User:Alyssadebragga/Report

Enhancing the Wikipedia Community

Wikipedia is one of the greatest accomplishments of the world’s digital era. It’s a vast collection of shared human knowledge and a great example of teamwork and collaboration. But like any man-made invention, it has its flaws. I would say that most of Wikipedia is published and run by avid Wikipedians, those who have much more of a belonging in the community than me, but I still credit my opinion as valid as I’ve learned a lot over the last few weeks. Being a slightly educated newcomer, not just any random newcomer, allows me to bring some fresh perspective to the table and suggest some changes they could put in place. Using the knowledge I’ve gained throughout this past quarter of the seemingly bottomless platform and the course concepts we’ve discussed in class, I hope to provide the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikipedia Community with some guidance and fresh perspective from a new and learning user.

I’ve always known Wikipedia was huge and somehow run by the public, but upon working closely with the community, I was even more struck by the size and promise of Wikipedia. As we as a class and myself on my own dug further into the realm of Wikipedia, I came across obstacles that revealed different sorts of problems in the online community. These problems aren’t end-all-be-all things, but they’re things that could be tweaked for the betterment of the online community. Navigating the intricate web of norms and rules that control content and interaction on the platform was one of these challenges. Although these norms and rules are necessary to preserve consistency and quality in a public-led community, they can be too much for novices to handle. To improve Wikipedia in terms of rules and norms, clear communication and accessibility of these guidelines are needed and this is something I’ve yet to see clearly upon entering the site. I’ve been lucky to be a student in an organized class and have access to WikiEdu, but I don’t believe that’s the case for everybody trying to find their footing in Wikipedia. Additionally, periodic review and refinement of existing norms and rules is essential to ensure things stay relevant and applicable, as the site is quite ancient. Initiatives aimed at simplified onboarding processes can help new editors navigate Wikipedia with confidence and in turn, enhance the community's effectiveness. Clueless newcomers want to follow norms and rules while learning to use Wikipedia, so the site should do them a favor and not gatekeep these norms and rules.

Another aspect of Wikipedia that has always piqued my interest in terms of thinking of ways the site could improve is quite straightforward, but it’s crucial in my opinion. Wikipedia needs to have a better system when it comes to source credibility and citation standards. Although Wikipedia maintains strict guidelines to guarantee the accuracy of its content, there can be significant differences in the dependability of sources throughout articles. This can result in inaccurate content and the global spreading of false information. Wikipedia’s current system of talk pages has always struck me as not enough. Even though it’s a space for collaborators to communicate, fix errors, suggest fixes, and whatnot, it’s still informal and in my opinion, not strict enough for an encyclopedia for the world to access. For example, I could troll and edit an important article and if the mistake isn’t caught soon enough, someone could read, share, or make decisions based on that fake knowledge that they read from a seemingly trustworthy site.

My Recommendations

Based on my experience, to address the issue of navigating Wikipedia's norms and rules, clear communication and accessibility of guidelines are imperative. Improved onboarding processes that are accessible to all users, not just students, should be implemented to guide clueless newcomers through the intricacies of Wikipedia's norms and rules. Periodic reviews and refinements of existing norms and rules are necessary to ensure relevance and applicability over time. Initiatives aimed at simplifying these processes can empower new editors and enhance the community's effectiveness as an inclusive site, not one that makes newcomers feel lost or like they’re stepping on toes. Wikipedia prides itself as a public-led site, but to rightfully do so, I think it should come off as less exclusive. By removing the barriers to understanding and participation, Wikipedia can foster a more inclusive and collaborative environment for all users.

Regarding source credibility and citation standards, Wikipedia can enhance its system by implementing stricter measures for source evaluation and citation. Automated tools could assist in identifying unreliable sources and fact-checking organizations could make sure that incorrect knowledge isn’t being uploaded and published on the site. Generally, I just think some more authority needs to be present. Real job opportunities could be created for these sources and fact-checking spots that need to be filled. The current talk page system could have links to job opportunities for those that specifically enjoy engaging in those pages and collaborating on the refining of articles. This would be a really strong effort at error detection and correction, ensuring the accuracy and reliability of content posted to Wikipedia. By advancing its approach to source credibility, citation, and talk page collaboration, Wikipedia would have a super strong shot at strengthening its reputation as a much more reliable source of information and combatting the spread of false information.

Conclusion

While Wikipedia is a monumental achievement in digital collaboration, I’ve identified some areas for improvement as a Week 7 Wikipedian. Clear guidelines and accessible onboarding processes are essential for inclusivity and making WikiEdu available upon entering the site would be an effective way to do this. Lastly, enhancing source credibility measures would help combat misinformation. Creating job opportunities for avid talk page users would strengthen content reliability. By implementing these changes, Wikipedia can evolve into an even more trusted source of information, fulfilling its mission of providing free and reliable information to the world.