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 Five Pillars of Wikipedia 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 (p. 143). 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 (p. 161). 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 (paragraph 8). 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.