User:Halserena/subpage
My Wikipedia Experience
[edit]I was extremely intimidated when I started this project. So intimidated, in fact, that I never utilized my sandbox page. Although Wikipedia has a guideline that tells existing users to not “bite the newcomers”, I was still apprehensive. I was scared that I wouldn’t know where to begin; I was scared that I would make a mistake and not know how to fix it. Basically, I was scared of being judged by existing users.
I decided to create a Wikipedia page for Collette Divitto. Divitto is a prominent figure in the Down syndrome community, and has been receiving great attention over the past seven months for her cookie company Collettey’s Cookies. Divitto is an inspiration to many, both in the Down syndrome community and in the world. As a businesswoman with Down syndrome, she has inspired others with disabilities. Also, she is working to build a company so she can provide employment for others with disabilities.
“Be our guest at the Teahouse!” The first message I received through Wikipedia was welcoming. An automated ‘HostBot’ invited me to the Teahouse, which is a group created to serve as pleasant space for new users to discuss questions and concerns with existing users. The purpose of the Teahouse is to ease newcomers into Wikipedia, and to provide them with specific contacts to reach out to if they are in need of help or need answers to questions. While my first few experiences with the Wikipedia community were hospitable, the majority of my experiences on Wikipedia were not.
I only uploaded one official draft of my Wikipedia page. Initially, I received some very helpful feedback regarding basic changes I could make and important steps I could take. One user, ‘Boleyn’, immediately helped me capitalize my article title (something simple that I had been struggling with). It was incredible to immediately receive help without having to ask for it. That made for a good first experience on Wikipedia, and I was excited to continue building on my article. Users changed the title of my article so all of the words were capitalized (diff), and they added template tags (diff). I found the templates to be extremely helpful because they laid out steps to help me fix the problems in my article. While all of the initial edits I received were simple, they made me feel like I was being brought into the Wikipedia community. I was quickly a part of something larger than myself, but that feeling didn’t last long. It was almost easy for me to forget that these users were not helping me out personally, but instead working to help the Wikipedia community as a whole.
After receiving feedback on my first draft I decided to gather more information, and links to more secondary sources, in a Word document. I was nervous to edit my draft directly on the site, or even on my sandbox, because I knew I would be making embarrassing mistakes as I was getting to know Wikipedia. Looking back, I wish I hadn’t been so hesitant to edit more directly, because I’m sure outsider’s feedback would have helped me avoid certain problems that I had to discover myself when editing based on the perfect article description. That said, after speaking with a lot of my peers, I was thankful that I didn’t upload my article until the due date. A lot my classmates seemed to be targeted by existing users who viewed our class assignment negatively, and used it as a way to try to target a whole group of articles.
It is often hard for communities to attract and keep newcomers. However, Kraut and Resnick remind us that it is essential for a community to do so to survive and thrive. They say that “every online community must incorporate successive generations of newcomers to survive” (Kraut & Resnick, 2011, p. 179)[1]. Kraut and Resnick also explain that online communities must solve five basic problems when dealing with newcomers. The problems are categorized into recruitment, selection, retention, socialization, and protection. It is further explained that “these problems may vary in importance across different communities” (Kraut & Resnick, 2011, p. 180).[1] My experience with Wikipedia showed me that although the community places a strong focus on creating quality content, they do not balance their focus to also appreciate the significance of newcomers.
Wikipedia was created as a comprehensive encyclopedia that can be restructured and updated communally. “Wikipedians are supposed to discuss and reason together, making use of verifiable sources and assuming good faith” (Reagle, 2010)[2]. I feel that although Wikipedia’s focus on collaboration and consensus is positive, they lack the ability to also focus on other important matters such as dealing with newcomers.
In our class, recruitment was not really an issue. Our teacher recruited us to create accounts and contribute to Wikipedia, so we were not being pulled to the community in any unique way. We could say, however, that an existent user was persuading us, seeing as our teacher has been a long time Wikipedia user.
The most noticeable problem I found with Wikipedia was that they fail to socialize users. Instead, Wikipedia seemed to only care about protecting themselves. While it is important to protect the larger community that is Wikipedia, the existence of Wikipedia would mean nothing without committed and cared for members. Basically, I think Wikipedia needs to get their priorities straight. Wikipedia is currently not enticing to newcomers, and I think that could definitely hurt them in the long run.
Furthermore, I found that many Wikipedian’s overlook Wikipedia’s conduct and community guidelines, like “Be Nice” and “Assume Good Faith”, because they feel their personal interests are already in the best interest of the website. While I did not personally receive a ton of negative or aggressive commentary on my page, I do know a lot of my peers did. The lack of negative commentary did not mean I was receiving more encouraging feedback, instead, I simply received less feedback overall. I felt as if any user who interacted with my article completely overlooked the fact that I was a new member to the community.
I was reminded of the winner-take-all society discussion when thinking back on my experience with Wikipedia. The more feedback I received, the less welcome I felt. I almost felt like existing users were using their power to make more aggressive decisions, instead of using that power be more helpful. The more I used Wikipedia, the more I felt like a newcomer, and the more separated I felt from existing, dominant users.
One thing that I do commend is Wikipedia’s creation of WikiLove, in which users can spread kindness and appreciation to one another. While I know there is controversy over its usage, I think Wikipedia could use more applications like that on its site to promote socialization with both existing users and newcomers. I really enjoyed being able to thank someone who had contributed to my page by sending them a cute picture of an animal and writing a little note to them.
Kraut and Resnick write that when newcomers have friendly interactions with existing community members soon after joining a community, they are more likely to stay together and contribute more. I think Wikipedia used this information to create the Teahouse. However, in doing so, Wikipedia overlooked the importance of creating ongoing friendly interactions between existing members and newer members.
While moderators are quick to intervene on Wikipedia, they need to learn how to do so more gracefully. Instead of asking for speedy deletion, they should instead try to understand what the writer's aim was, and maybe give them advice for how to write according to Wikipedia’s guidelines.
I definitely appreciate that this class pushed me out of my comfort zone. None of my other classes have pushed me to enter a big, public community like Wikipedia and interact with it so consistently. It was nice learning about Wikipedia, because I can apply both the positives and negatives I found to other online communities in the future. Who knows, maybe one day I might even try to create my own community, and I can learn from Wikipedia’s mistakes.