User:Smfredd/reflection

Public school taught me to fear Wikipedia. As a student just beginning analytical research in junior high and high school, using Wikipedia in a research paper or presentation was a sure way to end up with a low grade, if not failing, for not finding "reputable" or "scholarly" research. It was that idea that carried with me up until recently when I still considered myself an "outsider" to the Wikipedia community. However now I can firmly say I consider myself not only a member of the community, but look at my beginnings with Wikipedia fondly. Not only do I think that my introduction to the Wikipedia community was made easy and enjoyable by how the community welcomes newcomers, but also by the classroom-type community I first began with that readied me for real editing.

When I was introduced to the Wikipedia assignment within our Online Communities class, my overall first impression was being overwhelmed. From learning the do’s and don’ts of the community, to choosing a topic and having to learn how to actually edit an encyclopedia page, Wikipedia was daunting. Even the motto of “Be Bold” seemed daunting to me. As an outsider trying to break into this very tight-knit and long-standing community, I did not want to seem like a nuisance. Nor did I want to forgo asking questions to risk violating norms and ethics in the community. However due to the design of the community, including the in-depth pages that explained every in and out of Wikipedia and the classroom setting, I was able to comfortably get into editing, and chose to create a page on Italian Designer Giovanni Pintori.

One thing that really made my introduction into the community smooth was the Wikipedia Training For Student. Not only did this go over certain principles such as the Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Notability, but also a general introduction to editing itself. I found this to be a great way for Wikipedia to ensure that users who were acting out of extrinsic motivation (due to class requirements) had a more in-depth overview of the ethics and norms than someone acting out of intrinsic motivation. With hope that these motives would move from extrinsic to intrinsic, in the meanwhile this introduction was a way of welcoming new members, and also showing appropriate standards. When discussing regulating behavior Kraut & Resnick (2011) stated that when appropriate examples of behavior are shown, members are more likely to follow those behaviors and engage in the community . This was in my experience a way to not only learn the norms and actual skills, but made editing seem less intimidating. Furthermore Wikipedia itself gave off an impression that it really did want new members, not only with its educational classroom module, but also references such as Please Don't Bite the Newbies. This is only one page out of many behavioral guidelines, all of which not only lay out Wikipedia ethics and practice for new members but also gave me the encouragement to be able to edit.

In addition to the Wikipedia classroom acting as an ease-in to the community, it also gave me a type of bonds connection—I was not just a new editor, I was part of an academic classroom that reflected on more than just myself. In addition design claims from Kraut & Resnick (2011), they state that being identifiable makes someone less likely to misbehave to save reputation . Being a member of the educational Wikipedia community gave me a bond to the site that not all new editors have, and was more motivation to abide by regulations and add value to the community. Another somewhat daunting task in adding an article to Wikipedia was to actually choose an article, and then declare it good for notability. The page that really saved me here was the Wikipedia:Requested Articles page, allowed me to not only see what article already qualified under notability, but focus to a genre based on my interests.

After doing a rough draft of sorts in my sandbox and then moving my page onto Wikipedia, the next step that came was editing, and the editing of my article by strangers was something that probably worried me the most. We have learned this semester that Wikipedia works on good faith and within collaborative culture. Research by Reagle (2010) covered collaborative culture as “a set of assumptions, values, meanings, and actions pertaining to working together within a community”, as well as the notion of participatory culture, which has fans as the sole consumers who create their own community . It is through these theories surrounding Wikipedia that I saw the collaboration of editing my article, since there were at times complete strangers editing my article, although they were most often experienced Wikipedians. Most of the edits were grammatical and/or citations, especially in terms of templates. For example, a “Dif”, or difference in edits made by other Wiki users can be seen Here. Most of the edits here are citation edits, for example a change in publisher for one of the books, as well as the addition of Literature and External Links sections. This was only the editing that took place over about ten days, and happened very recently. However in going back to the history even further to October, there were even more edits made that helped my article become a true part of Wikipedia. For example, the first edit that was not made by myself was on October 21, when my article was categorized as an orphan, as well as listed as uncategorized in general. These edits allowed me to not only find out what an orphan was, as well as being uncategorized, but also lead me to resources in Wikipedia that helped me categorize my article. When I went back to make sure my article was not an orphan, I even saw in the history that editor User:Astapor12 (Thank you!) had already made sure my article was not an orphan. This user stated on their user page that they were focused on adding categories and making sure article are not orphans, since Wikipedia should be like a web, including links to other articles for increased access to other articles.

The fact that edits were made by someone other than myself, and that these edits helped rather than hurt, made me really believe in Wikipedia’s collaborative culture, and that the users who edited my page were doing so out of good faith. The edits in particular that did things such as edit literature, add Wikipedia links, and make sure my article was not an orphan were ways that users outside of myself were making my article a better addition to Wikipedia. I never encountered anyone who had a problem with the article, nor did any of the edits seem to lower the quality of my article. This furthered the notion that Wikipedia not only has some incredibly dedicated users, but that they act out for the better of the community to improve upon the encyclopedia as a whole.

What I found in editing Wikipedia was against everything I was originally afraid of. I was afraid of trying to break into a community where I did not think I belonged. I was concerned that experienced users would look down on my work as I tried to get my article off the ground. However I found nothing more than helpful collaboration, and I took these edits made by other users as a form of encouragement and was likely to reciprocate with gratitude such as thanking the contributor or Wikilove. Granted, I did not receive any harsh criticism, nor did anyone try to contest the validity or notability of my article, so my experience can definitely differ from other new users.

The community of Wikipedia is a unique and well-rounded community due to its governance and moderation. Despite the open edit form that allows anyone with internet access to edit, Wikipedia remains free from the majority of vandals. According to Grimmelmann (2015), this lies in moderation of the community and the commitments that users uphold. Having an open community like Wikipedia has caused other forums to crash and burn; however this is the reason Wikipedia ultimately succeeded. The members use consensus and communication to solve problems within the community that would otherwise need to be reviewed by a larger leader . Wikipedia keeps its norms and standards through intrinsic motivation by editors that edit simply to further the goals of the community. In my short experience with editing, this is one of the reasons I have felt so at ease as I joined the community. This is not to say that Wikipedia is void of criticism and that members do not face discouragement, however the way Wikipedia is moderated, and assumes good faith, it seems these criticisms are more than often dealt with on talk pages that ultimately end in a resolve.

Overall my experience in editing Wikipedia has been the opposite of what I expected. Not that I was expecting harsh criticism or even mal intent, however the way Wikipedia welcomes new users, particularly those in the education forum, makes the transition that much easier. It went from being an overwhelming task where I had no idea where to begin, to an easy introduction that lead to the creation of an article. Wikipedia works based off of the user commitment to the community itself, and users, whether new or old, are welcome to contribute to that goal of being bold.