Newb, newbie and n00b all share the same negative connotation of being novice at a specific skill. Months ago, I considered myself to be a newbie at Wikipedia. Though I am an avid reader of its content, I scarcely doubt any of the information I find, and therefore have not had the desire to edit or make any contribution of my own. Because of my unfamiliarity, it was daunting to think that I would be expected not only to research and write an article, but to also understand the Wikipedia community etiquette. My idea of this project was that instantly after my first live posting, I would be tagged and my article would be deleted within seconds. In reality, I was given a comfortable space to learn, constructive feedback from Wikipedians, and even some Wikilove.
When starting out on Wikipedia, I was thankful for the multiple tutorial videos that were available for newcomers. These short instructional bits of information allowed me to feel more comfortable with using the site, before being active on it. However, the videos simply presented the most basic introduction to Wikipedia and I still did not feel confident enough to begin writing my own article in public space. It was through the sandbox feature that I began to play around with various techniques such as linking to internal and external articles, creating a citation, and even writing a phrase in italics. As Kraut and Resnick (2012) suggest, “sandboxes both speed up the learning process for newcomers and reduce the harm to the community that newcomers might otherwise cause” (219). In my sandbox, I felt comfortable practicing editing techniques and was not concerned with making mistakes. Had I began this process on the live website, I would have been more cautious and not learned as much, I also would have made mistakes in an open environment which would probably have resulted in a deletion.
Once I began to feel comfortable and confident in my editing skills, I moved my extremely rough draft into the public space on Wikipedia. In retrospect, I wish I had waited until I had compiled more information before I posted this version. One particular issue with the version I first posted was that the sources were primarily from the Northeastern Archives. I chose many valuable pieces from the archives, however, some of the articles I used were written by a primary source. This, along with the minimal information I had thus far, motivated someone to flag a number of aspects of my article. Within days of my article being live I received a “speedy deletion” tag, an “orphan” tag, and a copyright tag. As a newbie, this was my biggest fear. I reached out to the individual who tagged me, and his response was friendly and cordial, he explained that he would help me polish up my article. Though I was uncomfortable with the flagging situation, this supervision done by other Wikipedians impacted my understanding of the necessary criteria for an article. Kraut and Reskick (2012) suggest, “moderation systems that prescreen, degrade, label, or remove inappropriate messages limit the damage those messages cause” (p. 132). Though this article was not technically a message, its lack of information could be damaging to the public’s perception of the Chinese Progressive Association. Despite feeling uneasy about having my article tagged, this system is beneficial for regulating the notability and importance of each article on Wikipedia. This ensures tat Wikipedia remains an accurate and reliable online encyclopedia.
After being flagged for numerous Wikipedia “offenses,” I quickly began adding in all of the research that I complied into the article. I added a number of categories [1] in order to ensure the article would not be a an orphan. I also sought out more diverse references and focused less on the archives. After cleaning up my article, I received more feedback from yet another user, Carrite, who disagreed with the user who flagged my article and voted to keep it. Carrite wrote, “disgusting example of tag bombing, I’ll be back to fix that tomorrow when I have time to edit.” Thanks, Carrite!
This friendly response I received from this user, made me feel as though I was an important member of the Wikipedia community. I anticipated my article to be flagged, since I was still such a new user, however, Carrite’s support made me feel as though I was contributing something valuable, which made me more confident in my Wikipedia skills. This phenomenon is described by Kraut and Resnick (2012), “when newcomers have friendly interactions with existing community members soon after joining a community, they are more likely to stay longer and contribute more” (208). Despite having an experience with what could be considered tag bombing from one user, when another chose to support me, I immediately felt as though I was a valued contributor of Wikipedia. When the first user flagged my page, I assumed this was the Wikipedia norm. I thought that it was common for all newcomers to immediately receive negative feedback on their first article. Then, when Carrite voted to support me, I thought to myself that maybe that was a norm of Wikipedia, that community members back each other up and provide help. However, after this whole experience I realized that the real norm of Wikipedia is not the support or criticism you receive, rather, it is the collaboration and debating that goes on behind the scenes. This is what makes Wikipedia the successful community that it is. Everyone has a part and information is constantly debated within the community in order to ensure that Wikipedia’s codes of contact are being followed.
After these debates and disagreements ensued, I worked on meeting all of the necessary criteria for a perfect Wikipedia article. I edited the page to include more internal and external links throughout the body. I also cleaned up the wording, added more outside sources and made slight changes in the format. Amanda suggested useful searches necessary to find the information I was looking for. Also, Latifa provided me with advice on how to format my references in a more organized way. With the help of the Wikipedia community, I was able to address many of the issues within my initial article to finally create my final product. While I may not consider myself a Wikipedian just yet, I do feel as though I experienced what it means to be one. In the future I plan to use the techniques I learned in class and apply them when I stumble across an article I disagree with or that may not meet the criteria for a Wikipedia article. Though I do not see myself seeking out articles that need help, I do plan to edit and make changes when they present themselves to me. Knowing now how much time and research goes into each article, I feel more appreciative that Wikipedia exists, and even though I am graduating college in a month, I am hopeful for its presence in the future!
Final Article: Chinese Progressive Association