikimedia commons that fit both the art section and the domestic use section. The vase was a brilliant mix of both categories and we felt that it demonstrated the usefulness of 3D printing. Also, in the section about Technology and Methods, the article talks about how 3D software is used in order to translate designs into code that printers can implement. We felt that the generic talk about this software wasn't enough for the users to comprehend what is talked about, especially if they have no programming experience. We included in this section, a screenshot of the CAD software depicting an existing model mockup. We felt this could really drive home the process of 3D printing and help viewers get in touch with something they have little to no experience in.

• We also added another picture in the applications section, because there were a lot of things listed, but no pictures to depict those particular examples. We chose the printed turbine because it was referred to in the section and gave the users something they can relate industry to. We were really going for the idea that we could bridge the inexperience gap that most viewers would have by including pictures of familiar objects that were also related to 3D printing.

Added Pictures

CAD Model used for 3D Printing

Model of a turbine showing the benefits of 3d printing in industry

3D printed ceramic pot

File:Wearable 3D Printed Shoes.jpg

Wearable 3D printed shoes

File:3D-Printed-Building-5641.jpg

Large scale industrial 3D printing

Checking and Fixing Citations

• After being brought to our attention by some of our classmates, we noticed that there were several cite errors at the bottom of the 3D printing page. The errors stated that the sources were listed, but not used. So, we fixed that finding where other users meant to cite the source within the article and correcting the citation. Or, if the source was not used at all, we removed it.

Improving from C-Class to B-Class

• Many of the changes we mentioned above were focused on bringing the article from a C-class article to a B-class article. On the talk page, it was indicated that the criteria that the article did not meet in order to be considered a B-class article were grammar and structure as well as accessibility.
• One of our changes was focused on re-organizing the site, as it was very unwieldy and that probably contributed to the inaccessibility to the article. In re-structuring the site, we were able to take different topics that were clustered together and separate them out, allowing for easier access to relevant topics of interest for users. This also helped to improve the grammar and structure category, as we were able to make many changes that resulted in a more organized and improved structure for the article.
• We also edited the article overall, focusing on both grammar and accessibility. We made general edits to improve grammar and style, correcting small mistakes such as spelling and punctuation but also rephrasing anything that was awkwardly or improperly phrased. While making these grammar and style edits, we also looked for areas in which very specific or technical terminology was used. Because we want a general audience to be able to understand the article and learn from it, we edited these parts to include simpler terminology or to define complicated terminology.

Evolution of the Article

Pre-Edit

• Before we began working on the 3D printing page, the article definitely had an abundance of information that we could work with. However, upon reading over the content that currently existed, we noticed right away that the organizational structure and the readability needed a lot of work. It was very clear that the page was constructed based on the extensive knowledge of many different users, but that it was all strewn together without much thought in connecting one section to another. Furthermore, much of the grammar and sentence structure of the article was not so refined. It was part of our mission to combat this problem.
• Furthermore, as we described in our article contributions, we noticed that the former Applications section was long, yet unorganized. Because it such a major portion of the article, we paid a lot of attention to this during our editing process.
• Another issue that we saw right away was the lack of relevant images. Therefore, we knew that we wanted to search Wikimedia Commons for nice visuals that would accompany our text edits.
• Lastly, we noticed that the Bioprinting subsection of the article only contained one sentence. Because Charlie has extensive knowledge in this area, we knew that we wanted to majorly improve the content and truly adding to the value of the article overall.

Editing Process and Post-Edit

• During the editing process, we focused on implementing our planned changes while also keeping an eye on the talk page to factor in any feedback we received. Other users edited the article during the weeks that we were working on it, too, and we looked over their edits to see if they were relevant to our changes. Even when they weren't, it was interesting to see somewhat simultaneous changes that were still separate and unaffected.
• After editing the article, the content that we added resulted in a much more expansive Bioprinting section, and the organizational and structural changes we made allowed for a much more easily accessible and navigable organization and display of the information, with a new History section and Application subsections split into more specific categories for more logical access. The grammar and technical edits helped to improve the overall style and accessibility of the article, making it easier to read and more grammatically befitting a B-class article.

Future Considerations

• In the future, we truly hope that we have set the precedence and a standard of excellence for future contributions to the 3D printing page. Hopefully, this can eventually be established into a norm which would then naturally guide fellow contributors to follow similar footsteps -- that if everyone else is contributing high quality content, that they too will act similarly.
• We really want future editors of the page to pay attention to the structure once they have contributed their edits. If people pay attention to the grammar that they use, as well as maintain a certain structural flow, the page would have so much potential.
• Lastly, we hope that editors will truly see how their content contributions would fit into the overall page, instead of rashly inserting their edits and then leaving.
• These are all things that we tried to keep in mind throughout the duration of the project.

Becoming Familiar with Wikipedia

Reading Previous Conversations on 3D Printing Talk Page

• One of the previous posts on the 3D printing talk page was about a "backyard castle" that someone built as a precursor to building a full house. Reading the story inspired us and helped us realize that some of the main things people may be interested in are applications of 3D printing, and that section is one of the main ones that we re-structured to make it more easily accessible to people (one of the criteria that prevented the article from being classified as a B-class article).
• Reading the comments posted throughout the time that we were editing the article also helped us get a feel for how talk pages for articles are used in a real-time, live section over the course of several weeks. The concerns that people had and the different tones in various responses also helped us gauge the feel for the article, gaining better insight into what parts were lacking and needed improvement and which parts were stronger.

In-Class Wikipedia Lessons

• The weekly lessons in-class on Wikipedia were very useful. They are structured well to provide us with an introduction to editing Wikipedia first, in terms of general norms of editing (i.e. signing all your posts), specific syntax to use, and more fundamentals. They also gave us a chance to experiment with those topics hands-on by having us edit in our user pages or sandboxes while the instruction was taking place so that we could compare and make sure that we understood the topics being covered.
• At a more theoretical level, the weekly lessons also gave us a better idea of Wikipedia as a community. While some lessons focused more on methods and syntactical aspects of editing, which are essential to learning how to edit in Wikipedia, the lessons on more specific community aspects were equally useful. For example, some things we may not have considered but learned from the in-class Wikipedia lessons included edit wars, not making too many small edits, norms of communication and responses, and more.

Wikipedia Student Training

• As an assignment early on in the semester (though fellow Wikipedians also later pointed us to this resource as well, showing its usefulness and reliability), each of us completed the the student training provided through Wikipedia.
• Through this resource, we learned a lot about Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines, the Five Pillars that guides Wikipedia, and other concepts such as verifiability, notability, and more.
• Then, the training brought us through some basic editing tutorials. Thus, we were able to practice editing in a sandbox, formatting the text, adding images, learning how to cite sources, using talk pages, and adding pages to our watch lists.
• Overall, we found this very informative and helpful.

Editing User Pages, User Talk Pages and Sandboxes

• First, it was fun creating our user pages. It was a nice way to introduce ourselves to the greater Wikipedia community, as well as to practice how to use the markup language. In later weeks, learning how to upload an original image to Wikimedia Commons and then adding it to our user pages was interesting as well. It also helped emphasize the importance of not pulling images off random places on the internet.
• Next, when we were encouraged to talk to classmates through our user talk pages, it really helped to reinforce the fact that we need to always sign our posts on such pages.
• Lastly, further practice on our sandboxes really helped familiarize us with the editing experience. Furthermore regarding sandboxes, we always made sure we published a major edit to a sandbox before moving it to the official article.

Wikipedia Cheatsheet

• As a quick reference, we often referred to the cheatsheet. It was very helpful in gathering together some of the key instructions on how to edit any page.

Community Experience

Feedback from External Wikipedians on 3D Printing Talk Page

• Initially, in our proposed article edits, we mentioned that we wanted to include a list of 3D printing equipment. However, a fellow Wikipedia, Fountains of Bryn Mawr commented that the article should be self contained -- that this article should not become some sort of directory. We decided that we didn't have a good idea of how to turn such a list into an important section or subsection of the article, so we abstained. This interaction was positive, because we learned about what type of content was acceptable in our edits, and so Carol reached out to him to express our appreciation for the suggestion.

Reaching Out to External Wikipedians

• Early on, Linda tried to reach out to Fountains of Bryn Mawr by writing on the user's talk page after seeing his quick feedback on our project proposal. However, he did not respond. Carol tried to follow up by also writing on the talk page in the section that Linda created. Disappointingly, we still received no response.
• After not receiving the support that we had initially hoped from more experienced Wikipedians, we recently tried again to reach out to other users. We looked at the history of the 3D printing page and tried to look at any users that had made many edits to the page in the recent past. We picked two, Bruce1ee and Thumperward, and reached out by writing on their talk pages here and here. Because these requests for feedback are more recent, we have not yet received responses.

External Wikipedians Reaching Out to Us

• On Linda's, Alex's and Carol's talk pages, Timtrent was very kind to have left us messages pointing us to the student training material as well as many other helpful resources that Wikipedia had to offer. Additionally, Timtrent let us know that we could always ask him for advice by reaching out to him through his talk page.

Teahouse Experience

• About halfway into the project, Carol decided to make a profile (if you scroll down on the guest profile pages, Carol's introduction is about two-thirds of the way down) on Teahouse and introduce herself to Teahouse hosts.
• Something we really wanted to improve on the 3D printing page was the accessibility of the article. Therefore, we knew that it would be important to edit and improve the structure of the page in some manner so that it was more readable to the average reader. Therefore, Carol asked a question regarding this concern on the Teahouse/Questions talk page.
• In less than 24 hours, Fuhghettaboutit and MadScientistX11 both responded with really great suggestions. Generally speaking, they suggested that we either look at the structure of Wikipedia's featured articles or look at the structure of articles regarding a similar topic. From these suggestions, we looked at pages such as 3D scanning and 3D modeling for some form of guidance.
• Overall, we were really pleased with how supportive Wikipedians could be and how quickly they were able to respond with thoughtful feedback and advice.

Being Patrolled

• One day, Carol got a notification saying she was being patrolled by Missionedit.
• We then looked up what that meant and read about some reasons why a page may be marked as patrolled. It seems interesting, though we still don't know the particular reason as to why this occurred. We hope that it was for a positive reason.

Feedback from Instructors and Peers

Instructor Feedback

• The professor commented on our page early on with suggestions on the types of improvements we could make to the page. In particular, she mentioned that, in addition to our planned changes in content and organization, we could improve on the criteria preventing it from being classified as a B-class article. Based on these suggestions, we decided to edit the grammar and structure of the page and try to make the content more accessible to readers. The organizational changes we planned would help with these, but we also decided to try to edit any particularly technical language and to expand our organizational changes so that relevant content can be more easily found.
• Tyler gave us feedback on possibly expanding a sub-article on rapid prototyping. We took his feedback into consideration and debated on the merits of expanding this article vs. the sub-article. However, we felt that building the rapid prototyping article from its current state as a stub article would require more knowledge and resources than we had personally. Our knowledge on 3D printing was more broad from the general research we had done, and we already had many organizational and structural changes planned out and had started editing some of the content.

Peer Feedback

• The peer feedback was really useful in helping us realize that there was still technical terminology in the article that made it less accessible for general readers. Because we had all participated in the research process and gained a better understanding of 3D printing, our group probably has a better understanding of specific language used in the article. Having peer feedback gave us a better outside perspective on the accessibility of the article, from which we realized we needed to define some of these terms more to allow for a broader audience to be able to understand more of the topics covered in the article.
• Feedback from our peers was also helpful in acting as an overview of our article and all the changes that we made. Having another eye look over everything was helpful in pinpointing some specifics that we were able to polish as we were finishing up with our editing. For example, they noticed some awkward phrasing in parts of our edits, and they also pointed out citation errors that we missed. We are really glad that the instructor allocated time during class to allow everyone to peer review another article since we were able to make many last improvements based on the feedback that we received from our peers.

Fitting into a Community or Crowd

• We definitely felt that we were part of a larger community of our course, INFO 3460. Each week in class, we were always able to talk about our progress or lack of progress. Together, we also learned about some of the policies and technical aspects of Wikipedia through the weekly tutorials that took place earlier in the semester. Having instructor and peer feedback definitely created a sense of community because we were all striving towards the common goal of becoming productive, contributing Wikipedians.
• However, in regards to the larger Wikipedia community, our feelings are conflicted. The interactions that we looked for, hoping to become a small community of users who wanted to improve the 3D printing page, were not as positive or responsive as we had hoped. We do keep in mind that it may have just been the nature of the specific article we had chosen, and not necessarily reflective of the entire Wikipedia community as a whole. In a contrasting experience, we were so happy for the outpour of support from some members of the Wikipedia community at large. Although they were not necessarily affiliated with the 3D printing article at all, we were glad to see fellow user's responsiveness and support through outlets such as Teahouse or conversations on our personal talk pages. For these reasons, in regards our feelings towards Wikipedia, we feel that we are straddling between a crowd and a community.

Team Member Contributions

Linda

• Merged the history section with the introduction section, in order to shorten the introduction section and improve its readability.
• Merged information regarding 3D printing terminology with historical information, and also cross distributing information between different sections of the article.
• Cleaved unimportant or unrelated or interrelated or repeated information from the introduction section, which drew away from the essence of 3D printing that the article tries to convey in the introduction section.
• Communicated with Wikipedia community.
• Significant contribution to group report.

Alex

• Added many new relevant images to the site to improve graphical representation of information being conveyed.
• Moved images around to correspond with the new sections that the group created.
• Substantially expanded the domestic applications section.
  • Read through references in order to find information to add into the domestic applications section.
• Significant contribution to group report.

Carol

• Significant contribution in the applications section by reorganizing all the relevant information. Information was moved between sections in order to make the applications section proceed in a more logical manner.
• Created supersections of manufacturing applications, industrial applications and sociocultural applications.
• Read through the entirety of the newly created subsections and moved information as necessary to improve organization of the section.
• Communicated with Wikipedia community.
• Significant contribution to group report.

Charlie

• Significantly expanded the bioprinting section using a variety of primary sources.
• Reorganized the existing data in the bioprinting section, created new literature where necessary.
• Read through research articles to learn more about bioprinting processes to add to the page's bioprinting section.
• Significant contribution to group report.