User:Lvogel1/reflection

Introduction:

My editing experience on Wikipedia was chaotic. After my experience editing the High-Protein Diet article, a medical topic, I am surprised that it is possible for any user can edit medical topics. I assimilated to the culture of Wikipedia by avoiding medical topics (and medical adjacent topics such as the Carnivore Diet). I recognized my place in the hierarchy of knowledge on Wikipedia and made contributions to the Fear of Missing Out article and the Pema Chodron article which required less advanced research skills. I was annoyed that as a newbie I was permitted to edit the High-Protein Diet article, when in reality I was not equipped with the research skills or knowledge of Wikipedia norms to contribute to a medical topic. Due to my experience trying to edit the High-Protein Diet article and the Carnivore Diet article I argue that Wikipedia should organize articles by editing difficulty to inform newbie editors and give them the chance to select the appropriate level of article to contribute to.

My Recommendations for Wikipedia:

To welcome newcomers Wikipedia should have certain categories of articles that are not an option for newbie editing. It would have allowed me to be much more productive had I known how rigorous editing a medical topic would be. Also increasing positive and social feedback would have made me feel more welcome and motivated. There are unclear standards reinforced by experienced users, and when editing I feared making mistakes and not meeting these requirements. That made this project feel daunting and chore-like. Had Wikipedia topics been organized by editing difficulty, I would have chosen an appropriate topic that aligned with my research capabilities and avoided unwelcoming interactions with skilled editors.

To persuade people to contribute/donate, experienced Wikipedians should give more positive and social feedback. The majority of my feedback was negative and directive. I would be more inclined to contribute in the future had my feedback been less condescending. For example, @Psychologist Guy listed eleven of my sources that were wrong instead of highlighting the sources that he approved of in his comment on the Talk page of the High-Protein Diet on March 20th. On March 17th, @Psychologist Guy wrote “garbage sourcing” for the reason of removal which seemed harsh and made me more hesitant to contribute again. I felt as though my efforts were not being seen. Despite my feedback being directive, it was also vague. I still don’t understand why some of my sources were not suitable and why my contribution to the Carnivore Diet was considered redundant. I was confused as to what standard my contribution was being evaluated against which left me feeling defeated. Their feedback was frustrating to receive because I was hoping for the social validation that I could be a functioning, helpful member of this community and contribute the way other newbies do.

To increase motivation Wikipedia should promise success within certain levels or categories of article and provide very specific steps on how to contribute. As I mentioned, my feedback was vague and subjective and I just happened to choose topics that were closely monitored by skilled Wikipedians. You can’t put newbies in situations where they are bound to fail and expect them to feel committed to the community and motivated to contribute. A more effective method to increase motivation would be to have a system where users must edit a certain number of articles to unlock the next “level” of article. This encourages newbies to edit articles that they are equipped to contribute to and also gain experience before they tackle more advanced projects. Since articles require varying levels of research skills certain topics could gain a user more “points” so they are able to edit higher level articles sooner.

Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance Theory is seen in newbies’ reactions to feedback. As a study on the effectiveness of feedback shows, users compare their performance to their standards and “when they note a discrepancy between performance and standard, people are motivated to reduce it. Typically people choose to eliminate the discrepancy by attempting to attain the standard." Similarly to how the participants in Mills’ experiment who only received $1 tried to convince themselves that the experiment was fun, users will attempt to attain the standard they set for themselves by trying harder. In my situation, I did try harder and increase my efforts to try to meet the standards set by the senior Wikipedians. However, my efforts and time spent researching are not reflected in my final contributions which is disappointing. Even though I tried to reduce my cognitive dissonance with more effort, I understood that these users reverting my edits had a lot more knowledge about Wikipedia and about researching medical topics than I did.

To regulate vandals Wikipedia could have senior level Wikipedians surveilling articles. High level articles like medical topics should be prioritized to help avoid misinformation being spread. Although I found it annoying how closely @Psychologist Guy monitored the High-Protein Diet and the Carnivore Diet, it is reassuring to know that he is watching the page for vandalism. I believe that every topic would benefit from a @Psychologist Guy to some extent.

Who is @Psychologist Guy:

@Psychologist Guy has symbolic capital on Wikipedia because he has won awards and gained recognition for his work. He received The 2019 Cure Award and was one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. He also received the Veganism and Vegetarianism Barnstar which shows that he is known for his contributions to vegetarian history articles on Wikipedia. Additionally, he has wrote hundreds of biographies for vegetarians on Wikipedia and enhanced thousands of articles. These accomplishments demonstrate @Psychologist Guy’s cultural capital and expertise in the knowledge of dietetic history. @Psychologist Guy also has social capital in this community because on his Talk page he has been thanked, asked for his opinion on a “good article,” and invited to join “New pages patrol.”

My Contributions:

The Fear of Missing Out

No one has changed my contribution to the Fear of Missing Out page. I added to the JOMO section.

Pema Chödrön

Here I added a description of Chodron’s work When Things Fall Apart: Heart Advice for Difficult Times.

Here the user @Joshua Jonathan changed “Bibliography” to “Works.”

Here Professor Reagle added a heading and another citation.

Carnivore Diet

My Meatfluencer addition to the History section which was reverted by @Psychologist Guy.

After receiving feedback I tried to alter my contribution to meet the standards of @Psychologist Guy. This was also reverted by @Psychologist Guy and I received further feedback from @Anastrophe and @Psychologist Guy.

High Protein Diet

Here is my Meatfluencer contribution that was reverted by @Psychologist Guy.

On the Talk page March 20th, I asked for feedback on my mental/cognitive health section that I was keeping in my sandbox until I got another opinion. @Psychologsit Guy did not approve of my sourcing therefore it never left my sandbox and I chose to prioritize contributing to the Carnivore Diet which was unsuccessful due to sourcing and redundancy.

SANDBOX

Here is my initial contribution to the High Protein Diet found in my sandbox (mental/cognitive health section included).

Here is the difference between what I submitted as my draft in the middle of the semester and what is currently in my sandbox.

After this point in the semester I focused on the Meatfluencers section and Cognitive/Mental Health section. However, neither of these made it to the mainspace due to disagreements with @Psychologist Guy about sources and redundancy.

My Wiki Thanks:

Here I thanked @Psychologist Guy for his suggestion on moving my contribution to the Carnivore Diet page.

Here I thanked @Psychologist Guy and @Anastrophe for their opinions on my contribution to the Carnivore Diet. They were both much more experienced than me, but I also did not feel like they were very approachable so I chose to stop editing this article and focus my energy on contributions to other topics such as the Fear of Missing Out and Pema Chödrön. I sent @Anastrophe a wikithanks which can be seen in the Talk page of the Carnivore Diet.

Feedback:

My Feedback to Dena.

My Feedback to Lily.

My Feedback to Jin.

Conclusion:

I argue that Wikipedia should organize articles by editing difficulty to inform newbie editors and give them the chance to select the appropriate level of article to contribute to. I am glad I had this experience editing Wikipedia and immersing myself into this online community. I learned a lot about the necessary research for medical topics, which makes me respect those who work on these Wikipedia articles much more. If I edit Wikipedia again, I will not be choosing a medical topic, but I will apply what I learned from this semester editing in this online community. The concepts we learned in class (Cognitive Dissonance Theory, Cialdini's Principles, Kraut's Effects of Peer Feedback, among others) helped me make sense of my turbulent editing experience on Wikipedia and allowed the theories to come to life.