User:Dang.hazel/reflection
reflection
| ← Previous revision | Revision as of 17:28, 21 April 2026 | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Special:Permalink/1347490675]] |
[[Special:Permalink/1347490675]] |
||
| Line 6: | Line 4: | ||
== Wikipedia Contribution Report == |
== Wikipedia Contribution Report == |
||
=== '''Introduction''' === |
|||
Wikipedia presented itself as an assignment that entailed writing and sourcing entries for an online encyclopedia. In many ways, it allowed me to explore one of the most complex online communities. While editing the article on interval walking training, I encountered a variety of questions regarding community dynamics, motivation for contributing to an article that provides no direct benefit to contributors, and the community’s effectiveness at maintaining the quality of its content. Overall, I found that the community was effective at maintaining quality, but at the cost of excluding new contributors from participating altogether. |
|||
=== '''My Contribution''' === |
|||
The article I created focused on Interval Walking Training (IWT), an exercise developed by Japanese researchers Hiroshi Nose and Shizue Masuki at Shinshu University in 2007{{Cite journal |last=Nemoto |first=Ken-ichi |last2=Gen-no |first2=Hirokazu |last3=Masuki |first3=Shizue |last4=Okazaki |first4=Kazunobu |last5=Nose |first5=Hiroshi |date=2007-07 |title=Effects of High-Intensity Interval Walking Training on Physical Fitness and Blood Pressure in Middle-Aged and Older People |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0025619611613037 |journal=Mayo Clinic Proceedings |language=en |volume=82 |issue=7 |pages=803–811 |doi=10.4065/82.7.803}}. I expanded the article from an outline with four sections and four citations into a multi-section article, including a history of the exercise, an explanation of the exercise itself, scientific research on the exercise, divided into five subsections, and a complete reference list of eleven different peer-reviewed research articles that relate to IWT and its impacts between the years 2007 and 2025. Furthermore, I conducted peer reviews of other classmates’ contributions to Wikipedia and exchanged greetings with other Wikipedians throughout this semester. |
|||
The article’s editing process involved a few rounds of revision. Professor Reagle’s early review identified the need to wikify the article, which led me to overhaul the citation system from plain text to full wikitext templates and add internal links to related Wikipedia articles. A subsequent review led Professor Reagle to make direct edits to my articles, including correcting citation dates, improving placement, and adding a missing reference. The article was recommended to the mainspace as an individual article. After that, I also rewrote various sections of the article to remove any language that could be perceived as promotional rather than descriptive of the topic, since I received comments from TeaHouse that half of my sources were based on Hiroshi Nose and Shizue Masuki. |
|||
=== '''Newcomers Management''' === |
|||
My experience entering the Wikipedia community as a contributor illustrates many of the points Prof. Reagle makes in his newcomer slide (2026a) about the challenges communities face between the need to maintain quality and the need for newcomers. |
|||
Like many open source projects, they have a steep socialization cost. The rules that govern contributions are extensive and invisible. For example, the citation format he uses for his articles uses wikitext markup and cite journal templates unfamiliar to anyone who has not edited Wikipedia articles or worked extensively with wiki markup. Unlike many developed projects, this one has no guided onboarding process. Most of the help documentation is written from the perspective of an existing user with a passing familiarity with the processes involved. This is the fundamental challenge of tacit knowledge. The only way to know the rules is to know them instinctively, like everyone else. |
|||
One potential approach is legitimate peripheral participation, in which people begin with low-stakes work before gradually building familiarity and contributing more meaningfully over time (2026a). The best practice within Wikipedia is for contributors to use the sandbox feature to contribute to their heart’s content without anyone seeing their work. In reality, there is little guidance here. I contributed to an actual article from the start, but my initial efforts were not up to standard and were reverted, which quickly drove me away from the community. |
|||
=== '''Moderation''' === |
|||
Wikipedia has an extensive system of automation in its moderation process. Both patrol the site, detecting errors in source citations and vandalism, and enforcing style guidelines. Such an approach is the sign of the shift toward algorithmic moderation within large online communities, as Professor Reagle discusses in his slide (2026b). Humans are too expensive and inconsistent in their judgments compared to automated systems. |
|||
The efficiency of this system is undeniable. The scale of information maintained on Wikipedia is impossible to maintain through human oversight alone. Yet the automated systems that protect the encyclopedia from vandalism can also cause “collateral damage” to good-faith contributors. One of my editing processes resulted in my proposed changes being reverted by an automated system due to a formatting guideline violation from another editing bot. The bot system did not explain its actions, it reverted my changes, and I had to figure out why. |
|||
Prof. Reagle (2026b) discussed the importance of removing content deemed in bad faith from a community space while distinguishing between bad-faith and good-faith contributors. While the automated systems of Wikipedia are well-designed for the former, they are not as well-designed for the latter. Thus, it is recommended to include some form of human oversight for any automated systems that review a new editor’s contributions to the site. The cost of discouraging a good-faith contributor is greater than the cost of enforcing a few formatting guidelines for a few hours. |
|||
=== '''Motivation''' === |
|||
Perhaps the first question that arose from my experience is a simple one: why did I continue contributing to articles despite the frustration I felt? |
|||
According to Prof. Reagle (2026c), there are two forms of motivation in online communities: extrinsic and intrinsic. Extrinsic motivation included rewards for participation in an activity that come outside the individual. For example, awarding points for project contributions or creating leaderboards for those with the most contributions can encourage participation through extrinsic motivation. However, these forms of motivation tend to diminish an individual’s intrinsic motivation for a project. Unlike many other online communities that offer extrinsic rewards, Wikipedia does not provide any extrinsic motivation for contributors. There are no points for contributions, no leaderboards, and no counts of the number of Wikipedia article followers each contributor has. Instead, Wikipedia provides a form of intrinsic motivation for contributors, encouraging them to create articles in the public domain. As Prof. Reagle (2026d) explains in the slide, such a sense of accomplishment from contributing to an article that benefits the public domain motivates Wikipedia contributors. |
|||
Consider that while there is a considerable amount of information about interval walking and the benefits that it can provide to individuals, there was little information on Wikipedia about this topic before my efforts to contribute to the article. However, knowing that my article would become accessible to the public and to individuals searching for information on this topic, regardless of their access to scientific and medical journals, motivated me to contribute despite the frustrations I may have encountered along the way. This indicates the concept of commons-based peer production (2026d). In other words, individuals contribute to a project that benefits the community without payment because of the inherent value of their contributions. |
|||
=== '''Community Governance''' === |
|||
Wikipedia employs a governance model based on consensus rather than a hierarchical structure. There is no owner of any article. If editors encounter difficulties with other editors, there is a discussion, an appeal to the existing Wikipedia guidelines, and the community’s ability to resolve disputes. Prof. Reagle (2026e) states that this system of governance is one of the great strengths of Wikipedia and also one of its most frustrating aspects for editors who are just getting started with the encyclopedia. |
|||
The next policy I encountered was the neutral point of view. Several of my edits to the articles on interval training were heavily influenced by other editors' comments. For instance, any discussion of the benefits that are often discussed in the research on the topic. This policy forces editors to change the language of the article to one that is purely descriptive of the topic rather than one that emphasizes the editor’s own opinion on the topic. |
|||
The policy is essential to the functioning of Wikipedia as both a site and a community of contributors. As Prof. Reagle (2026e) explains in his article on consensus in the encyclopedia, the editors of Wikipedia have a process of resolving disputes and editing articles to conform to a standard that all editors of the encyclopedia understand and accept. While this process can often be frustrating for editors working on an article, it’s essential to the reliability of the information published on the site compared with other online platforms. |
|||
=== '''Conclusion''' === |
|||
Wikipedia relates to many of the concepts that were discussed in this course. From the learning curve of contributing to the encyclopedia to the role that automation plays in the moderation of content on the platform, each aspect of Wikipedia relates one of the concepts discussed in this course. The most important contributions I made to the article was my edit to include unredacted content and to ensure it was written clearly and with care. However, the additional meaning of my edit went beyond merely contributing content to the article. In a way, editing the article was a way to understand how such a large volunteer community manages such a complex project, with so many contributors following the same governance policies and finding satisfaction in the same way I did by contributing to this article. Despite its flaws, Wikipedia is one of the most important online communities to develop in the modern era of the internet. |
|||
'''References''' |
|||
Karstoft, K., Thorsen, I. K., Nielsen, J. S., Solomon, T. P. J., Masuki, S., Nose, H., & Ried-Larsen, M. (2024). Health benefits of interval walking training. ''Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism'', ''49''(7), 1002–1007. |
|||
Karstoft, K., Winding, K., Knudsen, S. H., Nielsen, J. S., Thomsen, C., Pedersen, B. K., & Solomon, T. P. J. (2013). The effects of free-living interval-walking training on glycemic control, body composition, and physical fitness in type 2 diabetic patients: A randomized, controlled trial. ''Diabetes Care'', ''36''(2), 228–236. |
|||
Nemoto, K., Gen-No, H., Masuki, S., Okazaki, K., & Nose, H. (2007). Effects of high-intensity interval walking training on physical fitness and blood pressure in middle-aged and older people. ''Mayo Clinic Proceedings'', ''82''(7), 803–811. |
|||
Reagle, J. (2026a). ''Newcomers''. Online Communities course handout. |
|||
Reagle, J. (2026b). ''Moderation''. Online Communities course handout. |
|||
Reagle, J. (2026c). ''Motivation: Intrinsic vs. extrinsic''. Online Communities course handout. |
|||
Reagle, J. (2026d). ''Influence and motivation''. Online Communities course handout. |
|||
Reagle, J. (2026e). ''Consensus''. Online Communities course handout. |
|||
