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-