Creating my own Wikipedia article was a daunting task. Initially, I struggled with finding a topic that did not have an existing page, and also had a good number of reputable sources that provided enough information to create a page. Once I tackled the hurdle of finding a topic, I then had to learn how to be a valuable contributor to Wikipedia. I was prepared for some newcomer hazing and made sure I was well informed about the norms on Wikipedia. Throughout the semester, we have learned what it takes to be an effective member of an online community and the downside of being a newcomer to communities. These topics and discussions played a key role in my success as a member of the Wikipedia community.
Writing for Wikipedia is unlike most writing within the Communication field. In order to produce an effective article, as explained by Wikipedia's “The Perfect Article,” the information must be presented in a clear, non-biased manner. The article should be engaging, and most importantly, it should not be an “orphan” article. In order to prevent this, the article must branch out and connect to other pre-existing articles within the community. “Perfect” articles require reputable sources and precise content. Overall, the basis of the ‘perfect” Wikipedia article is similar to any other paper written in the field of communications, however, there are a few differences that are quite important.
I chose to create an article that did not already exist, which was more of a challenge than I had expected. The main obstacles I faced were adopting the Wikipedia style of writing and learning how to properly cite articles and other sources. The other main barrier was creating an article without repeating information that was available though other existing pages. I had to navigate this while still maintaining a substantial amount of content to produce a successful article. I also faced the stigma associated with being a “newcomer.” Kraut and Resnick (2011) state, “Design Claim 11: 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.” [1] This reminds me of the tutorial I completed before starting my Wiki page. The tutorial outlined the components that were necessary for creating a “perfect” article, however, the tutorial never addresses how to interact as a member of this community. Established Wikipedians can be very territorial over their community and some of them do not take well to newcomers. However, in order for communities to remain in existence, they must not only retain members, but they must gain new ones as well. "Overall, ensuring that new recruits match the style and values of an online community will lead them to stay longer and be more satisfied with their membership." [1] So, it is in the interest of the established members to teach the newcomers on how to become successful members of the new community.
I experienced newcomer hazing after moving my article out of the sandbox. Roughly two days after posting the article, a user removed the majority of the content and tagged it as plagiarism. I did not intentionally plagiarize and made sure to properly cite when necessary, so I was very frustrated when I saw this. While I appreciated that someone was patrolling new articles, deleting half on my content was not helpful at all. It was as if this user was trolling my article. Since I knew that my work was not plagiarized, I tried to alter the writing so that it appeared to be less biased in hopes that this would satisfy the requirements. Within a day of posting the updated content, this user once again removed it. This time, however, he left me a message on my talk page [1].
While I appreciated this user taking the time to write to me on my talk page, I was still quite frustrated. It seemed like he was almost mocking me. The user outlined all of the Wikipedia basics, which was helpful, however, he still did not clarify why he removed so much content. Clearly I know how to use Wikipedia to a certain extent, because I created this page. I felt like this user was attacking me for things I had not done.
JesseRafe also brought up an interesting point about my identity and how he had thoughts about my potential connections with Momofuku based on the tone of my writing. This reminded me of the social breeching experiment and false accounts on various sites such as Wikipedia as well as Facebook. “Design Claim 25: Verified identities and pictures reduce the incidence of norm violations" [1]. I was taken by surprise when he mentioned this because I couldn’t see why he would think that. However, many of the issues presented on Wikipedia are related to false accounts or people that change content for comical purposes. I think it is easier to do this on a site like Wikipedia since users do not have to have a very thorough profile to be a contributor. There are no profile pictures and once you create an account, you can make all the changes you want. To back this up, Kraut and Resnick’s design claim 28 can be applied, “Increasing the benefits of participating with a long-term identifier increases the community’s ability to sanction misbehavior” [1]. In order to gain insight from user JesseRafe, and to prevent my article from being flagged for deletion, I needed to connect with him and prove to him that I was not affiliated with the restaurant and that my intentions were only to improve the encyclopedia. So I wrote back to him thanking him for his insight and dedication to Wikipedia and I also made sure to illustrate my role on Wikipedia. I explained to him that I was not affiliated with Momofuku and I was creating this page to broaden the encyclopedia and to complete a college course requirement. He didn’t seem to care about my course, which in hindsight is fair. I just wanted to prove to him that I was not a biased contributor and I had only good intentions.
After exchanging a few more messages with this user, and reading the suggestions from my classmates, it became clear what I needed to do in order to strengthen the page. I began to re-work some of the content that had been deleted. As stated previously, writing for an encyclopedia is much different than writing a paper within the field of communications. I condensed some of the wordier sections into one or two straightforward, non-biased sentences. I had all the information there; I just needed to take away the “fluff.” Through these minor edits, I was able to strengthen the voice of my Wikipedia page and give it a less biased tone.
I also spent some time working with AmandaRR123. She helped me condense some of my wordier sections into more concise sentences. Per her suggestion, I created a section in my article for publications and awards, however, JesseRafe did not agree with this addition. He immediately removed the headings for these sections, but left the content [2]. JesseRafe seemed to believe that these points did not deserve to have their own sections since there is only one point under each heading. However, I believe that the purpose of creating this page is to set it up so that it can grow. Hopefully he does not make any more changes to the structure of the page.
My contribution to Wikipedia has made me realize why so many professors are hesitant to allow students to use Wikipedia as a primary source for assignments. It is just as easy to create content, as it is to distort or delete it. Through this course on Online Communities, I was able to gain a better understanding of how to create meaningful and successful content for the Wikipedia community. This community is much different than the communities I normally contribute to such as Facebook and Instagram, so learning how to be a Wikipedian is something that will allow me to broaden my online community skills and interactions. Though the process was a tedious and at times frustrating, I am very proud of my contribution and success as a member of the Wikipedia community.