User:Kaylynn Nelson/Reflection Paper

Wikipedia Reflection

Intro: Like Riding A Bike

Contributing to Wikipedia was similar to learning how to ride a bicycle. At first, I used training wheels and had an uncomplicated time in the sandbox while writing my article. Once published, the training wheels were taken off, resulting in an admittedly shaky and a bit daunting process. However, all it took was a bit of practice and before I knew it I was performing tricks like applying Wikipedia shorthand to sign my contributions with four tildes. Likewise, those seemingly impossible citation formats became laughable, just as riding with one hand became effortless. Perhaps the biggest difference between the two experiences was that with one I had my older brother to support me, while the other one provided me access to an entire online community who assisted in the success of my article.

I've Got the Power!

For instance, when I first published my article, I was soon tagged to amend my citations so that they were congruent in form. I wasn’t frustrated that someone had instructed me to do so. On the contrary, I was happy that this incongruence was pointed out to me so that I could fix it myself. The power to rectify my own work was gratifying and allowed me to take pleasure in fixing it. Thus, I saw the feedback as constructive and felt in control of my article through the editing process. This feeling I had directly correlated with Kraut and Resnick's Design Claim 17, “creating immersive experiences with clear goals, feedback and challenges that exercise people’s skills to their limits but still leave them in control are intrinsically motivating” (p. 47).

Reciprocation

Conversely, other Wikipedians simply made edits instead of creating tags. I checked their corrections and not only agreed with them, but applied Wikipedia’s principal concept of “good faith” and believed them to have my article’s greatness be at the forefront of their mind during their correction process. In fact, in response to everyone who contributed to editing my Wikipedia article, I sent them a “public thanks” to let them know of my sincere appreciation. I did this because despite the fact that I’m using Wikipeida online, I still felt a societal pressure to reciprocate in some form the good deeds that were bestowed on my article. Robert. B. Cialdini describes this need to reciprocate as one of the “six basic tendencies of human behavior” and further defines it as a “norm that obligates individuals to repay in kind what they have received” (p. 76). This was definitely the case in my experience, and I learned later on that I could send fake foods as tokens of my appreciation as well. I viewed this as a useless and less sincere feature, and continued to send public thanks instead.

My Wiki Contribution

I searched through finding aids and old Boston Globe newspaper articles for the information I needed to create my very first Wikipedia page on Sara R. Ehrmann. Although I was extrinsically motivated to earn a good grade, the more I got to know my historical figure, the more I believed she deserved her own page. Thus, I was not only became intrinsically motivated, but I also began to view Ehrmann as notable and thus, worthy of having her biography published on the most popular online encyclopedia for all to see.

Due to the fact that Ehrmann was a civil rights activist, I decided to look up Rosa Parks wiki so I could use her page as a model when creating mine. This was extremely helpful in not just questions I had about proper format and structure, but also in describing a person I highly respected without showing bias toward her.

Commitment

According to Kraut and Resnick, there are three different types of commitment: affective, normative, and needs based (p. 78). While I believe that the knowledge of contributing to Wikipedia is a useful skill, my commitment to my article was primarily needs-based because I was incentivized to complete my article in order to benefit my grade in the class. Although I was never treated poorly by fellow Wikipedians, and in fact was always treated with respect, I never felt affectively committed because I didn’t get to know anyone to feel that necessary attachment that instills affective commitment. For similar reasons, I never felt a strong obligation to the Wikipedia community. However, I feel a stronger need to reciprocate likes on Facebook and Instagram with friends who’ve liked my pictures. This feeling is more immediate than the pressure I experienced on Wikipedians because I personally know these people and they’re not anonymous.

Conclusion

I was amazed at two things about the Wikipedia community: how clean it was and how respectful members behaved toward one another. As a new user, it at first appeared as though all discussions were held seemingly behind close doors. I assumed that now that I had my own account I would be plunged into this giant web of conversations, and I was confused when Wikipedia looked exactly the same as it had prior to my account. I learned that the talk pages of wikis were my portals to conversations. These conversations were always on topic and similarly, all edits were made with concise descriptions of why the correction was performed.

Likewise, all the conversation was had in a respectful manner that I got to experience firsthand. Not only did I always get back feedback promptly, but also when I did something wrong, I was always provided the shadow of the doubt that I might have known better or could easily amend the mistake. I was very appreciative of this attitude, and at no time ever felt as though my intelligence was questioned or challenged. Conversely, if someone told me to RTFM, despite the fact that the acronym “has been used for decades within computing and hacking culture,” I think I would have quietly walked away from my computer before braving to come back and further edit my article.

I think the reason Wikipedians treat each other so well is because of how clear the norms of the community are stated. According to Kraut and Resnick, users of a community learn norms in three ways: “observing others, reading a code of conduct, and directly receiving feedback” (p. 141). While there wasn’t much time for us to observe in the very beginning, we did read Wikipedia’s 5 Pillars that clearly stated the most important rules in order to behave correctly within the community. Additionally, feedback was always provided in a very direct and civil manner, which allowed me to learn about the proper way to interact. I did have time to observe the community more towards the end of the project, after I had published my article. At this time, I would receive notifications of other Wikipedian’s edits. Thus, I couldn’t agree with my Professor’s statement, “Wikis are wonderful repositories of a community’s practice and discourse”.