User:Syarolin/Reflection

Introduction and Preconceptions

Prior to this course, I didn’t know a lot about how Wikipedia actually worked. I knew that it was relatively comprehensive, and that it was “unreliable” -- I was told never to use it in an academic essay, for example. Even knowing this, I have always trusted Wikipedia, and found it strange that despite all of the warnings from teachers over the years, I had never found a single piece of misinformation there. Now that I have a much clearer understanding of how editing and accountability on Wikipedia work, I see that the transparent and serious nature of the community is what maintains a level of quality throughout the website. I find myself feeling pretty frustrated, actually, with all of those teachers who tell us never to use Wikipedia. With the amount of effort Wikipedians put into properly researching, citing, and formatting their work, it’s honestly a shame that it is so underutilized in an academic setting.

I found this community to be a difficult one to join as compared to traditional, personality-based social media platforms like Instagram or even forums like Reddit. I think I realized this would be a challenge for me when we first looked at examples of user pages in class, and we saw how varied they can be. Wikipedia is an incredibly unique community in both its format and purpose. I can’t even fully classify it as (what Kraut would refer to as) a “bonds-based” or “identity-based” community, because with “talk” pages and customizable user pages, it seems like there's potential for both to take place, although I assume the identity of being a “Wikipedian” and a “scholar” is what primarily drives people to contribute to the community.

The Role of Public Feedback

The idea of peer feedback on Wikipedia makes a ton of sense -- this is how a high level of quality is maintained. And like, I totally understand that! Really! But I also still hate it. The idea that any action a user takes on Wikipedia leaving a public trace, and an accompanying opportunity for random strangers on the internet to criticize it, is unnerving to me as an inexperienced user. It feels as though there is no room for mistake, particularly if you make the mistake of viewing the “talk page” on controversial topics, where it seems users don’t always engage in the best faith (or in the nicest tone). This was somewhat confirmed by your “Good Faith Collaboration” chapter, which, although incredibly helpful and necessary to read to learn more about how to conduct myself in this community, added to my fears. I’m not going to lie, I enjoy arguing with people on Reddit in my free time -- I find it therapeutic. So in certain circumstances, in communities where I am comfortable and confident, I’m the first to drop any pretense of “good faith.” But this community is very, very different from political spaces on Reddit that I typically express myself in. I already don’t feel incredibly qualified to be making edits on Wikipedia, and the inevitable public feedback of changes that I have made is terrifying to me as a newcomer. This is in line with the Carnegie Mellon study we read in class, which came to three conclusions: “1) negative feedback and direction increase people’s efforts on focal tasks; 2) positive feedback and social messages increase people’s general motivation to work; 3) the effects are stronger for newcomers." So, there it is. Confirmation that the system is effective. And yes, this does mean that editing on Wikipedia can be scary. But ultimately this type of community moderation is necessary to keep the website functional and accurate.

My Contributions and Experience

It seems that the page I edited (Bay State Banner) is low-traffic, so it may take some time before an experienced Wikipedian comes and rips it to shreds, so to speak. In an effort to combat this, I first attempted my favorite problem solving strategy - anxious avoidance. I did so by keeping my edits hidden in my sandbox as long as possible, until I eventually was forced to bring them live. As usual, this coping strategy was ineffective and akin to shooting myself in the foot. Nothing new, but likely not an experience I’ll learn from, either. Using the link in the syllabus, I realized my page doesn’t get a lot of traffic, so I asked Michelle Weth to take a look and make some edits on my contributions (here is the diff log). She’s been an excellent resource for helping me navigate Wikipedia, which I greatly appreciate.

I was also concerned about notability and impartiality. I chose to add to an article that was already a “stub” on Wikipedia not because the topic itself overly interested me, but because I knew this meant it had already been deemed “notable” by the community, which meant I would not have to justify its existence to other users. Even with this level of security, at times I was still concerned that the facts I was adding were irrelevant, or that I was adding information only to reach a certain length, rather than because they were truly things I believed should be on the page. I was also concerned that my additions would be biased- after all, the Bay State Banner is a somewhat controversial publication with a liberal bias, and I also have a liberal bias (and many, many opinions). I tried to keep this in mind during all stages of my editing, and in an effort to be as transparent as possible, I decided to add the following to my user page:

“I have a lot of opinions, and part of my goal on Wikipedia is to learn how to write without bias. If you see something I've added to a page that seems opinionated, please don't hesitate to reach out and let me know!”

I hope that, should a more experienced member of the community find an edit I’ve made that isn’t up to community standards, they may view my user page and choose to be… well, I’m not sure. Kinder? Gentler? Or at least give me the benefit of the doubt? We’ll have to see how that plays out.

Moving Forward

Wikipedia is so much more complicated and intricate than I had originally thought, and I have a lot more respect for it (and the Wikipedians that contribute to it every day). I’m hopeful that as I make more edits on Wikipedia, I will become more comfortable in this community. At present, I am working on some small additions to the Star Trek Online Wikipedia page, located in my sandbox, to keep it up to date with the most current releases and content. This will be an experiment to see if I am able to combine the things I’m passionate about with the analytical, detached style of non-biased writing on Wikipedia. As this page has much, much more traffic than the Banner page, it is likely that I will receive feedback on any contributions I do add.

Truthfully, I think Wikipedia is a bit too large and scholarly a community for me to feel comfortable in. Additionally, I regret using my actual name for my username, as I prefer to go under a pigeon-related alias online. I hope that I will continue to contribute, but it will likely be small edits and lots of lurking, my usual style of contribution. This experience has made me consider joining other, similar communities that may be more to my liking. Other wiki-based communities like Memory Alpha or Wookieepedia that are more focused in topic, for example, might allow me to put my exceedingly vast and incredibly useless array of fictional knowledge to good use, and I would feel much more educated and qualified to contribute and work in those communities. The biggest problem with Wikipedia for me (and this is personal, not a judgment on the website or community itself) is that this community specializes in everything. It’s likely that experts of every field and industry are on Wikipedia, and that’s part of what makes the community so unique, special, and productive. But this breadth of knowledge makes the community intimidating and difficult for me to feel comfortable in, and it seems that there are already others who can do a more comprehensive and unbiased job of aggregating this information than I can. It feels selfish to benefit so much from the community without contributing, though, so I’m also trying to challenge this viewpoint by turning to the foundations of DGAFism as suggested by the community itself. I could see myself becoming a WikiSloth in the future, should I continue to contribute to this community. I’m not, like, thrilled about that, because I really want to be a WikiCat and I think sloths are pretty gross, but frantic editing just doesn’t sound like my style.