User:EliseSembach/Report

After completing the Wikipedia project and getting to explore and research a topic in order to expand a Wikipedia page I have discovered what it is like to be a member of the Wikipedia community, this has been a very rewarding and interesting experience. Wikipedia has always been a tool that has been present for me when it came to anything that would involve research or looking up something that I was interested in gaining knowledge in. In the first steps of this project we were given the task of choosing an article to edit that lacked sufficient information on the topic. The process of critiquing articles helped me realize how many different topics have not been updated or maybe ever written about in general on Wikipedia, which i was surprised about, because I have always thought of Wikipedia as one of the most largest online sources with information on any subject. Although it is true that you can find information on almost anything you can think of, many pages are recognized as “stubs” which I learned are extremely lacking in comparison to some of the more classified articles that have been verified as A, B, or C class. Keeping this in mind, I chose to edit an article that started as a “stub” so that I could add notable changes as I am only a beginner Wikipedia contributor.

This experience and spending time on the Wikipedia platform have made me realize how Wikipedia functions as an online community. Wikipedia is a community in the sense that to some extent there are rules, such as copyright but at the same time there are so many unspoken norms and rules that everyone on Wikipedia understand and respect. In the beginning I spent a lot of time looking at various Wikipedia pages and talk pages in order to form an understanding of what is normal and what norms the Wikipedia community share. In class we have spent a lot of time discussing code of conduct and online community norms, although Wikipedia is not a community such as the others we have discussed, such as Reddit or Facebook, there still is an understanding of what is approved and allowed to be posted. Technically, on Wikipedia one could post anything, but the norms and rules that are accounted for keep it so that the community serves its actual purpose of being a factual database to fill its readers with accurate knowledge. These norms are what keeps Wikipedia in check for the majority of the time, as people respect the community.

A piece of advice I would give to anyone interested in publishing on Wikipedia or contributing in any way, is to explore Wikipedia by looking at various pages, as well as the talk pages to get a sense of interaction. I edited an article on the Dixie Overland Highway, which was classified as a road stub on Wikipedia before I contributed, in order to explore how I would contribute to the page, I played around other road Wikipedia sites, and looked through which type of resources they used, as well as their talk page to discover which feedback was given, with the hope of being able to discover the norms and rules behind road Wikipedia pages. This is what I would recommend to anyone looking to contribute, whichever article one is hoping to expand on, it is a good idea to look at other articles in the same category in order to get an idea of what the norms are for that category, as I feel like there is a pretty big difference on what is considered “normal” or “approved” depending on which category the topic is a part of.

After spending time on Wikipedia, it became apparent to me that truly anyone with an account is able to edit or make contributions. Although possible contributers should fact-check and make sure their sources are approved, it is very easy for Wikipedia to contain and spread untrue information. Therefore, I personally believe Wikipedia would benefit from having some sort of fact checking or monitoring system. The purpose of Wikipedia is that people can post and contribute if they would like to, and anyone can contribute, having volunteer editors is what makes Wikipedia exist. However, at the same time, anyone could post anything at any time, and I know it appears that to a lot of people once information is posted somewhere on the internet, they automatically assume that means the source is credible. After experiencing the Wikipedia community firsthand, I think the platform is very thoroughly set-up and I really was not able to detect many flaws, besides the main idea that there is not a strong monitoring system when it comes to users being able to post edits. As we discussed in class, some of the high-importance ranked articles, do contain a lock and will not be able to be edited by anyone, however a lot of the lower-class articles that may not have as high of importance could be changed by anyone, and I believe those articles are just as important, as often people will use Wikipedia to research things they do not know as much about, rather than the things they know a lot about. Therefore, I think Wikipedia could benefit from having some sort of monitoring system or approval system. As we discussed other online communities have moderators and editors, which Wikipedia could establish their own version of.

Wikipedia builds a sense of community by incorporating things such as the "talk" page, which is a way for Wikipedia editors to communicate and comment on one another's articles. This is one aspect of how Wikipedia builds a sense of community, but after doing this project, I have been trying to brainstorm if there are other ways that Wikipedia could promote interaction between users. Or if there could be some kind of either Intrinsic or Extrinsic motivation for users to use the talk page more efficiently and comment on each others pages. I think Wikipedia should promote the talk pages even further and try to get some interaction and discussion going, because taht would result in even more activity on certain pages, which ultimately might help the goal of making Wikipedia the best version of itself.

I personally learned a lot from Wikipedia, I believe it strengthened me as writer, as writing for Wikipedia is different than anything I have ever written before. Having to write an educational and factual article for anyone who is interested in the topic to read and learn from is very distinct from writing a paper for class or a project. I learned a lot about my strengths, as well as my weaknesses. It was hard for me to create a Wikipedia approved formatted article, especially when it came to having a neutral tone. I kept having to remind myself to educate my reader rather than to persuade. Doing this project, introduced me to a whole new world that I had never really been exposed to before.

This was very overwhelming at first, I felt intimated. However, once I started the researching and knowing I had reliable sources, then the rest came together as I was really sharing my new knowledge in a neutral Wikipedia format, and it appeared much more doable than it seemed before. I was very lucky to be doing this as a class project and be provided with tutorials and steps rather than being on my own and figuring out how to contribute properly, but because I was given the lessons and taught how to complete my page properly, I now feel more likely to continue to be a Wikipedia volunteer contributer in the future because I was taught thoroughly how to contribute and I am confident in my ability to contribute. I think a lot more people would contribute and help develop Wikipedia if they actually were informed on how to, and had the correct tools to do so. Therefore, because I was presented with the tools from class, I feel like I was able to understand the Wikipedia community a lot better, and then was able to make a good contribution that abides by the Wikipedia norms. Prior to this class, I did not understand online communities, nor was I able to define what an online community truly is, and now I am able to say I have made a successful contribution and can consider myself a current member of an online community.