User:Brandonhoilett/analysis

Brandon Hoilett November 29th 2016

In the beginning, the idea of writing a Wikipedia article was a daunting concept. Personally, my knowledge of obscure places and people usually comes from Wikipedia, so the idea of writing an article from where I usually draw my knowledge seemed almost paradoxical. The assignment was an eye opening experience, and encouraged me to draw knowledge from other sites. This caused me to critically gauge the validity and credibility of other sources. The experience was surprisingly meta and encouraged a more investigative approach. This element wasn’t exclusive to research but also in terms of creative style. Personally, I have always written with abstract terms, metaphors, and personality but those elements were forced to accommodate for a different online setting. A challenging aspect of this assignment was forfeiting those traits but still finding ways to apply them when they were appropriate. This distinction ultimately drew my attention to the importance of structure. I found that when my article was being critiqued and changed by other Wikipedians, the facts, themes, and format, remained unchanged, but the structure, style, and word choice were constantly being adjusted. This speaks to the importance of objectivity when it comes to writing informative articles, and the differences in style regarding, creative versus objective writing.

The culture of Wikipedia was an element of online communities that I didn’t feel much indoctrination from. I believe this was from my constant fear of inadequacy in terms of contributing to the community. I was constantly afraid that my account would be shut down or prohibited because of false information or personal bias. I found the collective community intimidating mostly because of the geography and reach of Wikipedia. Perhaps prolonged exposure would ease that worry and make me feel like a true member of the community, but I always had the “newcomer” sensation that I feel like prevented me from fully engaging with the social norms and expectations of the platform.

I felt my motivation for being a part of the community gradually change over my time with the Wikipedia assignment. Although my intrinsic and extrinsic motives began to differ, my genuine interest in the topic was consistent. I feel like by finding a topic that I was genuinely interested in, helped shape my writing for the article. In the beginning I picked a topic I had prior interest in, but gradually I felt the shift into my motivations begin rooted in the desire for other users to have this Wikipedia page. I felt like Collider.com was noteworthy and deserving of its own personal space in Wikipedia. Having said that, I was afraid this motivation would be seen as a weakness by the rest of the community. Wikipedia articles are meant to objective, strictly factual, and informative and I was fearful that more experienced Wikipedian’s would see this interest as a bias. However, I felt like that balance was understood by those who critiqued my writing. These motivations I had spoke directly to my identity-bonds, which were the root of my insecurity. Initially, I felt a transparency. I was afraid that the reason behind my bond and loyalty, as seen by other Wikipedians would come off as shallow and insincere. Kraut (2011) makes reference to this, when he writes “Social identity theory states that identification with a social group or category is a very powerful force that can keep people in a group” (p.69). I felt my Identity as a Wikipedian was appreciated by others even though, personally, I never felt the identity based bond of identifying as a Wikipedian. Throughout the assignment I identified as a student who was participating in research for Wikipedia, but I never felt like a Wikipedian. I felt like this sensation was not specific to me but visible by other users and I was afraid that would be the cause of some misunderstanding or harsh criticism. This caused me to frequently be caution as it is stated by Cialdini (2001) “Social validation takes advantage of peer pressure to drive human behavior” (p. 78). Fortunately, I found I was accepted by the collective Wikipedia culture and was indoctrinated to the norms and expectations with relative ease.

Initially, breaching norms on Wikipedia seemed almost as if it was expected. When most social norms and expectations are defied they are usually met with harsh backlash or intense questioning from peers. Interestingly, being a newcomer on Wikipedia those norms are expected to be misunderstood and eventually regulated. To prove this, there exist specific terms that are used when it comes to these rules being broken. A “compromise of interest” for example, is criticism many students received from other Wikipedians. The fact that these missteps and mistakes have specific names, terms and ways to fix them speak, to the importance and appreciation Wikipedia has for its growing demographic. The difference here, is that social norms are what feel like unspoken rules that are universally understood, however on Wikipedia and especially in writing, these rules are non-specific and are relative to the individual. This is where the friction is formed between newcomers and Wikipedians. There are always going to be different styles and preferences when it comes to word choice and fluency and my ideas were often compromised but always to reach an effective outcome.

For me, writing has always seemed like a form of personal expression and it’s easy to get defensive over some creative choices. When contributing to a social setting any platform permits one to display their individuality as Kraut (2011) states: “In online communities, any communication channel permits self-disclosure” (p. 81). I noticed that me and another Wikipedian went back and forth regarding the structure and pacing of my article. I knew I could defend some of my creative choices and all of my sentences had a specific reason for being the length they were and a reason why they were placed where they are, but other Wikipedians had their own ideas of what was more appropriate in an article. Changes were constantly made to the same few sentences but this spoke to the importance of collaboration and the reason why these communities succeed. In the very beginning, I was baffled at how a platform such as Wikipedia can even exist. An online community that is fundamentally rooted in civility and trusting the morality of others on the internet seems counterproductive. Understanding the prevalence of trolls and haters on the internet, the idea of an informative platform which can be accessed and manipulated by any user, seems very impractical. However, this notion is exactly what caused Wikipedia to flourish and grow, and my small contribution reflects that. Through experienced Wikipedians assuming the best of others, and choosing to trust my attempted contribution it became clear that our collaboration was a microcosm for what was happening but on a larger scale. The Wikipedia community was able to grow to the size it did through people with the very same interest I had in Collider.com. Although these articles were objective and factual, there were real people writing these pages with a genuine interest and passion for their subjects. This passion was understood by other members of the community and treated with respect and civility. This ultimately caused mass networking and cooperation making the platform grow tremendously. This also is the product of demonstrating patience and the willingness to cooperate. By demonstrating patience, rules and expectations were formed which is how we began to understand norms on Wikipedia. In addition to all these expectations there is still humanity and, dare I say, humor to be found in writing such factual words. The changes and suggestions others may have on my writing reflects different choices in preference and style, and the back-and forth I had with some Wikipedians was actually somewhat humorous as it described and illustrated differences in age, experience, and intention. Through all these elements working together, Assuming the best of others, demonstrating patience, civility and, yes, even humor the Community was able to thrive to an unprecedented extent. By the end of my experience was a demonstration for what made Wikipedia so successful. The growth of Wikipedia is replicated in exactly what this assignment was but multiplied and replicated by millions of participant and active users. By the end, I was left with a feeling that I truly made a small, but relevant contribution to such an enormous online community.

Bibliography -Cialdini, Robert B. Influence: How and why People Agree to Things. New York: Morrow, (1984). Print. -Kraut, R. E. & Resnick, P. (2011). Building successful online communities: Evidence-based social design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.