My first impression of Wikipedia was more or less negative. I was scared to begin the project as I felt like the design mechanism of Wikipedia was unfamiliar to me. However, at the end of this project I would like to admit it was not as hard as I expected it to be and at the end of the day I actually enjoyed working on the project. In this reflection paper, I will analyze the difficulties faced by me to adapt to an unfamiliar design mechanism and further to actually being accepted into the Wikipedia community as a newcomer.
As a technologically challenged person, I was genuinely frightened to start Wikipedia as I realized the format to edit text was something different than I was used to. So once I began editing on my sandbox, needless to say I was confused. I did not really understand the purpose of having a sandbox. As I was new to Wikipedia, I was unaware of its rules of other Wikipedians being able to edit my work if it were in a public space. As I worked more and more on the project I realized the point the book “Building Successful Online Communities” makes when the authors describe this function as “sandboxes both speed up the learning process for newcomers and reduce the harm to the community that newcomers might otherwise cause (219). I agree with that completely and would have probably not been able to do my article in bits and pieces, collecting the information slowly if it were to exist in a public space. Other Wikipedian’s would have attacked my article and further more, I feel by using a sandbox gave me a chance to test the water. I got slightly accustomed to Wikipedia and all it’s editing rules – something that I was petrified of at first. The authors, Kraut and Resnick describe a sandbox is “safe and isolated area for exploration and skill development (218)”. The sandbox is the place where I would say I began adapting to Wikipedia.
However, personally, I wished something like a privacy button as seen on Facebook existed and I could make my article public once it was ready to be moved into a public space. I wish Wikipedia had used an easier and more modern format for editing. As in “Building Successful Online Communities” Kraut and Resnick state, “Professional site design increases expectations about the probability of success” (266). I feel if the edit format were easier, I would have maybe even encouraged my other friends to edit pages of interest to them. Now that I have learnt the way Wikipedia works, I would love to edit the page of Peshawari Chappal, as it is my favorite shoe. The Wikipedia page hardly consists of any information and I would love to increase the information on it as a highly accomplished designer, Paul Baker just copied it. I know my friends, especially my mother, would love to edit and create pages on subjects they feel they are passionate about, however the process of learning Wikipedia in my opinion is a hassle and they would never join just because of this mere reason. Even if Facebook were as hard as this to get accustomed to, I would personally never have joined.
Moving forward, once I did get accustomed to Wikipedia and my article moved to the public space, I was scared of the reaction I would receive from other wikipedians as a newcomer. I expected to get eaten alive, however to my surprise I received nothing but help from fellow wikipedians. They helped me make my article better and did not over criticize me – something I was afraid of. Two other wikipedians came to my page and reordered my sections and fixed my spelling mistakes. As Kraut and Resnick say, “Participation by professional staff can help attract people to an online space” (262). I agree with this statement as getting help from other experienced wikipedians gave me self confidence to make my article better and also gave me a sense of comfort to be a part of a community where I felt like a stranger – something I do not feel like on other online communities I am a part of. Furthermore, the talk page feature of Wikipedia is a really good feature that I feel really helps once interact with other wikipedians who edited my page and I got to ask them my mistakes and have actual conversations about the article. The book “Building Successful Online Communities” also encourages this feature in the statement “Encouraging newcomers to reveal themselves publicly in profiles or introduction threads gives existing group members a basis for conversation and reciprocation with them and increases interaction between old timers and newcomers” (209).
To conclude, I would like to reflect back and say that to use Wikipedia actually turned out to be much easier than I expected. Unlike my prior assumptions, today I actually feel like a wikipedian as much as I feel like a Facebooker. I feel comfortable using it and feel like a part of the community. And the bonus is, that unlike after using other online networks, one actually feels accomplished after having become a wikipedian. I felt so proud when my article showed up on Google. Wikipedia surely does provide it’s user with intrinsic motivation, something that I completely lacked at the beginning of this project. However, as mentioned above, I would be more likely to come back and even recommend Wikipedia to others if it consisted of an easy design edit mechanism. For me, that is the most important thing I look for in a community before I join. If it isn’t easy enough for me to get accustomed to, I usually don’t go back and that is how I currently feel towards Wikipedia.
References
Kraut, R.E. and Resnick, P. (2012). Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-Based Social Design. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.