User talk:COM 482 1/Reflection
| This user is a student editor in Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Washington/Interpersonal_Media_(Fall_2020) . |
Welcome! edit
Hello, COM 482 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Response edit
Hi! I posted this on Ian's page but wanted to post this here as well:
- Hi! I took a look myself - it looks like some of the sources didn't come out properly because they're proxy URLs. What this means is basically that the web link has your college information in it. So as a result, Wikipedia's citation tool can't bring back the correct information. Here's an example using a URL from my alma mater, VCU. The following are links to the same source:
- https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.proxy.library.vcu.edu/pmc/articles/PMC4991646/
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4991646/
- I've bolded VCU's proxy information - with this, it's likely that plugging this into the citation tool will just bring back something like "Shibboleth Authentication Request" or similar. Sometimes it's easy to fix the proxy content by just removing the proxy information, but to be honest sometimes the easiest way is to either put all of the information in by hand or to try googling the article/source title and see if there's a proxy-free link you can use to bring up the source material.
- On a side note, the draft does have some issues with neutrality per language like "has lead the way in providing learning opportunities". There is also some comparison drawn to other, similar programs - this can be seen as original research and promotional unless it's something stated in an independent reliable secondary source. These are all things that may not seem all that promotional in other situations, but can be fairly promotional on Wikipedia. The draft just needs some editing for tone. A good option would be to look at how similar articles are styled. While this isn't a college on its own as much as it's an initiative, a lot of the structure would be the same, such as there being a history section, academics (details about types of classes or degrees), accreditation (if applicable), administration and organization, and so on. I hope this helps! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I will go ahead and make those changes. (COM 482 1 (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC))
Welcome! edit
Welcome COM 482 1 (again!) to both Wikipedia and to COM482! You picked a great article in Stanford Online and it seems is lots of room to improve. It seems like you have already made a bunch of progress over on User:COM 482 1/sandbox and have gotten some great feedback from ReaderofthePack. I basically with everything that RotP has suggested, especially in terms of WP:TONE and would also urge you to think about tense since the subject of the article is now defunct. In any case, I'm looking forward to seeing watching the article develop over the next week. —mako๛ 14:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback [[User talk:Benjamin Mako Hill ! I will make sure to keep tense in mind as I continue to improve it. I appreciate the feedback. - Tiana (COM 482 1 (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC))
Feedback on Stanford Online edit
Greetings COM 482 1! I've made a few little edits and gone over the text you've written over on User:COM 482 1/Stanford Online. You've added a ton of new text and I think you've got a ton of great material.
At this point, I think what you need is to edit and polish things. Here are some suggestions:
- Watch issues related to WP:TONE. I think you main goal is to not have it sound like it was written by the subject. University related articles are often written students or others with close connections. I saw some places to improve this with your article draft.
- I would rework some of the new material so it's clear why the text is about Stanford Online and not the other closely related subjects. For example, much of the history sections seems to be about the "Stanford Center for Professional Development." I get that it's the parent organizations but that information should probably go in an article about SCPD. Stanford Online is only for the parts that relevant to this subject.
- I'd closely edit and proofread material.
- I notice that you mostly added stuff but I'd really consider reworking/rewriting the WP:LEDE of the article.
I took a look at Harvard Extension School which is a sort of similar enterprise by Harvard with a more developed article. The article is not perfect, but it will probably be a good template to act as some inspiration.
Why don't you take a bit of time to rework the article with these points, and everything else we learned, in mind. If you're feeling confident, you can go ahead and start moving things over to make you article live. If you want me to take one more look before you do that, feel free to ping me here or on Discord and I'll take another quick pass. —mako๛ 02:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia Report edit
As a newcomer to the online community of Wikipedia, I felt as if I was a fish out of water initially. It was in the moment that I began to truly dive into the community of Wikipedia that I could zone in from a bird’s eye view to a much more detailed analysis of the nature in which this online community functions.
The WikiEdu dashboard was the springboard in which I could begin to integrate as an acting ‘Wikipedian’ and truly identify the nuances that define Wikipedia. Wikipedia did an excellent job of orienting me to the community. This socialization aspect for an online community is critical as newcomers learn the ins and out. The WikiEdu Dashboard was a form of institutionalized socialization, effective in establishing clarity of norms and regulations. Descriptive norms were displayed through this form of institutionalized socialization as I began to observe the actions of expert Wikipedians and visualize myself as one.
The community aspect of Wikipedia was not one that I initially thought to appear, but I felt a sense of commitment to abide by the rules and norms set by Wikipedia simply due to inherent morality. Morality arose from intrinsic motivation that I drew upon in tackling my article, but extrinsic motivation played a role to develop normative commitment based on the fact that a grade rested upon my performance. Despite this sheer fact that my contributions were part of Wiki HigherEd, the mixture of social contact with other editors on Wikipedia, optimal challenge, mastery, and competition were characteristics that began to emerge. Wikipedia’s ability to cultivate several types of commitment was apparent from both, but I felt identity based commitment and normative commitment were the most cogent in continuing to spark my desire to learn more.
Once I claimed my stub article and formulated text from research, feelings of accomplishment ensued. These feelings of accomplishment rose out of the altruistic nature of contributing to a collective good similar to that of a Yelp reviewer. This collective good aspect is prominent in Wikipedia because it feels as if each contribution is paying it forward to the next editor that comes along. This form of identity based commitment formed as I made the connection of a temporarily self proclaimed Wikipedian. Each piece of text embedded with citations that I found, sparked feelings of culpability in the recognition that this article could be reframed as one large group project. In order to remain in accordance with norms of the community and to pull my weight, normative commitment influenced an inclination for accuracy in my work.
Each time, I signed off with the four tildes to leave my mark for other editors to trace, it felt as if my user page began to fill up with friends that all wanted to succeed in achieving a finished product to be proud of. I imagine with an uptick in interactions and articles, one would begin to fortify bonds-based commitment based on the reciprocity of positive feedback. As the amount of time I spent on community specific activities increased, so did these variations of commitment.
Wikipedia’s ability to catch errors and behavior that deviate from the norm were prompt. This type of regulation contributes to the continuity of a community. Wiki-editors were constructive moderators in keeping me on track. This type of moderation resulted in voluntary compliance and familiarized me with injunctive norms. Group cohesion contributes to social order and Wikipedia’s apt feedback is conducive in promoting legitimacy of the rules resulting in compliance with the rules.
While Wikipedia has been successful in many aspects that have supplied the community such success since its inception, it is not free from flaws. Wikipedia has soundly created a community that has targeted specific users. Cost-benefit analysis is an appropriate descriptor of the dilemma in which I grappled with. Incentivizing an individual to contribute to this community on free will requires a renouncement of a significant amount of time. The site is constructed in a way that incurs low social ownership due to the ease of implementing edits, but I think opting in to work on articles in teams would retain individuals to contribute.
It is purported that common fate and interdependence elicit feelings of purpose for individuals. Investment of users could be increased if offered the choice to work in a cohort. It is known that joint tasks make groups more cohesive as a consequential effect of a group affiliation apart from the large umbrella of Wikipedia. A Wikipedian may curate a liking to renouncing their free time much more swiftly. This concept could take form by opting in to an article that is being worked on by a sub-group of Wikipedians with similar interests. This minor adjustment could make the appearance of editing one that brings a sense of value due to collaborative efforts.
The process of navigating between various pages to leave comments proved challenging. Wikipedia could benefit from streamlining their main website with approachability in mind. Other sites such as Zooniverse utilized intuitiveness as a guide. Wikipedia appears to exclude particular audiences from engaging in the site unintentionally. Zooniverse leads you through step by step modules as you choose a project while Wikipedia releases one on free rein to edit. This design could appeal to the tech-savvy audience that Wikipedia targets, but leaves less room for some audiences that feel far from adept to join. The WikiEdu site demonstrates this sort of sequential model that the main site should consider adopting, preferably organizing the main Wikipedia platform to function in the manner as WikiEdu does, free from jargon.
Engaging in Wikipedia was a transformative experience that revealed both the well functioning elements of an online community and those that could benefit from improvement. The site must seek to demystify the factors of intimidation that possibly deter the average individual from clicking that edit button. A start is to envision an audience that is more inclusive.