Article Revisions
editThe last revision of the analog horror Wikipedia page before my edits were introduced can be found here.
The most recent draft of the analog horror Wikipedia page that included my edits, at the time of writing this, can be found here.
Reflection
editDuring my time working on the analog horror Wikipedia page, I learned how people create, interact, and revise in the space. Overall, while I did not have many interactions while working on the article, I did see how these brief discussions did help form a community. In my personal experience though, I found it hard to interact with others working on the article for a variety of reasons. I believe that the formatting of Wikipedia's revisions, as well as intimidation from watching more experienced Wikipedians work, sets joining communities on Wikipedia up to be an arduous task. [clarification needed]
My experience on Wikipedia was pleasant. While I did not have many interactions with other users, mainly just thanking people on the analog horror page such as User:ForsythiaJo, I did feel like I was making a large contribution to the page. I particularly enjoyed going through the whole article and providing smaller additions across it, such as this revision here. I did enjoy writing larger sections for the article, including Skinamarink and Marble Hornets. But going over the article as a whole and fine tuning parts of it felt much more involved. That said, I had a good experience with the website but still did not feel like an accepted member of it.[clarification needed] This isn't because of any negative interactions I had, but instead purely from the intimidation I felt from the site itself and seeing other members of it working.
The way that Wikipedia shows past revisions is through its "View history" tab, where one can see who added or removed specific sections to the article, as well as a short summary of what they did and why they did it. Through the way Wikipedia's editing is formatted, it allows everything to be neatly tracked, and one can easily thank people who provided specific edits. That being said, both edits that are accepted and unapproved are visible for all to see. As discussed by Kraut et al., "publicly displaying examples of appropriate behavior on the site shows members what is expected and increases their adherence to those expectations."[1] The pressure of becoming a counter-example when a peer reverts my work is alienating. [needs copy edit] The format of the website is helpful in being able to view all previous revisions and thus promoting certain behaviors and discouraging others. Being able to see the unsuccessful attempts of others to post to the website however, even if their revisions weren't of acceptable quality, made uploading revisions and feeling welcome rather intimidating to me. When posting, I did not want to disappoint others and have them go through my revision just to remove it and for that removal to be seen far into the future.
The formatting of Wikipedia also brings up difficulty, in terms of trying to join the community, due to one of the sites most well known features. With other members of Wikipedia being those who edit the articles, these members are also helping to moderate them. These Wikipedians are thus the ones looking at, and shutting down, certain revisions. A point made by Kraut et al. is that when moderation is done by those within the community, the moderation is seen as more fair than when someone not a part of the group does it, and is more effective in maintaining social norms.[2] I felt this statement to be true when working on Wikipedia, and can see how it does help to reinforce the norms of what is acceptable for page revisions. With that in mind, I did feel some pressure that came with Wikipedia peers being the ones editing and accepting my revisions. With the editors being those who I wanted to be accepted by, posting revisions felt difficult as I did not want to disappoint. While none of my additions to the analog horror page have been altered, I have seen others revisions be taken down very quickly after they were uploaded, such as this revision here. The removal of this revision due to unreliable sources was perfectly fair, but made me feel more hesitant to upload future revisions. This revision was only on the main article for 4 hours and 38 minutes. Seeing how fast the edits were removed made me more sure that the moderation done by fellow Wikipedia users was effective in maintaining the quality of the article. However, this also made me feel that being accepted into a Wikipedia community may be difficult in regards to not wanting to disappoint ones peers, as they are the ones potentially fixing your mistakes.
While the formatting of Wikipedia, both visually and technically, is a large factor in the site feeling difficult to truly join, the presence of other users is another factor to pay attention to. With other users looking over revisions, approving them or reverting them, we see that people utilize their knowledge and show their expertise. Certain users who have more experience than others are able to even use authority to lead the way and steer the article in the direction they want, as discussed by Cialdini.[3] As mentioned before, there was an instance where a revision was removed rather quickly by an experienced Wikipedia user, with the removal revision being found here. This instance of an experienced user exerting their expertise can be an intimidating thing to witness, as I did not want my revisions to turn out the same way. Not wanting to disappoint these experienced users, there is a perceived obligation to know here. From the perspective of a newcomer, these experienced Wikipedians edits make it feel like they know things that I don't, and thus I need to know about them in order to have successful revisions get added to the article, something discussed by Reagle.[4] This perceived obligation to know, created by the experienced decisions and edits of other users, thus makes feeling like a part of Wikipedia to be more difficult.
Not only is there a barrier of knowledge to overcome, but there is the potential alienation that comes with not being one of these pre-existing experienced users. Personally, the way that the short edit summaries are formatted for when revisions are removed very much reminds me of the term "RTFM."[citation needed] While I never saw people tell others to read the manual, there was one revision that was made to the analog horror article that caught my attention. Found here, the summary of the revision talks about how the example previously added to the page was poorly written and "unironically cites TV Tropes as a source." This statement to me felt similar to someone saying "RTFM," as it added a small spike of annoyance into a straight to the point summary. Seeing this instance of an experienced Wikipedian work and critique another persons edits, despite them being valid, was still intimidating. Much like saying "RTFM," I took this summary as a statement that alienates others, as discussed by Reagle.[4] While I wasn't actually the one being critiqued, I was more hesitant to post uploads after seeing this as I didn't want to receive an alienating statement, even though my edits have lasted on the analog horror page. To me, this statement and ones similar to it are seen as another reason why feeling like an accepted member on Wikipedia is a difficult task. Not only will newcomers not feel as experienced as everyone already on the site, and thus will not want to disappoint others, but now there rises the problem of potentially receiving alienating statements that will remain on the pages history forever.
I do think that Wikipedia is a very useful and unique resource. A place where millions of people can come together, compile knowledge, and make it accessible for everyone is something that has remained extremely beneficial for years. Having worked on it though, I must reiterate that both the format of the website, as well as seeing other users interact and take down article revisions, makes feeling like a part of the site somewhat difficult. Even though the format of the site is beneficial to creating and maintaining articles with upheld norms of quality, and even though the impartial users with prior experience on the site make moderation fair and more effective, these qualities still strain those looking to join Wikipedia. Seeing others failings to add to articles on the pages history, seeing other users get shot down with statements similar to RTFM, having those who you want to impress and join be the ones critiquing your work, and feeling an obligation to know as to not disappoint others, it all adds up to a difficult experience in truly feeling like a Wikipedian. I believe that adding more methods to show appreciation and to link Wikipedians together to talk outside of articles spaces may help to counteract this experience. There are spaces such as the tea house, and people can thank others for edits, but I personally believe that more methods of connection and appreciation can help lighten the pressure felt by those looking to join the website. I do not know how the website will be updated in the future, but I hope that it becomes more newcomer friendly as there is already so much to enjoy with it, and more people should feel welcome in joining this experience.
References
edit- ^ Kraut, Robert; Resnick, Paul; Kiesler, Sara; Burke, Moira; Chen, Yan; Kittur, Niki; Konstan, Joseph; Ren, Yuqing; Riedl, John (March 23, 2012). Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-Based Social Design (1st ed.). MIT Press. p. 143. ISBN 9780262298315.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ Kraut, Robert; Resnick, Paul; Kiesler, Sara; Burke, Moira; Chen, Yan; Kittur, Niki; Konstan, Joseph; Ren, Yuqing; Riedl, John (March 23, 2012). Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-Based Social Design (1st ed.). MIT Press. p. 134. ISBN 9780262298315.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ Cialdini, Robert (February 1, 2001). "The Science of Persuasion". Scientific American. 284 (2): 76–81.
- ^ a b Reagle, Joseph (2015). "The Obligation to Know: From FAQ to Feminism 101". Retrieved April 19, 2024.