Wikipedia Contribution Reflection
Working on Wikipedia was something that I never expected to do. My only experience with it prior to taking Online Communities was using it to learn the basics about things I knew little about. I knew that anyone could edit any page and that it had a stigma of not being scholarly. But what I didn’t know was that Wikipedia was a community. People work together to make the site as informative as possible and users recognize each other for their contributions to create a space that’s both constructive and civil. Based on Wikipedia’s goal for itself and how it sets up an easy-to-use space, the users in the space will continue to grow the community from within by continuing to do what they’re already doing. The ways in which newcomers are treated and welcomed to the community, tactics used for moderation, and effective governance in the community create a space where Wikipedia can flourish for years to come.
In such an expansive community, it would be easy to blame newcomers for any hiccups that are caused by people that are new to the Wikipedia community. While some spaces might find it simple to give new users little to no guidance in using the site, Wikipedia goes above and beyond to assimilate newcomers as quickly as possible so that their joining the community is cohesive. I was impressed with my first experience using Wikipedia. By going through a tutorial explaining the basics of what Wikipedia is and how to use it, I felt comfortable right away when I first started exploring the site as a member, rather than I previously had as a visitor. The tutorial teaches newcomers early what goes into creating a Wikipedia article and the best practices to contribute right away.
Despite Wikipedia’s efforts to make all newcomers functioning members of the community, not all users are going to assimilate right away and will need some additional guidance. I found that, even though I felt good about using Wikipedia after the tutorial, I didn’t have as good a grasp on using the site as I thought I had. When I submitted my [ draft[ dead link] of the Ted Landsmark article, I tried to completely rework it rather than build off of [ already existed]. When this didn’t work out as I’d hoped, it was discouraging to have the article by rejected and placed back in my sandbox. Since the site was able to recognize that I needed some help in making the changes that I wanted to make, Wikipedia recommended I look at the [ [1][ dead link] to refresh myself on what’s required to have an article published. After reading feedback from another Wikipedian and from my classmate, Sam, I made my changes to the existing Ted Landsmark page and was able to publish an entirely new section.
Across most online communities, there are people who look to disrupt the site by being annoying and distracting other users from the task at hand. Trolls have no other objective than to bug users for their own enjoyment. In “The virtues of moderation,” James Grimmelmann states that productivity is central to an online space like Wikipedia. The main goal of Wikipedians is to create a productive environment where users are dedicated to the common goal of making the site better. When outsiders come in with the intention of distracting from that goal, it can be frustrating to those who work to “distribute valuable information”. Since trolls are so common across the internet, Wikipedia is active in finding trolls within the site and limiting the distraction that they can cause. Most of this is due to self-moderation. The power to moderate the site is in the hands of its users and, if they want trolling to be limited and have productivity reign, users must recognize trolling when it happens and be responsible enough to report it.
While trolling can be easy to see, Grimmelmann brings up another abuse of online communities that requires users to regulate the space. Manipulation can be seen across Wikipedia as people with hard-set ideologies ignore the opinions and beliefs of others on talk pages. Users that actively disagree with others have the ability to edit and delete information on pages that they personally think doesn’t belong. Each user is allowed to bring their own ideologies to the table, but the failure to recognize the ideas of others is detrimental to a community and, in Wikipedia’s case, can hinder the productivity of the site. There are steps that users can take to decrease these cases, but it is up to moderators to make sure that the site doesn’t take too big of a hit when an angry user feels the need to take away from others in the community.
When respectful requests for users to behave more like is intended on the site are ignored, bans are administered to preserve the integrity of the site. [ types of bans] are doled out on Wikipedia based on the types of offenses that users commit. Site bans keep users from editing any content on the site, an article or page ban will prevent a user from interacting with a specific page on which they’ve been disruptive, a topic ban will keep a user away from any page under a specific topic, and an interaction ban prohibits two users from interacting with each other on any talk page. These bans are the strongest part of Wikipedia’s governance and go a long way in keeping the focus of the site on productivity rather than the individuals who feel the need to stir the pot.
All of these factors have been interesting, if not present, in my experience on Wikipedia in just four months. The focus on productivity and the steps that are taken to preserve that showed me early on that users take Wikipedia seriously and that there is an expectation that all users will buy into the sentiment that has been set. My experience as a newcomer gave me confidence to publish my article once I’d learned exactly what’s expected throughout the community. While I never had to deal with a ban or a troll, it was reassuring to know that, if someone were to try to troll me, there was strategies in place for the community to deal with the problem on my behalf. Contributing to Wikipedia was something that I never expected or really desired to do, but having learned about the community as a whole, it’s something that I value more than I did before experiencing what the community is like.
Wikipedia Contribution Reflection
Working on Wikipedia was something that I never expected to do. My only experience with it prior to taking Online Communities was using it to learn the basics about things I knew little about. I knew that anyone could edit any page and that it had a stigma of not being scholarly. But what I didn’t know was that Wikipedia was a community. People work together to make the site as informative as possible and users recognize each other for their contributions to create a space that’s both constructive and civil. Based on Wikipedia’s goal for itself and how it sets up an easy-to-use space, the users in the space will continue to grow the community from within by continuing to do what they’re already doing. The ways in which newcomers are treated and welcomed to the community, tactics used for moderation, and effective governance in the community create a space where Wikipedia can flourish for years to come.
In such an expansive community, it would be easy to blame newcomers for any hiccups that are caused by people that are new to the Wikipedia community. While some spaces might find it simple to give new users little to no guidance in using the site, Wikipedia goes above and beyond to assimilate newcomers as quickly as possible so that their joining the community is cohesive. I was impressed with my first experience using Wikipedia. By going through a tutorial explaining the basics of what Wikipedia is and how to use it, I felt comfortable right away when I first started exploring the site as a member, rather than I previously had as a visitor. The tutorial teaches newcomers early what goes into creating a Wikipedia article and the best practices to contribute right away.
Despite Wikipedia’s efforts to make all newcomers functioning members of the community, not all users are going to assimilate right away and will need some additional guidance. I found that, even though I felt good about using Wikipedia after the tutorial, I didn’t have as good a grasp on using the site as I thought I had. When I submitted my [ draft[ dead link] of the Ted Landsmark article, I tried to completely rework it rather than build off of [ already existed]. When this didn’t work out as I’d hoped, it was discouraging to have the article by rejected and placed back in my sandbox. Since the site was able to recognize that I needed some help in making the changes that I wanted to make, Wikipedia recommended I look at the [ [1][ dead link] to refresh myself on what’s required to have an article published. After reading feedback from another Wikipedian and from my classmate, Sam, I made my changes to the existing Ted Landsmark page and was able to publish an entirely new section.
Across most online communities, there are people who look to disrupt the site by being annoying and distracting other users from the task at hand. Trolls have no other objective than to bug users for their own enjoyment. In “The virtues of moderation,” James Grimmelmann states that productivity is central to an online space like Wikipedia. The main goal of Wikipedians is to create a productive environment where users are dedicated to the common goal of making the site better. When outsiders come in with the intention of distracting from that goal, it can be frustrating to those who work to “distribute valuable information”. Since trolls are so common across the internet, Wikipedia is active in finding trolls within the site and limiting the distraction that they can cause. Most of this is due to self-moderation. The power to moderate the site is in the hands of its users and, if they want trolling to be limited and have productivity reign, users must recognize trolling when it happens and be responsible enough to report it.
While trolling can be easy to see, Grimmelmann brings up another abuse of online communities that requires users to regulate the space. Manipulation can be seen across Wikipedia as people with hard-set ideologies ignore the opinions and beliefs of others on talk pages. Users that actively disagree with others have the ability to edit and delete information on pages that they personally think doesn’t belong. Each user is allowed to bring their own ideologies to the table, but the failure to recognize the ideas of others is detrimental to a community and, in Wikipedia’s case, can hinder the productivity of the site. There are steps that users can take to decrease these cases, but it is up to moderators to make sure that the site doesn’t take too big of a hit when an angry user feels the need to take away from others in the community.
When respectful requests for users to behave more like is intended on the site are ignored, bans are administered to preserve the integrity of the site. [ types of bans] are doled out on Wikipedia based on the types of offenses that users commit. Site bans keep users from editing any content on the site, an article or page ban will prevent a user from interacting with a specific page on which they’ve been disruptive, a topic ban will keep a user away from any page under a specific topic, and an interaction ban prohibits two users from interacting with each other on any talk page. These bans are the strongest part of Wikipedia’s governance and go a long way in keeping the focus of the site on productivity rather than the individuals who feel the need to stir the pot.
All of these factors have been interesting, if not present, in my experience on Wikipedia in just four months. The focus on productivity and the steps that are taken to preserve that showed me early on that users take Wikipedia seriously and that there is an expectation that all users will buy into the sentiment that has been set. My experience as a newcomer gave me confidence to publish my article once I’d learned exactly what’s expected throughout the community. While I never had to deal with a ban or a troll, it was reassuring to know that, if someone were to try to troll me, there was strategies in place for the community to deal with the problem on my behalf. Contributing to Wikipedia was something that I never expected or really desired to do, but having learned about the community as a whole, it’s something that I value more than I did before experiencing what the community is like.