Reflecting on Wikipedia

In terms of the knowledge I can take away from my experience with Wikipedia, I would say that this journey has definitely given me awareness and appreciation to how the community seems to care about the quality of content, and I really like how the community strives to remain neutral and unbiased. In reality nothing is going to be perfect, but Wikipedia provides an enormous amount of information right at your fingertips which is just impressive in itself. I'm glad that I was able to provide minimal content, but I have come to gain a love/hate relationship with Wikipedia. In hindsight, I was able to learn some new skills that I will later be able to utilize, such as the simple maneuvering around Wikipedia and understanding how the tools function. I imagine if I am to come across questionable information then I will utilize what I have learned to correct/edit the content. Again, I've much appreciation for those that take the time and effort in making Wikipedia's content as accurate and neutral as possible. 

Process: 
For my Wikipedia page, I decided to work on the page for the author Iris Johansen. I chose this particular author because since age 15 I have continuously read her novels in my attempt to escape, at times, this prison of reality. As Charles William Eliot quotes, “Books are the quietest and most constant of friends, they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.”

First, I looked through the Wikipedia page only to find minimal information pertaining to Iris. I will admit that I was soon to be in for a sad reality dealing with this particular author. Why? Well to put it simply, she has lived an incredibly private life and there seems to be minimal information on her. Throughout my hunt for the citations and sources, I came across an abundance of interviews that started from the mid 80’s. I’ll be honest, there was no way I was going to have time to read through every interview in hopes to gather some more information on her. Not because I did not find the work important, but more so because I do not have all the time in the world. So by the time I realized that choosing this author may have been a slight mistake, it was TOO late. Oh well, “beggars can’t be choosers” (thanks John Heywood).

After finding as reliable of resources as possible, I decided to head over to the Wikipedia page and start the training/tutorials. Granted, at first it was a little overwhelming for me to deal with Wikipedia. I have usually been told by professors to always avoid it, as the information can be biased and incorrect, which is absolutely true, but it provides more insight and information than I first anticipated. Those in charge of testing content or the “bots” proved quite impressive. I do think that some of those who check the content need to relax slightly as they seemed more like “police.” Getting off topic… The tutorials were pretty intuitive, but I found that I did not particularly like having to go through them, as they are time consuming. The tutorials did a nice job at covering what exactly was appropriate to add to Wikipedia versus what to avoid, and even if you make a mistake it seems to be quickly resolved by someone telling you to “remove all content NOW.”

Moving into the “sandbox” was very confusing for me at first, but so is most technology based applications, as I have always relied more on actual text or textbooks rather than digital information. I believe within the first few minutes of my introduction to the sandbox I felt like I was going to break Wikipedia, which led me to feel slightly anxious. I believe I added my sources only to have trouble finding exactly where they went! Obviously I got over that initial fear, but still had some difficulty playing around with the tools in the sandbox. Finding my actual sandbox proved more difficult as well until I realized I could access through the dashboard  (face palm). But hey, it’s a learning process, right?

Moving forward, I was able to come across some information that provided more evidence to Iris’s biography which happened to be extremely sad in content. With that said, minimal information was added to her biography which I used the sources to check the accuracy of the information. I did try to find an appropriate picture in order to add to her page, but was unsuccessful due to not being able to find images in the Wikimedia Commons, which proved to be slightly disappointing and very frustrating. What I was more interested in, was correcting her bibliography, more so because I have read over 50 of her novels and had knowledge of the chronological order. To do this I just cross referenced Penguin House and Iris’s official website to make sure the chronological order of the novels were in fact accurate. I also added “sub series” to better organize her works; the original content was missing some novels, which I added. Next, I decided to add an “Awards” section and “Film Adaptation” since this information was found through my sources in the SFSU Library database. The significance of these sections is to give the author recognition of her hard work, obviously.

Adding content to the page was not that difficult, as I found the aesthetic part more delicate. For example, the use of the proper header etc… but was able to correct that lack of knowledge by referencing the tutorials yet again. After the draft was created and before I moved the information to “live” I needed to get feedback. This process was incredibly simple as I was just to ask Shalor for help and get two classmates to do a peer review. I think since most of the class was new to dealing with Wikipedia, everyone was very polite and sensitive in their response in the peer review. Very uplifting, ha! I thought the other peer review though Skype was odd as I decided to not go that route. After feedback, the execution of “going live” was incredibly simple and easy, although I got slightly nervous since this is public and I’m not accustomed to showing my work in a public domain.

Reflection: 
All in all, this process was alright. I did learn some new skills pertaining to using Wikipedia and how to add/edit content. I’m not entirely sure how useful this is going to be in my future, as I did not typically use Wikipedia as a source of reference. Having been subjected to Wikipedia I suppose my thoughts have changed as I may try playing around with it some more, but only if I have free time. Ah, to slightly hit on the organization of this assignment, I did feel like I was taking an online course more than anything, which had I known I would feel that way, I may have just opted out for an actual online course. This was more time consuming than I originally thought and my care for this assignment dwindled down throughout the semester. This also could be due to overload of work from the semester and life, but I am grateful this chapter is now coming to an end.

Wikipedia theory: I think that Wikipedia exemplifies the importance of digital information because of how large this platform is. Wikipedia literally covers EVERYTHING you can possibly think of, and most stuff you cannot or would not. It’s an immense amount of information at your fingertips, yet it is subject to biased opinions, which is nice that they strive to remain neutral. In a perfect world that sounds lovely, in reality that is impossible. In regards to obtaining the information for Wikipedia, it would seem one would have to resort back to books themselves for accuracy, yet even with texts there will be inconsistencies and biases.I think there needs to be a balance of each of the digital and actual texts in order to create new ideas. Like Emerson claimed in his American Scholar "Books are the best of things, well used; abused, among the worst / They are nothing but to inspire." Book should be used as a platform of inspiration rather than a platform of regurgitation as he also states "Meek young men grow up in libraries, believing it their duty to accept the views which Cicero, which Locke, which Bacon have given; forgetful that Cicero, Locke and Bacon were only young men in libraries when they wrote these books." I think digital tools and platforms can be useful, but I do think we need to resort back to books as well for ideas of inspiration and growth. The Wikipedia theory and books do not have to be mutually exclusive within one another, again, I believe it's about finding the right balance and not believing every word or line you read to be actual truth. As Emerson continued, "genius always looks forward. The eyes of man are set in his forehead, not in his hindhead. Man hopes. Genius creates." I will be sure to stay mindful to use proper critical thinking skills and strive to always move forward with any creativity.