User:Graceskepner/reflection

I was in middle school when I first discovered Wikipedia articles are created and maintained by regular people. When my teachers started assigning research papers, they would discourage the class from using Wikipedia as a source because anyone could make an account and edit the information. While this point is true, it fails to capture how the online community actively enforces extensive guidelines to ensure an extremely high standard of reliability and neutrality. My experience as a contributor this semester allowed me to see that participation is heavily influenced by rules, presenting an intimidating barrier to entry. From policies like Neutral Point of View and Verifiability to guidelines like “Wikiquette,” there is a lot to remember as a new editor and countless ways to screw up. One of my biggest takeaways was this: Wikipedia’s success relies on a conflicting balance between its goals to create an open community and its mission to provide a reliable source of information. Navigating the platform myself showed me that its systems of moderation and strong norms simultaneously discourage new participation and also help produce more meaningful contributions.

I was in middle school when I first discovered Wikipedia articles are created and maintained by regular people. When my teachers started assigning research papers, they would discourage the class from using Wikipedia as a source because anyone could make an account and edit the information. While this point is true, it fails to capture how the online community actively enforces extensive guidelines to ensure an extremely high standard of reliability and neutrality. My experience as a contributor this semester allowed me to see that participation is heavily influenced by rules, presenting an intimidating barrier to entry. From policies like Neutral Point of View and Verifiability to guidelines like “Wikiquette,” there is a lot to remember as a new editor and countless ways to screw up. One of my biggest takeaways was this: Wikipedia’s success relies on a conflicting balance between its goals to create an open community and its mission to provide a reliable source of information. Navigating the platform myself showed me that its systems of moderation and strong norms simultaneously discourage new participation and also help produce more meaningful contributions.

Entering the well-established world of Wikipedia was pretty challenging at first. Immediately, I was faced with the task of choosing a topic for my contribution. This initially seemed impossible because it felt like everything I could think of had already been written about. I soon learned that many existing articles were outdated or needed to be updated, so I started looking into recent trends and newer aspects of culture to see if there were any gaps that had not been addressed. Ultimately, I came across the “Curly Girl Method” article, a hair care approach created in the 2000s that has gained recent popularity on TikTok. This seemed like an interesting topic to explore further, and I was excited to get started. However, I found it very intimidating to actually join this community filled with experts, and learning all the rules seemed very daunting. I had a lot of initial confusion about citations, formatting, neutral phrasing, and expectations for content. I realized that the process of entering this community was much different than I thought it would be: it seemed very open and welcoming in theory but felt restrictive in practice. These early experiences reminded me of what Kraut et al. (2011) discussed about socialization. Successful communities cannot simply attract newcomers, but they must socialize them so they can learn to behave in appropriate ways (p. 180). At the beginning, I felt like I was not experiencing much of this socialization that seemed so integral to online communities. The massive collection of policies and guidelines was all I was really exposed to at this stage. This is certainly a way to learn the rules, but it seemed impersonal and discouraging to someone who had no idea what they were doing. However, once I started completing some of the WikiEdu trainings, playing around with things, and learning more of what the platform affords an editor, it became clear that the socialization aspect was yet to come. I first had to overcome the barriers to entry before I could get there.

Entering the well-established world of Wikipedia was pretty challenging at first. Immediately, I was faced with the task of choosing a topic for my contribution. This initially seemed impossible because it felt like everything I could think of had already been written about. I soon learned that many existing articles were outdated or needed to be updated, so I started looking into recent trends and newer aspects of culture to see if there were any gaps that had not been addressed. Ultimately, I came across the “Curly Girl Method” article, a hair care approach created in the 2000s that has gained recent popularity on TikTok. This seemed like an interesting topic to explore further, and I was excited to get started. However, I found it very intimidating to actually join this community filled with experts, and learning all the rules seemed very daunting. I had a lot of initial confusion about citations, formatting, neutral phrasing, and expectations for content. I realized that the process of entering this community was much different than I thought it would be: it seemed very open and welcoming in theory but felt restrictive in practice. These early experiences reminded me of what Kraut et al. discussed about socialization. Successful communities cannot simply attract newcomers, but they must socialize them so they can learn to behave in appropriate ways. name=":0">{{Cite book |last=Kraut |first=Robert E. |title=Building Successful Online Communities |last2=Resnick |first2=Paul |publisher=MIT Press |year=2011 |isbn=978-0-262-01657-5 |pages=180-217}} At the beginning, I felt like I was not experiencing much of this socialization that seemed so integral to online communities. The massive collection of policies and guidelines was all I was really exposed to at this stage. This is certainly a way to learn the rules, but it seemed impersonal and discouraging to someone who had no idea what they were doing. However, once I started completing some of the WikiEdu trainings, playing around with things, and learning more of what the platform affords an editor, it became clear that the socialization aspect was yet to come. I first had to overcome the barriers to entry before I could get there.

As I started to make more contributions on Wikipedia, I began to feel more immersed in the community. I was able to practice and experiment with the various features of the platform through the class QICs, posting on my classmates’ talk pages, making small edits across different articles, expressing gratitude, and ultimately developing my main contribution to the “Curly Girl Method” article (links). Working on the article in my Sandbox was a component I found particularly helpful. It allowed me to outline points, compile sources, and utilize the actual features of Wikipedia in a private space until I was ready to upload my work. I started to feel the most confident in my ability to be a legitimate contributor when I began receiving feedback on my work in the mainspace. I posted a request for a peer review on the Talk Page of my article (link) so that I could start making efforts towards the perfect article, but I did not expect the response I got. A user called TheNuggeteer replied to my request giving me very encouraging and constructive feedback (link). They referenced many specific guidelines, pointed to various sections of the article that needed improvements, and raised many helpful suggestions. This feedback changed the way I approached my editing, as it made me aware of rules I had not known about previously. I also became more attentive to norms surrounding structure, sourcing, and tone. I particularly appreciated this feedback as a newcomer who was still learning the ropes. This aligns with Zhu et al.’s (2013) findings that newcomers are more responsive to feedback, since they are still learning the rules and trying to establish legitimacy (p. 9). Unlike experienced editors who are already confident in their abilities to follow the norms, the feedback I received directly impacted my further contributions as well as my motivation to continue striving for perfection. This interaction was extremely helpful for improving my article, and it also exposed me to the socialization and community aspect that I initially felt like I was missing. I mainly saw this when I came across TheNuggeteer’s “Guestbook” page, where users could add a signature and comment about their interactions or feedback they received. This showed me that Wikipedia can be a supportive space for learning through collaboration with others, and even expert users are actively seeking community aside from just enforcing rules.

As I started to make more contributions on Wikipedia, I began to feel more immersed in the community. I was able to practice and experiment with the various features of the platform through the class QICs, posting on my classmates’ talk pages, making small edits across different articles, expressing gratitude, and ultimately developing my main contribution to the “Curly Girl Method” article (links). Working on the article in my Sandbox was a component I found particularly helpful. It allowed me to outline points, compile sources, and utilize the actual features of Wikipedia in a private space until I was ready to upload my work. I started to feel the most confident in my ability to be a legitimate contributor when I began receiving feedback on my work in the mainspace. I posted a request for a peer review on the Talk Page of my article (link) so that I could start making efforts towards the perfect article, but I did not expect the response I got. A user called TheNuggeteer replied to my request giving me very encouraging and constructive feedback (link). They referenced many specific guidelines, pointed to various sections of the article that needed improvements, and raised many helpful suggestions. This feedback changed the way I approached my editing, as it made me aware of rules I had not known about previously. I also became more attentive to norms surrounding structure, sourcing, and tone. I particularly appreciated this feedback as a newcomer who was still learning the ropes. This aligns with Zhu et al.’s findings that newcomers are more responsive to feedback, since they are still learning the rules and trying to establish legitimacy.{{Cite journal |last=Zhu |first=Haiyi |last2=Zhang |first2=Amy |last3=He |first3=Jiping |last4=Kraut |first4=Robert E. |last5=Kittur |first5=Aniket |date=2013-04-27 |title=Effects of peer feedback on contribution: a field experiment in Wikipedia |url=https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2470654.2481311 |language=en |publisher=ACM |pages=2253–2262 |doi=10.1145/2470654.2481311 |isbn=978-1-4503-1899-0}} Unlike experienced editors who are already confident in their abilities to follow the norms, the feedback I received directly impacted my further contributions as well as my motivation to continue striving for perfection. This interaction was extremely helpful for improving my article, and it also exposed me to the socialization and community aspect that I initially felt like I was missing. I mainly saw this when I came across TheNuggeteer’s “Guestbook” page, where users could add a signature and comment about their interactions or feedback they received. This showed me that Wikipedia can be a supportive space for learning through collaboration with others, and even expert users are actively seeking community aside from just enforcing rules.

Although I welcomed feedback and critiques, these interactions also made me more aware of how deeply governed the platform is. This governance felt frustrating at the beginning, which I experienced when I first started to upload my article additions to the mainspace. Ian from the Wiki Education Foundation, who helps students with their Wikipedia contributions, removed my initial additions to the “Curly Girl Method” article. I was already feeling intimidated at this early stage, and this definitely brought my confidence down further. However, it soon became clear to me that removing my early additions was necessary. Ian messaged me sharing his thoughts on what I wrote and explaining why he had to revert my edits due to sourcing errors and content issues. I did not initially realize the culturally sensitive nature of some of the additions I was making. For example, I wanted to replace one of the images to add a bit more diversity to the page, but removing the leading image specifically seemed to come off as a bit inappropriate. Of course, I never intended to be insensitive, but Ian’s comments showed me the importance of reflecting deeper on how these actions would be received by the broader community. This led me to add a topic on the Talk Page asking if anyone had thoughts on the best way to incorporate a more diverse range of ethnicities (link). No one actually responded to this, but the experience taught me a lesson on why moderation is essential on Wikipedia and why asking for help is encouraged. Grimmelmann (2015) states that successful online communities need moderators to facilitate productive communication and cooperation. My direct exposure to moderation on Wikipedia proves this point, and although the way I received it was harsh, it taught me how to make the content of my contributions more neutral, accurate, and valuable to the community. What I originally saw as annoying barriers for newcomers are actually the governance mechanisms that help the site remain trustworthy and allow for meaningful collaboration.  

Although I welcomed feedback and critiques, these interactions also made me more aware of how deeply governed the platform is. This governance felt frustrating at the beginning, which I experienced when I first started to upload my article additions to the mainspace. Ian from the Wiki Education Foundation, who helps students with their Wikipedia contributions, removed my initial additions to the “Curly Girl Method” article. I was already feeling intimidated at this early stage, and this definitely brought my confidence down further. However, it soon became clear to me that removing my early additions was necessary. Ian messaged me sharing his thoughts on what I wrote and explaining why he had to revert my edits due to sourcing errors and content issues. I did not initially realize the culturally sensitive nature of some of the additions I was making. For example, I wanted to replace one of the images to add a bit more diversity to the page, but removing the leading image specifically seemed to come off as a bit inappropriate. Of course, I never intended to be insensitive, but Ian’s comments showed me the importance of reflecting deeper on how these actions would be received by the broader community. This led me to add a topic on the Talk Page asking if anyone had thoughts on the best way to incorporate a more diverse range of ethnicities (link). No one actually responded to this, but the experience taught me a lesson on why moderation is essential on Wikipedia and why asking for help is encouraged. Grimmelmann states that successful online communities need moderators to facilitate productive communication and cooperation.{{Citation |last=Grimmelmann |first=James |title=The Virtues of Moderation |date=2017-05-04 |url=https://osf.io/qwxf5_v1 |access-date=2026-04-20 |doi=10.31228/osf.io/qwxf5}} My direct exposure to moderation on Wikipedia proves this point, and although the way I received it was harsh, it taught me how to make the content of my contributions more neutral, accurate, and valuable to the community. What I originally saw as annoying barriers for newcomers are actually the governance mechanisms that help the site remain trustworthy and allow for meaningful collaboration.  

My experiences as a first-time editor of Wikipedia exposed a tension that lies at its center: the platform recognizes the importance of newcomers to survive and grow, but it also makes new participation very difficult. Guidelines like “Please do not bite the newcomers” and “Assume good faith” reinforce the fact that Wikipedians respect new editors and value their contributions. Additionally, I had many positive encounters with seasoned Wikipedians who took time to help me learn. Yet, the dense policies and high expectations do not make it easy to enter this space. Even I faced challenges as a student with access to WikiEdu resources and guidance from an experienced professor, while many newcomers are not in that position. I initially felt like this contradiction was off-putting and wondered whether these barriers to entry were really necessary. However, I learned throughout the process that they serve an important purpose. Kraut et al. (2011) claim that entry barriers can make newcomers more committed to a community and more motivated to contribute (p. 206). Looking back on my editing experience, I relate to this claim; I feel proud of my accomplishments and determined to continue contributing. Wikipedia’s barriers are not actually flaws in the system but very intentional processes that help facilitate more effective socialization of newcomers. It can feel similar to hazing, the occasionally harsh tactics some communities use to integrate new members. While the process may feel unwelcoming at first, it highlights those who are willing to put in the extra effort and commit long-term. Looking at the entry barriers from this perspective also helps explain how participants are able to transition from clueless outsiders to confident editors, which is reflected in the “Seven Ages of Wikipedians.” This progression shows that no one can enter this platform with expertise, but it is something that must be learned gradually through active participation, collaboration, and making mistakes.

My experiences as a first-time editor of Wikipedia exposed a tension that lies at its center: the platform recognizes the importance of newcomers to survive and grow, but it also makes new participation very difficult. Guidelines like “Please do not bite the newcomers” and “Assume good faith” reinforce the fact that Wikipedians respect new editors and value their contributions. Additionally, I had many positive encounters with seasoned Wikipedians who took time to help me learn. Yet, the dense policies and high expectations do not make it easy to enter this space. Even I faced challenges as a student with access to WikiEdu resources and guidance from an experienced professor, while many newcomers are not in that position. I initially felt like this contradiction was off-putting and wondered whether these barriers to entry were really necessary. However, I learned throughout the process that they serve an important purpose. Kraut et al. claim that entry barriers can make newcomers more committed to a community and more motivated to contribute. name=":0" /> Looking back on my editing experience, I relate to this claim; I feel proud of my accomplishments and determined to continue contributing. Wikipedia’s barriers are not actually flaws in the system but very intentional processes that help facilitate more effective socialization of newcomers. It can feel similar to hazing, the occasionally harsh tactics some communities use to integrate new members. While the process may feel unwelcoming at first, it highlights those who are willing to put in the extra effort and commit long-term. Looking at the entry barriers from this perspective also helps explain how participants are able to transition from clueless outsiders to confident editors, which is reflected in the “Seven Ages of Wikipedians.” This progression shows that no one can enter this platform with expertise, but it is something that must be learned gradually through active participation, collaboration, and making mistakes.

Based on these learnings, I do not think Wikipedia should become less strict, but I believe the platform could preserve their standards for reliability while also better supporting newcomers. Experienced Wikipedians and admin actively work to protect the site’s reliability, and that should not change. However, it might be beneficial to put more specific systems in place to better encourage newcomers to learn the ropes. Another point by Kraut et al. (2011) suggests that newcomers are more likely to be committed and learn how to behave in a community through more structured, formal, and collective socialization tactics (p. 215). They also discuss how formal mentorship from more senior members can also strengthen the process (p. 217). From my experience in conjunction with these claims, I think stronger onboarding from Wikipedia could help minimize confusion and intimidation without compromising the quality of contributions. AI tools could be incorporated to help newcomers with formatting, citation guidance, tone checks, or policy explanations, but it should be used in very limited ways. Human moderation is still essential for successful contributions, as I learned from my interactions with Ian, but tools and technology could also be implemented to more efficiently teach newcomers how to work within specific policies. Overall, my experience working with Wikipedia this semester changed how I view the platform entirely. Unlike what some of my grade school teachers told me, it is not just something that people casually edit; Wikipedia is an actively governed community that relies on moderation, norms, and socialization tactics. It is able to balance the opposing goals of expansion through newcomers and maintaining reliability through experts, while also facilitating collaboration between the two. I ultimately discovered that sometimes challenging newcomers is necessary to protect a community’s bigger mission, but there are also opportunities to improve the experience for everyone.

Based on these learnings, I do not think Wikipedia should become less strict, but I believe the platform could preserve their standards for reliability while also better supporting newcomers. Experienced Wikipedians and admin actively work to protect the site’s reliability, and that should not change. However, it might be beneficial to put more specific systems in place to better encourage newcomers to learn the ropes. Another point by Kraut et al. suggests that newcomers are more likely to be committed and learn how to behave in a community through more structured, formal, and collective socialization tactics. They also discuss how formal mentorship from more senior members can also strengthen the process. name=":0" /> From my experience in conjunction with these claims, I think stronger onboarding from Wikipedia could help minimize confusion and intimidation without compromising the quality of contributions. AI tools could be incorporated to help newcomers with formatting, citation guidance, tone checks, or policy explanations, but it should be used in very limited ways. Human moderation is still essential for successful contributions, as I learned from my interactions with Ian, but tools and technology could also be implemented to more efficiently teach newcomers how to work within specific policies. Overall, my experience working with Wikipedia this semester changed how I view the platform entirely. Unlike what some of my grade school teachers told me, it is not just something that people casually edit; Wikipedia is an actively governed community that relies on moderation, norms, and socialization tactics. It is able to balance the opposing goals of expansion through newcomers and maintaining reliability through experts, while also facilitating collaboration between the two. I ultimately discovered that sometimes challenging newcomers is necessary to protect a community’s bigger mission, but there are also opportunities to improve the experience for everyone.