Wikipedia talk:Education program archive/Cornell University/Online Communities (Fall 2013)/Pocahontas (1995 film)
Group Reflection
edit1. Your contribution to the article in terms of the changes you have made in the article. Add details about content, formatting, style, organization, multimedia, links, etc. Describe where you got the information for these changes and what sources you used. Do you think the article now ready to move up from a C-Class to a B-Class? Why or why not?
Our group contributed to the Pocahontas (1995 Film) Wikipedia article. Our edits ranged from fairly small to extremely significant. On a smaller scale, we spent a significant amount of time fact-checking the entire article to ensure that all dates, plot details, production aspects, names of cast members, awards, etc., were correct. In doing so, we noticed that the “awards” chart needed a lot of revision. Many of the categories were placed in the recipient column, and vice versa. Editing this chart was a beneficial first task for our group because it was a way for us to become comfortable with the wiki-markup and the process of editing without making any substantial changes. In order to make the appropriate edits to the awards chart we revisited the sources originally cited by the Wikipedians who had created the chart in the first place.
Our major contributions were the Historical Inaccuracies section and the Response/Criticism section. The sources we consulted for Historical Inaccuracies were: An article from Powhatan.org entitled “The Pocahontas Myth,” an article from Time Magazine entitled “Top 10 Disney Controversies,” a Stanford University research article by Stan Birchfield, a teaching tool from the Stanford University History Education Group, and finally an article entitled “History of Jamestown” from the website of Preservation Virginia, a non-profit organization dedicated to sustaining Virginia’s rich historical heritage. As a sub-section of Historical Inaccuracies we added a “Use of Artistic License” category. For these points we consulted a source from the USDA Forest service about the Weeping Willow, the tree that one of the characters (Grandmother Willow) was modeled after and a Racoon fact sheet from PBS. We cited this source as evidence for the producer’s artistic licensing with regard to the character Meeko, a raccoon who is awake all day (in actuality, raccoons are nocturnal creatures). For the Response/Criticism section, which we divided into three distinct sub-categories (“Representation of Native Americans,” “White supremacy,” and “Gender Stereotypes”), we consulted an article published in the Journal of Navajo Education by a Ph.D from the University of Kansas called “The Pocahontas Paradox: A Cautionary Tale for Educators,” and an article published in the Asian Journal of Women’s Studies entitled “Disney’s Pocahontas: Reproduction of Gender, Orientalism, and the Strategic Construction of Racial Harmony in the Disney Empire.”
After creating these two new sections, we did some more research to bolster the production section, which was initially quite short. We added details relating to the production process that were originally missing, such as the number of years it took to complete the film. For these edits we consulted an article from blu-ray.com called “The Making of Walt Disney’s Pocahontas,” a “Pocahontas Trivia” article from sharetv.org, and an article from Yahoo! entitled “10 Things You Never Knew About Disney’s Pocahontas.” Though none of these sources are considered academic, we felt that they were appropriate to use for the production section as they are written by experts on films and TV with neutral points of view. We strongly believe that the Pocahontas (1995 film) article is now ready to move up from C-Class to B-Class status. Taken together, our edits have not only made this article more detail-oriented and factually correct, but have also significantly expanded its scope. Before, it contained a plot summary, information about the cast, the soundtrack and an awards chart. The article contained shockingly little information about the film’s reception, which is extremely relevant for the Pocahontas film, because there were some enormous controversies surrounding Disney’s use of artistic licenses, historical inaccuracies, and portrayal of Native Americans.
2. The evolution of the article in terms of what it was like when you started, what changes you made when, and how the current revision is different from the one when you just started. What contributed to the way that the article evolved?
At first we based our initial edit ideas solely on the article page itself, determining as a group what we thought was missing. This gave us ideas such as a trivia page, a possible addition of the film’s trailer, addition of more images, and an expansion of the Production section. Also, there were very noticeable errors on the page, which we aimed to fix. Then, after viewing the talk page, we ammended our plan to include different users’ requests - such as a Historical Inaccuracies section. Finally, we adjusted our plan continuously as we went on. We noticed throughout the process that some ideas we developed initially were more feasible than others. For example, after learning here about Wikipedia’s preference to not include Trivia Sections, we decided it would be best to leave this out--even though several other users on the talk page expressed interest in creating one. Also, though we had originally intended to add multimedia to the page, we encountered some difficulties in finding Fair Use media from the film. We were advised by our Wikipedia ambassadors to visit the Wikimedia Commons where we could find images and videos that would be protected by the Fair Use policy. Unfortunately though, the Commons did not have any media related to Pocahontas. Thus, we decided to play it safe and not add multimedia in order to ensure that we were not violating copyright policies, which we know the Wikipedia community takes quite seriously. Though some of our initial ideas fell through during the course of the editing process, most of our initial idea were actually implemented in the article.
Concerning noticeable errors, those most apparent were in the disorganization of the Awards section, as mentioned earlier. This section included a chart with columns meant for Ceremony, Recipient, Category, and Result. Because many of the items in the Category section were supposed to be in the Recipient section, we first reorganized the information into the proper places. Next, because many of the boxes were left empty, we filled in the blanks wherever possible using the sources already cited in the chart.
Other glaring errors were incorrect and missing citations. For instance, we changed one source to adhere to Wikipedia’s Third-Party source rule to make the statement more reliable. We also found sources for previously uncited statements. When we added in our own content later, we were also able to expand the citation section, bolstering the reliability of the article as a whole.
Concerning information about the film itself, little was included in the Production section. Our changes in this section included the addition of important members of the production and directing crew, i.e. Producer, Director, Editor, the conceptualization of the movie, and the artistic development of the movie. In addition, the production section did not cover many unique elements of the film. For example, the length it took to produce, the distinctive animation styles, or the involvement with the local Native American tribes. We researched these topics of the film and added content concerning these areas. Minor edits were also made to the plot section of the article. We took the liberty of rewatching the movie and added in missing information important to the movie as a whole, such as the details of John Smith’s capture and Pocahontas’ choice to stay in America, while still adhering to Wikipedia’s plot summary constraints.
The talk page was a major source for our edits on the article. In reading through the talk page of the article, we noticed that a lot of Wikipedians were calling for sections that would address (a) the controversial reception of the movie and (b) the historical inaccuracies. We too were quite taken aback that the page did not contain this information, as the controversial nature of Pocahontas is frequently taught in grade schools. Though we originally intended to create a section called “Reception” that would compile all criticism, historical inaccuracies and controversies relating to the film, after doing some research and discovering just how many historical inaccuracies there really are, we decided it would make more sense to give Historical Inaccuracies and Response/Criticism their own sections. This decision made us meticulous about re-organizing all the content on the page. For instance, we debated seriously about whether or not we should move information about the music production to the Soundtrack section (which we ended up doing). We went through several cycles of how we thought the article’s organization should be until we finally settled on what it is currently.
3. The community experience you had in terms of interactions with others through article pages, talk pages, or other means. Describe specific interactions, who they were with, and whether they were beneficial or detrimental to your Wikipedia experience (anonymize names of those you had negative interactions with). Did you feel that you were in a community? Why or why not?
Our group was largely disappointed with the community experience in terms of interactions with other Wikipedians. We made several efforts to communicate with other editors, most of which were not reciprocated. First, we wrote on the talk page of the Pocahontas (1995 film) article in order to outline our intentions for what edits we were going to make and to get feedback about these intentions. Next, we wrote on the talk pages of two editors who seemed to be particularly active in editing the article (e.g., NataleDante and Tanthalas39). We specifically chose to write on Tanthalas39’s talk page because when we went to edit the plot section we recieved a notification that said this user had semi-protected this section of the page. We asked for these editors’ suggestions for where to improve the article and whether they had sources they recommended consulting. We also wrote on the talk page of the Wikiproject for Disney, where we hoped we would find editors interested in helping us with our project. Finally, we wrote on the talk pages of our class’ Wikipedia ambassadors asking for help with uploading media under the fair use rationale. A few days after we posted on her JMathewson’s talk page, we received a response. She provided us with a helpful resource that explained how to use images protected by Wikipedia’s policies. Late last night, we finally received a response from Pharos about media edits as well, however, the information was received too late to implement.
Overall, we felt like we made significant efforts to communicate with other editors and are disappointed that we did not get to hear back from many people. The fact that we did not have effective communications made us feel like we weren’t really a part of a community. However, the lack of communications is not all bad. We appreciate that none of our edits were reverted (as of yet) and we were not reprimanded by any Wikipedians for violating policies. We also recognize that this project took place within a limited amount of time. We understand that many of the editors who were at one point working on the Pocahontas (1995 film) article have likely moved on to other projects. It is also possible that the Wikipedians we contacted have taken a hiatus from Wikipedia altogether and have not yet seen our messages.
4. A detailed breakdown of who did what in this project in terms of content, communication, and technical aspects.
Elizabeth and Shelby, Communication majors, did most of the research and writing. Sarah, an Information Science major, did most of the technical work as she was more comfortable using the wiki-markup language. In terms of the research, Elizabeth found the majority of the government and university-sponsored sources that we ended up consulting. Because Shelby has a lot of experience searching in library databases for research articles, she found most of the academic sources. In terms of the editing, Shelby did most of the writing for the Historical Inaccuracies and Response/Criticism sections. Elizabeth did the the majority of the editing for the Plot and Production section as well as the Use of Artistic Licenses sub-section. Sarah did the editing of the awards chart as the wiki-markup language on the chart was more difficult for Elizabeth and I to decipher.
In terms of communicating with other editors, we split this job up evenly among the three of us; each of us wrote on the talk pages of two Wikipedians. We also shared the work on organization of the page by consulting each other and collectively deciding how it should be organized, though the majority of these organization edits were implemented using Elizabeth’s account. In addition, due to some technical mishap, Sarah’s account was blocked from editing the page one day when we were all working together. In light of this, Sarah made edits on the page by using Elizabeth’s account, which can be seen by the large number of edits made by Easowers on the article’s history page. Sarah also sent information concerning the Historical Inaccuracies section to Shelby, which were then uploaded via Shelby’s account.
ShelbyRokito (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC) Sarahpeters93 (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC) Easowers (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)