User:Reagle/HPP Questions

I've been following the work on the Harry Potter pages because of my studies of the Wikipedia and of course my interest in Harry Potter! :)

I have a few questions about contributions to the project. If you have the time your response might be included in a paper I will make public, so please let me know if I should use your Wikipedia "name" in any quotations or whether you would like that identity to be masked. In fact, feel free to edit and (optionally) sign your responses in-line. I have no proprietary claims when you responses! In fact I would prefer they're made public from the start; but, if you have a concern about that, I will certainly respect the confidentiality of what you share; you could send me email too. And, not only am I happy to share my results with you, but I welcome feedback on the draft when it is available.

Don't be put out by the questions and feel you have the answer every one perfectly and extensively. Really, I'm trying to start a conversation of sorts. Thanks for considering my request!

1. How do you see your own role in the project? How much and what kind of work do you do and why?
2. How do you think that differs from others or even yourself at a earlier period?
3. How does this role relate to other contributors? How is work coordinated, disagreements resolved, and a sense of coherence achieved in this small Wikipedia community? (Is it even achieved? Or is it just a lots of edits by many people?)

Responses

Sandpiper

1. How do you see your own role in the project? How much and what kind of work do you do and why?

A wolf flitting amongst the trees. I 'watch' articles which interest me, and from time to time contribute to others. I tend to concentrate on Snape, mostly because the entire last book was about him, but also because he has become the most uncertain character in the books, and very possibly pivotal to the final outcome (or not, of course we do not know, and it is that most of all which makes it interesting). My work on other articles tends to radiate out in issues affecting Snape. I have not put my name down as a member of the project; this was initially because while I thouroughly commend an effort to integrate and structure the HP articles, I do not necessarily consider myself in agreement with all of its policies, nor collectively bound by them. The project is just one view of how the HP articles should develop. Later perhaps, because formally joining a project is largely irrelevant except to indicate that the subject does have support. Anyone is entitled to edit any page - including pages describing aims of the project - and random people do exactly this. Sandpiper

1. How do you think that differs from others or even yourself at a earlier period?

I suspect that the whole of wiki is made up of people who watch and contribute to articles which interest them. Some people are more interested in contributing to an article, while others are interested in the management needs to organise and regulate wiki. Again, those that contribute to articles may be divided between those who add new facts, and those who work on structure and syntax, arranging facts into sensible order.Sandpiper

1. How does this role relate to other contributors? How is work coordinated, disagreements resolved, and a sense of coherence achieved in this small Wikipedia community? (Is it even achieved? Or is it just a lots of edits by many people?)

Perhaps wiki should have a motto on the lines of 'wisdom is forged in the fires of conflict'. Perhaps it does, it is wide and rambling. Who has looked at 800,000 articles? Wiki is anarchy personified. What happens to a page is solely up to the people who take an interest in it. If they all agree to write an article explaining how the moon is made of cheese, then that is what it will say. The structure is all about getting the best possible outcome when there is conflict. One person, isolated, can appeal to the wider community for assistance in the face of perceived nonsense or bias. But that is entirely general to all of wiki. The existence of this project page allows people to come together and invite comment/assistance/plan changes, but it is more a noticeboard than a grand council. It does perhaps serve as a collecting point for people who are interested in furthering HP articles, as distinct from those who feel that fiction has no place in an encyclopedia. I myself find that even those people whose view you disagree with most are likely to produce something which improves an article. Wikis biggest weakness is lack of an editorial view on subjects, especially things like fiction, where one of the things a reader is seeking is an experts view. Wiki does the best it can when no person can be appointed as senior editor. It arbitrates by means of content rules NOR and NPOV. NPOV strives to express all viewpoints on a disputed subject. Given goodwill, it is possible to accomodate most views of an article by fairly desribibg the world outside; some believe this, some believe that. NOR seeks to improve content by insisting on facts widely accepted in the outside world, not simply the views/opinions, or even careful research of its contributors. The trouble with this tool, is that some editors drive it very hard in attempting to resolve disputes, yet it is impossible to creat an original work (wiki must be an original work, otherwise it would simply by a 'copyright violation', a straight copy of something else) without doing research. Research, which in the outside academic world would be considered original. Sandpiper 01:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)