Wikipedia Mission (What I learned)

Before I expound on what I have gleaned from this Wikipedia exercise, here are the readings that were assigned during the week I was monitoring my Wikipedia edits (I read all these essays after I had made my additions to the Oshkosh Public Museum page):

Can History Be Open Source? by Roy Rosenzweig
The Wikiblitz: A Wikipedia Editing Assignment in a First-Year Undergraduate Class by Shawn Graham
The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia by Timothy Messer-Kruse
Wikipedia and Women's History: A Classroom Experience by Martha Saxton
Teaching Wikipedia Without Apologies by Amanda Seligman
The Historian's Craft, Popular Memory, and Wikipedia by Robert Wolff
Indigenizing Wikipedia: Student Accountability to Native American Authors on the World's Largest Encyclopedia by Siobhan Senier
(I was especially interested in Messer-Kruse, Saxton, and Senier's essays)

I was first struck by the amount of editing/deleting/gate-keeping that goes on throughout the site by bots and other users. Of course I knew that anyone could add anything (theoretically, as I found out) or delete anything, but I had no experience with wanting to contribute information only to have it rejected. Deletion can occur because of a non-neutral point of view or because a person is not notable enough (among other ways) and it was interesting to read about instances where this happened. One of my classmates added a name to "List of Hmong Americans" only to have it removed because the individual did not meet Wikipedia's standards of notability.

I really enjoyed reading "Wikipedia and Women's History: A Classroom Experience" by Saxton. She notes that during her class' Wikipedia edits, changes made to pages about "women's history" were more likely to be long-lasting as opposed to adding information about women to "general history" pages. Similarly, Saxton and her class discovered that pieces crafted to discuss discrimination against women can be rejected because they are deemed to deviate from the neutral point of view that Wikipedia strives to have. This really rankled me when I read this essay. It still does even though I realize the point of an encyclopedia is to present facts...but instances of discrimination are facts too.

I did learn a little about the etiquette of adding large amounts of information to Wikipedia (again, from Saxton's essay). For instance, I hadn't thought of posting a potential edit in the "talk" section so it can be discussed with other editors. This not only shows courtesy to those who are some sort of administrator or informal curator of the page, but also can cut down on potential edit wars.

This Wikipedia mission was definitely fun. I had a hard time figuring out what I wanted to edit at first, but I now feel like I have a better understanding of the merits and pitfalls of Wikipedia. I don't know if I want to continue with my Wikipedia editing career, but this short experience adds to my cumulative knowledge of digital tools that further (or hinder) historical learning.

-B-

Wikipedia Mission (Part 2)

I have changed Wikipedia for the better!(In my own small way) I also added a falsehood (gasp!), but all is well in the end. Read on to learn more about my week as a Wikipedia editor...

First, I added some extra (but factual) information to the Oshkosh Public Museum page. I pulled it all from the museum's website. I also added an "Hours and Admissions" heading. Although most visitors to a museum will probably visit the actual museum website, the OPM's Wikipedia page was poorly written and was lacking information readily available on the website. If there's an existing Wikipedia page for an organization, it might as well be accurate and fleshed-out!

I did not think any of these changes would be contested, but I thought that maybe others would make the page more well-rounded after I made my additions. As of today, no other changes have been made and the previous changes had been made in June 2013. This is not a very active page.

After a few days, I decided I needed to make a small change (an erroneous one) on a more "high profile" page and see how long it would take for someone to change it. First, I was going to change something on the Anne Boleyn Wikipedia page. I quickly discovered that this page is not open to editing, at least no that I could access. "After 4 days and 10 edits" a registered user can edit semi-protected pages, according to Wikipedia's rules. The Anne Boleyn page was also "move-protected due to vandalism", which I think means that it is a protected page. So, I decided to leave Ms. Boleyn behind.

After scanning the subjects of my favorite history podcast, I settled on the man James Reavis. His Wikipedia pages is here. (There is also an interesting podcast about his life from Stuff You Missed in History Class).

Although this page hadn't been changed since January, it is edited more frequently than the Oshkosh Public Museum page. I decided to make a subtle change: I changed his birth year from 1843 to 1943. I'll admit, I felt pretty guilty about changing factual information into a falsehood and resolved to change it back within a week if another Wikipedia user hadn't done so already. But to my surprise...they did! User "Allen3" changed James Reavis' birth year back within 10 hours of my edit.

It was exciting to both make a change (for the better) and see something I changed (for the worse) corrected...and not to have gotten a scolding.

More on what I learned, later!

-B-

Wikipedia Mission (Part 1)

The new mission from Digital History class: Make some changes to a history-related page on Wikipedia, monitor it over spring break, and blog about it! 

I've picked my page and made changes, but it just fleshes out what is already there...I'm feeling like I need to insert some erroneous fact about Henry VIII or something earth-shattering like that. (Mainly to see how long it takes for someone to change it!) 

I'll be back in a week or so to reveal my Wikipedia manipulation and share my results!

-B-