User:TM21NU/Final Wikipedia Reflection

Goodbye for Now, Not Forever: My Reflection of My Experience on Wikipedia

I was scared that I didn’t belong to Wikipedia. I thought I could never contribute in a way that would benefit the site. My previous interactions were limited to finding quick celebrity facts. After being introduced to Wikipedia and Wikipedians, I realized that it could be a place for me. Wikipedia has implemented useful techniques to bring newcomers in and incentivize them to stay and behave. Unfortunately, my time on Wikipedia has not made it my new favorite community. But, after analyzing my experiences, I believe there are ways Wikipedia could convince me to become an avid member.

Wikipedia's Designs

Wikipedians have an average life cycle. Before this class, I was WikiInfant with little knowledge of Wikipedia past browsing it. My recent experience on Wikipedia has turned me into a WikiChild with a focus on entertainment-related articles. Kraut et al claim that “providing potential new members with an accurate and complete picture of what the members’ experience will be once they join increases the fit of those who join.” While the Seven Stages of Wikipedians is more humorous than factual, it did accurately portray the life cycle of a Wikipedian, which made me more acquainted with what to expect.

The information for newcomers is not limited to that one article. Wikipedia is filled with helpful articles providing tips and tricks on how to edit, including “Help:Cheatsheet” and “Help:Wikitext.” These articles can help WikiChildren quickly become experienced. Referring to these cheat sheets helped me understand how to edit without being told to RTFM by a more experienced user.

New Wikipedians can become acquainted with these tools in their sandbox. “Sandboxes both speed up the learning process for newcomers and reduce the harm to the community that newcomers might otherwise cause”. Wikipedians can practice their skills in their own private area of Wikipedia. Using my sandbox instead of directly editing on pages made me feel more confident. Using my sandbox felt like free work rather than stressful micromanaging.

But, even if I did directly edit, I wouldn’t get the harsh judgment I assume I would get. Wikipedians practice Kraut et al’s claim that “explicitly discouraging hostility toward newcomers who make mistakes can promote friendly initial interactions between newcomers and old-timers.” With rules like “don’t bite the newcomers” and the quintessential rule “assume good faith,” older WikiAdults are taught that “communicating with newcomers patiently and thoroughly is integral to ensure they stay on Wikipedia and ultimately contribute in a constructive manner”. I am not as scared to edit articles because I know more experienced users will hopefully be patient with my editing. Wikipedia’s design lends itself to cooperation and effective moderation that will eventually turn me into a WikiAdult.

Wikipedia is an ex-post community, meaning it is designed to “[use] their powers to punish evildoers and set right that which has gone wrong…and conserve resources by directing moderators’ attention only where it is needed”. Wikipedia relies on Wikipedians to punish and moderate, which Grimmelman describes as “soft security.” This works through “‘group dynamics rather than hard-coded limits’ in a massive community with millions of members.” Wikipedia’s vast range of articles and users would make it difficult for a single moderator or AI to accurately assess the wrongdoing of community members. Wikipedia uses its “community [to] solve problems that official leaders wouldn’t even know were there.”

I most likely made some mistakes in my editing process, as I am human. Even though Wikipedians write NPOV articles that are precise and explicit, the creation and editing of Wikipedia articles is innately human. Thus, Wikipedia need other humans that understand the nuances of different content, styles, and rules to make an accurate judgment of others. When users make mistakes or don’t follow the rules, you need other humans who understand the norms to keep them intact.

Manual moderators are also human, so Wikipedia has made both editing and moderation transparent. Wikipedia is all about openness. When I want to make an edit on my talk page, Wikipedia tracks it. If I want to send someone WikiLove, it appears in my contributions. While non-Wikipedians might be turned off by the transparency, Grimmelman states “Wikipedia’s openness isn’t a mistake; it’s the source of its success.” The ex-post, manual, and transparent way that Wikipedia moderates is unusual for other communities, but it is what “holds Wikipedia together.” This togetherness is built into most aspects of the site.

Wikipedia implements community building even during member disputes. The idea of “consensus” is a large part of Wikipedian culture. As Reagle notes, “Wikipedians are supposed to discuss and reason together, making use of verifiable sources and assuming good faith,” meaning all opinions should be heard and considered. This is implemented in Wikipedia’s consensus policy which states “achieving consensus requires serious treatment of every group member’s considered opinion…. in the ideal case, those who wish to take up some action want to hear those who oppose it, because they count on the fact that the ensuing debate will improve the consensus.”

This can be applied to the final decision for an article edit, or to the extreme of banning/blocking members. If I were to get into a edit war on a WikiProject page, I have to listen to another Wikipedian’s opinions when deciding who leaves the final edit. If I were to lash out and go vandalize that Wikipedian’s user page, Wikipedians use consensus to decide if I’m banned or blocked. If they can’t reach consensus, my punishment is determined by the Arbitration Committee, the Wikimedia Foundation, or even Jimbo Wales himself. I think that is the beauty of Wikipedia. So many people are involved with your experience. From editing, WikiLove, or potentially being banned, other Wikipedians are more likely than not going to be there. Unfortunately, this assumption didn’t ring true for my own Wikipedia experience.

My Wikipedia Experience

I chose to create an article for Love Lies Bleeding (Ballet), a ballet performed by the Alberta Ballet Company based on the songs and life of Elton John. I was nervous that I wouldn’t have a good article and more expert Wikipedians would affect my experience. That was not the case. In my opinion, I crafted a “perfect” article. It was clear and neutral and provided a lot of information for my subject. But right before I was going to start uploading this reflection, I saw that my fear happened. Love Lies Bleeding (Ballet) was marked that it was written from a “fan’s point of view.” Instead of getting mass amounts of work deleted, like Suki or Mia, a random Wikipedian pushed a few buttons without leaving any reason why. This made me a tad peeved, especially since I’ve asked for help in the past.

Initially, I was trying to fly under the radar so I wouldn’t end up with an article that was completely redone. I realized that I lacked information about certain tour locations, so I asked in multiple talk pages for help, including the WikiProject:Dance. That project didn’t have much conversation on the talk page. People would ask questions and get ignored. I kept trying to get noticed by adding categories, but random bots to come in and delete my work. Then, I get two templates saying my work doesn’t comply with NPOV, with no indication on how to fix it from the Wikipedian who put the templates there. Did the lack of help ruin my experience with Wikipedia? Of course not. My perceptions of Wikipedia have changed for the better. I just wish this WikiChild got a little more direct help from the WikiAdults around her.

What Wikipedia Could Do For Me

While my feelings for Wikipedia have become more positive, it hasn’t become my favorite place to hang out on the internet. Wikipedia is the people’s encyclopedia, not TM21NU’s. Before editing Love Lies Bleeding (Ballet), I wasn’t attracted to the idea of editing. If Wikipedia “emphasized the number of people already participating in the community” or used “recruiting materials with endorsements by celebrities to attract people,” I might have joined the Wikipedia editing community sooner. If I found out someone like Zendaya had a couple of barnstars, I certainly would have given editing a shot!

If Wikipedia wants to keep me contributing, I think “asking people to perform tasks that interest them…and asking specific people to make contributions” is the way to do it. Wikipedia is very transparent about how much it keeps track of Wikipedian’s activities. Using a system to track the types of articles people are editing to then push them to edit more articles would persuade me to edit more. If Wikipedia knows that I spent a lot of time editing Love Lies Bleeding (Ballet), maybe it should give me a recommended article that relates to dancing, Elton John, or even Canada. It would personalize the Wikipedia experience for me and encourage me to edit more articles.

Once I edit more articles, rewarding me for doing so would keep me more motivated. While Kohn claims intrinsic motivation is the way to go, rewarding me after editing a new article might be a healthy extrinsic motivator. Instead of Wikipedia telling me I’ll get rewarded for editing Love Lies Bleeding (Ballet), they should give me a star for doing so. Wikipedia does do this by letting users show their accomplishments on their user page, but maybe these awards should be more commonplace.

I believe that Wikipedia is doing its best for regulating vandals. Using community consensus keeps me from deterring from the rules. Knowing that a person behind a screen is hurting due to my actions makes me want to do well. If a faceless AI was determining my punishment, I wouldn’t be as scared to piss off a Wikipedian who could have told me my edits were bad. This could lead to fights with gamer level language, so I think consensus to determine wrongdoing is working in their favor.

Do I think Wikipedia needs to change for me? Absolutely not. Wikipedia is an established community that has many dedicated users. The community on Wikipedia is something I have never seen on any other platform. After this class ends, I can see myself making edits on those celebrity pages I used to browse during my WikiInfant days. But as a potential WikiAdult, I want to better my habits to be a better Wikipedian. I’m glad that a random ballet from Alberta was the subject to make that happen.